LETTERS: Shooting again shows need for better background checks

Oregon shooting

Once again, we have witnessed a horrific loss of life and injuries due to the actions of an individual who used multiple firearms ("Oregon massacre," Oct. 2 Review-Journal). After the horror of Sandy Hook, I had hoped something could be done to eliminate such catastrophes. Be it due to political issues, social issues or pseudo-constitutional issues, the problem still exists.

As a gun owner, obviously I wouldn't want to lose my right to own a gun. However, I feel that the checks and balances that exist regarding gun purchases should apply equally to gun shows, individual purchases and retail gun sales. If there is no hidden reason why a person who seeks to purchase a gun would object to having a background check, then what's the problem?

Yes, the Constitution aims to protect the rights of those who seek to bear arms, but what about protecting the rest of us? Where is the government when it comes to protecting my rights and those of others against these monsters who seem to easily circumvent laws and obtain these weapons?

In reality, I cannot see how there is any guaranteed way to prevent individuals with mental issues from obtaining guns. There will always be those who slip through the cracks. In fact, I imagine the vast majority of those who should not own guns have already slipped through those cracks. They can't be expected to acknowledge their problems.

At the very least, requiring background checks, with a reasonable waiting period, might help stem the flow of carnage. Perhaps our elected representatives should be paying more attention to doing what is in the best interests of the American public, instead of looking for the best way to finance their next re-election bid. I suspect I may speak for many Americans.

Barbara Nelson

Las Vegas

Obama and gun control

President Barack Obama needs to remember that he was elected president, not dictator, emperor or king. The United States is not an autocracy, he is not the self-appointed ruler and he can't make his own laws. Whether he likes it or not, the Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, and he won't be allowed to take that right away from us, even when he demands it.

Sweden has some of the most stringent gun laws possible, with legal gun ownership tightly controlled. Yet in 2011, 29 young people were shot and killed by someone impersonating a police officer. Because this person posed as an authority figure, no one questioned his approach to the scene of the massacre. In this case, what would President Obama have done after he outlawed guns? Ban sewing machine and fabric sales, so that a person couldn't make a fake uniform?

The old adage, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns," couldn't be more true. Perhaps if we allowed more open carry or arming of teachers, some of these dregs of society who commit these heinous crimes could be stopped dead in their attempt to become famous.

Kathleen M. Stone

Pahrump

Senior 'entitlements'

For those who may still be unaware of how entitlements work, those who were self-employed paid fully into Social Security. It is the federal government that used our money to pay for its follies and maybe even its salaries, since government creates nothing. We seniors who owned and ran our own businesses paid in for all our working years; mine was 42 years' input, and now my money is called an "entitlement."

If members of Congress can work two or three months a year and get paid in excess of $170,000, and retire after a few years and collect a pension, who is getting the entitlements? Congress votes itself raises, usually about 2.5 percent, and the seniors get raises of between 0 and 1 percent, which gets eaten up by increasing Medicare costs. And seniors still fund our own retirements with other invested funds.

Who pays for Congress' excess, since elected officials don't work all year and have great retirement/medical plans that they voted for themselves? The people will get smart one day and vote them all out when their terms are up and get fresh faces and ideas to replace them. Let's put term limits on all lawmakers elected to Congress, the same as the president — two terms and they're out.

Bob Hartman

Las Vegas