Letters to the Editor

Gun concern

March 5, 2007

Advertisement

To the editor:

In the aftermath of the concealed carry weapon law passing, it's great to see we're all standing. Kansans seem content to continue using words to settle disputes rather than draw and fire. It's unsure whether Kansas is now a safer place, although one TV news station did a blurb on a concealed carrier in Topeka who was able to foil an armed robber.

Strange we never heard more of that. Proponents of the law said Kansas would be a safer place and opponents disagreed. The initial effect of concealed carry seems to be neutral for the most part.

There is a preponderance of signs cropping up in businesses and in parking lots that forbid the carry of concealed weapons. This makes it illegal to carry a legally possessed firearm into a posted business but, unfortunately, the signs do little to deter carriers of illegally possessed firearms. I'd like to propose a new sign for local businesses that would refocus their fears in the right direction - point being that it is generally criminals with illegal firearms that are cause for concern, not law-abiding residents who happen to have a concealed carry permit.

The new sign should add a few words and read "No Firearms Allowed, Legal or Illegal." Legal carriers will, of course, comply, but when individuals carrying illegal firearms see this new all-inclusive sign, they will realize they too are not welcome and will leave their firearms outside (won't they?).

Doug Wahl,

Lawrence

Comments

mom_of_three 8 years, 6 months ago

And when we need that militia to protect ourselves from the British King, it's nice to know you will be ready.

oh wait, already happened.......

mom_of_three 8 years, 6 months ago

it's not going to increase crime, it's not going to decrease crime, so why we do we have it?
Because we can.
gotta love it.

mom_of_three 8 years, 6 months ago

"...and I have exercised my constitutionally protected rights." Funny, one of the same reasons the South gave for slavery

imastinker 8 years, 6 months ago

I can't tell if the guy was serouis here. Asking people to leave illegal firearms at the door so they realize they aren't welcome? That sounds like a joke - but when put with the rest of the letter - I just don't know.......

I say we do an experiment at Last Call.

Flap Doodle 8 years, 6 months ago

Hey, whatever happened to all the Uzi's & AK's that were gonna flood the streets when the "Assault Weapons Ban" expired?

50YearResident 8 years, 6 months ago

If I owned a Fast Food or Quick Shop type of business that was subject to robberies I would "NOT" post a sign on the front door that advertised "This Location is Unarmed"

Flap Doodle 8 years, 6 months ago

Please cite one news story of an Uzi being used in a crime in KC since the Ban expired.

Flap Doodle 8 years, 6 months ago

scenebooster, didn't the LJW have pictures on its site of the Ruger rifle that was seized in downtown Lawrence not long ago? Police departments still do the show & tell routine.

Flap Doodle 8 years, 6 months ago

If you make an assertion, you are expected to support it. I can claim that John Kerry flagelates frogs with tiny whips made from anteater hide. Can you prove he doesn't?

jonas 8 years, 6 months ago

"Legal carriers will, of course, comply"

Haha. Sure they will.

Flap Doodle 8 years, 6 months ago

A search of thekansascitychannel dot com for "uzi" turned up one hit:

"...OF: J.D. Drew (STL): Man, writing this column is like shooting fish in a barrel. Dead fish. With an Uzi. Obviously, Drew will be a superstar soon..."

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/sports/561782/detail.html

Crispian Paul 8 years, 6 months ago

"The new sign should add a few words and read "No Firearms Allowed, Legal or Illegal." Legal carriers will, of course, comply, but when individuals carrying illegal firearms see this new all-inclusive sign, they will realize they too are not welcome and will leave their firearms outside (won't they?)."

I work for a business that has these signs. We are a social service agency who works with some clients who are very angry, court mandated and sometimes have a propensity for violence. That is why we do this. The sign is actually a legally mandated sign that you must post, as is, under specific guidelines of the size, background and coloring of the sign. That is why there are not any words added to the majority of these.

For further info, check out this site by the AG's office regarding thje requirements for these signs.

http://www.ksag.org/Concealed_Weapon/Concealed_Carry_Update.htm

Crispian Paul 8 years, 6 months ago

Posted by right_thinker (anonymous) on March 5, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, you are taught to shoot to kill, not wound or negotiate, when you pull that gun out of the holster, it is to render your target DEAD.

Probably why I am an "anti-gunner".....

Staci Dark Simpson 8 years, 6 months ago

right thinker-the reason you have to shoot to kill is if you don't kill them they will sue your pants off. I don't conceal carry but I don't feel there is anything wrong if you are doing it legally. But woe to the perp who tries to enter my house without our permission.

Crispian Paul 8 years, 6 months ago

NO, TOB, actually, the concealed carry law mandates that if you do not want concealed weapons in your business, you must post this particular sign....

Mary Alexander 8 years, 6 months ago

I myself have gotten a permit to carry. I worked very hard to make sure I learned all the rules and I will follow them. As for Lawrence. I have lived here all my life. It's a great place to be. I feel I did the right thing to get my permit. I do not feel any less safe in anyway by carring my gun. But like anywhere, thing do sometime happen. I will be ready and legal. Sorry Folks that the way I feel. But that is what being a American is all about the right to choose, don't you think. Don't judge me and I wouldn't judge you. As for the signs in the windows I follow it. I would never take a gun into a place that it not allowed. PERIOD!

Crispian Paul 8 years, 6 months ago

Well, now, RT, I would posit that you are the one who is out of touch with reality in general. For example, when there was a recent political discussion, you turned it into an issue of "conservative women are prettier". Out of touch with the millenium? Definitely.

Your insult makes no sense. I said I am an anti-gunner because of your assertion that when shooting, shoot to kill. That being said, then your statement then implies I am "out of touch with reality in general" because people "shoot to kill"....So, while that was a really cute idea for a way to insult me, your statement does not make sense in light of the comment it was referencing.

At any rate, I am all for gun control because of several issues: 1) I am a pacifist and do not believe that violence in general solves anything. 2) I have lost a family member due to being shot by a LEGAL, REGISTERED gun. Often, guns in the home are used in domestic disputes between partners. 3) I think "shooting to kill" is a scary thought. Even bad guys have families who love them. 4) I also don't agree with the death penalty. We live in one of the only industrialized Western countries where we show people how wrong killing is by killing them.

So that being said, are you the one that is out of touch with reality?

Finally, you keep referring to me as a progressive, liberal, etc. like I should be offended. I just want to make it clear that this is not an insult to me, so you may have to look for another "name" to call me.

Jamesaust 8 years, 6 months ago

"Both are sweet pieces that are compact and dandy weapons in close quarters."

Good luck. There's a 350 lb. guy named "Tiny" at the state pen who's waiting to get you in close quarters too!

Flap Doodle 8 years, 6 months ago

"This is not reality." The notion that a state will dissolve into a series of OK Corral gunfights as soon as citizens can legally carry firearms isn't reality either.

Lifelong_Lawrencian 8 years, 6 months ago

Okay, let's say you and your significant other are out late cutting through some dark alley and you meet some guy pointing a gun at you. He asks for all your money or he is going to shoot you. Your significant other knows you have a .38 concealed. Does he/she feel safer at this point or not?

Lifelong_Lawrencian 8 years, 6 months ago

Scenario 2

Let's say you happen upon another couple in a dark alley who are being threatened at gun point. When you pull your weapon, do they feel safer or not?

Crispian Paul 8 years, 6 months ago

Well, statistically, when one has a weapon and is attacked, that weapon is more likely to be used against one's self than against your attacker. That's at least the statement provided by virtually any self-defense class you might take.

Lifelong_Lawrencian 8 years, 6 months ago

So I guess it comes in handy when the assailant has a club or a short knife. Who still uses those these days when you can get a gun so easy?

I am just curious. Why do you want to carry a concealed weapon?

Lifelong_Lawrencian 8 years, 6 months ago

I took the hunter's safety class run by the NRA when I was a kid and it was fantastic. I used to hunt a lot and had several handguns that I target practiced with often enough that I loaded all my own ammo. Guns are a huge part of my family, but when I had kids, I gave them up. I still go duck or goose hunting on occasion, but now I take a camera. I just think that guns should be controlled at bit better. Why do we really need AR-15's and other semi-auto assault rifles that are too easily converted to full? There has to be some limit to the 2nd ammendment. I don't buy the all or nothing arguments of the NRA.

Question 8 years, 6 months ago

To all who dont like the fact that it is legal to carry with a license. You dont have to. It is our right to do so. If we have it your way we would run out of trees to hug. Hope you are never in a situation that may make you wish you are carrying. Have a nice day

werekoala 8 years, 6 months ago

This is silly - guns aren't the problem. Idiots with guns are the problem. And as much of a hippy as I sometimes am, I like the idea that a majority of our population is armed, and will resist any attempt to disarm them.

That being said, the idea that common-sense security measures to limit the availability of guns to idiots will lead to all guns being confiscated is just ridiculous. We require a license to operate a car, and most other forms of potentially dangerous machinery. I don't have a problem with the same requirement for guns.

If it gets to the point that they are trying to use a gun registry for confiscation of firearms, buddy, then you've already missed the revolution.

I think a lot of this tired rhetoric is just extremists on both sides who get off on yelling at eachother. Same thing with abortion.

Question 8 years, 6 months ago

logicsound; my intentions are not to protect you or anyone else, i am also not pretending to be a law enforcement supplement nor do i own an UZI. My intention is simply to finaly not brake the law when i decide to carry a gun. And belive me when i tell you that you are wrong by saying that you cant think of a situation. Those situation happen, not often but the happen. I agree you should and have the right to try to change the law that currently enables me to carry a gun;legaly! For now, please dont confuse me and many others with gunwielding rednecks that cant wait to shoot at someone, for i confused you with a tree huger but not a sissy. Have a nice day

prioress 8 years, 6 months ago

"Wonder what the anti-gunners will say the first time someone is shot by an illegal carrier in a business displaying the sign---maybe when a crack shot with a permit could have dropped the person."

Few people are "crack shots," even in the military. I know everyone watches movies and TV, but, if you pull a gun and aren't ready to put a round into the other person's chest in 1/10 of a second, you are are at risk. Carry if you wish, where it's allowed, but don't create a false sense of security.

jonas 8 years, 6 months ago

"Posted by werekoala (anonymous) on March 5, 2007 at 8:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think a lot of this tired rhetoric is just extremists on both sides who get off on yelling at eachother. Same thing with ."

There, I fixed that for you. Rest of the post was nice, by the way.

StephenCCH 8 years, 6 months ago

Crispian: "Well, statistically, when one has a weapon and is attacked, that weapon is more likely to be used against one's self than against your attacker. That's at least the statement provided by virtually any self-defense class you might take."

I've been taking self defense (armed and unarmed defense) classes for years, that has never come up. My research has shown that armed victims are far more likely to survive an attack than unarmed victims. Personally, I'd rather have my sidearm taken from, and possibly used against me in a self defense situation (if my weapon is presented, that means I was attempting to use deadly force to prevent criminal use of deadly force) than to try and cope with a DEADLY attack unarmed. In some situations a defensive firearm will be worthless, but there are a great many where it will be vital. Go to www.gunfacts.info for more information.

StephenCCH 8 years, 6 months ago

werekoala: "We require a license to operate a car, and most other forms of potentially dangerous machinery. I don't have a problem with the same requirement for guns."

We license people to drive cars on public roads. No license is required to own a car, to drive on private property (like farm land), to be in a car with keys in the driver's seat parked on a public road, and should a person need to drive to escape a life threatening situation, that would justify driving without a license.

I don't have a problem with the same requirements for guns.

StephenCCH 8 years, 6 months ago

Lifelong_Lawrencian: Semi-automatic weapons cannot easily be converted into fully automatic weapons (whether an AR-15 style or other). The BATFE is very effective in ensuring this. Fully automatic weapons and parts to convert weapons to fully automatic are heavily regulated by the Nation Firearms Act of 1934.

logrithmic: "I agree with your basic premise. But a car is for transportation; a gun is for killing (or threatening to kill). Therefore, there should be an IQ test administered to people who seek to acquire a license to conceal and carry."

Cars are also used as status symbols, and for killing (yes, people can kill with just about any object). Firearms are also used for recreational target shooting, sport, decoration, and education (such as history). Automobiles are very complicated devices; firearms are comparatively simple. A test is part of the concealed carry training. All licensed persons answered all test questions correctly. We also demonstrated proficiency and accuracy with a firearm. These all seem to be reasonable requirements that would prevent the "idiots" from carrying.

Devon Kissinger 8 years, 6 months ago

Statements made for or against (insert topic of the day) are protected by the 1st amendment. The 2nd amendment guarantees the 1st. Look at what happened at Tiananmen Square, I'm sure that if the Chinese people weren't disarmed by their government the situation would have had a very different outcome. Imagine if you will, a government like China's, allowing their people to protest a war they don't believe in. Won't happen. The people of China have no ability to rise up in resistance to the oppression their government causes. I only hope that people will look across the ponds and realize that if we as a people allow ourselves to be disarmed, our future will be as bleak as theirs. The British are facing a "gun crime crisis" even though they have banned guns. The Aussies are having the same problems.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.