Letters to the editor - Wednesday (2-27-2013)

  • Posted: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 12:12 a.m.

Let’s take another look at gun issues, solutions

On guns, let me try this again as simply as possible.

1. I am not against gun ownership.

2. I am against the death of innocent people.

3. I do no think hysterical cries of “have to peel my gun from my cold, dead hand” add anything to stopping the killings.

4. The president has not at any time suggested the confiscation of all guns.

5. I agree with him that there has to be a solution that reduces deaths.

6. Gun education may be an important part of reducing the carnage. It has helped to have driver education. It is helping to have sex education.

7. We license cars and drivers. We should do the same with guns and owners.

8. We all look like fools when we call Syria a mess, with 70,000 people killed in two years of war, and 8,500 have been murdered in the U.S. this past year when we are at “peace.”

9. We have increased gun manufacturers’ profits with the surge of gun buying. Will we see a reduction in gun deaths?

10. Solutions to the problem would be welcome by those who are potential future victims, their families, friends and maybe you, as a prisoner of paranoia.

11. Mental health professionals, medical professionals and government officials have to work together to legally identify dangerously disturbed people who should not have weapons.

12. We need to keep better track of gun criminals, as we do sex offenders.

— Donald C. Tracy


Health-reform fallout

My mother works for a home-care agency. She provides care and safety for older and invalid people at a wage just barely over minimum wage. She struggles to get by and was devastated to learn that the company is cutting employees down to 29 hours a week so that the owner does not have to provide health insurance under the new health-care mandate. Of course, at that reduced income, affordable health care is not going to be available for Mom. This is unfair to the people affected by the company’s reduction in hours.

— Susan E. Kluttz


Editor’s note: Under the Affordable Care Act, beginning next Jan. 1, companies with 50 or more full-time workers or their equivalent must offer health-care coverage to full-time employees or face penalties. The ACA defines “full time” as someone who works an average of 30 or more hours a week. Media reports have noted that some companies have already begun reducing employees’ hours because of the added expense of insurance or penalties.

Notice about comments:

Salisburypost.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Salisburypost.com cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not Salisburypost.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here.

Do not post the following:

  • Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
  • Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
  • Personal attacks, insults or threats.
  • The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
  • Comments unrelated to the story.