This may be the year that Kansans get the right to carry concealed handguns, now that the Senate has passed such a bill with a veto-proof majority. Stay tuned.
Our editorial today notes that “for all the hyperbolic rhetoric on both sides, other states’ experience suggests that allowing concealed handguns in Kansas for those who meet the criteria and get safety training is unlikely to significantly hurt or help public safety.”
But the same cannot be said for the other major gun-related bill this session — a “stand your ground” bill like Florida’s intended to protect somebody who shoots in self-defense against later civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution. This is another effort by the NRA to get states to pass gun-rights bills whether they’re needed or not. As we said today, “Kansas lawmakers should be in no hurry to pass a law with the potential to make some Kansans think they’re free to use deadly force whenever and wherever they decide it’s warranted, no judge or jury or accountability required.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
163 Comments
Though I support right to carry, I have some concern about this asspect of the bill. The use of deathly force should always be the last option. As such the justifcation should be rule by a court of law as to self defense. By doing so it means that the death is without question legal. Civil action is then made harder to call it wanten death.The ground rules for justifable shooting has been set already.
Civil does have a different standard then criminal. perhaps in the case of a shooting rule justifiable in criminal court. That ruling should be reflcted in the civil court.I admittedly I have not read the details of this bill. But from what I was told, I feel there should never be a blanket ruling from your actions. As each case is different and each should be judged by it own merits.
I am not sure what the new bill in Kansas says or how it is written. For that matter, I am not sure of the verbage in the Florida Bill, however, I do feel very strongly that while the use of deadly force in the attempt of self-protection should be a last resort, that doesn’t mean that the victim should have to flee for his/her life before deciding to stand ones ground. Law-abiding citizens should never have to flee from a person or persons intent on perpetrating a criminal act as long as they can adequately defend themselves or someone else. It’s time this Nation puts criminals in their rightful place! I am not sure what the answer is, but I do know that this is a very fine line we walk with dire ramifications on either side if we make the wrong choice.
“It’s time this Nation puts criminals in their rightful place!”Too many John Wayne wannabes out there. If passed, this opens up the possiblity for all sorts of chaos.
I fully support concealed carry and “stand your ground”. I think it’ll make Kansas a much more polite society. It’s high time that gang bangers, thugs, and bullies learn how to live in society. I’d think any reasoning human being would think twice about committing a crime if they have to worry about who might be armed. The Police can’t protect you because there’s never a cop around when you need one. I have no problem defending myself.
Let’s get this law passed.
Da….
John Wayne wannabees? I think there is a real need for this bill. One example..when I lived in California, there was a court case where a homeowner was sued by the family of a man.
The man had broken into the home late at night, hit the man with a club and was sexually assaulting his wife when the man came to, grabbed a gun and shot/killed the intruder.
The intruder’s family sued for wrongful death. And won.
Real world, not television shows, Damoon.
Has it been chaos in Flordia? Or has it help deter crime drasticly?
Damoon, 46 states have concealed carry laws and there has been no chaos. What makes you think it will be any different here?
“The intruder’s family sued for wrongful death. And won.”
Ray, is this true? Or is it just an urban myth repeated in some circles in what is known as a meme. I dont know that it isnt true, but I hear so much gossip in here that I would like to see some real cases cited, not just legends.
BTW, we already have concealed carry in Kansas, it just isnt approved by the state. Do you think anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon in Kansas does not already do so? Ya outta check under the seats of the cars in the mall parking lots. I wonder if passing a law will get those people to register those weapons.
Concealed carry is not needed, and will create safety issues. Why is there no provision to revoke a concealed weapon license if caught carrying while drunk – seems like a good idea for car drivers? Why are there no enhanced penalties for multiple carrying while drunk violations. Why shouldn’t law enforcement have the ability to deny a license to a gang wannabe if the police know about the recruitment, regardless whether the wannabe – or someone like Tim McVeigh when he was planning mass murder in Marion Cty – othewise would qualify for a permit? For goodness sake, BTK would have qualified for a permit had the 2004 bill become law – BTK was still on the loose then. With these kinds of safety problems – which could be fixed but the proponents don’t want to fix – why should we consent to accept this law just because we are tired of the debate?
And if HB 2577 passes along with concealed weapons, we can be sure that there are going to be some Clint Eastwood “Make-My-Day” types out there who will be carrying their weapons and looking for some dispute or suspicious behavior to stick their nose and barrel into. 2577 will eliminate important societal safeguards against vigilantism.
In Kansas, you have the right to shoot and kill an intruder who breaks into your home without legal consequences.I remember an old man who used to rent from me, he carried a gun with him everywhere he went, and 3 times he pulled it on other tenants when he felt they were out of line. It’s bozos like that who don’t need to be validated with laws that make it legal for them to carry weapons, and unfortunately, there are A LOT of bozos in this country just like the one I described. I don’t see how the right to carry concealed weapons will make our country safer, it will just make it easier for people to shoot each other.Let’s be honest, most men see a gun as an extention of their penis. It makes them feel powerful and masculine.
KsGrl..
As much as I love being called a liar here, before you do it again, please check out the facts.
Walters v. American Ins. Co., 185 Cal. App. 2d 776, 8 Cal. Rptr. 665
In New York: Automobile Co. of Hartford v. Cook, 97160;
Florida: Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. v. Griss, 568 S.2d 903
Georgia: Eubanks v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 195 Ga. App. 359, 393 S.E.2d 452
Michigan: Century Mut. Ins. Co. v. Paddock, 168 Mich. App. 747, 425 N.W.2d 214 (1988)
Mississippi: Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Mitchell by & Through Seymour, 911 F. Supp. 230
Minnesota: Economy Fire & Casualty Co. v. Iverson, 445 N.W.2d 824
Want more? Each case has the insurance company forced to defend the homeowner for wrongful death, and each of the above mentioned cases, the homeowner lost.
These are not urban myths. I did not make this up. I very strongly resent your insinuation.
Ray, wanna point out where I called you a liar? I asked for facts. Sorry if that insulted you. I should have known that just because it came out of your mouth it was the truth. Sounds like Bush and you have the same philosophy.
Grl..
Verifiable proof of what I referred to earlier has absolutely nothing to do with politics. Your challenging me on an easily provable statement is akin to accusing me of posting false information.
I don’t play that game. When something is my opinion, I label it as such. After all..I am not hiding behind some anonymous nickname…I am using my own name and will stand behind what I post.
“Your challenging me on an easily provable statement is akin to accusing me of posting false information.”
Just as I suspected Ray. You and the preznit both think anyone who asks for proof or verification is “challenging” you and accusing you of falsehood. I said it so it must be so!! So sayeth George and Ray.
Do you want me to go back through your posts and point out everytime you have asked someone for verification? Remember, the last time we did this, you had to eat your words so be very careful how you answer. I remember one thread in particular when no facts presented were good enough for you.
As for the real name thing…I addressed it in another thread. You have no need to fear us liberals since you think we dont carry guns. We also dont bomb doctors’ offices, dont beat you and tie you to a fence to die for being straight, dont bomb straight bars, dont burn crosses on lawns, etc. No, you have nothing to fear from us, but we have everything to worry about with you and your kind.
Wanna come out and paint over the “fag” graffiti on my barn?
You dont think Fred, Terry and Joe would have picketed my mother’s funeral if I posted under my real name?
Your accusations are beyond belief. You are now claiming that I engage in vandalism, attempted murder and various other horrid things because I do not bow down in front of your ‘wisdom’?
Your total lack of tolerance is pathetic. Not everyone in the world shares your narrow views, but that doesn’t make them criminals. You are way off base.
If the shoe fits Ray, wear it. No one accused you of personally committing violence. Me thinks you protest too much. I think I hit a nerve. Just reading your responses is all the backup I need to illustrate why it is unwise to be a liberal and use your real name.
ksfarmgrrl,
Are you trying to prove that you are the most hysterical, paranoid leftist on this forum?
V.L.R.B!!
Why thank you Ian. I take that as a compliment.
I guess queers, women, jews, non-sspx catholics, non-christians, etc. could not possibly see any threat in your posts. Pardon me, just hysteria and paranoia on my part.
Viva la watch your ass Ian.
No one accused me personally of committing violence? So, what part of:
“…but we have everything to worry about with you and your kind.
Wanna come out and paint over the “fag” graffiti on my barn..”
Did I mis-read? You said you have everything to worry about with “you and your kind.”
Lol You are staring to wobble out of control, just like CF. If Clinton were still in office, then I gather that all would be right with America and the world!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
“…but we have everything to worry about with you and your kind.”
Is there something about past tense, present tense, and future tense that you didnt learn in school? The above comment is future tense, and I still mean it. Just because I dont want you to commit violence in the future doesnt mean you did it in the past.
I am laughing now :) because when Ian comes to your defense, well, I think the technical term is you are f*****.
BTW, I do have paint if you would like to paint over the “fag”. I know you didnt do it personally Ray, but the offer is still open.
And Ian, I am even more proud that you compare me with CF. I could only hope to be as good with a response as CF.
I guess Ian’s post would be as good a reason for gun control, and birth control, as any I could make up.
Are you going to confiscate my 80 firearms and 300 000 rounds of ammo?Ks,Ian has 80 guns and 300,000 rounds of ammunition, yet he accuses YOU of hysteria and paranoia! God!!! Ian, you really are sick.
LOL CruX, I know. My little side by side 20ga and 2 little boxes of ammo are no match for Ian. But the pheasants better watch out next year!!!
As for the confederate flag, I bet I could sneak in and replace it with a rainbow flag before he could shoot me!!
Viva la Lesbian Avengers!!
Are you going to take away my five kinder and place them with gay and lesbian couples?
Ian, your “kinder” should be so lucky!
Ray, take a breath.
I googled your citations, and all I could find was a bunch of insurance crap. “Does liability insurance have to pay for wrongful death” etc.
Do you have a LINK that clearly shows an intruder raping a homeowner’s wife, killed by the homeowner, and then successfully sued by the perpetrator’s family for wrongful death?
I’m not calling you a liar; I’d just be very interested in seeing the details of that story.
Mr Getz was attacked, robbed and severely beaten multiple times on the subway in New York, so he bought a gun with which to defend himself.
Four assailants with sharpened screwdrivers attempted to rob him.
But instead of money they each got one of four bullets.
None were killed but became millionaires from the city and Mr. Getz was given 2 years in jail.
Haaretz brags that New York is their largest Jewish City.
Ed,Bernard Getz was jailed because his crime was that it was illegal for him to have/carry a firearm. It is illegal for EVERYONE in New York City to carry firearms IN THE SUBWAY SYSTEM. (with the exception of on-duty police officers) You must understand that NYC has stricter gun laws than possibly any other major city in the country. Hell, it’s even illegal to smoke a cigarette in the subway. Of course, I don’t expect an anti-Semitic bigot like yourself to actually comprehend the legal precedent that dictates that people who break the existing laws get penalized for breaking them. Your local-yokel ignorance of the laws of New York City is quite laughable! It was and still is a crime to carry/conceal firearms of all calibers on the subway system, that is the law that Getz broke, and THAT is what he was penalized for. How does your argument of Jewish discrimination against Getz stand now? Either you’re another one of that idiot Ian’s multiple personalities or you’re another satisfied customer of the Mein Kampf morons.
“They” have no defense, so “they” immediately jump to the catchall “anti-Semitic card”
This ignorant piece of shit coming at me now can’t defend the affront to the second amendment because he’s not a real American.
A question: who is Ian Santiago / John Malkovich to judge that anybody else is ‘wobbling out of control’? Just sayin’.
OT And then there’s Big Dick Cheney, who ‘accidentally’ SHOT SOMEONE. Sounds like someone was playing a round of ‘The Most Dangerous Game,’ but didn’t quite take out his quarry.
CF,
You forgot to mention that I am also ED! lol
Viva La Raza chupacabras!!
CF,
You also forgot to mention that I am also truthregardless! rotflmosao
Alas, it is a shame that Cheney didn’t accidently shoot his own evil, corrupt backside.
Viva la Raza Blanco!!
Ed–
You seem to have glossed over a number of details of that story.
1. The thugs were in a different car and Getz deliberately confronted them.
2. The law doesn’t necessarily protect your right to shoot somebody when you’re facing a threat no greater than stabbing and you can easily get away.
Getz deliberately provoked a fight so he could shoot some people. That’s not what we’re talking about here.
Proudlib, do you think you will get an answer? How dare you question the man behind the curtain!
“Do you have a LINK that clearly shows an intruder raping a homeowner’s wife, killed by the homeowner, and then successfully sued by the perpetrator’s family for wrongful death?
I’m not calling you a liar; I’d just be very interested in seeing the details of that story.”
We’re waiting…..
If he did provide a link then you would question it’s validity anyway.
V.L.R.B!!
Regarding Bernard Getz, that is just the sort of bulls**t we’d be dealing with everyday if people are allowed to carry concealed weapons. Doesn’t law enforcement have enough to deal without adding all the loonies that will run out and get guns to carry just because it’s legal?
PL, I followed the events live.
Read the trail transcripts and discover your statement are not actuate.
“gun down would be minority criminals”
Ian, sometimes you are funny, but that is downright scary.
You’re exactly the reason why conceal and carry should not be legalized, Ian.
Damoon,
Concealed-carry is not enough, we must pass the “stand your ground” legislation as well!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Again, you’re the reason why it shouldn’t.
“You dont think Fred, Terry and Joe would have picketed my mother’s funeral if I posted under my real name?”
You have an incredibly inflated sense of your own significance.
I truly wish Jason Befort and the other poor victims of the Carr brothers had availed themselves of their second amendment rights.
The lesson from this stand your ground legislation is, do not leave the intrude alive to be able to sue you.
I just hope you don’t carry a gun, Ian, you’d probably shoot yourself in the foot.
I would sooner see a million black thugs gunned down before I would see another young White womenian,straight outta Mein Kampf I see. During WW2 black American soldiers were not afforded the protection of the Geneva Conventions by the Nazis, because being non-white, the Nazis did not consider them fully men, so none of them were taken prisoner and instead, shot to death, which of course makes neo-Nazi pigs like yourself happy.Ed,The only ignorant shit around here is you. You bitch and moan about Getz getting 2 years in prison, while in my previous post I explained to your simple simeon mind that his being jailed was a result of his breaking the law by carrying/concealing a firearm in the subway. Ex-Nazi swine like yourself are the only fake Americans here. This country stands for tolerance irregardless of race, color, or creed. The Bill of Rights does not specify that only white men have inalienable rights. So, if Nazi scum like you and Ian don’t like it here, we’ll gladly send you back on that boat to Germany from which your racist ancestors slithered here from.
Can’t we all just get along?
NEWS FLASH: V P DICK CHENEY LOBBYING FOR CONCEALED SHOTGUN LAW!SAYS CHENEY: “YA JUST NEVER KNOW WHEN SOME DADBURN LIBERAL IS GONNA POP UP IN THE MIDDLE OF A DECENT QUAIL HUNT. GOT ME ONE TODAY . . . LIBERAL, THAT IS.” DAN’S STILL WALKING AROUND . . . SORTA.”
Damoon, people in general would get along a lot better if they thought mouthing off and acting the fool might get them shot, LOL!
Way to go Cheney! Just when we’re trying to convince people that firearms don’t constitute a threat in the proper hands, the VP of the United States shoots his hunting partner. What a stupid futz! If he’s a member of the NRA, I think I might have to turn in my membership. Gun safety, hunter safety, and firearms training are the only things I agree with the NRA about.
Finally,
I can carry concealed. I had to wait 5 years for them to repeal the assualt weapons ban so I could get my M4.
Now I will need to go out and get a smaller handgun so I can carry concealed!
My USP 45 is a bit big for concealed carry :)
Well, It’s nice to know we have back-up-stupid { the Laural and Hardy of the White House }.
Nathan,I could suggest a place where you might conceal it, and it would probably fit!
Sorry Jed, not interested in your sexual perversions.
Why is it that so many God fearing Christians love guns? It makes no sense. Did Jesus carry a weapon?
Damoon, the myth of jesus would lead us to believe he carried the most powerful weapons of all. Truth and love. These are two things so many modern day christians seem to lack, so maybe they need guns to make up for their lack of “jesus” weapons.
Jesus was supposedly killed for speaking truth to power, and these latter day christian bloggers here would probably do the same if he showed up as “the least of these”.
And yes sam, two can play the “use the scriptures for your own purposes” game! It is just a literary exercise for us.
It’s the hyprocrisy of the “ala cart” Christians, who choose to follow Jesus’s teachings that make them feel good or gives them the “ammunition” to judge or feel superior to others that drives me nuts. I need to let go, because it won’t change. It’s part of human nature I guess.
It takes a real genius to tie the issues of gun control and Christianity.
Like I’ve been saying for years, no wonder democrats can’t win an election.
Guns are an Art Form.
“Stand your Ground” put’s a little common sense into the law regarding self defense. A decent citizen who has to use lethal force to defend self or family shouldnt have to be bankrupted by legal fees defending themself from an over zealous anti-gun prosecutor or a criminal or his family in civil court.
Contrary to what the good folks at the Wichita Eagle seem to think this is not a gun bill. It applies whether you defend yourself with a gun with your hands or with a 9 iron. Your actions still have to meet the three requisites of legal self defense.
The NRA is not just a gun organization. It’s probably the oldest civil rights organization in the nation. It gets involved in plenty of cases regarding individual liberty that have nothing to do with firearms.
Folks -
Lets get past all the name-calling here.
1) Concealed carry should pass. Those who oppose the bill point out the very reasons it should pass – the people we should be worrying about are carrying now. Conerns about “blood running in the streets” and rampant shootings is simply a parade of horribles trotted out as fear fodder. The citizen who jumps through the hoops, qualifies, gets a permit is not a threat to anyone except an aggressor – he’s certainly not a threat to law enforcement. On the contrary, he’s law enforcement’s greatest supporter. Now the thug carrying now – illegally – may well be a threat. do you think requiring permits will make him get one? No.
37 states now have “shall-issue” carry laws similar to the one proposed here (remember, Kansas in in a distinct minority on this one). The harms those who oppose concealed carry fear simply have not happened. In fact, there is evidence that some types of crime go down when concealed carry passes.
Let’s be blunt – if government is going to tell me I cannot do something, it should have a damn good reason. And as even the WE has noted, there is no evidence that the parade of horribles cited by the opposition ever occur.
2) “Make my day,” or “stand your ground,” should not pass. On the contrary, a person should be required to retreat when he can do so with complete safety to himself and others (with the exception of in your own home or place of business). Kansas law currently defines self-defense as proper when a person 1) believes he is in imminent danger of harm and 2) that belief is reasonable – i.e., there are facts supporting that belief. More is not needed.
Damoon,
Jesus Disciples carried weapons.
Is there anywhere that the scriptures would indicate that having weapons is wrong?
Did Jesus ever say carrying weapons was wrong?
Let me help you out: No.
It is too bad that Jesus is nothing more than a stick you use to try and beat Christians over the head with instead of having a relationship with him.
Out of the 80 million gun owners in this country not all of them are Jesus loving Christians.
I fail to see how Christianity had anything to do with this topic.
This is yet again another perfect example of how you continue to show your hate of Christians Damoon and how you constantly try to attack Christianity.
You take a topic where Christianity was not even being discussed and try to link them so you can attack.
Why do you have so much hatred towards Christians?
Did you have that bad of an experience in the past?
Jesus still loves you Damoon and I want you to know that it is never too late to seek him out.
Don’t let your hatred of people and their imperfection continue to drive a wedge between yourself and Jesus.
Question ,If all the states around us have c/c laws and we don’t where do you think the criminals are going to go to practice their trade,the one place where there is no fear of injury, or death.If the stand your ground law isn’t put in place then crime still will pay, just not with fencing the goods.
“If ye love wealth better than liberty,the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands that feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Samuel Adams
Jesus, Nathan, why do you think I hate Christians? It’s the hypocrisy of so many Christians that I find frustrating. To me, if one is a true follower of Jesus and what He stood for, then collecting guns seems so out of step with that ideology. I don’t think there were guns in Jesus’s day, so to say that because He didn’t speak out against them He would have no objection is stupid. Guns exist for one reason, to kill someone or something. Do you honestly think Jesus would approve?Why do you always attack me? I disagree with you, but I don’t hate you, I don’t hate anyone. There are those I don’t like or I feel sorry for, but I don’t hate people.
One more thing, Nathan. I don’t believe that Jesus was God, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think he was a great teacher. I’m not a Christian and I never will be. I have my own beliefs and I’m very much at peace with them. I don’t like religion, I think it underlies many of the world’s problems today.
Did I mention anything about guns in particular?
I said “weapons”
Do I think Jesus would approve of guns? Sure.
Once again, you interjected Christianity into this topic for the sole purpose of bad mouthing it or trying to beat Christians over the head.
It seems to me that you have a serious problem discussing much of anything without trying to link it to the hypocrisy of Christians somehow.
“Guns exist for one reason, to kill someone or something. Do you honestly think Jesus would approve?”
Was Jesus a vegetarian or something?
Todd, I don’t know, was he? What does that have to do with carrying a gun?I have to disagree, Nathan. I don’t think Jesus would approve of a Christian carrying an gun or owning an assault rifle.
Damoon
Guns werent invented yet but there were plenty of swords and spears around. The night before Jesus’ death he instructed his desciples to trade their cloaks for swords if they did not have them.
Sorry I can’t cite the book and verse, and I was paraphrasing.
Vice President Dick Cheney carries a “SHOT GUN” and he still can’t hit someone at close range! See we ARE all safe if we carry guns!
Did Jesus carry a sword? I guess if He was alive and among us today, he’d be out hunting with Dick Cheney?
What should we all do if brother Fred Phelps starts carring guns to soliders funerials instead on just carring picket signs? Would Phelps get more followers if he proposed the flock to carry guns to funeral protests? He would probably be a better aim then Cheney! Guns are the backbone of conservatitive thought – don’t mess with us!
Damoon,
Please share with us what it is that makes you think that Jesus would not approve of individual gun ownership?
He allowed his disciples to carry swords didn’t he?
This is almost exactly what I was talking about in a separate thread with Allie. Nations desire security so they keep armies. Individuals desire security so they keep weapons. It is simply human nature to desire security, and that is the reason why people who are pro conceal and carry want this law to be passed.Damoon,Guns are made to kill someone or something. This is true. But if we follow your logic then we shouldn’t let our police officers or soldiers have them either. With what can they defend themselves with? Common police protocol dictates that if an officer is forced to shoot while in a dangerous situation, the officer is trained to shoot an extremity and not the head or the vitals. However, in a life-threatening situation, the officer is well within his legal rights to shoot to kill. So you see, guns aren’t just used to kill but also to incapacitate. There are many an policeman whose lives were saved by theirs or their partner’s sidearm. My father was one of them. However, there were many who weren’t so lucky.
Ks,These are two things so many modern day christians seem to lack, so maybe they need guns to make up for their lack of “jesus” weapons.Hasty Generalization. Not all modern day Christians the world-over have guns. You use the term “many”, but logically, many can only mean more than one but you use it to generalize most if not all modern day Christians into being gun owners. (Sorry, I know this is knit-picky but I am a meticulous logician)Damoon,It’s the hyprocrisy of the “ala cart” Christians, who choose to follow Jesus’s teachings that make them feel good or gives them the “ammunition” to judge or feel superior to others that drives me nuts.Christians acknowledge themselves as sinners, (including me) so any Christian who judges another because he is a sinner is a hypocrite. Also, Nathan is correct. Damoon, you seem to be blaming ALL crimes and deaths that are gun related to Christians. Please explain why you (and Ks) interjected Christianity into this thread?
typo “injected”This whole thread reminds me of an old Pearl Jam song:
got a gun!fact I got two!that’s ok man, cuz I love God!glorified version of a pellet gunglorified version of a pellet gunglorified version of a pellet gunfeels so manly when aaarrrmmed!always keep it loaded..always keep it loaded..
Words: E.Vedder, Pearl Jam from either “Ten” of “Vs.” I forget which one.
I’m an atheist, pro-choice, woman-loving/respecting, don’t-mind-homosexuals type. I happen to know and understand that allowing law abiding citizens to arm themselves against non-law-abiding citizens, and other people of ill-intent, will not create any sort of chaos or hostility that was not already in the process. Criminals carry guns regardless of law, therefore they are the threat, not the people who will jump through hoops and be properly trained and certified. Guns decrease the threat of an attack by making it so the assailant does not know if their intended target would be able fend them off. John Stossel interviewed several prison inmates, and the ONLY deterrent in which they feared was the threat of an armed-citizen. Will there be accidents because of stupid people? probably, but there always will be no matter what the subject. Will the good outweigh the bad? most certainly.
X, Show me where I blame all gun related deaths to gun toting Christians! I just find it weird that SOME Christians are so eager to put themselves in a position where they can kill or maim another person. I brought Christianity up because Nathan is always expressing his Christian beliefs, but yet he’s so eager to carry a gun. It seems like a conflict in ideology. How can you follow Jesus when you’re obviously gunning for someone? To me it’s hypocritcal. I have no problem with police officers or soldiers carrying guns, that’s their job. It’s people like Ian and Nathan carrying guns that I have a problem with. The average citizen who wants to carry a gun has a different agenda than those who are hired and paid to do it.
Folks – lets get realistic and stick to the point (would Jesus carry? Please.).
Damoon – Most “average citizens” won’t carry at all. In the states with CCW, less than 5% of those who could carry actually do. And incidents of wrongful shootings by those persons are almost unknown. The fear that “average citizens” with an “agenda” will cause blood on the street simply doesn’t happen – unless you all believe that Kansans are more bloodthirsty than our fellow citizens in other states. And those average citizens prevent hundreds of crimes, most without firing a shot (and therefore generally unreported). The simple display of a weapon is generally enough to end the confrontation with the cowards that are most criminals. Roughly 15% of CCW holders report using their firearm to deter a crime, but very few actually fire a shot.
CrusaderX – I don’t know where you got your info that:
“common police protocol dictates that if an officer is forced to shoot while in a dangerous situation, the officer is trained to shoot an extremity and not the head or the vitals.”
But you’re dead wrong. As one who has taken a law enforcement firearms training program (and passed – yea!), you should know that officers are trained to shoot to end the threat. That means shooting at center body mass – the torso. It increases the chance of hitting the target and decreases the chance of rounds hitting innocent bystanders. It is the only sensible target.
Should citizens be permitted carry (which I favor) they would be trained to target the same area -center body mass – for the same reasons.
Once again Damoon, you say that you think Christians who would carry guns are hypocrites.
Why?
What scripture do you use to support that?
I have no agenda. I would carry my firearm to protect myself and others.
I have more training using guns then most law enforcement do anyhow.
I am a Marksmanship instructor in the Marines.
The real question is whether the legislators will be able to override a promised veto by Gov. Sebelius, as she vetoed a previous bill two years ago. Either way the Republicans win politically on this one, pushing to the forefront that the Governor is not in step on a number of key issues with a generally conservative state.
Governor Sebelius, a Johnson County Democrat, is only Governor because the Republican party in Kansas circled the wagons and shot their own candidate, Tim Shallenburger. The “moderate” Republicans did not like the primary winner, and basically chose to hang the candidate out to dry. After this exercise in cutting off their nose to spite their face, the party has been engineering their return to the Governor’s mansion for the past four years.
The timing of this renewed passage of the concealed carry bill is part the effort to set the stage for this year’s Gubernatorial election. Maybe the Republicans can manage to avoid staging another “Et tu, Brute?” this time around. Beyond the peevishness and backstabbing of Shallenburger, they betrayed the voters in Kansas who chose that candidate. Such political sins may come back to haunt them. Eating your own is rather bad form after all.
Now a cynical person – i.e., one who observes the political process for any amount of time – might wonder how hard Republicans will try to override the veto on this bill. Having it defeated again supplies even better fodder for this fall’s election.
Sebelius is a Johnson County Democrat? Is that true?
She claims that she lived in Merriam, KS.
Todd, seriously, I didnt live in ks when she was in the legislature, but I thought it was not a joco district she represented. I cant find it on the internet, I guess it is too old! Can you tell me the district she represented in the Ks legislature?
GMC70,I stand corrected.
There is no reference to guns in the bible, Nathan. I guess all the “love your neightbor” stuff and the 10 comandments makes me think that a true Christian wouldn’t willingly put themselves in a situation where they might hurt or kill another human being. Not all of us suffer from concrete thinking, Nathan. Some of us don’t even have to refer to a book to tell us the difference between right and wrong.How many times have you been mugged or robbed, Nathan? I really don’t think your intention is to protect yourself or anyone else. Admit it, carrying a gun just makes you feel more like a man, clear and simple.
GMC70, It’s good to know that average citizens carrying guns will shoot to kill. Wow!! I feel safer already!
Damoon,
Once again, where did I say anything about guns in the Bible?
I know there is not any guns in the Bible. I have said “weapons” several times now.
Either you can back up saying that you think Jesus would disapprove of the carrying of guns or you can’t.
Right now, just like almost everything else you try to say about Christianity, you can’t.
Most of the time I have my gun with me I don’t even think about it. Having a gun on me or with me had become so second nature.
Has nothing to do with my feeling more like a man.
I know several people who have used guns in self defense including my father.
What difference does it make to you if I carry a gun or not?
As far as shooting to kill…
The only time you should ever use a gun is if you intend to kill.
If the situation you are in doesn’t warrant deadly force then why are you using your gun?
I am authorized to carry a loaded weapon by Marine Corps order while I am working. I have been taught when to use deadly force.
Shooting someone is considered deadly force. So, the only time you should be shooting anyone is if it warrants deadly force.
In a life or death situation shooting someone in the foot who is attacking you is not going to work.
Center mass is where you aim.
Laws allowing persons to carry concealed weapons are testosterone driven. A similar issue is often brought up in motorcycle newsgroups on the internet by tough guy Wannabes who ask how to mount their gun on their motorcycle. (always the largest weapon available to the public) I have managed to live my life for 55 years and I have never felt the need to be armed. If I were in a position where I thought I might need a gun I would remove myself from that location ASAP. Those who feel the need to carry a gun with them at all times are simply looking for a reason to shoot someone and avoid being penalized for their actions.
Do you wear a seatbelt scott?
Why?
Again, Nathan, why would you want to put yourself in the position to kill someone? Doesn’t sound very Christianlike to me.I go into the worst neighborhoods you can imagine around Wichita to take care of my patients, I’ve never felt the need to carry a gun, and no one has ever tried to hurt or harass me.
Does anyone but me wonder how strong Nathan’s faith really is? He is so compelled to prove he is the only true interpreter of the bible and all of its verses in context. No other interpretation but Nathan’s is true.
I wonder who he is trying to convince. It sure isnt working on us, so it must be himself. Or maybe he gets a sunday school perfect attendance pin if he trolls for seven consecutive days.
Folks:
Let’s get past the emotion-driven rhetoric and get to reality. If you wish to not carry, then by all means, don’t. I certainly do not wish ill on you, as you go about your business.
But do not deprive me of the ability to protect myself. I hope that I will never have to use said weapon. Most who carry never do. But it is condescending, insulting, and just plain wrong to assume that those who desire to carry do so because “carrying a gun just makes you feel more like a man, clear and simple.” (your words).
I simply believe that1) we should have the ability and right to protect ourselves and our family, legally,2) the general deterent effect has a positive influence on person crime, and3) doing so creates no danger to the public at large; in fact, there is a public service effect.
Those who would carry (legally) do so after training and licensing – that training would by statute include the law on self-defense. Remember- those who ARE a threat are carrying now, and no law will change that.
I believe what I believe based upon reading the research and writing from all sides in this issue, and especially after seeing the results of concealed carry in the approximately 37 states with shall issue licensing.
Damoon, I once stood on this issue where you do now. Kansas is one of only 4 (4!!) states that permit its residents no concealed carry, under any circumstances. Why? Are we less to be trusted that residents of other states? Are we inherently more bloodthirsty? I don’t think so – I don’t think you do either.
I’ve heard no logical argument to the contrary – just a lot of nonsense as to whether Jesus would carry. If you have logical, fact-based argument to the contrary, I’m listening. Good luck. You’ll need it. I suspect that if you did any serious research on the issue, you would conclude that at worst, permitting legal concealed carry under circumstances as in the proposed law does no public harm, and probably does some good.
However, if you just want to rant on about testerone and religion, I’ll find someone with a brain to discuss with.
BTW – to Kelly:I know this is a response WAY down the posting – but read SB418. Iit has exactly the kind of limitations you are concerned about. I agree – one should NEVER carry drunk. And law enforcement should have an “out” for the guy who just shouldn’t be carrying, but “technically” qualifies. Given those caveats, does your position change?
BTW- to:Proudlibksfarmgrrl
You challenged Ray Thomas on his cites. I’ll take that up. See:
http://www.irmi.com/Expert/Articles/2006/Cooper01.aspx
It’s an insurance co. site (sorry – you’ll have to actually read some “insurance crap” – but that’s the way these cases work) listing a long string of cases where homeowners were sued after acting in self-defense. Ray’s not making this up; it happens.
That said, I’m still not sure I favor the “make may day” law. Lets see how it works out in Florida before Kansas jumps in whole hog.
Damoon,
Once again you say that I am being unChristian like by wanting to carry a gun.
What makes you say that?
What Christian teaching or bible verse do you use to say that about my not being Christian like and carrying a gun?
You hate Christianity so much that you will make up anything you can to attack it or Christians.
Why are you so scared of the truth Damoon?
I drive through some of the most car accident prone areas all of the time Damoon and no one ever crashes into me.
I still wear my seatbelt though.
your anti-gun arguements are weak Damoon.
Why don’t you stick to something else like abortion.
GMC70, we are asking Ray Thomas to cite the SPECIFIC case he mentioned. Read the whole thread. Is this SPECIFIC case cited, or made up from bits and pieces of other cases into a horrible composite? We are waiting….
OK, GMC70, now I am really laughing. You all should definately go to his link.
These are all CIVIL cases that have to do with whether or not the insurance companies have to pay a claim. They ARE NOT criminal cases determining if someone should go to jail for shooting someone else in self defense.
Still waiting on the specific case citation for the guy who was found guilty for shooting the guy that was raping his wife.
Could it be that there isnt one for the case cited by Ray?
ksfarmgrrl-
Have you read the page and citations listed therein? Or is this just cheap oneupsmanship on Ray?
I’m not concerned with any one specific case; rather, my point is that the concern he cites is justified by case after case where just that kind of litigation occurred.
As I said, even given that, I’d rather wait and see how “make my day” works out in other states before we jump in. As to concealed carry, on the other hand, we know how it has worked in other states. Given that, there is no reason not to adopt the reasonable proposal, SB418, now before the legislature. The only real hurdle is a knee-jerk response from the governor. I’m still waiting for a rational, logical, fact-based position from the other side. I have found none here so far – perhaps because it’s difficult to construct such a position?
ksfarmgrrl -
OF COURSE THEY ARE CIVIL CASES!!! DUH.
That was exactly the point Ray was making. The law he favors primarily limits CIVIL LIABILITY for self-defense. Self-defense as a defense in criminal actions is already defined by statute and case law.
Duh again. Understand what you read before commenting, please.
You actually bring up a good point ksfarmgrrl.
One of the big points of this law is to protect those who defend themselves from civil action.
Right now if you were to kill someone in self defense you could pretty easily be sued in civil court and takin to the cleaners financially by the surviving family members.
This law not only protects you from criminal actions, but more importantly civil actions.
Here is what Ray Thomas said:
“The man had broken into the home late at night, hit the man with a club and was sexually assaulting his wife when the man came to, grabbed a gun and shot/killed the intruder.”
We are still waiting on that case citation. Dont change the subject gun boy.
The reason I laughed about civil cases is that in these cited cases, self-defense is already a given. The question isnt whether or not the perp acted in self defense.
The question in ALL these cases was, would the INSURANCE COMPANY HAVE TO PAY!! Please!
“The question in ALL these cases was, would the INSURANCE COMPANY HAVE TO PAY!! Please!”
What if you don’t have insurance?
I’ll try to explain it to you . . .
In each case, ksfarmgrrl, it is the insured – a person – who is being sued, after acting in self-defense, by the “victim” of their acts. Exactly the circumstance Ray is writing about.
The insurance company is in because they are the insurers under the defendant’s policy, and therefore may have to take the hit should the plaintiff prevail. It’s called subrogation of claims; your homeowner’s policy likely has such a clause. If you were sued for personal liability, since the plaintiff will claim against your insurance company, the company will come in to defend you, becoming the defacto defendant.
That’s why these are insurance company cases. But the facts are still the same.
I hope I got all those terms right – it’s been a while since I took torts!
Oh, sorry GMC70. Didnt know you were a lawyer. But can you read? Where is the case Ray cited, or is it just a truthy compilation? And yes, you arrogant bastard, I understand insurance payments. And that is what is decided in these cases, payment issues, not whether or not the insured acted properly.
Still waiting on Ray’s “a million little pieces” citation.
I support Concealed Carry for one reason, the police are not going to protect you. They enforce the law. Read the Supreme Court decision on Castle Rock vs Gonzales. The people do not have police protection even with a restraining order. Interesting case but it makes my point.
dear ksfarmgrrl:
(Heavy and frustrating sigh) The fact that the insured was sued at all makes Ray’s point. Being sued is costly, even if you win. Need I explain it again?
Now, as to my geneology: to quote -
“you arrogant bastard”
That’s it, ksfarmgrrl. I have no patience for that sort of crap, nor do I have to tolerate it. Instead, I’ll discuss with those having enough brains to not have to resort to hurling obscenities – the last refuge of the little mind. Your posts? Just skip ahead, folks, you won’t miss anything.
For my part, I thought I’d try to explain why the cases read as they do to those who don’t deal with civil subrogation all the time, because it’s not as obvious as you seem to think it is. I had hoped to shed light, not heat. But it’s clear that you aren’t interested in facts, and that using small words will not be enough.
So – Be off with you. I’ll see if anyone can come up with a rational, fact-based argument against concealed carry. I’m patient. I can wait.
If you talk down to me like an arrogant bastard, I will call you on it.
“(Heavy and frustrating sigh) The fact that the insured was sued at all makes Ray’s point”. (no arrogance here of course)
Hell anyone can sue anybody for anything law boy. You want a law to prevent lawsuits? Sounds like “tort reform” not concealed carry is your concern.
Still waiting on Ray’s case citation, unless you all are ready to concede it doesnt exist.
Oh..and BOOGER!
Wow, you actually get it ksfarmgrrl!
It is about preventing lawsuits against those who defend themselves!
Still no direct answers to my question, Nathan. The only way you know how to respond to me is with aggression and vagueness. Again, I don’t hate Christianity, only the use of it as a weapon, a reason for war, or as a basis to discrimate and supress others. I’ll say it again real slow so you can understand, It…doesn’t…seem…very Christlike…to…deliberately put…yourself…in…a…position….where…you…would…kill…another…human…being.Now what about that statement says I hate Christianity?I can’t imagine being so scared of other people that I would feel the need to carry a gun in order to protect myself from them. What a sad way to go through life.
GMC70, your brains are obviously in your ass.
Damoon,Should we have a military?Please, that’s all I want to know.
X, yes, as long as mankind remains so uncivilized, a military is necessary. But, I don’t believe in war and will never do anything to support it in any way, shape, or form.
No asshole, “in my perfect world” no one would have weapons.
Ian,You and Ahamdinejad should go hunting and “Cheney” each other.ROTFLMAO!!!
What questions did I not answer Damoon?
I already told you I don’t think Jesus is against guns. He allowed his disciples to carry weapons.
“I’ll say it again real slow so you can understand, It…doesn’t…seem…very Christlike…to…deliberately put…yourself…in…a…position….where…you…would…kill…”
Interesting. I don’t put myself nor will I put myself in a posistion where I will deliberately kill anyone per say.
Regardless of my having a gun, I will defend myself or someone else against death or serious bodily harm.
Having a gun allows me to defend myself or others in more situations more easily.
It is not about killing, it is about protection.
I don’t want to kill anyone. I want to defend myself, the ones I love, and anyone else that is innocent.
Does that answer your question?
The nitwits I know that would carry a gun I wouldn’t want defending me, I’d get probably get caught in the crossfire.Thanks for a direct answer, Nathan. I’m glad I don’t live in your world.
Still waiting . . .
Any rational, FACT-based, logical arguments against concealed carry as proposed by the legislature? No? I’m shocked. . .
That’s why the statute should pass, and the governor should sign it, or at least let it become law without her signature. Hopefully, the house will pass with a sufficient majority to override.
G, When you compare the number of gun related deaths in this country compared to those in Europe, Australia, Japan, and others, why should we to encourage more people in this country to carry firearms? Just doesn’t seem like common sense to me. Isn’t that just pouring more fuel on a fire that’s already out of control?
GMC70, I am not even against concealed carry. I am concerned about the “stand your ground non-sense”. Two different issues Einstein.
But what I am really against are the UNFOUNDED LIES and OUTRIGHT FABRICATIONS that some of these posters try to pass off as the truth. Everyone makes mistakes, but when you are caught, you big strong, courageous, gun carrying guys need to admit it!
Why the hell is it so difficult to admit that Ray made up the horrible example he gave? After all his “outrage” at being questioned about his “truthiness”?
Seems like a real stand up American guy would admit a mistake instead of making it worse by denying it. Oh…I forgot, that is a conservative value, see: cheney.
If Ray he was truthful in his post about the case of the man who killed the man who raped his wife, wouldnt someone post that citation immediately? Admit it James Frey, er, Ray Thomas… YA MADE IT UP!!!!!!!!
Acknowledge that point or post the damn case!!!!!
BTW for both you and nathan, there is no such thing as preventing law suits. You can only make it easier to win by passing certain laws. But nazis like you want to take away all rights, including access to the courts.
BOOGER! The trial lawyers are coming to get you!! Bed wetters.
“I’m not concerned with any one specific case; rather, my point is that the concern he cites is justified by case after case where just that kind of litigation occurred.”
Still bullshit GMC70. You are still talking about payment issues, not whether or not the shooter acted justifiably in self-defense.
No facts, just a “truthy combination” of points from different cases. One upmanship? After he was shocked, SHOCKED, I say, that someone questioned his veracity?
Mistakes are made by everyone, but guess what, if you lie in here, you pay. On all sides. Arent you the ones who say punishment deters?
As Alfalfa would say “no more lying, ohtay?”
“I’m still waiting for a rational, logical, fact-based position from the other side. I have found none here so far – perhaps because it’s difficult to construct such a position?”
My personal position is one as a disinterested observer. I have guns and I target shoot and hunt from time to time. So I’m not really against cc and I’m not really for it.
As far as “the fact-based argument” goes, the most recent and reliable studies show that cc has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on crime rates. No doubt the NRA has commissioned studies that show what they want them to, but I’m talking about real studies done by researchers and published in peer-reviewed journals.
Since cc doesn’t reduce crime, one should consider the increased number of accidents carrying guns around will lead to. We are talking about something that’s designed to cause a controlled explosion, like an internal combustion engine, after all.
Also, since more guns are out there floating around, more guns are available to be stolen and end up in the wrong hands. Have you ever left your cell phone somewhere?
So, lacking any evidence of a positive good from cc, except so Nathan can feel like Wyatt Earp, I don’t see any need for it.
Also, Ray and GMC, I’m not going to wade through insurance records to dig for evidence. I have no idea what the circumstances of those cases were. Did the shootings take place in the bedroom? Was the perp a known criminal?
A lot of these cases look like they’re neighbors in arguments or angry business partners.
One would think that if an assulted man shooting his wife’s rapist in his own house successfully sued for “wrongful death” would not be hard to document, given the outrageness of the alleged case.
That you can’t document it clearly makes me doubt that it exists.
Proudlib / Damoon
I note you don’t cite those studies. I’ll cite one I’m sure you will disagree with, and which I’ll admit is controversial. “More Guns, Less Crime” – John Lott. While many may disagree with his research methods, and I’m not qualified as a statistician enough to fully comment on those criticisms (3 kinds of liars, in the words of Mark Twain), his conclusions are clear, and seem to be born out in other studies – some kinds (note the limitation) of crimes tend to do down slightly after passing CC. As always – the most important thing one needs to know about any study is who paid for it. Usually, that will tell you the results.
I would further note that the areas in the US with the tightest gun controls are those with the highest violent crime rates. I am not arguing that there is necessarily a causal relatinship there, just noting the relationship clearly exists. It MAY be coincidence, then again . . .
I would also note the FBI’s own statistics show that violent crime dropped steadily throughout the 90’s, even as CC and gun ownership expanded (ownership expanded primarily due to Clinton, who may have been the best gun salesman ever).
I would also note that citing Canada and the UK may not help your cause, as the result of gun confiscation there seems to be an increase in violent crime; in fact (I should try to find the link) Canada and the UK’s violent crime rate is, for some types of crime, actually slightly higher than the US.
I would also note that comparing the US to many of the countries Damoon lists is the proverbial apples v. oranges. Most of those nations have a long history of weapons control arising out of a feudal history – a history singularly lacking in the US. They frankly traditionally don’t have a lot of guns in their societies. In a perfect world, that may be a good thing (maybe). It may be a good thing to ban all guns (though I would take issue with that as well, for different reasons – a different subject), but the reality is that even if such an outcome was desirable, it is certainly absolutely impossible. Do you really think those who carry illegally now (who are the people you should be worried about) would turn in their weapons? How would you enforce a gun ban – most states have no gun registration (Kansas doesn’t, for example).
Finally, proudlib, even you own position is that passing CC has no impact on crime. If that is so, the parade of horribles so often cited is a smokescreen, based upon no facts – you present none. Show me your numbers on accidental shootings involving concealed carry weapons. I’ll bet you here an now there are practically none. I am confident in saying that because of the experience of the states (a majority of states) who have adopted concealed carry.
Facts, folks.
ksfarmgrrl, you’re being ignored.
Acknowledge that point or post the damn case!!!!!
I forgot to mention the third answer which is dont answer, or ignore.
I am going to take that ignore as an admission that “ray” made up his horrific case. Too much outrage, too little truth. You guys always pick up your toys and cry when you are caught with your hands in the “truthiness” jar.
Right, GMC, that’s the study that started it all.
Unfortunately, John Lott turned out to be a real grandstander who pretended to be other people to laud HIMSELF.
See the new book FREAKONOMICS for the story. Consequent studies to Lott’s are refuting his findings, not supporting them.
“Freakonomics” is where I got the info that more guns doesn’t seem to have any impact whatsoever on crime.
Also the lower crime rates are clearly NOT related to gun ownership.
Out of all the factors the author looked at, the one biggest influence was the SOTU’s support of Roe v Wade. Unwanted children tend to become criminals. Reduce the number of unwanted children, and you vastly reduce crime.
Yup, FrmGrl, it has all the earmarks of an urban legend, doesn’t it. The horrible unfairness of a world gone mad, where the criminals run the insane asylum.
Now if only there were real evidence that it actually happened. Hmmm . . .
Some links to think about.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/files/FailedExperiment.pdf
http://www.minjust.nl:8080/b_organ/wodc/reports/ob187i.htm
http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dmustard/police.pdf
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/~llou/guns.html
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cjusew96.htm
Gotta get to work – have fun reading and thinking. I think these will challenge your thinking!!
Yes, white people NEVER rape and kill each other and minorities. I’m sure the nazi pig blames the Columbine high school massacre on minorities as well. Like I said before, hysteria + paranoia = Ian Santiago.
proudlib
While I heartily agree that unwanted children = more crime, I’m not sure I would buy the other part of your argument; i.e. “Also the lower crime rates are clearly NOT related to gun ownership.” While I would agree that it cannot be absolutely concluded that higher rates of gun possession/ownership does not “cause” lower crime rates (I’m not arguing any sort of direct causal relationship), I would not so quickly conclude that the two factors are entirely unrelated.
On the contrary, I think the experience of other nations, and especially the experience of other states as they expanded CC/gun ownership indicates that there is some relationship there. It is, however, only one (and probably relatively small) part of a very complex picture.
For an individual, of course, it comes down to the ability to defend myself and my family, should the need arise. If you are not inclined or trained and practiced to carry, by all means, don’t!
Further – while I have read of the criticism of Lott’s study, I don’t think it can so quickly be dismissed out of hand. The critics have their agendas as well.
Finally – It is great to exchange ideas with someone who needs not resort to obscenities or inflamatory labels. Thanks.
Thanks for those kind words, GMC.
I’ll grant you that restricting gun ownership hasn’t seemed to reduce crime either, even in England.
Folks -
I’ve been a vocal supporter of SB418 (the concealed carry measure), and continue to be. I’ve also been less than enthusiastic about the “stand your ground” measure. I’m still undecided on it, but thought I’d point something out for us to consider.
The only substantive change the statute makes is to create a legal presumption that a person who forcibly enters a home or occupied vehicle is a threat to an occupant’s safety, and thus force may be used. In the Kansas parlance, the fact that the entry was forcible and unauthorized makes a fear of bodily harm reasonable. The bill also says that a person has no duty to retreat, and may stand his ground, if attacked, in any other place.
While that is an important change, it is less of a change than you might think. Under current law, a person may use force when he reasonably believes he or another is in imminent threat of serious bodily harm. That means that in order to sustain a claim of self-defense, a person mush show 1) they believed, subjectively, that they needed to use deadly force, and 2) such a believe was objectively reasonable in that there are facts supporting that belief.
Here’s the important point to note: current law does NOT include a duty to retreat. In that sense, the proposal (HB 2577)makes no substantive change.
So – the only substantive change is to the presumption of reasonable fear IN your home or car; there is no real change to the law in other circumstances.
If HB2577 has been portrayed as making more sweeping changes (and it seems to have been so portrayed to me), it is, I believe, a misstatement of the law. HB2577 does not create a no retreat law – that already exists.
I’m not sure where that puts me as to supporting the measure. On balance, I would probably oppose it, simply because I believe the current self-defense law is sufficient.
What do you think?
ksfarmgrrl, you don’t count.
GMC70,First off, don’t be badmouthing a sister (ksfarmgrrl, you don’t count). Although why she would have anything to do with your sorry ass anyway, I wouldn’t know. Second, buy a new truck. I wouldn’t be seen in a old beat up 70 truck, unless dead in the back. Third, make up your mind. Either you’re for or against. Wishy-washy bs is hardly going to get much done, now, is it?
Since I dont count, you wont mind me saying BOOOGER!!!!!!!
Damn whiner when proven to be a chickensh*t. I think he is secretly hot for me…
Mother:
I only “badmouth” ksfarmgrrl because she’s made it clear she can’t play nice with others (she’s not the only one with that problem, BTW – just the only one I’ve exchanged posts with). She continues to reinforce that position. I need not tolerate those who hurl obscenities or fling about inflamatory charges. Free speech is fine, but it need not exclude common courtesy. It is entirely possible, and desirable, to disagree without being disagreeable. Disagreement with another over any particular issue is not personal; those I disagree with the most are often my closest friends. What a narrow view of the world if you only tolerate those you agree with. I’ve said what I have to say to her; I’m done.
Second, I’ll take my rather hot ‘70 any day over a new one – looks better, and I can work on it myself. She’s a beaut, BTW.
Third: any thoughts as to the subject at hand? I’ve stated my position, in case you didn’t notice (”On balance, I would probably oppose it [HB2577], simply because I believe the current self-defense law is sufficient.”)Do you have anything substantive to add, or must we simply scroll through more pointless ranting!!?
Cheers.
G, I don’t have the time to address everything you state in your posts, but I know that when New York passed tougher gun control laws, the deaths by guns decreased 40%.It makes no sense to me to add more guns to the pool, we have enough violence and accidents already. My 11 yr old nephew was killed because his friend got hold of his grandfather’s gun, so the issue isn’t always about the increase or decrease in crime. More gun availability, the more accidents and stupidity we’ll see. It’s just human nature.
Ksfrmgrl, you rock!
The problem with the basic premise of packing heat makes you safe is that it only escalates. If you pack, the other guy will find a way to pack hotter. Your .45 will be outgunned by a full-automatic Mac, which will be outclassed by an assault rifle, ad infinitum, until we all carry personal nuclear warheads for our howitzers.Wouldn’t it be easier and safer for everybody, to pack a bit of discretion instead?
Jed -
While hyperbolic comments like this stir up fear, they simply are not born out by the experience of the 37+ states that have adopted statutes like the one proposed. This is simply more fear-mongering. Again, if you are not inclined to carry, or do not have the training to do so, by all means, don’t. But don’t deprive me of the ability to do so.
BTW -the letter writer in today’s letters in the paper on CC is simply wrong; current law does not permit concealed carry in most cases. Current law permits concealed carry only in a person’s home or business.
Damoon – a cite to the numbers from an authorative source? The 40% number is simply so large to be not credible. And the experience of legal concealed carry, again, does not bear out the fear you worry about. We don’t have to imagine what will happen – we can look to state after state that has passed this measure. Remember, Kansas is now distinctly in the minority on this issue.
Note, folks: No nasty labels, no obscenities, just calm debate. It can be done. Paying attention, ksfarmgrrl?
GMC70,A 70 truck is okay, but a 65 chevy impala ss starts my motor running.
At this blog, thick skin is the rule. Those that don’t have it, move on. For all the bad mouthing, hard nose bs flying about, there are some very meaty discussions going on.As for concealed gun laws, I am against them. While guns are great for hunting (I used to hunt pheasant when I was growing up), as a crime deterrent, there is not enough evidence out there that it does any good.
Sure, you read about the odd ball case where it does, but that is a very minor statistic. And I have yet to read of any significant change in the criminal population because of concealed weapons.
And as for accountability, that definitely needs to be in place. “John Wayne” is dead. May he rest in peace.
John Wayne kicks a$$.
Not any more.
I like his westerns. My favorite would be The Comancheros. However, The Quiet Man was also a personal favorite of mine!
Damoon,
How many people in this country are killed by guns each year?
Now compare that to car accidents, hospitol accidents, prescription drug accidents…
And still tell me it is a “fire that’s already out of control”
Give me a break with your hyped up emotional hate towards guns.
Just compare the number of gun related deaths in the US to those of other industrialized nations. Sometimes being “number one” is nothing to be proud of.To say it doesn’t matter because people also die from “car accidents, hospital accidents, and prescription drug accidents”, is stupid. You’ll need to find a better argument than that to convince me we need more John Wayne wannbe morons running around “packing heat”.
Damoon,
Your anti-gun stance is not rational. I can easily kill with a crossbow; would you ban them as well?
V.L.R.B!!
I was not trying to convince you we needed more John wayne wannabes.
I was showing how you are absurd.
There are many factors that play into gun related deaths in other countries compared to our own.
It is not just gun related deaths, it is homicide in general.
We could be talking about many things like serial killers.
Why does america have the most serial killers?
Why does America have some of the most violent crime?
Guns are only a tool in this equation, not the cause.
Keep in mind, that many of the countries you may be using as some glorified example of all that is good in this world probably have many more restrictions on all types of freedom, not just the carrying of firearms.
Studies show that the prevelence of guns is directly related to the number of gun related homicides. The more guns, the more gun related deaths. This isn’t rocket science.
I don’t believe that England is a big abuser of human rights and personal freedom, but in London, a city bigger than New york, gun related homicides are miniscule compared to the number in New York.There are a lot of modern, democratic nations that don’t have the gun violence we do.
Hey Damoon,
Do you know the correlation numbers?
Because there are over 80 million gun owners in this country who own over 300 million guns legally.
So, I am wondering how “direct” that correlation is…
I can’t find the link I looked at yesterday, which contained a graph that showed the positive corelation to gun ownership and gun related deaths. There are many sites that show the same facts. Here’s just one: “Gunning for Attention: Firearm Heath Hazards”, to get some numbers.
Damoon -
to quote -
“Studies show that the prevelence of guns is directly related to the number of gun related homicides. The more guns, the more gun related deaths. This isn’t rocket science.”
BS. That’s as blunt as I can be. Note that through the 90’s, as gun ownership rose, especially handguns, gun deaths from all causes actually dropped. FBI numbers.
Remember Mark Twain – liars, damn lairs, and statisticians. Beware of numbers from an organization (whether the NRA or Handgun Control Inc.) with an agenda. According to the CDC, there are vastly more death from what the CDC characterizes as “medical accidents” than there are accidental gun deaths. The myth of vast numbers of gun deaths is just that – a myth.
Mother – my son’s got a ‘66 SS. 327, all original. Sweet.
Y’all — How bout the “stand your ground” idea? I can easily imagine a circumstance where a person might break into your house where it would be illegal under current law (and immoral) to kill them. Do we really want to change that? I’ think I don’t.
Thoughts?
It seems as if at leats one person in DC has some common sense.
The Stearns Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill
U.S. Rep. Cliff Stearns` (R-Fla.) national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill, H.R. 4547, would allow any person with a valid concealed firearm carrying permit or license, issued by a state, to carry a concealed firearm in any other state, as follows: In states that issue concealed firearm permits, a state`s laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its own borders. In states that do not issue carry permits, a federal “bright-line” standard would permit carrying in places other than police stations; courthouses; public polling places; meetings of state, county, or municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports; and certain other locations. H.R. 4547 would also apply to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. The bill would not create a federal licensing system; it would require the states to recognize each others` carry permits, just as they recognize drivers` licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Rep. Stearns has introduced such legislation since 1995.
Today, 46 states have laws permitting concealed carry, in some circumstances. Thirty-eight states, accounting for two-thirds of the U.S. population, have RTC laws. Thirty-four have “shall issue” permit laws (including Alaska, which also allows carrying without a permit), three have fairly administered “discretionary issue” permit laws, and Vermont allows carrying without a permit. (Eight states have restrictive discretionary issue laws.) Most RTC states have adopted their laws during the last decade.Citizens with carry permits are more law-abiding than the general public. Only 0.02% of more than a half million permits issued by Florida have been revoked because of firearm crimes by permit holders. Similarly low percentages of permits have been revoked in Texas, Virginia, and other RTC states that keep such statistics. RTC is widely supported by law enforcement officials and groups.States with RTC laws have lower violent crime rates. On average, 21% lower total violent crime, 28% lower murder, 43% lower robbery, and 13% lower aggravated assault, compared to the rest of the country. Nine of the 10 states with the lowest violent crime rates are RTC states. (Data: FBI.)Crime declines in states with RTC laws. Since adopting RTC in 1987, Florida`s total violent crime and murder rates have dropped 31% and 52%, respectively. Texas` violent crime and murder rates have dropped 19% and 33%, respectively, since its 1996 RTC law. (Data: FBI.)The right of self-defense is fundamental, and has been recognized in law for centuries. The Declaration of Independence asserts that “life” is among the unalienable rights of all people. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms for “security.”The laws of all states and constitutions of most states recognize the right to use force in self-defense. The Supreme Court has stated that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and is “entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.” (Beard v. U.S., 1895)Congress affirmed the right to guns for “protective purposes” in the Gun Control Act (1968) and Firearm Owners` Protection Act (1986). In 1982, the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution described the right to arms as “a right of the individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms and similar arms.”
Posted: 1/31/2006http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
How do you argue with documented facts, G. Whereever gun ownership is high, so is gun related deaths. Just because YOU say it’s BS, that doesn’t mean it is. Numbers don’t lie, but spin and rhetoric (usually put out by the NRA)can be interpeted many ways. The US has approx. 30,000 gun related deaths per year, far more than any other developed nation. That is directly due to the availability of guns.
Damoon,
You should really distinguish between legally owned weapons and illegal guns!
White, Christian, American and Proud!!
GMC70,If someone were to break into my house, and for one second I felt threatened, I would put nine rounds of 32cal in his head in about 3 seconds. 32 cal is something my hands can handle, I’ve practiced many times with it, and I’m not afraid to use it.
What jury is going to convict me for doing that, law or no law?
Prosecutor: “Why did you feel it took nine bullets to stop him?”
Me: “The first eight didn’t.”
GMC70,I have fonder memories of the ‘65 backseat:-)
C’mon, Damoon -
Numbers lie most of all (liars, damn liars, and statisticians – Mark Twain).
Define “gun-related deaths.” Who compiles the numbers? How are they classified? Are all “gun-related deaths” treated the same? etc. etc. Numbers can say nearly anything the organization or agenda pushing them wants them to say.
Think about it this way: Is the licensed, trained and legal concealed carry owner a threat? Both logic and the numbers say no. Is the unlicensed, illegal carrier of guns a threat? Logically, not always, but certainly much more than the legal carrier.
A better way of comparing across nations (remember, historically, many nations simply have no history and tradition of firearm ownership) is to look at violent crime rates. In that respect, the US compares favorably with most western nations, surprisingly, generally slightly lower than may “less violent” nations. That is an important comparison in this debate because the fact of the matter is that guns in the US will not go away, no matter what law is or is not passed.
Ultimately, it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it. Or to put it another way, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
We simply aren’t going to agree on this one, Damoon. But CCW will come in Kansas; if not this year, perhaps the next, or the next. Sooner or later, it will come. How may innocents must be victims in the meantime?
We appreciate the civility, anyway.
MOTHER -
Imagine this scenario. Bad guy breaks into home, picks up your stereo and TV, and heads out the door, hands full. You wake up, see him trundling across your living room toward the front door, and the .32 opens up (I lean more toward a .357 mag myself, or a 1911 in .45 ACP).
He’s hit in the side and back, and dies. Are you legally liable for his death? Under current law, probably (whether a jury would properly follow the instructions and convict is another matter). One may use deadly force only to protect from bodily harm, not to protect your TV. This bad guy, though certainly a thief, was not an imminent threat you you; after all, you hit him in the back. The thief’s family may well sue you for wrongful death, even if a jury acqujits you criminally. It’s conceivable that they could win – it’s happened before.
However, under the proposed law, you have no legal liability either civilly or criminally (note that first one; yes, it is in that respect a “tort reform” bill. If he is forceably in your home without authority, it is legally presumed reasonable to use force. Is that a good change? What if he’s injured, and simply desperate to use a phone?
Note the law makes no substantive change outside your home.
I’m not convinced that this is a good change, though I can understand why others may disagree. Thoughts, all?
Damoon,
Subtract suicides from that number of yours and what is left?
It is completely dishonest for you to ignore all the factors involved in this just so you can blame guns.
Guns are a tool. What is the actual problem? Guns are not it.
Obsession with guns in an expression of an immature, testosterone-driven individual. There is definitely a gender-related connection. Although there are a number of women concerned with possessing guns, these women are fundamentally driven by fear, not macho impulses. If anyone should have ownership of guns, it should be women who are afraid of the gun-toting male. My solution to male gun-lovers is to have them castrated. In due time, they might take up poetry and stop relating their guns to their penis. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with keeping deadly toys in the home. The intention behind that right was to provide protection against tyranny, not to provide for reckless gun ownership. Many children die every year because some gun-loving jackass leaves his “penis” lying around. I say cut those little penises off at their base. A gun in the home is like a pet cobra. You can’t count on it to only bite intruders. The NRA treats guns as if they were citizens of the country, with rights to do as they please. I say boil them all in hot acid and be done with this most despicable feature of human nature. The mentality of the people who belong to this organization is very troubling. I say that they represent a genetic subset of the human population that has been the cause of most of the evil in this world. It is the hallmark of what is wrong with the human male.
I think you’d have a hard time doing that… then again, threats like that, are what makes more of us want to keep guns!
Women should be the only ones able to own/carry guns? So, now we’re equating prejudice with gun-ownership? Maybe you better pay attention, because there are women out there committing crimes.. Including using knives and other TOOLs, to attack men and women..
I own a gun, I carry a gun daily… I’ve not shot anyone.I know several people who carry guns, legally, that have not shot anyone..
Carrying a gun is different then putting yourself in a position where you can kill someone… I can do that, by simply walking into a kitchen of a party, then grabbing a butcher knife!
Chubby farm girl,
How many times do you propose I allow my wife and child to be raped and assauled before I take up arms against the intruder? I’m a former athlete, large, and, I’m told, bear an intimidating presence, but am also disabled, due to serious back injuries.
What do you suggest I do? Offer the assailant a glass of iced tea and a slice of pie? Cry, write my congressman, and see if he/she responds before the police do?
As for your comments on Timothy McVeigh and BTK, I don’t recall Mr. McVeigh being issued any permits to construct, transport, detonate, or posess a destructive device or explosives. I’m not 100% sure, but don’t recall BTK using a gun to murder anyone.