The Salisbury Post recently (Feb. 25) published a lengthy opinion piece by David Larson (“Prosecute felons illegally possessing guns”) in which Mr. Larson attempts to argue against concealed carry permits by discussing something else. Out of 20 paragraphs, he only spends five paragraphs and one sentence on concealed carry. The first paragraph engages in some statistical cherry-picking and ad-hominem arguments. The priorities of the state’s progressive movement are not relevant to the question at hand. In fact, Mr. Larson makes no case whatsoever that the concealed carry law should be changed except that other states have done so, and he admits that the results are inconclusive. He then carries on for 15 paragraphs about the prosecution of illegal possession of guns by violent felons. I didn’t bother reading all of that because it is a blatant attempt to use a false choice to distract from the lack of a real argument. Requiring a permit for concealed carry has nothing to do with the prosecution of felons, or vice versa. We can do both.

Mr. Larson ends with the statement that “fighting the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry guns only ignores the problem.” Unless it is code for something else, which it may be, the term “law-abiding citizen” implies that there are laws to abide by. This law-abiding citizen finds nothing unreasonable, unjust, or burdensome in any requirement that would-be gun owners should demonstrate knowledge of gun safety, including safe carry and transport, and the laws concerning use of deadly force. Any objection to that should be brought out openly and honestly so that we can find a mutually agreeable solution.