This is a response to the letter by Adam Linder (Community Forum, Saturday) voicing his objecting to concealed carry of weapons in restaurants. This story is called "A Tale of Two Restaurants."

The first one is Luby's Cafe in Killeen, Texas. One day during lunch, a man drove his truck into the building, got out and started shooting at diners, killing many. A woman watched helplessly as both of her parents were killed. She had a pistol, but it was in her car because state law prohibited concealed carry. Partly because of this, it is now legal. This story received wide news coverage.

The second one was in Anniston, Ala. One day some people were eating when an armed robber entered. As he tried to herd them to the back, one customer who had a concealed carry permit pulled his gun and shot the robber, likely saving the others' lives.

This story received very little news coverage (can't imagine why.) Mr. Linder, which situation would you rather have found yourself in?

As for your comparing carrying a gun to carrying an umbrella, can you turn on your local news and find out that there's an 80 percent chance of being robbed tomorrow?

A better analogy would be comparing carrying a gun to having a spare tire in your car. You hope you never have to use it, but knowing it's there and ready gives you a sense of security. What good would it be if left in the garage?

And I believe that most cops would rather find one dead robber than a bunch of dead victims at a crime scene. Acting in self defense of yourself or fellow citizens does not make one a vigilante, unless you define it as simply "one who is vigilant," in which case we all should be.

So the next time you go to a restaurant, enjoy your meal. The person sitting next to you may be carrying a gun (that's why it's called concealed carry.) And if things were to suddenly turn violent, he just might wind up saving your life or that of your family.

If that were to happen, would you call him a hero, or a vigilante?

David Squires
Gainesville

Couple did get sizable cut in income taxes
My friend, Tommy Sandoval, was right on the mark when he said a married couple making $40,000 a year and with two children got a 96 percent cut in federal income tax under President Bush's tax cuts.
Their federal income tax bill dropped from $1,785 to $45, just as he said.

He could have used many similar examples: A married couple making $50,000 a year and with three children got a 94 percent cut, from $1,620 to $88. These examples of how the president's tax cuts increased the income of married couples with children or single parents can be checked using an online calculator at The Heritage Foundation Web site.

The upshot is that Mike Parker, in his letter April 8, somehow missed the whole point of Mr. Sandoval's letter: The benefits of the child income tax credit for people with children, the credit Bush doubled from $500 to $1,000, and which the Democrats are cutting back.

Mr. Sandoval certainly doesn't think that a married couple making $34,000 but with no children had their tax cut to $45. The child income tax credit indeed goes to people with children.

As Mr. Parker points out, doubling of the child income tax credit did not help the entire middle class. But it has been an important benefit for married couples with children under 17 and for single parents, probably 30-40 million individuals. These parents deserve to have more of their own hard-earned money in their pockets to spend raising their families.

But Democrats generally find the increased child income tax credit too much to stomach and have cut it in their recently released budget. They say the president hasn't delivered any tax cuts for the middle class, then cut the child income tax credit.

I see a pattern here: taxing the middle class to pay for hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending their candidates are promising.

Tack Cornelius
Gainesville