RE: Guns [was Re: property Rights]

Joe E. Dees (
Sat, 29 May 1999 18:25:58 -0500

Date sent:      	Sat, 29 May 1999 08:06:44 -0500
From:           	Chuck Kuecker <>
Subject:        	RE: Guns [was Re: property Rights]
Send reply to:

> At 11:04 PM 5/28/99 -0500, Joe Dees wrote:
> >>
> >> How can one show the ability to defend oneself unless there is some clear
> >> sign that the means to do so are present? Talk is cheap. Having the gun
> >> present may be all that is needed to prevent a situation where violence
> >> would occur.
> >>
> >Just exactly how is someone with a concealed weapon "showing"
> >such an ability?
> I should expand: I am in favor of those who pass a licensing test, and meet
> the other criteria of gun ownership, to carry UNCONCEALED weapons, just as
> police officers do. Along with this would be a quasi-deputy-cop position,
> similar to the volunteer fireman we have in many areas. These people would
> have all the responsibilities of the police as to when and if they shoot.
> Unconcealed carry is legal in some areas already - Arizona comes to mind -
> and I don't recall many problems being related to it getting into the
> national news.
> Concealed weapons obviously do not become a factor in any encounter until
> they are drawn, or at least made visible. My fuddled brain at work there..
> >>
> >The fact that you're a stranger, who might well be a violent criminal
> >or a lunatic AND legally armed (if a lot of the full mooners here have
> >their way) should be enough to chill the typical spine, which I would
> >be loathe to turn in his/her direction for fear of being backshot. If I
> >had legal assurance that most likely the person wearing the gun
> >was responsible, well that's another story.
> >
> Hence my suggestion. Any police officer or citizen could request the gun
> carrier's credentials, and could report any who appeared to be carrying
> without proper license.
> Chuck Kuecker
This is reasonable.