Add fingerprint IDs and insurance on guns
Here are two more “Loaded ideas” (Editorial, Aug. 8) for Gov. Gavin Newsom and our state legislature to consider, besides the regulation of state gun ammunition sales under Proposition 63: First, why not also require all legal gun owners to carry liability insurance, in the same manner that all car owners are required to?
If used improperly or illegally, guns can cause injuries and fatalities, for which victims and victims’ families should be compensated. Second, also require all gun manufacturers, as a condition for selling their products in our state, to equip their weapons with fingerprint ID technology. That way, only those who legally purchase guns will be able to use them, not those who steal or acquire them secondhand.
Jeremy Davidoff, Novato
All about the president
Both before and after his trips to Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, to console and comfort the victims and families of last weekend’s horrific mass shootings, President Trump decided to attack political opponents and local leaders who criticized his racebaiting language or linked it to these recent acts of domestic terrorism.
He also had a media director post photos online of him with hospital staff workers, along with a caption that he was “treated like a Rock Star.” Again and again, Trump makes every event including these national tragedies all about him. He’s not a Healer in Chief, just a Big Heel (with a dubious bone spur). Suzanne PetersonReed, Santa Rosa
Tax on public safety
Regarding “City signals goahead for cannabis sales at this year’s festival” (Business, Aug. 8): Did you feel the slide down the slippery slope of California’s marijuana policy? The Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC — how ironic), gave the OK for marijuana permits at this year’s Outside Lands. The promise of allowing marijuana for personal use in private was an unachievable lie from the beginning, used by advocates to have California voters approve legalization of marijuana.
Today, walk down any street in San Francisco and see the open smoking of marijuana on sidewalks, in parks, in cars and by pedestrians. Now, government protection will expose nonsmokers of marijuana and cigarettes alike to use in public spaces and events. It’s no wonder San Francisco has become an anythinggoescity in need of Drug Enforcement Administration intervention with the openair drug dealing. With sanctions of sales of cannabis edibles at the event, we will no doubt see our emergency medical services system stretched to the limits and the surrounding neighborhoods will suffer as well. I hope there is an afteraction review of this event to show the tax on public safety and clean up resources.
Jim Dudley, San Francisco
Shrinking habitats
Regarding “Oysters in peril as climate warms” (Page 1, Aug. 8): Here in California, where citizens have directly experienced the devastating effects of global warming with wildfires and drought, it’s sadly not surprising to learn that humancaused climate change is harming oysters and other shellfish by shrinking their ocean habitats. But in Washington, D.C., the U.S. president still considers climate change to be a hoax, and wants to increase offshore drilling for fossil fuels. I suppose that as long as he can continue to consume junk food and tweet lies, he’ll simply regard news stories like this one to be fake news.
Carolyn Crawford, San Francisco
Armed citizen inquiry
In “Poor shots” (Letters, Aug. 8), the writer asks important questions about the safety of arming citizens who, hypothetically, could stop a mass shooter. An experienced marksman himself, he asks those who consider getting a gun for protection, “Are you sure you can actually kill someone?” That question deserves careful thought. I would change the wording to “Are you sure you would actually want to kill another human being?” It’s alarming to imagine that National Rifle Associationinfluenced people today may casually answer, sure I would shoot to kill for self protection or to protect others.
Do gun owners give enough thought to how they would sleep at night after possibly shooting innocent victims or taking anyone’s life? What is the point, or maybe the appeal, of a gun if not to kill?
Isn’t there a thou shalt not kill warning in the Ten Commandments? Isn’t now the time to take that seriously if only to honor the countless massacre victims, both dead and still living?
Susan Brown, San Carlos
Rethink gun policies
Regarding “Gun lovers have own sanctuary city” (Aug. 1): I have traveled through Needles four times in the past 17 months. You can bet I won’t be stopping there for gas or a motel ever again. Maybe if a lot of people do the same, they’ll feel it in their pocketbook and rethink their policies. Most cars can make it since there’s actually more gas stations outside of Needles than you might think. Paulette Bellamy, Lemoore
On full display
Regarding “Crowd shows up to see school mural” (Aug. 2): So more than 100 people were allowed, during a twohour period, to visit George Washington High School in order to view and discuss a controversial work of art? Well, I’d also encourage these visitors to take a trip to the de Young Museum or San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, where exhibits featuring controversial paintings and thoughtprovoking photos are on display on a regular basis for weeks or months at a time.
Dorothy Van Horne, San Francisco
Desensitized nation
Of course assault rifles should be banned and even confiscated. But on the unlikely chance that were to happen, illegal guns would still be available. It’s my opinion that American society has become desensitized to the idea of blasting away at perceived enemies.
Action movies are full of this stuff. Good guys and bad guys alike blaze away, flexing their mechanical power and confirming their virility. Video games are the worst offenders. Manboys spend hours at the screen shooting without consequence. Socalled adults as well as kids are great fans of these addicting pastimes. Maybe some new entertainment codes are in order.
Dave Coleman, Castro Valley
Honor the students
The impassioned opinions of the Board of Education, politicians, leaders of the black community, artists and members of the community at large about the controversial mural at George Washington High School seem to omit a key stakeholder. Adults are not the ones obliged to look at this mural as a part of their daily high school experience. What about the student body of George Washington High?
Who’s best to say whether exposure to art — even uncomfortable art — is healthy, stimulating and worthy of students’ debate, as suggested by one New York Times article. If this mural negatively affects students, then it’s not a question of whitewashing history or safeguarding art, but rather if we are creating a positive environment for students. Any good school should ask this question and ask it of its students. Keep the mural. Remove it. Or board it over, encasing it safely in the archival structure of the school like a prisoner of time. But honor the students’ voices and their social conscience. Regardless of what happens, they will develop their own framework, lexicon and lesson about the mural, or the space it occupied. Why not give them ownership of this debate and their educational space? Patrick Nelligan, El Cerrito