As the question of whether Kansas will get a concealed-carry law this spring comes closer to being settled — likely yes, even if the governor tries again to veto it — lawmakers have been wrestling with where such lawful heat-packing should be possible. When members of a House committee debated last week whether to allow permit holders to carry handguns into churches, two quotes pretty much summed things up.
Rep. Judy Loganbill, D-Wichita, said: “To me, that’s just so blatantly offensive, I can’t see straight.”
Rep. Judy Morrison, R-Shawnee, opined: “As far as I’m concerned, there’s always a place for a gun if you’re responsible.”
In the end, the committee designated churches and temples as gun-free zones. But like all things under the dome, that is subject to change.
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
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
163 Comments
I’ll bet Terry Fox and Joe Wright are breathing a sigh of relief.
There is this wonderful thing called opting out. Just allow those churches, which do not wish to allow concealed carry to post signs.
You don’t have to legislate anything at all.
It is just an attempt to try and prohibit every single place they can to make concealed carry as inconvenient as possible.
Judy Loganbill is as liberal as they come. She doesn’t even support concealed carry. Of course she is going to try and fight to keep it out of every single building and/or location possible.
Well the “opting out” option should be interesting. It’s usually the policy of major corporations that guns cannot be on the corporation’s property – period. That includes in the parking lot. In essence, individuals will have to leave their guns at home to go to work at these places. That will leave them “defenseless” for most of the working day and evening.
Right now, that type of corporate policy is disregarded during hunting season. I’m willing to bet many cars and trucks have weapons of some sort in them then in violation of corporate policy.
And I’m willing to bet that the same will be true for those people who want to carry. They will disregard whatever private prohibitions there might be on carrying.
I’m sure that at some point some employee will be caught carrying and fired. That should lead to some interesting judicial wrangling.
We’ve all seen from the recent behavior of Dick Cheney that guns shoot people in the face, vice-presidents do.
Do you think having a lot more guns out there floating around is going to cause more Dick Cheney type accidents? Are CCers NEVER going to drink and start showing off their glocks? NEVER going to leave it where a child might find it?
The answer depends on whether you see normal reality or “redneck” Rush Limbaugh bizzaro-world reality–where guns are good, Walmart is a damn fine organization to work for, and the rich deserve welfare because they pay so much in taxes.
“guns don’t shoot people” You know the cliche
I was a patrol sergeant with a Police department in a small town in Oklahoma. When I started attending a church there I approached the Pastor and explained that I was on call 24/7 and must be armed and asked if that would be a problem with him. He insisted that I did carrying, this was about two weeks after someone had went nuts and killed several people at a church in another state. As to Joe Wright’s church I have never been there, Terry Fox has Police officers working security.
As to having firearms in the car at work, a couple of years ago again in Oklahoma a company was sold and the new owners sent a memo with in the company stating that firearms were not allow on company property. The following day several employee were fired when a company rep toured the parking lot and found shotguns and rifles in several employees trucks. There had been no waiting period or warning as the memo went only to management and not the rank and file. It is still in the court system and has the NRA and gun right opponents squiring off on either side.
You have a right not to have a firearm in your home or business , at to someone ignoring a policy of no firearms allow in here. I am sure that too will be in the law and would mean you loss the permit to carrying.
Is it highly ironic that we have the need for metal detectors at all government buildings, aiports, and in many schools, yet we’re willing to pass a law that allows people to carry guns? Or have I just not had enough caffeine to think straight yet?
Where guns are more available, there are more gun related deaths. Just the facts.
RD
You’re just not thin king straight. We can get rid of all the security at airports, for example, if we just hand out pistols to all passengers boarding planes and then collect them at the end of the flight.
No one is going to cause any trouble with a cabin full of armed people. :-))
“Where guns are more available, there are more gun related deaths. Just the facts.”
Damoon, That’s a little misleading. If you compare the US (guns readily available) to someplace like Brittian (you can’t own a handgun), of course there are more gun related deaths. It’s also true that where cars are more readily available, there are more auto related deaths.But this is about concealed-carry. I’m not aware of any facts that show concealed-carry increases gun related deaths. It works just fine in 46 other states. Why would it be any different in Kansas?
Almost every single argument the anti-gun crown has is an emotional based “what if” type argument based on little more than there extreme distaste for guns in general.
Damoon talks about the increase in gun deaths when guns are more available. Well, when you take into account over 80 million people who legally own more than 300 million guns to the mere 10,000 gun homicides or accidents in this country the argument doesn’t look so good anymore.
Then if you ask yourself if it was the mere availability of a gun that caused those deaths you would see that many of them were illegally obtained guns anyhow and if no gun was there those murders and crimes of passion would most likely have just been commited with some other weapon.
The problem is not guns. The problem is people. We are a violent country. If you compare our violence to any other industrialized nation it is much higher. The problem is much more in the society and our culture not the mere fact that we have more guns.
Of course the nonsensical liberal approach to the problem is to want to take away 80 million people’s guns when they are not the ones doing the wrong.
Of course the nonsensical liberals don’t pay much attention to how guns also help save people and prevent death and serious harm.
So if guns make everyone safer why is the first place that guns are prohibted in the new bill the capital building, what are the legislature afraid of. Goverment offices, courts,hospitals,schools aren’t going to allow gun either. The largest employers in the state Boeing and Walmart wont let their employees carry guns and neither will most other employers.
What worries me is that most of the folks so gung ho to carry around a gun are probably folks who really have no business doing so.
They like to kick around the phrase, “An armed society is a polite society” thus each prson carrying around a gun becomes judge jury and maybe executioner of what is polite! Cut em off in traffic? BLAM! Protest a political figure that they happen to like BOOM!
Heh! Maybe they just wanna play the Marshall from Gunsmoke! We should go back to the lawlessness of the Old West.
“Beyond Chicago there is no law, beyond Wichita, no god!!!”
Look it up, in the United States, there are more gun related deaths in areas where there is easier access to guns. The CDC is a good place to start to find out the statistics.You’re wrong, Nathan. Guns are not the problem, people are not the problem, it’s PEOPLE WITH GUNS that are the problem.
Damoon,
You are misrepresenting the facts and you should make the distinction between crimes committed with illegal as opposed to illegal firearms!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Damoon,
Here are some FACTS for you:
“…CONCLUSION
This article began with the proposition that both pro- and anti- gun positions on the utility of guns against crime had been arrived at by faith in the period before the existence of credible empirical evidence on the issues. Having examined the evidence that has become available in the last decade it must be concluded that parts of each faith have been sustained:
As to actual defensive handgun uses, the evidence from surveys both of civilians and of felons is that they are much more frequent than has previously been realized. It may tentatively be concluded that handguns are used as or more often to prevent the commission of crimes than by felons attempting them. This should not be understood as suggesting that the decision to resist a felon can be made lightly or that their handguns automatically insulate resisters from injury. The unique defensive value of a handgun is not the only cause for comparatively low rates of injury among gun-armed resisters; as or more important is the wisdom not to resist in circumstances in which this is unlikely to succeed.
As to the gun lobby’s vaunted deterrent effect of gun ownership the evidence is even more equivocal. In general (though not without equivocation) it does support the common sense intuition that the average criminal has no more desire to face an armed citizen than the average citizen has to face an armed criminal. Widespread defensive gun ownership benefits society as a whole by deterring burglars into making efforts to avoid occupied premises; and by deterring from confrontation offenses altogether an unknown proportion of criminals who might otherwise be attracted by the immediate profitability of robbery into committing at least a few of them. Even when criminals are not so deterred, widespread gun ownership may frighten them into reducing the overall number of such offenses they commit; and it does frighten them into abandoning some specific offenses — particularly in areas where special local programs have dramatized the likelihood of victim arms possession. Yet it must also be noted that the possibility that gun ownership reduces the activity level of confrontation offenders is only an unsubstantiated speculation; gun lobby propaganda has exaggerated the deterrent effect of gun ownership by not discounting for displacement effects that represent no net gain in overall crime reduction.
Finally some caveats may be offered on the limited import of the evidence I have reviewed for issues of firearms regulation: clearly this evidence disposes of the claim thathandguns are so lacking in social utility that courts should, in effect, ban their sale to the general public under the doctrine of liability without fault. This evidence likewise cuts strongly against severe statutory restrictions based on the belief that handgun ownership offers few social benefits to offset the harms associated with it. But even if strict liability for guns were factually supportable, it is very evident that the courts are unwilling to accept it as a matter of law. [136] Moreover, even if handguns offered no benefits whatever, neither does banning them — except as part of a policy of outlawing and confiscating guns of all kinds. [137]“http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Kates/crime-deterrent.html
Viva La Raza Blanco!!—–
Nathan–I’m going to have to start using your nickname again if you keep this up–
“Almost every single argument the anti-gun crowd has is an emotional based “what if” type argument based on little more than their extreme distaste for guns in general.”
WRONG!
I have plenty of guns, I grew up with guns, my daughter pesters me to take her trap shooting every time she comes home (she shoots a Benelli 20 gauge, nicer than what I got, heh).
But what you’re talking about is encouraging people not just to use guns for sport and target shooting (which is fine, absolutely fine), but to be packing heat in normal everyday situations.
This just doesn’t sound good on its face. You don’t have to be a “hysterical liberal” or “gun hater” to dislike this idea.
Generally, the loudest voices in opposition are law enforcement agencies . . .
Hey JR,I am an ex-felon and I carry because there is a lot of crime in Wichita
Isn’t it against Federal Law for an ex-felon to possess a firearm, much less conceal and carry?
Ron is the latest persona of some troll.
Or is it “Rom”?
PL,
Glahad was much more fun; is he going to make a comeback?
V.L.R.B!!
Rom,Yeah, Riiight. I think you’re full of shit.
Concealed carry wouldn’t be such an issue if the law (police) really protected anybody. But as the saying goes, there’s never a cop around when you need one. That being the case, I’d like to be able to protect myself.
“Heh! Maybe they just wanna play the Marshall from Gunsmoke! We should go back to the lawlessness of the Old West.”
Point of fact, there were more people killed in Wichita by guns in 1978. Then killed by guns in Wichita in 1878 the last year is was legal to carrying within the city limits.
I have absolutely no interest in carrying a gun. I’d just as soon not be forced to so in order to protect myself from large numbers of other people carrying guns. And if this legislation passes we will have large numbers of people carrying guns. That is where the “self defense” arguement fails. As thing stand, I am unlikely to be confronted by someone with a gun. I can lock my doors and avoid dangerous locations late at night. This will not be the case if concealed carry passes.
JR,
When I was living back East I once had a crackhead break into my home and draw down on me with a snub nosed .38. I was lucky that I managed to pull the trigger on my semi-auto shotgun first!
My experience is not unusual and every year in this country there are, on average, some half a million instances of citizens stopping crimes in progress with legally registered firearms! In most cases, the cowardly, criminal scum are scared off by the mere brandishing of a gun by a law abiding citizen. give me a gun in MY hand over some cops on the line any time!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
Nice story if it is true Ian. Do you mean to say that you actually employed deadly force and killed someone? I’m not calling you a liar but if that story is true you should provide proof.
I have a bit of a different story. I have no proof but it is true.
Some years ago, I got home late at night. Knowing the trash would be collected the next day, I decided to take out my trash. It was not the best area of town but not a war zone either. (Intersting side note here. It was less than a 100 yards from the duplex where Denis Rader killed Nancy Fox……but that was more than a decade earlier) In any case, I tripped on something and rattled the dumpster. As I rose and turned around I found I was facing a very large black man with a very large gun ……pointed at me.
Long story short, he thought I was a prowler. I was not messing with his windows or doors. He just heard a noise and got scared maybe something gave him a reason to be but it wasn’t to do with me. I do not know who was more scared, him or me. The incident left both of us very shaken.
I could have died that night because of nothing more than a mistake.
So if your story is meant to explain your position Ian I guess I understand. I hope my story explains my position.
Vive la differance
“A new survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police asks members: “Do you agree that a national concealed handgun permit would reduce rates of violent crime as recent studies in some states have already reflected?” 65.7 percent of members say “Yes”. There are other interesting questions in the survey. Two-thirds oppose one-gun-a-month rules. Over half think that the rules allowing pilots to carry concealed handguns are too restrictive.”http://timlambert.org/2004/06/concealcarrysurvey/
“Ten years ago this month, a controversial “concealed- carry” law went into effect in the state of Florida. In a sharp break from the conventional wisdom of the time, that law allowed adult citizens to carry concealed firearms in public. Many people feared the law would quickly lead to disaster. Blood would literally be running in the streets as citizens shot at one another over everything from fender benders to impolite behavior. Now, 10 years later, it is safe to say that those dire predictions were completely unfounded. Indeed, the debate over concealed-carry laws now centers on the extent to which those laws can actually reduce the crime rate.”http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html
“Jeanne Bennett says she used to be opposed to the usage of firearms, that was until she became a victim several times over and now supports such a measure. “Over the course of 20 years, a rape, two break-ins into my car, a stolen car, and one attempted break-in into my home, changed me a little,” she said in testimony.”http://www.packing.org/news/articleview/84/
” Others argue that concealed weapons won’t deter crime. However, studies have found that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who do not resist.”http://www.ncpa.org/oped/sterling/mar899.html
If I were a woman, I’d be screaming at the top of my lungs for Right to Carry.
Jr.
If concealed carry passes are you no longer able to lock your door or avoid dangerous locations?
Well no Nathan those personal protections would not be denied me.
But what I would face is the knowledge that the person next to me in line at the grocery store might be armed. The person in traffic with me might be armed. The person who disagrees with me at a baseball game might be armed. The person who disagrees with me politically might be armed.
And I would be forced against my better intentions to be armed as well. And I would of necessity be just as prepared to dispense lethal force against someone I saw as a threat.
This nation already sports the highest rate of gun death on the planet. Shall we try to improve on that? And if so, would that be improvement in your way of thinking …..or mine?
Yes Vern It is against the law.I will take my chances for self protection. My felony was haveing a petty with a prior at 19 years old.I am 60 now, havent had so much as a speeding ticket in all those years.Yes and my name is Rom and my brothers is Ron and no friends..I am not a troll.ThanksRon
JR,
Do you ever leave the state of Kansas?
I am wondering since we are one of only 4 states which have no concealed carry.
Once again… the only argument against it is irrational fear and emotion.
Since guns licenses might happen, its reasonable that individuals who don’t pay traffic tickets or fines by any form of government outstanding, should have their gun licenses suspended.
Any time drunk driving or drug offense is proved guilty, the gun license should be suspended or taken away.
People who commit crimes that are misdemeanors, could be vandalism, threats on the telephone or road rage, sets fires,has problems going through a divorce should have their gun licenses suspended, retricted or taken away. People not paying child support should have their gun license suspended.
At any time the gun license has to be available when asked. Unlike many people fail to have their drivers license or an identity card.
A lot of rules and policing of gun licenses that won’t be done. That’s why its a bad idea.
Regardless of guns in society, many are fools with their life and have little responsibilty to even carry one, clean it often, or retrict its access to other people and children. Drunks and drug users with guns in their pockets legal or not, society is in danger.
I’m sad our politicans are corrupt today about guns. We need less guns in society than more access to them.
Politicians voting for gun licenses should be recalled. I don’t fear society enough to carry a gun but a lot of people do. I’m not going to inject myself into a gun drama during some public shootout.
Businesses, churches, government offices and my cars or home are not places for any individual to carry a gun.
If I buy a gun license, its outside of my personality completely, its only to protect myself from supposed gun lovers. It won’t be because of criminals. Somewhere on the gun I’ll get script, NRA SUCKS.
Brittain banned guns for all practical purposes. Their violent crime rate soared. Australia banned guns for all practical purposes. Their violent crime rate soared, the rate of violent assault rose 45 % the year after the ban took place. Canada has been headed in the same direction. Guess what folks, Brittain and Canada (not sure about Australia) have a higher violent crime rate than the good old gun crazy USA. Our murder rate is higher but Brittain is closing the gap.
I highly recommend GunFacts 4.0 to anyone interested in gun and crime stats. The author is pro-gun but he cites all of his sources, all of them credible. He illustrates the deception used by the anti-gunners. http://www.gunfacts.info/
Mrage…
Once again, nothing more than your own irrational fear of guns to be against concealed carry.
Everything is irrational about carrying a gun Nathan.
The legislators won’t do paperwork on the gun licenses everyday occurences. Person has a gun ,say they have a license to carry but no drivers license. What’s police do with that person? Take their gun until a valid license is offered, seems reasonable to me. That’s why a license should be carried, along with the gun. Not some piece of paper left in a desk drawer at home.
Bigger societies in the world with millions of more people don’t have many guns in the street and gun deaths reported.
Guns can be bought, home protection. Business protection. But carrying the loaded gun around I can’t ever agree with.
I’m trying to create places where the public will gather and let it be known, security won’t allow guns in any business I’m creating. When you purchase a ticket for entrance, its where rules of my business take preference over gun license laws.
Do you understand its not understandable to shoot someone at a sporting event. Fights and assualts happen sometimes in the stands, but gunfire should never occur in a big crowd.
Politicians won’t help pay for those security procedures either.
Well Heckler and Nathan the facts do not bare you out.
There are more deaths do to guns in the US BY FAR than in any other civilized nation.
Crime? The US has more people in prison per capita than any other civilized nation.
Um…
What are you talking about? Concealed carry is allowed in every state except 4 and I have yet to hear about people getting shot in the stands at sporting events.
Last I checked, almost every concealed carry law does not trump private proerty or business rights to deny it on their property.
you are talking about things the law already takes into account for.
JR,
What are you doing with those facts? I am not denying that more people die in this country from deaths where guns were used.
What do those facts have to do with concealed carry?
More availability of guns equals more gun deaths.
So your argument is that concealed carry = more availability and that = more gun deaths?
If that is the case then why don’t the statistics show that in all the other 46 states which have concealed carry?
I do not have those statistics. Do you?
Heckler, thanks for the excellent link. I bookmarked it.
Mrage, I’m not aware of any state that allows concealed carry that doesn’t require you to have your permit on your person when you’re carrying a firearm.
JR, how could guns be anymore available than they are now?
Right now, the only people who carry guns concealed in Kansas are criminals. That doesn’t make me comfortable. I’d like to see better odds.
JR, Nathan,The study by John Lott and David Mustard seems to be the major study of concealed carry statistics. It’s the one everybody refers to or tries to discredit. Check it out on google.
“Contrary to the findings of a widely quoted study by University of Maryland researchers who picked only three cities in Florida and one city each in Mississippi and Oregon, Lott and Mustard used data from all three thousand counties in the United States between 1977 and 1992. Concealed handgun laws, it turns out, reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent, and severe assault by 7 percent. The Lott-Mustard statistical models are sophisticated and account for many differences among counties, including arrest rates.
According to Lott and Mustard, there would have been 1600 fewer murders, 4200 hundred fewer rapes, and 60,000 fewer severe assaults if the same state laws to license law- abiding handgun carriers had prevailed throughout the country in 1992. The deterrent effect of concealed handgun laws turns out to be highest in counties with high crime rates. Despite a relatively small number of women with concealed handgun permits, the deterrent impact on rape is comparable to that of other violent crimes.”
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9404
Right now, on another blog, a poster has said “if I ever get the chance I would put a bullet in your brain” in reply to another poster with whom he disagreed.
I will not name the poster or the blog. Passions run high and my hope is that that post is removed soon.
I am sorry in fact to even make use of this. But it is very ilustrative as to what we are talking about here.
One person in disagreement with another but separated by the anonymity and distance that this forum provides expresses a desire to use a gun to kill the person he disagrees with.
What if that exchange were in person and one or both individuals were armed?
An individual applying for a concealed carry permit must pass a background check, as well as a certificate of training. Individuals expressing a desire to “put a bullet in a brain” would normally have a history of violence and be denied a permit.
Another point is that a person making some stupid remark in a blog, and actually carrying it out is remote. True, better safe than sorry, but I doubt we have anything to worry about on that regard: The idiot made his intention, however stupid it was, clear. Threatening another persons life is against the law. He could be arrested and tried.
Due diligence requires that one review all of the available peer reviewed literature on a subject. That being said, one should consider other papers on the subject besides the one of Lott and Mustard.
In the journal, American Economic Review, a paper by Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Paul H. Rubin entitled “Lives Saved or Lives Lost? The Effects of Concealed-Handgun Laws on Crime” appeared questioning the methodology of Lott and Mustard. For example:
“We believe Lott and Mustard’s findings are suspect, mainly because of the way they parameterize and measure the effect of permissive handgun laws on crime. They model the effect as a shift in the intercept of the linear crime equation they estimate at the county level….”
If you read this little blurb and don’t understand what the linear crime equation is or the model Lott and Mustard used to “shift” the intercept of this equation, then you really have no justification in citing this paper’s finding as supportive of concealed gun carry laws. I don’t claim to understand it either because I haven’t read the article, but I DO understand that it contains a model, assumptions, and an analysis based on these two. Other authors and other papers make different assumptions, arrive at different models, and different conclusions.
One must make a disinterested, thorough review of the available data and literature before jumping to any conclusions, and to cite one paper as the definitive one is nonsense. That’s part of the problem with legislation and discussion today…”partisans” find what they want, and then use those data and statistics as though they were gospel. Heaven help us.
Here’s another reference…by Dan A. Black, Daniel S. Nagin in The Journal of Legal Studies entitled “Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter Violent Crime?”
“Jorn R. Lott and David B. Mustard conclude that right to carry laws deter violent crime. Our reanalysis of Lott and Mustard’s data provides no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime. We document that their results are highly sensitive to small changes in their model and sample….”
One More…
” Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data” by Ludwig in the International Review of law and Economics
“Unfortunately, there is currently little empirical evidence on the relationship between shall-issue laws and crime. A recent study by John Lott and David Mustard analyzes county level panel data for 1977 through 1992 and finds evidence that shall-issue handgun laws are negatively correlated with crime rates, including homicide. … Their study appears to suffer from model specification problems that will bias their estimates, a point which receives empirical support from Black and Nagin’s reanalysis of the Lott and Mustard data…
…My results suggest that shall-issue laws have resulted, if anything, in an increase in adult homicide rates.”
The issue is far from a no-brainer and settled science.
If the availability of guns and freedom of people to carry them has no bearing on the gun related deaths in this country, then why do other developed countries have such a lower incidence of gun related deaths?Is there any evidence that conceal and carry drives down that statistic? Is a community really safer and “more polite” if we have conceal and carry? Just look at the personalities of the people on this blog who are strong advocates for the right to conceal and carry….doesn’t make me feel any safer.
So if guns make people safer, why not allow concealed carry in churches and in the legislature?
Still no good answers to that question. Given the recent murder in a church, dont you think parishoners could have stopped the guy if they had carried guns?
And if anyone has reason to be afraid, it should be our lawmakers. Why are they not allowed to protect themselves on the capital grounds?
No one answered Brian’s question about ditching air marshals and airport security and just issuing guns to all passengers. By the pro-gun arguments here, that seems reasonable to me!
I own a number of guns, all shotguns. I have never had a need for a handgun. Why not just pray that your god keeps you safe? LOLOL
Just google “church shooting” to see how many people could have been saved if they were allowed to pack in church!
When you bring a gun to an argument, it’s the gun that wins, and the people that lose! That’s why gun laws were enacted in the first place. When are we going to realize that the wild west wasn’t a bit like the movies!
Yes, let’s make it illegal to carry a gun into a church. That will prevent anyone from doing it.
LOL
Folks -
Same BS, different posting location. “The sky will fall” if CCW passes.
Facts – 46 states permit some form of concealed carry, 37 of them are “shall issue” states. Nebraska is about to make it 47. Are those states more dangerous? NO. The sky has not fallen. The fears of shootouts at traffic accidents, etc. (one poster punctuating his screed with “BLAM”), simply haven’t happened. We don’t have to imagine the results of CCW – look at the vast majority of the US that has it. The sky will not fall. Blood will not run in the streets.
Kelly Johnston’s editorial a week or so ago was full of this crap; and included outright lies and misinformation about the bill currently proposed. Among others: Johnston stated that the AG would have no discretion in issuing permits. That is not entirely true, if you’ve read the statute (SB418 – I highly advise you all to actually READ it -it’s obvious that many haven’t). Though his discretion is quite limited, he does have some.
JR – the guy in the grocery line, etc., who is the licensed CCW holder poses no threat to you at all, unless you intend to attack him. But there are folks out there who are, or may be, threats to you. They are carrying now, illegally. Don’t kid yourself. You pass people every day who carry, many illegally. they may well be a a threat. But there is NO evidence the licensed CCW holder is a threat, and a great deal of evidence that he is not. We know, for example, that CCW holders are several times less likely to commit crimes at all, especially violent crimes (Kelly Johnston’s lying screed, aforementioned, notwithstanding).
And BTW, law enforcement does not oppose this measure; on the contrary, most officers (I speak with them daily) favor SB418. That is consistent with the position of law enforcement nationwide. See the Nation Association of Chiefs of Police cite above.
I’ve said before, and I’ll say again: I have yet to see a coherent, rational, fact-based argument against CCW that would hold water. Nothing I’ve read here changes my mind.
Any thoughts on “no retreat?” I noted on a previous post that the law really is no change in law at all.
Peace. And If you’re gonna carry:1) carry nothing smaller than .380, nor anything larger than .45 ACP,
2) get trained, and practice regularly,
3) understand when you may, and may not, use deadly force.
I maintain; anyone who desperately wants to carry a gun around legally or illeglally, probably is not a person who should be doing so.
I gave one example earlier. Here is another.
Years ago some friends and I took a road trip. One friend was I guess what you would call a gun enthusiast. He wanted to bring his gun. (His reasoning was that we might be attacked by some posse comitatus group? or some such thing.) As we were using my vehicle, I said no.
Midway though the trip, I discovered that he had hidden his gun (a rifle) in the trunk of my car!
Now I don’t know what the laws are about taking a gun across state lines or such as that. But the fact that this person was so…..afraid? paranoid? crazy? that he would hide a gun in my vehicle against my wishes left a lasting impression.
JR -
“Maintaining” that something is so does not make it so.
I’ll be blunt. If the law permits it, I will carry. Most of my fellow citizens will not; if the experience of other states is consistent, less than 5% of those who could carry will. In my opinion, if one cares about his life and family, it is only prudent to do so; certainly, given my profession, I believe it is prudent to do so. It’s the boy scout thing: be prepared. Don’t assume all will go well, history tells us it may not. I will in all likelihood never have to draw the weapon; I hope not. But it’s far better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
Certainly, CCW is an enormous responsibility. But all of us undertake enormous, and yes, life-endangering undertakings daily. We drive cars, certainly weapons, and the vast majority do so responsibly.
If you are not comfortable carrying, then by all means don’t. But don’t bar my ability to protect myself and my family; I, and millions like me (yes, millions, in 46 states) have proven again and again that licensed CCW holders are not a threat to their fellow citizens.
Again: I have yet to hear a rational, fact-based argument against legal CCW that holds water. Still waiting . . .
Well Gee GMC
I provided you with references to other studies which, at a minimum, call into question the findings of the most cited paper on the positive effects of CCW. At best these papers say the effect is ambivalent, at worst they say it increases gun violence.
You seem to be of the opinion that because there aren’t gunfights on the streets a la Gunsmoke that everything is just fine. If you refuse to do the work of reading and digesting ALL of the available information on the subject, then your opinion is kinda worthless.
I admit that I don’t have enough information to make a rational judgement on the matter, but I plan to better inform myself…maybe you should do the same.
Brian . . .
I have. But I will not get into a smartass contest with the likes of you.
My opinion is based upon reading the available studies (admittedly mixed), my experience in dealing with law enforcement (daily), and my own experience and common sense, something apparantly in short supply here.
I say mixed with a caviat. While it is not clear at all that CCW has the positive effects that proponents claim, it is certainly clear that it does NOT have the negative results feared.
I still have yet to hear that coherant, rational, fact-based opposition that holds water . . .
GMC,
Back atcha. You obviously don’t want to hear, read, or discuss anything that contradicts the oipinion you already hold.
So, ask yourself this, if it turned out that there were even 1 more hadgun related death that was statistically relevant, i.e. outside the bounds of the sample population variance and all other statistical measures, would you still be for CCW? If you answer “yes”, then you prove that the statistics don’t matter a whit to you.
I don’t know…..
This “be prepared” stuff GMC……with you folks who are so gung ho for carry, I ususally get the impression that you are less concerned with facing a worst case scenario……and maybe in fact hoping for it. Just an impression.
Brian:
There’s three kinds of liars:Liars, damn liars, and statisticians.
I’ve read Lott’s work, the critics of Lott’s work, and the responses to the criticism. Frankly, Lott’s work made more sense than the critics. The critics have an agenda. Frankly, any statistician can make the numbers say anything they like – just fiddle with the numbers (figures lie, liars figure). But Lott’s numbers are hard to deny, because they are so broad, dealing with the entire country over such a long period. And, frankly, they comport with what common sense would expect.
Let’s put it this way. The places in the US with the strictest handgun controls are also the most handgun violent. Those with the least restrictive controls tend to be the least violent. Now, I’m not arguing that one necessarily causes the other; on the contrary, there are far more complicated factors involved. But I have little doubt that it plays a part.
I’ll tell you what my research and commons sense tells me:
I know that CCW holders are far less likely to commit all crimes, and especially crimes of gun violence, than non CCW holders.I know that crimes committed by holders with their carry weapons are almost unknown.I know that the person who goes down to the sheriff’s office, supplies his picture, prints, goes through a background check, takes a qualifying course to carry, etc. is NOT a threat to a single soul – except the criminal who threatens him or his family.I know that I have an inherent, “natural” right to defend myself and my family. We don’t talk much about “natural” rights these days, but the Founders understood the concept well.I know that I am capable of carrying safely, and properly making the decision, should it come to that, to use deadly force. I hope I never have to.I know that ultimately, I must rely on myself and my family for my safety in those tense moments – law enforcement will take time to arrive, and I will welcome their assistance when they do, but I cannot wait; those moments may mean the difference between life and death for my family. That is why my wife and boys are all gun-trained, and the guns are loaded (an unloaded handgun is a paperweight).
Here’s the bottom line. Kansas, if not this year, then next, or the next, will join the rest of the nation and adopt a reasonable CCW law. It will happen. The people have spoken, now, three times. It has passed the legislature, counting this year, three times. It simply has to get past a knee-jerk governor. When that time comes, I will be prepared.
In the meantime, I will continue to train myself and my family in the use of the weapons, and exercise our own common sense to defend ourselves should it be necessary.
And your ilk would deny me that?
JR -
I have a fire extinguisher near my fireplace. I have smoke alarms in my house, and emergency equipment (ropes, blankets, water, matches, a decent knife, ect.) available. I keep a flashlight by my bedside, with good batteries. I’ll bet you do much the same. You should. Common sense. We all do.
What’s the difference?
Sigh…
So, you’re admitting, GMC, that you’ve discounted to a greater or lesser degree all of the relevant research because you don’t believe the statistical analysis. That means, in essence, you must dismiss Lott and Mustard too since their analysis is just as statistical as the studies questioning them. In that case, you “agree” with Lott because you want to agree with Lott, not because you have accepted the science (you already said you dismiss it).
BTW, these are peer reviewed journals, so while I agree you can mask things with statistics, the papers are themselves being reviewed by qualified people.
When you give up being a disinterested party who weighs things on the basis of evidence presented and go only on “gut feel”, then you have given up any hope of formulating rational opinions or policies.
You do not say how old your kids are. An unloaded gun may be a paperweight. A loaded gun in a house with children is a tragedy waiting to happen.
I think some people just get some sort of weird surge out of carrying around a gun.Do you carry around a first aid kit or a fire extinguisher?
“People not paying child support should have their gun license suspended.”
Mrage
Yes these are evil people who need their minumum wages garnished, need there tax returns taken, their drivers licenses taken, hunting permits taken,credit report marked so as to keep them from buying items with credit, breech their 13th and 14 amendment rights, word your way around the rights given by the Kansas Bill of rights number 16, yes let us resurect a new sneeky SLAVERY for these bastards, give them no choice pay the sate back its expended funds or they will take everything including your freedom FOR A DEBT ( DEBTERS PRISON )
Sorry but that sh..t irritates me just bit.
Sorry,
The kid is your responsibility and the child in all likelihood needs the money more than you do… what enforcement measures would you suggest to get a delinquent parent to cough up the money legally, ethically, and morally owed to the rearing of that child?
The US rate of firearm homicide is 19 times higher than 35 other developed countries. Acording to the CDC, children in the US are 6 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and 9 times more likely to die in gun related accidents.The studies from RELIABLE sources (John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and the CDC) shows that wherever access to guns is easier, there are more gun related deaths.In homes with handguns, the homicide of a household member is 3 times more likely to occur than homes without guns.The risk of suicide is 5 times higher in homes with guns than homes without.Family assaults involving guns are 12 times more likely to result in death than family assaults that do not involve guns.Laws making it easier to conceal and carry weapons HAVE NOT reduced homicide rates and may very well contribute to the increase in homicides. The idea that conceal and carry laws reduce crime is based on flawed research (sorry Nathan and GMC70). If I’m going to trust any research, it will be the studies done by the CDC and John Hopkins.Adding more firepower to our culture and allowing the ban on assault weapons to expire (thank you NRA and George W Bush!) is not going to make our country a safer place to live, if you think it does, then you’re living in your John Wayne fantasy world, not in reality.
I do think that there are a certain number of people that get a ‘charge’ out of carrying weapons. However, what you have to take into consideration is the fact that these same impulsive people rarely have the patience to go about actually doing something. The wording of the bill prescribes an approved training course in addition to the licensure. Simply being 21 years of age with no criminal record is not sufficient. The simple deterrent of having to actually attend a class will be a limiting factor; those who have taken hunter safety, NRA pistol classes, and the like (people who can reasonably be expected to carry a firearm safely) should have no problem with this. The person who will be deterred is the guy who says “Hey, we have concealed carry, I oughtta go get me a gun” just because he can.
And as to the comment that one would have to get a gun to protect themselves from LEGALLY armed citizens– if you only knew how many people around you were ILLEGALLY carrying weapons (I see it all the time) I think you’d want the gun to protect yourself from the criminal, not the law abider. I really don’t see CCW holders as a threat to my safety. One may even save your life someday.
Like it or not, guns are here to stay in this country. Some of you act like GMC70 is some kind of nut, but he gives some pretty balanced and reasonable arguments in favor of CCW. I happen to agree with him.
Statistically, Lott and Mustard present a pretty through study. You can pick it to pieces if you like, but it’s still the broadest study on the subject. If, as some of you propose, CCW has caused more death and mayhem, why is it not being repealed in states where it’s legal? Do you really think citizens would stand still for a law whose result was wholesale carnage in the streets? Why are we not seeing repeal efforts? Could it be that CCW isn’t the license to kill that some of you think it is?
CCW is going to pass sooner or later. When it does, I’ll get a permit.
If you don’t agree with CCW, don’t carry.
Great post Damoon and good sources!
Well XXX, it seems that most of the folks who want to carry are ……of a different politics from me. Also I often find their particular take on politics and other matters…..irrational.
So, lots of people who are irrational and dislike me is not a group I would like to see better armed.
Great post Damoon and good sources!
Well XXX, it seems that most of the folks who want to carry are ……of a different politics from me. Also I often find their particular take on politics and other matters…..irrational.
So, lots of people who are irrational and dislike me is not a group I would like to see better armed.
Brian:”When you give up being a disinterested party who weighs things on the basis of evidence presented and go only on ‘gut feel’, then you have given up any hope of formulating rational opinions or policies.”
This is a brilliant statement. It applies not only to the current thread, but it additionally lays out the primary necessity for the impeachment of GW “no rational policies” Bush.
Damn Jr, since you said it twice, I feel twice as bad, lol! You’re right, we’re NOT the same politics exactly, but I can live with your politics a lot easier than the alternative.
I guess you’ll just have to accept me as an armed redneck Liberal.
CCW- I’m not looking for trouble, I don’t want trouble, but if it finds me, it’ll wish it hadn’t.
DarwinsDisciple,
Thank you very much. I’m glad liked the comment and I appreciate your taking the time to post.
BTW, Belated Happy Darwin’d Day. Have you heard of the song “The 12 Days of Darwin?” On the first day of Darwin my true love gave to me….
XXX,The best that can be said is that the jury is still out on the effects of CCW. Lott and Mustard’s results have been shown to have some serious deficiencies. That doesn’t necessarily mean that their conclusions are in error, but it does mean that more study and more dialog on the subject are needed.
Just because something is ordained to happen because of the popular will doesn’t mean that that something is correct, legal, or perhaps even legitimate even if it is legal. And the fact that the something is put into effect does not necessarily “prove” the validity of any study used to support the something.
It would be nice if, on occasion, we recognized that “the will of the people” on any given issue doesn’t make that issue right or legitimate. And it would also be nice if, on occasion, people would admit that public policy decisions are often made without sound evidence. Just because the end results may be neutral or even positive doesn’t mean that the reasoning was sound to begin with.
That’s the issue here…apparently it’s hard to distinguish if CCW has had any effect one way or the other. That being said, the decision has been made in many states to allow CCW rather than wait for definitive evidence. So a public policy has been based on something other than proof…nothing new here. But let’s at least rcognize that this is the case.
Brian,No, but I will look it up. Thanks.
“I’m not looking for trouble, I don’t want trouble, but if it finds me, it’ll wish it hadn’t”.
It’s precisely THAT attitude that scares me about people carrying guns. I just hope that I or someone I love doesn’t get caught in the crossfire when some old man carrying a gun tries to become the hero he’s always fatasized about being.The research is still underway regarding conceal and carry, it will be interesting in a few years to see what the results bear out.
XXX, the study by Lott and Mustard has been totally discredited by serious researchers. You can’t believe everything you read on a pro-gun web site.
Damoon
Please explain to me who discredited Lott and Mustards research. Explain to me it’s faults, if you can. You need to stop reading that crap from places like the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Bunch.
I’m hoping it passes, being one of the few states that doesn’t have a CCW law makes us a magnet for loons like Dennis Rader. Even if it passes I won’t go get a permit I don’t have the time to practice.
To all who like to denigrate those of us who wish to have the means to protect our life and the life of our family when in public I have some recommended reading.
“A Nation of Cowards”
http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
Then go look in the mirror.
Damoon
“In homes with handguns, the homicide of a household member is 3 times more likely to occur than homes without guns.”
WRONG Damoon.
This research was discredited years ago.
A study claiming “guns more likely to kill you than help you” is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by one’s own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years. Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long:Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the “home gun homicide victims [in Kellerman's study] were killed using guns not kept in the victim’s home.” In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed “by intruders who brought their own guns to the victim’s household.”In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victim’s “high-risk life-styles [such as criminal associations] that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group.”
Brian
I’ve not read one credible study that shows an increase in crime because of Concealed Carry legislation. Perhaps you can point it out to me.
WOW based on the folks posting for conceal carry here I guess I gotta be for it and get me a gun too!
If sanctimonious selfrighteous fearmongers are gonna be armed I wanna be able to shoot back.
Heckler,
I can’t. And if you’re honest with yourself you can’t point to any credible study showing a decrease in crime because of CCW. Hence the dilemma…opinions are held and decisions are being made on the basis of each individual’s “pet” theory for the moment.
I have been a victim of violent crime twice and testified in front of thr House Federal and State affairs committee on 3/2/06. Don’t listen to all of this partisan “bull”. Although many people may disagree, some people need to carry due to their jobs or other circumstances. Lots of judges, attorneys, correction officers and law enforcement officer’s who quit and especially women would carry in a minute if they could. Some already do. Remember the old saying, rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I think its a good bill, not perfect, but a step in the right direction. Steve Dryden
Brian
The studies by Lott and Kleck mirror the trend found in a government study commissioned by the Clinton Administration. They vary considerably in magnitude but not in direction.
The people who discount the benefits of Concealed Carry keep forgetting the most important thing. It’s not about crime stats, it’s about the most basic of human rights, The Right to Life. It means little without the means to defend it.
Heckler,
That’s right..and that means life in toto…the law that increases the chances of everyone surviving. So, if your carrying a gun helps you but puts the rest of society at risk..you can see where I’m going.
You must also consider the statistics on “gunfights”. I believe that in the average shootout, 3 rounds are fired. That doesn’t leave much room for success or failure based on your skill with a gun. In fact, the strategy advocated by many safety experts is to carry a small amount of money in one pocket..maybe like a fifty on the outside and some ones…You show the criminal the money you toss it one way and you run the other yelling “FIRE”. Survival rates with this scenario are over 95%….and being alive afterwards is the ultimate goal, isn’t it?? Fifty bucks seems a small price to pay.
I’d also like to make the following observation. I go to one of the gun ranges in the Wichita area on a pretty regular basis. I’m pretty handy with my Hammerli Trailblazer. There are quite a variety of people who shoot, as I’m sure you’re aware. But there is always a contingent, not small by any means, who are at the range armed to the teeth…holster weapon, second pistol on the ankle, some type of hidden knife, brass knuckles..the whole shebang. They claim that it is for defense against an assault. An assault by whom, the 101st Airborne? These guys are obviously either just enchanted with the image of being 007 or they really, truly, are looking for an encounter.
Brian
You need to look at the crime stats for Brittain and Australia before they banned guns. Now look at their crime stats. Murder by all weapon classes is up, violent assault rates are up, burglaries in homes where the resident is home are up significantly. FEWER GUNS did not make crime go down, it emboldend the criminals.
Many people cant run, elderly, disabled, I’d have a hard time running away toting my 3 and 5 year olds. I could go on but a society that runs from criminals enables criminals. A society that disables the law abiding enables the criminal. It has been the same throughout history but some people don’t seem to learn from the past.
I’ve seen the Rambo types as well and I understand why they make you nervous, but your jitters do nothing for me if my life is in danger from a violent criminal.
There are people in this state who’s lives are in danger on a daily basis. You need to hear Steve Drydens story. I have my own story but Steve’s will alter your hairs current condition of straightness or curliness. Oppenents of CCW offer only running away or trusting the odds to keep people safe.
Heckler,
Some people do have a legitimate need to carry. However, if your argument is that a geriatric who can’t run OR a young adult with children! is going to pull out a piece and use it to advantage, then I think you’re sadly mistaken.
With regard to crime statistics in Britain and Australia, there’s a flip side to that coin. America is an armed society but has higher crime rates yet. Go figure.
Heckler,
On a more hokey note, I’d like to remind you of a Kung Fu episode. In it, a young Caine (maybe 20) asks a master martial artist in his temple how best to deal with someone who confronts you. The master martial artist said, “There is a preferred method….Run away!”
Now this doesn’t mean squat, except when you remember that Bruce Lee, quite the martial artist himself, thought up the series, and used his own knowledge of martial arts and the history of Kung Fu to try to make true and often paradoxical points. Here are a bunch of deadly monks who prefer to run away so that everyone comes out alive rather than risking a confrontation..where lives might be lost.
I guess I don’t put fifty bucks above the life of the criminal.
JR -I quote:
“You do not say how old your kids are. An unloaded gun may be a paperweight. A loaded gun in a house with children is a tragedy waiting to happen.”
Agreed. Mine are 16, 19, and 22. All have been to the range. All know how to handle, load, unload and clear, and fire all the weapons. If you live in a household with firearms (entirely a personal choice, of course) then those in that household should be properly trained. You don’t hand the car keys to a kid without training; don’t have guns around without the same. If my kids were small, I’d keep them differently (but still available and loaded).
again, I quote:”I think some people just get some sort of weird surge out of carrying around a gun.Do you carry around a first aid kit or a fire extinguisher?”
As to the first – a “wierd surge?” No, but a sense of being prepared for what may come my way.
As to the latter, as a matter of fact, yes, I do carry first aid in my vehicles; and a fire extinguisher in the boat and camper. Common sense. You should do the same. I’ve also been trained as a CERT volunteer in basic search, rescue, and first aid. Again, common sense.
Common sense tells us to prepare for the worst, and work and pray for the best. As an earlier poster put it (and for a reason I cannot fathom, was derided for doing so):
“I’m not looking for trouble, I don’t want trouble, but if it finds me, it’ll wish it hadn’t.”
Exactly. The idiot who derided such a sentiment is a sheep. That’s his right. But that CCW carrier may same his life someday.
Law enforcement carries a weapon to protect innocent life. Me? Same reason. Ridicule that.
Brian
Brittains per capita rate of violent assault is higher than ours. Canada’s is as well,not sure about Australia. Our murder rate is higher than Brittains but they are catching us.
The point is they banned all guns except, under special circumstances, thinking that crime would go down. Just the opposite happened and in dramatic immediate fashion.
Heckler,
“..thinking that crime would go down. Just the opposite happened…”
Kinda tells you something about the nonlinearity of the problem and the potential feedbacks, huh? So I’d say that given that linear reasoning didn’t work in the one case, it’s probably not going to work in the other.
How about some focused, non-partisan research? How about trying to actually DO an experiment rather than looking at crime stats.?
Brian:
Just how would you propose setting up such an experiment? And who would you propose be the likely victims in your crime study? How would you set up a control?
Think about what you just said, sir. There can be no “experiments” here.
Experience is the only teacher we have on this one, and experience comes down on the side of CCW.
Brian
The study done by the Clinton administration was supposed to be non-partisan, but they didnt like what they found so they tried to bury it. Doing non-partisan research on gun control is like doing non-partisan research on abortion, it can’t be done.
The National Academie of Science tried.http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/
They had a mountain of research and they came away saying they didnt have enough data to come to a conclusion. It’s my opinion that they didnt like what they saw.
If you want to run away that’s fine, in some situations that’s the best option. But I’d like to have another option.
GMC…
Of course there can be experiments. For example, Lott and Mustard used data taken at the county level, but the data that was taken was never designed to be used as Lott and Mustard did. Now, looking back on what they did, what they had to assume, etc., we could easily redesign what data are recorded, the manner in which it is reported (like electronically), and on and on.
Heckler,I looked at the reference you supplied..obviously I haven’t bought the book, but how are its conclusions any different from what has already been said above. For example, from the text of the NAP book
“We conclude that, in light of (a) the sensitivity of the empirical results to seemingly minor changes in model specification, (b) a lack of robustness of the results to the inclusion of more recent years of data (during which there are many more law changes than in the earlier period), and (c) the imprecision of some results, it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact of these laws.”
AND
The committee found that answers to some of the most pressing questions cannot be addressed with existing data and research methods, however well designed. For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.
Brian
If it’s data you want let me suggest some very relevent data. Some states with CCW track violent crimes commited by permit holders. Compare the crime rate among permit holders to the crime rate among the general population. Compare it to the crime rate among law enforcemant officers. It’s quite the eye opener.
Getting a permit in Kansas will be a bit of a pain, it will cost a fair amount of money, and it puts you under a microscope. The people who end up with permits are above average in education, income, and voter registration. The most dependable folks you’ll find in any given community.
Brian
Sorry, I meant to also include a link to this dissent by one member of the panel.
http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/269.html
They did not do a balanced analysis of the various studies.
Brian
Please read this. It won’t change your mind but you will better understand my viewpoint and that of many CCW proponents.
“A Nation of Cowards”
http://www.rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
Brian:
You can do statistical studies out the proverbial yin/yang; but it’s obvious from the postings here that we all know that statistical studies are not worth the paper they are printed on. Even if valid, they can and will be attacked by those with an agenda (liar, damn liars and statisticians) or they are compiled with an agenda in the first place. Comparing statistics is nearly worthless.
You suggested “an experiment.” (I checked the quote.) That requires controlled settings, with an experimental group to compare to a control group with all other factors equal or accounted for, and then repeatable. Just how do you propose to do such a thing? Who shall we make the control &/or experimental group?
The fact of the matter is, such scientific experimentation might be possible inside the confines of a laboratory. But we are talking real people here, not lab rats. In the real world. With real concerns. And potentially really getting shot. Again, just how do you set up such an experiment?
Back to the real world. Experience tells us of the results. 46 states do it, 37 as shall issue states (Nebraska is about to join those ranks – yes, Kansas is behind Nebraska, where the N on the helmet stands for “knowledge”). And the experience of those states tells us that the fears expressed here are nothing more than fearmongering rhetoric. More shootings!! The sky will fall!! Dogs and cats living together!! BLAM! (as one poster put it).
BULLSHIT.
It hasn’t happened. Again, and again, and again, it hasn’t happened. That means, at the very least, passing CCW will not lead to more shootings and more violence. The nature of those who get the permits makes that apparant. It may (may!) lead to lower crime rates for some types of person crimes, though as we all note the jury is still out on that one.
Given that, once again, can you give me a fact-based, coherent argument that holds water why the State should continue to deny me and my fellow citizens who are trained and qualified the ability to defend myself and my family – and perhaps you, under some circumstances?
Remember – it is the state denying the law-abiding citizen something that the citizen would otherwise be able to do. If the powers that be are going to deny my right to do something, liberty demands that there be a damn good reason – a “compelling state interest,” in constitutional legalese. The burden of proof, it appears to me, lies with those who would deny that right.
And it hasn’t been met. Not even close.
UMMM, GMC,
Read the quotes from above and the NAP site Heckler listed. There is NO PROOF one way or the other that CCW has or has not resulted in more criminal activity.
Hence your assertions are unfounded. Laws are to be fact based..part of the Constitution BTW. Hence, in the absence of facts (or at least accepted facts), there is no reason to allow a law on the books.
GMC70
Most excellent.
Brian, Brian, Brian . . . (sigh) . . .
And I quote:”Laws are to be fact based..part of the Constitution BTW.”
Really? Would you care to cite Article, Section, Paragraph? I’ve read it. All of it. Several (at least 24) times over. I know it well.
It’s not there.
While you’re at it, note the 2nd amendment. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you have difficulty understanding?
Now – I’ll say right now that I don’t think CCW turns on a 2nd Amend. issue; the constitution guarantees individuals the right to own weapons, to “keep and bear arms,” in the constitutional language, but that does not mean there is a constitutional right to carry.
However, a basic premise of liberty (granted, also not in the constitution, but rather part of the “natural rights” philosophy so familiar to the Founders as refered to in the Declaration) is that individuals are free to do as they choose unless there is a compelling reason to bar them doing so. That’s why we make laws- there is a compelling reason to bar people stealing others’ stuff, for example (Frankly, there a large body of nanny laws out there that I believe should not be on the books. Another subject . . .). Given the experience of CCW in other states, is there a compelling reason to deny Kansans the ability to defend themselves? Those of you who would deny a liberty carry the burden to demonstrate a compelling interest in denying that liberty.
Opponents of CCW simply have not met that burden.
Y’all:
Today:House voted to pass SB418, 90-33. Solidly veto-proof, assuming the votes stay together.
Senate voted to concur, for final passage, 30-10. Again, solidly veto-proof, unless some senators decide to waffle.
Those of you favoring CCW: now’s the time to light up the e-mail server to the governor, and to write your legislator to hold firm in the face of the possible veto.
And for the governor:It’s inevitable, governor. You could have got on board, and gotten an even better bill than this one. It could have been more restrictive on qualifying, and required more training, and still had the support those of us who favor CCW. I would prefer fewer victim rich zones, but I can live with this bill.
But you didn’t. Now you will get the bill you didn’t want, and it will probably have the votes to override. Way to go, governor.
Veto it. Go ahead. Make my day.
Well, GMC,
You may have read the words to the Constitution, but you haven’t apparently assimilated them.
The United States Constitution requires that laws be fact–based. A non–fact–based law violates due process. Why? Due process includes the notion that, only facts will be presented in court, not myth, not speculation. You might want to read a version with annotated text next time.
Brian: Sigh. Again. I’ll try to talk slow.
“The United States Constitution requires that laws be fact–based. A non–fact–based law violates due process. Why? Due process includes the notion that, only facts will be presented in court, not myth, not speculation. You might want to read a version with annotated text next time.”
The constitution requires no such thing.
Please. Where did you get your law degree? Mine’s from KU. My Masters in history/political science is from Pitt State. I’ve TAUGHT the constitution and its history, for goodness sake.
Due process generally refers to the procedure that government must go through before one may be deprived of “life, liberty, or property.” It has nothing to do with the laws that are passed, rather, it has to do with procedures – the steps which must be taken. Or, in the example, I think you’re trying to cite, that “facts” must be shown before a person may be convicted of a crime. If the subject here was a criminal prosecution, I’d agree with you. It’s not.
There is a “substantive” due process component as well, a rather controversial one in academic circles, regarding the essential fairness of laws in that the laws themselves must be fair not only as written but as applied. Generally, that issue has arrisen regarding the equal treatment of persons under the law. That’s not really at issue here, however.
Whether CCW is a good or bad law does not impact due process issues, either procedurally or substantively. That’s a policy question, one the courts refer to as a “political question” and should defer to the judgement of the legislature (though Kansas courts have been walking across that judicial activist line far too much as of late; see Montoy v. State, a clear case of judicial legislating if there ever was one).
Try again.
There is more misinformation as to what the constitution says, or doesn’t say, or means, or doesn’t mean, than perhaps anything else in this country. Most americans can’t even name the five essential freedoms enshrined in the 1st amendment, let alone understand concepts such as “due process.” Hell, even law professors and appellate judges disagree (a lot!) on these issues. And an annotated constitution is simply not enough to understand.
So don’t feel bad. I’d advise you to take great care asserting the constitution protects this or that.
What I love about all the statics people have provided here on the dangers of firearms is what is ignored. Everyone who wants guns banned because they are dangerous and should not be permitted needs to take a serious look at the automobile. Check the CDC figures for KS and you will find that far more deaths are related to automobiles than firearms.
So if you are really serious about public safety you need to start with the big dangers and move on down. Outlaw cars first, then you will eventually get to guns. However they are not really interested in making life safer. I’m not sure what they are really interested in, but it’s sure not safety.
GMC, yes, another good try, but it falls short…
Yes, what you state about due process and litigation is true. However, think a little bit further about what you’ve said. Take religion, for example. The idea that a law could exist which exempts a person from legal actions against him for cases where the person was told by God to commit an action are inherently unenforceable and unconstitutional. A legislature may indeed pass such a law, but it most certainly would be struck down in a state court, an appeals court, or in the Supreme Court. Hence, “due process” includes the notion that the premise of the law is both enforceable and that proof satisfactory to a disinterested observer can be produced.
OneShot,
The automobile argument is really not pertinent. We’re not speaking about a ban on weapons. We’re speaking about whether there is any proof that CCW leads to a reduction in crime.
And GMC,
Consider your response carefully in light of the Court’s rulings…
For example:
Justice Harlan, dissenting in Poe v. Ullman, 65 observed that one view of due process, ”ably and insistently argued . . . , sought to limit the provision to a guarantee of procedural fairness.” But, he continued, due process ”in the consistent view of this Court has ever been a broader concept . . . . Were due process merely a procedural safeguard it would fail to reach those situations where the deprivation of life, liberty or property was accomplished by legislation which by operating in the future could, given even the fairest possible procedure in application to individuals, nevertheless destroy the enjoyment of all three. . . . Thus the guaranties of due process, though having their roots in Magna Carta’s ‘per legem terrae’ and considered as procedural safeguards ‘against executive usurpation and tyranny,’ have in this country ‘become bulwarks also against arbitrary legislation.”’
And one more for ya,
Standing by itself, the phrase ”due process” would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that ”due process of law” would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. ”It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress free to make any process ‘due process of law’ by its mere will.”
Brian:
Again, your law degree is from where?
You’re off base. First, what does this have to do with concealed carry?
Two: in fact, religious belief does, in some circumstances, exempt a person from some legal obligations. The consciencious objector in military service, for example. Or the use of wine in a communion service served to a minor.
And the books are full of unenforcable laws, many of which are routinely ignored. Neither the constitution, nor the courts, nor the legislature require a law to be good or bad; that’s a policy decision, properly left to the political process (I have a list of stupid laws, if you like). Due process merely requires that it be fairly applied, and the procedural steps are taken in passing or enforcing it.
In the case of the subject at hand: Is CCW properly procedurally passed? Yes, passed by both houses of the legislature, signed by the governor (maybe), or if vetoed, a veto overridden by both houses (again, maybe; that remains to be seen).
Is it fairly applied? Yes; qualify under the statute, and you will be granted a permit, absent some unusual disqualifying circumstances. If a permit is denied, you may appeal that denial via court and the usual appeal procedures.
Due process problems? Not at all.
Brian, you’re 0 for 3. Quit constitutional law while you’re behind.
Heckler, The research I quoted was from John Hopkins and The Center for Disease Control. They’re credible sources for research and statistics. They’re the ones who discredited Lott and Mustard’s research. I’ll trust them to be truthful and accurate. You can continue getting your info from the NRA and other pro gun websites and stay woefully uninformed by their propaganda if you want, I don’t give a rat’s ass.
GMC
Sorry, you’ll need to argue with Justice Harlan and his minions past and present from the court. The interpretations are clear.
With regard to the communion/ conscientious objector counterargument you raise, that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I raised. I said, if you’ll refer to the post, that in the specific instance that a legislature passes a law exempting from prosecution or from punishment anyone who has heard the voice of God telling him to commit the act…I’m sure even you can see the distinction.
What does this all have to do with CCW? You’re the one claiming that that there is incontrovertible evidence establishing a reduction in crime in states that have CCW. It’s clear that no such evidence exists. Therefore the passage of any CCW legislation would not be based on any fact or reasonable extrapolation of fact…It then devolved into a discussion of why facts are important in the passage of legislation and in legal proceedings.
I don’t deny that the KS legislaturte can and probably will get CCW through. The point of all the crap on this blog has been stated ad nauseum: there is NO PROOF that such a law will have any noticeable effect on crime statistics. Therefore, its passage is not based on any fact or extrapolation of fact. Its passage will be based on other considerations, but certainly not on evidence establishing a clear benefit to society. In light of the fact that no evidence exists to establish the utility of these laws, I suggested the collection of more data in a more rigorous and scientific manner. In the absence of such evidence, I stated that it is my opinion that CCW laws cannot be shown to serve any purpose.
I also provided a method that has been shown to be 95+% effective in preventing a gun related death or injury..that being “run away”. So if the law passes you’ll be free to carry, but that is certainly no guarantee that you’ll survive any encounter you might have. Personally, I’ll take the 95+% option for surviving.
And that’s my last word on the subject since I think you’ll agree we’re just spinning our wheels.
Heck, England is catching up to the US for gun related homicides? LOL, I don’t think so!!!!!
Runaway, Brian? Why would any “manly man” do that rather than go out in a blaze of glory with his penis intact!?!?!
I will freely admit that I am outgunned on this forum. I am not as versed in law or links as either Brian or GMC.
I’ve already weighed in as to my opiion, and Brian bolstered it. Again I maintain that those gung ho for concealed carry are looking for a chance to draw and fire.And I might just be the one to give them that chance.
The gun debate is pretty defined as to political orientation.
I also referred earlier as to the gun advocate arguement that “an armed society is a polite society” and I voiced my concerns as to just what would be considered by any particular armed person as “polite”
So I will ask a question.I would appreciate an honest answer. I have pre-conceptions. It is your job to convince me I’m wrong.
GMC, Heckler? If I burned an American flag in your presence, ( I might) could you keep your gun concealed?
If I protested at a funeral ( I would never do this) could you hold your fire?
If I expressed my most unexpurgated opinion of any particular politician could you keep it in the holster. Further, could you refrain from informing me that you are armed in an effort to intimidate me into shutting up?
Finally, when I live in a state where I am in the political minority in an increasingly polar politically divided nation; can you convince me that I should not be just as afraid of you as I would any common thug? Do I need to be armed for my own safety against you?
JR -
That’s silly beyond description. Of course, of course, of course, of course. You could well do all those things, some of which I disagree with, and you wouldn’t even know I was armed.
Attempt to physically assault me or my family, you may have another answer; but I’ll take you at your word that such is not your interest or nature.
Your fears are entirely unfounded; that kind of political violence is historically almost (almost) unknown in this country, even in times far more politically divided than now. I know that you fear a polarized polity, but frankly, on a historical basis, political divides are fairly moderate today, both by our standards and certainly by world standards. We may disagree, even vehemently, but we disagree mostly on the edges of political debate. The most important things, the center of our political/social culture, the vast, overwhelming majority of us agree on.
To put it shortly, we disagree on the details. That’s why I cringe when I hear, sometimes on these pages, anyone refered to as “nazi” or “fascist” or “communist/stalinist.” No one anywhere near the electable mainstream of american politics fits those labels.
So, JR, relax. I am supremely confident that those of us who will carry will debate with you, disagree with you, vote opposite from you, and shake your hand and buy you a beer after it is over.
And Brian, I know you think you know what you’re talking about with the due process “facts” line. You don’t. Come back after a competent constitutional law course, or perhaps after completing your law degree. Then we’ll talk.
Well you offer assurances GMC. But your somewhat condescending response to me “That is silly beyond description” as well as your dismissive and somewhat arrogant response to Brian who has been taking you on all day leaves me unconvinced.
I am reminded of the rabble bused in mob of bush supporters who stormed the Florida vote recounts and shut them down. Good thing for those folks I was not there. I might have engaged in impolite action. But then of course, they might have been armed. But then maybe I should have been there and armed.
JR
I wasn’t trying to be condescending, the point I was trying to make was that your fears are entirely unfounded. There is nothing in any state that has CCW (the vast majority) to suggest that anything like that has happened. Nor is our political landscape as seriously divided, by historical or world standards, as we often fear it is. But frankly, I’m not responsible for your fears; they are your own burden. You multiply them by buying into the “Bush stole Florida” urban legend.
As to arrogance with Brian, when he takes on a subject I know so intimately, and gets it so wrong, well, I can only tolerate idiocy so long. I’m more than happy to admit when I don’t know something, or I’m wrong. Brian continues to tout statistics to “prove” what he admits ultimately cannot be “proven” by statistics. He proposes instead scientific “experiments” to “prove” his position, but offers no details as to just how he proposes to set such an experiment up nor who he proposes to make the pidgeons in the shooting gallery. He then trots out a pseudo-constitutional due process argument to “prove” that a state can only pass “good” laws based on “facts” – a silly position if there ever was one. Tell that to the Kansas legislature that made engaging in hypnotic performance a crime (just repealed last year, BTW – finally).
If attempting to correct ignorance is arrogance, OK, maybe I’m guilty. As I said, I have a JD from KU, a Masters in history/political science from Pitt State. I know of what I speak in the arena Brian stepped into. Brian apparantly culled a few notes from an annotated constitution (somewhere!) and jumped to some unfounded conclusions. He continued to cling to those conclusions like a liferaft in mid ocean. Ultimately, I’m not responsible for Brian’s ignorance or insecurities either.
In any case, CCW will be here as of Jan. 1, 2007. The votes are there to override a veto. The governor could have gotten a better bill had she pulled her head out of the sand on this issue, but she didn’t, and now she’s stuck with the bill we have. It’ s not perfect, in my opinion. but it’s better than no CCW at all.
Bottom line: I trust my fellow law-abiding Kansans. Experience has taught me that those who get legal CCW permits are worthy of that trust.
Apparantly you don’t. Neither, apparantly, does the governor.
And that burden bourne by those who would restrict a liberty still is not met. A coherent, fact-based argument that holds water against legal, regulated CCW still has not been offered.
You have nothing to fear but fear itself, JR.
I was there in Topeka on 3/2/06 testifying in front of the Federal and State Affairs Committee when Senator Journey said” there will be a reduction of personal crime and a increase in property crimes but I would rather replace property than lives”. If you read the recent US Supreme Court ruling on Castle Rock vs Gonzales ruled on last summer, you would see that there is no protection in the constitution that guarentees one’s saftey. It is up to you to protect yourself, not the police. Mrs Gonzales had a restraining order against her husband and the “supremes” ruled against her even after all 3 of her children were killed by the ex. This means, the police may but do not have to protect you. Its your responsibility. Read the case. Steve Dryden
Good idea! the self defense thing I mean.
If this passes, the first time I see someone in a store with a gun, I’m gonna point at them and shout loundly “He’s got a gun!”
“Macho, Macho, Man…..I want to be a Macho Man…..”
JR -
1. It will pass. The votes are there.
2. As to the last, the point and shout: Why? What purpose would you hope to gain?
Just curious. It’s an odd reaction.
And Damoon’s apparantly wandering in la-la land. Look at the pretty animals . . . .
JR -
Ya know; I thought about your little stunt as I walked to the bank. Let me tell you how this would likely play out.
I’m standing in the checkout line, or leaning over the frozen foods cooler, etc. – whatever – and some lunatic starts yelling “He’s got a gun!!”
I got that quote right, didn’t I?
I continue to calmly do what I am doing. Others stare at you, wondering what you’re talking about. I probably do too. You may well be pointing at me. Others look at me, wonder; I shrug, and ignore you.
Somebody calls the police; they arrive. They inquire as to what’s going on, who reported the gun, and who supposedly has the gun. You excitedly point to me and proclaim “he’s got a gun!!”
The officers approach me. They will not have guns drawn, because they will face no apparant threat; my weapon will not be drawn. They will ask me if I am indeed carrying a weapon. I will provide the officers with my identification and my CCW permit, and tell them “Yes, officer, I am carrying my weapon. Would you like to inspect it?” The officer will then likely tell me no, that’s not necessary. We may at that point engage in a brief discussion of the merits of a .40 S&W round (the usual round of law enforcement) vs. a 9mm or a .45 ACP, etc. Most cops are gun guys, after all. CCW holders are generally professionals, above average income, well educated. We like cops.
When it is apparant that there is no threat, nor has there ever been any threat, they will then turn, and find the lunatic that drug them out there, taking them away from their other duties, yelling “gun!!” You may even, if this continues for several incidents and you make yourself a pest for local law enforcement, find yourself under arrest for at best disturbing the peace, at worst, filing a false police report.
I am confident saying that as a prosecutor who works daily with law enforcement officers. Most officers are pro-CCW. They understand that I offer no threat, nor have I broken any law.
So if you wish to engage in such silliness, by all means, go ahead. Remember – the CCW holder is acting calmly, and within the law. You, on the other hand, are creating the public disturbance, the breach of the peace.
Good luck.
What’s going to be interesting all the folks in gun register class and talk among the group why each needs the reason to carry a gun.
How did life prior to now existed with so many people unprotected by a gun in their pocket. Could some crimes have been averted, probably. But aren’t people caught unaware in crimes. Even carrying it may not be the best play to pull the gun out.
Recent crime: Two ladies in Dillons parking lot held up by two gunmen. They screamed. Freaked the criminals out, they fled. Ladies got a car tag, called the police on a cell phone quickly. Police caught the car and criminals with guns. Should the ladies, if carrying a gun pulled theirs out instead of screaming? Its fortunate the ladies weren’t shot in the first place, who knows if a shoot out would have suddenly happened.
The problem is some people with a gun in their pocket think they will always be right in that criminal circumstance. A gun carrier could see another crime happen and the training will be enough for that person to inject a gun into the drama? Cops shoot at a criminal point blank sometimes miss.
Not every gun carrying person will be calm in a criminal situation or accurate.
I think it would be interesting to determine a person’s automobile service and care, whether they wear a seatbelt all the time, against them owning a gun. A gun needs cleaning and proper handling all the time. Its reckless to drive without a seltbelt. People don’t take care for their cars or their lives that responsibly. Reckless with a gun too.
GMC, your considering a “higher level” kind of people being responsible more than they actually are.
I’ve never felt any pull toward handguns in any gun store. Shotguns, rifles for hunting. If people fear society so much, they can apparently carry a gun, I hope the fears are concrete and not made up. Crime happens anywhere and to anyone.
I think we’ll see more mishandling of gun situations. More calls to police that someone pulled a gun out. More guns in cars and people lack the licenses on them. More stolen guns because it got taken from a licensed owner. More lost guns just because. No update to police where the gun disappeared.
To get another gun people should have to show a lost report, theft or the gun in question prior to getting another one. At least the handguns. I don’t know how it will work. I do know the state politicians aren’t responsible for the daily gun paperwork and problems guns cause.
Should the licensed gun owner be ticketed for not having a trigger lock in a car full of children or any other person. The gun isn’t concealed. The gun is chambered and loaded. Could be grabbed by anyone. What’s the penalty for stupid gun handling?
A state legislator in Virginia, pro gun state, people were carrying them into the state house. He carried one all the time. He mischambered a shell and it fired in his office.
The bullet hit a bullet proof vest a friend of the politician had given him as a joke. It was hanging on a coat rack.
I haven’t followed up penalty to that policitian. What’s the penalty for a gun accidently going off. Someone supposedly a decent handler of weapons.
I think that politician is messed up mentally fearing people in his election district so much. Puts others in the courthouse at risk his need to carry a gun.
It will be a sadder day in Kansas society so mistrusts, the day concealed carry law starts.
I hope the governor refuses to sign the bill and its all on the legislators. We know who they are. If you don’t look up who voted for the gun bill.
Well GMC I can assure you that Damoon is “not wandering in la la land muttering, “look at the pretty animals” she is honestly concerned about public safety. Your characterization of her honest concerns, your smarmy self aggrandizement, and your continuing condescension to me only further my concern about such as you walking about armed.
You are a prosecutor GMC? Yes well one does often wonder at Kansas government officials.
Another thing. Given the restrictions as to where you may “pack your piece”, is it your intent to flout the law? Or will check in stations be made available that you can obey it.
My attempt at satire was lost on you so I’ll put it bluntly. My sense is that you want no PART of concealment. What are you gonna do wear a sport coat and shoulder hoster all the time? Shove it in your pants? Tuck it in your boot? How will you conceal it?
And if as I suspect, you have no real desire to conceal and every intention of announcing to the world that you are armed, well then yes. If I see someone carrying a gun without a badge I AM gonna shout out.
JR
You asked-”GMC, Heckler? If I burned an American flag in your presence, ( I might) could you keep your gun concealed?
If I protested at a funeral ( I would never do this) could you hold your fire?”
The short answer is yes.
If that gun comes out of that holster my life will change, and if I make a bad decision it’s gonna change for the worse. I’ve got too much to loose to throw it away on a flag burner or funeral protester. If that gun comes out of that holster it’s because my life or the life of a family member is in immediate danger. I’ve never had a problem controlling my temper. I hate fights, I hate confrontation. Last time I was in any kind of fight was 24 years ago and I didnt have much choice in the matter. I ended it quickly without bloodshed.
I have a co-worker who’s pretty conservative politically. But he’s against CCW. He is honest enough to admit that he doesnt trust himself to control his temper therefore he doesnt trust anyone else to do the same. Is this you JR? Honestly.
Hey JR, I REALLY enjoyed meeting you at the picnic, you are one funny, smart guy! I hope we can get together again sometime, let’s pick some place indoors, though.
JR -
(Sigh, again)
1. Carry concealed means just that – carry concealed. Unless the top of the weapon slips over the top of the belt, or it prints through a shirt, you’ll never know I’m carrying. Certainly, it will not be carried openly.
2. Yea, I know of stories of Wichita cops. I work with cops. Daily. I have no fear of “stupid cops,” though I know well that cops are not perfect, and make mistakes, just like all of us (except perhaps you, JR). I know that for every story of an officer making a mistake, there are hundreds of circumstances where officers act appropriately and with amazing patience given the crap they have to deal with. No news stories about those, of course.Remember – the CCW holder is going to pay a fee, qualify, provide his picture and prints to law enforcement, in short put himself under the microscope. He’s not the average citizen, as a result. He generally has a spotless record, is relatively well educated with an above average income. He’s the cops best friend.No, I don’t worry about officers’ reactions. Remember, most of them favor CCW.I have far more concern with lunatic civilians attempting to pull stupid stunts than with officers.
Now – Your characterization of “smarmy self-aggrandizement” refers to what, exactly? My attempting to show you my bonafides, so you are aware of the fact that when I speak of due process and what it means and what it does not, I’m not pulling stuff out of my ass? That’s part of the problem with these blogs – ANYONE becomes an instant authority by virtue of being able to type a sentence. I have no idea of Brian’s education or background, and therefore his qualifications to speak of DP and it’s potential application. Given his “cut and paste” arguments, I’d guess he has little if any education or background in this area. I’d be just as helpless were this blog about any number of things I know next to nothing about – but he stepped into constitutional law, sorta my specialty. Am I to simply ignore his misinformation and let the readers of this blog believe there is substance to his argument? As lawyer, public official and former teacher, I can’t do that.
As always, I start out on these things hoping to shed light with what I think is my rather unique position and education. Instead of intelligent debate, I find myself answering smart-ass answers, half-witted positions, and now a planned lunatic stunt. Go ahead, JR. Yell. I promise you, in my jurisdiction, at some point you’ll end up with a disturbing the peace charge if you keep that kind of crap up. Remember – the CCW holder you are harassing is exercising his rights UNDER THE LAW. You are not.
And frankly, yes, I’m guilty of quickly stepping into sarcasm when I read such idiocy on these pages. Sue me.
So if you want to cower in fear, be my guest. You are not my concern, and I’m not responsible for your groundless fears.
As to condescension: I’ll be blunt. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
CCW is a done deal. Deal with it.BuBye.
And to Heckler:
Kudos for a serious, thoughtful response to JR. I tried, too, but you hit the nail on the head, probably better than I did. I’d like to meet you (and, yes, JR and Damoon, too) sometime.
GMC70 JR Damoon
If all goes well maybe we can all get together and take a WEblog CCW class together even.
It will be a great day in Kansas when the legislature overides the Governor’s veto. Law abiding citizens can finally protect themselves from criminals who carry guns all the time without a second thought. It’s a great day for women who can now protect themselves. It will be a great day for all of us and all the rhetoric about “bloody Kansas” is a bunch of crap!! Steve Dryden
JR, dont you know you must never question the great and powerful oz?
Pay no attention to GMC70 behind the curtain. His brilliance will blind you instantly.
Right before he draws down on you.
Facts – ksfarmgrrl, facts. I see none. You offer none. So I will take the comment with the seriousness it deserves.
None.
GMC,
I have a Phd in chemical engineering and a master’s in physics. I have published over 20 papers in peer reviewed journals based on analysis of data, statistical inference, and the like. I believe I know how to interpret models and statistical uses of them.I will repeat, there is NO PROOF that CCW reduces crime. There is also noproof that it increases it. The argument that all will be safer is a canard. Further, in order to claim CCW as your constitutional right you must establish that it does no harm to others, yes? That evidence is not available. Intergovernmental panels set up to study the data have said it is not available.
You have a JD..great. I applaud you. However, I doubt that you have any skill at reading or interpreting data in peer reviewed scientific papers. Nor have you any skill in the ststistical meaures…like analysis of variance, t-tests, quality of fit, correlation coefficients, or any other scientific tool to be able to judge the meaningfulness of the data currently available.
The last thing we all want is an increase in violence and crime. You continually ask for evidence showing the increase. I in turn ask for the samer for you.
Mine’s bigger than yours.
Sorry, couldn’t resist ;) Carry on…
Brian
Since you speak the language perhaps you can tell me what this stuff says. I think I understand it but I’m not certain.
From the National Academys of Science-Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004)
Dissent by James Q. Wilson-http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/269.html
Response to Wilsons dissent-http://newton.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/272.html
Heckler,
It’s hard to make any definitive statements on the reading of just the small passages that the links supply. I’d suggest we bot get hold of the entire manuscript.
But, from what little I can gather, I think that Wilson is complaining that the Science Panel suggested in the past, for other things, like incarceration, what models and data might lead to more robust interpretations of the findings. He thinks that this same approach was not taken with Lott and Mustard’s analysis. They picked apart his results, but not those of his detractors. He wants them to be fair minded, look at all models and data, and suggest methods for producing the most robust results.
The second is a response to the first stating, first of all, that Wilson agreed that “it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact” of right-to-carry laws on violent and property crime in general and rape, aggravated assault, auto theft, burglary, and larceny in particular.” But maybe murder was the exception. The committee in general did not find a decrease in murder, though Wilson did. The committee also found that Lott’s analysis was extremely sensitive to the timeframe of the data.
In short, I think the committee found no appreciable trend one way or the other, with Wilson dissenting on murder rates.
If you want, maybe we could both get hold of the entire report and see what conclusions we can come to. I’d be up for that.
Brian
Each of the documents are 3-4 pages in length. you have to hit the forward button. If you forward all the way through the first one you will hit the beginning of the Dissent.
Ah, OK
Brian:
Thanks – that gives me a sense of your perspective. I’ll be glad to concede that you have statistical expertise that I lack; you’ll likewise concede that your expertise on legal commentary is equally limited.
That said, I think we’re back to square one. The jury’s still out as far as any definitive statements as to the impact of CCW on crime rates, etc. Where you stand as to what the studies say depends entirely on where you stand on the issue; I think I conceeded that a long time ago. I’m far from convinced that such statistical juggling will ever get us anywhere (figures lie, liars figure).
Lacking solid statistical evidence either way, we must rely on the experience of the vast majority of states who have passed CCW. You’ll concede that the “sky is falling” fears heard again and again have not happened, again and again, yes?
Thus, the burden, again, is on those who would restrict a liberty to provide a compelling interest in doing so. I don’t think that burden has been met. Perhaps more importantly, do I have a natural right to defend myself? The Founders certainly thought so. If their writings are any indications of where they stood, I think they’d wonder why this is a subject of debate. Their position was clear.
In any case, all our discussions will likely be moot. We ought to get together in 2 years and see what we have learned from the Kansas experience.
Peace.
Brian -I just noticed a couple of other points (I can’t resist):
“Further, in order to claim CCW as your constitutional right you must establish that it does no harm to others, yes? ”
1. I don’t think I’ve ever claimed CCW as a constitutional right; on the contrary, while the 2nd amendment protects the right of individuals to “keep and bear arms,” that does not at all necessarily include carrying concealed. That’s a statutory issue.
That may make the 2nd issue moot, but:
2. No, I don’t think a “constitutional right” rests on establishing that there is no harm to others. On the contrary, several of our constitutional rights include “harms” to others; we accept said harms as the price of liberty.
For example (criminal law is my speciality); the SC says that evidence illegally seized cannot be used in court. When applied, said policy causes harm, sometimes great harm. Imagine if the evidence against BTK had been unconstitutionally gathered. The courts would have been required to release him, certainly a harm. But that is the price of the protection from arbitrary search wel all enjoy (another subject to probe later).
Freedom of speech means that you and I must tolerate incredibly offensive speech. Does that whacko Phelps harm the families when he protests a loved-one’s funeral? Probably, but we accept that harm as the price of the speech rights we all enjoy.
You get the point. I think your premise is flawed in that respect.
“Macho, Macho Man…I want to be a Macho Man……”I’m willing to bet that in a few years when all the statistical data is analyzed by serious researchers who don’t have an agenda, laws allowing conceal and carry will have helped INCREASE the gun realted deaths in this country. You can take the gun from the fool, but you can’t take the fool from the gun.
I would bet you’d be right Damoon.
Hey Damoon? Macho man is widening his horizons to the other threads!
Think he’ll bring his gun??
The Constitution is there in part to protect the rights of the individual within the framework of providing rights for all other citizens. You may have the right to play tour stereo but not at a decibel level which infringes upon my basic rights. You have a right to free speech, but not the right to incite by yelling “fire” in a theater.
You have the right to own firearms. But if the implementation of that right by statute results in increases in deaths and maimings of your fellow citizens then your right is subservient to their right to life.
The idea behind the Constitution is to establish a mechanism for guaranteeing rights to citizens and for resolving conflicy=ts when these rights lead to disparate ends.
In the end the Constitution is meant to suplly for the greatest number of citizens the greatest good.
Arrests of criminals deny these criminal certain of their rights but the tradeoff is that we all enjoy greater safety and freedom.
The idea that CCW would make sense in this philosophical scheme from the Enlightenment is ludicrous if CCW results in a greater number of deaths of innocent citizens than without it.
In that sense I am saying that CCW must pass the test of increasing the overall safety and security of citizens in their rights, including the right to life. If you cannot establish that CCW improves the probabilty of survival for cictizens, then it violates one of the basic tenets for why we have a Constitution on the first place.
Your constitution is does nothing to emancipate you from your feudal lords, serfs. Are you truly free?
Brian -
I understand your position; but I disagree with it. We’re going round and round, however. Let’s see where CCW goes. I’m certain your fears are unfounded. I’m confident there are some benefits, though probably not what some proponents claim. But we’re about to find out. The votes are there to override the governor.
In any case, CCW is worth doing. The State simply hasn’t met the burden of demonstrating that there is a compelling reason to restrict that liberty; especially given the individual’s counterbalancing natural right to self-defense.
“In the end the Constitution is meant to supply for the greatest number of citizens the greatest good.”
I can’t disagree enough. We hope government does that, of course, but the constitution guarantees only a structural framework for gov’t; it guarantees no particular outcomes. Simply put, the Constitution defines only HOW we make gov’t decisions; withing limits (bill of rights limits, primarily), the WHAT – policies – we make are up to us, and the Constitution favors no particular set of policies over another.
That’s our call.
How many children have died in one year from firearm related homicide?
0-Japan19-Great Britian57-German109-France153-Canada
5,285-USA
Foe every child killed by firarms in the US, 4 are wounded.The death of children 0-14 yrs old in firearm related homicide is 12 times higher than any other indusrialized nation.
Sorry about the typos, I need to proof read before I post, but you get my point!
GMC,
Respectfully, I think yoo’ve lost the Constitution in the Articles.
Recall thatthe opening words are…
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posteritydo ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
key among these word are “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”.
The Constitution is a living document that embodies the Enlightenment thought of the later 17th and 19th centuries. One of those defining thoughts is that of liberty: that is, of a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws.That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected….
In addition, we are told
GMC,
Respectfully, I think yoo’ve lost the Constitution in the Articles.
Recall thatthe opening words are…
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare,and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posteritydo ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
key among these word are “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”.
The Constitution is a living document that embodies the Enlightenment thought of the later 17th and 19th centuries. One of those defining thoughts is that of liberty: that is, of a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws.That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected….
The rest of the document is mechanics. The goal is irrefutably stated.
Brian -
I’ll not get sucked into the “living constitution” BS. Suffice it to say that’s the typical civics book approach. Whether it is the correct approach, or the approach currently generally applied by the SC is another story. The current SC, thankfully, uses (usually) much more an originalist/textural approach, and I believe the correct approach. A constitution is basic law; it has real meaning, unchangable by ordinary means. In that sense, it does tie us to the past, and in large part, that is a good thing. To treat the constitution as a “living” document subject to revision at the will of courts is to render it meaningless as a constitution at all.
That said, I think you’ve made my point for me. The constitution starts out with generalities (the preamble, which you’ve quoted, states goals but has no legal force and has rarely if ever been litigated), and the rest gets to mechanics. Using either approach, it makes no choices or statements as to WHAT policies (within some essential constitutional, and yes, that includes due process limits) are best designed to “secure the blessings of liberty;” it defines only the HOW.
Both of us agree that we seek those “blessings;” we simply disagree as to what policies best secure them. And that’s HOW – not a constitutional question, but a policy one, subject to answer through the political process. The constitution does not answer this question for us; in fact, the constitution does not answer most questions for us.
In short, the constitution provides no guidance as to whether CCW is the “right” or “constitutional” policy. It only demands that the policy be enacted properly and evenly applied.
That’s OK. I wouldn’t try my hand at sophisticated statistical analysis either.
A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States. Of all firearm-related deaths, 55% were reported as homicides; 20%, as suicides; 22%, as unintentional; and 3%, as intention undetermined. The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 countries combined (1.66 compared with 0.14) (Table_1). The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other countries combined (0.94 compared with 0.06); the firearm-related suicide rate was nearly 11 times higher (0.32 compared with 0.03); and the unintentional firearm-related death rate was nine times higher (0.36 compared with 0.04). For all countries, males accounted for most of the firearm-related homicides (67%), firearm-related suicides (77%), and unintentional firearm-related deaths (89%). The nonfirearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly four times the rate in all of the other countries (1.63 compared with 0.45), and nonfirearm-related suicide rates were similar in the United States and in all of the other countries combined (0.23 compared with 0.24).
Just the facts.
Damoon:
None of which has any relationship to concealed carry, even if true.
Damoon that was long, illustrative, and factual. But why waste your time? You’ve done nothing when you bested a fool. His answer proves it. (Yes that is you GMC)
This debate is now oft posted but long in the tooth. It has brought GMC to the forum. Let us see how GMC acquits himself in other forums.
Damoon JR
How about a source for all of that data.
I’m not sure what your point is either.
JRI asked a question of you and am truly interested in the answer.