Kansas Concealed Carry proves as safe as everywhere else

[pipoman]

For almost three years, Kansans have been able to carry concealed handguns if they obtain the required license.

So far, there have been no major incidents or widespread controversies involving the concealed-carry law, said Phil Journey, the former state senator and firearms advocate from Haysville who helped concealed carry become law. The head of the Kansas police chiefs association agrees with Journey.

-snip-

Opponents to the law "generally raised the specter of people shooting each other over car wrecks or parking spaces... and that has not come true in Kansas or any other states that passed the law," said Journey, now a District Court judge in Sedgwick County.

-snip-

The president of the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, Todd Ackerman, said he agrees with Journey's overall assessment.

"I feel that the law has worked well, and people have followed the guidelines," said Ackerman, the Marysville police chief. "I have not heard of any incidents."

http://www.kansas.com/196/story/1072955.html?storylink=omni_popular


As has proven true in every state (43) with "shall issue" CCW, no blood in the streets or road rage shootings yet..

[jobycom]

1. They did shoot each other over car accidents and barroom brawls here in Texas.

But the Republicans who passed the concealed carry law took an active hand in pushing prosecutors to not prosecute, and so the statistics make it look like nothing major happened here. Don't know about Kansas. Don't really care, either. We long ago lost our status as a civilized nation, and I don't expect that to change anytime soon, no matter what statistics are presented or what firearms activist assures me to take his word for it.

[pipoman]

6. Links?

Of coarse not..

[jobycom]

13. Why bother?

Would it change your mind? I'm sure you can find a link to prove anything on the Internet.

Just after Bush forced the concealed carry bill through and had it signed (one of his first acts), a driver in Dallas killed a man over a minor traffic accident. Witnesses said the killer provoked the man, and when the man got out of his car, the killer shot him, claiming the other man was rushing him. After initially implying otherwise, the investigators changed it to self-defense.

Within a couple of weeks of that case, there was a concealed carry shooting in Houston where a CCer shot another man after provoking a fight. It was also changed to self-defense after pressure from the governor (that would be W).

It became a pattern. Dude shot a man in the back for messing with his car, and it was self-defense. Woman shot a man in her complex and claimed he was a peeping tom, and it was self-defense. Conservatives protect each other.

[pipoman]

15. Texas is in a class of it's own on justifiable homicide

and always has been..

[Gumbo]

17. So I assume you're a state trooper in Texas and you were

part of the investigations for all of these incidents, and you formulated your opinion after careful consideration of first hand knowledge of the events? No? You're just repeating heresay that promotes your agenda? Thought so.

[eqfan592]

20. BINGO!

"I heard it from somebody that heard it from somebody that there was NO possibility that it was actually self defense! So these two, 2nd hand anecdotal accounts TOTALLY validate my opinion!"

Unbefuckingleavable the lengths some people will go to justify their ignorant points of view in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Bush didn't "force" the bill through. Get your facts straight.

Previously, Ann Richards, the Democratic Governor of Texas, VETOED the concealed carry bill. That made Texas voters angry. Bush capitalized on that anger and promised the voters that he would sign the bill. He won the election, largely due to that issue. If Richards had signed the bill, she would almost certainly have defeated Bush.

We have the gun-control crowd to thank for the Bush governorship terms and for the Bush presidency.

Gore lost his home state of TN over guns. If he had carried TN, FL would not have mattered.

Kerry lost some key states over guns.

[SteveM]

39. Ann rose & fell, trying to play culture war. Not recommended (nt)

[GreenStormCloud]

40. No matter how you spin it, you can't change the facts.

Ann vetoed the CHL bill. Bush campaigned with a promise to sign the bill. Therefore, Bush did not "push the bill through". It has already passed the legislature once, and easily went throught to be put on Bush's desk. No pushing was needed.

[SteveM]

41. One of two big errors she made which sunk her...

There was an attempt to place the unique Barton Springs Creek (which pumps water into a large WPA(?)-era pool almost in downtown Austin under Federal protection since development upstream was threatening the creek. As governor, she recommended it not be placed in that status; many of her activist supporters in the Austin area remembered that. Not so hot on the environment.

[rrneck]

26. pipoman's not the only one reading this.

If you want to make a point and do some good, make a persuasive case.

[taurus145]

29. Whether the shooter was a CCW holder is irrelevant

in the case involving the car. IF by "messing" you "mean attempting to break into", the shooting was legally justified in TX because the Castle Doctrine extends to your car.

I'm not saying I agree with it. That's the way it is - in Texas.

[Euromutt]

32. Let's get that Dallas story straight, shall we?

Just after Bush forced the concealed carry bill through and had it signed (one of his first acts), a driver in Dallas killed a man over a minor traffic accident. Witnesses said the killer provoked the man, and when the man got out of his car, the killer shot him, claiming the other man was rushing him. After initially implying otherwise, the investigators changed it to self-defense.

What actually happened was that the CHL holder, a rather scrawny welding equipment repairman named Gordon Hale, smashed the wing mirror of a delivery van with his pickup truck and tried to drive away. The driver of the delivery van--a rather large 33 year-old Samoan named Kenny Tavai--pursued Hale's pickup until it got stuck in traffic. Tavai then got out of the van, ran up to Hale's pickup, and started to beat Hale (who was trapped by his seatbelt) about the head and shoulders. In this initial assault, Tavai, despite using his bare hands, broke several bones in Hale's face and caused permanent injury to Hale's left eye before stopping and walking away. It wasn't until Tavia turned around, walked back to Hale's truck and reached in through the driver's side window with the apparent intent of continuing the beating that Hale fired one shot into Tavai's torso, which proved proved fatal.

The investigators didn't "change it to self-defense"; Hale was charged with murder, but it was the grand jury that refused to indict him. Evidently, the members thought that not giving Tavai the opportunity to smash the rest of Hale's face in was sufficient justification for Hale to shoot.

Now I'll concede that causing damage to another person's vehicle and then trying to flee--as Hale apparently did--is a pretty shitty thing to do, but we've agreed as a society that the appropriate response to such an incident is not to beat the offending party to a bloody pulp. Tavai could have followed Hale's truck, giving his (Tavai's) passenger the opportunity to make note of the license plate, make, model and color of Hale's truck, and then filed a complaint with the police. That's how we're supposed to handle these situations, right?

Okay, so now we've established that your version of this incident is apparently some third-hand recounting in which just about every detail was incorrect, would you care to provide some reason why we should take your word for everything else you claimed in your post?

[S_B_Jackson]

36. And while we're at it, let's get the Houston case straight as well.

It became a pattern. Dude shot a man in the back for messing with his car, and it was self-defense.

The shooting of the repo man, Tommy Morris, by a man who was towing his vehicle in the dead of night had NOTHING to do with CCW legislation, nor was it no billed on the basis of self-defense. This was a matter of justifiable homocide as the owner, believing his vehicle was being stolen (AT NIGHT)from his home, shot at the fleeing tow-truck which had hooked his truck up. The law when enabled this reaction goes back to 1830s. A synopsis of the case:
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/08/us/in-killing-of-repo-man-law-shields-the-killer.html

[Hoopla Phil]

23. Lets see that evidence and proof please.

[OttavaKarhu]

34. Show us facts, not faith

[joeybee12]

2. Wow, what one state senator says "proves" everything...

...more propaganda, certainly not a study of any sort or even any research put into this NRA PR piece.

[pipoman]

3. Let's see your stats showing the contrary

you can't..

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Because Kansas probably doesn't publish it.

Florida does. Most states don't.

Quite frustrating, actually, if you want to have an intelligent discussion on this issue.

Edit: Ah-ha, buried in the Kansas State Attorney General site.
http://www.ksag.org/files/shared/concealcarry.stats.pdf

Still, lacking in data. Revoked why? Used in a crime perhaps? WHO KNOWS.

[Hoopla Phil]

24. Speaking of propaganda without supporting evidence, please see post #1

Thank you.

[thereismore]

4. "any incidents" means zero. Really? nt

[pipoman]

21. It would seem that the

president of Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police would likely be aware if there had been any incidents. Further, the state's 3 largest newspapers The Kansas City Star, The Topeka Capitol Journal, and the Wichita Eagle Beacon editorial staff has always opposed concealed carry, it was passed several times by both houses and repeatedly vetoed by governors (both repugs and dems) largely because of threats by these 3 papers, until 3 years ago when Kathleen Sibelius vetoed the bill and her veto was overridden by the houses.

If you think for one instant that these papers wouldn't hammer away if a ccw carrier actually committed a serious offense with their gun, you are kidding yourself. And before anyone acts as though the reporters from these papers wouldn't know...all of these papers have reporters physically sitting in their counties and the surrounding counties courthouses full time every week day. They read every criminal case that comes through the courthouse...they wouldn't miss it..Further the Sheriffs in each of these counties (Shawnee, Johnson, and Sedgwick were all on the record opposing ccw....they would make it known too..

[thereismore]

35. Thanks. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

5. In fairness, I'd like to see some state numbers to back that up.

On issued permits, revoked and suspended permits, etc.

Why does it seem like Florida is the only state that clearly publishes this data?

(I have a permit, I carry in Wa, just pointing out this article isn't 'proof positive')

[pipoman]

10. The stats aren't there

because there have been no shooting incidents by ccw holders. Most revocations nationally are for convictions unrelated to ccw. Most suspensions are in accordance with temporary orders including protection from abuse orders which are standard filings in divorce proceedings even when there is no previous history of domestic violence.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. The data I was able to find does not clarify that.

It's POSSIBLE that is true, but of the revocations and temporary suspensions, I have no idea what any of them might be suspended or revoked for. So, at the moment, I don't consider your statement based on fact. It MAY be, but it remains unproven. It would be nice if it could be proven.

My state is similarly vague with these numbers. I don't know why.

[X_Digger]

16. Texas does, too

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2008.pdf

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Texas also publishes. N/T

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. [/b]

[pipoman]

11. thx

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. You're

welcome.



:thumbsup:

[sui generis]

9. self-reporting is always the best.

Also, experts who "feel" that things are not an issue are just too touchy-feelie for me.

I'm not offering any facts here, other than distrusting the fox telling us the chickens are all accounted for, but hey I'm a registered cynic.

:shrug:

Funny thing about Kansas . . . there is a huge uptick in gangbangers and drug dealers and gang warfare practically everywhere, even in church, grocery stores, and PTA meetings, everywhere except apparently in the news. Why there are more criminals running around now than ever before, so concealed carry is absolutely necessary, now that big city crime has come your local grocery store in Kansas.

:popcorn:

[Euromutt]

33. The "fox" in this case being the president of the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, right?

That's the guy who says he hasn't "heard of any incidents" of CCW licensees going berserk with firearms they'd been carrying concealed.

As regards necessity of concealed carry, last time I looked, in a free society--which this country nominally is, and certainly is in practice to a greater extent than most countries I know--freedom is not predicated on need. Provided a certain activity cannot be demonstrated to be detrimental to the common weal, the government has no legitimate business restricting it. Do you need to engage in whatever recreational activities you get up to in your bedroom with consenting adults? Probably not, but that doesn't mean the government gets to tell you not to. Provided, that is, you're not harming anyone against their will. And evidently, Kansan CCW permit holders aren't harming anyone either.

[PavePusher]

22. Well, DUH...! facepalm. n/t

[pipoman]

25. Don't have anything to add

dumbass?

[eqfan592]

27. Ummm, I'm pretty sure he was voicing agreement :)

And the facepalm is the fact that this continues to have to be pointed out to folks, if my guess is correct. :)

[pipoman]

28. Pretty cryptic if that was his point...I'm not sure I'm convinced..

[PavePusher]

30. Sorry, eq is correct.

My apologies for not being clearer. The comment wasn't aimed at you personally, but at the continued legions who always seem to be shocked that legal firearms carriers continue to be... legal and peaceful. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

P.S.: I'll be sure to underscore the sarcasm better in the future, a lot of it has been flying right by people lately.

[eqfan592]

31. Maybe it's the holidays making us all a little crazy or something. :P (nt)

[pipoman]

37. Got it..

I have admittedly posted some stuff I would have liked to edit after the edit time was up..post #25 for instance...been spending too much time in 2 face land (gd) I guess..

It is sometimes difficult to detect sarcasm or joshing for that matter when you can't see the other persons face or body language.

[PavePusher]

38. Agreed, and no hard feelings.

I admit that sometimes I am not particularly clear and am often as sensative/nuanced as a stack of bricks, myself. But I'm getting pretty good at this apology/clarification stuff...!

:toast: