Archive for Wednesday, October 4, 2017

Letter to the editor: Strengthen gun laws

October 4, 2017

Advertisement

To the editor:

On Monday morning, this paper reported that city leaders are grappling with why there have been so many gun-related homicides this year.

I would like to urge them, and everyone, to consider how the changes in Kansas gun law have made incidents like the tragedy on Sunday more frequent and more likely.

Since 2015, the Kansas Legislature has gotten rid of all permit and training requirements, forced public employers to allow their employees to carry on the job, and, as of July 1 of this year, allowed guns on college campuses like the University of Kansas. Private sales are also not regulated in the state. Since Kansas has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country, it is remarkably easy for a person to buy a gun and carry it with no questions asked. Unless a person has already been convicted of a felony and is not under 21, they are a law-abiding citizen until the second they pulled the trigger in the state of Kansas. As long as our gun laws are as loose as they are, there is no way to prevent tragedies like the one that happened on Sunday. I urge our city and state leaders to strengthen our gun laws so that we can prevent needless injury and death.

Comments

Brock Masters 1 week, 6 days ago

The are laws against murder and yet the shooter ignored it, but Megan expects this same person, this person that is immoral and does not respect human life, to abide by a gun law? As Mr. Spock would say, illogical.

I want to see a discussion on gun violence and how to reduce it. I don’t want to see innocent people gunned down for any reason, let alone being in the wrong place when an evil person decides to kill I don’t want to see innocent young children accidentally killed.

I want this, but I oppose more gun laws because they are ineffective and only serve to infringe upon the right of law abiding citizens to exercise their 2nd amendment right. Yes, all rights can be regulated but no right is more regulated than the 2nd amendment.

Quit focusing on the gun and focus on real solutions. PSA’s and free training to help law abiding citizens better handle firearms and remind them of the dire consequences of not handling and storing them properly.

Keep,violent criminals in jail for their full sentence. No probation for anyone knowingly and with premeditation who commits a violent crime

Require medical professionals to report the names of patients with mental illness to be included in the national background database.

Enhance mental health services so those in need have access.

Focus on drug rehab instead of imprisonment. Work to provide better education and training to all Americans, but especially those in poverty stricken neighborhoods. Cut spending on foreign aid and nation building and invest them in our country.

Tighten up border security to thwart drugs and guns from being smuggled in.

Stop trying to take away my right so I can work with you instead of against you.

Bob Smith 1 week, 6 days ago

"...Left wing cultural influences, not guns, are responsible for mass shootings. In the immediate wake of the horrific Las Vegas massacre, the left has predictably politicized the event to advance its gun control agenda. Such violence has no place in America, they trumpet. But in fact, the left is quite okay with destruction and violence under the right, politically-correct circumstances. It's okay to burn the American flag. It's okay to disgrace the national anthem. It's okay vandalize private property. It's okay for inner city gangs to kill one another – it’s more important that the police not intervene. It's okay for Missouri State Senator Maria Cappelle-Nadal to hope that Trump is assassinated. It's okay for University of Tampa sociology professor Kenneth L. Storey to say that the people of Texas deserved the death and destruction created by hurricane Harvey because they supported Trump. It's okay for Phil Montag of the Nebraska Democratic Party to say he was glad Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot, and that he wished he was dead because Scalise sought to replace ObamaCare. Pundits are scratching their heads in search of a motive for Stephen Paddock's rampage. In the left's culture of dissidence and victimization, why is it not okay for a crazed person to pick up a gun and start shooting people for any reason imaginable? America has been saturated with guns since the Pilgrims landed. It is the left's cultural contamination that spawns gun violence, not guns. What the left needs to do is to stop transferring guilt from itself to the NRA. What the nation needs to do is to gain better control of the left, not guns..." http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/10/mass_shootings_and_the_lefts_culture_of_dissidence.html

Bob Smith 1 week, 6 days ago

Saying blah, blah, blah doesn't make your argument any more valid. Actually doing that make you seem most obtuse.

Richard Heckler 1 week, 6 days ago

Do conservatives believe more guns on the street make an environment safer? Where is the hard evidence?

The man in Las Vegas was neither black nor had criminal history yet somehow managed to put together a massive arsenal.

Lawrence should take back the city and county and implement our own restrictions regarding guns. If my memory serves me well Lawrence enforced some substantial guns laws at one time according to local news.

As we speak conservatives in the nations capital are busy furthering THEIR gun violence agenda by offering up silencers in the mix if deregulated gun control.

People who don't feel a need to carry weapons of human destruction have rights too.

Bob Summers 1 week, 6 days ago

The guy in LV was a Liberal. Liberals should be banned from owning firearms.

Paul Beyer 1 week, 6 days ago

Actually all gun-nuts should be banned from owning guns.

Bob Summers 1 week, 6 days ago

Agreed. Liberal gun-nuts like yourself should be banned from being anywhere near a fire stick.

Thanks!

Louis Kannen 1 week, 6 days ago

The insanity of this argument over guns lies directly within the intractable positioning of only one of the opposing viewpoints. Anyone with even a mere modicum of rational common sense and fundamental reasoning would be hard-pressed to not see that the proverbial pendulum of balance has swung and is locked in the extreme position of our Government's deathly morbid, big business sanctioned NRA mandate. The definition of sensible compromise is nowhere to be found or even considered. Anyone interested in a free trip to Las Vegas ?

Daniel Kennamore 1 week, 6 days ago

I agree Megan, but it will never happen.

Any law that could have a measurable effect on gun deaths in this country would never get past the NRA bought and paid for GOP.

Further, nothing is going to change until the majority of gun-nuts stop loving their guns more than innocent lives.

We can all 'debate' this until we are blue in the face but nothing of substance will actually be done.

Bob Smith 1 week, 6 days ago

If you commies quit using terms like "gun-nut" we might start listening to you.

Daniel Kennamore 1 week, 6 days ago

You're lying.

There is no possible way to reason with a gun-nut. Don't matter how much I tried not to hurt your precious snowflake feelings, you'd still cling to your guns.

Bob Smith 1 week, 6 days ago

No, I think you are lying. So there we are, cupcake.

Richard Aronoff 1 week, 6 days ago

Dear Heckler & Hillary: There is no such thing as a "silencer." What you see on TV is fiction. There are sound suppressors and they are already legal in many states including Nevada. A sound suppressor attached to a semi-automatic weapon would still make that gun sound like a jack hammer. A suppressor on a full automatic weapon would sound the same way and would probably destroy the gun.

As the Washington Post piece points out, the major cause of gun deaths in this country is suicide. The second largest number of deaths involves women who were victims of domestic violence. Can you outlaw suicide? Instead of gun control how about locking up a domestic abuser the FIRST TIME that person smacks around a spouse or "significant other" while making it easier for the victim to get away from the abuser by providing shelters and moving expenses if necessary.

A politically correct "war on guns" is going to work just as well as the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty." What's next? A "war on forks" to combat obesity?

By the way --- Fred Whitehead, Jr. --- if Donald Trump really is the next Hitler, wouldn't you really want a gun?

Greg Cooper 1 week, 6 days ago

Constitutional Carry. What a load. That's the catchphrase for those who can't come up with any sound reason that the weapons and accessories of death, as used in Las Vegas and Lawrence, should actually be available as easily as cigarettes and liquor. And I support such illness because of one thing: eventually, the sickness of those who think only guns can solve their problems or only guns can solve other people's problems will result in enough senseless, useless, stupid deaths that even this country will have to come to grips with the NRA's control of the various legislatures and Congress. That time will come, but it will not come soon and those who oppose disarming the populace from stupidly overreachIng guns wIll not go quietly but with a bang and another gaggle of deaths. Meanwhile, education, the economic prospects of the poor, all those things which can help people not rely on violence, will be ignored in place of Constitutional Carry. And, until this nation has had its fill of ideological "nuts" on both sides proclaiming that their "side" is the only right one, there will continue to be senseless deaths and maiming and families torn asunder and opportunities for full and useful lives missed and thrown away.

So, carry on America! Protect one another with your guns and your rhetoric until the only group of Americans left living is those with the most and biggest guns. And then there'll be no argument left because the guns will have won. And Americans will have lost.

Bob Smith 1 week, 6 days ago

There's a finite amount of hyperbole in the universe and you are using it lavishly.

Bob Smith 1 week, 6 days ago

"...America’s foremost health care expert, Jimmy Kimmel, once again repeated long-debunked Democrat talking points in another tearful monologue (Las Vegas is his hometown so it’s hard to berate him for showing emotion). Kimmel chastised Paul Ryan and the GOP Congress (again) for not enforcing laws about guns that literally do not exist. These include the so called “gunshow loophole,” an online background check loophole and allowing mentally ill individuals (a move supported by the ACLU) from purchasing firearms. All of these claims have been debunked and yet are ignored by fact-checkers at mainstream outlets and cable news pundits. Stephen Paddock did not have a criminal background, prior record and no evaluations of suspect mental health. So what then?..." http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/04/media-doesnt-understand-guns-and-doesnt-want-to.html

Richard Aronoff 1 week, 6 days ago

Assuming the weapon(s) used in Las Vegas were acquired legally -- and I doubt that -- the process for obtaining a fully automatic gun -- meaning it keeps firing as long as the trigger is held down -- takes at least a year and a lot of paperwork. It's not the same as the background check you would go through at Cabela's or Dick's Sporting Goods to purchase a shotgun.

Given all of the available facts, I smell a very large rat. The FBI, in less than two days, said this had nothing to do with terrorism. That's rather remarkable considering they've been looking into collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign for over eleven months and have come up with nothing.

The girlfriend has claimed she had no idea what was going on notwithstanding the fact that the man she shared a home with had enough firepower to hold off a small country's army.

It's been reported that the hotel/casino that has "eyes in the sky" all over the place has no footage of the shooter despite the fact that he was there for over three days.

Bob Smith 1 week, 5 days ago

A former anti-gunner sees the light. "...Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns. I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths..." http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/opinion/4338076-commentary-i-used-think-gun-control-was-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise

Sign in to comment

loading...