Monkeyleg
Member.
The following is just a sampling of the letters to the editor column following the publication of a pro-CCW and an anti-CCW column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I'm struck by the last name of the last writer: could he be Luis Tolley writing under a pseudonym?
GUN VIOLENCE
Talking, but not acting, to end senseless killings
I'm writing in response to Jim Stingl's Sept. 26 column about the many senseless killings and the same day's editorial referring to the 80 murders so far this year in Milwaukee.
I think back to Nov. 22, 1963, 40 years ago this year, when President Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas. A few years later, his brother Robert was killed by a gun, then Rev. Martin Luther King and many other well-known and not so well-known people over the past 40 years.
For these past 40 years, there has been a great deal of talk about how to stop this, including gun control, but little action. Prosecuting killers after the fact does not prevent the killing in the first place. The primary solution is to ban guns.
Roberta Fries
Waukesha
CONCEALED-CARRY LAW
It would be good to know who has a gun
The Sept. 28 letters about concealed carry gave me a wonderful idea. Why not allow Wisconsinites to carry weapons as long as they attend training and receive the permit? But instead of allowing them to carry their firearm concealed, their weapon must be worn in plain view. That's right! A non-concealed-carry law.
I want to know if someone is carrying a gun. I want to know if my co-worker is carrying a gun to work everyday. I want to know if I am at a bar and someone who might be having a few drinks is still strapped with a firearm.
When you startle someone at night - on the street, maybe at an ATM, etc. - wouldn't you like to know if they're grabbing their heart, their phone or a firearm? I know I would.
Non-concealed firearms are the answer. They deter crime. They make people feel safer. They answer a key argument in the Second Amendment. There is no good argument against non-concealed-carry.
Give Wisconsinites what they want. Allow them to carry firearms. Just don't allow the guns to be hidden.
Tom O'Neil
Wauwatosa
***
Minnesota's success a matter of perspective
I laughed when I read Jim Cooksey's letter on Minnesota's concealed-gun law ("Minnesota's success serves as example for Wisconsin," Sept. 28). His view of Minnesota's concealed-carry law from Hudson was far different from mine, living and working in the Twin Cities.
Employers, business establishments, churches and even schools suddenly had to establish policies or revise policies regarding the carrying of guns on their premises. Imagine going to church or school wondering if the person next to you is "packing heat."
Within a fortnight, "No Gun" signs went up all over the Twin Cities. This led to uproar and lawsuits over the abridgement of rights these signs represented. The law has pitted the right to carry a gun against the right to private property.
One more thought, contrary to Cooksey's letter: Minnesotans experienced their first shooting at a school by a student, less than a month into the new school year; the law was less than a year old.
Wisconsin would be wise to learn from Minnesota's mistake and not pass the concealed-carry bill being considered.
Mary Kay Wagner
Wauwatosa
***
Much ado about perceived danger
Much has been made about how dangerous Wisconsin will become if the Personal Protection Act, allowing concealed carry of firearms, is passed. From road-rage-sparked shootouts on our freeways to armed forays in schools, churches and polling places, doom is predicted for our state if the evil bill is passed.
Anyone who has lived, worked or spent any amount of time in one of the 45 states that permit concealed weapons to be carried can testify that this is simply not the case. Passage of this type of law has caused little change in other states. At best, crime has dropped. At absolute worst, there has been no change in criminal firearms misuse or firearm-related death rates.
The fact is that each day, thousands of fellow Wisconsinites carry concealed weapons for their own reasons and without regret. We pass by these people every day and are none the wiser. At worst, we will never know who they are or that they are armed. At best, one of these citizens may save our bacon, if the need were to arise for them to deploy that weapon to protect a life or stop a crime.
Keeping this practice illegal will do little to reduce crime and will only serve to make many otherwise law-abiding individuals criminals themselves.
Dan Rost
Wausau
***
There is no guarantee of responsible use
If a report on unregistered and uninsured autos driven by unlicensed drivers is reasonably accurate, it seems that Department of Transportation authorities cannot control the irresponsible use of something as large as a motor vehicle. How, then, can the gun-carry advocates hope to convince us that a similar system using education and registration will be effective in controlling who can be walking around with concealed weapons?
And would the proposed concealed-carry legislation require gun carriers to provide evidence of financial responsibility in the event of accidents or mistakes before a gun could be acquired or licensed, just as it was for motor vehicle ownership when this state was civilized?
Also, the rape victim described in Richard Baker's Sept. 21 Crossroads article would never had a chance of defense with a concealed weapon and may have well been killed with her own gun.
Patrick Tully
Milwaukee
From the Oct. 2, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
GUN VIOLENCE
Talking, but not acting, to end senseless killings
I'm writing in response to Jim Stingl's Sept. 26 column about the many senseless killings and the same day's editorial referring to the 80 murders so far this year in Milwaukee.
I think back to Nov. 22, 1963, 40 years ago this year, when President Kennedy was shot to death in Dallas. A few years later, his brother Robert was killed by a gun, then Rev. Martin Luther King and many other well-known and not so well-known people over the past 40 years.
For these past 40 years, there has been a great deal of talk about how to stop this, including gun control, but little action. Prosecuting killers after the fact does not prevent the killing in the first place. The primary solution is to ban guns.
Roberta Fries
Waukesha
CONCEALED-CARRY LAW
It would be good to know who has a gun
The Sept. 28 letters about concealed carry gave me a wonderful idea. Why not allow Wisconsinites to carry weapons as long as they attend training and receive the permit? But instead of allowing them to carry their firearm concealed, their weapon must be worn in plain view. That's right! A non-concealed-carry law.
I want to know if someone is carrying a gun. I want to know if my co-worker is carrying a gun to work everyday. I want to know if I am at a bar and someone who might be having a few drinks is still strapped with a firearm.
When you startle someone at night - on the street, maybe at an ATM, etc. - wouldn't you like to know if they're grabbing their heart, their phone or a firearm? I know I would.
Non-concealed firearms are the answer. They deter crime. They make people feel safer. They answer a key argument in the Second Amendment. There is no good argument against non-concealed-carry.
Give Wisconsinites what they want. Allow them to carry firearms. Just don't allow the guns to be hidden.
Tom O'Neil
Wauwatosa
***
Minnesota's success a matter of perspective
I laughed when I read Jim Cooksey's letter on Minnesota's concealed-gun law ("Minnesota's success serves as example for Wisconsin," Sept. 28). His view of Minnesota's concealed-carry law from Hudson was far different from mine, living and working in the Twin Cities.
Employers, business establishments, churches and even schools suddenly had to establish policies or revise policies regarding the carrying of guns on their premises. Imagine going to church or school wondering if the person next to you is "packing heat."
Within a fortnight, "No Gun" signs went up all over the Twin Cities. This led to uproar and lawsuits over the abridgement of rights these signs represented. The law has pitted the right to carry a gun against the right to private property.
One more thought, contrary to Cooksey's letter: Minnesotans experienced their first shooting at a school by a student, less than a month into the new school year; the law was less than a year old.
Wisconsin would be wise to learn from Minnesota's mistake and not pass the concealed-carry bill being considered.
Mary Kay Wagner
Wauwatosa
***
Much ado about perceived danger
Much has been made about how dangerous Wisconsin will become if the Personal Protection Act, allowing concealed carry of firearms, is passed. From road-rage-sparked shootouts on our freeways to armed forays in schools, churches and polling places, doom is predicted for our state if the evil bill is passed.
Anyone who has lived, worked or spent any amount of time in one of the 45 states that permit concealed weapons to be carried can testify that this is simply not the case. Passage of this type of law has caused little change in other states. At best, crime has dropped. At absolute worst, there has been no change in criminal firearms misuse or firearm-related death rates.
The fact is that each day, thousands of fellow Wisconsinites carry concealed weapons for their own reasons and without regret. We pass by these people every day and are none the wiser. At worst, we will never know who they are or that they are armed. At best, one of these citizens may save our bacon, if the need were to arise for them to deploy that weapon to protect a life or stop a crime.
Keeping this practice illegal will do little to reduce crime and will only serve to make many otherwise law-abiding individuals criminals themselves.
Dan Rost
Wausau
***
There is no guarantee of responsible use
If a report on unregistered and uninsured autos driven by unlicensed drivers is reasonably accurate, it seems that Department of Transportation authorities cannot control the irresponsible use of something as large as a motor vehicle. How, then, can the gun-carry advocates hope to convince us that a similar system using education and registration will be effective in controlling who can be walking around with concealed weapons?
And would the proposed concealed-carry legislation require gun carriers to provide evidence of financial responsibility in the event of accidents or mistakes before a gun could be acquired or licensed, just as it was for motor vehicle ownership when this state was civilized?
Also, the rape victim described in Richard Baker's Sept. 21 Crossroads article would never had a chance of defense with a concealed weapon and may have well been killed with her own gun.
Patrick Tully
Milwaukee
From the Oct. 2, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
