Now
Fair
84.0°
High
84°
Low
72°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 12/11: Killers safe in gun-free zones

Comments 75 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Tuesday, Dec 11, 2007 - 02:08:55 am CST

The church shooting in Colorado Springs on Sunday had a vastly different ending than the Westroads Mall slayings. The killer was stopped immediately by someone on scene. By a volunteer with a concealed carry permit who decided she was willing to help protect “the flock.”

If this had happened in Nebraska, there would have been many more dead, as state law would have forced this brave woman to leave her firearm in the car or at home. This is the same law, mind you, that kept legal concealed carry permit holders from having their firearms at Von Maur.

Gun-free zones don’t work. The only people who are made more safe are the killers.

Allen Forkner, Omaha

Keeping quiet isn’t answer

In order to make sense of the senseless random act of violence by the Omaha shooter, we point fingers of blame at parents, schools, peers, mental health providers, and now the media (“Shooter shouldn’t be named,” letter, Dec. 8).

Will shooting the messenger (the media) prevent another “copycat” tragedy? It is simplistic to think an effective solution is to silence the media from revealing the identity of the perpetrator of this abominable act.

With the infinite variety of communication sources today — i.e., the Internet, texting, YouTube, cable and satellite, not to mention print and broadcast — it is virtually impossible to silence details of such a public event. In this digital age, personal information on the shooter would get out instantly anyway, perchance laced with errors and speculation from unreliable sources. The shooter would still be “famous.”

To single out the broadcast and print media is not the solution. It is time for serious and rational dialogue among all communication sources and the public to search for answers to this critical social issue.

Leta Powell Drake, Lincoln

Omaha killer won’t be famous

I was appalled to hear two radio announcers agreeing with the statement in the Westroads Mall shooter’s suicide letter that the boy would be famous. The broadcasters used Charles Starkweather as an example of how famous the boy’s name could remain throughout time. Webster’s Dictionary describes famous as: well known, excellent, celebrated, distinguished, eminent, famed, illustrious, noted, pre-eminent, prominent and renowned.

I don’t think that the boy who murdered and wounded all those people fits the above description very well. To me, the definition of infamous sounds more fitting, It is defined as: Having a bad reputation, notorious, shocking or disgraceful.

I can’t even remember the names of the people who did the Columbine shootings or the person who did the Virginia Tech shootings. Unless the news media brings up the names of the murderers, I feel that most of the population remember the incidents, not who did them.

This boy did not “go out in style.” He went out a murderer who killed innocent unarmed people and then committed suicide.

I’m sure this boy had his good qualities at one time, and I feel very sorry for the families and friends of both the victims and this boy, but I am frustrated that any news media would put out the image that this kid will be famous and remembered in the future. This puts out a terrible message to other troubled kids who may desperately want to feel like they can be famous.

The boy should be made to appear as he ended up: a criminal who murdered eight innocent people and ruined several families’ lives, for no other purpose than self-glory.

David West, Lincoln

No reason to show video

I am disgusted by how much publicity this shooter is getting and the media is allowing him to have. This includes the most recent showing of the video surveillance footage on the Web site.

Why give this guy the time of day? His name should never have been mentioned, his picture never shown, a video of him going into the store never released. Are we to encourage other people to become “famous” in this manner? The media is instrumental in making sure the loved ones lost are the people to be placed upon a pedestal instead of this man who has destroyed people’s lives.

If we want a peek into the terror the employees, patrons and families felt that day, we probably don’t have to look too far to find someone who knows someone who knows someone that was a victim that day. If you want a good horror movie, go rent one. These other videos belong locked away in a vault somewhere so they don’t get shown to others who may think this is the way to finally make a name for themselves.

Teri Feit, Lincoln

Great job, emergency workers

The world became much smaller last Wednesday, when a depressed young man felt he had no alternative but to gun down innocent people at Von Maur. It’s hard to imagine how out of touch and desperate Robert Hawkins must have been.

My husband and I decided to go to Omaha and shop at Westroads on Wednesday, though I hadn’t been there for decades. We wanted to do a little Christmas shopping, and I wanted my husband to use a gift card I had given him for his birthday — to Von Maur.

Before leaving for Omaha, we ran a few errands around Lincoln. I realized I’d forgotten the gift card, so we ran home to pick it up and search for an Omaha address we needed. We headed to Westroads half an hour later than we had intended.

We thank God for that. Backed up in traffic going into the Westroads parking lot, we wondered if there had been an accident. Suddenly there were sirens and patrol and emergency vehicles on all sides of the two lanes of traffic, navigating between vehicles that could barely move, drivers of speeding private vehicles donned badges on their shirts. We turned on the radio and instantly became aware of the situation.

I want people to know what a tremendous job the emergency personnel did in maneuvering through the traffic, and then organizing and redirecting the traffic, getting us out of harm’s way in an incredibly efficient and rapid manner. These men and women had a horrendous job to do at the mall; they certainly deserve our praise.

Mary J. Linke, 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  
TS wrote on December 11, 2007 3:45 am:
" Allen Forkner is right on when he says killers safe in gun-free zones. It has been proved that gun-free zones are a stupid idea. "
No to Guns wrote on December 11, 2007 4:24 am:
" The person who stopped the shooter in Colorado was a church security guard trained in providing security and not someone with a concealed permit. The reason we see more of these types of shootings in not because of these so called "no gun zones", it is because the push by the gun supporters to arm everyone in the false hope that if everyone is armed, no one will try anything. Quite the contrary, someone intent on committing mass murder like in Omaha or Colorado isn't thinking I'll attack here because it is a "no gun zone", and it is an easy target, they would do the same thing if they walked into a place where everyone was armed. They are only interested in killing and not worrying about if someone else is armed, in fact, I'll bet they are hoping so so they will be killed and become famous. It is a suicide wish pure and simple. "
Jared wrote on December 11, 2007 5:05 am:
" Mr Forkner, your letter gives a necessary, but not sufficient accounting of Nebraska's law and its consequences. Remember that last time you were speeding? You broke the law. That last stop sign you rolled through? You broke the law again. The last time you used your bathroom cleaner using directions other than the label directions? You broke the law. I'm relatively certain that there are already people in Nebraska carrying concealed in gun-free zones--against the law. As long as they realize their responsibility, and act in accord with it, I have no problem. And, if you're a superbly responsible human being faced with a stupid law--I recommend mild civil disobedience. "
WE wrote on December 11, 2007 6:57 am:
" I say boycott any business who forbids CCW permit holders from bringing their weapons inside. "
jb wrote on December 11, 2007 7:25 am:
" I have heard alot of nonsense from the gun folks, but the statement that less people would have died if someone would have been "packing" at the mall is the most insane, riduculous,obsene statement ever. People like the writer should go over to Iraq and find out the real truth. When everyone is armed hundreds of innoncents die "
To Allen wrote on December 11, 2007 8:02 am:
" you can thank your own Ernie Chambers for the opt out...not only can a business do it, but a city can as well "
peb wrote on December 11, 2007 8:11 am:
" Mr. Forkner should know that the person who shot the gunman in Colorado was a female security guard hired by the church--not a random person with a concealed weapon. "
What???? wrote on December 11, 2007 8:25 am:
" I guess I missed the article that Allen read where it stated the customers actually left their weapons in their vehicles. "
Matthew wrote on December 11, 2007 8:32 am:
" You know, we'd be even more 'safe' if America was a police state and armed guards were on every corner. They could protect us from anything that might arise... But, you know what, I'd rather go without. "
Pinko Liberal wrote on December 11, 2007 8:53 am:
" Allen, do you realize that the person who shot the shooter in Colorado was a trained professional? A cop I believe? How would some Joe Public with a glock and an itchy trigger finger have done anything, but hurt more innocent people? Maybe they should have those kinds of people running security instead of some kid with a flashlight and a whistle. "
Stopped Immediately? wrote on December 11, 2007 9:03 am:
" How was he stopped immediately? All told four people are dead. That's not immediate. One death is too many - which means concealed weapons are not really the answer. I'd think of this a different way. Also does anyone know where this kid got a gun? Where did the Omaha gunman get his gun? He stole it from his stepfather. The same thing happened in Jonesboro, Arkansas years ago - the kids stole the guns from their parents. No matter where you stand on the issue of gun control we should all agree on responsible gun ownership - even the NRA in their gun safety literature states that guns should be kept in secure cases unaccessible to anyone else. These terrible acts are violent and seemingly random, but at least some would be preventable if that simple rule was followed. "
kk wrote on December 11, 2007 9:11 am:
" The story I read which quoted the pastor at the CO church said that the "security guard" was a regular parishioner who had a CCW whom he asked to act as security in light of the earlier shooting in Denver. The parishioner was not trained in security, just a member of the church doing her part to help out. "
Yes to Guns wrote on December 11, 2007 9:15 am:
" The idea that a gunman intent on causing as much death and destruction as possible would choose to attack an armed group of people over an unarmed group is ridiculous. CCW holders are one of the best defenses against this type of attack. "
DownHome wrote on December 11, 2007 9:17 am:
" I carry a concealed weapon and it has nothing to do with wanting to save the world from nuts. It has everything to do about saving my family from nuts. I carry into the No Gun Zones, since it is concealed nobody knows. I have taken 30 hours of fire arms use and safety. I target practice once a weak so when I shoot I kill what I am aiming at. My government taught me how to kill another person in the 60's and I did so then. I have no compunction about pulling down on somebody else who is armed. I will shoot them if there is no other means to stop them. My grandfather taught me all about the use of firearms, his motto was never point the gun at anything unless you intend to shoot, shoot only if there is no other way to accomplish the task and the make sure you kill quickly and humanely. I agree with No to Guns in that Gun Free Zones don't stop these nuts, but I also know what a well trained individual (see Colorado) can do and I chose to be prepared. "
Bullets Kill wrote on December 11, 2007 9:18 am:
" Gun free zones a proven bad idea?!?! Based on what "proof"? The proof is that no other advanced, democratic country on earth has anywhere near the kind of random, daily gun violence as the United States. No other advanced, democratic country has the same kind of crazy, easy access to the smorgashborg of guns and ammo that we do either. I once heard a novel idea to address our particularly American insane love of guns- allow guns, but tax bullets like crazy. For those great, one shot hunters and security guards, no problem. For those crazies like this guy who had a thousand rounds, prohibitively expensive... All hail the NRA and one more shot of Victory Gin. "
Josh wrote on December 11, 2007 9:19 am:
" So if you can't get a gun in the first place, we would be less safe? Allen's letter makes no sense. Let's give everyone a gun and we will all be sooooo safe - right... "
Backward thinking wrote on December 11, 2007 9:19 am:
" In a society like, say, Africa where everyone is armed they've sure stopped that whole gun-violence thing haven't they? ARMING MORE PEOPLE WILL MAKE GUN VIOLENCE WORSE! We don't ask teenagers to have more sex to curb pregnancy... "
SmooveB wrote on December 11, 2007 9:44 am:
" TS: Please tell us who proved this. I would also like to know the research methodology that this person used. "
Gt wrote on December 11, 2007 10:18 am:
" From what I have read the security guard was just a member of the church and just happen to be the volunteer guard on duty that day. While it appears that she had been a Police Officer at one time whe was just an ordianry citizen at the time of the shooting. Which most likely means she was carrying concealed. Police Officers are not the only ones that can go and get specialized self defense training. There are several facilities around the country that will teach the common citizen how to defend themselves. In fact a lot of Law Enforcement agencies use these places also. "
glad to be an educator wrote on December 11, 2007 10:20 am:
" how about this... get rid of all the guns in america except for law enforcement, then all you'll read about are the "attempted mass fist-fights"... to do this we need to remove the influence of the nra and gun lobbyists in washington! might seem unrealistic, but more guns in society is seemingly NOT working. this idea that more guns in society (aka more concealed weapons) will lead to less violence because those "harm-doers" will not know who is armed... ridiculous! do you honestly believe someone hell-bent on SUICIDE (aka dying) would be worried about others (gasp) shooting and killing them? sounds more convenient to me... besides, this whole "arms buildup" sounds oddly familiar to the cold war idea of brinkmanship. what resulted from that? we now have tens of thousands of aging warheads in the hands of the highest bidder... real safe. but hey, might work for guns... now if you'll excuse me, i'm off to buy a gun... ya know - just to protect "my flock". who knows, maybe i'll lock it up, maybe i won't - either way that gun will probably fall into the hands of some more "harm-doers" eventually... "
Hank wrote on December 11, 2007 10:21 am:
" I suppose "gun free zones are a stupid idea" in court, in other governmental buildings and schools. Please provide a link to your proof of this, curious minds want to know!! "
JoeMerchant wrote on December 11, 2007 10:23 am:
" I have a question for No To Guns... If they are hoping someone will kill them, why don't these killers attack police stations or shooting ranges or military bases? How come they always seem to end up in "gun-free" zones? Columbine, VaTech, Trolley Square Mall, Westroads, etc? I would think, if they seek someone to kill them, they'd go someplace where there are more likely to be guns. "
dlb wrote on December 11, 2007 10:26 am:
" Leta Powell Drake, you of all people should understand what is happening today. I, like most I know, do not blame the media for the events of 12/7/07 in Omaha. We blame the media for the CONSTANT onslaught and barrage of images and words that follow for 24-48 hours after an event such as this. Every where we turn, tv, radio, newspaper, internet, ALL owned by companies who have one goal in mind, being the FIRST with the WORST. Why? Because it sells. It makes people 'stay tuned', 'keep reading', the media in question and thereby they are exposed to the advertisements the media presents. This is how the company that owns the 'news' outlet make money. Then, the media outlets make commercials that glorify how they were first on the scene bringing coverage of the event (see KPTM in omaha with a commercial about the mall shooting coverage over the weekend.) This Leta Power-Drake, is what people are fed up with when it comes to the media. "
Edgar Pearlstein wrote on December 11, 2007 10:35 am:
" With guns more widespread, a sociopath will have even less trouble obtaining one than he now has. Note that the guy in Omaha got his AK47 by stealing it. The more guns there are, the easier it will be to find one not secured. "
LC wrote on December 11, 2007 10:41 am:
" I knew it wouldn't take long before someone tried to use these shootings as a reason to arm everyone possible. "No to Guns" is exactly right. These shooters are out to die, whether by their own hand or someone else's. If any one or all of their intended victims are armed, so much the better. When was the last time you heard of a mass killer like this living more than a few minutes after his attack? Even if he did get away, he is fully aware that he will be tracked down and shot later - IF he doesn't kill himself first. When we arrive at the principle that "gun-free zones are a stupid idea", we cross over the line of hope and caution squarely into paranoia, so we might as well admit that we are all some wack-job's prey every time we go out of the house. What a way to view life! "
Guillermo wrote on December 11, 2007 10:58 am:
" Obviously anyone who carries a concealed weapon must not have any sense. YOUR WEAPON IS CONCEALED, meaning it should be hidded from view. So carry it if you think it'll make you safer. Although I highly doubt it cowboy. In fact you more than likely will become a victim not a hero if you try to use your almighty concealed weapon. Quit reading NRA propaganda or listening to Rush Limbaugh and do a little research for yourself. My family quit using handguns 3 generations ago. How about yours? "
Dear peb wrote on December 11, 2007 11:00 am:
" The "security guard" is a member of the church who volunteers. She is not paid. "
Marky Mark wrote on December 11, 2007 11:03 am:
" What in the world does Ernie Chambers have to do with a city of Omaha ordinances? "
Grundle wrote on December 11, 2007 11:05 am:
" Yeah, the security guard in Colorado was armed with a firearm...but the security guards in the Westroads mall were not...meaning that there was NO ONE to come to the rescue of the Omaha shooting victims. Perhaps it would be a good idea for these "gun free zones" to have armed security personnel on-site. If you're not going to allow citizens to arm themselves in these places, then shouldn't those people who are supposed to be put in place to protect you be armed? The point of allowing concealed carry in these places is not to deter or prevent shootings from happening...it is to allow citizens to defend themselves in the case of such an event. And really, does it matter WHO ends up killing the assailant? Whether it's a security guard, a police officer, an armed citizen, or as in the case of the Omaha incident, a suicide...the assailant ends up just as dead. "
JR wrote on December 11, 2007 11:20 am:
" The argument that a concealed permit law is a deterrent to the random suicidal shooter is about as far-fetched as the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent to the violent criminal. It has absolutely no merit. Most government and private establishments don't allow the general public to have weapons of any kind on their premises anyway, concealed or otherwise. Besides, a concealed weapon permit doesn't include a deputy badge: it only allows a person to legally carry a concealed weapon, not discharge it. In a society full of generally good people who sometimes boil over with feelings of entitlement or bouts of road rage, we need less people with weapons, not more. I'd rather continue taking my chances with the occasional screwball sporting a death wish and automatic weapon than open it up to a large number of people with immediate access to firepower. "
NYPD wrote on December 11, 2007 12:06 pm:
" Placing the blame on an inanimate object, a tool for these deaths is rediculus. Human beings are the true killers, and our society enables more than deters these actions. A failing judicial system taking personal responsibilty away from the criminal and placing blame on the society is pure lunacy. It is no longer the guilt or innocense, it is the compromises that the lawyers make. I come from one of the most gun restrictive states and cities in the nation, and only the change in our approach to the criminal reduced our murder rate, not the gun laws or feel good policies. Every one of you violates the law as stated, mostly in your automobile, another "tool" responsible for more deaths by operator than firearms in this nation. Your speeding, running stop lights, inattention on cell phones, etc is an lack of responsibilty on the user, and then add alcohol, and you are just a guilty of murder with your 4000lb weapon. Many see the 2nd Admendment as no longer needed in our society, and guns as a focal point in crime. But when you look down at your speedometer, and see you are doing 60mph in that 45mph zone, where do we place the blame for that illegal act, the tool or the operator. "
Ripper wrote on December 11, 2007 12:13 pm:
" The purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure we are not hearded into a society without defense where the government (ala King George) can impose its will without impunity. Those in Africa who have taken up weapons do so to overcome the persecution they have faced or to protect what they believe to be theirs. Of course it gets out of line frequently. We are arguing the most inane idea here-the fact of the matter is Britian that has outlawed guns for its private citizens still has mass murderers. Nuts are nuts no matter the label on the can. Fix the nuts you fix the problem-guns are neither the cause or the cure for the problem. For those of you who have given up your weapons-good for you. For those of us who maintain ours properly and for the right reasons-leave us alone and don't assume we drink at a poisoned well. Lastly, name a single incident anywhere in the US where concealed weapon users have opened fire and killed or wounded innocent bystanders-name one time!! "
Patty wrote on December 11, 2007 12:31 pm:
" Think about it. The people who are committing these horrendous murders are not people carrying a legal concealed weapon. They are getting them illegally. Maybe more time and money should be spent on making sure that guns are not so accessible illegally. "
People wrote on December 11, 2007 12:31 pm:
" You can take all the guns away from legal people and the losers will still get them. It's called black market. I could go out today and buy a gun from someone peddling the stolen ones. Making everyone legal give up guns will stop stop one thing. Mine are locked up but if someone wanted them bad enough they would take them. Why should I put my family at risk because some wuss thinks taking all guns would solve the problem.I don't belong to the nra, I just want my right to own guns protected. I don't want to have to answer to a bunch of do gooders. I am also a democrat so don't think I am some conservative rep. "
Tim wrote on December 11, 2007 12:32 pm:
" People that want only the police armed are crazy. That is called a police state, what are you going to do when they take your rights away vote them out. Yeah right, you'll be in prison some where. This won't happen right away but would eventually happen. If you don't believe me ask my grandfather who died in Siberia. "
Wally wrote on December 11, 2007 12:54 pm:
" I don't think I've heard anyone say that carrying a gun will prevent mass killings from happening. However, carrying a gun does enable people to defend themselves and others. If a crazed gunman was walking your way and shooting indiscriminately, would you rather be armed with a gun or a cell phone? People need to wake up, firearms are readily available to anyone who is willing to find them. A concealed carry law doesn't make them any more accessible than they already are. The reason only 4 people are dead in Colorado is because someone shot the idiot. The reason there are 9 dead in Omaha is because people had to wait for the idiot to shoot himself. The presence of a firearm in the hands of a capable and responsible citizen saved lives. "
GS wrote on December 11, 2007 12:56 pm:
" Anyone ever heard the names Remington , Colt , Winchester ,etc. These are the places to start to control gun access for anyone!! If they're not produced , they're not available. "
Not giving up my Gun! wrote on December 11, 2007 12:57 pm:
" I can not believe we are having a conversation about taking away our Second Amendment rights....for those of you who don't know its THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. I don't have a CCW permit and don't intend on getting one, but knowing the training that is gone through in order to get a permit I'm not worried one bit about those that carry. I am a gun owner, I am a hunter and I respect my guns. I lock them up in safes so no one has access them. We don't live in the wild west as most of you Anti Gun folks claim, we don't have itchy trigger fingers, have clever nick-names for our guns or look for gun fights. No one on here has said anything about CCW being a deterrent for these thugs, these are things the anti crowd wants others to think. The fact of the matter is, it gives the person carrying and their family security. The Anti Gun and hunting folks are the ones with the agenda, not the hunters and gun owners that constantly have to defend their rights as Americans. Criminals are never going to give up their weapons, passing a law to get rid of weapons will just make their agenda easier. I also think that most would agree that Iraq is a war zone right now, I would be in the streets with my gun if we were in their situation. If your going to use different places as an example, try and use a place that is similar as America. Fact gets you alot further than Fiction! "
Josh wrote on December 11, 2007 1:04 pm:
" I do find it odd that a church, of all places, has to have a gun-totin' guard at the door... "
Rob wrote on December 11, 2007 1:07 pm:
" Seriously, why are AK-47's even allowed for sale? What type of deer do you need to kill with one of these? Anyway, maybe providing armed security gaurds at the door would have prevented this from happening. One, a deterent, and two, they would have noticed a large rifle under the guys jacket. "
Medias Role wrote on December 11, 2007 1:08 pm:
" I do believe the Media has had a major part in the society we have today. Fear sells and sells well, they know this. I'm so sick and tired of turning on the TV to the local station and hearing 13 killed in xyz town and 4 more injured, good evening I'm John Doe. The media is giving these dirt balls exactly what they want. Don't believe me...then why has a Von Maur in Minnesota already had a threat? Coincidence, not even a chance! The media today is hand feeding these criminals need for fame. I don't think they should mention their name or if they do say the looser that did this was. Until the media changes its practices, nothing will change. Please start reporting the news and good things happening in this world not all the bad. When's the last time a news program reported on a school built in Iraq, or the citizen that helped a police officer, or any other good story? I can't remember either. "
wow wrote on December 11, 2007 1:14 pm:
" I dont think ccw permits would have changed anything. Criminals are criminals. You have to train to carry a concealed weapon. Our society is so ignorant that they dont see that the person was wrong but see that there was a gun involved. How many of you want to ban alcohol everytime someone is killed by a drunk driver? Heck they only get a slap on the hand when caught and then go out and do it agian. I dont know any statistics but would bet that more people are killed by drunk drivers in nebraska every year than by guns. "
Zoomie wrote on December 11, 2007 1:39 pm:
" Uhh, Tim - great soundbite, but you realize its nonsense, don't you? Virtually every nation in Europe have banned handguns and most rifles (and have strict rules for the few firearms that are legal). They've also got very armed police forces (I've never forgotten the police in Frankfurt airport 35yrs ago walking around with machine guns). They've also have NOT got "police states", and do have democracies every bit as vibrant and free (in some cases, more free) than ours! So sorry, but your argument makes no sense. "
Josh wrote on December 11, 2007 1:42 pm:
" Someone mentioned Britian, which has outlawed firearms, having gun violence as well. That made me laugh- sure there are isolated incidents, but Britian has FAR, FAR less gun violence than the US. "
Funny wrote on December 11, 2007 1:54 pm:
" Isn't it. Years ago we didn't have CCW laws or a push by the gun lobby to arm everyone and we never had mass shootings like this. We pass all these CCW laws and urge everyone to arm themselves in the false belief that they will be safe and lo and behold! We have people walking inot crowded malls and churches and shooting up the place. This should tell a person who has a brain that maybe these CCW laws are a bad idea by making people think they are safe. We were safer without them. I urge anyone who can prove the opposite to post their source stating that these CCW laws would stop someone walking into a crowded place and open fire. "
Andrew Bargen wrote on December 11, 2007 2:13 pm:
" I fundamentally disagree with Ms. Drake's contention. No one is asking the media to, as she suggests, "silence the details" of events like those that happened in Omaha. We should learn what we can from this individual's situation, to hopefully avoid similar events in the future. But what we as a society do *not* need is the shooter's name and picture splattered all over the reputable print, internet, and broadcast media sites only hours after the event occurred. Answer yourself this question (and the perpetrator himself gives you the answer in his suicide note): why did he go to Von Maur (or any other public place) to kill those people before killing himself? Why did he not just end his own life? Because he knew exactly what would happen--and it did. Perhaps ask yourself this: what have you *gained* from knowing the shooter's name, or seeing his image? There is precedent for the media acting responsibly in extreme circumstances (the AP, as a rule, does not report the names of sexual assault victims, to protect their identities). I would argue, in cases such as this, that media outlets could likewise exercise responsible restraint--by not giving these glory-seeking murderers the notoriety that drives their actions. "
Captain Logic wrote on December 11, 2007 2:21 pm:
" Interesting how so many pro-gun folks posting here consider themselves trustworthy, law-abiding citizens, yet they advocate ignoring the gun-free areas and claim to do so themselves. You are therefore not law-abiding citizens and are not worty of the public's trust. Bragging that since it is concealed, "no one will see" the illegally-concealed weapon is also not acceptable. Perhaps you think it's ok to steal, rape, and murder as well, so long as no one sees it happening? Or perhaps breaking the law is wrong, you should be punished, and you should have your concealled weapon permit revoked. "
Just Me wrote on December 11, 2007 2:50 pm:
" Hey all you gun-grabbing liberals, remember what Sigmund Freud said? ...Sigmund Freud once said, "A fear of weapons is a sign of delayed sexual and emotional maturity." Guns aren't the killer, people are killers. Maybe we need to quit pansy-a$$ing around these kids and spank their little butts and teach them a little respect. But, wait, that's another platform ya all take, can't discpline them, that would violate their civil rights. No wonder we are in the mess we are in. "
Grundle wrote on December 11, 2007 3:00 pm:
" I challenge anyone to provide evidence that CCW laws increase the likelihood of shootings like this. Furthermore, I challenge those takers to explain how enacting Nebraska's CCW law resulted in this shooting at Westroads. Please explain in detail. "
2nd Amendment Advocate wrote on December 11, 2007 3:15 pm:
" You anti CCW people are rediculous. Those that choose to carry concealed ARE NOT the ones that you need to worry about "shooting the place up." Next time you want to criticize someones choice to carry a firearm, STOP, take a minute, and realize the time you spend whining about whether or not someone should be able to carry could be put to better use spending time with your child so they don't end becoming the criminal that I need to defend myself from. "
SB wrote on December 11, 2007 3:19 pm:
" Just because this magical ‘concealed carry law’ is new to you Nebraskans doesn’t mean it is some direct adverse effect in violence or gun related crimes (or even the Von Mauer deaths). Most states have had this law for centuries with violence and gun-related crimes never being an issue. If you look at history- all totalitarian nations that then led to massive global destruction had to first disarm its citizens – now you understand why the second amendment is there (or you can argue the meaning of the word militia until you’re blue in the face). Go ahead and do your own research/ information gathering and you’ll find that no research can definitively state ‘guns are bad’ or ‘guns are good’ – so I tend to choose the option that keeps personal and civil liberties and rights. The FBI’s massive crime and census stats from all 3,045 US countries show that stricter gun control laws directly correlated with an increase in the number and severity of violent crimes (Lott “More Guns, Less Crime, 1998) and the number of Americans who report incidents where their guns averted a threat vastly outnumber those who report being the victim of a firearm-related crime (Kleck “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, 1991). This does not mean that all guns should be legal with no security precautions (why was an AK-47 and ammo not locked up?) and gun manufacturers should be allowed to make and market any type of gun. To me this issue isn’t about outlawing guns, but rather about holding the gun owner responsible for the gun’s fate and about getting to the actual problem with today’s social and economic problems that drive people to homicide (but that’s a more difficult and inconvenient issue then just shouting “ban guns”). For you that think access to a gun is the reason for this pyscho kid’s rampage – there was a story last year from Iowa where a family of six was killed when some kid rammed them head on with his car after writing a suicide note. Would you be calling for automobile control or would you blame the kid’s psychological and socioeconomic state? For you that don’t believe guns deter a criminal – next time you drive through the Dakotas, Wyoming, or Montana; randomly knock on a remote farmstead door, most likely you will be greeted with a shotgun as a first precaution. For you that think the media are expanding the problem; would you prefer to ignore the issues in your fairytale mind and wish they go away? "
RW wrote on December 11, 2007 3:22 pm:
" When we had a gun free society we did not have all this mass gun shooting we have now. Nine times out of ten you can have a gun at your reach and its generally not helpful. I know, I had a pharmcist friend in another state that was an avid hunter and always had his gun at his reach. Some druggies came into the store one evening and with no warning they shot him and killed him PDQ. "
Dan wrote on December 11, 2007 3:37 pm:
" To Funny. Years ago we didn’t have gun registration, none at all. A 10 year old could go into a store, purchase a rifle, handgun and ammo all in one purchase and all he needed was the money to purchase the firearms. We had no mass killing either. So the laws have done nothing. It’s the glorification of the act that has changed society, he had a national news that lasted 1/2 hr, special reports were just that a special report that was major. Now the news services have to fill in 24/7. 10/11 new had a news bit on to much coverage on the Omaha killings and everybody they interviewed said there was to much coverage, then they proceeded to fill in the rest of the news that evening about the Omaha killings. "
Jeff wrote on December 11, 2007 4:09 pm:
" A guy posts that if he lived in Iraq - he would be in the streets with his gun. Doing what, may I ask? joining a militia? which side? you better sign up to join the local police force or army - otherwise you would just be contributing to the chaos, and you're going to end up shot by a Shiite, Sunni, el Qeida, or an American soldier that doesn't know why you're doing in the street with your gun. And you say you don't have a "cowboy" attitude. ha! Oh yeah - I forgot though - the constitution guarentees the right to own an Ak-47 for Target practice. That is a right they can't take away. "
Google Search... wrote on December 11, 2007 4:11 pm:
" Do a google search and it does not take long to find out what happened in Great Britain after the 1997 ban on handguns. "The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000." This is from the BBC's website article "Handgun crime 'up' despite ban" They are many more to reach. So it seems plain and simple, if you ban all guns, no one will have them except criminals. "
Ask the Native Americans wrote on December 11, 2007 4:15 pm:
" The Native Americans did not have guns either. Hmm? Nor did they fight illegal imigration. (sorry I had to throw that one in) "
ghf wrote on December 11, 2007 4:21 pm:
" when this entire country is a gun-free zone, we'll all finally be safe. "
KrissyK wrote on December 11, 2007 4:43 pm:
" Here's why I don't like the idea of people having the legal right to carry concealed weapons: In panic situations, no many people have their heads on straight. (snort--like many do in everyday situations!) I question how many people, who choose to carry guns if it were legal, would truly have been able to shoot this guy, and not harm anybody else. You can't compare Von Maur to what happened in Colorado where someone was on the lookout and prepared for bad situations. Our nation has dramatically MORE gun violence--and just violence in general--statistically than any other country. I find that interesting especially because of the debate a shooting stirred. "
Hey Dan wrote on December 11, 2007 4:49 pm:
" When could a 10 year old buy a gun? There is no place that I know of that would have done that and I am over 60 years old and have sold firearms for years. Ever since I can remember, you had to be 18 to buy a long gun and 21 to buy a hand gun. If you want to have a gun to protect yourself and your loved ones, why not wear it can be seen? That way criminals can avoid you. Only a criminal feels the need to hide their weapons. A law-abiding citizen wouldn't think it would be necessary to hide it. "
Tim wrote on December 11, 2007 4:51 pm:
" Uhh..Zoomie not a soundbite. Actual history in 1958 USSR. It happened to thousands. Another point growing up in the 70's and 80's we took shotgun's to school, left them in our cars and the cars were unlocked. During hunting season a bunch of us usually went hunting right after sport practice or was on the school gun club. There was no mass shootings then so answer what the difference is from then till now. Guns were easier to get back then, so all you gun control advocates...what is the difference? "
Mailer wrote on December 11, 2007 5:11 pm:
" When a ban is enacted in Britain, gun crimes are going to go up because ALL GUN ACTION IS ILLEGAL not because the people couldn't defend themselves with their weapons. Google searches don't mean much if you don't put them into context. "
Channel 10 Alum wrote on December 11, 2007 5:18 pm:
" I agree with with my former co-worker, Leta Powell Drake. "
Jake wrote on December 11, 2007 7:06 pm:
" I want to add commendations to the City of Omaha, particularly the police and emergency personnel. They were there on the scene responding to a very difficult situation with competence, efficiency, and, in some cases, bravery. They have acted professionally in every television appearance I've seen. They have provided information to he public in a timely and considerate manner. I have heard nothing but positive remarks about them. These emergency responders have represented the City of Omaha and the State of Nebraska well in this time of tragedy. "
Matt Poulsen wrote on December 11, 2007 8:27 pm:
" Allen's letter is just false. The person who shot the murderer was a security guard...not some sort of bystander, who happened to have a gun in hand. Do you people really think that arming the public at large will reduce deaths??? Seriously?? You will have people shooting people for non-deadly reasons...like someone simply burglarizing a home or vandalizing a car. You'll have guns drawn in situations where it only makes matters worse. Furthermore, I am for gun rights, but I am also for having the right to walk around with my children knowing the guy sitting next to me in the movie theatre doesn't have a .357 under his vest. Do you really think that helps anything? As bad as events like that which took place at Von Maur are, people need to remember they are, in fact, very very rare. Maybe someone with a gun could have done something...maybe not. But shooting at a person is a heck of a lot different than shooting at a paper target...and all you who think because you have a gun you could take someone like this down need think again. Just ask a policeman or military serviceman who has fired on an actual person...you don't "shake" when you shoot a paper target. On the other hand, I also disagree with the contention that this tragedy was because of "gun supporters" it is because of the lack of proper mental health treatment in this country. Not to be cliche, but guns don't kill people...people kill people. If the guy didn't have a gun then he would have blown the place up. People need to tone down the rhetoric and quit trying to use this tragedy and the one in Colorado as a way to further your political agenda. Sometimes bad things happen, and there isn't a clear solution. But instead of focusing on the gun we need to focus on the people behind the gun...the guy was a cowardly sick person who desperately need mental health care. As far as boycotting goes...I will boycott any store that allows concealed weapons. My 6 year old boy doesn't need to be in a room full of 30 loaded handguns...that's just insanity. "
Tod wrote on December 11, 2007 8:47 pm:
" I am astounded at the number of people proving they have no sense. Guns are NOT magic wands. Used by a 'good guy', they don't PREVENT actions by another person until they are used. Contrary to what anti-gunners seem to think, you can't go around shooting people for what they MIGHT do. The facts are 1) the shooting in Colorado WAS LESSENED because a person with a CCW permit/handgun was present and legal, 2) no shopper at Von Maur with a CCW was present, nor were they LEGALLY able to help, so the shooter continued until he wanted to stop. If it was me, and I had a CCW but had to leave my handgun in the car to shop, and any of my family was harmed or killed, Westroads and/or Von Maur would get sued out of business. Once again, the reality is, guns will NEVER go away, so our best policy is to deal with it and not 'wish' them away. "
Assault Weapon wrote on December 11, 2007 10:11 pm:
" Not all liberals are out to get everyone's guns. What hunter needs an AK47? The point here is that the kid used a weapon designed to kill a large number of humans in a short amount of time, not to hunt deer. Why should anyone other than the military be allowed to own a gun like that? If you're really that scared of the deer, maybe you should try another sport... "
It doesn't matter wrote on December 12, 2007 2:07 am:
" Regardless of the concealed weapon permit issue, most coporations will not allow their employees to carry a weapon- anything from a pocket knife to a conealed handgun. It's grounds for termination. So most of the people in the mall would have been unarmed anyway. "
another mother wrote on December 12, 2007 10:24 am:
" i think some of you people need to watch "Bowling for Columbine" and see exactly why the United States has more gun violence than any other country in the world. period. I dont care if hunters have guns, i dont care if you keep a gun to feel safe because its your right to bear arms, yada yada yada, i think we all know our rights, what most of us are having a problem with is the fact that this young man carried an assault rifle or whatever you call this gun into a mall and killed 8 innocent people. WHO NEEDS ONE OF THESE GUNS other than to do just this? My family is full of hunters, gun lovers, weapons lovers. But not one of them has this type of fire arm and should not. I have kids and all i need is my mean dog and a baseball bat next to my bed to keep me safe. I dont own a gun and have no plan to. "
Just Me is funny wrote on December 12, 2007 10:25 am:
" I like the logic implied by "Just Me." Teach kids that respect can be gained by inflicting pain on others (because that is EXACTLY what spanking does - inflicts pain to teach a lesson and enforce parent's rule). Then, send them out into a society where guns (the ultimate inflictor of pain) are readily available, and let them wander in places where you can hide the fact that you're even carrying one. Great logic bud. I mean, why do people support a "CONCEAL and Carry Law" when really what they want is for people to know is that they're packing heat. If anything, let's support a "REVEAL and Carry Law" where you have to show that you are armed. "
Grundle wrote on December 12, 2007 11:01 am:
" Maybe if every chicken little of the world would not call the police every time they saw a person LEGALLY carrying a revealed handgun, then we might be able to wear them...but that would never happen. People could be casually minding their own business with a gun on their hip and the chicken littles call the police...who will probably cite the gun owner for disturbing the peace. I also laugh at this idea that allowing CCW results in increased, needless shootings. We've had CCW in Nebraska for almost a year now...and the streets haven't gone back to wild-west shootouts, have they? In fact, the worst shootings have been committed by people who would not qualify for CCW!!! "
handgun wrote on December 12, 2007 3:41 pm:
" Grindle, They wouldn't be cited for disturbing the peace for carrying a gun in plain view. It is legal in Nebraska to carry a handgun in plain sight on your hip. As long as your a law abiding citizen with nothing on your record keeping you from owning a gun, and you are not in a gun free zone it is perfectly legal. I was brought up in a family that wasn't afraid to punish their children (me) for disobeying. I was spanked, grounded, what ever. I grew up with more respect for my parents and the law than any of the kids in today's world. I didn't sneak out, or get in trouble growing up because I was brought up respecting my parents. The problem today is to many kids are allowed to do what ever they want because their parents are afraid to punish them. Don't be your kids best friend, they have those in school....BE A PARENT!! "
Alan wrote on December 12, 2007 4:48 pm:
" Anyone who asks why anyone would want an AK-47 has never fired one. They are a riot to target practice with. Cheap and durable and the ammo is a bargin. I wouldn't hunt deer with one they aren't really powerful enough to cleanly kill a deer. A .270 or 30.06 is a far more powerful weapon better suited to hunting. "
Ian wrote on December 12, 2007 9:55 pm:
" Actually, gun crimes have gone up in Omaha...by people who shouldn't have had them in the first place. This of course means they stole the guns. Often times the guns were stolen from legal owners...who are irresponsible and then get their guns stolen. So, if there is an increase in legal gun ownership because of the CCW and those "responsible" CCW holders have their guns stolen, then, well, we can all assume that there will be an increase in illegal gun crime...correct? This isn't a partisan issue, it's just simple logic. "
DJ wrote on December 13, 2007 7:25 am:
" As for me I would rather carry two guns, one on each hip right out in the open. I would also go to training on the proper and appropriate use of these guns. I would never be afraid to use these guns in the defense of my friends and family. I believe that there is nothing more sacred that human life and it should be protected against those who don't share this value using equal and appropriate force. May I never find myself, my family or friends or anyone in the presence of this kind of threat. While this may not stop a person hell bent on killing it might limit the death toll. We should all adopt a more protective and defensive posture when it come to protecting lives. "
Tim wrote on January 3, 2008 5:55 pm:
" Gun are neither good nor evil. They can only serve to amplify the good or evil in the man. "

Ads by Yahoo!