[Jeff White]

It's funny how a personal threat can make you think about your own safety. I'm not sure he's totally in our camp, but he's sure made a turn around ffrom his earlier columns. Another sign we're winning.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/sylvesterbrownjr/story/159D539893678E1D86256FC50037B992?OpenDocument
Killings spark rethinking about concealed weapons
By Sylvester Brown Jr.
Of the Post-Dispatch
03/15/2005

"Have you ever taken a stance in your column, then changed your position later?"

The question, posed by one of Margaret Gilleo's students, gave me pause. I was invited to speak Friday to Gilleo's Contemporary Moral Issues class at Fontbonne University. Her students asked probing questions after I talked about my job.

"There are no absolutes," I told the student. "I'm not perfect - just a regular guy who recognizes alternate viewpoints."

A story in Sunday's Post-Dispatch reminded me of an issue that I've reconsidered and on which I've at least softened my stance. It explored the gun lobby's efforts to push a concealed-carry bill through the Illinois Legislature.

When Missouri grappled with a similar law last year, I stood adamantly opposed. More guns mean more gun-related deaths, I wrote.

The well-organized, very vocal pro-gun people sent about 200 e-mails denouncing my position. Thugs are less likely to pull guns if they are unsure who's armed, supporters argued. They sent articles and statistics (most citing the National Rifle Association as a source) showing that gun-related homicides have remained the same or fallen in states that passed conceal carry laws.

Of course, the anti-gun people sent information supporting their side. But, as I said, there are no absolutes. I still view the posted "No concealed weapons" signs as a bizarre throwback to the days of the wild, wild West. But I understand the pro-gun argument better. They're not all itching to kill bad guys. Most, I'm sure, are law-abiding, ordinary folks who want a gun handy "just in case."

Considering recent events, I'm sure many people are now thinking about packing heat.

They have read about a Chicago judge whose husband and mother were shot to death in her home this month. Then there was last week's story about the Atlanta man who shot and killed a judge, a court stenographer, a deputy and a federal agent before his capture. The next day another man, Terry Ratzmann, opened fire and killed seven people and himself during a weekend worship service in a Milwaukee hotel.

With this sort of nutty stuff going on, who could blame ordinary folk for wanting to arm themselves?

That concept, however, leads me to a bigger concern. How do we know who's ordinary and who's capable of mayhem?

According to what I read about Ratzmann, he was an "average Joe." Friends and neighbors remembered him as a "quiet and devout" gardener who liked to "tinker around the house."

The "ordinary guy" profile fits quite a few people who suddenly snap and start shooting people.

Consider John C. Alexander, the Ballwin man who shot his wife and her friend in front of his children last month. He had a history of abuse, was jealous and quick to anger. But friends were also able to describe Alexander as a "devoted dad" who loved his wife.

Maybe Illinois voters deliberating the concealed-carry issue ought to remember Derek W. Potts. In September, Potts, who was depicted as a "rambunctious but harmless" young man, walked into the Illinois Capitol and fatally shot a security guard. Or, how about Ken Salant of Chesterfield. Salant had no criminal record, police reported last year, after discovering that he killed his mother and brother with a .38-caliber revolver.

These may be extreme cases. Yes, the killers were deemed ordinary folks, but some suffered from depression, mental illness, jealousy, fear and other maladies.

A few months ago, I thought about buying a handgun. Security guards here told me a man tried to force himself upstairs to see me. Apparently I had written something that angered the man. The guards escorted him from the building. I didn't recognize his name and, to this day, I have no idea why he was so upset.

Maybe I'm paranoid. I doubt if the guy was packing. Why should I worry? More than likely, it was just a visit from an ordinary, average guy with something on his mind.

E-mail: sylvesterbrown@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8374

[TallPine]

These may be extreme cases. Yes, the killers were deemed ordinary folks, but some suffered from depression, mental illness, jealousy, fear and other maladies.
They all had one thing in common: they all made a decision to break one or more moral and/or statutory laws.

So how does a law prohibiting concealed carry stop someone who has already decided to break the law against murder ...?

[Werewolf]

Changed his views? Hardly...

In fact his whole thesis about the ordinary man cracking and going beserk is a veiled attempt at reconciling the need for carrying with his previous opinion against CCW.

He's not changed - he's just adjusted his reasoning for why CCW is not a good thing.

[Jeff White]

Werewolf,
I don't read it the same way. I read it to mean that you can't tell who the bad guys are, so it's prudent to be prepared. I'm taking him at his word that he's changed his view.

Jeff

[Jay Kominek]

I don't actually see where he says he changed his mind. He says things about understanding the opposing viewpoint better, but not agreeing with it or considering it acceptable.

This is the sneakily written work of an anti. "Oh, look how reasonable I am, I understand why an ordinary person would want a gun (...but ordinary people do plenty of shooting, so we shouldn't actually let them have them)."

[Andrew Rothman]

Jay nailed it, Jeff.

This is still an anti guy spouting anti crap: if carrying a gun is legal, than ordinary guys carrying guns will snap and kill people.

[io333]

I don't know. It sounds to me like the author is midstream in the typical thought process that goes on when an anti is coming to the realization that they were truly wrong, but they are having a difficult time reconsiling that realization with a lifetime of working for the bad cause and doing bad things -- especially when they thought they were working hard for the good cause and doing good things.

[heisler]

He's now on the fence.

[SMMAssociates]

The one thing that bothers me is the repetition of the "somebody went berserk" theme....

I carry because the guy beside me, so to speak, may do that, among other things.

(Like the guy beside me already has, or is a criminal who wants something I have, or....)

The anti's love to harp on the "will go berserk" thing.... What they can't see is that the berserker is likely to use anything he/she can get his/her hands on, whether it's a gun, knife, car, airplane, or fireplace poker.

What they also can't see is that an armed LAC can sometimes stop these situations.

Kinda reminds me of Carl Rowan.... :banghead:

[beerslurpy]

The internet is a wonderful thing.

Now when someone says something that might get read by say, a senator/governor/president, it also gets read by a million americans within 5 minutes, and floods of angry emails can result.

I also think the populace at large is a lot better informed about what is being said and done in government, and the distance between someone in office and the average voter is a lot smaller than it was say, 20 years ago. Its very hard for people to pass laws and have it be completely below the radar. Something like the 86 ban would get a lot more attention from gun owners these days. Its not just a change in political attitudes, its the fact that gun owners now coordinate with one another on a daily basis instead of once or twice a year at an NRA convention or a regional gun show. Its now seen as completely normal for every single anti-gun article, blog or speech done around the world to be immediately scrutinized and responded to by dozens of gun owners. For major issues, the mailing probably runs into the thousands.

In short, I love this new age we are living in.

[Standing Wolf]

"There are no absolutes," I told the student.

There are no objective standards. Good can be evil. Evil can be good. Viva socialism!

Security guards here told me a man tried to force himself upstairs to see me. Apparently I had written something that angered the man. The guards escorted him from the building.

If he had any moral or intellectual integrity, he'd realize in a tenth of a heart beat the vast majority of people don't have guards to protect them. He's just another shameless leftist parasite.

[SAG0282]

WI doesn't have shall-issue CCW, yet look at what happened. Is it really possible that he and others miss that??

[EghtySx]

Thing is, if we are all carrying, and one of us goes off, the rest can neutralize the threat quickly. Prety much any threat along those lines.

[SMMAssociates]

Thing is, if we are all carrying, and one of us goes off, the rest can neutralize the threat quickly. Pretty much any threat along those lines. EghtySx:

Makes way too much sense.... :evil:

(Got my vote.)

Regards,

[Art Eatman]

People like Mr. Brown need more exposure to folks like Susannah Gratiot-Hupp, whose parents were murdered in the Luby's Cafeteria killings at Copperas Cove. Her pistol had been left in her car in order to be in compliance with the Texas laws as then extant.

She would have had a clear shot at the murderer, before her parents were shot and before several others were also shot.

Her story contributed greatly to the passage of Texas' CHL laws.

Another thing that too many people do not realize is that there are various groups who are unending in their research to refute any claim about anything the NRA states as fact. The NRA must therefore be totally above reproach when claiming fact--and does a darned good job of it.

Lastly, what sorta keeps me upset is that people who speak out against proposed CHL laws never seem to actually look at the history of other states. Florida and Texas come readily to mind: Relatively recent passage, yet in effect long enough to show whether or not there will be "blood in the gutters". As we here all know, that's hogwash.

Interestingly, some of the same individuals who campaigned against CHL in Florida showed up in Texas; they then moved on to Missouri. It doesn't matter how often they're factually incorrect, they continue the same erroneous refrain...

Art

[Don Gwinn]

I agree; he's not all the way there yet, but he's in the process of evolving. It's hard to let go of old convictions. Many people can't do it for any reason.

But this:
Maybe Illinois voters deliberating the concealed-carry issue ought to remember Derek W. Potts. In September, Potts, who was depicted as a "rambunctious but harmless" young man, walked into the Illinois Capitol and fatally shot a security guard.
Simply isn't accurate. First of all, Illinois doesn't have CCW, so I fail to see how CCW gave Potts the ability to go nuts with a common shotgun.
Secondly, the only person I heard describe Potts as "harmless" was his mother. Personally, take character testimony from distraught mothers and chuck it right out the window. I feel for them, but I don't trust their judgment regarding their children, and neither should you.

[Waitone]

What if. . . . No guarantees in life. Anyone can snap, not just the ones with guns. You can't control what happens around you. No one can.

So your choice is clear. You can curl up in a corner sucking your thumb out of insecurity because someone MIGHT do a bad thing. OR you can get control of your reality and get on with your life. Deal with what is likely to impact you and yours and forget about everything else. Control your bubble of life. Don't try to control everyone else's bubble. Concentrate on what is good for you and yours and forget your fellow man. Self-centered? I prefer to call it "healthy."

[dance varmint]

How do we know who's ordinary
and who's capable of mayhem?
Irrelevant. If you issue permits, people capable of mayhem aren't more likely to commit mayhem, but they are more likely to be stopped by ordinary people. Real Einstein there.

[peacefuljeffrey]

Strange :rolleyes: how this writer mentions the three major-publicity murders that have taken place in recent weeks but neglects to mention the shooting in Texas in which a man used his CCW pistol to keep at bay a guy who was going around in ballistic armor with a rifle. In that case, the man (who was killed in the altercation) is credited with having saved lives.

This is without question, in my mind, still an anti we're dealing with here. He did what some here have said: he struck a pose to show how "reasonable" he is, by virtue of "understanding" why some people want to be armed.

He clearly undid the "reasonableness" of being armed with CCW by over and over again raising the specter of what "ordinary" people do with handguns. The only thing is, I doubt that CCW had anything to do with those shootings. It is more likely that CCW would have STOPPED those shootings than it would be to CAUSE such shootings.

The writer's logic would have us believe that we should all not have guns, despite the good we may do with them (he does not MENTION the good we might do with them, actually) because of what some "normal" seeming people do. He utterly disregards the potential that law-abiding citizens with CCW handguns have to put an end to violent rampages.

What's hardest for me to believe is his closing. If you read between the lines, you can see that he's being sardonic. He's implying that the guy who wanted to come up and see him could easily be the kind of guy he's spent the whole column talking about: a "normal" guy who snaps with his CCW handgun.

The idiot still won't recognize the reality that if someone did come into his office space shooting innocents, if the author had a CCW firearm he could defend his own life and those of others around him.

Nope, better for these pseudo-intellectual elitists to leave it in someone else's hands to protect them. :rolleyes:

-Jeffrey

[publius]

With this sort of nutty stuff going on, who could blame ordinary folk for wanting to arm themselves?

That concept, however, leads me to a bigger concern. How do we know who's ordinary and who's capable of mayhem?

Well, he put his email address. Maybe all of us who are ordinary and who are not going to go berserk should just go ahead and check in with him, so he could at least narrow the field of concern. ;)

[Jay Kominek]

If you read between the lines, you can see that he's being sardonic.
Exactly!

This is one of the sneakiest piece to come out of an anti that I've seen. :eek:

[jnojr]

My response:

I just read your column "Killings spark rethinking about concealed weapons". One point I wanted to address... you said
"That concept, however, leads me to a bigger concern. How do we know
who's ordinary and who's capable of mayhem?" That statement leads me to
believe that you still hold that there are "reasonable controls" that we
can use to "keep guns out of the hands of the violent".

My response to that is, in a free society, we have to allow people the
freedom to screw up, and even the freedom to flip out and start
murdering others. If there was something we could do that would
restrict the freedom of potential murderers that would not affect
everyone else, I'd be all for it. But "preventative" laws, by
definition, are going to affect everyone. Murder is already illegal,
and that doesn't stop murders, so what's next? Restrict access to
weapons? Great... criminals, who by definition, ignore the law, will
continue to arm themselves, while the law-abiding, in obeying they law,
are left defenseless.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said something like "Those who give
up freedom for security wind up with, and deserve, neither". If given a
choice between a "safe", restrictive nanny-like society that controls my
every move; and a free, open society where I may be at risk of being a
victim of crime but also have the means to defend myself; I'll choose
the later every time. In the first example, the individual is nothing
but a tiny cog in a machine. And when tiny cogs wear down or slip,
they're either ground up by the machine, or replaced and thrown away.