The myths about firearm safety
Rename the bridge
Regarding “Mass shooting breaks out in a state of gun control” (Insight, Dec. 6): Conservative commentator Debra J. Saunders, like many other anti-gun control folks, is wailing over losing the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. This is a typical twisted tactic she often adopts. I have not known anyone who is against the Second Amendment, including President Obama. Gun safety laws do not mean guns should be banned from our society. Gun safety laws mean a safer place for all of us to live. If we practice strict gun laws, there will be fewer guns in our society, which translates to fewer gun-related deaths; yet, law-abiding citizens, especially living in a remote area, will still be able to protect themselves with guns. It is absurd to see more than 10,000 U.S. citizens killed by gun violence each year, and it is even crazier not to do anything about it by spreading a false statement that the U.S. government is going to take away the Second Amendment. We do not have to be a statistician to believe that the numbers do not lie. Fewer guns available means fewer gun-related deaths. Australia has proved this theory.
Masayoshi Anzai, San Francisco
After reading “Chronicle right to expose defects on new Bay Bridge” (Insight, Dec. 6), I had some thoughts about names for the bridge and its two spans. First, the name San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge is too long; rename it the “Emperor Norton Bridge” (one of my pet causes). Next, keep the name the Willie L. Brown span for the western span. But last and most apt, name the eastern span the “Caltrans Disaster.”
William Heilman, Pacifica
Vote for changes
Regarding “Mass shooting breaks out in a state of gun control” (Insight, Dec. 6): Does Debra J. Saunders advocate anarchy? In response to Sen. Barbara Boxer’s call for Congress to pass laws that will ban the sale of assault-style weapons, Saunders writes, “Boxer does not understand that there are a lot of people in this country who prefer to take charge of their own protection rather than cede their security to laws that don’t work.” Yes, some of the laws governing our safety are imperfect and the loopholes must be tightened, but in a civil society, citizens shouldn’t be encouraged to become their own vigilantes if they don’t like a law. In a democracy, we work for change through our vote.
Marcia Nute, Inverness
Radical GOP
In John Diaz’s editorial “This is not entertainment, folks” (Insight, Dec. 6), he calls out Donald Trump’s rhetoric as propaganda, xenophobia, bigotry and dangerous. Coupled with Robert Reich’s “Candidates — don’t inflame national debate with hate” (Insight, Dec. 6), both pieces suggest we are beginning to see the writing on the wall. “Shame on Trump” (Letters, Dec. 7) draws a very clear comparison between the ascendance of Hitler in Germany and the hate-filled demagoguery of Trump and company. Let’s not be fooled into thinking Trump is a lone renegade. An argument can be made that he is the leading edge of a radical flying wedge campaign strategy deliberately designed to dominate the media, normalize hateful bigotry and capture the presidency in the process. Trump is out front pushing the envelope, but listen carefully to the rest of the Republican field. They are all singing from the same xenophobic hymnal. It is time we recognize that these candidates no longer represent the Grand Old Party or even the Tea Party, but something very dangerous. Dangerously close to what is defined as fascism.
Keith Weber, San Mateo
Firearm rights
I keep waiting for a gun owner who, like Debra J. Saunders, takes comfort in the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms to have more than an “it-is-whatit-is attitude” about gun violence in America. Though a pacifist myself, I respect a citizen’s right to own a firearm. However, I want reassurance that gun owners are as concerned as most Americans are about the needless deaths and injuries shooters cause each year, either by design or accident. As this subject has been debated at least since the 1981 Reagan-Brady shooting, I assumed that Saunders, in choosing to write about it this week, had some fresh ideas to offer. Instead, she reiterates the mantra heard too often from feisty gun owners: It’s not as bad as people think, we have enough laws already, and manufacturers would find legal ways around Washington restrictions. She scoffs at President Obama for noting the irony that someone considered dangerous enough to be on a no-fly list can legally buy a firearm in the U.S. The broken lives gun violence causes should not be scoffed at or accepted as the status quo. Nor should Saunders’ advice, a gun in every pocket, be the norm.
Susan Berg, Lafayette