Letters to the editor: March 28, 2013

Killers will find ways

There seems to be growing support for laws that will place major restrictions on owning guns. Passing these new laws on gun control would only infringe on the rights granted to us by the Second Amendment in the Constitution.

What people in support of these laws do not seem to realize is that there are many more easily accessible weapons that criminals could use for these killings. The bottom line is that if a person decides that they want to kill other people, they will find a way to do it.

In order to prevent these massacres, our society needs to keep a watchful eye out for potential criminals rather than guns.

Nolan Johnson, Rancho Bernardo

Gym manager not to blame

Regarding the March 14 story about the For Women Only gym closing:

One patron blamed Lori Golia for not returning the clients’ money when the gym closed. Lori was the only the manager of the gym. The owner was Mike Ippolito who was the person responsible for returning any client money.

Lori was a very competent manager of the gym, but she is not responsible for the contracts or payment made by the patrons.

Nancy Higbie, Poway

A little caution, please

In response to Gerold Firl’s Feb. 28 letter:

Interesting how Mr. Firl picked only a couple of points to prove Republicans are not smart. Here are some of the evidence he chose to ignore:

1) The rape of Mr. Stevens was reported by the Libyan Free Press. Rumors by Republicans was not the cause of this being spread. Since the media and the Obama administration has decided to hide what happened we probably won’t know any time soon.

2) President Obama watching by satellite feed, yes this is false. What really happened, based on testimony on this incident, President Obama decided to call it a day instead. He told Pentagon and CIA to handle this situation. Apparently being re-elected was more important than helping our citizens.

The authority to send in help could have only come from President Obama.

Perhaps in the future, Mr. Firl, you should be more cautious in your wording.

Christine Wright, Poway

Longer delays needed

Having been ticketed by a red-light camera before, I can’t say I’m disappointed to see the ones in Poway being covered for six months. Although I don’t exactly agree with the decision to completely shut it down, reforming on the way it works is a great idea.

I was ticketed at 1:30 a.m. on a weekday, performing a notorious “California stop” while turning right. If a cop had seen it, I’m sure a warning would have sufficed for him. Unfortunately with these machines there is very little gray area.

On the other hand, it has proven effective, with serious crash rates reducing significantly.

If we want real reform, we should lengthen the amount of time the intersection is empty during transition of traffic flow. This is safer and fair to the people.

Let’s work toward a solution that works for all.

Nick Pisano, Rancho Bernardo

(Editor’s note: Poway officials said red lights at the three intersections already have delays programmed.)

Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=34250

Posted by Staff on Mar 27 2013. Filed under Letters to the Editor, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

8 Comments for “Letters to the editor: March 28, 2013”

  1. Amy Roost

    Mr. Johnson, It's an interesting theory you have but the statistics don't bear it out. When you look at gun laws and crime rates in individual states, and you control for things like age and poverty, urbanization, you see significantly lower firearm death rates in the states with the most comprehensive regulations. You also see significantly lower overall homicide rates in those states with comprehensive regulations.

    If you would like to look at the data, you won't find it in any government report b/c NRA's lobbyists have seen to that. You could however look at studies conducted at John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. The data is there if you choose to inform yourself.

    • Law abiding citizen

      Data can be manipulated to say whatever you want it to say. For a dose of reality, just look at Chicago, for example. All the gun laws in the world will not keep the bad guys from having them, they just keep them out of the hands of law abiding citizens and give more control to our oppressive government.

      • Amy Roost

        Law abiding citizen, Data, facts and science can be so pesky, can't they? Why even bother referring to any when we can just have our opinion and call it a day? But I'm stubborn so here you go:

        Chicago’s gun laws aren’t the cause of the recent uptick in violence (their gun control laws were loosened after 2008 Supreme Court ruling), nor does it prove that gun regulations are ineffectual. If anything, it underscores the need for tighter federal laws.Chicago is not an island, nor is Illinois. 43%t of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois.The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which have strict gun laws.

        It’s also important to put Chicago’s very recent increase in gun violence in perspective. Chicago, following the national trend, has experienced a significant downturn in homicides in the past decade and a half.

        Finally, your comment seems to suggest that wider gun ownership or looser gun laws reduce crime. There’s no credible evidence to this effect.

        The missing logic in Mr. Johnson's letter and your reply is this: weapons designed to kill people (shockingly) make it easier to kill people. Chicago’s streets are flooded with guns. Lot's of people are being killed in Chicago–with guns.

  2. Terry Daniels

    Here's some data released by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research recently from a 2004 survey of inmates in state prisons. These prisoners used guns in committing their crimes and this is how they reported how they obtained the guns:

    Licensed gun dealer: 11 percent
    Friends or family: 39.5 percent
    “The street:” 37.5 percent
    Stolen gun: 9.9 percent
    Gun show/Flea market: 1.7 percent

    Uh oh….the horse is already pretty much out of the barn on this one.

    • Amy Roost

      Terry, "the street" can mean a straw purchaser. Many states, like VA for instance, make it so easy to purchase a gun and the penalty for purchasing for others so insignificant, that this is how many criminals who would not pass a background check are able to obtain guns–initially…and well, yes, then the guns are out of the barn and in circulation, and get into the wrong hands. Seems we might want to limit that. Just sayin'.

  3. Terry Daniels

    And "just sayin'" correctly, my dear. Alcohol, tobacco, guns, pornography, drugs, abuse, crime, war, terrorism, military weaponry, etc. will continue to be a perpetual challenge. We have our personal freedom and we take the societal risk.

    What is interesting is the 39% who say they got it from friends or family. If I was in the can for gun play, being a criminal and all, I wouldn't likely rat out my friends and family. I'd say I got the gun from "the street'. Since one is not likely to procure a gun from a rival or enemy, it's likely 'the street' means also a ton of guns from friends and family that the survey takers aren't going to snitch on. Snitching is an absolute taboo. But after all, somebody's possessing that gun somewhere – acquaintance, friend, family, fellow gang member, etc. Those guns don't sit still for long. They keep em' moving around.

    So given the sources we can control – the 11% licensed gun dealers plus the 1.7% gun show / flea market sellers – we still have only a knee high gate to close on the barn door. Horses can jump pretty high.

  4. Amy Roost

    My dear Terry, personal freedom is important as is the collective good.

  5. Terry Daniels

    Absolutely. I agree. You just described America – or at least an American ideal where the individual good is what creates the collective good. Rather than having freedom to own a gun in order to protect myself from others who have guns (good), I'd rather have both the peace of mind and the freedom from having to own a gun because other people don't have them either (best). However, because the reality is that there are guns all over the place, I count on the extremely low probability that I will ever encounter a gun situation. I don't have a gun.

    I think if I ever do feel the need to get a personal defensive weapon, I'll get a taser. If I were a woman I'd definitely have a taser with me at all times.

Leave a Reply