NOT A SUICIDE PACT
I respectfully disagree with Judi Donaldson (letter, Oct. 6). She opines that “crying gun control is asinine” when there is a mass murder by gun.
Donaldson opined that we don’t scream “car control” every time there is a fatal car accident. On that point Donaldson is just flat-out wrong. Earlier this year, Toyota recalled about 2.9 million cars due to 16 deaths attributed to faulty air bag inflators. Honda recalled about 1.5 million cars due to faulty battery sensors, even though there were no reported deaths due to this problem. The public understands the dangers of faulty cars and has forced automakers to react accordingly. This change regarding auto safety did not happen overnight: it took many years and many deaths and injuries.
We need to recognize the danger of assault weapons and large ammunition magazines. To continue to allow and encourage Americans, through the sale of assault weapons, to kill Americans in mass incidents with assault weapons is “asinine.” The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact.
Assault weapons are designed with one purpose in mind, and that is to kill people.
I shoot on a semi-regular basis at UCOA, and also hunt. I have owned weapons since 1959, and know for an absolute fact that assault weapons and large ammunition magazines are not necessary for hunting, recreational shooting, or personal protection. I have no assault weapons.
I also know that the Second Amendment is not a license to obtain any kind of weapons a person’s heart may desire. We must, and we will, over time realize that assault weapons and large capacity magazines must be taken off the market.
The argument that there are too many out there to control is a faulty argument. If we re-initiate the ban we had in 1994 (it lasted 10 years and was not found to be unconstitutional) we can at least begin to reduce the ability to obtain these weapons and, over the years, they will become less available.
Also, crazies will not be able to legally buy these instruments of death.
PROJECT TOO BIG FOR CITY CREWS?
Eric Gelbaugh (letter, Oct. 7) focused on an important point overlooked by the city administration when it “reduced” the cost of the downtown project by performing work with city forces.
While city forces are quite capable of performing quality work, they do not have the manpower or the equipment to take on a project of this size while continuing to keep up with the routine projects throughout the city. It would be charitable to say that the administration simply overestimated the capabilities of city forces just to satisfy a minority interest in the downtown project.
BETTER TO INVEST IN PREVENTION
Since it is far better to prevent opioid abuse in the first place than to suffer the terrible consequences of addiction, it seems prudent to spend most of our opioid abuse resources on prevention. For every $1 we spend on treatment, we should be spending $10 on prevention.
This includes developing creative and effective ways to stop opioid abuse before it starts. Those with a heart for rehabbing those addicted to opioids should give generously to organizations that have proven effective in this difficult task.