How armed response might really unfold
In the letter entitled "Different result had guns been allowed," it's claimed that, "If one person had been allowed to carry his ... legally carried concealed pistol into the ... theater, the shooter could have been stopped before he had the opportunity to commit mass murder. I could have stopped him."
Let's play out the scene: Heavily Armed Man enters dark theater wearing dark clothes, gas mask and carrying a shotgun and military-style semi-automatic rifle. Our Hero (somehow) instantly determines Heavily Armed Man is not police SWAT or SEAL Team, whips out his pistol and blasts away in the dark, smoke-filled theater, missing Heavily Armed Man but killing eight moviegoers.
Then, Vigilante Two enters the theater, sees Our Hero shooting at Heavily Armed Man, drops popcorn, whips out his pistol and starts shooting at Our Hero (because he thinks Our Hero is the bad guy shooting at police), killing Our Hero and nine others. Terrified Vigilante Three starts shooting, and so on.
Meanwhile, Heavily Armed Man leaves theater.
Different results, indeed.
Promises left unkept far past first 1,000 days
The president stated that his first 100 days in office were going to be important but that it was probably the first thousand
Now that his presidency is in its final phase, we discover that Obama's "Thousand and One Nights" tales have failed to bring both parties together. Instead, he created class warfare and missed a unique opportunity as president to avoid the race card and its victimhood mentality.
Obama's pledge "to stop lobbyists walk in his administration," remains ignored. Kept promises of transparency and economic recovery are almost nonexistent. Unlimited spending reigns, and higher taxes are moving forward.
Small businesses are told they did not build that which they claim they have. Despite the president's numerous interpretations of what he really meant to say, we, the people, know that once the government decides that we have no claim to what we've earned, we have no real liberty, since it will be no longer ours.
Our freedoms have become more fragile and our days are numbered -- now, fewer than 100.
Oval Office needs better dealmaker
One must wonder why President Clinton was so successful in getting legislation passed through a Republican Congress. Have Republican's, once tractable and cooperative, now changed their spots? Why was President Reagan effective in getting his legislation passed? Obviously, these earlier presidents possessed a true leadership quality that is sadly lacking in President Obama, charismatic and adorable as he is.
President Obama's signature legislation was rammed through Congress without a single Republican vote. Is that effective leadership? Should we be surprised when he now stands back and blames Congress for legislative inaction?
Gov. Romney was successful in passing a health care bill in a Democratic state. While managing the Olympics, he likewise evidenced leadership skill in getting diverse groups effectively working together to achieve a common goal.
President Obama's style inflames opposition, leaving us mired in partisan gridlock. Can we afford four additional years of endless political conflict? Isn't it time we elect a proven leader who has the ability to work both sides of the aisle in order to get Congress working together again?
Walter D. Welti
Good deeds of Romney you may not know
Mitt Romney is a giver, not a taker.
In 1996, the 14-year-old daughter of a friend disappeared in New York City and was still missing three days later. When Romney heard of this, he closed down Bain Capital and flew all his partners and employees to New York to find the girl. He set up a command center, hired a detective firm, established a toll-free number and scoured New York. The hunt made the evening news. A teenager phoned in, asked about a reward and hung up. The New York Police Department traced the call and found the girl in the basement experiencing ecstasy withdrawal symptoms. She could have been dead in 24 hours.
When bees built a hive in a neighbor's swamp cooler, and the owner fell and broke his arm trying to get rid of it, Romney donned homemade gear, climbed the ladder and scooped up the hive in a garbage bag with no public fanfare.
After Romney established Bain Capital, his former employer asked him to come back and rescue his firm from bankruptcy. He did for an annual salary of one dollar!
When Romney rescued the 2002 Olympics, he accepted no salary and no expense account for three years! Governor of Massachusetts? No salary there either.
This doesn't sound like a man with his hand in your pocket.
Joan S. Hamblin
Ban firearms for most people under age 30
The recent mass killing in a movie house in Aurora, Colo., is a premeditated incident nurturing the killing instinct of youngsters already encouraged by unregulated movies and TV shows.
From 1976 through 2010, 2,926 innocent people have been killed or injured in 605 incidents of mass shooting by trigger-happy youngsters with easy access to guns and ammunition, as if they are toys. For some, the number of people killed is not significant statistically. But see it from the viewpoint of those involved, how their lives have been changed forever by a few out-of-control youngsters with unjustifiable and misplaced anger.
Studies indicate that most shooters are below the age of 30; perceive themselves as victimized by transferring the blame of their own failings onto others; choose crowded places to maximize their effectiveness; hurt the businesses and the psyche of the free people as collateral damage; are burnouts, not psychopaths, without any distinct characteristics identifying them as would-Bes; can be sensed for their plans in advance by their parents or close friends as they demand too much privacy.
To eliminate such incidents, it is recommended that, with the exception of police and military, no one below the age of 30 be allowed to buy, possess or carry any murderous weapon, contraption or ammunition. Such law enforcement would minimize bank robberies and fix attractive rewards for those who help foil the mass shooting plans.
Hayashi's bid for office again is outrageous
Your editorial in the Contra Costa Times regarding Mary Hayashi running for a seat on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors was right on the money. This woman is a disgrace and should not be allowed to have a seat on the board. I do not live in her district, but I would hope the people that do are not fooled by this woman and will not vote for her. She needs to be out of politics, period.
Susan M. Gallego