I ask the editors, how, exactly, would a law permitting concealed carry have
aided Ratzmann’s effort to slaughter his fellow church-goers? It seem that
he managed it just fine without concealed carry.
In reading the article further, it seems that not only their logic was flawed, but their examples of "failed" conceal and carry were as well.
Neither is the Atlanta courtroom shooting much of an advertisement for
concealed-carry. After all, alleged perpetrator Brian Nichols overcame armed and
trained officers to pursue his rampage. Armed judges or prosecutors - which the
gun lobby is advocating - wouldn't have stood much of a chance.
What the Urinal fails to mention is that the "trained officer" was a 5 foot nothin 55 year old grandma in a small room with an extremely large and athletic younger man. As a matter of fact Mr. Pimentel, your average armed judge/prosecutor would have stood a MUCH better chance. We all know in Milwaukee how fantastically well trained and professional the deputies staffing the court house are.
The arguments against conceal carry are so ridiculous they defies logic, but since you can't win an argument with someone who denies reason and common sense, this is a lost cause. Does Mr. Pimentel really believe that allowing citizens to go through hours and hours of training and certification will cause more gun violence? Will the average street thug who "strap" to protect himself during a drug deal really al of a sudden care about law and order and go get himself a permit for that stolen weapon? When is the last time you heard an armed robber lament the lack of a conceal carry law? "If only Wisconsin allowed me to carry a concealed weapon legally, I would break the law and rob that damn bank!"
O. Ricardo will always hate guns, just like he will always hate gun people who have "probably watched too many Westerns."
What a smug and arrogant ass.
