Archive for Sunday, August 8, 2010

Critics target concealed carry changes

August 8, 2010


Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but there’s a gun battle going on in Kansas.

Don’t feel bad if you haven’t. The two sides don’t even agree what’s in the crosshairs.

On one side, groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence say nothing short of normalcy is at stake.

“The NRA and the gun lobby want to normalize carrying guns anytime, anyplace and, as a result, the country is at a real critical point,” said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “What we’re saying is, that isn’t normal behavior.”

On the other side, the aforementioned National Rifle Association says the integrity of the Constitution is on the line.

“Some folks would argue with us that the right to carry a firearm for personal protection is not a fundamental right, but we now have two Supreme Court cases that have affirmed it,” said Jordan Austin, the NRA lobbyist assigned to Kansas.

Forget about brokering a truce between those two sides. It seems they’ve been disagreeing since Moses (at least the one played by former NRA leader Charlton Heston).

But make no mistake about this: Kansas is in the field of battle. After the Kansas Legislature last session agreed to loosen the restrictions on who could receive a license to carry a concealed firearm, questions have emerged on whether Kansas will be next to follow a recent Arizona law that makes it legal to carry concealed weapons without any permit.

“That is fundamentally what we believe, but it is not a political reality in some states,” Austin said of not needing a license to carry concealed. “But we’re doing what we can to move closer to that, and I think Kansas has taken a big step forward. Arizona sent a great message and I already have had legislators in Kansas say, are we next? Let’s start considering this.”

The changes

As the Journal-World reported last month, the Legislature removed several of the reasons the Kansas Attorney General’s office could deny a concealed carry permit to an applicant. Essentially, the new law allows anyone who qualifies to possess a gun under federal and state laws to also receive a license to carry it concealed.

As a result, it no longer is permissible to deny a license to a person who has been:

• Convicted of two DUIs during the last five years.

• Convicted of carrying under the influence in another state during the last five years.

• Documented to have attempted suicide during the last five years.

In addition, the new law removed a provision that required concealed-carry license holders to submit to a breath test if a law enforcement officer suspected they were carrying a weapon under the influence. If they refused, they lost their license. Now, license holders must only consent to a test if they’ve shot someone.

None of the changes surprise Malte.

“We see this going on all over the country,” Malte said. “Most of the calls I get are about how state by state the NRA is continually dismantling the concealed carry permitting process that they actually worked to set up in the first place.”

Malte calls the NRA’s tactics the “ultimate level of hypocrisy.” Austin, though, said there’s nothing hypocritical about the movement. He said it is a result of the Supreme Court making the protections of the Second Amendment clearer. The court issued what are largely considered the most significant Second Amendment rulings of the last decade in 2008 and 2010 in the Heller and McDonald cases.

“I think that is causing a lot of states to evaluate how their gun laws are written,” Austin said.

In some cases, that’s causing lawmakers to recognize that gun law isn’t always analogous to other state laws. Austin said some of the changes in Kansas law go to that point.

For example, he said he has heard arguments that the laws governing concealed carry and alcohol violations should be much like the laws governing alcohol and driving. A Kansas driver who refuses to submit to a breath test, for instance, still loses his or her driver’s license.

But Austin said there’s a large difference.

“The fundamental difference we see is that a driver’s license is a privilege,” Austin said. “A right to carry a firearm is a right.”

Little opposition

If you think this issue is being driven entirely from the right side of the political spectrum, think again.

Gov. Mark Parkinson, a Democrat, signed the bill. Attorney General Stephen Six, a Democrat whose office is responsible for administering the concealed carry program, sent a representative to testify in support of the bill.

But representatives for both politicians were reluctant to discuss specifics about their bosses’ support for many of the provisions in the bill.

Amy Jordan Wooden, press secretary for Parkinson, declined to answer questions about why the governor believed provisions related to DUIs, alcohol testing and carrying under the influence needed to be changed. She said those questions should be directed to members of the Legislature.

Gavin Young, a spokesman with Six’s office, said the attorney general supported the underlying concept of the bill, but Young declined to address whether Six supported several of the specific changes in the bill.

The bill passed both houses of the Legislature overwhelmingly — 37-2 in the Senate and 103-15 in the House. Whether many of the legislators knew all of the provisions in the bill is unclear. At least one area legislator was surprised to learn of the alcohol-related changes. Several summaries of the bill did not address many of the specific provisions that would be changed.

“Many of those changes don’t sound good,” said Rep. Tom Sloan, who voted for the bill.

Sloan R-Lawrence, said he was surprised the attorney general’s office and state law enforcement groups didn’t do more to raise concerns with the bill.

Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, did vote against the bill. But he’s not surprised more opposition didn’t surface. He said the concealed carry issue just doesn’t receive much discussion among the Kansas public.

“One of the reasons these bills are sailing through the Legislature is that there is absolutely no organized opposition to these efforts,” Davis said.

Future changes

Expect more talk about concealed carry in future legislative sessions. Austin, with the NRA, did not rule out seeking legislation that would allow Kansans to carry concealed without going through a license process.

Some lawmakers said they weren’t sure such a measure would be successful. Rep. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora, serves on the House’s Federal and State Affairs Committee, which hears many of the concealed carry issues. He said he would be open to considering such a law, but thought the current makeup of the Legislature would prevent it from passing.

Instead, he said provisions that allow concealed carry licensees to enter government buildings that do not provide metal detectors or other security ought to be reconsidered. Such a provision was originally included in last year’s legislation but was stripped out when formal opposition did emerge.

Both the League of Kansas Municipalities and the Board of Regents objected to that provision. Currently, governments can post their buildings with “no guns” signs.

Brown thinks a law to change that may have a chance in the future.

“If you or I are a violent person, do you really think that sign is going to cause us to go put our guns up and go get our knives?” Brown said. “That sign is not enough to protect anyone’s safety.”


Moderateguy 7 years, 6 months ago

Should be an interesting day. A little early for popcorn though.

gl0ck0wn3r 7 years, 6 months ago

"What we’re saying is, that isn’t normal behavior.”

According to whom? Further, how is this opinion germane to a discussion of rights?

rbwaa 7 years, 6 months ago

what's really frightening is the widespread paranoia which is fueling this push for change -- just because it is a 'right' why does a person believe it is necessary to carry a gun concealed or otherwise?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

That's easy-- It's the paranoia of those who think they always need to be packing.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

You have those items because you believe you may need them, and you probably will. But none of those items can blow somebody's brains out, which is pretty much the only use for a gun. How often have you needed to do that? If you really expect on a daily basis that you will need to do so, I call that paranoia.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

They could also be killed by a meteorite. What measures are you taking against that?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

I got your point just fine.

But apparently, you didn't get mine-- The vast majority of people in this country will never really need a weapon to protect themselves. And even if they ever feel they are in such a position, their brandishing/using such a weapon may very well make a bad situation worse.

Concealed carry creates nothing but a false sense of security, as would any other removal of restrictions on what weapons may be carried, and how. While they may increase your chances of surviving a firefight, they also raise the risk of getting into one.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

"In the 2 million times a gun is used for protective purposes a year,"

That figure is greatly exaggerated. It comes from a flawed study whose results have never been replicated.

50YearResident 7 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

notorious_agenda 7 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

pyrofighter 7 years, 6 months ago

I'm not paranoid, because I do carry a gun for personal protection. I would rather have a gun and not need it , than need a gun and not have it. If I could carry a cop, I would. Might get a little heavy though.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

If you really think the likelihood of being attacked is that high, body armor would provide a much greater degree of protection than a handgun. Do you wear body armor every time you leave the house?

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

I want to carry a gun to compensate for my very small penis.

50YearResident 7 years, 6 months ago

I am very sorry you have a extra small penis. Maybe you would benefit by EXTENZE and it would make you feel a lot better about yourself.

ThorMMVI 7 years, 6 months ago

@ Bozo: I used to not feel the need to carry until I became disabled. It's a comfort to know that IF attacked, I don't have to rely on the police coming to my rescue. (There have been several court cases upholding the fact that the police are NOT there to protect the individual, but only the "general public").

As a carry permit holder from another state, I'm not real sure about the law changes being proposed, but I will pose this question to everyone: When will we start making the Governments abide by the Constitution and QUIT violating our rights?

In Minnesota, the anti-gun cadre said that there'd "be blood in the streets" with the passage of their law in 2003 & again in 2005. It didn't and hasn't happened. Have there been isolated incidents?? Certainly. Less than 1/100th of 1% of the carry permit holders have caused any problems.

Is carrying a gun the panacea to all things evil?? Perhaps not, but it's a start. I'm also a firm believer that IF one commits a crime with ANY weapon, that the punishment be harsh and swift!!

pyrofighter 7 years, 6 months ago

What do I have to be paranoid about because I carry a gun. I don't live in a fantasy world where all is good. There is evil out there. Grabbing guns from the law abiding citizen only emboldens the criminals that much more. A gun is nothing but a tool, that is purpose designed.

brothaman 7 years, 6 months ago

I guess you never read the news or watch TV. If you don't want to carrt a gun that's your right but don't even try to set your parameters on my rights.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

The Brady Bunch seems to have fallen on hard times.

"...In those comments, though, one person noted the Brady Center's Political Action Committee's latest filings, as collected and reported by Open Secrets, and it's great news -- for those of us who dislike the Brady Center.

As of June 30, 2010, their books looked like this:

Total Receipts: $2,500. Total Spent: $4,680. Begin Cash On Hand: $11,813. End Cash On Hand: $9,636.

The once-almighty gun-grabbing group, less than a hundred days before the midterm elections, has doled out less than five grand this year, and has less than ten thousand more to spend. Further, they've only collected $2,500 this year to date.

The list of the favorite candidates of the gun-grabbers? Seven Democrats, five running for House seats and two in the Senate. Kristen Gillibrand (NY) was the big winner, with $1,000. Jeff Merkley (OR) got $500. And for the House, each got $250: Gerry Connolly (VA), Phil Hare (IL), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Dan Maffei (NY), and Michael E. McMahon (NY).

A grand total of $2,750.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. And with such a satisfying thud."

gccs14r 7 years, 6 months ago

You don't have to have a permit to carry a weapon in your own house.

Kirk Larson 7 years, 6 months ago

Although a gun in the house is still far more likely to be used on a member of the household than on an intruder.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

And the statistics on this can be found...?

Kirk Larson 7 years, 6 months ago

At the Center for Disease Control website. Between accidents, suicides, unintentional shootings, and domestic violence a gun in the house is more likely to be used on someone in the house than on an intruder.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

Would this be the same CDC that spent millions of tax dollars investigating 51 different studies to try to find some effective gun control measures? Or is it the same CDC that finally concluded gun contol laws are ineffective? Or the same CDC that determined violent crime rates have dropped significantly in states that allow concealed carry? That CDC? But, pondering your statement, it is quite probable, yet quite lame. Excluding accidents, I submit that in those cases, it is feasible to believe a firearm was the weapon of choice in a "heat of the moment" situation. It is also feasible to speculate those deaths/injuries probably would have been inflicted by other means if a firearm was not available. So, once again, it's more beneficial and convenient to blame the tool and not the craftsman.

Kris_H 7 years, 6 months ago

There are lots of reasons for wanting to carry a concealed weapon. I wish there weren't any, but I'm not living in a fantasy world.

To me, it's the right of the law-abiding citizen to carry a weapon. People who have two DUIs in five years on their record are not, in my book, law-abiding. I have to wonder what motivated the desire to change that particular part of the law?

I'll have to look up what the penalty will be for carrying under the influence before I can comment on that. But I think guns and alcohol are a terrible combination and should be discouraged with force of law.

verity 7 years, 6 months ago

Because the plan is to have all controls on gun ownership taken off. It's the same as the abortion conflict except in reverse. Just keep pushing the line a little further until there is no line.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

I'm planning on mounting one of these on my car. It's wholly unnecessary, but I need to assert my rights.

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

Gun control advocates talked of a 'step by step' process for years to eventually eliminate nearly every privately owned weapon while crime was rising, especially in cities and states where guns were most restricted.If, as Brian Malte states, the NRA is using the same tactics, and crime statistics are dropping, then maybe the anti-gun lobby is wrong. My opinion, responsible gun owners are not to be feared. Irresponsible people don't care what laws are on the books.

Matt Bowers 7 years, 6 months ago

Have you taken into consideration the three listed cities are in the top ten for murder and it is because of guns? Maybe you could create more arguments talking in circles or maybe you could consider the facts before you get exposed. The following cities:

Richmond, VA Burmingham, AL Charlotte, NC

These three are in the top ten for murder and the overwhelming majority is by guns.

Fact of the matter is that fewer guns equal fewer deaths by guns. What is funny is that the same people who campaign for guns are the same people that claim abstinence will keep their daughters from getting pregnant. Practice what you preach. It is scary that a bunch of scared or over confident people are walking around with loaded guns. Thanks...America is so much better off.

Think about this Roe, NYC and LA have less crime per capita then the three above. According to the FBI violent crime is down over the past two years by over 3%. What is that about? Lets go back to "Bleeding Kansas" because that worked.

Orwell 7 years, 6 months ago

Use them to shove that thing where the moon don't shine.

RogueThrill 7 years, 6 months ago

Are you taking pills or something because it seems like you are sometimes posting reasonable things.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Until I can openly carry my bazooka, then my rights are being suppressed. What gives anyone else the right to describe what I deem necessary for self protection? Bazookas or bust!

Practicality 7 years, 6 months ago

Although I do believe you are trying to be sarcastic, I do think you should be allowed to carry a bazooka too, beatrice.

RogueThrill 7 years, 6 months ago

A bazooka is classified as a destructive device and thus not covered under the umbrella of the second amendment.

For reference, look at TITLE 18 , PART I , CHAPTER 44, § 921

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

And who are these people who made such a classification? Probably those Brady Bill communists. Next thing you know, "they" will be classifying a handgun as a destructive device and stripping us of our rights! We can't let them take our bazookas, because the next step is a pure ban on all guns. Even owning a glue gun will be questioned!

I don't feel safe without my bazooka nearby at all times!

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to listen to some Ted Nugent before watching my favorite taped episodes of the O'Reilly Factor.

RogueThrill 7 years, 6 months ago

I understand what you are trying to do here, but it's not very productive in terms of framing the debate for gun control.

We aren't going to get some Utopian system where every gun disappears, so we need to go after things that are reasonable until we get to a point both sides agree on.

We aren't getting rid of guns, it just isn't going to happen. But we can make sure people don't get to have guns after they have done stupid s***.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Productive? Who was trying to be productive? I'm simply ridiculing the "anything goes" crowd through sarcasm.

If you ridicule the lunatic fringe and how far they want to take the gun debate, and we find that there really is no middle ground possible. Reasonable to me and you likely won't be considered resonable to the "any place any time any where" gun rights folks.

Ocel Black 7 years, 6 months ago

Considering that you are part of that lunatic fringe that thinks it's a good idea to depend on someone else to make life safe for you while you walk around with your head in the clouds with calming music playing on your Ipod, your opinion doesn't really mean very much.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

I am not depending on anyone else for my protection, and I don't own an ipod. You are just simply wrong on every level. The majority of Americans, in fact, don't own a gun. Could the majority actually be the lunatic fringe?

thebigspoon 7 years, 6 months ago

Yeah, right. Try to do that and see how far down the street you get.

independant1 7 years, 6 months ago

from personal experience, amen to that!

thebigspoon 7 years, 6 months ago

Number one, I do NOT believe what you just stated has happened to you four times. And, number two, if they did, then you are a complete imbecile for not reporting these alleged incidents so that the people who are paid to protect us and prevent these things from happening can do their job.

flstf93 7 years, 6 months ago

Actually 3 times: 1978 in Texas to prevent a car jacking attempt on myself- in service and thought new car with out of state plates was easy mark 1981 in NH to prevent a break-in at my parents home with myself awake and watching TV while visiting- perp didn't care and I'm not a tiny guy 2001 prevented gang from illegally using posted/ private property- they had cases of beer and guns and were attempting to access property when I drove in

So, while you may choose to not carry or own any guns to me they are like airbags and seatbelts in cars. You hope to never need them but they are there should the need arise. Your choice to not exercise this right should not dictate my choice to exercise it. Some day you may need to eat your words and thank someone like myself when a LEO is not available and I am your only hope of not becoming a victim, should you not want my help in that time of need, please create and wear a armband stating that you choose to be a victim and want no assistance..thank you!

Outsidelookingin 7 years, 6 months ago

I only feel like I need to carry when I go to KCK, Topeka, or Lawrence. Thug wannabe's located there.

RogueThrill 7 years, 6 months ago

Stop being reasonable it is shattering my world view.

RogueThrill 7 years, 6 months ago

I keep a Sig Sauer .22. My home has been "broken into" 2 times since I have lived here and I have never thought to use it. But I have always considered it a sufficient caliber to harm/deter those who I felt were threatening. And I don't have to worry about killing my neighbors.

independant1 7 years, 6 months ago

I'm partial to my .44 but keep a .38 handy too

pentiuman 7 years, 6 months ago

“The NRA and the gun lobby want to normalize carrying guns anytime, anyplace and, as a result, the country is at a real critical point,” said Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

I don't know for sure about the NRA or gun lobby groups, but personally, for me that statement is quite false. As a general rule, I don't support gun owners carrying guns into courthouses, churches, bars, prisons, I.R.S. buildings, on airplanes, amusement rides, or in pools! (My point is that people need to choose their words more carefully when making a call against a party different from theirs.)

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Maybe I'm missing your intention, but the statement is accurate. There are people who do think you, me, and anyone else, should be able to carry just about anywhere, including bars, churches, courthouses, etc... These people who think this way are the NRA and gun lobby groups. So how could he have chosen his words more carefully? Which part isn't correct?

notorious_agenda 7 years, 6 months ago

You can already carry guns in most of those places. There is a clear system to let concealed carry holders know exactly where they can carry. There is one approved sign and they teach you everything about spotting it vs. spotting fakes when you apply for a license.

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

Yep, in my experience, about half the places who "try" to post do so incorrectly. Some do it on purpose, others just didn't take the time to inform themselves.

Bowtech 7 years, 6 months ago

ljwanonymous - And I would like to ask you, when was the last time that you were injured by a law-abiding citizen with a concealed cary permit? Do you have a friend or family member who has been injured? Do you know someone in your hometown that has been injured by a permit holder? If you can answer in the affirmative to any of these questions, you are indeed in the minority.

I think your fear of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is irrational. I would venture to guess that the possibility of you being injured or killed by an irresponsible driver that is talking or texting on a cell phone is at least one hundred times, possibly one thousand times more likely than the possibility of you being injured by a CCW holder.

Yes, firearms are one of the dangerous tools that we as Americans are exposed to every day, but they are far less likely to cause you harm than a host of other things that you have become comfortable with. I for one am much more afraid of all of the idiots that I see on the street that seem to think that reading that text or making that "important call" is not putting the rest of us in danger.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

"I for one am much more afraid of all of the idiots that I see on the street that seem to think that reading that text or making that "important call" is not putting the rest of us in danger."

As a CCW holder, should you be permitted to shoot them as a matter of self defense?

voevoda 7 years, 6 months ago

There's a difference between texters and gun carriers: nobody is going to shoot me on the street with a cellphone. If you're talking about texting behind the wheel of a car, then I agree that it's dangerous, and that's why there are now laws against it. If you want to stick with this analogy, Bowtech, you're actually making an argument for legal restrictions on the times and places that people can carry firearms. Was that your intent?

independant1 7 years, 6 months ago

Once, won't happen twice. It was very hard on the wife and kids, thugs/criminals don't respond to pleas or promises once they get the upper hand. Have pump shotgun for large varmits, don't bird hunt anymore. The click clack of chambering a round sent two legged varmits scurrying off the farm/ranchette one night. Ran to their car up on the road and left pdq. They'd already gotten into one of the autos. Had a pistol in my pocket just in case it got up close and personal. But then I'm not a gun lover, it's just what I call a necessity for self denfense.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

I hardly ever need the spare tire I keep in the trunk of my car. That doesn't mean I'm going to start leaving it at home.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 6 months ago

Three questions--

How many times have you been shot at?

How many flat tires have you had?

If you have changed a flat tire, has anybody (other than yourself) ever got hurt in the process?

independant1 7 years, 6 months ago

I have an aunt, single, who was raped in her home. She bought a .357 magnum hand gun and has concealed carry permit. She says, "It won't happen again." My sister-in-law was victiim of home invasion/robbery, she carries a cute little .22 automatic in her back pocket. The outline of the pistol kinda accentuates her cute little a$$. The aunt lives in major metro city, the sister in country.

voevoda 7 years, 6 months ago

There is, I think, some common ground between proponents of gun ownership and proponents of gun control: they can agree that the problem does not lie with responsible gun owners, but rather with irresponsible ones.
Who should be judged too irresponsible to carry firearms? Here's my list: People who don't know how to use and store firearms safely. People with a history of violence against people and/or property, even if a gun wasn't involved. People who make threats of violence, even if they haven't carried them out. People who are impaired by consumption of alcohol or drugs or other substances. Then the question becomes how to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people, and to do so within the confines of the Second Amendment. I suggest looking to the "well-regulated militia" provision. Unlike the other guarantees of rights in the Bill of Rights (such as speech, assembly, and religion), the right to bear arms comes with a proviso. Case law has already established that "militia" need not mean a body officially established by the government, and that individuals need not belong to any group in order to possess firearms legally. So what about "well-regulated"? I think that most of us can agree that people on my list are not regulating themselves well. I'd go further than some gun proponents and say that people who aren't able to regulate themselves well ought not to carry guns. If they don't have the good sense to understand that for themselves (duh, they aren't able to regulate themselves well), then somebody has to do it for them and take their guns away from them. That doesn't have to be the Federal government, or even the State government, or even the Local government. I'd be happy if families or gun clubs or gun merchants do it. When that becomes the culture of our society and the NRA, then we'll have the gun violence level of Switzerland, and all of us will feel safer.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

I believe the onus is on you to prove your point, not the other way around.

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

A threat or attack can occur anywhere. Even in a church. My wife would rather not need a gun in her purse, but it's a better option than being a rape victim or worse. And she is properly trained, which anyone who carries a gun should be.

Ocel Black 7 years, 6 months ago

So the average citizen is a drug crazed homicidal lunatic who wants to shoot up a bar because of the voices in his head.... I understand, you are afraid of what YOU would do and projecting that onto 300 million people that you don't know.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

Current KS law does not allow concealed carry everywhere. I'm okay with that.

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

ljwanonymous, prove to me you do not abuse your spouse. Prove to me you do not steal from your employer. Prove to me that you are able to determine my skill, training and knowledge are inadequate to protect myself, family and friends, or even you.

Your request for proof makes no more sense than mine

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Pyrofighter: "I would rather have a gun and not need it, than need a gun and not have it."

Stated earlier here, it is a line that has been used virtually every time guns and personal protection are discussed. "Better safe than sorry." Not unreasonable logic, although it seems very unlikely one will ever need a gun when going about their daily activities.

However, did you know that one million people a year visit hospitals to treat brain injuries:

Fifty thousand die from head injuries. That far exceeds people killed by violent criminals with guns. So, if someone is really trying to stay safe on a daily basis, they would be much better off wearing a helmet everywhere they go than carrying a gun.

So, how many of the "better safe than sorry" gun folks are willing to really be safe and start wearing a helmet as you go about your day? (by the way, a tin foil hat is not a helmet)

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

Accidental deaths per physician - - - -.171

Accidental deaths per gun owner - - -.0000188

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

And accidental deaths per non gun owners who aren't seeing their physician?

notorious_agenda 7 years, 6 months ago

Why not talk about every possible situation. You will come to the conclusion that everyone dies of something.

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

Here's a hint for all you "no one needs guns" folks......If you don't want a gun to protect yourself or your loved ones, don't get one. It's that simple. But just as I won't tell you how to raise your kids or otherwise live your life, as long as I'm not breaking any laws, please resist the urge to tell me how to live my life and how I choose to protect my family and myself.

Bowtech 7 years, 6 months ago

ljwanonymous - The requirements to obtain a drivers license are far less stringent than the requirements to obtain a CCW. Can you argue that in the hands of an untrained operator a motor vehicle is not a truely dangerous weapon? You are comfortable driving on the street every day with thousands of other drivers who are in control of a dangerous weapon. You have become comfortable with this situation through repetition. I am guessing that you are not a gun owner and are not familiar with firearms. Is it not logical that the more that you are exposed to fellow citizens who are carrying concealed firearms in a responsible manner, the more you will realize that statistically you are in no more danger from them than you are your fellow drivers? Is it not possible that you will get over your irrational fear of guns?

Have ever really thought about the fact that every day you pass within just a few feet of hundreds of vehicles going in the opposite direction, any one of which could kill you if the operator does not act in a responsible manner?

I don't have a CCW, but I respect the right of any law-abiding citizen to carry a concealed firearm if they choose to do so; for whatever reason. I also am not so naive as to believe that I am in any more danger from that person than I am from those hundreds that I pass going the opposite direction every day.

Bowtech 7 years, 6 months ago

I apologize for my incorrect assumption. I think that the statistics have proven that we are all less likely to be the victim of a crime now that concealed carry has been adopted in most of the states. You may question the reasoning behind someone's need to carry a firearm, but I don't think that you can argue with their right to do so. Until someone can prove to me that CCW holders exercising their rights are doing more harm to soceity than good, I don't have a problem with them. I just think that there are a lot better things to worry about.

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

as a sworn Deputy Sheriff, I presume you carried a weapon. Why? The vast majority of Law Officers go thru their careers seldom, if ever truly needing a weapon. Surely you carried a weapon because you never known when you WILL need it. And if you find yourself needing it and you don't have it, you can't call timeout to go get it.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Liberty One: "There are 2.1-2.5 million protective uses of a gun per year in the US." He sites the NRA for this quote.

There are someowhere between 40 - 50 million gun owners in America. If 2.1 - 2.5 million people use their guns each year for protection -- not just had it for protection just in case, but actually used it for protection -- then at least 5 percent of all gun owners used their gun in a protective use per year. Not in a lifetime, but per year. This means that in 20 years, virtually every gun owner will need to use their gun in a protective manner at least once.

Now I ask in an informal poll, of those who own guns how many times have you needed to use it to protect yourself? Have you ever actually used your gun for protection against crime, or do you have it just in case?

I'm not saying people haven't used guns to protect themselves, or that if the number is lower we should take people's guns away, I just think that such a high number is not accurate and that the NRA shouldn't be spreading such false material to support their cause.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

But is it still accurate, even if the number is lower? What exactly constitutes a "protective use"? Is it drawing the gun to make people leave, or just making sure it was available just in case?

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

I've seen the numbers before so it is an honest question, what is meant by "protective use"? Do you know, because I don't? Reading some of these posts here it seems that some might claim that just going out to get groceries while armed is a "protective use," because you never know what can happen.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

"It was fired 26% of the time" -- Really? Earlier you gave a number as high as 2.5 million incidents of self-protection. If 26% fire their gun in such situations, that means upwards of 650,000 people in America are firing their weapons in self-defense each year!

I'm still finding these numbers hard to believe. That is an awful lot of shooting going on. Consider 650,000 criminals being shot at. How many are getting shot? How often do criminals go to jail with gunshot wounds? If there are only a total of 10,000 homicides with guns in America a year (roughly), with only a fraction of these being by those who shot in self-defense, why aren't there a whole lot more?

If anything, you are making the argument for better training, because apparently people shooting in defense are terrible shots.

I believe the numbers you are providing are greatly inflated.

Frank A Janzen 7 years, 6 months ago

The late Professor Maynard Shelly once wrote in a letter to the editor that Congress should pass a bill requiring every US citizen to carry a gun.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Then Professor Maynard Shelly was a fool, at least as far as guns was concerned.

independant1 7 years, 6 months ago

I didn't have a gun the first time I was robbed. A more telling statistic is how many robberys and violent crimes happen to law abiding citizens? And how many times would the victim scare off or stop the attacker if they'd had a gun.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Tin foil helmets?

And with a simple question, another American cottage industry is born.

Centerville 7 years, 6 months ago

Please educate me: Why do we have concealed carry laws in the first place? Why is getting a permit not going straight down the registratioin path? I have no interest in letting any government know about my firearm situation. Although, I do find those mass hysteria "No Guns Allowed" signs to be amusing.

Kris_H 7 years, 6 months ago

If you worked in a place like, say, a state office building, in this day and age when everyone is angry about the financial situation and many are struggling with unemployment issues, and the building you worked in had only unarmed guards, you probably would not be so scornful of those "no guns" signs. Of course, they won't stop anyone really determined to wreak havoc, but they set an expectation in the minds of most people that "this is not a place where you can carry a gun."

It may at least deter some impulsive behaviors.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

"Why is getting a permit not going straight down the registratioin path?" KS law doesn't require registration of firearms when getting a concealed carry permit.

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

The "no guns allowed" signs sure prevent a lot of armed robberies and school shootings, don't they?

Centerville 7 years, 6 months ago

But does it require registration of the carrier?

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Black Velvet: "A threat or attack can occur anywhere. Even in a church. My wife would rather not need a gun in her purse, but it's a better option than being a rape victim or worse. And she is properly trained, which anyone who carries a gun should be."

First off, I absolutely agree that anyone who carries a gun should be trained. However, own a gun or be a rape victim or worse -- those aren't the only alternatives.

In truth, guns give women a false sense of security. Since there simply isn't enough time to pull your gun out, turn off the safety, aim it and fire when physically overpowered. The "worse" could very easily be having a gun taken from you and used against you. Same is true with pepper spray or mace.

If you don't know how to protect yourself by other means, then you could be in trouble.

Here is a good read on the subject from a personal safety expert. She writes,: "... Food for thought…….why do you think our military and law enforcement are taught 'hand-to-hand combat' extensively in training? Simple answer…….they may not have enough time to draw their weapons to defend themselves in the event of an altercation. They must know how to protect and defend themselves 'realistically' with their minds and bodies rather than depending on their weapon. ..."

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

If you find fault with the current KS laws regarding legal concealed carry, let your state representative or senator know and start working to change the law. That's what the pro-right-of-self-defense folks did. Beating straw men and generally whining on the interwebs won't change much. BTW, you can still avoid having to associate with law-abiding citizens carrying firearms in Wisconsin, Illinois and DC.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Wait, you mean that the discussions here won't actually change anything and that the best thing to do if you want change is to go through the legislative process instead?

Wow. Who knew? Thanks for that very helpful word of advice there snap.

So I guess you won't be commenting on President Obama anymore and will stick to voicing your opinion by your vote. Cool.

mr_right_wing 7 years, 6 months ago

I do applaud bari-rock for signing legislation earlier this year that allows folks to carry guns in our national parks.

I don't applaud oblamama for much, but he has my appreciation for that one!

independant1 7 years, 6 months ago

That's right

Remember, write to your Congressman. Even if he can’t read, write to him. (Will Rogers)

Mr_B9 7 years, 6 months ago

ljwanonymous (anonymous) It appears to me you have a hard time believing anyone should even own a gun. (For any reason) The reality is it's OUR constitutional right to bear arms. It is also your right to not be a gun owner, however, you stated that you were. Just because you were a sworn Deputy Sheriff in another state doesn't mean squat. You perhaps could have been a jailer which would never even strap on a gun. Some Deputy Sheriffs find this career choice is not for them and find they are better suited tending to fluffy bunnies. Why do pacifists with dovish ideas think they are smarter than our constitution?

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

Between ljwanonymous and Beatrice, I guess I should tell my wife to forget about even trying to protect herself. She should just resing herself to the fact that is she ever is attacked, she is out of luck and should just hope for the best.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Yep, that is exactly what I said and what I've read in ljwanon's posts too. It is also exactly the advice given by the self-defense expert whose essay on the subject I posted.

Oh, wait ... no it isn't! In fact, it is the exact opposite!

Why people don't have the conviction of their beliefs to be able to discuss them without just giving up when someone offers an opposing view is beyond me.

By the way BV, if someone attacks you -- not your wife, you -- and for some reason you don't have your gun on you, will you just not do anything to resist, even if it is a rapist? Are you just going to lie back and take what is coming? If the answer is no (and I would hope it would be), then why do you think your wife should be so weak in the same situation?

Bowtech 7 years, 6 months ago

Beatrice, there is always a chance that even though you are wearing a seat belt you could still be killed in an automobile accident. So does the smart driver just say "It may not save my life, so why bother?" There will always be situations where no matter what you try to do to protect yourself you will become a victim, but to just say that you are not even going to try because you might fail is a sorry attitude. That is pretty much just choosing to be a victim. If that is your preference, fine, but don't deny others every option available.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Bowtech, if the situation of the seat belt is that wearing it means a good chance that it WILL kill you, then it would have been an appropriate analogy. Knowing that carrying guns give too many women a false sense of security is anything but a sorry attitude, unless I followed it up with "and so I won't do anything." If your fear is that you will be attacked or raped (the example used here), then it is best to use your wits and your physicality in a situation, not just relying on reaching that gun that is very quickly out of reach. My view is anything but choosing to be a victim. Thinking your gun will protect you in all circumstances is the sorry attitude, in my opinion.

And where did I write anything about denying others their Constitutional right to carry? Just because I don't care for guns and don't believe carrying guns is the answer for protection for most women and don't mind discussing the issue doesn't mean I don't believe in the Constitution. I don't deny others that option and have said so on this forum several times. Should I assume you like it when people get shot just because you take a pro-gun stance?

Bowtech 7 years, 6 months ago

Beatrice, and where did I say anything about a firearm being an indivudual's only option? You accuse me of putting words in your mouth; it looks like you are capable of same.

The only point I have attempted to get across is that statistically, concealed carry permit holders are of no more danger to public safety than you or anyone else is with their cell phone. Logically, there is no valid argument against allowing those with a permit to carry wherever they choose.

"In truth, guns give women a false sense of security. Since there simply isn't enough time to pull your gun out, turn off the safety, aim it and fire when physically overpowered."

Really? I wasn't aware that a potential rape victim never had enough time to assess her situation and use a firearm to thwart an attack. How many victims were interviewed to make that determination? It sounds pretty much like you are ruling out the defensive use a firearm completely. I think that you are underestimating the abilities of a lot of women with that statement.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

This is what you wrote: "There will always be situations where no matter what you try to do to protect yourself you will become a victim, but to just say that you are not even going to try because you might fail is a sorry attitude. That is pretty much just choosing to be a victim."

So yes, you actually did provide another option to carrying a gun -- be a victim. I just ask, is that really a reasonable option?

Maybe that isn't the way you intended it. Fair enough.

I would agree with you that statistically, C&C folks offer little danger to society, and probably is more if they were to talk on their cell phone while driving. This is why I don't argue against anyone's right to carry. I think every gun owner should go through similar training, and then carry where they choose. Heck, I even feel that C&C folks should be able to go in and see their legislators who voted for these rules while carrying if they so choose. However, just because I believe in their right to do so doesn't mean the legislators will approve such a position.

However, I stand by the claim that carrying a gun gives a woman (or rather, is very possibly could give a woman) a false sense of security. I didn't say every time. Of course not. I have no doubt that some women have protected themselves while carrying a gun. No doubt. I am saying that if women rely on the gun only for protection, then they may well end up regretting that decision.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years, 6 months ago

Oh my GAWD. Look OUT! She's got a false sense of security! RUN!

...the horror...the horror...

Seriously, I trust you to warn ALL not to have a false sense of security. I believe that will do the trick.

Oh no. I think I'm beginning to exhibit a concealed, false sense of security! It's rearing its ugly muzzle! RUN! Look OUT! Look OUT!~)

yankeevet 7 years, 6 months ago

Omar Thornton, the Connecticut shooting suspect who took eight lives then killed himself last week Wednesday, himself said his actions were all about race and racism. If one of the victims had of been "carrying" this could of been preventive................The guy got caught stealing beer; and selling it; so he pulls out the race card; as well as a weapon.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

I'll say this once again, LJW needs to give Chad a raise so he can afford a centerfire handgun.

Sparko 7 years, 6 months ago

Maybe if the right wing was as concerned for the plight of the Middle Class as it was about macho posturing about guns? Idiots. Nice distraction though. Look--over there--an abortion clinic. I wonder how many gun factories have been out-sourced?

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

Thank you for showing us how well you follow the the party line drummers. Perhaps some studying on your part is in order. Just FYI, Canada, Japan, Turkey, Brazil, and Croatia are just some of the countries that are making "American" guns these days.

Ray March 7 years, 6 months ago

our legislature is idiotic with guns. they would let kids bring them into daycare if it would pass.

Mr_B9 7 years, 6 months ago

mushhawk (anonymous) Maybe our legislatures should take away our right to free speech. This way we would not have to see such idiotic posts.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

I sense the wheels are starting to come off this conversation. Just questioning the "need" to conceal and carry has already been deemed the act of a pacifist, so it can't be long before gun owners really are just compensating for a "small caliber shooter" is offered up.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

And I still want my bazooka, seeing as how I am a pacifist and all.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Did you bother to consider the context? It was making fun at those who do exactly that. Geez!

booyalab 7 years, 6 months ago

I would say pacifism is recognizing the danger of not defending yourself and refusing to do it anyway. It's a moral stance. Believing that the mere possession of a weapon causes murder or that, say, the police will protect you, is just irrational. I think most gun control advocates are in the latter category. They haven't been in any real danger so it's not clear whether they'd really be so happy to give up without a fight.

kansasmutt 7 years, 6 months ago

If you have a gun and dont need it, your covered, If you have a gun and do need it, your alive. That is why i carry 24-7 and have no problem if i need to use it. I have the right to protect myself and my wife. I carry open.

gccs14r 7 years, 6 months ago

So you don't shower or you carry stainless. What happens during the few seconds between dropping your pants and putting your gunbelt back on? Does the hammer ever get caught in the sheets?

yankeevet 7 years, 6 months ago

I agree 100% lock and load.............

HaRDNoK9 7 years, 6 months ago

Beatrice, I do not believe that you are a pacifist. I think that there are a lot of people out there who have never owned or used or trained to use a gun. Your not so far fetched belief is that if CCW permits are easier to get, people who otherwise would never have owned a gun will run out and get one just because they can, not because they have any respect for the responsibilities involved in owning one. Those people will be much more likely to need one once they have one, not because they actually do need it, but because they believe that having one makes them stronger than they were without one. That attitude will make them more comfortable with putting themselves at higher risk. That increased risk will invariably put society at large at greater risk, and ultimately put gun ownership at risk, but not before it has cost more lives. Isn't your question to concealed carry permit holders' belief that they need to carry all the time born out of a desire to avert all of these tragedies? You are asking critical questions of current CCW holders and hopefully they will ask the same critical questions of the CCW holders of tomorrow. Am I close? Because I am just not hearing you say anything that would indicate to me that you are anti-gun.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Hey H9. You are close, especially with my take on the risk factor. If you think you are safe just because of what you have in your handbag, then quite possibly you aren't remaining aware of your surroundings, you haven't bothered to learn any physical self-defense maneuvers, etc. You got pretty close to my views on this.

I can not, however, say with a straight face that I'm not anti-gun. I have to be honest, I really don't like guns and don't mind asking pointed questions of those who are pro-gun. Yes, I've shot guns in the past, but I don't want one in my home. When I see report after report of somebody kiling a bunch of people because he was crazy or mad or whatever, I can't help but to think we would be a much safer and better society without guns. Others will clearly disagree.

That said, I respect the Constitution. Just because I don't like guns and don't want one around me or in my home doesn't mean I should have the right to say others can't have one. This is why I've actually agreed -- and said so here -- with the last couple of Supreme Court rulings on the issue. I don't like guns, but it really is right there in the Constitution whether all of us anti-gun types like it or not. It doesn't matter how often I say this, people will stil think I want to take their rights away if I write anything that is anti-gun. Oh well.

My feelings on this have shifted over the past few years. I've actually learned quite a bit from conversations with pro-gun types, including some on this site. The CCW people don't scare me or bother me. Loosening the law will mean there will likely be more problems that will arise, but as it is now I'm okay with it. Statistics support my lack of concern on the subject. In fact, I'd like to see all gun owners have similar training. Make all gun owners go through such training. That would help.

Thanks for taking the time to find out what I am really thinking on the subject.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

Back in the day when there were reporters on newspapers' payrolls instead of "journalists", the reporter would research and find out just how many people had been refused a CCH license for violation of any of the aforementioned charges. Once the information was presented, the reader could determine for himself if there was a real problem or if the story was a filler story. I guess the Hurst doctrines are still alive and well.

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

For 2009 in Kansas;

7545 issued.

82 denied.

32 suspended.

51 revoked.

Link provides reasons for permits denied, suspended and revoked.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

Good reporting, Roe. As you found out, that info is available with a quick check to and scrlling through the Concealed Carry menu. It has been there almost since CCH licenses were first issued in Kansas. A small percentage, indeed! Conclusion: no issue--filler story.

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

Here is my question. Who are you to say how I choose to protect myself and leave my house everyday? I bet if I went outside in a pink tutu you'd say "he's an individual, it's just what he chooses to do, it's his life who are we to tell him how to live it." Does that same mentality not apply here? You can't argue that people who carry concealed are dangerous to society, because it's proven not to be the case. The argument whether carrying is necessary is moot, because that's my business and my choice!

Also, let's clear this up. A gun is a tool, and for most CCH, it's one of many tools, a last resort. First, I try to stay out of dangerous situations, I'm not going to go walking alleys downtown at 3AM. I'm going to park in a well lit area and be very aware of my surroundings. Second, I have some martial arts self defense techniques at my disposal. Third, I usually carry pepper spray as well. Finally, if all those fail and I'm still in danger, I have a firearm. That's system isn't for everyone, some might feel paranoid taking that level of preparedness. Just because you're uncomfortable doing it doesn't give you a right to restrict someone else from doing it. I'm very comfortable in my day to day activities, I'm aware but not paranoid.

angeleyes2983 7 years, 6 months ago

finally, someone else who states that a gun is a tool! I have often wondered why more people don't realize this. I got into a discussion with a lady in the supermarket checkout line one time over an article on the front of a magazine I had I had picked up, concerning the banning of guns. She, of course, was all for it. I , on the other hand, am a lont time member of the NRA, and a carry and conceal holder who recieved a 40cal. Glock from my husband for Christmas last year!, To her remarks I ask her if she had never heard the phrase that if guns are outlawed, the only people who will have them will be the outlaws, since they never bother to buy theirs legally anyhow? Her response was total astonishment and surprise. I then pointed out that a gun never killed anybody in history,,the person holding it did the deed,, and if he's that mean, crazy, whatever, if you take his gun, he'll just grab a knife, ballbat, rock, ect. Cain didn';t need a gun to kill Abel! Then I asked her,,"If they take my handgun, and are allowed to get away with it, what are they going to do next,,walk into my kitchen and confiscatre my knives, because I have some pretty lethal ones! Just imagine what my 12" Chefs knife could do!" She just starred at me and had nothing else to say about banning guns. I can't imagine how anyone in their right minds could possible even consider the act of disarming American Citizens with the condition the world is in right now..Our Army is so busy protecting and caring for others, there aren't enough to take care of us, if there were to be a sudden neeed. And in my opinion,,thats the one reason that , other than Pearl Harbour, we have never been attacked at home, till now of course,,because the world knows that unlike Great Britain, Australia, Canada, & Mexico for example, that even if they manage to overthrow our Army, they would have to face an entire nation of Armed Citizens! We exist today because the people were willing to stand up and fight for their country! If the Mexican citizens were allowed to carry weapons,,there might not be so many innocent people found buried in mass graves!

pace 7 years, 6 months ago

I don't know how you were raised to equate some drunk guy in a tutu coming toward you with the same emotions you would have if some drunk pulled out his pistol and pointed it at you. Must of been an interesting home.

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

You either missed my point or deliberately choose to ignore it. Just as you have no right to control what I wear, you have no right to control how I defend myself. Usually when one has nothing intelligent to say, they resort to insults. I see you got to that point very quickly.

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

Actually, I think this guy makes a good point.

"Oh you could not think of anything to say , so you just attack the person. The phrase "name calling drivel" seems so apt, descriptive. As I said, hate rhetoric is neither owned by the hard left or hard right, it is owned by poor thinkers or those wishing to touch the emotions rather than to persuade the mind." -pace

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

Another beautiful day to peacefully exercise my rights under the Constitution of the United States.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

Well, if the commenters are wearing their licenses like a "badge", as you suggest, maybe that should tell you something. Please tell me, excluding on-duty law enforcement officers, exactly how many guns have you seen on people's hips within the last four years?

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

So, obviously you cannot answer the question so you have to resort to a childish sexual reference. Do you still giggle when you break wind, too?

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 6 months ago

You almost have to laugh at the Democrats because of the way they self destruct when choosing political issues to fight about.

1) Taking guns away from law abiding American citizens 2) Suing a state that is trying to stop wildly out of control illegal immigration. (Did somebody mention the billions we invested in homeland security. For what?) 3) Getting saddled with the moniker, "Baby killers", and not being able to shake it off. 4) Scaring the hell out of small business with not just national health care bundled in a maize of paper that nobody understands or has time to read but the threat of cap and trade, a scheme that would require a major new exchange in Chicago for a new generation of middlemen buying and selling products to manage it. 5) Bail outs for big banks to invest in foreign economies, crumbs for the smaller banks and the loan stream to small and medium businesses looking like a dry creek bed. 6) Stimulus money disbursements looking more and more like a sandbox for liberal economists to test out their theories before they go back to teaching.

It is looking more and more like the Repugnacrats are going to rule us again because the Democrats have performed very poorly. It is obvious that some very narrow minded people who are very out of touch are dreaming up ways to commit political suicide and they haven't learned a thing. Just take your money and run.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Complete nonsense from start to finish.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

It wasn't intended as a retort, it was a simple observation. Something that lame doesn't warrant a full retort.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Not when those observations are dead wrong they aren't. If your observation is that sun travels around the earth, that doesn't make it valid. Same is true if your observations are just ugly statements about a political party, none of which are true. He is welcome to his opinion, but then, his opinions are flawed. Either way you slice it, his words aren't valid.

Mr_B9 7 years, 6 months ago

jayhawklawrence, Amen to that!!! Funny when you tell them how the hog ate the cabbage they still have more of the same. Oink, Oink....

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

I think you're right. The changes helped the CCH process, and the controversial changes are probably going to have a very insignificant effect anyway.

waynebriscoeforuscongress 7 years, 6 months ago

The real issue here is not about Concealed Carry. The real issue is whether or not our Rights as Americans should be legislated away. Not just Gun Rights but all Rights. We have a government that currently over regulates, over taxes, and over spends with no apparent regard for the will of the people.

My position on Gun Control is that I will fight hard against any attempt to restrict the Second Amendment. We must all stay vigilant in order to insure and preserve our Constitutional Right to Bear Arms. Where possible I will further work to restore rights already taken by previous legislation.

If you are a citizen of the United States you have a right to purchase a gun under the 2nd Amendment. No where does it say whether you can or can not conceal it. The four most important words are "shall not be infringed".

Amendment II: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When you restrict one Right you restrict all of them.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

"A well regulated Militia ..." So everyone who owns is in a militia? Apparently, there is room for interpretation after all.

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

back then, the "militia" was John/Jane Q. private citizen.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

But if the militia isn't defined as such today, then should the right still be extended to Mr. and Mrs. Q private citizen? By having an armed public, that is going beyond just the needs of a militia, isn't it?

See, there is still room for debate.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

To angeleyes, if you really stumped someone with the "only outlaws" line, then that person is proof that if you outtlaw evolution in Kansas, only outlaws will evolve.

To the knife analogy I have to ask, what are the odds that a mean and crazy person without a gun will be able to kill dozens of people in one attack with a knife? How often have people attacked someone with a knife, and an innocent bystander across the street get killed? When was the last time you heard of someone being killed on America's roadways in a driveby stabbing, or a child killed while sleeping in their bed by someone throwing a knife out the car window?

Please don't minimize the lethal quality of guns by comparing them to knives or other potential weapons. Things like knives, baseball bats, cars, etc. can be used to committ deadly force, but they have a utilitarian use. Only when misused do they kill. Guns don't have any other use. They are made to shoot bullets, and bullets kill. Why do you think police arm themselves with guns and not cutlery?

Also, on the issue of war, the reason we haven't been attacked on our shores has more to do with distance. Great Britain was attacked because of its close proximity to Germany. Any trained army could easily minimize the threat of scattered, armed citizens. If our armed citizens are such a strength against other nations, then why do we spend more than the next 13 highest spending nations combined on our national defense? You should be up in arms over that waste of money.

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

"Guns don't have any other use. They are made to shoot bullets, and bullets kill."

Bea, in the last 40 plus years of gun ownership the only things I have killed were legally taken game. A few deer, coyote, squirrel, rabbit, etc. I have fired in excess of 140,000 rounds of ammunition at paper targets, aluminum cans, clay pigeons, etc. No animals or people were wounded or killed other than the hunted game. What am I doing wrong that nearly all those 140,000 rounds didn't kill anything?


beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Are guns made to shoot bullets? Yes. Do bullets when fired from a gun kill people when pointed in the direction of people? Yes.

You were shooting bullets, and bullets are capable of killing if the gun is pointed at a person, just as it can tear through a target if that is the, um, target. They don't discriminate, after all. Only reason your bullets didn't kill is because you weren't pointing your gun at a human target. If you had, then the bullet would have done its job. The bullet would have killed.

A gun is made to shoot bullets, bullets are made to be a fast moving metal projectile. That is what they are designed for.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

bea, Although I understand the nature of your argument, it is not based wholly in fact. Here is a web site you might want to check for some facts about handgun ballistics.

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

But bea the same can be said for so many things . . a car into a crowd, a 737 into a sky scraper, a butcher knife in a crowd of school children. I have loaded thousands of rifle bullets labeled "Not Recommended For Hunting" because they were designed for precise long range target shooting and would likely inflict less than lethal wounds if shot into living flesh. Yes, they might kill, but that is not what they were designed for. When I shoot targets it is to improve my skill at hitting bulls eyes on targets, so that if competing with others I may have a little bragging rights, at least until the next time I compete. It is a side effect, not the intent, that I would better be able to protect myself if armed should the need arise. Handgun ammo marked 'wadcutter' serves the purpose of cutting very clearly defined holes in paper for scoring. Certain loads for shotguns are designed so hundreds of rounds can be fired in a days competition without beating the shooters shoulder to a pulp, and are loaded with tiny pellets so there is more chance of breaking the clay birds being shot. These loads would be less than effective on live game and would result in wounded/lost game instead of cleanly and humanely killed birds. A blanket statement like 'all guns/bullets are designed to kill' is like saying 'women are only good for (fill in the blank)'. Either statement is BS to me. If you have a hobby, be it knitting, mountain climbing, off road racing or whatever, then you have an idea what shooting sports mean to me. I promise not to shoot you if you promise not to stab me with a knitting needle. ;-)

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

RoeD, all the things you originally mentioned - cars, planes, knives - are not designed, intended, or meant to be used in the manner you described. Only when they are misused do they cause harm. Can the same be said of guns? When a police officer uses a gun to shoot a criminal (with a bullet), is he using the gun in a manner other than what it was designed for?

The utilitarian use of a gun is to shoot bullets, with out concern for the intended target. Yes, you can use a gun as a hammer or a doorstop, but that isn't what it was intended for. Sure, some bullets can be fired that aren't lethal, just as guns can be made to fire paintballs. I am clearly speaking about the general, average use of a gun, especially as it is carried for self defense. If such a gun wasn't meant to shoot bullets that have the potential to kill people, then people wouldn't carry them.

Yes, you can kill someone with a knitting needle, you can kill someone with a pillow, and you can kill someone with a gun, but which are you MORE likely to kill somebody with if you use it with the intent to kill? Which would you rather be forced to defend against? Cops carry guns, not knitting needles, for a reason.

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

"The utilitarian use of a gun is to shoot bullets, with out concern for the intended target."

If you are referring to the concern of the gun then no, inanimate objects have no concern as to how they are used. Therefore the intended use is determined by the handler of the inanimate object, be it a car, a golf club, a ball bat or a 747 jumbo jet. To say the sole purpose of a gun is to kill somehow takes control and responsibility away from the person holding the gun, as though he/she will be unable to refrain from using the gun to kill. I very much understand your personal reasons as you have listed them for not wanting to take responsibility for guns in your own home, but your fears should not regulate how everyone else should live. Restricting responsible gun owners will never, ever stop irresponsible people from breaking the law. I do believe there is a fine line as to who should or should not be allowed the right to carry, but do not think you or I are qualified to decide where that line is drawn. In your state of Arizona I would argue maybe the line has been crossed. With an approval rate in Kansas, 37-2 in the Senate and 103-15 in the House, I would say sharper minds than most making comments here (including me) have weighed in and cast their vote. Still enjoy trading opinions with you bea, I imagine we will still be discussing this when (if) it swings the other way.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Last attempt: There is a difference between a car being used to kill someone and a gun used to kill someone. The correct analogy would be using a car to kill someone and a gun to hammer in a nail. The gun is made, designed and used with intention for shooting bullets that sometimes kill people. You can't say that about a car running people over.

I agree with you, and did so when this first came up, that the major numbers in support within the legislature demonstrate that the gun issue is over as far as liberals having a chance to overturn or turn back gun restrictions. That is pretty clear. The Supreme Court has ruled. Doesn't mean we can't still discuss the needs and the reasons why people do and don't carry or own. I respect others rights and don't wish to make that decision for them.

I enjoy the back and forth as well RoeD.

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

Okay. Then I will counter with; Not one gun that I have ever owned, or currently have in my possession was purchased for the purpose of killing, wounding, threatening or making uncomfortable any human, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, gender, age, political affiliation, blood type, hair color, mental or physical capacity, hangnails, etc, etc.

Well, there are the Swedes ;-) Nah! They're okay . . .

What about the Zombies? They shouldn't count, they're already dead, right?

I really like most people. Even the ones who don't think so.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

Well, actually the handgun was initially a major development in the art of self-defense. In other words, handguns were developed to keep people from killing people. Handguns were/are to be a substitute for not having access to a long gun for defensive purposes. Any trained police officer will tell you if he knows he is going into a hostile situation he will grab his shotgun or tactical rifle. He will present his pistol in close quarters or as a last resort when his primary weapon in out of ammunition.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

"...what are the odds that a mean and crazy person without a gun will be able to kill dozens of people in one attack with a knife?"

Mass murder with knives happens on a fairly regular basis in Japan and China.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

I see you ignored the part of the drive-by stabbing or of any incidents of innocent bystanders getting stabbed when standing across the street. If someone were intent on killing you, would you rather they come at you with a knife or a gun? Yes, knives can kill people, but they aren't guns. Cops carry guns instead of knives for a reason -- guns are able to stop and kill others with far greater efficiency. Period. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Such arguments are ridiculous.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Apparently it needs to be repeated: "Yes, knives can kill people, but they aren't guns. Cops carry guns instead of knives for a reason -- guns are able to stop and kill others with far greater efficiency. Period."

ivalueamerica 7 years, 6 months ago

Crimany, let's just hand out guns free with every 12 pack or as gifts at bars at the end of the night.

Maybe have Headquarters hand them out to people in distress.

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

Cool! Sounds good.

Of course you're exaggerating the point so much it's completely irrelevant.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 6 months ago

is the end result that much different? Guns in the hands of alchoholics and suicidal people?

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

Yes, the end result is different, very different. You've proposed a ridiculous hypothetical that in no way relates to concealed carry.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 6 months ago

I forgive your mistake, but if the NRA is lobbying to allow convicted alchoholics and suicidal people to have conceal carry permits, then there is a problem and it is not minor and you can deflect all you want, but your deflection will costs lives and while you may find that insignificant, please, PLEASE, explain that to the mother of a child murdered because of a drunk, or the children of a parent who's mother forgot her meds a couple days and got a quick gun and killed herself.

It is very related and significant to them.

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

Ok, I'll do my best to explain some things to you, but I'm betting that you have completely closed off your mind to this issue. "Guns are bad, guns are bad" is probably how you view firearms and you probably won't actually think about anything I say for more than the time it takes you to come up with a way to exaggerate and think of completely ridiculous stories to 'refute' me.

Where did you come up with "convicted alcoholics"? Did your read it in the bill? No you did not, because it's not there, you made it up. There is a difference between someone who has gotten one or two DUIs and an alcoholic. My friend has gotten two DUIs within the last five years yet the U.S. government trusts him with a gun. Let me make myself clear though, I don't want drunks carrying guns, but these changes won't make a difference. Concealed carriers have already been carrying and responsible carriers don't get drunk while carrying. Even if some do (which is very possible), show me the statistics of a CC unlawfully shooting while intoxicated, I bet you'll have a very hard time coming up with any information.

The suicide issue is interesting to me. Let's say someone is suicidal, what difference does it make if they have a CC or not!? I mean, if they have a gun and intend to commit suicide outside the home, do you think they won't take their gun because they don't have a license? A majority of suicides are planned, people don't just snap. Make the distinction between the right to own a gun and the right to carry. Are you arguing that suicidal people have a right to own a gun but not carry it concealed? I fail to see what difference it makes restricting someone.

Understand guns and gun laws before you make ridiculous arguments. You talk about a mother who forgets to take her pills, pills for what!? Does she have a mental disorder, because she wouldn't have a gun if she did.

You clearly don't understand the real issue but rather repeat the junk you heard from someone else. You follow that up by trying to make an emotional argument that doesn't actually relate to the issue at hand (i.e. alcoholism vs. DUI, legalities of owning a gun, and the basics of suicide). You absolutely have a right to your opionion, but you have to be able to back it up with logical reasoning not exaggerated emotional statements that lack any reason or substance.

ivalueamerica 7 years, 6 months ago

I have to say, your comments show an incredible amount of ignorance, dishonesty and presumptions based on nothing more than your prejiduces. Since that is where you start, you really do not start with any credibility whatsoever, but that is your cross to bear.

One of your biggest fundemental flaws in logic is not being able to tie conceal carry laws to gun access. If the NRA is lobbying for drunks to conceal their guns, it is directly tied with the fact that the NRA is fine with drunks carrying guns.

  1. You said: "Guns are bad, guns are bad" is probably how you view firearms¨

Not true, I come from a family who hunted and we have firearms and all have safety training and kept guns in the house all our lives. I am against Conceal Carry and I am in favor with Supreme Court rulings that allow certain restrictions on the right for people who have abused the privelage.

  1. you said: ¨Where did you come up with "convicted alcoholics"? Did your read it in the bill? No you did not, because it's not there, you made it up.¨

From the article above...As a result, it no longer is permissible to deny a license to a person who has been: • Convicted of two DUIs during the last five years. • Convicted of carrying under the influence in another state during the last five years.

You just do not see 2 convictions of alchohol abuse as a sign of abusing alchohol. I find that absurd.

  1. your opinions on suicide and how they are affected by gun access. Again, your failure to equate conceal carry by the NRA to the very fact that is suggests the NRA is really tying this to open access for guns hurts you deeply. Further, your opinion on suicide is far from reality, but you present it anyone as though you have the slightest clue. A culture that is more quick to give and allow and offer freedom to someone mentally unstable to have a gun and to provide them access to that gun is a society that sees an increase in violence from the mentally ill with guns.

again, I forgive you, you know not what you do.

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

Condescending much?

  1. Alcoholism is a condition that requires an individual to meat specific guidelines to be diagnosed. It's not something to be taken likely but it's also an overused term. The NRA doesn't want guns in the hands of drunks. If you actually believe that there is a group out there that lobbies for drunk people to carry guns, you have stopped thinking about the issue and spat every emotional thought that pops in your head. Remember that even those you disagree with are usually fighting for a cause they believe is right and have the best intentions. Is there an overlap with DUIs and alcoholism, sure, but that doesn't make the two synonymous with each other. A single account of abusing alcohol (DUI) doesn't show the same pattern of abuse that an alcoholic would have.

  2. The NRA doesn't believe that mentally unstable people should have guns, that's another instance of you not actually thinking logically about their position. You believe that someone who has shown a history of mental instability and serious mental disorder is the same as someone who has attempted suicide. It is different, I know that because I have experienced and studied both.

I'm okay with someone who disagrees with concealed carry. But you should read the bill and understand the changes. You're making assumptions about the changes without understanding them. Please stop the condescending talk about my intelligence, it only makes you look like a jacka$$.

I too am in favor of restricting certain people from owning a firearm. Someone who has shown a pattern of violence and irresponsibility shouldn't be armed. Do you believe an individual has a right to own a handgun and have it available for home protection? Out of curiosity, have you ever shot a handgun? What models of guns do you have in the home now?

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

I think bea's about to go all Carl T. Rowan on somebody.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Just because you appear incapable of recognizing the difference between a knife and a gun, this is going to make me shoot someone on my property? As usual, you aren't making sense snap.

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

Beatrice said ".....Also, on the issue of war, the reason we haven't been attacked on our shores has more to do with distance......"

I read somewhere that the Japanese had planned to invade our shores but decided against it since "everyone there has a gun!"

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

So then, are you really upset that we spend so much more on national defense than other countries, since everyone is already capable of playing the home version?

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

the only thing I'd like, but it's surely not likely to occur here, is for everyone to respect other's right to differ from their opinion. If I choose to legally carry a gun, I really don't need the name calling and belittling that so often happens here. If your opinion differs from mine, so be it. But why do these "discussions" always seem to result in name calling and mud slinging etc? Granted, it doesn't come from you, but if my wife (all 4'9" of her) chooses to protect herself with a handgun and not kung-fu, whose business is it anyway? She is a responsible, trained person. If you choose a different avenue, fine. It just happens to be different from mine. fair enough?

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Thanks for recognizing that I am not taking part in the name-calling or mudslinging. I usually ignore it when directed at me, and I recommend you do similarly. I've seen here where I've been called a "victim," a "pacifist," that I am "stern and judgemental" and that I am apparently ready to shoot someone like Carl T. Rowan did. Oh well. Some people just can't support their own ideas well enough that all they can do is call others names.

However, regarding whose business is it that your Mrs. carries a gun? Nobody's -- unless you bring it to this discussion board. Then, it is fair game for all to discuss. Yes, it is fair that we have different opinions.

With the guns and national defense issue, that is a legit question as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't being sarcastic at all. If we are so well armed and no country would ever invade us, why do we spend so much on national defense? Does this bother you, or have you even bothered to ask yourself this question?

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

I do indeed think we spend far too much on some defense programs.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

How about that. We talked this stuff through long enough and find we do agree on some issues.

oldbear 7 years, 6 months ago

I actually met a former Japanese Imperial Staff officer who was tasked with logistic of the proposed invasion. They had been working for for two weeks on the project when it was suddenly canceled. He found out later that the project had been axed because somebody pointed out that there were huge numbers of firearms in the hands of the populace.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

I (heart) bea when she gets all stern and judgemental and totally misreads everything people post.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

"I think bea's about to go all Carl T. Rowan on somebody."

yep, I'm the judgmental one here.

By the way, if you haven't yet figured out the difference between a gun and a knife, I recommend you let others do the carving at Thanksgiving.

happy_go_lucky 7 years, 6 months ago

When in discussion of a planned attack on America, later becoming the plan set in motion at Pearl Harbor.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 6 months ago

So what the anti-gun folks are implying in this particular argument is that the NRA and concealed carry supporters are in favor of selling guns to crazy people and alcoholics who will stagger down the street waving a bottle of Jack and firing shots into the sides of houses.

The anti-gun folks want to paint a disturbing picture that does not exist.

If you want to be alarmed and even scared of these folks, start researching what is happening in other states, particular where the liberals are politically strongest. Gun rights are withering away. All their sweet talk about you keeping your hunting rifle, etc. is just so much talk. They will not stop until we are completely unarmed as a nation and only the criminals and politically connected or very rich will have access to firearms.

You want ammunition too? Forget about it.

Remember Michael Moore? He wants everybody with a gun to look like a murderer.

The goal of this argument from the beginning is to make law abiding citizens who are the backbone of this country into looking irresponsible.

Our grandfathers and fathers and many of us fought on foreign soil to protect our freedoms. Now the liberals think we are not responsible enough to handle firearms.

Their solution is that the government has to take our guns away before we hurt ourselves.

I think that the reason that the NRA has drawn the line they have drawn is because they know that the liberals eventually want to take away your right to own a gun. They want the Supreme Court to decide that the right to own a gun is not guaranteed by the constitution. If they can do that, we are going to be disarmed as a nation. Only the criminals, police, military and of course illegal aliens will have guns.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

"As a result, it no longer is permissible to deny a license to a person who has been: • Convicted of two DUIs during the last five years. • Convicted of carrying under the influence in another state during the last five years. • Documented to have attempted suicide during the last five years."

Actually, this is what people are questioning. Not everyone agrees and some feel this is loosening the laws too much. It isn't about staggering drunks, or Michael Moore, or even Ted Nugent for that matter. It is about questioning the limits of ownership for those who have shown less than proper judgment, be it with alcohol, criminal activity or attempted suicide. Further, the Supreme Court has ruled. The notion of politicians coming in and taking away people's guns is done. It is over. The gun rights folks won. It has nothing to do with the NRA. The NRA has drawn the line they have because they are a lobbyist organization. If they didn't draw lines to stir people up, they wouldn't make money. What lobbyist firm is okay with making less money?

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 6 months ago

Only 11% of the American people have any confidence at all in the Congress of the United States. This is the lowest on record.

What does that tell you about trusing politicians when they start arguing about putting more restrictions on our freedoms?

If this was the only situation I have seen regarding guns I might be open to your argument. However, there are thousands of attacks across the country against a citizens right to own and/or carry or to own any kind of gun. There is an agenda and it is nationwide and it is heavily funded and politically driven.

Our problem today is that both political parties have crossed the line on what should be acceptable and they are not taking care of the American people. That is why they get an 11% confidence rating.

The political parties have lost touch with the average American and we have we have just about had enough.

Politicians now believe that with enough money and the right line of BS, they can get away with anything. I think it is time that we drew our line in the sand and this is one of them.

Ramv36 7 years, 6 months ago

Kansans, your freedom-loving neighbors to the East feel you pain and stand behind you as you work to expand freedom in your great state. Concealed Carry in Missouri was also an uphill battle all the way, but after much effort we topped that hill and our rights were restored.

If you like stories like this and feel as I do, don't miss my new blog, The Rob Report: News and Ideas that are liberally conservative.

marlin44 7 years, 6 months ago

Does anyone honestly believe that if you make a law against owning a gun and take all guns away from the people who are honest enough to give them up that it will stop a criminal from shooting someone? Think a little! If a criminal is planning on comitting the crime of murder do you really think he is going to worry about breaking the law of having a gun? Maybe you think it would be harder for him to find a gun if they are outlawed? Anyone with a few of the right tools can make a gun. Just like during prohibition, there would be people making what the criminals want. If a person wants to carry a gun thats his or her right. I am 51 years old and have been carrying concealed for as long as it has been legal in my state and fortunately I have never needed it. But if I ever do, I hope I still have the right to have it.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

To your first question -- No. Nobody believes a law will stop a criminal from breaking that law. I don't believe anyone here suggested such a thing. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not people who have had DUIs or have attempted suicide recently should have access to conceal and carry weapons. Discussing this aspect of people's right to conceal and carry isn't the same as claiming guns should be completely banned.

Regarding making your own gun goes, that doesn't hold up in countries that actually do have major restrictions on guns. This is why we have many thousands of gun deaths a year and other countries have a few dozen.

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

Why would I take that as snarky? That was a good question. I do believe someone carrying (open or concealed) who has a history of drinking is a very bad idea. With open carry, at least a bartender can clearly see the weapon and refuse service. Not so with conceal and carry. Since we are possibly talking about alcoholics and their lack of judgment, I do think that is a real possiblitity, especially since the new standard gives people the okay to conceal after two DUIs. That isn't just someone who messed up once by having a little too much wine at dinner and not knowing their limits. Those people tend to get scared straight. If you get two DUIs in 5 years, you likely have a problem. Mixing concealed guns with an alcohol problem that someone likely won't even admit they have is a dangerous situation waiting to happen.

Sorry, but if you get two DUIs in 5 years, you loose some of your rights.

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

As I read information provided in this link;

two people who were denied in 2009 might have acquired CCW permits under the new rules. Feel free to correct me if I missed anything. I say might, because the personnel who teach the classes are trained to watch for suspicious behavior, and have final say based on scoring and observation as to who passes. They are pro-CCW, but they don't want idiots with guns out there any more than you or I. Will more people with DUI's, carrying under the influence, or having attempted suicide attempt to get CCW permits under the new rules? Possibly. Time will tell if this is a wise decision, or if it even makes a difference.

pace 7 years, 6 months ago

Not to quibble but some of my comments that are posted to this topic were actually in response to a different story. Odd mix up.

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

I quoted you from a different story. You wrote about how people attack on a personal and emotional level when they have nothing to say. I found it interesting after you said I must have had an interesting childhood because my opionion differed from yours.

Mr_B9 7 years, 6 months ago

Oh great, now we will have to do this all over again... LOL...

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

That reminds me C2011. It always amuses me when some argue that smokers of the weed say they are harmless when high. A room mate I shared a house with in '68 always got paranoid when he lit up. He pulled a straight razor on me once,pushing it against me hard enough to nick a place near my navel. I pushed back against it, telling him if he didn't put it away he better use it or I would feed it to him. He chose to put it away. It mysteriously disappeared a day later. Another time he shot holes in the house while the rest of us stayed outside. The door frame where I was standing outside of had 7 holes shot into it from inside. His .22 rifle mysteriously ended up with a smashed barrel and receiver. I moved out shortly after that. Funny though, we're still friends.

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

Typical of the defenders of the weed, an attempt to divert and blame other factors. My point would be that not all users are 'peace and love' hippies, therefore anything that alters behavior can cause unpredictable actions depending on the individual. My friend was/is more the '60's type hippie when not under the influence of drugs than when he is. And no, he never was much of an alcohol consumer.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

Perhaps I'll peacefully assemble today. Maybe I'll petition my government for the redress of a grievance. The Bill of Rights is just so cool!

jaywalker 7 years, 6 months ago

Always interesting that people fight law-abider's carrying guns, as if crime rates will sky-rocket and random shootings/The Ol' Wild West will break out. It just isn't so.

  • Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

  • When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

  • 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

  • As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

  • As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

beatrice 7 years, 6 months ago

RoeD, I've never witnessed such behavior from someone smoking pot -- sure your roomie wasn't smoking pot laced with something else? I have seen such behavior by many people drinking.

This brings us back to the argument at hand, since people with a history of DUI offenses are now being told they can conceal and carry. As you know, I agree with jay -- the Wild West scenarios aren't accurate. However, the more the laws are loosened, the greater that possiblity rises. Just as other people who break laws can loose their rights, should those caught drinking and driving be allowed access to a concealed weapon? It is worth asking.

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

Well my right is a little loose, but I'm left handed so still have a tight grip there;-)

Come to think of it, the old man who used to live west of me liked to spray marijuana he found drying in his fields with diesel fuel mixed with 2,4,D.Someone would still strip the leaves and seeds off of it anyway! Could be the old roomie got a batch or two of it!

RoeDapple 7 years, 6 months ago

"So lets ban coffee, cigarettes, alcohol, tea, etc etc. "therefore anything that alters behavior can cause unpredictable actions depending on the individual." You're defense of your friend is typical of the victim mentality, "i'm not responsible for my actions" crowd that imposes itself on everyone else."

By all means, if you think they should be banned, you're welcome to work on getting them declared illegal! At the same time, you can try to get marijuana legalized.I personally don't care if you smoke it, but if you do expect to pay the price if caught. Well, not around Lawrence maybe. I have a relative who has smoked a rail car of it, so I'm well aware of its effect on most people. And 'victim mentality'? You gotta be kiddin'! I would not be surprised or upset to see him, you or any user of ILLEGAL substances arrested and punished. You know what the risks are so you must be prepared to pay the price. Like I say, it amuses me. After all, it is YOU who seems to be getting angry over our little exchange.

Toke up, just leave your guns out of it.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

Let's see. .25 caliber; quite enemic and likely just to make someone mad. .38 derringer; difficult to hang on to, will sting your hand, and no terminal ballistics out of that short of a barrel. Again, most likely to make someone mad. Sawed-off shotgun; I can't begin to tell you how many violations of federal law that brings up. A barrel less than 18 inches or an overall length of 28 inches means federal jail time. Sawing off the barrel, even to just legal limits, gives you an open choke, meaning you have a very wide pattern of shotshell at little distances. Depending on the load, the pattern could be dispersed in such a large area the round might not be effective. Once again, slightly irritating the person hit with the load. And here I thought you said you were going to inject a little sanity to this thread.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

In real life, a shotgun isn't a point-in-the-general-direction weapon. You still have to aim if you want to hit your target. At 10 yards, you'll get about a 20 inch spread from a cylinder choke.

Jim Phillips 7 years, 6 months ago

I never said you would miss. I said, depending on the load, the pattern could be spread wide enough that shot contact could be ineffective .

No, you did not say anything about going below the legal limit on cutting down a shotgun. Nor did you mention what the legal limit was.

I firmly advocate using a shotgun for home defense to eliminate the possibility of handgun rounds penetrating walls and going into other rooms. I do not advocate going into the kill zone yourself to search for an intruder. Keep yourself behind cover, defend your position, call 9-1-1 and yell out your address, keep the line open, and tell the intruder you are armed, you will defend yourself, and that the police are on the way.

You might well be an accurate enough shot with a .25 to, under stress, precisely place enough rounds into an assailant to physically incapacitate an attacker. If so, kudos to you and your practicing. The average shooter is not.

BlackVelvet 7 years, 6 months ago

If you were "expecting to be attacked" why on earth would you go into that area in the first place? That's not very bright if you ask me.

jayhawklawrence 7 years, 6 months ago

My recommendation:

Ruger LCP .380 Hornady critical defense ammo. You will hardly notice that you have it in your pocket.

Home defense: Nothing is more frightening than the sound of a shotgun being cocked. 12 guage. Actually, just about any 12 guage will do the job.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

Funny you should mention LCPs, I acquired one about a month ago as a lighter alternative to my normal carry piece. Had just started seeing the Hydra Shok .380 in the stores again. If I come across some of the Hornady, I'll get a couple of boxes and see if it feeds well in the LCP.

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

The goal isn't to kill, but incapacitate. A .25 or any derringer might psychologically incapacitate a person, but it's unlikely to physically incapacitate them very quickly. So, if they choose to ignore the wound, very easy when you're pumped up on adrenaline or drugs, and attack you, well you've got nothing else to do.

A shotgun is great for home defense, although a pistol allows for easier movement around corners and a less likely chance someone can grab the weapon from you.

Flap Doodle 7 years, 6 months ago

If one lives in a part of the country prone to earth-quakes, I think it is reasonable to consider what to do during an earth-quake. Same same for defending one's life.

DillonBarnes 7 years, 6 months ago

If you don't think about bad situations, you'll never be prepared for one. You have a "victim mentality" where you don't like to even think about unpleasant situations. I think about what would happen if that car in front of me was in an accident, what would I do. I think about what would happen if a fire starts in the room next to me, do I have time to make it out the door or should I use the window. I think about where someone would be hiding to mug me while I'm walking to my car late at night.

You are stereotyping gun owners and concealed carry owners. Thinking about bad situations helps me prepare for them. Thinking about things that could happen compel me to choose to carry a first aid kit with extra surgapad, it also compels me to carry a CPR mask in my wallet. It also compels me to choose the right firearm to handle an attacker.

So many anti-CCH people have never actually met the average CC. You build your assumptions off slanted media reports and redneck stereotypes.

Janet Lowther 7 years, 6 months ago

For me, the best thing about concealed carry is it makes it possible for women to defend themselves.

Even highly trained martial artists rarely come off well against opponents twice their weight, and guys twice the weight of my 5'3" niece are pretty common. Give her one pound of pistol, and that pretty well negates his hundred plus pound size advantage.

Since the dawn of the firearms era, bullies have tried to gain exclusive use of firearms. The Brady campaign and their supporters effectively support those who would victimize others.

Even the tiny bullet out of a .22 pocket pistol can ruin a thug's whole day.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.