Season of the snitch
Re: "American showdown" (Metro Times cinema reviews, May 25), the star of High Noon, Will Kane (Gary Cooper), is portrayed as brave, honest, upstanding, certainly not a coward, addressing the townspeople about their duty to fight for their town.
Gary didn’t learn much playing this role when he was called as a witness at the McCarthy hearings, where he and a few other stars turned informer, tattled, snitched and squealed on those who were members of the Communist Party.
The people outed, and their families, were destroyed, and many were forced to leave the country. Hollywood lost a lot of talent because of these hearings, and the movie industry suffered greatly. —Ray Kell, Madison Heights
Big shot aims low
Re: "All in favor of praying & packing?" (Metro Times, June 1), I am not sure who Chuck Perricone is, but he certainly doesn’t represent the majority in this state. He doesn’t even represent the majority of gun owners. I have to wonder what’s going on in his head if he really believes guns are needed in elementary schools, churches and bars. I guess he’s forgotten what a little alcohol can do during a Pistons game and doesn’t understand that kids and guns don’t mix. Possibly he’s thinking about all the money he can make being a paid lobbyist for the gun industry if he can create another "market" for guns. Maybe he’s thinking about how he can keep his job as a paid gun lobbyist if he satisfies the most extreme faction, the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners (MCRGO). I know he isn’t thinking about where all those guns end up and the harm that they do. It’s all about the money and nothing about public safety. Shame on Sen. Cropsey and shame on Mr. Perricone. —Lori Mizzi-Spillane, Troy, firstname.lastname@example.org
Missed the heart
This article, like most others I’ve read, superficially describes some concerns while missing the heart of the issue. An average reader might find himself asking two questions:
1. Why do people want to go around armed?
2. If they do go around armed, why do they insist on being armed [insert prohibited area here]?
The first answer, if you bothered to actually ask people who have gone to the time and expense of taking the training, passing the background checks and obtaining a concealed pistol license, is that we live in a violent world and police can’t be everywhere. Any day of the week, you can flip open a newspaper or watch a half hour of TV news and see stories of violence. In many cases, had the victim been armed, there would be no "victim." People who carry firearms only want to protect themselves and their loved ones if need be. All the stories about "gun violence" you see and hear are very rarely committed by a legally licensed citizen. You alone are responsible for your own safety.
And this answer partly answers the second question. Since the firearms of those who carry them legally will never be an issue unless there’s trouble, and trouble can happen anywhere, then it makes no sense to prohibit them in churches, schools or anywhere else! For instance, one of the first victims of the recent school shooting incident in Minnesota was the security guard, who was unarmed. The school was equipped with metal detectors, but they didn’t stop the perpetrator from walking on in and shooting. Expecting a safe school simply by posting a sign and making a law is nonsensical. If there are to be guards, then we need to give them the proper tools to defend themselves and the students. We don’t expect bank guards to protect our money unarmed, so why make an exception for that which we consider even more precious?
Not long ago there was a well-publicized shooting in a church meeting that left several members dead. Did a law or sign stop the shooter? No, but a few armed parishioners might have. And at the very least, they might have had a fighting chance.
This is what I never read in articles about guns and carrying concealed weapons. No, it’s not "sexy," emotionally charged or even political. But it is what people need to know to make an informed opinion. I challenge Metro Times to give its readers the complete picture. —Stuart Chisholm, Roseville, email@example.com
A shot in the dark
It will be a very sad day, if and when a lobbyist such as Charles Perricone, Sen. Cropsey and the MCRGO can make it unsafe for people to take their children to school and for families to go and worship. Guns do not belong in churches, bars, schools, libraries, theaters, casinos or any establishment that sells alcohol beverages.
Is it any wonder why Sen. Cropsey does not hold the hearings in Detroit or a nearby city? Is he afraid that most people in Detroit are not in favor of having guns in the schools, churches, bars, schools, libraries, theaters, casinos nor any establishment that sells alcohol beverages? —Valarie Walden, Detroit
Gun control helps criminals
Have you looked at gun control laws from the viewpoint of a criminal? Do criminals prefer to commit crimes where the law allows everyone to carry concealed weapons to defend themselves? Or do criminals prefer to commit crimes where the law prohibits concealed weapons, thus where only criminals carry concealed weapons?
Robbers, rapists and terrorists love gun control laws, because they don’t want you to have a gun to defend yourself.
Laws against violent crime do not prevent violent crime. They merely allow the government to seek revenge.
Gun control laws do not prevent violent criminals from carrying pistols. They merely allow the government to punish persons who violate gun control laws.
Pistols are a great equalizer. A 90-pound woman with a pistol is just as strong as a 300-pound professional athlete with a pistol. Indeed, she has an advantage. She is a smaller target.
It’s better to have a pistol and not need one, than to need a pistol and not have one. —Leonard Schwartz, political director, Libertarian Party of Michigan, Oak Park, firstname.lastname@example.orgSend comments to email@example.com