Published: Tuesday, June 10 2014 7:55 p.m. MDT
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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.
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
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?
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?
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.
I keep waiting for the NRA and gun advocates to get around to that whole
"well regulated" bit of the right to bear arms.
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.
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
Kathleen, you'd better be careful. Too many articles like this is going to
get you banned from the Deseret News as "too liberal".
Let's ask Pat Tillman's family about extensive training, easily
identifiable uniforms and other identifiers and the remaining dangers of
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.
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!
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments