Now
Mostly Cloudy
84.0°
High
88°
Low
66°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 4/24: Weapon oversight

Comments 27 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Monday, Apr 24, 2006 - 12:09:53 am CDT

The unicameral has left a huge gap in our security with the half-measure authorizing concealed weapons.

People can forget their guns, or forget to load them. Some might not even be able to afford the gun and the $100 or so for the permit. We will only be truly safe when everyone is armed.

State and local governments, along with civic-minded businesses and citizens, must make that happen. Public transportation could carry loaded handguns in handy seat pockets. Fast-food restaurants should have a small shelf of guns next to the carry-out lids; sit-down restaurants could place them in the center of the table with the condiments. Upscale dining establishments could offer complimentary handguns to parties of four or more.

We must be alert, however, to public safety concerns. Guns placed conveniently in malls, banks, schools, sporting venues and churches should be on shelves above the reach of small children, say those younger than 8 or so. Prudence demands it.

Of course we can expect some liberal whining, but I am confident we can rely on the generosity of the National Rifle Association to help defray medical costs beyond what is insured.

A word of caution. There might be some blood spilled while we’re getting rid of all those who appear to be bad guys. I trust you will be stoic if some of that hits close to home. Sooner or later we will bring law and order to Dodge and we will be able to ban weapons except for law enforcement, military and sports venues. Our visionary unicameral is striving to take us into the dawn of the 20th century.

Tom deShazo, Lincoln

Just ignore Phelps

Why are legislators enacting laws now prohibiting funeral demonstrations? Fred Phelps has been performing his charades since 1991 and his message remains “God hates fags.” The only difference is that today he has expanded his hate to incorporate persons he perceives as providing aid and comfort to gays. Military families are only his latest collateral damage in his war on gays.

We need to question how legislators distinguish between the pain suffered by families of gays, who for years have endured Phelps’ hate, and those of military families who have only recently been incorporated into Phelps’ warped theology. I see it as only self-serving that legislators acted now because Phelps has placed their beloved voting constituency within his cross hairs.

Do we need laws that are bound to fail in their attempt to legislate tolerance and are almost certainly unconstitutional? Step back and take a lesson gays learned long ago. Acknowledge that Phelps’ theology only encourages intolerance and insensitivity and that it’s wrong. Then choose to ignore him.

Mike Ehinger, Bennington

Parents partly to blame

These child predators don’t have to look hard for their next prey. The parents of these children being sexually assaulted are not doing everything they can to protect their children.

This community needs to monitor their children a whole lot better instead of putting them in front of a computer unsupervised or letting them run the streets.

These predators that are on the computer looking for their next prey aren’t the only ones that should be charged. The parents should be held accountable as well.

Natalie Vesterfelt, Lincoln

Improve benefits

Lost among your coverage of the 2006 Legislature was a significant piece of legislation that dramatically impacts the lives of many of your readers in the capital city.

LB366 is a bill that dramatically improves the pension benefits for 12,000 Nebraska state employees.

For the past 20 years several independent studies have found that the pension system for Nebraska state employees was inadequate and discriminatory. Only those employees making more than $100,000/year were able to set aside enough dollars to meet the minimum standards for an adequate system. Thus lower-paid employees whom we represent did not receive that benefit. That is until the passage of LB366.

Unfortunately, Gov. Dave Heineman vetoed this bill. We were extremely disappointed with the governor’s action and subsequently, our union urged the Legislature to override his veto, which they did.

We are extremely grateful for the leadership of Sen. Elaine Stuhr of Bradshaw, chairwoman of the Legislative Retirement Systems, and the other 29 legislators who supported fairness and equity in the State Employees Pension System.

Mike Marvin,

executive director

NAPE/AFSCME Local 61

Support Wallman

We have six candidates in Legislative District 30. I am grateful to be able to support Norman Wallman for senator from this district.

When selling tickets for his modestly priced but successful fundraisers, I was amazed at the overwhelming support for him by the people who knew him best.

His unquestioned integrity and willingness to listen, along with 15 years experience on the Norris School Board, make him an ideal candidate for Legislative District 30.

Please join me and the people who know Wallman best and elect him state senator from District 30.

George W. Burrows, Adams

It’s Nebraska’s money

When will people realize that gambling is already here and affecting life in Nebraska? It is here in the forms of Powerball, keno and, yes, your precious bingo. We are surrounded on nearly all sides by some form of casino-style gambling. Yes, there are negative effects of gambling, but they are already here, too.

Just drive through the parking lots of any of the boats in Iowa on any given night and more than half the cars will have Nebraska license plates. Right now Iowa is laughing at us.

I’m not saying we should allow every bar from here to Scottsbluff to have slot machines, but a couple of destination casinos would bring much-needed money and jobs to this state.

Jason Mather, Lincoln

A plea to neighbors

The citizens of Lincoln and Lancaster County need to be more considerate neighbors.

The many dead and dying Scotch pine need to be cut down and disposed of promptly to prevent and/or slow down the spread of the sawyer beetle. The disposal needs to be chipped or burned. The beetle is ready to emerge now to find its next host tree.

The city and county departments and the radio and TV need to put out more information as reminders.

With the watchfulness of the citizens plus their cooperation we can slow down our losses.

Please be considerate. I do not want to lose my trees only because you refuse to dispose of your trees. You can obtain very helpful information from the Lancaster County Extension Office.

Lynn Darling, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Lauren wrote on April 24, 2006 8:15 am:
" If we are dumb enough to let Casino style gambling into Nebraska we will experience what every State around us is experiencing. Once the "camels nose is under the tent," it is "Katie bar the door," as the door is opened for expansion in every direction. Nebraska wisely included in its Constitution a ban on Class III (Casino style) gambling and fortunately a wise public voted not to change that prohibition in 2004. The entire State should not be influenced by a few foolish people who repeatedly fill the parking lots in Iowa. A few hundred should not intimidate the ecomomic well-being of one point seven million citizens by making it appear that their economy would benefit from this form of economic cannibalism. When this spate of gambling mania becomes history, Nebraska will be adjudged to have exercised uncommon wisdom by not following the foolishness of States chasing the allusive rainbow where the money ends us with Casino fatcats in Las Vegas or is concentrated in the pockets of a few who happened to get lucky at the expense of the vast majority who foolishly gambled their future away. "
Mr. E wrote on April 24, 2006 8:39 am:
" I've read it twice now and I can't decide if Tom deShazo's letter to the editor is for real or is instead a tongue-in-cheek over-the-top farce meant to call out the gun wingnuts. Talking about innocent blood being spilled while ridding the world of bad guys? Guns in every place, as long as they're out of the reach of 8 year olds? Whooo! Thanks for the laugh, Mr. deShazo, that is, unless you're serious. "
JJ wrote on April 24, 2006 9:06 am:
" Unfortunately for us all there are uninformed, sarcastic people out there like Tom deShazo. Law abiding gun owners are not going to cause the problems. The ones we should be worried about are the those that don't care about the laws anyway. Yes, supporters of the bill use fear to reinforce their point but they are not completely out of line. There are people who carry weapons now that have every intention of using them and no intention of learning how. Taking into consideration Mr. deShazo's rationale we should consider giving weapons to everyone and say have fun. Use a little commonsense while attempting to make an educated argument. Look into the facts from other state and see that a conealed weapon law does not mean the end of civilied society. "
Gary wrote on April 24, 2006 9:58 am:
" Tom DeShazo's letter is so off-base, it truly is not funny. His blatant attempt to make gun owners look like mindless idiots should have been more than enough to keep his letter from being punished, but I guess it's okay to insult people in LJS letters to the editor, so long as you are anti-gun and are insulting gun owners and not the other way around. The permit may only cost $100, but the training to obtain said permit is estimated to cost about 3 to 4 times that. What Mr. DeShazo does show is an innate fear of law-abiding citizens...yet he shows little to no fear of gun-toting criminals (you know, the people we already have concealing weapons). Make a joke of it if you want, Mr. DeShazo, but remember that 47 other states have similar laws, and under your rationale, our entire country would be a wild-west scene...clearly, that is not the case. "
Allen T. wrote on April 24, 2006 10:26 am:
" Tom DeShazo's letter appeals to fear, the fear of the average citizen of handguns. It also appeals to ignorance, since he recognizes that most people don't know what the law actually permits. Conservatives are constantly accused of appealing to fear and ignorance to support our views, while liberals claim to only use logic and information. Tom's letter is a clear picture of the hypocrisy of the left. "
Laura D. wrote on April 24, 2006 11:22 am:
" Natalie - I applaud you for finally saying something that I have been feeling but have never had the outlet to say it. You are 100% correct in saying that some of our parents are failing if they are not properly supervising their children's online and outside activities. What responsible parent allows their kids to have computers in their rooms anyway? Oh yeah, the same parents that let their 14 year olds have a cell phone (and pay that bill, by the way) and the ones who let their daughter's where less than modest clothes to Church, and the ones who want to be 'friends' with their kids and not parents. So in turn, these kids are not being taught what being responsible means, therefore, it is easier for them to make the decisions to meet a complete stranger online instead of saying "Wait. This is stupid and could be potentially dangerous." Parents -- WAKE UP. Take the computers out of the kids' rooms and make sure you know what they're up to before it's too late. As a parent, you have a right to ask, and a right to know. "
Josh wrote on April 24, 2006 11:26 am:
" Tom DeShazo's letter is right on, the sarcasm was hilarious. In truth, as I'm sure he was pointing out, it is ridiculous and pointless to pass a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons. Which century is this? I just imagine shootouts at the OK corral- er, I mean at 13th and "O". Sure, most people carrying these guns will be responsible law-abiding citizens, but again I ask- what is the point? We live in a society, people from other areas in this country as well as all around the world laugh at us and think of us as rednecks if we truly do start carrying concealed weapons when we go out to the mall, for a walk in the park, etc. Yes, gun-carrying criminals are a problem, but is it a solution to put guns under the shirts of everyone else? I guarantee this is going to cause problems, big problems. The first time someone gets shot at Wal-Mart just because someone THOUGHT he saw someone else pulling a gun maybe a few people will wake up and realize what a ridiculous mistake this all was. "
Dan wrote on April 24, 2006 12:33 pm:
" What is totally funny is that I legally carry a concealed weapon with me almost everywhere I go, including bars, restaurants, stores, and sporting events, places I don’t carry it into are the Federal Building and on a Commercial Airline. It’s a pocketknife, its usually sharp enough to perform surgery. I use it and keep it for several reasons, including self protection. I have never had the urge to pull it out and start hacking at my fellow citizens. You would never know that I have it will you are dinning at a restaurant, or a pub. Does this make you feel uncomfortable not knowing? Truthfully a licensed concealed carry person is the least of your worries, but can be YOUR savior if ever needed. "
Jason wrote on April 24, 2006 12:58 pm:
" I read Tom DeShazo's letter and had to laugh. He, Chief Casady and Mayor Seng continue to arouse fears using anecdotes and tall tales, yet none have ever cited actual instances in the 47 other states with concealed weapons laws to prove their points. "
mp wrote on April 24, 2006 4:55 pm:
" Jason, Gary... Where is your actual proof that concealed weapons prevented crime? How many crimes can you prove were prevented because of CCW law? Just because crime went down after passage of the law is not proof. Crime has gone down in states without the CCW law like in Nebraska. By the way, national crime statistics show that murder went up in Florida after passage of CCW. "
CCW Advocate wrote on April 24, 2006 5:41 pm:
" Hey Josh, I'm wondering how you can guarantee that the concealed carry law is going to cause problems? If you would take the time to do your research, you would find that the scenario you so eloquently describe, HAS NEVER HAPPENED in any of the 47 other states with concealed carry laws. The good citizens of Nebraska must certainly be of a different caliber than the rest of the United States because Josh "guarantees" future problems here. Wouldn't if be great if this much focus was put on the 17,000 people killed annually in the United States by drunk drivers? "
Nash wrote on April 24, 2006 6:34 pm:
" I always feel a little shame when I read a letter like Mr. deShazo's. I feel ashamed reading how he trivializes every victim who has suffered at the hands of a rapist or a violent stalker, and has vowed to put that trauma behind her and become a survivor. There is a reason we don't put the face of a rape victim on the news or her name in the newspaper, and by pretending that the only people who might conceivably be helped by a concealed weapons permit do not deserve that form of security is simply demoralizing to those who deserve it the most. By purporting that personal defense is some ridiculous act of whimsy that is relegated only to ignorant fools with little or no self-control diminishes the need of those who may genuinely be in need of protection. Look around Mr. deShazo! Not every person's situation exactly matches yours, and perhaps they don't want their fate in your hands. "
joel wrote on April 24, 2006 7:42 pm:
" mp, exactly what form of proof would suffice? There is statistical proof published by Lott and other sources which you choose to disregard because it doesn't fit your need. There is statistical data published by many of the states that have been issuing concealed weapons permits to their citizens for years that you deject because you don't want to acknowledge a link between personal protection and diminishing crime. Quite plainly, I suspect that your mind is closed to any data that doesn't reflect what you chose to see. Instead you are taking others to task to show proof of things that could've happened, but were averted, to make your false point. Instead the burden of proof should fall on you to prove that lawful citizens carrying concealed weapons creates a quantifiable problem. Afterall, it is completely senseless to limit a right where no cause for limitation exists. -- If in fact your mind is still open, perhaps you should spend time reading some of the volumes of anecdotal evidence compiled from news stories on sites like http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html. "
Allen T. wrote on April 24, 2006 7:56 pm:
" MP: I agree with you! People should have to prove that a new right they are going to receive is safe to others. We should have to prove that concealed weapons are not going to increase crime, just like pro-choice had to prove that a fetus is not a baby....hey, wait a minute? "
garrison wrote on April 24, 2006 8:13 pm:
" Josh, are you aware that most states throughout of the rest of this nation allow their citizens to carry concealed firearms? The only reason they are laughing is because they are watching the uninformed individuals in this state who think that a tool of personal defense is a time machine that will somehow transport us all "back to the old west". Now THAT is a ridiculous idea! -- If we cannot trust our fellow citizens with a firearm, how can we trust them behind the wheel of a chemical truck, in the cockpit of an airplane, or even preparing our food? If a person is predisposed to violence, much more lethal weapons are always close at hand. "
Lee wrote on April 24, 2006 9:35 pm:
" Laura D. I am one of those parents that you state is a irresponsible parent. Both of my teens have computers in their rooms, have a cell phone, 1 even has his own car, which I paid for. But with one difference, I know where they are every night. They are home! I also know where they have been on their computers, its called parental monitoring. The cell phones are for an emergency, or if they are back from a track meet, or ball game they played in for their school, & need a ride home. My 14 yr old will have her own car too when the time comes. This doesn't make me irresponsible. They know I am the parent, but they also know they can come talk to me about anything. They also know I will take car keys, computers, cellphones or whatever if they ever get out of line, thus they learn from their mistakes. They also have earned the right to these items by good grades, doing chores, being responsible. Don't lump all of us into one catergory. I agree some parents don't care what their kids are doing or where or with whom as long as they aren't being bothered, but not all parents fall into that catergory just because they have provided these things for their children. By the way my kids are 14 & 15. Both are honor roll students. "
pool man wrote on April 24, 2006 10:27 pm:
" Did you know more children drown in pools than are killed by guns? Lets ban those pools! Wait a minute, those pools aren't concealed so how can this happen? Could it be lack of accountability and lack of responsability on someones part? Huh, may be the same with guns. "
Jen wrote on April 24, 2006 11:05 pm:
" Allen T.: you want to see decreased crime? Crime in urban areas suddenly plummeted in the late 80s...15 years after abortion became legal. You can shoot a criminal, or you can prevent a criminal. "
Lindsay wrote on April 25, 2006 6:16 am:
" Whatever happened to a good ole' can of mace for self defense? Why is it so necessary to "kick it up a notch" and get a gun. I'm not against hunting rifles, but jeez is there any need for an ordinary citizen to possess a handgun? "
CS wrote on April 25, 2006 9:08 am:
" Most people that are routine criminals are resistant to mace. The mace that the average person can purchase is also not as strong as that used by corrections and police personnel. Between Army training and correctional and security training I am pretty much resistant to mace, capsacin, and other gaseous irritants. "
Archie wrote on April 25, 2006 10:33 am:
" Wanted to let Dan know that his pocket knife is not considered a weapon for CCW purposes unless the blade is 3 1/2" or longer. "
Phil wrote on April 25, 2006 10:33 am:
" Lindsay, are you aware that by carrying a can of mace in your pocket or purse you are guilty of violating the ban proposed by our Mayor and Police Chief by carrying a concealed weapon? Same as having a knife or a tazer. "
CS wrote on April 25, 2006 10:52 am:
" Not only a city ban, but many jursidictions have laws restricting mace, pepper spray, tasers, kubatons, etc. and classifying them as concealed weapons.If you look on galls.com you can go to the personal protective devices section and some of the listings will say what states the item is restricted or illegal. It doesn't account for local laws, though, and you could still be in violation. The knife that I used to carry on volunteer fire and rescue would have gotten me arrested anywhere but on a scene. "
Phil wrote on April 25, 2006 10:53 am:
" Archie and Lindsay and the rest of you wanna be victims, this is the law as it will remain in Lincoln if Seng ans Cassidy get their way.Section 28-1202 Carrying concealed weapon; penalty; affirmative defense. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, any person who carries a weapon or weapons concealed on or about his or her person such as a revolver, pistol, bowie knife, dirk or knife with a dirk blade attachment, brass or iron knuckles, or any other deadly weapon commits the offense of carrying a concealed weapon. (2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant was engaged in any lawful business, calling, or employment at the time he or she was carrying any weapon or weapons and the circumstances in which such person was placed at the time were such as to justify a prudent person in carrying the weapon or weapons for the defense of his or her person, property, or family. (3) Carrying a concealed weapon is a Class I misdemeanor. (4) In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this section, carrying a concealed weapon is a Class IV felony. Source: Laws 1977, LB 38, § 234 Laws 1984, LB 1095, § 1 Annotations: In order to be a deadly weapon per se under subsection (1) of this section, the weapon must be one specifically enumerated in the statute. Whether an object or weapon not specifically named in the statute is a deadly weapon is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, and the resolution of that fact question will depend on the evidence adduced as to the use or intended use of the object or weapon. State v. Williams, 218 Neb. 57, 352 N.W.2d 576 (1984). Whether an object or weapon not specifically enumerated in subsection (1) of this section was a deadly weapon is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. State v. Kanger, 215 Neb. 128, 337 N.W.2d 422 (1983). Section 28-1202(1), R.S.Supp.,1978, combined with the definition of "deadly weapon" found in section 28-109, R.S.Supp.,1978, is sufficiently definite to meet the requirements of the first and fifth amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, section 3, of the Nebraska Constitution. State v. Valencia, 205 Neb. 719, 290 N.W.2d 181. ANY DEADLY WEAPON. Did you see that part? A pocket knife is a deadly weapons, as is mace. A person could have an allergic reaction to mace and die. NO WEAPONS WHAT SO EVER are allowed. "
That's just sick! wrote on April 25, 2006 11:14 am:
" Jen, I can't figure out if you are kidding, or if you have actually lost your mind! Which is it? "
Angie wrote on April 25, 2006 1:28 pm:
" Jen- I'm afraid your reasoning is not quite accurate. The majority of women who have abortions are white (41%), in their 20's (56%), and never married (67%). You seem to imply that abortion has reduced the number of criminals in the urban (slum?) areas. This simply is not true. Margaret Sanger's (Planned Parenthood) support of eugenics, and her goal of racial cleansing have not exactly worked out as she had planned. The only thing she set out to accomplish which has actually occurred, is that the most ignorant in our society will not be reproducing any time soon. For that, I'm sure she would be thrilled. "
Rick wrote on April 26, 2006 7:10 pm:
" so...the majority of women who have abortions are NOT white, and what does the age or marital status of the woman have to do with whether she lives in an urban area? I've read the book that did the study on abortion and crime rates(Freakonomics), and I have to admit it is interesting to read the argument when it has actually been well-researched rather than a spew of unrelated statistics thrown together by lay persons on blogs. Am I convinced its THE reason abortion should be allowed? Not entirely. "

Ads by Yahoo!