More gun control factors

Editor: After reading Steve Hansen’s Feb. 12 article I find it encouraging as more people are facing the hot-button issue of gun control with insight and logic not out-ofcontrol emotion incited by the evening news media.

Many say times have changed and there is too much access to firearms today and we need more gun laws. We all know that laws, not just gun laws, are only effective when people obey them. If a person has lost mental or emotional control or is intent on committing a criminal act then a law will not stop that person from carrying out a crime.

Drunk driving, speeding, writing bad checks, assault, to name a few violations of law, occur everyday and it is folly to believe additional laws for these same crimes will stop violators.

In another gun control facet antigun groups believe firearms cause violence and more restrictions are needed. If this belief were true then it follows that automobiles cause people to drive drunk, eating utensils make people overweight, etc.

Human behavior is solely responsible for the actions arising out of the objects under their control, inanimate objects can only come to life when set in motion by human control. Sadly it is a fact that everyday humans are harmed other humans. Regrettably voters usually cast their ballots based on emotion or a friend’s input rather then taking time to read or research ballot items for themselves.

The Bay Area area and sprawling Southern California/L.A. region possess the lion’s share in determining our state’s political flavor. It is not surprising that generating or supporting ongoing anti-gun legislation ensures politicians from these areas will keep their Sacramento seat. Unfortunately law-abiding gun owners can only watch as Sacramento slowly chips away at our constitution’s second amendment.

DAN SWANSON

Lodi

Time to go green

Editor: Ever get so focused on a task that another timely need was forgotten? The president of the United States isn’t guilty of that foible — he rarely works — but he inadvertently invoked that error of judgement when attacking proponents of a sweeping plan which includes efforts to battle climate change.

Trump’s mockery ignored international treaties and programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions that trap atmospheric heat and raise global temperatures, this melting polar ice caps and glaciers. Instead, he assailed opposition party leaders for their environmental proposals, according to a Feb. 10 report by website Geobeats:

“President Trump slammed the proposed “Green New Deal,” recently unveiled by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others.

“‘I think it is very important for the Democrats to press forward with their Green New Deal,’ Trump tweeted. ‘It would be great for the so-called ‘Carbon Footprint’ to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil, Gas & the Military — even if no other country would do the same. Brilliant!’

“... A Forbes piece notes, the resolution ‘calls for a host of policies, including free education, guaranteed jobs, and a nationwide mandate for 100% renewable energy, all within a 10-year plan. All of this may sound great, but ... ignores economic reality.’

“Presidential hopeful Kirsten Gillibrand recently said: “I believe that global climate change is the greatest crisis that humanity faces .... I think green new deal is an excellent place to start’.”

The editors of Forbes and Trump fail to recognize the massive economic benefits of implementing the “Green New Deal.” It would support development of advanced new technology, representing new jobs, export products, and business growth.

Of Trump’s list, only cows can’t be affected by means of limiting emissions. They pass gas, sending methane into the air. Compared to the massive volume of pollutants produced by machinery, vehicles and industrial processes, that’s a relatively minor concern.

If life is to survive on Earth, the “Green New Deal” will be a good beginning on reshaping industrial societies. LANGE WINCKLER Lodi