Only the police, military should possess guns
To all of those who subscribe to the theory that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," consider this: earlier this week a seemingly normal teenager in Taft, Calif., took a 12-gauge shotgun and 20 rounds of ammunition to his high school with the sole purpose of killing his fellow classmates.
His parents most likely legitimately owned the gun for bird hunting or target practice -- a shotgun is clearly not a defensive weapon. If that shotgun had not been accessible to that teenager, another teenager would not be struggling for his life on a life support machine.
The only way to stop the wanton proliferation of shootings is to remove guns from all but those sworn to protect us. If one life is saved, gun control will be a success.
James R. Orosco
Public needs fewer guns, not more
I am a retired elementary teacher who taught at several schools. All of these schools had several buildings that were located on several acres. One armed guard would never be able to protect any of these campuses unless he were standing near the shooter. Many times a day hundreds of children were out on playgrounds for PE and recess, and all of these playgrounds were exposed to public streets.
As a teacher, I would never have wanted a gun in my classroom. In order
We don't need more guns in our midst. We need sensible gun laws that prohibit military-type weapons.
Good news about guns is suppressed
The media is bombarding us with a propaganda campaign about so-called assault weapons. The coverage is highly slanted and insulting. Letters to the editor faithfully attack the mean old nasty NRA. The media buries stories that might harm their cause.
Two days after the Connecticut shooting a man in a restaurant in San Antonio decided to kill his ex-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It's like the Aurora, Colo., theater story plus a restaurant! There was an off-duty county deputy at the theater. She pulled out her gun and shot the man before he had a chance to kill anyone.
Since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened. Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal. Gun-free zones are a fantasy. They are actually free-fire shooting galleries for nut cases.
Dianne Feinstein's gun bill is said to protect gun owners by grandfathering in their guns. The crafty catch is that they have to register their guns, giving her a hit list for later confiscation. Her bill bans many popular handguns that are not assault weapons. We are seeing the same old Feinstein, who is personally armed.
G. Roger Gathers
'Know-it-all' Sowell shows his true colors
If you know anyone who is still touting Tom Sowell as a "respected scholar" and Distinguished Fellow," please direct their attention to his Dec. 28 column, "Know-It-Alls Are Ruining What Works In U.S."
In this rant, Sowell baldly states that President Obama was "raised from childhood to resent the successful and despise the basic values of America." He includes no study, no attribution, makes no hint that this is not fact, but only his opinion. This statement is, in point of law, a libel.
Sowell ends his hatchet job by stating that the president is a "glib and warped man," comparing him directly to Jim Jones (of the Jonestown massacre). Does Sowell give a reason for this "fact?" Of course, not. There remain only a few questions about Tom Sowell as a columnist, a scholar and a Fellow of the Hoover Institute.
The first is, "Why is the newspaper paying this man and printing his libels?" The second is, "Why does the Hoover Institute endorse anyone who represents them in such an unprofessional and intellectually shoddy manner?" And, finally, "Is Sowell aware of the irony incorporated in the title of this column?"
Michael W. Youngblood
Teaching, social engineering go back a long way
Thomas Sowell's concern that educators undermine American society (as it currently is) is not misplaced, but that is the job. Publicly funded education has always existed for social purposes, beginning with a required subscription in the New England colonies so children could be taught to read the English Bible.
Our country's founders, especially the stellar ones from Virginia, educated their own children and expected all citizens to do the same. Public efforts arose about the time of the civil war to try to bridge the gap between social classes. This mission was extended to "Americanizing" hordes of Southern European immigrants at the turn of the 20th century, since most Americans came or descended from the British Isles or Germany, with a few from Spain, France or French Canada, until then.
Today's goals are to create a functional modern workforce and acceptance of differences, as large numbers of technologically and scientifically astute non-Christian immigrants, as well as "diversity" refugees from Asia and Africa, are absorbed and gay issues get formal approbation.
Incidentally, we hope children learn to read, write, compute and think, despite the fact that since 1980, teachers have come largely from the bottom third of our college graduates. God bless them for all the special-interest mandates they must respond to courtesy of legislated orders.
Danville former U.S. history teacher, Monte Vista High School
Letter failed to make case against writer
George Fulmore's letter to the editor Jan. 9 criticized Ruben Navarrette as being —... a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is a Republican through and through."
In calling Navarrette a wolf in sheep's clothing, Fulmore implies that Navarrette has been deceptive, but doesn't tell us how. Fulmore asks us to read Navarrette's columns —... with a grain of salt," but fails to tell us why. Simply stating —... things would get worse in both the black and Latino communities under a Republican president" is not specific enough. If Fulmore disagrees with Navarrette, then he should specify how and why.
Fulmore's accusation of being a wolf in sheep's clothing additionally implies that all Latinos are (or at least should be) Democrats and Obama supporters. Mr. Fulmore, does being Latino preclude one from supporting a candidate other than the Democratic one? If that's the case, I didn't get the memo. I was under the impression I was free to form my own opinions without having to follow a certain set of rules based on my ethnic background. Let's not lose our civility and accuse one another of being deceptive and misguided without providing any reasons.