Advertisement

Archive for Monday, November 19, 2012

Kansas conceal carry holders commit few gun crimes

November 19, 2012

Advertisement

— Few Kansans who hold a concealed-carry gun permit have been charged with a firearm-related crime, statistics show.

Of the 51,078 permits issued in Kansas since the law took effect in 2007, just 44 permit holders were charged with a crime committed while using a firearm, according to records from the Kansas attorney general's office.

The Wichita Eagle reported that works out to one charge for every 1,161 permit holders, or 0.09 percent.

For those 44 permit holders charged, 17 had their licenses revoked because they were convicted of a crime that disqualifies them from having a permit.

Supporters of concealed-carry permits contend license holders are more law-abiding than the general population because they've undergone background checks by the state, said Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, the National Rifle Association's state affiliate.

Gun rights supporters also contend the concealed weapons serve as a deterrent to crime.

"The main reason people get a license is because this is a broken world, and we don't want to be defenseless," said Dirk Sanders, a state-certified concealed-carry instructor from Rose Hill.

But Michael Birzer, criminal justice professor and director of the school of community affairs at Wichita State University, said no empirical studies back up claims that the permits deter crime.

"It's hogwash," said Birzer, who spent nearly two decades with the Sedgwick County Sheriff's Office.

At the D&M Barber Shop in Derby a sign welcomes concealed-carry permit holders. Another sign includes a message in red lettering that reads, "Criminals Beware!"

"Sure, it helps deter crime," said Vu Nguyen, owner of the shop. "Every day people walk by, tap the sign and give it a thumbs-up. We have a lot of cops come in here. We don't want bad guys here."

Derby Police Chief Robert Lee, one of Nguyen's customers, doubted the sign would make someone think twice about holding up the shop.

"It may discourage some of the amateurs," he said, "but we have banks robbed with guards inside. I've worked cases where we've had gun shops robbed where everyone inside has guns."

While Kansas has since issued a little over 51,000 permits, 48,200 people hold one now, according to the attorney general's office. Conviction of a felony while using a firearm brings a lifetime revocation. Aggravated battery is the leading cause for revocation in Kansas.

Some Kansans have their licenses revoked because they move out of state. Others have not renewed their licenses. A drunken driving conviction draws a one-year revocation. Conviction of a felony where a firearm was not used will bring a revocation of five to 10 years.

Interest in obtaining a permit has spiked recently, particularly among women.

Overall the number of Kansans applying for a concealed-carry license has gone up 24 percent over the previous year. More than 12,400 Kansans applied between July 2011 and June 2012.

Among women, the number was up 57 percent with nearly 2,500 applications during that time.

Comments

geekin_topekan 1 year, 9 months ago

So, obviously CCrs are a greater threat to America than ineligible voters!

Well, I'll be dang-derned.

3

Inquiringmind393 1 year, 9 months ago

But Michael Birzer, criminal justice professor and director of the school of community affairs at Wichita State University, said no empirical studies back up claims that the permits deter crime.

"It's hogwash," said Birzer

Well, I am convinced. Obviously the law must be repealed!

2

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 9 months ago

Crime rates in Kansas have dropped every year since 2006...the year the Kansas Legislature passed the Personal and Family Protection Act. Quite the coincidence, eh Mr. Birzer?

2

chootspa 1 year, 9 months ago

Oh, and the number of cell phones have gone up. Coincidence?

4

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 9 months ago

Whatevs. Look out! He has a cell phone....Gimmie dat! LOL

0

dinglesmith 1 year, 9 months ago

This is a silly article. It says that CC folks commit few gun crimes. Then it tells us the percentage of CC folks who commit gun crimes. So far, so good. What it fails to tell us is the percentage of folks who are not CC folks who commit gun crimes. I have no idea what that percentage is - it may be way higher or way lower or the same as CC folks. However, without that number for comparison this article is utterly pointless.

5

RoeDapple 1 year, 9 months ago

you could look it up . . . .

1

mdlund0 1 year, 9 months ago

I could also look up the stats listed in the article. But then... wait... what do I visit this site for again? Oh yea, to have the facts presented to me in support of a thesis by a qualified journalist. (looks around ...) Well, since we apparently have none of those here, may as well go look up some facts!

5

dinglesmith 1 year, 9 months ago

Okay, so I did. Guess what, the Kansas rate for firearm assaults per 100,000 is 70.96 while the armed robbery rate is 24.46. So, about 95 gun crimes per 100,000 give or take decimal points. That translates to 0.095%. The article claims a 0.09% rate for CC folks. You can draw your own conclusions, but I'll take this to mean that concealed carry makes you no better or worse than anyone else. About what I suspected.

That does not eliminate the fact that this article is biased, clearly trying to convince its readers that CC folks are more law abiding than the general population when they are not.

3

1 year, 9 months ago

Is your stat per year? If so, you're not comparing apples to apples. The stat on CC is based on the number of crimes committed since 2007 not each year. To compare the 2 you would have to add up all the firearm crimes committed by the general population since 2007 and determine the percentage of the population based on that number.

Also, th e CC number is based on adults only so you should throw out children if they are included.

I went to the KBI site and over 10,000 violent crimes were committed in 2011. Granted all did not involve a gun but the 95 per 100,000 seems low. What is your source?

2

chootspa 1 year, 9 months ago

Agreed. And I'd want to see them listed as the number of gun crimes committed by people using guns they have legally obtained.

2

labmonkey 1 year, 9 months ago

Gonna finally take my class in December...

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 9 months ago

Yeah, yeah, yeah . . . But if the stats were going the other way the anti-gun crowd would be all over it.

0

tomatogrower 1 year, 9 months ago

Duh. People who get concealed carry licenses are law-abiding citizens. A criminal could care less, and wouldn't bother getting a license. What a waste of time.

1

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Sure.

But apparently not all of those CC holders are law-abiding, if you read the article.

1

RoeDapple 1 year, 9 months ago

Being in possession of a stolen firearm does not constitute ownership.

1

RoeDapple 1 year, 9 months ago

Oh thuja, displaying so much anger over so little. Probably a good thing you don't have a gun, too unstable . . .

0

webmocker 1 year, 9 months ago

dinglesmith says

"...this article is biased, clearly trying to convince its readers that CC folks are more law abiding than the general population when they are not."

"Guess what, the Kansas rate ... about 95 gun crimes per 100,000 give or take decimal points. That translates to 0.095%. The article claims a 0.09% rate for CC folks...."

Thank you for your research. Seems you are correct in your assessment.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

I don't think the numbers are correct. The 0.09% is the number based on a 5 year period, not a 1 year period. To compare the general population you would have to look at the total number of crimes committed over the same period and use that figure minus non-adults since minors can't get a permit.

2

hipper_than_hip 1 year, 9 months ago

Help me with the math: 2.8M Kansans, and 95 gun crimes per 100k population. 2.8M/100k = 28 x 95 = 2660 gun crimes in KS. 44 concealed carriers charged with a gun crime. 44/2660 = 1.6% of gun crimes were committed by concealed carriers. Am I doing this right?

0

1 year, 9 months ago

First is the 95 number correct Second you need to divide 44 by 5. So 9/2660 =0.33%

1

hipper_than_hip 1 year, 9 months ago

Divide 44 by 5 because the gun crimes occurred over 5 years?

0

1 year, 9 months ago

Because 44 was the number over a 5 year period. The number you're comparing it to is per year. So you need to divide it by 5 to get a per year average.

1

somedude20 1 year, 9 months ago

So what this article is saying is that unlike "voter fraud," they can prove that there are cases of abuse when it comes to CC peeps....huh, since the state of K took such drastic measures to combat "voter fraud," I wonder what steps the G.O.V. will take to end these proven charges of "responsible gun owner fraud." I noticed that Kansas's Kris Kobach wants to stop peeps from taking pics of their own voter ballots due to allegations of fraud, so these PROVEN cases of CC abuse will come with consequences, no?

1

1 year, 9 months ago

There is and continues to be voter fraud. For example in the Mah race they disqualified over 500 votes because the voters were not registered. Voting when not registered is illegal. So yes illegal voting does occur and voter ID helps prevent it.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

How exactly does an ID help prevent someone from voting when not registered? The one is not related to the other.

2

1 year, 9 months ago

It identifies who they are so they can't assume the identity of a voter that is registered.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Because if you are wanting to pretend to be someone else in order to vote, a fake ID is so difficult to come by. Just ask any freshman frat boy.

2

1 year, 9 months ago

With that logic why bother asking for ID to cash a check, attend the DNC, board a plane, etc. It is hard to stop a determined criminal but you can make it harder.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Fred, the things you mention aren't rights. What limits are you willing to put on one's rights? (Yes, I do enjoy the irony of that argument on this thread.)

0

1 year, 9 months ago

beatrice, my point was that if requiring ID has no value then why require it in other situations.

So, if you're against requiring an ID for voting because it is a right then are you also against requiring an ID when one exercises their 2nd amendment right? I am guessing no, but if my assumption is correct then isn't that a contradiction?

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes.

And, it's as much of a contradiction the other way around, that it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to spend money getting their birth certificate, etc. to prove citizenship, but unreasonable to regulate the purchase of guns in any way.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

fred, see my comments below. This is all getting a little thread-crazy.

0

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 9 months ago

Except that they all tried to vote as themselves. As unregistered voters have done for years and been prevented from,

I mean, do you seriously think all those voters would go in, bearing photos IDs, and try to vote if they knew they weren't eligible???

Your argument is illogical, Fred. Photo IDs had absolutely no impact whatsoever on those 500 voters and their ability to vote.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

@acorn, how do you know they all tried to vote as themselves? Any data to prove it?

How do you know they all showed ID? And how stupid is one to not know you're not registered.

acorn, you're good at attacking the person without providing any counter arguments. Just saying an argument is illogical doesn't make it so. And if you read what I wrote, I said they tried to vote illegally. And then I went on to say that illegally voting does occur and voter ID helps stop it. Two different issues - please read carefully.

0

50YearResident 1 year, 9 months ago

Check your reading comprehension, the article states this quote: "Of the 51,078 permits issued in Kansas since the law took effect in 2007, just 44 permit holders were charged with a crime committed while using a firearm, according to records from the Kansas attorney general's office.

The Wichita Eagle reported that works out to one charge for every 1,161 permit holders, or 0.09 percent.

For those 44 permit holders charged, 17 had their licenses revoked because they were convicted of a crime that disqualifies them from having a permit."

Now the 17 convictions were of crimes that disqualify a permit holder from having a permit. These crimes were not all (if any) gun crimes. As the article later states, most were from aggravated battery or lesser felonies, not gun crimes.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

Plus a DUI disqualifies them too.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

"Supporters of concealed-carry permits contend license holders are more law-abiding than the general population because they've undergone background checks by the state, said Patricia Stoneking, president of the Kansas State Rifle Association, the National Rifle Association's state affiliate."

Good point NRA rep. Yes, we would be a safer society if ALL gun owners were required to go through background checks, become registered as a gun owner and take mandatory use and safety courses.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

So you want to disenfranchise large groups of minority gun owners who would not be able to afford the training and background check costs from exercising their 2nd amendment right?

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 9 months ago

Of course! The secret (not!) to gun control is to take them away, a few at a time. First this group, then that one until hardly anyone is left who can legally own.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Like Ron Paul's response to those in need of health care -- I'm sure there will be charities willing to help out. Imagine all the good will the NRA will receive when they begin to donate their time to train people.

While you took my comment to another place, I am repeating what the NRA lobbyist had to say about why C&C owners tend to be a safer lot. Registration and training used for C&C make gun owners a safer group to be around. Are you saying we shouldn't make it safer for our society to have guns if the answer is truly at hand? If cost wasn't the issue, would you still be opposed? As it is now, apparently you are okay with saying only those who can currently afford the C&C training should be allowed to carry and the hell with those who can't, correct? Why are you okay with a system that favors a certain class of people over another? (Say, this game of who is disenfranchising who is fun.)

1

RoeDapple 1 year, 9 months ago

So . . . those who cannot afford the training YOU think they should have to practice their second amendment right should have their training paid for by the NRA. No. It's your idea, how much do you plan to invest?

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

I'm saying that the NRA spokesperson says that training for C&C owners is what makes them safer for the rest of society. Why are you against making gun ownership safer for society? Is it really the money? What is your threshold of expense for making society safer? Why should the rest of society be forced to endure the unsafe situation as it stands now when an answer is at hand (according to the NRA spokesperson)? Do we really just give up on safety if there is a cost involved? It is a right, but that doesn't mean it has to be free, does it? You have the right to pursue happiness, but that doesn't mean your pursuit won't have a price tag.

1

RoeDapple 1 year, 9 months ago

And what you also seem to be saying is if they can't afford the training they shouldn't have the right to bear arms to defend themselves and those they care about. You are wrong.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Isn't that what the law says now? If someone can't currently afford the C&C training, they can't carry. Why does the NRA support this biased law?

0

1 year, 9 months ago

We do a cost-benefit on lots of safety issues. There is a reason the average car is not as safe as a NASCAR - cost.

Beatrice - would you support requiring a class on civics, the Constitution and the candidates as a requirement to vote? I bet you wouldn't. I don't.

What other rights would you reserve for the rich?

I could support a one hour free and voluntary safety class when someone buys a gun.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

The reason that they don't build cars to NASCAR standards also probably has to do with whether or not the average driver needs that level of protection, given that they drive a lot slower and differently than race car drivers.

I would support requiring people to show basic proficiency in understanding how our system works to vote - perhaps have them take the test that immigrants have to pass.

If it's voluntary, it doesn't serve the purpose.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

jafs, but you would agree that if the average car was made to that standard it would be safer - right? Which is my point, we do a cost-benefit need and are willing to sacrifice safety for cost and accept a certain level of risk. That was my only point with the NASCAR example.

While I would support you on the profiency test for voting you know it would neve see the light of day.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes, but it may not be necessary, whereas the dangers of guns seem to be serious, and so regulations may be more necessary there.

I'm confused now, I thought you didn't favor that sort of thing, from your post above.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

jafs, I generally don't favor restrictions on the 2nd amendment, but as you know, I am a reasonable person so I am open to new ideas. If the gun shop did the training while you were waiting for the background check to be completed then that is not a burden. If you make someone take time off from work to go to an all day class like the CC class then yes that would be a burden.

0

RoeDapple 1 year, 9 months ago

There are far more licensed idiots driving cars than unlicensed idiots with guns (my opinion). Besides, guns are already heavily regulated. You just want to regulate them out of existence.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

RoeD, you are projecting something onto my views that isn't accurate. Yes, firearms are heavily regulated, and many of those regulations should be streamlined or done away with. It is just that when a spokesperson for gun rights speaks about the safety that is evident that comes with C&C training, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to all gun owners. Not taking away, and actually making more people able to carry than presently.

Your claim of what I want is not helpful nor accurate. It would be like my saying that obviously you think all people, even children and criminals should have access to guns at all times since you are pro gun. If I want to see something regulated out of existence, I would tell you so. I'm an anonymous voice on the internet. Why would I care to lie about what I think on this subject?

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

If that's for me, you're just wrong.

Anytime you want to have an honest discussion, let me know.

Also, it's helpful to actually read the conversations so that you understand comments in context. Fred and I were discussing the fact that cars aren't made to NASCAR standards, which seems reasonable. My comment was that's almost certainly because most folks don't drive the way race car drivers do, and so that level of safety isn't necessary.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

C&C laws now favor the rich.

Glad you would support an hour of free training. I've apparently won you over from "Hell no," (paraphrasing) to an hour. I just wonder, is one hour enough?

0

1 year, 9 months ago

I don't know if an hour would be enough time. See my post further down. What would the traning cover?

beatrice - watch out because sometimes I throw in a little hyperbole just to make things interesting. Do CC laws favor the rich? I can't say that for sure, but I think between permit costs, background check and the training you're looking at $300 or so. Not everyone can afford a CC permit.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Hyperbole is the greatest thing ever!

0

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 9 months ago

I am a concealed carry gun owner. I exercised my right as a law abiding American citizen, went through the training and am proud of the fact that I have this freedom as a law abiding American.

There are a lot of gun haters out there and I do not think these people should be able to pass laws to take away my right as an American.

I grew up around guns and learned to respect them. I think this article correctly points out that our system is working to make sure that those who acquire this license are indeed, law abiding citizens.

Based on the people I have met who are concealed carry gun owners, these are the kind of people I would want to be around in case of an emergency.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Fair enough. I, too, believe that C&C owners are not the problem. The gun fights in the streets never happened. Anti-carry folks were clearly wrong in their arguments.

It just begs the question, why not make ALL gun owners go through the hoops you went through if the end result is greater safety from guns in this country. As it is now, it would be like telling some people that they had to go through training to drive a car and be licensed in order to park in certain places, while everyone else can just drive without any training at all and no registration or licensing either. (Okay, maybe it isn't quite like that since gun ownership is a right and driving isn't, but hopefully you see the point I am trying to make.) If we know something makes gun ownership safer for society, why not do it?

0

1 year, 9 months ago

Beatrice

The training received in a CC class is not about safety. It is about the law and how to comply with it. Then you demonstrate proficiency with your gun. No training just a test.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

And, why shouldn't everybody have to do that to buy a gun?

0

1 year, 9 months ago

The law part would be pretty simple - do not kill anyone illegally. The CC law course is about the CC law, the do's and don'ts. As I mentioned earlier, if it was free and reasonable, I wouldn't be opposed to it at the time of purchase.

What we have to be careful about is not making to difficult so as to infringe upon the right of the people to own a gun.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes, but people aren't always well informed about self defense laws, for example, and should be.

And, those differ from state to state as well.

Often, the same folks that argue against regulating gun ownership have no problem regulating voting, and vice versa. Seems to me that it's the same sort of issue, and should be treated the same way in both cases.

1

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 9 months ago

Making gun owners go through hoops before they can purchase a gun sort of reveals how you feel about guns.

The NRA, who I believe go too far sometimes, do have a very keen understanding of how legislators who have a bias against gun ownership ulitimately seek the elimination of our right to bear arms.

I would no more want to discuss gun safety with a gun hater than I would want to discuss a woman's reproductive rights with a bunch of socially conservative male Republicans.

The point is that gun safety and gun legislation should not be debated with people who have a secret political agenda which is too eliminate a right that all Americans have had since the founding of this country.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

No, it actually reveals how she feels about people.

Your position sounds a bit paranoid to me.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Having a bias against gun ownership does not mean ultimimately seeking the elimination of the right to own. That is buying into the fear sold by the NRA -- a lobbyist organization that makes millions off of selling that fear. I, for example, am not pro-gun, but I think the C&C laws, by and large, work. The statistics support it. I don't have an issue with them, even though I have no desire to own a gun myself. That doesn't mean I really want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens.

I am simply saying that if an NRA rep is talking about how certain rules applied to one group of gun owners make those owners safer in general, why not apply those rules to all owners? And yes, that would ultimately mean all owners could carry.

Sorry to know you are not open to honest discussion about gun safety.

0

50YearResident 1 year, 9 months ago

The Title of the article itself is misleading:

Kansas conceal carry holders commit few gun crimes.

The number of "crimes" committed by permit holders are felony crimes that have no defination of being gun crimes or have referance to actual "gun crimes", only crimes that prevent retaining a concealed carry permit. Actual gun crimes are a very small percentage of the total permit holders and the 17 convictions out of 44 charged permit holders that were charged with a felony crime af any type with no referance to it being a gun related crime.

I wanted to clear that up for the people reading "gun crimes only" into this story.

0

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 9 months ago

Gun control is an issue that the Democratic Party tries to politicize for votes. There is a lot of misinformation regarding this issue and I personally resent it.

We have two dominant political parties that are constantly looking for issues to scare people with and they are constantly arguing whether the arguments are legitimate or not.

The American people are worn down by these arguments and are looking for different kind of leadership in the future.

The problem with gun control is that gun laws are promoted by gun haters as part of a political agenda and the result is that criminals will always be well armed and law abiding citizens face the threat of jail or prison if they are simply defending themselves.

Democrats that support the gun hater movement commit political suicide in this part of the country.

0

tomatogrower 1 year, 9 months ago

I beg to differ with you. I have a control carry license. I don't hunt, mostly because I don't like getting up before dawn and sitting in a deer stand, and I'm not a great shot either. I don't care if someone wants to do a background check on me when I want to buy a gun. I don't mind waiting 48 hours to get the gun I am buying, if it will prevent people from buying the gun for a crime of passion or suicide. I do want laws against the kind of guns that shoot so many rounds that no one has time to react before they die. We didn't want Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction, why should be let our citizens have them? There is a middle ground here, but both sides are unwilling to meet, so I don't see that it will ever be solved.

2

1 year, 9 months ago

Background checks are already done when you buy a gun from a dealer.

What is the number of rounds that should be allowed?

How about this as a compromise. Citizens cannot have magazines with a higher capacity than any local, state or federal law enforcement agency has for a similar weapon. If law enforcement feels they need a magazine that holds X bullets to protect themselves from a criminal then that should be good for a citizen too.

Our citizens are not allowed to have weapons of mass destruction but they are allowed to beat arms because the Constitution says so and the SCOTUS upheld that right

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

How many people have to die before a weapon is considered a weapon of mass destruction?

0

Kendall Simmons 1 year, 9 months ago

Who says a law-abiding citizen has to buy a gun from a dealer??? So much for your "background checks" argument.

And, no...people don't need weapons that have the capacity of local police because your argument of 'if the police need that many bullets to protect themselves from a criminal' is a fallacious argument.

Among other things, citizens don't get to chase after criminals and shoot at them. Police do. And, in keeping with that distinction, police don't carry their guns just for self-defense, either.

I like guns. And I'm a darned fine shot. But the purpose of concealed carry is not to create a nation of vigilantes, so let's not pretend it is. Or that "compromise" needs to be based on silliness.

3

1 year, 9 months ago

@acorn - oh the anger that ruminates from your post. Chill dude, we're just discussing an issue. No one says that a person has to buy a gun from a dealer which is why I said background checks are done when someone buys a gun from a dealer and not when someone buys a gun.

I agree that citizen don't chase criminals but they have to defend themselves from criminals in similar situations and in situations that the people do not. When was the last time you heard a criminal breaking into a police station? But home invasions are on the rise.

What purpose other than self-defense do police carry their weapon? They cannot legally kill shoot someone unless someone is in danger so what other than self-defense is the reason for their guns?

No one said the CC law was to create vigilantes so why make up stuff like that?

Why is my compromise silly? It is a good starting point which you have added nothing. Give me a situation where a police officer needs a high capacity magazine that a citizen will never encounter.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Since background checks aren't done in many instances of buying guns, there are plenty of ways for people to get guns without them.

Police often put themselves willingly and voluntarily in dangerous situations, which most normal citizens don't do.

The other reasons have to do with asserting their authority and arresting criminals, which normal citizens aren't supposed to do either.

Your compromise is a bit silly, in my opinion.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

Aw jafs, when acorn calls me silly it just flies right off, but when you do......then I have to reevaluate.

Look, it may be on the extreme, but it is a starting point and I don't believe it so silly. Tell me why a cop needs a 15 round magazine for their Glock, but I don't. Okay, so they have to arrest a criminal. I may have to prevent a car jacking or a home invasion. What is different between the 2 scenarios? Also, consider, the cop is likely to have backup where I will most likely be defending my family alone.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

:-)

I told you why already. Police officers aren't analogous to normal citizens, in a number of ways.

Unless you're a rather strange person, you're not rushing to dangerous situations and trying to subdue folks, right? So, whereas most of us try to avoid those situations, and use a variety of methods to do that, police rush into them.

By the way, I have no idea whether or not cops "need" particular weapons, either. But it's clear to me that if they do, that doesn't immediately translate into a similar need for average citizens.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

jafs, I gave you two situations that I believe are analogous to police situations - car jackings and home invasions. I will agree that citizens may not see all the situations that a police officer will, but they may find themselves in similar and equally dangerous situations so why shouldn't they have the same type of weapons that the police would have in those situations?

Most people don't rush into dangerous situations, but criminals rush in and create dangerous situations. Look at Topeka and the number of armed home invasions they have.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

I've answered it twice, but you don't like my answer.

The fact that normal citizens operate cautiously and try to avoid dangerous situations means they're much less likely to encounter them than police officers are.

Do you go to sleep with a bulletproof vest on? Of course not, right?

0

1 year, 9 months ago

And LEO don't sleep with them either. It is not that I don't like your answer, but you're not answering it.

Do you dispute that citizens sometimes find them in situations just as dangerous as a LEO? Consider an armed robbery of a store or a home, consider a home invasion or a car jacking? How about a rape by an armed assailant?

Are these situations not as dangerous and if so, then why shouldn't the citizen be armed in the same way as a LEO?

Does the fact that a LEO may encounter 100 dangerous situations and a citizen just one change the need for the proper tools to defend themselves?

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

So, should we all have SWAT equipment as well?

How about tear gas grenades, etc.?

If being in your house/car is as dangerous as what police encounter, then wouldn't you need all of those, and shouldn't you be wearing a bulletproof vest?

Not only are people much less likely to encounter dangerous situations, there are a number of dangerous situations that police encounter that normal citizens just don't, unless they're crazy.

For example, they don't go to a crime in progress and try to stop the criminals, and there's a certain particular danger in that.

In my life, although I have been the victim of relatively minor crimes, and not very often (and, as I get older, less and less, due to my better judgement and mindfulness), I have never felt that my life was in danger, and have never needed a gun to protect myself or others.

And, I grew up in NYC, and lived in Chicago for about 10 years.

It has occurred to me that it might be a good idea to have a gun at home, just in case, but I've certainly never thought that I should have guns and equipment like police officers do - I can't imagine needing them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, I think. By the way, you originally mentioned it as a "compromise", but then also as a "starting point" - maybe you could clarify what you mean there.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

Jafs you changed the original idea to include tear gas and other things to distract from my original question to you. Younalsompretended people don't live in dangerous areas. As I said just look at the home invasions in Topeka.

And you never explained to me why a person who finds themself in a dangerous situation doesn't need a hi capacity magazine.

I suppose this leads to your question about a starting point. No compromise starts out perfectly. It is just a starting point for discussion. For example, citizens should only be allowed the same type of firearms as LO but not all weapons such as tear gas.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

I've answered your question several times - you just don't find it a good answer because you disagree with it.

As I mentioned, I lived in large cities with high crime rates for much of my adult life, and never needed a gun for self defense. In fact, I lived in some pretty sketchy areas, because they were cheap, like the south side of Chicago and Rogers Park, both of which were heavily black areas, and I'm white.

You propose that people need the same sort of guns/ammo as police, and I disagree. If I haven't even needed a gun at all, why on earth would I need a "hi capacity" magazine?

I find your analogy flawed - average citizens don't find themselves in the same situations as police officers do, both in terms of frequency and kind of danger.

Have you been in situations where you need that sort of weapon? If so, how did you find yourself in them? I find that good judgement and mindfulness are excellent ways to avoid such things.

Please don't just ask the question over and over again - I've given you my answer. If it doesn't satisfy you, that's fine.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Yes, gun control is an issue the Democratic Party tries to politicize for votes. This is why President Obama never goes there and virtually all Democrats avoid the subject like it is the plague. The Republican Party, on the other hand, tries to scare people into believing Democrats will take away their guns, which means, the Republican Party tries to politicize the fear of gun control in order to win votes.

If you disagree, please list the gun legislation President Obama has recommended or signed into law -- even when the Democrats had a super majority in Congress -- other than his allowing guns in national parks.

2

JackMcKee 1 year, 9 months ago

CC "training" is one day. Basically a joke.

1

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Better than nothing, don't you agree?

0

1 year, 9 months ago

@jack - not a joke. Is it the very best training? Probably not, but it is important training. There are many do's and don'ts with the CC law and the CC permit holder should understand them.So, the training is important not for safety as I previously stated, but for understanding how to comply with the law.

0

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 9 months ago

Some people are horrified by the idea of somebody wanting to kill an animal with a gun. Another person may find it odd that a person would fire 30,000 rounds a year at a gun range. Another person would find a gun collector to be someone that is mentally unbalanced.

You can have your own personal preference but to believe that law abiding gun owners are a threat that must be contained is wrong. And to politicize the gun issue to scare American citizens is also very wrong.

In my opinion, incompetent or corrupt politicians are the greatest threat to American citizens today and the gun controversies that keep popping up are a reminder of that fact.

1

1 year, 9 months ago

I have a serious question for those that have suggested training for anyone purchasing a gun. What should the training include and how would it reduce deaths by firearms?

I can see training around the castle doctine to help people understand it and not get caught up in a bad situation, but what else?

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

Why not ask the NRA representative who is telling us that the training applied to C&C owners make those owners safer. Is the NRA rep lying that training makes a certain type of gun owners safer than others?

I'm not a gun owner, so honestly, I wouldn't be the one to say what should be taught, but since we know there are numerous accidental gun deaths each year, it might help in that regard. And yes, teaching about the difference between self defense and murder is worth teaching.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Seems to me that responsible gun owners are better equipped to answer that question than I am.

But, certainly learning about the relevant laws, including self-defense, defense of others, stand your ground laws, etc. would be helpful, I would think.

And, basic safety training.

Also, why not have to demonstrate proficiency to some sort of basic level as well?

The first should reduce instances of people acting in "self defense" when they don't have the right to do that, legally. The second is obvious, as is the third, I would say.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

I think a review of the laws like the castle doctrine and stand your ground would benefit the gun owner. I think the Zimmerman case taught that even if you are within your right to shoot someone your best option may be to not shoot. The consequences of killing someone can be very costly.

Basic safety training would be good. I was taught safety as a wee boy, but others may not have been taught.

The profiency test sounds good, but it may not be practical. You'd have to find a range where it could be done and it would involve a good bit of time. What other rights do we require a test to excercise?

Bottom line, even though I can reasonably discuss these issues with you and may concede on here that they are a good idea, I would likely oppose them in the real world becasue the anti-gun crowd has demonstrated that it wants to completely ban guns and their agenda is to do it incrementally. If gun owners said okay, we'll do the training, but that is the end of the gun control battle do you think the other side would agree? Of course not, they'd push for more once they got that part.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

As far as I know, the Zimmerman case is still pending, so it's not clear whether or not he was "within his rights", right?

Your last paragraph indicates why we are stuck in this country in so many ways.

Both sides feel that the other is more extreme than they seem, and aren't willing to give any ground, for fear that it will just continue.

You asked for ideas of what sort of training, and how they would reduce gun deaths, and I gave a few - then, even though you may agree they're a good idea, you would oppose them. I'd suggest that your intransigence is the flip side of the coin you're painting "anti-gun" forces with.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

Yes, the Zimmerman case is still pending, but my point was whether or not he was within his rights, he is still paying a high cost. Education could help someone from making the same mistake. I have thought about it since then. Maybe a ass-whooping might be better than having to defend whether or not I was in my right to shoot the person?

jafs, I am not sugesting that I am better than the other side. Just being honest. I dont trust them. I have seen the lies firsthand. I am sure they don't trust the pro-gun side either. I suspect if it were just you and me, I could shake you're hand and feel confident that you'd live up to your end. The anti-gun crowd, there is very little that would satisfy me that they were operating in good faith. Heck as soon as the SCOTUS ruled on Heller they were trying to ban guns again.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

I agree - I'm sure he's reconsidering his actions now. Of course it's too late to benefit the guy he killed, unfortunately.

As is often the case with these issues, I think both sides distort the other, generally speaking. So, it's equally untrue that folks who want reasonable regulations want to ban guns and that folks like you want everybody to have them without any restrictions at all.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

I agree that not everyone who want reasonable regulations want a total ban, but there are those out there that do want a total ban.

Here is my criteria for determining if a proposed regulation is reasonable.

Is there already a similar law? If there is then why add a new one? Can you demonstrate to a reasonable certainty that this new regulation will prevent a crime? Is the new regulation narrow in its scope and clearly defined?
Is the law arbritrary or based on science, data or emperical evidence?

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

And there are those who honestly think that there should be no regulations at all.

What new regulations do you consider reasonable, given your criteria? Closing loopholes so that everybody who buys a gun has to have a background check? Any of my ideas?

If you believe that it's reasonable for people to have to prove citizenship when registering, and prove identity when voting, you clearly think that regulations are ok even when exercising constitutional rights, so that should apply here as well, right?

I'm not sure I agree it has to prevent a "crime", if it prevents a "tragic accident" that's good enough for me.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

jafs, we already have far more regulations for exercising our 2nd amendment right than our voting right. I agree requiring ID is appropriate in both instances.

Rights are not absolute. Some limited regulation is acceptable.

How can any law prevent a tragic accident? By definition something happens that wasn't intended. How about an example?

I can see the value in requiring some training when purchasing a gun at a dealer. It could be computer based or a booklet that provides an overview of gun laws and safety topics. You have to wait while your background is being checked so you could take the training during that period of time.

I am conflicted about background checks for private sales. Who would pay for it and how would it be conducted? You are seeing more of it already with internet sales.

I hate to answer a question with a question, but here goes. YOu asked what new regulations I see as reasonable and I really can't think of any other than the training. What new regulation would you impose and how would it prevent crime or improve safety>

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Safety training can prevent accidents due to lack of understanding of how to operate a gun safely.

If background checks are a good idea, it seems to me they're a good idea, and if there are ways people buy guns without them, we should change that. Otherwise we have a major loophole there.

I've given you my ideas, just off the top of my head - to require the same sort of training and testing that CC permit holders get (it would be a little different, of course, since non CC holders don't need to know about the CC laws/requirements).

0

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 9 months ago

There are very few gun accidents as a percentage of the population. This is an issue that is already addressed by the gun owning community far better than any government or politician.

The reason that we have a strong NRA is because we found that we needed protection from anti-gun interest groups who want to restrict the rights of law abiding American citizens out of an irrational fear of guns.

The problems we get into is that once these people have any leverage at all to pass gun laws they take advantage of that opportunity to try to achieve their real agenda which is to eliminate a citizens right to bear arms.

Unfortunately, this is a fact. There is a lack of trust in government and people who have power tend to take advantage of that power.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

fred: "beatrice, my point was that if requiring ID has no value then why require it in other situations.

So, if you're against requiring an ID for voting because it is a right then are you also against requiring an ID when one exercises their 2nd amendment right? I am guessing no, but if my assumption is correct then isn't that a contradiction?"

I did not say IDs have no value. IDs are required when registering to vote, just as an ID is required to purchase a gun, and I agree with the use of an ID in both instances. However, I don't believe that once registered one should have to show an ID every time they vote, just as I don't believe every person should have to show their ID to an official in order to go to the range to shoot. Someone can't vote if their license is expired, so should the same person have their right to a firearm stripped if their license in expired? I don't believe so, and I don't see the contradiction in my point of view.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

beatrice, if my CC permit is expired I cannot carry concealed.

If I buy a gun today and have a background check done on me then I buy a gun tomorrow I have to have the same check done.

Since I have a CC permit and a background check was done why do I have to have a background check when buying a gun?

Is this reasonable? If you say no, then you're right there is no contradiction, but if you say yes, then there is, in my opinion, anyway.

0

beatrice 1 year, 9 months ago

If your registration is outdated you can't vote. If you move, you can't vote without re-registering, even if you registered the day before at the old address. In that regard it is similar to the permit issue expiring. However, even with an expired permit you can still own and use a gun, just not conceal and carry.

I agree that a single background check should suffice for the permit and purchase. Needing to do it twice must be one of those Redundancy Office of Redundancy things.

0

jafs 1 year, 9 months ago

Of course they should show ID when they vote - it demonstrates that the person voting is the same one that's registered.

We don't vote so often that it's any sort of real issue.

0

FlintlockRifle 1 year, 9 months ago

Fred oh boy, good point here, I also have a CC permit, don't think a dealer has to call your info. in when you by a gun just copys down your CC numbers same as your drivers license numbers??? Guess I better go and buy a new firearm and find out, huh.

0

1 year, 9 months ago

I thought the CC permit meant no background check but I had to fill out all the paperwork and they called it in just like before when I bought a gun a couple of weeks ago.

0

Charlie Bannister 1 year, 9 months ago

Guns......When seconds count and the police are only minutes away.

0

yourworstnightmare 1 year, 9 months ago

Looks like the licensing, permitting and training process as part of CC has worked.

0

headdoctor 1 year, 9 months ago

The part of the CC license that has always bothered me is item #10, #11, and #12 of the requirements. There are protection orders that let some slide by that rule just because the way it is worded. Mental stability or illness exists many times where the information has not been run through a court system or treatment ordered by a court. I know a license or lack thereof isn't going to keep an unstable person from having access to a gun. I just have a problem with the unstable ones having access to them with the blessing of a CC license.

0

headdoctor 1 year, 9 months ago

Unfortunately long term law enforcement and retired law enforcement people would add some to the list. A bigger problem to that is past officers with good public service records are often protected by the current area law enforcement even when they know there is issues.

0

andrew55 1 year, 9 months ago

I sought and obtained permission from the Government to "legally" bear arms. I am a law-abiding citizen. I am not a threat to another law-abiding citizen? "Go ahead...make my day".

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.