In Sunday's paper, I see the State of Kansas Legislature wants to lift a ban on concealed weapons.
Yee-haw.
The thing is, the Johnson county Community College administrators (along with the police and sheriff's departments, too, no doubt) would rather keep things the way they are, with handguns not allowed on campuses, etc.
But what do administrators on campuses know about campuses, right?
Or Police Departments?
Or Sheriff Departments?
The answer for the legislators--the Right Wing ones, anyway, along with the NRA--is "more guns, more places."
Better yet, to them, it's "all guns, all the time."
Oh, joy.
I'm reminded of that 60's song:
"When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"
If they have their way, apparently never.
Posts
Links 11/22/2024
14 minutes ago
19 comments:
Is there something particularly bad about allowing guns on a college campus, or are you just in favor of banning them wherever possible?
You've set up a strawman argument with the police comments--the vast majority of street cops familiar with carry licenses are in favor of carry licenses. Police Administrators are split--many of them are political, and are likely to agree with whatever the mayor's office says.
And the logic of the people who object due to the cost of metal detectors is astounding. People who are currently stopped by a mere rule aren't the ones you need to worry about.
blah, blah, blah.
I was waiting for this.
You say tomato, I say tomahtoe.
You say more guns, I say less.
You're not going to change your mind and I'm certainly not, either.
Every police or sheriff's department I've read of want less weapons out there that they have to work against but you say different.
I stand by what I said--the administrators know their campus but the right wing legislators want to open it up to guns.
To you it makes sense.
To many of us out here, it makes none.
Are you not familiar with "he who lives by the sword"? Does that have no logic here?
mr
in answer to your first question, I'm just for fewer guns in society, period.
mr
Every law enforcement agency obviously wants fewer guns "on the street" to be used against them. If you talk to working cops, (I have) they understand that people with carry licenses are extraordinarily unlikely to use them against cops. When a department as a whole talks, it is the chief or his spokesman, and if they say something the news doesn't want you to hear, you won't hear it.
I'm not saying more guns in this case. I'm saying that Pandora's box is open, and forbidding licensed carry only makes sure the criminals can work largely unopposed.
"if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written" (New Testament)
I suspect we have different definitions of "live by the gun". I usually have a gun with me, but my definition of "live by the gun" includes using it to get my way--based on that, I do not live by the gun.
"Using it to get my way"?
That sounds ominous.
And threatening.
Anyway, yes, we surely have a different definition of "live by the gun."
You say you "usually have one with" you.
I'd say that's living by the gun.
You keep going back, again and again, to this "forbidding licensed carry" as though I or any legislature or legislator is proposing new, more stringent gun laws which absolutely is not happening.
What is happening, repeatedly, is the loosening of restrictions that are already on the books (National Parks carry; the new concealed-carry in Jeff City, etc.) and that's what I'm saying is, without question, a big mistake.
I'lll keep saying it, just as you said the law, police and sheriff's departments would feel, recommend and declare--more and more guns in our society is not a good idea.
mr
"Using it to get my way" would be threatening, immoral and should be illegal in almost all cases.
There has been a drastic expansion of licensed carry since the 80's, and slow loosening of the restrictions already in place. Predictions of increased violence are constant, and constantly wrong.
There has been a constant increase in gay rights since the 80's. Predictions of gay chaos such have been constant, and constantly wrong.
Just what I needed: another thing to add to the long list of Reasons To Stay The Hell Out Of Kansas!
School administrators typically aren't young women carrying laptop computers to their cars parked a half-mile away after dark.
It doesn't surprise me administrators don't comprehend that risk.
What's a few rapes?
when did any rape--or a series of rapes--happen at JCCC or in Johnson County?
mr
when did any rape--or a series of rapes--happen at JCCC or in Johnson County?
When was the last time a carry license holder in Johnson County committed a violent crime?
Statewide, which is more common--rape, or *any* violent crime by license holders?
I wouldn't know--the newspaper never reports whether the lunatic that just killed his wife and kids--or whatever--was licensed or not.
I wouldn't know--the newspaper never reports whether the lunatic that just killed his wife and kids--or whatever--was licensed or not.
if he was licenced, there is virtually no chance the news would ignore that fact. Most states with ccw keep ststistics on licences revoked for cause, generally a
fraction of a percent, generally not for gun misuse.
"virtually no chance the news would ignore the fact"?
you sound serious.
Usually, Sevesteen, you make legitimate points but on this one, really, when was the last time the local newspaper or tv station said, "The shooter was also a licensed gun carrier"?
It never happens.
Please, don't try to say otherwise.
I can agree with you on some other points--at least occasionally--but you're way off on this.
mr
In cases of legitimate self-defense shootings, it is relatively common for the news to report that the shooter had a license.
In cases of crime, it is relatively uncommon. This is NOT because the news can't figure out whether they have a license.
I'll expand on my last comment (I was on my iPod, and wasn't willing to type much) Many states keep records of either license suspensions and revocations, or crime committed by license holders. Less than 1% of licenses are revoked for any reason in my home state of Ohio, and that includes people moving out of state. In Texas,(they have the most detailed online statistics) government statistics show that license holders commit violent crime about 1/5 to 1/8 the rate of non-license holders--again, small fractions of a percent conviction rate.
The chance of this person being a license holder is microscopic, the chance that the newspaper wouldn't figure that out and shout loudly are even smaller.
The local newspaper and tv stations don't report this.
Ever.
Reliably.
mr
You may be right on local news not reporting license status--I get most of my local news from the newspaper website, usually after there has been time to do a bit of investigation.
But a bigger reason you don't see license status mentioned is because it is so rarely relevant. Licensing averages around 2% of the population nationwide, and license holders are 5-10 times less likely to be involved in violent crime. If my math is right, In Texas, 0.005% of violent crime is committed by license holders. I'm going to guess that far more than 0.005% of Texans have a license.
Really? You think rapes and robberies are adequately uncommon on college campuses?
Assuming you say yes, I'll just repeat what my broker tells me: "Prior performance is no guarantee of future outcome."
So let me phrase the issue another way; what benefit is derived from guaranteeing criminals that their prospective victims will be unarmed?
Any benefit seems to inure entirely to the criminal.
the number one cause or source of rape in colleges and universities is date rape, making a gun pointless.
the young women know their rapist all too well and it usually comes with being drunk or drugged.
so much for the gun.
mr
the number one cause or source of rape in colleges and universities is date rape, making a gun pointless.
the young women know their rapist all too well and it usually comes with being drunk or drugged.
so much for the gun.
mr
Post a Comment