Lawrence Helm wrote: "He observes a situation in Florida and one in Virginia where many people, having taken the test and been granted concealed-carry permits walk around with guns. It is that situation that he portrays." This is simply wrong. He, as you do, conflate the advantage of gun owners being qualified with the need for widespread gun ownership. What you cannot square is the call for gun owners to be qualified and the claim that everyone has the right to protect family and property. If you insist on qualifications, even basic ones such as clean record, then you deprive some people of their right to protect house and home. If you insist on the right to protect house and home, you cannot require qualifications. Your problem lies in the fact that you want gun ownership to be a basic right, something that precedes government, while also insisting that gun ownership be regulated by government, so that people like Cho can't get a gun. If the government has the right to deny people like Cho ownership of a gun, while presumably taking on the responsibility of protecting Cho, then the government has the right to more broadly restrict the ownership of guns, while taking on the responsibility of protecting the population. If the government does not have the right to broadly restrict the ownership of guns, on the grounds that everyone has the right to protect themselves, then it cannot deny people like Cho the right to protect themselves by owning guns. The basic error is twofold: there is the positing of a mythical right to own guns, in place of the more general right to defend oneself, and there is a misunderstanding of the role of government in relation to defending oneself. Sincerely, Phil Enns ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html