Uncategorized

Guns, guns, everywhere guns

Call me old-fashioned, but I find both of the following stories sobering and depressing.

#1 – Protesters at the national political conventions this summer may well be armed to the teeth with concealed weapons.

#2- A Wake County School Board member running for State Auditor (that appears to be her on the left — the photo is from the Facebook page promoting the event)  thinks it’s a good idea to have a “shooting range fundraiser.”

34 Comments

  1. Sean D Sorrentino

    April 27, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    So how does it feel when society leaves you behind? You hope that your anti-gun attitude wears off on the proles, but increasingly they are telling you that they aren’t listening to you.

    Total Concealed Handgun Permits in North Carolin
    June 30, 2010 – 195,553
    June 30, 2011 – 228,072
    April 2, 2012 – 263,234

    The increase from 2010-2011 was just a tiny bit short of 20%, and we are on track to get another 20% this year.

    Every one of those permit holders paid a minimum of $150 for permit and training the first time they got it and $75 each time they renew every 5 years.

    Put these together and you quickly come to the conclusion that despite the best efforts of the Left to demonize firearms and owners, the people aren’t listening. Is it any wonder that politicians feel comfortable having gun range fundraisers?

    BTW, why is it that the “Power to the People!” rabble rousers are so anti-gun? You’d think you’d be pro-gun more than me. What’s more power in the people’s hands than the ability to resist tyranny, both private (criminal) and public (facists)?

  2. david esmay

    April 27, 2012 at 4:48 pm

    Plenty of people you call the “Left”, own fire arms, like myself. We just like gun owners to be responsible people, and in a country such as ours, that is flush with weapons, they should be. 263,000, what is that, like 2.8% of NC population? This increase is telling me they are buying into the fear the right is selling, unfounded as it is.

  3. Joseph Dickson

    April 27, 2012 at 8:06 pm

    Not too terribly long ago, 3 to 4 months or so, the peaceful little mountain town of Blowing Rock held a meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to determine if concealed weapons should be allowed in the town park. There was a HUGE turnout, mostly those rallying FOR concealed weapons in the park. To many of us, this was purely mind-boggling. The rationale the supporters used (and this is, generally speaking, the most commonly used argument) went something like this… “What if a psycho shows up in the park with a gun… who would protect you or the children then”? This argument made even less sense than the number of pro-concealed weapons folks that turned out. Why? Well, first of all, the Blowing Rock Police station is LITERALLY attached to the park. Secondly, unless these concealed weapons advocates are highly trained in FBI or Secret Service protocols for tactical takedown of armed suspects in heavily crowded areas full of children, they don’t need to have weapons there. Maybe it’s just me but I’d prefer that my children not be in the middle of a gun battle in Blowing Rock Park.

  4. Joseph Dickson

    April 27, 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Oh… and just for the record… the measure failed. Thank God.

  5. Sean D Sorrentino

    April 28, 2012 at 12:20 am

    Don’t worry Joseph. We’ll get that State law changed here in the next year or so. It will be another loss for the anti-gun crowd. Maybe you should all just give it up. All you are doing is wasting effort losing battles.

    As for special tactics, generally taking out a gun and pointing it at the criminal does the trick. This guy didn’t even have to shoot.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53998997-78/store-police-purvis-apparently.html.csp

  6. gregflynn

    April 28, 2012 at 9:08 am

    George Zimmerman didn’t have to shoot either.

  7. Joseph Dickson

    April 28, 2012 at 9:59 am

    So Sean, let me get this straight… You’re actually making an argument FOR having concealed weapons in kid’s parks? Really? So where does this somewhat paranoid hyper vigilance end? Perhaps we should all carry hand grenades with us… who knows, someone might bring a grenade to the park. Better yet, it’s always possible that some radical fundamentalist could get their hands on a missile and aim it at the park. Maybe we should all have personal missile launchers strapped to our backs as we swing with our kids. There have been plenty of school shootings over the past 2 decades… maybe we should send all our kids to school packing heat to combat the possibility of future attacks… I suppose I don’t understand this mentality. The fact is that scenarios such as the “psycho” showing up in the park, are INCREDIBLY rare. But, if you increase the number of guns in any single location, the risk for harm goes way up. Why? Well, not every gun owner is as responsible or emotionally stable as concealed weapons proponents would like to believe they are.

  8. david esmay

    April 28, 2012 at 10:27 am

    Sean, we’re not anti-gun, just anti-idiot.Your arguments and your blog look like they were put together by a sixth grader. My guess is you’re a paid troll for the NRA, a lobbyist for gun manufacturers, or a wannabe. 97.2% of North Carolinians don’t have a concealed weapons permit.You’re an expert on special tactics? I’d like to see your creds. To say I’m incredulous would be an understatement. I’ve owned firearms since I was seven, I spent six years in the military and unlike kids today, we were taught gun safety at an early age, my dad was very strict about handling them and their purpose. Why is it I picture you rubbing your hands together gleefully at the thought of returning our society to the wild west. Let me guess, you always wanted to be a cowboy.

  9. Sean D Sorrentino

    April 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    Joseph,
    Yes, I am advocating for lawful concealed carriers to carry everywhere. I thought that was obvious. Only a person who is irrationally afraid of firearms would be surprised that someone would make that argument. You might reasonably disagree with that argument, but let’s stop pretending that it is either irrational or outside the realm of polite conversation. Your dragging hand grenades into the discussion only points you out as a deeply unserious person. As for rare, so is rape and murder. That doesn’t mean it does not happen. Feel free to have a chat with your local police. Ask them how often crimes occur in your town or city parks. You might be surprised.

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/04/12/2217776/mom-talks-about-attempted-kidnapping.html

    David
    Oh, so it’s straight to name calling? How mature. I spent longer in the military than you. (though neither my rights nor yours, nor in fact anyone elses are enhanced or limited by military service) My father taugh me to handle guns at about the same age as you were when yours taught you, and I’d be happy to match my father’s attitudes to yours, though I must point out that “my daddy can beat up your daddy” went out as an argument for me before my daddy introduced firearms to me. Just saying. Strangely, no, I had no desire to be a cowboy, either a Hollywood fantasy cowboy nor a real working rancher. I always wanted to be an astronaut. Sadly, no one has ever offered to pay me to blog or to leave comments on anyone elses blog. Honesty compels me to point out that I did make $100 from Google ads after about a year of blogging. If you would like to rebuild my blog for me, let me know. If your rates are reasonably I might let you.

    So, now that I’ve dealt with your silly ad hominem statements, do you have anything of substance to add?

  10. Sean D Sorrentino

    April 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Oh, and Rob? I should point out that the story about guns being legal to carry outside of the Democrat convention in Charlotte are false. North Carolina has a law that prohibits carrying weapons of any type in parades, protests, and funerals, and the Dem convention qualifies on all three counts.

    http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-277.2.html

  11. Joseph Dickson

    April 28, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Ok Sean. Gloves off. Every argument you could put forth as to why guns should be carried everywhere is specious at best and supported by purely anecdotal evidence. I’m glad you found my grenade comment ridiculous. It was meant to be just as ridiculous as the rationale for having guns in a kid’s park. I’m sure that women’s groups and murder victim’s families will be happy to know that murder and rape are rare events. With that comment, you basically told everyone that you have no clue what you’re talking about. If you think rape and murder occur at even close to the same rate as spree killings, you really need to explore your data sources. But clearly you’re the kind of guy that finds scientific research to be a bother. Put down the NRA newsletter and look up the real, peer reviewed, scientific research regarding gun ownership.

  12. Joseph Dickson

    April 28, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    Oh, I’m not afraid of guns at all. In fact I own many guns, mostly those left to me by my father. I keep them locked away in a secure location which is NOT at our home. Again guns and kids is a bad mix. I have to say though, that I found your use of the words “irrational” and “fear” amusing. So, who’s the one with the irrational fear here? Me, advocating to keep guns out of kid’s parks or the guy that thinks the gun wielding psychotic killer might jump out from behind a bush at any moment?

  13. Joseph Dickson

    April 28, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    Lastly, the last murder in Blowing Rock was in the 1970s or early 80s. There is little to no crIme here at all save for property crime. Perhaps that has to do with the relative absence of people who feel they need to tote guns everywhere.

  14. Ken Soderstrom

    April 28, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    Here is yet another example of the irrational “let’s enforce defenselessness around children” position. It is as if there is a strange belief in a psychokinetic ability, only held by children, that magically increases the probability of holstered handguns spontaneously discharging.

    These progs must live in expensive, gated communities where the logical outcomes of defenselessness have been artificially reduced. They must not spend much time in public parks, or have checked the sex offender database for their area http://sexoffender.ncdoj.gov/search.aspx – which means they don’t have children (probably because breeding is an unethical offense against the environment). I wonder what it is like to have no sense of civic responsibility (that appears to now be considered “paranoia”)?

    It isn’t as if this responsibility has disappeared; it is now just avoided and denied with a religious fervor. Why would anyone need to be armed when the police station is close by? Maybe because of this: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

  15. Joseph Dickson

    April 28, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Unintended Consequences

    Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense

    http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm

  16. david esmay

    April 28, 2012 at 11:13 pm

    Sean, I nor anyone else of a rational mind, should buy into your paranoid siege mentality. Carrying weapons into a city park or playground is a bad idea, period. What possible good could come of it, and why would you want to in the first place? I don’t walk around in fear, but the idea of someone carrying a weapon around a playground would put me on guard, actually someone who thinks that bringing a weapon to a park or playground is a good idea, needs to get counseling. Introducing weapons into city or state parks changes the whole dynamic of their intention, and not for the better. Military service isn’t intended to enhance one’s rights, mine or anyone else’s, but depending on your mos, it enhances your experience and respect for weaponry. Once people start carrying weapons into places like this armed confrontations will increase not decrease. Who in their right mind wants that?

  17. Sean D Sorrentino

    April 29, 2012 at 12:49 am

    David, you are projecting. I’ve been carrying my pistol for nearly 4 years. My number of armed confrontations has been exactly zero. I did find it rather comforting that one time when we were concerned about a home invasion at a friend’s house, but in the end I didn’t need to use it. It was an interesting story, but we don’t have time for it today.

    My MOS was 11C, I was a paratrooper in the 82nd. I qualified expert with a pistol, and this is entirely irrelevant. So is your experience. My rights and yours are not affected in the slightest by past or present membership in a group. All rights are individual rights. “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal…” Remember that?

    As for being “paranoid,” I’m not the one spazzing out that a perfectly law abiding citizen is carrying a gun. I don’t wear a seatbelt because I’m paranoid about car crashes. I don’t have a fire extinguisher because I’m paranoid about fire. I carry a gun for two reasons. First, if you need a gun you need it immediately and nothing else will work so you better have it. Second, I carry a gun because I can. I suggest you read Marko Kloos’s “Why the Gun is Civilization.”
    http://www.corneredcat.com/Why_the_Gun_is_Civilization/

    David, you seem to have a lot of hostility towards people who carry guns. Now, if you confined that hostility to people who do bad things with their guns, I could understand. Instead you seem to attribute evil thoughts and evil motives to everyone who carries a gun. I assume that you give government agents like cops a pass on this hostility. Maybe it is you that needs to seek some counseling. Maybe some time trying to explain to a professional why it is you attribute hostile intent to regular honest gun carrying fellow citizens will help you to see how unhealthy that is. Surely he or she will tell you that blindly assuming evil intent from people you don’t even know says more about you than about them.

    You have clearly not spent any time at all investigating pro-carry arguments. You start off defining your beliefs as the only beliefs a “rational” mind could possibly hold. Then you completely misrepresent my motives. This tells me that you haven’t bothered to even entertain the possibility that you might be wrong. Ignorant and stupid is no way to live your life. Get out more and learn some different opinions as well as investigate all of the facts. You might not change your mind, but you will stop demonizing people who disagree with you.

  18. Alex

    April 29, 2012 at 8:29 am

    I shudder to think that a hothead like David owns a firearm !

  19. Doug

    April 29, 2012 at 8:32 am

    The scary part is that David considers himself to be rational !

  20. Joseph Dickson

    April 29, 2012 at 10:37 am

    I’m going to post this again. This is clear, research-based evidence from PRO-GUN experts. It references no less than 219 articles and books. For anyone interested, this is called a meta-analysis.. a common research method.

    Unintended Consequences

    Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-Defense

    http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm

  21. david esmay

    April 29, 2012 at 11:59 am

    I don’t have hostility towards people who carry guns. What I object to is people who feel the need to carry one in a public park where kids may be playing, what I object to is the possibility of a minor disagreement escalating into a shooting. Where else do you want to carry it? Your kid’s school? Maybe their next parent teacher conference or soccer game. When people get angry, 99% of them act irrationally. About 10-12 years ago in Mt Pleasant, NC my fishing partner’s son’s little league coach was shot and killed after a game by a parent who didn’t agree with the way he coached the team, in front of his own son. I’ve been shot at once, they missed and hit a friend of mine at the Horne’s motel outside Ft. Bragg in 1981, another time I had a guy put a gun in my face at a party and had to disarm him. Neither experience gave me the desire to walk around in public armed. Alex thanks for exclamation mark.

  22. Sean D Sorrentino

    April 29, 2012 at 10:05 pm

    You do realize that you just tried to base an entire argument on a line from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, right?

    Um, he’s sick. My best friend’s sister’s boyfriend’s brother’s girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who’s going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night. I guess it’s pretty serious.

    Here’s a question for you. Did the shooter have a concealed handgun permit? I don’t have to wait until you answer because I already know. No, he didn’t. So you are basing your argument on the really insane proposition that barring me, a CHP holder with no criminal record whatsoever, from carrying a gun in a park will prevent the murder of someone you vaguely know by a person who was already willing to break several laws.

    Yeah, that’ll work.

    Honestly no one cares if you want to carry a gun. No one is making you. We’re just telling you that you don’t get a vote on whether or not we get to carry in public. That ship has sailed. And making really stupid arguments in favor of drawing lines around certain locations because it will make you feel more comfortable just makes you look foolish.

    And Joseph. No one cares what VPC says. Not even the other gun control groups. Their “research” is so bad that no one is willing to repeat it for fear of discrediting themselves. Well, except for you apparently. The number one expert listed in VPC’s “study” is Massad Ayoob. I double dog dare you to take that “study” to Mas and ask him for his opinion on its veracity. Bring lube.

  23. Joseph Dickson

    April 29, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    Ken, keeping kids safe from sex offenders has nothing to do with gun ownership or carrying a concealed weapon. That attempt at “proof” wasn’t even tied to common sense logic. Sex offenders hardly, if ever, use weapons. They use manipulation and opportunity. So shooting an unarmed person, no matter how much of a scumbag they are, will get you locked up. I do, of course, have children. No, I don’t live in a mansion in a gated community. I live in the real world… a world where people use common sense. I’ll ask you one simple question and if you can answer me, perhaps I and every other “prog” will agree completely with your viewpoint. Here it is: PROVE that guns do more GOOD than HARM. That’s it… plain and simple. The rationale for my question is this: In medicine, pharmacology specifically, there is something called a cost/benefit analysis. In this case the benefit is improved health and the cost is the side effects that may occur. The FDA uses this, in part, to determine if a medicine is safe for the public. If the benefit sufficiently outweighs the cost, the drug can go forward to the next phase and may eventually passed on to the public. There may still be cost but the benefit outweighs this by a large margin. So there it is. PROVE that guns do more good than harm… and please leave the multitude of excuses and other BS out. Don’t make excuses as to why you can’t. Either do it or say that guns do more harm than good. Lastly, we’re not talking about life in the 1800s… we’re talking about now.

  24. Joseph Dickson

    April 29, 2012 at 11:56 pm

    Sean, of course the gun control groups don’t care or validate what any of the research says. Why would they? Pro-gun activism isn’t about looking at all available evidence and making a rational and well thought out decision. It’s about drawing a line and defending the beliefs no matter what. The problem was, is, and will always be that people like yourself are so entrenched in a belief that any and all evidence to the contrary is dismissed as irrelevant or implausible.

    As for the article… You’re right. I typically think of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center and the Harvard School of Public Health as tabloid peddlers. In fact, Harvard University as a whole has a pretty bad reputation for putting out research that’s complete BS… no wait.. maybe that’s Guns and Ammo I’m thinking about.

  25. Sean D Sorrentino

    April 30, 2012 at 7:39 am

    Oh, Joseph. So many fallacies, so little time.

    “So shooting an unarmed person, no matter how much of a scumbag they are, will get you locked up.”
    Wrong. The law does not demand that your opponent have a weapon. The law requires that you have a reasonable fear of death, serious bodily injury, or sexual assault. Honestly, if you put a bullet into a person who is trying to rape you or take your child (unless it is a custodial parent!), you’re more likely to get a medal than charges. Try reading the law before spouting off about it, ok?

    “Here it is: PROVE that guns do more GOOD than HARM. That’s it… plain and simple.”
    Don’t have to. The way rights work is that the government must show that restricting our rights meets a compelling government interest, is narrowly tailored to meet that interest, and is the least restrictive means for doing so. You will note that WE don’t have to prove anything to YOU. The mere fact that the right exists is all that we need to exercise it. Again, try learning SOMETHING about the law before running your mouth about it.

    “It’s about drawing a line and defending the beliefs no matter what.”
    Physician, heal thyself.

  26. Joseph Dickson

    April 30, 2012 at 10:05 am

    So if you walk in on a rape about to happen or in progress, you’d shoot the guy. Not that I’m defending rapists, I can certainly see why you might want to shoot. But unless the guy has a gun pointed at you or a knife to the victim’s throat, you would have an incredibly hard time proving the force you used wasn’t excessive. Why shoot if not to dispense your own personal justice? Take a baseball bat to him or better yet just yank him off of the victim and kick his ass. There are choices between doing nothing and deadly force. As for my challenge, you illustrated why I put “no excuses” at the end. Guys like yourself always fall back on the same argument when faced with the harm vs good question. Why, because somewhere inside you, you know the only answer is that they are way more harmful than any good that might come of them. You wouldn’t need a gun at all for self defense if every criminal in the US couldn’t get one as easily as ordering fries at a fast food restaurant. Think Va. Tech and Columbine for example. Cho even had a serious mental health history and had been involuntarily committed.

  27. Jack

    April 30, 2012 at 10:14 am

    At a time when crime is on the decline and the ramping up of weapons ownership among U.S. citizens is taking place I have to wonder why? Why is it that civilians are now being encouraged to fear one another to the point that concealment of a weapon of deadly force is becoming the conversation of the day?

    Could it be that crime is truly on the decline and that the bad guy weapons market is beginning to dry up and an alternative market needs to be cultivated?

  28. Ken Soderstrom

    April 30, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Sean is entirely correct that the issue of the right to bear arms was was decided long ago (1784 to be exact) and that it is a waste of time and effort to discuss it further.

    I suppose for entertainment value I’ll offer a scholarly assessment of the issue: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html

    Here’s the specific problem with you progs; self doubt and projection of this upon others: http://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm

    If you don’t trust yourself to be defensively armed PLEASE don’t carry. But you have no right to project your lack of self-trust on others – so stop it!

    And if you really do have children, why aren’t you willing to accept responsibility for their protection? Or do you keep them isolated so that they cannot magically set-off the handguns carried lawfully by hundreds of thousands of your fellow North Carolinians?

  29. Jack

    April 30, 2012 at 11:01 am

    I don’t think the parents of the children killed at Columbine High School would agree with your statement: “And if you really do have children, why aren’t you willing to accept responsibility for their protection?” There was nothing they could have done to stop the madness of others bent on destroying the lives of so many families.

    Laws are made because there is an understanding of human nature. The law anticipates the inability of people to do the right thing at certain moments in life. A person steals a car. There are laws in place that anticipates such behavior. It isn’t projecting a lack of self-trust onto others it is simply an understanding that decisions are made that need to be dealt with in a formal and just manner.

  30. Joseph Dickson

    April 30, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Ken, I read the Kleck and Gertz article. While it makes some compelling arguments, academic criticism of the research seems to indicate that they likely mislabeled some events as DGU when in fact they weren’t. Additionally, a criticism the authors themselves acknowledged was that conducting the research in two different states with different gun laws may also have skewed the data. For the record, my doubt about others carrying weapons into very public places is not self-doubt somehow projected onto others. It’s just basic common sense. Would you be willing to give the population of any community a 100% guarantee that every person who LEGALLY obtains a concealed weapons permit will, for the foreseeable future, be emotionally stable, not carry their weapon when intoxicated, and always secure the weapon in the safest manner possible? I would hope you wouldn’t as this would be an impossibility. Think about this for a minute… if you increase the number of concealed gun owners who are carrying at the time, in any one location, you increase the chances that one or more of them will be careless or reckless with their weapon. There are several concealed weapon carriers I know personally who I would trust completely. There are other concealed carriers I know that I wouldn’t let come within a mile of my home or family with a gun. It is this variability Ken, that increases the chances of something bad happening.

  31. david esmay

    April 30, 2012 at 3:37 pm

    Sean you’re citing research done by another party based on data collected by a third party, what’s the difference?

  32. david esmay

    April 30, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    Ken, none of us are arguing against the right to bear arms, what we are disagreeing upon is your justifications for carrying a concealed weapon into a children’s playground or a park. What does self trust have to do with trusting the actions of someone carrying a concealed weapon? How is erring on the side of caution projecting a lack of self trust? I trust myself, just not half the people rushing out to take a 20 hr. class, for many of whom, it is their first experience with firearms. I have five kid’s, four grown, and they are all self reliant and were allowed to roam, alright, the one at UNC is a mommy’s boy, but the other four weren’t coddled, and we never avoided the responsibility of protecting them. You need to direct those accusations to the home schoolers.

  33. Ken Soderstrom

    May 2, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    “I don’t think the parents of the children killed at Columbine High School would agree with your statement.”

    Columbine happened two years after implementation of the the “Gun Free Schools Act”. If concealed handgun permittees would have been allowed to lawfully carry there, would the tragedy have occurred?

    Since passage of “Gun Free Schools Act” school/campus shootings have become epidemic rather than rare. Between the first of these notable events (the UT mass murder in 1966 that was slowed by a professor with a hunting rifle) and 1994 when the “Act” was passed, there was an average of one of these events per year, with a yearly average of 2.4 killed. Since 1994 there have been an average of five events per year and almost 10 killed per year. Keeping guns out of schools is clearly associated with increased violence. Is there a reason to believe that bans in parks/playgrounds will produce a different outcome?

    ” they likely mislabeled some events as DGU when in fact they weren’t”

    Even Marvin Wolfgang disagrees with you: http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html

    “Would you be willing to give the population of any community a 100% guarantee that every person who LEGALLY obtains a concealed weapons permit will, for the foreseeable future, be emotionally stable, not carry their weapon when intoxicated, and always secure the weapon in the safest manner possible?”

    You could make the same argument about driving cars and any number of other things free people do. Have you considered the logical outcome of this type of reasoning? It is a police state where individuals are not free to do anything that may possibly negatively affect others, even if that possibility is remote. This is clearly what you Progs want, and you CAN’T HAVE IT!

    A free society will always be a messy place. It is much less messy when people act responsibly. This is another social requirement that you wish to “Progress” beyond. Again, the outcome is a police state.

    Free people need to be able to defend themselves everywhere they go. Even if those places have children. Because of this it is essential that as part of a free society that we take responsibility for holding others to the highest standard of conduct. Bad behavior needs to become unfashionable once again. You are trying to steer our country in exactly the opposite direction. This is poor and unreasonable behavior on your part, and it MUST STOP!

  34. Joseph Dickson

    May 2, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    Ken, if all people were responsible, I would have no problem with your argument for concealed weapons everywhere. But that’s just not reality. I agree that a free society is a messy place and that there will always be problems. Violence as a whole is a problem. The logical reasoning behind my concern regarding irresponsible people carrying weapons everywhere has to do with the fact that a gunshot is likely to produce death or at a minimum very serious bodily injury. As for school shootings, access to guns (either owned by parents or obtained illegally) was a significant contributing factor. In fact, Harris (Columbine) joked in his journals about just how easy it was to obtain a shotgun and a Tech-9 plus ammo. Cho (Va Tech) also made similar references. Besides, there are spree killers who have obtained their weaponry by legal means as well. “More Guns” will never be the answer to gun violence. Lastly, I agree with your statement that “bad behavior needs to become unfashionable…”. I left out the “once again” because bad behavior has always and will always exist. I have to stop writing on this issue for now… it has consumed far too much of my time. Ken and Sean, I truly wish you guys well. We may disagree on these issues but to me, that’s alright. Great things can happen from a well thought out and civil discourse. Take Care.