Reason versus doomsday
[
{
"name": "Newsletter Promo",
"id": "NewsletterPromo",
"class": "inlineCenter",
"insertPoint": "4",
"component": "15264767",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "0"
},
{
"name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle CC01 - 300x250 - Inline Content",
"class": "inlineCenter",
"insertPoint": "8",
"component": "15582119",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "12"
},{
"name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle LC01 - 300x250 - Inline Content",
"class": "inlineCenter",
"insertPoint": "18",
"component": "15582122",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "22"
},{
"name": "Ad - Medium Rectangle 9 - 300x250 - Inline Content",
"class": "inlineCenter",
"insertPoint": "28",
"component": "15582121",
"requiredCountToDisplay": "32"
}]
There was one commentary and one opinion piece on gun control in the March 29 issue of New Times. The commentary by Pat Veesart ("A modest proposal") gave a detailed and well-reasoned account about how our country could go about significantly reducing the amount of gun violence, within the bounds of the Second Amendment. The opinion piece by Al Fonzi ("Take a step back and think") gave us lots of facts but left us in despair about ever doing anything about gun violence. Fonzi's conclusion seemed to be, "The bad guys will always find a way to get guns, so there is no point in doing anything that would curtail the rest of us from purchasing even the most destructive weaponry." That is like saying, "The bad guys will always find a way to steal and drive cars without a driver's license, so there is no point in requiring the rest of us to register our cars and pass a competency exam to get a license." If asked whether he would rather do nothing about the status quo or adopt the kind of program proposed by Veesart to significantly reduce gun violence, I know exactly what Fonzi would choose.
Laurence Houlgate
San Luis Obispo
What do local college-age students need the most help with?
Latest in Letters
Readers also liked…
