INSTEAD OF GIVING CITIZENS OPTIONS TO CARRY A CONCEALED WEAPON, MAKE IT MANDATORY

The math of Missouri's proposed concealed weapons law doesn't work.

It goes like this: you add guns to an environment yet fewer bullets end up flying.

The imagery of this debate doesn't hold water either.

Supporters of the proposal portray the law's beneficiaries as elderly women traveling alone and Main Street shopkeepers hauling their day's take to the night deposit.

Were Norman Rockwell around, I'm sure he'd be asked to testify on the bill's behalf.

The proponents never give the side of the story that has a person legally toting a firearm but caught momentarily in the heat of an argument. Maybe there are a few cocktails involved. The introduction of a pistol to the dispute does nothing to discourage either party from their point of view.

Adrenaline and booze help with the trigger. In the calm that comes with a hangover and handcuffs, the argument will seem trivial. Two ruined lives mock trivia of this sort.

All right, so maybe I took "Thelma and Louise" too seriously.

Or, maybe other people did.

Here's the view of Larry Pratt, executive director of a group called Gun Owners of America. He insists the restaurant slayings in Killeen, Texas, last fall forward his argument that an armed citizenry is a confident citizenry.

"If only one other person had had a gun in Luby's cafeteria, George Hennard would have been dodging bullets instead of spewing them," argued Pratt.

Well, it works that way in Hollywood. Susan Sarandon shot a creep at point-blank range, and the screenwriter and director chose not to have innocent bystanders in the background to catch a ricochet in the temple.

Mr. Pratt accepts the white-hat myth that persons pure of spirit and packing will hit whatever they aim at. In Luby's, the lunch crowd might indeed have gunned down George Hennard, but it's unreasonable to believe their errant shots would have found only windows to break and walls to puncture. It's also unreasonable to think that a person carrying a gun will accurately and instantly evaluate an ominous situation and open fire at the correct party.

The lonely woman traveler and the kindly merchant who supporters claim will feel safer with this proposal aren't necessarily to be trusted with marksmanship and good judgment when a gunfight breaks out.

A larger issue here is the message the General Assembly unabashedly sends if it forwards this measure to the governor.

The concealed weapon component is an amendment to a major anti-crime bill. Hence, the legislature is effectively arming civilians as part of its program to help maintain law and order.

Poplar Bluff's Joe Driskill, the usually level-headed representative who added this measure to the anti-crime bill, says, "The reality across the state is that people are scared and they want a legitimate right to defend themselves."

If this is the case, and Missouri citizens lack faith in law enforcement's ability to discharge its duties, the legislature is not going far enough with this measure.

Why not go the distance? My proposal is called AIM, short for Arm Individual Missourians. The state will spend about $147 million in the next fiscal year on public safety. If you take that money and divide it among 5.1 million Missourians, every man, woman and child in the state will be due a $28 voucher to go toward purchase of a handgun.

Instead of giving citizens the option to carry a concealed weapon, make it mandatory.

This will be the law east of Pecos. We could even revive the concept of a special cemetery for persons gunned down on the streets: Boot Hill in the Bootheel. Market this the right way and it could fetch tourist dollars for the state.

Maybe, in this way, the concealed weapon bill will be the answer to the state's fiscal prayers. It's certain that prayers will be necessary if the measure passes.