After Donald Trump assassination attempt, country needs immediate gun control | Opinion

Gun lobby rhetoric falls flat

“California leaders react after Trump rally shooting,” (fresnobee.com, July 13)

After the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, there are several things we should consider. First, the weapon was an assault rifle, the type of gun that the gun lobby claims that we need for self-defense; but the assailant was not defending himself, he was using the weapon for its designed offensive purpose.

We do not need guns that are reasonably accurate at 150 yards to defend ourselves. The shooter used a legally purchased gun, had no criminal record and no record of mental illness. In short, he was what the gun lobby calls an “honest, law-abiding citizen.”

Another belief of the gun lobby is to stop a bad guy with a gun, we need good guys with guns. There were plenty of armed good guys, but they could not prevent the carnage.

David Hudson

Fresno

Dangerous surveillance technology

“Airports using biometric facial recognition in California,” (fresnobee.com, March 7)

After reading this article, I expected to see the paper continue to cover the growth of dangerous facial recognition technology in California. However, so far I’ve seen nothing about Assembly Bill 1814, a dangerous bill the California Senate is considering that would essentially greenlight the use of this technology across the state without addressing any of its harms.

Facial recognition technology has been proven to misidentify people, most frequently Black people, leading to false arrests and derailed lives. Not only is this technology unable to become perfectly accurate, too many variables can go wrong. It would still give governments and companies the power to spy on us wherever we go — tracking our faces at protests, political rallies, places of worship and putting people seeking reproductive healthcare at increasing risk every day. We cannot allow AB 1814 to become law and must protect the freedom that we hold dear.

Just this month, 58 organizations joined together to advocate against the legislation. As a resident of Fresno County, I urge State Sen. Anna Caballero to vote against dangerous surveillance technology.

Ericka Kruse

Fresno

No universal solution

“After Homelessness Ruling, Cities Weigh Whether to Clear Encampments,” (modbee.com, July 13)

The vagrancy issue is extraordinarily complex and asymmetric. There is no universal solution.

Cities need to have every available tool to do what’s best for their community. A ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stripped cities of the law enforcement tool, making it harder — not easier — to find solutions. The Supreme Court reversed that decision.

UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky labeled that reversal “wrong-headed.” But the big picture here is that the Supreme Court’s decision gave favor to the rights of 99% of the residents of Grants Pass, Oregon over the 1% of the unhoused. That doesn’t sound wrong-headed to me. It sounds like the greater good was served.

The Supreme Court reinstated the option to use law enforcement. I am confident that cities will use it in a constructive manner that serves the greater good.

Tim Ragsdale

Modesto