Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, December 2, 2012

Lawmaker to take another shot at concealed carry

Bill would let permit holders take guns into universities, city halls

December 2, 2012

Advertisement

— Supporters of carrying concealed guns in Kansas will reload when the 2013 legislative session starts in January.

“We can trust the average Kansan to carry a deadly weapon,” said Rep. Forrest Knox, R-Altoona. “It is not the weapon that is evil; it is criminals that misuse weapons.”

Knox was elected to the Kansas Senate in November and will take that position in January.

During the last legislative session, Knox pushed a bill that would allow concealed-carry permit holders to take their weapons into public buildings, such as university classrooms, dorms, city halls and other such structures if those buildings didn’t have devices such as metal detectors designed to detect illegal weapons.

During House debate on the measure, there was a provision put in the House bill that would have allowed universities to exempt themselves, but they have to reconsider that decision after four years. Another amendment exempted hospitals, such as Kansas University Hospital.

Knox said that when the Legislature convenes in January, he will introduce the bill in the form that it was in when the House approved it. But he noted that because of the dramatic change of members in the House, the bill may be further amended. In January, 52 members in the 125-member House will be new.

Knox argues that expanding where Kansans can carry concealed weapons improves safety by putting firearms within easy reach of law-abiding citizens.

Higher education officials opposed Knox’s bill and worked to get the opt-out amendment for colleges put on the bill. They were pleased when Senate leaders ignored the whole package.

But because those moderate Republican leaders voted out of the Senate during the GOP primary in August, the fight is on again.

“Our position is we still don’t believe that guns on campus is a good option,” said Mary Jane Stankiewicz, a spokeswoman for the Kansas Board of Regents. Campuses are actually safer than the communities they are in, she said, so a guns-increase-safety argument doesn’t wash.

And she pointed to testimony on the bill from Richard Johnson, associate vice chancellor for public safety and police chief at KU Medical Center.

Speaking on behalf of all university police chiefs in Kansas, Johnson said increasing the number of guns on campuses would produce greater risk and confusion during a crisis.

If police receive a report of an armed individual on campus, “How does the responding officer know which person in the classroom of 300 students is legally in possession of a firearm or is armed with the intention of killing others?” Johnson asked.

But Knox maintains that public buildings that show a sign prohibiting against carrying a weapon inside are invitations to criminals.

“When people will give it rational thought they see the logic that a sign, prohibiting concealed carry, does not make them more secure. It makes them less secure, in reality, because criminals have weapons and appreciate knowing locations where others do not,” he said.

KU Student Body President Hannah Bolton said she and other students frequently discuss the issue of concealed carry on campus.

“As student body president, I care deeply about the safety of the student body, and I do not believe that allowing people to carry weapons on campus will create a safer environment for students and faculty,” Bolton said.

She said student leaders from the six regents universities lobbied against Knox’s bill last session and will do so again in the next session.

But supporters of the bill also say that people who get concealed-carry licenses are extremely law abiding.

In fiscal year 2011, which ran from July 1, 2010, through June 30, 2011, the attorney general’s office issued 8,295 concealed-carry licenses.

During that same year, 25 applications were denied, 39 concealed-carry licenses were suspended and 127 licenses were revoked.

Eighteen of the 25 applications denied were rejected because of disqualifying criminal history or the applicant was subject to a protection from abuse order.

The 39 license suspensions occurred because the license holder was charged with a crime, including seven that were assault with a firearm.

Of the 127 license revocations, most were revoked because the licensee moved out of state, but some were revoked because of criminal convictions, including sex and drug crimes.

Officials at University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado Springs campuses have set up “gun dorms” for students with concealed-carry permits, but no one has asked to live in one. Gun rights advocates say that is probably because students who carry concealed weapons don’t want to move.

Comments

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago

"Officials at University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado Springs campuses have set up “gun dorms” for students with concealed-carry permits, but no one has asked to live in one. Gun rights advocates say that is probably because students who carry concealed weapons don’t want to move."

Yea, because by moving into one of these dorms, they'd be totally surrounded by other gun freaks like themselves.

Terry Snell II 2 years ago

Gun freaks, does that include Police, Security, and Private Investigators. They have more training so that's ok , right. Take a little trip to Topeka tonight just west of the State Capitol 3 blocks. You will be at the gun store in the morning buying a gun if your not delayed 3 days because of the Brady campaign. Its a war zone out here.

rtwngr 2 years ago

The criminals don't have concealed carry permits. Why should I have to have one?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years ago

There's nothing preventing you from carrying a concealed weapon. But without a permit, you'd be a criminal. Pretty simple, really.

Liberty275 2 years ago

Innocent until proven guilty. Bozo, I take back everything bad I ever said about you.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

The law prevents someone from carrying concealed and the personal integrity that respects our laws.

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

"Of the 127 license revocations, most were revoked because the licensee moved out of state, but some were revoked because of criminal convictions, including sex and drug crimes."

To clarify, 106 of the 127 were because the licensee moved out of state. Two of the 127 were reinstated when they were cleared of whatever disqualified them.

weeslicket 2 years ago

which means that 19 people had their licenses revoked due to criminal convictions, although the exact nature of their offenses is not stated.

19 out of 127 is 15%. not sure whether i should feel more secure with that figure.

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

Well, 15% of revocations were for criminal offenses. However, that's only 19 criminal revocations that year per the 49,066 licenses that have been issued to date. So that means 0.04% of carriers lost their license due to criminal activity. Of those 19, only 8 actually involved a firearm. So that brings the number down to less than 0.02%.

I think you can feel secure about those numbers. You can find all of those numbers on this site: http://ag.ks.gov/public-safety/concealedcarry/forms-reports-and-statistics

weeslicket 2 years ago

fair enough. 8 naughty folks with guns/ 50,000 permits = 8 naughty folks with guns per unit value.

my main point came later in this thread.

bearded_gnome 2 years ago

ever heard of Virginia tech? gun free zone really worked well there, didn't it?

chootspa 2 years ago

Actually, what didn't work was cowering under the desks and doing nothing. The people who jumped out of windows, ran away, blockaded doors, or otherwise reacted in a way other than just hiding under the desk had a much higher survival rate. (The exception being the heroic professor who used his own body to block the door and died while the students jumped out the window.) It isn't that we all need guns to defend ourselves from shooters. We just need to react with our brains, and whipping out a pistol to cross-fire isn't reacting with our brains.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

A person who uses their brain will have a higher chance of survival than a person who doesn't use theirs. However, a person who uses their brain and has a gun has a higher chance of survival than the person who doesn't have one - not because their smarter, just because they have an option the unarmed person doesn't have.

chootspa 2 years ago

Not a particularly good option, cowboy. You might think you're an awesome shot, but unless you're military, you generally can't hit the side of a barn during an actual fire fight. You're just as effective at keeping a gunner from using you as target practice if you throw pencils, books, papers, and chairs at him, without the risk of shooting someone else through the walls. Plus having a gun on the scene means you risk being hit by the police yourself.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

Are you saying that military training enables one to hit the side of a barn and that police training does not prevent police from shooing law-abiding citizens? Interesting...

chootspa 2 years ago

Military training gives one a better chance at hitting the side of a barn during a fire fight, yes, although even then it's a difficult task. Police training should probably be included under that umbrella as well. However, it doesn't matter how law-abiding you are. If you've got a gun and are shooting it at the scene of a homicide, the police are going to shoot you.

bearded_gnome 2 years ago

Bozo spewed: Yea, because by moving into one of these dorms, they'd be totally surrounded by other gun freaks like themselves.

---so according to Bozo, a trained, licensed, law abiding well behaved american citizen with a CCW license and a gun is a "gun frek?" think Bozo needs to say "freak" when he looks into his cracked mirror.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

observant, you wouldn't have to pass a law to allow anyone to carry concealed. You'd have to repeal existing laws that prohibit it. Makes sense to me, if you're legally allowed to own a gun there should be no law to prohibit carrying it concealed.

kawrivercrow 2 years ago

3 years? Too funny....NOT!

What's even not funnier is that it is usually the same people with such resentment and hatred toward non-criminal gun owners who are the same ones whose ingrained soft-on-crime mentality lets hardened criminals repeatedly walk out of prison in far less time than 3 years for armed robbery, criminal assault, etc.

JayhawkFan1985 2 years ago

As I understand it, Wyatt Earp required cow polks to check their guns (which were worn in the open in western style holsters) at the town marshal office. that was an era when personal security was far more of an issue than it is now. This ain't the wild west anymore. If people want to carry guns, let them do it honestly and in the open so the rest of us know how insecure they are and won't say something they could potentially over react to...

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

I disagree that "personal security was far more of an issue than it is now." Scour the old newspapers from the Old West and tell me how many home invasions occurred back then. Do you really think the per capita crime/murder rate was greater back then? How about drug related robberies, murders - higher than or now? Sure they had gangs back then, but how many of those Old West gangs did drive by shootings at cars (substitute horses or buggies) or people's homes?

I think personal security is just as important today as it ever has been.

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

Actually, homicide rates are declining. It may seem like more due to the changing in reporting, but most sources will tell you that overall, it is declining. That doesn't negate the need for personal defense. Decline doesn't mean eliminate.

Gareth Skarka 2 years ago

I can tell you that yes, absolutely the per-capita crime rate was greater, pretty much by definition. You might want to look up what "per capita" means.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

It means per unit of population so what is your point? How can you say the per capita crime rate was greater? Less population doesn't mean the crime rate was greater. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

I looked and couldn't find any data on the wild west, but I did find that since 1960 the crime rate has not changed much, but numbers have gone down some. So was it less in the wild west, based on the info I found probably not, but it was likely not significantly different thus supporting my point that personal safety is still an issue today.

footnote2 2 years ago

The habitually armed cowboy's idea of entertainment in Earp's day was more likely than not to get drunk when the opportunity arose. If personal security was more an issue then than now it was precisely because many men were openly armed, often three sheets to the wind, and sometimes looking for a fight. The restrictive gun code of Dodge City meant to remove one of the three ingredients of aggravated social insecurity.

beatrice 2 years ago

Do you have anything to support the notion that cowboys got drunk whenever the opportunity arose? That sounds like a Hollywood driven assumption to me. Drinking in America was higher in the early 19th century than in the day of cowboy (1860s-1880s). Cowboys were often chivalrous figures who lived according to Victorian values, which included Christian ideas about temperance.

FlintHawk 2 years ago

I'll admit up front that I have limited personal knowledge about guns. The men in my family were hunters, and there were always a lot of rifles and shotguns around. Handguns? No. But JayhawkFan1985's post makes me wonder: Why is this debate about "carrying concealed"? Why do the guns have to be concealed? Why can't those who want to carry get permits to carry openly, like law enforcement and military? I hope someone sane can explain this.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

People can carry open now, but while the threat to personal safety exists 24/7 and in any location, displaying a firearm is not always appropriate 'attire."

Also, there is not always a need or reason to carry the gun openly. Many guns are designed to fit in one's pocket and not to be carried on an external holster. Also, why should a woman have to strap on a holster to carry a gun, when it fits nicely in her purse?

I interact with many people who do not know I am carrying a handgun every day. Why should I be forced to reveal that I am armed? It would only create unease, controversy and perhaps danger to me as the criminal would be forewarned that I am armed and perhaps shoot first before robbing me.

Concealed carry has its place.

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

You don't actually need a permit to open carry in Kansas. There are no state laws restricting it, however local laws sometimes will. In Lawrence, you can't stop within 200 feet of an establishment that serves alcohol. You can walk by it, but not just stop and loiter outside of it.

Many people don't open carry because it draws a lot of attention. Of course that's the exact reason many people do open carry, to make a statement about gun rights. People will either assume you're law enforcement, or be scared of you, and you WILL have interaction with the police. They understandably will respond to calls about guns, even if you're not doing anything wrong.

Personally, I prefer concealed. Less people watching me, less chance someone will sneak up behind me and try to take it, and less chance that someone who does pull a gun will just shoot me right away because they see I am armed as well.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

Interesting we posted at essential the same time and our posts have many similarities. Must mean we both are right :)

weeslicket 2 years ago

the last time i was at the capitol building, it had a sign posted saying that guns were not allowed inside. as i recall, the capitol is a public building.

it's very difficult to take lawmakers seriously when they exempt themselves from the laws they pass on others.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

The capitol also has means to detect weapons so it, like all the other buildings, is not required to allow concealed carry. No special exemption.

Knox pushed a bill that would allow concealed-carry permit holders to take their weapons into public buildings, such as university classrooms, dorms, city halls and other such structures if those buildings didn’t have devices such as metal detectors designed to detect illegal weapons.

beatrice 2 years ago

Fred, are you suggesting that guns are only needed for protection from someone else using a gun or other metal weapon? What if you were being threatened by someone swinging a hunk of wood, or someone much larger than you using their bare hands? You wouldn't try to protect yourself with a firearm in those situations if you had one?

Walking through a metal detector is no guarantee that you are safe on the other side.

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

Locations that have metal detectors will almost always also have armed guards.

beatrice 2 years ago

To put a twist on the argument for gun ownership -- do you really want to rely on a security guard on the first floor when you are being attacked on the third?

They are setting up a double standard. I would think those who believe that rational actions define c&c holders they would demand that laws allowing guns in public buildings would include all public buildings. Are c&c holders who have business at the capitol meant to just leave their firearms locked in their vehicles? What if you ride a bike to work?

It is a double standard.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

beatrice I am not suggesting anything. Weeslicket said that legislators were exempting themselves from the law and I was simply pointing out that they weren't. The capitol would not fall under the law not because the legislators occupy it but because it had a metal detector. I made no other comments other than to point out why the captitol did not need to allow concealed carry under the proposed legislation.

beatrice 2 years ago

Yes, they are exempting themselves. They are saying that circumstances (metal protectors) means they wouldn't haven't to work under the same conditions (among potentially armed individuals) of virtually all other workers.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

beatrice you're wrong. Exempting themselves would mean that that other government buildings would have to do something the captitol wouldn't have to do. Any public building that had security such as metal detectors would not have to allow concealed carry permit holders to carry.

Other buildings only have to post a no-carry sign to stop CC permit holders from being able to legally carry in the building. So, tell me how they have exempted themselves and I am especially curious as to how you support your statement that virtually all other workers have to work among armed individuals when all the employer has to do is post a sign prohibiting weapons.

beatrice 2 years ago

I am not wrong. The proposed law has a built-in exemption that covers the capitol because it has metal detectors, thus it exempts the legislators themselves.

If you believe in c&c laws, you should believe c&c holders don't lose their minds when entering the capitol.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

Under the proposed legislation the capitol is not exempt from the law. The capitol must comply with the law like any other public building.Show me where in the proposed legislation the captiol is exempted - it isn't so yes, you're wrong.

All public buildings can prohibit concealed carry like the capitol if they follow the law.

And I'm waiting to hear from you about your statement that other workers have to work among armed individuals. Or are you backing away from that statement?

beatrice 2 years ago

You are arguing semantics in my opinion. The capitol isn't "exempt," so you are correct, but the law is oh so conveniently written in such a way that those who work at the capitol would not have to work in a building where people are carrying firearms. They make they are covered even though they know virtually all other public buildings (virtually all other workers) could never afford metal detectors and armed guards.

Wouldn't the new law negate the ability to put a sticker on a door in public buildings saying they don't want guns, even those carried by c&c holders? That is what I meant by the other workers and as I understand the legislation as it is proposed. If I am mistaken, then I stand corrected. I would hope you know that I don't back off statements to fudge my intent if I am wrong, but I can be shown that I am mistaken. I can accept being mistaken on something. Am I in this case as far as the intent of the law? Wouldn't it negate the ability to make a public building a "no gun" zone?

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

Yes, you are correct that public buildings would only have two options. Provide security (I am not sure, but I don't think it has to be metal detectors, but I am not certain of this) or allow concealed carry.

The intent of the proposed legislation was to increase security for people working in public offices. Either provide security for them or let them carry if they have a permit so they could defend themselves if necessary.

Why shouldn't public employees have the same level of protection that those that work at the capitol have?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

Do you want public funds paying for metal detectors and staff protecting public buildings?

beatrice 2 years ago

The state cannot afford to give all public employees the same level of protection as legislators have for themselves. Think of the cost for metal detectors and armed guards for every post office, every school, every DMV, every ...

Those public employees will never have the level of security found at the legislature, and as a result it allows the legislature to pursue laws that will never be applied to them. It is a double standard.

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

That is somewhat the point of the legislation, to make it cost prohibitive to provide this security at many locations, encouraging them to make the economically sound choice, and allow CC. I don't know if it's the right way to do it but it makes sense. It's not that legislatures want to force the choice on public buildings, but it's at least realistic. What is safer, a sign that says "no guns" or a metal detector and armed guards? It is a big gap, but where is the middle ground for personal security?

I don't really view it as exempting themselves, even it if it is, it doesn't bother me that much. The positive benefits of it outweigh any BS of exempting the capital building, in my opinion. If I had it my way, I would be able to carry anywhere. I trust myself more than metal detectors and guards to provide personal security; however, I trust the metal detectors and guards more than nothing at all.

weeslicket 2 years ago

mr. mertz: The capitol also has means to detect weapons so it, like all the other buildings, is not required to allow concealed carry. No special exemption.

earlier, Dillon_Barnes calculated: 8 naughty folks with guns/ 50,000 permits performed naughty acts with guns that were not permitted. what happens when just one of those naughty >1%ers arrives at the capitol? you check your gun at coatcheck? wear it publicly whil'st sauntering about the public premiseseses?

i said: it's very difficult to take lawmakers seriously when they exempt themselves from the laws they pass on others.

that question still stands. please. tell me how these lawmakers did not just exempt themselves from the very laws that they pass unto others. not "special" exemptions. i mean exemptions "altogether". tell me the answer to that question, please.

RoeDapple 2 years ago

Segregated housing defeats the purpose of concealed carry.

chootspa 2 years ago

No it doesn't. They don't make everyone wear invisible clothes to live in that dorm. You're free to not carry and live there, too.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

The idea of concealed carry is to be able to carry a handgun in a manner that does not let the general public know you are armed. Putting you into housing that is designated for conceal carry permit holders negates the anonymity that CCHs desire. it essentially puts a target on their head and outs them - might as well make them carry openly.

beatrice 2 years ago

I disagree. If you live in a place that allows c&c, that means you can carry out in the world and then return while still carrying. That is the point, about being able to return to your residence while still carrying. It isn't about carrying while in the dorm itself. Do people now with a c&c license sit around their homes while concealing the fact that they are carrying? No (or likely, no). It is for being outside while armed. Once at home, they can carry concealed or in the open all they want.

RoeDapple 2 years ago

But bea if you have a residence where it is public knowledge the residents are likely to be carrying weapons then you have put them in the position of being challenged based on that fact every time they enter or exit their home.

beatrice 2 years ago

So a student in a dorm, often with roommates, doesn't have the right to live in a room without guns?

Who exactly is challenging people with guns?

RoeDapple 2 years ago

Oh bea, . . . do you really think student housing is gun free?

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

"Do people now with a c&c license sit arround their homes while concealing the fact that they are carrying/" Yes, most people that I know that have a CC permit do not broadcast that fact and their homes are no different than homes that do not have owners that have CC permits and certainly do not designate their homes to indicate they have a permit.

beatrice 2 years ago

That wasn't how I intended the question. I am saying that most c&c folks likely don't c&c once inside their homes. To continue to be armed, concealing and carrying, while walking and living in your own home is just paranoid. I don't believe most c&c folks are paranoid. My point is that c&c licenses are to cover people while out in public. To the best of my knowledge, you don't need a license to hide a gun in your purse or pocket while at home.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

Okay, and I doubt the college student would be carrying concealed in his or her dorm room either, but currently, they can't even have a gun concealed or not in the dorm. And, because of that they cannot carry concealed in public after they leave their dorm.

beatrice 2 years ago

So a segregated dorm that would allow people to have firearms would be a solution.

Isn't this where we started? : )

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

Okay, beatrice, I give up....I just didn't realize that you were a supporter of segregation :)

chootspa 2 years ago

I didn't realize that living in that particular dorm also meant you had to wear the required "I have a concealed gun! Run away!" T-shirt. Plus the tattoo. Silly me.

Bob Forer 2 years ago

The proposed legislation doesn't go far enough . There have been many reported instances of kids bringing guns into our schools and killing other kids and/or school officials. Armed children could avert many of these tragedies. And it would probably make the schoolyard playground more civil. A kid will think twice before calling another kid a "stinky butt," as he could get blown away.

Any kid old enough to aim and double tap should be allowed to apply for a permit.

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

Wow, you must not understand sarcasm...

Like, really don't understand sarcasm.

voevoda 2 years ago

Maybe Rep. Knox trusts the "average Kansan" to behave responsibly, but should we trust the "average undergraduate" to do the same? The "average undergraduate"--a "C" student!--can't even manage to get assignments done properly on time and attend class reliably. Why should we imagine that s/he will be more responsible in carrying a firearm?

University students are against concealed carry on campus. Faculty are against concealed carry on campus. University administrators are against concealed carry on campus. University police are against concealed carry on campus. So why are state legislators, who don't set foot on campus ever, trying to impose it on people who don't want it?

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

You can get a permit at age 21, this really has nothing to do with their undergraduate status. There are 21 year olds carrying concealed firearms safely, their student status has nothing to do with that.

Also, there are students who want CC, there are faculty who want CC, there are administers who want CC, and there are police who want CC. Why are you trying to restrict it when it doesn't affect you?

voevoda 2 years ago

There are students who want to go barefoot, faculty who want to go barefoot, and "administers" who want to go barefoot, but they still must adhere to rules about wearing footwear. And barefoot people are a whole less dangerous to others than persons carrying weapons.
Most 21-year-olds don't have enough of a record to prove whether they can carry firearms safely or not, and whether they are stable or not. Best to err on the side of caution, for everyone's safety.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

voevoda - your generalization about 21 year olds is without substance. Prove what you stated about 21 year olds. Where is the data and I bet thousands of 18-21 year military men and women plus LEOs would disagree with you about their ability to safely carry a weapon.

voevoda 2 years ago

The military 1) Filters out unstable, unreliable people before they are permitted to carry firearms. Universities do not. 2) Provides soldiers with much more extensive training than Kansas state law requires for concealed carry. 3) Makes carriers of weapons responsible for their use and misuse. Universities are not equipped to do so. If the only persons permitted to carry concealed weapons on university campuses were active-duty military/law enforcement, reservists in good standing, and veterans with honorable discharge after a full tour of duty, I wouldn't have a problem with it. What about it Fred, Dillon? Are you willing to restrict concealed carry to persons who have demonstrated extensive training and responsibility?

JackMcKee 2 years ago

Even in the Wild West they knew the best rule was "check your guns at the edge of town".

Armored_One 2 years ago

I never will understand the fascination with guns.

Then again, also see no point in creating the opportunity for some jerkwad to shoot me in the back (C&C is pretty much useless at that point) and give him/her yet another weapon and more ammunition.

Material things are replacable. If the fool is going to shoot you, yer gonna get shot at, at least, if not air conditioned the hard way. The instant you pull a gun on someone that already has a gun pointed at you, you may as well be signing your death certificate.

Don't care if other people carry. Makes no difference to me one way or the other. Well, the rabid, my-gun-is-bigger-than-your-gun crowd does tend to amuse me, so if they lost their guns, I might not have as many chuckles in a given day. I guess I do care, just not in a manner the rabid ones appreciate.

sundog50 2 years ago

You obviously know little about concealed carry tactics or the realities involved in actual gunfight scenarios. Try reading some good self defense books by Massad Ayoob or Clint Smith instead of watching TV.

beatrice 2 years ago

“We can trust the average Kansan to carry a deadly weapon,” said Rep. Forrest Knox, R-Altoona.

Yes, this is true. It is the less than average person we need to worry about.

Even with training, returning fire at a crime scene can be a bad idea. Look at the situation in New York, where a shooter kills one person, trained police officers return fire, nine bystanders are shot -- all by the police returning fire. Does anyone really believe that people who have taken a class are going to do better in a pressure situation than the trained police? http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120824/midtown/police-shot-all-bystanders-empire-state-gun-battle-sources-say

Adding guns to a bad situation is not a guarantee of a better outcome. That is not intended as criticism of conceal and carry laws, just an observation.

Of course, any legislator who wants to pass laws that brings guns into YOUR workplace but keeps them illegal in HIS workplace should be questioned. If the average Kansan with a gun isn't a concern, why would they not also be allowed in the capitol building?

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

Does anyone really believe that people who have taken a class are going to do better in a pressure situation than the trained police?

Better than the NYPD? Probably, yes. I bet I've had more training and trigger time than many of the NYPD police officers. Also, my weapon is not hindered by an unnecessary heavy trigger, a 'safety measure' that can actually make the weapon more dangerous.

beatrice 2 years ago

Dillon, you may well have more trigger time than most NYPD officers and, without knowing your background (military experience?), you may even be better prepared for pulling a gun in a high-anxiety pressure situation. However, I doubt that would be the situation with most gun owners. Wouldn't you agree?

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

Well, we're not talking the average gun owner, we're talking the average concealed carrier. I don't have any statistics to tell you if the average CCer is any better or worse than the average LEO. However, I think the gap between the two is much smaller than many people assume.

What about this, if concealed carriers were shooting innocent bystanders left and right, wouldn't the media be picking up on that like they did with the NYPD incident? That probably has to do more with the situations that concealed carriers are shooting in vs. your average police officer. Officers run towards dangerous people, where concealed carriers don't have. It's kind of hard to compare police and CC because there are two different philosophies behind it.

My long winded point is that I think concealed carriers have already proved themselves to be capable of handing firearms in pressure situations.

beatrice 2 years ago

I'm not disagreeing with you that the two are different. My point is that adding guns to a situation with a shooter is not necessarily going to end in a favorable result. Sometimes it will (other incidents with police stopping a shooter) and sometimes it won't (NYPD situation). I believe it is only a matter of time before an NYPD-type event happens involving a c&c carrier. I hope I am wrong.

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

Realistically, it will probably happen some day. A concealed carrier will inadvertently hit an innocent bystander and likely have to face punishment for it (a fate a police officer would be somewhat protected from).

However, if that's your argument against concealed carriers, you would argue that police shouldn't have guns either because of incidents like the NYPD.

beatrice 2 years ago

In a society that is armed, police must be armed. However, not all police in the rest of the world carry guns. That works pretty well elsewhere.

beatrice 2 years ago

And I'm reminded not of movie lines, but of the reality that people are more likely to die by gunshot if they live in a home with guns than if they do not.

People are more likely to die from falling down than from being attacked, so should everyone wear helmets for protection?

beatrice 2 years ago

Well, apparently neither is what we would call safe. One is deaths from a virus, for which there is no cure yet, although it can be controlled. The other is a weapon from which deaths can be 100% eradicated if that is what we desired.

However, may I state for the record that you are the one who compared gun deaths and AIDS victims, not me.

FarneyMac 2 years ago

Carrying rocket launchers should be mandatory for all Americans over the age of 7.

verity 2 years ago

Considering that by definition half the people are below average, and in my experience, average in the general population ain't that great, well, you get my drift.

All things considered, I feel much safer without a gun---and certainly my TV is much safer. I doubt it would ever get through an election season alive if I had a gun.

Last, I don't believe any of the people who brag about their wonderfulness with a gun and how they would protect themselves and others and be heroic and remarkable under pressure---again the law of averages.

OK, have at----

verity 2 years ago

Stupidity and machoism is not a good combination. Especially when it carries a gun.

msezdsit 2 years ago

I am more concerned with the people wearing guns on gun belts.

George Lippencott 2 years ago

I wonder when it will be enough? How about machine gum towers on the corner of every property??

verity 2 years ago

I hate gum---and when it gets in the trigger of your gun, it's really a nuisance.

Fred Mertz 2 years ago

I don't hate all gum, but machine gum does tend to be stale and flavorless so I can agree I hate machine gum.

msezdsit 2 years ago

worst of the worst is when it gets stuck on my shoe. Hate that.

beatrice 2 years ago

Well... unless that gun toter were an evangelical idiot doing God's will, that is.

Briseis 2 years ago

This is Obama's America. Only his people should be armed with guns.

This how he should take them away from non-government people.


Incrementalism has proved depressingly effective as a tool for getting most people to quietly surrender their rights piecemeal. For gradually habituating them to an ever-diminishing circle of liberty. When the circle finally closes and their rights no longer exist at all, they hardly notice – because by that time, most of their rights have already been taken.

The final surrender is met with a shrug rather than a scream of outrage.

Think how Americans have been habituated to arbitrary search and seizure. Something like the TSA would simply not have been tolerated if it came out of the blue sky circa 1980. And no, the terrr attacks of nineleven did not “change everything.” Getting people to accept “sobriety checkpoints” beginning around 1980 changed everything. Accept that – and something like Gate Rape is inevitable


http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/11/24/heres-how-it-will-be-done/

beatrice 2 years ago

Actually, this is America and Obama is our re-elected President. Don't be such a sore loser.

beatrice 2 years ago

Someone demeans OUR president, thus OUR nation, and then tells me to be civil? hahaha

I can assure you I'm used to being on the winning side, hence "re"election.

sundog50 2 years ago

Your relected president beatrice... :)

beatrice 2 years ago

Our.

The secession movement went nowhere.

sundog50 2 years ago

Your reelected president beatrice... :)

voevoda 2 years ago

The Obama administration has not limited Second Amendment rights, Briseis. Take a deep breath, expel wild propaganda-inspired fears from your mind, and let fact-based reality seep back in.

Briseis 2 years ago

lol....Fast and Furious ring a bell? You think your leader will remove firearms overnight? Read the article.

You, like so many, are putty in his hands. Malleable types.

beatrice 2 years ago

Fast and Furious, a failed and really bad program, allowed putting more guns in people's hands, not less. The only gun legislation signed by Obama was to EXPAND the use of guns, allowing them in national parks.

So yes, Obama has not limited Second Amendment rights, but has expanded paranoia among those who likely signed the petitions to secede following his re-election.

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

Obama lowered supply of ammunition and drove up supply!

Well... it was actually the more paranoid among us stocking up because they bought into the NRAs fear tactics.

bearded_gnome 2 years ago

Voevoda wrote, without intending to be ironic: let fact-based reality seep back in.

---this is so funny coming from someone who's just spewed so much hysteria about law abiding concealed carry licensees! the published facts contradict his/her malarky.
lol caught ya!

Bob_Keeshan 2 years ago

The Kansas GOP --- making it easier for Kansans to carry guns, but harder for Kansans to vote.

verity 2 years ago

People who don't want to carry their gun(s) openly know that nobody would sit with them at lunch. Nobody.

DillonBarnes 2 years ago

Oh verity, here I though we'd come to an understanding about guns, we understood each other's stance more, and simply agreed to disagree. Then, you gotta throw this ignorant statement out there.

I have many non-gun-owning friends who know I own and carry guns and wouldn't hesitate to join me for lunch if I was open carrying.

lawslady 2 years ago

a. I like guns and enjoy target practice with them. So I am not anti-gun. b. The state house (where Rep. Knox works) does not allow guns to be carried inside by anyone but law enforcement officers.They have each and every entrance to his place of work blocked by law enforcment and scanning devices. To have extra officers at each entrance or put up such scanners at all buildings on campuses would cost tens of thousands of dollars, if not millions. What's good for the goose.... c. The parents/relatives of those killed at Virginia wrote a letter AGAINST allowing guns to be carried on campuses. d. Young adults typically tend to drink (Party) more and have not as yet learned to control their stronger emotions. And school campuses are often places where emotions run high (Think jilted lovers etc.). and e. School campus (and other law enforcement officers) uniformly oppose guns on campuses because, in part, when shootings begin it makes their job even harder b/c it is impossible to tell if those doing the shooting are good guys or bad guys.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

Takes a loaded weapon (tool) to know one...

Betty Bartholomew 2 years ago

I work in an office where people, no matter how reasonable and kind they are most of the time, tend to turn into nasty, unreasonable folks when they come in, complete Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde situations. I'd rather they not be allowed to have a gun while I'm talking to them.

JBurgherr 2 years ago

Beth, the managers of the facility have the ability to eject anyone whom they deem disruptive. If the people remain after being told to leave, they are in violation of treaspassing law.

You don't have to work there. You can quit and get a job elsewhere that suits your particular needs. That you don't like guns or are unconfortable around them doesn't end my right to own and carry them for my own self protection.

Betty Bartholomew 2 years ago

Just because I deal with people being irrational doesn't mean I don't like my job. My job currently has a safe environment because guns are not allowed under current regulations (criminals who have guns yada yada aside since I'm talking about non-criminals who become irrational). Why should my workplace have to spend thousands of dollars on new equipment to prevent people from bringing guns in? It's like saying stealing is only illegal if you have anti-theft devices - if you don't have anti-theft devices, then stealing is fine.

JBurgherr 2 years ago

"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."

Two recent Supreme Court Decisions have ruled the second amendment is an individual right, so this is settled case law.

I say, the 2nd Amendment is my "Concealed Carry Permit". Arizona and New Hampshire have it right; no further laws or regulations are required. The 2nd Amendment is sufficient.

beatrice 2 years ago

No, Arizona does not have it right. People in Arizona can conceal and carry with no permit at all. Walk in, buy a gun, stick it in your pocket, and walk out. You really believe that is "sufficient"? That is negligent and leads to things like the shooting of Gabby Giffords. That is my opinion.

You are correct that the Supreme Court has ruled that you have the right to be armed, but where is it said that all rights are to be unrestricted? I also think some of the regulations and laws we currently have are ridiculous and should be dumped while others should be more seriously considered.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years ago

I can't tell if you're agreeing with Beatrice or disagreeing. I believe she's focusing on the "well regulated militia" and you're focusing on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". I may be wrong.

BTW, beatrice, TO ME, a "well regulated militia" sounds like a much more dangerous thing than individuals with permission to carry for personal protection. That's just me.

Also, the Federal Government does regulate the purchase of firearms in Arizona but, unless you count their attempts in keep criminals from buying guns as sufficient to create a "well regulated militia", then we don't have much to discuss in forums such as this. I may be wrong.

Glockslinger 2 years ago

The logic couldn't be more simple: criminals don't obey laws. They're ALREADY CARRYING their guns wherever they want. (We saw this at Virginia Tech, which had its own exemption.) A law prohibiting the lawful carrying of firearms then DISARMS THE LAW ABIDING. This gives any and all armed bad guys the upper hand.

Incredulously, the academic mindset still believes that the increased number and availability of guns somehow leads to more crime, regardless of the real world statistics that proves otherwise! They also seem to not understand that, to a trained, licensed firearm owner/CCW, a gun will never become an issue unless someone tries to kill him/her; that guns are always a LAST RESORT. Instead, their policy is fear-based, which results in worse consequences when violent crime DOES intrude on campus life.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.