Jim Kuty writes that all the killings demand drastic action.
To the Editor:
The issue about firearm fatalities in the United States is not only mass murders, but everyday killings in the streets, in businesses and in our homes.
We Americans are out of control.
The only solution to the carnage is to ban handguns, eliminate the manufacture of bullets for for them, and reduce rifles and shotguns to a single shot. One shot is all that is necessary to take game. If families still feel the need for protection, a one-shot, sawed-off shotgun with #4 buckshot would be much more effective than a handgun.
Our forefathers wrote the Second Amendment so people could defend themselves and their country from invasion. Never in their wildest dreams did they foresee society using guns, mostly handguns, to kill one another.
RELATED: Residential firearms business booming in N.J.
Movies and TV have contributed mightily to the belief that shooting and killing is the accepted way of life. This publicity for killing from filmmakers must be banished.
Many excuses are given for why we cannot eliminate handguns, but other countries have done it. Why can't we?
One claim is that if handguns were illegal, only "bad guys" would get them. That wouldn't be the case if we made it very difficult for anyone to obtain a handgun, and punish severely violators who get caught.
Saving one life would be worth it. How many lives do you think limiting firearms to one shot would save?
I realize that this approach takes away our rights and many businesses will suffer financially, but is the solution to arm more people? I don't think so. More weapons mean more killings.
One might think that I am anti-gun. No, I am anti-killing. I was raised hunting with guns since I was a child. I still hunt and own guns, but I realize the purpose of some guns has changed to instruments of human destruction. The only way to reduce this tragedy is to eliminate handguns and guns that shoot multiple shots.
Jim Kuty
Pilesgrove Township
No gas tax hike until N.J. cuts runaway road cost
To the Editor:
According to a recent poll, New Jersey residents do not want a gasoline tax increase in the near future to help pay for transportation projects. Overall taxes in New Jersey are already among the highest in the region.
Old people are moving out of the state because they cannot afford to live here. New Jersey is one of a few states that assesses both an estate tax and and an inheritance tax on what is left when they die.
The big issue with a higher gasoline gas tax is the high cost of building roads in New Jersey, we have the highest cost, $2 million to build one mile of road, according to a Reason Foundation study. Many legislators think it would be a crime to raise the tax when it costs so much in New Jersey for highways.
MORE: Opinion: Report claiming N.J. roads $2 million per mile flawed
I personally oppose such an increase unless a legislative committee reviews why lawyers, engineers, prevailing-wage rules and other regulation make this so expensive., In Massachusetts, it's $750,000 a mile.
Until New Jersey's costs are brought down, I say "no" -- along with most New Jersey residents -- to raising the tax. Additionally, gasoline tax revenue needs to be in a fund dedicated for our highways and bridges, and not raided for other uses by our state government.
Luis M. Perez
Glassboro
Bridgeton BOE election switch delayed too long
To the Editor:
I found Don Woods' recent article about the Bridgeton Board of Education's decision to move its annual school election to November from April, starting in 2016, both pleasing and puzzling.
My confusion comes from the fact that when the school board decided not to make such a change when state law first permitted it in 2012, I proposed as the Bridgeton City Council president to effect the change by council resolution.
The basis for my proposal, which was not approved, was purely economical. In 2012, the board of elections clerk cited savings of between $37,000 and $43,000 if the school election were run concurrently with the November general election. This is an avoidable cost that has been borne entirely by the Bridgeton school district and passed onto city taxpayers.
Even though I held a special council meeting on Feb. 24, 2012, to discuss the resolution, the school board dismissed my argument as meaningless -- as did the majority of my city council colleagues. They remained adamant in their decision to to spend taxpayers' money unnecessarily.
Yet, now, in 2015, the school board has approved the change it felt had no merit in 2012. Certainly the cost to the taxpayers was of little concern to the board, since it had the opportunity to save at least an estimated $111,000 over the past three years. So what really changed?
I suspect there is somewhat more behind this change of heart. Perhaps the South Jersey Times can discover what it is, since I believe the taxpayers should know why extra money was spent so pointlessly.
Mike Zapolski Sr.
Councilman
City of Bridgeton
Send a letter to the editor of South Jersey Times at sjletters@njadvancemedia.com