Last night's Ulster County Legislature meeting was for some their first witnessing of their county lawmakers in action. For many of us who believe and hold firm to the second amendment, we recognize that the SAFE act removes from New Yorkers the right to defend themselves in a reliable and effective manner. It was passed at a time when we are at a high risk for being victims of violent crimes due to the economy and other social forces. The SAFE act makes its citizen even more dependent on the state for safety, a responsibility which no government can totally implement. We are proud of our county lawmakers who, under the leadership of Chairman Terry Bernardo, voted to oppose the SAFE act and to send a strong message to Governor Cuomo and President Obama that we will not be passive about our rights being trampled upon. Chairman Bernardo is taking an active and positive approach to addressing these issues which are indeed most troublesome.

As of the writing of this letter the number of counties officially opposing this dangerous, overreaching, and tyrannical abuse of executive power by Governor Cuomo is nearing 50 %. Many other smaller municipalities are passing similar resolutions. Since the governor passed the safe ACT without public input and gave virtually no time for our law makers to comprehend what they were being asked to vote upon, it is vital to send this strong message to the governor. Those of us attending the meeting and whose voices were heard last night recognize this important aspect of open government and are appreciative of having a location where all could attend and participate. Our legislature's resolution opposing the SAFE act does not convey that the SAFE act is overturned. This battle to overturn is just a beginning and this resolution and other similar resolutions across the state gives it a good start.

Gaetana Ciarlante
Saugerties

I can see why people don't want a gun limit. There are many reasons, for example, their rights, personal protection, even hunting could all be affected.

I recently read about on-duty police officers who were asked to leave a Denny's because they had firearms. As they went to leave, another manager of the store came out and said they were police officers, they were supposed to have the firearms and they could stay. The police officers were offended that they were questioned for having guns and decided to leave. Many residents are on the police's side about the issue.

It seems to me that people are getting paranoid about guns. Criminals will still find ways to get guns and ammunition even if a new gun control law passes.

Now for the other side of the coin: With all of the shootings, something has to be done. Both sides can come to an agreement about that.

When the elementary school shooting was on the news, I came home and saw family members in tears. I looked at the television and saw a shocking horror. After knowing that little children died, I can see there is a huge reason that people want this gun law bill passed.

When President Obama spoke following that tragedy, he pointed out this shooting was one time too many. Shootings have been happening way too often, hurting too many people.

I'm not sure what the outcome of this will be, but I know something needs to be done.

Skye-Daniel Mcclure
Kingston

Lynne Crockett in her "correction" claims that, "If you own a gun, your risk of being killed in your own home is 2.7 times greater than if you lived in a home with no gun at all." This is incorrect on many counts. The number 2.7 comes from an old (early 1990s), debunked study by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University. He wanted to "prove" a point and took liberties with his methods and his data selection. It's what we call junk science.

Statistics is tricky business even when used in respectable studies. I've taught proper methodology and evaluation techniques in public health Masters and pharmacy PhD programs. It is always troubling is see people so anxious to "prove" an emotionally held position that they seize upon numbers which are out of context, unrelated to the question at hand, or, in this case, simply wrong. Even were the study valid it is not about "being killed in your own home." It looked at people who were killed with a gun (anywhere) and then checked whether the victim's home housed a gun.

Here are some of the things wrong with the study. Aside from the fact that the author picked and chose what data to use in drawing his conclusions, for many years he withheld the data itself from reviewers. It involved fewer than 500 observations in three major cities; most of the guns were kept in inner city residences; many of the guns in the homes were not legally owned. Some of these killings were criminals killing other criminals. However included among the gun-owner deaths were police officers who were killed on the job. They were counted as people who kept guns at home even though their homes and guns had nothing to do with the killings. Others were gang members who were counted as having guns at home if any of those involved "victims or killers" had guns at home. Although we are led to believe that these home-kept guns were used in the killings, a majority of those killed were killed by a gun other than those kept in the home.

It stands to reason that if you live in many of the circumstances of those killed (and tabulated in the study), you already had a greater chance of being killed by a gun and might be induced to keep a gun for self protection. People who live in high-crime areas/situations are both more likely to keep guns and more likely to be killed by guns.

It is illuminating that the same study that produced the risk ratio of 2.7 for gun ownership also produced the ratio of 3.7 for "living alone." The risk ratio is an even larger 4.4 for renting, rather than owning, the residence and 5.7 if any member of the household used illegal drugs. It is not these factors which cause the deaths but rather describe the sorts of conditions that the people who were killed were unfortunate enough to live in.

I won't go into Kellermann's bad methodology but it is widely agreed that his techniques (for instance, no real control group) are incapable of demonstrating causality, only correlation between gun ownership and gun death, and then only in the specific circumstances of those who actually died. His studies were funded by the federal government through the Centers for Disease Control. Years after, because of his misleading work costing millions of dollars a year (and under pressure from the dread NRA) the CDC grants were changed and now go to the prevention of injury, and may not be used for advocating gun control.

By the way — some sixth grade arithmetic. Guns and killings aside, Ms. Crockett misinterprets the concept of ratio. A ratio of 2.7 translates to 170 percent larger, not 270 percent larger. A ratio of 1.0 means the compared numbers are exactly the same not that one is 100 percent larger.

Bob Prener
Grahamsville

As it has become evident, there is nothing more foreboding than an irrational person with a gun.

To listen to the rhetoric of many gun owners about the most recent conjectures of gun control makes me think that there are a lot of irrational people out there.

It has nothing to do with intelligence. It's about reactionary individuals, among whom there is no sense of rationality. It would be best if the gun owners would use dialogue and reasoning to come to a conclusion for the common good.

This legislation comes as no surprise to gun dealers since they've been bracing themselves for such events for decades. It isn't about Gov. Andrew Cuomo's agenda. It's something that needs to be addressed if we don't want to continually experience the horrendous effects of such irrationality.

Marion Wagner
West Hurley

As a correction sergeant at the Gowanda Correctional facility, I've seen first-hand what happens when the state makes deep cuts and closes and/or consolidates correctional facilities. Budget cuts put correction officers, staff and inmates at risk, and we're already doing some of the most dangerous jobs in the state. We've already taken major budget cuts — 2,000 correction officer jobs have been eliminated since 2009. And when a correctional facility closes, it's not just C.O.s who are out of work, small businesses in our communities suffer, too.

New York's economy is still struggling and unemployment is still too high. Closing prisons and making deep cuts that endanger public safety will only make a tough situation worse. Governor Cuomo and the state legislature should support correction officers and our communities in the state budget. New York can't afford to lose more jobs.

Vinny Blasio
Albany

The School Food Summit 2013 held at the Rondout Valley High School on February 15th was a resounding success, with three powerful events rolled into one: a Kitchen Camp for food service professionals, a spectacular Local Food Fair with 32 exhibitors and over 300 attendees, and a keynote talk and panel discussion, led by Chef Ann Cooper, "The Renegade Lunch Lady." We extend our heartfelt thanks to all — the 50 Kitchen Campers, over 30 exhibitors, hundreds of attendees and over 40 volunteers who made this day possible. And a special thank you to the Rondout Valley School District and especially Food Service Director Chris Van Damm who opened up his kitchen to us and gave tirelessly to this event, Superintendent Rosario Agostario, Michael Shore, Carol Kokas and the custodial staff for the welcome, equipment, space and staff support throughout.

This first-of-its-kind event for the Hudson Valley was an abundant expression of community spirit, imaginative problem solving, and the power of many hands working together toward a common vision: bringing local, delicious, healthy food and our agricultural heritage into the cafeterias and classrooms throughout the region.

Thanks to Kitchen Camp chefs who created delicious food with their teams using many local ingredients for the cafeteria "lunch line": Tim Cipriano from Share Our Strength; Julie Holbrook from Keene Valley Central Schools; Todd Fowler of National Farm to School; Diane Reeder of Queens Galley Soup Kitchen; Dan Turgen of Slow Food; and Peggy Parten of the Discovery Center. Thanks to food donors: Red Barn, Wild Hive, Winter Sun Farms, Cayuga Pure, Fitzgerald Farm, Fleisher's, Old Ford Farm, the RVGA and Ulster Corps gleaning teams. We wish we could individually thank all the exhibitors, farmers, coops, and healthy food organizations that made the event blossom — look on RVGA website and Facebook for full list and check them out. Thank you Creek Iversen and Lisa Mitten from the Brook Farm Project for regaling us with music and song.

We are grateful for the many people behind the scenes: Ellie Markowitz, Alan Carey, and Nan Bress for photography and video; Christoph Hitz and Maria Reidelbach for graphics; Ulster Corps, the U-team volunteers, BOCES New Vision; and Vama Patel. Special thanks to Laura Hersh, From the Ground Up intern, for managing logistics for weeks leading up to and during the event.

Thanks to Chef Ann Cooper who travelled across the county to be with us and then went on to TedX the following day, and our inspired panelists: Chef Tim Cipriano; Bruce Davenport, President of the RVGA; Todd Fowler; Julie Holdbrook; Janet Poppendieck, Free for All: Fixing School Food in America; and Chris Van Damm.

We thank our partners: Slow Food Hudson Valley, Ulster Corps, Chefs Consortium, and Marbletown Elementary School PTA and the Blue Willow Guest House for hosting our guest chefs. And deep appreciation to the Community Foundation of Ulster County, New World Foundation and Malcolm Gordon Charitable Fund for helping fund this event and RVGA's Farm to School program.

Deborah DeWan, Executive Director,
Rondout Valley Growers Association and
Nicci Cagan, Director,
From the Ground Up