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?

NPR… yes, NPR saying gun control doesn’t work (h/t Uncle)

Strict gun-control policies have failed to deliver on their essential promise: that denying law-abiding citizens access to the means of self-defense will somehow make them safer. This should come as no surprise, since gun control has always been about control, not guns.

NPR points out what created gun control: racism:

Racism created gun control in America. Confronted with the prospect of armed freedmen who could stand up for their rights, states across the South instituted gun-control regimes that took away the ability of blacks to defend themselves against the depravity of the Klan.

And of course, we must remember… that if it saves one life, then it’s worth it:

Advocates of gun control will not be swayed by the Supreme Court’s holding in McDonald. No matter the evidence, the rallying cry will continue: If gun control “saves just one life” it will be worth it. This plea ignores the irony of crusading for individual safety by disarming all of society. That logic can now be squarely turned on the advocates of gun control. If it saves just one life — or many, since jurisdictions with more legally owned (and carried) guns tend to have less violent crime — we should create a sensible legal framework for gun ownership that does not hamper the right of individuals to exercise self-defense.

Thus due to this:

Three times in the last month, Chicago residents have defended their homes or businesses with “illegal” guns. In the first, an 80-year-old Navy veteran killed a felon who broke into his home. In the second, a man shot and wounded a fugitive who burst into the man’s home while running from the police. In the third, the owner of a pawn shop killed one of three robbers in self-defense, sending the other two running.

That’s 3 lives saved… so allowing law-abiding citizens to posses and use guns must be really really really worth it.

Well… so the McDonald v. Chicago case came out in our favor. I’m pleased.

I haven’t had the opportunity to read the whole ruling yet, so I’m just going on what’s out there.

I think what people are really missing is the Constitutional impact here. Too much focus on “the gun thing”, not enough on the Constitutional impact.

I think this is really just the beginning. There’s a whole new set of interesting things now to come, be it lawsuits or how jurisdictions like Chicago are going to deal with it. I mean, the whole “reasonable restrictions” thing is ripe for silliness, and you know Daley is going to get silly.

It’s also been amusing to watch the hysterics today, be it by the media, Chicago politicians, or just citizens that are pro-bans. All the same old hysterical assertions being brought forth… yet still there’s no blood flowing in the streets. Many of the same old arguments and “data” presented but yet no real data is presented, no actual facts, no looking at the actual studies and facts and data that’s out there (see Howard Nemerov).

Now in light of this, what will be said during Kagan’s hearings? How will she respond? and will she actually take a stand, or find a way to weasel out of it? Either way, it will be telling.

Really, things have just begun.