Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Letter: Gun perspective

December 21, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

Now it seems that, if you are an employee of a state university, you must relinquish the right of free speech. At least agree not to state any opinion that might be construed as being critical of the National Rifle Association and the far right wing of the Republican Party as they seek to put a concealed gun in all our pockets.

Does this seem sensible? Even during the time Kansas was the destination of the Texas trail herds, Dodge City and Abilene had city ordinances that required you to relinquish your guns when you were in town. Look it up!

Comments

Mike Ford 3 months, 1 week ago

is the truth worth removing? I took no offensive points and simply stated the obvious I've observed for a while now. Let the obvious go on in public because it can't be talked about on here now.

0

Bob Smith 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Guff merely let the inside voice that many liberals have get outside for a moment.

0

Mike Ford 3 months, 2 weeks ago

The NRA over the years has a Teflon wall of denial. Some people view their way of interpreting gun violence as insulting to a thinking society. It's simply political spin for them that has been politically utilized by the RIght since Ronald Reagan. Mr. Guff tried to penetrate that wall of denial with his own outrage towards their callousness. His comment reminded me of a comment made by a Topeka antique dealer who had a reputation for speaking brazenly. Someone I know collected World War One trench art. Soldiers in the trenches carved on 75 MM cannon shells. This person commented on the beauty of the artwork and the antique dealer stated, " I bet the soldiers who died of shellshock didn't think the artwork was beautiful as the shell rained down on them nor did the farmer who had a farm building and a herd of cattle blown to bits by this cannon shell". If the NRA didn't function and exist in a bubble of denial maybe people wouldn't have to go out of their way to bring the NRA's callousness to their attention. I read the NRA magazines as an eleven year old before the Right politicized the gun issue. I used to like the historical stuff and I tended as a young gun collector to ignore the chest beating and political bravado and research who used which weapons and what advancements were made. It's truly sad that the chest beaters have taken this joy away with their politicizing and bravado.

0

Chris Golledge 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Fundamentally, I think we are divided between those that want to keep guns legal so that they can protect themselves from others wanting to do them harm, and those who want to make them illegal to make it harder for others who would use them against us. It is not clear to me that one side should dictate the behavior of the other. Guns are just tools. Making them less accessible might reduce the number of spontaneous homicides, but someone with serious intent will find another way if they can't get a gun.

Obviously, Guth went too far in implying harm to children, but the statement appears to have been made from an emotionally charged state of mind, and not many of us have never said anything we regretted later when we were worked up. So, it would have made more sense to accept the apology and move on. However, I suspect the university has financial responsibilities impacted by how they handle this matter, and I suspect they were afraid of appearing too indifferent about guns, violence, and harm to children if they did nothing.

0

Julius Nolan 3 months, 2 weeks ago

You will never convince a paranoid person that there's no reason for their paranoia, especially when there are sources constantly feeding their paranoia.

0

Bob Smith 3 months, 2 weeks ago

In other Second Amendment news: "Detroit— If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday..."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140103/METRO01/301030038#ixzz2pM2D5gjG

0

Bob Smith 3 months, 2 weeks ago

You said, "...no guns have been taken..." and did not specify Kansas. If you don't want to stand behind what you post, that's your business. BTW, if you really can't remember that opposition to the war on the Second Amendment existed before the 2008 election, you have some serious memory issues.

0

Mike Ford 3 months, 2 weeks ago

why don't you make this irrelevant point irrelevant with your paranoia. We're in Kansas not New York right? don't all you people believe in states rights. New York exercised there right to control wanton violence. A small minority here makes sure the wild west is still alive and well at the expense of rational and reasonable gun owners. you should be proud of yourselves

0

Mike Ford 3 months, 2 weeks ago

why did all of this become so important after the 2008 Election? no guns have been taken. I laugh out loud at many of you who buy this "They're going to take our guns" nonsense. Your useless and pointless paranoia has made many gun companies, ammunition companies, and the NRA very wealthy. They profit off of your irrational fear. If I told the truth about many of this audience's reason for arming themselves to the hilt my comment would be removed and the people who are guilty of thinking this way would reverse my comment on me because their denial wouldn't allow the truth to be spoken. You should be proud of your denial. Anyone who can look past children, congresswomen, and innocent people being needlessly gunned down should be commended for their public denial of culpability. All the while I still own no weapons with over a five shot capacity and don't see the need to buy anything beyond this because I considerable myself reasonable.

0

Bob Smith 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I buy my ammo legally and store it safely. It's none of your beeswax how much I have at any given time. You don't need to know that.

0

Mike Ford 3 months, 2 weeks ago

unless you have irrational fear based on people watching you in your television or black silenced helicopters or you have a tinfoil hat or fear of the illuminati or a president that doesn't look like you why do you need so much ammunition?

0

Mike Ford 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I never said anything against law enforcement having large capacity ammunition clips. They're the people that should have such weapons. Again....thanks for acting like Bill O'Reilly. and putting words in my mouth. Lots of FOXNEWS watching eh?

0

Mike Ford 3 months, 2 weeks ago

It means having an empirical reason besides fear of the unknown to justify large capacity magazines. One wants to look publically as something other than crazy correct?

0

Bob Smith 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Those on the people control side of the debate keep using the term "common sense". I do not think it means what they think it means. Using proper capitalization makes me look smarter than someone who ignores that convention.

0

Mike Ford 3 months, 3 weeks ago

enjoy advocating for people who act like they're rebelling against common sense. that's surely something I'd like doing publically. it makes one look really smart doesn't it?

1

Bob Smith 3 months, 3 weeks ago

The standard capacity magazine genie isn't going back in the bottle. Over the past couple of decades, the feds have released hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of surplus 20 and 30 round 5.56 mags. Those are in private hands now. Enjoy storming the castle!

5

Mike Ford 3 months, 3 weeks ago

no as a 30 year plus gun owner and collector I suggest magazine limits for civilian copies of military weapons. If someone needs a 20 or 30 round capacity they must be a really bad shot. Ten or fifteen round capacities would be fine. thanks for the often asked knee jerk reaction question that non thinking people on KMBZ always pose. Questions like this don't really allow for anything except putting someone in a corner. Also thanks for putting words in my mouth. Bill O'Reilly would be proud of you.

1

Mike Ford 3 months, 3 weeks ago

it depends on the makeup of the jury and slurring the victim right?

1

Bud Stagg 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I'd rather be alive when the police officer arrives. You will find very few incidents of a licensed person committing a violent gun crime and more where that person saved lives or property. So what is the problem?

0

Mike Ford 3 months, 3 weeks ago

if someone is a law officer as I think they are would they want to come to a crime scene in progress and have to figure who the good guy and the bad guy is or would they hope for the cc holder to the finish the job for them? We saw how that went in Florida less than a year ago. The city of Lawrence also settled a case in the early 1990's with the US Justice Department for $700,000 when someone was mistakenly killed in a case of whose the bad guy and whose the good guy. You want to take that chance again? I'd err on the side of safety and hope the law officer is the only person armed at a crime scene.

1

Bob Smith 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Everything always comes down to the same old tune with Mike.

2

Mike Ford 3 months, 3 weeks ago

can one not bring up the other side of the coin here? Mr. Guth was called out for making inflammatory comments towards the NRA a couple of months ago. I can recall numerous times when I've heard outlandish stuff said in a racist and anti liberal manner at gun shops recently. If Mr. Guth is on trial then so are all of the crazy people I've heard speak in defense of unchecked gun ownership and the underlying reasons they go for the gun issue. Since when is it a removing issue when I recall an incident of speaking lunacy at a gun shop in Olathe? Mr. Masters wanted an example of a conspiracy theory and I gave it, At times it's as if 's okay to say crazy things amongst like minded people but if someone calls out this lunacy for what it is they're removed. You can remove my comment on guns and race but this stuff will still be spouted and some of them will applaud the silence one creates. The scale tips evenly correct? it doesn't look like it right now. I'm affected by this conceal and carry nonsense three times a week and I wish that the people who want an OK corral shootout would go to western Kansas and leave the reasonable people here. Maybe what the LTE reader stated above is happening right here.

2

Mike Ford 3 months, 3 weeks ago

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

1

Keith Richards 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Brock, We agree on a lot of things regarding gun control, just not semi auto rifles. To answer your question, they are used in the army because they are great at killing a bunch of people. Some police have semi autos because criminals are running around with Mac 10's. The police's first choice of weapon is a firearm or a shotgun. I do not think the public needs easy access to these types of weapons. As for your home invasion scenario by a group of marauders or terrorists, well, maybe once you read that, i don't really need to answer the question (because it sounds like paranoid schizo talking point). Is banning semi auto rifles going to stop murder, no. But if it saves one life and the destruction of the lives of those who survive, why not get rid of something that is for hobby or murder? Cars are not a hobby and the alternative is mostly unreasonable. I have no idea what a Mac 10 or the hundred other similar semi auto's are suppose to used for other then killing humans.

2

Brock Masters 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I asked Keith this, but anyone is free to answer. If a shotgun or handgun is better for self protection then why doesn't the WH Secret Service or police forces use them? Why do they opt for high power, high capacity rifles instead?

1

Keith Richards 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Brock, I agree. The large majority of mass murderers are mentally ill. We have no safety nets is place to help these people when their families fail them. State institutions have been closed or gutted and are running at 100% occupancy with less staff and under budget. The weak are the first one's politicians take money from to give voter's tax breaks. Unless you have a loved one who needs this type of help, you will most likely not thing about it or have to deal with these people who are mentally sick or impaired.

1

Keith Richards 3 months, 3 weeks ago

Why not have a conversation about guns without invoking rights. I get it, we have the right to buy semi automatic rifles. The question is why? They are fun to shoot? I agree, they are fun to shoot. Are they good for hunting? No, there are much better choices of rifles that are designed for hunting. Are semi auto rifles good for home protection? Not in my opinion, a shotgun is a better choice then a semi auto for home protection unless an army has descended upon your house. So the reason for have a semi auto rifle is for fun unless I have missed the real reason for owning a semi auto rifle, please inform me.
I own a 9mm, .357 and a shotgun. The shotgun is for hunting, the 9mm was initially purchased for home protection and the .357 was sold to me by a friend at a good price. As it turns out, I find the .357 to much more reliable the 9mm. The point I am making is that I am a gun owner. As a gun owner and a hunter (fowl only) since the age of 12, I do not see the need for semi auto rifles to exist in public hands. Are they fun? Heck yes. Is it worth owning a semi auto rifle for fun when a school is shot up, no. It seems selfish and lacks common sense to argue that we need to own semi auto rifles because it is our right. I agree people kill people, not guns. Semi auto rifles just make it easier for people to kill more people. Is banning semi auto rifles going to stop all murders, no but it just might save the life of an 8 year old child sitting at his or her school desk. So when you want to argue its your right to own a semi auto rifle, ask yourself if that right is worth the life of anyone's child.

1

Brock Masters 3 months, 3 weeks ago

What we need is to look at the root cause of violence in our country and try figure why we have so much violence Focus on the cause and not just one of the many types of weapons used to commit violence.

Hate speech, like Guth's tweet, in my opinion, fuels anger. Anger fuels violence.

Of course anger is not the only cause, but it contributes to the problem. We are an angry country.

Poverty, not in the sense of being poor, but in the sense of being poor with no hope of climbing out of poverty, no future, contributes to violence.

Drugs contribute to it.

Let's focus on the causes and not feel good solutions that will change nothing. Let's stop demonizing groups with whom we disagree. The NRA is just one voice. They don't pass any laws. They are not the problem, but I know it makes people feel good to demonize them. Might make them feel good, but it is counter-productive to finding real solutions.

What to get angry, want to demonize something? Direct your ire towards legislators that won't fund the national background check database to include people with mental illnesses that prohibit them from purchasing a gun.

3

David Reber 3 months, 3 weeks ago

I find the "nobody needs...." argument a bit puzzling. I've read the Constitution through and through, but can't find this "Bill of Stuff You Can Have, But Only if You Need It" anywhere.

2

Mike Ford 3 months, 3 weeks ago

it's telling that you ignored the points I made about the NRA's lack of empathy in my comment. Did you not have something intelligent to say or is what I'm stating a point you can't refute with NRA talking points? There isn't a need to ban bolt action rifles. None of them had more than a 5 or 6 round capacity except maybe an SMLE. You completely ignored the point I made much as Lynn Jenkins staffers do when they're wrong also. Address an empirical point or stop speaking as much nonsense as the GOP does on TV.

4

Bob Smith 3 months, 3 weeks ago

The 03 Springfield was the "assault weapon" of its day. And the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about hunting.

1

Mike Ford 3 months, 3 weeks ago

no I was smart enough to see the point he was making. it is the juvenile actions of NRA defenders to not reach out to the victims of gun violence and be understanding and empathetic. instead some of them have a subconscious guilty complex and a host gun rally in a park in Johnson County, Kansas last fall afraid of the blowback from what they represent publically and incapable of being empathetic and instead do the flag waving and chest thumping to redirect any culpability they have in gun violence. I myself help collect World War one weapons and black powder weapons and have done so for thirty years. I don't need the NRA because I'm stronger and smarter than that, You just tried to slur me as your bretheren have with Mr. Guth. He had a fine line to walk as a paid academic. He let his anger get the better of him. However..... what does it take to make an NRA member realize there are boundaries both publically and legally to adhere to? There should be rational gun ownership. I don't personally see the need for a 20 or 30 round clip on any AR-15, HK 91, Galil 308 AK copy or any other civilian copy of a military issued weapon (assault rifle). I've gotten by with shotguns and bolt action rifles for a couple of decades. I know a person who hunts deer and turkey with Hawkins and Kentucky percussion reproduction rifles. They don't need any assault rifle to hunt with. What's the real reason the NRA has for creating illogical conspiracy theories concerning firearms? We're tired of the bloodshed and the denial. Do you understand this yet?

3

Mike Ford 3 months, 3 weeks ago

what's been lost in the Guth comment from the getgo is that the NRA seems impervious to the suffering of the victims of gun violence whether it's Gabbi Giffords, Virginia Tech, Newtown or any of the other victims of unnecessary gun violence. Mr. Guth made his comment to try and penetrate the "It's not our fault" callous answer from the NRA on any gun violence. Instead of saying "wow" we didn't realize how callous we are attitude and having some empathy and sensitivity the NRA and the non thinkers succeeded in reversing Mr. Guth's comment against him and maintaining their modus operandi of denial and blame reversal. The NRA basically says "We may be in denial" but look what the thinking person said. How pathetic. I've been a gun owner and hunter since I was nine and I'm forty three. I've never been a blind patriotic chest thumping gun owner because it's not part of my identity as it is others. One would think that others wouldn't want to be so shallow but oh well. Sensible gun owners and collectors like myself are tired of the blind fervor of some gun proponents. You don't speak for us. Start thinking and stop being catished by conspiracy theories. Non thinking people are perfect recruits for Wayne LaPierre and Rush Limbaugh. How pathetic.

5

Bob Smith 3 months, 4 weeks ago

In case you've forgotten, here's the tweet that started all this whoop-de-do: “#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA, Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.” Keep it classy, bub.

3

Keith Richards 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Here you go Richard: The recent report from ABC News that in Florida, where there are more concealed weapons permits than anywhere else in the country, violent crime has dropped to the lowest point in history, delighted Sean Caranna, executive director of Florida Carry, Inc. “We’re happy to have facts and statistics put into these debates, because every time they do, we win,” he said. -March 2013 As for your next question asking if guns don't kill people, I have owned guns for over 30 years and none or my guns have killed a person. So I guess I can state that I can prove my guns do not kill people. My cars have also never killed as well. I'm just not the killing type.

4

Richard Heckler 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Gun activity at Brother's Bar and Grill Friday night. Don't need more guns downtown.

Brother's Bar and Grill is home to rowdy customers ...... too frequently.

Guns and peace don't seem to be anonymous. Nam,war for oil,Hitler,etc etc etc etc are perfect examples.

Can anyone prove that concealed weapons will prevent violence? Can anyone prove that guns don't kill people?

1

Brock Masters 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Oh how the conversation would change if Guth had hoped for the death of the children of the NAACP or GLADD.

I am certain that KU Profs can criticize NRA policies and positions. It is inappropriate to bring in to the discussion the children of someone with whom you disagree especially wishing them death. And deny that he did that but the tweet speaks for itself.

5

Scott Burkhart 3 months, 4 weeks ago

Freudian slip, perhaps? Would you like us to put one in your pocket?

1

Bob Smith 3 months, 4 weeks ago

"….as they seek to put a concealed gun in all our pockets…" Where's that coming from? Nobody is trying to force you to legally carry a concealed firearm, Everett.

2

Commenting has been disabled for this item.