Bill, you and I are good friends, but you are employing the typical tactic of those that "just don't get it". You state a premise that is not correct. It does not matter what the original framers intended, the fact is that guns are a part of the fabric of this country. Further, when one examines the the stat's region by region, what we find is that the incidence of violent crime is significantly less in areas with "shall issue" concealed weapons permits. I agree with you on the issue of concealed versus openly carried. In fact, that is the rule here in Michigan. You may not "brandish" a weapon openly. There are very strict guidelines with regard to when it is appropriate to draw the weapon, and if one does that for any reason other than those reasons, they will lose their permit and weapon.

The bloodbath has never occurred anywhere that the laws have been liberalized. I wonder if someone could investigate whether the incidence of illegal weapons is higher or lower in these states.

One of the posters above wanted to make the point that gun violence happens more frequently in certain areas than other. Right you are. DC is one such area, and it has some of the most restrictive gun laws around. The argument falls apart because it doesn't make the distinction of legally owned guns/gunowners versus areas where folks are not allowed to own legally. The data simply does not support this as justification.

If one could put forth any decent data that demonstrates that by me giving up my legally owned weapons, it would save lives and create solutions to societal problems, I would give them up. But no has, and bear in mind that many of my peers are leaders in the gun control movement.

Mick