Posted on 12/29/2013 6:44:43 AM PST by marktwain
Kansas recently passed legislation requiring that local governments that ban the legal carry of concealed weapons in public buildings, do so for people who ignore the law as well. The logic is simple: If a person is willing to do illegal harm with a weapon, then ignoring a simple sign that forbids people from having weapons on the premises will not be much of a deterrent. This creates a situation where only those who are willing to ignore the law are armed. John Lott has noted that all of the public mass shootings since 1950, except one, have been in places where the public is not allowed to carry guns, "Gun Free Zones". Second amendment supporters often refer to such areas as "Defenseless Victim Zones".
The Kansas response is to require enforcement of "Gun Free Zones" in public buildings. If a government entity wishes to prevent the public from carrying guns in a public building, they can do so, but they have to put in place security measures such as guards and machines that are capable of detecting weapons, not a simple sign.
Wichita will open most of its public buildings including libraries, recreational centers, CityArts and the Wichita Art Museum to people carrying concealed guns under a new state law.Those who oppose the right of the people to bear arms have also opposed making the "Gun Free Zones" effective. They claim that the cost is prohibitive. That is partly the point, to inject reality into the debate. If you want to be secure from guns, a mere sign is only effective against those who are law abiding. From kansas.com, Lavonta Williams, a city council member, stated an ideological reason for the ban on legal concealed weapons:
Fearful of lawsuits, the City Council voted 4-2 to allow concealed-carry in all but 16 of 107 city-owned buildings effective Jan. 1
My thing is the kids, Williams said. What are we teaching them? Two wrongs dont make a right. If youre saying the outlaws are carrying so we should carry, then two wrongs dont make a right.Many proponents of the measure say that citizens carrying arms is not only a moral right, it is a fundamental human right enumerated in the Constitution.
"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."Static defenses, such as these security measures, have generally proved ineffective over the long run. They are costly to maintain, and can be defeated by dedicated opponents. They cannot be extended over all of society. To do so results in a police state or totalitarian system. They have the advantage, however, of clarifying the reality of the choices.
Funny how they turn into “Gun-Free Blood Zones” anyhow.
lavonta, lavonta, lavonta...your logic is flawed.
Two wrongs? Outlaws with guns...WRONG; law abiding citizens with a gun, Second Amendment RIGHT; RIGHT?
Where is the second wrong?
Maybe your logic is the second WRONG.
Wee, they’re gonna make a stern finger wag....more stern!
That’ll show the criminals!
Just like when it worked in Sandy Hook Connecticut!
/ sarc
Is there any reason we don't have cement block free zone?
Would they help stop Haley from seeking revenge for being fired?
Oh, haley is amish so he wouldn't use a gun.
People often look at Kansas’ old laws against carrying guns in the cow towns of the 1800s. They forget that such laws were only enforced against Texas Cowboys wanting to shoot up the town or cause trouble.
Once, in Wichita, a cowboy was in jail, for carrying a gun. A large group of armed cowboys came to get him out. Only ONE sheriff stood between them.
Someone rang the alarm bell, and suddenly there was a large group of ARMED CITIZENS of Wichita there to back up the sheriff.
The cowboy crowd dispersed quickly, and quietly got rid of their guns in bushes and dark alleys.
The citizens were not disarmed.
If the mother had a gun, it might have turned out a bit different...
If a person is willing to do illegal harm with a weapon, then ignoring a simple sign that forbids people from having weapons on the premises will not be much of a deterrent.
Oh come on now! Why wouldn’t a criminal obey the sign?
Yes, to her being armed is wrong. As though that is the word from God.
There is no limit to idiocy.
“Someone rang the alarm bell, and suddenly there was a large group of ARMED CITIZENS of Wichita there to back up the sheriff.”
COWBOYS versus CITIZENS! Didn’t turn out too well for those cowpokes, did it? Should have gotten more guns to the Indians ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.