spaceman_spiff (Tyler Palmer)


Comment history

A Thousand Voices: Kansas' newest gun laws see opposition in latest survey

Interesting. You can't provide reasonable arguments and counterpoints, so you're fallback is name-calling and personal attacks? That definitely makes me and others much more likely to be open to your point-of-view. Nice job.

Let me summarize for you:
* In today's environment, laws allowing more people to carry lethal weapons in public makes us less safe - The current, liberalized legal environment allows virtually anyone to buy a gun with little to no vetting or training. In this environment, more people carrying guns in public makes us less safe. Untrained, unvetted individuals with lethal weapons makes it more likely that people will be harmed.

* Guns provide an offensive capability - Guns do not provide a defense against bullets or harm. Body armor would. Guns give you the ability to go on the offense and kill or wound another person, but in such cases, you have you to get them first and have to have a lot of luck and skill to make effective use of the weapon to avoid harm to yourself.

* If people are going to be allowed to possess guns in public, we need sensible polices and regulations to make sure those that are going to have lethal weapons on their person have appropriate training and vetting. Hopefully, the folks that are carrying weapons in public also have a valid reason for doing so, because it's pretty clear that most people simply have need to carry a weapon in public.

If you can't argue your position without name-calling and personal attacks, stop responding to my comments and go find something else to do.

November 10, 2015 at 9:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Thousand Voices: Kansas' newest gun laws see opposition in latest survey

Holy crap! Monty, you rock.

Not only do you have a thoughtful stance on the issue, you also provided serious and sensible reasons for why you carry.

I can definitely support your position and purpose for carrying.

Those gas stations on South Iowa sure do seem like a frequent target. I blame Ridge Court.

November 10, 2015 at 8:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Thousand Voices: Kansas' newest gun laws see opposition in latest survey

Whoa whoa and your sensible position and responsible approach...that's just not going to work here in the LJWorld discussion forum :)

Seriously though, I appreciate your thoughtful post.

Would you mind sharing why you carry a weapon? I'm trying to understand the position, but so far, the only reasons others have provided have been "because the constitution says I can and any limits, regulations, or training are liberal taxes blocking my rights", "because I'm going to shoot the bad guy before he shoots me", or "because we have fire extinguishers and seat belts, so why not guns". I'm paraphrasing, of course.

Most of these just don't seem particularly realistic or honest in the legal environment we have where just about anyone can get hold of a gun with effectively zero training, vetting, or responsibility. In such an environment, I think my current position of the more people with guns we have walking around, the less safe we are is reasonable. However, if we had more folks with your stance and extensive training, perhaps I wouldn't be as concerned.

November 9, 2015 at 5:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Thousand Voices: Kansas' newest gun laws see opposition in latest survey

If anyone could provide some reasonable examples of why it would be necessary to walk around armed with a lethal weapon on a day-to-day basis, I could be swayed, but no one has yet provided any. The situations the general public is going to encounter on a day-to-day basis that would require carrying a weapon are effectively zero. While I currently do not see the need to be armed, if someone could provide some reasonable example, I'm open to changing my view. So far, the only responses I have been getting are significant outliers in terms of probability or trying to use example of other situations (eg seat belts and fire extinguishers) instead of dealing directly with guns and the need for them outside of your home/property.

Seat belt laws require the use of seat belts.

You do not buy a fire extinguisher on the predication that you may need to kill someone else with it to defend yourself. You buy a fire extinguisher to deal with smaller fires that are manageable with such a device.

If I'm completely surrounded by fire, I'm looking for the nearest safe exit. Again, the type of fire you are going to use an extinguisher to deal with are smaller fires that are not surrounding you. By attempting to use the extinguisher in a life-threatening fire, you are wasting valuable time needed for escape from the deadly fumes and smoke. If you're surrounded by flames and considering trying to operate a fire extinguisher, you're doing it wrong.

I have not narrowed any parameters and I don't have an irrational fear of anyone. Not once have I indicated I'm afraid of anyone, even those with guns. On the contrary, I do not feel the need to carry a lethal weapon with me when I am around others in public because I'm not afraid of other people. If anyone is irrationally afraid of their fellow man, it's folks like you advocating for more guns and carrying one.

November 9, 2015 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Thousand Voices: Kansas' newest gun laws see opposition in latest survey

Please show a specific case where I've been inconsistent. I've not made any claims regarding crime rate being low. I have consistently suggested that having more people carrying guns does not increase public or personal safety.

I have also made no suggestions about limiting guns. I have consistently suggested that they are generally not necessary and that current laws make access to gun far to easy and that there are no sensible policies in place to ensure that people purchasing guns are adequately prepared for the responsibilities of owning and using a lethal weapon.

November 9, 2015 at 3:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas battles pay-related turnover among prison staff

One of the worst things about privitization of state functions is that it rarely ends up costing tax payers less and the outcome is lower quality because the private company has to make a profit. There's just no way that a private company with a profit motive is going to be able to provide the same levels of service for the same cost as the state, let alone lower costs. Whether it's healthcare, prisons, services to the military, processing application for food stamps, etc, the only folks benefiting from privitization are the owners of the private companies. Example after example shows that private businesses provide fewer services, lower quality, higher costs, etc when dealing with government functions.

November 9, 2015 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Online business to help Lawrence homeowners rent to out-of-towners coming for sports games

They could always be "related" for a day or so during their visit.

November 9, 2015 at 12:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Thousand Voices: Kansas' newest gun laws see opposition in latest survey

<img src="" width="400">


November 9, 2015 at 9:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Thousand Voices: Kansas' newest gun laws see opposition in latest survey

We're not talking about knives or crime rates, we're talking specifically about guns.

Also, the numbers in the second link are scaled, so total population isn't a factor. Doesn't matter whether a country is smaller.

November 9, 2015 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

A Thousand Voices: Kansas' newest gun laws see opposition in latest survey

Again, not the same thing.

Fire extinguishers are a bad analogy. The cases where you are going to use a fire extinguisher are small house fires that are manageable by an individual, not life-threatening situations. A situation with an active shooter where your life is in danger is more akin to your whole house being on fire. If your whole house is on fire, you don't squirt at it with your little extinguisher, you get the heck away and call the professional fire fighters because you simply are not equipped to deal with the situation effectively. To make your analogy work, the active shooter would have to only be shooting you a little bit while also giving you the option of easily getting away if you need to.

Plus, a fire extinguisher is not a deadly weapon. The more fire extinguishers we have, the safer folks are likely to be. The more guns we have, the less safe we are likely to be. There are too many people that are simply not adequately vetted and trained in the responsible and safe use of guns in public and access to them is far too easy. People simply do not react rationally and thoughtfully in life-threatening situations, so adding in a deadly weapon isn't going to help.

People in the general public are simply not going to go running towards the sound of gun fire with their own gun and save the day. Too many pro-gun folks seem to think if they have a gun, they'll play the part of the hero when the time comes, but that's just not likely.

When even highly-trained law enforcement personnel have problems in high-stress situation when guns are involved, you seem to think that Joe Public is going to handle things better.

Also, being trapped in an airplane 30,000 feet in the air is simply not a useful comparison.

I've still not received an adequate answer about why carrying a gun in public is necessary. What the heck situations are you folks finding yourselves in frequently enough that you feel it necessary to be armed all the time?

November 9, 2015 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )