LETTERS: Strip tragedy highlights shortfalls in identifying the needy

The Review-Journal has been updating the story about the young woman who drove onto the sidewalk on the Strip and injured a number of pedestrians, killing one (“Driver faces murder charge,” Wednesday Review-Journal). This was a senseless and tragic act, for which there is no excuse.

However, the emerging story indicates the perpetrator had been living in her car with a small child and was repeatedly run out of parking lots by security guards. She was obviously under great emotional pressure, which she was inadequately equipped to deal with. It appears the many people and organizations that purport to reach out to the needy at this time of the year failed to make contact with her.

I receive several calls per day about contributing to various charities that want to help the poor and needy in the holiday season. However, when I ask how they identify those who will receive support, none of them have a program to reach out to people in this woman’s circumstances.

I hope this terrible incident will motivate those who profess to help the most needy to reexamine their process for identifying recipients. Possibly, if the parking lot security guards that refused to allow her to park had a phone number to call and identify her for potential aid, this situation might not have spiraled out of control and ended so horrifically.

Wayne Beeson

Las Vegas

Gun control

It is very frustrating to read and listen to news reports on a daily basis about people wanting more gun control. I find it hard to believe some of the people calling for more control are so naive as to think it will solve the problems.

First off, I think everyone should read the Constitution. Second, look at the states with the strictest gun laws. Their crime rates and gun violence are often higher than in states with less gun control.

Some people think if a law is passed, they will be safer. But laws don’t mean a thing to people who are bent on committing crime. However, look at the times crime has been stopped due to someone carrying a weapon or having one in their home.

The Review-Journal printed a story regarding home invasions (“3 indicted in home invasions, sexual assaults,” Dec. 17 Review-Journal). I would be willing to bet if the victim had a weapon, the outcome would have been different. In the 2016 election, we have liberal presidential candidates wanting more control, including Hillary Clinton supporting gun confiscation. Read your history before voting for them.

Bob Swift

Boulder City

Education solution

Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed legislation to replace the No Child Left Behind Act, and the new law supposedly returns more control of the schools to the states and local districts (“Washington Digest: Congress completes No Child Left Behind overhaul,” Dec. 13 Review-Journal). We need to ask whether this will make any difference at all.

I believe the most reasonable answers to that question begin with words such as, “It might, but …” or “It might, if …”

For example: It might, if those in charge at the local level really step up and take charge. It might, but local entities — such as the Clark County School District — are still bound to federal dollars that they might need to forfeit if they stray from policies and programs that come from the U.S. Department of Education. Common Core is a prime example.

The best solution would be to abolish the Department of Education. That would really return control to the local level, while at the same time giving parents more reason to take an interest in their local schools.

Owen Nelson

Las Vegas