Letters to the Editor | Dec. 14, 2018

A lot more to consider on guns

Re “Right to own guns key to protecting all freedoms” (Page 3B, Dec. 9): Kudos to Jaycob Wiggens for a well written and researched essay. It was clear and concise. Offering nothing new, it was a restatement of well-known arguments. I would have hoped he could have offered fresh insight on this pernicious public health problem.

Oddly, he offered the same qualifications as advocates of better gun-control legislation. “As long as a person has no violent criminal record or history of serious mental health issues, and they have received the proper training, they should be permitted to purchase any ... weapon.” I agree.

The real debate is about what constitutes “serious mental health issues” and how do we identify them. Why only a “violent” criminal record? What constitutes “proper training”? Should a person be subject to continual retraining? What agency should be tasked with gathering this information and making it available to law enforcement?

Many on the 2nd Amendment side argue those reasonable qualifications constitute infringement. They also argue current laws are adequate; that enforcement is the problem. I agree, but more stringent enforcement again constitutes infringement. Resolving this conundrum might be the subject of his Wiggens’ essay.

Train kids early to be responsible

Responsibility training can go a long way if you start early. When a child does something bad, they try to find a way to get out of the situation without being blamed. If they were taught to be responsible, we would not have to worry about them hiding anything or getting away with worse actions as they grow. Parents would be more involved in lecturing about being responsible for your actions and about being responsible with money.

Restrict where people can smoke

Can you imagine being forced to ingest something harmful just because people around you were too? Phrased it like this, it seems obvious that wouldn’t be right. But it’s something we encounter a lot more than we might initially think. The problem is people smoking in public places.

Anyone old enough has the right to inhale cigarette smoke if they choose. Banning public smoking doesn’t mean people aren’t able to smoke, but instead must smoke in specific areas away from the public.

This wouldn’t be taking away smokers’ rights, but expanding the rights for all people. Even limited exposure to unfiltered secondhand smoke can have immediate effects on those suffering from asthma or respiratory diseases. Let’s make a change for the betterment of all.