new here thought I would say hi.

[Pholus]

6. Thanks for the thoughtful answers.

I do have some quibbles however.

1) Yes, there are laws that would not seem to serve much use. Guns are currently a matter for debate precisely because there are some people who see them as a risk and some people who do not. On the other hand, "criminals will not pay attention to the law" is a rather weak argument given that it is in part the violation of the law that defines a criminal. I grew up around guns too and I guess I just listened to that "respect the gun" part too much because I am appalled by these people parading around in everyday life with an AR strapped to their back just because "it's legal." I don't think the rest of the population should be forced to do risk calculations when shopping about whether the yahoo with the weapon is a threat or not. Actually, it's a risk regardless because the yahoo is either a) about to shoot up the place or b) just a yahoo with little or no common sense that itself forms a safety risk. Either way, I am pissed that I have to factor in that yahoo's presence as I try to navigate my tasks and herd my kids around them without harm.

If we as a people have regressed to the point where any action is appropriate as long as it is not banned by a law then well, it's time for a law. We have speed limits for a safety reason, even though they are routinely broken -- some fraction of us pay for that too even if it isn't all of us. So I don't care if "only criminals will break the law" cause that's basically the point. The mere pretense of the AR in the store should be a red flag in and of itself requiring no further assessment of the situation given that the object has no useful purpose in that context and has the potential to cause mass mayhem.

2-4) Obviously I wanted to make a point and you got that. You sound every bit a legitimate and thoughtful gun owner, though my conclusion does depend on my reading into what you mean by the word "defense" of course. Definitely I am with you on hunting. I would add target shooting to your list. I would certainly agree that you have a right to protect yourself in your home. I would agree that you have a right to carry a weapon in public if you have reasonably demonstrated that you have a risk such as a hazardous job or have had threats to your life -- provided you have been screened, trained and are held to a strict standard of when the weapon can be drawn/shown. I don't believe that you have a right to carry an AR (or even a handgun) in JC Penneys just cause it's Tuesday and you feel like it or even because it's a bad part of town and you're feeling scared. Even the "wild west" made you check your gun at the city limits after a while. Because it comes down to appropriateness.

There is no good reason to have a gun in a school. There is no good reason to have a gun in a hospital. People should be smart enough to know this without a sign having to be posted. If you have a weapon where it is not appropriate, the mere presence of the weapon should be grounds for corrective action by others rather than some anxiety raising situation where one has to study the yahoo to glean intent (where the yahoo will cry and whine if they are unjustly accosted because we should just somehow know they're one of those "good guys with guns.&quot

This is one place where some European nations with looser possession laws than us (like Norway) for example have gotten it right. You can pretty much have what you want as long as you follow VERY strict rules on how they are placed into the public commons. Responsible gun owners have no problem with these ideas in discussion (and many collectors are excited about the prospects) but I find there are plenty of people who feel their irresponsible behaviors are covered by that "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd amendment. That they have unrestricted right to carry what they want, where they want and when they want and the rest of the country just has to make accommodations. And therein sources the heat which you feel.

5-8) No, this has always been about mental illness -- the moment I see the yahoo with the gun in the store that's what I HAVE to wonder. Seriously, this goes back to the whole appropriate vs. inappropriate thing. Carrying that weapon in that situation is purely inappropriate and the wielder shows a tenuous grasp of reality if they somehow feel like that weapon is the only thing preventing them from an untimely demise.

And as you agreed judgment is definitely easily impaired. I have stolen more than enough keys from inebriated friends enough to know that people who usually have their shit together can rapidly run off the rails with a few beers. People are very poor judges of their limits and tend to take offense when they are told that they've impaired. It would be nice if we acknowledged this in our gun ownership rules as well...

So, this is closer to what needs to be discussed than any real discussion that will ever occur. Thanks.