Letters from our Readers: Concealed carry of guns definitely deters crime 

Although Assistant Chief Jeff Godown may not have intended to be professionally honest while also being “politically insensitive,” his quote in the Tuesday Examiner nevertheless got it right: “So many victims walking down the street, so many opportunists.”

Cops are called law enforcement officers for a reason. If you are looking for protection, think Second Amendment.

Those among us with expanded reading lists know that concealed carry of firearms does indeed deter crime, which makes obvious sense. Too bad we wouldn’t want concealed carry in San Francisco because there are so many nuts.

Paul Burton, San Francisco

Know your surroundings

Police departments are known to manipulate statistics to show reduction in crime. Your Monday story “Safeway battles thieves, cops” is a prime example. When police make it difficult for citizens to report crimes and they make excuses for their response times, citizens and businesses get frustrated and do not report crimes.

These unreported incidents accumulate and skew the statistics to show that crime has shrunk when it hasn’t. The recent outbreak of street robberies should cue the citizenry that safety on the streets is only a state of mind.

Being alert and careful is your best alternative to not being victimized.

Robert A. Jung, San Francisco

Gentleman Jerry

I agree whole-heartedly with Bob Frantz’s fine recent article on the greatness of Jerry Rice, who is about to be inducted into the Football Hall of Fame. Frantz’s professional evaluation hit spot-on and his statistics were well-researched. However, one platinum dimension of our Jerry Rice is too often overlooked. The man had class. No showboating in the end zone, no big-mouthing to the press, just great, consistent performances. Rice is a true sportsman in the lost tradition of Joe DiMaggio and Ted Williams.

Richard McLean, San Francisco

Question alcohol fee

The Sunday op-ed supporting the alcohol mitigation fee is very one-sided. The reason this is a fee rather than a tax is that fees only must be approved by supervisors and the mayor. But, taxes have to be voted on in an election.

This fee is actually targeting local San Francisco small businesses and employees of those businesses. It is not just about the nickel or dime added to a drink. San Francisco businesses already pay from 30 to 50 percent more in labor costs compared to other cities in the Bay Area because of the minimum wage, sick pay, health care and commuter benefits costs.

The costs associated with the fee should also be questioned. Just one example is that people left in the detox unit of the jail for three to four days must be checked on by a nurse every four hours. That cost should be added to drunk driving or public drunkenness fines.

Dennis Collins, San Francisco

About The Author

Staff Report

Staff Report

A daily newspaper covering San Francisco, San Mateo County and serving Alameda, Marin and Santa Clara counties.
Pin It

Speaking of...

More by Staff Report

Latest in Letters to the Editor

© 2019 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation