Kaci is confused

To the well-informed, thinking reader, an article like this would be laughable. To those who are slow or maybe just don’t know any better, I’ll try to help.

The decision of when a weapon is used is left entirely to the gun's owner.

One might conclude from this (true) statement that the harmful use of the gun by the owner should be regulated (no murdering other people) rather than the peaceful use (personal defense). Kaci sees it a different way:

There is a reasonable level of concern that every Kansan who receives this permit will not be able to handle the responsibility that comes along with being a gun owner. Sure there will be National Riffle Association members and some citizens who view this concern as an exaggeration. There will be those who argue this law is a victory for individual freedom that puts the power back in the hands of the people. But while they are celebrating, lives are being put in jeopardy as guns take center stage in violent activity throughout the state.

Let me paraphrase: “My conscience tells me that this is an issue of freedom, and that I’m on the wrong side of it, BUT I’m so afraid of what that might mean.”

Just last week five Kansas students were stopped by officials after allegedly planning a brutal attempt at opening gun fire on fellow students and teachers at their high school. Their actions would not have been prevented if it were not for watchful eyes; it seems all Kansans will be forced to be more aware after the implementation of this law.

Yeah, uh-huh… WHAT?? Two true statements that are totally unrelated to the last assertion. So why now will people be forced to be “more aware”? Is she capable of cohesive thought? Did the students have CCW permits? Is it legal to shoot people at school? What does this have to do with KS CCW? What? She just wanted to bring it up because it seemed like a good anti-gun thing to talk about? Oh, I see.

The new gun law does prohibit owners from carrying their weapon in places like schools, churches and government buildings. But there is no guarantee that violent individuals will particularly care, bringing the issue back to trust.

Do potential murders and rapists care where guns are prohibited? She’s right about the issue revolving around trust. I don’t trust criminals to obey laws, so I want to be protected wherever I go.

Those in favor of carrying concealed weapons would be naive to think guns won't end up in the wrong hands.

Oh, I see. So before KS had CCW only good people had guns, and now CCW might let guns get into the wrong hands. Now I get it.

Kansas’ problems with crime and safety can't be solved with a new gun law. The safety of citizens in this state can’t be left to backgrounds checks and waiting eriods.

I know she’s trying to prove that CCW is bad, and what she’s saying is true… But those seem like two very good reasons to repeal some restrictive gun laws.

There is nothing wrong with depending on the government and police departments to provide citizens with safety -- especially since it is their obligation to ensure domestic tranquility.

Oh Kaci, how naive you are. You just keep telling yourself that the police will always be there to protect you. Don’t bother to read about all of the unanswered 911 calls [2] [3], dismissed as prank 911 calls, or the court’s upholding the fact that police do not have an obligation to protect individuals.