LETTERS: U.S. gun policy should mirror other modern countries

America's gun disease

In reading the article about the surge in gun purchases, I wonder if it doesn't just feed the gun-owning-and-using frenzy ("Nevada's rush to arms," Wednesday Review-Journal). Perhaps some facts on gun ownership, such as the average annual gun deaths in the United States, in Nevada and in Las Vegas, would be more relevant.

And let's compare U.S. gun deaths with those in modern, industrialized countries, such as Singapore or Japan, that have strict gun control laws in place. In Japan, in greater Tokyo — with a population estimated at well over 30 million — you can count the gun deaths per year on one hand. That's like a week in Las Vegas.

It seems arrogant that the United States continues to think that it has the final answer on owning guns. We need to be open to learn from more peaceful societies. Americans too often turn to violence to solve problems. Other societies and cultures often are better at solving problems in nonviolent ways. Of the tens of thousands of gun-related incidents, not just deaths, how many involved someone using a gun to protect themselves? And how often did that protection prove effective? I suspect that it would be minuscule in comparison to the total gun deaths and injuries.

And annually, how many children kill or wound another person just because they find a gun in their home and start playing with it?

I'm sure that the National Rifle Association enjoyed the article, which will provide more potential members that the organization can recruit — more people the NRA can persuade with its flawed ideology that people, not guns, kill people.

While it may be newsworthy that more people are buying guns as the result of fear of some terrorist possibility, such news also fuels fear. What about information that presents facts and information about the big picture: that the more people there are who own guns, the greater the possibility of increased gun violence to attempt to solve a problem or to vent some frustration, or fuel some ideology? I think it would be helpful to see a story from this angle.

The media have to dig deeper and look at the underlying rationale for America's gun disease.

Phil Hausknecht

Las Vegas

Carson on health care

Though I don't generally agree with Ben Carson's politics, I was very happy to see his opinions in Steve Sebelius' column ("Carson prescribes different system for good health," Nov. 25 Review-Journal). As someone who has long suffered with chronic illness, I commend Dr. Carson for taking insurance companies to task when it comes to the skyrocketing costs of health care. As a patient, the decisions on what medications are best for treating my illness should be left up to me and my doctor.

The caliber of my quality of life shouldn't come down to my insurance company deciding what it will and won't cover. I can only hope that all those running for office continue to take a broad look at this issue, so that people suffering with chronic illness can live more comfortably, with access to the drugs we need. We all have that right.

Maile Robb

Reno

Evolving slant

Is it just me, or is the Review-Journal running out of local writers for its articles? I am getting the sense that the newspaper is evolving more to the left and is no longer reflecting the views of its readership. Case in point: the banner headline on Tuesday's front page ("Trump: Ban Muslim visitors). The headline is for a story from The Washington Post, a very liberal, left-leaning paper. The two writers of the article accordingly parroted the leftist rhetoric of the paper.

Does this mean the Review-Journal shouldn't glean news from other sources, such as Reuters, Associated Press, etc.? Of course not. Everyone should get a taste of fair and balanced news. But on the other hand, if I want to overdose on progressive claptrap, I would change my subscription.

The Review-Journal continues to change. First the font, then the spacing, then the ownership, now the political slant. Please don't let your paper evolve into something that readers no longer wish to have at their breakfast table.

Ron Moers

Henderson