When gun control will work
Re “10 killed in ‘horrific’ shooting at college” (Page 1A, Oct. 1): There will be meaningful gun control in the U.S. when there is a law against any organization or individual giving money to any person who stands for public office, when legislators are prohibited from taking gifts from those with a stake in any legislation under consideration and when the legislators themselves do not stand to profit more than any other citizen from the legislation.
The financing of campaigns should be limited to funds provided by the government. Until then, we will have the best government that the money of billionaires can buy, and firearms manufacturers will be able to put a gun in the hands of anyone.
David Hobbs, Sacramento
Do shootings matter?
After every mass shooting in the United States in recent years, hands are wrung and many tears are shed. But after all the prayers and the speeches, and the debates between people on both sides of the gun ownership issue, no new laws have been passed to restrict access to guns by certain individuals. It has not even been possible for Congress to pass legislation to improve the system used to do a background check.
Fear of the NRA is one thing, but fear to use one’s courage and common sense in the face of these continuous, monstrous shootings, fear to do the right thing concerning the passage of legislation that could save lives, is immoral. What happened to political courage?
Leslie Trass, San Francisco
Bigger problems than guns
Re “An achingly familiar tragedy in Oregon” (Editorials, Oct. 2): Though very tragic, the Umpqua Community College shooting is identified as a gun problem, instead of a mental health problem. The state of mental health care in a developed country such as ours is tragic and, quite frankly, deplorable. Californians are fond of criticizing the gun culture, but California takes no responsibility for the sensationalizing of violence with firearms; the entertainment industry generates a lot of revenue for California. Let’s focus expenditures on mental health care, which isn’t available to so many who need it, especially in California.
Robert Anderson, Sacramento
We’ve got it from here
Thanks, guys, but please stop trying to protect us gals. You’re doing an awful job. If guns aren’t to blame, then you are. We do not – and save me the exceptions; they are statistically insignificant – do this crazy, sad, cowardly behavior, shooting innocent people when our feelings overwhelm us. It must be that you just don’t fully appreciate the hard work and sacrifices that go into raising a child.
We send our children to school and hope they come home so that you can have your right to bear arms. Enough. What about life, liberty … hell, just life? I propose that only women be allowed to own guns, law enforcement included, until men can get grip on themselves.
Julie Spandow, Roseville
Stop aggrandizing shooters
Re “Inquiry uncovers killer’s rants, rage” (Page 1A, Oct. 3): The Sacramento Bee does not release the names of juvenile suspects or criminals. Nor do you generally publish detailed accounts of suicide because of the known effect of contributing to other suicides. Yet, in the case of a mass shooting, such as the most recent tragedy in Roseburg, Ore., the Bee features a front page article publishing the shooter’s name and background, while only giving us brief glimpses of the victims on page 8A.
The media needs to stop giving the perpetrators what they want. Join Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin in refusing to publish the names of those who desire infamy.
David Wittenborn, Antelope
Shootings and CCW permits
Re “Concealed-gun ban for schools on Brown’s desk” (Page 1A, Oct. 3): Were any of the campus shootings committed by CCW permit holders? I think not, and here’s why.
The screening process of training and interview by law enforcement tends to discourage criminals and wackos from applying. The current scrutiny and renewal requirements for CCW permittees includes language that prohibits use of alcohol and drugs, brandishing the weapon and committing any crimes. You can’t even be in an establishment whose primary purpose is serving alcohol. Any of these will get your license revoked.
Criminals or the criminally insane don’t check in with authorities, but responsible citizens do.
John Norman, Granite Bay
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.