Letters from readers, July 12

Jul 11, 2013

Ready, aim, don’t shoot

To the editor:

That sounds a little off skew, don’t shoot. When we think about a lethal force situation you always hear, “I would shoot,” or “Better to be judged than carried.” There are so many variables in a shooting situation, most of them the common person never even thinks about.

First is reaction time. Person reacting to an event will always be slower than those acting against them, so they already behind the preverbal “8 Ball.”

Then there’s the question or ability, or in most cases, the lack thereof. The only person who truly knows your abilities is you, or should I say inabilities. Can I really retrieve my firearm, lock –load or aim, then and hit my intended target in the amount of time I have to react in? That, my friend, is the million dollar question, no pun intended.

We all hear about the shooting situations on TV and read them in print, but how many of us really are ready? Trained law enforcement officers who have to qualify at least once per year under strict guidelines have a miss rate of over 70 percent, according to the FBI statistics. Now image yourself, maybe you even went and got a concealed handgun permit. Will you even have a chance?

I will tell you from first-hand experience, I carried on-duty for many years, qualified numerous times, was in charge of a special response team. As a N.C. certified firearms instructor, I can tell you stress will play a huge role in the marksmanship of any person. Your ability to come even remotely close to the target is hindered.

Stop and imagine for just one second, what if I shoot and miss, what if I hit the wrong person, can I live with that? Or better yet, welcome to the wonderful world of liability, but we will save that for our next story.

John Hemingway

WNC Carry Firearms & Training



Letters had wrong information

To the editor:

I recently received the June 21 issue of The Mountaineer through the mail.  I would like to correct some misconceptions I noted in the letters section. Without commenting on content or intention, the writers made several material misstatements of fact.  One reader, writing on insurance for natural disasters, asserted that California residents are covered for earthquake damage. Not correct.

People in California are not covered for earthquakes unless they purchase earthquake insurance, which is very expensive and has a 10 percent deductible from the value of the property (not the damage). If your home has the median value of $500, 000 in the San Francisco Bay area, that means any earthquake damage up to $50,000 is not covered.

It is true that when any part of our country suffers a disaster, that state’s governor can declare a state disaster area, and the state can then petition the federal government for relief through  FEMA. If the Feds declare the afflicted areas disaster zones, various forms of help are available to afflicted people in the form of rebuilding loans, outright grants or other relief as may fit the scenario.

Another writer in the same issue asserted that California laws state that unmarried women can’t legally be raped. I am unaware of any state where women may be legally raped, but I can assure you that in California, under California law, that is not the case for anyone, including married, single, or any other category.

Finally, as a daily reader of the Wall Street Journal and a retired Air Force colonel whose spouse is also a retired Air Force Colonel, with a son currently serving in deployed status, I am very interested in what the Wall Street Journal reports on military matters. I have occasionally, through the years, had my thoughts on national defense issues published by the Wall Street Journal. I do not recall that the newspaper ever opined that female (and male) rape victims are lying, or that the perpetrators  do not deserve just punishment.

Robert I. Recker Jr.

San Francisco, California

Comments (0)
If you wish to comment, please login.