Friday, March 29, 2002
Patton wrong to oppose concealed-carry law
EDITOR:
Sylvester Patton's statements as printed in The Vindicator on Friday March 22 reflect that he has given little thought to the impact H.B. 274, a proposal that would allow law-abiding citizens the right to carry concealed weapons, would have on high crime urban areas.
Patton states that "members of gangs can legally carry a gun with a permit." The fact is gang members already carry guns. Allowing law-abiding citizens the right to carry guns is not going to increase the number of guns carried by gang members; they do not care to abide by the law.
Under H.B. 274 an individual must subject himself to and pass a criminal background check; take and pass a course on laws, safe handling and proficiency in handling and firing a gun, as well as be at least 21 years of age. In the rare case that a gang member were to reach the age of 21 and still be able to pass a criminal background check, it is highly unlikely that he would present himself to the county sheriff's office and endure the time and expense of the training required. Of the 45 states that have adopted such legislation, this has not proven to be an issue in any of them.
Patton goes on to state "What I am afraid of is the over-saturation of guns in the urban areas ... Now you're talking about law-abiding people having guns ... ."
This is ridiculous. He is admitting that, yes, there are a lot of guns in urban areas. He even indicates that they are in the hands of criminals. But because of this, we should restrict the right of the law-abiding to arm themselves for protection?
Many studies have shown that concealed-carry reduces crime. It only makes sense. Why Mr. Patton would object to this in light of his representation of some of the highest crime neighborhoods in the city only reinforces his willingness to protect the criminal.
Making the job of the criminal more dangerous makes committing crimes less appealing. While the carrying of weapons is restricted it gives the criminal the upper hand. The criminal need only concern himself that his victim be law abiding and therefore unarmed and defenseless. The criminal is already armed; he has no cares for the law.
There is no reason concealed-carry should impact Ohio any differently than it has the other 45 states that have such laws. It will reduce crime. How can you vote against that?
RICK KALEDA
Youngstown
Air safety compromised in Traficant's actions
EDITOR:
For two months, The Vindicator has devoted coverage ad nauseum to the buffoonery which has been allowed to continue in the trial of a U.S. congressman in the federal courthouse in Cleveland. Yet only one throw-away gibe by David Skolnick in his March 22 column touches upon a most frightful aspect of the case.
Skolnick asks why a congressman would have to be bought off if a device for improving the way airliners are landed was "worthwhile." The question falls short in the context of the use of the technology proposed. It must not only be worthwhile, it must, above all, be safe. If it can't stand on its merits alone as a safe system, it has to be wrong to try to buy political pressure to obtain approval from the agency charged with that responsibility.
Arthur Miller's play "All My Sons" contains a similar (although war-time) scenario. It tells of the callous greed of a manufacturer who had shipped faulty parts to the Army, causing fighter planes to crash. Add a legislator who is willing to sell his influence to any bidder, and we find that terrorism is not the only threat to airline safety.
NORMAN A. RHEUBAN
Canfield