Dee Wetzel:

“And since there’s a gun ban in Illinois, why did an obvious criminal have a gun?”

It was a fluke Dee, as simple as that. A common thread among arsonists, rapists and murderers is a genuine fear and awe inspired respect for any gun control law on the books.

Here we go again.

I have a question, and it’s quite serious: I am a law abiding citizen. In my nearly 50 years of life, I’ve never even had a parking ticket. I do not now, nor do I ever have any intention of owning a firearm.

Lest you think me silly, I’ve spent time in a number of major cities, I’ve got a share of street smarts, I know how to keep myself safe on the streets. So, tell me please, how it is that the possibility of the person in the next seat on the bus, or a row down at the stadium might be armed going to keep me safe? It appears to me that it makes me less safe: If a crazy shows up and starts shooting, my chances of being caught in the crossfire just went up, not down.

hs,

When the crazy starts shooting, this time, you, or any other citizen can shoot back.

hs, is it mere coincidence that the two places you reference are both places where it is actually illegal in MO to carry a concealed weapon (assuming you are talking about Busch Stadium)?

Question back to you, why is most mass murders happen in “gun free” zones such as colleges or malls in Illinois?

hs brings up an interesting point, and, despite my opinion that conceal and carry has merit, I have to concede that a concealed weapon doesn’t AUTOMATICALLY make anyone safer.

Having a gun is one thing, having the training and judgement to use it properly can be quite another.

It would be nice if everyone who carried a concealed weapon had a 1,000 round training requirement, or if everyone who carried a semi-automatic pistol knew that each semi-automatic pistol has a set of ‘feed and failure’ just as vital to its use as good marksmanship. I had numerous hours of range time and still would occasionally release the magazine by accident while on the firing line.

Had that happened in a ’street shoot’, I would have gotten myself and possibly a bystander or two killed. (Or maybe just shot…thugs don’t train much either).

Or how about ’shoot/don’t shoot’ situational exercises? They’re a vital part of law enforcement weapons training, but I wonder what the average armed citizen has in mind when he contemplates experiencing the so-called ‘3 seconds of terror’?

As I said, I support conceal and carry, but believe that a lot more gravitas from the pro-gun camp about safety and effectiveness would ease a lot of societal angst over the subject.

(PS - How many armed citizens strap on a Kevlar vest when they put on their weapon? I wore a Second Chance Level II, because I believe if you need one, you need the other.)

Opponents of conceal and carry often mention the ‘wild west’ metaphor, and those conceal and carry supporters with ‘OK Corral’ mentalities do their cause more harm than good.

They’re not Doc Holliday, and I’m…

…feed and failure “drills”, that is.

Ok, Si Vis, I’ll bite: you failed to answer the question I posed. NotWyattEarp did. Si Vis, nothing you have written convinces me you understand the question I’m asking. How am I safer walking down Market Street in St Louis if you might be, by chance, walking a half-block away if a crazy lets loose and starts shooting?

NotWyatt made a considerate answer: I would be a lot more comfortable with carry laws if I knew that along with the permit to carry there was a serious training requirement that went with it. Constitutionality is beside the point. It’s a heck of a lot harder to get a permit to drive (and own) a car than it is to get one to pack a firearm.

“Ok, Si Vis, I’ll bite: you failed to answer the question I posed…Si Vis, nothing you have written convinces me you understand the question I’m asking. ”

The question you posed referenced carrying in two places it is illegal, what else is there to understand? When did you stop beating your wife?

“How am I safer walking down Market Street in St Louis if you might be, by chance, walking a half-block away if a crazy lets loose and starts shooting?”

What makes you think I have any more obligation to protect you than the police do? They have no obligation to protect you and either do I.
Question back to you (to avoid): The two of us are walking down the street in opposite directions, you have on a “I am an unarmed victim” shirt and I have on a “Armed Citizen” shirt on, who do you think appears to be the easier target? Now say you are the mugger, you see two people walking down the street after the Cards game dressed the same, one of them is armed, how do you tell which one?

“Constitutionality is beside the point. ”

What other parts of the Constitution should be “beside the point”?

All right. Now I got it. You take care of yourself, and yourself only. I’m incidental to your consideration. Have a nice life. I, however, believe I have a certain obligation to the community and the other citizens around me. If I have a heart attack on the street, I won’t wait for Si Vis to call 911 and perform CPR. However, if he has one, I probably would do both things for him.

Here’s the logical fallacy of Dee Wetzel’s comments: If guns are inanimate (guns don’t kill people, people kill people), then how can a gun, being inanimate, keep someone safe?

You can’t have it both ways.

I have a question, if someone possessing a CCW’s permit kills a by-stander should the death penalty be applied?