Today's letters: Politicians should go to basic training to see guns in action

That has to hurt

Growing up, my first time being around guns was at basic training. I remember watching the other recruits firing their rifles using tracer bullets and being amazed at the sheer speed of that bullet. But I was not prepared when I saw the bullet hit the target and explode on contact.

I remember saying to myself, "My God, that has to hurt!" Yes, I was aware that these weapons were to be used against our enemy, but then realized that our enemy also had the same type of lethal ammunition to be used on our soldiers, possibly some of my buddies on the range now.

I was reminded of this experience while reading about the shooting in Texas of innocent school children and thinking about that bullet exploding into their little bodies. I wonder why an 18-year-old boy was even allowed to purchase such a lethal weapon whose only purpose is maximum carnage.

Then, I listened to some politicians piously expressing their condolences to those families while at the same time opposing any meaningful changes in our gun laws that may have kept that gun out of this boy's hands. Maybe the solution is just to have them go to a basic training rifle range and watch tracer bullets explode on contact. Then think of those children and maybe they can say to themselves, "My God, that has to hurt!"

John Hakkio, Ocala

Don’t be a hypocrite

If you support “the right to life” then you must support reasonable gun control: increased background checks, a waiting period, a more mature age requirement, a total assault weapon ban, red-flag laws and limits on the capacity of ammunition cartridges. If you don’t, then you are a total hypocrite!

I cannot buy Sudafed without having my driver’s license checked as I might be planning to make meth. A pregnant woman who is a child herself, or who has medical conditions that would make carrying to term dangerous to her life, or who has no ability to raise a child, cannot get an abortion in many states without a waiting period, parental consent and other similar restrictions. But an 18-year-old can get a high-powered rifle with no one batting an eye!

Guns don’t kill, people do; so, in addition to gun control legislation and enforcement, we need more mental health facilities and workers. We need to recognize people with problems and assure they get the proper help.

If we are concerned about the right to life, we must be concerned about the quality of that life from birth through normal aging. There have been more than 25 school shootings already this year. We cannot have children killed by shooters ever again!

It is not just school safety about which we must be concerned. Supermarkets, shopping malls and movie theaters are not safe either. Government must do something now!

Elizabeth S. Brody, Ocala

Why we don’t trust science

Dr. Fauci and other CDC, FDA and NIH scientists should take some responsibility for a growing number of people ignoring COVID guidance. The credibility of the scientists and their guidance has declined as they politicized the pandemic, provided inaccurate guidance, and did not recognize the psychological and economic damages of the guidance.

CDC guidance on travel masking, Title 42, vaccination priorities and school closings were influenced by politics and not science. The delayed deadline for lifting air travel masking and the deadline for lifting Title 42 were driven by politics and not science. Labor unions and prisoners were prioritized for initial vaccinations over more vulnerable populations. The CDC school guidance added wording prepared by a national teacher’s union to allow an option to keep schools closed for political leverage.

Reaching herd immunity through vaccinations and infections was promoted by scientists as the way to end the pandemic, but, as we now know, fully vaccinated people are being infected and spreading the virus. Scientists believed people could avoid long-term COVID symptoms by vaccinating, but it also turned out not to be true. The changing narrative has bolstered anti-science rhetoric.

Isolation and lockdowns were recommended without any recognition of their psychological and economic damages. The depression, anxiety and suicidal behavior suffered by school-age children after school closures were more detrimental to them than any virus health effects. Lockdowns ruined small businesses and brought the U.S. economy to a halt with little impact on the spread of the virus.

John Haseltine, Ocala

Their body

“My body, my choice” is a good general principle. As with other such principles, there are limits and exceptions.

For example, it is illegal to inject heroin into your body. It also is illegal to intentionally ingest poison. Or, suppose someone announced to you their intention to jump off of a bridge, step in front of an oncoming train or shoot themselves. It would be wrong, irresponsible and possibly criminal to respond with something like, “OK, cool, if that’s what you want. After all, your body, your choice.”

There have been no mass protests against seat belt laws, even though that could be considered an infringement on “my body, my choice.”

Most public places require people to be at least minimally clothed. If you have an obscene tattoo, you can get into trouble if you display it publicly.

If we accept any or all of these restrictions, we also should be able to accept the assertion that “my body, my choice” does not justify taking the life of another distinct human being, the innocent baby in the womb whose life has gotten started.

Pre-born lives matter.

Robby Lucke, Belleview

Preserving Access to Home Health Act

As a home health professional, I have seen firsthand how the clinically advanced, cost-effective care we provide helps the homebound members of our community.

That's why I was so disappointed to see that Medicare has proposed cuts to home health once again. The proposal includes a $1.33 billion cut in 2023 alone, and additional cuts of more than $2 billion in 2024 and the years beyond, reaching up to $18 billion over the next decade.

Fortunately, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are taking action to prevent these devastating cuts from hurting home health patients and their providers.

I hope our state's lawmakers will join in support of the Preserving Access to Home Health Act of 2022 to stop these proposed cuts and protect access to care for our most vulnerable neighbors.

Raymond Cauthen, Ocala

This article originally appeared on Ocala Star-Banner: Aug. 28 letters: Why don't we trust science?