Letters: Rural high-speed fleecing; Reject violent language

Rural high-speed fleecing

Why is it Verizon received money to run high-speed internet to “rural areas,” did so and now do not provide it to the customers?

Case in point. Verizon ran an internet substation to the top of Vonada Gap Road in Spring Mills. It is not FiOS but it’s high speed.

Even though there are plenty of ports at this substation that are open, Verizon (I know a Verizon tech that says so) refuses to allow customers to obtain the service, for which they received taxpayer’s money to run this service to “rural areas.”

Keller, Thompson, Benninghoff, I hope you read this because I know you care about us “rural folks” and the children on this mountain that need high-speed internet.

Reject violent language

The use of violent language is increasing in ways that should alarm us all. People are calling representatives like Adam Kinzinger and threatening to kill him and his family. The Women’s March is talking about a “summer of rage.” Politicians like Eric Greitens are making ads about “hunting RINOs.” Threats of violence against political opponents and minority groups have become common in mainstream spaces like the online comments on Fox News articles.

For some, violent language becomes violent action. When people hear things repeatedly, they begin to believe them. People also conform to the norms of their groups. When those norms shift toward violence, the dangers are real. This rise in violent language is coming at a time of mass shootings, armed militias walking our streets and organizing in front of our state houses, and an attack on our Congress while it certified an election.

Many people are concerned about the deepening divisions in our country. Pushing back against violent rhetoric every time we hear or see it is something we can all do. We must always challenge it in our homes, communities, and online spaces.

People are more responsive to feedback from people they know and trust, making those difficult conversations the most valuable ones.

We also have to actively work against political candidates who promote violence, especially when they are from our own party. Let’s work together to restore a culture of civility, placing violent rhetoric and behavior outside the boundaries of what’s acceptable.

Stronger gun laws would save lives

The Independence Day massacre could have been prevented. Seven lives could have been saved, and three dozen people could have been spared injuries.

Yes, we must examine mental health and other factors that contribute to such brutality.

But let’s be clear. The shooter, Robert Crimo, legally purchased a high-powered AR 15-style rifle three years after police confiscated knives and swords from his home following credible threats to kill his family. He bought the gun even though authorities knew that Crimo had attempted suicide and repeatedly indicated through social media his desire to kill people with guns.

Everything about this young man signaled he had dangerous intentions and simply needed the tools to kill. He acquired those tools to kill – efficiently and ruthlessly – because Illinois law permitted him to do so. Federal law permitted him to do so.

Gun advocates tell us that no laws would have stopped a massacre like this.

Wrong.

Had the assault weapons ban still been in place, Crimo would not have had easy access to a weapon designed for mass killing. Beyond the ban, there was sufficient cause to “flag” Robert Crimo had truly robust red flag laws been in place — and followed. Crimo could have been denied the tools of mass murder.

Furthermore, closing loopholes would prevent someone like Crimo from buying the same type of gun from a private seller without any background check.

Stronger national gun laws would have saved lives on July 4th — and would continue to save innocent lives going forward.