Letters to the Editor - January 4, 2013

Only online subscribers may access this article.

One-day subscriptions available for just $2. Subscribe online by clicking here.

Already a subscriber, please .



"Thousands lose their lives in auto accidents caused by drunk drivers. Should we blame Mothers Against Drunk Driving for alerting us to the dangers of drunk driving? Smoking causes lung cancer. Should we blame those who told the truth and supported anti-smoking regulations for the increase in smoke-free places?"

Well put.

Dances with Redwoods

"We have met the enemy and he is us." --Marilyn Reeves

The true enemy is the occasional deranged individual ..or.. group of individuals that commit unjustifiable acts of homicide and terror, for whatever their reasoning or cause.

What is also a truly unconscionable act, is the suppression of a peoples ability to defend themselves, their families and their homes through superior firepower against any, and all with designs of commtting unjustifiable acts of homicide and terror upon them or their neighbors.

Michael Tubbs Sr
Grand Ronde, Oregon

Dances with Redwoods

The highest level of unjustifiable homicides committed in America occur where ever liberal/progressive thinkers congregate in the largest numbers.

Coincidence perhaps?

Don Dix

Merilyn Reeves -- "I hope that the time has come to put aside the propaganda and look at the facts"

Easily said, not so easily done.

Unfortunately, incidents such as the Ohio National Guard firing upon unarmed students protesting the invasion of Cambodia at Kent State in 1970 must be included in the discussion. The numbers here include 67 rounds in 13 seconds, leaving 4 dead and 9 wounded.

So, which category is this? A justifiable action, or a mass murder?

Dances with Redwoods

"So which category is this?" --Don Dix

For the sake of argument, sayl law enforcement officers (each) believing their life is in emminent danger, fire their weapons at a mistakingly identified person, believed (by discription) to be an armed and dangerous murderer. That person then draws his or her legally concealed weapon, returns fire resulting in the death of those officers.

Would that person, having returned fire in self defense of their own life, resulting in the deaths of those officers be judged as having committed justifiable homicides, or a mass murder, in your opinion, Don?

What say ye, yay..or..nay.

Dances with Redwoods

That being said, what if there had been an armed Kent State University professor with a concealed weapon license that had returned fire at the persons killing his un-armed students on that campus that day. Something to consider, is it not?

In a college setting, should only staff be allowed to defend themselves yet not allow students that have already been licensed to carry concealed firearms?

Do you remember the term 'Going Postal' as applied to more than just a few disgrunteled federal employees some years back. Now we have larger numbers of 'Road Rage' incidents where people actually drive their motor-vehicals into groups of other people for whatever reason that seems logical at the moment.

I watched a recent CBS 60 minutes segment about the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and the change/effect that has occurred as a result of the city having banned all advertising. Perhaps we might consider doing the same here, in America.

Especially, commercials that advertise violence such as rape and murder for the purpose of entertainment. Any thoughts?

Don Dix


I say there is a huge difference between hypothetical and reality. Your scenario is only a possibility. Kent is an unfortunate part of history.

The question was asked because incidents such as Kent State did not involve someone stealing a gun(s) and going on a shooting rampage. The shooters were "provided" with weaponry, and just as Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Clackamas, etc., the victims were unaware (of the possibility of being shot) and unarmed. Many similarities after the shooting began, wouldn't you say?

Dances with Redwoods


I agree, but I would also add that my hypothetical's do have a much higher probability of occurring in America today due to the proliferation in the issuance CCL's.

I believe ( I could be wrong) that CCL's were much harder to attain in the past than they are today for the average citizen. That being said, how people react to any reality that they must..or..at least be expected to, will differ depending upon the individual and what they determine to be the best course of action at the moment.

Some people prefer to mull over possible consequences to themselves before reacting to or acting upon a particular life saving ..or.. life taking action, when seconds count more than minutes, and mass murders appear in full dress tactical gear, same as the good guys.

Here's a quote from an article I'd read this morning ... "Initially, I would hear guys say 'This is way more than I signed on for."

That is/was a quote from a law enforcement training officer. At the time, he was introducing his people to hypothetical scenario's, out here in Grand Ronde.

Don Dix

Actually, up until about 30 years ago, CCLs weren't a priority, yet many 'carried'.

When I was in high school (long ago), it was more common than not to see rifles in the back window of the pickups in the student parking lot. Many would go hunting after school. The idea that a visible weapon could be considered safe in a locked (sometimes) vehicle has long past. But the point here is that 'back in the day', even some students were armed while at school, just not during class. Try that today!

CCLs are fine for those who use handguns, but that would be number three on my list of preferences. The shot gun and high-powered rifle would be 1 and 2, respectively. And no concealed permit necessary!

Web Design & Web Development by LVSYS