LETTERS: Firearms critics aren’t anti-gun, they’re anti-stupid
Joseph Molinaro’s July 21 letter to the editor, “Bearing arms,” made two very good points that I, someone he would consider the “anti-gun crowd,” completely agree with.
The first was simple enough: The homeowner had a handgun for protection and employed it as such. The second point, that any potential harm to the homeowner certainly was mitigated by his ability to engage the intruders on an equal footing, is also true. This is where our agreement ends.
The valley home invasion he cited was not a “test case” against the “anti-gun crowd,” as everything that transpired demonstrated how things should work when someone is attacked in their home. I believe a better test case to prove that the proliferation of guns throughout our society is dangerous was provided by the two cop killers who entered a Wal-Mart last year. One fired a shot in the air and demanded that everyone get out. That command to leave saved everyone who chose to obey, but because one individual was armed, he chose to intervene and it cost him his life. While I certainly do not question his noble intentions, if he had no firearm with him that day he would probably be alive.
Finally, I disagree with the label of “anti-gun crowd,” as most of us are more correctly called the anti-stupidity crowd. It is stupid to have a federal law that prohibits lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers (the only such arrangement for an industry). It is stupid to allow everyone to buy and sell guns to whomever they wish. It is stupid to not force people to insure their weapons to cover damages for their misuse. Finally, it’s incredibly irresponsible and insanely stupid to even suggest that our society can be made safer by encouraging people of different dispositions and mental capabilities to carry firearms concealed on their person.
Not one thing I suggested interferes with legal gun ownership. What we are witnessing are the effects of an industry that has successfully lobbied our government to not regulate any aspect of their activities. When that happened in the financial industry, many lost their homes and the problem was addressed. It is stupid that somehow the magnitude of lives being lost to this industry doesn’t warrant the same concern.
Rick Reynolds
Las Vegas
More guns, more deaths
Glenn Cook’s pro-National Rifle Association rant, “Gun-free zones advertise the defenseless,” in the Aug. 2 Review-Journal, finds gun-free zones to be the common denominator in all mass shootings. But the real common denominator is guns!
Mr. Cook advocates that movie-goers carry weapons: Imagine a shootout in a dark movie house with families caught in the crossfire, not knowing who the good guy is, while scrambling to escape in a stampede. Do we want gun nuts on our side looking for the opportunity to be a hero and appear on Fox News, like that man in the Las Vegas Wal-Mart shooting last year who lost his life instead of walking out as directed? Maybe Mr. Cook recommends bringing night-vision goggles to movies.
When will the coal carriers for the NRA realize that more guns mean more deaths? That is simple arithmetic. The NRA is enjoying all the mayhem while our politicians and so-called journalists are happy to divert the real issue of too many guns on mental illness or the Confederate flag. Someday these terrorists will carry hand grenades; shall we start packing hand grenades when we visit our supermarkets to be on the safe side?
Gopal Rao
Las Vegas
Cecil’s death
The death of Cecil the lion in Africa has shocked and angered people around the world. It should. Hunters argue that the fees they pay for the right to shoot a lion can benefit conservation. Conservation is expensive and money helps — though tourism revenue exceeds hunting revenue in many African countries.
The revulsion from Cecil's death may have been caused in part because he had a name. I hope that it leads countries such as the United States, the biggest importer of lion trophies, to take a closer and tougher look at "sustainable" wildlife management and clamp down on trophy imports that threaten the survival of Cecil's nameless kin. If they do, perhaps Cecil will not have died entirely in vain.
Every lion, rhino or bear that is hunted purely to get a trophy is a Cecil in some way. They may not be famous, but they are sentient beings, killed for their value as ornaments.
How do these people live with themselves? Shame on them.
Linda Faso
Las Vegas
