Letters for February 12, 2015

True that

Re “Numbers game” (Feature story, Dec. 31):

If you look hard, will you find NRA-funded lobbyists focused on killing any bills that support collecting data about incidents involving guns? Without data, it’s hard for gun control advocates to support legislation that limits the production and sales of guns and ammo.

Carolyn Scott

Hannibal, New York

Happiness is a warm puppy

Many people remember the tragedies of school shootings in places like Virginia Tech, or even our local school, Sparks Middle School. Because of these shootings, the law says that we are not legally permitted to bring a firearm onto a college campus. However, this may be about to change. The Nevada Legislature is considering allowing students to carry concealed firearms on the campuses of public universities. This is a problem. Universities are one of the safest places to be, with a homicide rate lower than the nationwide rate. Also, the former provost of Idaho State University stated that there had been no case of a violent crime being prevented by the victim brandishing a weapon. Furthermore, if a school shooting occurs, how will the police be able to distinguish the good guy and the bad guy? It’s a bad idea all around. Campus carry can seem like a good idea. However, in reality it is introducing instruments of violence into our learning environments, and would make the jobs of campus security officers tougher than they already are, and could lead to the deaths of innocent people. I urge the Legislature to reject campus carry.

Jackeline Almaraz


Editor’s note: I can see we’ll be getting a lot of letters on this topic. I’m a licensed CCW permit holder and a student at the university. I’m also a long way from buying arguments for or against having more guns on campus. I look forward to being convinced.

Just say no

Allowing guns on campus of our school systems will place our students in potential volatile, vulnerable and violent situations. Between 2010 and today, a Wikipedia check of data showing death and injuries inflicted upon children and adults on school campuses nationwide reflects over 300 deaths. Allowing for a campus carry policy would exponentially increase the bloodshed on our campuses nationwide, allowing for ease of access. Nevadans enjoy their Second Amendment rights of access, yet consideration should be given to the volatile collateral damages that occur with accessible weaponry and campus carry. Call your legislator and say no to campus carry today!

Lori Santos


New York City!

As a University of Nevada, Reno student, I am very concerned about the chance that almost anyone will be allowed to have a weapon on campus, whether it ends up being only in their car, or walking around campus.

Allowing campus carry is very unnecessary in that the likelihood that an average civilian would be able to get to their vehicle, get their weapon, and stop an attack is extremely small. Also, campus security would have no way of telling the “bad guys” apart from the “good guys” in a volatile shooting situation. This would only cause more injuries and casualties. Furthermore, according to an article in Forbes, trained NYC policeman hit their target an average of 18 percent of the time in a gunfight, which would mean that a civilian in a similar situation would have a lower accuracy rate, and be more likely to hit a bystander than the attacker. Campus carry would only increase casualties and injuries from shootings. I urge you to contact your legislators and ask them to vote against campus carry. No to Assembly Bill 2!

Courtney Kelleher


Disarm the babysitters

My husband and I retired to the Western United States from Maine. We wanted to get away from the cold snow, but we certainly weren’t looking to go to the wild, wild west where people walked around with guns on their hips or concealed in their clothing anywhere. Maine is a state where deer hunting is popular, and provides food, as well as controls the deer population. I have nothing against that—I have nothing against the Second Amendment—but I am uncomfortable having individuals who can carry guns on to school grounds or childcare facilities. I don’t think “campus carry” will save lives; it will only endanger more. How would people involved discern who the bad gun carrier is from the good one? This can quickly get out of hand. To make schools safer, why not increase security with more manpower and scanners to keep guns and dangerous people out? We do this at airports (and when visiting politicians) already, but they’re not the only places that need to be secure. If you feel as I do about guns in our public places, please let your representatives in Carson City know. Say no to Assembly Bill 2!

Helen Paganucci


Disgruntled students are dangerous

As an employee at Truckee Meadows Community College, I am concerned about legislative bill AB-2, which authorizes possession of a weapon locked in a vehicle on the property of certain educational facilities and child care centers. The knowledge that a disgruntled employee or student could, in a moment of intense frustration or anger, simply walk to the parking lot, grab a weapon, and return to take action against the focus of his or her perceived predicament, is not an outlandish scenario. Further, if folks run to their vehicles to obtain their lawfully concealed weapons to defend the innocent, what law enforcement group called to the scene could tell perpetrator from defender? Finally, those not trained as first responders, while well intentioned, can very easily act irrationally in emergency situations. More likely is that, while well intentioned, this person would be part of any resulting tragedy. I encourage all to contact your state legislators to let them know your opposition to AB-2. We do not need more guns at our schools and childcare centers. Any legislative energy directed to Nevada’s education system should be concentrated on supporting efforts to improve state academic standards, not on turning school parking lots into munitions depots.

Carole Chouinard


Incremental improvement

Re “Policy myths cause a lot of government’s problems” (News, Aug. 14, 2008):

Good article, but I think the author has made a mistake in saying, “In fact, it reflects a practice that has long since passed out of fashion in the business world, which found that it focused workers on process instead of outcome and generated fear in the workplace, low productivity, and customer alienation.” I think he meant to say “focused workers on outcome instead of process.” Swapping those words makes the sentence ring true to Deming’s approach. I think that Deming taught focus on continual improvement of process, and I think Deming believed that focus on outcome is like trying to drive a car by looking out the rear view mirror.

Gary Tracy



In “Buck Wild” (Green, Feb. 5), Terri Farley was incorrectly referred to as an author and an attorney. She’s an author—and the one behind the Phantom Stallion series—but not a lawyer. We regret our mistake and apologize for any confusion our error caused.