Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, May 29, 2013

County commissioners blast concealed-carry law

May 29, 2013

Advertisement

Douglas County commissioners made it clear Wednesday night that they do not approve of the state's new concealed-carry gun law, and they hope local governments throughout Kansas will band together in the near future to urge that it be changed or repealed.

"This is a local government issue, not a Kansas state government issue, and it should be dealt with locally by local government officials," said Commissioner Jim Flory, a Republican and former prosecutor. "But realizing the state has passed this statute, we need to make every effort we can to work with the Kansas Association of Counties to try to get some amendment."

The law, passed by the Kansas Legislature and signed by Gov. Sam Brownback in April, requires most local governments to allow people who hold concealed-carry permits to bring handguns into public buildings, unless the building is equipped with "adequate security measures" to make sure nobody, with or without a permit, can bring weapons into the building.

The statute defines adequate security measures as: "electronic equipment and personnel at public entrances to detect and restrict the carrying of any weapons into the state or municipal building, including, but not limited to, metal detectors, metal detector wands or any other equipment used for similar purposes to ensure that weapons are not permitted to be carried into such building by members of the public."

The statute takes effect July 1, but local governments are allowed to exempt themselves until Jan. 1, 2014, if they notify the Kansas Attorney General.

Commissioners approved sending that letter.

The law also allows local governments to request a four-year exemption, which would run through July 1, 2017, provided they show that they have a plan to secure the buildings they want to exempt.

For Douglas County, that would involve the courthouse at 1100 Massachusetts St.; the Public Works facility at 1242 Massachusetts St.; the Lawrence-Douglas County health facility at 200 Maine St.; the juvenile detention facility at 330 Industrial Lane; and the Douglas County Fairgrounds.

The Judicial and Law Enforcement Center, 111 E. 11th St., already has metal detectors and security guards in place.

"The next step in this process will be to sit down and figure out how many thousands of dollars we will have to utilize on staff and equipment to meet these somewhat nebulous standards that have been set out instead of spending our precious tax dollars on things that our community wants them spent on," Flory said.

The law, however, does not require that local governments install those security measures. The alternative, and the intent of the law, is to allow people with permits to carry concealed weapons into public buildings.

But Flory said that was unacceptable. And Commissioners Nancy Thellman and Mike Gaughan, both Democrats, indicated that they agree.

"My view is that the only people who ought to be carrying concealed weapons in county facilities are certified law enforcement officers," Flory said. "That's my view, and I think it's a view shared by a good portion of this community."

"That's right," Gaughan said.

"What he said," Thellman added.

Comments

Benjamin Roberts 1 year, 6 months ago

"My view is that the only people who ought to be carrying concealed weapons in county facilities are certified law enforcement officers," Flory said. "That's my view, and I think it's a view shared by a good portion of this community."

Unfortunately, their is either a naivety or a willing ignorance if the commissioners believe that the current system only allows certified law enforcement officials to carry a concealed weapon into a county building. Those willing to break the law, those with evil intent, can carry a concealed weapon into any non-secured building. The "no gun" sign does not stop an evil person.

In fact, the only ones that currently can not carry into a public building is a licensed CCH. The criminal can (because he is willing to break the law), LEOs can (because they enforce the law), but CCH can not (because they obey the law).

eljakeo 1 year, 6 months ago

I hope someone on the other side actually posts a reasonable counter to this. I hear it all the time and the anti-gun people always just ignore it. It seems like pretty flawless logic.

costello 1 year, 6 months ago

I never find the argument that some people break/ignore rules therefore we shouldn't have rules to be persuasive.

And I don't think you have to be 'evil' in order to be dangerous with a weapon. Well-intended people injure and kill other people with guns. More people running around with guns will not make us safer. It's just more potential accidents waiting to happen.

eljakeo 1 year, 6 months ago

Your statement has no bearing on this argument whatsoever. In this case, we aren't saying we shouldn't have a rule because people break it anyway. We are saying we should allow people that follow the rules to be able to defend themselves from people that don't.

costello 1 year, 6 months ago

DIST did not say that people who follow the rule should be able to defend themselves from those who don't. He said that the commissioners are naïve if they believe that only LEOs are carrying guns in public buildings. In other words the rule is being broken already, let's do away with it.

I guess all the discussion of people with 'evil' intent was code for 'we need a good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy with a gun'? If his argument came down to 'I need my gun to protect myself from all the bad guys who are walking past the "no guns" signs,' he wasn't explicit enough for me.

Nevertheless you completely ignored my second paragraph. I don't agree that more people running around with guns will make us safer. Lots of untrained people who are misinterpreting situations, overreacting out of fear or anger, being careless with weapons, etc., will not make the world safer. The risks outweigh any potential benefits, in other words.

mom_of_three 1 year, 6 months ago

I don't think he is creating a straw argument. You believe CCH holders are responsible, and we know not all of them are. Remember the guy in Overland park who shot his wife. And we all read about those holders who write that we will need them to protect the rest of us. So pardon us if we are just a little suspicious of CCH holders. While the majority of them may be as you describe, its the ones who aren't that scare the crap out of the us.

chootspa 1 year, 6 months ago

A need to protect yourself from some armed gunman at the fairgrounds has happened less often than a CCH accidentally shooting someone with a mishandled weapon.

I suggest you stay home from the county fair if you're too scared to go without packing heat.

Mark English 1 year, 6 months ago

Yes I remember that one guy in Overland Park. How many are registered in Kansas alone?

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

Too many scared people in Kansas. Wonder what life is like living in constant fear. Maybe they should just stay home where they're safe.

Mark English 1 year, 6 months ago

On the contrary skull, I'm not scared in the least.

chootspa 1 year, 6 months ago

Until they raise the standards for CCH permits high enough for that pedestal you've now placed it on, excuse me if I'm skeptical of your claims. All you need is a background check and a day-long safety training course. They don't hand out halos or badges at the end of the day.

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

Actually CCH can't be prosecuted for carrying their guns past the signs, legislature "took care" of that...guess you don't really know the law.

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

Oh sorry, right $50 for illegally carrying a deadly weapon, and that was after a formal warning too, right? Because you can't expect these responsible gun owners to be charged as a responsible adult. Glad to know that fine is going to be less than the minimum $50 for carrying my open beer on a sidewalk.

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

$50 minimum vs. $50 maximum...not exactly equal, especially when $200 maximum for open container certainly doesn't equal $50 for illegally possessing a firearm.

I apologized, I misremembered the change that was made, but a $50 maximum fine is barely a slap on the wrist...

Frederic Gutknecht IV 1 year, 6 months ago

costello,

using your logic we may come to the conclusion that we can never have enough laws. Governments are, generally speaking, happy to provide us with laws MORE THAN enough laws, enough to make just about everyone a criminal. That gives a government control...lots of control. They can then arrest or harass almost anyone they like (dislike), at least those without enough money to defend themselves.

Here... every day... we argue aout how OUR paranoia and fears are better than YOUR paranoia and fears. Why is that?

I think it's because our society, run by corporations with corrupt, political puppets in their pockets, want us to be paranoid and arguing amongst ourselves ...

But in a GOOD way, of COURSE...so that we can save just one "LIFE" ...

THEIRS!

costello 1 year, 6 months ago

"using your logic we may come to the conclusion that we can never have enough laws."

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what I said?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 1 year, 6 months ago

...so now we're going to discuss whose slippery slope is better?

Thinking_Out_Loud 1 year, 6 months ago

Did_I_Say_That? wrote: "Those willing to break the law, those with evil intent, can carry a concealed weapon into any non-secured building."

The reverse is true, as well. Those (with evil intent and who are) willing to break the law...can carry a concealed weapon into any secured building. If they are willing to break the law and have truly evil intent, I suspect they will find a way around the security.

Jason Johnson 1 year, 6 months ago

Did_I_say_that, I'm gonna vote you for County Commissioner :)

somebodynew 1 year, 6 months ago

OR, pro-gun hysteria from the other side.

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 6 months ago

There is no pro gun hysteria, only law abiding citizens who have the right to protect themselves if they decide that protection is justified.

Why criminalize law abiding citizens?

Liberals that will give a woman the right to decide whether to abort a child should be less eager to legislate away a law abiding citizen's right to defend themselves because they have subjectively determined that one can be trusted and the other is somehow crazy or incompetent.

Anti-gun hysteria is being directed at citizens who have obeyed the law their entire lives and who have demonstrated that they are among our most responsible citizens. Liberals want to create an image of fanatics running around waving guns at people. It is completely unfair.

mom_of_three 1 year, 6 months ago

well, do we not read about people who think they have to protect the rest of us. And how many situations have happened that guns are needed??? And on the same token, gun carriers want to create the image that guns are needed for protection because something is gonna happen.

costello 1 year, 6 months ago

I agree with the commissioners. There's no reason to allow anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry guns on county property.

somebodynew 1 year, 6 months ago

But, they are not wanting to represent the entire State. They said this should be a County by County (or City by City) issue. Instead the Party of "Smaller Government" wants to control EVERYONE.

Phoghorn 1 year, 6 months ago

There are many instances when the Republican Party wants to control people, but this is not one of them. In this instance, the new law allows those who passed a concealed carry course to carry concealed into a courthouse.

Granted, I do not work in a courthouse, but if I did, I would not worry about concealed carry permit holders. I would worry about criminals.

gatekeeper 1 year, 6 months ago

What about the person who has a CC permit, got busted for something else and decides he's taking actions into his own hands? There are plenty of crimes committed by people with no previous records. You commonly see on the news how the neighbors had no idea a psychopath was living next door (like the kidnapper in Cleveland for example). You never know when and where someone might snap.

I have no issue with any CC holder carrying a weapon on private property, if the property owner allows it. There is no good reason for them to carry into the courthouse, city hall, etc... That is why we have a police force.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 1 year, 6 months ago

So...EVERYONE is a potential murderer in your eyes??? That's fine, but it does fit in with a CC perspective.

I'm sorry that we can't protect us from our vision of this world.

It is strange that your irrational fear matches up perfectly with those you seem to despise.

It seems to me that the fact that a multitudinous array of different people, and perspectives regarding criminal behavior, should allow for a multitude of contingencies for dealing with things when WE go awry.

You don't fear ALL of your neighbors, do you? Is a little badge what makes you feel warm and cozy? We don't need no stinking badges but perhaps we can get them...for you. Is that all you require for those who have concealed carry (or law enforcement) permits?

I'm fairly sure that law enforcement has a standard for psychological evaluation and weapons training. If that is met, would you be satisfied?

I really don't have skin in this game. I'm just wondering.

KevinBacon 1 year, 6 months ago

So do you have any ideas on how we can pay for that?

KevinBacon 1 year, 6 months ago

I realize that. I'm saying if people want to disallow carrying into public buildings, they need to come up with a way to pay for that. Printing off signs isn't gonna cut it. I don't see how we could possibly afford to enforce a no guns policy, even if it's what the majority wants.

chootspa 1 year, 6 months ago

By getting an exemption for four years and hoping the state gains some sanity.

Bud Stagg 1 year, 6 months ago

Costello, I agree. However how do you enforce this? Right now anyone can bring a gun on property, illegally. That leaves the rest of us at risk if that person wants to start shooting. Either put in metal detectors or allow us to protect ourselves. We are not the ones you should be scared of.

Thinking_Out_Loud 1 year, 6 months ago

And after implementation, anyone willing to smuggle a weapon past the metal detector will be armed while "the rest of us" remain "at risk" because we had to leave our own weapons at the metal detector.... Where does the argument end? At some point, shouldn't we be able to say "I don't really need my sidearm to pay my water bill or my car taxes...?

Liberty275 1 year, 6 months ago

If you are so scared of guns in government buildings, why haven't we had metal detectors at those buildings before now? If you want to be exempt from the law while you put a system in place to protect us from the threat you perceive, why didn't you put the gadgets in 30 years ago? Or 10 years ago?

People don't waste their time and money on a CC permit to be criminals. All the criminal needs is a gun.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 1 year, 6 months ago

I can guarantee you that more people have been shot in the Douglas County Courthouse, or any county building, or any government building...ANYWHERE, than those shot by those who were CC permit holders. Your premise is based on conjecture.

What's up with that paranoia of yours, mikekt?

Charles L Bloss Jr 1 year, 6 months ago

It happened at the Federal courthouse in Topeka in 1993. I know, I was there. It doesn't happen every day, or every year, but it can happen.

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

Accidents also happen, more often than once every twenty years, what's your point?

bevy 1 year, 6 months ago

And the response was to install metal detectors and guards at the doors. I don't see a problem with either option, except that the metal detector/guard option is more expensive. Oh, and the fact that the first person who died in the federal building was the GUARD posted at the door (before metal detectors.)

oldexbeat 1 year, 6 months ago

time to move from huge government Kansas to county and city rights-- I mean, if states have rights, why not my block? Time to stop the invasive Brownback Tea Party Koch Bros. LLC.

Biscayne 1 year, 6 months ago

County commissioners don,t run the state, Thank God for that!.

ejg91780 1 year, 6 months ago

I always found it strange that with a consealed carry license I cannot go into any government building but anyone intent on slamming open the door and shooting everyone inside can. Its like posting a sign that says "all law abiding gun owners leave your gun in the car. All crazy lunatics with assult weapons come on in!"

Charles L Bloss Jr 1 year, 6 months ago

I always found that strange, too. A lady in TX was eating at a cafeteria with her parents. Abiding by the law at the time, she left her firearm in her car. Some nut case came in and started shooting people, she watched her parents killed before her eyes. She survived, and had she had her firearm she could have saved a lot of lives. Since then she has been an advocate for concealed carry laws, and most states now have them. To prevent a checkerboard of differing gun laws in counties and cities, the state took over control of gun laws. That is a good thing. The new changes in KS gun law effective July 1 recognizes that we are all responsible for our own safety, and it gives us the tools to do it with. A no gun sign only affects law abiding citizens who obey it. Without peace officers in the no gun area to protect us, we are left to fend for ourselves unarmed. That is why the concealed law changes were made. By the way, the last time I was in the Law Enforcement and Judicial center in Lawrence the metal detectors and x-ray machines were manned by deputy sheriffs, not security guards. There is definitely a difference.

mom_of_three 1 year, 6 months ago

Now, there is a flaw to your argument that scares a lot of people- If she had her firearm she could have saved a lot of lives. YOu don't know that for sure. You don't know that she could have killed a gunman before he hurt anyone. There are no guarantees. so stop thinking that there is.

chootspa 1 year, 6 months ago

I can give you examples of unarmed people that stopped mass shooters. Having a gun is not your only chance to save lives.

Mark English 1 year, 6 months ago

not the only chance but have you heard the saying "dont bring a knife to a gun fight?" Try it out and see how it goes.

BlackVelvet 1 year, 6 months ago

"Now, there is a flaw to your argument that scares a lot of people- If she had her firearm she could have saved a lot of lives. YOu don't know that for sure" No, we don't know that for sure. What we do know for sure is that without some way to defend ourselves, we might have to stand in line like sheep and wait our turn to be murdered. You can do that if you wish, but I think I'll pass. In many mass shootings, victims simply cowered and waited their turn. So no, there are no guarantees, unless you simply do nothing.

kawrivercrow 1 year, 6 months ago

I listened to an interview the woman, a physician, gave on NPR. She had ample opportunity for a direct and clear shot. She was certain that she could have taken him out.

chootspa 1 year, 6 months ago

Yes, I'm sure she was certain. That doesn't mean she was correct.

kawrivercrow 1 year, 6 months ago

If that is your best argument against CCW, then you have conceded defeat on multiple levels.

Phoghorn 1 year, 6 months ago

No, we don't know exactly how soon she could have taken out the suspect. But, we know darned well what happens when a bad guy with a gun (often possessed illegally) gets into a room full of unarmed citizens.

oldbaldguy 1 year, 6 months ago

Someone I knew was killed at Luby's. He was an Army Officer who threw himself over his son. He was a Vietnam veteran, a combat aviator and he gave the last measure when it was his time.

Charles L Bloss Jr 1 year, 6 months ago

I do not want to argue. Of course there are no guarantees about anything. It so happens that this lady was an excellent shot, and would stand a better chance than most under these circumstances. If you want to read about her, and the murders of her parents, google Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX. I have had some experience as I was the first peace officer to respond to the murders and bombings at the Federal Courthouse in Topeka in 1993. We evacuated the building, there was one person dead and one shot three times. We were able to pull the injured man to safety. The killer was in the clerk's office with hostages. I left then as there were more than a hundred officers on scene by that time. It was later determined that the bomber had a bomb on his belt explode which blew his leg off. He then shot himself.

Anthony Mall 1 year, 6 months ago

I feel safer already... Double shootings, federal gun charges, and that's just a couple idiots from topeka this month... I'll be keeping mine close to me thank you very much!

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 6 months ago

The County AND City Commissioners should spend more of their time trying to figure out how to manage our resources more efficiently and how to bring more jobs to this area.

Weren't we ranked 178 out of 179 in the country? That is an F on anybody's report card.

But we would rather waste time trying to spend money on metal detectors and security guards or anti-drone (fraud) legislation.

We spend too much money in this county for what we are getting back and we don't have the brightest people running for political office.

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 6 months ago

I agree that they should have spent that money on security long ago if they were so concerned but since law abiding citizens are involved, we now have an emergency situation.

It could not be more rediculous.

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

What's the emergency...afraid the super-majorities won't hold after all this ridiculousness?

ljwhirled 1 year, 6 months ago

The Rec Center at 11th & Vermont has a public range in the basement.

Phoghorn 1 year, 6 months ago

A few idiots get drivers licenses as well. I don't see the need to ban the lawful possession of an automobile or their use in public.

Topple 1 year, 6 months ago

A gun's only purpose is to kill or mimic killing. A handgun's only purpose is to kill people or mimic killing people. Stop comparing cars to guns.

coebam 1 year, 6 months ago

You are correct - kind of - some people enjoy target shooting or competions too. That aside, doesn't it concern you in the least that if an armed criminal were to break into your home in the middle of the night, and you are awoken from a dead sleep all you have is your phone? Granted the chances are slim that would happen, but the point is IT DOES.

Topple 1 year, 6 months ago

Sure, it is of slight concern to me, which is a small part of the reason why I own firearms. However, I'm not subjecting other people (save the intruder) to the decisions, poor or otherwise, that I make in such a situation that prompts me to use these firearms against an intruder.

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

This discussion has nothing to do with keeping your gun at home...maybe that's where you should keep it if you're so scared you can't put it down.

Jason Johnson 1 year, 6 months ago

I am more afraid of a 70 year old driving a car than ANYONE brandishing a gun.

Then you have drunk drivers all over, texters all over. A car may have a different purpose, but it is far more deadly, statistically, than guns.

If you wanted to save massively more lives, you would instead push for breathalyzer locks on all vehicles instead of gun control.

jafs 1 year, 6 months ago

Breathalyzers on all vehicles is a very good idea.

And, requiring older folks to pass a road test in addition to a written one is also a good idea.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 1 year, 6 months ago

Quit mimicking killing logic and reality. You're getting too close.

jafs 1 year, 6 months ago

Let's just raise the standards for buying guns to the same standards as we use for cars then.

Get a license, which involves demonstrating knowledge of relevant laws, and ability to operate guns safely and well.

Topple 1 year, 6 months ago

I think that would be a great idea. However, the NRA and like-minded individuals appear to believe that any restriction or attempt to increase the requirements to own a firearm is a direct affront to their second amendment rights.

KSWingman 1 year, 6 months ago

It is easier to buy a car from a car dealer than to buy a gun from a gun dealer.

A law abiding citizen can walk into a car dealership with a handful of cash and drive out with a car, without a background check. A law abiding citizen must submit to a NICS check and receive Federal approval to purchase a gun, unless that citizen already has a concealed carry license.

A felon can walk into a car dealership with a handful of cash and walk out with a car. A felon can't walk into a gun shop with a handful of cash and walk out with a new gun.

jafs 1 year, 6 months ago

Maybe so - do they have to show their driver's license? I would think so, but haven't ever bought a car from a dealer.

And people can buy guns from other people without any of that.

And, in order to legally operate a vehicle, you have to have a license, etc. which isn't true of guns. I was responding to the post above about the analogy between car and gun ownership. Seems to me that we have more stuff in place which attempts to ensure that those driving cars know about the laws and are able to safely and correctly operate them than with guns.

Maybe we should have even more with cars, given the lousy drivers I see every day.

KSWingman 1 year, 6 months ago

"do they have to show their driver's license?" No. If you walk into a car dealership and make a cash purchase, you would not be required to show a driver's license or any other form of ID.

"And people can buy guns from other people without any of that." People can buy cars from other people without any of that. What is your point?

"And, in order to legally operate a vehicle, you have to have a license, etc." Not true. Off the top of my head, I can think of three circumstances under which you can own and drive a motor vehicle without a license, without breaking the law.

"which isn't true of guns" Do you need a license to give a speech at the bandshell at South Park, publish a book, or go to church? Do you support a "license to receive an abortion"?

Why do you think a person should have to receive permission from the state before exercising any right?

jafs 1 year, 6 months ago

The point is that it's easy for folks to buy guns without going through the checks you mention.

I'm not aware of those - why don't you specify them?

I don't think that - I was just responding to the analogy in the post above, which said that just because idiots drive dangerously and harm others, that's not a good reason to ban automobiles. I agree, and simply suggested that we could license gun ownership rather than banning guns.

Since gun ownership is a much more potentially dangerous thing than many other rights, it might make sense to ensure that those buying them know the relevant laws and can operate them correctly and safely.

Topple agrees, and he was in the military, owns guns, etc. so this isn't easily dismissed as some sort of "anti gun" thing.

KSWingman 1 year, 6 months ago

Three circumstances under which a person can own and drive a motor vehicle without a license: 1. Auto racing 2. Farm/ranch use only (trucks driven on pastures or fields, bot not on public roads) 3. Dirt bike

"Licensing gun ownership" = "government permission prior to exercising a constitutional right", or more succinctly: "The power to license is the power to prohibit". Apply the same standard to the other rights I listed. Abortion has a mortality rate exceeding 50% (every fetus, and <1% of mothers). Do you support a "license to receive an abortion", with the state of Kansas having the authority to prohibit it?

"Since gun ownership is a much more potentially dangerous thing than many other rights..." "Potentially dangerous" is unquantifiable, and is not recognized in the US Constitution as a legitimate justification for restriction on our rights. Liberty is inherently dangerous and messy, but that is part of what makes it such a beautiful thing.

"Topple agrees, and he was in the military, owns guns, etc." The fact that you and Topple agree is nice for you and him, but irrelevant for the rest of us. If you accept him as an authority on the Second Amendment because he is a Veteran and gun owner, then you must accept me as a greater authority because I am a Veteran, gun owner, NRA certified firearms instructor, competitive shooter, former law enforcement officer, and concealed carry license holder. Are you prepared to do that?

jafs 1 year, 6 months ago

Interesting - I didn't know that. I wonder why those exceptions apply.

I'm going to stop here, because it's crystal clear that you and I will probably never agree on this issue, and our feelings are also pretty clear.

The question is whether or not licensing would be an "infringement" of 2nd amendment rights, and people can disagree on that question. I'll just point out that the courts have ruled that regulation on gun ownership doesn't do that, and is acceptable.

I never referred to Topple as an "authority", so your last paragraph seems off base. And, no I don't accept you as an authority either. Generally speaking, I'm not a great fan of authority based arguments. I would accept that you know a fair amount about the various things you mention, and if I were interested in the NRA requirements for certifying firearms instructors, I might ask you about them.

My point about Topple was that folks who argue for various regulations, background checks, licensing, etc. are often portrayed as "anti gun", which is an easy way of dismissing those ideas. It's harder to do that when veterans who own guns suggest them (at least it should be).

Peace.

KSWingman 1 year, 6 months ago

They aren't exceptions. The default is that a person can buy a car (engage in a private transaction) or operate a car without any ID. If car is operated on a public street, the State requires a license showing basic competency and accountability.

Thanks for clarifying your statement about Topple. I read it as an attempt by you to draw validity to your argument (which I reject) by using the status of someone who agrees with you. Being a Veteran does not automatically make someone pro-gun or pro-liberty. All kinds of men and women serve in the Armed Forces.

A person who argue for regulation and licensing of people prior to exercising a Constitutional right is on the "anti" side of that argument. You did not answer my previous question: Do you support a "license to receive an abortion" before a woman can have an abortion?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 1 year, 6 months ago

Only an idiot could say, for sure, and be wrong.

coebam 1 year, 6 months ago

http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html

@ Topple - Look - one can go out and find eveidence to support this, or any other argument, both ways. Yes accidents happen with CC holders. But police make mistakes too. There is friendly fire in the theatre of war. You can call us idiots, irresponsible, paranoid, or whatever other adjective comes to mind. But the bottom line is that CCL holders understand the responsibilty to be able to protect our own. It's as simple as that. The three examples you posted are unfortunate yes...However the first guy was drinking alcohol (illegal), the guy in the chinese restaruant was arrested for illegal possesion of a firearm, and the third guy appears to be an idiot. Sadley, every group has a few idiots around. In all the cases you listed, if the firearm were to have been securly holstered, not one neglagent discharge would have happend. it's all about being a RESPONSIBLE gun owner. Maybe you should go to a range sometime. You might have some fun.

Topple 1 year, 6 months ago

I served in the military. I own firearms. I just don't feel the need to carry them around with me in case I find myself in a showdown at the O.K. Corral. You said it yourself, highly trained police officers make mistakes.

In fact, "In Los Angeles, which has 9,699 officers, the police fired 283 rounds in 2006, hitting their target 77 times, for a hit ratio of 27 percent, said Officer Ana Aguirre, a spokeswoman. Last year [2007], they fired 264 rounds, hitting 76 times, for a 29 percent hit ratio, she said.

So far this year [2008] the hit ratio in Los Angeles is 31 percent, with 74 of 237 bullets fired by officers hitting the target." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/nyregion/08nypd.html?hp=&pagewanted=all

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57502545-504083/empire-state-building-shooting-sparks-questions-about-nypd-shot-accuracy/

So, tell me; why should I be OK with Joe/Jane Smith toting their hand guns around me and my family, and be subject to their best judgement on when to use it when highly trained police officers are only hitting their target 30% of the time?

coebam 1 year, 6 months ago

@ Topple - First of all, thank you for your service. Living in Lawrence I don't feel the need to carry at all. However working in Kansas City it's a bit different. The point is you can't say it's ok to carry here, here, and here. But not here. The new legislation coming from Topeka is to stop having law abiding citizens unintentionally breaking the law.

Topple 1 year, 6 months ago

It was my pleasure, and thanks for keeping the conversation civil!

I'm not sure you identified any reason in your response why it's unreasonable to limit the places people can legally carry a firearm. After all, what do you think we do in airports? Do you think it's unreasonable that people can't carry on an aircraft? What would you say if you saw a person trying to get through security with their handgun? Oops, they must have simply forgotten you can't bring a firearm onto an aircraft? As many gun advocates like to throw around, CC holders are trained on how to properly and responsibly carry firearms. If this is the case, why is it too much to ask for them to remember where they aren't allowed to have them? If a CC holder can't handle something as simple as "don't bring your firearms into court" then do we really think it's a responsible leap to allow them to carry a firearm? It's not as if it's your car keys you mistakenly take into a court room. It's a firearm. While I can't name all the places it's illegal to carry a weapon, I recall seeing plenty of signs designating an area off limits for firearms.

I feel like firearms advocates (and I'm an advocate for responsible firearm ownership) constantly make things all or nothing. Any restriction at all and big government is trying to take our guns away. No, but there need to be restrictions on these weapons whose sole purpose is to extinguish life.

Also, the argument that firearms aren't only used to kill doesn't apply. People don't need to carry their firearm into court just in case they need to target shoot during cross-examinations.

coebam 1 year, 6 months ago

As far as an aircraft goes, I would offer that is a secure place. Everyone goes through a metal detector and firearms are "checked" baggage at that point. That is exactly the same thing the legislation is trying to do. If an area is secure; no weapons allowed. If an area or building is not secure then legal concealed carry is allowed. I guess my take on it is - what has stopped or will stop someone from walking into an unsecure building or area and shooting up the place? Nothing. So if a no guns sign is up it prevents a law abiding citizen from being able to defend themsleves. It's black and white to me. If a building is secure then no one is armed. If a building is not secured then what stops a bad guy? Again - nothing. So why should one not be able to carry if they so choose? Please understand I'm not a god fearing, gun hugging nut job...The last thing I would ever want to happen is to have to use lethal force defending myself or a loved one. in fact in my 44 years i have not once thought to myself "Damn, I wish I had a gun right now." But I really do think this legislation makes perfect sense.

Topple 1 year, 6 months ago

I don't disagree with anything you said. However, the comments from the pro-CC crowd appear to be more concerned about not being able to take their guns anywhere they please, and less about every location their visit being secured, either by metal detectors and guards, or by their own firearm-carrying presence.

Perhaps life would be better under martial law. Everything would be secure. CC holders wouldn't have to pay the $150 for the permit or bother lugging around that hefty .45 to provide security as they go. The military state would do it for them. I suspect this is the opposite of what gun advocates want, ironically. They don't want security, as much as they may claim to. They want their version of security. They want the power in their own hands, not trained professionals.

coebam 1 year, 6 months ago

I don't think martial law is quite the direction anyone want's to go...Ha! However, I do think what the city commision is proposing to do is silly, and honestly a wate of time and possibly revenue. Just my .02.

50YearResident 1 year, 6 months ago

Do some more research, check to see how many innocent bystanders were hit, wounded or killed by all these 70% of misses. I doubt you can find even one instance. Also, since you are so worried about flying bullets, how many of your friends and loved ones were maimed or killed by Police bullets? Remember they misses 70% of the time.

Topple 1 year, 6 months ago

Did you even click on the second link? Here, I'll save you the burden...

"The officers who took down the armed man on a busy midtown street fired a total of 16 rounds, producing 10 bullet holes in Johnson, according to the New York Police Department. Nine bystanders were reportedly injured by bullets and bullet fragments."

See also,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/19/us-usa-crime-hofstra-idUSBRE94I0BZ20130519

I'm not saying the officers made the wrong call. I'm demonstrating that people who are trained to do this for a living miss 70% of the time.

50YearResident 1 year, 6 months ago

Then we should disarm the police shouldn't we? Just like England, clubs only. It's working for them isn't it? They are killing a lot more people than concealed holders.

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

Well, the incidents of gun violence is more than ten times their rate here in the states, maybe we should be looking at their example if you're really concerned about safety...but you're not.

gatekeeper 1 year, 6 months ago

So tiring hearing how CC permit holders will save us all and aren't dangerous. Those that are paranoid feel the need to carry weapons.

Guess what? In many states, it's so easy to get a permit. In VA (where I have friends and know first hand), you only have to show "competence" to get a permit. That includes just watching a video on gun safety. You don't even have to attend a single class. Once you get a CC for any state, you can pay a small fee and get one that will cover you in 31 other states. Have a FL permit, you're legal in KS. So, someone can easily get a permit without even taking a class, then carry in most states (including KS).

gatekeeper 1 year, 6 months ago

Please check out this site. http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

Since 2007, 14 law enforcement officers have been killed by CC permit holders.

494 private citizens have been killed by CC permit holders.

23 mass shootings have been committed by CC permit holders.

35 murder suicides have been committed by CC permit holders.

It's not just an idiot here or there that left the safety off and had it in their pocket while at a restaurant. Anyone with no past criminal record who takes a little course (in some states no course) can CC. quit talking about how CC people are safe and don't commit crimes and how you'll all keep us safer. I don't need or want anyone else to protect my safety. That's why we have a police force.

coebam 1 year, 6 months ago

http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm

Well over two million legal CC licensee's. 566 deaths since 2007 is .0283%. Not that 566 people isn't important. But let's keep this in scale here.

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

31076 deaths by guns in 2012. I really don't think the CC holder is the issue here. Maybe a culture of violence, lack of a strong family unit, and the disregard the law and for human life is the problem. I'll take my chances and be able to defned my self, thanks.

gatekeeper 1 year, 6 months ago

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

You're more likey to be shot and die if you carry. "Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher."

http://www.examiner.com/article/possessing-a-gun-makes-you-less-safe-not-more-safe

"Homes with guns are a dozen times more likely to have household members or guests killed or injured by the weapon than by an intruder.The odds are much greater that the gun will be used against you or a loved one than that it will be used against an armed assailant or an intruder. Firearms are more often discharged in a homicide, suicide or an accident, than in self-defense."

That paranoia's a b*tch. But feel free to pack heat and risk yourself and others.

Anthony Mall 1 year, 6 months ago

Since your using numbers can we look at Chicago and Houston again? Just saying...

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

Are Chicago and Houston in Kansas? 4.5 times more likely to get shot. 420% more likely to die...I'm sure the statistics include Chicago and Houston. But who cares about the facts, right?

50YearResident 1 year, 6 months ago

Here is a fact for you. CC permit holders carry guns to protect themselves and their loved ones. They could care less about you. They are not committed to protect you, they are not another security force. If your life is ever in danger and the Police are only minutes away, you might wish a cc holder was only seconds away though. Maybe not!

gatekeeper 1 year, 6 months ago

But, the rest of us have to deal with you carrying a weapon. When you carry a weapon, you are 4.5 times more likely to be involved in a shooting. So, when you take that gun out of your house, you are increasing the risk for all of us.

KSWingman 1 year, 6 months ago

As Abraham Lincoln said, "75% of the statistics you read on the Internet are false."

When you don't carry a weapon, you are 100% more likely to be unequipped to defend yourself against an immediate deadly threat.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 1 year, 6 months ago

When WHO carries a weapon and WHERE? Does that include criminals? Does it include law enforcement personnel? Does it include military personnel? Does it include terrorists? Does it include suicidal individuals? Does it include hunters? Does it include target shooters? Have these people affected you or your families' existence? Is that a significant or relatively meaningless number? Where did you get this information?

Topple 1 year, 6 months ago

"They could care less about you." An interesting statement regarding people who are ready to use their firearms in public.

KSWingman 1 year, 6 months ago

I don't "care" about you, not in the least., and I certainly have no duty to do so.

As an armed Citizen, I don't carry a weapon to protect you or any stranger; it's your responsibility to protect yourself. I don't carry a weapon to enforce the law; it's the duty of the government to enforce laws.

The only reason I carry a weapon is to defend myself, my home, and my family from an immediate deadly threat.

50YearResident 1 year, 6 months ago

Accidental Drowning Deaths: From 2005 to 2009 an average of 3553 people per year drowned accidentally in the United States, or an average of 10 deaths per day. One in five of those drowning deaths were children under 14 years old. Ban Swimmers! Save our Children, close all swimming pools in Lawrence.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html

gatekeeper 1 year, 6 months ago

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?op=1

Please take a moment and read through the info on this link. It's all data, not opinions. It's not a culture of violence, lack of a strong family unit, and the disregard the law and for human life that is the problem. This is a well put together look at the numbers behind guns and violence.

One key point shown is that as gun ownership decreases, so do violent crimes and murders. Currently, households with guns are decreasing, but gun ownership is increasing because a small amount of citizens that are paranoid are stock piling guns.

Keep in mind that only 3M Americans are NRA members, but the NRA (with money from the gun industry) control our laws and elections. We're letting this tiny little group control our country. The majority of Americans want gun control, but it won't happen because the NRA is paying off politicians. The NRA is great at making sure paranoid gun owners feel they need to stock pile weapons, when no one is taking their guns. We're supposed to be a representative democracy, but have to bow to the NRA.

Again, stay paranoid and make sure you're armed. Just remember, you're 4.5 times more likely to be involved in a shooting.

coebam 1 year, 6 months ago

I don't argue the statistics Gatekeeper. The one they forgot was demographics. Who's doing the killing. They also forgot to mention how many of these murders and shootings were done by felons that should not have legally possessed a firearm in the first place. You can blame the NRA all you want. Show your liberal ignorance. You will be damn hard pressed to find a member of the NRA out there committing murderous crimes. I'm not saying the number is zero, but I bet it's a minimal amount (I'm sure you will go out and find a stat somewhere online). The NRA and other pro-gun groups are protecting you - like it or not. They are defending your liberty and constitutional rights, which you obviously have no appreciation for. I am not paranoid, I just happen to understand the world is not a Utopian place full of friendly folks that want to help your little happy life along.

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

My liberty and constitutional rights do not hinge on you being able to carry a gun into a county building. Liberal ignorance=showing the statistics instead of the rhetoric.

Thinking_Out_Loud 1 year, 6 months ago

Wait, skull...are you truly saying that facts and what happens in reality are less important than some intellectual construct? Your last sentence makes it sound like you are saying when facts conflict with a philosophy...we should favor the philosophy and ignore the facts.

skull 1 year, 6 months ago

I was saying quite the opposite, but you'll read anything into it you want. A poster shows the facts, gets answered with "show your liberal ignorance" and some rhetoric. Nowhere in the post did gatekeeper state that NRA members are out "committing murderous crimes" but that's the way coebam interpreted it. Then fired off some rhetoric about defending my freedom...it's all there, I don't think I should have to do a play by play.

coebam 1 year, 6 months ago

Skull - the statistics that Gatekeeper posted are not necessarily inacurrate, I'm saying they are one sided. Yes guns are everywhere in the country, and guns are dangerous. What I'm trying to point out is that there is a particular demographic that are causing a large part of death and gun violence. That would be criminals, not small small percentage of CC holders. The law is not going to make for a wild west scenerio at the fair grounds, or any other govt building for that matter. I stated ignorance NOT stupidity. There is a large difference in the two. GateKeeper post's statistics that support his/her agenda, not a fair factual overview of the problem. I feel GateKeeper has a one sided view and that's all. I feel Iunderstand both sides. I wish there wasn't all of the violence in our world. I wish we didn't have to go to war, have innocent children murdered, have terrorists trying every angle to kill people, or bad guys mugging people after dark. The problem is not guns. The problem is bad people. That's the brutal truth. If there were no guns people would use knives, bombs, cleavers, bats, forks, pipes, cars, whatever. Criminals are going to use whatever tool they have at their disposal to do what they do. I feel it is highly important to be able to defend myself if I so choose. I think most police officers feel the same way. I'm sorry to have offended you and Gatekeeper - not my intention. I just get a bit passionate about constitutional rights etc.

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 6 months ago

Over the last 20 years our American style freedoms and our privacy have been disappearing as we trade away liberty for the promise of greater security from our expanding government.

Politicians who have the most money to spend tend to be elected as the value of the individual citizen seems to lessen every year. And so too our access to our own government.

We were warned that we should not take our liberty for granted and yet we give it up so easily.

LawrenceVeteran 1 year, 6 months ago

I will keep this short and simple. No matter how much people argue on here, there is one basic fact to keep in mind. Kansas Law clearly states that no local government may pass gun laws, stricter than that of the states. And if we really have to go into statistics, cities with a higher number of law abiding firearm owners, have a lower amount of gun violence. After all, we see how well an all-out gun ban is working out for Chicago.

oldexbeat 1 year, 6 months ago

Stop using Wyatt Earp references -- when he was the law of Dodge City, you had to check your guns before you went into the bars north of the railroad. No guns were allowed to be carried in the nice part of town. Guess that wouldn't be legal now.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 1 year, 6 months ago

Do you believe that such a law was being enforced without fail? Did they have metal detectors and a 360 degree circle of lawmen in "the nice part of town"? How about in the nasty part of town? Which part of town to call home?

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 6 months ago

Why do county commissioners think that they need a special (and expensive) level of protection and security that they are not willing to provide for everyone else? Why are they so privileged above the public? If their policies were at peace and in agreement with the public, they would not have a special elite need for such security, but would be open and friendly to serving the public openly. IMO.

KSWingman 1 year, 6 months ago

When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

jayhawklawrence 1 year, 6 months ago

Here's a thought.

Stop spending our tax money unnecessarily.

It's not yours to spend. Hello?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.