And I am absolutely positive that it’s already packaged in a much friendlier video narrative. I know that because I took the course back in 1997 when I got my permit. People will watch a video and learn from it much more readily then they will dig through the KRS. Since the training materials already exist there’s not a valid reason not to make them available.
Where did I say anything about "punishing the 99%"? What I'm suggesting is that we voluntarily reduce the amount of carrying, in hopes that this reduces the cultural climate of violence. This has nothing to do with more laws. Maybe I'm being hopelessly naive.
I'm talking about northern Virginia, which is the suburbs of D.C. You go 20 miles outside the Beltway, and the climate changes completely.
Well yes, I guess that's more or less what I'm saying. Just because we have rights doesn't mean we have to exercise them. Take freedom of speech, for example. If everybody exercised their freedom of speech to the limit, we would have a much more vulgar and unpleasant society. So self-restraint is the corollary to rights and freedoms. The way I see it, the Bill of Rights is a series of safety valves, that's there to be invoked when needed, but should not have to be invoked routinely. And abusing rights is a good way, politically, to get them eventually taken away. Already we're hearing calls to repeal the 2nd Amendment. It won't happen anytime soon, but that day will draw nearer in proportion to the number of shooting incidents. Are we at a tipping point? Not yet, but we're getting there.
I agree 100%. The paradox, however, is that those with anger issues and poor self control are more likely to carry guns.
The history of the 2nd Amendment, itself, refutes that last assertion. When I was in law school, in the 1960's, the 2nd Amendment was treated as a dead letter, and not worth discussing. (A few years later, Sanford Levinson, a professor at that same school, published a law review article entitled "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" that started the ball rolling on reviving the Amendment, leading eventually to the Heller decision.) All the years that it was treated as a dead letter, enabled the 2nd Amendment to "fly beneath the radar." I have no doubt that if the Amendment had been as salient in the early 20th century, as it has been in the early 21st century, it would have been repealed in the wave of reform under the Progressive Movement (that also passed the income tax, women's suffrage, direct election of senators, etc.). The fact that no one was paying attention, saved it.
But asking the rest of us not to, because they "are more likely" is not doing anything beneficial except, maybe, making everyone else an easier victim.
That ship has sailed. Do you not get out much anymore? Not paying attention to pop culture? Not listening to what passes for "music" these days? Not watching network television or getting out to the movies? Not watching mainstream media "news?"
So even someone hopelessly naive would probably not think that the only people eligible to legally carry a concealed handgun, who would voluntarily reduce their amount of carrying, would NOT be those inclined to escalate immediately into road rage incidents or loss of control of their temper over minor incidents or perceived slights. And these reasonable people, presumably possessed of a fair degree of self-awareness, would certainly not be doing so in the hope of reducing the cultural climate of violence.
It's not naivete. But I'm not sure what it is.
And it's almost comically tragic that those so inclined to indulge in road rage are more likely to drive the largest motor vehicles, usually big pickup trucks or SUVs. Should we be advocating for more government control over who drives what types of vehicles due to what we see on our public roadways?
It’s true if you don’t opt for a permit in your state of residence.
I don’t know why you quoted me here. At no point did I ever advocate for more government control. All I’m advocating for is to make access to information easier.
I was always told and taught this was the land of the free, and the home of the brave, but I haven't seen much of that for a good while now.
The illusion continues and just keeps getting worse.
You think criminals are going to do what's good for society?
I keep seeing stories like the one about the retiree in Florida, who killed his neighbor, and his neighbor's wife, over a dispute about leaving the door of the apartment laundry room propped open. This tragedy, which destroyed four lives (the victims', the perpetrator's, and the perpetrator's wife's) wouldn't have happened if the shooter hadn't been carrying. He wasn't a bad man; he just got carried away in an emotional moment. He was sorry the instant after it happened. Why, again, was he carrying?
