Senseless death would appall founders
In response to letters from Mr. Koskovich (ADN, Dec. 8) and Ms. DiSanto (ADN, Dec. 10):
DiSanto missed the underlying point of my letter, in that most all of our mass shootings are from Americans themselves, mostly white adult males, and not the (terrorist) enemy. A reality check shows that since 2001, there have been 3,380 American deaths by terrorism, but 406,496 civilian deaths by firearms on U.S. soil (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. State Department.) Having easy access to guns, ammunition, and lax background checks has allowed the unbelievable amount of nonterrorist mass shootings that plague our society today. I agree with DiSanto, we need protection, but that protection must come from our government in the means of gun control, strict background checks, and better access to mental health care.
Arming Americans with more guns, as Koskovich recommends, is not the answer. According to a 2007 Small Arms Survey, the U.S. has approximately 112 firearms per 100 residents. At more than one gun for every American, the U.S. should be one of the safest places on the planet, but we are not.
And before anyone writes in about our right to bear arms, the primitive firearms of our founding fathers' day can't be compared with the mass killing machines of today. I suspect our founding fathers would be appalled by the senseless slaughter.
Americans need to wake up
Terrorist attacks are nothing new. In 1972, I happened to be in Munich when Yasser Arafat's goons attacked the Israeli athletes. Driving a Volkswagen van through the streets of Munich that morning I will never forget the sight of armor-clad German polizei with assault weapons on every street corner and on the rooftops. We turned on the radio and having lived for about a year in Germany, I had a reasonable grasp of the language (see assimilate). I was able to determine a horrific attack had occurred at the Olympic village. We, (two Canadians, myself and my American girlfriend, now wife of 41 years) immediately headed out of the city and headed for Austria.
We have no idea when and where terrorists will strike. You can absolutely be certain however, they will prey upon soft (gun-free zone) targets. They are gutless cowards, concealing their faces with some Middle East desert rag. Our warriors are proud of who they are and what they do. Liberty University President Jerry Falwell Jr. urges his students to attend class armed. Will terrorists hit that place? Unlikely. Is a room full of 20-year-old males packing heat a dangerous place? Laughable. I spent a solid year in very close proximity to hundreds of 20-year-old males packing heat. Most all of us had a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, everyone had at least one M16 with full automatic capability, many of us had our own personal M79 grenade launcher and some had belt-fed M60 machine guns. In addition we had a pretty much unlimited supply of C4 plastic explosive. There was a fair bit of alcohol available, there was a lot of pot smoking. Was it a problem? It most certainly was for the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. For us, heavily armed 20-year-olds, it was just another day of staying alive with your buddies. Wake up people, pay attention to what is happening in Europe today. Coming soon to a place near you!
Holiday lights are essential to winter well-being of Alaskans
In answer to the Dec. 11 letter penned by Saul Molliver, "Holiday lights maps show bias." Un-American? Since when is the free expression of religion, un-American? Have you read the First Amendment?
Even if I were an atheist, I would fill my windows with colorful lights, cover my deck railings and outdoor trees with lights this time of year. Why? Because, and forgive me for shouting, "It's dadgum dark 20 hours out of every day!"
OK, let's talk about the "preferential treatment" part of your argument against ADN's holiday lights map. I submit, the "preferential treatment" is now in favor of the politically correct crowd. The "preferential treatment" now seems to be in favor of people who enjoy living in the dark, people who are against the joy that is brought about by festive, bright lights during the dark of winter.
Families spend a lot of money paying for the extra use of electricity? It's their money to spend and their business to spend it any way they wish, so long as it isn't for anything illegal. That's the American way.
During the summer, we use hardly any lights at all, thanks to nearly 24 hours of daylight. So, over the course of a year, the electric use balances or averages out, doesn't it?
Molliver would like to see the EPA enact a law banning the practice of outdoor lighting? Seriously? You want us all to sit in the dark for half the year? And, perhaps, in doing so, become as Grinch-like as himself?
I might, MIGHT, accept an anti-outdoor holiday lights argument, for the sake of saving electricity for locations south of the Mason-Dixon Line. No long, dark, cold winters there.
But, for those of us living in the far North, and who by the way love living in the far North, we need all the lighting we can get during winter. Call them holiday lights, Christmas lights, outdoor anti-SAD lights, whatever. They are, in my opinion, essential to our emotional well-being, and, therefore, physical well-being.
Return Earth to original seller
We can't afford this planet, let's go to the store and get another one. Oh, wait.
The views expressed here are the writers' own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a letter for consideration, email letters@alaskadispatch.com, or click here to submit via any web browser. Submitting a letter to the editor constitutes granting permission for it to be edited for clarity, accuracy and brevity. Send longer works of opinion to commentary@alaskadispatch.com.