Just the facts, ma’am:Chapter two This letter is my response to Mrs. Zimmermann’s letter to my letter. Your letter to my letter asked some questions that I wish to answer. Question: “Could it be that he is gearing up as part of a well-known, organized pro-gun lobby to urge the school board to make permanent its waffle on guns and just leave JROTC riflery at school sites after all?” Answer: No. Mrs. Zimmerman also feels that I’m “touting” firearms marksmanship as an Olympic sport, less dangerous than football and with a safe school record. It is true firearms marksmanship is an Olympic sport. And due to its safe school record, the fact that it is less dangerous than football IS THE REASON I’M TOUTING IT! The answer is yes. Mrs. Zimmerman also infers an ulterior motive because my letter appeared within one week of the ten-year anniversary of the Columbine High School tragedy. Mrs. Zimmerman feels “guns of any kind and for any purpose do not belong on high school campuses.” I disagree. A school is a place of learning and discipline. It is supervised and conducted by professionals. “Drug education” is not taught at the pharmacy counter of Longs. It is conducted by experts that have pledged their lives to teaching. There is no better place to learn whether the subject at hand is learning to factor algebra equations, modern European history or the demands of firearms marksmanship. Editor’s note: Mrs. Zimmerman’s letter appeared in the April 30 issue of the La Jolla Village News. Edward Rosemann Pacific Beach Market forces should drive water rationing So the city water reduction plan will feature prescribed watering days, penalties, fines and other micromanagement measures and require hiring ten new code compliance people, soon to be dubbed the “water police,” no doubt. They will follow up on alleged violations and respond to complaints by neighbors snitching on each other. If you wonder why government at every level seems to grow inexorably, it’s stuff like this that drives it. Recently, a UCSD economics professor described in the Union-Tribune a sensible water usage reduction plan, relying on market forces. It featured steeply incremental cost increases for each additional unit, say, each 200 cubic feet of water used, and proposed sharp reductions in the fixed portion of the water bill, which currently averages about two thirds of total costs. Thus, the user could see clearly how each additional unit used raised his costs and he or she would be highly motivated to cut usage. Unless you don’t think price affects behavior, this is guaranteed to reduce usage substantially. When I mentioned it to my local council member’s office, it was explained to me that it’s not that simple. There are apparently state laws restricting how much extra you can charge for added increments of usage, and the city claims to be stuck with the proposed plan, devised, of course, by the Water Department bureaucracy, until they can work out something simpler. By the time they figure that out, we’ll have ten new employees full of entitlements making it difficult, if not impossible, to get rid of them. Still, it’s good to know that at least someone is hiring during this recession! Ready for additional cuts in library hours? Bill Bradshaw Pacific Beach