There is a lot of chatter about the guns that showed up at the town hall meeting in Arizona. Personally, I'm glad these patriots brought their guns to a presidential appearance. Maybe finally we can focus on what the real arguments are with regard to guns in our country.

    There are several reasons why a person might want to own a gun. In broad terms, they fall into the categories of those worried about security,sportspeople, collectors, and criminals. Most of those who feel threatened at the idea of stricter gun control are from the first two groups. Why is this? There are valid reasons to oppose tighter gun controls, just as there are to impose them.

    Those worried about security vary from the woman who carries a small handgun in her purse to the survivalist who has a stockpile of assault rifles hoarded against the apocalypse. How each of these would respond to a tightening of gun laws depends on what the putative law restricts, with those at the survivalist end of the spectrum likely to oppose any tightening. Each person who relies on a personal gun for security would want their style of firearm to remain legal, and they are less likely than a collector to pay attention to technicalities like grandfathered weapons.

    Those who use firearms for sport also have reasonable reasons to oppose restricting firearm production. For those who enjoy it,    target shooting is fun, and for the real enthusiast, there is a different enjoyment to be derived from different kinds of guns. This feeling cannot be gotten by playing video games, or by any other substitute.For those who hunt, there is a small subset of firearms that are useful, but if you run a cost-benefit analysis on hunting, you find that an animal you kill is marginally cheaper than one you buy, and much lower in fat and hormones. Sportsmen and sportswomen are easily swayed by the gun lobby because they do stand to lose if gun laws are tightened.

    Any law restricting guns will likely follow the model of the firearms owners protection act of 1986, which made it legal to own automatic weapons registered before 1986. This has driven up prices on automatic weapons, and this is a boon to collectors. This being the case, and assuming that most collectors can calculate the value of their collections, it's likely that most collectors will not object strenuously if gun laws are tightened.

    However,there will be a subset of collectors who want to own modern military rifles, which are illegal. These collectors chafe under current laws,and would rather see laws relaxed than tightened.

    Finally,we come to criminals. There is conflicting evidence about whether gun laws control gun violence. What is certain is that in many cases,criminals with guns are violating the 1986 or earlier laws just by having a gun. They are not likely to let a tightened law curb their use of guns. In fact, some studies seem to show that an increase in the perception of gun ownership by the public at large leads to a decrease in guns being used in crime, which suggests that a decrease,such as would follow a law making it harder to own a gun for personal security, might lead to an increase in gun violence.

    Those who are in favor of increased gun control are pointing lately to the pointless danger of having loaded guns in the crowd around the President. It has been validly pointed out that this increases the ease with which someone truly intent on harming him could slip past the police and the secret service, who are busy keeping an eye on the known guns in the crowd. They believe that this justifies their feeling that guns ought to be more restricted than they are. Each of the four groups who want to own a gun have a corresponding group who oppose them, in the gun control movement. Some of them have better points than others.

    Those who oppose using them for self defense point to the children and others who are accidentally killed every year by guns. I have enough kids to know that expecting them to stay out of somewhere because you tell them to, or because it's supposed to be impossible for them to get to, is just wishful thinking. These advocates seem to sincerely believe that people would be safer if guns were kept out of people's homes. I don't agree, but I think that it's a question worth approaching with an open mind, so I am waiting until someone can come up with some convincing data, one way or another.

    Those who oppose using them for sport that I have met usually oppose hunting, on vegetarian grounds, which takes this out of the realm of gun control entirely. Whether we should eat meat isn't really part of the issue when we are talking about owning guns. It addresses only those who hunt, and not those who target-shoot. Again, if you have another point of view on owning guns for sport, please comment.

    Those that oppose collectors will get just a brief mention. I met one once.I don't understand the reasoning, so I can't tell you what it is. He seemed like a bit of a crank to me, but maybe someone can respond and explain it better.

    Finally,there are those who believe that by having more restrictive gun laws,it will be harder for criminals to have guns. I think if you read what I said about criminals above, you will see that I do not believe this. Criminals get their guns through illegal channels, and I don't think that making the guns illegal will make them harder to get.

    The real point is that we should be talking about these things. There are times when carrying a gun is currently legal in our country, but when a gun ought not be carried. I would be happier if there were a non-legislative way to make that happen (that's my libertarian side speaking) but I don't see a way to do it. However, I think we should be careful about the law we write. Basically, if the secret service is guarding someone, you ought to be able to show some overpowering need to carry a gun, and if it's loaded, it would have to be a very good reason indeed.

    Maybe a guideline ought to be issued. If you are going to carry a loaded gun in a place where firing said weapon would be illegal, perhaps the NRA or the Gun Owners of America ought to tell its members to seriously consider leaving the firearm at home, or at least leaving the bullets out. After all, they are taking a chance, and they ought to be sure there is a good reason for it before they do.

    In the final analysis, it seems to me that these protesters could have gotten their message across just as clearly with unloaded weapons.They are pushing their right to openly carry dangerous weapons in the public's face, and doing it at a time when they create the appearance of endangering the President. The secret service states that they have the authority now to override state laws and prohibit guns close to the president, so they must not have felt that these ones were a threat, but if the gun protesters keep pushing the envelope, if they try to prove that they have rights and are not going to give them up, then someone is going to get hurt, and I'm betting that it will be a protester.