Forget the crack of bats — the crackle of gunfire might be coming to a Little League ballpark near you, thanks to state lawmakers.
A bill approved in the Legislature forbids cities and counties from outlawing concealed guns at public parks. That includes many outdoor youth sport venues such as ballparks and soccer and football fields.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius hasn’t said whether she will sign the bill. State Rep. Candy Ruff, D-Leavenworth, a concealed-carry proponent, dismissed criticisms: "People just need to get over this."
But given the long history of parental brawls and bad behavior at youth sporting events, is throwing guns into the mix a good idea? Does this really make most people feel safer?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
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
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
112 Comments
It isn’t the people with licenses to carry I am concerned about. It is the punk gang bangers who don’t have licenses that are annoying. Hopefully, with enough concealed carry people around, the punks will think twice before shooting..
Maybe thoughts of Umpires came into the Legislators minds when the wrote the bill. :)
In general, I would say no, guns do not belong around little league games and similar events. It makes me a little nervous with children around (example: mommy keeps a pistol in her purse, kid looking for gum finds the gun and…) and considering some of the fights between adults that happen at such events I don’t feel that everyone concealing a gun can necessarily keep their cool in that situation. On the other hand, if it’s a public park (not a private business) no one really has the right to say that they can’t be there if concealed carry is allowed.
Like Raptor, I am more concerned with the punks than I am with those liscenced to carry a firearm. And as for children finding Mommys gun, I have a solution.
Show them the damn thing. Take it out, shoot a watermelon, or cantelope, or the smallest thing that you can hit to show it;spower, and then tell them “If I ever see you touching that thing I will beat your ass until you cannot sit down” The little darlings will never touch it.
Good point littlejohn:) If I owned guns and had kids that is probably how I would handle it also. Unfortunately, not all parents are responsible enough to teach their children about guns – that’s part of the reason we have those punks that are enamored with guns and trying to be “cool.”
of course guns belong at little games and churchs or anyplace I can get my piece in past a metal detector. My gun is the great equalizer so when I’m at little johny’s softball game and some redneck on the opposing team goes bezerk the solution is mere miiliseconds away.
IIRC, the statute permitting Concealed Carry prohibits CCW from school sponsored sporting events, whether in a building or outside. Wondering if this should be extended to all athletic events, regardless of the sponsor.
BTW, the bigger issue is, IMHO, the nonlicensed “gang bangers” or whomever; I don’t recall there being an issue with this in other states with CCW legislation.
(Hit “Post” too quickly). One would need, however, to examine the statutes in each state authorizing CCW to ascertain whether there is a prohibition against CCW at such events.
Uh no pms, your first duty is to call the Police, not shoot the bezerk redneck.
This is the “home rule” thread revisited. And once again, the “neutral” Eagle (an Eagle editor actually told me, with a straight face, that the paper had no position on CC!) is still beating the “blood in the streets/sky is falling” drum.
” . . . the crackle of gunfire might be coming to a Little League ballpark near you, thanks to state lawmakers.”
Please!! a little over the top hysterical there, ya think, Randy?
As Candy Ruff put it, get over it. It’s here. It ain’t going away. And the anti-CC crowd’s predictions of blood and “wild west” are still no less wrong. As Vaughn put it, the concern is not those carrying legally; it’s the intent of those who carry illegally that is the problem.
BTW – thank your local municipality – including Wichita. Had they, and the League of Kansas Muncipalities not abused and ignored the law, this particular small “no gun” zone might still be in place. But the League, and some cities, overreached, and the legislature reminded them – clearly – that “occupies the field” means exactly that.
Serves them right.
And for you Penn and Teller fans: a little Bull—t!
http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/47/45/
Almost every person who pays the 100 or so dollars to take the 8 hours of class time for concealed carry, then pays the 150 dollar fee to the state for concealed carry, and then goes through all the paperwork to carry concealed is not the type of person who is going to be shooting someone over a game.
This is some of the biggest garbage fear tactics purported by the media and the left.
Look at every other state in this country who has had concealed carry for much longer than us and tell me how many of these dire circumstances have come up?
This entire game about “what ifs” is a sham.
Well what if someone carrying concealed passes out while choking on a hot dog and then a kid grabs his gun and shoots 10 people…
Give me a break.
Well what if a meteor falls out of the sky and incenerates everyone in the ball park?
What then?
Should we install a meteor proof roof over the field?
Scare tactics at their worst.
You are not ever going to even know if someone is carrying concealed or not.
It is CONCEALED.
How do you know that right now someone isn’t carrying a pistol right next to you?
Oh, the fear!
I hate to break it to you, but criminals were already carrying guns.
We are now allowing law abiding citizens to do the same.
The very question:
“Do guns belong at little league games” is so disinginuous.
I think we should be able to carry RPG’s. That way we can take out the opposing team’s entire dugout from across the field.
Jed-The law only allows CONCEALED carry. How in the world are you going to conceal an RPG?! :)
Well what if a meteor falls out of the sky and incenerates everyone in the ball park?
hey what if some rag heads fly a plane into the world trade building if I would been ther with my piece you can bet your ass that wouldn’t had happen.
Duh, sorry. i meant Tom.
A person legally carrying a concealed handgun to a child’s game is no more likely to pull it and shoot in frustration than a person who is eating in a restaurant is likely to get up and stab the party sitting next to them in the throat with their fork.
“Jed?” Hmmm…I don’t know no “Jed.”
“How in the world are you going to conceal an RPG!?”
Damn you and your technicalities! DAMN YOU!!!
:::shakes a fist:::
LMAO
This is really much ado about nothing.
As a (despised) Liberal flame baiter, I actually support the legal right of CC. I support the right of reasonable Americans to own legal weapons. If you can pass the requisite requirements to have a CCW, go for it.
It’s a drop in the bucket, at best (or worst, if that is your thought.) The folks carrying weapons are not going to save the world, nor are they likely to destroy it.
In Sedgwick County, there have been less than 1,000 (intitial) applications for CC permits.
A drop in the bucket.
Geez, okay, okay. I didn’t necessarily say that it shouldn’t be allowed. I was just worrying out loud:) You can never be too sure about peoples’ actions these days…
GMC,Thanks for the excellent Penn&Teller link. I love those guys!
Much as I hate to side with the conservatives, it’s time to stop the lying about CC. It’s been in effect for 4 months in Kansas and I have yet to hear about anybody with a permit shooting anybody else. Where’s the blood in the streets we were promised? When will Kansas turn into the Wild West?
It hasn’t happened. It’s not going to happen. So let’s all just calm down and not worry so much about “what ifs”.
raptor – sadly, I have to agree with you.
I am another Dem that just cannot see what the big deal is about the CC. It is such a process to get the permit. People who would use a gun at a children’s sporting event are NOT the same people that would be able to get a CC permit, IMO.
If guns kill people, then….Pencils miss “spel” words,cars make people drive drunkspoons made Rosie O’Donnell fat
Pencils don’t usually kill people. Guns are fine in the hands of mature, responsible people.
Those same mature responsible people would want guns to be given the same amount of control as an automobile would.
The Land Speed record is past the speed of sound – do you need a car that can go 800 miles an hour?
To drive a car legally, you need a license – shouldn’t we expect as much to use a potentially lethal weapon.
When you drive your car, it must have a plate and insurance – should we require less of your S & W .45?
Yes, people kill people, not guns, but using a gun makes it much more efficient…..
XXX,
I think when they open up Wild West World on May 4th that is when we will see the blood in the streets :)
I’d really like to know how many here have seen “punks” at little league games? Just curious, as games I attended were small town, and the punks just weren’t the same kind.
WS I don’t know about that. A little arsenic is just as effective, much less messy and you don’t even need to be licensed to buy it.
People who commit crimes will find a way. CC is here the Eagle needs to get over it and move on.
Never been to a little league game in the big city, but I was once walking out to my car at the McDonalds on West street when a young man drove throug the parking lot. He had a 9 in his hand. Don;t know wht for, didn’t ask, didn’t stay around.
Probably a good move, LJ.
The National Rifle Association says that, “Guns don’t kill people, uh, people do.” But I think, I think the gun helps. You know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, “Bang!” That’s not going to kill too many people, is it? You’d have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that.
–Eddie Izzard, Dress to Kill
RD my kids are in their 30’s and were raised in a small town in OK. The crowds I see at my grandkids game are certainly different than the ones I saw at my son’s games. I haven’t seen any guns but have seen fists flying. It isn’t pretty. The kids end up paying the price for an immature parent.
Yeah, I think so. It was like Damn! Look at that! No, don;t look and get his attention, just leave!
Oh boy, rabblerousing! Can anyone jump in?
Little League games are used for the bugaboo because any school-sponsored athletic event autmoatically falls under the law as a “CC banned” event. 75-7c10(a)(10)
75-7c17(a) clearly states “Any city ordinance or county resolution that regulates, restricts or prohibits thecarrying of concealed weapons shall not be applicable to any person licensed in accordancewith the provisions of this act.”
But not all little league games are school sponsored, or did I miss the point? i may have, i am preparing to leave for the day
Exactly–Little League is separate from the schools. The article Mr. Scholfield links is extremely misleading, somewhat inflammatory, and inaccurate as well. For example, it says “…schools are allowed to prohibit concealed weapons at their sporting events, whether indoors or outdoors.”
Wrong. The law bans concealed carry at all school-sponsored athletic events, PERIOD. Schools have no option to allow CC. They’re not “allowed to prohibit,” either. It’s ALREADY PROHIBITED by state law.
Nothing like agenda “journalism,” eh?
The more people carry guns, the more gun accidents we will see. My 11 yr old nephew was killed in a gun accident, because an elderly neighbor wasn’t being responsible with his gun collection. Is it worth the lives of 5,000 children a year for people to carry guns? Most the people I know that think CCW is a good idea don’t seem like the type that should be “packin’ heat”…many of them have this tough guy, “I’m so macho” kind of fascade and who would LOVE the opportunity to blow away a bad guy. They’d be disappointed if they never got the chance to use their weapon to make the world a better place.
WS
1) the license to drive a car is to use it on public streets, not to own it. Similarly, carrying concealed requires licensing (open carry is legal in Kansas, BTW, unless barred by local ordinance – like Wichita). And also similarly, one need not have a license to simply own a firearm.
And it’s not illegal to own that 800 mph car, or drive it, assuming it has the required lights, etc., though I don’t think it’d be very useful on public streets. It’s possession is not illegal, though it’s use at 800 mph (or much less) would be. Similarly, the ownership of a firearm is not illegal; it’s illegal use, however, certainly is.
The most basic distinction, however, is that owning (but not necessarily carrying) a firearm is constitutionally protected, and for good reason. The car is not.
To be even more clear, some sities have attempted to use the “property owner” clause in 75-7c11(a)(3) as cause to ban CC on open public property under the claim that as the “property owner” they can ban CC on ALL public property. This could even conceivably be used to ban CC inside private vehicles on public roads. Which would reduce the CC act to “You’re allowed to carry a concealed weapon on your own property IF you get a license.”
Mary:
I’d suggest you attend a CC class and disabuse yourself of that stereotype. CC holders as a group have a far lesser rate of offense than the public at large; they are our most law-abiding. IIRC, it was even discovered in Texas that CC holders had a lesser arrest rate than police officers.
It’s pure stereotype, Mary, reinforced by exactly this kind of – and Snarky hit it exactly – “agenda journalism.”
snarky:
Exactly. Which is why HB2528 was required.
And it’s veto-proof.
I think my point may have been missed, GMC. My reference to 800 MPH car was to say that you don’t need a 100 round magazine or an RPG to go hunting.
I personally think guns are great – I love the workmanship and design of many firearms. I am also a former gun owner. I will likely be a gun owner again in the future.
And your point about not needing to license an auto?
Of course, you don’t have to license your auto – unless you want to use it.
It’s my observation…GMC70 I’ll be willing to bet you fall into that “stereotype”.It’s a fact, the more guns are available, the more deaths by guns.
Mary,
Where did you get your 5,000 figure?
How does allowing people to legally carry concealed result in the death of 5,000 children?
I think you are pulling that number out of thin air!
“It’s a fact, the more guns are available, the more deaths by guns.”
Then why have gun deaths stayed steady or declined in America as the number of guns has greatly increased?
Mary,
The more anything is available the more death by it could be argued.
Is that number statistically significant though?
I don’t think so.
How much, Mary? How many zeros you wanna put on that check?
And WS – the point was that 1) both are similarly regulated, in many relevant ways, and 2) what is unlawful is the dangerous use of the items, not mere possession of them. There are more than plenty of gun regs on the books. Criminals are the problem, not the guns.
And thought I hunt, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. It never was.
I’m not sure just where a “RPG” is relevent at all.
And a 100 round mag would get in the way of concealment, wouldn’t it? ;-)
GMC–
The part about “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” doesn’t give you pause at all?
Particularly since the founders hated the idea of a standing army to the last man?
And we now have the second biggest and by far the most powerful standing army in the world?
CC is a classic ‘mixed feelings’ thing for me. On the one hand I feel confident that people like Hank or nathan will be responsible and might therefore be good to have around when ’something happens’. However, there are other people who I worry will have a few too many beers and then decide to demonstrate how macho they are.
Thus, mixed feelings …
Ben,
Now all you need to do is point to the incidents of anyone with a Concealed Carry license demonstrating how macho they are with their weapon.
If it happens, it should be pretty easy to find.
These are all “what if” fear mongering things which do not happen.
Thanks for the compliment though. I hate to see the guy who tries something around me or my father.
I don’t think that we are all that far apart, GMC. I really (honestly) do not care about CCW in any regard. It is just a non-issue to me.
As for 100 round mags or RPG’s? There is not militia on the face of the Earth, nor any army from any country that could possibly stand up to the American military power.
Even if ALL the countries in the world tried, they could still never defeat our military.
So the Second Amendment issue is moot. No militia. No RPG’s.
Guns are for self-protection, hunting or personal satisfaction.
Not for militias.
Now, I don’t know what game you may hunt, but I don’t want to have anything to do with it if you need an RPG to hunt it.
Besides, what would you cook after you killed it?
(wink!)
This whole CW issue really isn’t an issue, especially in Sedgwick county. The most competitive baseball and softball leagues are privately owned (Westurban and Southwest Boys’ Club, as well as TRYC), and even the least competitive are church-sponsored leagues or through the YMCA. That means that the owners of the parks can choose to ban weapons from their premises if they choose. This leaves us with Park Board leagues, and let’s be realistic. Nobody cares enough about those games to throw a fist, let alone whip out a pistol.
Really, let’s just use some common sense here.
Capn,IMHO, I think you’ve overlooked a critical comma in the statement and should also realize that the definition of a “militia” in those days didn’t mean the National Guard. The “militia” was every able-bodied armed male get your gun and let’s go get the bad guys.
Consider this:A well-armed populace gives an onerous government pause. Guns protect liberty, too. We overthrew a tyrant to create this country. Who knows when we may have to overthrow another tyrant to save it? (NO! I’m NOT advocating the overthrow of the government)
WS
“As for 100 round mags or RPG’s? “There is not militia on the face of the Earth, nor any army from any country that could possibly stand up to the American military power.
Even if ALL the countries in the world tried, they could still never defeat our military.”
No doubt. And here, here.
But defeat is not what is needed – only deterrence. It is the presence of a large number of Americans (at least half, and I’d bet more) who are armed that gives gov’t pause. And it should. I want gov’t to have a healthy fear of its citizens.
And I’d remind you that a few thousand folks in Iraq are giving that magnificant armed forces fits. Imagine 100 million people up in arms, blending in to the countryside and with a supportive population. No, it’s not that far-fetched (I want to emphasize, I am NOT advocating same. Yet.).
Non-traditional combat has a long, and often successful, history.
You are also assuming that those soldiers, who come from out of this same culture, would regularly and without pause obey orders to fire upon their friends, neighbors, countrymen. I’m not so convinced they would.
So while the “militia” of the period may be somewhat dated, the concept of the 2nd Am. at base is as valid now as it ever was.
As another put it better than I – America is built on four boxes: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. The fourth is for use only if the other three are gone, but the existance of the fourth makes the loss of the other three far less likely.
And Capn: Read the Parker decision out of the DC Ct. of Appeals. They parce the 2nd Am. far better than I could. The “collective rights” view is effectively cut off at the knees.
And with that, I think we’ve beat this horse about to death. Join me at the range sometime, gentlemen?
Okay, thanks for the reference, GMC.
I don’t have a problem with gun ownership, but I’m still not entirely convinced that we have a constitutional right to own a gun, anymore than we have a constitutional right to own anything.
But I will look at your link.
Mr. Huie brings up a good point. What happens if a conceal carry person is found intoxicated and carrying a weapon?
Should the same or similar standard for DUI while driving a car be used with conceal and carrying a weapon?
Or is there a standard? Someone that knows the law on this matter want to speak up?
Nathan – no real stats or anything, simply a concern. I think Repulbican raises a good angle on that – some sort of “CUI” offense status.
Republican:
The statute speaks to that. Carrying drunk (CUI?) is barred, and uses the same statutory presumptions (.08, implied consent, etc.) as DUI.
Long and short – if you’re going out to have a few, leave the weapon at home, secured.
Thanks GMC.
Parks can be dangerous places. Often gangs and dope dealers hang out in them and parents need to be armed to protect themselves, their children and their property.
I think I have finally come upon an idea as to why these hysterical suggestions concerning the chaos, murder and mayhem which will result from concealed carry continue to pop-up on this blog. I believe it might be because those that fabricate these hypothetical, grade ‘B’ movie, horror scenarios realize they personally are not responsible enough to be anywhere around a firearm and project that irresponsibility onto everyone else as well.Who keeps bringing up these ridiculous fear mongering suggestions?Oh, I forgot, it was Randy, again!PS: Just teasing ya Randy, but you really do need to seek some help.
Thanks for the info GMC. I had visions of the Long Branch Saloon running through my mind. :)
Just a quick aside – unrelated to the thread – but if you are going to refer to Ben Huie with a title it is:
DR. HUIE.
It is not Mr. Huie. The man has a doctorate and he deserves that recognition.
If you are not going to use a title, call him Bennie Boy.
(double wink for Dr. Huie!)
Hey Doc,Can I still call you Ben? I usually refer to my friends by first name, lol!
A running joke at the Capitol this session is the speculation over why Senator Phil Journey, concealed carry’s biggest legislative advocate, still hasn’t gotten his permit. What dirty secret in his past is keeping him from it?
I’ve never understood what the big deal is. States all over the country permit concealed carry, and have for years. The sky hasn’t fallen.
It’s a little disappointing, though, that many of cc’s local advocates think it’s wrong for private property owners to ban concealed weapons from their premises. What part of “private property” don’t they understand?
I used Mr. Huie out of respect for him. Since he hasn’t hung his shingle out here on the Blog, I thought it was appropriate.
Dr. Huie does not need to hang out a shingle – he is not a medical doctor – he is a scientist with a doctorate.
Treat him with the respect he deserves.
Dr. Rice is referred to by her title – extend the same to Dr.Huie.
‘Nuff said…..
Dear Randy –Your maturity on the CCW issue is starting to show, stop sucking on your thumb and do some real journalism.
I say if the little brats can have aluminum bats, the parents have to be able to protect themselves somehow.
If Mr. Huie wants me to call him Dr. Huie, he can tell me himself. I don’t imagine he cares much one way or the other.
Except maybe in an academic setting or at conference with other scientists.
As usual, you have no respect for anyone Khan….
I should not have expected any more from you. I stood up for a friend of mine.
You might want to look up “FRIEND” in the dictionary, Republican.
Obviously, you have no real life experience with the concept.
Addressing someone by Mr. is showing respect. I don’t know him well enough to call him by his first name. Perhaps he would refer Ben more than Dr.
Like I said, it’s not your call, it’s Mr. Huie’s call.
Only a completely disrespectful individual would insist on referring to someone as MR. after he knew that he deserved the title of DR.
‘Nuff said.
Out of respect for Dr. Huie, I thought I would correct the designation. Only someone that was so full of himself would ignore that correction.
It is DR. HUIE.
And I consider Ben to be a friend.
As I said, to refer to someone as MR. after you know that he EARNED the title of DR. is disrespectful.
Dr. Huie is much too modest to demand that he be referred to with an appropriate title, but as a friend, I have no such compulsion.
It is DR. HUIE.
‘Nuff said.
Okay, I’ll remember to call him Dr. Huie next time.
But remember, it’s President Bush, not shrub or Bush or bushco.
Or do you have double standards or respect? :)
Respect, once again, is earned.
:)
Well, I will say that I don’t have any respect for you, RepubliKhan….
But I will also say that I respect the office of the presidency far more than the Republicans do.
But you will notice that I refer to Bush in the same way that the Republicans do.
… and you obviously have no respect for your fellow Americans that just happen to disagree with you…….
How are those sedition charges coming, Khan?
I checked the e-mail file and I didn’t see anything from you. I am waiting for you to back up your contention that I am seditious.
Are you anti-American? Are you knowingly allowing a traitor to roam in your community? Are you enabling a traitor?
What sedition charges?
Taking something personally on a Blog is your flaw in character not mine WSClark.
Deal with it or move on.
Oh, nevermind. Sorry WSClark, I forgot you like to cling to victimhood, so you can bring it up over and over.
Continue on with your character flaw then.
WSC – when we are not dealing in science Mr is fine; Ben preferred. I generally use Dr in Court etc.
In science, however, the title is relevant. Over here Nathan’s service rank is more relevant than my degree.
“Taking something personally on a Blog is your flaw in character not mine WSClark.”
Hmmmmmmm…………… being accused of treason or sedition is not PERSONAL?
Yet you took offense when I compared the treason charge against me from Fleet to child murder against the him?
….and you accuse us of a double standard?
Jeez, what a flaming hypocrite….
…. and that is the nicest thing I can say about you.
Well, you certainly let the air out of my balloon, Dr, Huie.
I never accused you of sedition, I’m not worried about it.
The problem is all yours WSClark.
I know it’s a Blog and things people say here amount usually to nothing.
Unless, of course, you have VictimHood status to maintain like yourself.
CapnAmerica mocked my disability. I brought it up to him and he still is unapologetic.
I let it go, it’s not worth arguing about.
Sorry about that WSC. Have to admit, MR seems stilted; Ben is my usuL. Main place Dr comes in would be energy/environment etc. For example, I have differed with cosmos on nuclear power (I fave a version of it); I come to my position largely due to my technical background.
In another area, I disagree with several people on the Arena; my education per se has no bearing there although having lived various places does.
Republican – I tend to go first name, at least generally.
“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security….” Kansas Bill of Rights, Article 4.
Seems clear enough.
WS:
Can I ask for Dr. too? Perhaps Esquire?
;-) Just kidding, of course. Lighten up, folks; it’s been a very good day on the boards, at least the threads I have any significant interest in. Let’s not let it go to crap now.
I am sorry I mentioned it.
Capn
“but I’m still not entirely convinced that we have a constitutional right to own a gun,”
If one follows simple rules of grammar, and one would assume the Founders were carefull about their grammar, there is no question what they meant.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
The link above is to a discussion between J. Neil Schulman and Professor Roy Copperud (now deceased) regarding the wording of the Second amendment. Copperud was a usage expert with American Heritage Dictionary and was frequently cited as a usage expert by Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary.
According to Professor Copperud there is no question what they meant.
And the Parker V. D.C. decision GMC reffered you to is an excellent read.
GMC – doesn’t Esquire mean “without title”?
Actually, your background becomes very useful IMO when looking at something like the USAttorneys situation. Also legal aspects of this one.
Okay, Ben it is…unless it’s Environmental, then it’s Dr. :)
Don’t worry about it WSClark, standing up for a friend is a good thing.
But, it was his call. The matter is settled, the feathers are not ruffled and the dust has cleared.
And all of those other phrases tht apply. :D
Always thought Esquire was cool to go by. I’ve only seen it used by signature as I didn’t live in the 19th century and earlier. :D
Capn:
Ran across your question re: .40 S&W on open thread. I’ve had all; a 9mm (two right now, a full size and a compact) a .40 in a compact, and just got a .45.
The .40 is very snappy; harder recoil than a nine, and a crisper recoil than a .45. It’s a higher velocity. It’s fine in a full size gun; I don’t like it in a compact carry gun. For my money, I’d go with a .45. Proven round, little over-penetration, managable recoil because it’s a relatively slow round. And if you’ve got the willingness to practice and get trained (and you should with any pistol), consider a 1911. Proven design. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
9mm works too; the big advantage to a 9mm is that ammo is cheap, and thus you can practice a lot.
There ya go . . . my take. Now, how ’bout that day at the range.
Ben,
I don’t oppose new nuclear power so much on “technical” grounds, as on time and economic issues.If new plants can be built quickly, and be cost-competitive (even if their fuel costs rise) with efficiency and renewables, then build them.
I suspect AGW problems will cause money to be tight in the future, so I prefer the fastest, cheapest, long-term energy solutions.
This is a typical rant of the Constitutional hating gun-banners. If it isn’t concern about guns where the kids are playing baseball, then it’s about guns at the county fair by the merry-go-round, or guns in the city park near the playground, or at the swimming pool, etc….
There is NO location acceptable to the gun banners. They do like to sensationalize certain locations where the children play or the mother’s pray, or some other such thing seemingly so innocent.
It’s ok though if women are raped and murdered because they are defenseless being disarmed by the gun banners. It’s ok if men, women, and children are murdered while going to the gas station by some robber who has no fear that law abiding citizens will shoot back.
Law abiding people have a fundamental God-given right to defend themselves. And the 2nd Amendment allows us to use the best technology to defend our lives.
Ben:
BTW – your comment on the title “esquire” made me curious. According to Merriam-Webster, the term arrives in English through the French from the Latin, and derives from the Latin for “shield.”
Seems appropriate, given the profession.
Agreed, GMC70 Esq. :-)
GMC – I’ll have to try to find that reference. It was passed on to me long ago by someone in the legal field. (although shield makes a lot of sense)
ah ha …
“Esquire (abbreviated Esq.) was a social rank title above that of mere gentleman, allowed, for example, to the sons of the nobles and the gentry who did not possess any other title.”
So, you are above “Mr” but not by much! ;^)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esquire
According to the John Hopkins Institute, 5,000 children die each year in this country due to guns. We have more gun deaths in this country than any other industrialized country in the world. The stats are there, just go to a reputable source, not a site put out there by the NRA or Lott and Mustard, whose research is flawed and biased.I don’t know if CCW will increase the gun deaths, but it sure won’t lower them, and they’re far too high for as “civilized” as our country pretends to be.
Mary,This country ISN’T ‘civilized’, and it’s getting worse. CCW at the least enables individuals to accept personal responsibility, and a reasonable chance, to protect themselves and their families. There is no reason responsible citizens should not have that Constitutionally protected freedom. What could be more ‘uncivilized’ than for a country to deny it’s citizens the freedom to protect themselves?
When researching the number of children killed with guns you will find the anti-gun numbers inflated with the following techniques:
Children are defined broadly, it includes young (teenage) gang members.
No control is taken to ensure the ‘children’ were not engaged in criminal activities that increases their risk.
Per the CDC website, the unintentional deaths of children, 0-19, in 2004 due to guns is 143.
Per the CDC website, the number of homicides with guns where the victims where 0-19 is 1804 for 2004. 1578 of those deaths are from the 15-19 group.
Additionally there were 846 suicides with guns for the same ages in 2004. 787 coming from the 15-19 bracket.
Uncontrolled for intent, there were 2852 children killed with guns in 2004.
Perhaps the 5000 comes from a different year. Regardless, the irresponsible actions of those kids and their parents is the price they pay. To restrict the rest of us and open all of society to the danger inherent in being defenseless is nonsense.
For those interested
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
ProudMan, Thank You !Now here is some statistics we can ‘take to the bank’.
Randy, you asked “Does this really make most people feel safer?” I’d say it doesn’t make them feel safer, it makes them safer. If something happens to go wrong at a sporting event I hope that there’s more than one armed individual there willing to protect me or anyone else that’s in danger from either a deranged person or someone in the process of committing a criminal act that’s designed to harm another person.
Mary Caruso
Interesting stat from a nation where guns are banned.
Despite recent slight falls in the levels of gun crime, inner south Manchester remains one of the most dangerous parts of the country. In 2002 the firearms murder rate for England and Wales was 0.09 per 100,000 head of population, compared with 5.4 per 100,000 for the US.
In Greater Manchester the rate was to 10 per 100,000, while in Longsight, Moss Side and Hulme it was 140 per 100,000.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4874465-105248,00.html
Mary,
At least you are clarifying your numbers.
Before you said carrying guns killed 5,000 children.
Now you are saying 5,000 children are killed by guns.
Now all you have to do is admit how many of those “children” obtained their weapons legally?
How many of those “children” were in a gang?
How many of those “children” were killed while in the act of committing a crime?
Pleaes Mary, you are so biased on this issue that you absolutely refuse to see the truth.
Mary,
On top of that, what is the age of what they consider to be “children” for their study?
Seriously Mary, you are a victim of some serious anti-gun propaghanda.
No, it’s the other way around, Nathan. You’re the one who refuses to see the truth. Go to the CDC or John Hopkins and do the research yourself, the numbers are there..along with ages, etc.I’ve done my research, and I get really tired of repeating myself.I didn’t mean CCW kills 5,000 children a year, it hasn’t been around long enough to say if it will increase or decrease the number of deaths each year from gun violence, accidents, and suicides. But I doubt very seriously if it will reduce the incidence of deaths by guns in this country.
Mary
How about a link to this data you say says 5000 children die per year by guns.
Above, Proudman posted CDC data from 2004 which said 2842 Americans between 0 and 19 died from gunshot.
Where do you get 5000? How old do you consider “children”.
“it is because the people are civilized, that they are with safety armed.” Such was the value of freedom and equality that Americans’ “conscious dignity, as citizens enjoying equal rights,” precludes any desire “to invade the rights of others.” Joel Barlow 1792
Mary, Mary, where have you been? Concealed carry has been around now for many years, though most of the 48 states that allow citizens to protect their own lives, have had these laws added in the last 10 years. Maybe you are referring just to the Kansas law, and maybe you just need to get out more often. I don’t think I’m in Kansas anymore!
Did you ever consider why the CDC and Johns Hopkins gather gun crime information? As if it’s a disease or something? It’s their political agenda to make gun crime a disease.
BTW, The cure for this “gun crime disease” is Conceal Carry for citizens who obey the law.
And more kids are killed by monster fat burgers from McDonalds, then by guns. Ready to ban McDonalds yet?
My Gosh Mary, though your numbers are incorrect, I’m so relieved. Less than 5,000 children killed by guns. I thought it was much worse. Abortion kills 5 million children every year, yet no one seems concerned.
If a woman has the right to control 100% of her body (including an unborn child), then surely women and men should have the right to protect their own bodies from harm.
How then can we say that women and men can’t defend themselves with the 2nd Amendment?
A lot of those “children” are gang bangers if you look and read the data!!