Guns only lead to trouble

This afternoon, I thought about writing a letter pointing out that every gunman responsible for his share of the last month's carnage had the legal right to own a gun.

The officers killed in Pittsburgh? Their shooter was a registered gun owner. The eight killed at a nursing home in North Carolina, he owned his gun legally. The family of five killed in Washington, the 10 in Alabama, the shooters were all signed off as responsible citizens with full rights to their firearm.

But we've all heard the comebacks: Guns don't kill people, people do. If someone set someone else on fire with gasoline, do you outlaw gasoline? I thought, yeah, enough of that debate. It never goes anywhere.

However, in hours while I sat drumming my fingers in contemplation, a gunman opened fire at a church camp in California, killing one and wounding four, an Alabama man shot and killed himself and his family of five just days before his divorce hearing. And minutes later, as if not to be outdone, a Florida woman at a shooting range shot her son at close range, then turned the gun on herself. Yes, that last one is on video, calling to mind the latest of M. Night Shyamalan's really bad movies.

Each of these massacres actually creates more support for guns in the home, guns in the glove compartment, guns in the teacher's desk. The idea is that if only one of those convalescent hospital employees or immigration center teachers had thought to bring their AK-47 to work with them, then the crazy shooter would have been dead after a round or two.

Which raises the question: Who are the crazy shooters?

Well, those other people. Not the good gun owners. The crazy shooters are those who have trouble controlling their impulses, who wake up feeling they have nothing to live for, who come home from work in a rage and decide to make others as miserable as they are.

You know, those misfits have a fight with their boss and wish they could do something about it once and for all.

Funny thing. I feel that way about twice a week.

When that happens, I reach for my ... video games, punching bag, gym membership card. No guns. I'm one of those increasingly rare people who realizes that access to a firearm can only lead to trouble.

JEREMY HEYES

Response to 'Quit crying'

In Letters to the Editor, April 8, the "Quit crying" letter lists many of the reasons some prospective residents could and may not choose to visit, much less invest and reside in the "laid back" uncontrolled environment of Pahrump, Nye County, state of Nevada.

Most communities have what are called CCRs -- covenants, conditions and restrictions.

If Pahrump has such things, it appears they are of little value or nonexistent, or seldom enforced.

I further think Judge Lane was out of line to blame the Maples' paralegal for the adverse decision he made.

Many licensed and proficient lawyers are defeated for some reason. My observation is there is usually a loser and a winner, and the presiding judge is the one who makes the decision.

Some decisions are often wrong in the eyes of the observer. In this case, I think Judge Lane was right.

BOB WEETHEE

Horse rescue

This is in response to PVT April 3 article regarding Diane Davis and her Dream Chaser Horse Rescue. I know Diane and had a chance to visit her place.

She is totally dedicated to her animals, and reading about the harassment she is going through, caused by Shiloh Horse Rescue from Sandy Valley, made me extremely angry.

If Shiloh truly cares about these animals, why are they making Diane's life a living hell?

The numbers of abandoned horses in need of a rescue or re-homing has been dramatically increasing in the past few years. Part of the problem is the current economic crisis, but the real problem started with the closures of the U.S. horse slaughter facilities. These anti-slaughter bills have been pushed for by extreme animal rights groups, such as HSUS (Humane Society of the United States).

HSUS is an animal rights (AR) group that many confuse with local "humane society" shelters. However, Humane Society of the United States is not affiliated with any of them.

They are a powerful, well-funded AR group, which, instead of helping shelters and animals directly, works hard on eventually removing pets from our homes, meat from our tables, leather goods from our closets and animals from zoos and circuses.

Not only doesn't HSUS help struggling shelters, they charge them between $4,000 and $20,000 consulting fees. What is especially disconcerting is that HSUS, a group many expect to care about animal welfare, is making money selling animal euthanasia manuals.

There is a new bill in the U.S. Senate, S.727, that would basically ban any interstate or foreign movement of horses intended to be slaughtered for human consumption. What that means is that horses would no longer be allowed to be transported to foreign slaughterhouses (since all the domestic ones have been banned), further increasing the number of starving horses in need of a rescue.

Sen. John Ensign is one of the co-sponsors of this horrible federal bill, which does absolutely nothing to help horses. Just the opposite, it causes more horses to be starved with no place to go.

U.S. horse owners until a few years ago had a choice what to do with old or sick horses: Kill them themselves, pay a veterinarian to do it, or sell/donate them to a slaughter house where they were killed with USDA oversight.

However, it can cost more than $100 to euthanize a horse; disposal is up the owner. Cremation can easily cost about $1,200 while some landfills can charge over $20 per ton or animal, not including the transportation to the landfill.

There is no market for human horse consumption in the U.S.A., all the market is overseas, and the only users of horse meat in the U.S.A. were zoos and other carnivore owners.

Horse is a healthy lean meat for captive carnivores, such as big cats or birds of prey. Since the majority of horse slaughter houses' market was horse meat for overseas human consumption, the anti-human-consumption-slaughter horse act caused them to close.

This act did not save any horses, as many horses that used to go to a slaughter house still have to be euthanized, as there are not enough rescues to absorb them all.

This act did not reduce the demand for horse meat; it just shifted the supply side to Canadian or Mexican horse processing plants that are more than happy to supply horse meat to Europeans or U.S. zoo markets. Since demand stayed the same and U.S. horses' meat will be going to waste even more, this act will increase the number of slaughtered horses in Canada or Mexico.

The end result will be more horses ending up slaughtered than if the horse act was never introduced in the first place.

Contact Sen. Ensign and tell him to stop hurting U.S. horses, and in the future simply don't vote for people who don't have true animal welfare in mind.

ZUZANA KUKOL

Spending Psalm

The Congress of the United States is on a spending spree that threatens to put us in a financial hole we may never get out of.

In an effort to express my frustration and outrage with Congress, I wrote this parody of the 23rd Psalm. It is not intended to be irreverent, just funny. I call it "The Congressional Spending Psalm."

Big government is our shepherd, the bigger it gets, the more we lack.

Congress makes us to lie down and drown in red ink.

They lead us into national bankruptcy.

They restore our dependency on the welfare state.

Congress leads us into the path of unfunded entitlements, for their name's sake.

Yea, though we slouch through the valley of the shadow of financial disaster, we will fear no evil, for billion dollar bailouts and million dollar bonuses are with us. Their pork and waste confound us.

Congress prepares a table before us full of deficit spending and trillions of dollars of debt.

They fill our heads with campaign promises.

Their deception and corruption run over.

Surely, higher taxes and runaway spending will follow us all the days of our lives, and future generation will dwell in the house of poverty, forever.

GARY MARCHINKE

Another intrusion

S.B. 394, which makes changes to provisions relating to off-highway vehicles, is a perfect example of why we should only allow the Legislature to meet every two years, or maybe only every five.

After trying and failing to force registration of OHVs for the last several years, they're at it again. Apparently they won't stop until they have your money.

Their previous deceptions didn't work. First, they wanted to protect dealer sales; then provide wonderful services for off-roaders; then it was all about protecting the land. I'm sure that safety and the War on Terror were in there somewhere, too.

This time they start jabbering about OHVs not being legal to use on highways, like this is some big problem only registration will solve.

Then they jump right into requiring registration fees to be collected into a fund. The fund will be used for "off-road projects." One "project" will be creating a Commission on Off-Highway Vehicles. These people will be paid per diem from the fund, if the money hasn't been spent on other "projects." Ostensibly, their job will be to figure out ways to spend your money.

What is the purpose of this bill? Why was it written? What "projects" are planned? Other than levying a new tax for no discernible reason, what possessed them to draft this bill? What needed services is it going to provide?

I wish they just had the courage to say, "OHV riders, we have received noise complaints from the jingle of change in your pockets, and we are acting to stop this vile intrusion of the public's right to enjoy the outdoors in a quiet and peaceful manner."

But they don't have the courage. This is just another legislative bridge being built where there is no river.

ROBERT FRENCHU

Carson City

Grinding to a halt, then backwards

Once again the wheels of progress have come to a grinding halt and started to go backwards.

Some of the town board members' cult-like following of CAVE members have completely wasted the time of our town board once again. There is no wonder we have nothing to show for all the taxes we pay.

Now the oh-so-brilliant CCSC have started to pick on the airport. That has been an ongoing project for the past 10 years and will be another 10 before it can come to fruition.

Like I said, they would fight Disney.

What's next? The new Walmart, maybe a new park, fire station, school for the blind?

Why waste the time of the town when you should be going after the county -- they are the ones that take all of the tax money and barely give us any in return, and then, when the town needs something that would benefit the citizens, the county turns a blind eye.

I wish they could explain to us why there is a redundant EMS service in Pahrump that their only mission is to undermine the town when it comes to EMS, Fire and Hazmat.

Kick a little money the town's way and move your resources where they are needed, into the rural community. But wait, that would make sense.

And why should Armagosa Valley get a multi-million-dollar recreation center? We don't have one. But we have 87 percent of the population. Who do you think would use it more?

So CCSC and CAVE, it's time to find a new cause, one that actually could make a difference and stop wasting the time of our town board. If you could focus your energy into something productive, imagine what you could achieve; just stop complaining about things that are beyond your control.

If you think that this is still a one-horse town, you have never seen the commuter traffic (the majority) in the morning. Face the fact -- we are a suburb of Las Vegas and that isn't going to change. We need to embrace it and guide our future.

And on a closing note, it isnt rocket science -- just pick up your garbage.

JIMMY JOHNSON