Louisiana allows guns in churches. Of course, the usual suspects are saying the usual things.

Opponents argue it’s inappropriate to have concealed handguns in church.

OK, can we keep them out in the open?

“The question Louisiana residents need to be asking themselves is: Is someone who takes a single eight-hour class fit to defend themselves should a crisis situation arise in the church?,” said Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “We would say no.”

And what gives you the expertise to draw such a conclusion? I recall Tom Givens relaying a story of a woman, an immigrant, working at a convenience store. Someone came in to rob the place, and she was able to successfully defend her life. I believe she had only taken the basic handgun course and otherwise had never touched a gun in her life. Granted, an anecdote, but it demonstrates that people can defend themselves after what some obviously consider to be inadequate training. Countless others have no training whatsoever and are able to defend themselves.

Everitt said violent crimes should be handled by police officers, who have extensive training with firearms. At a minimum, he added, the law should demand more extensive requirements of churchgoers.

“There are enough people with that level of training, that level of accountability,” he said. “We are seeing the NRA moving us to vigilante-type justice with little accountability.”

Mr. Everitt, if someone attacked you right now… right this very second, are you going to wait for a police officer to arrive to handle it and take care of you? Sounds like it. Are you willing to undergo my simple experiment? I doubt it, but maybe you ought to consider it and consider the folly of your statement (I know I did many years ago, thus why I am where I am today… there was no police officer around to defend my wife when she was sexually assaulted while pushing our infant son in a stroller on the sidewalk just outside our apartment complex in a good part of town).

Vigilante-type justice? Oh please. We have to follow the law and the law does not allow for vigilantism. If someone does that, they’re breaking the law just the same and ought to be prosecuted for it. Please spare us your ignorant hysterics.

“Legal Community Against Violence believes that loaded firearms have no place in a house of worship,” Laura Cutilletta, a senior staff attorney with the group said in a written statement to FoxNews.com. “Important research confirms the common sense conclusion that more guns create more opportunity for injury and death. Houses of worship should be places where families and others can worship in peace without worry that their safety will be jeopardized by the accidental, or intentional, use of a gun.”

First, as for your important research, can you please show it to us? I’m sure Howard Nemerov would love to see your data.

As for being able to worship in peace, I agree. Just ask Jeanne Assam. She would also agree with you.

Just remember, good people, law-abiding people, are not the people you need to worry about. Guns in the hands of good people do good things (that’s why we grant police the ability to carry and use guns, isn’t it?). Guns in the hands of bad people do bad things. If you remove the guns, it’s still the same: good people do good things, bad people do bad things. And one of those bad things that bad people like to do is bring harm to good people, especially in places where good people can be at a disadvantage. Why should good people be put as victims to bad people, and have the force of law being what makes good people suffer? Where’s the “common sense” in that?