YOUR VIEWS
Seeking balance
It is certainly understandable and justified that we are upset and concerned about Russia trying to affect our elections. But shouldn’t we also be concerned that former President Obama sent agents to Israel in an attempt to keep Prime Minister Netanyahu from being re-elected? Where is the balance?
Ken Coates, Ponca City
Laws do have effect
Rick Jerman (Your Views, March 9) uses purely anecdotal evidence to prove a flimsy point. He uses texting while driving and DUIs to prove that gun control is impractical. He also resorts to hyperbole by arguing against banning weapons which, of course, no one is seriously arguing for.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published a study called Statistical Analysis of Alcohol Related Driving Trends 1982-2005. The study shows a significant reduction in alcohol-related driving incidents during the 20-year time frame and found that 44 percent of the reduction was directly attributable to tightening laws regarding DUIs.
In an article by Politifact, reporters talked to a law professor and former NRA board member, Joseph Olson, who has studied how criminals acquire their guns. While the number of criminals who used legally acquired guns was, as a whole, negligible, he said there were two key exceptions regarding homicides. “Legal firearms are often found when the killings occur during domestic violence and mass shootings.”
Tightening the legal code did lead to a reduction in alcohol-related driving incidents and a particular portion of “criminals” do in fact acquire their guns legally. This shows that tightening gun purchasing laws could result in lower instances of domestic violence homicides and mass shooting. While it wouldn’t solve all our gun violence problems, it would certainly be a good start.
Bryon Springer, Stillwater
Where’s OEA’s plan?
The OEA did a great disservice to education by making demands and not having the decency to put forth some kind of plan to solve the problem. They could have looked again at the Boren sales tax plan but remove the funding going to universities, since the schools can raise tuition to pay professors, which they do every year. Also figure out if it’s true that administrators were in for a pay raise and fix that. I feel they could get a 5-cent gas tax approved by the voters. Or take what was defeated this year and take it to the people.
Going on strike now is like going on strike for dinner when there is no food in the house. The OEA appears to have no clue about the reality of the situation. Is a strike supposed to cause these people to do something they know needs to be done, but can’t get enough votes to make happen? I doubt it. A strike without a clear plan to strike for is pure folly. Teachers will ultimately alienate the people who are their strongest supporters, their patrons.
William Stewart, Oklahoma City
What Second Amendment says
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” That is the Second Amendment to the Constitution word for word. Nowhere does it state, suggest or imply that people have the right to take up arms against their government. That question was settled on April 9, 1865.
In 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, we had no standing army. We didn’t want one and couldn’t afford one. A militia was the solution for our defense. The language of the Second Amendment does not bar the federal or state governments from regulating weaponry. If you disagree, go try to buy a bazooka or a flamethrower.
J.K. Craig, Bethany