More people should bike to work
As a guy who travels to work by bicycle, I was dumbfounded at the headline, “Buckhead Bike Plan to Squeeze Traffic Flow,” News, Aug. 29). As the article eventually notes, the center turn lane will increase traffic and reduce accidents. It worked on Ponce de Leon and it will work on Peachtree. But these passionate — or are they paranoid? — motorists won’t listen, and so DOT eliminated the new bike lane north of Peachtree Battle. I’d rather have a bike lane than a traffic lane, but if I’m going to Buckhead, I’ll ride where I can. Quite frankly, more people should bike to work. It’s fun! The city’s work to increase bike lanes and trails should be applauded and supported.
HENRY SLACK, DECATUR
Strong gun legislation not the complete answer
What does it take for the citizens of our country to take it back from the “Let’s arm everyone” citizens? As our president said after the Charleston massacre: We do not have more mentally ill people than any other country, just more guns. Yes, mental health issues likely are one part of the problem of daily shooting after shooting after shooting. But as a constant single fallback position each time there is a shooting that sickens us, saying this is proof we need to tackle mental illness, is disingenuous. No one, even experts, know what is going on in someone’s head or what they are thinking at any given instant. There is no sign on their forehead — only a look back at signs missed. There is only one common denominator: guns! And their ease in obtaining them. I am not naive to think that strong gun legislation would suddenly make us all safer or that guns would disappear, but we have to start somewhere or else this will end up a country where everyone really has to have a gun.
MAX EPLING, WOODSTOCK
Consider Great Britain’s firearms legislation
All are aware and concerned about the explosive and continuing murders and wounds from pistol, rifle and other weapons that discharge bullets. What have been the public and political responses? One view is greater background checks. The contrary position is that would impair the Second Amendment of the Constitution. The controlling dynamic is how to address this subject. Should there be an objective discussion about banning weapons except for military militias organized by federal and state governments? For those who are interested in addressing this subject objectively, one suggestion is a review of Great Britain’s firearms legislation: “Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy: Great Britain.” That Internet site presents detailed and realistic information as a possible solution — ownership of specified weapons are permitted. Also, the rules are not split into every province or locality in that nation. Those who have other solutions to this dilemma should propose their remedies, including the means to finance them.
STANLEY HARRIS JR., SAVANNAH
