Michael Carlini actually wants schools to teach relevant things such as finances (how to keep and balance a checkbook, consequences of credit card use, how to file tax returns). Not going to happen in this enlightened age of teaching.

Michael Carlini actually wants schools to teach relevant things such as finances (how to keep and balance a checkbook, consequences of credit card use, how to file tax returns). Not going to happen in this enlightened age of teaching.

Sorry, they used to teach those things. It was called civics. Now young people have no concept of personal finances and responsibility. Having seen the consequences of this lack of knowledge, it's very sad. — P. Moran, Medford

Oregonians ought to be positive about the Supreme Court decision upholding major parts of the Affordable Care Act.

More people will get health insurance. That's good. There are rules of the road for insurance companies that benefit consumers. And Oregon leads the way in setting up exchanges and expanding Medicaid eligibility to implement the law, unlike some other states.

The recent articles in the paper document that the most controversial part, the mandate to obtain insurance, will only apply to a very small percentage of eligible citizens and take the form of a tax debit or penalty, which starts at a very modest amount.

Recall the mandate was a key part of past Republican health care reform policy and was signed into law by the presumed Republican presidential candidate a few years ago in his home state. No "free riders" there!

No, the sky is not falling and the country is not lost. The mandate, I suggest, is about like the acorn that fell on Chicken Little's head. Let's move on now to the important issues of the economy and job creation. — Steve Haskell, Ashland

"Shooter called a gifted, troubled student" read the Mail Tribune headline.

No, it wasn't referring to the recent murders of 12 moviegoers in Colorado. This headline was from a March 11 article about a student who had killed a medical worker and wounded six others at a clinic in Pittsburgh. There's no shortage of people near the ends of their ropes who can snap and commit horrendous rampages that snuff out innocent lives.

The only uncertainty now is when, not whether, another such tragedy will occur — and how many more will die. That is, unless we seriously ramp up efforts at restricting the free flow of guns. The Colorado shooter was using several weapons, including an assault rifle with oversized magazines. Unhinged individuals will always be among us — but let's not make it so easy for them to arm themselves to the teeth in preparation for whatever deranged plot they have concocted.

Despite the predicted howls from the NRA's lobbyists ("Guns don't kill people," etc.), we must rein in the ready availability of firearms. Regulating Internet and gun show purchases, and excluding assault rifles, oversized magazines and heavier military arms from general commerce, would seem reasonable places to begin. — John Kloetzel, Ashland

I have some serious questions to propose in regard to the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colo., in which the theater imposed a no-firearm policy.

We know that a driver of an automobile assumes responsibility of the passengers, regardless that it was a choice of the passenger to enter the vehicle. We also know that a homeowner assumes responsibility of all of those who choose to enter their property, regardless if they were invited or not, e.g. criminals who have won court cases upon trespass.

I would like citizens of the entire nation to consider who assumes responsibility when our constitutional rights are put to the side for the preference of a business. By asking their patrons to disarm themselves, why should they not assume the responsibility for their safety and be held accountable?

Yes, it was a choice to visit the establishment, yet as we can see in other instances the owner assumes the responsibility for the safety of those who enter, invited or not. Why would this be any different? This tragic event very well could have been stopped short if this establishment had a pro-firearm policy because proof positive, the current anti-firearm policy did not. — Brandon Hamlet, Eagle Point