New debate over Kan. concealed-carry

In Kansas, a new bill would change the rules for carrying a concealed weapon in college and government buildings. It's been prohibited, but if the bill passes, it would be allowed unless the buildings had "adequate security" -- namely, a metal detector at every entrance, plus personnel to run them. Opponents, even those who normally support CCW, say it's a bad idea because so many cities and schools are going through a budget crunch. Supporters say that people licensed to carry concealed aren't a threat.

Comments

[JTKirk]

The bill is HB 2685. Concealed carry prohibition will require adequate security measures in public buildings which post no weapons signs. The question is whether the signage makes a building safer, the assumption being that criminals (& nuts) without gun permits ignore the sign and potential victims leave their weapon in the car. I agree with this. I have also noted that there is no mandate to install expensive security if a building removes the prohibition. I would like to see this pass. This makes common sense. If it is as safe as an airport, than "no guns" makes sense. If it is not as safe as an airport, than why take the guns away from the people that have been vented.

[X]

The idea in the past was that you don't want gun fights breaking out in crowded places such as Churches, Schools and Government buildings. Guns just shouldn't be used in such places where there are many people. I can't imagine a scenario where responding with another weapon in a crowded place is going to turn out better than waiting for trained law enforcement to deal with the situation. One course in CCW is no substitute for real law enforcement.

[Why So Socialist?]

If the government or private property owner removes the right to self-defense, the controller of the building or property becomes responsible for the well-being of the occupants and visitors.
Government employees accept no liability for failure to protect citizens and that position has been confirmed by courts: There is no duty to protect on the part of government employees.
Occupying a "weapon free" location - particularly a government building - makes a person a defenseless target.

@JTKirk.
I think you mean "vetted", not "vented".
@X
I hope you are being sarcastic.
How about these scenerios? Columbine High School; Virginia Tech; Maryville, Illinois; Northern Illinois University; Kirkwood, Missouri, City Council; American Civic Center in Binghampton, New York. Is that enough?
Gun free zone is another name for a hunting reserve.

[Why So Socialist?]

Typo: scenarios

[Why So Socialist?]

Oh. And Fort Hood, Texas.

[abbyful]

@X,
Have you ever heard Suzanna Hupp's story? I suggest you watch on YouTube so you can hear it from her.

The police get there in time to take a report, not in time to stop something bad from happening.

[abbyful]

Here's a link to one of the videos of Suzanna Hupp telling her story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gozwfy6SR2g

[Tom K]

Who says we don't want gunfights breaking out in crowded places? I keep hearing this stuff about how things were so much better when people took more responsibility for themselves in the "good old days."

[Jarhead1982]

You mean the old wild west wild west being synonymous with shootouts on a daily basis more so than today, or is your historical reference and facts only based on dime novels and Hollywood? Here’s the truth of it, as noted by John Pierce in a 2009 column. The big trailhead towns of the 1870s were rather peaceful, with a total of only 45 homicides between 1870 and 1885 in these towns: Abilene, Caldwell, Dodge City, Ellsworth and Wichita, according to historian W. Eugene Hollon; Frontier Violence; Another Look. The murder rate was 1 per 100,000 citizens. Stack that against a major city today, and you will soon be longing for those “days of yester-year when the Lone Ranger rides again” or something like that.

Or you can go Of course we have the following web sites http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=3/22/2010, http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/Self_Defense.htm
http://www.americanrifleman.org/BlogEntry.aspx?cid=25&id=2257

There are so many more, all you have to do is go to that states concealed carry or gun rights organization and start counting. Most of these are average every day citizens. You can also go to those same sites and see how many cops screw up, every single day or turn to crime or abuse their powers so please dont make us gag when you infer that only the duly authorized are professional or capable enough to protect us when in fact they are as humanly fragile as everyone else!

• • Armed Bahamas resident shoots violent home invader in self defense (Bahamas)
• • Local Clerks Taking Arms Against Robbers (CA)
• • Bait camp owner not charged in fatal shooting (TX)
• • 2 Charged In Connection With Home Burglary, Shooting (FL)
• • Woman shoots, wounds ex-boyfriend (AK)
• • Attempted robbery thwarted by armed citizen (OH)
• • Daughter's ex-boyfriend shot by dad during assault (AZ)
• • Columbus: Third defensive use of a pistol in less than seven days (OH)
• • Homeowner kills robber in Ocoee shootout (FL)
• • Party store customer swipes masked man's gun, kills him (MI)
• • Another Toledo robber shot, this time killed (OH)
• • Off-duty Las Vegas officer shoots armed suspect in Henderson home invasion (NV)
• • Grocery store robber fatally shot by armed clerk (OH)
• • Intruder shot in Henrico County home (VA)
• • Toledo robber shot by store owner (OH)
• • Don't bring a knife to a gunfight (TN)
• • Burglar Killed by Homeowner: Dallas Police (TX)
• • Man shot and killed in West Babylon home (NY)
• • Convenience store clerk shoots violent robber in self defense (FL)
• • Police In Charlotte Investigate Deadly Shooting (NC)
• • Store's owner won't be charged (MS)
• • Knife-Wielding Attacker Shot Dead (TN)
• • Think there's a burglar? Police say get away and call them (CA)
• • Man Fires Shot At Intruder In Delhi Twp. (OH)
• • Armed Cincinnati homeowner scares away a burglar (OH)
• • Armed homeowner sends intruder fleeing (MO)
• • South African armed robber shot by business owner (South Africa)
• • Decatur Man Shoots Burglary Suspect (GA)
• • Suspect killed in home invasion gunbattle (TX)
• • St. Petersburg, FL homeowner shoots home invader in self defense (FL)
• • Police: neighbor shot intruder during home invasion (IN)
• • Armed homeowner stops violent home invader (CA)
• • Man Fatally Shoots Intruder (TX)
• • Robbery Suspect Fatally Shot in Game Room (TX)
• • Lancaster Store Clerk Fires Gun At Armed Robber (PA)
• • Open carry deters armed robbery in Kennesaw (GA)
• • Intruder, occupant exchange gunshots (OH)
• • Northport home invasion victim shoots suspect (AL)
• • Homeowner shoots suspected burglar (NM)
• • House-sitter shoots at intruder, misses (WA)
• • Fight Over Unleashed Dog, Gun Pulled (FL)
• • Police: Man pulls gun during knife fight, faces no charges (TN)
• • 3 Shot During Robbery At Vacant Fulton Home (GA)
• • Cleared: Father who chopped off intruder's ear with samurai sword after he threatened to rape and kill his family (UK)
• • Suspected Burglar Shot To Death At New Orleans Residence (LA)
• • Armed woman fends off burglar (CA)
• • Guard opens fire during armored car robbery attempt (WA)
• • Police question son's story after he's shot by mom (WI)
• • 70-Year-Old Winter Haven Man Shoots Would-be Thieves (FL)
• • Homeowner Shoots Intruder; OKC Police Arrest Suspects (OK)
• • Armed homeowner stops 2 violent home invaders (MS)
• • Concealed carry permit holder fends off 4 attackers (AZ)
• • Kenner Business Owner Shoots and Kills Robber (LA)
• • Police ID robbery suspect shot, killed by Phoenix homeowner (AZ)
• • Shotgun handy for Yakima man with burglars (WA)
• • Suspect shot during attempted robbery (KY)
• • Homeowners confront intruders with gunfire (NY)
• • Five shot in Cocoa; police investigating (FL)
• • Elderly Man Shoots Intruder (OH)
• • Burglary Suspect Shot by Homeowner in Spartanburg County (SC)
• • West Side Resident Shoots Would-Be Robber (OH)
• • Falls man shoots burglar, Falls police say (NY)
• • Investigators: Deadly shooting was self-defense (CA)
• • Homeowner Shoots and Kills Intruder (MO)
• • 74-year-old N.C. state senator shoots, wounds intruder at his home (NC)
• • Armed woman saves relatives from violent home invaders (OH)
• • Never Bring A Bomb To A Gunfight (KS)
• • Dispute Over Girl Leads To Great Falls, Montana Shooting (MT)
• • Teen, 17, Dies In Shooting By Homeowner (TN)
• • Liquor store robber fatally shot by clerk in Crest Hill (IL)
• • 2 suspects in custody, homeowner charged after burglary try (NY)
• • Shooting victim is kin to GOP leader Meehan (PA)
• • Albuquerque, New Mexico Home Invader Shot and Killed (NM)
• • Man shoots alleged thieves in home invasion (TX)
• • Retired couple defend home against burglary (CA)
• »

[PTBitte]

I have not read about a single robbery at Starbucks since the "open carry" movement began having their meetings there

[Jeff Dege]

Not long after Minnesota passed its carry law, Hennepin County put up no-gun signs - but did absolutely nothing to keep guns out. The result, of course, was that a psychopath who intended harm used the courts to force her intended target into the court building, and then shot and killed her.

Google "Susan Berkovitz".

The simple truth is that no-guns signs only keep out the guns you don't need to worry about. People intended violence will walk right past them.

If there is a place where you don't want guns, you need metal detectors and armed security. A no-guns sign, by itself, only makes people less safe.

[interested]

Things were so great back in the wild west. That's why people didn't change - NOT! If you can't see a change from the wild west, the 1950s, and then 2010, you need to read more statistics and history. The wild west is NOT at the top of the "good times" charts.

[Marvin]

The neighborhoods that really need concealed carry already have it.

[interested]

Also, I question any "statistics" that were kept in the 1800's. Record keeping was not that good back then, so you have to take any numbers thrown around about that time frame with a grain of salt.

[Jack Burton]

Kirk sez: The idea in the past was that you don't want gun fights breaking out in crowded places such as Churches, Schools and Government buildings. Guns just shouldn't be used in such places where there are many people. I can't imagine a scenario where responding with another weapon in a crowded place is going to turn out better than waiting for trained law enforcement to deal with the situation. One course in CCW is no substitute for real law enforcement.

Jack replies: And isn't it amazing, folks, that people who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on how well guns work for self defense?

While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with decades of experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to make guns work, and without the anointed ones' guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?

Like they say: When you're sick you go to a car mechanic; when you're in court you need a butcher; and when you want to know something about guns, you go to Mr. Factless.

[killemall]

CCW has been in Kansas for a few years now. FYI I do have my CCW. However, you do not pick up the paper or see on the news where we are taking over the State, or have regular gun fights on Main Street. The facts are that we are very low key, and unless we (or people around us) are threatened, we will stay that way.

[Jane Wayne]

I work in a bad neighborhood, and I would love to get a concealed carry permit. However, I also have a small child, and I have yet to figure out a way to safely keep a loaded weapon within my reach, but out of his. Any suggestions?

[G13]

I'm a county government employee and I think this law is bad. I think it is bad because of county employee's who have CCW I don't trust. They are unsafe and will get someone shot because they don't know how to handle a handgun, even though they went to the class. I'm a veteran, qualifed in small arms, and I don't trust most employee's with handguns. They will shoot themselves or a co-worker. That why the law is wrong. It won't make the workplace safer, but more dangerous.

[interested]

Jack Burton, your assumption that all who obtain CCW know a lot about guns is wrong. Actually, it is very easy to get CCW permit. I agree with G13. This will not make the work place safer.

[interested]

Jack Burton, who is John Pierce, and what "column" are you referring to? The websites you ask us to visit are biased and therefore would most likely have biased "data" too. Can you refer us to any websites without an obvious agenda?

[War on Sex]

So we are going to run all the strip clubs out of business....but allow everyone to strap on a hogleg like the old west?

How stupid that the KS legislature cannot resolve the state budget, but they waste time on this stuff.

The Topeka Capital journal had an interesting article yesterday indicating a 65% disapproval rating by Kansans for the legislature's actions.

[Jim In Houston]

Posted by: killemall | Monday, March 29, 2010 at 10:06 AM

I work in a bad neighborhood, and I would love to get a concealed carry permit. However, I also have a small child, and I have yet to figure out a way to safely keep a loaded weapon within my reach, but out of his. Any suggestions?
---------------------------
There are rapid open gun safes that work with biometrics or 4 key codes. You could attach one under your night stand, for example.

[Jim In Houston]

Jack Burton, your assumption that all who obtain CCW know a lot about guns is wrong. Actually, it is very easy to get CCW permit. I agree with G13. This will not make the work place safer.

Posted by: interested | Monday, March 29, 2010 at 10:55 AM
--------------------------------
You and G13 need to show that these persons ACTUALLY comprise a threat, rather than your imagination or vague mistrust. Until you can demonstrate statistically that this group REALLY comprises a threat, then you have no right to infringe upon their rights. You DO have such data, right?

[parkay]

Is it so hard to understand that our Bill of Rights says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed?

[BL]

This is the exact scenario in which carrying a weapon can save many lives. What if all teachers at Columbine and Virginia Tech had CCW permits and were carrying? How many lives would have been saved? Would the attacks even have been planned knowing that all teacher were armed?

An armed, law-abiding citizenry is the best deterrent and best protection from these multiple "going postal" type shootings.

Get a clue folks. The bad guys are ALWYS going to have guns no matter how many laws you pass. Why would you want to always keep yourselves defenseless from these criminals WITH GUNS?

The only people that protest this are non-gun owners that are scared of guns and scared of the unknown.

[G13]

Jim in Houston. Just because you go to a required class for a CCW does not make you a safe gun owner. It is something that is practiced daily. I'm going on the co-workers in my office only. I have been at my job for over 12 years, have over 14 years in the military experience in small arms. I know the people I work with. Plus there are NO statistics because this law does not exist yet. You can use the argument both ways, do you have statistics that they will be safe? Like I said, I know the people in my office, they are not mentally safe. It is not imagination or vague mistrust. I'm the one that works with them, not you. Every workplace is different. They are a threat with a hand gun. Most shootings are caused by unsafe handling of weapons. Just because you went to a a class that was a couple of hours, doesn't make you any safer. But, I guess if it is there right, then it is there right to have an accident that takes the chance of hurting or killing a child, a parent, or a spouse. But if, Jim, that the statistics that you want so bad is low, then it is worth it, unless if it is your family member. Did you see the 20/20 special on the college class that did the exercise of having a class member have a handgun after the virgina tech shootings?? Not ONE student shot the shooter. Most shot other students. If you have ever shot at before, it is not easy shooting at somebody that is shooting at you. They don't do that training in CCW class now do they??

[Marvin]

Parkay, is it so hard to quote the entire 2nd amendment?

[Jim In Houston]

G13:
"Jim in Houston. Just because you go to a required class for a CCW does not make you a safe gun owner. It is something that is practiced daily. I'm going on the co-workers in my office only. I have been at my job for over 12 years, have over 14 years in the military experience in small arms. I know the people I work with. Plus there are NO statistics because this law does not exist yet. You can use the argument both ways, do you have statistics that they will be safe?"

What I have are the statistics concerning CHL holders in Texas. Go to the Texas Department of Safety to view them yourself. While these data do not address accidents, they do address crime. They show that without a doubt, CHL holders are far more lawful than the general public. While I cannot say for sure, I suspect that safety would go along with that.

You may think that the experiences in other states may differ...perhaps so, but I doubt it. I have seen no evidence of that.

"Like I said, I know the people in my office, they are not mentally safe. It is not imagination or vague mistrust. I'm the one that works with them, not you. Every workplace is different. They are a threat with a hand gun. Most shootings are caused by unsafe handling of weapons."

Not so. At least 75% of shooting fatalities are caused by criminals shooting other criminal. True accidents are relatively rare (go ahead, look it up).

" Just because you went to a a class that was a couple of hours, doesn't make you any safer. But, I guess if it is there right, then it is there right to have an accident that takes the chance of hurting or killing a child, a parent, or a spouse. But if, Jim, that the statistics that you want so bad is low, then it is worth it, unless if it is your family member."

Again, you may be around a lot of goons, but other than your set of losers, I know of no evidence that there is an issue among CHL holders. You would think that with 6 million CHL holders in the USA, any such rampant accident-propensity would show up. Don't you think the anti-gunners would be searching high and low to find that? All the Brady Bunch and VPC has been able to do is to assemble a list of unverified anecdotes.

"Did you see the 20/20 special on the college class that did the exercise of having a class member have a handgun after the virgina tech shootings?? Not ONE student shot the shooter. Most shot other students. If you have ever shot at before, it is not easy shooting at somebody that is shooting at you. They don't do that training in CCW class now do they??"

Yes, I did see that trumped up travesty. Did you really fall for that CP4P? Here is a review from John Lott who is a REAL expert in gun safety and crime:
http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=61

As a shooter, you should read this critique before you present the 20/20 nonsense as being anything other than a Diane Sawyer hit piece.

[G13]

Jim, define shooter. You mean all CCW are all shooters? BS. Try getting shot at and shoot back. You mean a 55 year old lady is going to be able to handle being shot at? BS How many CCW have been in a gun battle? Do you have the Stats for that????

[interested]

Jim, you keep posting articles from people who obviously have an agenda. Why would 20/20 have an agenda, yet you accuse them of airing a "trumped up travesty". Don't agree with your line - must be trumped up. It is obvious you have an agenda too.

[interested]

Jim, maybe "true accidents are rare" is because there are not too many people at this time playing tough man with guns. If 75% of shooting fatalities are criminals against criminals, why are you so worried about getting shot by a criminal - unless you are one?

[Jim in Houston]

G13:"Jim, define shooter. You mean all CCW are all shooters? BS. Try getting shot at and shoot back. You mean a 55 year old lady is going to be able to handle being shot at? BS How many CCW have been in a gun battle? Do you have the Stats for that????"

By "shooter", I simply meant someone versed in shooting. I realize that the term has meaning in the SWAT/military community...I wasn't going there.

You really need to read Lott's rebuttal that I gave you a link for. That way we can be on the same page. It really explains why a civilian can succeed in such a situation.

I think that you are expecting CHL holders to need a SWAT type level of training and competence. They clearly do not have that. But they also clearly do not NEED it. Remember that civilians are engaging only in defense. They are not clearing rooms or making arrests. They just need to be able to STOP a crime (notice I did not say "shoot", "kill", "arrest").

If you were right, then successful defensive gun uses (DGUs) by ORDINARY, POORLY-TRAINED civilians would be rare. If you were right, then such attempts should be leading to a slaughter of innocent bystanders.

Neither of these predictions have come to pass. Instead, the best evidence from many studies is that successful DGU's are in the millions per year in the US (I generally say 1-3 million, which is kind of the consensus range). "Collateral damage" by civilians is also less for civilians...as I recall, it is about 4% per shooting for civies and 11% for cops. As for what number of these DGU's is by CHL's, well I don't know. But I would assume it is in rough proportion to the number of CHL's in the population.

So, the proof is clearly in the pudding. Untrained civilians are fully capable of defending themselves without murdering their innocent fellows.

[Jim in Houston]

Interested: "Jim, you keep posting articles from people who obviously have an agenda. Why would 20/20 have an agenda, yet you accuse them of airing a "trumped up travesty". Don't agree with your line - must be trumped up. It is obvious you have an agenda too."

Well, Sir, you will not be able to find very many "uninterested" sites. But it's not necessarily important that a source be uninterested. It is far more important that their findings be based on solid research (I'm putting on my scientist hat here). The best research on this topic supports what I am telling you. I cited Lott, who is one of the premier researchers in the field (but like all in the field is controversial). The important thing is not the personalities but the durability of their findings.

Do I have an agenda? Sure, I believe in civil rights, including the second amendment.

As for 20/20, I have never seen a more ignorant and biased portrayal in my life. Anyone versed in self defense could see how ludicrous it was. Read Lott's rebuttal for details...it's not important that the site is "non-disinterested". What Lott SAYS is important. READ why the 20/20 show was grossly distorted. I think that even someone with an agenda like you can get the point.

And WHY would 20/20 have an anti-gun bias? Seriously, were you borne yesterday?

[Jim in Houston]

"If 75% of shooting fatalities are criminals against criminals, why are you so worried about getting shot by a criminal - unless you are one?"

Because there's still that 25%.

BTW, you may wish to "play the odds" with your life, but I don't. You might be interested to know that your lifetime odds of being a victim of violent crime is almost 100%:

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/104274.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yb4Nkeks15AC&oi=fnd&pg=PT18&dq=lifetime+risk+of+crime+victim&ots=73CoKoj6_N&sig=yDj0McP6utTNfJb3Q1Af20Pk9wg#v=onepage&q=lifetime&f=false

I choose to meet those odds armed if at all possible. You can just rely on your luck.

[Jarhead1982]

Since there are what, near 35 million retired military and police in the US today, and surely they have all forgot every single bit of weapons training, those 50% of people at the shooting matches I see that aren't ex-military and are as good as any of the military guys. Yet why is it that accidental deaths continues to fall over the last 3 plus decades to less than 750 in 2006 and preliminary shows less than 650 in 2007 hmmm?

Geez Marvin, guess if you claimed that the 6 million jews that died by Hitlers actions really didn't happen either based on your say so and expect everyone to believe you eh? We provided a real HISTORIANS research on the information, yet you have NOTHING to dispute the data he used and provided in his book. So we don't really give a flying FXXK what you believe, we care what you can prove, and buddy, you cant prove that data wrong, otherwise, you would have! More references http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1449 or you can look up graves registration for those particular towns.

Noticed nothing was said about all those examples we provided of people using a firearm to defend themselves without shooting a bunch of innocent bystanders. Why is it that the teacher from Pearl Mississippi did so in 1997, the two law students at Appalachian law school in 2002, the lady at the church in Colorado 2008, the off duty security guard at the mall in Nebraska 2008, yeah no evidence of every day people using a firearm in self defense effectively all while not shooting others carelessly.

Check out the data on CCW in Florida, it correlates Texas data, where on average less than 7 CCW holders are involved in a felony weapon crime a year and less than two pull the trigger during those crimes. Compiled with data on the actual percentage a firearm is fired during a crime (15% or less), the number of times the target is hit (25% max, based on Virginia/NYC police studies) and hospital databases on injured and killed, the chance of you being harmed is approx. .000001%, whereas 98,000 deaths per year by 700,000 doctors per the JAMA in the US for a .14 average death per physician. Means a doctor is how many times more likely to harm you than a CCW holder, thousands of times more likely

So lets see, USDOJ National Gang Threat assessment 2009 identifies up to 80% of all violent crime is career criminal/gang related. Then USDOJ Nation Victimization report 2008 identified another 4.8 million violent crimes unreported, and somewhere near 9 million property crimes.

Now that totals more than 6.15 million violent crimes a year, 100 million households in the US, so care to do a statistical probability model on the chances of you falling victim to a violent crime during the average life span we have in the US of what 65 years?

Don't forget the FBI UCR data 2008 identified 9,424 murders by firearms in 2008 out of 381,000 reported violent crimes involving a firearm.

So those 2,200 deaths or so committed by non career criminals, of which around 50 per year may be attributed to concealed carry license holders out of somewhere between 80-100 million law abiding gun owners is more reason to ban guns, than the 700,000 doctors who killed 98,000 a year based on their incompetence?

Your demand for absolute results is supremely hypocritical as even those trained and authorized screw up on a regular basis.

Lets apply your theory to the only ones you want authorized.

http://www.koamtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11815788
http://www.macon.com/local/story/984763.html
http://www.kyw1060.com/Former-Phila--Cop-Held-for-Trial-on-Child-Rape/6117274
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-01-14/news/ex-miami-beach-cop-adam-tavss-kills-two-gets-caught-with-drugs-and-earns-a-nice-payout
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7212268
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/08/oakland.police.report/index.html

These are just from the few weeks ago, but the pattern is consistent, every week police committing all sorts of criminal acts as they are empowered by the badge and above the law. Making mistakes shooting the wrong person, making mistakes and not following standard safety procedures resulting in their own needless deaths.

Of course preparing for a possible attack or emergency is just freaking stupidity based on the anti's. So in turn having health, homeowners, life or car insurance is stupid and unnecessary. Training and practice for fire, tornado, wrecks, emergency medical procedures is arbitrarily stupid as well as why should anyone be afraid of, much less plan or prepare as an intelligent person would? Please forward this dramatic cost saving procedure as everyone should be aware of and take full advantage of these immediate savings!

[interested]

The fact that police are investing calls frequently accounts for the higher number of times an innocent might get shot instead of a perpetrator in those situations. So your comparison is a fallacy.

And to try to make us think your death by doctor comparison has anything to do with this issue is laughable.

And, everyone knows you can twist numbers to prove anything you want.

[Jim In Houston]

Interested: "The fact that police are investing calls frequently accounts for the higher number of times an innocent might get shot instead of a perpetrator in those situations. So your comparison is a fallacy."

No, it's not a fallacy, because I wasn't making a direct comparison of the sorts of tasks they perform. You are absolutely correct that cops spend time up close and personal with criminals...they do that all the time. Their risks are higher and they need to at least use their guns more frequently than civilians. The civilians, on the other hand, do NOT have to put hands on criminals. This gives them more time to react to bad situations if they have the means to do so. By not having to subdue criminals, the civilian can often stop a crime by simply displaying a gun. Yes, the civilian's self-defense job is generally easier.

My point is that contrary to the fevered imaginations of anti-gunners, civilians are NOT spraying bullets all over the place. That alone is the take-home message.

[Jim In Houston]

"And, everyone knows you can twist numbers to prove anything you want."

Only if your audience is credulous.

[interested]

The reason civilians may not be spraying bullets all over the place, may still be because the majority of people do not have that power yet. Once they do, who knows. There are so many dimwits out there. I don't want them having the power to be anywhere where they perceive a danger and end up causing it. Look around you. Do you really want the people you see at the shopping mall carrying loaded guns?

[Jim In Houston]

"The reason civilians may not be spraying bullets all over the place, may still be because the majority of people do not have that power yet. Once they do, who knows. There are so many dimwits out there."

Well, that's certainly true. It is likely that the Concealed Carry population has self-selected (as well as selected by gov't screening) to be highly reliable, responsible, and lawful. But that accentuates my point that CHL carriers, or at least the current crop of them, has proven to be extremely lawful. Still, there are many successful DGU's performed by non-CHL holders, still without carnage. I'm more hopeful than not about the larger population.

[MogaDishu Kampi]

Marvin sez: "Parkay, is it so hard to quote the entire 2nd amendment?"

Is there a point in there somewhere?

[MogaDishu Kampi]

interested sez: "And, everyone knows you can twist numbers to prove anything you want."

Confessing?

[Puma Complete]

The best part is the description! You have to love that.My kid has always been fascinated with astrology. He's too young to understand things about NASA but I'm glad to find this so I could somehow explain to him a bit even though I do not completely understand it all.