From: [w--g--s] at [lonestar.jpl.utsa.edu] (William W. Hughes)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Texas CCW debate - letters to San Antonio Express-News
Date: 17 Apr 1995 09:35:56 -0500
The beat goes on... Still more letters from the local newspaper on the
right to carry concealed weapons. These letters include both pro- and
anti-gun viewpoints.
I have transcribed several days' worth of these letters and am
presenting them below (I am including _all_ letters on the subject
appearing during the period 12-17 April; typos & mispeelings are most
likely mine). Readers are encouraged to write the San Antonio
Express-News with their own responses.
From the Letters to the Editor page: "Letters should be 250 words or
fewer, double-spaced, signed and include the writer's phone number and
address. All letters are verified. Fax accepted at 1-210-351-7372. No
initials or pseudonyms used. Letters will be edited for length, taste
and legal reasons. Address: Letters to the Editor, Express-News, P.O.
Box 2171, San Antonio, Texas 78297-2171"
Disclaimer: these letters are being included under "fair use", in an
attempt to inform the larger public of the debate occurring in the
pages of the San Antonio Express-News.
-*-
Wednesday, 12 April 1995
Gun, not person, killed Selena
Gun advocates and National Rifle Association supporters:
Please tell me again that people kill people and guns do not kill
people.
Would singer Selena be dead if Yolanda Saldivar had not had easy
access to a gun?
Our legislators should think long and hard before they vote for a
concealed-gun law.
Joseph F. Charneski
Armed citizenry menace to public
The recent events in Corpus Christi (Selena's murder and the
rampage by an ex-employee of Walter Rostler Co.) have brought to light
very tragically the need to speak out on the bill in Austin on
concealed gun licensing.
State Rep. Ron Wilson, D-Houston, stated, "I wish Selena had a
gun."
He also said, "If the other individuals in Corpus Christi when
thiis deranged individual came through there, if somebody had been
licensed, maybe thos folks wouldn't have been killed either."
Does this mean that because our people in Austin can't enact laws
that would put criminals in jail longer or find the money to put more
police officers on the streets, they need to turn the entire atate of
Texas into Dodge City?
Do they really think that by putting gnus in the hands of every
citizen we can will cut down on violence?
No matter what rules legislators write into this concealed carry
bill to "protect us from the wrong kind of people getting a license to
carry a concealed weapon," can they promise that guns will no longer be
stolen from these people and that there will be no accidental
shootings?
We need stronger laws, more jails, many more police and parents
who will teach their children respect for lives and property.
If the concealed-carry bill passes, we don't believe any citizen
will be safe ever again.
Jan and Jay Foraker
-*-
Thursday, 13 April 1995
Editor knows ultimate truths
In your April 5 editorial, "Six reasons to kill concealed gun
law," you state that the concealed carry law "wouldn't have prevented
Selena's death or that of the five innocents gunned down at their desks
Monday."
How do you know? Are you omnicient?
Would you make the same arbitrary statement of the Luby's
Cafeteria slaughter in Killeen, during which one woman watched as her
parents were killed while her gun was locked in her car because it was
illegal for her to carry it into the restaurant?
The purpose behind the concealed carry law is to allow
law-abiding citizens the right to defend themselves. Blocking this law
will not prevent these recent irrational acts. Unfortunately, the
mentally unbalanced or temporarily insane person will always find a way
to get possession of a weapon.
The injustice here is makiing a crminal out of a law-abiding
citizen for carrying a gun to defend hiimself against the violent
criminal or the isolated deranged killer.
Like the rest of the media, you never miss an opportunity to speak
for Handgun Control Inc.
You neglect to point out the positive results other states have
had with passage of their riight-to-carry laws. Florida's homicide rate
has dropped 22 percent since its right-to-carry law passed in 1987,
while the national rate has risen 15 percent.
It's a pity we can't ask those five victims gunned down at their
desks if they agree with your statement that they could not have
defended themselves.
James Taugner,
Brackettville
Greatest talent never realized
Selena, the greatest talent that Texas ever produced, was murdered
in Corpus Christi.
Texas shoots people better than it does anything else.
Some society.
And they still believe that everyone should be able to carry a
concealed weapon.
Well, watch out. You could be next.
Jeanne Stough
-*-
Friday, 14 April 1995
Armed citizens even the odds
It is amazing to me how the media's anti-gun bias comes shining
through in the wake of tragedies.
It seems that every newspaper editorial you read is using the
recent murders in San Antonio and Corpus Christi to try to stop the
concealed carry legislation. The bottom line is that these writers are
wrong in claiming that honest citizens traininig to obtain permits to
carry a weapon to protect themselves will cause more murders and
crimie.
The fact that some police chiefs -- who are appointed, not elected
-- also speak out against this bill does not mean that all law officers
feel this way.
Had one of the victims been armed, she or he might still be alive
today. This is the bottom line.
The people want this law. Criminals will always carry guns
illegally. Well-trained citizens carrying guns will even the odds and
perhaps put some fear into criminals.
Scott Kuenstler,
Pleasanton
-*-
Saturday, 15 April 1995
As gun kills, actions confusing
The state Legislature passed a resolution honoring Selena, the
Tejano singer killed by a gun.
Then, five additional people were killed by gunfire in Corpus
Christi.
The Legislature continues to debate the bill that will allow more
of us to carry concealed weapons. Gov. George W. Bush will sign it into
law when the Legislature passes the bill.
The actions of the Legislature and governor only confirm that they
continue to speak out of both sides of their collective mouths.
Stephen J. Spear
Debate over death, guns unfocused
I'm not one to get involved in "causes," but I'll make an
exception for the trend in the concealed weapons/Selena death
controversy.
Let's get something straight. Criminals have no problem getting
guns. They are not concerned over whether the gun is concealed or not.
The concealed weapons law finally gives victims a fighting chance
to protect themselves.
If we want a cause to emerge from the Selena tragedy, then let's
focus on all the young people emulating Selena's values: home, pride in
culture, stay in school, stop the violence, no drugs. If you must have
gangs, have gangs for good.
Selena was all these things, and she was "cool."
Guns are the end of the spectrum. Values are the beginning.
Linda Roots,
Helotes
-*-
Sunday, 16 April 1995
Slippery slope of gun control
I have two questions for all the gun lovers out there.
First, if any restriction on gun ownership is unconstitutional and
wrong-headed, then why aren't the National Rifle Association and the
Republicans fighting for the repeal of the law that regulates the sale
of fully automatic weapons? If denying citizens access to
semi-automatic weapons is wrong, then why isn't the same true for
automatic weapons?
Second, do supporters of the concealed weapon bill really believe
that we are all going to feel safer sitting at our desks at work, armed
to the teeth and watching for any sign of hostility from our coworkers?
Maybe our new state motto will be: "Shoot first; ask questions later."
Paul Schoultz
Hypothetical bloodbath seen
Re: The murder of Selena Quintanilla Perez in Corpus Christi on
March 31:
If our legislature had already passed the concealed weapons act
prior to this tragedy, there probably would have been someone with a
concealed weapon where this occurred.
They would have fired at suspected murderer Yolanda Saldivar, who
may or may not have fired back.
In a motel other people with a concealed weapon could have
witnessed this activity and fired their weapons, either at Saldivar or
at the person who fired at her.
By then, anyone with a gun would have fired at each other, simply
by the adrenalin of being in a shooting situation, wityh no training or
experience in what to do if someone is firing at you, and not knowing
why or at whom they are shooting.
Innocent bystanders could also be shot, wounded or killed. But
that's OK, because our legislators and our governor want us to carry
guns.
Charles L. Casillas
Can't blame law that doesn't exist
The head of your April 5 editorial should have read: "Six reasons
to pass concealed gun law."
Methinks you shoot yourself in the foot when you try to blame
those six deaths on a law not yet passed.
The Brady Law did not stop a criminal from buying the gun that was
used to kill Selena.
But had just one of those innocent people in that office been
legally armed, one to five people might be alive today to be grateful
for a concealed gun law.
If that law is passed, not everyone will or should use it. It will
simple allow honest, innocent citizens the right to protect themselves.
The police cannot protect anyone but thenselves. Under current law,
only police and criminals carry concealed weapons.
Ted Bender
Responsible acts in person's nature
I am not aware that any of your contributors have addressed what i
feel to be one of the most important aspects of the proposed "concealed
carry" law.
I am referring to the extreme financial liability which may be
imposed on the person responsible for the use of deadly force in the
defense of life or property.
The family, and the lawyers, of the injured or deceased will
surely seek compensation for any present or future losses incurred by
gunfire. I submit that most law-abidinig citizens who currently,
legally possess firearms have given some serious thought to the
possible consequences of using them in defense of their life and
property.
Responsible citizens, those who have considerable financial worth
to protect, will likely be less inclined to use deadly force in
situations where it is not absolutely warranted.
Proper training for those who choose to carry a weapon will no
doubt address the appropriate use of deadly force and the potentially
devastating consequences for all involved, which may result from the
inappropriate use of a firearm.
Most responsible people will understand the folly of using a
weapon to protect one's property today, only to lose it all tomorrow in
a lawsuit.
The experience in Florida and Arizona with "concealed carry" would
seem to bear out the theory that responsible people do not begin to act
irresponsibly once they begin legally carrying firearms.
Frank Walsh
-*-
Monday, 17 April 1995
Shootings show need for defense
The recent shootings in Corpus Christi are indeed tragic.
Using these tragedies, however, to attempt to deny citizens of
good stature the legal right to carry weapons is completely misguided.
The murders prove the exact opposite.
People who will settle their differences by violence will not obey
laws, nor do they bother with legal niceties such as obtaining
licenses.
The police were not there to protect Selena or the five other
helpless victims of premeditated murder.
I don't fault the police -- they do the best they can -- but the
police cannot protect all of us 24 hours a day. Thus, it is up to the
individual to protect himself or herself.
The right of self-defense is common in all societies and is
well-established in our legal system.
It has been proven that the right to carry concealed weapons has
saved the lives of citizens who make positive contributions to society.
Stopping this effort will only allow violent criminals to continue
to prey upon the good citizens of this state.
Scott A. Jones
-30-