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

Mike Richards is spot on.

The right to carry is ours. The responsibility of carrying is also ours. We need to be sure we engage the responsibility part before engaging the right part.

A lack of preparation and firearms make a poor mixture.

@ Emajor: you're right, Steve Warren was making a very unfunny point, over the line in my own mind. But that's his right.

I'll be happy to do the homework for the opposing side since no one seems to want to do it. This from Wikipedia:

"Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center claims that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases). There were about 25,000 murders by firearm that period, meaning that concealed carry permit holders committed less than 1% of the murders by firearm. Furthermore, a large number of the victims were killed in extended suicides, most of which took place in the home of the shooter, where arms can be possessed without special permits. VPC also includes in its numbers several homicides using only long guns and several instances of accidental discharge."

Does that help? Data is inconclusive for the most part for either side. This issue won't be decided here or anywhere else. But it is in my own mind.

one old man: "Oh, my goodness! I just agreed with Mike Richards. Good common sense post there, Mike. Thank you."

Ditto. Will wonders never cease?

So, if in the confusion an armed individual trying to shoot at an assailent in a public place shoots and kills an innocent bystander, is that individual guilty of premeditated murder or just manslaughter? In the incident in Tucson, the only person armed other than the assailent was concerned that he might shoot someone by mistake since there was so much disorder that he didn't know who was shooting.

If fear is directing the actions of an armed individual in confronting a situation like in the movie theater, and the theater is dark and aiming is difficult, what is to say that more people may have been killed and injured in the attempt to "defend" oneself. Also, how do we know that the other people who may be carrying weapons may not have the necessary experience to deal with such situations under the intense pressure that will exist.

Defending oneself in one's home is very different from acting in a public place where there are a lot of people around. Perhaps the concern of doing more damage rather than less is not in the letter writer's mind, but even the police know when not to shoot.

Roscoe West Jordan, UT

The shooter may have thought about there being armed people in the theater who might take action against him. That is certainly why he was wearing protective gear. It didn't stop him. In fact, he planning for such a situation have absolutely no affect on his assault. He just figured that he would have enough time to do the damage he wanted to do before he was stopped.

If there were 100 armed people sitting in the audience and they decided to shoot back at the shooter, just think of the number of other people who would have been shot. Perhaps with all those people shooting, the idea of an accomplice shooter would clearly become a reality and everyone would be shooting at everyone else. We might assume that some of these armed people would have become targets because no one would know that they were necessarily friendly. Seeing someone shooting in the theater would identify them as a "threat" outside of the identified assailant in his body armor.

SEY,
It kind of helps. Wikipedia doesn't quite count as doing one's homework on any serious issue, though. Like I said, I've only heard real information about guns in the home. I haven't made up my mind on concealed carry. There are a lot of careful, responsible gun owners, but it only takes a few yahoos to do a lot of damage. Watching that elderly gentleman fire rounds out the door into the middle of a public street doesn't build my confidence. I'm honestly not sure whether he should be praised as a hero or charged with a crime.

@SEY
"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?"

There's at least one study that shows that victims of armed robberies are significantly more likely to be shot if the victim being robbed has a gun.

Get ready to have your 'arms' reduced to BB guns.

The government, under the Commerce Clause, can regulate gun sales... How would it be if Congress decided that 'ammo' is not a part of the Second Amendment (remember, it says 'arms') and required it to be sold for, say, $5,000 per bullet. How many would have guns... or, more specifically, guns that you could afford to use?

Don't laugh. We've seen stranger things come out of the government. Take Obamacare... the individual mandate should be unconstitutional, yet the SCOTUS tells us that a 'penalty' can be collected under the taxing authority of the Congress. Sure, you don't have to buy health insurance... but you may as well becasue you will be paying the equivalent of a premium as a 'tax.'

Re: "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."

We're willing to take that chance.

So were the Framers of the Constitution.

Real people would rather be responsible and enabled to defend our homes, than be reduced to cowering in a corner, waiting for police to arrive, because of liberal handwringing.

We'll never understand where liberals come off thinking they have the right to take that decision away from us.

I try to respect people who value their right to carry, but this letter is a bit silly.

David Jolley claims people who wish for a "gun free society would also wish for the weak and the few to cower in fear from the strong and the many." Give me a break. About 309 million people live in the U.S. and an estimated 8 million have concealed carry permits. Many more have guns, but they can't carry them around everywhere in so-called self defense. Let's also not forget that carrying a gun doesn't make you 'strong' any more than not carrying a gun makes you 'weak'.

If the Deseret News wants to publish a pro-gun letter, I suggest publishing a reasoned argument that won't embarrass supporters of the Second Amendment. Pardon the pun, but Mr. Jolley's letter is just the ammunition gun control advocates need to push their agenda.

I would be interested to know if any of the survivors in the Colorado shooting now carry a gun. Until you're in a situation like this, it's very easy and quite frankly naive, to judge what should or shouldn't be done with regards to handgun ownership.

Better get more firepower, kevlar, and gas mask.

@Emajor:
You say:
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?

Want to back that up?

re:Roscoe
"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?"

Apparently he was prepared. Did you miss this part?

He wore a ballistic helmet, a ballistic vest, ballistic leggings, a throat protector, a groin protector, and tactical gloves.

>Procuradorfiscal

"Real people would rather be responsible and enabled to defend our homes, than be reduced to cowering in a corner, waiting for police to arrive, because of liberal handwringing.

We'll never understand where liberals come off thinking they have the right to take that decision away from us."

Real people?

Aside from that gratuitous insult, though, we've arrived at the crux of the dispute. I don't intend to 'cower in a corner', because a deadly home invasion is about as likely to take place as an earthquake swallowing my home (actually, statistically, the earthquake's more likely). What I don't understand is going to considerable expense and trouble preparing to deal with a paranoid fantasy. I trust the judgment and training of professionals, soldiers and cops. I do not trust your judgment or training, or that of almost any concealed weapon holder. And I would remind you that the Constitution includes the words 'well regulated militia'. The Founders presumed that gun owners would have received considerable military training. I haven't, and I suspect, neither have you.

I went paintballing recently with some family. I realized it's insanley easy to get "dead" when everyone's firing in a dark room.

Guns are a really poor defensive devise in the first place. Carry you gun, if you get shot you are going to wish you had worn a vest though. If someone shoots your kid, shooting him back won't make your kid "not dead".

There's just not a lot of logic being used in this fear of the government taking your gun and that ak-47's should be easy to get so you can defend against your own government's tanks, planes and missles.

Thank goodness explosives aren't as easy to get as AK-47's.

Do you know why Mexican drug cartels get thier AK-47's in the U.S.? They have strict gun laws and can't them in Mexico.

How is it we can' recognise the causes that force us to deal with the unthinkable?

@Mike Richards;

I agree with you for once. God must exist because it's a Miracle!

There have been many studies and many reports by multiple groups showing that where conceal carry permits are issued, crime goes down. I can't recall them talking about how many of those who have permits actually own guns or choose to carry them in public, just that the permits are there. I can't speak to the intelligence of criminals, but I think in general many are driven by a heightened sense of self-interest. That self-interest, faced with the possibility that they could be faced by someone carrying a gun, would drive them to find targets that present less of a problem for them.

No, not everyone should own a gun. Personally, I want my children (when they are old enough) to have professional firearm training, so they have the correct respect for guns. I will not have a gun in my home, primarily because it would make my wife nervous. If I were to have guns in my home, they would remain locked in a gun cabinet, with the ammunition locked in a different cabinet.