Sept. 22, 2014 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
"More than 400 cities, counties, libraries, hospitals and organizations have notified the state that they have exempted themselves."
How much more out of touch and ignorant can KS state government be?
The new White House report coupled with evidence from Australia, Britain and Canada shows that reduction of personal gun ownership is a road to more violence, injury and death. The President commissioned this study in the hopes of finding a reason to take more guns from law abiding Americans. What it found, however, is that the answer to gun violence in America is… arming more Americans.
Then why not link to the report itself instead of linking to "Joe the Plumber's" idea of what you're supposed to think the report says through the magic of a single cherry-picked snippet? Well, I'll tell you why, because I followed the links to find the report.
The paragraph before and after the cited section actually show that a) the estimates are still being debated and b) more research is necessary to either confirm or deny those earlier findings. The paragraph after that points out that even if a gun is useful as defense during the crime itself, it may very well still be offset by risks of having a gun in your house (ie suicide, accidental shooting, etc.) In other words, the report does not say ANYWHERE that "a reduction of personal gun ownership is a road to more violence injury and death" nor does it imply it.
I wrote a reply to much the same end and for some reason the site wouldn't let me post it. The study also didn't report anything about Australia, Britain, or Canada, and the link that did was far from unbiased or scientific. Although if these Americans really were worried about protecting themselves, they may learn something from these countries examples.
Please tell me this is sarcasm.
A no gun sign means that the criminal knows that law abiding citizens have been disarmed and there will be no armed resistance. Criminals aren't going to disarm when they see those signs.
And the library ninja with his black windbreaker, handcuffs, cell phone and flashlight on his utility belt will be little help when confronted with an armed criminal.
Who can stop a bad guy with a gun? A legally armed citizen with a conceal and carry permit.
This has been your response to almost every CC article. Please show me this list that your getting your facts from? I've never seen this list before.
Makes sense. Rampant gun play from criminals in public buildings in Lawrence is out of control. It's really that simple. Right, Sen. Knox?
Using your logic then ghettos have to be the safest lace around because everyone is packing.
A logical person would know that there is a difference between CC Permit holders "packing" (your word) and a ghetto filled with felons "packing". Where would you feel safest?
Then why all the objection to criminal background checks for gun sales?
Who objected to that? This article isn't even about that.
he says criminals go to places that they feel there are no guns, nothing about CC
I'm curious - why don't the "chocked full of armed law enforcement" protect you sufficiently?
And, why would you have a CC permit and "never carry"? What's the point of that? I thought that CC holders wanted to carry their guns with them most of the time, in order to protect themselves.
Lmao this is hilarious please turn off Fox News and Limbaugh
,,,to protect myself from a dictatorial regime?? Really! You need to stop listening to Rush Lambaugh and come down. You little pop gun will not "protect" you from any imaginary "regime".
In what fantasy world do dictatorial regimes not have access to tanks, nukes, remote drones, or nerve gas?
That is the same ignorance of knowledge of intent that other gun haters have on this subject. Most CC holders only carry when going into situations where their personal safety is questionable. That eliminated the public buildings you are so worried about. You will continue to be safe in those locations without the "no guns signs".
Given the many dangers that "pro gun" folks post about, it's a logical conclusion that they feel their safety is questionable much of the time. That's why they argue strenuously for their right to protect themselves.
I'm not a "gun hater", by any means - I don't hate inanimate objects.
That does sound pretty stupid. Why pay all the money, go through the class, and then brag that you have one, but don't carry a firearm?
You can't carry guns at Fort Leavenworth. What's your point? It's been like this forever.
Take away New York, Houston and Chicago and the US is not even close to being at the top of the list for gun violence. Media driven, I think yes.
Yes, take away three large urban areas (one of which is the largest city in the us) and we don't even compare to other countries (as long as you don't take away their three large areas with gun violence).
Also, even if there are more dangerous places in the world (which there are), that still wouldn't mean that our country is as safe as we would like, of course.
Is it good enough that we're safer than Egypt, for example?
We also have better schools than Somalia, so I don't think we need to work on the education system at all, either.
States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death
"The analysis reveals that the five states with the highest per capita gun death rates were Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and Nevada. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far exceeding the national per capita gun death rate of 10.32 per 100,000 for 2006. Each state has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with strong gun laws and low rates of gun ownership had far lower rates of firearm-related death. Ranking last in the nation for gun death was Hawaii, followed by Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. (See chart below for top and bottom five states. See http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart09.htm for a ranking of all 50 states.)"
2008 stats: Kansas went from 25th to 31st toward the lowest end.
Can anyone get more recent stats?
This is the first article that forces me to answer a Google question before I can read it. Alas, this will be the last time I visit the LJworld website! Sorry, you guys really messed this one up!!
If you think that is bad, and it is, you now have to pay to read the Capital Journal's website.
Just randomly stab at buttons until the questions go away like everyone else.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
If gun ownership was tied to real training, I wouldn't have a problem with guns being everywhere, but come on. There are lists and lists of supposed "responsible" gun owners doing stupid stuff that gets other's killed. No holsters for instance. Not locking them up around children. And the incidents are always labeled "accidents". Start charging these stupid gun owners with involuntary manslaughter or assault, then we can talk. And a mother who buys her 5 year old a gun and leaves him to play with it unattended should be in jail and her children removed from custody. But I'll bet the NRA would defend the bimbo.
So, when was the last time there was a running gun battle in Starbucks or any of the places where a CCW is allowed.
Oh, wasn't there was a running gun battle in the parking lot at the McDonalds on 6th & Wakarusa .... oh, Snap! That was between felons who are not allowed to own guns but had them anyway.
How many secretaries and other clerks and paper have been wasted on this? A lot more than just printing a No Guns Allowed sign. Your taxes at work, while highways fall apart, schools go downhill, and police and firefighters are cut back. But that's ok, if you are rich you'll have extra money for that vacation next year from your tax cuts. I'll bet you won't spend that vacation money in Kansas, though. Enjoy your guns, but keep them holstered in your car. Those bumpy roads might set one off and accidentally shoot you.
We wouldn't be having this debate if our City Commissioners would have just taken the "no Gun" signs down and had not stirred up the public by voting the 6 mo extension and inciting everyone.
God forbid the people in these 400 places get what they want... They're just inciting people.
Very narrow? Do you actually understand the term 'reality'?
How many 'bad guys' announce that they are going to start discharging a firearm? I bet Dylan and Eric over in Colorado didn't call the school. I bet the movie theater in Aurora wasn't called either. Or basically any other place in this country that a shooting has occurred.
Maybe you have some proof to contradict the fact that in the really real world people that are intent on doing something simply do it, without pretense or grandstanding beforehand.
A shooting at a school dance almost 20 years ago. So we go from obscure to basically a generation before now.
A better link than your Wikipedia link, with a host of other information, like the Andrew Wurst, the shooter, had already run out of ammunition and had exited the building before the owner could retrieve his shotgun and chase the kid down in a field. And yes, I consider 14 years old a kid.
You must have extremely rotten luck with your stories, by the way. You seemed to have found another one that occurred in a city with roughly 7,000 occupants. Not honestly mocking you, but it does seem to be a trend. I just don't think you are doing it intentionally. If I did, then I'd mock you for it.
For me, the numbers are a matter of statistics. With a smaller population, using a given percentage of a population as having a firearm, there is a greater chance of encountering one in a public environment. Fewer people equate to fewer occupied buildings and operating businesses. In certain models, it actually increases the chance of encountering someone with a C&C license. If the probabilities are skewed in favor of small towns, then using them to illustrate your point actually detracts from the reality of the situation on a national scale. There might be more smaller towns in this country, but the larger percentage of people still live in bigger cities, like Kansas City, Omaha, St. Louis, and such. More people, more buildings and thus more businesses. Over a certain population, the statistics fall off to fractions of a percentage in the chance to encounter a C&C licensed person while committing a crime.
It's why you hear more of it happening in smaller towns rather than larger towns. It's not that people aren't carrying, it's just that there is a greater saturation of locations that don't have someone that is.
There was an armed guard on the scene at Columbine and another armed officer who rushed to the scene. Both fired at Harris, but neither managed to stop him.
The Sandy Hook shooting spree only lasted five minutes. Even assuming the elementary school teachers would have guns stored on campus, they would not have had time to retrieve and return fire in that time.
The third incident you linked didn't take place in a school, and the shooter ran out of ammunition before being held at gunpoint per that source, which means the shooter could have also just been physically restrained.
The mass shooter at a Kansas church was physically restrained without the use of any guns. http://cjonline.com/stories/030898/kan_attack.html and Gabby Gifford's shooter was physically subdued before the CC holder came on the scene and nearly shot the wrong person.
Nevada? Really? A city with a 2010 census population of just over 7,000 people? KU, all by itself, is three times their size, and magically an interfamily feud ended with people being shot.
You found the desert version of Hatfield and McCoy, just with less brain matter involved.
Where does the pepper spray suddenly appear from? Could it be from the purse that contains the gun or was it being held in one hand while holding a glass of coke in the other?
On her keyring would be a good place to find it, since they make the travel size that has a GASP split ring on the case itself for just such a use.
Granted, I guess that would be contrived, if it wasn't that most women that are attacked in this nation are attacked in the near vicinity or either their house or their car, both of which require keys, generally speaking.
But I do notice that a couple of manly men responded, which I find funny since I have made other comments before about restricting firearm access and barely got read, I think. Make a snide comment about boys and their toys, so to speak, and watch the fireworks. Thanks for proving my point.
Another likely spot for finding pepper spray, in regards to a female, would be clipped to her purse. Since it works a bit like a hand grenade, she might get hit with it, but the attacker would as well. I've read about, but never experienced first hand, pepper spray and mace that could blister skin through clothing. I would imagine just spraying it in the general area of the genitals would suffice, but I could be wrong on that one. I'll admit the lack of knowledge upfront about that particular type.
Well, they could be "well prepared" like that guy in KC who didn't bother to holster his gun. He was ready for anything, except the guilt that his wife is probably giving him since he accidentally shot her. Some comments by the CCW carriers really scare me. It's like they can't wait to be in a situation so they can shoot someone. Scary.
Because it's incorrect.
Thank You Lawrence,Kansas for joining the forces of the sane....at least in the arena of concealed weapons.
So why does the military insist on teaching hand to hand combat if they also insist on issuing side arms AND semi automatic rifles? Would seem to me that with that many guns, certainly you would be safe, correct? I'm only vaguely being snide. Self defense courses, especially for women, are a damned sight handier than a side arm.
Go to the Granada, on any night they are in operation, and tell me how many females you spy that are wearing an outfit that would support a belt clip holster. Then do a quick count on how many have elbows, knees, feet and hands.
While you are there, take notice of how little light is in there, how many flashing light sources there are, and the deafening roar of the music. My wife is never unarmed, but then again she learned self defense.
from city halls to swimming pools —
Wow. I have not really been paying attention to this issue. Something seems wrong about carrying a loaded weapon into a public swimming pool. Just saying.
like a ref carrying a knife (and using it to kill someone) to a soccer game
Obviously, the soccer player should have been carrying a gun.
You know what they say... don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·