Now
Fair with Haze
74°
High
89°
Low
68°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

More guns in Lincoln will only create more problems

Comments 30 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY TOM CASADY

Tuesday, May 02, 2006 - 12:10:16 am CDT

I support Mayor Coleen Seng’s proposal to limit concealed handguns in Lincoln because more guns will mean more problems in our community.

Our police officers, surveyed about this issue by a co-worker, Sgt. Jim Davidsaver, as part of his graduate research, responded overwhelmingly (85 percent) that concealed carry was unnecessary and made things less safe. It was the new trainees who were most inclined to support concealed carry. I think our recruits had not yet had the experience of their senior colleagues.

Police officers not only deal with the very worst people, they also deal with good people at their very worst moments, when judgment and clarity are overwhelmed by emotion. We’ve all handled the personal crises of fundamentally decent citizens who were momentarily acting poorly. Concealed carry in Texas is the perfect example: the Department of Public Safety reports 5,319 arrests of concealed carry permit holders in the first 5½ years. That’s what worries us: we’ve seen some bad behavior from the best people, and we function in an uncertain environment where we cannot readily tell who is all right from who is not.

Officers were skeptical of concealed carry even when they were exposed in advance to the key findings of John Lott’s widely touted research that claims in its title “More Guns, Less Crime.” Maybe police officers intuitively understand that research does not always reflect reality and that those who conduct research sometimes have more than a passing interest in the outcome.

I have followed the debate for nearly 20 years. Many studies refute Lott’s findings, pointing to a falling crime rate nationwide. Between 1999 and 2004, violent crime in Nebraska fell from 7,172 offenses to 5,302, a 35 percent decrease over five years without a concealed carry law. I believe the research is all over the board, proving nothing but the obvious: Concealed carry doesn’t have any significant impact on crime rates one way or the other.

Carrying a handgun, though, is a risky business. There will be mishaps, as there have been in all states that have adopted concealed-carry laws. Fortunately, they will be uncommon; hopefully, they will be nonfatal. We see these in Lincoln from time to time now with guns that aren’t concealed. Carrying a pistol under a jacket does not make it safer.

We drill this into our new officers: there is always a gun involved in every incident — your own. Many police officers have been killed with their own weapon. Now we’ll have to be constantly mindful of the fact that more citizens we interact with will be armed — and we won’t know what is in their head or heart.

I know plenty of people (many military veterans and shooting sports enthusiasts) who can carry concealed and not cause me one whit of concern. I’ll take some of them as my backup any day. But I have met other concealed-carry advocates who worry me. The Legislature’s ironic action in prohibiting concealed carry in their own chamber is a tacit acknowledgement that there are a few people who will have concealed carry permits that are downright frightening at times, despite clean criminal records.

One of my biggest concerns about the new law is its gaping loopholes. While it prohibits felons and those convicted of drug crimes or violent crimes from getting permits, there are many serious misdemeanors that are not cause for denial: stalking, violating a protection order, indecent exposure and impersonating a police officer, to name a few. If you’ve been convicted of rolling back an odometer (a felony) you can’t get a permit, but on my desk is the criminal history of a 29-year-old Lincoln man we have arrested for trespassing and exposure on 12 occasions. He will be quite eligible for a concealed-carry permit. Given his primary occupation (window-peeking while masturbating), he probably needs one.

I heard a local radio talk show host opining in support of concealed carry that Candice Harms could have defended herself when she was abducted and murdered back in 1992 by an assailant who impersonated a police officer. I was the Lancaster County sheriff at the time and deeply involved in that investigation. She is engraved on my soul. Had the Legislature’s concealed carry law been in effect at the time, Candy would not have been eligible for a permit. At 18, she was too young.

Her abductor, Roger Bjorklund, on the other hand, would have been eligible; and his accomplice and fellow murderer, Scott Barney — despite a dozen previous arrests by the Lincoln Police Department — also would have been perfectly eligible to receive a Nebraska concealed-handgun permit. That’s something to think about when you’re wondering whether the guy with the lumpy sweatshirt next to you at the movie theater is a “law-abiding” citizen with a concealed carry permit.

Thank God, these stranger attacks are exceptionally rare events. Will concealed handguns prevent them? Unfortunately, it just isn’t that simple. Handguns can and do get turned on their owners; accidents and mistakes really do happen. A Saturday training class and a few trips to the range does not protect the owner from these risks. Cell phones, in my opinion, have done more to protect people than concealed carry — and more to provide peace of mind. Personally, I’m glad my daughter, Kelly, has a Samsung in her purse instead of a Smith & Wesson.

Casady is chief of the Lincoln Police Department.


$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  
Lindsay wrote on May 2, 2006 7:09 am:
" I couldn't agree more. I am feeling less safe now with this law passed then I did before. I know that there are many responsible people who would not be a problem, but there are many other concerns that if a gun gets in the wrong hands, what will happen. "

 Listen-up wrote on May 2, 2006 8:19 am:
" Casady is not a left-wing sissy. In my opinion he has always been very conservative in his nature. For all you die-hard conservatives who so desperately want to carry a gun, MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ, LISTEN, AND LEARN. "

 evp wrote on May 2, 2006 10:56 am:
" Are you aware that Tom Osborne has issued a Press Release stating that he would have indeed have signed the Concealed Carry Legislation (LB 454) if he was governor? "

 Dan wrote on May 2, 2006 1:21 pm:
" Chief Casady with all due respect, Texas’s 5,319 problems in 5 1/2 years, figuring Texas’s population at 23.7 million and Nebraska’s population at 1.7 million that figures out to 69.08 potential problems in a year. That seems relatively low even without you figure in Nebraska already low crime rate. Nebraska already has a low crime rate but it can be improved though. When the State refuses to lock up criminals permit, and you can’t be everywhere all the time, why do you want to keep people from defending themselves? On the safety side a gun stored in a gun case in a glove box, behind a set, or under a set is safer and more secure then one being transported setting on the passenger set in the open when the breaks have to be applied hard to avoid a wreck and it is also more accessible for road rage setting in the front seat then tucked away in a fastened case. The muzzle and hammer of gun being carried in a shoulder holster are in a safer position then in a hip holster were the hammer is not cover and the muzzle is not directed, also and there is no padding protecting the gun when your wearing it on your hip. Concealed carries will end up being in the vehicle. Shoulder holsters are not comfortable and they rub the inside of your arm, concealed belt holsters and not comfortable when setting or driving and having a hard piece of steel between your belt and back, concealed in a purse adds pounds of weight for the women to carry, and ankle holsters keep hitting your other ankle when you walk which is not my idea of comfort. Let’s not even bring style into play with 4 lbs lump on your side that is not contoured to a human body. There will be a flock of people getting there concealed carry permit at first, then a week down the road it will be in the car, short time later it will be back inside there house. This will be a no issue in a month. My brother in Florida has never seen somebody “packing heat” as some antigun people would say. I can list a page worth of people that have been murdered that would have be eligible for the concealed carry law but I will not list any for respect of the surviving families members. If a criminal has a CCW permit or not they are still criminals. "

 Yep wrote on May 2, 2006 3:05 pm:
" EVP: Even more reason not to vote for Osborne. "

 Gary wrote on May 2, 2006 3:39 pm:
" Lindsay, I'm not sure why you're scared, the law doesn't go into effect until January 1, 2007...so you don't have to worry about the sky falling until then. "Listen-up", Casady may not be left-wing and may not be right-wing...but his party affiliation or political leanings are of little concern to me. What is of concern is the fact that our Police Chief chooses to ignore national FBI law enforcement and crime statistics for political gain. For a supposed expert in law and crime, he sure seems disinterested in law and crime statistics. "

 JoeMerchant24 wrote on May 2, 2006 4:20 pm:
" "Our police officers, surveyed about this issue by a co-worker, Sgt. Jim Davidsaver, as part of his graduate research, responded overwhelmingly (85 percent) that concealed carry was unnecessary and made things less safe." "Maybe police officers intuitively understand that research does not always reflect reality and that those who conduct research sometimes have more than a passing interest in the outcome." Tom, you can either dispute statistical research of accept it, buy you cannot do both to suit your stance. These two paragraphs, taken together, only prove "that those who conduct research sometimes have more than a passing interest in the outcome." "

 mp wrote on May 2, 2006 4:32 pm:
" Gary, I believe Chief Casady has read the FBI crime statistics thoroughly and has had access to crime statistics you don't. I don't think for a moment his letter is for political gain. I believe he is stating his honest opinion based on hard facts. It deeply concerns me that people with misdemeanor arrests that Chief Casady talks about will have access to concealed weapons legally. I should be a concern to you also. Dan, I personally don't want an extra 69.08 more potential problems in this state. You may think that is acceptable, I don't. I applaud Chief Casady on his letter. "

 a sincere question wrote on May 2, 2006 5:08 pm:
" Chief Cassady, I congratulate you on such a well-written piece. I have but one concern. Nebraska statue 28-1202 has been in effect for many years. The recent state concealed weapons law (LB454) amends 28-1202. Subsection 2 of 28-1202 has long acknowledged an affirmative defense for the carrying of a concealed weapon by an individual meeting the vague criteria therein. Could it be that Lincolnites have been carrying concealed weapons for many years in accordance with subsection 2 of 28-1202 without creating undue problems? Why then is this issue suddenly such a high priority? 28-1202 is reproduced in part below. --- Section 28-1202 Carrying concealed weapon; penalty; affirmative defense. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, any person who carries a weapon or weapons concealed on or about his or her person such as a revolver, pistol, bowie knife, dirk or knife with a dirk blade attachment, brass or iron knuckles, or any other deadly weapon commits the offense of carrying a concealed weapon. (2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant was engaged in any lawful business, calling, or employment at the time he or she was carrying any weapon or weapons and the circumstances in which such person was placed at the time were such as to justify a prudent person in carrying the weapon or weapons for the defense of his or her person, property, or family. "

 Joe wrote on May 2, 2006 5:40 pm:
" I agree that it would cause more problems in this city because I feel that many individuals would automatically think that it would be ok to carry thier weapon with them without the proper permits and training to use them. Tom Cassidy and Mayor Seng have great reasons to worry and as a citizen and do not own a hand gun, I am greatly concern as well and I very glad that they taking a stand and showing that it would be wrong just to carry a weapon whenever while the cell phone is a more effective way to deter crime. It is time we take sides here and show that it not the answer to carry concealed gun on person while anyone could shoot someone with no just cause as protection from another and a cell phone would more good or a home phone just as much good and the Police don't mind getting a call from someone who might be having a problem with another person or seeing a crime being committed they will respond to it no matter how small it might seem to you but it will prevent someone getting killed that is innocent. Think about it DO WE REALLY NEED THE CONCEALED GUN LAW ? "

 Tim wrote on May 2, 2006 6:56 pm:
" Where is CCW a problem? Seems to me that the real life experience of all the states where CCW has been legal offers a much more accurate picture of what legal CCW will bring than anyone's opinion. (Regardless of their political persuasion.) "

 joe...also wrote on May 2, 2006 8:11 pm:
" The chief certainly gets his money's worth from the stats, but it appears he is telling only the story that he wants you to hear. His statement about permit holder's arrests in Texas sheds no light on why these people were arrested (notice the word arrest, not conviction). And since there are some 247,345 permit holders in Texas that equates to about 2% of them being arrested (not convicted). He and the other Joe have good points about carrying a cell phone, however. In fact I might buy one of those camera phones so that I can take a picture of my attacker....you know...in case I am no longer able to speak when the police show up. Maybe I can put the attacker on hold while I take another call. "

 Bob wrote on May 2, 2006 8:15 pm:
" While violent crime as a whole has decreased, forceable rape has increased dramatically in the last two years. Wouldn't a woman like to have the option of protecting herself with a weapon concealed in her purse, or pocket? Under the current law, (likely to remain the same in the city of Lincoln) it is illegal to carry "ANY OTHER DEADLY WEAPON". Tazers can kill. Knives can kill. Pepper spray can cause a lethal allergic reaction. Are women supposed to just continue being victims of sexual predators? "

 Tim wrote on May 2, 2006 8:54 pm:
" I'd like to see a poll taken of peace officers in states with legal CCW. This way we can maybe get poll results based on actual experience rather than pessimistic conjecture. I happen to think the citizens of Nebraska are much better people than Chief Cassady apparently believes us to be. "

 evp wrote on May 2, 2006 9:04 pm:
" Joe - just a note from your quote below that "a cell phone or home phone would do just as good," that the lady in Mardock that got killed was reportedly dialing her telephone when she got shot. I would rather perhaps have a gun nearby (legally) than a phone of some kind. But then I believe it is my own personal responsibility to defend myself and not that of the local police - we cannot bring suit against law enforcement for failure to protect us if we are harmed by a criminal - phones are used after we have already been violated. "

 Susan wrote on May 2, 2006 9:48 pm:
" Sorry to see that you feel this way. Please make it a point to never visit the peaceful state of Vermont. No permit or training is required to carry a concealed weapon here and we seem to get on just fine. You folks must be extra violent or something. "

 Mike C Peterson wrote on May 2, 2006 10:55 pm:
" Refuting the Chief's claims – one at a time. Argument 1: Texas. So Chief Casady wants to use Texas crime data as an example of why CCW should be banned in Lincoln. Fine, let's look at Texas. In 2000, five years after the Texas CCW law was passed, the National Center for Policy Analysis produced a report showing the following: Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense. They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense. And they are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder. H. Sterling Burnett, a senior policy analyst at the NCPA and the author of the report, concluded “Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law. That prediction was dead wrong.” Also, the Texas Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Report - the source Casady quoted above - indicates that the overall crime rate in Texas has continued to drop over the now 10 years since CCW has passed. In 1997, DPS reported 5,478 crimes per 100,000 Texans, based on a population of 19,355,427 Texans. In 2004, with almost 3 million more Texans, the crime rate is 5,032 per 100,000. Casady's note that 5,319 Texans with CCW permits were arrested over a 5 1/2–year period shouldn't surprise anyone. Why not? Because there's something he forgot to mention: As of December 2005 there were 247,345 CCW permit holders in Texas. So, over a FIVE YEAR PERIOD, permit holders were arrested less than HALF as much as there were total reported crimes per population in Texas IN ONE YEAR. Could this be a case of "bending stats" to help a case? You decide. And what kinds of crimes were those exactly? How many of those 5,319 were arrested for crimes where guns made a difference? The chief didn't tell us that either. Perhaps it's because the association of "permit holder" and "criminal" is much stronger if he doesn't. Do we care if an embezzler has a CCW permit? How 'bout a jay-walker? Since we're talking about Texas, I'd like to end this part of the rebuttal with one more quote. It comes from Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, who told the Dallas Morning News “I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert.” So, if Texas, known for its machismo and "Old West" attitude, didn't experience the "Old West" with CCW, then what are we worried about around here? "

 Mike C Peterson wrote on May 2, 2006 11:00 pm:
" Argument 2: The police don't like it. First, let me say that I have an enormous respect for the sworn officers of the Lincoln Police Department. I know several, and they are very good people who have a challenging job (understatement). As illustrated in my previous post, in every single state which has brought CCW to the vote, the police have lobbied against it. Why? In part, because they perceive that CCW makes their job even more challenging, and that's something they need less of rather than more. Who could blame them. But here's the rub: As much as we appreciate what police officers do for us, they don't get to pick. They don't get to choose what laws to enforce and what rights to protect. It's true that they are the gatekeepers to the criminal justice system, and we want them to use subjective situational judgment – we don’t want law enforcement robots. But when they take that judgment too far and encroach on freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, they get into trouble - and they should. If you allowed the police to, say, determine what requirements were needed to enter your home, do you suppose they'd make it harder for themselves by adding limitations? Or do you suppose they'd trim a little fat off the rule book to make things easier and safer for them? Let me ask it another way: If sworn police officers were sitting on the US Supreme Court in 1966, do you suppose that police would be required to read "Miranda" rights to people upon arrest today? Of course not, it makes it more difficult to do their jobs and clear cases. I can appreciate that 85 percent of the Lincoln Police Department doesn't like concealed carry. As in other states, those fears are unfounded here, but I understand why they have them. But what they don't get to do is make public policy, and there are some good reasons why they're not allowed to. Chief Casady, simply by using officer survey data to make his case, is violating this principle and reducing the credibility of his argument at the same time. "

 Mike C Peterson wrote on May 2, 2006 11:09 pm:
" Argument 3: Gaping Loopholes. Chief Casady asserts that there are some pretty bad people who would be allowed to acquire a CCW permit under Nebraska's new law. He makes the case that misdemeanants of certain unsavory types would qualify, and implies that these people represent greater risk because of this. The problem? It turns out that when they wrote the new concealed carry law, the authors thought it might be a good idea to use the same standards for carrying guns that we rely on for buying and possessing them in the first place. Shocking, I know. In other words, the non-felonious criminals who the Chief worries might add to our civic distress are already allowed to purchase, possess, transport, keep in their homes, and carry openly in public, firearms. And now he would like us all to believe that asking these same people to pay a large fee, take a class, and renew it every five years will make them MORE likely to get themselves into trouble. This makes no sense. If these folks are going to cause us harm with guns, they're already equipped to do so if they want to. They don't need, nor are they likely to rely on, legal concealed carry permits to help them along. I particularly liked the Chief's local peeping tom anecdote – especially his comment about the fellow needing a gun for his own protection. And who would he need to protect himself from exactly? An armed citizen, that's who. "

 Mike C Peterson wrote on May 2, 2006 11:12 pm:
" Argument 4: Good people on their worst day. I grew up in this town, and for as long as I can remember Chief Casady has described law enforcement in this way: cops don't just deal with bad people, they also deal with good folks having their worst day ever. I've always thought that was an excellent encapsulation of a police officer's job, and it helps to remind cops that good people make mistakes, and it helps officers avoid the biases that form after spending years on the street. Although the police may have to deal with people having bad days constantly, that doesn't mean that civilians don't ever have to. There have been 40 robberies in Lincoln in the last 90 days. Who were robbed? Not police officers. While the police are dealing with good people having bad days, every now and then the rest of us have to deal with bad people giving us bad days of our own. I think the Chief's trying to tell us that he's worried about how we'll react on one of those days if we carry guns, and I don’t blame him. In my case, I'm not sure myself. However, I can tell you exactly how I'll react if Lincoln bans concealed carry. Without defending myself, that's how. I wish that certainty was more disconcerting for more people. "

 Mike C Peterson wrote on May 2, 2006 11:17 pm:
" Conclusion: Chief Actually Supports Concealed Carry. The coup de gras for Chief Casady's argument against concealed carry comes in the following statement from his letter: "I believe the research is all over the board, proving nothing but the obvious: Concealed carry doesn’t have any significant impact on crime rates one way or the other." I happen to agree completely with the Chief on this one. It's challenging to tease apart the affects of concealed carry legislation. Other community factors always come into play, and it's hard to make broad generalizations about crime rates as they fluctuate when concealed carry becomes lawful in an area. Many, like John Lott referenced above, have suggested that CCW reliably lowers crime. I never have. In some jurisdictions crime definitely dropped, and in many cases, the very crimes you'd expect to be affected by CCW, such as robbery. However, in some cases CCW has seemed to have no effect at all. The two sides of this argument clash frequently about whether CCW drops crime or not, but there's one thing about which criminologists are pretty certain: CCW does not INCREASE crime. And that's the key. It doesn't matter if crime goes down or stays the same. All that matters is that it doesn't hurt our community. The reason this is so important for this argument is that public safety is the ONLY reason why concealed carry was made illegal in the first place. Saying that we aren't actually helping ourselves is not good enough. Showing that we don't "need" CCW is not good enough. You have to show that something actually causes harm in order to stop people from doing it. That's the way it works. Since the Chief just admitted that he believes no such evidence exists, then he simply has to believe that CCW is okay. There is no other logical conclusion. Personally, I like the fact that the Chief's daughter keeps a cell phone as her first line of defense. A cell phone, flashlight, and awareness of one's surroundings go a long way to keeping us out of trouble. But what if she wanted a LAST line of defense? What if she wanted Smith & Samsung to cohabitate in her purse side-by-side? I believe that choice belongs to her. Not me, not the Chief, and not the rest of us. Just her. If you tell her she doesn't get that choice, whether she exercises it or not, you have to give her a better reason than "it makes the police nervous." Don't ban concealed carry in Lincoln. You don't have to like it in your gut, but to ban it you have to show why it's wrong. Chief Casady wrote a good letter, but he didn't do that. "

 Phil wrote on May 3, 2006 12:33 am:
" Tom... why not allow good, intelligent, responsible, adult citizens carry both? A cell phone and a hand gun, if that is their desire. The Utopian world you are looking for, would have us loading all of our guns into the back of the town wagon and waving goodbye to them. I would probably not apply for a concealed carry permit, and I likely will not purchase a hand gun in the foreseeable future, but by golly Tom, there is no reason in the world that you should make that decision for me. "

 Pat wrote on May 3, 2006 8:26 am:
" Chief Casady, I must say that I'm disturbed to hear that the murder of Candice Harms has affected you so profoundly. I would not want to be in your shoes with regards to that case. I can only imagine what it must have been like for you. I did not here the discussion on the radio regarding her case. If the discussion was similar to "If Candice Harms had been armed, it never would have happened.", I agree with you that LB454 would not have allowed her to carry anyway, so it was a pointless argument. Your position seems to be that because she was only 18, LB454 wouldn't have done her any good, so anyone 21 or older should not be allowed to conceal carry either. That is a specious argument at best. Also, the point that Roger Bjorklund and Scott Barney could have legally carried a concealed weapon doesn't hold much water either. I'm not familiar with the case, but did a quick search on the internet and found that she was found shot. It seems to me that LB454 would have had no bearing whatsover on whether these 2 murderers had guns or not. They obviously did without LB454 being in effect. Argueing that SOME criminals might be legally armed under LB454 is irrelavant. It seems to me that a LOT of criminals already are. Is that really a justification for stopping a law-abiding citizen from protecting themselves from the armed criminal? You make the suggestion that cell phones protect people. I'm not exactly sure how a cell phone has ever been used to protect someone. If your suggestion is that cell phones are used to notify police AFTER an attack, I agree, they are a very useful tool. But I don't believe they've ever been used to PREVENT an attack. Finally, I can completely understand why your officers don't want people having concealed weapons, and that the legislature won't allow weapons in their chambers. I don't want anyone carrying weapons either. Well, except for myself, same as the police. I just don't want to become another victim and feel that concealed carry is my best option. Thanks for your time. And thanks for your service. "

 Duane wrote on May 3, 2006 1:46 pm:
" Chief Casady, I'm glad that you are glad that your daughter has a samsung in her purse instead of a Smith & Wesson. I just hope she doesn't meet the same fate as Ms. Tonya J. Goble-Studer. Ms. Goble-Studer used HER cell phone and dialed 911 on Friday begging for a police officer to come and take her to a shelter. Her ex-husband had just left after pointing a handgun at her head and promised to come back and kill her. A police officer was never even dispatched. Currently, Ms. Goble-Studer and her mother are dead, because the police were not around to protect her or her mother. I'm sure that the Lincoln police force is a fine unit, but you can't be everywhere all the time and you will be unable to prevent all violent crime. Why would you want the citizens of lincoln to remain defenseless against criminals who are most likely already illegally armed? "

 Nash wrote on May 3, 2006 6:05 pm:
" I have to laugh at the irony in Chief Casady's letter and my experience with his department. I can remember a time not so long ago when I questioned the general perspective of the Lincoln PD on the legality of carrying concealed weapons for personal defense. A portion of the response simply stated that the Lincoln Police Department does not make the law, and they do not interpret the law. They simply enforce it. And that if I was unhappy with the current laws in the state and felt the need for personal protection, perhaps I should lobby my representatives in the legislature to get those laws changed. --- Well, some time has passed and the state law is now changed. And with the ink on that amendment still damp, I open this page and read that the Chief of the Lincoln PD does in fact intend to make the law. To that I can only say, Chief Casady, if you are unhappy with the current law, and feel the need to have iron-fisted control over which law-abiding citizens are allowed to earn a permit to carry personal defensive tools in Nebraska, perhaps you should join the Nebraska State Patrol. "

 Jen wrote on May 3, 2006 10:01 pm:
" Duane--if Ms. Goble-Studer was in her home, she had every right to have a gun and wouldn't need a permit. You have always been able to have guns in your home. Nash--Chief Casady is not controling the law with his letter, he is expressing his opinion, just like you did. He doesn't have to agree with you. "

 Dan wrote on May 4, 2006 12:27 pm:
" Jen you missed the point of Duane reply. The police never came to potect her. "

 Tim wrote on May 7, 2006 11:10 am:
" "Between 1999 and 2004, violent crime in Nebraska fell from 7,172 offenses to 5,302, a 35 percent decrease over five years without a concealed carry law." Great news! (Unless you were one of the 5302 victims anyway.) "

 Tim wrote on May 7, 2006 7:04 pm:
" Pop. - 13,277,000 Floridians Who Own Guns (Percent) All -- 62.7% Male -- 68.8% Female -- 57.3% Floridians Who Own Guns (Number): 8,325,000 Permits issued: 204,108 Permits Revoked Due To Crime: 17 (0.008%) The latest report from the Florida Department of State, covering a 6-year, 4-month period from 10/01/87 (start-up date) through 02/28/94, shows that 204,108 CCW permits have been issued -- 69% new permits; 31% permit renewals. Only one-quarter of 1% of permit applications have been rejected due to an applicant's criminal history; two-tenths of 1% have been rejected due to an "incomplete application." One hundred eighty-seven (0.1%) permits have been revoked because the permittee committed some kind of crime, though not necessarily a gun-related or violent crime, after permit issuance. After receiving permits, only 17 (0.008%) individuals committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which firearms were present, though not necessarily used. By contrast, in 1992 there were about 46,000 gun-related violent crimes (assaults, robberies, homicides and rapes) in Florida, based upon FBI Uniform Crime Reports supplementary reports and reported crime totals. "

 Tim wrote on January 2, 2008 8:21 am:
" It's been the law of the land for a year now. Where are all the disasters that were predicted? "

Ads by Yahoo!

More Stories In Letters