Insight

...She's too stupid to be around guns, much less handle one. Training will make her more confident, but no smarter. She's part of the 98% that give gun control a bad name.

What was Heidi's point in performing a dangerous little stunt?

Someone "with absolutely no firearms training and a Glock on [his/or] her hip [can be] sitting within arm’s reach of small children, [his/or] her hands shaking and adrenaline surging."

Heidi did very stupid things to try to prove a point that is disproven daily by experience and scholarship.

The reason that Heidi's dangerous little stunt fails to prove her point is simple.

She rigged the game so that she could not lose the argument.

She deliberately performed dangerous acts to prove that an inanimate object and the laws pertaining to it were dangerous.

The fallacy of this type of reasoning is called “the fallacy of begging the question” (also known as “circular reasoning,” or, in Latin, “petitio principii”).

The inanimate object in question, an “arm,” in the sense of a “weapon,” happens to be the only inanimate object which the U.S. Constitution explicitly recognizes as something that we have a "right to keep [own] and bear [carry]."

(For the latter, see the meaning of the word "bear" as defined by America's greatest Founding Era lexicographer, Noah Webster: http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,bear.)

Notice all the dangerous things Heidi did—I mean really did, since this was no “thought experiment”—to attempt to prove her point.

First, she obtained and carried a concealable firearm, yet had no knowledge of how to operate it in a simple mechanical sense and no ability to use it properly in the tactical or legal sense. (I am presuming the latter since it is fair to wager that she had no knowledge of the self-defense laws of her state.)

Second, in so doing, she put the rest of us at risk.

Suppose a career criminal (or even a novice) obtained knowledge that she had the gun.

Criminals can spot a "mark" a mile away.

He would simply take it from her, because guys like him are always interested in getting a new gun for free.

At that point, she will have armed an already dangerous person.

He probably would have killed her simply to ensure that no witnesses would be around to lead police to him.

Another way to think about what Heidi did is this: She blindfolded herself and walked out in the middle of onrushing traffic to prove that motor vehicles are dangerous.

Why are they dangerous?

Because the laws allow manufacturers to produce and sell motor vehicles that can go fast enough to result in fatal collisions either through intentional or unintentional acts.

If the laws mandated that all motor vehicles be made so that they can achieve a top speed of, say, only 10 miles per hour, they might be sufficiently safe as to pose an acceptable level of risk in Heidi’s mental universe.

Heidi's lack of skill in critical thinking is more than adequately proven by this little stunt.

She could have “proven” the same point with any number of “dangerous” tools that are not firearms (or even “weapons”).

Those of you who might have some critical thinking skills should look at the F.B.I.'s Uniform Crime Report in order to get an idea of how often firearms—as opposed to other inanimate objects—are used in ways resulting in unlawful deaths.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011

Here is a final irony to consider.

Heidi performed a series of deliberate actions.

Heidi considers those actions to have been unsafe through her own negligence.

Therefore, Heidi performed a series of deliberately negligent and unsafe actions with a firearm in public.

Heidi has now confessed to this in public, on the internet.

Heidi might now be liable to arrest and to forfeiture of her right to keep and bear arms.

Good job!, Heidi!

You have proven that people like you should not be legally permitted to obtain or handle firearms.

You have proven nothing about the firearm-savvy, law-abiding citizens who are laughing as they read this comment about your dangerous stupidity and lack of critical thinking skill.

She should have bought an airplane, without having any idea how to fly one, decided they were dangerous and scary, and concluded they should be banned. She could then bask in the glory of saving millions of people from the risk of death every day.

From a tag line I saw years ago: They live among us. And they breed. We're doomed.

So if I put my shirt on a stove top and burn my house down because I intentionally try not to know what the hell I am doing, that means we should ban kitchen appliances?

If it saves just one child.

Below is the comment I left on her article...

"This is an interesting experience and experiment... at the end of thirty days you will either A) be in jail or the hospital for purposely, accidentally, or negligently shooting or endangering someone or yourself -OR- B) you will have shown that even someone without any training and minimal knowledge or abilities with a handgun can carry one without it being taken away from them, used against them, or anyone getting hurt..."

Dann in Ohio