I object to the Web poll published during the week of July 23.
The question was, “Do we need stronger gun laws to prevent massacres like the one in Colorado?” This is a leading question; it presumes that there is some amount of gun regulation that can prevent massacres. It implies that the only problem is dealing with intransigent gun owners and that pesky Second Amendment.
Presume for a minute the ultimate solution that, somehow, all guns everywhere could be eradicated. Would that eliminate massacres?
Ask the Canaanites or the Carthaginians — no, wait, they’re dead. They were massacred long before the gun was invented.
How about modern times? Are there still “gunless” massacres by unarmed individuals? Ask New Yorkers about 9/11/2001. Ask Tokyo residents about 3/20/95.Ask Oklahoma City residents about 4/19/95.
Would very, very stringent gun laws in an isolated area prevent massacres? Ask Norwegians about 2011. Ask Australians about 1996.
Finally, is it possible that guns in the hands of responsible citizens might prevent some massacres? While it is impossible to prove that a massacre/crime/job loss did not occur, there is strong evidence that guns often prevent crimes and killings. See “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott. See any NRA publication that documents dozens of instances every month when a crime or killing was prevented by an armed citizen.
Remember that when the people are disarmed, only crooks (and maniacs) will have guns.
Richard W. Petersen
I think we can all agree the shooting in Aurora, Colo., was a tragedy, and the man responsible should contact Satan to see if he needs a roommate. What I find troubling is that the Colorado shooting makes us all worried and questioning of where we went wrong and who is to blame.
Here in Fort Wayne, we seem to have a shooting almost daily, and it barely keeps our attention. There are parts of the city where people are being shot like it’s a video game, and no one appears to be bothered by this, with the exception of the police and the victim’s family.
I don’t think it is a black/white or rich/poor thing, I think it is much simpler. Killing 12 people at one time scares the crap out of us, while the killing of 30-plus people spread out over a year is something we’re comfortable with in our city. What happened at that theater should make us all a little less secure, but if you want something to keep you awake at night, don’t look to Colorado, just down your street.
Thomas J. Ackmann
Growing up, I’ve always heard the name “Burma” used and have always referred to the country as Burma. My dad had told me many stories of how it was to be a student leader and participate in the 1988 uprising. He told me how many of his friends and fellow students were beaten, arrested or even killed by fighting for human rights and democracy in “Burma.”
My dad has taught me that sometimes freedom isn’t always given for free, and sometimes you must make sacrifices to achieve it.
The other day my dad showed me an article regarding 1991 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi dismissing an order to use the name Myanmar. When I see the name “Burma” used, I see it as a symbol of democratic resistance against the military regime, and those that are in prison, or have fled, and the many that have sacrificed their lives to help bring democracy to Burma are honored and acknowledged.
When I hear Aung San Suu Kyi use the name “Burma,” I see it as much more than just a name. I see it as a sign of leadership and freedom as she is the daughter of the founding father of Burma and founder of the Burmese Army, General Aung San.
That is why I have and always will, refer to the Golden Land as Burma.
Marco K. Soe