Drunken driving.
Reader poll
Carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.
Attempted suicide.
Prior to July 1, all those situations were red flags for the Kansas Attorney General’s office when deciding whether to issue a permit for someone to carry a concealed handgun.
But now a new law, passed this spring by the state Legislature, largely has made those issues nonfactors. It also has left some state legislators concerned about where Kansas’ four-year-old concealed carry law is headed.
“What I’m seeing now is a slow erosion on a yearly basis of a lot of these exceptions that were originally written into the law for a good reason,” said Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence. “At the rate we’re going, we may have very few exceptions in the law. We may reach the point where we don’t have any.”
Some concealed carry advocates said that is the direction they would like to move because they believe many concealed carry laws unnecessarily restrict people who can legally own firearms.
“If you want to get down to the philosophical discussion about carrying guns, yeah, no one should even need a permit to do that,” said Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, which lobbied for the changes. “That’s certainly the direction we want to go, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon in Kansas. But there are states that don’t require a permit to carry a gun.”
Lawmakers concerned with new gun laws
Kansas lawmakers are voicing concerns about new laws that change the requirements necessary for getting a concealed carry permit. The new rules went into effect July 1. Enlarge video
The changes
The latest changes — which were approved 103-15 in the House and 37-2 in the Senate and went into effect July 1 — open up who can receive a permit under the state law. The changes eliminated several categories under which the Attorney General could rule someone ineligible to receive a permit. They included:
• Individuals with two misdemeanor DUI convictions in the five years prior to applying for the permit.
• Individuals with misdemeanor drug convictions in the five years prior to the permit applications.
• People who have been convicted of carrying under the influence in another state within the last five years.
• People who have been declared in contempt of court for child support proceedings.
• Individuals who have attempted suicide in the five years prior to applying for a permit.
In addition, the law removed one step for a convicted felon to apply for a concealed carry permit. Most felons fall under state and federal laws that restrict them from owning firearms, sometimes for life. But depending on the crime, those restrictions can be lifted after five or 10 years. The previous law required felons whose restrictions had expired to go through a court process to have their conviction expunged before applying for a permit. That step is no longer necessary.
Stoneking said opening up who can apply for a permit made sense. She said there already are state and federal laws that address whether people can buy a gun based on their criminal history or mental health history. She said the concealed carry requirements should be no stricter than those.
But Davis said he believes there’s a difference between allowing someone to own a gun and allowing them to conceal it on their person and take it into public places.
“Everybody deserves a second chance, but I have a real concern about allowing people who already have demonstrated an inability to follow the law to possess a concealed carry license,” said Davis, who also is the House Minority Leader.
No to testing
The law also has created a new provision that has left some law enforcement leaders saying it will be more difficult to prosecute concealed carry permit holders who are carrying under the influence of alcohol.
Under the previous law, concealed carry permit holders were required to submit to testing if a law enforcement officer had reason to believe they were carrying a gun under the influence of alcohol. If the permit holder refused, they automatically lost their license for three years.
Now, permit holders have no obligation to take the test — unless they’ve actually shot someone. The Kansas Association of Police Chiefs came out against the changes.
“It is going to be tougher to make a case stick in court because I can’t imagine most people consenting to a test when there is no sanction for not doing so,” said Ed Klumpp, former Topeka Police Chief and current legislative liaison for the police chiefs association. “I think it just adds a lot more loopholes.”
Among the loopholes, Klumpp said, is new language stating permit holders have violated the law only when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol “to such a degree as to render such licensee incapable of safely operating a handgun.” Klumpp said that likely will be difficult to prove in court, especially if no breath test is given.
Stoneking, though, said the old law gave law enforcement too much leeway in determining when to question whether a person was carrying under the influence. Plus Stoneking — who owns a firearms training business — said there may be some situations where a person who has had some alcohol should be entitled to carry a gun.
“Why should I lose my right to defend myself from the big burly guy who grabs me in the parking lot because I’ve had two glasses of wine with my dinner?” Stoneking asked, although she said guns and alcohol generally are a bad combination.
In addition to the Kansas Rifle Association, the National Rifle Association also testified in favor of the changes during the legislative session. A spokeswoman with the NRA on Thursday wasn’t able to immediately answer questions about the NRA’s support for the changes.
It also was unclear just how much the Kansas Attorney General’s office supported the changes. The minutes for a hearing on a previously enrolled version of the bill stated the attorney general’s office supported the “underlying concept” of the new law.
C.W. Klebe, an assistant attorney general who oversees concealed carry laws, said the office did share some of the same thoughts as the Kansas Rifle Association.
“It is I guess the balancing of a potentially intoxicated person with a gun versus the state taking away their ability to protect themselves if they are put in a position where they might need that gun,” Klebe said.
An attempt to receive further comment from the office of Attorney General Steve Six, D-Lawrence, wasn’t successful on Thursday.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
grimpeur (anonymous) says…
I wonder how long the KRA had to troll for a spokesperson who couldn't (or pretended not to) understand this simple fact of civilization: when people have clearly demonstrated a complete lack of concern and wanton disregard for their own safety and that of others, you don't allow them to carry guns around. Pretty simple, but Stoneking doesn't get it. You're sorry, Stoneking.
geekin_topekan (anonymous) says…
Woohoo
Where's HWSNBN when I need him?
WHat kind shall I buy?
Which is best for my stature?
WHatever you do, don;t let convicted felons mow that lawn at KU. They might be dangerous.
But let them carry guns in public!!
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) replies…
excellent point.
rightwrong (anonymous) replies…
Hello, I understand that the word "felon" strikes a nerve in many people...as it does myself. Unfortunately, there are people that have not been in trouble for anything major but get in trouble for something like growing pot (not selling pot) which acquires them a felony. For some people that don't choose to continue that type of lifestyle and completely change their life, this felony can cause major problems in their lives. Can't get apartment, can't own a gun, can't work certain jobs, can't get rid of the felony. There should be laws in place to evaluate certain cases. Because everyone shouldn't have the right to own a gun such as violent criminals or re-offending criminals, but the laws are bogus when people who are nothing close to that but are grouped into that category. Please don't respond to this with "laws are laws" because I think everyone should realize that is ridiculous.
MacHeath (anonymous) says…
Alarm over this is a bunch of hooey. "The sky is falling!!"
ckennedy (christy kennedy) replies…
"Under the previous law, concealed carry permit holders were required to submit to testing if a law enforcement officer had reason to believe they were carrying a gun under the influence of alcohol. . . . Now, permit holders have no obligation to take the test — unless they’ve actually shot someone."
Brilliant.
fredthemechanic1213 (anonymous) replies…
“What I’m seeing now is a slow erosion on a yearly basis of a lot of these exceptions that were originally written into the law for a good reason,” said Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence. “At the rate we’re going, we may have very few exceptions in the law. We may reach the point where we don’t have any.”
Great quote, everyone loves a slippery slope right?
Eride (anonymous) says…
I know I would want an intoxicated felon with a concealed gun permit near me.....
Lame Kansas, Lame.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
1. You are just disappointed that there is no hotline number to call to report your gun-toting neighbors.
2. A felon is not permitted to own a gun; with very limited exceptions.
Eride (anonymous) replies…
1. There is a hotline for that. It is 911.
2. The point is that under some exceptions a felon *can* own a gun and the revision does not allow the AG to make a determination that such felon can't concealed carry. Let me reiterate that for you since you have trouble comprehending simple English. The revision allows a felon who can buy a gun, to concealed carry it. That is most definitely stupid in my opinion and that opinion is most definitely shared by most of the public.
fredthemechanic1213 (anonymous) replies…
I disagree that "that opinion is most definitely shared by most of the public." I more believe in a person getting a second chance. I feel safe with the laws against convicted felons aquiring guns at all being satisfactory. I really think it's rediculous to worry about them legally carrying it. If you're worried about that, I'd be more worried that they have a gun at all.
Jeteras (anonymous) says…
Those who want to carry are going to do it reguardless of the law so who cares.. You think a criminal is going to go get a permit for his 9,,, gimme a break its around $300 to get the permit by the time you get finished with it.. gimme a break.
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
We're not talking about criminals. What about drunks carrying weapons? We can't trust them with a car, but it's ok to get wasted and have a firearm on you legally?????
buzzjd45 (anonymous) says…
Another issue needed to meet is proper handling and safety of a firearm, should not even have a gun if you know nothing about it, or proper use and dangers of carring a firearm " I never knew it was loaded, sorry ." Draw up a gun safety course that each person regusting a gun carring permit must complete first, if I'm going to get shot, I want the person to know what they are doing.
Gotoit (anonymous) replies…
A safety course is already a requirement for the permit.
nobody1793 (anonymous) replies…
Lesson #1. Do not carry a gun in the waistband of your sweatpants.
jehovah_bob (anonymous) replies…
or hot pants.
kernal (anonymous) replies…
Lesson #1-a: especially drawstring sweatpants!
Majestic42 (anonymous) replies…
You seriously thought there WASN'T a class required for a CCW?
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Where's the ACLU defending the 2nd Amendment? Where's the ACLU defending the rights of the formerly incarcerated?
(Crickets chirping)
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Why do you need the ACLU when you have the NRA, one of the largest lobbying firms in Washington, on your side?
BlackVelvet (anonymous) replies…
if the ACLU is going to defend the bill of rights, shouldn't they defend ALL of it?
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) replies…
Nobody needs the ACLU.
It's ironic, however, that the ACLY claims to be stalwart defenders of the Constitution but they're all but silent on Second Amendment rights. And they claim to be in the corner of ex convicts and the formerly incarcerated but they're all but silent when those who have paid their debt to society are denied the same rights as the rest of us.
jimmyjms (anonymous) replies…
Wow. You understand that there are limits to the right enumerated in the Bill of Rights? Like on free speech, freedom of the press, etc?
Are you really on here advocating for felons to have CC? Why??
notsobright (anonymous) says…
Eride- That does not even make sense. The intoxicated felon already has one! Do you really think they care about the law?
All gun restrictions do is place a burden and limitations on law abiding people.
Israel demands that their young people carry guns. Look at a their campuses! Guns everywhere. . . and they have no nut cases shooting up classrooms.
EarthaKitt (anonymous) replies…
You may want to rethink your handle when making posts like the one above. I'm getting confused as to whether your name or your statement is the one to be taken sarcastically.
hitme (anonymous) says…
I took the CC class from Stoneking. She's very good at what she does, but I disagree w/her here. We don't need the fringe carrying carrying guns.
I'm guessing that half the people in the class don't carry, because they're normal. The other half do carry because they're paranoid.
Honestly, what kind of dope wants to carry around two pounds of metal and ammo in anticipation of some event that will probably never, in their whole life, happen. Legally toting a gun is inconvenient and a hassle.
think_about_it (anonymous) replies…
Sounds like you need a weapons upgrade hitme. The new sig p238 weighs in at at shade over 15 oz. and is very comfortable to carry in a pocket (or purse if you prefer).
hitme (anonymous) replies…
Naw, I choose to go through life not being scared.
Shifty (anonymous) replies…
It is your right not to carry and to hope that you will not be victimized. While the best option is to be a good witness, if it comes down to my life or the criminal's life, I would rather protect my family and myself instead of putting my fate into the hands of a criminal.
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
It's really sad that so many of you chose to live in fear and feel the need to pack heat at all times. I chose to live, not hide behind a gun.
Majestic42 (anonymous) replies…
What will you do if someone comes at you with a gun, then?
geekyhost (anonymous) replies…
If someone comes at you with a gun, they're either going to shoot you before you can whip out yours and disengage the safety, or you're going to have time to take action. Whether that action is to run away or escalate the level of violence is up to you. If you're inclined to run away, doesn't seem that owning a gun would change the outcome in that scenario.
MolonLabe (anonymous) replies…
gatekeeper, if you were the only making choices, your choice would be just fine. But, you're not the only one with a choice. Right now, someone has chosen to victimize someone else... usually for money, maybe for perverse sexual pleasure, maybe because they are a bad seed. When that person (one of the wolves) decides that you (one of the sheep) are going to be the one victimized your choice to live has become irrelevant... unless you have the will and means to defend yourself. Since you consider exercising your guaranteed right to keep and bear arms in defense of one of your other guaranteed rights, life, to be hiding, that wolf is going to eat your breakfast.
Maybe you'll get lucky. Maybe someone like me, a CCH permit holder will witness you being victimized and I will exercise my right to put a 45 caliber hole in that wolf's chest.
Keep in mind though, I didn't chose to hide behind a gun, I chose to make the wolves think twice about causing harm to me or my family. Besides, at 6'3" and 240lbs, the (maybe) 2 square inches of cover provided by the front of my pistol wouldn't hide very much of me.
Oh, one last thing, more likely than not, no one like me will be around when the wolf decides he wants what is rightfully yours. But... I guarantee you're going to wish there was.
Majestic42 (anonymous) replies…
MolonLabe, Molon Labe indeed.
Thanks for the great post. Right on, brother, right on.
Majestic42 (anonymous) replies…
Right with ya, Shifty. I don't trust my awesome kung-fu skills to get me out of trouble, so I will instead have tool (which is what a firearm is) to use in case that situation ever arises.
BlackVelvet (anonymous) replies…
so are you with the "paranoid" half? If not, why did you take the class?
hitme (anonymous) replies…
Are you serious? My post isn't clear enough?
I was given the class as a gift. I have the license and am a gun owner. I take them to the range, but I certainly don't have a need to take them elsewhere.
BlackVelvet (anonymous) replies…
you said, in part............."I'm guessing that half the people in the class don't carry, because they're normal. The other half do carry because they're paranoid.
Honestly, what kind of dope wants to carry around two pounds of metal and ammo..."
so are you the half who don't carry, or the half who are paranoid? That's all I'm asking.
hitme (anonymous) replies…
wow.
No,...I...Don't...Carry...A...Gun.
oldvet (anonymous) replies…
Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean that they are still not out to get you...
itwasthedukes (anonymous) says…
Would you want an intoxicated felon to have a concealed weapon with no permit right next to you? Because they can do that now.
geekyhost (anonymous) replies…
Yes. And they can get arrested for doing that.
jfcm77 (anonymous) says…
This is just going to lead to CC permits for dogs and cats.
jehovah_bob (anonymous) replies…
Sharks with freakin' lazerz.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Now that is a funny line!
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
My cats would be happy. They'd be picking the birds off at the feeder, just like my photo shows. :-)
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
grammaddy (anonymous) replies…
I bet your pistol is prettier than most,too.
puddleglum (anonymous) replies…
my carry pistol isn't all that pretty...just stainless and shiny. I use jhp hydra-shok because I play for keeps.
The good news is that I am so pretty, and when you add up the image combination of pretty me + My pretty bike with wheels shining like diamonds + my tidy kit consisting of matching jersey and shorts = amazing sight... people gawk, people take photos, cameras flash, autographs are signed, it is a regal scene. luckily, i don't push it to overload by showing off my sparkling eyes-they are concealed by my mirror-green riding glasses...otherwise, people would wreck their cars staring at me, and we can't have that. I'm all about the safety.
My pretty guns don't get carried around on my bike-they sit at home and have their own little a-list parties and stuff like that. shimmering gold triggers....skeleton hammers...engraved barrels...fresh oily internals ready to snap a .45 ...ahhhh.
I am so wonderful, I love to share my greatness with all of you. have a wonderful weekend, and please drive safely and be courteous of human beings on bikes, on tractors, on horses, or whatever.
pagan_idolator (anonymous) replies…
Ha-cha-cha-cha! I just KNOW the reason we are having such hot weather is because your shining radiance is splattering all over the place! :-)
verity (anonymous) replies…
So you shoot the guy and then his big truck is completely out of control? I don't think I like that option.
puddleglum (anonymous) replies…
truck will be in the ditch. I won't let him harm anyone else.
jimjones (anonymous) replies…
Here's a good example of why we need CC training. puddleglum obviously has no idea when he can/can't use a gun. We don't need this type having guns. He really makes the case for psychological screening.
puddleglum (anonymous) replies…
ha, look who's drinking-I mean talking.
puddleglum (anonymous) replies…
that's why we have a judiciary branch, where a judge decides, not a cop.
perhaps you misunderstood. If someone swerves their car at you intentionally - it is attempted vehicular homicide. You are allowed by the ccl to defend yourself against that whether you are riding a bike, walking, siting, or hang-gliding.
and you are allowed to meet deadly force with deadly force.
jimmyjms (anonymous) replies…
Hahaha. Go ahead and shoot at a car that swerved close to you. We'll visit you in jail...well, probably not.
puddleglum (anonymous) replies…
I won't be going to jail, jimbo.
verity (anonymous) replies…
The sparks from your radiant beauty would melt down the bars.
jimmyjms (anonymous) replies…
Funny! I'm sitting here with a cop, so I asked him. He laughed, said that would be a really, really stupid thing to do.
There's no call for deadly force in the hypothetical you laid out.
puddleglum (anonymous) replies…
that's why we have a judiciary branch, where a judge decides, not a cop.
perhaps you misunderstood. If someone swerves their car at you intentionally - it is attempted vehicular homicide. You are allowed by the ccl to defend yourself against that whether you are riding a bike, walking, siting, or hang-gliding.
and you are allowed to meet deadly force with deadly force.
jocknavals (anonymous) says…
so, somebody help me out here....do i need a permit to strap on a holster and carry my 44 in the open? are there some places like schools, bars and federal buildings where i can't go unconcealed?
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
The state of Kansas allows open carry. There are local ordinances in many towns that prohibit open carry or brandishing. No one, other than LEO and the business owner, may carry in a bar. Only an LEO may carry in a public school. The same for federal buildings - except courthouses where the judge and prosecutor may also carry.
clawhorn (Chad Lawhorn) replies…
Perhaps you only were talking about open carry, but if not, I wanted to clarify a point. Concealed carry licensees can carry in a bar if the bar does not have the no guns sign. That was a change to the state's concealed carry law in 2007. Here's an article we did about that. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jun...
Although the story in the above link talks about how there would be an effort to change the law, that was not done, according to a spokesman at the AG's office this week.
Chad Lawhorn
Journal-World
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
Good catch. I did mingle there.
Orwell (anonymous) says…
I'm always amazed by the argument that the solution to threats from guns is more guns. I've been through more decades than I care to think about, and about the only time I've had to fear for my physical safety (from a human source, anyway) was when I was threatened by someone who had a legal right to possess the weapon used to threaten me.
That said, I suspect the only long-term solution is to let all the fanatics have their insecurity-compensating phallic symbols. I can take comfort in the knowledge that (1) they tend to congregate with one another, and (2) the ones who are first to resort to guns are most likely the first ones to be blown away. Herd thinned, problem solved.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Wow, project much?
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
Would if he could.
verity (anonymous) replies…
"I'm always amazed by the argument that the solution to threats from guns is more guns."
I second that.
EarthaKitt (anonymous) replies…
I third it.
Majestic42 (anonymous) replies…
Oy, again with the penises. Knock it off, ya paranoid folks.
JJE007 (anonymous) replies…
The true beauty of America is that we can ignore the silly, stuttering, fatuous, lunatic tic tic slather of our neighbors!~) Enjoy!
By the way, it may not be legal but surely you must believe it is in poor taste to openly display "phallus on the brain" in a public forum. Must your arrogance exhibit such a "bent" bent here?~) e.g. "blown away. Herd thinned, problem solved."
Leave your neighbors alone. Go complain about nuclear weapons and the proliferating, deadly devices of the war machines which rule the world. See how far that gets you. I'd think it would be about as worthwhile as smuggling guns (phalli, in your mind) out of prison as part of your mission in "turning the other cheek".
That's right. It doesn't make sense!~)
MolonLabe (anonymous) replies…
Criminals only carry guns?
That's funny... I thought sometimes they carry knives... sometimes they'll use anything in the violation of your rights.
For what it's worth, I've been shooting since I was 8, in the military for 15 years and a CCH permit holder in good standing. In all of that time, I have met and mingled with an amazing array of gun owners and CCH permit holders. Very few... very, very, few... thought that guns were the solution to every problem.
However, if the bad guy has a gun, what would you like?
Try your self-righteousness and let us all know how that turns out.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
9:35 first penis reference on this thread!
think_about_it (anonymous) replies…
It won't be the last.
jfcm77 (anonymous) says…
This is the third penis reference.
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
Can someone provide the link that shows instances of gun violence by C&C permit holders? Thank you in advance for your hours long search.
Also, what is the plural of penis? Is it penises or peni? My wife preferred peni and I had no opinion.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Men.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
In spirit of the argument, plural of penis?
Guns.
verity (anonymous) replies…
Good one, beatrice. Good thing I had just finished my coffee.
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
Like!!!
HaRDNoK9 (anonymous) replies…
This is my rifle, this is my gun. My rifle's for killing, my gun is for fun!
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
"Also, what is the plural of penis? Is it penises or peni? My wife preferred peni and I had no opinion."
Never has a such a large door been left so open for so many possibilities of innuendos, rejoinders, or snarky comments. But, in the spirit of good sportsmanship, and to leave another open door, "I won't touch that one."
And the answer to the question is "penes."
artichokeheart (anonymous) replies…
I thought penne was pasta.
Mari (Mari Windermere) replies…
Yes, 182 killings since May 2007. Here is the link:
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
'Also, what is the plural of penis? Is it penises or peni? My wife preferred peni and I had no opinion."
Jesus, that sounds horrible. It was a rhetorical question.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
{snort}
puddleglum (anonymous) replies…
here's my breakdown:
plural: "yeah I ended up at the Mizzou party, stuck with a bunch of penises"
Latin: "nightais beforais, I brokais my peni"
Judiciary: " do you believe that? the judge looked at me and said I had broken some penial code...I told him that I wasn't that type"
French: "ne pas-touche mon blanc pene, si vous plait"
beatrice (anonymous) says…
"The latest changes — which were approved 103-15 in the House and 37-2 in the Senate ..."
Although not a fan of guns myself, the numbers are pretty overwhelmingly in favor of allowing greater access. It is what people want, and this trend will continue for some time. The Supreme Court has ruled and Democrats are (or should be) wise not to fight it, which is why you will never see Obama fighting to take away guns, not this term and not in his next term, should he get one. Us liberals have lost this battle and it is time to move on. (big sigh) In all seriousness, congrats gun lovers. May you shoot straight and always find your intended targets.
I'm just glad the 2nd doesn't make gun ownership mandatory. Too many killings, accidental and otherwise, happen in homes with guns as far as I'm concerned.
verity (anonymous) replies…
So true.
If gun ownership were mandatory, I would, respectfully, turn myself in to the police because I will not own a gun.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
They will have to force it into our cold, dead hands!
verity (anonymous) replies…
Another good one. You're on a roll today, beatrice.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
I have my moments. Always best when not taking things too seriously.
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Ronaldo Ignacio) says…
458casul (anonymous) says…
chads little p shooter in pic I love it
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
He sold his little .22 at the end of the CCH series. He has not revealed whether or not he has replaced it. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jun...
RogueThrill (anonymous) says…
I want to live in a world where the guy concealing a weapon is the bad guy every time. I don't want to live in a world where the guy concealing a weapon is given the benefit of the doubt.
Good guys wear their guns on the outside. You wear your gun in the open because you want to deter violence. You conceal your gun because you get an erection thinking about some crim who thinks he's home free.
think_about_it (anonymous) replies…
False
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
No, it's not.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
It sounds like you know what brand of Viagra works for you.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
I don't have to carry a gun. I am secure in my person and have a penis that works without daydreaming of violence.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Doesn't sound like you have much confidence.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
I don't know what definition of confidence we are working with here, so we aren't exactly on equal footing.
I mean, I could be confident enough to venture out into the harsh light of day without any of my guns concealed upon my person. I could be confident enough with the fact that I am more likely to need my safety belt than I am to need a gun to prevent my death at the hands of violent criminals.
Or I could be so confident that I think modern society is so fragile that I need to pack a large caliber hand gun to protect myself from what is ultimately large number of people like you.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
If you have to declare that your junk works on a newspaper forum it doesn't sound like you have much confidence. You don't need guns to protect yourself because you're a super-awesome ninja huh? Yeah, you're a real tough guy, posting on an internet forum anonymously.
I get the feeling you go around challenging people to arm-wrestling contests which you regularly lose...
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
You aren't one of those guys who reads things and understands them on first blush, so that's ok.
I am not a ninja and I am not an arm wrestler. I am just a guy who isn't so insecure and regularly emasculated that I feel the need to carry a firearm with me everywhere I go.
I am comfortable living in the 21st century. This isn't Deadwood, 'pard.
I don't need guns to protect me because I never need anything to protect me.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
Correction. Sometimes I need sunscreen and sometimes I need Off. Sometimes I need both.
I have dreadfully sensitive skin.
It's still not so sensitive that I need a gun.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
I understand quite well. You have no confidence in yourself so you come on internet forums to make unnecessary declarations of your own virility. You cover for your lack of confidence by claiming you are invincible because you "never need anything to protect" yourself.
"It's still not so sensitive that I need a gun."
Clearly you are so sensitive that a story about people carrying guns immediately leads to you discuss their genitals and make declarations about your own. That's pretty sick and twisted.
It sounds to me like you have some serious mental issues that you should deal with in a more appropriate place.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
And yet you still have not advanced one reason as to why someone who is intoxicated should be able to legally conceal and carry a firearm.
And I cannot find one reason why they should be able to. Aside from feeling so poorly about their manhood and their ability to defend it that they need to shoot anyone who poses a threat.
Really, at the end of the day, you're the twisted one. And you are so much more twisted for not realizing it.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
So since you have trouble understanding people who have a different opinion than you, the first thing you conclude has to do with their genitals? You have a problem, my friend. Your obsession with other men's genitals is not healthy. You really should not discuss this in public but rather seek health from a professional.
misterlee (anonymous) says…
Rifles and shotguns are difficult to conceal.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
gl0ck0wn3r (anonymous) says…
I took classes with Stoneking and I disagree with her here in practice. Philosophically, I agree - but I think when one chooses to carry, one also must make other life choices. I, for example, do not drink (at all) and if I did drink, I would not carry. In her example, she should skip the wine and enjoy her dinner.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
Hey guys, look, it's someone rational. You should learn from this if you are still capable.
You can't have a kid and hang out in the Pig at 11 in the evening but it's perfectly alright to go knock down some cocktails and carry a gun?
I suppose it's difficult to enjoy a good meal when you are busy wetting your pants.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
Most people that freak out about guns have never been around them. I grew up with guns and it was no big deal at all. You learn a lot about life and responsibility hunting with your Dad and learning how to safely handle guns.
This is something that most anti-gun people have no clue about which makes them quite scary.
Citizens should have the right to own guns. In states where they allowed the anti-gun liberals to enact gun restrictions, the gun laws have become so tight it is difficult to own a gun. These people know how to make your life difficult if you want to own and gun and that is their strategy. That is the slippery slope the NRA does not want to go down because they know it will mean the loss of all gun rights.
So this article about Paul Davis which gives examples about certain individuals who should not own a gun is just a publicity stunt to fool the public into believing that a lot of bad and unstable people are arming themselves and we have to get tough on gun laws. It is a political stunt to drum up negativity against all guns.
That is the problem in this debate. Logic says there should be a compromise somewhere but the politics makes it dfficult to do so. In the meantime, I am glad to have my little semi-auto in my pocket when I need it out in the country, isolated and nobody around by my daughters to take care of. I feel a lot safer.
verity (anonymous) replies…
"Most people that freak out about guns have never been around them."
Show me the proof.
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
"Most people that freak out about guns have never been around them."
Total B.S. My father was a sniper. I grew up with lots of guns around me. My father was smart, unlike many gun owners. I was taught that they serve only one purpose - to kill. I was never to touch them. To this day I wouldn't put one in my hand. I personally have known someone who was shot and killed, by accident. I also know someone who tried to kill themselves (ex-military) and luckily wasn't successful.
You spout generalizations, which makes you look dumb.
If people want guns, fine. You should have to take courses not to just cc, but to just own. And you idiots that think it's ok to get drunk and CC have your heads up your ******. It isn't safe to operate any machinery while drunk, whether it's a car or a gun.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
Personally, I don't like all the positions the NRA takes and some of these guys definitely rub me the wrong way, but we have something in common when it comes to not trusting the liberals on gun laws. As much as I hate the Republicans, the gun issue and the immigration issue (not being able to enforce our laws and protect our borders) has me debating who I will end up voting for.
These two issues are important enough for me to consider voting for people I can't stand.
Shardwurm (anonymous) says…
“What I’m seeing now is a slow erosion on a yearly basis of a lot of these exceptions that were originally written into the law for a good reason,” said Rep. Paul Davis, D-Lawrence.
Hey Paul - a lot of laws were originally written 'for a good reason.' I'm sure if you could talk to the lawmakers who implemented Kansas' absurd liquor laws they could list one good reason after another. The problem is that not all laws that had 'good reason' at the time are still viable. Maybe they are...but maybe they aren't. Just because someone else wrote the law for what they perceived as a 'good reason' doesn't mean it's true.
So relying on the argument that: "Well, that's the way it's been so it must be good" is very weak. It used to be lawful to deny service to minorites, and the people who made those decisions had what they perceived to be 'good reason' as well.
But while we're at it...please - bring Kansas out of the 1960s and re-write the 'good reason' liquor laws.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
You have to ask yourself what is really going on when these issues come up because the Democrats certainly have a national agenda just as the Republicans do.
Right now, the Federal government is suing the State of AZ saying only the federal government has the right to enforce immigration laws. I lived in Arizona and California. Anybody living in those places and not just living in the ritzy areas knows what kind of problems are going on with our borders.
The federal government is way out of line. This looks very bad for the Democrats. Very bad.
The problem in our country comes down to the fact that both political parties and not doing a very good job right now for the American people.
kernal (anonymous) replies…
jhawklawrence, I've also lived in CA & AZ as well as NM, so I am somewhat familiar with the situation of illegal immigrants. It is the Fed's job to enforce immigration laws, not the Maricopa County Sheriff Joe.
As far as your earlier statement, it is bs. I grew up around guns as well and do have a healthy opinion of them which is why I don't own one and do not plan on it. Your cavalier attitude about guns as being "no big deal" does concern me. They are a big deal!
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
whatadrag (anonymous) replies…
Guns kill people
Mari (Mari Windermere) says…
182 people have been killed in the US by concealed carriers of firearms since May 2007.
Concealed carriers have been responsible for 16 mass shootings and 19 murder-suicides.
vertigo (Jesse Crittenden) replies…
How many of them were legal CCrs?
The_Original_Bob (anonymous) says…
"182 people have been killed in the US by concealed carriers of firearms since May 2007.
Concealed carriers have been responsible for 16 mass shootings and 19 murder-suicides."
Link?
Mari (Mari Windermere) says…
All of the killings I noted are listed and described here:
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
Gotoit (anonymous) replies…
This is an interesting website, but at first glance I am finding a lot of inconsistencies that make me think that the site is perhaps more than a little skewed and so may not be reporting statistics in the most straight forward fashion. Examples: the site includes cases in California--California does not issue CCHs nor are handguns legal there in any manner; one case includes a 10 year old shooting his brother--in no state is a 10 year old issued a CCH; another case includes a security guard acting in the capacity of his job--security guards carry firearms under other authority, not the CCH permits and laws.
jodymikal (anonymous) replies…
Also, 182 is it? How many people without a CCH permit have shot someone in the same time frame? I bet the majority of them had drivers licenses. We should make it harder to get drivers licenses.
Mari (Mari Windermere) replies…
Sigh. The point is NOT that non-licensed people shoot people it is that CCH licensed ones do as well.
Mari (Mari Windermere) replies…
None of this changes the FACT that CCHs are involved in killings.
(note: The CCH in Cali was licensed in Georgia and the 10 year-old was using his father's licensed gun.)
jodymikal (anonymous) replies…
The PERSON is licensed for CCW, not the gun. In KS, you do not need a license to purchase a handgun.CCW only lets you carry it in public concealed.
Mari (Mari Windermere) replies…
The PERSON who was licensed in this case is the responsible party. He was the father of minor children and took no precautions to prevent them from using his concealed firearm.
jodymikal (anonymous) replies…
What i am saying is that sure, there are people that slip through the cracks and are crazy idiots. But what is the ratio? There were 23,748 CCWs issued in KS in 2009, and there were 0 Kansas incidents on this report. I don't have the numbers for every state, but I would bet that 182 out of whatever that number is would be a very low percentage. Bottom line is I think most people with CCW are very responsible citizens.
If you took the total population of the US and removed the CCW's, then took the number of gun related crimes. I would bet the percentage would be wayyyyy higher than the 182 on this report.
mystifiedalarm (anonymous) says…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMeDm...
Interesting video on gun laws.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
LJW should pay Chad more so he can afford to upgrade to a center-fire sidearm.
bondmen (anonymous) says…
Did everybody notice just how much murder and mayhem has resulted across the country from the burgeoning abundance of lessened restrictions on citizens carrying concealed weapons? I mean it's a virtual blood bath out there in the concealed carry community, isn't it?
At some point we will be forced to admit to the fact that the liberalization of hidden guns is a plague on our people of violent, epidemic proportions.
Thankfully President Barack Obama is moving in concert with the UN to eventually ban, then confiscate, firearms in the hands of the American public. When this move is completed our streets will once again be totally safe for gang bangers, carjackers and doped up thugs.
true_patriot (anonymous) says…
“It is I guess the balancing of a potentially intoxicated person with a gun versus the state taking away their ability to protect themselves if they are put in a position where they might need that gun,” Klebe said.
I don't buy that argument at all. Someone is exponentially more likely to put themselves in a situation where they *feel* they need to use their gun when they are drunk. Any fool can see that someone who is drunk has greatly diminished capacity to make good decisions. That person loses the right to drive any vehicle while in that state, so of course that person should not be allowed to have a gun at their disposal while in that state, so much more so.
And not that the quoted sentence said "they might need that gun", not that they felt like they needed it, which seems to be a more accurate benchmark in the way a lot of this is headed. Again, not only decision-making but perception and emotional restraint go out the window when intoxicated.
50YearResident (anonymous) replies…
Current laws prohibit a conceled carry permit holder from carrying a gun while intoxicated. Not having the gun is only until the person is no longer intoxicated, exactly like driving a car while intoxicated. Restrictions apply only 'if and when' the license holders are actually intoxicated.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
But the argument posed in the article is this: " 'Why should I lose my right to defend myself from the big burly guy who grabs me in the parking lot because I’ve had two glasses of wine with my dinner?' Stoneking asked, although she said guns and alcohol generally are a bad combination."
This is an argument for being allowed to carry despite drinking alcohol.
Just thought I'd point that out.
50YearResident (anonymous) replies…
The point being made is that 2 glasses of wine does not make a person reach the .08% legally intoxicated level. That is the difference, a little alcohol or a lot of alcohol. Almost everybody drinks and drives occasionally but is not intoxicated.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Doesn't a lot of alcohol start with a little alcohol? One can go to a restaurant with the intent of having just 2 glasses of wine (roughly half a bottle!), and then another bottle is opened and suddenly the person is having more than 2 glasses. Now, if they had driven to the restaurant, they can always call a cab to get home and pick the car up in the morning. However, you can't just leave your gun at the restaurant. That is the difference. If you have a gun and begin drinking, your judgment is impaired, a little or a lot. Impaired and guns don't (or shouldn't) mix.
Sorry, but if you are drinking you shouldn't be packing the heat, IMHO.
feeble (anonymous) replies…
Actually a 120lb person would be at .08 BAC after two 5oz glasses of table wine. A 180 lb person would be at .05 BAC.
Three 5oz glasses, or two generous pours, would put the 180lb individual at .08 BAC.
BAC is primarily a function of body mass and time. It is quite easy, especially given the rise of high alcohol craft beers, for an individual of moderate weight (180-210lbs) to be legally intoxicated after just two drinks.
A person under 21 can face an even stricter BAC check, between .05 and .01 depending on the state. You could fail that by having a single portion of coq-au-vin.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
I'm curious, for those asking about crimes committed by CC folks, how many crimes in which the perpetrator was also using a gun have been stopped by those with a CC permit?
Not starting a fight -- just curious if that has been accurately traced.
jodymikal (anonymous) replies…
Here is one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZrdbs... ,-- warning this is the actual shooting, if that disturbs you. It did me, although i fully support what this man did.
Please ignore the crappy music.
columbus, Ohio -- Police said a desk clerk shot a man who was attempting to rob an east side motel on Saturday night.
Officers said that shortly before 9:30 p.m., a man walked into the Super 8 Motel, located at 2055 Brice Rd., showed a gun and demanded money.
Police said the desk clerk on duty then shot the alleged robber, Antoine Stephens.
Stephens, 20, was transported to Grant Medical Center and was in serious condition on Sunday morning, NBC 4 reported.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Thanks, but that is a single event. I'm looking for the big picture.
monheim (anonymous) replies…
So a bank robbery turned into a potential public firefight?
RoeDapple (anonymous) replies…
Hi bea! I have seen stats in the past that show CCW holders are approximately 5 times less likely than the general public to commit violent crimes and even slightly less likely than law enforcement officers! I'll keep looking for it, that's the best I can come up with for now. Looks like I've been missing all the excitement!
itwasthedukes (anonymous) says…
I have a plan, lets make murder illegal and then no one will murder anyone. Then there will be no need for guns! It's so simple...
As if all of these criminals are just waiting for the law to allow them to carry.
Majestic42 (anonymous) replies…
Hey, guess what? "then no one will murder anyone" assumes that deep down, all humans are good.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Jaminrawk (anonymous) says…
“If you want to get down to the philosophical discussion about carrying guns, yeah, no one should even need a permit to do that,”
Seriously? No one? I've seen quite a few people that shouldn't even own one not to mention conceal one in public.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Your opinion doesn't matter. You don't have the right to tell other people they shouldn't own one, and since government derives its powers from the people, if you don't have that right then neither does the government.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
So the certifiably insane should have access, children should have access (especially since they have to protect themselves in your utopian/Libertarian working world), criminals should have access ... the blind (to CC) ... short people ... Elvis impersonators ... everyone. That doesn't make much sense, IMNSHO. (the NS is for "not so").
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
Of course the strawman argument you've created for me doesn't make sense to you--you made it nonsensical so you could blow it down.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
If it is a strawman, then what are the limits of your "no limits" philosophy? Sorry if you think your own beliefs make for strawmen arguments, but they are your beliefs. Either there are limits are there aren't limits, yes or no? What is resonable to you will be excess to others. Just sayin'.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
The limits are quite simple: whoever has the capacity to form a contract and own property can purchase a gun. Thus children or mentally incompetent people could not purchase a gun.
And no, my beliefs do not resemble your strawmen. For example: "especially since [children] have to protect themselves in your utopian/Libertarian working world." Apparantly parents got wiped out in your strawman version of my beliefs, but that's not how I view things in the slightest.
And there's nothing utopian about libertarianism. It's about what's morally right. You don't have the moral right to tell me what I can and can't do with my property and my body. That doesn't mean I'll live a perfect life because I have freedom; it just means I can live it as I see fit. Socialism is the utopian system where if we just give up all our rights to government everything will turn out great.
Jaminrawk (anonymous) says…
I think another relevant point, living in Lawrence, KS, is why do people around here need to conceal a gun? Have you seen our crime rate? It's not like we live in Detroit, or LA.
jodymikal (anonymous) replies…
I agree with the last 2 posts, even though I am pro carry. I DO believe some people that are licensed shouldn't be. But that is such a bad thing to do, to lump all of us into the same group. I am sure i can lump anyone reading this into a category that there are some idiots.
I, for one, don't believe that Lawrence is dangerous, and have never been scared to be anywhere there. Hence, when I am in Lawrence, my gun stays in the car or at home.
However, i work in KC around 63rd and Paseo. I have seen dead bodies. I have had coworkers shot at. I have seen the helicopters circling at a shooting... actually twice this week within 5 blocks of where I am at.
Jaminrawk (anonymous) replies…
So you work in Missouri ...? Not arguing with you, just I would think you would need a permit in Missouri at that point.
I'm not neccessarily against gun ownership. Lots of my family members collect guns and even use them at various ranges. It just seems like introducing people with concealed weapons would drastically elevate a situation. There are always exceptions, but for the most part, people don't just randomly murder. Murders are typically committed by people that knew the victim.
RoeDapple (anonymous) replies…
Here's a list of states that honor Kansas CCW permits including Missouri
http://www.ksag.org/files/Recognition...
Gotoit (anonymous) replies…
Missouri honors Kansas permits.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Well, if Missouri says its okay, then there must be something wrong with it!
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
I see no valid arguments to justify taking away a citizen's right to carry or a valid argument toward ignoring immigration laws for political purposes and suing a State for trying to control it's border with a foreign county.
It is certainly reasonable to not want crime and drugs and unknown individuals and undocumented aliens from coming across your border anytime they want while the federal government sits on its butt and watches.
If anything, I think people in Arizona should have more incentive to protect themselves. Particularly since the federal government would rather play politics than do their job.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
So, when buying a firearm, if you check yes to ever having been diagnosed with a mental disorder or having ever smoked pot, you are prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Are those valid reasons for exclusion?
Are there no valid exclusions?
Does the right to bear arms mean you can bear them however you want? Do you think the founding fathers were ok with a drunk guy walking around with a blunderbuss and a pistol? Do you think they would extend those rights to some jerkoff walking around with a $200 surplus p226 he got off some Czech police department?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
"If you were worried about prevention you'd walk around with your plastic 9mm or your cheap 1911 knock off out in the open."
Open carry is against the law in Kansas, isn't it?
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
No, it's not. Go to a gun show sometime.
However, there are places that don't allow it. State law does not trump the law of the locality for Open Carry.
Frightwig (anonymous) says…
Guns don't kill people.
Drunks with guns kill people.
think_about_it (anonymous) replies…
Drunks with brown hair kill people.
Majestic42 (anonymous) replies…
And ones with blonde hair.
bruno2 (anonymous) says…
I am opposed to concealed carry. I think anyone who is carrying should have to do so openly. That way I can cross the street and try to stay out of the line of fire. I also have the right to protect myself!
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
The Q-ship approach has its own advantages. Sometimes I wear a t-shirt that proclaims "Unarmed, please don't hurt me!"
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
And if you extend the Q-ship analogy it looks like you just want to lure people in so you can kill another human being. And, under the law, you could do so while being so intoxicated you couldn't legally drive.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
A deceased miscreant will commit no more crimes.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
A human being too scared to commit crimes will commit none and still be alive.
A human being that needs to commit no crimes will commit none.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) replies…
The possibility of getting plugged by a legally armed citizen is something miscreants need to consider before practicing their craft.
If they decide to follow a less chancy ( and legal) trade, good for them.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
I think you mean "the possibility of getting plugged by a legally drunk citizen is something people need to considering before going out on Friday night."
You are, after all, defending the right of alcoholics to carry concealed firearms. You are assuming that someone consuming alcohol lacks the ability to drive a car but has the ability to determine if someone is so much a threat that they can take their life.
That is, after all, what we are talking about.
gogoplata (anonymous) says…
I think it is stupid that you even have to get a license to carry.
Skip getting the license. The state does not need to know you have a gun on you.
I like to break laws I think are stupid that don't hurt other people.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
I think people are being misled by the rhetoric being used to scare people about guns. It is an easy tool to use, almost like a formula from a book distributed by left wing extremists.
You've got to know when your buttons are being pushed. It has gotten too easy for us to give up our freedoms.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
The ease of use is not in question. The question is if it is as easy to use while intoxicated.
Are you really surrendering freedoms if you say a person who is not legally able to drive a car is not legally able to conceal and carry a firearm?
Because, if you can, I really want to get my legal drunk driving on.
gogoplata (anonymous) replies…
If you can drive drunk (.08) without hurting someone, I have no problems with you.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
And if I hurt someone?
And that's ignoring that a car is, first and foremost, a method of conveyance. It's not intended to maim and kill, it only does so secondarily. Yet a VAST majority of the population, almost all of them, support legal sanction on those who drive while intoxicated.
Do you trust a .08er to carry a gun? Guns after all, while being recreationally stimulating, are meant to maim and kill. Do you think a person who has a blood to alcohol ratio of even .01 should dine next to you and yours?
I hope not.
gogoplata (anonymous) replies…
If you hurt someone you should be punished for your negligent driving not being drunk.
I do trust some .08er to carry a gun. I don't trust them all just like I don't trust all non drinkers to carry. That is why I carry.
RogueThrill (anonymous) replies…
So you carry because you don't trust other people who carry. Awesome.
gogoplata (anonymous) replies…
I don't know if it's awesome. But yea thats the whole point. There are people who carry guns. Some legally and some illegally. I trust myself to take care of myself and my family. I am not going to trust something that important to the police or the good nature of others. I'd rather do it myself.
gogoplata (anonymous) replies…
I agree. Scare tactics are used a lot by both republicans and democrats. Any time someone in the government is using fear to grab more power a red flag should go up in the minds of all citizens.
BlackVelvet (anonymous) says…
I do not think anyone should carry a weapon, concealed or othwerwise, if they have been drinking as their judgment is possibly impaired regardless of the quantity of alcohol consumed.
However, why is it that anytime any article about concealed carry is published here, all the anti-gun/anti-ccw folks come out of the woodwork. Those who spoke out against CCW while under the influence, I have no problem with. Those who live for any opportunity to tell CCW proponents how small our PENI are, get over it already. We know how you feel, okay?
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
Why is it always a Democrat that speaks out for more gun control?
I would like to see a Democrat show that they don't necessarily follow the same agenda that an inner city (Chicago or New York) politician might be following.
But that is not to be because these guys make promises and they toe the line. They have taken a loyalty pledge to run on one of two tickets, either Republican or Democrat. They represent the party line, not the American people.
On the other hand, why do so many people on these blogs tend to sharply follow the party line. That by itself ought to be cause of alarm and a prime reason for the poltical log jam we always see.
Folks, there are more than two sides to every issue and they don't neatly fall into Republican or Democrat. Think about it.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
There are Dems who support gun rights. Here is a recent story from July 14 on this very issue. It is just that some Reps like to cast ALL Dems as being against gun rights.
"In key contests, Democrats championing gun rights" - http://www.boston.com/news/local/mass...
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Speaking of the state of MA, how's about that John Kerry moving his yacht to RI to escape paying taxes in his home state. What a champ he is!
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Jon Kyl lied by saying the President said something, then had to later admit it was the "president's people." -- so there.
We know you love our party more than your country, snap, but try to stay on topic.
jimmyjms (anonymous) replies…
I thought avoiding taxes was scripture to republicans?
HaRDNoK9 (anonymous) says…
182 killings in three years? Put that in contrast with 9000 deaths every year in America from drownings. According to your data, you are many hundreds of times more likely to drown in your swimming pool than you are to die by the hand of a gun owner with a concealed carry license. Here's the link:
http://www.blurtit.com/q435503.html
The number is astonishingly high. I like the statistics from the CDC better:
"In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died, from drowning and other causes, in boating-related incidents." Here's the link:
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationa...
Whichever set of data that you pull from, I don't see anyone so eager to tighten regulation on boating or swimming. Or look at some statistics for a more current local event: Cycling.
784 cyclists died in 2005 Here's the link:
http://bicycleuniverse.info/transpo/a...
Nobody pushing for stiffer regs there, either. Just public outcry for us all to get along.
Statistically speaking, I think that Concealed Carry holders are a pretty responsible demographic. Our time would be better served by not vilifying responsible gun owners. Go wave a flag for responsible recreational transportation instead. The gun argument is well played out and all but the ignorant are tired by it.
50YearResident (anonymous) replies…
Now I am afraid to walk down the sidewalk by the City Pool. Someone drowning might pull me in with them and drown me too. Maybe they even had a beer or 2 glasses of wine before going the pool. Ban all swimming pools and swimmers!
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
"Our time would be better served by not vilifying responsible gun owners."
First off, I agree. You should recognize, however, that Mari's post with the citation on CC related deaths was a response to an open request for such information, so let's not vilify the messenger either.
Also, how many of the drownings were at the hands of others? How many drownings were of innocent bystanders? I know statistically 182 isn't a lot, but I sure wouldn't want one of those being a member of my family.
The reason this argument is taking place is because the laws are being loosened, and some want to loosen it even further by allowing people who have consumed alcohol to carry. In three years, you can pretty much guarantee that the numbers of deaths relating to CC folks will be higher. It is a matter of asking and worth debating, just how liberal should the CC laws be?
HaRDNoK9 (anonymous) replies…
Touche' I rescind. I was not trying to take a cheap shot at Mari. Honestly I was a little bit shocked at how low the number was.
"Also, how many of the drownings were at the hands of others? How many drownings were of innocent bystanders? "
"In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States..."
I also thought this. Of the 3400 fatal unintentional drownings, how many non-fatal unintentional drownings are not included in this report? What exactly is a non-fatal drowning for that matter?
As for how liberal the laws should be? "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
bea - I am not in favor of the inebriated accessing firearms. But, as you know, I am in favor of responsible law-abiding citizens being able to carry for defense. With that said, I am going to play devil's advocate.
"The reason this argument is taking place is because the laws are being loosened, and some want to loosen it even further by allowing people who have consumed alcohol to carry."
I think the inverse of that statement is what is actually being addressed: "The reason this argument is taking place is .... to allow people who legally carry to consume alcohol," and, I would add, "in a responsible, non-inhibitive quantity." As the law was, many responsible CCH people refused to imbibe any quantity of wine or beer for fear of a possible breathalyzer. Yes, I know that they should not fear the test if they are not drunk; but, many responsible people do. So, maybe, just maybe this law stops the discrimination of singling out one group of people (CCH), that if they refuse a breathalyzer, are considered guilty.
However, as you are aware from this story and thread - the opposite is being portrayed. I am just asking you to think about it from this view. Honestly, to me it makes no difference. I do not drink.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
Hardnok9, it is funny how different people react to things. I was actually surprised the number was as high as it was. No kidding. I just had never heard any of the CC folks getting in trouble, which is why I have always (well, mostly always -- I am a liberal after all) supported CC laws.
Regarding how loose the law should be, if the right shall not be infringed you don't mind if I care my anti-aircraft gun into Wal-Mart with me, do you? Sorry for the gross exaggeration, but just as you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless it is on fire), there are limits on other rights as well. Drunken Carry just might be one of those lines we don't want to cross.
Of course, if the laws become too liberal and anyone can carry at any time with few infringments and no need of CC permits or training, the number of deaths and injuries will natural go way up. Once people start getting killed, the pendulum will swing back the other way. It is just human nature.
HaRDNoK9 (anonymous) replies…
I agree it is funny. I have generally been pretty critical of the concealed carry laws. I see them as being unnecessary for purposes of legally carrying a weapon. I believe that all Americans- even liberals, already have that right.
I have read a previous post of yours questioning the acceptability of bazookas, anti-aircraft weapons, and nuclear weapons. I admit, I cannot formulate any answer to that which would not sound ridiculous. I am quite certain that the founding fathers did not anticipate nuclear weapons, and I don't think that nations have any more business with these weapons than individuals do.
I also agree that drunks with guns is a bad idea, and I am not a proponent of people with no training, owning, (or carrying) a weapon of any kind. The difference in our opinions is that I don't think that we need to waste resources making laws that say so.
Finally, and I realize what follows puts me at risk of sounding extremely cold; Although I agree that the number of deaths and injuries would likely go up, I think that it is a step in the right direction for society to not arrogate so much responsibility for the actions of others. Rather than pass laws that further restrict the rights of law abiding people, why not pass laws that provide more severe penalties for the criminals who abuse those rights?
Thank you, Beatrice for the polite and thoughtful dialogue. I appreciate your opinion, and it has been a pleasure sharing mine.
Liberty_One (anonymous) replies…
beatrice (anonymous) says…
"just as you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless it is on fire), there are limits on other rights as well."
Actually that's a limitation on property rights and not free speech. There is no limit on free speech outside of property rights. See my blog about it here:
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/liber...
RoeDapple (anonymous) says…
FYI - Saturday mornings 9:30 on Spike - "Conceal and Carry School" . Very informative whatever side of the issue you take.
beatrice (anonymous) says…
DIST, the problem with responsible drinking is that few people actually know their limits. I'll bet (and this is all just an assumption with zero proof) that a large percentage of people who get a DUI probably thought they were sober enough to drive and not actually over the limit. That is the problem with drinking, it impaires one's judgment.
H9 - right back at ya on the civil discourse. Always appreciated and reciprocated. I have a feeling we have more in common on this issue than you realize. I too believe strongly in training for gun owners (I'd make it mandatory if I could) and in stiff laws against those who use guns in committing crimes (mandatory multi-years in prison if using a gun while committing a crime, and at least 10 years mandatory if firing a gun while committing a crime). I think gun laws should be uniform across all states, without the band-aid type laws that vary depending on where you live. Many of these laws have proven not to work and this is why I actually feel the past couple of major decisions by the Supreme Court have been the correct decisions. Basically, what I would like to see if it was my call is make everyone who owns go through the type of training now required of CC permit holders, then all legal gun owners can carry when and where they desire -- the movies, to work, to see their elected officials. Just not when they are drinking.
Did_I_say_that (DIST) replies…
I agree with you bea, DUI drivers would not have driven if they a) knew their own limit, or, b) were responsible. Which brings me back to the point I was making. I think that, as a group, CCH licensees would exhibit more personal responsibility when it comes to drinking.
beatrice (anonymous) replies…
Sorry DIST, but I don't see how being a good CCH license holder translates to being responsible when it comes to drinking. As we know, DUIs have been given to many fine, upstanding citizens who do not have a history of breaking laws. This is because it isn't just the person involved, it is the alcohol. Alcohol impairs judgment, and it isn't selective. Impaired judgment and guns just don't mix, or at least they shouldn't, in my (as always humble) opinion.
kernal (anonymous) says…
So, are tasers still illegal for the general populace?
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
http://www.itaser.com/common_myths.html
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…
Open that law up. Keep it wide.
Allow guns in court rooms, and Congressional floors.
Let's allow the people, those elected too, to separate the Wheat from the Chaff, since the law isn't doing it.
Come on, now, surely you know about all the recent declines in the numbers of police on the job throughout this country. They are getting laid off.
Let's thank Bush for all those declining numbers, shall we? We are living Bush's economy.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…
The answer is to outlaw alcohol. ... or to make it so expensive that it is hard, hard, hard to buy.
Tax the living daylights out of alcohol.
Machiavelli_mania (anonymous) says…
Allow people to kill themselves. Drug manufactures kill people all the time. Why can't people do it for themselves?
Guns don't stop drunk driving. Heavily taxing alcohol, especially that served at bars, will certainly slow it.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
Machi, why don't you think first and then post all your edicts at one time? Saves more little "1"s and "0"s and you come off looking less obsessed.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
It appears that Mr. Personality got disappeareded. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
MolonLabe (anonymous) says…
Should any of you deign to take a little trip next door to the Show Me state, you'll find that most of their laws have been like this for years. Ignoring for a moment certain parts of KCMO (which could well be in any city in the US), have any of you run into a bunch of drunken felons running around with concealed weapons?
Hmmmmm?
Armored_One (anonymous) says…
And everyone has missed the key point in all of this.
Last I knew, for a C&C permit, you have to register your firearm.
jayhawklawrence (anonymous) says…
The real issue relates to trust.
There has been a tendency for the American people to get screwed when they allow politiicians to determine the limits to our freedoms.
So when a group that wants to give government that power refers to my gun as a penis, the trust is gone out the window.