Advertisement
How many guns do Americans need? | Letters
Here’s what readers are saying in Thursday’s letters to the editor.
A solemn group of King Soopers employees, left, some from the Boulder store and some from the same district, brought large displays of flowers for each of the victims of a mass shooting at a Boulder Kings Soopers store on Monday. Each display had a card with condolences for the victims' families and signed by their King Sooper family. The group brought their flowers to a fence around the King Soopers where a makeshift memorial has been made for the victims of a mass shooting.
A solemn group of King Soopers employees, left, some from the Boulder store and some from the same district, brought large displays of flowers for each of the victims of a mass shooting at a Boulder Kings Soopers store on Monday. Each display had a card with condolences for the victims' families and signed by their King Sooper family. The group brought their flowers to a fence around the King Soopers where a makeshift memorial has been made for the victims of a mass shooting. [ JERILEE BENNETT ]
Published Mar. 25
Updated Mar. 25

We need sensible gun rules

An easy, effective fix | Editorial, March 24

When is enough enough? We are not safe in our schools, our movie theaters and now in our grocery stores. The majority of Americans support changes in gun laws. We need to do background checks, stop open-carry laws and ban semi-automatic rifles. I am certainly not against people owning handguns in any way. Our founding fathers simply never envisioned the weapons of today. If Republicans are unwilling to support Democrats’ legislation, they need to propose their own. If not, we need to elect legislators to replace them.

Shelley Foster, Clearwater

Aren’t fast cars more dangerous?

Smart gun control? Ban high-capacity magazines | Editorial, March 24

If we apply your logic on limiting high-capacity magazines, why are we not crying out to limit speed on automobiles? Wouldn’t an auto that can go faster than the speed limit be “high capacity”? How many people die in speed related crashes? I’m going to guess that it is way more than by guns with extended clips, but the gun argument always makes the headlines.

Gary Titch, Buckeye, Ariz.

A good first step

An easy, effective fix | Editorial, March 24

An easy, effective first step toward a fix would be more accurate. Eliminating high-capacity magazines, or any other high capacity ammo delivery systems, is a no-brainer. It doesn’t render the weapon useless in self-defense or home protection, though an AR-15 is not a great choice for either, if you consider the lives of your innocent neighbors and your own family. There are much better options.

These weapons tend to make people feel more powerful, especially at times when they are feeling powerless and unaccepted by their own community and fearful of ineffective and over-reaching government that is seemingly, hopelessly divided. When the leader of a nation leads by asserting fear to power their messages, they capitalize on the distrust a lot of our folks already feel. This distrust then becomes toxic and some folks just react instead of thinking things out, due to desperation.

The root of these shootings are the feelings of powerless and desperation that folks develop, and then guns seem to be an answer. Because the subject of guns is so controversial in our current politics, any regulation will be difficult. Limiting magazine capacity is a very good step that most responsible hunters and sport shooters shouldn’t consider over- reaching or over-reacting.

It actually makes bump stocks and any other auto- or rapid-fire techniques basically useless without creating more language and legislation. Five-round magazines should be the limit in the civilian world.

Bill Haisch, St. Petersburg

Times have changed

An easy, effective fix | Editorial, March 24

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was ratified by Congress in 1791, and I completely concur with it. At that time, the “arms” were black-powder muskets. Those were the weapons our founders gave us the right to bear. We had no standing army, police forces or other organizations responsible for keeping the law. All that has changed. But we have not changed our definition of what guns citizens have a right to bear. Just look at our protection forces that keep us safe today. Weaponry has dramatically changed, but why have we not re-defined what weapons are allowed to be borne by citizens? Citizens may have been given the right to own guns for hunting and target shooting. Those same guns are effective for self defense. Military-grade weapons, however, have no place in our society except in the hands of our protective agencies.

Thomas Turton, Tampa

A shot and an ID in one

VA shifts vaccine drive-thru site to USF | March 24

With all of the people getting the vaccinations, we have an opportunity to help those who have difficulties getting personal ID cards. All that would be required is getting an ID picture of each individual; the other information has already been collected. All of the fuss regarding lack of ID would be forever over. It’s a simple suggestion.

Ron Koerber, Zephyrhills

The future isn’t plastics

Back to glass

What is it worth to live a longer, healthier life? Consumers today seem to only be only concerned about getting what they want as cheaply as possible. But what is the real cost of pollution caused by the packaging? Manufactures overuse plastic to contribute to their profits at the expense of the consumer. I would gladly pay more for alternate ways of packaging. Everybody everyday consumes micro plastics in their food. I’ve been to poor third word countries where discarded plastic is everywhere you look. Going back to glass would be a smart decision. It would be worth paying a few extra cents a day for a healthier life. Paying a little more for better packaging might even lower peoples medical expenses. But as long as the politicians are on the payroll of big business we’re all going to suffer the consequences.

James Harazin, St. Petersburg