Opponents of ATC modernization relying on red-herring arguments

In his op-ed (“Privatizing air traffic control is a red herring blocking real reform”, June 17), it is Craig Fuller who is providing the red herring. To begin with, there is no connection between whether an airport is among the world’s busiest and the organizational structure of the air traffic services provider. These airports are busy because people want to fly there and/or they are efficient hubs, not because the government is managing the airspace.

He also suggests that we should give up on air traffic control (ATC) reform because it is politically difficult, without mentioning that he and his former colleagues at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association have historically been the main generator of this political opposition.

{mosads}To be clear, those in favor of ATC modernization are calling for a corporatized not-for-profit (not privatized) ATC organization because it is the best means of achieving what Mr. Fuller states we need: stable and secure funding for ATC, including the ability to borrow funds; a streamlined, non-politicized procurement process so that advanced technology can be deployed quickly; and the flexibility needed to get the job done.

From Doug Lavin, vice president, member and external relations, North America International Air Transport Association, Washington, D.C. 

Rushing to gun-control regulation will not prevent future tragedies

Any shooting, no matter who is involved, is always a tragedy. But, seeking to politicize last week’s shooting targeting members of Congress practicing on a baseball field the minute it happens is not only immoral, it’s also evil. People involved should be allowed to grasp what has happened and families should be allowed to deal with it the way they choose. The facts should be allowed to come forward — but with today’s media and left-leaning politicians, that cannot be expected.

The fact of the matter is that this shooting happened in a heavily gun-regulated area. And spoiler alert: Good guys with guns stopped the shooter from continuing his onslaught. Let’s look at this from a purely logical standpoint — this man felt that there would be nobody armed due to the fact that you can’t actually carry a gun with you unless you’re in law enforcement (there are exceptions, but the process to go through to carry a gun is ridiculous and mostly pointless because they deny a vast majority). And the only reason that the security detail was there was because House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was present. The slaughter that more than likely would have ensued if it wasn’t for the security detail would have been profound.

Shootings happen, and as stated before, they’re all tragic. But making pointless “commonsense” gun laws and politicizing every shooting will do nothing to help the situation. Police are not always around, in which case people better hope and pray there is a licensed concealed carry holder nearby.

A mass shooter’s day will be ruined quickly if shots are returned — especially if you’re in a gun free zone. Fewer guns will never be the answer. More “commonsense” gun laws are not the answer. Universal background checks, magazine restrictions, “assault weapon” bans are also not the answer. Allowing people to exercise their Second Amendment rights more is the answer. And this is coming from a millennial.

From Hunter Wirtanen, Ishpeming, Mich.