Well, today we had a governor veto a concealed carry law and another court issue a ruling against one.  

Here's another example why they were wrong:

www.indystar.com/articles/1/093524-5511-009.html

Humphries told investigators a young white male with a bandana over his face approached him and demanded money. Thinking the man was joking, Humphries told investigators he sprayed water on the would-be robber. The suspect then pointed an assault-type rifle at Humphries and threatened to shoot him. Police said Humphries reached inside his coat -- as if he were getting his wallet -- but instead pulled out a .38-caliber handgun and fired several shots at the suspect, striking him at least once.

I love the press canard about "assault type" weapon.  Its true our hero should have had better situational awareness, and this could well have gone badly, but he was victorious and the next scumfuck mugger may think twice.

This story, and the last defense shooting story I posted ("he missed, she didn't") reminds me of something not very many people talk about.  People who carry guns for defensive purposes, it seems to me, are more likely to have done some shooting, training, etc., to become proficient.   Criminals, well... seems less likely.  (Witness the "ganster grip" nonsense).  

What this tells me is that in incidents like the story above, more often than not the guy with the training will have a better chance of dispatching the agressor than vice versa, assuming good situational awareness keeps the good guy from getting surprised (Which almost happened here).