Safety Valve: Letters from readers

4 free views left!

Safety Valve: Letters from readers

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Public pays

Following the massive damage to utility lines during the December snowstorms we read that fiber optic service would not be replaced along Lake Wenatchee’s south shore due to the very high cost. Then on Jan. 18 we received an email from the PUD, backed up by an article in the Jan. 20 Wenatchee World, saying that it would be replaced. The number of customers along the south shore was given as “approximately” 64 in the email, and “approximately” 80 in the World article. Doesn’t the PUD know how many customers are affected? Does this “approximate” number mean actual customers? Potential customers? Full-time residents? Weekend rentals? A combination of these, or what? The cost of replacing the fiber has been a moving target, too. The latest figure given in The World is “approximately” $750,000.

The fiber optic line runs up Chumstick Highway to Lake Wenatchee, yet it is unavailable to Chumstick residents as far as I know, so you see this public utility is really not for the public at large. However, we did get to help pay for fiber’s initial installation and now, I’m sure, we’ll get to help with the “approximately” $750,000 repair bill.

I don’t know if the PUD is helping a special customer on the south shore of Lake Wenatchee or if it took the path of least resistance when it reversed it’s initial decision. It doesn’t really make any difference, the public will pay anyway.

Harry Baughman

Leavenworth

For safety

We are pleased crashes are being reduced in Wenatchee since the installation of traffic safety cameras (“City: Red-light camera data shows accidents down citywide,” The World, Jan 18).

In 2002, our daughter was killed by a driver speeding through a red light. Since then, we have made it our mission to reduce traffic fatalities caused by red-light running. The bottom line is, when it comes to saving lives, photo enforcement works.

In Puyallup, red-light cameras led to a 52 percent reduction in red-light running. In Federal Way, collisions dropped at all photo-enforced intersections and almost 90 percent of violations were one-time offenders, indicating a change in driver behavior and a positive impact on road safety. As The Wenatchee World reported, collisions are down 37 percent in Wenatchee.

Traffic safety cameras send a clear message: If you break basic traffic laws, you will be held accountable. There’s no reason another family should have to endure the loss of a son, daughter or parent to someone who refuses to obey the law.

Paul and Sue Oberhauser

National co-chairs Traffic Safety Coalition

Somerset, Ohio

More slaughter ahead

One of the more discouraging things I’ve read in The World was a Safety Valve letter from Ella Dillon on Jan 17. In it she states that, even though she was horrified by the school shooting of 5- and 6-year-olds, she is MORE horrified by the possibility of gun control. If this doesn’t illustrate what’s wrong with our country, nothing does. For some, the deaths of innocent children dim by comparison to gun control. This is a sad statement and highlights the moral turpitude of our country today.

Another letter sent in by Gordon Schuster (Jan. 17) called for cars to be banned because there are more deaths due to car accidents than by guns. What part of the purpose of guns doesn’t he get? Cars are not purchased to kill people. When it happens, it is by accident. Handguns have NO other purpose than to kill people.

Ms. Dillon recounts a terrifying experience where she was robbed at gunpoint. She’s suggesting because of this experience, that we arm everyone in the country. So the solution in her mind isn’t restricting the criminal’s ability to get a gun, it’s MORE guns. Guns in everyone’s hands. Armed guards at kindergarten, for heavens sake. We are becoming more uncivilized by the minute!

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free atate, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

I believe we must put ourselves into that time in history (1791) to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. It was written after a bloody Revolutionary War was fought and won, largely due to armed militias. A tyrannical British government with an invading army was on everyone’s mind. The militias also, protected people from Indian enemies on the frontier. There were many dangers in a wild, sparsely populated and mostly uncivilized land.

Fast forward to the 21st century and the Second Amendment has morphed into every Tom, Dick and Harry’s unfettered right to bear arms. It’s become the excuse for lawlessness and anarchy. Until we get a Supreme Court whose majority can put this back into the context of the time it was written and then interpret it in light of the reality of today’s world, I fear we are going to face more slaughter of innocents.

Linda Korver

Wenatchee

Send letters to The Safety Valve, Box 1511, Wenatchee, WA 98807.

Fax letters to 665-1183, e-mail to Newsroom@wenatcheeworld.com.

» Recommend this story.

» 5 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

davebugg 3 months, 3 weeks ago

"Handguns have NO other purpose than to kill people."

If such were true that guns, including handguns, have no purpose other than to kill people, why, then, are there so relatively few deaths by guns when compared to the over 300 million guns that are in the hands of the public?

Guns have many purposes other than to kill people. Recreational shooters, hunters, target shooters, shooting competitors, the Olympics, gun collectors, and others are evidence of that fact.

Yes, guns can be used to kill people. It would be silly if guns, which are used by the innocent to defend themselves from the criminal predator, did not have that potential. Thank goodness that Melinda Herman of Georgia had that ability on January 8, when she had to protect herself and her children from an aggressive home invader who had chased her and her kids into a crawl space.

It took five shots to the do-bad to make him stop. Five shots, and he didn't die. Melinda had run out of bullets, but bluffed the gomer by holding the empty gun on him and telling him she would shoot him again if he didn't stop.

I bet that Mrs. Herman had wished that she had had a gun with a large capacity magazine. We can all be thankful that the scum-eater didn't have a partner requiring Mrs. Herman to have a larger ammunition capacity.

The fact that deaths by gun have dropped over the years, while the number of guns has climbed, does not factually support your attempt to paint either guns or legal gun owners in the manner that your letter would like.

Death is death, regardless of the tool or implement used, or whether it was intentional or non-intentional. It is therefore correct to note the hypocrisy of those who wish to focus on one causation of death to the exclusion of others.

One can, as the anti-gun faction does, focus only on a single instrument used to cause intentional deaths while ignoring the who, what, and why of its misuse. But such is appalling dishonesty. To do so, while purposefully ignoring the facts surrounding the total picture of legal gun ownership and gun use, is nothing more than skewed data designed to produce fictional propaganda to support a dangerous agenda. It is done in order to attempt to deny people the right of self-determination in how they provide for the safety of themselves and their loved ones. It is done to put the responsibility of illegal and criminal gun use on the backs of law-abiding Americans. It is done to further an agenda which holds that only government knows best what is good for the people it is supposed to serve.

If you don't like the Second Amendment, there are Constitutional provisions to eliminate it. Go for it.

dickanders 3 months, 3 weeks ago

There is no suggestion in any of the rules or regulations being discussed, or presidential orders, that denies responsible citizens the right to protect themselves, or keep the guns they own. But something must be done to try to keep assault weapons and the tools to kill innocents out of the hands of deranged or irresponsible people. Background checks have, in the past, been promoted by the NRA, as one of the reasonable ways to prevent guns going to people who should not have them. If your argument is that ANYONE should be able to buy ANY weapon ANYTIME without restriction, then one may assume you intend that criminals and terrorists fit that description as people who should have unrestricted rights to buy whatever weapons they wish. Let's be grown ups in these discussions. Our goal is to stop the gun related deaths resulting from unrestricted gun sales. Can we agree there are some people who should not be allowed unrestricted access to assault weapons? Let's start there.

kyook 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Sure, let's start there. So, we're in agreement that this is a people problem and NOT a gun problem. Can we also agree that given that your premise is true, that if gun sales were only allowed to normal, well adjusted, law abiding, responsible people we would have virtually no chance of heinous gun crimes being committed? Can we also agree that the normal, well adjusted, law abiding, responsible people mentioned above may shift into the category of irresponsible by virtue a traumatic event or chemical imbalance? Can we also agree that only a mental health evaluation on a daily basis for every citizen would be able to determine if/when such a shift might occur. Can we agree that this is a virtual impossibility? Can we also agree that not all guns in the hands of irresponsible people come from gun stores & some are stolen & some are from the black market? How do you propose to control that if it's all about people control & not GUN control, ie: eventual confiscation of some guns? Can we also agree that the current proposed definition of an "assault weapon" is probably far too broad and is probably by design in order to include weapons that just look scary without regard to their actual functionality? Can we also agree that an inanimate object is not capable of a heinous crime by itself?

Sure, let's have a grown up conversation based on a few realities.

davebugg 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Straw men, anyone? It is apparent, for anyone reading that which was specifically addressed, the subject addressed was unrelated to that of background checks and wanting criminals or terrorists to be armed. It is hardly evidence of being a "grown up" when one makes such silly and baseless accusations. Especially when trying to evade the responsibility for making the accusations by couching them in the language of "If your argument is..."

Now that you have decided to introduce the subject of background checks, have you bothered to read what I have repeatedly written in other threads which were specific to that topic? No? Well let me re-state it once more.

I have no problem with requiring anyone who purchases a firearm to undergo a background check. That already has to be done by FFL dealers who sell at gun shows. It would be possible for gun show organizers to set up one, or several, booths and hire an FFL(s) to conduct the NICS check for private purchases.
Internet purchases already require that firearms be shipped to an FFL dealer. The buyer must then go to the FFL and complete the paperwork and background check.
Those who are criminals, who are mentally ill, or who are illegal aliens, should not be allowed to purchase or to have access to firearms. Adequate due process must be in-place.
Those who are below the age of 21 should not be allowed to purchase handguns. Those who are below the age of 18 should not be allowed to purchase long guns. Those under 18 should not have access to any gun without the direct supervision of a parent or a parental designee until they have completed a certified hunting course.

There is currently no "unrestricted access to assault weapons" by anyone, so you seem to want something that already exists. It is also worth mentioning that the NRA didn't just "promote" background checks, they were the ones who championed and lobbied for the NICS background check which is in existence today and has been adopted across the United States. You can also thank the NRA for taking the lead in making the ownership of automatic weapons, including all assault rifles, illegal for over-the-counter sales unless further background checks, age restrictions of the guns, and federal tax stamp requirements are met.