SEND US YOUR OPINION: Letters to the editor should be no more than 300 words. The Post-Tribune reserves the right to edit
or reject any letter. All letters must be signed and include your name, address and telephone number for verification. To send us
your letter to the editor, mail to: 1433 E. 83rd Ave., Merrillville, IN 46410; fax to: (219) 648-3249; or e-mail to email@example.com . If you have questions, call Diane Aden Hayes, managing editor, at (219) 648-3241.
Updated: February 19, 2013 11:38AM
Restrictions on guns won’t stop the mass shootings
Last year, there were multiple mass shootings across the United States that ended in multiple casualties.
The question always comes up, do we need more gun control to stop horrific incidents like the Sandy Hook tragedy, where 26 people were killed?
But will gun control stop these incidents? The answer is no.
You can take away handguns, assault rifles and hunting rifles, and place restrictions on magazine capacity, but that won’t solve the problem. The real problem is, the people who committed these horrific crimes had no regard for human life, and they didn’t care about who they hurt or how it would affect the victims’ families.
Human behavior can be very unpredictable. Guns don’t control human behavior; human behavior controls guns.
On another note, gun control never comes up in urban cities like Chicago, which had a ban on guns for years, but ended up with a high murder rate, as well as Gary, and that’s because no one cares.
We need to reduce spending and live within our means
Liberals’ hypocrisy knows no bounds. The fiscal-cliff crisis just shows how disingenuous Barack Obama and libs are by their unrelenting focus on increasing taxes instead of focusing on the real problem, which is government spending.
It’s sad that people don’t care if someone else’s hard-earned money is confiscated, just as long as it isn’t theirs.
We could solve our fiscal problems by exercising discipline and freezing government spending, then reduce government spending annually by only one penny for every dollar spent. Why can’t we ask our lawmakers to use common sense that each of us would employ if presented with the same problem and bankruptcy wasn’t an option? Where is fiscal sanity when our government refuses to live within its means by borrowing close to 50 cents of every dollar it spends? They have sold out and buy votes with our money. They are beholden to special interests and afraid of the backlash of removing or reducing benefits.
Our Department of Agriculture also sends a mixed message. It oversees the food stamp program, which has ballooned to record levels under Obama’s watch, but the National Parks post signs that prohibit feeding the animals because they will grow dependent on handouts and will not be able to take care of themselves and become nuisances.
Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. Once voters discover they can vote themselves generous handouts from the treasury, they always will vote for the candidate who promises them the most. Democrats seem to be the permissive parents who refuse to say no to their children. Parenting isn’t always popular, but when done correctly, it produces many rewards. Will Washington put partisan politics aside and do the right thing for the American people? I doubt it.