If we really want to change the gun culture in the United States, I believe there is only one way that might actually work: Take away public security for all members of government. If they want personal security, they can pay for it from their own pockets.
The only exception I would make is for the president and governors. It is important that senators, representatives and all members of the courts, especially the supreme courts, both state and nation, no longer get publicly financed security. They are the only group that could actually change things.
If we did this, the whole love affair with guns and killing would change fast. Today it’s your life that is worthless; they have security that you pay for, and so it is not a problem for them! Take away their public security, and you would see change fast.
The right waste
Mark Heckel complained in (“A solar array future,” Letters to the Editor, June 11) that solar power would eventually lead to “unattractive junk” in 30 years. His timing seems off, and ignores rehabilitation, but even piles of solar arrays would beat toxic nuclear waste, strip-mined mountains and more BP Horizon and Exxon Valdez disasters.
Emily Albrink Hartigan
My degrees in chemical engineering give me insight into the use of hydrogen as an energy source. Some of your recent letters discourage this because it requires electricity produced from coal or natural gas. When power to make the hydrogen comes from wind or solar (or nuclear or geothermal) this problem disappears.
The beauty of this “green” hydrogen is that it can be stored as a liquid in pressurized tanks for use when the electricity source is down — no wind or sun. It can be moved around to where it is needed. It may not make sense, however, to use hydrogen to power cars and trucks when we are already preparing to replace gasoline burners with electricity, which already has a distribution system in place. Powering trains and aircraft jet engines may make sense.
The Hindenburg disaster reminds us of the dangers of hydrogen as a gas but do not apply to the small amounts of leakage that immediately rise and are no longer flammable.
You may be disappointed that my usual message in monthly letters is missing. Please do not vote for a Trumpian.
Balance the news
I just finished reading the Sunday, June 12, Santa Fe New Mexican, and every article in the front page section that had anything to do with politics was authored by reporters of the New York Times, Washington Post and Associated Press. I believe these three media organizations favor the leftist political agenda and bury any news that may be conceived to be harmful to Democratic politicians. (I know there are exceptions.)
As one of your subscribers, I would prefer to see news that doesn’t consistently reflect the views of only one segment of the political spectrum.
It would seem to make good business sense to provide items of a political nature that may be considered by your readers to be balanced and impartial. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. I speak as a former newspaper reporter with some experience in selecting items “off the wire” for publication and whose editor would never allow such bias. I’m sure that most of your subscribers will disagree with my statements and inform me where I’ve gone astray in my musings.
Flintlocks for all
How about giving a muzzle-loading flintlock to every man, woman and child in the United States? That is what the authors of the U.S. Constitution may have had in mind when writing the Second Amendment and removing every type of assault weapon from public use, since they certainly couldn’t have intended their use.