grnzbra
February 13, 2004, 05:14 PM
This appeared yesterday. (http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02122004/utah/138135.asp)
The following is the letter I sent to the editor:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing in response to the article that appeared in your Feb 12 issue entitled Big guns, big egos may trip concealed weapons carriers. In it, there seems to be an opinion his statement after the incident, "You better watch it. I am armed.", was an effort to show off that he was a tough guy. In fact, the situation was anything but that.
There was some period of time, perhaps only a half second, between when the son spoke and his mamma responded, during which time the customer went from being in a state of awareness of his surroundings through becoming aware of a possible threat to a point where he recognized the threat and was expecting to have to respond as soon as he determined the exact nature of the threat. This is a situation that anyone who has any knowledge of the use of lethal force wants to avoid at all costs. A person familiar with the use of lethal force, he knows that he may end up in jail, or heavily in debt for legal bills and at the losing end of a nasty civil suit after shooting a criminal. He will have to justify his every action, based on instantaneous decisions, to an investigation that will take all the time it needs to second guess those decisions. His body is now in a full blown fight or flight response (which we can tell because of the trouble he had going out the door) and junior and, even worse, mamma thinks the whole thing is hilariously funny. Now he begins to think in terms of what could have been; junior dead him in real trouble.
It seems to me that, given this set of circumstances, his statement was an extremely diplomatic way of saying, "YOU STUPID BROAD! YOUR LITTLE BRAT JUST DID THE EQUIVALENT OF YELLING 'FIRE' IN A CROWDED THEATER. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE THEME FOR A PRANK, ESPECIALLY IN A STATE THAT ISSUES PERMITS TO CARRY."
After he left, perhaps to sit in his car for half an hour with a case of the shakes because he knew what could have happened, mamma and junior sit there yucking it up until it dawns on them that they junior could have been killed. But in a manner consistent with people unfamiliar with the concept of defending their lives, they believe it couldn't possibly be junior's because he does this all the time. He's so cute. That guy must was a real moron. They should be more careful who they let carry a gun. The fact of the matter is that they both behaved in an incredibly stupid manner and should thank God that the man had the restraint to wait until all the facts were known before taking any action.
The only mistake the customer did make was to say anything at all to her. He should have just left and, perhaps, come back another day to have a calm discussion with her.
C. Lind Aitken
The following is the letter I sent to the editor:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing in response to the article that appeared in your Feb 12 issue entitled Big guns, big egos may trip concealed weapons carriers. In it, there seems to be an opinion his statement after the incident, "You better watch it. I am armed.", was an effort to show off that he was a tough guy. In fact, the situation was anything but that.
There was some period of time, perhaps only a half second, between when the son spoke and his mamma responded, during which time the customer went from being in a state of awareness of his surroundings through becoming aware of a possible threat to a point where he recognized the threat and was expecting to have to respond as soon as he determined the exact nature of the threat. This is a situation that anyone who has any knowledge of the use of lethal force wants to avoid at all costs. A person familiar with the use of lethal force, he knows that he may end up in jail, or heavily in debt for legal bills and at the losing end of a nasty civil suit after shooting a criminal. He will have to justify his every action, based on instantaneous decisions, to an investigation that will take all the time it needs to second guess those decisions. His body is now in a full blown fight or flight response (which we can tell because of the trouble he had going out the door) and junior and, even worse, mamma thinks the whole thing is hilariously funny. Now he begins to think in terms of what could have been; junior dead him in real trouble.
It seems to me that, given this set of circumstances, his statement was an extremely diplomatic way of saying, "YOU STUPID BROAD! YOUR LITTLE BRAT JUST DID THE EQUIVALENT OF YELLING 'FIRE' IN A CROWDED THEATER. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS AN APPROPRIATE THEME FOR A PRANK, ESPECIALLY IN A STATE THAT ISSUES PERMITS TO CARRY."
After he left, perhaps to sit in his car for half an hour with a case of the shakes because he knew what could have happened, mamma and junior sit there yucking it up until it dawns on them that they junior could have been killed. But in a manner consistent with people unfamiliar with the concept of defending their lives, they believe it couldn't possibly be junior's because he does this all the time. He's so cute. That guy must was a real moron. They should be more careful who they let carry a gun. The fact of the matter is that they both behaved in an incredibly stupid manner and should thank God that the man had the restraint to wait until all the facts were known before taking any action.
The only mistake the customer did make was to say anything at all to her. He should have just left and, perhaps, come back another day to have a calm discussion with her.
C. Lind Aitken