Letters to the editor

Posted: September 07, 2012

WOW, AFTER reading Sandra Shea's piece of truly yellow journalism ("The Gun Room," Sept. 5), I finally understand what's wrong with gun-control advocates: They actually think they're experts on guns, despite not having the first clue.

Shea starts out by qualifying herself as having gone to a range and having a brother with guns. By that logic, since my brother flies Cessnas, apparently I'm qualified to train F-18 pilots. Ugh.

I'm more inclined to believe the NRA, which probably knows a thing or two about guns, than a journalist whose primary area of study seems to be presenting uneducated opinion as fact.

Here's a concept: How about fewer gun restrictions? We've mostly been ratcheting up the gun restrictions for the past 40-plus years, and, during that time, we saw drastic rises in violence - peaking in the '80s and early '90s - which often resulted in calls for yet more gun restrictions. In 1993, the NRA predicted that the Brady Law, which mandated background checks for all prospective gun owners, would have zero effect at keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Ten years later, in 2003, gun-control researcher Philip Cook proved the NRA correct.

One of the few areas where gun laws relaxed, in the '90s and early 2000s, was the carrying of concealed weapons. The NRA predicted states that relaxed their carry standards would see a reduction in violent crime? Well, golleeeee! Turned out they were right! Since Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban was struck down by the Supreme Court, homicide in that city has fallen 40 percent. And, when the Federal Assault Weapon Ban expired in 2004, gun-control zealots, of course, predicted the end of the world; since then, violent crime has fallen 12 percent nationwide. Imagine how much further crime would decline if we eliminated more restrictions.

Seems the only thing gun-control advocates get right is getting it wrong.

Steve Thompkins


Nonunion, anti-union

The majority of union members are Democrats. The Labor Day parade marched against the GOP and Mayor Nutter. They should have marched against the Democratic Party for holding their convention in a nonunion town, on a stage built by nonunion laborers.

Philadelphia is a strong union city, which has union-elected officials who haven't said one word about this. But they want to blame the Republican Party, by saying it's an enemy to the labor movement.

I know quite a few union members who are Republicans, like myself. How about blaming the Democrats running the city for these problems? The city workers haven't had a contract in more than four years; now the city is appealing the Fire Department's arbitration award again, for the second time.

Put the blame where it should be. Democrats have been running the city since the '50s - how many food chains, trucking companies, meat plants and other businesses have closed since then?

Mario Marchetti


Something new?

So long, farewell and good riddance. I'm assuming that since there are no ribbons left to cut in Philadelphia, Mayor Nutter's job here is complete ("Mr. Nutter goes to Washington?" Sept. 5). Let's see, his accomplishments: Our city is broke, our schools are broke, and the unions in this city are ticked off at him because he will not honor any union's contract.

Mr. Mayor is in North Carolina with his staff at the Democratic National Convention. (Taxpayers are paying for this trip because this is a "working trip.") I certainly could not afford a trip to North Carolina - or any Carolina, for that matter. Mayor Nutter has raised my property taxes and those of other residents of Philadelphia three times in four years. Mr. Nutter was ready to raise the property taxes again so that there would be money for the schools. Mayor Nutter should have asked Ms. Ackerman for some of that money she left town with.

It's no wonder the mayor is looking for a new job - why would he want to face all the work here left to be completed? Don't worry, Mr. Mayor, there are plenty of scissors in Washington and lots and lots of ribbons.

Tina Bellosi


Time to speak out

Since when does the city have money for frivolous concerts but will not give the unions a fair contract? When is Pete Matthews going to speak out on these kind of outrageous expenditures?

Barbara A. Tarvydas


Just dropping in . . .

Dom Giordano is a "teacher-turned-talk-show host." That is a good thing because now we can "filter" him out.

His opinions in "Criminal Parents?" article (Sept. 5) are a bunch of nonsense. In Pennsylvania, there are 501 school districts whose taxpayers generally fund the majority of their district's costs through real-estate taxes. They pay their taxes for their neighbors and local residents. You pay something if you are a property owner or tenant in that district. Those taxpayers are not paying for people to just "drop in" and increase their school's overhead costs.

I hope that Giordano is a member of some organization so that I can just "drop in," not pay anything and take advantage of what he paid for. Thanks, Dom.

Mayer Krain


comments powered by Disqus