Concealed-gun debate heats up after mall shooting

[Desertdog]

Trolley Square shooting: Concealed-gun debate heats up after mall shooting
By Christopher Smart

The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 02/14/2007 11:06:09 AM MST
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5219765


To carry or not to carry? Which philosophy would had made a difference?
The debate between gun-control advocates and gun-rights supporters is a familiar aftermath to any outburst of gun violence in America.
In the wake of Monday's murderous rampage at Trolley Square, those questions again confront law-abiding members of a sometimes violent society.
But this time the massacre wasn't in Colorado or Texas or California. The question of whether a concealed weapon can make us and our loved ones safer is much closer to home.
"When things like this happen, some think maybe we ought to have no guns in society, and some think everyone should have one," said Steve Gunn, cq board member of Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. "It all depends on your perspective."
It appears as though off-duty Ogden police Officer Kenneth Hammond, who carried a concealed weapon, stopped the killing spree, said Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council.
Aposhian noted that it is impossible to know whether a concealed-weapon holder could make a difference in every violent confrontation.
"But we do know what happens when there is no one with a concealed weapon in these situations - people die."
Aposhian spent Monday fielding telephone calls
from individuals and groups seeking information on concealed-weapons permits.
"You won't hear the gun-rights community say, 'Everyone needs to get a gun permit.' That wouldn't be right," Aposhian said. "But people who never before desired a firearm now want to get a permit. These are moms and dads."
Those on the other side of the debate, however, say more guns make us less safe.
"I'm not comfortable arming our entire country for protection - that's a paranoid notion," said Gary Sackett, a Gun Violence Prevention Center board member.
"You can't protect against every madman with a firearm or a hand grenade. That sort of thing is going to happen from time to time."
Homicide and suicide rates in countries where gun ownership is restricted - like Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom - are a fraction of the U.S. rate, Sackett said.
"If we arm everybody, we are a lost society. And most western countries have figured that out."
But gun advocate Charles Hardy said that concealed weapon holders aren't "Rambo wannabes" and would flee rather than shoot it out. But in a situation like the one at Trolley Square, it could give a victim "a fighting chance," rather than being a "sitting duck."
Hardy, the public policy director for Gun Owners of Utah, said a concealed weapon permit is "something every adult needs to consider."
For Dee Rowland, chairwoman of the Gun Violence Prevention Center, however, that statement is "absurd."
"Even my 9-year-old grandson said, 'How could that help?' "

 

[Monkeyleg]

"You can't protect against every madman with a firearm or a hand grenade. That sort of thing is going to happen from time to time."

Huh. A few years ago, the anti's were arguing that it was the presence of guns that made such rampages possible.

They need to get their soundbites in order.

 

[Soybomb]

To carry or not to carry? Which philosophy would had made a difference

It seems to me this is a question that is easy enough to answer. The man with a concealed weapon stopped the shooting. The people without concealed weapons prior to his intervention got shot.

Hardy, the public policy director for Gun Owners of Utah, said a concealed weapon permit is "something every adult needs to consider."
For Dee Rowland, chairwoman of the Gun Violence Prevention Center, however, that statement is "absurd."
"Even my 9-year-old grandson said, 'How could that help?' "

Luckily we don't let children make legislation as they seldom appreciate just how evil man can be. I feel just almost dirty for saying it because I don't think the victims of this deserve to be part of this debate or have words put in their mouth but if they had prior knowledge of what might have happened to them that day, I'm not sure they would agree with Dee Rowland that it was all that absurd. Its easy for Mr. Packett to call people names like paranoid from the safety of his home or office. Luckily that off duty officer was paranoid enough to be armed.

Homicide and suicide rates in countries where gun ownership is restricted - like Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom - are a fraction of the U.S. rate, Sackett said.

When will this arguement die? Haven't people pointed out states with strict firearms laws in the US and their gun problem enough for them to understand the problem isn't guns.

 

[Bezoar]

Well the issue is not, "should we all be armed or should we all be unarmed defenseless peasents at the mercy of shotgun toting maniacs from bosnia".

The real question is, how many NORMAL (none leo) individuals with ccws would have been able to pull their weapon and kill the maniac shooting the mall up?

Once upon a time just about anyone with a gun on hip would have come up shooting. Most of the people now would just hide behind a plant squishing in their pants calling the local cops via cellphone.

Thats the other question, in this situation would it have been legal for a ccw holder in the state of utah to have killed the maniac with shotgun?

 

[Zoogster]

Thats the other question, in this situation would it have been legal for a ccw holder in the state of utah to have killed the maniac with shotgun?

Certainly it would have been legal, however the CCW shooter would still be liable in civil court, as well as criminal if an errant shot injured someone else or property. Unlike LEOs, a civilian standing up for others or themselves outside of thier home (in states with castle doctrine) are not protected from the shooter or thier families in court.

Let me play devil's advocate and pretend I buy into the anti beliefs that guns create crime:
So the big question that gives antis some credit, is that if CCW holders are not going to stop such people, yet by having more guns prevalent have the negative flip side of increased availability of a tool for crimes of passion and rage etc, then do the negatives outweigh the positives. Of course that is playing devil's advocate and going along with the notion that it is about statistics and not freedom, liberty, or the ideals in the constitution of everyone being equal and with the right to the option of choices in such situations. If numbers and statistics are all that matter, and CCW holders will on average only stand up for themselves and not others being slaughtered, then do the cons outweigh the pros statisticly?

It seems the CCW argument only absolutely crushes the antis argument if CCW holders can and will stop such massacres. In these arguments you can't have your cake and eat it too. CCW holders on average make up what percent of the population even when they are allowed and popular? Far less than 10% (in fact if I recall usualy less than 1% most places, and 1-5% overall) right? So would 9+ people die anyways until such a killer targeted a CCW holder and they defended themselves? Or would the CCW holders jump up and limit the massacre? If the answer is that they will defend themselves if they have to, and flee to safety and let the authorities handle it when they arrive otherwise, then that hardly does anything in favor statisticly because it will not really limit the total slaughter by any significant margin if at all.

Of course I am of the mindset that everyone in a free society should have the option of having the tool necessary to defend against criminals regardless of statistics, or politics, because that is the only way someone is free. Since criminals are going to have firearms or weapons, usualy be strong men, and ignore any law in place on weapon possession, then the only tool that will suffice is a firearm.

 

[MacEntyre]

It seems the CCW argument only absolutely crushes the antis argument if CCW holders can and will stop such massacres.

In another thread, Jeff White said that an LEO has a duty to act, but a CCW holder has no such duty.

I believe a CCW holder has a responsibility to act, if not a duty. If you choose not to act, you choose to be a victim.

 

[NevadaDep]

The only time I would draw my weapon in another person’s defense is if that person was a child, a member of my family/friends or the place was sparsely populated limiting the chances of striking a bystander.

I carry my weapon for my protection and the protection of loved ones. I don’t have the bank roll or the spare time (to spend in prison, god forbid it go that way) to risk on anybody else.

I suggest those of you who might be reading that don’t own a firearm to get one, cause I aint putting my freedom or money on the line for you.

 

[Nightcrawler]

I love this.

A guy with a shotgun walks into a mall and starts shooting. Thusly, we should tell me that I can't carry my gun anymore, in order to make me safer.

*sigh*

Fortunately, people like these chuckleheads rarely get very far with their hand-wringing here in Utah.

 

[Juna]

"You can't protect against every madman with a firearm or a hand grenade. That sort of thing is going to happen from time to time."

Nobody said we could. CCW permissive laws aren't a 100% guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen. This "sort of thing" currently "happen(s) from time to time" as it is. This quote at least gives credence to our long standing belief that guns do not equal crime. He's acknowledging that there wouldn't be any MORE shootings if CCWs were rampant. Sounds like an indirect vote for our side. Plus, the guy who stopped this shooting was a CCWer! How much more support for CCW do you need?

I carry my weapon for my protection and the protection of loved ones. I don’t have the bank roll or the spare time (to spend in prison, god forbid it go that way) to risk on anybody else.

This is the fault of our legal system. I know a lot of people who would agree with this statement b/c the fact is, people who use firearms for self-defense--and especially defense of others (if they're non-LEOs)--tend to get hung out to dry in court--often moreso than the original criminal! This garbage where the criminal can sue the victim for damages and where the (potential) victim with a CCW who saves the day can go to prison while the shooter gets out in 6 months with good behavior is GARBAGE! We need to contact our lawmakers and tell them that these ridiculous law suits need to stop. We can use these shootings (I hate saying this) for our advantage, too, the same way the anti-gun lobby & Brady bunch use it as a poster child for their agenda.

The few people who would stand up and kill the guy as non-LEOs are, in fact, risking their family's financial & emotional future. They're risking going to prison (which is a ridiculous notion). They're risking their kids growing up with out a dad or mom b/c they're in prison. They're risking owing millions of dollars in damages to the family of the person who was massacring people in a mall! I mean, how much does this make you want to projectile vomit that our laws are focused more on the use of firearms for good than for bad?!

We need to act on this and hound our legislators that we're tired of this legal system allowing things like this to happen, b/c people doing nothing as the nut case shoots people is the direct result of the legal system.

 

[romma]

Aposhian noted that it is impossible to know whether a concealed-weapon holder could make a difference in every violent confrontation.

A concealed weapon holder did make a difference... It just happened to be a police officer in this case. Everytime a "citizen" concealed weapon holder makes a difference in these types of scenerios, the media gives little credence to them. Too bad that guy in Texas that at least slowed down the shooter had to die, otherwise we could point to it as a complete success.

 

[TallPine]

So let me get this straight ... the anti-gun crowd are now expecting every private citizen with a CCW to defend the other 99% of the public ????

So the anti-argument is this:
a) blood will run in the streets because private citizens with a CCW will "take the law into their own hands"
b) private citizens with a CCW will fail to adequately protect the rest of the public

How can you argue against that? Damned if you do and damned if you don't :banghead:

 

[doubleg]

My mother said to me the other day, "While I'm downtown I guess i'll apply for my CCW permit". So I said "I fail to see why seeing how you don't have a pistol". Then she replied "At least i'll have the paperwork". :banghead:

 

[Hollywood_Heat]

The whole notion of a permit to carry is repulsive to me. A permit means permission. Asking for permission means they have the right to deny that privilege and it also means you don't have a right to excercise whatever you're applying to do. Then there's the whole issue of taxing you before letting you defend yourself and that's really backwards, IMO. I feel that if you can successfully get the permission to buy a concealable weapon in the first place, you outta be able to carry to anywhere you want to, no questions asked, no restrictions levied, but I'm not in charge, so what do I know?

 

[RazorDog]

In regards to the nefarious notion in the article that, "everythings just dandy" in Britain, because firearm possession is outlawed well, read on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3241459.stm

 

[perpster]

Ask the families of those who were killed if they wish there had been an armed citizen in the parking lot. After the first 2 were killed outside, if there had been an armed intervenor maybe there'd have been no dead inside the mall.

BTW, why is it minimized or not reported at all that the "madman" was a Muslim? There have been several "sudden jihad" shooting massacres in public places (as well as SUV massacres), and the religious aspect is universally downplayed or not reported at all. This incident is wholly consistent with killing infidels for Allah.

We are at war, like it or not. The front line in this asymetrical war includes the homefront. In a time of war, ALL responsible citizens SHOULD BE ARMED.

 

[jeepmor]

In another thread, Jeff White said that an LEO has a duty to act, but a CCW holder has no such duty.

I believe a CCW holder has a responsibility to act, if not a duty. If you choose not to act, you choose to be a victim

If our justice system could be relied upon, this would not be a problem. But it is miserably unjust and I don't have the immunity provided to a LEO. If it started and I was a safe but close-able distance, it would probably be held against me that I "pursued" the incident to protect the innocents.

 

[shield20]

"But people who never before desired a firearm now want to get a permit. These are moms and dads."

Fits in well with that Harvard study about how "more murders = more guns"; hmmmm...why waste all that money when 'cause and affect' is so obvious???

 

[Erinyes]

suicide rates in countries where gun ownership is restricted - like Japan

Bullpies! I'm not even getting into the logical fallacies of the quoted individual's argument, but this is an outright lie. Japan's suicide rate is more than the U.S.'s suicide and homicide rates combined.

 

[SuperNaut]

Last night there was commentary on the local channel 2 news after a segement on the Trolley Square shooting that went something like this:

"After the mall shooting a lot of people are rethinking their stances on concealed carry laws."

Followed by all the newscasters making serious faces and nodding their heads.

*** does that even mean? Gah!

 

[Correia]

Certainly it would have been legal, however the CCW shooter would still be liable in civil court,

One note. In Utah we have civil liability protection. In other words, if you injure someone while they are in the commission of a felony, you are not responsible for their injuries, unless you're also committing a felony.

 

[RazorDog]

Check this out ; video footage at the trolley square mall http://kutv.com/video/[email protected]

 

[Zen21Tao]

"I'm not comfortable arming our entire country for protection - that's a paranoid notion," said Gary Sackett, a Gun Violence Prevention Center board member.

Since when is the Second Amendment contingent on ANYONE'S comfort level? I have real problem with these leftists that think our rights should be contingent on their feelings.

"You can't protect against every madman with a firearm or a hand grenade. That sort of thing is going to happen from time to time."

True, a concealed weapon is no more a guarantee of successful defense against violence than it is a guarantee that violence will occur. The pro-gun has never claimed it is. But what a concealed weapon does do is provide individuals with tools for defense that do greatly increase the individual’s probability of being able to successful defend himself and/or others.

Homicide and suicide rates in countries where gun ownership is restricted - like Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom - are a fraction of the U.S. rate, Sackett said.

Perhaps when you are comparing the total # of crimes committed without taking into account population size. When you compare violent crimes per capita, you find much different figures. Also, instead of looking at cross-sectional figures, take a look at each country’s own violent crime rate before anti-gun legislation and afterwards. What you most often find in violent crime rates going up drastically after gun bans.

 

[Jeff White]

MacEntyre said,

I believe a CCW holder has a responsibility to act, if not a duty. If you choose not to act, you choose to be a victim.

Your CCW permit did not come with a peace officer's commission and a badge. No state that I am aware of issues a cape and tights with one. You have no duty or moral responsibility to act.

There is no public safety component to CCW permits. They are not issued to provide the public with any benefit. They are issued for the sole reason of allowing a person to carry an effective means to protect him/herself.

No one is saying that you shouldn't use your CCW permit to protect yourself. However, running to the sound of the guns to intervene in an incident you are not directly involved in presents some very real problems.

Who have you helped if you are shot dead by the responding officers or another CCW holder who is also responding? CCW holders responding to a violent situation they are not directly involved with makes a nice passage in a Tom Clancy novel. In real life it's a lot more complicated.

Fratricide is a big problem when plainclothes or off duty police officers get involved in a situation like this, what makes you think that that danger would be any less for a CCW holder.

For that matter, if you don't see the incident go down, how will you know you are engaging the bad guy and not a fellow CCW holder who is also responding?

The first fratricide incident in an active shooter situation involving a CCW holder will generate enough negative press that it will totally cancel out all of the good press this incident has received.

If you think that you have a duty or resposibility to use your CCW to protect the public, then you should re-examine your reasons for having a CCW.

Jeff

 

[RazorDog]

Hell, watch the video where they interviewed the father. what the ? he shows no sadness or remorse to what his son has done. Oh , I'm sorry:banghead: I forgot they're muslim, yesterday was a good day

 

[Zen21Tao]

And check out these videos. Of course the family of the gunman are questioning where he got the guns as if the guns were to blame for his actions rather than him. And Razor is correct, the family exibit much more anger over how he possibly could have aquired firearms than over the acts he commited with them. This really is sickening.

http://kutv.com/video/[email protected]
http://kutv.com/video/[email protected]
http://kutv.com/video/[email protected]