Too many guns

Editor:

Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns. Too many guns.

Karen Glazier

Malden

Private-sector CEOS outwaste government

Editor:

The Feb. 12 editorial treating millions wasted by administrative incompetence as a characteristic of government bureaucracy is unfair. I would expect such commentary from Rush Limbaugh types, but I put the Gazette on a higher level.

Administrative inadequacy is more prevalent in the private sector, where CEOs can avoid public scrutiny and snow the shareholders. A few examples come to mind.

As a retired public employee, it seems that most incompetent public administrators were actually mental fur balls from the private sector. The Nixon gang - Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, etc. - who wasted billions bombing Cambodia, were all from the private sector.

If Enron executives were "the smartest guys in the room," why did so many go to prison for stealing billions from shareholders?

Remember the Edsel, Aztec and Liberty. The auto industry CEOs wasted billions putting these lemons into production, without any survey to see if the public would actually buy them. Everybody thought it was funny when auto executives flew into D.C. in their private jets to beg for money.

The government had to bail out Lockheed, due to billion-dollar overruns a few years back, and may need to bail out Boeing, if they can't fix their Dreamliner batteries.

The recent mortgage crisis created by the CEOs of the largest banks in the country nearly caused a depression. I don't recall any of those CEOs losing anything. In fact, when President Obama bailed them out with billions in taxpayers' money, they actually voted to give themselves huge raises!

Private-sector CEOs may be smarter than public administrators. They always run to the government for help, after squandering billions, and the government helps them!

Ron Corbin

Dunbar

Gun control shouldn't penalize good citizens

Editor:

I do not favor limiting gun rights for the law-abiding citizen. Restricting certain types of firearms will only disarm the citizens who obey the laws, not criminals.

I favor a bill that would require every potential purchaser of a firearm to possess a firearms license. An individual who wishes to purchase or own a firearm should be required to pass an extensive background check, complete a training safety course and be required to pay for a firearms license. Other measures could include closing gun show loopholes, opening up state-to-state information, communication and cooperation regarding sharing information regarding felons, as well as the mentally ill into a national database. This would be the exact opposite of prohibiting law-abiding citizens their ability to purchase weapons to protect their family and property.

When social order breaks down (Katrina, riots, etc.), and one is told that no law enforcement officer is available, who will protect you and your family? Hopefully you will be fortunate enough to have a neighbor who is trained, armed and capable of coming to your defense until the authorities arrive.

Law-abiding citizens should have the ability to possess the proper hardware in order to protect their home and family. This would include continuing the ability to own assault-type semiautomatic rifles and handguns with high-capacity clips. I am not a hunter or a sportsman, so my position involves self-defense of life and property, which demands the need to own a weapon or weapons which are capable of protecting.

Charles Reynolds

Elkview