Conceal carry won’t be unsafe

In response to Chris Walker's article, “Concealed weapons simply unsafe,” Feb. 1, regarding how unsafe concealed weapons are.

The entire article is filled with fear-mongering, debunked statistics and signs of an unhealthy fear of law-abiding citizens who have the guts to stand up to criminals and defend themselves. This individual spouts statistics regarding guns kept in one’s home being more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal. Proven to be false years ago.

He worries that he'll be surrounded by guns at the mall and other places. Got news for this person: you already are. The problem is that these guns are not in the hands of the law-abiding. Most are in the hands of criminals.

He worries that, one day, a holder of a concealed carry permit might "snap" and go on a shooting spree. In the 40 some states that already have concealed carry laws, such a thing has never happened. Why should it happen there? Is it because the writer is basing his assumptions on how he would act after having a bad day?

Those who oppose concealed carry tend to do so because they do not have the guts to stand up to a criminal themselves and resent those of us who do. It makes them feel inadequate.

The writer wants to feel safe. But there is a big difference between feeling safe and actually being safe. I'm sure that those passengers on the flights that hit the World Trade Center on 9/11 felt safe.

After all, no guns were allowed on board. But that had there been only one armed passenger aboard each of those flights, nearly 4,000 lives could have been saved. The 9/11 attackers knew from the start that using aircraft would not only achieve the desired results, it was also the safest (for them) means because they knew that everyone on board would be unarmed.

When we push for non-passage of concealed carry laws, we are doing nothing more than ensuring the criminal, or other persons bent on criminal activities, a safe environment in which to perform their bloody acts. We are not protecting the public. Rather, we are endangering them.

Tom Kampert
Arizona (a concealed carry and open carry state)

Story perpetuates white stereotypes

The recently published article "Once you go black …" (Feb. 1) in the Post Magazine section is a pointless and obviously biased article trying to depict white males as cowards or inferior.

At no point in the article is there a point trying to be made, it’s just paragraph after paragraph of a stereotyped view of white males. (I found it interesting in this article that white males were called white whereas black males were called African American.)

The article rambles on with the writer leading on the unintelligent woman with questions like "so you think its because of white male inadaquacies..." or "so you're saying it hurts their inflated ego..."

What kind of agenda is your "paper" trying to push? I hate the fact that this school pushes diversity, but that article doesn't even do that. I’m a white male married to a woman of Arab descent, I don’t feel uncomfortable at all about it and neither does my wife.

This article stereotyped white males as racist, power-hungry beings who get upset over something as insignificant as a white woman dating a black man. Oh, excuse me, I mean African American.

A newspaper's main goal should be to either inform the public or get them to question a current situation. This article does neither.

Thank you for perpetuating stereotypes and for trying to "fight the power" by publishing an anti-white article. I’m sure some JMC instructor might be impressed, but the student populace is not.

John Brost

Facts wrong in conceal carry editorial

I'm really surprised you printed "Concealed weapons simply unsafe" (Feb. 1) without checking the facts. Many of these statements are not true, and it really makes your publication look bad by spreading false information.

For example: "In fact, statistically speaking, those who have handguns in the household are more likely to shoot a family member than to ever shoot a potential robber."

No, that is not a fact. The study that made this claim years is well known to have been debunked over and over again, yet some people still cling to it like Chris Walker is trying to.

And "There are some people in this wonderful state of ours who would like nothing more than to allow everyone to carry a concealed weapon anywhere they go."

There is not a single person in Wisconsin who believes that. If the author thinks so, I'd like to challenge him to find a single source. People want law-abiding citizens who are trained and are qualified to carry a weapon to be able to do so to protect themselves and their loved ones. Nobody wants a gun in the hand of a criminal.

With more guns we have in the hands of good people, more lives will be saved, fewer rapes will occur, crime will go down and Wisconsin will be safer for it.

Matt Wilson

Concealed weapons editorial simply untrue

This letter is in response to "Concealed weapons simply unsafe" by Chris Walker (Feb. 1).

Walker mentions that in 2005 alone, Milwaukee police reported 122 total homicides. He implies that if concealed weapons were legal, the rate would go up. In fact, statistics show that this is not the case. In a couple of occasions, the homicide rate has gone down in states after concealed weapon bills are passed, but in most instances, the rate remains the same. (Please refer to an editorial that I did for the Post in fall 2003.)

Walker neglected to add that concealed weapons would not be allowed within so many feet of schools.

He stated that "statistically speaking, those who have handguns in the household are more likely to shoot a family member than to ever shoot a potential robber."

This is propaganda perpetuated by the anti-gun movement. Where is the source? I would like to see where this information comes from.

Walker states "let's not forget that guns sometimes have the unfortunate luck of going off on their own."

I have been around firearms since the age of 12. I have spent just over 10 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, in which I have been around handguns, assault rifles, machine guns and shotguns on a daily basis. I have gone weeks and sometimes months carrying firearms with me 24 hours a day. During these periods, I even spent my nights in fighting holes, bunkers or nestled in a bed next to my firearm. Not in one instance did a firearm have "the unfortunate luck of going of on (its) own." This is impossible, for a gun to be laying, untouched and "just go off." For a firearm to go off requires the assistance of a person, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Robb Manning

Truth trumps all means

I have been thinking about the article "Book important despite controversy" (Jan. 25). It seems to me that Mike Nick has taken the position that the ends justify the means. This seems a real slippery slope for a journalist to take.

If James Frey's lying is justified by the people at the UWM Post, how are we, the readers, to view any of the journalistic articles presented in the future? Are we to assume that staff writers condone deceit because the point they feel needs to be made is more important than the truth?

What exactly is the Post's position? When your staff writes about matters that might be important to students, are we to take the content with a gain of salt? Knowing that, at the Post, a little lying is OK. This Aristotelian position that a little bit of anything is OK can lead to serious problems. Perhaps a little bit of arsenic is OK to take.

There is a lot of false material about various "cures" to serious illness. This material often leads seriously ill people to abandon their medicine in favor of quack cures. So when people with addictions forgo established programs, like the 12 steps, to chase after the admittedly untrue claims made by Frey, they may die. Therefore, I reject the notion, presented by Nick, that the deceit in "A Million Little Pieces" is an acceptable alteration of the truth.

Peter Walter

> Comments