Deseret News | Packing heat, no apologies

Reader comments
Packing heat, no apologies

378 comments | Read story

cavicalo | 2:29 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Want a reason to carry a gun, open or concealed? Then try living down here on the Mexican border. Illegals and drug runners routinely shoot at law enforcement and civilian alike. The have no regard for anything except bringing in their cargo. And you people up there bitch about a few handguns in the mall. Grow up people, there ar more important things to be fixed. And while you're at it, check your spelling.

Jeff | 2:31 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Re:Re: The Duck
Do you personally know the blind person the Duck was referring to? Are you his opthamologist? You seem to have very specific information as to what this person can see.
Also in 2005 the state of Ohio pop 11,464,042 had 585 murders/non negligent manslaughter
L.A. Sheriffs were responsible for a population of
1,058,840 reported 168 murders/non negligent manslaughters, and the L.A.P.D. responsible for 3,871,077 population reported 489 murders/non negligent manslaughters. So with less than half the population you have more homicides already, what other municipalities would you like to add? The numbers are there, you just have to look for them.

Anti-Federalist | 2:42 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

All of you gun-haters, DON'T come to Indiana, we get mad if you are not packing!!! Our laws require you to get a target-hunting, or carry permit to transport a handgun within our state!!!

The Federalists were wrong, they gave TO MUCH power to our government!!!

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 2:47 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Too many posters on this blog have been watching way too much TV.

NEW HAMPSHIRE | 3:21 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

During the Cold war, our govermentment spent millions on enough nukes to destroy the world many time over. We were told that it was a "deterent". Becuse we have nukes, and commies KNOW we have nukes, they wont use them. Since no one got nuked this must work.

When the Cops started pushing for more powerful weapons, we were told they had to match the firepower of the bad guys as a "deterent"

So now a group of citizens are carrying firearms out in the open for much the same reason. Why do you think shooting sprees only happen where people are unarmed? No criminal in his right mind is going to rob a restaruant with half a dozen armed people in it. Criminals dont want to work for things, why on earth would they want to die for them?

OU_Gryphon | 3:33 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

"Too many posters on this blog have been watching way too much TV"

I agree, they should be out practicing at the range.

Re; Jeff | 3:54 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

No I don't know him but, legal blindness is defined as visual acuity (vision) of 20/200 (6/60) or less in the better eye with best correction possible. This means that a legally blind individual would have to stand 20 feet (6 m) from an object to see it with the same degree of clarity as a normally sighted person could from 200 feet (60 m). So when shooting a gun, not being able to clearly see something at 10 feet becomes a big deal. A lot of people can't hit something that's 10 feet in front of them, even with good vision and standing still. ad to the situation with somebody moving quickly and his adrenaline, he's not going to hit anything. I agree with The Duck about more crime in LA county than Ohio, his stats were just off by 9 million people. And having laws that allow citizens to carry guns don't mean it's safer. Look at Arizona, their murder rate is 7.5 murders per 100,000 people, ahead of California with 6.8 per 100,000. So, go figure.

Anonymous | 4:06 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

To: OU_Gryphon:
I guess I should have made that "Too many posters on this blog have been reading too much GI Joe comics."
Be honest OU ... are you REALLY Super-Dell?

destow | 4:14 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

There is nothing wrong with a blind man getting a CCW license. That man has the right to protect himself and his family and to stop a forcible felony in progress.
All men are equal, and Samuel Colt made sure of that.
Don't pick on the unfortunate people who have some disability. They are citizens too.

Jimmy | 4:16 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

All that carrying a cell phone with the police on speed dial will ensure is that the police know where to start looking for the body. The courts have even ruled that the police don't have the duty to protect you.

You, and only you, have the responsibility for your own protection. If you're not willing to protect yourself, don't be surprised when nobody is willing to do it for you.

Anonymous | 4:18 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I consider myself to be pretty pro-gun, but even I can see the irony in the line: "'I just feel safer when I have my gun on my hip,' said Jensen, 28, who lives in Santaquin. 'There's so many lunatics and crazies out there, you never know when something's going to happen.'"

I would postulate that the person constantly suspicious of any random stranger being a "lunatic" or a "crazy" would be the person most likely to shoot someone unnecessarily. But if you've got a healthy attitude towards your fellow man and a license, more power to you.

Shem | 5:02 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

This fundamentalist mentality is truly frightening as it is acted out by these lunatics. They need to be rounded up and shipped over to Iraq where the other fundamentalists are trying to destroy the world.

J | 5:25 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

"So much for freedom, when you feel that you have NO CHOICE but to carry a weapon. How did it come to this?"

We HAVE a choice, that's what's so awesome about America. Our freedom to bear arms came to us directly through the use of arms - George Washington didn't use his rights to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them. And a big part of the reason he did so was because the British began imposing gun restrictions on the colonies. It's no surprise that the founding fathers put the right to bear arms immediately after the right to free speech and religion.

Smitty | 5:39 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I got my concealed carry permit a few months ago. I take this responsibility seriously. I have fired 1000's of rounds in the last few months, taken training (in addition to the fairly extensive concealed carry course), joined a practical shooting club, studied the law and tactics extensively, purchased a gun safe and expensive holsters to aid in retention and concealment, joined a very friendly community of fellow CFP holders at utahconcealedcarry dot com, become intimately familiar with my weapon and its use, and spent countless hours thinking of the few situations that would be dire enough to require me to draw and use my weapon. Barring my own life or those of my family being in direct danger, that gun stays hidden on my hip.

Compare my attitude to those who think gun owners are all delirious mad men that will shoot up someone that cuts us off in traffic. Who is the delirious one?

Jensen, 28 | 5:48 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

No license required to open carry buddy! If you think
I am crazy with a holstered weapon, then I must be completely unstable behind the wheel of a 3000 pound "death tool" Better watch out for all those "weapons" on the freeway.

Dustin | 5:54 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Wanting to be armed just in case you ever need it does not make you "paranoid" as many have posted here. I carry a spare tire, spare water, and a tire extinguisher in my car. I hope I never need to use any of them, but I believe in being prepared. Does that make me paranoid? Am I "afraid" that my car is going to burst into flames or my tire is going to go flat every time I drive someplace? Of course not. Being prepared does not equal paranoia. What if you look at it from the opposite perspective. If you don't carry a spare tire, spare water, and a fire extinguisher does that make you more brave than me? Of course not.

This isn't about guns, it's about freedom of choice. They have the right to bear arms for self defense due to the 2nd Amendment just like you have the right to make ridiculous statements due to the 1st Amendment.

Outlaw | 7:09 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Ive no objection to open carry, but think concealed carry is more effective in protecting the general public. It keeps the bad guys guessing whoï¿½s packing. Since I live in California where itï¿½s impossible for most law abiding citizens to get CCW permits, open carry obviously isnï¿½t an option for me. So I carry concealed, ï¿½illegallyï¿½; and am proud of the fact Im a ï¿½criminalï¿½ spelled with a small ï¿½cï¿½. My only regret is that more law abiding Californians donï¿½t follow my example.

SCGUY | 7:22 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I don't own a handgun and don't have a weapons permit but having lived in Los Angeles and San Francisco I am totally in favor of folks carrying weapons. It's not those that go to the trouble to "carry" that are the threat.

Bucho | 7:31 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Many comments have made gun owners out to be "crazy", "unstable", "paranoid", etc. While it is probably safe to say that these types of people may exist among any group of any type of people, it is not an accurate statement to imply that all gun owners are this way.
Gun owners that carry a gun can be from any profession, such as a truck driver, surgeon, lawyer, consultant, retail salesperson, etc. Carrying a gun is no small undertaking. People that legally carry subject themselves to a higher responsibility. No, we are not police officers nor do we enforce the law, but like police officers, our actions must be extremely controlled due to the fact that we choose to exercise a particular right. Legally carrying a gun and exercising that right is like other rights. You have the right to build a house on property you own but you don't have to. If you have the right to carry, you can. If you don't want to, fine, don't tell everyone else what their rights are.

Mike | 7:47 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Unless the tooth fairy drops a policeman on your attackerï¿½s head at exactly the moment you are being raped, mugged, robbed or otherwise threatened, it's highly unlikely that you will find yourself with any alternatives but what youï¿½ve brought with you. Averages won't matter and statistics won't help you, at that moment.

Most folks find a fire extinguisher to be a prudent accessory for the kitchen or garage, an umbrella a wise choice for cloudy day, or a comprehensive insurance policy on the car a smart thing to do. Yet, the moment someone takes personal responsibility for the safety and security of oneï¿½s family, that person is seen (by some) as a threat, a paranoid gunslinger, or some sort of vigilante who is taking law enforcementï¿½s responsibility out of their hands. For the vast majority of people who choose to be armed, nothing's further from the truth.

A defensive firearm in the hand of an upstanding citizen is essentially an insurance policy against the unlikely event of a threat against oneï¿½s self or family. These citizens in the article are simply refusing to be unprotected and unprepared by design. While there are risks, that is not a bad thing.

Bob | 8:02 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

> If one of these people decides to go Dirty Harry
> in public, and one of my loved ones is shot,
> I will sue them for everything they own including
> the gun - with no apologies. These guys have no
> clue on how to use a gun in public.

Should anyone ever commit a felony attack on you, you absolutely SHOULD go after the person with everything you've got. If you survive the attack, that is.

Disarmament of innocent, upstanding citizens cannot be the answer. That will merely beget more crime, as the primary benefactors will be the criminals once the innocent no longer have the ability to protect themselves. For evidence of this, simply look at what Washington, DC, or London, England, has become in the wake of absolute gun control.

Tony Heaton | 8:02 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Someone above stated that people licensed to carry in California were better trained than others because it is harder to get a license and you must have justification for wanting to carry. The fact is, California like New York are may issue states. This means that even if a person is qualified to get a permit, the state can deny the license for any or no reason. Most states that issue licenses are shall issue. That means that if a person is qualified, the state must issue a license. I don't know about the California list of license holders, but the New York list is like a whos-who of politicians, movie stars and the wealthy. Chuck Schumer, Donald Trumps son, Robert DeNiro. I would really like to know how much training these three had.

OU_Gryphon | 8:28 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Sorry, although it would make it easier for you to blow me off if I were an irresponsible nutcase, I'm actually just a regular guy who has chosen to take responsibility for his own safety. It's scary stuff, I know. Of course, if you really are that afraid of my going psycho, you could get a gun...

andrew | 8:30 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Another poster writes

"25 other industrialized countries COMBINED. And for every child killed with a gun, four are wounded. (CDC stats) I'd wager that most of those guns were legally purchased... by a parent.
I don't want to be in the same room with anyone carrying a gun. If I see an openly carried gun in a public place, I will leave. Just because they have a permit doesn't mean they're not one of the crazies they're afraid of."

They had to 'combine' the data for all industrialized countries so that the more voilent than the US countries had their data diluted. Also, I don't think it is fair to call a 17 year old gang member shooting another 17 y.o. gang member in with child firearm deaths.

Finally, they are NOT the crazies they are afraid of, they have to go through a federal check to make sure they are not felons, committed mental patients, etc. Gun owners are more likely to be 'normal' than a random person

Concerned | 8:32 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I guess the rest of us best arm ourselves to protect ourselves from these nuts.

Outlaw | 8:36 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Re: Tony Heatonsï¿½ post: Yes Tony, youï¿½re assumption is correct. In CA. itï¿½s impossible to get a CCW permit unless youï¿½re a Politician like Diane Feinstein, a Celebrity, or a Heavy contributor to a Sheriffs election campaign. I live in Marin County CA where Sheriff Doyle charges a $5,000 ï¿½donationï¿½ if youï¿½re a nobody, or you get one free if youï¿½re a Celeb like Marin County resident Sean Penn. Note: neither Sean Penn, DiFi or campaign "contributors" were required to have any weapons training. Marin County Sheriff Robert Doyle is the poster child for corrupt public servants. This kind of corruption unfortunately exists in the majority of counties in CA.

Dan | 8:46 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Why is it that the individuals who state their fear and concern over people carrying guns in a public place don't share that same fear of even more people in that same public place driving cars, smoking, owning swimming pools, or visiting their doctors? More people are killed every year by licensed automobile drivers, licensed physicians, and other seemingly accepted activities as described above. If we can carry guns to protect our money in public places(armored cars) why can't someone carry a gun to protect himself or family in a public place?

Get a grip all you uninformed people. People carrying guns does not translate into crime, problems, or threats.

Henry | 8:48 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I carry to protect myself and my family. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Nana&PapaofPackingMama | 8:57 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

We are proud of all of you who carry open and concealed. How great it is for all of you around the nation to exemplify your rights without caring what other people say or do. For all of you who are against carrying...great, dont do it. But for my husband and I that have extensively read our history and know what happened in Nazi Germany as well as other countries we prefer to carry. Also take a look at what the recent Presidents of the United States have done to our rights....read all the executive orders! We are proud of our children who open carry. I was a police officer and taught my girls how to shoot and respect guns at a very young age. My son in law and daughters are better shots than I am because they practice more than most police officers who only qualify every 6 months. Many detectives couldnt hit the side of a barn door when I had to qualify with them. As a former police officer I remember getting to the scene where little girls had been raped and they called 911 and just waited, waited and waited... yea just call 911

James | 9:18 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

"I guess the rest of us best arm ourselves to protect ourselves from these nuts."

... implying people who choose to have some prayer of defending themselves from crime are themselves criminals-in-waiting, just a moment away from snapping?

Criminals are out to do what they do, no matter the actual damage they cause to others. People who go armed against such criminals are no threat to anyone, unless attacked. Cause and effect. Criminals cause crime. The innocent do not.

Jeff | 9:23 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Regarding the blind people having permits, if you read the actual definition of blind for the state of Utah, a person may have better than 20/200 vision if their field of vision subtends less than twenty degrees. That means a person could have 20/20 vision but a very narrow field of view, basically tunnel vision, and still be legally blind.
That means they could have perfect vision in a field of view fifty feet wide at fifty yards. And yes, California does have a lower homicide rate than Arizona, but that may just be a result of better medical facilities. If you look at the overall violent crime rate (per 100,000 population)
Arizona wins at 513.2 to California's 526.3

BobCav | 9:41 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Google for "Munchkin Wrangler" and read his article on "Why the Gun is Civilization". Awesome read...

Re: Concerned | 10:02 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Concerned | 8:32 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007
"I guess the rest of us best arm ourselves to protect ourselves from these nuts."

Please do....but I would recommend a good training class, because I happen to be pretty fast on the draw.....The guy with the guns on their hips are not the ones that you need to be protecting yourself from....its the guy behind him with the polo shirt, khaki pants, nice shiny shoes, well groomed hair, clean shaven with a compact pistol tucked deep in his pocket just waiting for the moment to introduce you to the business end of his gun.....but wait, he notices the guy with the gun on his hip and decides go elsewhere.....You're welcome!!!!!!

grumpyoldfart | 11:23 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Texas just clarified the carry laws September 1, and I have had the misfortune of having to use the new abilities to protect myself from a nut case road rage driver. Fortunatly I was able to diffuse the situation before it could escalate farther. I am a retired peace officer and grew up with the training and respect for guns, since my grandfather was a Marine sharpshooter and world champion.At last, my handicap sticker no longer marks me as an easy victim.I changed his attitude, he changed his shorts. Hooray for those who choose to defend themselves and woe to those who cower behind them throwing disparaging charges. CARRY ON!

Aunt Kimmy | 11:33 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

I respect everyone that open carries,it is their given right to do so. My Brother and Sister in law are a big part of this article. At first I was apprehensive of what they chose to do. I was thinking this would invite someone to try to hurt them or put them in harms way. After debating this with my brother he convinced me that it was safer than I first thought it would be. Being in the military and going through extensive training I know they will be alright. I tried to take his gun from him as an attacker would, wasn't happening! Not that he out weighed me, but that his weapon was secured on his hip and didn't allow me to do so without knowing how to remove it properly.
So as a skeptic I'm alright with it now.

Vermonter | 2:17 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

I am from the FREE state of Vermont. We have the LEAST restrictive handgun carry laws (open or concealed) of ANY state. We also have the lowest crime rate and rate of incarceration! MANY Vermonters exercise their carry rights. There are no shootouts in the streets over parking spaces. In fact armed Vermonters tend to be some of the most polite people you will EVER meet. They know that carrying openly or concealed means that they must live up to a higher standard in avoiding trouble. Most of the country has portrayed Vermont as "lefty liberal". We are in fact more conservative and Libertarian in our views. I take offense with some of the posts. I do not want my state or country turning into a society where a policeman is on every corner to "protect" me from the violent offenders. Don't bash those that value their freedom to protect their families from the predators that want to take life and liberty away! In case you were not aware the US Supreme ruled that the police have no duty to protect the individual. I don't want my family to be a statistic on the news!

Anonymous | 6:47 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Those who think they must carry a gun around with them all the time are part of the paranoid personality disorder group that exists today. Essentially afraid of everyone and every thing. Instead of getting psychotherapy they find their power in being able to do violence.

Paul | 6:51 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

To those that seem to think that Canada is Shangrila:

Most recent complete data available from both countries that shows that in 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 people; while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 people was more than double that of the United States: 74 as opposed to 32.1; and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states: 746 to America's 295 for the people.

Moreover, "Since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and 80 percent of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canadaï¿½s 10 biggest cities.ï¿½

Jack | 7:02 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Living in NJ I wish I could argue over whether it's better to open carry versus conceal carry. The way I understand it, even retired police officers can't get a carry permit here. Being less than able to physically defend myself, a CCW would be a great asset for me, but the State forbids that. And it can't even be put down to one political party or the other - both are equally bad in terms of gun rights support. By the way, I found out about this article through the great services of the NRA.
Proud NRA Life Member (as is my wife)

Anonymous | 8:35 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

As usual, the Democrats are manipulating the liberal media in a calculated bid to take away my fire stick. Unggh! Want fire stick!

T. Nugent | 8:36 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Guns don't kill people; guns are designed and manufactured for the purpose of enabling people to use the guns to kill people.

Soldier of Fortune | 8:36 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Gun control? Oh, great. Now how am I going to well-regulate my militia?

WT | 8:37 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Greta forgets or ignores the fact that the CDC considers everybody under the age of 25 or 26 as a child when it comes to shootings. That greatly skews the fact away from reality!

Guns R Us | 8:38 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

People wouldn't need guns if the government finally enacted some laws that get tough on deer.

Jeff | 8:43 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Why is it the anti's think those of us who choose to arm ourselves feel we "must carry a gun around with them all the time"? It is not that we "must" it is that we may. I frequenty disarm myself during the day when I enter what I believe to be a secure environment, or a place where carry is prohibited. I am not afraid of everyone and everything, and if I wished to do violence to someone I could use my hands, my feet, or a ball point pen. Again we see the anti's projecting their own fears and paranoia. Their identity as victims prevents them from being able to take responsibility for their own safety. To even contemplate empowering themselves terrifies them so much they must create their own reality in which anyone who does empower themself must have malicious intent. By living in this delusion they can avoid responsibility for almost anything, and anything bad that happens to them can be blamed on failures of others. In this way they are able to preserve their feeling of intellectual and moral superiority.

Jingo Bells | 8:44 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

I used to think Reagan was a simplistic, vengeful, jingoistic cowboy. Now, I'm starting to think he was just ahead of his time.

Yosemite Sam | 8:46 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

The NRA is just trying to rile up its membersï¿½you know, inject a little enthusiasm into an otherwise placid and contemplative group of people.

Anonymous | 8:59 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

They should make gun buyers sign a waiver that says, 'I promise only to use this gun on bunnies'.

Armed society, polite society | 9:01 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Of course an armed society is a polite society and the more armed the population is, the more polite it becomes! Just look at countries where people tend to carry not just guns, but BIG guns. Even children with machine guns, and like some people have mentioned here, the crime rate has gone down, because they have murdered all those infringing the laws . . . but only those the gun carriers do not want broken.

Hopefully one day the US will have as many gun totters all over running around in their assault cars, patrolling the streets and shooting their guns in the air to warn those "nasties" that might otherwise perturb the safety oof our polite society.

Ahhh, the thrills of a POLITE society!!!

VA Open Carry | 9:33 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

A certain self-appointed expert in psychiatry has posted a number of times claiming that people who chose to protect themselves with arms have "paranoid personality disorder". Leave diagnosis to the professionals, pal. You don't know what you're talking about (and I do). Concern over the admittedly small risk of criminal violence is realistic, not a paranoid fear. I am also fearful enough of the remote risk of an auto accident to wear my seat belts all the time. (even on the "safe roads"). Likewise I have fire extinguishers in my home and carry life insurance. My attempts to at least partially indemnify myself against some of life's risks are simply prudence, not paranoia. I don't drive around fearfully expecting that accidents lurk around every corner; I simply take some responsibility for my safety. If denial and suppression work for you, fine, just don't expect the rest of us to use your favorite defense mechanisms. You need to be bit more tolerant of the diversity of opinions out here.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.