Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People

And, in the "unfettering" of the 2nd Amendment, there is this to ponder: Concealed firearms now allowed at Kansas Capitol without permit

ZHawke wrote: And, in the "unfettering" of the 2nd Amendment, there is this to ponder: Concealed firearms now allowed at Kansas Capitol without permit

Well if allowing legal (to own a gun) citizens to carry a weapon concealed at the capital creates an environment where criminals (illegal gun owners) want to come and start killing people, I'll eat every word I've ever written on the issue. I'm guessing I won't have to so there's no need for me to ponder the idea.

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote: And, in the "unfettering" of the 2nd Amendment, there is this to ponder: Concealed firearms now allowed at Kansas Capitol without permit

Well if allowing legal (to own a gun) citizens to carry a weapon concealed at the capital creates an environment where criminals (illegal gun owners) want to come and start killing people, I'll eat every word I've ever written on the issue. I'm guessing I won't have to so there's no need for me to ponder the idea.

Not quite sure how that should be taken, Rick.

It appears to me the rationale you gave for not pondering is based on a premise that you'll wait to see if criminals want to start killing people as a result of this law being passed. Is that correct?

Could it also be said that the law will "allow" someone (doesn't necessarily even have to be a so-called "criminal"), bent on doing harm to someone else might have the advantage in doing so in this type of scenario?

ZHawke wrote: ... a so-called "criminal", bent on doing harm to someone else ...

A "so-called criminal"? Do you have a scenario where someone "bent on doing harm to someone else", obviously taking the law into their own hands, is not a criminal?

Mary Scott wrote:

ZHawke wrote: ... a so-called "criminal", bent on doing harm to someone else ...

A "so-called criminal"? Do you have a scenario where someone "bent on doing harm to someone else", obviously taking the law into their own hands, is not a criminal?

Sorry, Mary. There was a typo in my last post that actually made the context inaccurate. I've fixed it now, and hope that helps.

In that vein, and in answer to your question, no, I do not have an actual scenario. I do, however, have an incident that occurred in Idaho awhile back. Lawmakers there also wanted to open the capitol to open and concealed carry (I believe the law in Kansas is for concealed carry only). Everything in Idaho was fine until someone actually did open carry inside the capitol building. Another incident in the state of Washington was just as illustrative. Everything is ok until someone actually exercises their rights to carry on capitol grounds. Then the politicians freak out.

It's interesting to me, too, that no Fortune 500 companies, to my knowledge, allow guns in their HQ buildings. Not even the NRA HQ is open to guns in their building.

One more thing, Mary....truth is, some people are not criminals --- at least that have been identified as such --- prior to going on rampages like what we've seen in some schools, theaters, churches, and elsewhere here lately. They are criminals after the fact, but can't be called criminals up until they've actually broken a law. At least that's my understanding of how that works. If I'm wrong, please elaborate.

ZHawke wrote:
From what I've gathered from you in our discussions, you seem to believe that being armed somehow "prepares" you for the inevitable. Preparedness is a good thing in the scheme of things. Over preparedness can also be an issue that can cause more harm than it will do good (and I've posted on that, previously, as well).

No, actually my point is more that being prepared doesn't make it more likely that you will be a criminal or irresponsible.

Rick wrote:

ZHawke wrote:
From what I've gathered from you in our discussions, you seem to believe that being armed somehow "prepares" you for the inevitable. Preparedness is a good thing in the scheme of things. Over preparedness can also be an issue that can cause more harm than it will do good (and I've posted on that, previously, as well).

No, actually my point is more that being prepared doesn't make it more likely that you will be a criminal or irresponsible.

To my knowledge, no one....not anyone....has said anywhere that it does. Reality, right alongside history, however, has shown that the two (being prepared and being criminal and/or irresponsible) are not mutually exclusive, nor are they mutually inclusive when it comes to gun ownership and/or usage, safe or otherwise.

I'm going to provide this link in the hope it helps shed some light on the issue of using the term "crazies" when talking about mental illness and how it is related to mass shootings:

Facts About Mental Illness and Violence

The reality is there are many myths associated with mental illness. The more we choose to perpetuate those myths, the more stigmatized this very unfortunate group of people is made to suffer because of our own ignorance about these maladies (depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, bi-polar, delusional paranoia, psychosis, etc. etc.).

Directed at no one in particular....just an observation.

It seems to me those who advocate for gun violence prevention are almost always "put on the spot" by pro-gun advocacy individuals and groups to "defend" themselves and to come up with solutions/laws/alternatives that would prevent that gun violence.

Conversely, when pro-gun advocacy individuals and groups are asked to do the same, the resultant responses are either vague and nebulous, or they border on the inane. All one must do to verify that assertion is to look back through just about any thread that tries to discuss this issue.

Bottom line is that it takes two to tango....both sides on this issue should be willing to walk the walk regarding gun violence prevention.