Real statistics support gun bill veto

To the editor:

It was widely circulated and reported that 86 percent of Nevadans supported a background check for private firearms purchases. Senate Bill 221 mandated firearm background checks, as well as streamlined mental health reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bill was vetoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval. The sponsor/author of this bill was Sen. Justin Jones, D-Las Vegas. As a fan of statistical data, I contacted Sen. Jones about his “86 percent of Nevadans” number.

After studying the questions in the survey of 800 Nevadans (0.00029 percent of the population) from which the 86 percent statistic originated, it became clear that the critical questions about gun control were leading those surveyed in a fashion that appeared to favor gun control. The Nevada Legislature website has a poll section. The data for SB221 totaled 3,650 Nevada residents’ opinions. The results: 561 supported SB221, and 3,087 were against. That equates to 85 percent against the bill, with a survey population nearly four times larger than the survey that produced the 86 percent support for background checks.

Gov. Sandoval’s office set up an automated phone system to handle calls on this bill. Results, reported by The Associated Press, were that out of 180,460 calls, 27,465 supported the bill, and 152,995 were against it. Again, 85 percent emerges, but it’s the polar opposite of Sen. Jones’ statistic.

The group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, encouraged people to call the toll-free number set up by Gov. Sandoval’s office and push for his signature on the bill. You be the judge of how effective that was.

DAN ZAMPIRRO

CARSON CITY

Learn other languages

To the editor:

R.J. Paylo wrote concerning Hispanics not learning English and laments our having to pay for them to learn (“Save money, learn English,” Monday letter to the editor). Yes, there are many Hispanics, not all illegal, who make little effort to learn English, especially those who are older and have a network of Spanish-speaking friends and relatives with whom they’re more comfortable speaking in their native tongue.

The writer does have a point that some illegal immigrants don’t have to learn English, and those who work, or wish to, have mastered sufficient English to keep their jobs and stay alive.

It’s impolite, but not illegal, to speak a foreign language in the presence of those who don’t speak it. Some take umbrage over a foreign language being spoken because they feel jealous or inadequate because of their inability to speak a foreign language. Nowadays, many of us wish to have grown up immersed in a multitude of languages. The oceans separated us, denying us the opportunity to learn languages, as many children do in smaller, connected countries. Imagine what an advantage it would be to speak German, Spanish, Japanese, a couple of Chinese dialects, Russian and Arabic. A mastery of these just might soften some of the tension in the world — by being able to communicate.

It’s natural to resist change, but the ability to speak different languages has become more important. Many colleges now insist on a minimum level of competency in a foreign language prior to graduation. Better our progeny grow up surrounded by others speaking their languages and learn from them. A degree in business or law, mastery of English and some or all of the aforementioned languages would make a great resume.

WILLIAM V. LOFTON

NORTH LAS VEGAS

Keep terms limited

To the editor:

Regarding the June 15 editorial, “Term limits prove effective,” I believe strongly in term limits, since my personal preference of not re-electing anyone never gained public favor. I also believe our current term-limit law leaves room for improvement. We should never allow a term-limited individual to run for an office deemed lower than the seat just held. If you aren’t moving up in the political arena, it’s time to get out of public service.

LLOYD SHEAFFER

LAS VEGAS

Obama’s vacation

To the editor:

A few cable news outlets and The Washington Post are reporting on what President Barack Obama’s family vacation to Africa this month will cost us, the taxpayers of this country: somewhere between $60 million and $100 million. A “vacation” that includes this retinue: hundreds of Secret Service agents to secure facilities in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania; a Navy aircraft carrier with a full trauma center; numerous military cargo planes to airlift 56 support vehicles — including 14 limousines and three trucks loaded with sheets of bullet-proof glass to cover the windows of the hotels where the Obamas stay; and numerous fighter jets flying in shifts to give 24-hour coverage over Obama airspace.

So, for all of you who are pinching your pennies and dollars for the thousands that ObamaCare is going to soon cost you, take comfort in the fact that the president of the United States has decided, in this year of sequestration belt-tightening because of budgetary shortfalls, to plunder your tax money and fly his family overseas for their vacation. Apparently, the Obamas have already seen all of the United States’ vacation paradises, although they will revisit Hawaii, where they can once again move their entourage overseas on vacation.

But, hey, it’s what the majority of you wanted when you voted him back into office, so I guess all of you are OK with your taxes being spent on a lavish Obama vacation while you ponder just how far your meager budget will allow you to travel this summer.

GEORGE PUCINE

LAS VEGAS