With regard to Robert Sinners’ opinion that guns should not be regulated, and that any passably sane person should be able to publicly carry a firearm, I present two scenarios.
Scenario 1: All legal adults present at the shooting are carrying firearms. Jared Loughner walks in, having purchased his firearms at a gun show rather than a store, thus bypassing checks, and opens fire. All present draw their firearms, pushing their children behind them for safety. Everyone takes over. Though deemed sane, none of these people have been required to attend the incredible amount of training required by modern laws for a police officer to openly carry a gun. Bullets fly. Jared Loughner goes down, but everyone keeps shooting, unable to tell who is on whose side. By the time the firefight ends, there is outright carnage. Sure, Loughner is down, but the death toll is as high as 15 or 20. All are wounded. The congresswoman is dead. Fox News reports that 10 armed gunmen have charged the congresswoman, most of the deceased are posthumously deemed criminals.
Scenario 2: All present do not have firearms. Jared Loughner walks in with a bowie knife, having been unable to purchase a firearm, as gun shows are now illegal, and strict checks are in place so that it is next-to-impossible for a layman, not a member of organized crime, to buy a gun. A constituent sees the knife, panics, and tackles Loughner from behind. Though injured, he lives with only superficial wounds. He receives a public commendation, and the papers report it as “The disaster that could have happened.” Gabrielle Gilfords, uninjured, returns to her seat in the House, and everyone applauds as she walks in. Which scenario do you think is better, Mr. Sinners?