Existing gun laws aren’t enforced
In response to “Congress, do your job, tighten gun laws” (Dec. 4 Forum):
Would Forum writer Bob Burroughs and other gun control advocates care to explain how stricter gun control laws are going to reduce gun violence when the Justice Department doesn’t enforce gun control laws already on the books?
If you don’t believe me, Google the name Dontray Mills.
Never miss a local story.
He was charged with 55 counts of buying firearms with fake IDs and pleaded guilty to only one charge.
He was sentenced by a federal judge to probation with no jail time.
Stan Nelson, Matthews
I blame inadequate gun laws on GOP
If you want to kill someone, Republicans have fought to legalize assault weapons designed specifically for that purpose.
Republicans have also strongly opposed a ban on armor-piercing bullets.
They’ve fought a ban on high-capacity magazines that allow you to inflict maximum carnage in minimum time.
And if you are a suspected terrorist on the no-fly watch list, Republicans have ensured that you’ll be able to buy assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and plenty of ammunition.
They talk pro-life. They vote pro-death.
Jim Price, Huntersville
A disconnect in the gun permit process
In response to “Let my partner carry a gun on campus to protect himself” (Dec. 4 Opinion):
I agree with much of what Peter McClelland says about the value of arming citizens against gun violence. But there’s a big disconnect between the concealed carry certification and putting guns into the right hands.
The concealed carry course I took in North Carolina was attended largely by men angry at specific people and issues. One asked if deadly force was OK if somebody broke off his hood ornament.
The only person directly observing an applicant is the instructor, and he seems unwilling or unable to influence the granting of a permit as long as the applicant attends the course.
That’s not much of a safeguard.
Tom Massey, Waxhaw
Push should be for clean energy options
In response to “Climate talks at odds with reality” (Dec. 3 Opinion):
The writer is a Clean Air Carolina board member.
Those who argue against action in response to climate change on the grounds of economic hardship for individuals and nations lack a moral compass.
Protecting human health and stewarding our planet for the sake of the next generations ought to be our overriding moral guideposts.
Air pollution, which contributes to climate change, is linked to asthma, cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It leads to higher health care costs, missed work/school days, agriculture yield losses and damaged aquatic life.
A swift transition to clean energy sources will improve air quality and help stabilize our climate.
Even if climate change were not part of the picture, soiling our planet without taking corrective steps is just plain wrong.
Libby Cable, Davidson
Use carbon tax to incentivize change
I agree that there is an economic impact to switching off of carbon-based fuels. But, it’s not an either/or issue.
A carbon tax is the best way to incentivize the transition to no-carbon energy sources.
But to compensate for the reasonable increased cost of gas and coal, we should adopt a plan that rebates all monies from the tax directly back to households while we transition.
According to a Citizens Climate Lobby study, the majority of U.S. households would receive more back than their bills would increase.
Dean Kluesner, Charlotte
On ISIS, simplistic solutions won’t work
In response to “It’ll take bombs and troops to defeat ISIS” (Dec. 2 Forum):
Al-Qaida in Iraq became ISIS.
But before you blame President Obama’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq, it was President Bush who said: “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”
That war lasted eight more years.
Yet here we are.
Yes, we must stop terrorism. But “shock and awe” didn’t work probably because we didn’t have the near total knowledge of adversary and environment vital for rapid dominance.
Nor will other simplistic solutions work.
Kathleen Britton, Charlotte