Letters to the editor: On red flag laws

These letters were published in the Sept. 1 print edition of the Las Cruces Sun-News.

Red flag gun laws save lives

Aug. 25's 3 killed and 4 injured in Hobbs is yet another tragedy. Lea County (Hobbs) joined other counties in February with a resolution to be a “Second Amendment sanctuary county,” to not require their deputies to enforce the gun bills that were then before state lawmakers.

States with universal background checks for all gun sales had 15% lower homicide rates than states without such laws. Since Connecticut and Indiana implemented “red flag” laws, they have had a combined reduction of 10% in firearm suicides. And states with laws prohibiting firearm possession by people convicted of violent crimes showed an 18% reduction in homicide rates. Is that sufficient evidence of “what works?” If one, two, or all three of these laws were extended nationally, we might see 5,000 or considerably more lives spared each year, 100 or more each week. 

The last NM legislative session passed background checks. Red flag laws, now in 17 states, looks promising for passage in 2020. If data associated with reductions in firearm homicide, suicide and injury show promise, what do we have to lose? Legislation can be amended. A death cannot be reversed.

And firearm mortality rates in NM compare unfavorably to the US average (51% higher at 17.8 vs. 11.8 per 100,000, in 2017) and across time (34% higher, between 2005 and 2017, from 13.3 to 17.8 per 100,000). In 2018, New Mexico experienced its most violent year of firearm deaths (436) in more than a century.

The bottom line is, “What can we do to reduce firearm tragedies?” This is not a left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican issue. No. This is about having the courage and wisdom to try something which shows promise.

Michael Baron, Corrales

Great talk on cannabis

I want to thank Sheriff Stewart and Gov. Grisham for starting these public meetings on the proposed cannabis legalization. Earlier this week, the Q&A was here in Chaparral and Sheriff Stewart facilitated this conversation very well. It was informative and we all had an opportunity to ask questions and voice our opinions. Pros and cons were both voiced with the dominant concern being "to protect our children from getting a hold of it."

21 years old was the agreed legal purchase age last night. With mandatory jail time for distribution to minors both a good idea and within our legislative means. Money for education from tax revenue is a benefit from the legalization. Money for drug abuse prevention and treatment another possibility. 

I went to learn what is happening on this legalization process. I believe no one should be locked up for having or growing a plant. It is a waste of time, money and lives.

To those who want to "protect the children," count me in. To really protect our children, we must address guns and the easy access to weapons of war before another store or school becomes a war zone! That is the greatest immediate threat to people of all ages, their lives and families — amped up, empowered, ignorant racists with rapid-fire rifles. This is the greatest threat to us. Legalize cannabis and focus on that.

Thanks again to all who orchestrated this conversation.

Jeff Stephan, Chaparral

Art Book Sale a success

Many thanks to the generous community members who donated and purchased hundreds of books at the Doña Ana Arts Council’s first Art Book Sale. Many of those who donated came back to buy other books at the Aug. 24 event! A truly generous spirit was expressed to help us raise $744 toward children’s scholarships for art programs. 

We received many requests to repeat the Art Book Sale, so start putting aside your art books for the next event, and we’ll keep the community posted on a date.

Kathleen Albers, communications director for Doña Ana Arts Council

Stop with the school lawsuits

I am a retired adult educator and my students were predominantly young adults emerged out of a K-12 system that mostly failed them. This was in another state so point being NM is not the only state struggling to meet our student’s needs.

When my husband and I moved here in 2006 we moved to be close to family and the abundance of sunshine that we truly enjoy. I was aware that the K-12 education system was failing our students both at the local and state level however I was retired and enjoying this great community. Things changed. We became grandparents and with that a heightened concern about schools and our local and state K-12 system. We supported a change in administration a few years ago and observed positive changes and climbing graduation numbers. 

Our school district is large and poor and many people work very hard and long hours to provide our children with the education they deserve. Mistakes are made on all levels. Some chose to put their energy into dismantling the administration — mission accomplished. Now is the big question, “Why all the lawsuits?” Our school district is already one of the poorest in our nation and from a lay person’s perspective none of the lawsuits are to benefit or provide a better education for our students. Some quit their jobs, some were let go and others resigned. Please, everyone, be responsible for your own actions, lick your wounds in private and move on with your lives. 

The future of this community as a whole is having all of us invest in providing the very best education for all of our students.

Britt Nielsen, Las Cruces

Warmer weather a boon for trout

There are two pieces in the Aug. 25 Sun-News regarding salmonid problems: a letter to editor about EPA’s assessment that trout waters are receding, and an AP article on dead salmon in Alaska as a result of warming waters. I have been dealing with this issue lately as I am writing another guide book to fly fishing New Mexico.

By the good graces of the shifting sky, we had one of the wettest winters on record up north; which helped offset the ravages of the driest year in history — occurring the very year before!

And most free-running trout streams don’t do well with heat and drought. (Those that are below dams fare better.) The great trout fishery of the Rio Grande is protected from high temperature — and low water — by a vast conglomerate of 56 degree springs that enter the Rio 20 miles south of the Colorado border.

Amazingly the effects of warmer weather in that region have made trout prosper as they now don’t have winter to deal with.

And the north central forest of NM are still in good shape and not — as yet — experiencing the massive die-offs that cover much of central Colorado. (Although on a recent fishing trip near Tres Piedras many of the evergreens were looking more ever-brown than ever-green.)

We all know about being enveloped by greenhouse gas — but that doesn’t let us personally off the hook — so to speak — for localized development, mines and accesses of people and our greedy ways.

So, although we are in something of a “sweet spot” in global warming right now in some of our northern trout country, that could easily be washed away with the next flood or drought — or both.

Taylor Streit, Caballo

Natural gas best option moving forward

Nathalie Eddy is right (“Time to cut methane pollution in New Mexico,” July 28). Methane is a dangerous greenhouse gas, and industry needs to do the work needed to reduce these harmful emissions.

The rest of Eddy’s column lacks context, however. In terms of the budget, Eddy says we should not put “all of our eggs in one basket.” Currently, what other basket do we have? Renewable energy production and generation is not going to replace revenues lost if we ban natural gas production. In most cases, wind and solar actually require taxpayer subsidies to stay afloat. They take away from our budget surplus, not add to it.

Eddy also ignores the fact that the United States still is struggling to move away from the greatest polluter of them all: coal. Natural gas is a cleaner, more affordable option than coal. The International Energy Agency — hardly a shill for the natural gas industry — just released a report that estimated switching from coal to natural gas reduces greenhouse emissions by 50 percent when producing electricity and by 33 percent when providing heat. That improvement is incredible.

As a citizen of Las Cruces, I am as concerned about our environment as Eddy is. That is precisely why I think we need more natural gas.

Lisa Martinez, Las Cruces