Patently unacceptable

Regarding the news article by Michel Miller titled “Drought Intolerance” on Jan. 14, I must add my voice to the growing outrage over this travesty.

First, the provision that a commercial customer consuming a public resource cannot have its identity disclosed to that very public may be putatively legal, but it is most certainly harmful to the public because secrecy encourages deception and abuse.

Second, the claim mentioned in the article, “Business utility customers claim that information made public about their utility usage, in this case water, would cause undue scrutiny by the public,” carries absolutely ZERO water with me (pun intended). If someone is consuming a public resource, there is no such thing as undue scrutiny. That is a sophistry undoubtedly made up from whole cloth by an overpaid lawyer, and is patently unacceptable.

The larger question isn’t really one of conservation, it’s one of the public’s right to know. Yes, conservation is important, especially in the semi-arid coastal desert in which we live. But fair and proper compensation for use of public resources is even more important.

Dion Hansen
Ventura

A+ for trying

Late last year I also purchased the same firearm at the same store in Oxnard. However, most of the similarity in experience ends there. My wife pointed out your article and I read it several times. Subsequently, I wrote a long reply trying to helpfully illustrate several ways the outcome of your “experiment” might have ended on a better note. My wife critiqued what I wrote and then I slept on it. On reflection, I considered several things. Among them was that I could not help but relate the story as analogous to a question like, How many people that are sick-afraid of heights would take up skydiving or rock climbing? Given the many choices that were made less than wisely, the outcome was predictable. Yours is a personal experience story, there is no requirement that your story be a fair evaluation of the issue. It became clear that this story, while true, was not an attempt at objective journalism. Attitude is everything. It is difficult to imagine that you could have had any experience other than what is chronicled, given your state of mind, experience level and the situational advice given to you. The “story” is not one of bravery or an intellectual inquiry. For me, it is rather the putting forth of a personal, emotionally driven opinion in a self-supportive, predominantly negative way. A+ for trying, but as you noted, “Surely, there is plenty more to learn.” It would be my recommendation that anyone who wants to start down the road of using deadly force begin with a program of professionally directed firearms training specifically structured for personal protection. Just buying a gun does NOT make you safer! It is probably safe to say that there are far too many pistol owners out there that will quickly answer your question of … “Now, do I feel safe?” with a Yes! Sadly, I would wager that most Yes! respondents are, at best, marginally, mentally and physically prepared to deal with the quick, appropriate deploying of deadly force against a violent human that will not be stopped by any means other than bullets being input with speed and accuracy. It is satisfyingly cavalier to say: “I’ll just shoot him in the face!”… quite another to actually pull it off when seconds count. Carrying Concealed is a related nightmare of responsibility that is fraught with potential bad outcomes. I am applying also … but having second thoughts.

Michael
Port Hueneme

P.S. While perceptions vary … I would not characterize the cover as a promotion of gun ownership. The cover in its entirety bodes just the opposite to me.