Archive for Monday, July 9, 2007

Gun regression

July 9, 2007


To the editor:

Thank you for making the gun issue a front page item in your July 1 paper. It's an important controversy that even our latest presidential candidates are putting on the back burner.

I applaud the courage of average people like Marilyn Roy who are speaking out against America's deadly gun culture. I wonder how many Columbines and Virginia Techs we will have to endure before we finally realize that the only rational cure for our epidemic of gun violence is serious legislation.

We have 30,000 firearm-related deaths in the United States every year, the highest per capita ratio on the planet. Recent gun control laws have been working in other industrialized nations such as the U.K. and Australia. Why not America?

Here in Kansas we have two U.S. senators who believe private citizens should have access to military-type assault weapons. Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, used high-capacity ammunition magazines that would have been outlawed by the 1994 assault weapon ban that has expired. And now a proliferation of concealed firearms in our home state?

I think our gun enthusiasts who promote general paranoia and distrust of local law enforcement would prefer that Kansas revert back to the 19th century. But, do we really want to return to the wild west days of Dodge City and other towns when every man was for himself, and the fastest gun prevailed?

Neil Brown,



KS 10 years ago

Ragingbear - You can't outlaw stupidity or half of this town would be locked up. Well, this is Lawrence, maybe a little more than half.

Ragingbear 10 years ago

Guns don't kill people. Stupidity kills people. Outlaw that.

jonas 10 years ago

Well, this is Kansas, maybe a little less than the statewide average.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

Unfortunately an awful lot of stupid people own guns.

rural 10 years ago

Mr. Browns argument falls flat on its face when we actually take the time to research data. According to an Interpol 2001 crime statistics study, the United States averages 4,161 reported incidents of crime per 100,000 people. The frequency of reported crime in the U.K., in the same year was 9,927. Over twice the crime rate of the United States! Another study done by the U.S. Dept. of Justice concurs. While the rate of crime in the United States is steadily declining, (as more and more people carry concealed firearms for their personal defense, and the defense of their families and property) the crime rate in the U.K. and Australia is steadily increasing due the severe restriction of firearms in the hands of the general public. Crime flourishes in nations that have disarmed its citizenry! This is fact, not emotional rant.

craigers 10 years ago

Right on rural. Ban high capacity mags, that's fine. Cho would have just reloaded more.

Larry 10 years ago

Has anyone seen a statistic on how many crimes have been committed by people who have registered to carry a concealed weapon? I haven't but imagined that very few of those who can legally carry are committing any crimes. However, I am also curious to see if (at some point in time), someone who is registered to carry a concealed weapon evidentually takes out one of these idiots going into schools, malls and other public places and instigating their own personal shoot out. How many lives might be saved?

guardBack 10 years ago

It's also pretty important to know that when the Nazis took power in the 1930s, one of the first things they did was confiscate all privately owned guns and pass draconian anti-gun laws. Outlawing guns is not the answer. How many gang-members own guns illegally? Lots. How many of the murders in this country are committed by law-abiding gun owners? Not that many. The scariest statistic is that a person who keeps a gun in their home is over twice as likely to shoot a family member mistaken for a burglar than an actual intruder.

Guns DO kill people, that is why we have them. To say anything otherwise is ridiculous. The firearm was invented specifically to kill things. Muskets were first used in the national armies of the 15th and 16th century, even before they were ever used for hunting. The pistol is named for the Italian city where it was invented by warring families in the 1500s similar to our own Hatfield vs. McCoy feud of the 1800s.

I would hope that no one wants to return to a situation were people kill each other on a regular basis over property line disputes or accusations of infidelity or theft. The truth is, that taking away guns would not likely have a significant impact on crime rates, urban, suburban, or rural. We need to regulate gun-ownership, require licensed owners to receive training, yearly (or even monthly) safety classes and pass regular shooting tests to limit accidental shootings as much as we can.

It is impossible to end crime altogether, no matter what anyone says. To put an end to violent crime, this country needs to end its paranoid delusions of a world out to get them. We also need to finally admit that violence has never solved a problem. It may destroy an enemy, but that is really not the same thing. Violence should never be thought of as a just course; it is rather a tragedy, but one that may, from time to time, be deemed necessary to stop "greater evils". No man deserves to be killed by another man: "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord" but sometimes people think they have no choice. Maybe they're right, I just don't know for sure.

nettieb 10 years ago

There will always be crazy people ready to take a mass of people out. Gun control won't stop it.

jonas 10 years ago

You know, sometimes you have to wonder how many times it's necessary to go over the same damn arguments, time after time. Maybe it's 42. Maybe that's what Douglas Adams meant.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

Also... an awful lot of paranoid people own guns.

kansas778 10 years ago

The "wild west" was actually very peaceful. Everyone had a gun, crime was quite low because criminals knew that......everyone had a gun.

Moderateguy 10 years ago

By all means, let's pass more laws. The ones we have obviously aren't doing enough. Criminals by definition don't obey laws.

Here is a philosophical question for those of you opposed to gun ownership. Many would say that as a civilized society we must parole and release convicted violent criminals back on to our streets and give them the "benefit of the doubt." It would be inhuman to just lock them away for the rest of their lives. Statistics on recidivism are shocking. Why then, can we not give the same "benefit of the doubt" to people who have proven that they are the "good guys" and allow them the means to protect themselves from the criminals obviously roaming our streets? I admit there is a statistical chance that a CCH permit holder may break the law. It would most surely be a minute fraction of a chance compared to the repeat offender and should also be a "cost of living in a civilized society."

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

Moderateguy Had to chuckle about "people who have proven that they are the "good guys"". Is that what's required in order to get a carry and conceal permit?

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

And... it is also only a minute fraction of a chance that anyone with a CCH permit will ever have the chance or need to use their gun for protection.

ImpactWinter 10 years ago

I think that people need to take a step back and consider the national temperament before trying to whip up an anti-liberal furor because "...Outlawing gun ownership, which is the ultimate goal of liberals..." --Right_Thinker, or " Liberals want to take away guns and then only three groups will have them: The Military, The Police and Criminals..." --Antisecularman

I don't think that this is a national priority for anybody, even we crazy-ass pinko-commie leftists.

Don't start dropping label bombs and raging at the sky because some guy writes a letter; there are always going to be individuals who feel like modern firearms present complications.

You're never, ever going to silence that vocal minority, no matter how loud or long you yell; but recognize that there really isn't a concerted effort, or any real national drive to restrict your gun laws. In fact, now more than ever the focus has been on effective enforcement of existing laws, something the NRA has endorsed vocally.

I think that lawmakers of all stripes have a lot bigger fish to fry for the forseeable future, guns rights are safer now than they've been for decades; so simmer down now!

Bubbles 10 years ago

Switzerland is mostly white. So that is not a good comparison to this country that has alot of people that do not come from a background that includes responsible gun training.

Alot of the people in this country only know a gun from the barrel end, not the grip.

jonas 10 years ago

Impactwinter: If they can't blame the liberals, they have to admit that conservatives are flawed as well, and that blanket political ideology doesn't say anything about a person's ability to reason, think, engage in helpful dialog, or live a productive life. Such thinking presents them with too much cognitive dissonance to function correctly, so they return to blaming liberals for everything. It's a viscous cycle. The trick is to keep them confined to internet forums, and out of the government.

/note, liberal and conservative in above post is totally interchangeable. Switching it around does not effect the point.

Moderateguy 10 years ago

stuck, here is a decent attempt at defining a "good guy."

(1) Is a resident of the county where application for licensure is made and has been a resident of the state for six months or more immediately preceding the filing of the application, residency to be determined in accordance with K.S.A. 77-201, and amendments thereto; (2) is 21 years or more of age; (3) does not suffer from a physical infirmity which prevents the safe handling of a weapon; (4) has never been convicted or placed on diversion, in this or any other jurisdiction, for an act that constitutes a felony under the laws of this state or adjudicated, in this or any other jurisdiction, of committing as a juvenile an act that would be a felony under the laws of this state if committed by an adult; (5) has not been, during the five years immediately preceding the date the application is submitted: (A) Convicted or placed on diversion, in this or any other jurisdiction, for an act that constitutes a misdemeanor under the provisions of the uniform controlled substances act or adjudicated, in this or any other jurisdiction, of committing as a juvenile an act that would be a misdemeanor under such act if committed by an adult; (B) convicted or placed on diversion, in this or any other jurisdiction, two or more times for an act that constitutes a violation of K.S.A. 8-1567, and amendments thereto; (C) convicted or placed on diversion, in this or any other jurisdiction, for an act that constitutes a domestic violence misdemeanor under any municipal ordinance or article 34 or 35 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated or adjudicated, in this or any other jurisdiction, of committing as a juvenile an act that would be a domestic violence misdemeanor under article 34 or 35 of chapter 21 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated if committed by an adult; or (D) convicted or placed on diversion, in this or any other jurisdiction, for an act that constitutes a violation of K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 75-7c12, and amendments thereto, or a violation of subsection (a)(4) of K.S.A. 21-4201, and amendments thereto, or adjudicated, in this or any other jurisdiction, of committing as a juvenile an act that would be a violation of K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 75-7c12, and amendments thereto, or a violation of subsection (a)(4) of K.S.A. 21- 4201, and amendments thereto, if committed by an adult; (6) has not been charged with a crime which would render the applicant, if convicted, ineligible for a license or, if so charged, final disposition of the charge has occurred and no other charges are pending which would cause the applicant to be ineligible for a license;

Moderateguy 10 years ago

Continued. (7) has not been ordered by a court to receive treatment for mental illness pursuant to K.S.A. 59-2966, and amendments thereto, or for an alcohol or substance abuse problem pursuant to K.S.A. 59-29b66, and amendments thereto, or, if a court has ordered such treatment, has not been issued a certificate of restoration pursuant to K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 75-7c26, and amendments thereto, not less than five years before the date of the application; (8) desires a legal means to carry a concealed weapon for lawful self-defense; (9) except as provided by subsection (g) of K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 75-7c05, and amendments thereto, presents evidence satisfactory to the attorney general that the applicant has satisfactorily completed a weapons safety and training course approved by the attorney general pursuant to subsection (b); (10) has not been adjudged a disabled person under the act for obtaining a guardian or conservator, or both, or under a similar law of another state or the District of Columbia, unless the applicant was ordered restored to capacity three or more years before the date on which the application is submitted; (11) has not been dishonorably discharged from military service; (12) is a citizen of the United States; (13) is not subject to a restraining order issued under the protection from abuse act, under the protection from stalking act or pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1607, 38-1542, 38-1543 or 38-1563, and amendments thereto, or any equivalent order entered in another state or jurisdiction which is entitled to full faith and credit in Kansas; and (14) is not in contempt of court in a child support proceeding.

oldvet 10 years ago

and don't forget, Moderateguy, that we have also been subjected to a fingerprint and background investigation as part of the CCL application, as well as receiving approval for the CCL by the sherriff of Douglas County.

For all of those shopkeepers who have posted those "CCL not welcome here" signs, you know our backgrounds... what about the rest of your customers...

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

Moderateguy You just made me chuckle again... but even harder. Do you really think filling out an application with so many questions can determine who the "good guys" are?

kneejerkreaction 10 years ago

Neil, The 1994 "ban" you claim would have helped curb firearm violence would have done and did nothing to stop the sale of high capacity magazines and "assault" weapons. Gun regulations don't stop gun violence. More regulation will not stop gun violence. Enforcing the proper regulations will help, like including mental health status in a person's background, will help more than the use of more gun laws.

During the 1994 'ban', so-called "assault" weapons were sold, as long as they had the correct configuration of USA made there was not even a ban. (plus, assault weapons have selective firing capabilities and can go fully automatic and these have been illegal for the average citizen to own for a long time, so calling the weapons "assault" is wrong.)The other part of the stupid 1994 ban was on large capacity magazines made after 1994. Manufacturers, aware the ban was going to be in place, manufactured plenty of "preban" magazines that were readily sold during the "ban" 'cause they were manufactured before the ban was put into place. All the so-called banned items were readily sold during the ban period from 1994 - 2004. Pork barrel politics. Your example of the 1994 ban is a good example of excessive firearm regulation not working.

mick 10 years ago

I had four friends murdered in a six month period, none of them by guns. Our culture has become very violent. The main reason for this is political correctness which teaches people that they are victims, either by birth or by society. These victims are therefore not responsible for who they are or what they do and hatred wells up inside of them until it finds expression. PC purports to teach love but its fruits are violence and death.

mom_of_three 10 years ago

I don't care if you carry a gun. I know I won't. But I do read a lot of posts from those who do, and a few will write how someone like me will thank them for carrying a gun if we are ever held up in a convenience store.
To be perfectly honest, thoughts like that scare the heck out of me. Yes, a gun is for protection, but I don't necessarily feel safe knowing that someone thinks they can handle such a situation (they have never been in before) with a positive outcome.

thanks for listening.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

mom_of_three You make an excellent point...

"I don't necessarily feel safe knowing that someone thinks they can handle such a situation (they have never been in before) with a positive outcome."

A lot of guys have seen a lot of movies and have a lot of fantasies...

JSpizias 10 years ago

ImpactWinter states: "I think that people need to take a step back and consider the national temperament before trying to whip up an anti-liberal furor because" and then quotes Right_Thinker and Antisecularman

":Outlawing gun ownership, which is the ultimate goal of liberals:" -Right_Thinker, or " Liberals want to take away guns and then only three groups will have them: The Military, The Police and Criminals:" -Antisecularman

ImpactWinter then says:

"I don't think that this is a national priority for anybody, even we crazy-ass pinko-commie leftists."

ImpactWinter, I suggest a visit to the site which confirms the existence of just such an agenda.

"Opponents of gun restrictions often argue that even seemingly modest restrictions are the first step towards total bans on all guns or all handguns.

          Some proponents of gun restrictions mock this:  No-one is talking about gun bans, they say -- the slippery slope concern is groundless.  In the words of Martin Dyckman, associate editor of the St. Petersburg Times (Dec. 12, 1993, at 3D), "no one is seriously proposing to ban or confiscate all guns.  You hear that only from the gun lobby itself, which whistles up this bogeyman whenever some reasonable regulation is proposed."

          Who is right here?  Is it true that no-one is seriously proposing broad gun bans?  Is it true that the slippery slope concern is just a bogeyman?  Here are a few relevant quotes on this point.  (All of them have been verified by me, Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law, UCLA Law School, with help from our excellent law library.)
  1. Quotes from gun control proponents praising the slippery slope, and urging mild restrictions as steps toward a total ban.

  2. Citations to laws that in fact ban all guns or all handguns

  3. Quotes from politicians urging gun bans.

  4. Quotes from leading media figures and institutions urging gun bans.

  5. Quotes from advocacy groups urging gun bans.

These are of course only a subset of all the material that's available. "

Hoots 10 years ago

The guns laws in the UK and Australia haven't worked as well as one poster here would have you believe. Gun violence is on the rise in the UK and Australia and has been for years. Criminals will always find a way to get a weapon to give themselves the upper hand. I find it amazing that people think outlawing guns will make them just go POOF and disappear. We outlawed drugs years ago and they haven't have they?

kneejerkreaction 10 years ago

stuckinthemiddle (Anonymous) says: Moderateguy You just made me chuckle again: but even harder. Do you really think filling out an application with so many questions can determine who the "good guys" are?

Every year, thousands of people are refused the right to buy a firearm. If by "good guys" you mean "non felons and those convicted of domestic violence", then the answer to your question is, yes, the current firearms form is very effective in determining the good guys.

kneejerkreaction 10 years ago

And, as has been pointed out, those saying that the absence of firearms in countries with categorical bans has reduced violence is just plain wrong.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

"We outlawed drugs years ago and they haven't disappeared:now have they?"

Nope... we've got more drugs available now than ever before... and we have wasted billions of dollars and thousands of people have killed each other because of the stupid drug laws and the "war on drugs".

There would be a lot less need for guns and a lot less people shooting each other if we got rid of the stupid drug laws.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

kneejerk For me, being a non-felon makes someone a non-felon and nothing else. I'm not too sure what makes someone a "good guy".

I know felons that I'd trust a lot more with a gun than some people I know who have never had as much as a speeding ticket.

nettieb 10 years ago

I shouldn't have a gun. I'd use it.

But see, I have the good graces to admit that about myself.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

nettieb ~grin~ If everyone had such good graces no one would need a gun.

leadrain 10 years ago

Outlaw guns, you say? Then only the outlaws would have 'em. I'd rather die as a victim of a robbery with a gun in my hand than a Rosary. Thou shalt not kill? NO!!! Thou shalt not kill without cause, I say. What ever happened to the days of the Wild West, where even schoolmarms wore derringers beneath their hosery?

gogoplata 10 years ago

I'll keep my guns. I am not willing to transfer responsibility for the safety of my family from myself to the police.

oldvet 10 years ago


I'm not sure that Mr. Yee would agree with you... but then, he had a criminal pointing a gun at him!

From Topeka's of January 22, 2007

Concealed carry permit holder shoots suspect

An Oklahoma concealed-carry permit holder thwarted a robbery at a Topeka convenience store Friday night, police said.

Police said 57-year-old Michael Mah shot a 17-year-old suspect who was trying to rob the Phillips 66 at 29th and Randolph, after telling him to drop his weapon. The owner of the store, Dean Yee, told police two men ran inside, when one of them pointed a gun at him and demanded money. Concealed weapons advocates said Mah did the right thing.

"The bad guys : better be careful who they pick on," said Troy Powell, a retired cop who recently moved here from Texas.

Powell said the shooting is exactly what concealed-carry is intended for.

"The guy was right there on scene and had firsthand knowledge that it was happening," said Powell. "I think he reacted appropriately and probably he could've saved that guy's life and his own."

Police said Mah shot the man just once.

"I don't think any of these people that carry-concealed are wanting to do someone in, they're just wanting to stop the guy, to keep him from hurting : someone else," Powell said.

Mah had a concealed carry permit from Oklahoma, one of 22 states from which permit holders can also carry a weapon in Kansas, police said.

Powell said the shooting reaffirms the decision legislators made last year to override the governor's veto and pass the law.

"This incident, it supports that they're right," he said. "Concealed carry is a privilege that citizens should have."

Police said the man who shot the suspect likely won't be charged with a crime, since he had a valid permit. But, the final decision will be left up to the district attorney.

kneejerkreaction 10 years ago, some of your best friends are felons? Good for you, but they can't buy guns. It's safe to say that all things being equal, a system that keeps firearms out of the hands of people who have shown a disregard for the law is probably a good idea. As a matter of curiosity, these felonious friends of yours, are they murders, bad check writers, armed robbers you know, the violent types, or just bad check writers, forgers and white collar criminals, stealing pension funds from companies? Pedophiles or sexual deviants? Do they eat at your supper table often?

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

kneejerk There are all kinds of felons and yes, some of them are indeed good friends of mine and they have eaten at my table. And you're right, the law says that they can't own guns and none of them do, that I know of... but that doesn't mean that some of them wouldn't be far more trustworthy with guns than most of the general population.

You and the moderate guy can keep your quaint little definitions of "good guys" if that makes you feel all comfy inside about who the State says can run around with guns hidden in their pants.

I'm all for letting people carry guns. I just think that everyone should carry them out in the open so sane people can know what kind of crazy people are surrounding them.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

Why would anyone live in a place or put themselves in a situation where they believed that in order to be safe they need to have a gun hidden in their pants?

nettieb 10 years ago

Can't we all just get along?

Why is it bad that psychopaths, felons and wife beaters aren't allowed to have them?????

Because they aren't violent felons?? Well, shoulda thought o' that before, eh?

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

The spookiest part about the conceal and carry thing is that the people who are going to get permits and carry guns around are going to be the people who think they need them.

nettieb And I didn't mean to imply that felons should necessarily be allowed to have guns... just that some of them would be a lot more responsible than a lot of non-felons.

nettieb 10 years ago

Oh, I agree with that SITM-

I think the bottom line is: anyone who is an idiot should not be allowed to have a gun. Unfortunately, with the exception of about three gun-owners I know, all the other gun owners I know ARE idiots.

Kelly Powell 10 years ago

You should all be thankful we have easily obtainable guns......If we didn't we would have sh!t being blown up all the time.....Thank god car and club bombings have never caught on as a cool and hip thing...... as a personal opinion, i truly believe if they re-established dueling laws we would live in a more polite society.....not to mention the awesome pit fight matches at the bars on weekends.

Kelly Powell 10 years ago

wife beaters? News for you honey, domstic abuse is not just for guys.....In fact the % is about the same for lesbian couples......But I will admit, "wife beater" would be the appropriate title for that situation. So you know people who have guns and are idiots.....That speaks more about the company you keep then about the average gun owner.....lucky for us the "when I shine my piece it gets real stiff" morons usually only off themselves.

kneejerkreaction 10 years ago


Your point about your felonious friends being salt-o-the-earth and more responsible than non-felons is nothing short of a pathetic attempt at making an argument. And for the record, it's not my definition of "good" guys, it's the legal system's definition which for all its faults is the best we have. Maybe your buds toe the line 'cause they know they'll end up back in the pokie if they break parole?

And since you're so scared of people carrying concealed, the latest number of CCH in Douglas County is 255, yes, Douglas County, not Lawrence. That's practically nothing - .002 or 2/1,000ths of the total population carrying concealed around you and your jailbird friends as you sit down for your nightly repast. That means you'd be hardpressed to even scare up a CCH in Douglas County.

mom_of_three 10 years ago

thanks for the example - I have heard it before.
But that doesn't mean that everyone who carries a gun is able to handle themselves in the same situation, even though THEY think they could. And it is a scary thought that several posters seem to think they could.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

kneejerk I'm not the one who's scared. If I was scared I'd get a permit and stick a gun in my pants. The reason few people in Doulgas County want to carry guns is because the vast majoirty of folks around here aren't paranoid.

kneejerkreaction 10 years ago

Wrong again stuckin, the vast majority of people in Douglas County won't get a permit 'cause they're just like the vast majority of every other county in the other 47 or so states that allow concealed carry, they don't care or don't feel comfortable with a firearm. All the hoopla about the dangers of CC is just bunk. There aren't enough of them to make a difference.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

kneejerk Nope... people don't carry guns around here because they know that there isn't any reason to... and if there is a lot of hoopla about the dangers of CC I'm some how missing it.

And I'm glad that there aren't very many paranoid people in Douglas County. Thank you for that information.

Flap Doodle 10 years ago

& scenebooster cranks up the stereotyping machine!

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

snap_pop_no_crackle Stereotypes are sometimes based on solid long-term observation.

kneejerkreaction 10 years ago

Stuck, you're just not hitting on any cylinders today are you? No hoopla on CCW? Have you read a paper in the past week? Like the Front Page of the LJW? And, my dear Stuck, safety is relative, there is never a need for a weapon, until you need it, then you really, really need it. Paranoia has nothing to do with anything regarding CCH, except maybe in your mind.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

kneejerk A front page article constitutes a hoopla? Oh well... I believe you are far more hyped up about this than I am... and you're right... I'm not hitting on any cylinders on this and I'm certainly not in overdrive. You'll have to go on from here without me.

kneejerkreaction 10 years ago

Sceneboost., How did you come to the conclusion that people at gunshows are retrobates, do you give out personality examinaitons and background checks at these gunshows you frequent? Are you psychic? Maybe those you criticise were thinking the same of you.

stuckinthemiddle 10 years ago

Wearing a crash helmet when you drive to the grocery store would reduce your chances of injury thousands of times more than having a gun stuck in your pants... but luckily not many folks are paranoid enough to be wearing crash helmets to the grocery store.

kneejerkreaction 10 years ago

Stuck, an old tired argument. Better yet, we could all just stay at home and never leave the house...but those meteorites......

gogoplata 10 years ago

Certain CCH holders are not nearly as scary as those who want to kidnap, rape, and kill. Like it or not lethal force is sometimes neccesary for self defense. Most likely the police will not be there to save you. If the bad guy has a gun and you don't, he will probably win. If you have a gun, at least your odds of survival are improved.

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 10 years ago

Oh no, not another liberal writing in about these horrible guns. Pay close attention now. An assault weapon is a fully automatic firearm. People are not allowed to own one in Kansas, except for law enforcement agencies. Just because a semi-automatic firearm looks like as assault weapon does not make it one. As for the concealed weapon permits, between all of the restrictions written into the law, and all of the no gun signs everywhere, the permit is basically good for carrying a firearm in your home or car. Now, doesn't that make you feel better? See, things aren't nearly as bad as you thought! Thank you, Lynn

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 10 years ago

Oops an assault weapon, not as. Sorry, Lynn

Rationalanimal 10 years ago

How many people die from drunk driving every year? Yet there is no call to make cars or alcohol illegal. Both could be done without, especially alcohol. Start with the high-capacity killers and then we'll talk about guns.

jonas 10 years ago

Not to damper your enthusiasm, but you do of course notice that the guy did not use lethal force in protecting his life and or property, right? By definition, then, there's no particular hypocrisy or contradiction in his actions.

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 10 years ago

Do what I say, not what I do. Outstanding! Also Marion, I read the link completely. I wish that people would understand that an AR-15, though almost identical in looks to an M-16, is NOT an assault weapon. Liberals don't want to be confused with the truth, it would destroy their reason for living. Which I interpret as blaming evil behavior on inanimate objects. Passing more legislation, when the legislation in place is not being enforced. Making innocent law abiding citizens pay for the evil acts of criminals, which by definition do not obey the law. One would think they will never get it, until a story like Mr. Miles comes along and shows them for what they are. Thank you, Lynn

Commenting has been disabled for this item.