Letters to the Editor 06-24-14

Troy Lane’s letter (June 20) illustrates the much-higher gun death and homicide rates the U.S. has over the United Kingdom.
But while comparing apples to oranges, he failed to mention that the United Kingdom’s rate for violent crime is four times higher and rape two times higher than that of our own. Perhaps this shows how unarmed people are easier to victimize.
In closing his letter, Troy said he can’t “understand why a person needs to have an automatic rifle that holds 100 rounds to go hunting.” Anyone who knows anything about guns and hunting wouldn’t understand this either, because no hunter would use such gear.
He also mentions that ownership of automatic guns and silencers does not require appropriate registration. This is far from the truth, as both normally require special licensing or permits and the county sheriff’s permission, not to mention a lot of money to own.
Why is it that gun-control advocates spit out numbers and percentages and then ignorantly include comments about hunting? Our gun murder rate isn’t the fault of hunters or suburban and rural homeowners who buy guns at sporting goods stores or at gun shows, yet we’re the ones whom the media and gun-control advocates like to profile after every shooting.
Rather, our obese gun murder rate is the work of gangs and criminals embedded in the large urban areas. The gangs who drive up America’s murder rate (accounting for 70-plus percent of all gun murders) look nothing like hunters or the average American gun enthusiast that somehow manage to inherit the blame. For that matter, they also bear no resemblance to mentally ill people. Those insane lunatics’ senseless mass shootings actually only score a miniscule fraction of the overall gun murder rate.
Of all gun-related murders in the United States, I have to wonder how many were actually good, innocent people minding their own business, and how many were really criminals killing other criminals or gangs fighting over colored rags and drug territory. While the former is surely a tragedy, the latter is probably a problem taking care of itself.
Scott Klingler Jr.

On Saturday, my husband and I attended the Wine Festival at Riverside Park. This was our first experience to attend an Arts Partnership function.
Upon arrival at the gate, we encountered a couple who had purchased tickets in advance. This couple was denied entrance to the event because they did not have a picture ID with them. This couple was in their 60s, at least!
This, in our opinion, was totally unacceptable, let alone inexcusable! There was no reason for this.
We will not be attending any more functions sponsored by the Arts Partnership of Findlay! Our sympathy to the couple who were not able to attend due to the ignorance of some of the staff at the entrance gates! Poorly-trained people cost lots of support for these events.
Sherri Ziessler

Hillary Clinton states that her and Billy’s $100 million isn’t a concern since they “aren’t truly well off.” Really? Spoken like a true Democrat. I guess anyone making more is more likely to be well off.
Don’t worry, your minions will still vote for you. You’re only wealthy if you are a Republican!
Of the 10 wealthiest congressmen serving today, seven out of 10 are Democrats and the ratio doesn’t change much as you go through all of them. Not much different in the Senate, either.
George Soros, a big contributor and socialist to Democrats, has a worth of over $20 billion, but he, too, must not be wealthy. So many billionaires that are Democrats, and of course each one will say they are not wealthy.
If Democrats are so concerned with this wealth redistribution, there should be no Democrat with more than a couple of million bucks. So just hand it over to your party supporters, then you can cry about wealthy Republicans.
So out of touch with working Americans. I don’t really care how much someone makes, but Democrats are ready to steal it away and give to those who are too lazy to make their own million, but will cry about someone else’s success.
Think of an idea and make it happen. No one is holding you down but yourself.
Next president? Wake up, people.
Brian Smith

Minimum wage has become quite controversial. But when there is an increase in wages, up go costs.
I grew up in a time when the country was coming out of the “Crash of ’29,” the Depression era. People were broke. In the 1940s, my mother worked in a factory 5½ days a week. She cleared $46.50. Not much, but a lot when you compared it with having nothing.
I remember a furniture store advertising “$1 down, 50 cents per week” for a three-piece living room suite. We had a small farm. Nothing was wasted. It was eaten, canned, or peddled door-to-door in town each Saturday. That was our total income. Somehow it worked.
Today, you pass factories with very few cars in their lots. People now laid off suddenly find themselves without the buying power they need for just common necessities. You would think, in situations like we have, that prices would come down so people could purchase more.
Two congressmen have asked for an additional 12-cent tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Boy, that’ll help! No common sense.
If I owned a business, I would need to make a profit in addition to paying the people who worked for me. Raising the minimum wage would cause me to cut my workers’ hours, or hire fewer workers.
The cost of bringing goods to the marketplace has to be staggering. It’s a domino effect. The farmer or manufacturer has to pay more for their equipment to produce their goods. Everyone has to make some kind of a profit.
We are now in a situation where people don’t have money, or very little, and the price of everything keeps going up. Where is the sense of this? Someone is benefiting for now, but what happens with all the things I manufacture if there is no money to buy it from me?
I am reminded of a Scripture that says in the last days it would take a “day’s wages to buy a loaf of bread.”
We aren’t there yet, but we seem to be moving closer and closer to that time.
Barbara Rice



About the Author