Do children need body armor? Letters

May 10 — To the Editor:

The number one cause of death in children in the United States is guns. As of this date (May 10) there have been 631 children killed by guns since Jan. 1, 2023, and 1,531 injured. What can we do to prevent this loss of life?

When I started practicing pediatrics 50 years ago, infectious disease was the leading cause of death and disability in children. We had an array of effective immunizations, antibiotics and public health policies that have made a huge difference.

When it comes to gun-related death in children, we do not have a similar array of medical measures to stop this onslaught of death and disability. Do we want to send our children off to school in body armor? But that wouldn't protect them from the bullet through the head or loss of limb.

The epidemic of gun violence on children needs a totally different approach. For the safety of our children, gun violence needs to be tackled with intelligence and determination the way we've tackled life-threatening infections. To stop this slaughter of children, our country needs to contain the kind of guns allowed in the public domain, determine who can responsibly own guns and insist that those guns be stored securely.

Public policy on guns must change if we are to save our children from the fear of being cut down in their schools, homes, theaters and shopping malls. Public officials in Washington and in your town halls need to hear that you want to stop this childhood carnage. Join the Wear Orange demonstrations in your community June 3-4 (found at wearorange.org) to let your voices be heard.

Skip Berrien, MD

Exeter

May 9 — To the Editor:

Tuesday's Portsmouth Herald/Foster's Daily Democrat Opinion Page published diametrically opposite views on the crisis of 200 mass shootings in the United States in 2023.

Guest columnist Alan Forbes, chair of the Portsmouth Republican Committee, strains the credulity of any intelligent reader by claiming "Deadly force more of a deterrent than gun laws" citing (the highly partisan) Crime Prevention Research Center unsupported claim that "between 1998 and 2018, 97% of (mass shootings) took place in gun-free zones." He then claims, but without citing supporting evidence, that gun-free zones are, in fact, a magnet for such events. Moreover, with the twisted logic of partisan politics, he offers his personal recommendation that a "better approach to reducing the likelihood of shootings at schools would be to embed electronic safes into cement walls in prominent areas and let everyone know that there are loaded guns inside of them …. with teachers and staff who are properly trained to use the guns and know the combinations."

But Mr. Forbes has utterly failed to think things through logically, for what responsible teacher would abandon her/his frightened, at-risk students to run in the heat of the fray to open a central electronic safe, access weapons, then personally hunt down the shooter?!?!? School teachers are neither trained, nor should be expected to act, as law enforcement officers. Mr. Forbes is correct that simply declaring schools as gun-free zones will not solve the problem. Some, if not the majority, perpetrators of mass shootings or solitary citizen stand-offs appear to do so seeking law-enforcement-assisted suicide as revealed by suicide notes found in their personal effects. So think again, Mr. Forbes, your’ solution would, in fact, backfire by turning schools into magnets for those seeking suicide by law enforcement.

Contrast Mr. Forbes ill-informed partisanship with the thoughtful, historically accurate note offered by Exeter's Malcolm Odell who congenially points out that the partisan dialogue continues to ignore a crucial fact: "The final, handwritten original of the Bill Of Rights as passed by Congress: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". All Originalists, myself included, recognize that this provision was required by the Founding Fathers because our nascent nation was at war with the formidable British Empire and we had no army! Of course, this is no longer the case. In fact, for year 2023, Congress funded $1.99 trillion (!!) for the Department of Defense, so clearly there is no need or justification that individual citizenry be armed to act as a "well-regulated militia."

I personally have no issue with private ownership of pistols, rifles, or shotguns for legitimate pursuit of recreational hunting, target practice, skeet-shooting, and self-defense (from home-intrusion etc.) provided the owner is a mentally-sound, mature adult 21 years of age or older; certified as trained in the use of firearms; in possession of a legal permit; and whose guns are demonstrably kept in locked storage when not in use. At the same time, I sincerely believe there is absolutely no justification for non-military or non-law enforcement persons to have access to weapons of mass destruction such as AR-15 assault rifles, semi-automatic pistols, bump stocks, large capacity magazines, and the like, all of which confer insuperable advantage to would-be assailants and conversely, vanishingly small chance for innocent victims.

I urge everyone to carefully consider the pressing issue of rampant gun-related violence in the US and its growing profound effect on our sense of personal security. If we cannot find educational and legislative means to control this crisis, we will be condemned to live in a constant state of paranoia, wondering will I or my family be the next innocent victims of a false freedom.

If indifferent, one might as well change the New Hampshire motto to: Live Free AND Die!

Clinton Fredrick Miller II MD

Rye

May 10 — To the Editor:

Mr. Alan Forbes’ opinion piece declares that the proposals of Moms Demand Action regarding gun safety are only emotional solutions, rather than logical ones. These proposals include gun regulation, some gun bans and support for school "gun free" zones. While he claims that signs for "gun free" zones are the stupidest idea he has ever heard, he is nevertheless convinced that a sign that warns of "deadly force" to an intruder is a great idea. Mr. Forbes combines this idea with an intricate plan to fake the presence on school property of a locked safe alleged to contain guns for protection.

Mr. Forbes, that to me is the stupidest idea that I have heard. Since mass shooters expect to die, and do not seem to care if they do, the threat of an armed guard, and armed teacher or a locked safe that may or may not contain guns is, therefore, not a deterrent to murder. It is apparent to me that for you guns are more sacred than the lives of your fellow citizens, including children.

Good luck recruiting more Republicans as Portsmouth Republican chair.

Peter Somssich

Portsmouth

May 10 — To The Editor:

Until today, I never agreed with anything that Rich DiPentima writes or espouses, but today his column on the Historic District Commission was the most accurate and on point thing I have read in these pages in 20 years. The good retired colonel, nurse, and health expert has nailed this one, bravo Rich!

The HDC membership has long had well-meaning people on the board who have deep-rooted personal agendas and politics. These things manifest themselves quite prominently during meetings and appeals. I have appeared on behalf of several clients seeking various exceptions, permits, etc. and have literally argued with members on personal points of view and not the statutory or mandated guidelines. The former chairman even told me during a hearing that, "this is not an adversarial process Mr. McCarthy." My reply was Mr. Chairman, this is most definitely an adversarial process as my client was denied three times prior to this appearance, it is most assuredly adversarial. The motion passed unanimously, who was he trying to kid?

The HDC provides the essential protection, checks, and balances we need in the city, and nobody denies that. They do, however, often as in the case Mr. DiPentima cites, interpose their own personal positions, whether political or philosophical, into the decisions and meetings. This behavior is out of line, period. The chair needs to recognize this and start to steer the commission back on track. The voters in Portsmouth have no idea how adversarial it is to go before the HDC and how deep the personal agendas and political leanings are. The mayor especially panders to people to get them on these quasi-judicial boards without even considering the effects on the property owners and the perceptions of how the boards carry out their duties. This is purely political as we have seen by the results.

Time for the mayor and council to change this process to conform to best practices, as they demand them in other city business but not the HDC.

T. Stephen McCarthy

Portsmouth