Advertisement

Archive for Friday, April 18, 2008

Regents vote to ban weapons on campus

Criminal background checks also called for

April 18, 2008

Advertisement

Regents to create new safety policy

The Kansas Board of Regents is looking to enhance safety and security at all state universities. Enlarge video

Audio Clips
Board of Regents member Gary Sherrer on campus safety

— State higher education officials Thursday voted to prohibit weapons on the campuses of regents universities and require criminal background checks of new hires.

The action by the Kansas Board of Regents comes after the one-year anniversary of the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech that left 32 dead.

The regents also approved hiring a consultant soon to recommend improvements to the security plans at Kansas University and the five other regents universities.

"We want our kids in an environment that is safe when they are on the campus," said regent Gary Sherrer.

A report to the regents indicated the schools had various policies about what was allowed and not allowed concerning firearms.

"What's bothering me is that we don't have an overall policy," said regent Jarold Boettcher.

For example, KU prohibits firearms on campus, but Fort Hays State University allows hunting rifles in vehicles if the guns are properly secured.

The state law that allows qualified Kansans to carry a concealed handgun also has produced problems for universities. The schools are exempt from the law, meaning they prohibit concealed carry on the campuses, but there is a wide range of how that prohibition is carried out.

Some schools post prohibited gun signs in parking lots, while others don't. And some schools indicated they couldn't prohibit concealed guns on city streets that went through the campus.

The board voted without dissent to ask the staff to come back with ways to implement a policy of no weapons on the campuses.

Several board members also said they were bothered by the fact that the universities had a wide range of policies on conducting criminal background checks when hiring new employees.

Sherrer questioned several university presidents why they didn't conduct the checks. Several said the background reviews were too costly and time consuming.

But Barbara Atkinson, head of the KU Medical Center, said the school does a background check on every new hire and medical student. The cost is usually $50 per check and takes about 72 hours, she said.

On the KU Lawrence campus, criminal background checks are conducted for some positions, but not all.

The regents then voted for a policy that will require the schools to conduct criminal records checks on all new hires.

After the discussion, KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway agreed with the general direction of the regents.

"Good points are being made. We need to do everything possible to make our campuses safe and secure," Hemenway said.

The regents seemed divided between those who wanted to wait for recommendations from a security consultant review, and those who wanted to adopt broad policy guidelines that could be fine-tuned later. The state is accepting proposals for the consultant review through the end of the month.

Also, some regents questioned the need to focus energy on prohibiting licensed gun holders when recent incidents of campus violence have been caused by mentally disturbed assailants.

Sherrer said banning guns won't make campuses totally safe.

"There is no way to keep people from doing horrible things," he said.

But, Sherrer said that he and the other regents members felt that their actions would help make the campuses safer.

Comments

TopJayhawk 6 years, 8 months ago

If I owned a business, I would post a sign something to the effect of: All Concealed carry permit holders and their guns are welcome here. To all criminals- It is up to you to figure out who they are.

TopJayhawk 6 years, 8 months ago

I think I got disappearded. My comment did not show up.

bondmen 6 years, 8 months ago

Regents' campuses are now officially criminal free zones - criminals intent on killing unarmed students are free to act at will. But the Regents feel much better that they voted to keep guns off campus so if they feel better that makes getting shot by a crazed kid on psychotropic drugs just fine! After the next campus mass murder the Regents can tell the parents of the dead and injured how good they feel about their no guns policy.

igby 6 years, 8 months ago

This law would have not done anything to stop the VT, killings. So why create a population or group of sure targets for future plots.

Jim Phillips 6 years, 8 months ago

Because the answer to everything we fear is to pass another law that means absolutely nothing.

labmonkey 6 years, 8 months ago

And again, we only keep guns out of the hands of the good people.

penguin 6 years, 8 months ago

I just wonder how this really affects the campuses. I have seen no weapons signs up at most of the regents universities since concealed carry became law. Also I wonder how this also effect the weapons cache on the FHSU campus. Dorm students are/were allowed to bring their weapons to school and store them in a locked closet at the dorms. However, this might have changed in the last year...so the issue could be resolved already. However, I heard of this storage option a few years back and thought it odd...but maybe other campuses have similar storage options.

penguin 6 years, 8 months ago

The FHSU policy is also a little more tricky than just having them in your cars. They must be in the car and locked...preferably out of sight too. So you just can't have them on a gun rack on the back of your pickup. I also wonder how this new rule effects the shooting sports team at FHSU or any other regents universities.

WHY 6 years, 8 months ago

labmonkey (Anonymous) says: And again, we only keep guns out of the hands of the good people.I think it is wrong to think of it as good and bad people. If I have a gun on me (note I am a good person) but suddenly my wife leaves me, I get kicked out of my program, and some a hole makes me mad, I am much more likely to use violence. There is no need for a gun in kansas, there is seldom any crime at all in kansas. The people who want to carry guns are small people who are afraid of their own shadow. If I am wrong just send me the story of a CC holder stopping crime in Lawrence.

Chuck Wehner 6 years, 8 months ago

How ridiculous can you get.I can just see a student saying to himself "Oh, gee does this mean I can't take my Glock to philosophy class today"

whatupdown 6 years, 8 months ago

Why not require a number of good pre screened people to carry guns, one sharp person in VT could have ended it.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 8 months ago

Make everybody go to class nekkid so it'll be easy to check for prohibited items.

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 8 months ago

The only campus I've heard of that allows concealed carry is the University of Utah and that was a ruling by the Utah Supreme Court. As time goes on, it will be interesting to discover where the next university killings will take place. My money is that it won't be UU.But, I agree with the posts that say it's more about regents' liability than anything to do with safety. Wake up regents, banning firearms on campuses is NOT working. Try something else if you're really interested in keeping students safe.

sfjayhawk 6 years, 8 months ago

This forum has bunch of bitter people, clinging to their guns.

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 8 months ago

You can't say that allowing concealed carry on Universities is the answer. You can say that it wouldn't be a problem. There are enough stats on violence among CC holders in states that have allowed CC for many years to prove that CC does not contribute to the problem of handgun violence.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 8 months ago

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

oldvet 6 years, 8 months ago

Yep, those darned bitter people who believe that all of the amendments to the Constitution are valid... including the 2nd one.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

I have always carried a concealed firearm on campus and will continue to do so. There is not a law or sticker that will prevent me from doing so. If some whack job comes into the classroom where I am and starts shooting people execution style like in VT and NIU, you can bet your fuc'n ass that the shooter will have my 8 rounds of .40 cal JHP's in his chest before he gets to me. There is no law that is going to take away my right to self defense. I would rather face the charges for "illegal posession of a firearm" than be dead. You think the cops or campus police should handle security? I have about as much faith in their abilities to protect our well being as I do in an Afghani Women's rights movement. An incident involving one bad guy with a gun can last minutes. By the time the cops arrive, 32 people are dead. An incident involving a bad guy with a gun and a good guy with a gun will last seconds. And statistics have shown that good guy armed civilians have a better shooting record than cops when it comes to accidental injuries/deaths during a shootout. ...(continued)...

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

...(continued)...So think about this: I am in your class with my concealed weapon and a bad guy comes in and starts killing people one by one. YOU are next in line, and I am next after you. As he points the gun at your head, I pull mine out and shoot him. How do you feel about my gun now? How do you feel about the police response time now? All you anti-gun nuts need to come to terms with reality and stop living in a fantasy world where everyone is nice. Most likely you nor I will never be involved in an incident. The last thing I would want to live with is knowing that I killed a human being. But I'd rather live with that than be dead...and better him than me. You've never been in a car accident. Does that mean that you should stop buying insurance? In today's world, there is no such thing as 'safety'. If some whack job is coming into the school to commit a mass killing, do you really thing a fuc'ng sign is going to stop him? "Oh darn, this school is posted with 'no firearms' signs. I guess I can't do my killing spree after all." LOL wake up! Less than 1% of the KS population has a CCH license. Out of those 12,000 individuals, only 569 are between the ages of 21 and 30. Of those 569, less than 25% attend a Kansas college. That brings us down to 142 people. Divide that between all the colleges in kansas and you may have 3-5 people on each campus with a CCH license. I wonder how many people on campus carry a knife in their pocket?The regents have absolutely no legitimate argument to make regarding CCH on campus. The so called 'facts' that they provide are heresy and they have no data to back up their argument. Vermont for example, allows concealed carry by any individual over the age of 18 without a license. They are in the top 3 states in the country with the lowest crime rate. Chew on that. Utah colleges allow students to carry concealed firearms with a state issued license. Can you give me one instance of ANY accidental discharge or incident involving CCH on Utah's campuses? No. The only valid argument the anti-gun crowd has is their ignorance on the subject. Thats fine. It is normal to be afraid of something when you dont understand it or are not familiar with it. But dont try to pass gun safety policies when you have no idea what you are talking about. Id rather take medical advice from a garbage man. And now for 2 of my favorite quotes:A society with guns are civilians.A society without guns are subjects.When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

Confrontation 6 years, 8 months ago

If I were still in college, I'd have to seriously consider breaking this law. I imagine many students will continue to take guns to class. If there was a shooter on campus, and you were able to defend yourself and others, would you really care about the gun charge? No, I'm not encouraging everyone to break the law. I'd prefer those with good aim and some training be the ones.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

Speed only trusts the government to bear arms, of course only if people like him run the government that is...

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

MOST...I'm not saying all....but MOST responsible CCH license holders go thru extensive tactical and defensive shooting training in order to prepare them for an incident that MAY (most likely not) present itself. CCH license holders are not wanna be cops, nor have any other kind of 'power' issue that we are trying to exercise by carrying a gun. We have all been informed by experienced individuals of what kind of response our mind and body goes through after shooting another human being. Killing another person is not in our nature and can be EXTREMELY traumatizing. But we have the constitutional right to life, but we dont carry a gun just to exercise that right. We carry because we take life seriously and value it more than some...I guess a lot after reading some of the comments here. We realize we live in a f'd up world and it is OUR duty, not the cops', to protect ourselves. I have 2 friends who are cops that tell me the same thing. Sure, many hypothetical situations can arise where another CCH holder or a police officer wont know who the bad guy is. But most incidents will be over before the cops even get the call. And cops are now trained to take into account that there may be 'good guys' (cch holders) involved, and to not react until the clear and obvious threat is identified. CCH holders aren't the bad guys. We are the good guys who just want to have the choice and/or chance to level the playing field when confronted with a life or death situation. Remember all this when a CCH holder saves your life...or your family's.

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 8 months ago

"Remember all this when a CCH holder saves your life:or your family's."*I agree with your argument for CC, with the exception of this. CC is for my personal protection and no one else's. If I am not threatened, I'm not pulling.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

Wrong screed, every human has a natural right to use reasonable force to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Every human has a natural right to use deadly force to defend themselves from certain threats including deadly violence or rape. The government derives its authority from the social compact whether the citizens agree to give up some of their rights in exchange for the benefits of government. In other words, the government's rights are derived from the people's natural rights. Put down that Marx crap and try reading some Locke. I find it particularly amusing that you accuse others of being facists but then praise the government as sole possessor of the right to use force.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

If you ask 9 out of 10 cops, they will tell you that they have never had to pull their gun. So tell me, logicsound, where are all the cops with the extensive training in these situations? Do they train with live targets that shoot back? And yes, lots of unknown circumstances can arise. That's why a lot of go thru additional/extensive training to prepare us for almost anythings. That being said, would you rather have a chance to live or a guarantee to die? Thats what it comes down to. You can have a gun to try and end it preserving the life of yourself and others? Or keep your gun (or no gun) tucked away and guarantee that you all get shot. Kneejerkreaction: CCH holders are given by the State of Kansas "No Duty to Retreat." Also, CCH holders can NOT be charged either civilly or criminally in court for protecting one's self or others from death or great bodily harm as long as the defensive actions are justified.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

I'm still waiting for a good argument as to why guns should not be allowed on campus for CCH license holders. I won't hear one though. I've heard every one and I have 'actual' stats and facts to prove any argument wrong. Ignorance is bliss.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

Screed, I've got news for you: half the class believes your BS, the other half thinks you're a nut but keeps their mouth shut. It must be nice for you to have some kids to intellectually dominate, you sure do flail around helplessly here.

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

Can we use the pro-smoking argument here: The board of regents made the rule. They are in charge of their business -- don't they have the right to determine what is best for their business? If you don't like it, then don't go to college!Also, people die from second-hand bullets. And yes, if I am in a classroom and you shoot me in your attempt to protect me from a real or perceived threat ("I thought that stapler was a gun."), I will sue you for everything you have and everything you ever hope to have. But I wonder if this type of legislation would be passed at all if all gun owners, not just CC owners, were required to take training courses before they could own? If gun owners could demonstrate gun safety knowledge, then I would be strongly opposed to the board's decision. Since the lobbyists of the NRA oppose mandatory training, however, (fewer guns would be sold) we get this type of legislation. Too bad for all involved. However, given that the odds of my being shot remain virtually the same either way, it honestly doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Since we aren't going to eliminate guns completely, I probably have a greater chance of being shot stopping at a convienance store (by a crook or someone trying to stop a crook) than I do walking on a college campus. Now, back to your argument about facists and Hitler and Nazis and such. Also, don't forget to demonize a person's favored political party or gender if you have the chance.

mjustine 6 years, 8 months ago

Yeah, why don't we take away the guns from the good people, allowing the bad people who don't give a flying crap about the rules on campus to shoot at their discretion! Super good idea.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

Allright beatrice, if anyone is attacking you we will leave you alone.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 8 months ago

Why are guns not allowed in the legislative chambers? Why are they not allowed in courtrooms and other state and federal buildings?Because of the gun ban, the Kansas legislature is now a sitting duck for some crazed lunatic with a gun.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

It comes down to this: The policy is only going to stop state licensed individuals from carrying guns on campus. Its not going to stop a criminal. Quote from logicsound: "Sorry, but training for these situations is about more than just shooting back at an attacking target. Police spend a great deal of their time in on-the-job conflict training. Now granted, not all of these situations involve a perp firing a gun, but it is naive to assume that any private citizen will ever have the same level of training or a comparable well of experience in dealing with criminals upon which to draw."Actually you are wrong. I have 2 friends who are police officers in two different cities in Kansas. One city in Wyandotte Co. and one in Johnson Co. The cities that they work in require them to 'qualify' with their firearm once a year. And other than training at the police academy, they are not required to take any further training after that point. They have told me that most of the other officers in their department never shoot except for the once a year qualifying test. That being said, I practice with my firearms three times a week. I practice 208 more times a year than those cops. I have also taken 4 advanced defensive shooting classes, 8 tactical shooting courses, attend regular IDPA shooting events/competitions, participate in 2 action pistol leagues, and taken several low-light tactics classes. 90% of the people that I shoot with on a regular basis also have CCH. So tell me logicsound, where is your logical argument? I would take these people that I shoot with over a cop any day of the week. I've shot with many cops, I'm not terribly impressed. I haven't yet found any that can fire 5 shots from 25 yards in 2.5 seconds and put all of them in a 3-4" circle like most of us. BTW...I'm not bashing cops. They do an excellent job and deserve all of our respect. They put their lives in danger daily and we owe a lot to them. I'm just not impressed by their shooting/tactics.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

Anxiousatheist: I understand what you're saying. I hear that a lot. You say, "two wrongs don't make a right." You are correct in a sense. You are also correct in mocking our perfect aim belief. If I were ever involved in an incident (and I pray to God that I never am), I am sure my hands will be shaking like crazy. As would ANYBODY'S. But that's where training comes in to play. We are trained to NEVER take a shot unless we are confident that we can take the shot accurately, and only after we are fully aware of what is surrounding our target and beyond it. And we are also trained to not show our gun until the last moment. If a perp had a gun to someone's head, I would NEVER pull out my gun. 2 reasons: I might hit the innocent, or I could scare the perp into shooting them. We take EVERYTHING into account. All the classes I have taken were taught be certified law enforcement trainers. Where do you think cops get training? Other cops?

mjustine 6 years, 8 months ago

I don't believe I ever said that I have perfect aim, nor anyone else that has to take a test to get their CC license. However, I would feel much more sympathetic towards someone who was carrying a gun on campus for protection than towards someone with intent to hurt people. No one can stop bad things from happening in this world. These so-called 'preventative' measures that the regents are taking are nothing more than them trying to cover their asses; because I can guarantee they won't stop a criminal. They will, however, stop the people who took the time to abide by the law and get their guns legally - the people that I want on my side when there's a shooter in my school.

gphawk89 6 years, 8 months ago

I've never understood gun bans. So a potential shooter is going to say to himself, "Gosh, I really want to go up on campus and slaughter a bunch of innocent students and then kill myself, but it's illegal take a gun onto campus. Darn..." Just another waste of legislature. Lawbreakers don't abide by laws.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

anxiousatheist (Anonymous) says: I have no issue with target practice and I believe that you are probably a better aim than most people out there, that is almost besides the point. My concern, (and most non-violent types concern,) is what is accomplished by secretly carrying human killing machines around humans? To wield power? To make more people live in fear? Are you prepared to kill yourself when your gun accidentally goes off and kills an innocent, all in the name of a percieved "god given right"? The best bet from my view is to leave the death machines alone.(some sporting themes excluded) There is always going to be a psychotic maniac somewhere, your guns aren't going to stop them, just hope you never have a run-in with them:Another case of ignorance speaking. The only chance of your gun 'accidentally' going off is by carrying a single action revolver or auto in the cocked and locked position and a mechanical breakage occur. I have been around guns for 15 years now and have never had, nor had any acquaintances or friends incur an accidental discharge based on mechanical failure or breakage. If you google 'gun malfunction stats' you will see that after doing the math, you are 10x more likely to be struck by lightning or 100x more likely to die in a plane crash than to own a gun that incurs an accidental discharge based on mechanical failure or breakage.Killing machines? True, a gun is designed to kill or hinder the target...depending on the application and ammunition used. But what is the point of cigarettes? Alcohol? To enjoy them and get pleasure out of using them? Sure. But I get pleasure out of shooting. It is a hobby. My wife felt like you do until I took her shooting with me. And how would I cause someone to live in fear if it were concealed? The liberal media is a huge contributor to this problem. If they didn't glorify these school shootings on TV after every one of them, the shootings probably would have ended with Columbine. But no, the media has to shove it down our throats, giving our kids ideas and the impression that this is how we solve problems. Because of this, I have to carry a gun to protect myself from your lame parenting and supervision. You want gun control? Learn how to parent.Anxiousatheist: Can you say 'OWNED'?

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

vpete, okay, we get it. You and your shooting buddies have mad skills with guns and are far more capable of handling your guns than are most police officers. Got it. Now, what about the people who have little or no training? Do you really want them to be shooting away in a moment of panic? If multiple people are shooting, how are the good guys going to be able to differentiate between the bad guys, especially if they aren't there when everything starts? I think the regents should require the good guys to wear white hats. That would help.I'm sorry, but your observations about the importance of training really do nothing but support the regents' position.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 8 months ago

At least make everybody wear only clear plastic clothing....

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

"The gun is designed to kill the "other"." NO!!!!!!! A bullet does not discriminate. Cigarettes and second hand smoke kill more people in one week than guns do in a year. Ban them.Alcohol kills more people in one day than guns kill people in a year...worldwide. 80% of the time, the drunk driver lives, the innocent die. Ban it.Automobiles kill more people in one day than guns kill people in two years...worldwide. Ban them. More injuries incur from bowling and fishing than from hunting. Ban them.Seriously, if youre want to talk about fairness and not violating someone elses right to safety, then you have to apply that fairness across the board. No. Instead we sue the cigarette companies for not telling us smoking is bad, we create meetings and 12 step programs for alcoholics and blame their addiction on their father that left them as a child (get over it) and give them 5 more chances to drive before going to jail. I have a cousin who has had 6 DUI's and hasn't spent a day in jail! WTF!? He should be in prison for life. But no, he is going thru depression and needs help... BS. Stick him in prison for a week, let him take a few co@#s up the a$$ and watch how fast his depression leaves. Yes, anxious, the media. Where else are people learning it from? How many shootings happened before Columbine compared to how many after? Learn how to parent.One more thing: Since the full blown ban on all firearms in Australia, gun crimes have risen 48%.

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 8 months ago

vpete69 writes...Kneejerkreaction: CCH holders are given by the State of Kansas "No Duty to Retreat." Also, CCH holders can NOT be charged either civilly or criminally in court for protecting one's self or others from death or great bodily harm as long as the defensive actions are justified.*Vpete, are you sure about this?? This is not what I have been told. I have been told that if you justifiably shoot someone and are exonerated criminally, you will most likely be heading to Civil Court.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

And no, I dont think its okay to kill. That's the last thing I would ever want to do. Actually, I would never 'want' to. But if it was me or the bad guy, and there was a need to kill...I would do everything in my power to 'stop' the threat. That doesnt mean kill.

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

I think vpete makes up 73% of his statistics.I'm with snap's clear clothing suggestion, which can also be worn when flying. Makes the whole check-in process that much quicker.The down side, of course, is being behind everyone as they put their shoes back on.

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 8 months ago

Vpete, I looked and looked and can't find any reference exonerating CC holders from civil prosecution.

compmd 6 years, 8 months ago

vpete, you started off really well, but you're starting to scare me. I started shooting when I was about 11. Over the years and through my work I've learned lots of firearms and have been trained by federal law enforcement. The following bothers me:"I would do everything in my power to 'stop' the threat. That doesnt mean kill."You know darn well that is false. If you learned anything from any training, its that there is no such thing as "shoot to wound." If you are going to take a shot, you must assume it very well could kill the target."Also, CCH holders can NOT be charged either civilly or criminally in court for protecting one's self or others from death or great bodily harm as long as the defensive actions are justified."This is not necessarily true. Criminally, you will most likely undergo some investigation, which may show that you did not commit a crime. Civilly, the probability of NOT being brought to trial for your liability in a death is slim to none.

Jim Phillips 6 years, 8 months ago

I agree! Ban guns! We could use the same practices and tactics that have taken illegal drugs off the street. So, how big of a pen do we have to build to shelter all of the sheep out there?

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

I will obey the law when the Attorney General approved sign is in place. Based on my employment, the signs do not apply to me. No, I'm not a cop. The majority of places posted do not use the approved sign and a violation will not hold up in court. I have spoken to an individual with the CC unit in the AG's office and they have confirmed this. However, if the proper signage is not used, then it becomes a violation of the school policy. The worst that can happen is expulsion. "Stick him in prison for a week, let him take a few co@#s up the a$$ and watch how fast his depression leaves."That was sarcasm. Learn to recognize it. Cigarettes and Alcohol do not harm others? Really? What about second hand smoke? What about drunk drivers? You're right. I mean, when was there ever a case of a drunk driver killing an innocent in another car? Gosh, I cant fine one...KneeJerk: Im looking for the statute now....I'll post a link as soon as I find it.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

Yes there will be an investigation. But if the actions are justified, you cannot be sued. Training teaches us to stop the threat. If death results from that, it is very unfortunate.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

This thread is getting out of hand. Yes, I am part of the cause. Just know this: Signs only keep out the good guys. And the signs and school policies only restrict CC INSIDE BUILDINGS. Parking lots, school grounds, or anywhere else that is not inside a building cannot be posted or restricted. This is protected by a state statute. HB2528 to be exact. KneeJerk, I will PM you the link to the info when I find it. Out.

Jim Phillips 6 years, 8 months ago

beobachter-Just how long have you had these psychic abilities? Seems to me that the crime stats found in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports do not support you psychic premonitions. Or do you have facts that prove concealed carry causes an increase in innocent people being killed?

Charles Jones 6 years, 8 months ago

Shhhhh.While the gun kids sit on the edge of their recliners, watching Gunsmoke and making "ack-ack" sounds as they point their index fingers, can we slip away for an adult conversation?Say there is a shooting in a school. The gun-toting defenders wander out into the hallway and run into the responding cops, who gets shot? Two defenders meet in the hallway, who gets shot? In police shootouts -- where the cops have the best possible training, weapons and control -- only 25% of the bullets hit their target. RE: 75% misses, who gets shot? But here's the important part -- and don't tell the gunnies, for it will certainly send them into a rage -- maybe someone actually did have a gun. What are the chances? And maybe, those gun-bearing defenders just hid and trembled like any normal human being would naturally do. Stunned, Horrified. Maybe the same would happen to all these posters with their silly, macho "what if" mentalities.OK. Let's slip back into the living room. Marshall Dillon just wheeled on his buckskin pony and shot the gun out of the bad guy's hand. Hipshot at 100 paces, Good guys are winning, gunnies are out of their recliners, slapping high fives for simple justice.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

regardless of what everyone else wants to do, I personally do not plan to stand in a flippin line, waiting my turn to be executed like so many of those poor kids at V-Tech did. None of those kids faught back. Did nothing, just waited their turn to die. Not me.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

Quantum wrote: ".......The gun-toting defenders wander out into the hallway and run into the responding cops, who gets shot? Two defenders meet in the hallway, who gets shot?....."How about this scenario...I am in a classroom and a homicidal maniac burst in and begins shooting innocent people. I shoot him, and then lay my weapon on the ground at my feet and remain where I am until the cops arrive, and my hands are in the air? Why would I go out into the hallway? If you try hard enough, you can create fault with anything. Quit trying so hard.

mom_of_three 6 years, 8 months ago

There are a lot of assumptions on this thread. NO ONE knows what they would do in the situation where someone would burst into a room with a gun. And it's just as scary to think about someone bursting into a room with a gun as it is thinking about someone sitting behind me who thinks they can take out the bad guy. Let's just hope it never happens and leave it at that.

mom_of_three 6 years, 8 months ago

And by the way, if a CCH carries a gun where they aren't supposed to, I hope someone turns their ass in. You're not above the law.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

I am not above the law. I never said that. I do carry where signs are posted because my occupation allows me to do so. I said that the law or policies won't stop my from carrying because legally, they can't. There is big misconception about gun owners. You believe that we are all 'cowboys' who are all looking for a fight. The reason that this misconception exists is due to the negative media attention that guns receive, and ignorance. True, there are gun accidents. Im not denying that fact. More than necessary. Most of this is due to irresponsible parenting...leaving guns accessible to minors...not educating your children about guns and the dangers that they pose when handled irresponsibly. It is a tragedy to any mother, father, brother or sister to have to bury their loved ones because of a gun accident. But thats what they are. Accidents...most of which could have been prevented. Those irresponsibly people should not be allowed to own guns. But the resolution is not to ban guns. What happened the last time the government banned guns in this country? We overthrew that government. That was a long time in the past and I understand things were different and have changed a lot. The problem with the anti-gun crowds are that they want their constitutional rights to free speech and safety protected, yet want to destroy the parts of the constitution that dont directly apply to them. A mandatory safety course on guns? More deaths result from alcohol and cigarettes. Should the government force us to take alcohol and tobacco classes before we are allowed to smoke or drink? Again, if we are to eliminate all things that pose a risk to our own, and other's safety, we should eliminate alcohol and the other things that endanger us more than guns.

Jim Phillips 6 years, 8 months ago

There are many of you out there who hate guns and think they should be banned. That is your right. You also have the right to lie down and be a victim if you choose. I will never understand that mentality, but i acknowledge it exists. Conversely, there are as many of us who are dedicated to the fact (not belief) that self-defense is an inalienable right and will exercise that right when and if needed. Most of us hope that day never comes because the thought of killing someone is not pleasant..Bottom line is, if that day does come and you want to lie down and die, so be it, just don't expect me to follow your lead. I will never be a compliant victim.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

Shatt said in part : "................But, to call gun owners "backwoods" and "cowboys" and look down on them as a different breed contradicts everything that the liberal anti-gun minds believe in; which is equal rights, civil liberty and the freedom to live life without judgment or infringement."I agree but we need to realize that there are many (and not all are liberals) who are hypocrites, plain and simple. Ted Kennedy thinks no one should own guns. Yet he has some. Other famous folks who speak out against private gun ownership want to ban all guns, except the guns that they, or their bodyguards, personally own. They don't think you are I have a right to defend ourselves agianst murderers, rapists, and muggers. .....Hypocrites....

Jim Phillips 6 years, 8 months ago

i'M CURIOUS TO SEE WHERE GOOD OL' ADOLPH SAID THAT THAT I DOUBT HE DID. IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING HE WOULD SAY.

Charles Jones 6 years, 8 months ago

Marion:You are so fearful that you feel the need to carry a gun to school. And this makes you brave.Anyone who doesn't subscribe to your fraidy-cat logic is a coward.Nice to know there is a mature intelligence behind that firepower.

jonas 6 years, 8 months ago

"A mandatory safety course on guns? More deaths result from alcohol and cigarettes. Should the government force us to take alcohol and tobacco classes before we are allowed to smoke or drink?"They already do. It's called DARE. I, at least, had to take it twice while in school, to prepare me for drinking and smoking and doing other drugs. Of course, since it preached prohibition instead of responsible use, it was pretty useless. Which is why I think a class about responsible gun use isn't that bad of an idea. I can't really see how you can oppose that past a kneejerk reaction against anything that could possible smell like a ban or a restriction.

kneejerkreaction 6 years, 8 months ago

Shatt, thanks for the illumination regarding civil prosecution. I was totally in the dark on that and had been told if you use deadly force to defend yourself, the victim's family will bring a civil lawsuit for sure. That it only takes a lawyer willing to file the suit.Guess not at this point, huh?

Buggie7 6 years, 8 months ago

Ok I read all the way down to where consumer1 said to outlaw penises on campus/That was classic consumer great laugh in the morning. thanks. Good point

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

Guardian: "You also have the right to lie down and be a victim if you choose."Just because I choose to not own a gun does not mean I will "lie down and be a victim." I just choose to protect myself using other means. If you think the only way a person can protect him or herself is with a gun, then you are seriously mistaken. This type of mentality also leads people to become victims because they think the gun is all they need. Take the gun away from them and they don't have a clue as how else they might protect themselves. Unfortunately, as we have discussed this before, not everyone who owns a gun has had proper training. Unskilled shooters in a potentially crowded and panic-charged situation does not guarantee a safer and less violent outcome. I admit, if someone else in a crowd is armed when a madman is firing away, it very well could help. No doubt. But it could also cause more damage and kill more people, especially if there are several people shooting away. What if everyone doesn't know instantly who the bad-guy is? Then you have good guys firing at other good guys. Rulings like the one the regents just made is a tough call. Both sides, when acting like adults, make good arguments. It would make a much easier decision against this type of ruling if gun safety and training were a requirement for all gun owners. Too bad the giant NRA lobby won't support such an idea.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

Quantam wrote: Marion:You are so fearful that you feel the need to carry a gun to school. And this makes you brave.Quantam, I carry a gun everywhere I go. It doesn't make me brave, it makes me PREPARED.

Jim Phillips 6 years, 8 months ago

Sorry. That should read NOT that I doubt he did.

Jim Phillips 6 years, 8 months ago

beatrice,I agree with your point. There are also several people who carry guns and have a macho attitude about it. They carry a gun because they can. It does not mean they will ever have the nerve to use it, maybe even some bloggers on this site. People don't know how they will react until they are placed in a given situation. Survival is a mind set. A handgun, in the hands of someone who is mentally prepared (which also includes properly and tactically trained) to use it, increases the probability of survival, but does not guarantee it. Drawing a gun against a drawn gun is not the smartest thing to do, but if it's all you got..There are many anti-gunners out there who will survive about anything. Kudos to them. My comments were primarily directed to the sheep out there who believe peace, love, and a meaningful dialogue will turn away the predators.

Rationalanimal 6 years, 8 months ago

I defy anyone who supports this to cite an instance where a maniac opened fire on a campus that permitted students to carry concealed weapons. This has Sebellius written all over it.

Rationalanimal 6 years, 8 months ago

"Ban all guns.It's high time we get the guns out of those fascist Rethuglican's hands, and make way for real peace and justice in this country."====================================Why stop with guns, let's just burn the entire United States Constitution in favor of the communist manifesto that assuredly screedposter rabidly worships. Yo dude, if anyone here is facist, it ain't the law abiding gun crowd.

Rationalanimal 6 years, 8 months ago

"Yet another example of why we can't call ourselves a "learned" or "society.""The United States of America is the greatest and most enlightened society in the history of the world. We have advanced more knowledge, technology, freedom and prosperity in every category of intellectual, economic, scientific, philosophy, politics, etc, etc, than any prior civilization, EVER! America was and is the golden age of men and women. The only thing which threatens this golden age are communist facists among or citizenry that hate America because it offers individual freedom, self-advancement, and prosperity to the common man or woman who is willing to work hard and take risks. Those who hate America do so because we are not yet a welfare state that controls every aspect of its citizens lives according to socialist/communist principles that would impose upon our former prosperity energy shortages, food shortages, double digit inflation, horse and cart for transportion, soviet style projects for housing, healthcare shortages, 70-90% tax margins, and the fundamental loss of rights to individualism. The vicious cycle of the current malignant form of American communism, or any other form of centralized control type Marx theories, is that it creates problems through hyper-regulation and than proposes as a solution to the very problems it necessarily creates is even more regulation. It is a perverse cycle that should be shunned for what it is, poor philosophy that oppresses men and women.

Jock Navels 6 years, 8 months ago

an unarmed population is an enslaved population

Jim Phillips 6 years, 8 months ago

And just how long have you been a member of the American Nazi Party screedposter?

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

In a situation where seconds can mean the difference between life & death, isn't it reassuring to know that the cops are only minutes away......

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

If you bedwetting liberal anti-gun types are so entrenched in your rhetoric, fine. Please collectively decide on a sign you can all wear daily to identify yourselves as such. That way if any armed citizens ever find themselves in a situation where they might mistakenly defend you or your family from a violent criminal we can avoid treading on your misguided utopian philosophy. Is your rabid fanaticism so deeply ingrained that you'd rather see yourself or your children killed, maimed, raped, etc simply because you choose to support the premise that only the cultural elite should have the right to defend themselves? If that is the case I'll gladly respect your wishes & do nothing to help you should the need arise. Hopefully such a circumstance won't ever happen. But the problem is the fact that it DOES sometimes happen, and you'll never know when or where until it's too late. ..But in all truth I would probably defend you or your family in such a situation despite your anti firearm sentiments, which would be the right thing to do. Possibly one day you'll be able to appreciate the irony .I'm sure you can sort out the guilt later; at least you (or your child) would still be living. And you'd have one us "evil American gun owners" to thank.

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

Topjay: "If I owned a business, I would post a sign something to the effect of: All Concealed carry permit holders and their guns are welcome here. To all criminals- It is up to you to figure out who they are."Why not just post a sign that says: "Criminals: Immediately shoot everyone inside because they just might attempt to stop you." Your macho blustering is the type of nonsense that ends up getting innocent people shot and untrained gun owners killed. robert: "bedwetting liberal anti-gun types"? So Robert, are you speaking from experience? Did it take owning a gun before you stopped wetting the bed? Seriously, do you really think that the only way to stop a violent crime is with a gun? What happens when you can't get to your gun in time? Is your rabid fanaticism so deeply ingrained that you would allow your children to be killed, maimed, raped, etc.. simply because the only way you know how to protect yourself is by pulling a trigger. Talk about a misguided utopian philosophy. (I'm not really this hateful that I'd want to imagine your children being raped, of course, but I did want to use your words to show just how ugly and ridiculous you sound.)Again, as I stated earlier, if you believe that the only way to protect yourself and your family is with a gun, then you will be a victim some day. And if you own a gun, you should be properly trained to use it (which I think should be mandatory).Guardian: I think you and I came up with the solution. Too bad others won't listen. Maybe we should tackle the abortion issue next. I'll bet we could straighten that one out in no time too.

Hawk6643 6 years, 8 months ago

I suspect that most of the people that have commented on this story do not attend a local university currently, and therefore will never have to experience the possibility of an on campus shooting. However, I applaud vpete69 for saying everything that he has said. I know that most students would rather have a fighting chance with someone carrying a concealed weapon than no chance at all. It is sad that every time I walk in a classroom I plan a way that I would be able to get out in case of a shooting. Banning guns will not change this.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

Fact: Criminals fear armed civilians more than the police. If I was a criminal, the first place I would rob/kill...whatever, would be the posted places.Beatrice, enlighten us on how you are going to stop a criminal from shooting you when he as already demonstrated his intention to kill you by executing the 4 people standing next to you. Please, I would love to hear it. Are you going to throw your pencil at him like a javelin? Strangle him with your mouse cord?If stopping the threat can be done without a gun, I will definitely go down that path first. If I can escape the situation without having to shoot the bad guy, Ill do it. But I wont hesitate to shoot if that is my only option. I wont leave the classroom (or wherever) and let the bad guy kill everyone else in there. No, its not that I'm trying to be a hero. What would you want me to do Beatrice? I can run out the door free and clear, leaving you in there to fend for yourself... or I can try to help you. Even if that means that I have to shoot the guy. What would you pick? I'm sorry, but leaving people in a room to die when I MIGHT have been able to stop it, is something that I couldn't live with for the rest of my life. Anyone that would leave a situation like that without helping is a coward and doesn't deserve my sympathy.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

The bottom line is this....the gun issue is like the abortion issue. Neither side is likely to change their mind and some on either side relishes the chance to chide, riducule or downright harass the other side. I have chosen the side of the issue I wish to stand on. Those of you on the other side won't ever change my mind, and it's not really worth the breath to discuss it further. Y'all have a nice day. Whichever side of the fence you're on.

Rationalanimal 6 years, 8 months ago

"The Fatherland is the greatest and most enlightened society in the history of the world. We have advanced more knowledge, technology, freedom and prosperity in every category of intellectual, economic, scientific, philosophy, politics, etc, etc, than any prior civilization, EVER! Germany was and is the golden age of men and women.-Adolf HitlerWait, maybe I'm misquoting"============================================Screedposter--it is incredible, but not surprising, that you compare the greatness of America to Nazi Germany. Hilter never said anything even remotely close to my earlier post. So, you are a liar and a red propagandist. That is no surprise. The economic philosophies you rabidly whorship are lies as well. The lie you assert is, communism/socialism and enviro-facism offer freedom. The reality is they oppress, destroy and starve men and women and the only way they can be maintained is inevitably through manipulation or brutal force. America is the greatest society in the history of the world. There has never been greater freedom, more relief aid and compassion, and enlightenment than since our founding.If you were truly interested in being historically correct, which you are not because you're a liar, you would recognize that one of the first things the Third Reich did was ban and remove guns from the private citizenry. Further, if you were still interested in being historically correct you would point to the fact that the Third Reich despised the free market and implemented a socalist economy that aligns with the same form of broad centralized government control that you no doubt advocate. Like any propogandist you can't debate in facts so you misquote and blatantly lie to cover for the flaws in the poltical and economic philosophies you advocate. The fact that individuals like yourself who seek to restrict freedom as a means to your political ends are allowed to voice your opinion and have sway in the political process, however idiotic, is the greatest evidence that freedom abounds in the United States of America. Were it not for the rampant ignorance of the current generation as a result of individuals like yourself dominating the public education system, you would be cast aside as either lunatic or liar in admittedly better days.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

Beatrice, answer my question. Its not difficult.You and I are in a classroom...or anywhere with 2 other people. Just the 4 of us. Then a whacko comes in, asks us to give him our wallets (or not), we all comply yet he still shoots and kills the other 2 people. Now its just the bad guy, you and I. I have my hands behind my back and have drawn my gun. He has his back to me and is walking toward you. I have a clear path to the door, my chance to escape. You are not yet in my 'danger-zone' of getting hit by my bullets. I can still take a clear and safe shot. What would you rather me do? Run to the door and escape, leaving you to die. Or take a chance at stopping the threat and saving your life? Or would you rather me run at him to try and tackle him risking him turn around and shoot me in stride, and then shooting you, leaving us both dead.Answer it

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

And dont bring up all the hypothetical situations. This is cut and dry, black and white situation you and I are in. He has already demonstrated that he intends to kill us. Should I take the shot and possibly save your life, or run; therefore guaranteeing your death?

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

Here are some more:http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3168/83/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316322,00.htmlhttp://jacklewis.net/weblog/archives/2005/08/concealed_carry.phphttp://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=705091I googled "concealed carry holder saves lives" and those are a few that I found.Then I googled "concealed carry holder shoots innocent" and found nothing but a bunch of stuff on Barack Osama.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

In one of those, a 72 year old man shot and killed some whacko attempting to kill his ex-wife in Wal-Mart. 72! Did he shoot any bystanders? No. Did he save someones life? Yes. Did he shake, go into a nervous breakdown, hide in the corner? No. Did I mention he is 72?Beobachter, no. I am not bringing up hypotheticals. Since that's all you anti's ever bring up, I had to create the perfect scenario. Its black and white. There are no 'what abouts' in this case. Its like asking if you prefer tacos or sausages. Its not hard. My wife isn't a huge gun person. But she was able to answer. I really cant make the scenario any clearer. Do I run away leaving you to die? Or do I stand my ground and try to save your life. You are not in my line of fire, and are in no risk of being harmed by me. Are you so anti-gun that you would rather die than to recognize that a gun owner saved your life? That is what your answer will show. Answer the question.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

Hah, you still won't answer the question. "Macho Rambo attitudes?" Considering that there are 12000 CCH licensees in Kansas and not a single accident has occurred, and not a single license has been suspended or revoked due to a weapon being falsely drawn, or a weapon becoming unconcealed, or accidentally discharged due to negligence or malfunction...your argument bears zero weight. kthxcomeagain.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

vpete69,personally, I'd let beatrice and all the other boneheads here give the undertaker some business. I'll take care of me and mine. The morons can fend for themselves.

Hawk6643 6 years, 8 months ago

Its_getting_warmer, If a student at KU had the choice of being in a classroom when someone attacked them with a firearm, alone, or with someone carry a concealed weapon, whether it be a teacher, or another student, they would choose the option that gave them a fighting chance at living, and reducing casualties over one that didn't.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

"I feel that very few people have a legitimate reason for concealed carry."=====================================Well, I've never been in a car accident. So I guess I really don't need insurance. Carrying a gun makes someone a macho hero? No. Carrying a gun evens the odds. Ever heard the saying, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"? I sir, have had a gun pointed at my face by a bad guy. Unless you've been in that kind of situation, STFU and dont speak to me about the legitimacy of carrying a gun. For some of us, it is a matter of comfort and a feeling of safety. For those who havent been in this kind of situation, you think this world is a wonderful friendly place. Your feeling of safety is an illusion.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

beatrice, you protests to the concept of armed self defense if obviously based on emotion rather than rational thought. I never have stated or implied that firearms are the only means of defense, you are adding that all on your own. However I challenge you to introduce a more effective or efficient method. Also your implied assumptions that us firearms owner lack training should be curtailed until you can address the issue on an individual basis. I for one have taken numerous levels of firearms safety & operations courses for many years, starting at age 10. Additionally a lifetime of direct firearms experience, including 12 years in the U.S. Army. I'm not in the minority either. You have not presented any valid information to support your emotional ranting. Oh, and the its_getting_lobotomized person seems overly fixated with peoples genitalia; I assume this is the best lawrence has to offer when it comes to the anti gun types?

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

"MichaelJ, to some of here, the morons are the ones insisting that only they and their guns can protect us all. Can't seem to comprehend that the more guns there are, the less safe all of us are."================================================Do you have any statistics to back that up? I have some stats to completely destroy all of your credibility. Would you like to see them?

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

I always find it exceptionally disgusting when one group of 'people' arrogantly deem they know what's best for everyone else with no other basis than emotion and ignorance. And then attempt to force their misguided beliefs on everyone else.....whether it be zeolot bible-thumpers or brain dead, glassy eyed liberal sheep. The only difference is whatever axe they profess to grind, otherwise they equate to the same thing.

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

vpete, your hypothetical questions are so completely out in left field that they don't warrant a serious response. So instead, let me give you a few scenarios to think on. Me, you and someone else in an elevator. As quick as someone can pull out a cell phone, the other person pulls out a gun and points it at your head. He takes your wallet, sees that you also have a gun, takes it, then shoots you in the head. He looks at me. He takes my money. I don't have a gun, and he tells me to leave. The question is, should I just walk away, or should I attempt to drag your quickly cooling body with me? Here is another scenario, this time it is just me and you in the elevator at a mall (we are going to the same floor, but are not together, of course). When you step out of the elevator you see someone shooting into the crowd. You pull out your gun and shoot this "bad guy." Then, from across the way the original and real bad guy turns and shoots you dead before you even realize that you had just killed a fellow "good citizen" who was trying to stop the real bad guy. Would your ghost think that you had helped the situation or escalated the problem? The real question is, can someone with a gun potentially stop a bad guy from doing bad stuff? Of course. Nobody is denying that (or at least I'm not). However, you fail to see (or likely just fail to admit) that there is also a very real potential of greater harm happening in any given situation when you have one or more individuals shooting away in a crowded place trying to stop a bad guy, hence the regents' ruling.If you look at what I have written here you will see that I support the 2nd ammendment, conceal and carry, and your right to own, but I think all gun owners should be required to have gun training. Pretty simple stance to understand. Earlier, you made claims that the training police have is insufficient, especially when compared with you, your friends, and your mad skills. Well, if the police are so poorly trained and ill-equipped at handling their firearms, then what about the average gun owner who has never even taken a single safety course? I'm not saying an armed individual couldn't stop a bad guy from doing bad stuff. However, I feel strongly that the average gun owner could easily make a bad situation much worse. I don't see how you can argue against this. Now, stop with the "If I were Clint Eastwood and you were in distress would you want me to waste the punk" scenarios. They just make you look immature because nobody is buying your "I'm a superhero" routine. Most of us realize that in a tense situation you would likely be the one who wets himself in the moments just before you accidently shoot yourself in the foot.

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

beobachter, simple logic is, less guns available, less people that will be able to defend themselves. What is clear from your post is that you don't trust your fellow citizens to keep firearms. Who then do you trust? The government? I hope you are not ignorant of what happens to people when they trust the government with too much power.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

Beobatcher wrote: MichaelJ, to some of here, the morons are the ones insisting that only they and their guns can protect us all. Can't seem to comprehend that the more guns there are, the less safe all of us are.Actually, I don't insist that me and my guns can protect everyone. Not at all. But when some want to attack or lambast ME for MY decision to carry a gun to protect MY self and MY family-well, they need to just stop doing that. If they don't want or like guns, fine. Don't have any. If they choose not to take steps to defend themselves, that is their choice. But please don't feel a need to come after me.

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

robert, you have many years of gun training. Good for you. Care to demonstrate how that might relate to all others who own guns? Also, you still haven't answered the question: did you stop wetting the bed when you finally purchased your first gun? (In other words, your attempts at insulting liberals are so off base to actually be kind of cute.)

kansas778 6 years, 8 months ago

beatrice: "The real question is, can someone with a gun potentially stop a bad guy from doing bad stuff?"Yes, but you fail to see how. You have this odd idea that there are going to be gunfights left and right. The correct answer is that it serves as a deterrent. In states where concealed carry has been enacted, violent crimes against people have gone down, while crimes against property have gone up. In other words, criminals are deterred from hurting people because they don't want to get hurt themselves, and take the less risky option of stealing when you aren't around. Millions of crimes are prevented each year in the US by firearms, often without ever firing a single shot, as simply showing the weapon is enough to prevent the crime. Criminals are cowards who go after easy targets. Nutjobs who want to shoot up a bunch of people and do themselves in are no different. It isn't that they are afraid to die, but that they want an easy target with a lot of people and little resistence. beatrice, I imagine that were you in a place surrounded by police officers that you would not worry about getting shot. Is that because of the officers' superior training in the event of a gunfight? Or is it because you know that it is the least likely target?

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

Beobatcher wrote: ".....What I don't think is everyone has a right to carry a weapon anywhere and everywhere because they might , possibly, remotely stop a crime...."You are surely entitled to your opinion. Who would have thought though, that one might need a weapon in a church. I'll bet the folks in Colorado didn't think they were vulnerable. Now they're dead. I'll bet none of the kids in any of the school shootings thought they were vulnerable. Now some of them are dead. The point is that you never know when something might happen. If you choose not to be prepared, that is your right. Don't tread on my right to be prepared though. And yes, I agree that anyone who carries a weapon should have extensive training. Personally, I have many many years of intensive training.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

Well Beobachter, what are the odds you might have to perform CPR to help save another's life? Probably very very slim, so don't bother learning CPR. And if someone DOES drop in front of you, I guess it sucks to be him or her. You do what makes you happy. I am not paranoid and I am not a "gun nut". I am a prepared citizen.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

oops, didn't mean to incovenience ya, bea...the answer is no, I'm not a bedwetter- never been a liberal at all. But thanks for asking, sweety..Oh, and if the mere mention of guns gets certain panties in such a twist, here's some data for you...I've been collecting guns for over 20 years. My collection represents dozens of weapons spanning the years from pre WW2 to modern day, and thousands of dollars in investment. Enough to overwhelmingly outgun an infantry platoon, swat team, etc. But guess what? I've never used any of them to commit a crime, threaten or injury anyone, or brandished them in a menacing or intimidating manner. (I should also mention that I have no fewer than 1,000 rounds of ammo for each caliber weapon I own- although there is some caliber overlap between certain weapons). AND since I moved to my current location 6 years ago I have personally stopped two crimes: a vehicle theft & a purse snatching. Well I didn't stop the purse snacthing but I did apprehend & subdue the scumbag who did it. Guess what? I didn't utilize a weapon either of those times. Of course I had one with me just in case, but it was never even drawn. So before you go making insinuations that Americans who excercise their 2nd Amendment rights are thugs, unsafe, etc, you may want to consider your audience. Maybe that hysterical socialist BS is applauded by far left leaning pseudo-intellectual types on campus but in the real world millions of people take a more common sense approach. Guns & shooting sports are a fundamental part of American culture, and you're not going to change that no matter how many hours a day you in front of the pc, hammering at the keyboard, There are many countries out there with no firearms freedoms, perhaps you'd be happier there.

Jim Phillips 6 years, 8 months ago

MiiahaelJ and the rest of my team mates,I can't recall exactly who said it first, but I believe the quote is, "A Conservative is nothing more than a Liberal who has been victimized!" Utopia, I understand, is a wonderful place to live until reality sets in. God forbid, but there is no doubt in my mind that some of the Libs who are soooooo afraid of the big bad guns will be the victim of a violent crime someday. I wonder how they will feel then.Scenarios are real big on this thread right now so I'll throw one out---again! I really don't expect an answer, but I do ask each of you think about it. You are awakened by a strange sound in your 10 year-old daughter's bedroom. You walk in and find a masked 200 + pound rapist---fix-needing burglar----insert your favorite violent criminal. This man is standing there with a dead man's stare and a very large hunting knife in his hand. Now imagine that the pistol fairie has just given you a brand new, shiney .357 magnum filled with 125 grain jacketed hollow point bullets that have a history of one-shot stops 75 percent of the time. You have a clear shot. Will you take it or will you engage in meaningful dialogue?Now, tell me things like this don't happen in lovely Larryville.

Moderateguy 6 years, 8 months ago

Beo, have you ever purchased a lottery ticket? Simple question. If you have, you are a hypocrite.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

So as long as a gun ban doesn't create genocide, its ok? Shatt proved with the above post that more guns DO NOT create more crime, but actually create more. In every one of those cases, the removal of guns created thousands...millions of deaths. Another case of a liberal ignoring the facts. In this case, screed doesn't only ignore the facts, but also shows that no matter what the consequences, hes all for a gun ban. Even with a 44% increase in robbery, 3.2% increase in homicide, 8.6% increase in assault...and a 300% increase in homicides in some areas. "Ban the guns!", he says. Screed, you really need to go have your head checked if you think banning guns is a good idea. What is your problem with looking at facts and accepting them? Why do you think that your opinions and emotions are more credible than factual statistics? You probably think the war on drugs is working too dont you? Even though drug use and importation is at an all time high (no pun)? You are a waste of time. Dont talk.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

OOPS! Typo:Meant to say "Shatt proved with the above post that more guns DO NOT create more crime, but actually prevent crime."

Devon Kissinger 6 years, 8 months ago

its_getting_warmer (Anonymous) says:"chicago (wls) - By ABC 7 News' count, there have now been 31 people shot in Chicago since Friday. Six people have died.A 12-year-old and a 14-year-old were among those wounded. Authorities say the boys were shot about 11:30 p.m. Saturday in the 5300 block of West Madison. One of them was hurt critically.As crews were responding to that shooting, a third person was shot, just around the corner. And just 40 minutes earlier, three men were shot, less than a block away."And this happened where? In Chicago, where the ownership of handguns is banned. Fat lot of good the ban did there. What is called the "Murder Capital", Washington, D.C. So much for the fewer guns, fewer killings argument. There is no Utopia folks, it's a myth, something someone dreamed up.

fu7il3 6 years, 8 months ago

It's not the people who have concealed carry licenses that you have to worry about. Criminals aren't going to have them. If they do have them, they would have had a gun either way.Anyone who carries one ought to understand the responsibility and the liability that they place upon themselves, but they ought to have the right to carry them.If you outlaw the ability to carry a gun, the only people who will have guns are the criminals, and the people who decided to carry the thing anyway and take their chances explaining it later.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

Screed, what did I say? Didn't I tell you not to speak? LOL and your last comment is worse than the one before. If you ban guns, only the law abiding citizens will suffer. What do you not understand about societies like Australia? You think that the only people who will have guns are the police? So is it the Australian police who has been committing all the homicides and armed robberies?"If you outlaw the ability to carry a gun, the only people who will have guns are the police, who are the only people in a democracy sanctioned by the people to use force."What democracy are you living in? Are you new to the US? Do you know what the constitution is? Have you read the KS Statutes on the use of force? If your daughter is being raped, do you not have the right to fight them off of her? I mean, technically that would be using force. Screed, I challenge you to show me ONE society where a gun ban was implemented that resulted in zero public gun ownership, zero gun deaths or crimes. SHOW ME ONE. You cant use your own house as an example. I said society. You wont find one, so do this: Find me ONE society where a gun ban resulted in LESSER gun deaths/crimes. ONE, thats all I ask. By the way, Canadians own more guns than Americans and they have less than half the amount of crime. You know why? Because 8 out of 10 people own a gun.Screed, I challenge you to show me ONE society where a gun ban was implemented that resulted in zero public gun ownership, zero gun deaths or crimes. SHOW ME ONE. You cant use your own house as an example. I said society. You wont find one, so do this: Find me ONE society where a gun ban resulted in LESSER gun deaths/crimes. ONE, thats all I ask. Screed, I challenge you to show me ONE society where a gun ban was implemented that resulted in zero public gun ownership, zero gun deaths or crimes. SHOW ME ONE. You cant use your own house as an example. I said society. You wont find one, so do this: Find me ONE society where a gun ban resulted in LESSER gun deaths/crimes. ONE, thats all I ask. Screed, I challenge you to show me ONE society where a gun ban was implemented that resulted in zero public gun ownership, zero gun deaths or crimes. SHOW ME ONE. You cant use your own house as an example. I said society. You wont find one, so do this: Find me ONE society where a gun ban resulted in LESSER gun deaths/crimes. ONE, thats all I ask.

fu7il3 6 years, 8 months ago

Do you honestly believe people wouldn't have guns? How many people do you see going under 70 on the turnpike just because it is illegal? How many people downloaded music, breaking copyrights, or illegally copied movies? How many people drink under the age of 21?Making something illegal doesn't make it go away, it just makes penalities. The question of whether or not the potential reward is worth the risk of facing the penalty is left to the offender.

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

Colt45: "So much for the fewer guns, fewer killings argument." Care to go global with that argument? How many gun deaths were there in industrialized nations with strict gun bans the past year? How does that compare to the U.S.? However, you do demonstrate that a ban in just one city isn't going to stop crime any more than building a 600 mile long fence along a 2100 mile border is going to keep out illegals. The guns are easily brought into the city. You should be happy to know that the Supreme Court is likely to rule in just a matter of months that such city-wide bans are unconstitutional. I don't believe the ruling will prevent a college or business from banning firearms, however. Guardian: Great scenario on the creep in your 10 year-old daughter's bedroom. When the pistol fairie hands over the nice shiny gun, however, will he also provide training? If not, isn't it quite possible that the untrained and brand new owner of the gun who has a "clear shot" might just as easily blow a big hole in the head of their 10 year old as they could hit the bad guy? It is all about the training. Another scenario, since they are so much fun (and so dramatically ugly): Your 10 year old is walking down the street. A dog's bark startles her, which makes her trip and fall, smacking her head on the curb where she proceeds to bleed to death. Now, wouldn't you have been a good, protective parent if you had forced your daughter to wear a helmet at all times. Gravity is real and falls happen every day. Why wouldn't you protect you and yours against such a scenario, since it is far more likely to happen than the drug-crazed rapist scenario you provided?Like your scenario, mine points to the simple truth that there are levels of safety and protection we all must choose to live with. Given that the likelyhood of injury or death by a gun is much higher in homes where guns are kept, I choose to not select this as a reasonable risk/reward level of protection. Others clearly don't share my view. Fine. However, I still feel it would be in the nation's best interest if all gun owners were required to have training, especially if they wish to carry the weapon with them wherever they go, including into a university classroom. This, Mr. (lost his) Marbles and kansas778, is my only argument against or stipulation I feel should be added to the holy 2nd.RMarbles, in your view of America, do you want to rid the country of everyone with whom you disagree, or just those who don't share your bed-wetting passion for firearms? Either way, you clearly hate the 1st ammendment as much as you love the 2nd, which makes you a very bad American. By the way, what arrest report numbers were given in the cases where you recently stopped criminals in the act? I would like to see these, because it sounds like a bad neighborhood. You should consider moving.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

screedposter says:If you outlaw the ability to carry a gun, the only people who will have guns are the police, who are the only people in a democracy sanctioned by the people to use force---It's amusing when you get all "up in arms" with your ad hominem attacks, snarling generalities and kooky beliefs, screedposter. I can't help but love how you have determined, on your own, what "a democracy" sanctions. Thank you, GAWD!~) What a precious, snarling little world and persona you are carving into this worthless, bloody space. Keep up the good work!~)

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

First, Screed is truly an idiot who needs to be shipped to North Korea. He obviously prefers communism.Second, I'd love to see a gun ban. Civil War. Too bad there will NEVER be a gun ban in the US. You know (no you didn't because you're too ignorant and too busy fighting for dumb causes) that KS Senate Bill 46 has passed both the house AND senate. This bill lifts the ban on permitting Class 3 firearms dealers to sell fully automatic weapons, and other class 3 weapons and firearms including sawed off shotguns, silencers and suppressors, etc. It also allows for the transport of Class 3 firearms across the state. While Kathleen Stalin will veto the bill, the bill received enough votes thru the house and senate that it will override her veto. So:your anti-gun fight not only fails, but crashes and burns miserably. Oh, almost forgot: HB 2811. The Emergency Powers Act. It prevents seizure of weapons during periods of natural disaster, emergency situations, martial law, etc. It passed last month. Ooooh:that hurt didn't it.What's funny about this blog is that all the pro-gun people are showing facts and statistics and links to real data supporting their argument.All the antis are bringing is emotion and fantasy and personal belief. I haven't yet seen ANY data supporting the anti-gun argument. Good attempt, but you fail. Not just at blogging and arguing a point. But at life too.

Mkh 6 years, 8 months ago

So let me get this straight...the regents ban guns on campus but not anti-depression drugs, which are the true causes of these vilolent episodes in the youth. Anyone who is in such a vilolent fit of rage to commit mass murder is not going to pay heed to a "no weapons" sign on campus.Now of course I don't want the regents to ban either...just pointing out their ridiculous logic.

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

Shatt (Anonymous) says:Its illegal for CCH holders to drink while carrying. Thanks for your own take on the law though. Ignorance at its finest, once again. Learn the law before you speak. Do you hear me telling you the proper way to construct a picket sign? Or to hold it? No. Stick with what you know.========================================OMFG! I just spit Diet Pepsi all over my keyboard! That was by far the best f'n post of this entire thread!

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

shatt: "Beatrice, along with finding what vpete69 asked for, I would like for you to find ONE instance of a CCH holder shooting an innocent bystander."Why? Please read my posts. I am in favor of CCH holders. My only point is that I feel ALL gun owners should be required to go through the same steps and have the same training as the CCH holders. Please read those sentences again. Now, you have my views on this subject. If we require training for all, then rules like the one the regents just made will be very hard to support. Now, would you care for me to find an example of a non-CCH holder killing someone other than a criminal? Plenty of those as I am sure you are aware, which again goes to my one and only point regarding mandatory training for all. Your comment speaks to why we can no longer fix real problems in this country. People reading something that seems even remotely to be anti-gun go off half-cocked, flinging insults and claims of bravado. I add my "pro-training" stance to the issue and I get called a bed-wetting liberal, an anti-gun nut, and told to leave 'merica. This is why so many good people who simply own a gun and support the 2nd must bare the brunt of being called a bitter gun nut. Obviously, some of you are.

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

shatt: "Carrying a gun requires ongoing training and practice if you plan on having any chance at all to use your firearm effectively and efficiently."And if someone doesn't have ongoing training and practice? Does this mean they may well use their firearm ineffectively and inefficiently? Hence the regents' ruling. Plus, let us not forget the obvious: they made the ruling to make us liberals happy, and everyone knows that we liberals rule at universities -- it goes with our whole being more intelligent thing we have going. ;-) peace, bea

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

Out of the 8410 licenses issued in 2007:License Suspensions: 52 Charged with Carrying Under the Influence of Alcohol1 Charged with Aggravated Assault and Carrying Under the Influence of Alcohol (later acquitted and license reinstated)1 Charged with Domestic Battery (spouse)1 County residence issue (license later reinstated)License Revocations: 53 Temporary restraining order filed against licensee (license revoked until the restraining order is lifted)1 Final protection from abuse order (PFA) filed against licensee (license is revoked for a minimum of 1 year from the date of the final order)1 Licensee found guilty of possession of marijuana (license revoked for 5 years from the date of court disposition)Linky: http://www.ksag.org/files/shared/CC.AnnualReport.07.pdfHmm...2 suspended licenses for CUI. I'm sure more people than that carry while drinking. But I doubt its very many, and I haven't yet seen a case of a drunk CCH holder shooting up a bar. Thanks for playingAnyone else? Why isnt anyone posting here? Did I scare you off? Did you realize that your emotions and feelings don't hold any water when held up next to my raw data? Aww...did I hurt your feelings? Please come back! I'm not yet tired of punching gaping holes in your arguments. Im not done.... Oh wait...the people I'm talking to are known to run away when called out on their BS. I bet they're over in the abortion blog preaching their support for partial birth abortions. Shh...I hear it.. "We can kill our babies by sucking out its brain if we want! It's our body! KILLING CHICKENS IS MURDER! FUR IS MURDER" Yep, there they are!

MyName 6 years, 8 months ago

If you outlaw the ability to carry a gun, the only people who will have guns are the criminals, and the people who decided to carry the thing anyway and take their chances explaining it later.Setting aside the circular logic of the post (people who violate laws banning guns in a certain place are, by definition, criminals as well), there are obviously places where, in any free society, the public should not be allowed to carry weapons. I'd say churches, schools, hospitals and government buildings (like the Capitol or the Courthouse) are probably right at the top of the list. Bars should probably added too as guns and intoxicating substances don't mix well.The bottom line is that people who bring weapons to these places are only doing so because they are looking to start trouble and all of you self defense "advocates" can leave your guns locked in your car or at home when you're coming to my church, school, or courthouse. You may tell yourself that you're protecting all of us "sheeple" from the boogie man or the insane gunman, but the point of having a civilized society is that you can go to certain places and learn, work, pray, or settle your differences without bringing a weapon into the discussion. Taking a weapon to church or school is disturbing the peace too and it is not something we should be proud of if our society gets to the point where we feel we have to do so on a regular basis.

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

vpete, are you saying that all gun owners are against abortion and all non-gun owners are in favor of partial-birth abortions? You really can't be that dim ... can you?

Poon 6 years, 8 months ago

18 April 2008 at 11:53 a.m.Suggest removal Permalinkjustfornow (Anonymous) says: I carry my gun because I have a very small penis.Ding Ding Dinggggg Whoop Whooop Whoooop...And ladies and gentleman, we have justfornow with the first little penis comment. Congratulations justfornow, you are the winner of today's slim fit condom award. And now a word from our sponsor Slim fit condoms, for guys with small tallywhackers who may or may not own an arsenal of guns.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

bea, please support your comment. I challenge you to identify any post by me that indicates in any way I'm anti-first Amendment.....waiting....................................................................I've slapped you down for being a typical liberal bedwetter because of your misguided comment. Now I've identified you as making a completely false statement. You're eroding your own credibility. As for all the hypothesizing: for every possible scenario you can type, 10 more to the contrary can readily be identified. Face it, a firearm can be a very effective tool for self defense. No, it's not a magic wand that'll solve every problem- but nobody ever made that claim. I understand that you seem to have a phobia where firearms are concerned but you need to stop projecting that to every aspect of the subject. Nobody ever said you should be required to arm yourself. But having that option is a huge part of being American. As I stated previously, if you dislike that fact you are welcome to choose a different country to live in that better exemplifies your beliefs.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

"And if someone doesn't have ongoing training and practice? Does this mean they may well use their firearm ineffectively and inefficiently? Hence the regents' ruling."Hey Beatrice.....I don't know how old you are, but how many times since you got your driver's license have you gone back for training and testing and re-testing.....my golly, please let me know when and where you will be driving so I can avoid the bloodbath!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

Myname wrote: "......You may tell yourself that you're protecting all of us "sheeple" from the boogie man or the insane gunman,"I got news for you. I have no intention of protecting all of you "sheeple". I carry a firearm to protect ME and MY FAMILY. You're on your own.

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

marbles, your anti-1st amendment views come out when you suggest I should leave the country and live elsewhere for expressing my opinion. If the best you can come up with is calling me a bed-wetter (which is as stupid as others assuming you have a small penis because you own guns) or that I should leave the country for stating my opinions on a subject (which is just plain anti-American), then obviously you have nothing real to say. By the way, I'm still waiting for the police report numbers so we can check out that neighborhood of yours where you have helped prevent two crimes recently. (Who knew Lawrence was so dangerous?) But the basic reality is this: for some reason you simply can't grasp that some of us don't want to own a gun, even when we come right out and say that we support your right to own, as I have done here. Yet for you, this is a phobia. Whatever. I must have a phobia against yachts, too, because I don't own one of those, either. But feel free to keep calling names. It makes you seem oh so mature, and really supports your argument to be armed to the teeth. mj, I drive most days, which is a very real form of practice. Do you shoot at stuff every single day? I notice you ask about my license. Note that at some point I had to prove proficiency behind the wheel, unlike gun owners who can just walk in, purchase, and leave (after a background check, thank god) with a gun. See the difference?

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

I suspect that many of these individuals with such negative viewpoints are posting here more for the annoyance factor than actually attempting to make a point. This is evidenced by their constant use of sweeping generalizations that only marginally have anything to do with the issue. Example: "More guns aren't the answer" - Rebuttal: "More guns" isn't the issue. It's about an individual's right to effective self defense. Disarming a law abiding citizen, especially in crime ridden areas, seems to be their answer to everything.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

"mj, I drive most days, which is a very real form of practice. Do you shoot at stuff every single day? I notice you ask about my license. Note that at some point I had to prove proficiency behind the wheel, unlike gun owners who can just walk in, purchase, and leave (after a background check, thank god) with a gun. See the difference?"Beatrice, you don't think one can simply walk into a store and purchase a CCW permit do you? One has to undergo training as well as the background check for purchasing the firearm. And for the record, I fully agree that anyone who carries a gun should undergo extensive training and certification. if they carry a weapon concealed. Not for people who simply want to purchase and shoot a firearm. Some training for them is a good idea but not the level that should accompany a CCW permit.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

You have an extremely uninformed viewpoint, myname. It wasn't long ago at a church in Colorado (New Hope was the name, if I remember correctly) where an armed citizen stopped a mad gunman on the rampage, saving numerous lives. That's just one of many examples. Sure, the mainstream liberal media shuns such stories for those more in line with their viewpoint, but I'm sure between you & Google you'll be able to find some info.....so what was it you said about an armed citizen at church- something about the being there looking for trouble or disturbing the peace? Try again.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

I have a wonderful idea. If it's okay to sue Gun companies because a few people abuse firearms, let's make it okay to sue the government when they refuse to let citizens defend themselves and the citizen ends up being a crime victim. How's that sound? anyone?When Washington DC, Chicago and the like have the most restrictive gun laws on the books AND also have the highest crime (murder) rates, isn't that a pretty good indicator that the guns bans don't work? duh?When the government can guarantee the safety of my family and me, then I might consider getting rid of my guns. I won't hold my breath.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

Lawrence? I'm a bit west of there, bea.....by roughly 1500 miles. I'm in Portland Oregon. So much for your assumptions eh? And apparently you need to work on your reading comprehension as badly as your feminine hygiene (I'm just guessing on that, but considering the vindictive attitude & liberal propaganda it seems likely). The very obvious context of the statements regarding you emigrating was that you would be more happy in a socialist country. Obviously you can't be happy in a country that alliows it's citizens to defend themselves; you've made that abundantly clear. It was stated plainly so you either realized that & chose to twist the words intentionally or the above asessment of your reading comprehension is accurate. So, that debunks your attempt to present me as anti 1st Amendment. You also try to knock me for calling you names yet you do so yourself in nearly every posting. That is quite dim of you. If you're going to make an accusation like that it may actually mean something if you're not guilty of it yourself. If you're willing or capable of engaging in a reasoned debate or conversation without the name calling, cheap shots, etc, I would gladly comply. This has degenerated to shouting match more suited to people in the 3-15 age range. You implied that I had issue with you for choosing not to own a gun; that is a complete fabrication, I have said no such thing- nor could anything I did say misconstrued as that by anything other that deliberate intent. As for polic report numbers, you are welcome to do the research yourself, those are a matter of public record. The implication that I'd lie about that is laughable since I post here using my real identity. Bea, your I have just addressed & disproven you point by point. How will you reply- reasoned convesation or more pettiness?

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

b.o.....You're too easy: first off, which claims do I continually make? Is your reading comprehension deficient as well? I've reviewed my postings and see no repetitious claims. Please enlighten us, and I'll gladly address them. And you are obviously implying I accused the mainstream media of cover ups. Please scroll up and have someone read my posting to you again. It said the the media shuns stories where law abiding citizens use firearms to protect themselves in favor of stories with of a more negative nature. That can easily be verified by some research on your part. The occasional rare story is run by the mainstream media, but a simple search will soon reveal to even you that the number of stories are disproportionately few compared to the overall number available. Surely you can't be this feeble minded, b.o. Try harder.

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

Beobachter,If some sleaze breaks into my home at 4am, or noon or whatever time, I at least have a chance to defend my family and myself. If I don't have any weapons (and training) and rely on the cops, I am screwed. The Police come along after the fact and try to figure out who did what to whom, and then we hope and pray that the criminal justice system doesn't decide that they are "misunderstood products of society" and let them go with a slap on the wrist after they have raped or killed someone in my family. I will do whatever I can to prevent that scenario. Yes, I know, it's not very likely to happen. It's also not very likely that a cop will ever have to fire his/her weapon in the line of duty, yet they practice regularly, so in the event the unthinkable happens, they will hopefully be better prepared. That's what I hope to do. Be prepared. Hopefully it will never happen. I hope I never have to take someone's life, but if it's either them or me or a member of my family, I would prefer it would be them!

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

bea...my previous posting to you did come out hypoctical as it was insult laden but also chastised you for doing the same. I'll refrain from doing so in the future to attempt turning this thread into a productive debate rather than the mudslinging fest it currently is.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

or at least productive on my part. I can't say the same for others- it's up to them to show some integrity.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

b.o., glad to hear you'd be nice enough to avoid me since I do all I can to stay away from your type. Unfortunately they're quite common out here on the west coast. Also, I must ask you again to scroll up and re-read since you've it wrong again. I instructed you do some research on the subject of law abiding citizens protecting themselves. I claimed it would educate you, and I stand by that. You will find numerous vefifiable accounts easily. And- I only said that here and in the original posting- but you say "on-going"?

BlackVelvet 6 years, 8 months ago

well, I'm finished with this thread. The pros aren't going to change their stand. The antis aren't either. Nothing productive is occurring here. Everyone have a nice evening and be safe please.

Moderateguy 6 years, 8 months ago

Beo, I was referring to your earlier post(s) regarding the statistical improbability of being in a situation where CCH would be needed. If you have ever purchased a lottery ticket, or put a quarter into a slot machine, you are admitting that even if there is an almost astronomical improbability of hitting the jackpot, you think it "could happen." I admit to the occasional purchase of a powerball ticket for fun. The idea of quitting my job and being with my family full time is worth a buck every so often. I also have full insurance coverage, and a spare tire and tools in the car. I don't suppose you understand my comment even now though. As I've said before, It's impossible to have a rational discussion about an irrational fear. I.E. "It's going to be Dodge City all over again!!!! " Don't worry, you can go back to sticking your head in the sand. "Nothing to see here."

beatrice 6 years, 8 months ago

Okay Mr.Marble, I'll bite. I'll avoid the cheap shots if you do the same. And as far as assumptions go, the hygiene comment was as far off base as was my placing you in Lawrence. I live in Phoenix, the nation's 5th largest city. If you would see me, you would think "business, and works out," not "granola" - not even close. I do identify politically with liberal causes, but am far from a wimp. (Would you call Ghandi a wimp? Now there was one tough liberal.) So, I'll agree not to attack since you have agreed to do the same. When I do attack, it is usually in defense (or so I would like to think). And as the truth is told, you see that my view on the issue is probably a lot closer to your own then you probably imagined. I just think training would be very worth while for all, and if all were trained there would be little room to argue against ownership and carrying for those who wish to. Oh, and that "citizen" who stopped the shooter at the church in Colorado was a volunteer security guard working at the church, not just some lady passing by. Not that she didn't do a good thing, but lets not downplay her security position.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

and the point is, an armed citizen who used a firearm responsibly to stop a maniac, thereby saving numerous lives....the other point on that was to a person posting above- don't remember if it was bea or someone else- who was ridiculing the idea of there being a need for firearms at a church...I'm willing to be the survivors were quite happy to have been protected,

vpete69 6 years, 8 months ago

She was not a law enforcement officer. She was a member of the church with a CCH license who was dictated by the church to provide security. Thanks.And I will NEVER trust in the government to provide individual security. I will never "leave it to the cops." Cops are not obligated to provide security to people.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

Yup, I just re-read the article....the whole "volunteer security officer" was a very clever attempt by the antis to conceal that fact; a deliberate misnomor.

Rationalanimal 6 years, 8 months ago

"If you outlaw the ability to carry a gun, the only people who will have guns are the police, who are the only people in a democracy sanctioned by the people to use force."++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Truly breathtaking logic. Let's just outlaw all crime so no more crime is committed. While we are at it, let's legalize freedom so freedom can freely abound in a free society.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

The woman who shot the psycho thereby saving numerous lives at the church in Colorado is Jeanne Assam, a concealed carry holder. The media uses the euphemism "volunteer security guard" because they can't bring themselves to publicly admit a CCH stopped a crime with zero collateral damage; such an admission would further erode their position. But then again, that's exactly what a CCH amounts to- a volunteer security guard. Nobody can rationally dispute the positive result except the most rabid antis.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

beobachter says: a gun nut is a gun nut. LOGIC and reALITY do NOT apply here. i much prefer to not be near any gun nut, LEGAL or not....JJE007......capitalization mine...Thanks for summing up your "argument", bea.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 6 years, 8 months ago

BTW... I don't much like the use of such a dismissive term, which dumps people into some vile pile of humanity created without logic and beyond reality. You, currently, have the right to be so dismissive in your views. I'm fine with that. I am NOT fine with your belief that individuals have no right to protect themselves because you are so afraid that you pronounce them nuts and criminal without trial or logic. Unreal indeed...

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

Associated Press, 12/11/07 State: CO It's a story not even anti-gun media outlets could ignore. Matthew Murray allegedly wrote online, "All I want to do is kill and injure as many [Christians] : as I can." Police say he made good on his word, first by killing two young students at a missionary training center outside Denver. His next target was a gathering of 7,000 people in and around the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. With a rifle and a backpack full of ammunition, Murray entered the church and opened fire. Sadly, two sisters were killed. One man yelled to distract the gunman and was shot in the arm. That's when volunteer security guard Jeanne Assam, who has a concealed-carry permit and once worked in law enforcement, yelled, "Surrender!" Armed with a handgun, she walked toward Murray and shot him several times. "It seemed like it was me, the gunman and God," Assam recalls. His twisted plan foiled, the immobilized gunman killed himself.

RobertMarble 6 years, 8 months ago

The above story is yet another excellent example of an armed citizen saving lives. It's irrational that the antis ignore or downplay the value of human life by their dismissive attitude toward the proven merit of having armed "good people" around. I don't knock anyone for choosing to not be armed; I believe that should be up to the individual. There are both good and bad aspects to either viewpoint. Unfortunately the leftists are far less tolerant & choose to not only embrace their philosophy, but force the rest of society to do so as well. The facts have been fully presented throughout this thread so theres nothing more to say on the subject. I'm out...

RobertMarble 6 years, 7 months ago

Here's a story that should give the antis something to think about......"The story of the plight of disarmed D.C. residents really begins on the night of March 16, 1975, when three women, sharing a townhouse, were awakened by the sound of their door being kicked in. This was no ordinary burglary or home invasion; this was a horrific, unspeakable crime.....

RobertMarble 6 years, 7 months ago

....."The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists." (Emphasis added.)It begs the basic question: If the police have no duty to protect individuals in their homes, who does?The individual does. You and I do. Average citizens.That is why the Second Amendment has such deep relevance in modern times. There is nothing archaic and outmoded in the notion that people must have the means to defend themselves against violent criminal predators. Self-defense is a basic human right. It is the fundamental reason that countless tens of millions of Americans own firearms.".....American Rifleman, April 2008.

RobertMarble 6 years, 7 months ago

....Two of the three roommates had rooms upstairs. They were awakened by the screaming of their friend downstairs who was being beaten, raped and sodomized by two men.Carolyn Warren called the police and was told help was on the way. She and her other upstairs roommate watched in horror as a police car passed their home, merely slowing down. They called the police a second time. This time, there was no response at all. After an hour, hearing no sounds from the floor below, they called down to their friend, but merely alerted the rapists to their presence.After that, all three women were forced to endure 14 unspeakable hours of sexual torture.The women sued the District of Columbia and after two years--during which time D.C. instituted its gun ban--they lost. The case is Warren v. District of Columbia.The D.C. Superior Court ruled, " ... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." (Emphasis added.)Thus the rule that the District had no duty to protect its individual citizens was in place when, in July 1976, the D.C. City Council enacted its draconian gun ban.If the lower court ruling in Ms. Warren's case was devastating to her and every law-abiding resident of the District of Columbia, the ruling of the D.C. Court of Appeals, 444 A.2d 1(D.C App. 1981), was worse:

Commenting has been disabled for this item.