Comments about ‘Letter: Arm yourself, prepare to defend against the unthinkable’

True, of course.

There's a problems with the seatbelt analogy; a seatbelt will not accidentally kill someone you love or other bystanders if handled improperly.

After a public shooting, I can understand why someone would want to carry a concealed weapon. Seems like a normal emotional reaction. But it doesn't always make you safer, and some situations could be made worse if armed citizens start opening fire in public. The Gabrielle Giffords shooting probably happened too fast to be prevented by concealed weapons. The Denver theater shooting was probably far too chaotic, and the elderly man who fired at the two robbers recently was firing shots out the door and into the public street as the robbers fled. It's fortunate no bystanders were hit. Keep in mind we do not know if the robbers were even going to use their weapon; he may have inadvertently made the situation even more dangerous.

If owning a handgun makes you feel safer, it's your right to own one, and I don't blame you. But recognize the risks and stop playing them down in the public debate.

That's right, and we should also not leave our homes during a thunderstorm, lest we be struck by lightning; we should not fly in an airplane, lest it be attacked by terrorists; we should not drive on the highway, lest we be struck by an out-of-control car; we should not eat any fresh fruit or vegetables, lest they contain a deadly pathogen, etc., etc. All of which are more likely than being able to defend against a deranged gunman like James Holmes.

How fun it must be to live in a world dominated by paranoia.

I own a gun. If I were to accidentally hit an innocent bystander during a crisis situation where my adrenalin would be running high, I doubt I could continue to live with myself.

You walk into a restaurant someone keels over in the corner after eating two triple cheese Big Macs. It's obviously a heart attack, but there is no doctor in the eatery and its too late to attend med school. Fortunately I carry a portable defibrillation device. I run over to the patron, apply the paddles and save another life. I used to carry a gun, but the odds of being attacked by a gun wheedling lunatic are minuscule compared to the chances of someone having a coronary. Remember learning the Heimlich isn't enough, prepare for the worst.

Movie houses will need a new bin in their Lost & Found room, right next to the bins containing all the lost cell phones, binkies, iPods, purses, wallets and key rings, for all the guns people will lose while watching movies.

Think of the fun that'll be!

"Mr. Smith, could you please be a little more specific? We've got about a dozen Glocks back here in the lost and found, do you happen to know the serial number?"

I am a CCW holder myself, and I am painfully aware of how pathetically little training the state requires to obtain those permits. Weapon retention wasn't even mentioned in the most recent CCW class I attended.

Lots of hypotheticals against carrying a firearm. How about some real life examples?

According to one report, "Legally armed Americans defend themselves around 1.5 million times each year, saving an estimated 40,000 lives. In many of those cases, guns aren’t even fired." That's not insignificant. Further, "According to Gun Owners of America (GOA), concealed carry states have reduced robbery rates by 3 percent, rape by 5 percent, and have seen a 8.5-percent decrease in homicides...Most of the 10,000 homicides every year are gang-related."

The hypothetical reasoning going on here is just that. No facts.

We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms - without infringement from the government.

Having that right does not equate to being required to use that right. Not everyone has practiced enough with a firearm to know how to use it responsibly. (Just look at the photo. Who but a complete novice would have his finger on the trigger while drawing the gun from his pants?)

Some of us know that our eyes are not good enough, or our reflexes have slowed down too much, or that age and disease has deaden our hands.

A crowded theater is not the place to wonder if the bullet you shot would stop when it hit its target, or if that bullet would keep traveling through other innocent people.

I am all for CCW, but having a "free-for-all" in a crowded place is just "movie magic" nonsense.

Good letter. It's wise to be prepared. The chances of being in a situation like this are small, but you never know. If one or more responsible adults in that theater had been armed, it's possible that the death and injury count could have been a lot less.

Also, SEY is right. Most criminals are not expecting armed resistance. In most situations where an armed citizen intervenes, the criminal gives up without a shot being fired.

The "time is not now." You can own a gun, but there is no doom and gloom that makes NOW the time to own a gun. Statistically there are lots of ways to die and protect yourself. Arming yourself with a gun is one way. Not for all. I dislike handguns, my personal preference. If you want to own a gun, I might advise using the shooting range first (there are several in SLC and surrounding areas) and at least take a gun instructional course.
As we saw in the news earlier this summer, when a west jordan man accidentally discharged a gun that he was cleaning and hit his son in the neck, gun are no joke, safety first. Its a weapon ment to kill people.

Years ago I remember being told of a shootout of a highway patrolman and a stopped motorist. Although standing 20 feet apart, both men emptied their guns at each other. The end result was that the motorist was wounded in the foot.

Somehow I just don’t think that having several people shooting guns in a darkened theatre is the answer to the problem of insane killers.

A gun in my hand is much better than a cop on the phone.

You are more likely to be hit by lightening than to be a victim of a Colorado-type shooting. And guns in the theater would not have prevented tragedy. Too many gun lovers believe the fiction of movies and TV. If they had to react to a surprise attack in a theater, by the time they reacted, it would not only be too late, but it would be ineffective. Holding and accurately shooting a gun, with adrenalin flowing, in a dark room, is very difficult, and would result is a bigger mess. To be accurate, a widely armed populace would result in much unnecessary heartache and tragedy, and our society need not go down that road. Get over the fantasy and the fiction.

Oh, my goodness! I just agreed with Mike Richards. Good common sense post there, Mike. Thank you.

For the writer of this letter, two questions:

1> Have you ever been in combat?

2> If not, what training do you have that will keep you from becoming a dangerous addition to an already dangerous situation?

Like I said, lots of hypothetical scenarios going on in this discussion. How about some real-life examples? I did my part. Can anti-carry supporters show us some stats or examples of where carrying has been a negative in a majority or even a significantly large number of cases?

I used to do this all the time when I was a kid. I'd sit in church, bored out of my mind, and start fantasizing--what would I do if armed bad guys broke into our church and started shooting people. There were some hanging light fixtures in our chapel, and my fantasies usually involved swinging on those, kicking guns out of the bad guys hands, and saving the day. I passed many a pleasant hour thinking up various heroic scenarios for myself.
Then I turned eleven.

We'll never know the answer to this rhetorical question, but would the gunman have chosen to shoot up the theater if he thought that inside there were 100 armed citizens enjoying the
movie? Theaters, churches, schools and the like are low-hanging fruit for criminals. People are rarely armed at these venues. I doubt he would have, because he is a coward and cowards are afraid of confrontation. He created a scenario where he knew the odds were stacked in his favor. He probably would have found some other place full of unarmed citizens to wreak havoc on.

You're right, David. Criminals would think twice about entering homes, classrooms, etc., if they knew firearms were present. The big problem in this country is too few weapons, not too many.

I intend to recommend to my mother, who is 88 and lives alone in a Pocatello mobile home, that she take steps to protect herself. She doesn't move as fast as she used to, so I think it might be better for her to have at least two handguns. One could be placed atop her kitchen table, at one end of the mobile home;the other on the nightstand in her bedroom at the other end.

Because she is slower these days, it would be best for her to leave the safety off on her weapons for a quicker response. When the grandkids visit, she could place a sign beside each gun saying, "Loaded.Do Not Touch" If the grandkids disobey, they'll just have to live--or die--with the consequences. It's part of natural selection.

SEY,
It's a reasonable question. You seem to have access to stats supporting gun ownership. In your search, did you look for any stats that were not produced or cited by a pro-gun group that may run counter to this?

I can't answer about concealed carry in public spaces, but I know someone in the public health field who has reviewed research about handgun ownership in the home. Bottom line, a handgun in the home is more likely to be used against other occupants in the home than it is on an intruder. If i lived in a high-risk neighborhood, i'd probably still take that chance and get a gun. But in my neighborhood, my family is likely safer if I just upgrade my locks instead of having a gun in the house. I'm just weighing risk.

"The big problem in this country is too few weapons, not too many"

No, the big problem in this country is that we have a lot of people who want to kill each other. That's a cultural/societal problem. A number of western European countries that have very strict gun control laws (and therefore very few guns) have lower homicide rates than we do. The "if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns" argument doesn't seem to apply to them. So what's wrong with our country?

"If the grandkids disobey, they'll just have to live--or die--with the consequences. It's part of natural selection"

Sarcasm or not, I don't find anything funny about that statement.