LETTERS
To the Editor:

It has been almost a year since Cho Seung-Hui massacred 32 innocent people on the Virginia Tech campus, following which many elected and appointed officials, talking heads, and ordinary citizens, threw in their two cents worth on how such a tragedy could have happened, and what could be done to preclude a recurrence in the future. Most of what filled the air was hand wringing and limp-wristed suggestions such as "centralize the campus police and fire departments into one building … upgrade the cellular and phone systems on campus … increase the number of case workers on campus …" A few brave souls suggested the only solution that has a chance of working: in the words of a popular gun-owners bumper sticker, "Fight Crime - Shoot Back." At the time, shooting back was not an option for law abiding citizens because even those who were CCW holders (a CCW is a permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon - which can easily be obtained by any mature, responsible, competent, law-abiding citizen in VA ), were prohibited from (legally) carrying a gun on campus - a prohibition which, obviously did not affect Cho. But there are changes afoot. Two bills are currently making their way through the Virginia General Assembly, either one of which, if it had been the law at the time of the massacre, could have allowed a law-abiding gun-toting CCW holder to cut short Cho's mad rampage. Delegate Todd Gilbert has proposed a bill which would allow anyone (including students) with a CCW to carry a gun on state property, including the campuses of state universities. Delegate Bob Marshall has proposed a bill which would allow only college faculty members with CCWs to carry guns on campus. Better late than never.

Cordially,

Chuck Esposito

Suches, Ga.

To the Editor:

An article in the January 24, 2008 edition of the Towns County Herald reported that the Appalachian Drug Task Force had made 33 arrests in Towns County during all of calendar year 2007. That same day the Union Sentinel reported 14 drug related arrests in Union County during the week of January 14-20, 2008 alone. Allowing for the larger population of Union County, if one takes the gross difference in these statistics at face value, they suggest that (1) Union County residents are many times more likely to be drug users than Towns County residents or (2) Union County law enforcement officials are many times more likely to arrest drug users than Towns County law enforcement officials are. Can anyone who claims to know the true story please explain why there would be such a large discrepancy in drug arrests between these neighboring counties?

Wm. Ronald Gibson

To the Editor:

On the front page of your January 31 edition, you wonder if the absence of political signs is an indication of our lack of interest in the candidates. If that observation is in fact a correct one, it bodes very poorly for us. It means that we still haven't grasped the reality of the direct impact that national politics have on the daily lives of each and every one of us. It also says that we are letting those who may not have our best interests at heart dictate what happens to us. How sad.

Michelle Maloney