[Editor's Letter, "Loaded Argument," Duane Swierczynski, Sept. 14, 2006] illustrates a common theme with identifying sources of problems in society (gun violence), and thusly altering your parenting techniques accordingly. I commend your intent, but your solution is unfounded and silly. It illustrates your perception of firearms as devices of evil, which is an untruth. It is the wielder who is good or evil, not an inanimate object.

For as long as firearms have been in existence, children have played with toy versions of them, such as the age old "Cowboys and Indians." Are these children now criminals perpetuating gun violence? Of course not. These parents likely did not interpret this "gun play" as a prelude to gun violence, and rightly so.

Your son's comment of "Next time I shoot them," referring to his reaction to being "play" fired upon by a Nerf gun, is a normal retaliatory reaction for a child. This is the same desire to "win" as is conveyed through any sport such as a soccer player's desire to score a goal after being scored upon by a rival team. This is a perverted sensibility that associates Nerf gun games and your son's reaction (to shoot back) with using violence to solve one's problems. It is purely a desire to win and succeed.

Instead of removing the "play" Nerf guns and Super Soaker guns in your home, you might wish to evoke an alternative parenting effort to teach your child that real guns are different from play guns. They are dangerous and should never be touched without an adult present. People who responsibly own guns usually expose their children (positively) to them at an early age, which quells a natural curiosity and also demonstrates their potential hazard. Exposure and education is the solution, not ignorance and unawareness.

Sadly, your solution will likely elicit an opposite reaction by piquing your child's natural curiosity, and leaving your child ill-prepared to recognize the danger of a real gun should they come across one.

Lastly, I fail to understand how Nerf gun assaults translate into a physical attack on your child or any sort of disagreement requiring techniques to diffuse a problem. Talking through a problem is an important lesson but not well-fitted to your child's Nerf predicament or peer environment. As noble and well intended as it may be, talking through a disagreement may not always work in a non-adult world.

Andrew J. Healy

Thanks for [News, "Charter Bruise," Jenna Portnoy, Sept. 14, 2006]. It was interesting to know what Zack Stalberg, Ed Schwartz and others thought about the resolutions for a referendum on the Iraq war.

Responding to comments on the problems with the Charter, I would like to point out that the procedure required for a referendum in this instance had already been dealt with handily by Jannie Blackwell's counsel. The referendum question was ready to go. Other interviewees suggested that there ought to be a better way to send a message to Washington, like maybe a public opinion poll. Vague suggestions for a vague future.

What's important here is that the disaster in Iraq is the big issue in this country at this very moment. Back in April, Blackwell had the insight and political courage to try to give us Philadelphians an effective way of expressing our collective opinion on the war right now, and in November. It's too bad for us that in this Democratic city, the Republican votes in Council held sway.

Zandra Moberg

Granny Peace Brigade

Keep Jesse Delaney going to the concerts [Music, "Blistered in the Sun"]. He writes with a flair that is considerably entertaining.

Molly Dinneen

Regarding Jovida Hill's letter in the Sept. 7

[Feedback, "Meat Is Not Genocide"]: I didn't read Gloria Feldsher's letter [Feedback, "Meat Is Genocide," Aug. 31, 2006], but what you said about the comparison between non-human animals and Africans and Jews is the exact opposite of the truth. What is meant is that all beings have rights.

Kris Rhoad