One of the few positive things in this situation was that the cops have learned the lesson of Columbine & stormed the building right away. They didn't wait for a couple hours while more victims could bleed to death. I realize they didn't get there in time to stop the shooter (which is why I'm for CC) but they saved lives for sure. I saw a interview with one of the local surgeons who talked about several that ended up in critical condition that are going to make it because they got to them quickly.

Ben,

I value your opinion (and your service to our nation)as I know that it comes from an informed point of view.

A common theme that I'm picking up on in a lot of folks postings is that I am perceived as advocating for taking away everyone's guns.

That's a response I pretty much expected when I first posted (and voluntarily put the target on my head).

On my first post on this subject I stated out that gun control is not a black/white, either/or proposistion.

Gun control is not anti-gun.

I simply want people to stop and think. Not react to the emotion of the moment, or some romantic image of the past or movies in deciding public policy.

If there are going to be new or amended concealed carry laws, they must be very carefully thought out, made stringent as hell, based on need and competency and not on preventing VT from happening again.

To pass/amend laws for the purpose of preventing another VT is to base those on the raw emotion of the moment which is never wise in the long run.

We as a nation have elections coming up. Both sides will be flashing images of VT on the TV to bolster their position and demonize their opponent.

There is a reasonable middle ground for all of us. That is what I want people to think about. We do not have to allow ourselves to get sucked into the polarized "if you're not with me, then you're against me" trap.

Nowhere have I advocated taking away people's guns. I have advocated for reasoned thought in gun policy.

For those that have cited law enforcement statistics for supporting concealed carry, I always defer to hard data. If the current local laws are stringent enough to ensure public safety and the data backs that up, then let the laws stand. I can have no reasonable arguement against that.

I will vehemently argue against weakening those laws or starting to broaden the scope of CCW laws in hopes of preventing VT in the future (that again is emotionally reactionary and will be coming to a legislature near you soon).

The voice in the wilderness; it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

Samhain, you should study history more. When concealed carry bans have been over turned by the state courts or legislatures, or made less restrictive, the violent crime rates drop. You can look it up yourself- Florida and Texas are great places to start as they went from highly restrictive concealed carry laws to what are called "shall issue" permits. The places where concealed carry is basically illegal for the common person, such as NY, Ca, parts of Illinois or DC, the crime rates are much higher.

Or you can look at statistics. In Massechusettes, it is practically impossible to a CCW permit without being connected. In New Hampshire, it's easy and fairly inexpensive. New Hampshire counties that now serve as outer suburbs of the Boston metroplex have decidedly lower rates of violent, random street crime than their neighbors 10 miles south.

The laws regulating concealed carry in all of these states is a matter of public record, as are the procedural difficulties above and beyond the letter of the law, and the crime rates by county. Look particularly counties with similar population densities. I'd invite you to look at when those laws passed, and the non-domestic violent crime rates.

I say invite because I don't think you are willing to reexamine your beliefs. If you can provide compelling evidence based on logos, rather than pathos, I am willing to examine it. But I don't think you can; if you can, you'll be the first in 20 years.

As compared to the Swiss who IIRC have universal service & send the issued weapons home with them when their requirement is over?

That's why I watch Fox News for national stuff. IMO they come closest to impartiality the way news is supposed to be reported.

CNN anchors let their bias show way too much in comparison. Paul Harvey has a similar problem. I quit listening to him when I heard one of his news reports about a proposed change to the stem cell funding requirements & noticed the severely loaded choice of words he used.

The local stations have forgotten the difference between news and Warm & Fuzzy stories. They run for 90 min. & tell us the same news that used to fit in 30.

I'd actually prefer to both broaden the scope & make them more stringent at the same time. The way they wrote the law here you can't carry where alcohol is served. This includes restaurants that mainly serve food.

My preference would be that 1. Make the CCW qualifications more difficult, 2. Allow ccw anywhere except inside a courtroom with the requirement that if you carry you or maybe your party DO NOT drink

Or make a distinction between bars & restaurants with the requirement that if you CCW you DO NOT drink instead of #2.

With that I think we are moving from different directions towards the same understanding, more or less.

I think you are pointing to the politically responsible side of the issue, and I am pointing more towards the socially responsible side. Both of us seem to be pointing to the same center point, just differing aspects. You are making statements, and I am qualifying them, which seems complementary to me, and not at all antagonistic.

Good on ya, mate.

Thanks Benjammin, I needed that.

Oh, we've beated on this horse a lot.

They all have thier own biases. First rule of human intelligence- your sources have a biases. First rule of pre-digested intelligence- analysts have thier own biases, and thier superiors have thier own agendas.

Multiple sources, preferably ones with different biases. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and the more sources you have the easier it is for you to see it.

See, now we can start working out the middle ground where compromise can be found.

We as a nation just have to get past the reflex "if you ain't with me, you're against me" point.

Any arguement for gun control is not an arguement against guns no more than speed limits and driver's licenses are anti-car (may not be an exact analogy but ya'll get the picture).

It's not an all or nothing proposition.

The debate is so polarized that neither side listens to the other or is willing to acknowledge that the opposing position has any merit.

As a citizen, I am willing to carefully and objectively consider laws that would allow CCW in specific circumstances/locations accompanied with very stringent requirements.

I'm just fearful of the blanket strapping on of fire arms to walk around the mall because their scared and angry (or their Viagra has kicked in and they're feeling frisky ).

True, no one has argued that point here (yet) but it will come to counter the "take away all guns" arguement. Both are emotion-driven and get us nowhere.

You make a good distinction between resturants and bars (volume of alcohol being consumed vs food consumed, lingering time, and statistical frequency of location specific violence).

Again, a national debate based on careful, reasoned, objective data and not the knee-jerk "they'll take my guns away over my dead body" arguements that get us nowhere.

For the record, if there was someone arguing to ban all civilian-owned fire arms, I would be arguing against them too.