Kansas supports suit opposing concealed-carry permit restrictions

[Starboard Tack]

94. I don't think I have suggested a causal relationship between crime and firearm ownership.

What people own is not the issue, unless and until it comes into conflict with the public interest, especially public safety. This is where carrying in public comes in and why I describe it as an inherently violent act. Despite the fact that most who carry never use their weapons against others, the very reason they carry is to shoot those they perceive as life threatening. You might argue that the mere act of carrying is not violent, but it is a precursor to violence and demonstrates a mindset of preparedness and propensity for violence.
Then you might argue that MAD works for nations, so why not for individuals. To which, I would say that MAD doesn't work all that well and do we want a world that resembles an ongoing Mexican standoff?

I'm not sure what you mean by "The diversion of criminal justice resources from policing areas with high gang activity to deal with prosecution of otherwise lawful citizens would be wrong. " Of course it would be wrong, but who is suggesting it?

I do not think it is a good thing that the definition of "justifiable homicide" has broadened to the point where, barring third party testimony, the onus is on the dead guy to show it wasn't justifiable. I also object to shooting people in the back as they run away and present no danger, which is apparently legal in certain states. But I must admit, it is a great way to lower the murder stats and boost the cause for carrying. Shoot another "bad guy" and everyone cheers. Is that what you really want? Is that what you mean by "a good thing"?