Pleasant Hill's 'Dome' should be preserved

Regarding to Pat Kasavan's Dec. 31 letter, "Save the theater in Pleasant Hill," I agree with the author 100 percent.

We don't need another sporting goods store. We do need to keep the only independent, art movie house this side of the Caldecott. I would like to add another point, though, which Kasavan left out (perhaps due to space constraints). We should also look at "The Dome" for its historic significance.

"The Dome" was a precursor to Imax. The Pleasant Hill location may be among of the last of its kind in existence. Above and beyond all that, I would guess that there are an awful lot of East Bay residents, current and past, who have fond memories of movies at "The Dome."

Instead of tearing it down and building a sporting goods store, why not put the money into restoring our beloved "Dome" to its former glory? We should honor the past and preserve it for the future.

Kathi Inness-Paquette

Concord

Base gun debate on facts, not emotions

A recent Times editorial was flat wrong when it said, "If loaded weapons were everywhere ... you wouldn't need mass killers like Newtown's to create carnage."

And this isn't just my opinion, but fact. Studies have shown that states with right-to-carry laws have lower murder rates. They also show that cities with the strictest gun control laws, such as Washington, D.C., and New York City, have some of the nation's worst gun violence.


Advertisement

Of seven nearby theaters, Aurora, Colo., alleged killer James Holmes chose the only one with a "gun-free zone" posting. Parts of Europe with total gun bans actually have higher murder rates than the United States.

Will the Times deny that the children in Connecticut would have had a better chance of survival if the killer had faced armed opposition?

Sure, let's have a national conversation about guns, but let's base that conversation on fact, not knee-jerk emotionalism. Guns are only dangerous when in the hands of a sick, dangerous or irresponsible human being.

I am not a member of the NRA, nor a gun owner.

Mike Spellman

Brentwood

Sowell hates election results, mocks Obama

I've had enough of Thomas Sowell.

While I acknowledge his writing expertise and his apparent intelligence because of his accreditations, he doesn't have the right to falsely label anyone.

In his Dec. 28 column, "Know-it-alls are ruining what works in U.S.," Sowell wrote, " ... a man who was raised from childhood to ... despise the basic values of America," clearly a reference to President Barack Obama.

In another paragraph, Sowell, referring to a documentary about the tragic story of Jonestown, wrote he could not help thinking " ... of the parallel with the way we put a glib and warped man in the White House."

So the November election didn't go Sowell's way? Too bad! Maybe Sowell's difficulties lie in studying the "intellectuals" and ignoring everyone else.

State the facts or lose more than just this reader.

Karen Davis

Concord

We must stop the domestic arms race

My position has changed on gun control.

Reading excellent letters in the Times on the subject makes me realize that we don't need to get rid of just assault weapons -- we need to get rid of all the guns. Paranoid extremists have led us over the precipice, creating a real public health disaster. The irresponsible gun community's answer to the Sandy Hook tragedy? Place armed guards in all the schools.

Plinking tin cans with a .22-caliber rifle was fun when I was a kid, but I'm willing to give up that opportunity for the new reality of protecting our children.

Are you willing to give up the sport of target shooting if it prevents another Newtown massacre? Could you give up killing deer and elk for sport? Would you give up your right to kill members of a "tyrannical government?"

Let's stop our domestic arms race. If you want to protect your home, get a dog.

Terry Horner

Lafayette Horner, U.S. Army retired, is a former NRA member.

Violence is no answer in a relationship

This letter is regarding the woman who was severely burned after being set on fire in the Bayview District in San Francisco.

The attack was inconceivable. How is it possible that a person, especially someone's partner, could intentionally and cruelly burn another human being? Nothing the victim might have done could possibly merit such inhumane treatment.

What have relationships come to? There have been many cases where people harm their partner, but this crime is really incredible.

I hope such acts will change one day. People need to realize violence is never the answer.

Jasmine Covarrubias

Richmond