Sounding off: More guns means more shootings

As people are tiring of covid, the mass gatherings are resuming, and so are the mass shootings. No other country has this problem, and no other country is so saturated with guns. Coincidence?

I hear all the gun advocates’ arguments and scoff, like guns don’t kill, people do. It’s as silly as saying lawnmowers don’t cut grass. They always talk about the rights of law-abiding citizens, but all murderers were once law-abiding citizens.

No matter what specious arguments the gun people can fabricate, the fact remains that more guns inevitably lead to more shootings. Simple math. It’s amazing that so many people can be willfully blind to this obvious fact.

Often eclipsed by the highly publicized mass shootings are the nearly 40,000 gun deaths a year that we don’t hear about. A plane crash a day, but we look the other way. Only in America.

The outdated and ambiguous Second Amendment has limits, as noted by Justice Antonin Scalia in the 2008 decision (Heller) that interpreted it to mean that nearly anyone can own nearly any gun he wants, no questions asked.

A majority of Americans would like to see assault rifles banned, and background checks for all gun sales. So why does a vociferous minority get to impose their dangerous policies on the rest of us? Where do the rights of gun owners to keep their toys end, and the rights of the rest of us to life, liberty and happiness begin? As a child I admired Joe Cartwright, but I grew out of it. When will America grow up?

Al Duerig, Salem

Giving stimulus check back to government

In response to Cheryl Rossetti’s letter “Disagree with election results? Return stimulus checks”): This is a great idea to try to “pour money back into the Treasury.” I’m ready to lick the stamp to send it back.

Before doing that, however, I propose the following caveats: In return for my patriotic act, I should be exempt from the taxation and inflation that will surely come from the increased national debt caused by those who accepted the money from the great new administration. I should not incur the rate increases from utility companies as the moratoriums on shut-offs expire. I propose to be exempt from costs of health care, feeding and housing associated with thousands of daily illegal immigrants that this new administration is accepting, and finally any costs coming from a looming cold war with China and/or Russia, as this administration proceeds to stoke the flames of hate with them.

In the event my costs over the next four years of this administration do not eclipse the value of my stimulus money, consider my check to be in the mail!

Jim Fontana Sr., Unity

Democracy for all people, not just the powerful

In the 1800s the Republican Party championed the democratic principles of freedom, liberty, justice and equality for all. The Democratic Party stood for the wealthy and powerful, the plantation owners, the captains of industry. It was a tug of war between democracy and oligarchy.

Today we are in that same tug of war. This time the Democrats espouse those principles, while the Republican legislators are in the pockets of the wealthy and powerful. It is evident in their refusal to increase the minimum wage, while endorsing huge tax cuts for the top 1%, reducing the inheritance tax, using taxpayer money to bail out bad acting, too big to fail banks and Wall Street — all actions that continue to redistribute money upwards. The list goes on, especially in the regulatory area by eliminating workers’ rights and reducing financial and environmental standards.

They have failed to hold the wealthy and powerful accountable for their criminal behavior. One standard of justice for the rich and powerful, another standard for everyone else.

Republican lawmakers believe that government should stay out of the way of business making money with no regulation, no social contract, no protection for workers. This type of government might work for the wealthy, but not for you and me. Who is going to protect us from domestic and foreign terrorists, pandemics, the ravages of climate change?

This is not an individual task, but together by pooling our resources, we can help one another. That is what democracy is all about, government of, by and for the people, not just for the wealthy and powerful.

Joanne Garing, North Huntingdon

Where is the covid finish line?

What are the metrics indicating a safe end to the covid-19 guidelines? Deaths, hospitalizations and case numbers are down. Natural immunity and immunizations are up. When is it safe to stop wearing masks, social distancing, limiting health care facility visits, etc.?

The public health experts have been and are in uncharted waters, for instance, with the use of masks: “no need to wear a mask”; then “you should consider wearing a mask”; then “no need to wear a mask — maybe”; “definitely wear a mask”; “you must wear a double mask.”

Surprisingly, these same experts who couldn’t decide on mask use never developed a safe, effective, cheap therapeutic regimen for treating covid-19, which skyrocketed the general public’s fears. Yet despite their less-than-stellar track record, they, in an audacious manner, mocked anyone, inside or outside the medical community, who suggested a possible safe, cheap, effective therapeutic.

Currently, our experts have a track record that includes a trail of nursing home deaths; bungled mask recommendations; modified distancing guidelines; zero medical therapies — big pharma pulled tight on that leash; and who can only deliver vaccines to well-publicized vaccination events in sport stadiums, hotels and large hospital systems. Certainly, a grounding unable to support any audacious pretense!

As we race toward an indeterminate finish line, I haven’t any expectation that we will know what that line is until we have crossed it. I hope and pray, for our society’s sake, that the line isn’t too close to a cliff.

Rev. James Holland, West Deer

Making voting easier the right thing to do

State Rep. Michael J. Puskaric, R-Washington/Allegheny, has introduced House Bill 25, “Abolishing the No Excuse Mail in Vote former HB 2971.”

This appears to be the same modus operandi used by the Republican party — create confusion regarding no-excuse absentee ballots, followed by legislation to repeal no-excuse absentee ballots as a “solution” due to “public confusion” regarding such ballots.

Testimony before the House State Government Committee on March 18 by Pam Anderson, Richard T. Gebbie, Thad Hall, Amber McReynolds and Charles Stewart clearly shows that such a “problem” does not exist naturally and is only the result of gaslighting by the GOP.

If efforts would be made to make voting easier rather than more difficult, Pennsylvania, and indeed the United States, would be much better for it.

Ray Cefola, Plum

Doug Chew doesn’t speak for all

I write to strongly disagree with Westmoreland Commissioner Doug Chew’s comments regarding mail-in voting (“Westmoreland commissioner says county voters want end to no-excuse mail-in ballots, another disputes that”). Chew does not speak for all his constituency; I wager to guess he speaks for only a select few of his followers in the Republican Party.

First of all, over 15,000 Republicans in the county voted via mail-in ballot in the last election, and a total of 57,000 voters overall chose the mail-in option. As for his contention that mail-in ballots create a situation rife for voter fraud, perhaps Chew should recall that absentee ballots have been used successfully in this country since the Civil War. There has been no evidence of voter fraud in the last election, despite the excessive number of investigations and court cases accusing citizens of such.

Chew once again is showing he is more interested in pleasing a few Republicans than supporting his entire constituency. Perhaps he should spend more time trying to get our citizens vaccinated against covid than worrying about his political allies.

Carol Mintus, Hempfield