Now
Fair
84.0°
High
86°
Low
68°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 3/16: Torn on concealed carry

Comments 34 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Thursday, Mar 16, 2006 - 12:09:21 am CST

I generally lean toward liberal positions, especially as regards social issues. But in the ongoing debate over Nebraska’s proposed concealed carry law, I find myself torn, perhaps because I’m dealing with it from a painful perspective that forces me to reconsider my own liberal outlook.

My 24-year-old daughter, Rachel, was murdered on May 28 of last year. The man who climbed in through a bedroom window and killed her and two other young people (and seriously wounded a fourth) had a criminal record; he should not have had — and indeed was technically not allowed to have — a weapon. But he did have one, and he used it to take from me the thing I loved most in the world.

If any of the victims had been carrying a weapon, the outcome of that tragic confrontation would almost certainly have been better; it could hardly have been any worse. Perhaps my daughter would still be alive. At least she would have had a chance. But she had no chance; no one there was armed except for the killer, who shot each victim (one of them three times) and then simply walked away.

Frankly, I do not really wish to carry (or even own) a weapon, and I would have no problem living in a society in which I was not allowed to own one. Just as long as the government could guarantee that no one else will own one, either.

Rod Scher, Lincoln

‘Right to Carry’ laws work

Recently the Journal Star printed an article regarding the proposed law allowing qualified citizens to carry concealed handguns. This subject, also called “Right to Carry” (RTC), was discussed with local officials who are against such a law. The judgment by many who do not believe in RTC use subjective comments without any basis to characterize concealed handguns in a negative light.

Thirty-eight states have passed concealed handgun laws, and I personally have not heard of any negative reaction or results of their gun laws.

Your newspaper depicted a person with a handgun on their hip (LJS, March 11). In fact, this illustration does not show a concealed handgun, but does show the Journal Star’s liberal bias against the handgun proposal.

Many Nebraska residents travel to Florida and Arizona for the winter. Both of these states allow concealed handguns. I have not heard any negative experience of our folks while visiting either state.

Chuck Zellers, Lincoln

Hagel’s vote is revealing

Sen. Chuck Hagel’s party-line vote last week in the Senate Intelligence Committee to not investigate the Bush administration’s warrantless electronic eavesdropping program should erase any doubt about his “independent” or “maverick” status within the Republican Party.  He is neither.

Nebraskans — and Americans — expect members of the House and Senate to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Sen. Hagel failed that test last week and revealed his true role as just another collaborator in the Bush administration’s continued assault on the Constitution and on American civil liberties.

You can skip the Sunday morning talk shows for awhile, Senator; your vote tells us all we need to know.

Mike McNeil, Lincoln

Admiration for Hagel

Thomas E. Fuller’s March 8 letter calling Sen. Ben Nelson a DWEEB (a Democrat With Everything Except Brains) was a pleasant surprise, for most of the letters to the editor critical of our representatives in Washington are reserved for Sen. Chuck Hagel — which, I guess, says something about Journal Star readers.

Fuller is right. Nelson is certainly not “independent,” as he calls himself, but neither would I call him a DWEEB. He is a cynical politician who knows what sells in this state.

Sen. Chuck Hagel I would call independent. I admire and respect him.

Ralph Grajeda, 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  
Richard wrote on March 16, 2006 1:35 am:
" Rod I am sorry you lost your daughter. I am one of those "gun nuts" that the liberal media likes to castigate anytime they can. As a matter of fact the picture they showed of the fellow in blue jeans, packing his pistol, looked like me. Criminal predators don't prey on large Males who wear Timex wrist watches or who don't flash rolls of cash. They look for unescorted females or elderly citizens. In other words easy prey. If I was ruling the Universe there would be a law on the books saying that every girl would have to take a class in defensive gun use before she could graduate from High School. The same would be required of the boys too. Anyone who is a felon or who has played the video game "Grand Theft Auto" for more than 5 minutes should not be allowed to carry though. "
Judy Cantrell wrote on March 16, 2006 2:32 am:
" By the tone of these letters, you Nebraskans are showing your true image rather than your phony niceness. Ignorant as always. "
Noah wrote on March 16, 2006 7:25 am:
" Hey Chuck, I'm sure you've talked with a lot of people and that allows to say 'I personally have not heard of any negative reaction or results of their gun laws.' I hope that covers more than 10 people. And to Rod, I'm pretty sure people can have guns in their house right now. The concealed carry law will not help or hurt this situation. Rather than registering guns, we should be registering bullets. Then we'll know in each case where the bullet came from, and people (the bad guys) won't share with each other, because the bullet will be traced back to the purchaser. Granted, you won't be able to convict on this evidence alone, but it would be a deterrent and a small piece of evidence. "
Allen T. wrote on March 16, 2006 8:27 am:
" Rod Scher: I am very sorry for your loss. Having a gun in that situation may not have made any difference, but I agree with your assessment. It couldn't have been any worse. Statistical evidence shows that an increase in privately owed weapons in a geographic area decreases the rate of "hot burglaries,” or burglaries where people are present in the home. Even people without guns see a benefit in the reduction of crime, as criminals don’t know who has weapons and who does not. (That is why concealed carry permits have the greatest effect on crime…if the weapon is visible, criminals can easily find alternate targets without the visible weapon…with concealed weapons, criminals can’t tell, so they often simply revert to property crime or move to another geographic location where there are no concealed carry permits.) "
Nancy wrote on March 16, 2006 8:50 am:
" Rod: I am so sorry for the loss of your daughter. I lost my grandmother to a murder, and that was difficult, but to lose a child would be about the worst thing I could think of. My grandmother would have had a chance if she had the opportunity to carry a gun. I know that she wouldn't carry a gun, however the man that murdered her would not have know if she did or didn't. I am sure it was difficult for you to write that letter. I appreciate it, because it was from a perspective that was not quoting statistics or being a democrat or a republican, it was just being a Dad who wished his daughter could have had a chance. My thoughts are with you. "
Bill wrote on March 16, 2006 9:58 am:
" Noah, just an FYI. Criminalists can determine from "bullets" also known as rounds, recovered from crime scenes, the caliber and type of weapon used in the commision of that crime. By running a computerized check of registered weapons fitting the description of the weapon used, the list of suspects goes from the entire population to a smaller list of those known registered gun owners. I doubt the criminals will bother to register their weapons. Of course we could continue to do things the way we do now. We just let the criminals continue to carry concealed weapons, walking among us, waiting to make us their next victim, knowing the police cannot do ANYTHING to them until they take your car and wallet at gun point. Sorry, but not everyone is as hard up to be a victim as you are. "
Eric wrote on March 16, 2006 12:08 pm:
" Yeah, I can see it, someday I'm lost in Downtown Omaha ;looking for a building, I come walking up to a man or woman on the corner asking for directions. Startled, they pull out their gun thinking I'm going to jump them, and BOOM! I'm dead. Truth be told, gun training courses probably teach what to do in those situations... but does human reaction, when startled or excited, always work like clockwork??? I'm not sure the seasoned police veteran can say it works perfectly 100% of the time. RTC, ROTC, ID... jeez, how many acronyms do we have to come up with??? Sorry, I'd fail high school according to Richard's law of the universe book, 'cause I don't like guns, Never have and never will (tear gas works just fine for me thanks ^_~ ). Guns were originally invented for one thing and one thing only... to kill. I look forward to dodging bullets in the parking lot (like the ok coral in the old Wild West) in the future :p . 38 states, yippee, let's all jump onto the bandwagon! And finally, Allen T., you a Geographer now :p (BTW, I am)??? "
Hemet wrote on March 16, 2006 12:30 pm:
" I for one can not wait till its legal for any Joe Doe to carry a gun. I do not know how many times I needed one when I was cut off by or stuck behind a slow-moe in the fast lane on I-80. And when this law does pass you will never see me cower in a bar at the threat of a Bully nor will my mother-in-law get away with her lippiness. Is this a great state or what??!! "
LW wrote on March 16, 2006 2:12 pm:
" This is absurd. The only people who should be allowed to have guns are the overly-zealous members of the NRA (of which my dad is a pround lifetime member), and law enforcement. Then there are these individuals who believe their lives are under constant threat and have bought in to this prevading culture of FEAR in our country, where al Qeada could be hiding around the corner, or an unidentified, armed black male could break into the house while they sleep. Fear certainly charges us to believe we have the right of any one person to concealed handguns. Oh yes, Mr. Zellers, that will certainly make our streets safer... "
GTA Fan wrote on March 16, 2006 3:41 pm:
" Great just because one has played a video game does not mean they want to run around with a gun and shoot people. I have played the game and I'm not running over to the red light district and trying to pick up the hookers and I don't have any urges to go shooting police or anyone else for that matter. So that argument of if you've played a violent game you can't carry a gun is just pure BS. :( "
Gary wrote on March 16, 2006 4:15 pm:
" I am utterly disgusted by the liberal anti-gun rhetoric I read here on a daily basis. If you could put your pettiness aside for 2 seconds and listen to the other side of the argument, maybe you'd change your mind. Suppose this bill passes into law and I decide I want to have a concealed carry permit...that does not mean I want to carry a gun on my person, I want the CHOICE to be able to do so. I more than likely would not carry a gun on me...but it would be nice to be able to carry a gun with me in my vehicle without leaving it on the dash for the whole world to see, including criminals, who would gladly take that gun off of my hands for me. I have no criminal desires, no illusions of vigilante grandioso, and no fear of criminals....what I do have is a strong belief in our Constitution and Bill of Rights...specifically the 2nd Amendment, which states I have the right to bear arms. If I wish to bear a weapon without scaring the heck out of every person I pass...should I not have that right? The 2nd Amendment seems to think so. "
lh wrote on March 16, 2006 4:27 pm:
" Allen, cite your "statistical evidence" that also controls for other variables. In other words, how is this causation and not mere correlation? I can make up as much "statistical evidence" that I want, but its near impossible to prove 100% that concealed carry laws reduce personal assaults. And why does no one care to talk about the social situations that produce gun-carrying criminals? Or criminals in general..?? Or is the solution simply that if we all have guns surely us good people can just kill off all the undesirables?? Come on, we need to think at a little higher order than this. "
Allen T. wrote on March 16, 2006 4:44 pm:
" The evidence can be found in the Journal of law and was conducted by two Yale graduates from the University of Chicago. The study was later turned into a book called More Guns, Less Crime, which reads like a statistics text book. The study, the most extensive done to date, includes time/event controls, controls for increased arrest rates, and increased penalties under different judges/prosecutors judges. They didn’t just compare crime in general (as the studies done by liberals usually do), as most criminals are going to engage in crime, but simply adjust the types of crime they commit based on the risk/reward of each crime. For instance, criminals may substitute property crimes where armed resistance is not likely to occur (auto theft, burglary of unguarded businesses or houses known to be empty) for armed robberies of individuals, burglaries of “hot houses” or occupied homes, car jacking, etc. When crime overall vs. crime overall is compared, there may be negligible difference…but you have to look to the change in the nature of the crimes committed to do honest research. "
Allen T. wrote on March 16, 2006 4:56 pm:
" IH: I forgot to address your second issue. I'm very concerned about the social issues that cause crime. I think that education is an issue, so I support school choice, since union schools are truly inferior...even though the Nebraska schools do a great job despite that handicap. I support tax cuts, because nothing creates jobs like tax cuts (when the stupid Congress can stop spending). I support money going to law enforcement, so that they can better protect us…so we don’t have to do it so much. I actually support the legalization of some drugs, because the “war on drugs” causes a lot of unnecessary crime (although wouldn’t many of the criminals now involved find something else to illegal to do? I mean that government money from legal drugs sales could fund a lot of police activity…just thinking out loud here). But, all that said, I don’t think that discussing these issues some how precludes attention to personal protection. Finally, the people constantly complain about “more guns on the streets.” Well, the RTC law doesn’t allow more people to buy guns…they are already allowed to buy guns. It just allows people to keep those guns in the place that will be most beneficial in terms of protection...in their possession. In the study mentioned above, not one RTC own ever committed a crime with a gun, those committing crimes doing so without their weapons. This “more guns on the streets” claim is just not an issue. If the gun is in my pocket, there is much less chance that someone can steal it from my house. "
Bill wrote on March 16, 2006 5:02 pm:
" Gary, haven't you learned by now the only real choice is that of a woman when it pertains to ending the life of an unborn child. You don't get to choose whether or not to legally carry a gun to protect yourself. LW sounds like he's in favor of abolishing the 4th ammendment, so that everyone is searched and only police officers and NRA members get to carry. Cool. If you take out that part of the Constitution I know the streets will be safe. No guns, no drugs, everyone is safe and sound. Sounds like a plan. "
Bill wrote on March 16, 2006 5:06 pm:
" Anyone ever stop to think of what would have happened if just one person on each plane on 9/11 had been allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon? Hmmmmm "
Noah wrote on March 16, 2006 5:54 pm:
" Where can we take these guns anyway? Can someone give me an example of how concealed carry would work? If I'm leaving a restaurant at night, and I have to leave my gun in my car, and I get mugged before I get to my car, what good does a concealed carry do? I can't take it into work with me, or to a movie, restaurant, hospital, business, etc. I can already have one in my home. So where could I take it that it would really benefit me? Just curious. "
Hans M wrote on March 16, 2006 6:40 pm:
" I have permits to carry in two states, Iowa and Minnesota and guess what folks, if your law passes, the sky will not fall, in spite of what your anti-gun media chooses to predict. I lived in Minnesota when the law was changed there from a grossly unfair "may issue" to an evenly applied "shall issue" law. What was the experience there. Same as yours, first,...lots of liberals choked on their brie, the media (yes Journal Star, you are liberally biased, deal with it) going into seizures. When the law passes, people will get their permits, the stupid and misguided "NO GUNS" signs go up, at least one group of busy body socialist peacenic type eggheads file a lawsuit. Then the media waits for the first permit holder to do something stupid, dangerous or illegal so they can say "We told you so". The pro-permit crowd also begins the wait, hoping somebody with a permit will blast a mugger, rapist, rampage shooter or some other lowlife so they can say "We told you so" too. In other words, a lot of nothing is what this will result in. The effect on Joe or Jane Nebraskan,.. virtually nil. "
garrison wrote on March 16, 2006 7:15 pm:
" For those unaware, each state that shares a border with Nebraska, except for Kansas, has a permit sytem in place right now which allows citizens, including non-residents, to carry a concealed weapon. As a Nebraska resident, I maintain a permit that allows me to legally carry a concealed firearm in several neighboring states including Missouri, South Dakota, and Colorado, and I have done so for several years. Remarkably, in all the time I have spent legally carrying a firearm, I have never once been transported back into the "old west" or been involved in a shootout at the O.K. Corral. Using a firearm to settle a dispute, or in a moment of anger, has not ever been a consideration. I have never shot someone for asking me the time of day, and the firearm has never exited my holster and magically discharged. Heck, I have never even gone "Dirty Harry" on anyone. All these silly quips are foolish rhetoric espoused by those who have nothing else to bring to the table. People who chose to carry a firearm for their own protection often have a compelling reason to do so. These same people pilot airplanes containing hundreds of souls. They fix the brakes on the cars and busses that your kids ride in. These people are school teachers, accountants, parents, preachers, engineers, ranchers, and optometrists. If you discovered tomorrow that your optometrist had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, would you stop trusting her with your eyeglass prescription? It seems that so many here want to equate concealed weapons with criminals, but that idea is wholely false. Just being a man doesn't make one a rapist, nor being a woman constitute a prostitute any more than carrying a concealed weapon makes one a criminal. For the safety of my family, I often remind them to wear their seatbelts. I keep a fire extinguisher handy, and have had occasion to use it. I change the batteries in the smoke detectors annually. I have life-jackets for them to wear in the appropriate situation, and although I never have used my life insurance, I have that too. Oh, and sometimes I carry a firearm. I don't see how that makes me any more paranoid than those who carry a spare tire in their vehicle. For those so vociferously opposed to concealed weapons I have to wonder, have you ever considered what you would do in the unlikely event that you and your family were faced with a violent attack by an armed individual? Would you chose to protect your family? Why would you not expect me to act the same? If you have rejected the idea that violence may suddenly enter your life, havent you simply planned to fail your family at the time when they need you the most? garison "
Steven wrote on March 16, 2006 8:05 pm:
" The crime statistics study performed by John Lott in his book, "More guns, Less Crime" have been overwhelmingly discredited by leading researchers. John Lott, it should be noted, has a lunatic fringe libertarian agenda in mind and is not considered to be an unbiased researcher. While it is true that crime rates in states with conceal carry laws have declined, so too have crime rates in states that do not have such laws. In fact, crime rates in states that do not have conceal carry laws dropped more over the same time period than in those states that do have such laws, contrary to the fundamental conclusion of Lott's book, libertarian philosophy, and the desires of the gun lobby. Lott's book does not read like a statistics book (I should know, having a mathematics background), but rather serves as a good example of how not to perform a scientific study because of significantly flawed methodology. As for environmental causes of gun crime and what we can do about it, it is clear that additional spending on social welfare programs has a beneficial effect. This might be distasteful to social conservatives, but the evidence is quite clear. Furthermore, no government action boosts the economy and creates jobs better than social spending. Tax cuts have modest effects on job creation, as we've seen during the present administration, and are most effective when tax rates are comparatively high (and not low, as they are now). I fully support increased spending on education. Based on some of the comments we've seen here, it is obvious that people are not receiving sufficient grounding in the basics of economics, politics, and history. Additionally, gun buy-back programs have been quite successful in getting guns off the street. Noah, a conceal carry permit allows you to carry a weapon wherever it is not prohibited. For instance, you could take it into a restaurant or a movie theater, but you could not take it onto a school yard where other laws are in place specifically forbidding such an act. As far as what would have happened to the people in the planes on 9/11, if passengers had discharged their weapons on board the plane while it was in the air, at least one round (and probably several) would have pierced the fuselage causing nearly instantaneous depressurization of the cabin along with a high likelihood of mechanical failure or in-flight explosion. Though such an eventuality might have spared the World Trade Center, it wouldn't have helped the passengers any more than the pilots having a self-destruct button. "
Bill wrote on March 16, 2006 9:06 pm:
" Steven, I notice where you also assume that concealed carry means GUNS only. There are many other alternatives that are non-lethal that would have been extremely effective in that situation. Since 2002 Rape has increased 26% in Nebraska. I would like for women to have a legal opportunity to protect themselves. I guess you don't. "
Eric wrote on March 16, 2006 9:28 pm:
" Mes thinks it's just a power issue..... And the people who want to have the choice to carry guns are the same people who want to take the choice (to have an abortion) away from women. "
Allen T. wrote on March 17, 2006 8:59 am:
" Bill: I like where your head is at, however, Right-to-Carry permits don't allow a person to carry on a plane. Just thought I'd correct that before some liberal made it the central argument of his/her next diatribe. "
M. Gilson wrote on March 17, 2006 2:28 pm:
" what's Libertarian lunatic fringe? the Florida Libertarians conceived and lobbied for the carry law when tourists were being murdered in the streets. Crime declined one third. This is bad? The only fringe is people who don't know what's going on. Lott has done a good job challenging the gun-regulation conformists. "
Gary wrote on March 17, 2006 5:01 pm:
" Eric, you are 100% off base, but that's a nice attempt at stereotyping. Enjoy your mudsling in anonymity. "
DanH wrote on March 18, 2006 9:30 am:
" "As far as what would have happened to the people in the planes on 9/11, if passengers had discharged their weapons on board the plane while it was in the air, at least one round (and probably several) would have pierced the fuselage causing nearly instantaneous depressurization of the cabin along with a high likelihood of mechanical failure or in-flight explosion. Though such an eventuality might have spared the World Trade Center, it wouldn't have helped the passengers any more than the pilots having a self-destruct button" Oh glory be! So, you have no clue about aircraft either. That's for certain. How in the world could a bullet, or a hundred, do as much damagae to an aircraft as the Aloha Airline flight which lost 20' or so of its roof at cruising altitude and had to descend to where the air was actually breathable. Number of deaths: one. The person was sucked out of the airplane. Yet you have this grand fantasy about shooting the skin of the aircraft and somehow that would actually do more damage? The FAA's tests show that aircraft can lose 9 windows and still not decompress. Obviously you didn't know that either, or do not care to tell it because it undermines your position. If you are so illinformed about such a well published issue, what else do you not have a clue about? The rest of your post is just as wrong, you hope no one notices, perhaps? "
Bill wrote on March 18, 2006 11:23 am:
" Dan, you obviously study the liberal playbook carefully. You COMPLETELY ignored the less than lethal examples. Tasers, stun guns, and pepper spray. It is illegal for ANYONE to carry one of these items in your pocket or purse, under current law. Had someone on 9/11 had a stun gun in their pocket they could have very quickly incapacitated the hijackers, WITHOUT shooting a hole in the fuselage of the plane. Box cutter vs stungun. Hmmmmmm. However if you insist on assuming that CCW means GUNS ONLY you may continue to make yourself look uninformed and scared all day for all I care. As far as your accusations regarding my post, it would appear that yours glows bright with the typical hypocracy of the left. "
Nathan Brooker wrote on March 18, 2006 5:08 pm:
" Steven, virtually everything you states is incorrect. The most obvious and easiest to refute is that a bullet hole in the fuselage of a plane would cause near instant deppressurization and potentially cause it to blow up. This could not be more incorrect. I suggest a different source for your information, it is obvious that you currently get it from watching movies. "
Steven wrote on March 19, 2006 6:55 am:
" As far as the Aloha Airlines flight, the flight in question was at an altitude of 19,000 feet where the atmospheric pressure is a somewhat reasonable 0.46 atmospheres. Low, yes, but sufficient to survive temporarily until the plane could be landed. That being said, normal cruising altitude of a commercial aircraft is 30,000 feet and above where the atmospheric pressure drops to below 30% of normal, at 40,000 it is less than 20% of normal. The FAA has determined that the physiological human limit to altitude is approximately 34,000. They have further determined that exposure to atmospheric pressures above 25,000 feet for more than 2 minutes may cause permanent brain damage. Catastrophic consequences at reasonably low altitudes are considered improbable, while their likelihood increases with altitude. Since the force of a vacuum is proportional to the difference in pressure between two spaces, the danger of depressurization escalates with altitude. I would love to see the data on planes that heroically refuse to depressurize with several missing windows at cruising altitude, but I suppose the laws of physics are inconsequential when someone is trying to bolster their political argument. Yes, I'm sure allowing American citizens to carry concealed weapons to prevent unarmed tourists from Germany being killed in Florida is prima facie evidence that Lott is not a member of the lunatic fringe. Actually, I campaigned on behalf of women for the passage of legislation aimed at preventing domestic violence and rape along with providing shelter and therapy to survivors of such crimes and donate money every year to battered and raped women's' shelters. I fail to see how showing that statistical evidence is factually incorrect makes me a supporter of rapists, especially given that I was demonstrating that crime went down more in states without conceal carry laws. The conceal carry permit is for guns only. People are already allowed to carry non-lethal weapons on themselves without the passage of the conceal carry law. Additionally, well-trained and armed police are killed every year. The fact is that if you are attacked, you will be taken by surprise and no matter how well trained and prepared you are, you can still be a victim. Having a gun on your person is just one more possession for the attacker to take from you. Lastly, most crimes are committed between people who know each other. This is especially true in cases of homicide and rape. A concealed weapon will not alter this outcome. "
Steven wrote on March 19, 2006 7:17 am:
" I think the best argument against conceal carry are the advocates themselves. The decision to use deadly force is the most serious decision a human can make. Do the people supporting the conceal carry law appear calm, reflective, and rational? Do they take information that conflicts with their position seriously and adapt their views to fit with the evidence or do they side-step the issue by going off on tangents to try to show they are right about something, anything, in order to validate their opinions about the central and unrelated issue? Do they react with hostility to conflict? Are they the type of people we can trust to behave in a calm and deliberate manner when faced with a potentially threatening situation? The answers are all too clear. "
garrison wrote on March 19, 2006 9:58 am:
" A decline in crime that supposedly cannot be attributed to the passage of concealed carry laws in several states still very strongly indicates that passing such a law does nothing to cause crime. If legal concealed carry increased crime (including brandishing and illegal disharge), crime would have increased, rather than continuing to decrease. If allowing citizens to legally carry concealed weapons for their own defense does not contribute to crime, then perhaps there is no other reason not to allow it? A hole, or even numerous holes the size of a bullet impact in an airplane fuselage will not catastrophic depressurization as suggested. If it did, every military plane shot by small arms fire would fall from the sky. On the other hand, if every airline passenger were issued a revolver with six rubber bullets instead of a bording pass, terrorism would certainly be on the decrease, wouldn't it? garrison "
Allen T. wrote on March 19, 2006 9:20 pm:
" Steven: I'll try to make my point as rationally as possible, so as not to be catagorized by you as one of the unclean, not worthy of self-protection. Surveys of all of the states that allow concealed weapons permits have shown that NO ONE with a RTC permit has ever committed a crime involving a weapon. In fact, I can only find one person even charged with a felony, in Florida, for trafficking stolen goods. Your theory seems to fail. "
Patriot wrote on March 21, 2006 5:12 pm:
" I inadvertently posted my comment about the inalienable Right to Bear Arms on another article comment section, however, the gist of the statement was that the NRA does not understand what the Second Amendment entails. It is a command to government to "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" upon the inalienable Right of the people to bear arms, and that denys all forms of government to restrict, limit, or demand permits from the people regarding weapons of self defense. The entire purpose of the Amendments/Proclamations was to command all forms of government to be limited and restricted by the words of the Constitution of the united states of America: No exceptions. However, today, with the masses-r-asses totally dumbed-down by the government schools and that dumbing-down maintained by the totally, controlled media, there does not appear to be much of a chance to return to a Constitutionally, controlled form of Republic government! "
Patriot wrote on March 21, 2006 5:19 pm:
" To Helmet. There is a law on the books, it is called the Constitution of the united states of America, and the Second amendment commands that government "SHALL NOT INFRINGE" upon the Right of the Americans to bear arms. No permit, no CCW, nor any other form of "permission" is required in order to possess a weapon of self-defense, not only from attackers, but especially - - - from Government! Read the Federalist Papers! "

Ads by Yahoo!