Shooting revives gun debate / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, February 9, 2006

Officials neutral on concealed weapons

February 9, 2006

A law-abiding citizen carrying a legally concealed weapon probably wouldn't have made Massachusetts Street any safer during the Sunday shootout that left one man dead and another injured.

"I don't believe it would have helped you that night," Lawrence Police Capt. Dave Cobb said.

Members of the Kansas Senate today are expected to debate a proposal legalizing the carrying of concealed weapons.

Lawrence Police Chief Ron Olin and Douglas County Sheriff Ken McGovern are officially neutral on the bill.

And police are still investigating the shooting. But police have said more people at the scene than just the shooter were armed. A concealed-carry law might have made things more complicated, Cobb said.

"The bad thing is, an officer pulls up and guns are out and we don't know who has a permit and who doesn't," he said.

But gun advocates in Lawrence said they thought the benefits of a concealed-carry law would outweigh the negatives.

"I don't have any problem at all with somebody carrying a gun if they pass a background check and get the proper training," said Doug Coffman, owner of Coffman's Repair & Custom Gunsmith Shop, 740 N. Seventh St.

Once again

Photo by Nick Krug

Lawrence gunsmith Doug Coffman puts the finishing touches on a shotgun he repaired for Lawrence resident Doug Yoder, left, Wednesday afternoon at Coffman's Repair and Custom Gunsmith Shop. As an avid gun enthusiast, Coffman sees nothing wrong with the idea of carrying a concealed weapon as long as the individual passes a background check and receives proper training on handling firearms.

The current legislation is similar to past proposals vetoed by Gov. Bill Graves in 1997 and by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius in 2004. If passed, Kansas residents age 21 or older who are U.S. citizens could obtain a permit by filling out an application with their local sheriff and paying a fee of up to $150.

If the bill passes, Kansas would join 36 "shall issue" states, meaning if a person clears all the hurdles, the state must issue the concealed gun permit. Eight other states have "may issue" laws, giving officials latitude. Two states - Alaska and Vermont - have no prohibitions for carrying a concealed weapon.

Sebelius spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran noted the governor's previous veto, but said the governor is reserving judgment on the current bill. Sebelius has, however, supported concealed carry for retired law enforcement officers, Corcoran said.

The proposal has split Lawrence's two state senators. Marci Francisco, a Democrat, opposes it, while Roger Pine, a Republican, is a supporter.

"Most of my constituents I've heard from have reservations about the idea of concealed carry," Francisco said. "Nobody has made a strong argument why they would need to conceal a weapon that they would want to carry," she said.

But Pine said concealed carry has proven beneficial elsewhere.

"In those states where they have that, that has been a positive deterrent against crime," he said.

Police chief neutral

Backers of the law tout its requirement that permit holders undergo an eight-hour safety course as part of the application process.

Olin explained Wednesday why he is remaining neutral on the matter.

"The truth is, the criminals we come in contact with do not have permits, but they still carry guns," Olin said in a statement issued through Cobb. "They will probably still have guns."

Olin also noted that city ordinance prohibits firearms in close proximity of any business that serves alcohol. And there are other places a gun couldn't legally be taken, such as the courthouse or schools or any business with a posted prohibition.

Doug Wahl, owner of Lawrence Pawn & Jewelry, 944 E. 23rd St., said training would be an important component of the law. He said that he has seen people who claimed they knew how to handle guns, yet obviously didn't.

Wahl's wife, Diane Wahl, who co-owns the business, had other thoughts. She said she was concerned about guns in the hands of "nervous Nellies and people trying to show off."

Doug Wahl and Coffman said they thought the mere possibility that someone was toting a gun would be enough to make bad guys think twice.

"A lot of times, if people think the other guy might have a gun, that might act as a deterrent," he said.

Kansas residents who are 21 or older and are U.S. citizens could obtain a permit by filling out an application with their local sheriff and paying a fee of up to $150.

The attorney general's office would issue permits after conducting background checks to eliminate those with a felony record, a history of mental illness, drug or alcohol addiction, or a physical infirmity that would prevent the safe handling of a firearm.

Once approved, the person would be required to complete an eight-hour safety and training course by a firearms instructor certified by the attorney general or the National Rifle Assn.

J-W staff and wire reports contributed to this report.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

9 February 2006
at 4:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…

so basically you could carry a gun but not into or near any place that says you cannot….In other words you couldnt carry a gun on mass. st.
Personally I believe in the open carry laws……You have a pistol on a pistol belt or shoulder holster, or hell, even a shotgun on a sling…..this ensures the rest of the world sees your “don't f*ck with me” proclimation.
before anyone starts spouting anti gun stuff let me say I am biased towards guns….My family were all hunters(food hunters, not trophy idiots or people who pay to shoot raised animals) we did it for sustenance. I had a 22 before i had a bicycle. i was raised to be safe with a gun and would never sport a gun around unless i was absolutley sure that my life was in danger.
i really believe that a individual going into a part of any town where they think their safety is an issue would be better off with a good solid fighting cane and /or some other non fire arm weapon(a good knife, police quality pepper spray, a collapsible baton or a stun gun)
most situations will not allow you the time to reach for , unholster and prepare a firearm if you are defending yourself….Unless you are willing to train for it for about a year(the same goes for allmost every weapon, but guns are lethal a lot farther out than a swordcane)
I also believe that basic fire arms safety and training should betaught as a high school class….Also as a adult you would have to periodically take refresher courses to own fire arms….and a more rigourus set of classes to carry concealed…..But then you should be allowed to carry concealed anywhere.
Then again, I believe in legalized dueling and would gladly carry around a saber and buckler…..Which is legal to do by the way.
9 February 2006
at 4:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

How does Roger Pine know it's made a difference somewhere?
9 February 2006
at 7:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Colt45 (Anonymous) says…

Concealed means just that, concealed. Nobody should know you are carrying. Businesses that post no guns signs will get no $$$ from me.
9 February 2006
at 8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

craigers (Anonymous) says…

I don't know if I would ever carry a gun on my person, but in the car or something like that would be more likely. I don't know if I buy the 8 hour training course as enough to let somebody conceal a gun. At least those that did go through it would be the ones that legally wanted to carry concealed and I am all for it. Good for Kansas to support such a measure but I am sure that Kathleen will veto it.
9 February 2006
at 8:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

DaREEKKU (Anonymous) says…

Concealed weapons will not make us safer. With the bad temperment and lack of education that is contageous in this country it will put us more at risk. I know I don't feel safer….especially if some road rage ridden moron decides to “scare” me and has his/her gun accidentilly go off. I've seen startling statistics in countries that ban guns that show a significantly lower gun crime rate. Granted I'm not arguing that guns should be banned, but just a thought….Frankly I don't want people carrying guns to be not only legal but wondering around KU's campus with 30,000 potential targets.
9 February 2006
at 8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

“With the bad temperment and lack of education that is contageous in this country it will put us more at risk.”

Any proof on that? Doesn't seem to be a problem elsewhere.
9 February 2006
at 8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

dirkleisure (Anonymous) says…

“Olin also noted that city ordinance prohibits firearms in close proximity of any business that serves alcohol.”

Um, I think the Legislature outlawed all local gun ordinances last year. I don't think that ordinance is in effect anymore.

As I recall, the only gun laws with any effect anymore are those which are statewide.

9 February 2006
at 8:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RonBurgandy (Anonymous) says…

Man, how in the world is it going to make the country/state/county/city safer to carry guns?

This is ridiculous.
9 February 2006
at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Taxpayer (Anonymous) says…

If there had been a .38 caliber pistol and someone trained to use it, in each cockpit of the Air-Liners hi-jacked on 9/11, it all would have stopped there. No hi-jacking, no WTC/Pentagon/Shanksville and no Mid-East war. No hi-jackings of airliners occur in Israel cause the pilots carry pistols and are trained to use them. Guns have their place in our society.
9 February 2006
at 8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

It's perfectly legal (constitutionally protected) to carry a firearm now, with some exceptions that concealed carry likely wouldn't overrule.

If you want to pack, you can do so, you just can't conceal it. Why don't more people do it? Because most people react to someone doing so as someone to avoid, someone who may not be emotionally or mentally stabile, someone who is dangerous. If you give people the legal right to hide that weapon, I expect most people would still think the same way about that person carrying the weapon, if they knew they had it.

So concealed carry is really about dishonesty. If you want to carry a weapon, do so openly, and live with the stigma that goes with it if it's really that important to you.
9 February 2006
at 8:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

optimist (Anonymous) says…

Now the facts:

Gun crime in countries where guns are banned is not declining. Both Canada and Great Britain reported an initial decrease in gun crimes but since have experienced significant increases in those and other violent crimes, such as rape, home invasion robberies and muggings. You can of course discount the facts because you don't like them but it doesn't make them correct and I can cite sources for this information. I'm not sure it would matter to those opposed.

46 other states have some form of concealed carry. Kansas is the exception, not the norm. Of those states none can report any increase in crime relating to passage of concealed carry legislation. If they had they would have changed the law. Nearly all of them have experienced decreases in most violent crimes more significant than states without concealed carry. In some cases the more lenient the concealed carry law the more positive the result on violent crime.

Regardless of your position on the issue it is important to be informed and debate the issue using facts rather than emotion.
9 February 2006
at 9:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

WereAllMonkeys (Anonymous) says…

When roundabouts are outlawed only outlaws will have roundabouts.

“Veritas Roundaboutus Libertas” … Truth is the Roundabout of Liberty.
9 February 2006
at 9:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

glockenspiel (Anonymous) says…

>With the bad temperment and lack of education that is
>contageous in this country

I guess since were all stupid, we should just pack it in.

Its not about deterring crime, its about having the right to protect yourself. And although the liklihood of you ever having the opportunity to protect yourself is small, its nice to know we at least have the right to do so. Seriously, it makes me so happy that we are even considering such a law. It tells me there is hope that every right we hold dear isn't just being stripped away.
9 February 2006
at 9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RonBurgandy (Anonymous) says…

Optimist:
Q: What happened in Florida after they weakened their CCW law?

A: Florida was the first state to pass a CCW law. Weakening CCW laws has not made Florida a safer place; in fact, the opposite is true. Florida's CCW law became effective on October 1, 1987. Between 1987 and 1992, the violent crime rate in that state increased 17.8%. In every year since 1987, Florida has had the highest rate of violent crime in the nation according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report. The violent crime rate is composed of four offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault; all of which involve force or threat of force according to the FBI.
Florida's handgun homicide rate has decreased somewhat in the past few years - part of this may well have been a result of the strong gun laws enacted during that time. As the following chart indicates, the handgun homicide rate in Florida increased considerably after passage of the CCW law in 1987. Decreases in handgun homicide occurred only after tough new gun laws were passed:
The bottom line is that Florida, now the most violent state in the nation, has not seen the results promised by their CCW law. There has been an increase in violent crime with no corresponding increase in personal security.
These trends continue in Florida. According to 1994 FBI Uniform Crime Report data, Florida cities still rank high in terms of violent crime. In 1994, Tampa and Miami were the 4th and 5th most violent cities in America. Fort Lauderdale, Tampa and Miami ranked 1, 2 and 3 respectively in the category of highest rates of property crime (which includes burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft).

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/fa…
9 February 2006
at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

timetospeakup (Anonymous) says…

Read the FBI statistics, violent crime against people goes down when concealed carry is legalized.

Listen to an interview with a criminal, they all say their biggest fear is an armed victim. Why not post Mass street as a “victims only” zone if you don't want law-abiding citizens to carry there?

I agree that there should be training and marksmanship requirements. If I know the law as well as police officer, and can shoot better than most, how am I more dangerous than him?

Ultimately, criminals already have concealed carry because by definition they don't care about the law. Shouldn't those of us that follow the law be afforded at least as much personal protection as a criminal ?

9 February 2006
at 9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RonBurgandy (Anonymous) says…

Please provide said FBI statistics.
9 February 2006
at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Colt45 (Anonymous) says…

The people that will be carrying concealed legally with a permit will have to pass background checks and take gun safety classes.
If you choose to believe what the Brady Bunch and the VPC have to say, I hope you enjoy trying to cut your steak with a plastic butter knife.

Check out http://www.a-human-right.com

& www.packing.org
9 February 2006
at 9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RonBurgandy (Anonymous) says…

Makes sense, but hey, why use a knife when I could just shoot my steak into pieces in one quick motion…
9 February 2006
at 9:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rednekbuddha (Kelly Powell) says…

You know for awhile the crime rate may go up….Or at least police calls to a scene where a law abiding citizen put two into the skull of some miscreant trying to rob them……Of course you will have some calls where some moron shot another moron or somebody in his family by accident….This happens anyway.
Please try to remember I see valid points for both sides of this arguement….But what chaps my fanny is when people throw “factual” numbers of people wrongfully shot at me(or allmost any stat). We have over 250 million LEGAL residents in this nation, the numbers they quote are freakin miniscule compared to the whole.
The idea of banning guns in this country is absurd….They are allready here and they will remain…….All a gun prohibition would do is make a even larger black market for guns and make fully automatic weapons(not to mention hand grenades, mines rpgs and mortars) market accessible. and lord forbid if we started getting into the “bomb thy enemy” fad that was in vogue in northren ireland …..Want to get someone? bomb the whole fraggin pub…….Swords at dawn seems a reasonable compromise(Not that thugs would have the honor to do this)
9 February 2006
at 9:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

timetospeakup (Anonymous) says…

Explicitely state in the 1992 FBI Uniform Crime Report “Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense.”

Admittedly, this is an older report. For political reaons, the FBI has not published this conclusion with more recent reports. Read these reports for yourself, correlate it with concealed carry availability, and you'll find the same conclusions are still valid. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm
9 February 2006
at 10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

spikey_mcmarbles (Anonymous) says…

“If there had been a .38 caliber pistol and someone trained to use it, in each cockpit of the Air-Liners hi-jacked on 9/11, it all would have stopped there. No hi-jacking, no WTC/Pentagon/Shanksville and no Mid-East war. No hi-jackings of airliners occur in Israel cause the pilots carry pistols and are trained to use them. Guns have their place in our society.”

Actually El Al pilots are unarmed, and sit behind a locked and reinforced cockpit door. They are under oath not to unlock the door once the engines are started, no matter what happens in the passenger cabin, thus they have no need for guns. Security inside the cabin is provided by several undercover security agents (men and women) who carry 22 caliber pistols loaded with reduced velocity ammo. This ammo has enough velocity to penetrate the skull (the security agents are trained to shoot at the head), but not enough velocity to penetrate the skin of the aircraft. Security on the ground is provided by a three hour passenger search and interogation session prior to boarding.

Our own sky marshalls are armed with the same reduced velocity ammo, as puncturing the skin of a pressurized aircraft at altitude would be a very bad thing.
9 February 2006
at 10:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

If there is a concealed carry law, it should also make carriers explicitly liable for any innocent bystanders they may shoot while “protecting themselves.”
9 February 2006
at 10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Bozo has an important point: if there's such a need for concealed guns why are “non-concealed” guns so rare? How often, exempting law-enforcement officials and security guards, does anyone see such a phenomena?

The scarcity suggests:
(1) very few people in their judgment believe they need to carry a gun at all for their own safety, let alone conceal that gun,
(2) interest survives in this extreme approach based on a general public unwillingness to restrict itself (people forsee a theoretical chance they might wish to do this even though in practice they almost certainly never will).

I do note that claims (and counter-claims) of impact on crime rates after passage of such laws elsewhere have been made. The National Research Council, an offshoot of the National Academy of Sciences, about as 'blue chip' a scientific organization as is, found contradictory evidence in their 2004 study and recommend more research.

9 February 2006
at 10:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Todd (Anonymous) says…

I used to live in FL and had a concealed carry permit. The statistic that sticks out to me is firearm related crimes commited by those with permits vs. the general population. Not a big surprise to all those non-gun-haters but the gun crime rate of permit holds is/was much lower.

Open carry - you may not get charged with a gun crime for doing it but cops will bum rush you and could lawfully charge you with disturbing the peace.

Concealed carry isn't suppose to replace the police. I want to carry to make my life (and that of my family) safer.

I really hope there are enough votes to override the veto this time. I'll be getting my permit when it becomes available.
9 February 2006
at 10:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

timetospeakup (Anonymous) says…

quote:

Bozo has an important point: if there's such a need for concealed guns why are “non-concealed” guns so rare? How often, exempting law-enforcement officials and security guards, does anyone see such a phenomena?

/quote

Open carry is uncommon because by and large it makes the general public uncomfortable, and even if you are well within your legal rights, it causes panic and people will call it in to the police. At minimum, it makes it a huge hassle for the person carrying. At worst, it gets turned into a “man with gun” call and a nasty mess.
9 February 2006
at 10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lilchick (Anonymous) says…

If you are carrying a firearm on your person in open view and just one person feels that you are threatening them, you will have charges pressed against you. At least, that was my general understanding 2 years ago when I last researched it in depth.
As a shooting instructor and someone who loves to shoot for fun and understands guns are used to bring food home and to protect myself and family, I would not want to risk having a felony on my record which would keep me from owning a firearm or teaching safety.
9 February 2006
at 10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jrlii (Anonymous) says…

Welcome to Kansas, the victim disarmament zone.

Kelly, it takes a LOT more training to use a knife, mace or fighting cane as an effective defense than a handgun. I've been told by folk who follow such things closely that collapsible batons are banned concealed weapons in Kansas.

As for training, the most important item is teaching when deadly force is allowed. People who carry need to understand that they are not cops and may use deadly force only when their life is threatened or they are in imminent danger of grievous bodily harm.

It is virtually never appropriate for a private individual to shoot at someone more than a few yards away, so concealed carry permit holders do not need to be great marksmen.

As for open carry, I have heard tales of police arresting people for brandishing when openly carrying a holstered handgun.

Businesses which post “No Guns” should be required to assume full liability for their customers' security.
9 February 2006
at 10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Hong_Kong_Phooey (Anonymous) says…

Given how badly people drive after they have had more than eight hours of training, it scares the hell out of me to think of those same people carrying around a gun. Yikes! Half the people on this board alone cannot figure out how to use a roundabout!

As for the “Mass. St. may have been safer that night” argument. Bull. As has been stated in several previous articles, the shooter was not the only person with a gun that night. Apparently the idea that everyone was running for cover - not trying to identify, or shoot, the shooter - has not entered people's heads. Let's say you were down on Mass that night and were standing outside Louise's, Fatso's, Harbor Lights, Red Lyon, Replay, or any of the other establishments that have crowds outside at that time. Would you truly want someone who has possibly been drinking and only received 8 hours of instruction firing shots at someone they thought might be the shooter?? Oops, because they had been drinking, or were just plain scared and shakey, they missed the shooter! They did, however, manage to hit little Jimmy & Susie as they leave the Pita Pit. They also hit Mary Jane Rottencrotch standing outside Louise's talking with her friends. Congratulations, you just made Mass a much safer place…
9 February 2006
at 10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

I think there should be an IQ test to get a gun permit of any sort. I know a lot of “hunters” who sit around and drink while waiting for the deer or shooting out their truck windows at random animals. I would also love to see women arming themselves while they jog in the park. We could kill off a lot of sick perverts that way.
9 February 2006
at 10:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

Optomist:
A little support for your argument:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/art…
9 February 2006
at 10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mefirst (Anonymous) says…

Can't trust anything that comes out of worldnetdaily. The fact that you consider that site a source speaks volumes about you AL.

9 February 2006
at 10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

Really mefirst??? what do you consider tustworthy?
9 February 2006
at 10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

Hey colt45
If you want to be a cowboy you should not need to conceal it. Sure they had concealed guns in the old west. The main piece was right on there side. You want to be a big man you should not need to hide it unless you have no balls.
9 February 2006
at 10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/fa…
9 February 2006
at 11:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

and another in US
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html
9 February 2006
at 11:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Liberty (Anonymous) says…

Did anyone notice that you have to be a “US Citizen” to have a permit for conceal carry? Ever wonder why only a US Citizen needs a permit??? Ever wonder why if you have a right to carry/bear a firearm under the Constitution, why you would need a permit? You really should find out the answer to these questions before you say you want their permit or permission to do something you already have a right to do if you knew more about the matrix; the legal system that has been created to enslave you to England. Courtesy of BAR (British Accreditation Regency) lawyers.
9 February 2006
at 11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

Since when do our constitutional rights have anything to do with anything? I mean, why do they bother to teach it in school anymore if it's always over ruled? Do they still teach it??
9 February 2006
at 11:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

off subject:

name five really good movies in the last two years.
9 February 2006
at 11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

Thanks OMB, haven't thought much of the movies they've been bringing home lately. I'll check them out.

9 February 2006
at 11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

Chicago…He Had It Coming and All That Jazz.
9 February 2006
at 11:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Colt45 (Anonymous) says…

“Bozo has an important point: if there's such a need for concealed guns why are “non-concealed” guns so rare?”

Because open carry makes you the first target for someone up to no good. Might as well paint a bulls-eye on your forehead.
9 February 2006
at 11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

Sad…all that money in the movie business and 3 good ones?
Not that I could come up with that many.
Thanks!
9 February 2006
at 11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Murderball
Grizzly Man

and those are non-fiction.

I had high hopes for Lord of War but that was just predictable entertaining nonsense.

Capote was interesting and good. Don't know about really good.

I'm sorry. I can't get to 5 really good movies. Any advice?
9 February 2006
at 11:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

no :(
9 February 2006
at 11:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

sometimes so called playground taunting is necessary to get at the objective heart of an issue. I am not above calling personal character into to question that is behind an irrational veiw. Funny thing about truth it is never popular. You can expect more where that came from. I have given up on rational debate. Know one listens, the only way I see left is to search for the personal reasons certain veiws are held. For instance, I believe fred phelps is gay and hates himself.
9 February 2006
at 11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

You aren't the first to have that thought Over!
9 February 2006
at 11:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Colt45 (Anonymous) says…

overplayedhistory,
It's not a matter of who has the biggest balls, it's a matter of who goes home. I've been in the unfortunate circumstance of having to defend myself and another person with a gun. It's a life changing experience. I truly believe that had I not had a gun, neither of us would have gone home that night. It was absolutely terrifying, but I'd do it again if I had to. Every person has a right to defend themselves and those that can't.

9 February 2006
at 11:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lilchick (Anonymous) says…

well said Colt45!!!!!
9 February 2006
at 12:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Colt45 (Anonymous) says…

Thank you, lilchick. When this mess is cleared up are you going to be doing any classes? I'd be interested if your classes meet state standards.
9 February 2006
at 12:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Applied_Logic (Anonymous) says…

Have a good day all! Personally, I'm hoping for a stupid question tomorrow. One that brings out the great sense of humor in some of my favorite posters. Deep serious debates and gloomy weather are just :P. Not that I don't love a good debate!
9 February 2006
at 12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Applied - Be careful what you ask for…
9 February 2006
at 12:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Colt45 (Anonymous) says…

BTW, Doug Coffman is a great smithy. He gets a big thumbs up from me.
9 February 2006
at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

colt45
Is gun the only weapon that would have alowed you to go home that night?
The statistics are abundantly clear. Your chances of getting shot more than double when you own a gun. No matter what other statistics are out there. Like crime going down when when citizens carry cocealed weapons. Your situation I understand, however, it is not the norm. I would be surprised if that incident was in Lawrence.
The man who grew up with A 22 had it right, your chances of using a concealed firearm to defend yourself are not good. Criminals are not affraid of citizens with concealed firearms that is one of many doctored statistics.
Instead of making it legal to carry concealed gun. There should be more control of the illegal black market where they are purchased. To much money, I imaging, for there to be any headway there. I have worked on the farm, and most of the old crustys I know only own riffels. It just seems like the focus should be disarming criminals rather than arming citizens.
I have fired a gun on more than one occasion. I know there is a seductive quality to it, I don't trust myself. I certainly don't trust a pervasively miseducated society with them. Simply put we are just to dumb to be trusted with them. 21 is too damn young, try an age like 31 maybe. Just think Some young punk killed someone because he thought he was defending a womans honor.
Concealed weapons are just another step toward an even more fear driven society than we already have. The more we buy fear the less safe we are. Voting for those who wrap themselves in the flag, while futhering the amount of people who slip under the poverty level, does not help either.
9 February 2006
at 12:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lilchick (Anonymous) says…

My classes are actually shooting sports safety classes for the 4-H program.
***And a quick disclaimer:my views and thoughts expressed here and elsewhere on this website are my own and not to be mistaken with that of the State or Local 4-H Shooting Sports program.***
We teach youth general safety lessons, how to handle, load and fire a firearm safely. If they want to, the kids can compete at a regional, state, and national level if they are dedicated enough. So, I do not think it would qualify as state level course for concealed carry.
Look into IDPA for additional training beyond that of the state requirements though. They have a great program!
9 February 2006
at 12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lilchick (Anonymous) says…

Also, when I took my training it was equivilant with that of the NRA shooting instructor. I'm not sure if that is true today or not, but it was when I went through.

9 February 2006
at 1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

Sorry bob makeing a ball swinging statment, that you are not going to give money to a business that posts a no cocealed weapon sign. It is ripe for trash talking. Who made appropriate public discourse cop? Would you rather have duel rather than trash talking. How about we have a breakdance contest.
9 February 2006
at 1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Colt45 (Anonymous) says…

overplayedhistory, yes, I absolutely believe that without the gun, one or both of us would not be here today. As to my chances in a bad situation, I'd rather go down trying than roll over for someone bent on doing harm. Like I said before, it not who's got the biggest balls, it's about going home.
9 February 2006
at 1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

This bob didn't say anything about not patronizing biz's….

Although, if someone wants to take me on in breakdancing, i say Electric Boogaloo.
9 February 2006
at 1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

Man you guys are really hung up on the balls thing. Let me restate if you carry a gun I want to know about it. That way if I am haveing a public dispute with a woman, like the man who was killed. I would be less likely to tell you to get out of my face and this does not concern you. Then I would be able to go home alive. does it really take a concealed gun to go home alive every night? Based on the language you use I have serious questions on how you found yourself in such a circumstance and where(Topeka).
9 February 2006
at 1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lilchick (Anonymous) says…

Sadly, i am not a bob, and cannot dance. Oh, I tried to electric slide and do the cheer routines in HS, but to no avail. I would be at a loss if someone challenged me to a dance off of any sort!
9 February 2006
at 1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

No bob I am not getting you confused. I am telling you that trash talking the statment that 45 made was not out of context.
9 February 2006
at 1:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Dammit OMB, If I could go back in time I would have called myself the The Original Pete. I don't even know when I'm getting chastized anymore.
9 February 2006
at 1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

Bob if you were a cop you would not be in favor of that. Like the cop in the article said you walk up on a situation where guns are out you don't know who has the permit and who does not. I never left the issue you just got hung up on balls.

9 February 2006
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lilchick (Anonymous) says…

Actually, I am friends with several cops from this area and other areas/states. They have all told me that it's not the law abided permit carriers that they worry about. Granted, this is not a fact with all police officers, just a poll amoung those I know and have met through the years.
9 February 2006
at 1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lilchick (Anonymous) says…

bob however has data to back up his statement! yeah bob!
9 February 2006
at 2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unite2revolt (Anonymous) says…

Just my two cents…

1 The reason no one carries open weapons in Lawrence is because of the city ordinances. Much like the smoking ban, guns have been pretty much banned in Lawrence as well. You cannot carry them near a bar or restaruant, a school or a bank, and goverment property is pretty much off limits. In a town where you can't spit with out hitting a drinking establishment, there are very few places a citizen can take a firearm legally. The range at the community building is the only place I know of in the City where it is even legal to target practice. But you can't wear one on the way there.

2. In terms of statistics involving violent crimes, its important to remember that these are reported as quantitative data to the FBI. If you convert the data into a per capita rate in order to compare different locales, you will find that last year Shawnee County, home of our fair capital, and govenor, had a higher per capita murder rate than Dade County, Florida home of Miami. Even though Miami had more murders, people in Topeka were more likely to be murdered.
9 February 2006
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says…

please CNSNews.com from 2001 released on friday 5 years later 60 % +or -10% maybe. that is hardly Data and 60 % is not 100%. Police chiefs, if I am not mistaken, don't make routine stops. Find me a statistic from cops on foot and patrols. If you are only allowed to have and not conceal hand guns then you can be asked for your permit without being shaked down. Talk to some highway patrols. Why is it they like to see your hand when approaching your vehicle. I don't think you have read anything that I have written other than my playground trash talking. The whole reason trash talking is necessary is because you don't respond to any valid arguments . Nothing makes sense other than your love of the victim that blows off the head of thier assailant in hollywood film. Yeah Bob ! Just like scripture statistics are easily manipulated. Your stats are not very good to begin with. Next thing I expect is a statistic from Fox News that will really tell me something. Come on guys slay the big evil liberal dragon that wants us to be shot down by criminals. He is not playing very nice doing all that trash talking about peoples balls.
9 February 2006
at 3 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

I have got a legit question for once…

When (not if) Kansas ok's this, will cities able to trump state law and ban concealed weapons?
9 February 2006
at 3:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wheremyshoes (Anonymous) says…

The new law would stipulate that people with a history of mental illness would not be given permits to carry guns. If you were a recovering rape victim with a “history of mental illness”, because of treatment you received for severe trauma resulting from the crime, would you be denied a permit to protect yourself from other rapists? Also, who makes the final decision to grant the permit? A court? The Sherrif? How about the NSA? How about the NRA? Only dues paying members need apply.
9 February 2006
at 3:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

I wonder how many of the no-ccw folks have even read through the proposed law? Or how many have been through or audited a training course to acquire a ccw license. If you had, you'd very quickly find yourself with a healthy respect for how much DEEP trouble you could get yourself into. Even the alleged 'half-brainers' that anti-gun types like to fantasize about blasting away at alleged criminals would 'get it' - and the instructors of those courses (who must sign off on anyone trying to get a license) are more than willing to deny anyone that appears to be a few bricks shy a load.

The sheer enormity of the list of felonies that a ccw licensee is capable of, just through forgetfulness, is astonishing. Most ccw holders I've met, listened to, or read are not looking to be heroes; and would more than likely to use the “Nike defense tactic” and take off in the other direction.

As far as this silly newspaper article's quote regarding how the officers responding would know who was a ccw licensee and who was a bad guy - it's covered in the proposed ccw legislation.

Frankly, this is something of a no-brainer for any politician - vote for it and get the conservative/right-wing vote, rake in big bucks for the first year or so, and most of the concealed carry weapons end up back in the safe in a year or less since they're a pain in the hindquarters to haul around all the time, constantly wondering “am I good to go here or do I need to secure it?”

Face it - once again, all the proposed laws and other inanities are being proposed for law abiding citizens, not the criminals that are already packing heat and don't give a rats patootie.
9 February 2006
at 3:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wheremyshoes (Anonymous) says…

The_Original_Bob

When (not if) Kansas ok's this, will cities able to trump state law and ban concealed weapons?

When some drunk ends up shooting empty beer bottles in his neighbor's East Lawrence front yard. Or do you avoid that part of town?

9 February 2006
at 3:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

We'll be back with one_more_bob when more information surfaces. Now back to more unsubstantiated rumors about missing white girls.
9 February 2006
at 3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wheremyshoes (Anonymous) says…

Lets hope TOB and OMB don't run into each other on the street. We could have the OKC all over again. I'm a cowboy, on a steel horse I ride…..
9 February 2006
at 3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Shoes - Um, not catching your drift, my friend. The quote you used from me and your response don't go make sense when read together.

Are you implying people in East Lawrence are drunks and if a concealed weapon ordinance passes they won't be able to resist shooting beer bottles in their front yard?
9 February 2006
at 3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wheremyshoes (Anonymous) says…

No TOB. You missed the point. Wyatt Erp (we are in Kansas you know) knew back then why it wasn't even a question. Guns are designed to do one thing and that one thing is irreversable. You can buy a machine gun in the Middle East and look what happens there with impunity. You missed my reference. Go drink a beer and chill.
9 February 2006
at 3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

No clue what you are talking. I'm lost. Sorry. I am chilled though.
9 February 2006
at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wonderhorse (Anonymous) says…

Yes, Earp enforced a “no-carry line” in his jurisdictions. He knew that cowboys coming into town after months on the trail were coming in to get drunk and have fun. Back then, having fun meant shooting things. He intentionally wanted to stop that part (shooting things) from happening. He realized that some of the things that might get shot were his constituents (or himself). What this has to do with the law being considered, I really don't know. Are there a lot of trail drives coming in to Lawrence?
9 February 2006
at 3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wheremyshoes (Anonymous) says…

TOB. Missing white girls? Sorry, I'm lost. That just doesn't make any sense. But, OK as long as you're chill.
9 February 2006
at 3:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wheremyshoes (Anonymous) says…

No OMB, wheremyshoes not wherearemyshoes. Say my name.

wonderhorse—I would pay to see a heard of cattle driven through Lawrence.

9 February 2006
at 4:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

spikey_mcmarbles (Anonymous) says…

Missouri does not allow possession of Class 3 weapons, including machine guns. Nebraska does, but not KS or MO.
9 February 2006
at 4:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

“wherearemyshoes, if you are a resident of Missouri and can pass the background checks you can legally buy a machine gun. People do it on a regular basis.”

In Kansas too, and many other states - you need to pay big bucks for a Federal License, pass multiple background checks, pay transfer fees (sometimes in the thousands) for each machine gun purchased, accept Federal agent 'audits' that can happen at any time…. Yep, them machine gun owners are real criminal element yessiree.

Rich guys toys that they haul off maybe once a year to some special event where they can blow through couple thousand bucks worth of ammo just to say they did it.
9 February 2006
at 4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

wheremyshoes (Anonymous) says…

Baxter Springs? OK. So where is the history of violence in Baxter Springs? Cowboys weren't the problem so much. Lawless men and loose women were the problem. And Wyatt Erp was the solution (him and Chuck Norris). I know, let's ask Chuck what he thinks.

www.chucknorrisfacts.com
9 February 2006
at 4:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

spikey_mcmarbles (Anonymous) says…

There's only eleven states that allow possession of machine guns, but Kansas and Missouri are NOT among them.

I'm trying to find the list, as I can only think of four: Nevada, Arizona, Massachusetts, Nebraska

A Federal Class 3 license is $200, and then you pay state taxes to register it. They're not that expensive to own, as $2000 will buy you a M16.
9 February 2006
at 4:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

unite2revolt (Anonymous) says…

Just so everyone is clear the transporting of firearms in a vehicle is not the same as the carrying/possession of a firearm. As near as I know there are no state laws that over rule the Lawrence city ordinances in that regard.

Additionally our local officers should be commended for their efforts to keep guns off Mass St. and downtown. I know there have been several confiscations of weapons that were being transported incorrectly vehicles downtown.
9 February 2006
at 5:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“last year Shawnee County, home of our fair capital, and govenor, had a higher per capita murder rate than Dade County, Florida home of Miami”

I can't speak to 2005, but federal crime statistics show for 2004 that the City of Miami had 69 homicides (murder and non-negligent manslaughter) out of a population of 385,186. The City of Topeka had 8 homicides out of a population of 122,545. The Miami metro area had a rate per 100,000 of 6.8. Topeka's rate was 4.0.

One would expect a 70% greater likelihood of being murdered in Miami (all things equal) than in Topeka.

This suggests one of the problems in comparing crime statistics: areas with a great deal of crime adjust to various factors in ways that differ from areas with little crime. For example: a death penalty for any felony committed with a firearm, probably would have a great effect in a violent area such as Washington DC, but would have almost no effect in some out of the way place like Smith Center, Kansas. Why? Because the only murders likely to be committed in Smith Center are probably murders of passion where the killer doesn't care about the punishment whereas in Washington DC murder is more likely to be an optional approach (although they have crimes of passion too).
9 February 2006
at 8:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

Concealed carry laws won't have much measurable effect until they create a change in the culture about carrying and using weapons. I think most people still don't want to do it for the very reasons outlined here as to why people don't openly carry firearms. (They don't want to be seen as violent wackos, to put it succinctly.)

Will there be a concealed weapons “arms race” similar to MAD (mutually assured destruction) of the nuclear arms race which was primarily a standoff, or will the proliferation of small weapons and the willingness to use them lead to a scene similar to what we now see in Baghdad?
9 February 2006
at 8:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

That might be a good indication, or it might just be that the cultural shift just hasn't happened yet.

If it does happen, I hope that the “solution” isn't just more and bigger weapons and isolationism as a reaction.

9 February 2006
at 9:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lynn731 (Anonymous) says…

Kansas, still 50 years behind the times, is one of only 4 states that does not have some form of concealed carry for law abiding citizens. Crime statistics have shown that concealed carry does reduce crime rates. As far as the eight hour course, a person must qualify with their weapon in order to carry it, I understand. If this is the case the eight hour safety course should be sufficient. If they don't qualify, they don't pass the course and have to take extra training until they do qualify. A large percentage of the course is to learn when, and when not, they can legally use a firearm. This is most important! I am in favor of concealed carry for law abiding citizens. Most people who get a permit to carry concealed are already familiar with firearms and their use. Thank you, Lynn