Concealed guns are a hazard
Re “Let sheriff pay for his gun priority” (Editorials, June 17): The editorial closed by saying, “8,000 people walking the streets with concealed weapons – let alone 18,000 – sounds less like a public service than an accident waiting to happen.”
Every individual with loaded gun on our streets is a hazard, authorized or not. By definition, urban combat is a threat to the public. It is a myth to say that if one was armed, the crime would not happen. The moment one person draws a gun in public, serious issues crash into one’s reality: Shoot, don’t shoot? Who’s the bad guy? Who is near the bad guy? When police arrive, you could be shooting. Will the police know who the bad guy is?
Shooting at paper targets does not begin to prepare one to fire a weapon in an urban setting. Putting large numbers of guns on our streets is a hazard to us all. Sheriff Scott Jones should know better.
Art Inouye, Sacramento
Sheriff needs to be reasonable
The stance by Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones demonstrates why terrorists can easily access weapons that they will use against innocent people. The Democrats have presented a bill that is very reasonable. If you are on the terror watch list, you cannot get a gun.
Jones opposes this measure. He supports the joke of a measure presented by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Cornyn’s bill will do nothing. It states that if you are on the terrorist watch list the Justice Department has three days to demonstrate that you are planning an attack.
If an individual was planning an attack, they will be arrested; so Cornyn’s bill changes nothing. The purchase of a gun is not an issue. It is not reasonable to assume that the Justice Department can make this determination in such a short time.
John Cooper, El Dorado Hills
Board is wrong on taxes for guns
The Sacramento Bee editorial board gets it wrong if it thinks every public service should be cost neutral. Can the board name one public service that doesn’t get tax money? Some people argue that they don’t want any of their taxes spent on anything promoting guns.
I don’t have children in public schools, but I don’t begrudge my taxes going to support public schools. The only thing the editorial board gets right is that $240,000 a year doesn’t amount to much out of a $4 billion budget.
Terry Skjelstad, Fair Oaks
Is there a point in O.J. column?
Re “We all watched O.J.’s descent” (Local, Marcos Breton, June 19): I think the world has moved on to more relevant issues. O.J.’s “descent” is largely self-inflicted. Dragging this into the never ending civil rights debate really has no comparison. It just continues to reinforce the stereotype of the NFL player as a self-absorbed thug.
The columnist really should write about things that people really care about. And come to some conclusion. This particular type of journalism makes no sense in that it seems to glorify this kind of behavior as well as placing some kind of elevated status to it.
Hashing out the murder trial and acquittal which did occur in the last century is a waste of time.
Andrew Mattson, Roseville
Let’s not blame the O.J. jurors
Marcos Breton’s assessment of the outcome in the O.J. Simpson case – like so many others who blame the jurors who acquitted Simpson – fails to address its actual cause: the prosecutors’ failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
From the D.A.’s decision to forgo a grand jury investigation to the major tactical trial errors made by prosecution team, e.g., trying a circumstantial case as though there was direct evidence of guilt, there was little doubt of the outcome. Yet not much attention was paid to those errors.
The Simpson prosecution provides an opportunity we should take advantage of more often – to focus on prosecutorial errors in analyzing the failure of justice. Too many innocent people spend too many years in prison. The Simpson case provides an opportunity to illuminate the role and responsibility of the prosecutor to get it right. Let’s focus on that for a change.
Nancy Luque, Carmichael
Eradicate the culture of rape
Re “It’s misguided to recall judge in Stanford sexual assault” (Viewpoints, June 17): Bill Whalen misses the point entirely if he believes alcohol and the “hookup culture” was the cause of the sexual assault at Stanford University. Women’s bodies are valued only as objects of male control, criticism and consumption in patriarchal societies such as ours.
Rape, and the threat of rape, subjugates women and keeps them focused on avoiding being a victim, instead of demanding an end to rape culture. Partying on college campuses merely provides an opportunity for such heinous criminal behavior such as that committed by this entitled, pampered athlete, who later claims it to be a mere lapse in judgment. Naming rape culture for what it is, and working to eradicate it, would be much more honest and effective, not to mention just.
Randy Pritchett Behymer, West Sacramento
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.