The LAT reports that a businessman is hospitalized after being shot when he confronted two taggers in Los Angeles. Now I know that anecdotal evidence is no way to sort out a problem this complicated but this story really riled me. California has very restrictive handgun laws. Those laws didn't stop the tagger from carrying, just the law abiding business man. Would this have been less likely to happen in Florida where concealed carry, by law abiding people, is both normal and reasonable?

Today's Supreme Court decision invalidating a very restrictive DC law on handgun possession may have very wide ranging implications for states like New York and California. Maybe the bad guys will think twice when they run the risk that their intended victims just might shoot back.

There's lots of evidence pointing out the death and injury caused by the use of handguns. It's much harder to prove the negative. How many potential victims are safer because they might be armed?

Whether the topic is freedom of speech or firearms possession, a priori restraint is no way to treat law abiding adults. But it does make it a lot easier for the bad guys.

Shouldn't we be shaping our laws to punish people who commit bad acts rather than restraining law abiding responsible adults? Isn't it time to stop assuming that possession of a tool means that you will abuse it? Shouldn't we stop assuming that the general population are children that need to be protected from themselves and start expecting them to behave like adults?

For a well argued conservative point of view on gun control, read JAMES Q. WILSON who teaches public policy at Pepperdine University, here.

Here's another article that brings more light than heat to the topic.