Others may already be firmiliar with the Mannard Birch debate on firearms, but my basic observations were these:

Mr. Mannard groups those carrying weapons with drug dealers and other scum because they are “breaking the same laws” when they carry guns in his state.

He feels that most of his state residents would be very uneasy and afraid if they knew the person they were riding, shopping or walking next to had a gun. (You know, the dad out with his kids who goes on some wild shooting binge? Happens all the time, right?)

Mr. Mannard has lived forty years without fear of violence, having never been a victim so far, and feels that there is too much paranoia among gun owners making them want to carry weapons (knowing that there is crime in the world+not knowing if you may be a victim at some point and not wanting to be=silly paranoia).

There was one of those common sense quizzes in the debate, the kind where such questions are asked as “what is the most affective means of stopping a rape” for example, leading to pepper spray, talk or guns, and Mr. Mannard dismisses the entire quiz as one of those outdated types that is not worth his time.

I will give him credit for one thing though, he replied to my comments, including my assertion that those who have never been victims have no right to judge those of us who have, with politeness and preofessionalism. I never get replies. He indicates some agreement with my point of view, but still dodges the sensitive questions.

I must ask who is paranoid: a person who acknowledges that there is danger in the world and carries his concealed, silent insurance, or the person who feels that anyone carrying a weapon is a danger to him and does not distinguish what defines crime or not.