I would like to thank the Post-Gazette for printing the frank and honest report "Obama Campaigners Encounter an Ugly Response" (May 18) by The Washington Post.

As a 42-year-old African-American woman, who even in this day and age still finds it necessary to coach my nephew on how to deal with the police (comply, comply, comply, just like my father did some 30 years ago when the police would come to our home to search without explanation), I know racism is still alive and well in this country. However, I am also very glad that Barack Obama has had much success in his campaign with the help of both black and white supporters.

I have found it ridiculous that people are taking sides based on race and even sex (on the way home from a business trip, my cab driver told me he'd never vote for a woman). Truth be told, I'm going to vote on the issues. Hah! Imagine that!

I have been up for layoff twice since the Republicans have been at the helm. They have forgotten about the people of this country and have spent more time and money on foreign policy. They have forgotten that the working-class men and women built this country and we have helped many of them build their wealth. Whichever Democrat is nominated is who I am voting for.

NATALIE THOMAS
Swissvale

---

In response to Dennis Roddy's May 18 article "Large Numbers of Voters Say Color of Skin Played Role in Choice," the sad truth in the history of American politics is a great number of voters, perhaps even a small majority, vote the party line, either Democratic or Republican, not because of the person's qualifications but because of the party. When I lived in Washington, D.C., the saying was a dog named Democrat would beat any Republican candidate. This election year, there's a twist: Now there is a race hurdle as well as a gender hurdle.

I am sure people would vote for Barack Obama because of the color of his skin and, as Gov. Ed Rendell stated in the past, there are those who will not vote for him because of the color of his skin; it has nothing to do with where he stands on the issues.

As far as Mr. Obama goes, I was recently standing behind two black men who were talking about him. One said to the other "that he probably would not vote for him because he is not black like you and me." I'm not sure if that statement was about Mr. Obama having a white mother, or that he wouldn't be standing in this long line at this retailer.

Likewise, I know there are people who will not vote for Hillary because she is a female and there are those who will vote for her because she is a female; again, it has nothing to do with where she stands on the issues.

So the sad truth in American politics is the best-qualified candidates are not always the winners: Most will fall to our prejudices.

BILL HOAGLAND
Whitehall

---

State Rep. David Levdansky doesn't seem to understand why anyone would oppose legislation requiring that stolen handguns be immediately reported to the police ("Guns Are Killing Us," May 18 Forum). We need the law, he says. Why? Because criminals get around the instant background check system by using straw purchasers, who, if a crime gun is traced back to them, can claim that it had been stolen.

Well, that's just the point. Gun control laws don't work, and when they don't work it becomes an excuse for more laws. In reality, the whole idea of preventing criminals from getting handguns -- of drying up the black market for something so easy to steal or fabricate in a machine shop -- is pure fantasy.

Mr. Levdansky might ponder the headline that was placed on his commentary. Intentionally or not, he is being used by anti-gun propagandists who seek to demonize firearms, their makers and their owners. The legislation he supports is just another attempt to discourage gun ownership by hedging it about with a minefield of paperwork felonies.

He says the National Rifle Association is unwilling to compromise. Compromise is a two-way street. What is Mr. Levdansky putting on the table?

How about a law guaranteeing the right of pistol permit holders to carry their self-defense weapons on the campuses of all state (and state-related) universities and in all state parks? How about a "castle doctrine" law, such as many states have adopted, that affirms people's right to stand their ground and defend themselves if attacked?

ALLAN WALSTAD
Johnstown

---

I read with great interest "Guns Are Killing Us" (May 18 Forum). Congratulations to state Rep. David Levdansky for sponsoring legislation to require the timely reporting of lost or stolen guns! It takes real courage for an elected official to publicly take a stand that is contrary to the powerful National Rifle Association's position. Hurrah for him!

FRANCES L. BORREBACH
Bradford Woods

---

Rep. David Ledvansky's article "Guns Are Killing Us" (May 18 Forum) neglects to make an important argument for his bill to require the timely reporting of missing or stolen guns: The use of firearms is the principal method of suicide, especially by older men.

Suicide rates are highest among older white men, and, in 75 percent of these cases, men die by self-inflicted gun shot wounds. In virtually all instances, the cause of suicide among older adults is clinical depression. Treating the depression usually reduces suicidality.

Access to firearms is not only a political issue. It is also a major public health issue, especially in Pennsylvania with its large elderly population. In treating older depressed people, we work with them and their caregivers to reduce access to guns and to prevent suicide. We have observed that many depressed suicidal older adults feel hopeless and trapped by their limited ability to see beyond their immediate anguish and to envision solutions to problems that beset them. Hence, the resort to firearms for a "final solution." Our research shows a better solution to suicidal anguish, one that spares family members and friends the terrible legacy of suicide.

Rep. Levdansky is to be commended for his courageous and principled stand, but let us never overlook the public health challenge to older Pennsylvanians and their families posed by firearms. We cannot afford to lose the hearts and minds of older Pennsylvanians living with depression and suicidal anguish. Treatment works. Get help.

CHARLES F. REYNOLDS III, M.D.
Director, Late Life Depression Evaluation and Treatment Center
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic
Oakland

---

I urge all Americans this Memorial Day -- and every day -- to fly Old Glory in honor of our great country and those veterans who have served in our wars and died for us. Also for those who are living but will never be the same in mind and body, we owe them for a job well done, by shaking their hands and thanking them for their service.

TOM ZELINSKY
Moon
The writer is a retired master sergeant, U.S. Air Force, and a member of the Gen. Westmoreland Chapter of the Korean War Veterans.

---

Contrary to Lew Irwin's commentary ("Walking Away From Afghanistan," May 18 Forum), Afghanistan has a long history of independence and "self-sustainment," extending to ancient times.

Between 1839 and 1919, Britain fought three Afghan wars. The first two were among the greatest military disasters of the British empire. The last ended with final recognition of Afghan independence. British actions there in 1919 and 1929 included some of the earliest tests of that favorite 20th-century weapon of terror, aerial bombardment of civilians.

The Soviet occupation of 1979-1989 was intended to keep the United States out, but also to form a "new" Afghan state rather similar to that envisioned by Mr. Irwin. One fundamental difference is that the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 was an act of revenge. Its emphasis is best illustrated by its latest project -- constructing a big new prison for U.S. overseas prisoners at the Bagram air base (headquarters of the Soviet and U.S. occupation forces).

That cannot be squared happily, in Afghan eyes, with Mr. Irwin's report of the great work being done by U.S. soldiers in their country.

The United States has not been welcome in Afghanistan. As with Vietnam and Iraq, U.S. intervention was accompanied by our leaders' ignorance or denial of a long local history of striving for independence. It is not a question of walking away -- that will eventually happen, as it did with our British and Soviet predecessors -- but of setting the conditions for rule of law by leaving and letting Afghanistan live in peace after 30 years of overwhelming U.S. involvement.

DONALD H. McNEILL
Oakland

---