"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:18:29 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus25624
scrawled the following:

On 2010-04-17, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
difference is there
in carrying in a bar or supermarket?

Wes

The emphasis, and Gunner's statistics, miss the key point -- which has
been
proven by careful regression analysis. The operative factor is that the
CCW
holders are people who have no serious criminal record and who have not
been
institutionalized.

In other words, the difference is not between CCW holders and the
general
population. It's between people who have passed a CCW-type background
check
and the general population.


What does that have to do with Iggy's question on carrying in bars?

I'll grant you that the ccw permiting process tends to weed people
out at the cost of weeding some people that may really need to be
able to carry that just can't afford the costs involved. Think near
poverty service workers and such.

That "weeding" seems to be a great practice.

Ig, "weeding" means that the weedee can't have a license. It doesn't
mean they won't go into a bar with a gun. It's the unlicensed folks
you have to worry about, not the licensed folks.

In other words, it's not a question of whether or not they have a concealed
gun. It's a question of whether they passed a background check. Right?

BTW, what was that comment about seeing it "on every TV station"? I thought
you didn't have a TV.

--
Ed Huntress