Letters to the editor

OPINION:

Guns remain a problem

Who would have thought the tragic shootings and subsequent suicide at Virginia Tech would result in an effort to relax gun-control laws and allow students to carry weapons on college campuses (“Students push for guns on campus,” Page 1, Monday)?

According to a December 2006 report by the Virginia Department of Health’s Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 60.9 percent of violent deaths in Virginia in 2004 were by firearm. Of the 816 Virginians who died by suicide in 2004, 59.4 percent used a firearm to end their lives, according to the same report.

The number of deaths by homicide in Virginia is outnumbered consistently by the number of suicides, particularly on college campuses. Nationwide, suicide is the second leading cause of death for college-age students; in Virginia, suicide is the third leading cause of death for individuals age 15 to 24.

Instead of pushing for students to be permitted to carry concealed weapons on campus, we should turn our focus to implementing Virginia’s law directing the governing boards of each Virginia public institution of higher education to develop and implement policies advising students, faculty and staff — including residence hall staff — of the proper procedures for identifying and addressing the needs of students who show signs of suicidal behavior.

We also should advocate for more funding for federal Campus Suicide Prevention Grants (Garrett Lee Smith grants) that assist colleges and universities in their efforts to prevent suicide. Fifty-five colleges across the nation receive such grants, yet not one has been awarded in Virginia.

As we prepare to send our nation’s sons and daughters back to campus this fall, we should be advocating increased mental-health and suicide-prevention services on our campuses, not increased authority to carry concealed firearms. More guns on campus is not the answer.

JERRY REED

Executive director

Suicide Prevention Action Network USA

Washington

Is health choice an illusion?

In response to William Stanmeyer’s Sunday Commentary column, “Healthy freedom of choice?” in which he describes a fast-paced and successful diagnosis of and operation to remove a cancerous tumor, I would like first to congratulate him on his ability to afford the great health care he received.

Mr. Stanmeyer states that he would have died if he had not been able to choose his doctors or choose the care he was given. I would like to ask him how he paid for all of his chosen care. I also would like to ask him if he would have “chosen” to see those doctors and receive that care if he had not been fortunate enough to have a “retired doctor friend” who recommended him to a doctor and then lobbied on his behalf for a full-scale physical. He stated himself that he had not chosen to have a physical in 25 years.

My next question for Mr. Stanmeyer would be in regard to the millions of Americans who lack health insurance and the millions of Americans whose health insurance is not as complete or comprehensive as, I’m assuming, his own is. Does Mr. Stanmeyer believe those people have chosen to fall through the cracks of our troubled health-care system? What will Mr. Stanmeyer tell the families of those uninsured and underinsured Americans who will continue to die every year because they do not have the same luxury of speedy and successful health care?

If Mr. Stanmeyer had not been lucky enough to have that doctor friend, have health insurance and be able to afford the care he was given, would he still oppose a single-payer system that would make the kind of health care he received a right afforded to all Americans?

ELYSE SEIGLE

Washington

Judge Moore and the rule of law

Judge Roy Moore’s Tuesday Op-Ed column, “Bad judicial precedent,” is an ill-informed and hypocritical assessment of judges’ role in interpreting the law.

Following his discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision last term in Gonzales v. Carhart involving partial-birth abortion, Judge Moore later states that “previous decisions which contradict reason, logic, the Constitution and the law of God should be discarded. Judges not only have the right but the duty to disregard such decisions.”

Contrary to Judge Moore’s belief, there is no single definition of “God’s law,” and asking jurists to draw on their interpretation of such law would force them to commit the very offense he claims to disdain. Judges certainly have the duty to disregard their “feelings and theoretical opinions” when interpreting the Constitution; religious opinions are not exempt from this rule.

The Constitution is a secular document, and, much to Judge Moore’s apparent disappointment, it established a secular government. Indeed, the constitutional separation of church and state ensures that each American has the right to independently interpret the reality, meaning and moral implications of divine law.

On a separate note, I am startled by Judge Moore’s current reverence for the rule of law. His previous displays of contempt for the Constitution and his removal from the Alabama Supreme Court in 2003 for defying federal court orders lead me to believe that he is only concerned about the rule of his God’s law.

BARRY W. LYNN

Executive director

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

Washington

Still more on missile defense

Replying to Peter Huessy’s appeal for more missile defense (“More on missile defense,” Letters, Tuesday), we need to point out that the capability of any system that is fielded needs to be known to the war fighter, regardless of the stage of spiral development at which it is accepted into service. In the case of a strategic system, the true capability must be identified so a wise and informed course of action can be adopted for its use and improvement with time. We are surprised that anyone in the acquisition community could find fault with these truisms.

There is no attempt on our part to disagree on the threat posed by the proliferation of missile and warhead technology or on the consequent need for America and allies to have the protection of an effective missile defense. Once again, Mr. Huessy extols the virtue of spiral development without due acknowledgment of the importance of adequate testing to demonstrate that the product being deployed actually works.

The introduction of spiral development has indeed been a major change in acquisition procedures. As part of that change, there has been a relaxation in the requirement of how a weapon system will be expected to perform, tending toward an acceptance of the capability it produces. We consider that such procedures lead to the very position in which missile defense now stands.

We have a system based in Alaska and in Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and although some of the elements have been in place for more than three years, we do not yet know at what level they will perform. How can we determine the best ways to move forward without adequate testing? Spiral development may have significantly eased the task of developers, but without proper testing, it leaves the military services in the unfortunate position of being uncertain of how a system will perform.

We want to see missile defense well-supported, and, equally important, we want to see the Missile Defense Agency demonstrating it has achieved a level of competence from which it can build an even more effective system. Mr. Huessy is correct that the mullahs are not waiting, so why are we still so reluctant to test?

STANLEY ORMAN

Rockville

MAJ. GEN. EUGENE FOX

Army (retired)

McLean