1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

More good WI editorials (ok, and 1 bad)

Discussion in 'Legal' started by xenophon, Sep 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. xenophon

    xenophon Member

    Aug 11, 2003
    Milwaukee, WI
    Whoa, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel actually printed more pro-carry editorials that anti-carry (4 to 1)!! Either the truth has come out that more support this measure than not, or maybe they just didn't have any other anti's to print! Either way, I applaud the Journal.


    The Morning Mail
    Last Updated: Sept. 27, 2003



    State can handle more guns - in the right hands

    This is regarding concealed-carry legislation and the article "Does this state really want more guns on the street? After reading the pros and cons in the Sept. 21 Crossroads section, the answer must be a definite "yes"!

    With guns out there now in the hands of lawbreakers, with no permits, let's do as 45 other states have done and allow concealed carry by the law-abiding citizens to reduce crime.

    The anti-gun people can cite only a handful of cases where permit-holders in other states have abused the privilege, overlooking completely the facts and statistics that show a reduction in robberies, rapes, murders, etc.

    Only a small percentage of the population obtains a permit, but it is the serious and mainly well-trained owners. They only carry on occasion, depending on what they feel their exposure will be - driving late at night, a trip to the ATM, working late, etc. A gun is not needed to attend a sporting event, church or school, but instead where protection is desired.

    The laws are explicit: A concealed gun cannot be displayed or exhibited, under strict penalty, unless used for defense, so there is no visible gun-toting.

    Gov. Jim Doyle should want to reduce crime and not carry the responsibility of more bloodshed on his shoulders.

    Herbert C. Ewert

    Minnesota's success serves as example for Wisconsin

    The strident opposition to concealed carry in Wisconsin, illustrated by the sputterings of Luis Tolley and others, exemplifies the triumph of emotion over reason ("Proposed legislation puts police and the public at risk," Crossroads, Sept. 21). These people, unencumbered by facts and history, have decided that since they don't like guns, nobody should be allowed to use them, even in a legal and responsible manner.

    Living on the border with Minnesota, I have been able to watch the convulsions and knee-jerk fear-mongering the anti-gunners exhibited in their frantic efforts to portray as the end of the world Minnesota's passage of its shall-issue concealed-carry law.

    Several thousand permits have been issued to law-abiding citizens who had to go through a rigorous training program and pay a hefty fee. These are not the people we need to worry about. And how many shootouts and mass murders have the good people of Minnesota been subjected to by these permit-holders to date? None.

    If Minnesota, whose citizens have to drive to Wisconsin to get decent fireworks, can allow legally carried firearms, why on earth can't Wisconsin? The noisy academic flower-pot gang in Madison represents a small minority of the citizens of this state, and we shouldn't let them dominate the political debate on this important issue.

    Can't trust that all guns would always be used wisely

    After reading the Sept. 21 articles for and against a concealed-carry law, I am at a total loss as to how anyone could actually think such legislation could be a good thing.

    If the unfortunate woman so brutally raped and beaten by five assailants had a gun, would she have been able to find it quickly enough to shoot or scare away five men? Very doubtful.

    What about children who find mom's gun in her purse and want to show their friends? What about the teen son or daughter who contemplates suicide or wants to get back at someone or just "scare" them?

    How about the responsible person who registers and takes classes but whose significant other has an anger problem and now has access to a weapon he doesn't qualify to own? Then there's the severe road rage problem.

    Disrespect, anger and violence seem to be at an all-time high. We'd like to think that anyone who qualifies would be responsible at all times and that the gun wouldn't be available to anyone else. I don't think that's true.

    We need to feel safer in our homes and neighborhoods, but I, for one, would feel even more insecure knowing that there are so many hidden guns out there.

    Lois M. Pilgreen

    Law that provides for self-defense isn't dangerous

    Luis Tolley provided false and inflammatory rhetoric about concealed carry. He wrote of a "dangerous" law in Minnesota and opposition of law enforcement and pleaded for rejection of a dangerous bill in Wisconsin.

    If truly dangerous, how is it that none of the states currently allowing concealed carry has repealed the law? I seriously doubt lawmakers in 45 states intentionally ignore the safety of their constituents.

    Law enforcers are not in opposition. Groups representing law enforcers - Milwaukee Police Association, Fraternal Order of Police and Law Enforcement Alliance of America - all support the bill. The group opposed consists primarily of police administrators and political appointees.

    The report of professors John Donohue and Ian Ayres is far from "the most thorough review ever done." It is their review of author John Lott's data drawing a different conclusion. Intellectually, one cannot justify using this report as basis for argument against concealed carry.

    Don't tell me stories about how concealed carry will turn me into a killing maniac. Just give me the right to protect my family and myself.

    Thomas J. Oman

    Those against measure should use common sense

    The people who believe that the concealed-carry legislation becoming law in Wisconsin will be a threat to our safety have not given any extra thought beyond "People with guns will commit crimes." For many, many years, people who have lived in our society have committed crimes without permits and with unregistered firearms.

    Why would a person take the time, effort and cost of training to obtain a concealed-carry permit so that he or she could go out and commit a crime with a gun? Their intentions will only be for their safety and the safety of their families.

    Common sense says that legally armed, honest, trained individuals will make a safer Wisconsin.

    Sharon Simington
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page