OK, NOW will you admit guns in public are bad?

Last March I had an extensive blog discussion with several gun owners who thought there was nothing wrong with carrying guns in public openly.

In light of Rep. Giffords in Arizona getting shot by someone carrying a gun in public — not to mention 6 others killed — I think the question is still valid. Someone had to see that guy before he started shooting. By current thinking, that someone had to assume he was a nice safe reasonable person.

But why? I asked in that blog (click) how someone like me could know — and I mean KNOW — that a person carrying a gun is safe. Several people argued that I should wait until the person with the gun did something dangerous. At least one said the person with the gun could be presumed safe because the vast majority of people with guns are responsible people.

But what about the exceptions? I asked. And how do I know? For sure?

I won’t get into questions of whether the Tea Party’s screaming about 2nd Amendment Solutions (by a Nevada senatorial candidate no less) are applicable here. But in an era when a lot of people claim common sense says we should be identifying terrorists at airports by assuming muslims and people with dark skin are more dangerous, why should we not assume that someone carrying a gun plans to use it?

Yeah, sure, you’re a God-fearing American who only wants to defend himself. But I’m a God-fearing American who wants to live in peace and not have to worry that the guy wearing a side-arm and the shirt with all the flags all over it is some ultra-right-wing nut who’s decided that liberals are a disease and he’s a doctor. So I should get a gun too?

No thanks.

Check your guns at edge of town, is my idea. Leave it home locked up. It worked in the Wild West, it should work here too.

As Wallace Stegner observed, America has this myth about the rugged individual armed with a Colt 45 taming the West, but the West was really tamed when that last rugged individual was hung at the other end of a rope held by a whole lot of cooperators.

This entry was posted in Blogging the Rambler and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to OK, NOW will you admit guns in public are bad?

  1. Bob Becker says:

    I’d feel a whole lot safer if so many Utahn Wyatt Earp/Butch Cassidy wannabes weren’t packing walking around like normal folk, so we agree on that.

    Just wish you hadn’t ended your latest with a paragraph describing what sounds very much like a lynching. As dangerous as all the Wyatt Earp/Butch Cassidy wannabes, seems to me, is the… what?… “climate of violence” maybe, that is scarily present in recent popular and especially political culture. The AZ tea party US Senate candidate who spoke of appealing to her 2nd amendment rights if she lost the election. The Palin “target” posting. “Don’t retreat, reload!”slogans. And more. The final paragraph of your post might be seen as adding to it.

  2. Midwinter says:

    I would like to know where in the second amendment it says that small children and the mentally infirm cannot carry guns. I just know that I would feel better knowing that the grade school children on my street were armed.

    • Dave J says:

      The Constitution applies to adults. The local states and in other cases the Federal Government pass laws restricting who can/cannot buy firearms. Children are not allowed under federal and state laws to own a firearm and under The Brady Law, anyone who is mentally challenged cannot own a firearm.

  3. hawg says:

    and statistically about 15 people on the very same day died on our nations highway, and the day before and the day before and …….silence. nothing. no outrage from charles. in fact he probably thinks he should be able to drive a car in public, based on his raining how many years ago?

    look, tragedies happen. you make the point of carrying in public, open or concealed. it matters how? do you think that if the law that says you cannot shoot and murder someone didn’t prevent this tragedy another one would have?

    and spare me the cars are usefull argument, unless of course you believe in good dead and bad dead. for me dead is still dead.

    • KrosBonZ says:

      Statistically, the majority of the reasons those people died was because they were not following the laws, i.e. driving too fast, not wear seat belts, not paying attention (texting, talking on phone, eating, etc.), not using common sense, etc. A very small portion was in the wrong place at the wrong time, i.e. someone ran a red light and T-boned them. So this arguement really is not an apples to apples comparison. It a non sequitur, really, to the gun debate. Now, as a life-time NRA member, I support the right to keep and bears arms, and I have my public permit, but I choose not to carry in public. I don’t think it is necessary.

      • hawg says:

        and there in lies the beauty of our country, YOU get to decide whether YOU believe it is necessary or not. not charles

        • hawg says:

          ooops forgot again (getting old)

          as far as necessary goes? well seatbelts aren’t necessary until they are, then it’s too late.

        • Dave J says:

          Amen hawg, the Government shouldn’t tell you if you are unable to buy a firearm to protect yourself. A person can choose to carry a firearm in public or not.

  4. hawg says:

    AND…. about two weeks ago a young woman shot and killed a man that was attacking her aunt and threatened to kill her and her baby. a situation that could have easily happened in public.

    so NOW will you admit guns for defense has a place??

  5. hawg says:

    oooops, my mistake. that highway death toll should have said about 115 per day, not 15. everyday

  6. Bob Becker says:

    On the casual culture of encouraging violence, Paul Rolly put up another nice example in his latest column in the SL Trib. Excerpt:

    I’m passing along a story that ran Thursday in a Colorado weekly, The Durango Telegraph…The story, by Will Sands, is about a Durango-based environmental group dubbed \Great Old Broads for Wilderness.\ Members of the group recently felt threatened by posters scattered throughout Utah’s San Juan County saying they are \wanted dead or alive.\

    The posters go on to say the Great Old Broads are not allowed in San Juan County’s canyon country by order of the Bureau of Land Management and the sheriff’s office. Both agencies, according to the Telegraph story, deny any involvement.

    The group, which monitors off-highway vehicle abuse in the wash at Recapture Canyon, was on a fact-finding trip to the area when they noticed the posters. The Great Old Broads were instrumental in getting the BLM to temporarily close an illegal ATV trail in the canyon in 2007.

    Rolly’s full column can be found here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51005271-76/county-state-utah-williams.html.csp

  7. Wayne Day says:

    “…but the West was really tamed when that last rugged individual was hung at the other end of a rope held by a whole lot of cooperators.”

    Now you know why I want to carry a gun- to defend myself against you “cooperators.”

  8. Unless it’s part of one’s job, no one needs to carry a firearm out in public. If you can’t run your errands armed with nothing more than your brains and a sonic screwdriver, you should probably stay home. It’s a dangerous world out there.

    • hawg says:

      “need”, a bit subjective don’t you think?

      I’m reminded of a time backpacking in the uintahs. of course I was openly carrying. and some person asked why I NEEDED a gun. I said I don’t need one, I want one. I then asked if this was his first visit to the united states. I explained how in this country you can own legal items simply because you want to. it requires no need and certainly no explanation to another. welcome to our country I said. of course he looked at me like liberals do. :)

      • Armed Liberal says:

        Note: there are a lot of armed liberals, armed progressives, armed US citizens, period.
        Weapons training, martial arts, and responsible citizenry can go hand in hand.
        Its not just hilly-billy militia types that respect and welcome our right to carry a sometimes concealed weapon.

        There are more than a few few combat hippies who might have lessened yesterdays injury tally, and saved the state cost of a trial.

        • dkm1469 says:

          Just another normal person here. I carry my CWP right next to my ACLU membership card. Sorry Charles and Bob, your logic is flawed.

        • hawg says:

          glad to hear that, armed liberal. I’ll bet you get into some good discussions

          • ctrentelman says:

            not sure why carrying a gun is a liberal or conservative thing — paranoia is politically neutral, is one answer, I guess. Fear is also.

            why do you guys who call themselves conservatives and criticize my stand assume I am a liberal?

    • Bob Becker says:


      Seems to me many of our Wyatt Earp Wannabe Conservatives spend most of their lives being afraid. What are they thinking? “Have to drive down to 7-11. Better load up, the [ fill in with your negative reference group of choice ----commies/blacks/muslims/gays/Mexicans/Canadians/mafia etc.] might attack while I’m out and I want to be prepared.” Or “Better sleep with my gun loaded on the nightstand. Never know….” Or “Church today. Of course I’ll be packing. The godless atheists may storm the building to kidnap my wife and I need to protect her.” Or something like that. All the time, every day, it seems.

      I’d find it hard going through life as scared all the time as so many conservatives seem to be.

      • “Fear is the path to the dark side…” But enough geekery from me.

        I think some of it is irrational fear, as you describe – and no I can’t imagine living that way.

        The rest of it is a “might makes right” mentality. You can always be right if you have a gun pointed at someone. If you’re bigger and stronger, you can have your own way all the time. That’s a nifty thing for someone who can’t compromise, can’t use their wits to solve problems.

        Not by coincidence, these are the two issues we in AR continually work against, too – irrational fear and the use of brute force against smaller, weaker beings.

      • hawg says:

        and nothing could ever be safer than a 7-11, you just never hear of anyone getting robbed or shot or hurt there

        • That has been my experience with 7-11 yes.

          Be that as it may, somehow the idea of more guns in the hands of non-law enforcement people at the scene of an armed robbery doesn’t make me feel safer. Shooting gallery comes to mind.

          • Mark Shenefelt says:

            Cathy, except for the drunk and depressed guy who lived in his mom’s basement and one day took a shotgun into the 7-11 at 32nd and Harrison and shot three people. Happened 10-15 years ago.

          • hawg says:

            I understand your reluctance to put your life into the hands of an unknown shooter, me too. and having taught concealed weapons classes for 8-9 years I ALWAYS stated that a defensive handgun is for YOUR safety not somebody else’s. they can get their own gun. so yes, if you don’t want one that’s your call, but it’s not your call to tell somebody else they can’t protect themself. you just can’t do that

          • Hi Mark – well yes, I know these things do happen. I’ve promised no more geekery but just looking at the odds of these scenarios… well they don’t bear out a rational argument for packing a sidearm when popping in for a Slurpee. Some store clerks in high-crime areas do have a gun – that makes sense. But it’s on the order of 1 in hundreds of thousands that a customer will encounter this situation, for a city like Ogden.

            By contrast, the odds of dying in a car crash by age 50 is about 1 in 100. So I guess if someone is really concerned about safety, they should walk to 7-11 instead of driving, and not worry about bringing a gun ;)

          • Dave J says:

            I do remember the depressed guy 10-15 years ago who went into the 7-11 on 32nd and Harrison. This is one of the reasons I choose to carry a gun. It is highly unlikely I’ll ever encounter someone shooting at me in a 7-11 but I would like the right to carry a gun in order to defend myself if such a situation does. I did have to use my gun at another time to protect myself. Chances are, there won’t be any armed law enforcement officer in the 7-11 if I did find myself facing a shooter in a 7-11-I’m quite sure the shooter made sure of this and cops cannot be everywhere. By the time the police arrive to protect the patrons, it will be too late.

        • ctrentelman says:

          7-eleven tries to ensure safety of its customers by giving police free coffee and donuts (no kidding, they do).

          I note neither Hawg, nor everyone else, is still answering my question.

          There may be no answer, but that still doesn’t justify his or anyone else’s actions that lead to general fear and unease among the populace…

          • hawg says:

            what actions are those Charles?

            your unrealistic fear is your fault. not mine

            you would have no idea when speaking to me, sitting next to me in a theater, or at the next table in a restaurant whether I am carrying a gun or not. so why the unrealistic paranoia?

  9. mohkat says:

    Same old liberal wisdom.

  10. EndlessGrowthEconomics says:

    This incident is all the more reason to eliminate the silly red/blue political games fueled by a controlled media. We should seriously consider the Zeitgeist films…

    The Bankers Manifesto of 1892
    “We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.

    At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination ( conspiracy) and legislation.

    The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

    When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

    History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

    The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

    By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.”

    Revealed by Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. to the U.S. Congress sometime between 1907 and 1917.

  11. Michael Trujillo says:

    Whether or not firearms should be carried in public or how effective they are for protection, I just want to point out that it was two unarmed men who subdued the shooter. Now THAT’S brave. I wish the news media would tell us more about them.

    • I’d like to hear more about them too.

    • Dave J says:

      I also think the media should report incidents where legally armed civilians have stopped armed robberies and other shootings. Tragically the world is unsafe and disarming law abiding citizens won’t help. All this will do is force the citizens to rely on the police to protect them when the police cannot be everywhere and takes about 5 minutes to arrive to protect you when an armed shooter takes less than a second to shoot you.

  12. David Sevy says:

    Once again it seems like some of the responders here are blaming the Gun, Not the person responsible for the heinous acts. A gun is just a tool….. how it’s used is up to the Individual.
    This guy seems to have had his cheese fall completely of his cracker.
    Buy the way he leans a long way to the Let, but I see Sarah Palin and other conservatives being mentioned here.

  13. hawg says:

    similar to that irrational fear one has when he puts on a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet, huh? hey, I’m ONLY going to the c-store. I’ve never had an accident in 40 years of driving so I suppose I’m gauranteed to never need a seatbelt.

    so just like there is tragic death and acceptable death(depending on your level of inconvenience) there is also “good preparation” and ” paranoid preparation”.

  14. ctrentelman says:

    interestingly, nobody here ever answers my initial question: Why should I not assume someone with a gun is dangerous?

    It really is the only safe assumption. Those who advocate guns actually are making that assumption — about everyone. They demand their own personal guns because, well, who knows?

    It is disingeneous in the extreme for them to be offended when someone makes it about them.

    Stegner’s quote about the last rugged individual dying at the end of a rope held by a whole lot of cooperators was a parable, if you will, for how guns may give a personal sense of temporary security, but for real safety you need society to agree on how it will be safe because individuals with guns tend to enforce their own brand of personal security, which may not society’s.

    At least, that’s how I see it.

    As to those who say a nut will always get a gun — true, they will, but when you make it so very easy for them, then more nuts have guns than if it is hard, or if there are barriers. Nuts tend to be deterred by barriers. Arizona is one of the easiest states, with the fewest barriers.

    • hawg says:

      i would love to answer your question. you asked “how can you really know” someones evil intentions. you cannot. it’s not even realistic to expect to. now answer me this, how can I know, really know, that charles trentleman will NOT get drunk and drive his car into me or a family member? how can I know that, charles? and if I can’t know it, why should you be allowed to drive?
      and don’t tell me you don’t drink, you might start. and don’t tell me you don’t drive, you might start.

      it is completly unrealistic to think you’re free from potential tragedy.

      and where did you ever get the idea nut cases are disuaded by barriers?? given the rather FULL state of our jails and prisons and mental hospitals

      • ctrentelman says:

        as to driving, you don’t know, Hawg — which is why society requires training and licensing before letting someone above a legal age drive a car. Society has a desire to make itself as safe as possible, and that means reducing its odds.

        I presume you are OK with similar rules on guns? Along with mandatory liability insurance?

        • hawg says:

          similar rules? gimme a break, NOTHING is more regulated than firearms. can you name one other consumer product that requires FBI approval to purchase? one?

          when was the last time you had to wait 3-15 days (as in some states) for FBI approval to buy either alcohol or a car? or when was the last time the car dealership did a NICS request before they would sell you a car.

          training: and your last driving training class was? while there is no required training for owning a firearm, just as there is no required training for owning a vehicle, there is required training for firearm use in public, i.e. hunter safety, training concealed weapons permit training. can it be argued to what extent is necessary? sure, same with driving. do you really think one high school class 20, 30 ,40, 50 years ago is still good?

          licensing: we register cars for one reason and one reason only. revenue. that could also be argued for guns IF there wasn’t a constitutional right to own one. (too bad cars don’t have their own constitutional right:))

          redusing the odds: car death vs gun death, about 4 to 1 but again we don’t point that out much do we? why is that news media?

          so my question remains, why do you think it’s fair to question my gun handling abilities but for me to question your driving abilities is a foul?

          • ctrentelman says:

            i didn’t say you couldn’t hawg — go back, read slowly — i said “you don’t know,” which is agreeing with your statement that you don’t know whether you can trust my driving.

            so we agree at last — i agree you can’t trust my driving (and if you read my columns you will know I have told other drivers never to trust anyone’s driving), and you agree i can’t trust you with a gun.


  15. Dave J says:

    “But in an era when a lot of people claim common sense says we should be identifying terrorists at airports by assuming muslims and people with dark skin are more dangerous, why should we not assume that someone carrying a gun plans to use it?”

    I have to agree with you Mr. Trentelman,
    I have carried a gun for a long time and only had to use it once. The situation was an estranged boyfriend of my wife wanted to kill me! he pulled a gun and attempted to shoot me when I pulled a gun, he immediately backed off. Not everyone carrying a gun intends to do harm! This estranged boyfriend planned to use his gun to kill, I use my gun to protect myself from this estranged boyfriend! If I weren’t armed with the gun, this estranged boyfriend would have been successful and probably would have also killed my wife who was with me. Yes, I could have called the police who would have arrived just in time to call the paramedics and take me and my wife to the hospital in hopes we survive and investigate and attempt to locate her estranged boyfriend if they find enough evidence to pin him to the shooting. It’s the person behind the gun who kills, a gun alone cannot kill someone. Think of what would have happened if there was someone else in the Safeway Parking lot armed who noticed this nutcase pull his gun and try to shoot at people. He would probably back off or end up shot before he could get a chance to kill anyone. Instead, this wacko was able to kill and injure several people before being tackled. How about the FBI with their increased powers granted under the Patriot Act spy on Loners since it seems every murderer is some kind of loner and a social outcast. Anyone who is a quiet person who rarely talks to others is up to something and should be arrested so we can stop them. Don’t ban guns, ban criminals and the people who fall under the profile of a psycho killer such as loners.

  16. Jerome Borden says:

    OK, rambler, here’s where it gets interesting. One of the people who helped subdue that nut case had a CCW and was packing. When he got on the scene, it turned out the creep was trying to reload and, because of his training, he knew what to do without pulling his weapon out. By the way, this is why I’ll stay out here and not go back to California or back east to New Jersey or New York. Now that DC has regained some of their Second Amendment rights, the crime rate has gone down.

  17. L. Dalton says:

    I’m waiting for the day when someone with a legal weapon tries to be the hero at a robbery or whatever and winds up being shot by police because they had trouble sorting out the good guys from the bad guys in the few split seconds they had to react to danger. When that happens — and it certainly will at some time — we can count on the police officers involved to be crucified. Police officers are trained properly. Most CC macho wannabes are not and will only add to the chaos.

    I took Community Emergency Response Team ( CERT ) training in North Ogden a few years ago. Both instructors made no secret of their extreme political views. They were less concerned with natural disasters than with political disasters. One of them was proud of his CC and made sure we knew he was packing and what he was prepared to do when the moment came for him to finally become a hero. He even wore a police scanner on his belt along with his CW so he’d be ready to respond when cops needed his “help.” Others in the class felt exactly as I did — “This guy is dangerous!” Both of these folks frequently quoted some of our more prominent radio “entertainers.”

    Then there was the time many years ago in a community north of here when I stuck my head into a meeting of the local “militia” or “civil defense group.” They had brought a prominent “expert” on “civil defense” down from Idaho to speak to them. I heard him saying, “. . . so when your wife is broke down beside the highway and some well-dressed man stops and starts toward her, what will she do? She damn well better be prepared to shoot first and ask questions later because who knows what he might be planning for her?” {That is very close to being a direct quote.}

    Although the unhinged shooter in Arizona may not have been a follower of any particular political persuasion, I can’t believe in any way that he has not been influenced substantially by the tides of political, racial, religious, ethnic and other hatreds that constantly swirl around us and are fanned so well by radio and television or the Internet.

    I don’t have any good answers. But as an American patriot, parent, grandparent, and hopefully sensible person, I’m very worried. Somehow, we all need to join hands and start working together instead of trying to vilify and demean one another. The greatest danger to America is not a bomb-tossing Muslim. It’s other Americans whose mouths are not attached to their brains. It’s other Americans who rake in millions by broadcasting twisted and frequently completely false “facts” trying to somehow influence gullible listeners.

    The Arizona shooter sent a clear message: “Fellow Americans, we have a big problem!”

    Will we somehow find the solution? Indeed, CAN we?

  18. hawg says:

    in response to charles post of jan10 7:13 hrs, i didn’t see a reply button. yes, i did read your response that i don’t know about your driving just as i had answered your question that you can’t/don’t know about some one who is carrying being dangerous or not. here’s the difference, I’m not suggesting or insinuating that because we don’t know each others driving skills that we should eliminate cars, YOU however, seem to be suggesting that because YOU don’t know or understand ones desire to carry a defensive weapon that nobody should be allowed to. why is that? do you or do you not support our concealed carry laws?

    crunch the numbers, there are far more things to fear than if someone has a concealed carry permit. but let me pass on some info that might help alleviate your fears.
    #1 it’s been 15 years since Utah passed the CCW laws. tens of thousands of citizens have acquired them. what are the abuse numbers? the injuries? the deaths?
    #2 I taught concealed carry laws for Utah for about 8-9 years. the most surprising thing i learned class after class after class after class is that virtually NOBODY wants to carry one on their person. they’re not particularly comfortable. they only wanted to have one available in their cars when they traveled. I truly believe extremely few people are actually carrying. (but they are all driving)

  19. MacDaddy says:

    Yep, that’s the ticket, make a law that says you can’t take your guns to town. That will do much better than those silly laws about murder that never worked anyway.

  20. laytonian says:

    NOT ONE of the armed citizens of Tucson, lifted a trigger finger against the shooter.

    MEANWHILE, it took a 74-year-old man, a GAY man, and a 61-old-woman to subdue the shooter.

    Where were all of the gun-totin’ defenders of life and liberty, when Rep Giffords was shot?

    HILARIOUSLY, Jason Chaffetz now says he’ll carry his weapon more often.

    To protect him from what? The other gun-nuts out to shoot him?

    It’s gobsmacking to read the above comments from the gun-toters, and realize that they highlight a couple of cases a year where someone successfully defended someone else, with a gun.

    WHEN the number of people who successfully defend their lives with a gun MEETS the exact number of shooters, I’ll believe you “patriots”.

    Otherwise, you’re all nothing more but useless vigilante wannabes with low testosterone.

  21. rick stewart says:

    … ok, guns don’t kill people, people kill people …. well, people with guns kill people, i guess …
    Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson quotes from a study published this month in the journal Trauma. It says, comparing 23 high-income countries, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is 20 (twenty) times higher than everyone else. It also says that 80 percent of ALL firearm homicides in these high-income countries occur in just one country – the United States.
    I actually support the 2nd Amendment, but can’t we do something to limit the damage, like perhaps restoring the assault-weapons ban that died in 2004 … if the Arizona shooter had had an old-fashioned six-shooter, say, he never would have had the chance to hit 20 people and kill six.
    I mean, how many people do we think we’ll have to kill in self-defense when we’re going to the 7-11? Do we really need a semi-automatic for self-defense?

    • hawg says:

      and if we didn’t have the internet, TV, movies ect. and just had good old fashioned one page printing presses (like the ones they had when the bill of rights was ratified) we wouldn’t have the instances of child pornagraphy, and cyber predators that we have. yes, progress has it’s problems, we probably didn’t kill 42,000 people a year in horse and buggy accidents either.

      the true question isn’t whether gun deaths would go down if guns didn’t exist, of course they would, but would killing overall go down. probably some, but enough? england is having a hell of a time with knife attacks. (yeah, I know not 20 at a time, but when you are the dead guy, one is a pretty important number)

      • laytonian says:

        Do you seriously believe that the internet invented porn? Really?

        The internet makes it easier to (1) distribute and (2) track who’s doing it.

        And PLEASE quit conflating accidents with purposeful shootings.

        No one ever had a gun float into their hand 1.5 nanoseconds before they became a criminal or committed murder.

        Carrying a gun means forethought of action, and should be treated as such when there is ANY other crime committed by the gun-toter.

        • hawg says:

          no, I don’t believe the internet invented porn, read it again. do you have any idea the problem of distribution it has allowed though? yet, we don’t license or regulate users. the point AGAIN is progress has problems. whether internet or revolvers vs semi autos.

          and for the love of God will you quit trying to justify 40,000+ deaths a year from cars against 9,500+ from firearms because of “intent” when the reality is you don’t mind restricting my gun ownership but you wouldn’t for a second put up with the exact same requirements for you to own a car. so for you I guess, some death is tragic and some is perfectly acceptable depending on the level of inconvenience to you.

  22. LaFray K says:

    We can count on you Charles to promote your anti-Gun views on the back of this horrible tragedy… and so quickly after it happened. This beautiful little girl has her exceptional life cut short and You immediately post, ” Now will you admit guns in public are bad? ”
    Shame on you, you hate monger!

    • laytonian says:

      Shame on you.

      Tell us PLEASE, “LaFray”, what YOUR commercial interest in guns is.

      Are you a gun seller?
      Work for a gun manufacturer?
      NRA outreach?
      Pawnshop owner?
      A lobbyist?
      Gun “show” exhibitor?

      The true hatemongers are those here who profit from guns. They come here, we’ve never seen them before, but we recognize their words from other news forums.

  23. ctrentelman says:

    Not sure how holding an anti-gun view qualifies me as a “hate monger.”

    It is fascinating — the gun folk — limbaugh is boosting his sagging ratings with this one — send out the word to attack anyone using this latest example of gun excess as an argument for control as a hate monger, and the ditto-heads comply.

    • hawg says:

      Not sure how holding an anti-gun view qualifies me as a “hate monger.”

      maybe not. but your sideways attempt to slam the tea party/second amendment in paragraph five sure leans that way

  24. LaFray K says:

    I don’t do Rush, more of a Maddow fan.
    It’s not the views that define ” Hate mongering “, it’s using a tragedy to inflame others!

  25. hawg says:

    WHEN the number of people who successfully defend their lives with a gun MEETS the exact number of shooters, I’ll believe you “patriots”.

    how do you know that the number of successful applications of defense DOES NOT meet or exceed the number of bad guy shooters? you have to check the right areas of information. guys like gary kleck a florida criminologists, and john lott and others have done numerous studies on just that and have come up with pretty high numbers of defense.(like 2 million a year) the problem is you won’t see that information in a charles article and it’s just as well, I seriously doubt you would believe it anyway.

    • laytonian says:

      You might be surprised that I’m already familar with Kleck, and his use of non-statistical methods (coupled with extrapolation) to make a point that shouldn’t have been believed.

      “This problem of extrapolation can be noted in the fact that Kleck reported that 207,000 times a year the gun defender thought he wounded or killed the offender. Yet that would be twice the number of people treated in emergency rooms each year for non-fatal firearm injuries and most of these people are victims of assault, suicide attempts and accidental shootings rather that criminals shot by defenders. ”

      ’nuff said.

      • hawg says:

        yeah, I’m sure they ran to the hospital and said they were cleaning their gun when it accidently went, I mean did you really think they were going to say, “hey, I was robbing or burgling this guy and the sumbitch shot me, can you believe that?”

        I too think klecks numbers are high but he has better backgroud for comment than most “polls”

  26. Peggy says:

    At the Congress on the Corner event, people were close together, waiting their turn to speak with Congresswoman Gifford. It scares the heck out of me to think of the mayhem and deaths that would have occurred if someone there had decided to defend everyone against the shooter (Jared) and that someone pulled out a gun and also started shooting, trying to shoot Jared. With everyone running around as they were, the death count would have been MUCH higher. It was so much better that the shooter was stopped by being tackled, as he was. // And another thought. If Jared (I call him this because I can’t remember how to spell his last name) had not had such easy access to a gun and to bullets, he would have had to take his anger out with what – a knife, or a chain, or screaming angry words, or . . .any of which would not have inflicted near the damage that his gun did. // Just thoughts I’ve had.

  27. S says:

    Whenever anyone sees a person with a gun, rifle etc. the police should be called! Let the person carrying the weapon produce his permit. Better safe than sorry! The extra cost for this could be included in getting a permit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>