Editor, Times-Union:
Dear Gary,
I've read your "News Views" column for many years, since its inception, I'm pretty sure. And though I frequently don't agree with this or that in your views or your line of argument, I found this past Saturday's column one of the poorest in a long time, mainly because the level of argument and presentation of argument is low.
I have no doubt that your point is correct: The bill that's been suggested is not well conceived and won't pass and is almost certainly a bad idea.
My concern is that the level of public discourse in our country is getting worse all the time; and I would hope that a public newspaper would work to maintain a better level of discourse, one that didn't stoop to ad hominem argument ("malarkey" bill; "any clear-thinking individual," in context a phrase that implies that not only is the bill bad, but anyone who supports it intends to ruin the gun industry, etc.)
And there's much more in your column that is basically "what a stupid idea" rather than presenting your points in a convincing, dispassionate way. Again, I don't doubt your logic and the stupidity of the bill; but your language is really unnecessary and, to my eyes, reduces your own argument to a level that is not good for our community.
You are better, you have written much better columns, you can do better. You have an influence on the way our community considers important ideas, and how you communicate them matters.
Jim Eisenbraun
Warsaw, via email