When will lawmakers realize that banning/making something illegal doesn't stop "the bad guys"? The bad guys don't care about the law - that's part of what makes them BAD.

Chances are greater that a gun-crime is committed by an unlicensed gunman using an unregistered gun than licensed/registered. People who want to do something bad will do it no matter what. We see that every time there is a car bomb explosion: desperate, bad people make bombs using common ingredients and kill people despite not having access to actual bombs. Lack of availability simply spurs creativity and lack of legality...well, there's ALWAYS a way around the law.

And I'm sure the response to this will be: more surveillance cameras and an outcry of "guns are evil." No, people are evil and evil people will get guns no matter what you do.

"...a facility that bans firearms, making its patrons unable to defend themselves, should be subject to lawsuit for its failure to protect them."

Good point.

"When will lawmakers realize that banning/making something illegal doesn't stop "the bad guys"? The bad guys don't care about the law - that's part of what makes them BAD."

Answer - NEVER. Because they are convinced that if only they could physically purge society of ALL firearms, then criminals would not have access to guns at all and gun violence would end. So - that antique Civil War muzzel-loading musket that's been in your family for years? Better watch out - they want it gone!

"...a facility that bans firearms, making its patrons unable to defend themselves, should be subject to lawsuit for its failure to protect them."

Actually, I'm not sure it is such a good point. A general rule of tort law is that one can win damages in tort only if the harm caused by the tortfeasor was reasonably foreseable. It was once also a general rule that courts viewed criminal acts by parties other than the tortfeasor as per se NOT reasonably foreseable, therefore protecting property owners from being sued for the actions of malcontents with whom they have no relationship. I think this is a good rule. While it may be emotionally satisfying to hold SOMEBODY to account after a shooting incident like this, and the property owner who posted the "no guns" sign might seem a good target, this is yet another case where we have to carefully weigh the unintended consequences of that decision. Do you really want to live with a rule that makes you potentially liable for the criminal acts of third parties on your property, even if you had nothing to do with their actions? And there is another aspect: It is a near certainty that if a Mall ALLOWED concealed weapons on their property, and someone carrying a concealed weapon went on a shooting spree, somebody would decide to sue the mall for allowing guns.

In short, when looking for someone to punish after a tragedy, it is best to keep our emotions in check and make sure that we punish the actual wrong-doer, rather than lashing out at collateral parties.

"A general rule of tort law is that one can win damages in tort only if the harm caused by the tortfeasor was reasonably foreseable."

Understood, but I'd respectfully submit that mass shootings in malls, schools & post offices are relatively common in the U.S. This wasn't a bizarre, 'crime of the century' event. It's just another data point for bean counters.

Emotion isn't the driver for my point. I think it could reasonably be argued that this atrocity might have been prevented if law-abiding consealed carriers were permitted in the mall.

Soon to be card carrying NRA member I'd like to chime in and not in a way I thought I react.

The only reason I have a problem with a armed populace is that the average person is also likely to be an average shot. You should have to pass a minimal accuracy test to carry concealed, or at all. Unfortunately that is unconstitutional as per the more militant Gun lobbies. You make it mandatory to shoot well before issuing a carry permit and I'm all on board. I'm not planning to carry concealed or applying for the permit until (and of course unless) I make USMC expert rating with both rifle and pistol.

As far as the nut job at the mall. No matter what you do unless strip search everyone and only let them shop naked with a money clip this will happen. Mass murder and crazy people are not new. They maybe more common due to the increased access to information. Think of this wackos (I'm not using the name intentionally) last words. "Now I'll be famous."

The naïvety of the anti-firearms folks is just astounding. Suppose you have successfully eliminated every gun on the planet. If you have a psycho who wants to kill people, he'll grab a kitchen knife, or a crossbow, or mow people down with a car. It isn't about the guns at all.

I thought you were a libertarian, Amy. (I thought Instapundit was, too.) Just as you're free to disapprove of a yogurt shop in your neighborhood by standing on the sidewalk and shooting pictures through the window, why aren't gun advocates free to disapprove of gun-free malls by shopping elsewhere?

Bonus: Von Maur's website offers free shipping!

"It isn't about the guns at all."

Right - see my comment about bombs above. There are car bombings on the news every night. Take the bombs away and they'll make them. Unhinged individuals are the danger, how do the far-lefties propose to take care of THEM, the dangerous people, the real threat? Yeah, that's ugly territory.

I'm w/ vlad on the "average shot" point. Like most things, shooting a gun isn't as easy as it looks in movies. It takes serious practice to be able to aim and hit your target. Bullets don't read minds. Not yet, anyway. Nothing is as aggravating as watching a movie when some idiot is running and waving a gun behind him shooting haphazardly...and actually doing some damage. To register a gun and obtain a license you should have to go through a course and pass a practical exam.

And I'm sure the response to this will be: more surveillance cameras and an outcry of "guns are evil."

Not here in Omaha it won't. We're as comfortable with guns in this area as any place in the country. Concealed carry hasn't been mentioned at all in the local news coverage.

I'm sure not a lawyer, but knowing he's a federalist-type libertarian, the Instapundit point seems silly to me. Like Dennis says, a mass shooting is pretty clearly an unforseeable event. Even if it was forseeable, I don't see how a property owner should somehow be liable for every illegal action that occurs on their property. It's almost certain that there will be a unreported traffic accident in any parking lot. I really doubt Reynolds would claim parking lot owners should be held liable for failing to protect each and every hit and run victim from vehicle damage.

Nebraska's law is very clear that there are lots of limits to where and when you can carry. You can't carry in any banks, schools, hospitals, government buildings, or in numerous other places and events and the law is very clear that property owners have a right to ban handguns on their property. Also, in Nebraska city ordinances banning concealed carry override the state law. Concealed carry was illegal in Omaha until the city repealed their ban a little while back.

Other states may be different, but in Nebraska at least there's no way you could pin liability on a property owner and that's a good thing. In the past, I've seen Reynolds gripe about ridiculous lawsuits trying to hold gun manufacturers liable for shootings, but if there's any logical difference in his reasoning here and that used by the plaintiffs in those cases I sure can't see it.

"To register a gun and obtain a license you should have to go through a course and pass a practical exam."

Right there with you Gretchen. Carrying is a huge responsibility.

"the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping."

Keep an eye on this detail. If the shooter had been captured alive after being only wounded by the off-duty officer, there would be grounds for criminal charges and lawsuits...against the officer.

I have to believe there are lawful carriers who sometimes "forget" to obey the "banned on these premises" signs. This most recent shooting could wind up extending a wink and a nod to lawful carriers who don't scrupulously obey the signs.
By the same token, the shopping mall management might be getting calls this morning from anti-gun organizations requesting that they not thank the officer too heartily or too publicly to avoid encouraging other lawful carriers. There may even be calls to prosecute him for violating the ban.

Damn, I'm cynical this morning.

SeanH, you make some great points, but I'm floored by the irony of prohibiting approved consealed-carriers in particular places.

They're only ones who will ever obey these rules, vitually guaranteeing that a madman will have a defenseless, target-rich environment like a mall.

Suppose you're carrying and want to go into one of these "no guns" places - do you check your gun into a cloakroom, or what? Just wondering.

Sure, the Right to Bear Arms is important.

But so is the Right to Name Bears Mohammed (and just in time for the annual pagan tree-slaughtering rituals):

http://www.teddybearmuhammad.com/

In my opinion, an armed populace is probably the only thing that will prevent something along the lines of Brian's future prediction of (insert group here) taking over by out-breeding us. I'd like to think that there are some things that our government could do that would prompt people to say "Oh, no you don't!". Personally, I think our forefathers inserted a right to bear arms into the constitution as a final check-and-balance on our government.

Vlad, Gretchen, Martin: put these "tests" in law, and you'll find out immediately that you put some police out of a job, right away. Thousands of small towns don't pay their police enough to maintain proficiency.

As for tests...

"I'm sorry, Gretchen, and I know about your situation with having to get a restraining order and all, but you didn't score a perfect 100% on the practical. You can't own a pistol."

That's Why Tests Suck - that's why there's no poll test. You can be excluded from exercising a right that way!

-----

On a seperate note: while an individual or corporation might be held liable for a failure to protect an individual in civil court, no governmental body can be due to the principles explained in case law such as Warren v. DC. That might be a good thing. A government powerful enough to enact measures "for your protection" is what gave us most anti-gun-possession laws in the first place.

-----

The idea that the average Jane or Joe can't be trusted to defend herself is pure idiocy. Why? Where do you think we get ALL of our police, politicians and military?

For every individual out there that you think "shouldn't" have a gun, there is one who thinks that about you. Think about the term, "equal before the law" for a while. You'll see what I'm getting at.

Norman:"Suppose you're carrying and want to go into one of these "no guns" places - do you check your gun into a cloakroom, or what? Just wondering."

The police officers I know are required to carry at all times and observe posted bans when not on duty. They lock their weapon in a secure compartment in their car.

I won't even pretend to know how other jurisdictions deal with this, but DC cops are required to carry. At all times, on duty or off duty. The only exceptions are courthouses, federal buildings and prisons.

As for tests for owning firearms, I say no. Tests for a concealed weapons permit, absolutely, theory, law and practice tests. Is it really possible to get a concealed weapons permit without these tests?

Radwaste, police and military aren't average Jane and Joe, they're average Jane and Joe with training (some have better training than others). I consider that much different than an average citizen who thinks that getting a handgun and putting it in their nightstand after shooting it a box or 2 of shells is going to protect them.

You want home defense buy a shotgun.

Anne - if you'd read any of the letters that the founders wrote, you would know that the Second Amendment was included specifically as a hedge against government over-reach. That whole "The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants" thing.

Vlad, Gretchen - Accurately firing a gun is not nearly as difficult as you think. The very first time I ever set foot in a range, I was getting acceptable grouping from a .357 revolver and a 10mm Glock at 25 feet. Granted, I wouldn't have qualified for any proficiency level that the military recognizes, but if I had to put someone down, I would have hit them, close to center of mass.

The problem that we have with firearms is the same as the problem with video games and violent media.

A gun (or a video game) is harmless on its own. When an unbalanced person is in possession of such a thing, it becomes dangerous.

I object to the idea that my betters in government ought to be able to restrict my liberties to prevent the minority of mental defectives from doing harm.

I refuse to have my liberty restricted just to keep the shallow end of the gene pool well-stocked.

""I'm sorry, Gretchen, and I know about your situation with having to get a restraining order and all, but you didn't score a perfect 100% on the practical. You can't own a pistol."" - rad

Ok, duly noted. That *would* suck. But I do think that owning a gun is a big responsibility and along the same lines as what Aardvark said, it takes a little more than just putting a pistol in your nightstand if you want to be able to defend yourself well.

I went to an AR-14 event at a local gun range. After 45 minutes of absolutely horrible shooting (no matter what stance) an old guy came up and said "cover one of your eyes!" So, I put painters' tape over my right eye goggle lense (my eyes fight for dominance and I can't keep one closed for a long time). Viola, I starting hitting the target every time and got in some sweet shots.

How would I ever have figured that out unless I had practice? It just seems stupid to own a gun and not know how to handle it...but I *am* compelled to agree that it shouldn't be up to the government to decide if you "pass." If some asshole breaks in I doubt I'd even shoot to kill, but I'd sure as hell shoot to scare the living bejesus out of the SOB, so accuracy might not be as important as sending the message "Hey that crazy bitch has a GUN!"

> Do you really want to live
> with a rule that makes you
> potentially liable for the
> criminal acts of third parties
> on your property?

Well, if you disengage people's capacity to respond, aren't you already responsible?

Let's say rain leaked through the skylight onto the mall's shiny stone floor. If the policy of the mall forbade customers from watching their step, you'd think that was a problem, right? Instead, they're required to put up those funky yellow plastic cones.

OK, that's not the best possible example, but you see what I'm getting at. The mall is disabling it's customers. And while the statistical probability of this happening is still freakishly remote, the drip-drip-drip of these media-drenched crises is going to make it easy for courts to take a new direction.

> Bullets don't read minds.
> Not yet, anyway

It's a matter of time, lady. (BTW, when I run the planet, anyone who uses the word "simply" in any context of technical instruction, as this fellow does, will be punished with violent death. Personal issue.)

WHoops here's the mind reading link.

Just what we need, the entire American population running around with guns. Seems about right that the country that has appointed itself the police of the world would want everyone in the country to be the officers of the law!!!

Good point, Nancy. I've e-mailed Glenn -- he's busy, and gets probably as much or more e-mail a day than I do, so he may not have time to respond, but maybe he will.

> Seems about right that the
> country that has appointed
> itself the police of the world
> would want everyone in the
> country to be the officers
> of the law!!!

Is it OK with everyone if I mock this person? Flynne? Raddy, you OK with it? Martin, good to go? Ok then....

> Just what we need, the entire
> American population...

I suspect that's how you think of your fellow Americans, all of them are violent and whacked out. You live in fear for the things that can go badly in your country (hence the anonymous / sarcastic signature), not gratitude for all the things that have gone right. The fact that so many Americans are the kind of people who are ready to take risks with deadly force to protect themselves and their families is what makes you so safe here... As long as you keep your hands to yourself.

When I started dating after a divorce in the early 90's, it was a surprise to go to parties in rooms full of strangers

> running around with guns.

They're not "running around", you supercilious goofball, they're leading their lives. When Cho comes to my workplace, I hope one of them is running around in the office next door.

Until robotic firearms are ready for retail, there are Glaser safety slugs.

http://www.dakotaammo.net/products/glaser/glaser.htm

Within the range of typical handgun use, they will kill or disable the target but they are far less likely to be lethal in the event of a ricochet or overshot. They are kind of like mini shotgun loads.

Reynolds is getting some good bloggy response to this.

Martin,
Don't tase me bro!

which leads me to...we should all have phasers and keep them set on "stun" or "open a serious can of whoop ass on this mutha."

Sorry, dealing with SEC filings makes me loopy.

Wow, that was a shitty edit back there... May was well finish the point.

When I was going to parties with groups of random strangers for the first time in deep adulthood, I was surprised to find how many were packing... If not on their person, at least toting a rod in the glove compartment. So then you'd talk to them some more, and hear stories of muggings and attempted rapes and all the rest. I realized that I was being dim for presuming that the world was, by default, a safe and unarmed place. Then came the riots, which drove home the point that being around a lot of decent people who are carrying iron has probably made me safer.

I could never tell whether the people at the parties were the sort with guns or not. And I realized that any nasty people who might have been sizing me up as a target wouldn't be able to tell either.

Sorry, I'm still calling bullshit on this. Reynolds talks out his ass and then waves his "whatever" hand in the air when he's called on it. Or, he just makes shit up:

The question is, given the tendency of mass shootings to occur in places where guns are banned...

Is he seriously arguing that people with this brand of homicide in mind take gun bans into consideration when they're choosing their venue? If so, maybe he'd like to explain the Fort Bragg shootings in 1995, in which a batshit-crazy sergeant opened up on a calisthenics field. Hard to think of a place more stocked with holster-wearing marksmen than an Army base. (Interestingly, in that case the killer was not taken out by return fire, but by MPs who got behind him and tackled him. (I'd link, but it would trip your spam filter. You could look it up on Google -- the soldier's name was William J. Kreutzer, Jr.)

As the Kreutzer case suggests, people bent on this type of crime strike in their own backyard -- their high school, their college, or, if they're just interested in fame and body counts, any public place with a lot of warm bodies. McDonald's. Luby's. The post office.

As for "gun bans," how does he define them? It's legal to carry a concealed weapon (with permit), in Detroit. Does he think Detroit's a safer city than, say, Minneapolis? Florida allows it, too -- who's up for a late-night stroll through Miami? And even say there were customers packing in that Von Maur store, and one could somehow clear his or her weapon, take aim and fire. Maybe one or two more people might be alive today. Or one or two more might be dead, if our gallant gunslinger didn't have dead-eye aim. Anyway, the guy was SUICIDAL. He was planning to be dead in a few minutes one way or another; do you really think the idea that someone might have returned fire would have stopped him?

If Reynolds and his pals want to live in a world where everyone is strapped, I look forward to seeing how that works for them. (Amy would have to find a designer holster to go with her fab outfits.) Two people arguing in a bar? A guy losing at a blackjack table? A couple breaking up in a dorm? What a wonderful thing to bring a gun, or two guns, into all these situations.

BTW, if anyone's wondering, I'm not arguing for more gun legislation. America has made her bloody bed, and we have to lie in it. I'm only opposed to intellectual sophistry like that practiced by much of the blogging world. Also, to bullshit libertarians like Reynolds, who would quail at the idea that a private business should be required by law to hire a diverse sales staff, but love the idea of armed security near Better Sportswear. I feel safer already.

"Hard to think of a place more stocked with holster-wearing marksmen than an Army base."

I'm not really contending your central point yet but an Army base is not swarming with armed soldiers as you may imagine. The weapons are locked up tight as is the ammunition and they are under seperate control. The only armed soldiers about are MP's who patrol in exactly the same way civilian police do. A track field full of t-shirted soldiers doing calesthenics would be as helpless as a high school football practice in the sights of an armed nut-job. Soldiers have no right to carry except as part of a lawfully ordered operation. So bad example is all I'm saying.

"do you really think the idea that someone might have returned fire would have stopped him?
"

You may have meant that rhetorically but yes, absolutely, affirmative, without doubt. There is the well documented phenomenon of "suicide by cop." This wasn't one of those.

"(Amy would have to find a designer holster to go with her fab outfits.) Two people arguing [etc.] What a wonderful thing to bring a gun, or two guns, into all these situations. "

The primary reason I don't carry is that every second you are wearing a weapon you are "on duty." You have obligations and responsibilities that don't weather well under fatigue, stress, impatience or general silliness. Most, the vast, VAST majority of conflicts can be resolved without raised voices or obscene gesture, let alonge gunfire. Even most of that tiny percentage of exceptions will skitter back into the first column at the slightest hint at the presence of a lawful firearm. And yes, they do come in tasteful colors.

Most people probably shouldn't carry but society would be safer if more of the people who should, did.

The other day I felt really bad, so I thought to myself, “I know. I'll take a gun and go murder a bunch of people I've never met.”

First I went to the post office. I mean, what better place, right? But they had a sign in the door that said I wasn't allowed to have my gun there. Since I didn't feel like ripping people's throats out with my fingernails, I had to go find a different place.

I went to the mall, but damm! They wouldn't let me have my gun there, either. Same thing happened at the first school I came to, along with a public park and a big playground.

After spending the morning looking for a place where it would be ok for me to kill a bunch of people with a gun and not finding one, I decided to go home and take a nap. This proves that Gun Free Zones work at preventing gun violence, and we need to have more of them in order to feel safe. After all, if we don't have them, then the terrorists win.

Freedom.

Well, obviously the guns and ammo weren't so well-secured that the shooter couldn't bring his own arsenal in from outside.

Here's my point: In every single one of these cases, I see a mental health problem. In the Fort Bragg case, the guy "telephoned Spc. Burl Mays to inform him that he would be opening fire on the calisthenics field the next morning. Mays noticed Kreutzer missing at 5am, and alerted his superiors who dismissed the claim saying that Kreutzer was a 'pussy,' but gave Mays permission to check Kreutzer's room, where he found a copy of his will." (Wikipedia, standard cautions apply.)

Klebold and Harris said they were going to do something, too, and spent the weekend before making pipe bombs in the garage.

The guy who shot up the Capitol office building a few years ago had recently taken target practice on the family's barn cats, and when his parents tried to get him help, he was given "Greyhound therapy," i.e., a bus ticket to another jurisdiction, where he'd be someone else's problem.

Cho, the guy in Virginia, was crazy, too. You could make a list that would take you all night.

So I look at this river of blood, and my conclusion is, "We really need to rethink how we treat the seriously mentally ill in this country. We need to make it easier for families to get help, easier to hold people who are a safety risk in protective custody, and educate the public as to what mental illness is, as well. Just for starters."

Glenn Reynolds looks at it and says, "Hmm, we need more guns. Also, some lawsuits. Let's make this the mall owner's fault."

I'm sorry, it just doesn't track.

My understanding was that malls are allowed to ban certain types of speech (i.e. picketing, or passing out political literature) -- certainly my local Publix is. If malls are public enough spaces that mall owners' preferences on allowing guns can be overruled, perhaps they're public enough spaces that your average Not in Our Name or anti-abortion group can take up space inside.

Which is to say: I think Reynolds's point opens a big legal door on what it means to be "sort of" private property.

As for greater spread of arms, my question would be: what would be the expected ratio of damage saved from mass shootings (assuming the shooter was sufficiently deterred, and did not switch to, say, suicide bombs) to damage done by accidental shootings? I don't think mass shootings are sufficiently common to for the former side of the equation to be higher.

Nance, you make your points and I agree with you that it reflects poorly (to say the least) on our society when people go so far off the rails that they commit mass murder and nobody caught it.

But do the real barriers have anything to do with how "easy" it is for families to get help? That sounds more like a typical liberal talking point: throw more money at the problem. Making it easier to hold people in protective custody sounds Stalinesque to my ears. And if the public isn't getting educated by the news of these now regular shootings what more can you add? (See this link where one student saw another student preparing for an armed rampage and went back to class without mentioning it to anyone. )

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/10/witness_said_school_shooter_lo.html

Dialing back restrictions on legal carry might not sound like the tune some people want to hear but you can't say it doesn't track at least as well as your prescriptions.

Until you can accurately identify the root cause, you just have to deal with the symptom and sane people shooting crazy ones has at least simplicity going for it.

A note regarding tort law: liability for a negligence tort doesn't necessarily require a resulting damage to be reasonably foreseeable.

If there is a direct causal relationship between the negligent act (or untaken precaution) and the damage, the original negligent actor can still be liable. (Also: a criminal, third-party actor is foreseeable.)

Radwaste -

Vlad, Gretchen, Martin: put these "tests" in law, and you'll find out immediately that you put some police out of a job, right away.

And this is a bad thing how? If the yahoo doesn't have the ability to fire it, the yahoo really probably shouldn't be carrying, sure as hell not with a badge.

I don't believe that one should have to take a test to own a gun. I don't even have a problem with people carrying if they can't pass a test. I think they should have a right to discourage muggers and psycho ex's. But if they can't pass a test, they shouldn't get a concealed weapons permit. If they aren't competent to use it I want to see that they have one so I can avoid them. Honestly, people that can't shoot are just a liability in a sticky situation.

Under stress, a skilled marksmen can have problems hitting the proper target. Someone who can't hit a target on the range, sure as hell isn't likely to just get lucky under fire. They are just as likely to hit an innocent bystander.

I am damn sure that I want cops to have to pass a competency test, if they are in a position that requires they carry a gun. Sorry, but if you can't shoot, you shouldn't put others at risk, by taking a job that would put you in a position where you might have to defend others with it. If you can't shoot, being a cop isn't a good fit for you.

Nance - in your rush to condemn pretty much everyone and everything involved here you miss the point of an armed citizenry.

There are two cases to consider.

The first is the rational actor. Your garden-variety burglar. He's not looking to get caught, hurt, or killed. He wants your shit. If you pull might a piece on him, he wants no part of you. That's deterrence.

The second is the irrational actor. The nutcase. He doesn't care if he lives or dies. He's going out with a bang (or several as the case may be). And you're right - he's not going to be deterred by anything so pedestrian as a sign. He's not even going to let laws get in his way. You want someone in a position to put him down (ideally) before he can take any lives. This is called defense.

The hysterical arguments about every argument blowing up into a gunfight need to be sent somewhere to sulk. Because there is no evidence that such a thing will happen. There are a great many states that allow concealed-carry. I don't remember hearing about the killing fields in Orlando.

Of course, we could just take your position to its logical conclusion, and outlaw mental illness.

It'll have about the same effect.

I would add to the whole testing issue, that we do not allow anyone to drive a car in the U.S. without proving they are competent to do so by taking a test. Indeed, there are many things that are illegal to do, without taking a test to show one has the ability to do those things competently. My own profession (the contracting bit, not the songwriting) requires it. Many of them require retesting on a regular basis, to make sure that people maintain competency.

I don't really see why requiring people to take a test to prove their competency with a firearm should be any different. At least if they want to have a special right, such as carrying it concealed. I also find the notion of allowing cops to carry a gun without regular retesting absolutely horrifying.

DuWayne, when all your small town can afford is two uniforms and a second-hand police car, you get who you can. Ask the town what their health insurance policy is like.

Even in the big city, you get problems. Police have this job where people who don't take any steps to protect themselves - and in some areas, actively oppose police - beg and plead for an officer to take some thug away. They call cops and then argue with the actual law being applied, in the typical domestic-violence call. Cops arriving on the scene of a "hot" crime can't tell who the "bad guys" are right away, and they shoot more innocent people than permit-holders, per incident, typically having arrived on the scene late in the action.

So it's tough to hire police. You suggest not doing so, but in such cases it's not our call. Small towns have to live with their choices. Not all of them can have the most effective LEO in history (check the crime rate!), Barney Fife!

Oh, wow. Driver testing? You don't have to take any sort of test or have any sort of license to drive on your own property. An auto is also not your only effective means of transportation. Testing doesn't touch any sort of negligence in the operation of a car.

And didn't you see the above? "I'm sorry, DuWayne, and I know all about the restraining order, but you didn't score a 100 on the test, and you can't possess, much less own, a gun."

-----

But what I now really want to know is this: Where did you get the idea that carrying a concealed weapon is a "special right"? (I expect another example of Newspeak now...) Do you think that rights are granted by the authorities, from whom you must have permission, as if you were a small child?

This is amazing. I get the idea that a lot of people have no idea that Americans have at least two hundred million guns in their homes - and thus, have no sense of perspective. That level of possession should suggest that Americans are not habitually violent - but that doesn't excite anyone enough, so we focus on small, but dramatic numbers. I have a series of questions I hope will illustrate the problems with "testing" ideas. To possess a gun:

How much practice is required for your family members to pass a test?

How can you keep some zealot from disarming you by making the test impossible to pass?

Who administers testing? Those helpful people at the DMV?

How do you test for the possession of guns by untested people?

What does testing do to stop thugs, directly?

What criteria other than proficiency should be on the test? Do you have an age limit?

What happens if you pass the test with a .38 snubbie, then you are involved at a crime scene, as a good guy, but you have your .45?

What does testing do to stop the nutcase?

-----

Why, whenever somebody mentions guns because there is a crime, is the solution more requirements for the non-criminal?

Now I'll go relax. I have some fundies to beat up about their being excited by "The Golden Compass".

Aardvark -

With you on the shotgun.

Brian -

No, shooting is not that simple. You are probably something of an instinctive shooter. So am I. First time I fired a handgun, it was a twenty-two and I was nine. Hit a milk jug at twenty yards with my first shot.

Add the stress of a crowded mall, someone shooting (possibly more than one if others are also armed) and someone is a mediocre to crappy shot and they are just as likely to shoot someone else as they are to shoot the bad/nutty guy.

Gretchen -

Huge difference when it is a home invasion. As much as anti-gun nuts like to go into hysterics, it is really easy to hit targets at close range. One need only get very comfy with their weapon and make sure they confirm the target before they shoot.

There are a lot of great home defense options. The bullets that martin suggests are actually a great option. One of the big advantage, is that they aren't necessarily fatal. This is a great way to reduce the likelihood of hesitation. It is really easy to say you could kill. It's even easy to believe it, believe it absolutely. That does not mean it will translate to reality. Knowing that it is likely you will just injure them (and incapacitate them), makes it that much easier to protect yourself if necessary.

"Hey that crazy bitch has a GUN!"

Not sure why exactly, but that was actually a turn on.

Radwaste -

In Michigan, the certification is done through the state police. It is not a matter of can't afford it, they have to or the cops can't be cops or stay cops. It's really not hard or expensive to make sure they can shoot strait. They have to be able to to become a cop in the first place and ammo isn't all that expensive.

I think you also missed the point that I was making about people being able to carry a concealed weapon. I don't believe in testing requirements for people to own a gun and not necessarily to carry it in public. But if they want to hide the fact that they are carrying one, i.e. not allowing people around them the option of staying the hell away from them, they should prove they know how and (for good measure) when to use it.

And yes, it is a special right. Just like driving is a special right. Just like operating on someone is a special right. Just like charging people a fortune to build for them or remodel their house is a special right. You have to prove you are competent to do any of those things.

Do you think that rights are granted by the authorities, from whom you must have permission, as if you were a small child?

Assuming you drive, who gave you permission to do that, as if you were a small child?

I have a series of questions I hope will illustrate the problems with "testing" ideas. To possess a gun:

I'm game if you make it conceal and carry.

How much practice is required for your family members to pass a test?

Enough that they can actually shoot it comfortably and reliably hit what they are aiming for.

How can you keep some zealot from disarming you by making the test impossible to pass?

Well, we have to have cops and very few people actually want to disarm them. Conceal and carry permits should require the same test that they have to pass.

Who administers testing? Those helpful people at the DMV?

The same people who administer it now, in states that allow conceal and carry permits, commonly the state police.

How do you test for the possession of guns by untested people?

If they are carrying concealed, they should have their permit that confirms they are legit. If they are just carrying, they don't necessarily need to prove any testing, but they do need to have a license for their gun.

What criteria other than proficiency should be on the test? Do you have an age limit?

As I am talking conceal and carry, eighteen or twenty-one seem like reasonable ages to allow it. As for ownership, that should be up to parents. I proudly bought my first shot-gun at twelve.

What does testing do to stop thugs, directly?

Absolutely nothing, nor is it the point. What it does, is make it that much easier to point out the morons carrying, so I can stay the fuck out of their way. It also makes it less likely that people that can't shoot aren't gonna be carrying. Which is a good thing in situations like the mall shooting mentioned in the post. Because as I have mentioned, people who are not competent to shoot, are as dangerous as the nutjob in those situations. Just as likely to kill one of the innocents they are trying to protect, as they are of shooting the bad guy.

Why, whenever somebody mentions guns because there is a crime, is the solution more requirements for the non-criminal?

Because it is bad enough that we live in a world where I have to be concerned about the nuts and criminals. I don;t also want to worry about protecting my family from an incompetent maroon. with a rambo complex, if gods forbid, we are ever in a situation like the one described above. Enough to keep them safe from the nutjob trying to kill us. If I see a gun on their belt, I can assume that this is just a person to steer clear of, before any trouble starts. If I don't see a gun, I can assume that if someone is carrying one, they are at least somewhat competent to use it.

An auto is also not your only effective means of transportation.

Nor is a gun your only effective means of protecting yourself.

This is primarily a rant...
The main problem with guns is lack of knowledge. Guns are not "evil" objects that will "go off" with no action. A lot of people I have interacted with that are "anti-gun" have also never fired a pistol or rifle. If you take someone shooting for the first time (especially women, they don't hide the discomfort they have for guns like us fellas) and take them through the steps and focus the instruction; they will lose that fear. This is anecdotal but 1 hour of "classroom instruction" and 1 half-hour "range-time" can overcome 2 decades of irrational fear. She is by no means ready to own a gun yet, but it's the first few steps and most of the battle. Education is the key, guns are here to stay, there's no taking them back.

Well, I expected Newspeak, and I got it.

DuWayne: driving is a privilege. That's the reason you can buy, own and operate any car you want on your own property. This observation, illustrative of the difference between your right to bear arms and your driving privilege, makes your other assertions regarding the permission of an authority moot.

There are some other misconceptions here. For instance, testing isn't administered by the State police, but by instructors typically certified by the NRA before they are licensed by the State for the concealed-carry program in their state. You can find this via the Web site packing.org.

About age limits, today: you are prohibited by Federal law to possess a pistol, unsupervised, regardless of your level of training, until you are 21; think of that and your luscious 20-year-old daughter. Yes, you cannot get permission for her to carry a pistol in any manner, no matter the criminal record of her stalker.

I wonder how people are being taught to fear each other so much - and then I observe that such people have a wedge or barrier between themselves and their neighbors. It's big enough to keep them from seeing that they are disabling themselves with every measure they imagine applies to someone else.

It's really tough to realize that the "big picture", which is acted upon by laws, consists of 300 million tiny elements, all of whom have rights which are to be guaranteed but are not granted by the State. You can take the tack that the law is supposed to govern every choice a person can make, or you can let them choose and deal with the consequences of that choice. Right now, the general public could get their 200+ million guns out and carry them all over the place, but they don't, because they know it's not necessary. When it is necessary, no testing or registration or concealed-carry law does anything but get in the way, even when it has the laudable intent of improving proficiency.

Please note that I actually wish for firearms training as a condition of majority - because then the mythology of guns as some bringer of potency will be destroyed completely.

-----

By the way - if you think that a gun isn't your only effective weapon - one of my buddies and I can easily demonstrate when it is. Don't kid yourself. Leave your self-defense options open, because if you must defend yourself, you don't want to have to get permission from a deskbound agent miles from your situation.

All of these issues are covered much more gracefully by Oleg Volk, on his Web site, a-human-right.com . Take a look there, and again at packing.org . Prepare to be surprised by the gun laws - the lack of them - in Vermont.

"If Reynolds and his pals want to live in a world where everyone is strapped, I look forward to seeing how that works for them. (Amy would have to find a designer holster to go with her fab outfits.) Two people arguing in a bar? A guy losing at a blackjack table? A couple breaking up in a dorm? What a wonderful thing to bring a gun, or two guns, into all these situations. "

Yes, please, let's all disarm and call 911 when there's trouble.

Then you can be gang-raped and tortured for hours while waiting for police to respond to your 911 call, only to have to sue the city for nonresponse and have the court hold that the police have no duty to protect you at all:

"Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

Here's a longer list of a variety of cases where the courts have ruled you have no right to protection by the police:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html#5

Your self-defense is your own responsibility.

Let's back up a minute, and focus: this mall was a killing field because even those people who had background checks, been fingerprinted and demonstrated a knowledge of the law and proficiency with their gun - exactly as DuWayne wants - were prhibited from bringing their guns there.

Then, even if that private ban had been lifted, there might not have been a person in place to stop the shooter before the first victim - or the last one - died. A neat solution is not possible here.

Radwaste -

Unfortunately, I only have a brief moment to respond this morning. Saturdays are a rather full day for me. I would really appreciate it if you would click on my name and email me. I would be interested to see you expand on the notion of rights vs privileges. We have had several posts on the topic by a few different people on my blog over the last several weeks. I would like to invite you to write one too.

I really didn't answer your earlier question about rights very well, I misread the question. In short, I think that it is not that the state grants rights, so much as it is that the state protects our rights. In doing so it is a balancing act between the rights of the individual, versus the rights of everyone they have to interact with.

I believe that we have a right to bear arms. I do not believe that right extends to hiding it somewhere on our person. If you can show we where in the constitution this right is delineated, I might change my mind, but until then, yes, carrying it concealed is a privilege. It is also a privilege that comes with certain responsibilities, one being the requirement to know how to use it.

I wonder how people are being taught to fear each other so much - and then I observe that such people have a wedge or barrier between themselves and their neighbors.

I think you are completely misunderstanding the argument I am making here. I live in a really shitty neighborhood, there have been eighteen shootings within a mile of my home in '07. I don't carry a gun with me everywhere and have only a cursory concern about getting caught in the crossfire. My bigger concern, is someone who is incompetent in the use of a firearm, playing rambo and endangering everyone around them, in circumstances where everyone is already in extreme danger. I am sorry, but if they can't shoot, nor can they be bothered to take the time to learn and practice, they should not be carrying a gun hidden on their person.

Notice that not one time have I argued they shouldn't be allowed to carry at all. I am not trying to stop them from bearing arms. I am just arguing that they should have to advertise the fact they are carrying so that others have the option of staying the hell away from them.

Don't kid yourself. Leave your self-defense options open, because if you must defend yourself, you don't want to have to get permission from a deskbound agent miles from your situation.

You seem to mistake me for an anti-gun nut. I keep my options open. I own several firearms, some specifically for home defense. I also make sure that I know how to use them. I have made my partner get comfortable with using them. I take regular trips to the range to help ensure that if I have to use them, it will be second nature and relatively automatic.

It's not a problem, the right to bear arms. I support it and always will. The problem is with people who don't take any responsibility with gun ownership. To whit, I am more afraid of the idiot packing, who can't hit the broadside of a barn, than I am of nutjobs and criminals with guns.

Well, the problem with Omaha Boy (do we have to learn his name?) isn't that he was an irresponsible gun owner. The problem was that he was stark raving nuts. I don't fault our mental health agencies... There's no way to protect people from assholes like this without intruding on people's lives pretty badly.

Yesterday I was sitting in a lobby that had CNN on and they put up pictures of the victims, which was pretty fuckin' painful. But I noticed that all of them (the ones I saw anyway) were white. As were most of Cho's victims. Even those who weren't white were presumably American middle-class aspirational types.

How come we don't hear about people going apeshit like this in the black community? How come we don't hear about people going apeshit like this in Romania or Mongolia or Cameroon, places that are theoretically a little less lawful anyway?

I bet it does go on. I bet that in these other communities, they have as many violent killers as we do. But (A) they don't report it and (B) such monsters can pursue their victims one-by-one with less fear of law enforcement.

People who want to cluck about Violent America are doing so from a position of tremendous comfort. Repeating myself for the arrogant fun of it: Living in a culture with so many armed citizens protects you from lots of villainy. It protects you whether you know it or not. It protects you whether you believe it or not.

It protects you whether you're happy about it or not.

Crid -

Who exactly are you arguing with here?

I am not saying anything about Omaha boy. I am far more concerned with people who want to carry a gun around, not knowing how to use it. Once again with emphasis.

I believe in the right to bear arms. My problem is with the idea of someone who can't pass a basic competency test, carrying it hidden on their person. If they can't shoot, if they can't pass a gun safety test, they need to carry it where people can see they are carrying it, so everyone else can exercise the right to stay the fuck away from them.

If, gods forbid, I (or worse my family and I) are in a situation where another Omaha boy goes apeshit, I am going to have enough to worry about keeping my family and myself alive. I don't want to also be concerned with getting shot by mistake, by an asshole who thinks he's rambo but can't actually shoot. If the dipshit that can't shoot has to keep his weapon visible, then I have the ability to choose to stay the fuck away. Problem solved before it starts.

> Who exactly are you
> arguing with here?

Widows, orphans; captains of industry and finance, leaders of men in battle. Roustabouts, knockabouts and ne'er-do-wells; alcoholics, love-a-holics, chocaholics. The feeble and the inane, the sturdy and the clever. The bored and the enthused, the frightened and the confident.

(Playful flute accents, then:)
Long ones, tall ones, short ones, brown ones
Black ones, round ones, big ones, crazy ones
(- "Spill the Wine," Eric Burdon, 1970)

Children, their parents, and the elderly. Cousins, adoptees, dear friends and skittish hangers-on. Advice authorities, and their little dog, too! I argue with everyone, fella! Thanks for asking!

> My problem is with the
> idea of someone who can't
> pass a basic competency
> test, carrying it hidden
> on their person.

Well, as long as you're going to test for competency, why not also test for decency? And if you're going to go that far, let's check for skin color and political affiliation. Let's jus' take control of things, seewutimeen?

DuWayne - you're making quite an assumption here - that someone would make the investment in a firearm, and not bother to train properly in its use.

Have you seen the price of a good shootin' iron lately? A Glock 9 will set you back the better part of a grand.

Good grief crid, are you honestly going to tell me you want some fucking moron that can't hit the broadside of a barn carrying a gun under their coat? Again, I am not saying that they can't carry one. All I want is to see that they are so I can avoid them. If they want to carry it concealed, they should be able to pass the same, simple competency test a cop does.

Brian -

If they can shoot it competently, then passing a test shouldn't be a problem. And I got my S&W forty five for three hundred bucks. Still an investment but not the grand your assuming everyone will spend. I also got a little forty five derringer for fifty bucks (I got it as a novelty, it also shoots 4/10 shotgun shells). One can get a cheap revolver for under a hundred bucks used. I have never spent more than four hundred for any of my guns, though it has required working on a couple of them.

And yes, people spend immense amounts of money on crap they never learn to use. Including guns. Indeed, I bank on it when I buy them used. Just requires taking care to make sure the idiot that owned it before, didn't seriously fuck it up.

What the fuck is wrong with wanting to be able to see if someone who can't actually use the damn thing is carrying it? People that can't shoot are a fucking liability in situations like the one with Omaha boy. They are a danger to themselves and especially to those around them. I am not trying to take away their guns. I just want to know they're packing so I can keep myself and my family away from them. It really isn't all that much to ask.

> All I want is to see that
> they are so I can avoid them.

Ok.

A few years ago Edward James Olmos, a tv actor hree in LA, famously applied for a CCW and was turned down. Do you suppose there's a public registry for this? Maybe there ought to be.

Crid -

I don't care if someone has been turned down. I don't care if they carry a gun. I do care that if they are not competent to shoot, that they be required to carry it openly. It isn't complicated. It isn't unjust.

They have a right to carry a gun. I respect that. I also have rights, as does everyone else. One of those rights is to know that someone who is carrying a gun and can't actually shoot the fucking thing, is carrying a gun. That way we can exercise our right to steer fucking clear of them.

"One of those rights is to know that someone who is carrying a gun and can't actually shoot the fucking thing, is carrying a gun."

No, actually, you don't have the right to know if I'm armed.
In fact, most of the right-to-carry laws that I'm aware of require the holder to carry concealed in such a fashion that a casual observer would be unable to note that he/she is carrying a weapon.

But this could be a non-issue, as CCW laws generally require proficiency training before the license is issued in the first place.

Again - you can't keep a test from being rigged to disqualify you. We don't have a problem with permit holders today, even though opponents squealed loudly about turning every argument into a shootout. While this argues well for expanding the practice and would make a great deal of progress, permits per se still constitute a condition imposed on you for exercising a right. Would you accept the idea that you may only practice free speech away from public gathering places, or {insert another analogy here}? Even though there are responsibilities commensurate to any exercise of rights, where does it say that rights are conditional?

The incompetent should carry openly? It's time to think a little more carefully about tactics. Not only could you NOT get out of range of this person you fear will "be Rambo", open carry makes it easier - faster - to pull the piece. It'll also open up things for thieves, who you will note aren't legal targets in public places. A weapon which location is known can be neutralized. Today, depending on what part of the country you are in, open carry might be the rule, or might be cause for jail time for panicking the public and/or challenging the city powers.

This is another reason why I advocate practical education whenever I can: professionals repeat that you must have the right mindset, a decision tree, in place firmly before you take any action; you have to know that if you pull a trigger, you are betting your entire life, not only right away but in court action later. I can state with some confidence, in trying to sort out public opinion for several years now, that the public does not even recognize what a weapon is, so that level of education would be a big job.

It is my view that public education is the solution to many problems now tried by legislation. There is a balance to be had, a return on investment, for every level of gun possession at any venue, and there is a level of public involvement which is voluntary for nearly everyone, to some degree. For instance, if you see that mall sign saying you have to leave your gun somewhere else, you have choices: defy the property owner; defy the property owner and the local and/or state law(s) supporting him; leave the gun at home; leave the property. You can shop on-line. Your compliance with the law, your involvement with your community and your self-defense measures are still all up to you.

Instances of civilian self defense w' firearms

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

My view; .357 revolver (will also fire .38sp) best for home defense, but a bit bulky for concealed carry.

12 or 20 GA pump shotgun also good but hard to wield in confined space. (.410 is great for rabbits, squirrels, snakes etc but NOT good for self defense.)

North American Arms .22 mini revolver, underpowered but VERY concealable.

SA/DA automatic best for concealed carry. Nice idea to have a carbine in the same caliber as pistol.

Professional instructors:

thunderranchinc.com

gunsite.com

frontsight.com

ayoob.com (The Lethal Force Institute).

-----

It is best to know what really works before advocating legislation.

Gog -

No, actually, you don't have the right to know if I'm armed.

As long as you can shoot, I don't need to. But if you can't and insist on carrying, then I should have every right to know you are, so I can exercise the right to avoid you.

Beyond that, this is a abstract discussion that has no reflection of the way the laws are anywhere. We are talking about what we each believe they should be. Most places don't allow people to carry at all, without a CCW or a carry license. Arizona is the only state that I know of, that allows people to carry without a special license. I don't know of any state that allows people to carry concealed without a license. I believe that all of them require a proficiency test to get the license.

Radwaste -

Again - you can't keep a test from being rigged to disqualify you.

Why not? Other than having mental issues that might disqualify, I have a high proficiency at shooting and safety. I probably spend twenty hours a month at the range (varies quite a bit as I fit it when I have time and stress - shooting is very cathartic). I know the proficiency test in MI was basically the same as the one that cops take, I don't see this as an unreasonable standard.

The incompetent should carry openly? It's time to think a little more carefully about tactics. Not only could you NOT get out of range of this person you fear will "be Rambo", open carry makes it easier - faster - to pull the piece.

If I see someone packing, I will be getting away the moment I see them. Not a perfect system to be sure, but considering Omaha boy and the like are not a daily occurrence, I am not to concerned about getting away from them before anything happens. And if they are using a secure holster, yes, they can get it out relatively fast, but not that much faster than someone proficient in the use of their weapon, who is carrying concealed.

Secure holsters also deal with the problem of thieves. I mean I am sure that some folks might get pretty good at pulling them out then, but I daresay not all that often. Cops don't get their weapons stolen all that often.

I also think that you're missing the deterrent to carrying, that wearing it openly would be, even is. It's not likely that very many folks would carry them in those circumstances. I also think it would be helpful for some people to do so. Take the person with a restraining order. The best circumstance is to avoid a confrontation. If they are packing on the hip, it is unlikely the confrontation would take place. Likewise, someone carrying because they are also carrying something that is quite valuable are less likely to be robbed if the potential thief can see they are armed.

I am one hundred percent behind you on the education issue. I would love to see better education about guns across the board. My five year old has gotten it since he was old enough to hold a squirt gun, something he is not allowed to own (we use spray bottles for water fighting).

I think it would be a huge help to actually include discussion of gun safety, as part of the public school curriculum. Not the short and simple bs they pump out now, that merely contributes to the hysteria, but a reasonable discussion.

winston -

I have my eye on a friend's thirty-two luger, also very concealable and German engineering of firearms is virtually unparalleled. Same power issues as the twenty-two, but still a damn fine weapon. And if your a good enough shot, it's plenty. If I was going to start carrying, a forty five is my gun of choice.

I actually have a mossberg five humdred, with a factory short barrel and pistol grips. Still a pain in really tight quarters, but quite effective for home defense. I actually use a cap and ball forty-four, loaded with bean bags. Potentially fatal at close range, but an effective manstopper at any range close quarters would require. Helping to ensure that I will not hesitate to use it if necessary (though with a family to keep safe, it is unlikely that I would hesitate anyways).

SA/DA automatic best for concealed carry. Nice idea to have a carbine in the same caliber as pistol.

The gent I learned hunting and gun safety from (my dad was never a gun/hunting person) actually had hand guns to go with every rifle. We always carried both in the field (we did combined hunting camping trips).

(.410 is great for rabbits, squirrels, snakes etc but NOT good for self defense.)

Not that I use the derringer for defense, but it would actually do all right. 4/10 shells actually stick out past the barrel by a quarter inch. Close quarters, it would rip someone bigtime. Of course with one shot, it is not nearly so handy as the bean-bag loaded revolver - I bought it mostly for the novelty. Although, that was also why I bought the cap and ball forty-four, never dreaming it would become my home weapon of choice.

The Lugar was a fine gun for its day, and has great ergonomics, but the toggle action is more prone to jamming than modern coiled-spring-action autos.

If you like German guns the Luger's successor, the Walther P38, is a great pistol. Actually anything Walther makes is first rate. James Bond used a Walther PPK .32 (yeah I know he's fictional but his creator was a real secret agent)The PPK also comes in the more powerful .380 caliber.

Old time guns are great fun to shoot but when my life's on the line I want something modern.

Has anyone seen the person on TV who shot the pencildick nutbag who did those colorado church shootings? It was a female armed security guard for the church! Evidently this church was no gun free zone. It was a gun protected zone. Her name is Jeane Assam, and she is a hottie! I'm totally in love with this woman. Some idiot with a burr up his ass takes the lives of two beautiful young ladies because of his problems with the church and this woman runs into the danger and wastes him! You go sweetheart!!

Duwayne, regardless of how many times you end up repeating your argument, you still don't have the right to know what's in my pocket. It's not your pocket, it's none of your business.

Unless you're one of those "read everyone's email, tap everyone's phone" kind of patriots.

Again, most right-to-carry states require training before they'll issue a CCW license, so if you're carrying legally, chances are you're trained.

BTW, the woman on security duty at the New Life Church in Colorado was on the third day of a three day fast.

I think most well-fed folks in a self-defense frame of mind will do just fine.

gog -

Again, we are not talking about the reality of the law, but ideal abstractions. Radwaste was arguing a absolute right to carry, without proving competency. My argument is, if you want to carry without showing your competent in the use of a gun, you should not have a right to conceal it. If you believe that carrying a gun should be contingent on proving you're competent to use it, then the point is moot.

No, I am not one of those assholes that doesn't believe in a right to privacy. But I do believe that I have a right to help ensure my safety and the safety of my family by avoiding incompetent dipshits with guns. I happen to interpret the constitution to provide a fairly absolute right to bear arms. I do not interpret it to say that there is an absolute right to secret the gun anywhere on ones person. Personally, I would prefer that people who are going to carry a gun be competent to use it, I am not entirely averse to laws that make that a requirement. My only problem with such laws, is that I don't believe they are constitutional. I would love to see an amendment that would spell things out more clearly, but given the polarization of Americans on gun rights, I doubt it will ever be a reality.

Years later, it still chills me to read, "...you should not have a right..." absent due process, especially since persons under the age of 21, regardless of aptitude or profession, are prohibited from possessing a pistol today.