User profile

jdrd58

As a natural resource analyst professional, I learned long ago not to predict anything that might occur within my lifetime. This guy and his colleagues screwed up by agreeing to participate in a thankless exercise that is fraught with assumptions and lack of real data. What a stupid way to run a State!

Forget politics and just consider logic and common sense.

Arizona is a 'concealed carry' state. Anyone can carry a concealed weapon in Arizona except in a few legislated locations. If the weapon is concealed, how does one know that the carrier is violating those prohibitions? One of the things that seems to have been overlooked is that the young man at the scene said he wasn't afraid because he was 'carrying!'

Nevada is an 'open carry' state. Anyone can openly carry a weapon here except for a few legislated places and where a sign is posted. If the weapon is openly carried, a violation is apparent.

There seems no political motivation by the Arizona shooter. Much is made of the ATMOSPHERE created by public and media rhetoric. I believe there may be contributing causation there. Quite aside from that, however, the fact remains that someone put the gun in that young man's hand. A debate about that takes place with every infamous killing and will continue.

Defenders of carry and possession laws usually espouse two rationales supporting their position. First they cite the second amendment to the Constitution as a justification for non-regulation of firearms. Just exactly how Jared Loughner's purchase and possession of a Glock 9 fits with the concept of a "well-regulated militia" (the explanatory phrase preceding the "right to bear" phrase) escapes me. Different Supreme Courts have come down on different sides of original intent -- the current one tends to ignore the "regulation" concept notwithstanding previous Court positions.

The second rationale espoused is the concept of deterrence. An openly carried firearm COULD be a deterrent to a bad guy. If he/she sees a weapon, he/she might think again about a crime against the carrier. But, how does a CONCEALED weapon act as a deterrent? There is no 'stop and think' damper then. The young man carrying in Arizona didn't stop Loughner. I am open to hearing of an instance when carrying a concealed weapon deterred a crime.

Carrying a weapon, especially a concealed one, is dangerous to the carrier. The man killed at COSTCO in Summerlin would be alive today if he hadn't been carrying (why would someone feel compelled to carry two handguns into COSTCO?). Yes, he had permits to legally carry and there's controversy about how police handled the situation. Quite aside from that, the fact remains that if he hadn't been carrying, nothing would have developed and he would be alive today. It's easy to get a concealed permit in Nevada and there are a number of well-intentioned but inexperienced people here who carry. They are a danger to those around them, and, more so, a danger to themselves. So much for deterrence.

I'm not against private ownership of weapons. I have at least one. A Red Herring fearing government confiscation just doesn't justify the current lax approach, only visceral fear.

4 weeks ago I sent an open letter to Dina Titus, copy to the Sun, Reid, Berkely, SNWA, and Sierra Pacific Resouces suggesting desal, not in Calif at the source, but by pipeline to So. Nev, where solar power is available. I also pointed out the commercial potential of such an effort. I have received no comment to date.

"tons of water" for solar power is quite an assertion. Tell me how the solar power development at Boulder City uses "tons of water"