Vandy, You may have missed a crucial point here. You may see no "Need" to allow guns, but it doesn't require such a need. For those who have taken the trouble to obtain a concealed carry license, the right is already there (as it is for everyone under the Constitution, but that's another story). What IS required, and should be demanded of the council, is an overwhelmingly strong argument for why it is necessary to deny those who carry a sidearm for self-defense, their right to do so. You could say, with the same level of justification, that you see no need for people to be permitted to discuss politics or religion in the parks, and ban such speech. After all, discussion of those topics sometimes leads to arguments and potentially to violence. At least the concealed carry crowd have clearly demonstrated that they are well controlled and unlikely to get violent.
Commissioners wary of gun ban in Bradley parks
Vandy, You may have missed a crucial point here. You may see no "Need" to allow guns, but it doesn't require such a need. For those who have taken the trouble to obtain a concealed carry license, the right is already there (as it is for everyone under the Constitution, but that's another story). What IS required, and should be demanded of the council, is an overwhelmingly strong argument for why it is necessary to deny those who carry a sidearm for self-defense, their right to do so. You could say, with the same level of justification, that you see no need for people to be permitted to discuss politics or religion in the parks, and ban such speech. After all, discussion of those topics sometimes leads to arguments and potentially to violence. At least the concealed carry crowd have clearly demonstrated that they are well controlled and unlikely to get violent.