Gun control

Dear Editor:

Recently we’ve all heard discussions and proposals on gun control. These have all been about an assault weapons ban, the Second Amendment, the NRA, background checks, improved mental health access, pervasive video violence, etc. But none that I’ve heard have addressed what I consider the real problem: the American culture, which has long been enamored by guns.

The media have been able to turn our populace against smoking, drunk driving, certain drugs, obesity, even red meat! They should simply add guns to this list.

Robert Haas

Claremont

Sticking to her guns

Dear Editor:

I read the open letter to gun owners in the January 23 edition of the COURIER and had to laugh at the recommendation that NRA members should give up their membership, “as the NRA does not represent the sensible gun owner.”

As an NRA member, I have been able to access classes such as “Refuse to be a victim,” which teaches a variety of crime prevention strategies from criminal psychology to auto crimes to cyber crime and some physical combat self-defense tools.  It isn’t even a firearms course. That seems sensible to me.

Also, there is the Eddie Eagle program teaching pre-K through third grade children how to avoid gun accidents with the admonition: “If you see a gun, stop! Don’t touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.” Approximately 18 million children in the US, Canada and Puerto Rico have been through the class. That seems sensible to me, too.

My favorite take away from my NRA “Gun Safety for Women” class was that the average response time to a 911 call can be 10 to 23 minutes depending on the city. The response time of a .357 [Magnum revolver] is 1400 feet per second.

I think I would rather occupy a burglar with my .357 in case the police were delayed by traffic.

Oh…and as a sensible gun owner, I think I’ll do the sensible thing and keep my NRA membership active.

Wendy Hampton

Claremont

Investing in Claremont

Dear Editor:

Thank you for the careful coverage you are giving to the current debate regarding the possible purchase of Golden State Water. I also appreciated the thoughtful analysis by Dr. Freeman Allen, who is an excellent authority on the topic.

Hal Hargrave, Randy Scott and Claremont Against Outrageous Water Rates have done a great job providing information and keeping the discussion alive.  I love living in a community where there is a forum and a passion for informed conversation and decision.

Today I received a flyer from an organization named California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights with a return address located in Folsom, California.

I am offended that this mysterious third party would presume to insert itself into our town hall discussion. I am curious as to where their funding has come from. We received more than one flyer at our address. Who paid for it? Next they will want a donation.

I am fully supportive of the acquisition of Golden State by the city of Claremont; their pumps are installed down the street from my house, where they pump the water out from under our neighborhoods, process it and return it to us at a huge cost.

It is certain that water will only become a more precious resource in the future. It is prudent that the city should control this valuable asset. Eminent domain seems a reasonable solution in this situation. Yes, it will be expensive. Yes, initially our water rates may not decrease. However, the long-term investment in our own water company will repay us bountifully.

I would rather invest in my city and its resources than continue to support a profit-grabbing and overbearing company such as Golden State Water.

Carla Johnson

Claremont