Armed citizens can can help protect us

The carnage continues in our nation's gun-free zones (schools, universities, malls, post offices).

The multiple killings of disarmed victims in gun-free zones in Ogden and Omaha are the latest examples.

In contrast, look at what recently happened at a church in Colorado Springs. A law-abiding citizen who was licensed to carry a concealed weapon brought down a deranged young man and stopped him from killing an additional 50 to 100 worshippers.

The lesson is clear: responsible citizens who are licensed to carry should have the right to protect themselves and others while in designated gun-free zones.

Currently, this right is denied by those who impose the zones.

Those who effectively provide sanctuary to murderers need a wake-up call. Perhaps it's time for a wounded victim or a dead victim's family to invoke a grand old American tradition - a personal injury lawsuit.

People who create gun-free zones should be held personally accountable for the consequences of their decision.

When the next massacre happens, those who imposed the zone should be held liable for failure to protect from a foreseeable event.

It's time we put those who disarm us on the defensive. A big John Edwards-style lawsuit against those who enable mass murder would be an effective step towards achieving the objective of permanent abolition of these killing fields called gun-free zones.

Gordon L. Shadle

Albany

We need president with budget skills

I agree with Stan Shively of Philomath ("$10 trillion deficit: How much is that?" Letters, Dec. 17) that it's time to get out of debt.

In my household government, I control the departments of education, energy, transportation, health care, etc. My budget remains the same, but I can be frugal and make department changes on a daily basis.

I can't imagine $10 trillion. I couldn't plan for a budget with those kinds of numbers, either. It's too massive and overwhelming. I have great admiration for anyone in government who can successfully manage a budget like that.

We do need a president who can get us out of debt. There are many who have applied for the job. Have you checked their resumes?

A recent article (Mona Charen) confirms that Mitt Romney has in fact proven with deeds and outcomes that he can manage a deficit budget and come out on top. He was able to bring out the best in people, bringing them together to work toward a common goal.

Right now America needs a president with those skills. Not only for us, but to repair international relations.

I'd like to see the top job in America go to the best qualified person available, not who is the most minority, most popular, well known, least known, outspoken, or most written or talked about.

Why don't we hear more about Romney in the news? I hear Romney has a squeaky clean reputation; there must be no dirt to dig up. That's OK by me.

Laura Nash

Philomath

Some must claim 'kicker' as income

According to Hasso Hering's article ("No state tax in kicker refunds," Dec. 15), the Oregon Department of Revenue's information officer has stated that Oregon income tax "kicker" refunds must be reported as income on 2007 federal tax returns. That is incorrect advice for many taxpayers.

According to IRS Publication 17, Chapter 22: Taxpayers who did not itemize deductions on their 2006 federal return should NOT report their refund as income on the 2007 federal return; taxpayers who DID itemize deductions on their 2006 federal return will include all or part of their refund as income on 2007 Form 1040, line 10.

John Brauer

Corvallis

Here's the problem: Stupidity and greed

A sentence from an Associated Press article ("Ethanol demand a threat to Gulf of Mexico 'dead zone,' " Dec. 18) provides excellent examples of this country's biggest problem: Stupidity and greed.

"Farmers realize the connection between their crop and problems downstream, but with the price of corn soaring, it doesn't make sense to grow anything else."

There is "a 7,900-square-mile patch (of ocean) so depleted of oxygen that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate," but "it doesn't make sense to grow anything else."

On Dec. 13, in the midst of climate talks in Bali, an "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations" was submitted by over 100 scientists, challenging a U.N. move for a global carbon tax.

The rationale of these scientists: "We need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation."

I must ask: Wealth generation for whom? This sounds like former President Ronald Reagan's trickle-down theory. And you know how wealthy we've all become since Mr. Star Wars established the National Debt.

This letter from Corporate America's errand boys continues: "the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity."

Orwellian logic dictates that "It doesn't make sense to grow anything else" and "by promoting economic growth and wealth generation," we will be helping "future prosperity."

Will future generations actually be pleased if we leave them with a planetary cesspool?

Robert Simms

Corvallis