Reply #18: In the USA Today article...

[rrneck]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-06-24-column24_ST1_N.htm
In 1997-98, 60 homicides were committed by disgruntled customers and clients; in 2007-08 the figure was as high as 133. Overall, 500 such cases occurred from 1997 through 2008, more than half of which took place in public buildings, such as restaurants, banks or retail stores. Of these homicides, 20% involved office workers or health care and social service employees.

I don't do numbers very well but let's see. The intent of the OP seems to indicate that the carry of firearms in restaurants is a danger to the public. By linking the tragedy at Applebees (as if the food weren't tragic enough), to the carrying of firearms he or she would like to see that practice regulated. I assume the intent of that regulation would be to eliminate the needless deaths of 133 people. In a country of three hundred seven million.

If the new regulations were 100% successful in eliminating firearms from public businesses, that would still not eliminate all the danger since some of the offenders would still use knives, clubs fists or feet.

Any law or regulation, good or bad, has an impact on people's civil rights. Thus, these regulations will impact the lives of some eighty million gun owners. Of that eighty million I'm guessing, (and there are others who have better figures than I do), about a million or two carry firearms into businesses. Surely, even taking into consideration my lack of statistical expertise and probable innacurcies, well more than 133 of those gun owners who would be denied the ability to carry would lose their lives or be severely injured as a result of the new regulations.

Furthermore, the implementation of public policy is not free. It demands resources from government that could be put to better use actually improving people's lives and making better citizens instead of simply disarming people, the vast overwhelming majority of whom would never hurt anybody anyway.