Now
Partly Cloudy
85.0°
High
92°
Low
71°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Local View: Lack of concealed carry support typical

Comments 13 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY TERRANCE REIS

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 12:10:47 am CDT

It was a great disappointment for me to read Tom Casady’s Local View on the concealed carry issue (“More guns in Lincoln will only create more problems,” May 2). His lack of support is very typical of a chief of police found anywhere in our country who has a politician for a boss.

Let’s face it: Mayor Seng can help our chief get things for his department and officers, or not.

Concerning the survey performed by one of Casady’s officers, I believe those results are flawed. It has been found that surveys given by law enforcement agencies to law enforcement personnel are biased. Why? Possible retribution.

He also mentions that handguns get turned on their owners and that accidents and mistakes do happen. In the chief’s line of thinking, then, we should no longer allow people to get driver’s licenses. Driving should be banned; cars kill people, people are injured in accidents and some are maimed for life. Why is someone behind the wheel of a 2,000- to 3,000-pound vehicle to be trusted when we are more likely to be killed, injured or maimed by a car than by a person who carries a gun for protection!

Most police officers throughout our country never fire their weapons in the line of duty. They are brandished a lot, though, and most often that’s all that’s needed. Studies have shown that citizens who carry have done the same. They have brandished their weapons and saved their lives or that of a loved one or stopped a crime without firing a shot.

For those citizens who are against concealed carry, remember this: You are more likely to be killed by an acquaintance or family member than by a stranger. In fact, everyone is.

Who will be applying for concealed carry permits? According to records of other states that allow concealed carry, your typical red-blooded American, both men and women. From doctors and lawyers to teachers and business owners to professionals of all kinds of businesses and members of all trades. Our retired and active military carry and security personal and retired law enforcement officers as well. They are co-workers, people you attend church with, fellow parents at the PTA, members of civic organizations or clubs you belong to. They are moms and dads, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters and, yes, even some grandparents.

You cannot depend on the police to protect you. Unless they live in your house, share your bed or socialize with you 100 percent of the time, it is impossible for them to do so. That’s why the U.S. Supreme Court ruled years ago, that it is not the responsibility of law enforcement to protect you. Nor do they have to.

This ruling has stood fast and has been supported by state supreme courts throughout the country. The police are not a proactive force; rather, they are a reactionary force, reacting to crimes committed. Their presence on the street may deter some crime, but most often the criminal just waits for them to pass and then carries on with business.

Another example of their inability to protect you is the countless numbers of women with court issued restraining orders killed every year throughout the country by stalkers, ex-husbands and ex-boyfriends. Simply put, you are on your own. We all are.

I think the greatest disappointment to me in the chief’s remarks is that generally he paints a picture of the average citizen of Lincoln as an idiot, incapable and reckless. It is easy for the chief and law officers to say no to concealed carry. Since most carry off duty, they have the means to protect themselves and those they love, which they want to deny you and your family. They are safe because they have their weapons. They don’t want you to have that same safe feeling they enjoy. They don’t want you to have the same chance that they have of not ending up a victim.

Your life and the lives of your family are not as valuable as theirs. In fact, if Lincoln is so safe, the chief should implement a policy for all officers, including him, to house their firearms at the station when they are off duty and, if they come across a situation of lawlessness, they use their cell phone, as they want you and I to do.

Yes, I am disappointed in the chief, because he seems to think his family has more value than yours or mine and is worth protecting. Your family and mine are not as valuable, and you and I should not be able to protect them.

In closing, I am more disappointed and inclined not to like Mayor Seng who thinks that she is more intelligent and knows more then all the legislators combined who passed this law. And that Lincoln is her town and not ours. I may or may not apply for a concealed carry permit, but I think I should have that option.

Reis is a Vietnam War combat veteran.


$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  
JWB wrote on May 23, 2006 12:38 am:
" Bravo !!! By implying that the average citizen does not have the same right to protect themselves as they do peace officers are saying that they don't care about you or your family. I think it is a very good idea that our community peace officers be required to leave their service arms at the station at the end of their shift. "
Jack Anderson wrote on May 23, 2006 4:53 am:
" Mr Reis writes “Concerning the survey performed by one of Casady’s officers, I believe those results are flawed. It has been found that surveys given by law enforcement agencies to law enforcement personnel are biased. Why? Possible retribution.” A nationwide survey was posed by mail of 22,587 Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs in the United States. It represents a cross section of professional command officers involving every state. The survey was conducted for the 18th consecutive year by the National Association of Chiefs of Police. Needless to say, the results overwhelmingly support private gun ownership, 92%. Will a national civilian handgun carry permit reduce reduce crime ? Yes, 60% Do police officials want to deputize armed civilians in times of natural disaster? Yes, 70% Survey results are here, http://www.aphf.org/surveyresults.pdf "
dtw wrote on May 23, 2006 8:43 am:
" People of Lincoln, you are not going to be able to carry concealed handguns (not legally). So please, get over it. I am tired of reading how about this topic and I am very tired of seeing the term "law-abiding". Are you telling me that you have never broken a law? Ever? We'll if you ever did then you are NOT a law-abiding citizen. If you want to carry a gun so bad (legally) move somewhere else, so I can read about something more entertaining and meaningful. "
Gary wrote on May 23, 2006 8:44 am:
" Mr. Reis, I salute you. Your eloquence and intelligent thought are a testement to responsible gun owners everywhere. You could not be more on point, Queen Seng and King Casady do not feel that we ordinary citizens are to be given the same protection that they enjoy. In their own words, they have revealed their position that they believe ALL Lincoln citizens to be too stupid, reckless, and irresponsible to carry means of self-defense. You hear that Lincoln? Granny thinks you are all idiots. "
Nash wrote on May 23, 2006 9:53 am:
" Mr. dtw, I did not find the words "law-abiding" anywhere in Mr. Reis' text, or the text of any postings thus far. Also, the concealed weapons legislation has passed, and will become law for the whole state. It is up to the City of Lincoln to pass their own statute against it. If the city passes no statute, then it seems that the People of Lincoln might be carrying concealed weapons after the first of next year, regardless of how you feel about it. "
Kimber Jones wrote on May 23, 2006 10:31 am:
" The two largest accidental killers of children in this country are backyard swimming pools and drivers under the age of 18. If America is really so concerned about human lfe, society would outlaw swimming pools on residential property and raise the minimum driving age. "
Jerome wrote on May 23, 2006 11:34 am:
" Mr. Reis you could have been strapping on your six shooter to go to the grocery store all these many years. Your desire to conceal your weapon suggests to me there is more to this than defending yourself. And who are you defending yourself from, in one paragraph you say you are much more likely to be killed by friend or family. Later you want to conceal to defend your family. Maybe you need to defend yourself from your family. The paragraph on who is applying for conceal permits is especially entertaining, moms,dads,uncles,aunts,gradma,grandpa, I had already assumed that the family pet wasn't applying(though it would probably be safer if it were limited to them). "
Dan wrote on May 23, 2006 12:08 pm:
" I know several police officers personally and there view to the general public is that we are totally incompetent to protect ourselves. They do have a tough occupation don’t get me wrong, but there faith in the general public is virtually nothing. I do know of some officers that should not have a badge. They are on a total ego trip whenever they put there uniform on. As in any occupation there are good loyal people and some that should find other means of employment and see very person as a criminal that has not been caught. There opinion is bias to making there job tougher or easier, just like anybody else. If they pass a law that makes your livelihood more difficult you would be set against it, police are no different or even just changed with a air of you don’t quite know what the future holds. The police see the worst of the worst in people, when is the last time someone hugged a policeman for giving them a traffic ticket? They probably would get arrested for assault. So there views are bias. "
JWB wrote on May 23, 2006 1:32 pm:
" As to why open carry is not prevelant in Lincoln at this time, the reason is that a person doing so will be subjected to harrassment, public embarrassment, confiscation of private property and a citation for breach of peace. While I don't personally know of anyone that has been cited for breach of peace for openly carrying a firearm I have had several officers in the last 10 years tell me that if they saw a person wearing a firearm they would cite them for disturbing the peace. I keep hearing the word "need" bantied around. "Need has nothing to do with it. What part of right don't you understand? If the enactment of this ban is successful the citizens of Lincoln had better get used to seeing people walking around with firearms because you can't have it both ways. The city of Lincoln cannot pass both an open and concealed carry ban. So it is your choice; out of sight out of mind or in your face. People that live outside of Lincoln will, when they come to town, unconceal their firearm. People that live in Lincoln will openly carry carry where ever they may legally do so. Get used to it if this ban passes. "
Stan wrote on May 23, 2006 7:14 pm:
" I hold chief Cassady in high regard and think he and his officers are doing a fine job. It is Terrance Reis and people like him that I don't trust running around with guns in my town. I continue to insist, anybody who wants to carry a concealed gun is looking for trouble. "
keep guns - ban medicine wrote on May 23, 2006 9:41 pm:
" I have decided to add a little perspective to this topic. According to the CDC, there were 28,874 firearm related deaths in the US in 1999. 16,599 of those were suicide, 10,828 were homicide, and the rest are listed as "other" or "undetermined." NOW, according to the Institutes of Medicine, there were 44,000 to 98,000 deaths in the US in 1999 due to medical errors and about 7000 die from medications alone. (I do like the wide range here, apparently they aren't even sure) Okay, so I'm not a mathematician, but I can clearly see that 28,874 is MUCH LESS than 44,000. However, our society accepts those deaths from medical errors without much thought or outrage. This same society will cry out with reckless abandon about the dangers of firearms. Looks to me like we need to cry out about the dangers of medical errors & medicine. Yes, I know this is comparing apples to oranges, but I thought some perspective was in order. Please, those of you who don't want us to CCW, stop basing your opinions on fear and emotion alone. Look at the facts. Firearms are not the killers here. "
Tim wrote on May 24, 2006 7:01 am:
" Sorry Stan, the overwhelming majority of those who wish to carry concealed weapons are not "looking for trouble." The experience of the states that allow CCW simply does not support your contention. The fact that legal CCW is becoming more, and not less, prevalent across the entire US indicates that the opposition's viewpoints are based on pessimism and an outright lack of faith in their fellow man. People use concealed weapons to defend themselves all the time. For whatever reason, it's not widely reported. "
AllenT. wrote on May 25, 2006 2:24 pm:
" Stan: You continue to insist? Well, I continue to insist that people that make broad generalizations such as "anybody who wants to carry a concealed gun is looking for trouble" back them up with some evidence. It seems that I've been disappointed yet again. Let me correct you on a few things. 1. People that are "looking for trouble" already carry concealed weapons...they are called criminals. 2. People that want to legally carry weapons for protection are not looking for trouble...they are simply looking out for trouble. There is a distinction. People looking for trouble generate the problem while people looking out for trouble simply recognize the problem and hope to defend themselves. "

Ads by Yahoo!