Curing mental illnesses, not bans on guns, will prevent massacres
The columns contributed by Bob Thomas can usually be summarized with one sentence: “When I was the Chief Mucky-Muck of the Humpa Duck Company, I was awesome.” Consequently, his ramblings were easily dismissed. However, his challenge to Democrats to relinquish their First Amendment protection of the violent entertainment industry in exchange for surrendering his Second Amendment rights has merit.
Mass murderers have three common factors: guns, insanity and countless hours of exposure to violent videos and games. The Democrats’ response is to try to ban gun ownership, despite the fact that millions of gun owners, Democrats and Republicans alike, have lots of guns and no intention of ever going out and killing a bunch of children. The huge numbers of firearms in circulation makes eliminating gun ownership very expensive and impractical, with the likeliest outcome leaving criminals in possession of firearms, and good citizens defenseless, or secretly armed and very angry.
Curing mental illness is a much more practical way to stop massacres. If the Republican taxaphobes were to change their tune and begin supporting government help for the mentally ill, if the health insurance companies were to follow suit, and if the Democrats were to stop protecting the entertainment industry, which profits from videos and games glorifying the slaughter of humans, then the twisted souls who degenerate into mass murderers might be prevented from living out their homicidal fantasies.
Mr. Thomas’ challenge is an interesting idea, but the solution to mass killings also requires expanded mental health support.
Phil Stotts
Carson City
Execution of guest column, not theme, left much to be desired
It’s not that I object to Dan Mooney’s shallow theme of June 13, “Obama on a Ruinous Path Like Nixon’s,” it’s that I object to its publication in the first place because the “essay” is so badly written. From the first three words of the first sentence, Mooney breaks a rule. He writes, “It is easier ...” “Easier” is the comparative of the word “easy” and Mooney doesn’t follow through in comparing it to anything. He fails to say what it is easier than or easier because. Mooney’s syntax fails to carry his thought to a conclusion. It’s sad.
Mooney’s attempt at sophistry is feeble because Mooney’s idea of culture omits culture’s artificial essence. His pedantry, pretence and purple prose is overwrought. He stumbles over thoughts because he has not facts, only superficial propositions. Since when does it fall to religion to “control the abuse of power?” That’s not true, Mooney, and to say so is idiotic. What exactly is “cultural degration” or “culture of degradation?” Mooney doesn’t say. He can’t say because he doesn’t have an honest and true idea of what it is. Culture doesn’t degrade, facets of it fade and culture changes. Elvis Presley represented a cultural change. Did he degrade it?
With the assistance of the Nevada Appeal, Mr. Mooney has hastened the degradation of an aspect of culture. They have collaborated on the destruction of the simple sentence and the clearly presented idea. They’ve assaulted the lucidly and factually written essay and rendered it dead. It’s sad.
Rob Simpson
Dayton
