Letters to the Editor

Respect gun rights, but with common-sense gun laws

Find common ground on gun laws

Katie Sonnen-Lee
Katie Sonnen-Lee

As I dropped my 6-year-old off at school the morning after the Thousand Oaks shooting I wasn’t thinking about what he would learn or eat for lunch. I was thinking about how a shooter might access his classroom, where he could hide, and that I need to make sure my last words to him are “I love you.”

We have had 307 mass shootings this year in the U.S. That is 307 too many.

In just the last few weeks, we have seen horrific shootings in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and California. We must enact common-sense gun legislation in our country. I respect the Second Amendment, and we can ensure both the right to own guns and be safe in our schools and gathering places.

Katie Sonnen-Lee, Winston-Salem

To end carnage, denounce the NRA

Constance Kolpitcke
Constance Kolpitcke

Thursday’s deaths of 12 people in the Thousand Oaks slaughter was the 307th mass shooting in the United States this year. That is nearly equal to the number of days so far in 2018.

Apparently our government officials are oblivious to the facts, or are ignoring their responsibility.

Citizens should demand action to end the carnage. They can start by denouncing the NRA.

Do our government officials love their guns more than the right of us all to be free of gun violence?

Constance Kolpitcke, Cornelius

No need for health insurance companies

In response to “Insurance companies are a business first” (Nov. 8 Forum):

Ken Owensby
Ken Owensby

Perhaps Forum writer Herman Lands is correct when he says expecting insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is ludicrous.

Insurance, by definition, is designed to protect against unforeseen risk. Healthcare insurance has evolved past the concept of pure insurance, which is why the “insurance company” component of the equation no longer makes sense.

The single-payer system takes the insurance company hand out of the middle that feeds shareholders and corporate executives. Health care should not be a for-profit entity. Delivery of services should be made to all who need it.

So yes Herman, healthcare insurance companies should not cover preexisting conditions. They shouldn’t exist at all.

Ken Owensby, Charlotte

Insurance industry isn’t the bad guy

In response to “I live in fear of my son losing insurance” (Nov. 9 Forum):

I genuinely feel for individuals with expensive medical conditions that make it nearly impossible for insurance companies to provide coverage for them.

Still, we all know how unfair life is – some people are born better-looking, more athletic, or gifted artistically to the extent that they are able to lead better lives than the rest of us, but we accept and adjust to this “uneven distribution of wealth.”

The insurance industry is by no means perfect, but they aren’t the bad guys here. There probably is a role for government assistance in situations like Forum writer Connie Smith describes.

Phil Clutts, Harrisburg

Climate change must trump everything

We’ve had two “500-year” storm events in the past two years in North Carolina.

Finally, some in the NC GOP now admit climate change is real and caused by humans. Yet, little of the election coverage was about climate change.

There is no economy on a dead planet and unemployment numbers and jobs reports don’t matter.

Wake up, people, and understand that climate change trumps everything!

Steven S. English, Charlotte

Don’t legalize pot to boost the economy

With this midterm legalization of pot in Michigan, I clearly see that the U.S. wants to build up its government coffers with taxes from legalization of this drug.

We really need to keep a close eye on further pot legalization in other states. A country propped up with drug sale profits is going to weaken our status on this planet in the long haul.

As a Trump supporter, I hope President Trump will take a long, hard look at this business as a way to strengthen our economy. In the long run, I think it is a very bad crutch.

Ron Feuer, Charlotte

Time to eliminate daylight-saving time

Daylight-saving time was introduced over 100 years ago during WWI to conserve fuel and allow workers more daylight to work.

Times have changed and 100 years of bouncing one hour back and forth has done us no favors. Now, we use more energy because of DST, not less. Our circadian rhythms take a beating twice every year. And, our children are randomly thrown into darkness to wait for school buses.

On the 100th anniversary of the end of WWI, isn’t it finally time we rid ourselves of this unnecessary burden as other states have done and stay with Eastern Standard Time?

Sandra Holyfield, Charlotte

  Comments