In response to the editorial published in the San Luis Obispo Tribune a few weeks back, and dissected here, I wrote a letter to the editor. It's been more than two weeks since I sent the letter, and there's no indication that they will be publishing it.

So here it is:

To the editor:

The weakness of the Tribune's gun control editorial becomes obvious quickly when they refuse to honestly describe the views of their opposition. Not a single person wishes to arm "everyone to the teeth," nor force the responsibility of carrying a gun on the unwilling nor make carrying a firearm a condition of employment.

There are plenty of teachers that would, if state law allowed, be willing to defend themselves and their students should a madman come on campus.

As for the Tribune's solution, one wonders if the editors are aware of the full impact of the words they've chosen.

Banning all semi-automatic weapons—not just “assault weapons”—would include the vast majority of handguns sold over the past 50 years and probably 80% of all rifles. It’s such an extreme position, that just this past weekend Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), one of the most ardent gun-control advocates in the Senate disavowed it.

Estimates put the number of firearms in America at 300+ million.

The Tribune wants to ban at least one-third of them. Remember all those assurances that “no one is coming for your guns?” The Tribune reveals that is a lie.

Matthew Hoy
Paso Robles

I don't know for sure why the Tribune declined to publish this letter. It comes in under their 200-word ceiling.

What I suspect is that the Tribune really didn't understand the full impact of calling for a "semi-automatic weapons" ban and didn't want their ignorance on the issue called out.

This doesn't come as a surprise; journalists are some of the most thin-skinned people in public life.