Hi 44° | Lo 23°

Letter: Is Ayotte soft on crime?

Sen. Kelly Ayotte ran for office on her record as a prosecutor but I am beginning to wonder if she is soft on crime. Many have written concerning her opposition to expanding background checks for gun purchases, so I will concentrate on other topics.

We learned in the Boston Marathon bombing that it is physically possible to put a taggant in gunpowder so it can potentially be traced in the aftermath of a bombing. We also learned that Congress at the behest of the NRA has forbidden the taggant to be placed in the gunpowder. Does Ayotte think there is a Second Amendment right to make and keep bombs?

There was also an explosion in the town of West, Texas, which killed and injured more people than the marathon bombing. We have learned from this incident that the responsibility for regulating small chemical plants has been given to the Department of Homeland Security, which has no resources to do so. We have learned that this plant had a very large pile of bomb-making material and Homeland Security did not even know the plant existed.

Ayotte has made no comments aimed at investigating and correcting this. Why not?

An April 21 column by Grant Bosse claimed that gun control has never worked (“The Senate sticks to its guns,” Sunday Monitor Viewpoints). It took a comedy show (The Daily Show) to offer serious coverage of Australia’s reduction in mass shootings and gun violence from the installation of national gun control by a conservative government.



Legacy Comments13

Hey TCB ! I would make sure that we freed up the corrections system so that we could safely incarcerate the violent people. Hit the non-violent offenders in the pocket book. Add that money to the corrections system budget. Get rid of the MJ prohibition laws, turn production over to the tobacco companies and tax the snot out of it. how many spots does that free up?

Over 60%--but who's counting? Not you.

Bernie Madoff, Scott Farah and Donald Dodge were all non violent. So, just fine them and let them be on their way? Laughable.

GWTW, Take note please. "...By filling our prisons up with non-violent offenders many States have no space,..." keyword is 'non-violent'.

And you lived in the 'Wild West' Jvalley? You start out making sense then use the time of lynch mobs and kangaroo court as the example of how one of the most violent times in our history was wonderful. It reminds me of how people think Victorian times were so great. As if cholera, high infant mortality and child labor were blessings.

I dont think he started out making sense at all. We DONT lock people up and throw away the key...we give them chance after chance. Commit a crime with a gun? 25 years. Minimum. Period.

Okay,,,, Where? By filling our prisons up with non-violent offenders many States have no space, manpower or money to do this. And no. I do not think paying companies like Wackenhut at the behest of people like Bill O'Brien is a good idea. Our State has a proud tradition of being skinflints. We will give a homeless woman with a child a voucher for a campground site (No tent included) But you want to house thousands of people in prisons at $40,000.00 a year per pop?

What do you want to do to people that commit violent gun crime and rape little kids? Slap them on the hand, tell them not to do it again and send them on their way?

NHdriver, I hear what you don't like about the current system. If it was your job to maintain a safe society - what would you propose?

At what point does the pursuit of justice become a quest for vengeance? Clearly being "tough" on crime isn't working. Locking people up and throwing away the key mentality has brought us near the top in terms of per capita of citizens incarcerated. The "Australian" example is a farce. Sure, violent 'shootings' have dropped, but home invasions and other violent crimes have increased because the population is vulernable without a means to protect itself. It is not the governments job to protect it's people from people. It's job is to protect the country from invasions, etc. In the 'wild west' you were always on your best behavior, because an armed society is a polite society.

An armed society is a polite society? Really? How does that work? Is your ideal society one where everyone is afraid of being "impolite" - i.e., speaking his or her mind, because otherwise someone may be offended and would summarily draw and shoot? If so, what you are proposing is the end of civilization, where everyone would be engaged in a collective and personal arms race, where might would make right. I don't know about you, but I have no interest in living in some Mad Max-type dystopia where everyone is intimidated, cowed, and afraid. No thanks.

Publius, I do not take my vision or plans for the future from a movie. Like to think I aim a little higher. However, isn't it funny that so many actors say their are against gun until they use them every week in movies and TV - TO MAKE MONEY! Oh, yes then everything is is different. For those that really care about a safer society - suggest you start there.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.