Editorial: Inane measure

Why is it that prohibitionists think firearms that never leave the state are part of interstate commerce?

March 1, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Overland Park to seek AG opinion on open carry

http://youtu.be/yA4mJW-kjSc

November 16, 2012 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Editorial: Carry concerns

I've been in Arizona for the last 10 months. I've seen a couple people openly carrying. It's interesting the first couple of times, but hardly eventful.

All these dire predictions are the same we've been hearing for decades as states adopt more and more liberal carry laws. At what point do we concede that the evidence does not indicate any real trouble resulting from armed citizens?

October 1, 2012 at 7:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Weapons provision surprises leaders

The difference between a bar and a restaurant is the percentage of sales of alcohol. The minimum standard of food sales is 30% for a restaurant (KSA 41-2601). The issue with the bars is definitely keeping in spirit with the intent of the bill. There is no practical way for me to establish the legal classification of a business without actually going in and asking (which under the old system, would have been a crime). What this really does is eliminate the criminal repercussions of those who make honest mistakes with no ill intent. It's not about carrying a firearm into a bar, it's about marking those bars so people know not to carry there. How are people going to know they're speeding if there are no speed limit signs posted? Do you think any judge would hold up a ticket from a zone that's not marked?

June 18, 2008 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Gun rationale

crazyks, perhaps I can explain.

There are 2 safe places for a firearm:
1. Unloaded and locked securely. A built in vault is best, then a heavy (500 lbs or so) safe, then a bolted down locker, then individual locks. If sufficient storage is not available, it is acceptable to remove key components and secure those components as you would the firearm.
2. Under the immediate control of a responsible adult.

This is precisely the way the military secures their arms; it is highly effective. I question the expertise of anyone who claims option 2 is inadequate.

The ban on "assault weapons" was unreasonable for a great many reasons. It dealt with weapons that are not dramatically different (except in appearance) from any other firearm. The legislation was passed by deliberately misleading the public and elected officials. The stated intent was to reduce crime; prior to the act these weapons were used in only a small percentage of crimes, during and following the expiration no reduction in crime could be attributed to the ban.

The average American does not 'need' any firearm, whether revolver, musket or machine gun. The "assault weapons" are however useful for purposes such as hunting, target shooting sports, defense, and are valued by collectors. A bayonet mount is not especially useful (even to the military), but it makes for more accurate reproductions of military arms for collectors, and is less of a danger to society then pointy sticks.

Repeating arms, including what would be defined by todays standards as a machine gun, have been in existence for over 200 years. Chemical and biological warfare were in use hundreds of years before that. The only real difference between the modern and historical arms is the ease of use. This is a benefit to those peaceable citizens who choose to be armed because they can be on a more equal footing with those who have made a career out of criminal violence.

The reason US soldiers aren't killed in the hundreds by enemies with AK-47s, is due in no small part to the fact that they are equipped with similar weapons. The reason the North Hollywood police had such trouble during that bank robbery is because they weren't adequately equipped.

July 5, 2007 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Gun rationale

"Handguns do not mitigate risk, rather increase it."
I disagree, my research disagrees. If I thought I would be at greater risk with a gun, I would go without. I consider the fact that police use handguns for defense is a fairly clear indicator that are effective for that purpose. When the police disarm, I'll take that into consideration.
I'm not asking you to carry or even own a gun. If you feel unsafe with them, you probably shouldn't handle them. Just know that you are in no danger from my firearm unless you commit a criminal act involving deadly force in my presence.

"Comparing a handgun to a fire extinguisher is laughable."
Yet comparing one to an automobile is perfectly reasonable.

"it is easier to get a gun in Kansas than it is to get a drivers license"
A better comparison would be with how easy it is to buy a car. Purchasing a vehicle requires no federal background check, no verification of identity, and can be done outside of your state of residence (eg I bought a car in Kansas when I was a California resident, and vice versa). The only difficulty with buying a car is the credit application, and I admit I've never tried to buy a gun on credit.

"No wonder we Kansans are the butt of the nations jokes:.first we question the scientific merit of evolution and try to teach creationism in public schools, now we need to carry concealed weapons to defend us from"
So Kansas is wrong for being unlike other states in education (an entirely unrelated issue in which I agree with you), and also for being like the other 47 states that allowed concealed carry before us?

"wait, remind me again, who should I be afraid of that I will need to shoot?"
It's not a matter of being afraid, it's a matter of being prepared. I take measures to ensure safety from fire, car crashes, sunburn, and sport related injuries; that doesn't mean I'm afraid of them.

July 5, 2007 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Gun rationale

"There is no statistical link that supports the claim that carrying a concealed firearm somehow decreases ones risk of experiencing a violent crime"
Well, no. But there are statistics that support the claim that using a firearm increases one's chance of surviving a violent crime. I carry because I'm just as likely as anyone else to be the target of criminal violence.

Other statistics show that allowing people to carry concealed firearms decreases everyone's risk of experiencing a violent crime

"There are statistics that support that fact that carrying a concealed firearm increases your risk of injury or death due to gunshots."

There are statistics that support the fact that carrying insulin increases your risk of diabetes.

I've seen statistics for and against concealed carry, most of the studies are flawed as a result of bias. Those that aren't so flawed indicate that concealed carry has little effect on crime in general, but a profound effect on those unlucky enough to need it.

It's not a perfect solution but it's the best one I have. I know my sidearm doesn't make me bulletproof any more than a life vest lets me breath water.

Comments alluding to the size of genitalia, or masculinity in general I view as the same as claims that liberals breed criminals. They are pointless attacks that in no way address the issues. I'm fairly certain that most of the women who carry in Kansas do not strive for "manliness" nor wish to be recognized for having a large penis. If you feel more manly by not carrying a weapon, I fully support whatever choice you make. As for me, my decision to carry has nothing to do with an inferiority complex and even less to do with your opinions of my masculinity.

July 5, 2007 at 5:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Gun rationale

sfjayhawk, I've been to DC, Europe, New York, and I grew up in California. My statements about Chicago and DC were intended to illustrate that banning firearms does not provide for public safety, I was not suggesting that it the actual cause of crime.

If violent crime only occurred in in certain cities, I would not carry a handgun. If I knew where and when I would be the victim of a violent crime, I would make a prior appointment. There is risk (minute but still present) of criminal violence any time when around other people, just as there is risk of fire when I have electricity and natural gas in my house. A firearm like a fire extinguisher do not guarantee safety, but to help mitigate the risk.

The only "gun license" I am aware of in Kansas is the Concealed Carry Handgun License, and the Federal Firearms License.

Now I don't have an FFL, just the CCH and driver's license.
For the driver's license, I drove across town, took a written test, took a driving test, paid a small fee, and then had a license.

For the CCH, I took a vacation day, drove halfway across the state (to the only advertised course I could find), spend $150, 8 hours, and 50 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition on training, took a written and practical test, completed a several page application and submitted it to the sheriff with a passport photo and another $150, and waited months for the application to be approved.

Which is tougher?

July 5, 2007 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Gun rationale

"Does that include "GCA1968?""
Some aspects are reasonable, others are not.
I am by no means an expert, just a reasonably knowledgeable person. I can't comment on all the laws because my research focuses on those restrictions that affect me most.
Prohibiting drug abusers and children from purchasing firearms is reasonable (for different reasons). Prohibiting the importation of "non sporting" firearms is unreasonable.
Prohibiting prior felons from owning weapons is reasonable because the justice system is ineffective at correcting criminal behavior. Most crimes are committed by those with a prior criminal record.

I do not currently object to the NICS because I can think of no better way to identify those prohibited from purchasing. Since I haven't done sufficient research on this subject, I have no idea if it actually has increased public safety.

"Are we doing enough to enforce this law: in particular, prohibiting the sale of guns to "anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution?""
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Rea...
The NICS Improvement Act was the response to such concerns.

July 5, 2007 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Gun rationale

It's rational to consider that the availability of firearms has an effect on violent crime. It is irrational to claim it true without the support of facts or logic. Crime is the result of criminal intent, not the presence of inanimate objects. Travel is not the result of the availability of airplanes.

When we consider the evidence present by the 6 months that concealed carry has been permitted in Kansas, and the many years that it has been in effect in 47 other states, the facts do not indicate it increases crime. Studies have even showed states with right to carry laws show an increase in crime reduction. Concealed carry license holders have demonstrated across the country that they are statistically more law abiding than the unlicensed demographic. When considering these facts, fear of lawful concealed carry seems less rational.

The right to arms is a combination the right to life (and therefore the right to defend ones life) and the principle of equality. Yes there is a long tradition of laws to ensure these, but more important is that we hold these truths to be self evident (i.e., they require no outside justification). It's not magic, just basic human rights that need no explanation.

Like most people I believe reasonable laws should be in place to provide for general public safety. I take issue however with restrictions that have been proven to be ineffective in doing so. Reasonable restrictions are currently in place. Proposed restrictions are based upon irrational theories and will not serve their state function. Restrictions that would further enhance public safety would too much infringe upon other self evident rights.

The examples of Washington DC and Chicago are clear evidence against the effect of irrational restrictions.

July 4, 2007 at 1:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )