N.I. Krasnov wrote: > And everyone will be much safer, now that government-approved gun > owners will be banned from various premises, and criminals will know > who's unarmed. > > This is lunacy.
Actually, I think both sides are being silly. I believe there are approximately 300 cases in the U.S. a year in which a handgun is used as defense last year. So the odds of actually making use of your permit are less than winning the lottery. My guess is that it's about the same as the increased risk to yourself and your family attributable to carrying a loaded handgun. But then the risk of a citizen being harmed by someone with a permit is most likely as small, if not smaller. The signs in restaurants are not going to deter anyone from eating there, unless they do pat-downs or use metal detectors. What a lot of people don't seem to realize is that carrying a handgun would actually decrease the number of confrontations that permit holders get involved in. Anyone who takes the required classes should learn that if you initiate a confrontation or don't walk away from one, and you end up shooting somebody you're in line for a murder charge. And a person having a permit in such a case will make the crime a little easier to solve. It's like registering sex offenders. When they start to disarm America they'll be at your door first. The arguments on both sides are really ideological and emotional, not rational. However I am considering a boycott of all Minneapolis businesses with signs because I don't want to be the victim of a political statement. An equally silly and irrational position. Michael Atherton Prospect Park TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. 2. If you don't like what's being discussed here, don't complain - change the subject (Mpls-specific, of course.) ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
