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, 4/27: Weapons fear unfounded

Comments 25 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Thursday, Apr 27, 2006 - 10:20:22 am CDT

Mayor Coleen Seng recently announced her intention to introduce a Lincoln city ordinance to override the state’s new concealed carry law.

I can only assume that her motives are born from an irrational fear of firearm owners, because her comment about the law being “a very real threat to the security of citizens” was certainly not made from any basis in fact, or with the support of evidence. While I certainly respect the mayor’s opinion, I’d rather not have that opinion forced on me. 

The way it’s supposed to work in this country is that when the government requires its citizens to either do or not do something, it has to give us a reason. Historically, banning the carrying of concealed weapons has been founded on the premise of public safety — the idea that lots of people carrying guns will get themselves into trouble and increase crime.

However, state after state after state has proven this fear to be completely unfounded. All states which have enacted similar legislation have experienced either reductions in crime, or no effect on crime rates at all. Mayor Seng’s statements are simply false and a transparent attempt at scaring citizens into supporting her position.

Police Chief Tom Casady stated that we do not need a concealed carry law. Even if we accept that statement, it wouldn’t matter. It is not my obligation to demonstrate a need for carrying a gun — it is the government’s obligation to show me why I can’t. With all the evidence available to anyone actually willing to look, I’d very much like to hear someone try to make that case. 

Short of that, we might want to consider allowing citizens with no criminal history to decide for themselves. Or have I gotten that liberty thing all wrong?

Mike C. Peterson, Lincoln

Lincoln known for parks

I was disappointed when I read in the April 17 Lincoln Journal Star that the Lincoln Independent Business Association voted to oppose the parks bond issue to be on the May 9 ballot setting aside green space north of the South Beltway to be built in 2008.

However, I’m not surprised, given their ongoing short-sightedness and tunnel vision only concerned about the economic factor. LIBA’s only concern is taking 130 acres off the tax rolls instead of zoning it for development. Approval of the bond issue would increase property taxes only about $1.60 per year for a $100,000 house.

As I walk or ride the bike along Highway 2 I enjoy the wide expanse of green space set aside rather than development immediately adjacent to the trail. Lincoln is known for our parks and trails and green space. I hope the Citizens for Quality Parks and Trails will receive our support.

Bobbe Cusick, Lincoln

Watch for home sales

I read the article about property valuations going up another 17.5 percent for next year. And the county is gearing up for protests. Well, I don’t think I’m alone in this city in saying enough is enough.

I really think the county should be gearing up to watch all the houses that will be up for sale. And the people that will move to other counties.

I foresee a big building boom near Greenwood, Ashland, Wahoo, the list is endless. I now see why most retirement-age people leave Lincoln and the state and go to other surrounding states.

Want to buy my overvalued house? It will be for sale soon.

Todd Schaal, Lincoln

Support for Vavricek

I write to express my unwavering support of Jay Vavricek for Congress. He has made an excellent mayor for Grand Island.

Jay knows what it means to build economic development and job opportunities while effectively lowering taxes for the residents of Grand Island and reducing city budgets. He has also accomplished the monumental task of bringing some accord to the County Board and the City Council.

As senator for Legislative District 35, I was always happy to see Jay walk in my door at the Capitol because he is an effective and sensible advocate for the needs of Grand Island at the state level.

I believe Jay will be able to take his effective, coalition building, level-headed style to Washington, D.C. and do a fantastic job of representing the 3rd District.

Ray Aguilar, Grand Island

Negligence led to death

Our 4-year-old schnauzer was killed last week on Vine Street due to the negligence of a business (that shall remain nameless) that came to our property without permission to obviously write one of those bids to sell a product.

This particular business didn’t have the common sense to shut our gate in the backyard. Consequently, when we came home from work we let our pets out to do their business to find they got loose and one of our dogs was hit by a car and died.

Please get this message out to businesses, utility companies, whomever practices these tactics, not to come onto someone’s property without permission, and if you have to, please have the common sense to shut people’s gates. This was a completely  senseless death of a pet who had a heart of gold who shall always remain dear to us.

Rudy, our schnauzer, suffered internal injuries and died at our vet’s.

We would like to thank the woman (whom we shall call Rudy’s angel) who without a second thought took David and our dog to the vet.  

To the gentleman that hit Rudy: You need to know this wasn’t your fault. Thanks for not leaving the scene and also going to the vet and giving us the necessary support we so desperately needed.

David and Vicki Brown, Lincoln

Ricketts responsible?

Now that I am a registered Republican, I am forced to look hard at candidates and their beliefs. I must ask a question of my fellow Republicans: Do you really think that U.S. Senate candidate Pete Ricketts, a man who is willing to spend millions of his own money, is going to be a responsible steward of our money? It is no wonder he is against inheritance taxes as it appears he will need more of his father’s money to buy this election.

Of course it is not legal, but it would be cheaper for him to just buy votes in a state this sparsely populated. The benefit of this would be that we wouldn’t be forced to see all those commercials; you know, the ones that tell us he is against terrorism. I am still waiting for some politician to come out in favor of terrorism.

Joe Gallagher, 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  
Laura wrote on April 27, 2006 8:13 am:
" Vicki Brown: I feel terrible for your loss. I also have a dog and don't know what I would do if something like that happened. How senseless can someone be? "
Gary wrote on April 27, 2006 9:11 am:
" I would be very interested to know which business this was that allowed someone's pet to get killed, I most assuredly would not purchase anything from them again. "
Josh wrote on April 27, 2006 9:23 am:
" Todd, I agree with you about home sales. It's ridiculous that we pay higher property taxes than many people in even more well-known "expensive" states. When my house is only worth $100,000 and I am paying almost $2500 a year for property taxes I know something is really wrong here- and they want to raise it?? If anything this should be lowered, since we also have to deal with very high car licensing taxes, high sales tax, a state income tax, etc. I was recently in Denver and found that property taxes there- in what is considered a very expensive place to live- are almost half of what we pay here in Lincoln. Oh yeah, and sales tax on many items in Colorado is lower, too. It's difficult to attract people to a state like Nebraska, and if we're going to get people to keep coming to Lincoln, somebody needs to get these property taxes under control quickly. "
Kenneth wrote on April 27, 2006 10:16 am:
" Joe: Thank you for your thoughts regarding Pete Ricketts. I have been wondering if I was the only person in Eastern Nebraska who was sick of his ads being shoved down my throat, not to mention fearing the imposition of his "values" upon my life. And it is funny how Pete's television ads have changed according to the issue-of-the-moment, such as the immigration debate. Ricketts is not a serious candidate, and I hope Nebraska voters are aware of this. "
Jodi wrote on April 27, 2006 10:30 am:
" I would like to point out an inaccuracy in Senator Aguilar's letter and in the 3rd district Congressional campaign being waged by Jay Vavricek. Vavricek claims to have lowered taxes, which is not true. While Vavricek was in office, the tax rate has dropped. However, as pointed out by Todd in another letter in today's paper, property valuations have increased by double-digit amounts. Many Grand Island residents were shocked to find a huge increase in their taxes (even though technically the rate they were paying was decreased, it was more than offset by increased valuations.) It galls me that for as big of a public outcry there was about the re-valuations last year, that people don't remember having actually paid more money in taxes. Now, is raising property valuations and then dropping the tax rate REALLY fiscally conservative? It sounds to me like a bunch of playing with numbers and hoping that the public isn't smart enough to catch it. "
Jackson wrote on April 27, 2006 11:12 am:
" I too would like to know the name of this business that left your gate open. I wouldn't use their service knowing they are so careless. My wife and I put locks on our gates out of fear of your situation. So sorry to hear about your dog. "
steve wrote on April 27, 2006 11:21 am:
" Vicki: I too feel sorry for your loss. I do think that anyone entering your property should leave the gate as they found it. Open or closed. Also, I make sure when I let my dog out that the gate is closed before I let him go. Kids, grandkids, neighbors etc. use they gate. I personnaly check to make sure my gate it closed. "
just wondering wrote on April 27, 2006 11:29 am:
" Mike, I am just wondering how you honestly believe that carrying concealed weapons is a good idea for the city of Lincoln. The police force would be more paranoid for one thing, and I can't blame them. I can see it now, individuals being pulled over for whatever reason and being subjected to all kinds of different situations from the police. All so you can carry around a gun. What is the point of carrying around a gun anyway, for SAFETY? Please! Think about this, if a individual is going to rob you Mike the individual will probably have a gun and probably already have it aimed at you as they demand you to fork over your money, and as soon as you reach for your gun they will shoot you and then take your money. You say carrying concealed weapons lowers gun violence. Ok, what is the definition of GUN VIOLENCE. My definition is when somebody is severly wounded or killed by a gun intensionally. Can you promise me that this statistic will lower? Just wondering. "
Sue F. wrote on April 27, 2006 11:55 am:
" I am so sorry for the loss of you dog. I have had to deal with that pain as well. I can tell how kind hearted you are by your last paragraph. The fact that you would look beyond your pain to comfort someone else speaks volumes. "
John wrote on April 27, 2006 12:40 pm:
" Bobbe Cusick - Funny thing...I looked on the Lancaster County website and noticed that you don't own any property in Lincoln or Lancaster County which would explain why you are for another bond that would increase property tax! Funny how that works...It's no big deal when others are paying for it. "
Gary wrote on April 27, 2006 12:54 pm:
" Thank you, Mike Peterson, for a great letter detailing the irrational fear that the mayor or police chief feel towards concealed weapons. I've got a deal for the Granny Seng and Senor Cassady...if they will have an armed officer of the law shadow me at all times that I am in public, I will concede my desire for a concealed weapon (not just guns, but any type of concealed weapon). "
Jeff wrote on April 27, 2006 1:03 pm:
" Mike: Excellent article. We had a remarkable discussion today at my place of employment about former Husker Scott Baldwin. He went on a rampage years ago (as a result of drugs and a psychotic personality) and beat a woman and her friend nearly to death in Lincoln. While this kind of thing does not happen daily in Lincoln (that I know of), a person carrying a concealed weapon would be able to successfully defend themselves if they cross paths with someone under the influence of drugs and wants to beat them to a bloody pulp, like Baldwin did to that woman. "
Hemet wrote on April 27, 2006 3:57 pm:
" Help me with this Todd.. My house is worth 17% more and I am complaining. Golly, maybe in the next couple yars it will go up as much or more. I guess that is almost a 50% gain in the worth of my greatest asset. Dog gone it. I want to be more poor so I can pay less taxes. Go tell your boss to cut your pay in half so you have to pay less tax as well. What? "
Bob wrote on April 27, 2006 4:41 pm:
" just wondering, by your logic it is pointless for police officers to carry a weapon. If the bad guy gets the drop on them, he'll just shoot them when they go for their guns. Maybe the police shouldn't be armed either? "
Roger wrote on April 27, 2006 4:47 pm:
" Hemet - I'll help you with this since you obviously don't understand how property tax evaluations work. The property tax evaluation is what the county says your house is worth. It doesn't mean that it really is, or that you could sell it today for 17% more than you could last year. The numbers are based off of sales stats from 1 to 2 years ago. My guess is not many residential properties increased in REAL ESTATE value by 17% in two years. If mine did, I'd be happy to sell too. So while were on the tax thought, Bobbe Cusack, why don't find more bond issues to vote for, so us property owners can pay more. It's the liberal way, isn't it? "
joe wrote on April 27, 2006 4:59 pm:
" Hemet, the only person who believes that your house is worth 17% more this year than it was last year is the tax assessor, and I don't suspect that anyone from the assessor's office will be by to make you an offer anytime soon. The assessed value does not dictate a property's actual value. High assessed property valuation (as compared to the appraised value) detracts from the actual selling value, since a perspective buyer knows he/she will just pay that much more out of their pocket in taxes. "
mp wrote on April 27, 2006 5:22 pm:
" Gary, The police are already shadowing you whenever you are in public. You don't see them because they are in the shadows. I trust the police force to keep me safe from you. Mike P... I don't feel safer knowing that you and your kind think you must be packing a gun in order to feel safe. If you think CCW law makes society safer, please check out the website: http://timlambert.org/guns/lott. "
Bill wrote on April 27, 2006 11:00 pm:
" We're out of here. My wife and I have been playing around with the idea of moving to a bigger house, since we have outgrown the current one. We would like to stay in Lincoln, where we and our children have friends. But having the 8th highest tax burden in the nation is plain nuts. The property valuations are just another tactic used to scam more tax money from the citizens, and NOW the "good" mayor wants another stinking bond to purchase land that will generate zero revenue. ENOUGH. I can commute from Saunders county, and STILL save money even with the high price of gas. "
Lindsay wrote on April 28, 2006 7:15 am:
" I never really thought Lincoln was that dangerous of a town where in order to be safe we need to pack heat...or most cities for that matter. It seems like the only arguement made for the CCW is that "what if some person tries to rape me/what if I'm in McDonald's and someone goes crazy and starts shooting." Living in this world has always involved a measure of risk; in the case of the former there are more practical things a woman can do to reduce the odds of becoming a victim of rape. Being aware of your surroundings, carrying a cell phone, and using common sense whether or not you have a gun is important for a women to do. Would me having a gun then allow me to take the risk of going out jogging at midnight in a bad neighborhood? I think most anyone would agree that it just is a bad idea whether I'm carrying a gun or not. And I hate to say it ladies, but if someone came up and suprised you (as is usually the case) a man could more than likely overpower you and use your own gun as a weapon against you. For the case of some nut going into a McDonalds or other business and start shooting - the odds of that happening are less than getting struck by lightening. Society needs less handguns floating around, not more. If perhaps we were more discretionary in the application process and the number of handguns one is allowed to have in the first place, we wouldn't have generally law-abiding people feeling the need of arming themselves. "
Mike C. Peterson wrote on April 28, 2006 8:53 am:
" To mp: I accept your right to use language like "your kind" to describe me and others who believe that people have the right to choose whether to carry a concealed weapon or not. However, what I do not appreciate is having attributed to me the statement that I believe CCW makes us (or me) safer. I never said that, I never implied that, it wasn't my point, and it doesn't matter. What matters is that allowing people to carry concealed firearms does not cause any harm. And to take away that right, you have to show that it does. I've read the Lott book referenced on the web site you linked to, and I'm just as critical of his conclusions as Mr. Lambert. Please re-read the letter above. This is about the justifications for taking peoples choices away. Labeling me and "my kind" as paranoid idiots is anyone's prerogative. I can live with that. But what you can't do is take away the freedom to do something from an entire population without a reason. Saying that we aren't actually helping ourselves is not good enough. Showing that we don't "need" CCW is not good enough. We don't have to show a need for owning and doing things in this country. Simply because we want to, or because it satisfies our own sense of comfort (or paranoia) is all that's required, as long as at causes no harm. Isn't it great? Well it would be if that principal applied uniformly. But some uncomfortable people like taking choices away in order to be comfortable. By way of comparison, the last time you made the choice to stick a cell phone in your ear while operating a motor vehicle, you put Lincoln residents in more danger than I will carrying a concealed gun for the same amount of time. I can almost guarantee that's true anecdotally, and it's definitely true statistically. So did you need to make that phone call right then? Or did you just want to?.... "
Gary wrote on April 28, 2006 10:07 am:
" Lindsay, what good is a cell phone going to do a rape victim? By the time our police (who according to mp are always lurking in the shadows ,that made me laugh) show up, the crime will be over and the victim will either be scarred for life, or possibly dead. Furthermore, you talk of limiting the number of handguns people can own...such a law only applies "
Mike C. Peterson wrote on April 28, 2006 10:14 am:
" To Just Wondering: I appreciate your angst. "Adding guns to the streets" just doesn't make sense intuitively, does it. You must think me a moron for my letter above. I do hold an undergraduate degree in criminal justice (graduated number one in my class). I've also counseled hundreds of Lincoln residents on responsible firearms ownership, and mature defensive strategies for their use. To do that right, I gathered accurate information on safety concerns, use-of-force continuum training, statutes, case law, and did a LOT of research on concealed carry statistics (using FBI data, not NRA data). Sorry to come off like a blow-hard, but I wanted you to know that I was an educated moron. It's challenging to tease apart the affects of concealed carry legislation. Other community factors always come into play, and it's hard to make broad generalizations about crime rates as they fluctuate when concealed carry becomes lawful in an area. Many have suggested that CCW always lowers crime, but I never have (although you said that I did). In some jurisdictions crime definitely dropped, and in many cases, the very crimes you'd expect to be affected by CCW, such as robbery. However, in some cases CCW has seemed to have no effect at all. The two sides of this argument clash frequently about whether CCW drops crime or not, but there's one thing about which criminologists are pretty certain: CCW does not INCREASE crime. And that's the key. It doesn't matter if crime goes down or stays the same. All that matters is that it doesn't hurt our community. There is also now a fair amount of research on CCW permit holders across the nation. It has been found that people who go through the trouble to pay their fees and take the classes to carry a gun are the least-represented subpopulations in the criminal justice system. They don't go to court, they don't go to jail, and they don't commit crimes in comparison to other groups. In other words, the people who frighten you so much tend to be the most upstanding citizens in our communities. There is also good evidence that police stops involving permit holders tend to be the most mature and incident-free. The police are always nervous in response to these laws, but those fears tend to evaporate after time passes and things go well. So to answer your original question: it doesn't matter what I think. What matters is that there is very solid evidence that allowing people to do this doesn't hurt you or anyone else. And that should be good enough for you. The great thing about this country is that I can be a paranoid lunatic if I want to be. And if in the process I should do something that you feel the need to stop, you'd better make a better case for it than "it makes police officers nervous." "
Mike C. Peterson wrote on April 28, 2006 11:24 am:
" To Lindsay: You made some very excellent points. I’ve always counseled people that things like cell phones, flashlights and pro-active thinking represent the best first line of defense to avoid danger. You were right on the money. And the evidence is inconclusive about how resisting behavior during a sexual assault improves your chances. It’s true that for every anecdote about a woman who scares someone off with a gun, there seems to another about someone who got beaten more badly (or worse) because she tried. Anecdotes are difficult to generalize from however. You did state that it is “more likely” that a woman will be overpowered and a gun used against her, and that isn’t true – the evidence doesn’t support that. There are, however, cases like you described and it’s an important possibility to consider when making that very sober choice. The question then becomes though, do we want to remove, by law, the ability for someone to make that choice for themselves? Telling people that cell phones, flash-lights and pro-active thinking are the first line of defense is right on. But then telling them that they don’t get to have a LAST line of defense if they want one…well, that shouldn’t be up to anyone but the person deciding. Also, I liked your “shooting up the McDonald’s reference – it makes my point perfectly. Less than 48 hours after Chief Casady was quoted in the paper as saying we don’t “need” CCW in Lincoln, someone fired several shots into the storefront of a convenience store here in town. There were three civilians in the parking lot at the time. Fortunately no one was hurt, but as far as I know the shooter has not been caught. "
to benefit women? wrote on April 28, 2006 7:56 pm:
" There seem to be a lot of guys supporting a woman's right to have a handgun to protect herself from being raped, are there any women who are going to take advantage of this? Just what I've always dreamed of...finally having the choice to carry a gun. Gary, you seem to have a lot of knowledge about rapes. Have you ever been a raped or raped someone else that you know how this all works? Most women are raped by men they know. You are quick to advocate all the benefits women will receive from being able to carry concealed guns, do you do anything constructive to prevent women from being raped or to help rape victims? "
mb wrote on April 30, 2006 5:49 pm:
" Yes, "to benefit women" I know of two women who have actively persued training (not only in firearms) since suffering separate attacks, that will certainly follow through with getting a concealed handgun permit, when they become available. While you seem to relish your thinly veiled accusation, being born male does not make one a rapist, and choosing to be prepared to defend your life if necessary, does not make one a murderer. Concealed weapons laws do help to maintain a level field for women, elderly, those who have difficulty retreating from an attack, and even men. Statistics and facts about rape and violent attacks are widely published and available to all...even men. "

Ads by Yahoo!