[intricatic]

I have no problem with citizens carrying weapons, provided they're trained to use them properly and understand the dangers that guns can constitute. I think a lot of the potential problems that guns can cause, which are often used as justification to legislate against them, are the products of poor education. That's why I'm slightly agnostic in terms of gun regulation - I think it's both a good and a bad thing. Requiring a gun owner be trained in the gun's use is a very good thing, but restrictions on guns are stupid and pointless. It's kind of a contradictory position.

Those potential problems: In my English class last quarter, I had a discussion with one girl (more a debate over civil liberties that focused on this one issue towards the close) about why guns should be restricted. It was stated, and supported by data, that people, when in an argument, would be more prone to reach for their guns as a way to solve the dispute, if those guns were readily available to them (I.E. left in a glove-compartment of their car, or somewhere else in easy reach). That line of reasoning makes sense if a person isn't already fully aware of the danger and finality such an action would cause. Most people, amazingly, are desensitized to gun violence from the media and don't really make the connection with the reality of shooting another human being, which is much different than it's portrayed in the media, and so guns take on a sort of romantic appeal that people translate into practical reality. If you train a person on the use of a gun, the reality quickly solidifies and that romantic appeal might linger, but only in a peripheral sort of way.