In a March 7 letter (“Restrict gun ownership? A very bad idea!”), the author assumes U.S. policy would follow Australian policy some 20 years ago when all guns were confiscated, resulting in a higher rate of home robberies.
Why should he think U.S. policy would result to such extreme measures when the general debate involves eliminated public access to assault weapons and handguns to those with criminal records? Does the author believe he needs an assault weapon to protect his home or to protect himself in public?
He states that armed personnel should protect our schools, which is a good idea, but who’s going to foot the bill when many public schools are already struggling? Who from private or volunteer sources would be willing to provide security?
He mentions “Democrat-run-Chicago” has strict gun-control laws and a higher crime rate while “areas” allowing concealed weapons have lesser crime, but fails to define “areas.” Does he mean other major cities or suburban communities? The latter will almost always have a lower per capita crime rate regardless of gun laws due to a higher ratio of police officers to citizenry.
He claims President Barack Obama is deliberately destroying America. That assertion does not fit the facts. The stock market hit an all-time high earlier this week. Unemployment as of today is at a four-year low and the housing market is recovering.
Is he implying that Republicans are responsible for these gains? Let us remember, under the administration of President George W. Bush, the housing market was decimated by the real estate industry, the primary factor for the 2008 recession. The Republican mantra of “deregulation” allowed this to occur. No one was minding the store as millions of Americans were offered and accepted loans they couldn’t afford to repay.
The author complains about the Democratic “legislative dictatorship” in California. Like it or not, the inevitable demographic changes in the state will continue to move California in that direction. I would suggest he consider moving to a state more compatible with his political “sensibilities.”