Quantcast

Comments about ‘Kathleen Parker: Armed, dangerous and dead’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, June 10 2014 7:55 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

Great points. By the time multiple people not in uniform start shooting, who will know who the bad guy is?

The fog of war is well understood, but the fog of multiple shooters in civilian circumstances is much less talked about. I think someone should make a simulator just so people can see how ridiculous it would be if the entire Walmart were armed and shooting at other shooters.

Solutions not Stones
Spanish Fork, UT

In the vast majority of cases, these shooters are attracted to gun free zones and that should tell us something. But to the larger point the author is making I suggest two scenarios:

First:
Random shooter enters location, no one else has a gun, kills 20, police arrive, shooter kills self.

Second:
Random shooter enters location, begins firing killing 3, 5 private citizens return fire, shooter dies, in the chaos 3 of the armed citizens as well as 2 bystanders are killed by "friendly" fire.

Based purely on odds, I would rather be a bystander in the second scenario than the first. But, for some reason we have decided as a society that the second scenario would be worse despite much less loss of life. Clearly these numbers are contrived and that is the first thing that someone who does not want to directly answer my point will say.

Jefferson
Kalispell, MT

Flawed argument. You select the ONE news article in months in which an armed civilian attempted to intervene in a high stress and very dangerous situation, and lost his life. You ignore the DOZENS, if not hundreds of cases over the past few months in which an armed civilian intervened to halt criminal activity and save lives. While your points regarding training have some merit, you overstate your case and lose all credibility in so doing. We might as well point to one favorable outcome in such a situation and then claim that it supports the idea that everyone should be armed. The fact that not all people who wear seatbelts survive an accident is not "evidence" that seatbelts don't save lives.

RichardB
Murray, UT

Many law enforcement officers have died, not knowing there was another shooter.

If he had not confronted them, would they have still hid in the back and died? No one knows. The man tried to save lives, and ended up giving up his, let's not try to politicize it.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Carrying a gun and then defending oneself in the event a criminal attacks you isn't rocket science. Were such an event to happen, you take out the gun, point it at the threat and then pull the trigger. Lets not look for one more excuse to make having guns harder to get and to keep.

one old man
Ogden, UT

An excellent, and sensible op ed. The day will come when a real tragedy will occur when someone tries to step in and play hero, turning a bad situation into a complete disaster.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

I can name several times, in gun free zones where unarmed people are left at the mercy of a criminal and have been slaughtered because they had no way to respond. Can anyone name an instance where a person who was untrained person responded by shooting the criminal and it turned out bad because they were untrained? This article is just a back door attempt to take away peoples second amendment rights.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

There are symbols we use like crosses, fish and even unicorns. may be we should use them again so the piano player don't get shot.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

"The fact is, permission to carry also grants implicit permission to use the gun as one deems necessary".

+++++

That may (or may not) be true. I haven't spent the time or intellectual effort to determine which. Reason being that Americans do not have permission to carry, Americans have a right to carry.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Having people walk around, as opposed to having them in the residence, with weapons designed to kill persons results in dead persons. Quite a few every day.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Its no coincidence that all mass shooting occur in gun free zones. Not we want to make it harder for the law abiding to get guns?

UTAH Bill
Salt Lake City, UT

Research is lacking in gun stats ever since the CDC found that having a gun in the home increases the likelihood a family member will be shot three (3) times. Congress cut funding for gun research after that finding. People who argue guns make us safer are wrong. If guns make us safer, and since we have the most guns per capita in the world, shouldn't we be the safest country instead of being one of the deadliest?

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

Its no coincidence that most mass shooting occur in gun free zones. That is like saying its no coincidence that most multiple car crashes occur on roads where there are a lot of cars. These "gun free zones" are places with large numbers of people in a small confined area. Are we shocked that most mass shootings don't occur in hay fields in the middle of Tabiona? Speaking for myself, no I am not.

Midwest Mom
Soldiers Grove, WI

I keep waiting for the NRA and gun advocates to get around to that whole "well regulated" bit of the right to bear arms.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

I'm a combat vet with experience operating in urban environments. I also have some law enforcement background. And I can tell you that there is nothing more dangerous to themselves and to others than untrained civilians running around with weapons and adding more chaos to an already chaotic environment.

Too many wannabe Wyatt Earps out there with delusions of grandeur. When the bullets fly, you either need training to kick in to maintain focus and control, or you will become another potential threat to everyone else.

ECR
Burke, VA

Bravo to Kathleen Parker for using her pulpit as a national colomnist to say what desperately needs to be said. We don't need to take the guns from law abiding citizens who want to own guns and use them for recreation and protection. But we do need to know where the guns are in order to keep them out of the hands of the crazies. The saying "the only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun" is proven to be folly everyday. When will we stop playing slave to the NRA and the gun lobby and start living by the principles of this nation, principles that many of us learn every week in church?

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Kathleen, you'd better be careful. Too many articles like this is going to get you banned from the Deseret News as "too liberal".

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Let's ask Pat Tillman's family about extensive training, easily identifiable uniforms and other identifiers and the remaining dangers of friendly fire.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

I wonder if the irony of one of the incidents in these stories has occured to Ms Parker, or any of the anti gun folks. Many of the anti-carry folks say that in the hands of untrained civilians a persons gun is likely to be taken away from them by the criminal. Well here we see two well trained law enforcement officers being killed and having their guns taken from them too. So now do we logically conclude that the police should have left their guns home? Or at least in their car? There is no perfect answer to the many scenarios that can come up. The only absolute we can count on is that bad guys will get guns, so good guys should have them too. Even if every gun shop in America were put out of business, guns would come in from the border just like people and drugs do. If we can't (or don't want to) control the border, stopping drugs and people, we could not control guns either.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Its ironic that when bad guys with guns kill, it takes good guys with guns to stop them! Unarmed people are helpless! I will NOT be helpless!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments