Legislature's thinking: spare guns, destroy pot

Re: the March 8 articles "House blocks destruction of buyback guns" and "Panel OKs police's destruction of legal pot."

The Arizona Legislature is planning to forbid cities and towns to destroy guns purchased or seized from owners or crooks. It argues that is against a law that states' seized goods must be sold.

The Legislature is planning to have cities and towns destroy seized marijuana even if the owner had a legal right to have it. That seems not to be against that law.

I guess the law only applies where they want it to. Consistency is the bugaboo of little minds, so our Legislature is very big-minded.

Werner Zimmt

Veteran, WW II, Tucson

Voters will remember Flake's vote on guns

Sen. Jeff Flake voted along party lines in the Judiciary Committee to reject the universal background check bill. Congratulations, Sen. Flake: You voted against the fervent wishes of 85 percent of Arizonans you purport to represent. This particular potential firearms law has the greatest potential of reducing firearms violence by keeping firearms out of the possession of prohibited users.

Instead, you voted in lockstep with the NRA and their fearmongering board and executives, who by the way are owned by the firearms manufacturers. Their goal of generating fear in the populace appears to be working. Just look at what it's done to our elected officials.

Sen. Flake, we, the citizens of the state of Arizona, expected you to grow a backbone, stand up straight and do the right thing. Unfortunately, you have cowered before the NRA and its ilk.

Know this, Sen. Flake. We will remember. Keep that in mind five years from now. We will remember.

Judy Aitken

Small business owner, Tucson

Students may be ahead on 'pseudo-science'

Re: the March 10 article "Science 'literacy' deficient in many UA grads."

I have good news for professor Chris Impey. His students may not be as "scientifically illiterate" as he feared.

Remember that "truth" has historically changed in all the sciences, and sometimes pseudo-science becomes mainstream science and vice versa.

So if Impey updates himself on scientific advances in fields he is less familiar with, he may find areas where the students are ahead of him.

Case in point:

He could start with a visit to the UA's own departments of psychology or integrative medicine and discover that there is now a massive amount of solid scientific data demonstrating the validity of at least some psychic powers. No longer pseudo-science!

Edward Gelardin

Physician, Tucson

Context shows intent of 2nd Amendment

If our Founding Fathers really approved of all our citizens owning and bearing arms, they would have eliminated the first 13 words of the Second Amendment. They refer to the fact that in those years we relied on state militias, with their volunteer patriots having to supply their own guns, in lieu of a huge standing army.

Thus, the amendment clearly gives the reason why only those in militias, or soon to be, should be allowed to bear and own arms. That is concisely stated in these 13 words … "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Note the capitalization of "Militia."

Norman Katz

Retired horse trainer and business owner, Tucson

Evidence shows conservatives do care

Republicans have been criticized for their personal attributes and motivations for years. Just recently, the Star's letters to the editor have described Republicans or their party as "stupid" (Feb. 22) and, the worst, having "disregard for the average person" (Feb. 24).

Arthur C. Brooks' 2006 best-selling book, "Who Really Cares - America's Charity Divide," had surprising conclusions.

He found that conservatives give, on the average, 30 percent more to charities than liberals. This was consistent regardless of income, ethnicity and age. In fact, he found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.

He also found conservatives volunteer more than liberals, give more blood and are more likely to make informal contributions.

Brooks, a liberal, was initially surprised and disturbed by his findings. In the end, he concluded his results were valid.

My observations after preparing or reviewing more than 10,000 personal income tax returns over the years confirm Brooks' conclusions.

The stereotypes of conservative selfishness and "disregard for the average person" versus liberal generosity appear to be false.

Douglas R. Holm

CPA, Tucson