New York Times obsessed with gun-free zones, new article on attempt to eliminate gun-free zones in Kansas

The New York Times seems to have a hard time understanding the problem with gun-free zones.  Kansas has a simple rule: if you aren't going to allow people to defend themselves, you can only do that if you can guarantee that criminals aren't going to be able to take guns into the area and simple saying that they can't do so isn't enough.  That rule seems reasonable to me.  It would also be reasonable to the head of Interpol, Ron Noble.

. . . While Republican-majority legislatures across the country are easing restrictions on gun owners, few states are putting more pressure on municipalities right now than Kansas. The new law has forced some local leaders to weigh policy conviction against fiscal pragmatism in a choice that critics say was flawed from the start: Open vulnerable locations to concealed side arms or stretch meager budgets to cover the extra security measures. 

“It’s unfair to the taxpayer to ask them to fork out those kinds of dollars,” said Ms. Miller, who wanted more time to weigh options but admitted that choices were slim. “There is no municipality in the state of Kansas that can afford those infrastructure costs. 

The law, signed by Gov. Sam Brownback in April, permitted local governments to apply for a four-year grace period by notifying the state attorney general’s office and developing security plans by Jan. 1. Architects of the bill said it was intended to put local leaders on the spot, as municipalities that do not comply will lose liability protections under the statute. . . . 

Councilwoman Janet Miller wanted time to weigh less costly options for restricting armed access in Wichita. "It's unfair to the taxpayer to ask them to fork out those kind of dollars," she said. . . . 

The Kansas Board of Regents, which runs the state’s public universities, and the library system in Topeka were among those seeking the extended exemption, delaying the issue until 2018. As of Thursday, out of several thousand local government entities across the state, only about 160 places had sought an exemption for at least one of their buildings, according to public documents obtained from the state attorney general’s office. Many are hospitals and community colleges. . . .

My guess is that after a year goes by no one will remember that this was an issue.   What is the evidence that they can point to of permit holders being the risk in areas such as universities?