On armed citizens, forest policy, Republican policy and tipping our hand to terrorists

Guns in careful hands no reason for worry

I must reply to Rebecca Stillwell’s hair-on-fire rant (“Do we need guns or bullet-proof vests?” Letters, Dec. 28).

What Gerald Duffney did at the WinCo store was not the act of a responsible citizen. It was very irresponsible. Fortunately no one was hurt and Mr. Duffney will most likely be charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm, reckless endangerment and carrying a concealed firearm without a permit.

Myself, I would consider WinCo’s parking lot a more dangerous place as more people are killed or maimed by automobiles than firearms in this country.

I am a firearm owner and a shooter with a concealed weapons permit and I have been taught and have practiced “safety first always” for over 60 years.

I am far more concerned about that person in a two-ton vehicle on a cell phone than I am about a responsible citizen with proper training and a valid concealed weapon permit.

Michael G. Benge

Corvallis

Keep a cool head on forest policy issues

I read with interest the two letters concerning Oregon’s forests in the Dec. 28 Gazette-Times (“Plan would decimate ancient forests” and “College of Forestry timber industry shill”).

I worked from 1958 to 1997 for the College of Forestry as a technician. While it was sad to see the college referred to as “timber industry shill,” I suspect this description says more about Matthew Sproul’s anger created by his perception of the situation.

And while I share Jeanne Riha’s concerns for our forests, I wouldn’t call the so-called “whopper” plan a “desecration” — a term often mistakenly used to describe the effects of a large forest fire.

The controversy that erupted around the publication of Donato’s research in the journal Science provides evidence that there’s no single point of view governing the OSU College of Forestry.

Those who missed seeing Professors Beschta and Newton sitting side by side testifying before an Oregon Senate committee didn’t see the polite encapsulation of this dispute. Neither is a “chainsaw cowboy.”

Concern for ancient forests is well founded.

The current set-aside policy is a fool’s creation. Better would be a public decision on the desired proportion of acres maintained in different age classes, best stratified by protected ground conditions, and left to the professional foresters to carry out.

So-called old-growth forests will move across the landscape in the eons ahead — more like Mother Nature would do it.

Hot heads won’t produce good forest management policy. Cooler heads work better.

Robert G. Gourley

Corvallis

Super-rich gobbling up the American pie

Here we go with more Republicans opening their mouths telling us what to do. Every time they do, I’d like to slam a rotten potato into that gaping void. After all the damage (and expense) they’ve caused America it’s getting harder to ignore.

Mark Steele (“Bush tax cuts should be made permanent,” Letters, Dec. 28) says the top 5 percent are carrying 60 percent of the tax burden.

Oh, the poor rich folk. Maybe they won’t be able to get the golden toilet seats this year.

But wait, it will get worse. Under Republican leadership this trend will continue. Soon the top 1 percent will be paying 90 percent of the taxes.

What Steele fails to say is that the rich have been paying more because they have been getting more.

The super-rich (the true Republican constituency) are already gobbling up the majority of the American pie. And, every year they get a bigger portion.

What that means for our society is the end of any notion of any kind of equality of opportunity or, indeed, of any representation in our government.

It could be the end of the democratic experiment in America.

Want a tax cut? Cut military spending in half. We would still be spending far more than even the next biggest military spenders in the world (our allies as a group).

The amount of U.S. military spending is insane. It channels money to the rich while the poor die young.

Say no to Republicanism.

Tracy Rupp

Corvallis

In interest of safety, stop doublespeak

A recent story in the mainstream news stated that the U.S. grounded hundreds of F-15 fighter jets due to structural issues. The same F-15s that are guarding the skies of our country and play a pivotal role in defense.

If the U.S. and its commanders are really concerned for the safety and security of its citizens, why are they telling the world our fighters are grounded and we are incapable of fully defending ourselves?

I think the Air Force is doing the right thing for safety reasons, but to announce that our defenses are weakened is ridiculous.

Of course this grounding of aircraft could be used as another excuse by NORAD if something goes wrong. After all NORAD’s lack of action on 9/11 was the reason it played out as it did.

Several war games and drills were being run on 9/11 (one scenario was hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings; how coincidental) and with the intercept aircraft being tied up the response was pitiful and we all saw the result.

Now lack of air support may provide the perfect environment for another “attack” false-flag or otherwise.

Couple this info with almost daily articles about “terror” and how vulnerable we all are makes me wonder what is in the works.

Recently the Gazette-Times carried a piece about sporting events as possible terrorism targets.

If the U.S. was serious about the safety and security of its citizens, it should first stop with the Orwellian doublespeak.

Doug Huntley

Corvallis