Last Thursday in Salt Lake City, Utah, a gun toting citizen single-handedly ended the stabbing spree of a knife wielding maniac. The incident happened in a grocery store in the downtown area of the city. The suspect apparently purchased a knife in the store and used it as a weapon to stab two people in the foyer of the store. Before he could find a third victim, the man with the concealed gun pulled it on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. The assailant dropped the knife and the grocery store’s employees restrained him until the police arrived.
By all accounts the gun toting citizen prevented what could have been widespread carnage. In fact, Salt Lake City Police Department Lt. Brian Purvis said, "This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time."
Bravo for the Second Amendment! The reason injuries were prevented and lives saved is that as Americans we have the ability to defend ourselves and others through the Second Amendment right to own guns. You see, it is impossible for the police to be everywhere at all times protecting us from bad guys. Given that we are supposedly still a free society, why would we want cops to be present on every street corner anyway?
But, even with this logic there are still plenty of anti-Second Amendment rights activists out there who want to pass restrictive gun laws that would leave more Americans vulnerable to the violent appetites of homicidal maniacs. They claim, among other things, that more people carrying guns make us all less safe. Their concern is that when a volatile situation develops, a law abiding gun carrier’s zeal to put an end to the bloodletting could result in more innocent bystanders being gunned down accidentally by the law abiding citizen. The incident related above refutes that concern.
And how often are there stories of gun owners accidentally shooting innocents while attempting to prevent bloodshed with their firearm? I can’t recall a single story, yet I am aware of many incidents of gun owners saving life and property.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
And if 2010 - the least violent year in decades - is any indication, the same day in which one person with a firearm stopped a person from stabbing a third person after stabbing two others (which may or may not have killed the victims (the link provided doesn't work)), TWENTY-FOUR people in America were killed by gunshots.
On average, twenty-four people are killed EVERY DAY by gunfire...and rare indeed is the incident where it was a case of self-defense - certainly not every day!
Kenn, the self-defense argument is a strawman, a chimera. If you had a gun and wanted to kill me, NOTHING would be able to stop you. Even if I carried a gun on me 24/7, you'd simply wait until the right opportunity and I wouldn't stand a chance. And the converse is every bit as true because if I really wanted to shoot you dead, the best, most powerful, most accurate guns in the world wouldn't help you.
One or two - or heck, let's make it even FIVE - might have been saved by that person with a gun. BUT twenty-four were killed, probably all of which were murders. NOT self-defense, but MURDERS.
Kenn, as always, the vast majority of Democrats do not want to ban guns. We want (1) registration of all firearms, and (2) background checks on ALL buyers (including at gun shows). And as for myself, I want to include mandatory safety training for each new gun owner (even if it's by the NRA), and responsibility of the gun owners for anything that is done with their firearms - in other words, if it's stolen, they'd BETTER report it ASAP.
These are not onerous requirements - they're common sense requirements, and the only reason you don't like them is because you can't see the 24 men, women, and children murdered every single day because you're blinded by the occasional story of successful self-defense with a firearm.
2 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn is right. You've got to stack up the handful of lives potentially saved by the one shopper who happened to be carrying a gun that day against the many more lives lost and injuries caused - whether deliberately or accidentally - simply because there are so many guns around in the United States.
The more guns there are, and the less regulation there is, the more people who don't know how to (or don't want to) handle them responsibly are going to have access to one and the more tragedies there are going to be. It's simple math, and it beggars belief that some gun advocates don't see this.
3 - Frivolous D
"leave more Americans vulnerable to the violent appetites of homicidal maniacs."
Fear once again trumps logic.
"The incident related above refutes that concern."
Lovely story and we are all grateful for the outcome but there was no trace of "refutation" in this article. I once managed to get a sofa to my apartment with a Volkswagen. That hardly proves that it is a truck.
Like Contrarian, much as I would like to see actual gun control, I realize how unrealistic that is. I still don't understand resistance to comprehensive background checks, waiting periods, registration, mandatory training, etc. Any law-biding gun owner would certainly have nothing to fear.
4 - El Bicho
Another example of a writer so desperate to make a point that he works backwards and doesn't pay attention to what he's writing.
First off, the title does fit since Kenn offers up two examples (The Salt Lake gun carrier and Joseph Zamudio), not one, to chalk up.
Then, he brings up gun-owner Jared Lee Loughner yet (intentionally?) fails to account for the fact that JLL disputes the point he's trying to make since the gun likely empowered JLL as well.
Back to the drawing board
5 - zingzing
heh. "chalk" probably wasn't the best choice of words here. for every one you can chalk up, a chalk outline surrounds the argument against guns.
your "2.5 million" stat is a bit suspect. that's a whole lot more than i've ever heard. i know, i know, you'll claim there's underreporting. of course, to get to such a number, you'd have to have 10 people reporting defensive gun use for every one that actually reports it while making a statement to police. next thing you know, you'll have people claiming to have shot suicide bombers in grocery stores. obviously, every defensive use of a gun isn't going to be reported to police. it just isn't. but gun owners may also be claiming they used their god-given gun to protect home and family when they really did nothing of the sort. or that one guy's study is a bunch of phooey.
6 - Kenn Jacobine
The fact remains that the gun carrier in Salt Lake City saved lives with his gun and if it were up to you guys he wouldn't have a gun and more people would have been hurt.
7 - zingzing
alright kenn. if that's true, you're responsible for all the kids who accidentally kill themselves with their pop's gun. pathetic, kenn.
and those lives could have been saved with a well-placed jar of peanut butter or a trip to the cutlery aisle.
8 - Zingzing
Also kenn, read the last few paragraphs of glenn's comment. Most of us realize that getting rid of all guns is impossible. If the guy who pulled his gun out at the grocery is an upstanding citizen, he can have a gun.
You're railing against something no one has called for. Such a victim, you are... Know your enemy, kenn, or at least argue against something people are arguing for. Don't just make up silly bogeymen.
9 - Kenn Jacobine
zing,
I am not arguing criminals should be allowed to have guns. I am arguing that in a free society the law-abiding have a right to defend themselves.
I would guess that more kids die in auto accidents than in accidental shootings? Thus, should we prevent parents from owning cars or kids from driving in them? You can't prevent every bad thing from happening. But you can make it worse if you take away the right of people to choose and be able to defend themselves properly.
10 - Jordan Richardson
if it were up to you guys he wouldn't have a gun and more people would have been hurt.
This "logic" is really tiresome.
You're constructing your philosophy entirely around how a scenario could play out. What if more people were hurt because the guy who pulled the gun out at the grocery store sucked at shooting? What if the gun went off accidentally and the bullet ricocheted around to kill three four-year-old kids? What if the knife guy got hold of the gun and starting firing, discovering that you can kill an awful lot fucking faster that way? And so on.
This isn't the movies. It's not fucking Die Hard. These situations can go horribly wrong and this "hero" shit is no reason to advocate for (or against) guns. It's simply bullshit, not an "argument" in the least.
But yeah, if it was up to me the guy wouldn't have a gun and more people would be stabbed. I'm a big fan of that shit.
11 - Jordan Richardson
Thus, should we prevent parents from owning cars or kids from driving in them?
Maybe some sort of system of controls should be in place...?
Oh wait.
12 - Zingzing
Kenn, I never said you were arguing that criminals should have guns. Sheesh. Now you're just making stuff up. And as Jordan pointed out, kids have to be taught, tested, and licensed by the state in order to legally drive. So do adults. No, that doesn't keep people who shouldn't be driving off the road at all times, but it is a damn good idea, don't you think. I, who have never fired a gun in my life, can walk into a gun show and buy myself a semi-automatic weapon with bullets aplenty. Good idea?
13 - Zingzing
And suicides and homicides are in the top 5 causes of death for teenagers.
14 - JohnCap523
The NRA and their zombie supporters are hardly about the second amendment. They're about anarchy.
The truth is not many people are against the second amendment of the right to own guns. What many sane people ate against is the right to own assault weapons, automatic weapons, and other equipment that is hardly about self protection or hunting. In addition reasonable waiting periods and background checks, and the loophole that is flea markets where straw purchases are made daily. ALL of this cookin sense us opposed by the NRA. Hence it places people seeking reasonable gun laws on the other side, then painted as being against the second amendment. It's BS.
Ask most law enforcement and. Urgent trends towards wild west gun laws scare the hell out of them. We just had a local chief talk to us about PA and FL concealed gun laws and he's disgusted by it all.
15 - Glenn Contrarian
Kenn -
I am not arguing criminals should be allowed to have guns.
No, but you're refusing to agree to measures that would PREVENT many criminals from getting guns.
It's the same old conservative argument - just because criminals can go out to buy guns on the street, that means we should make it easy for them - all they have to do is go buy them at a gun show!
The measures I showing you, Kenn, are NOT onerous and do NOT prevent any sane and law-abiding citizen from buying and carrying a gun. What the measures do is they make it somewhat more difficult for criminals to get guns. Why make it easy for them with the complete and utter deregulation you keep wanting????
16 - The Duck
Gary Kleck's study arrived at 2.5 million times guns are used for self defense, ST Louis Public law review concluded 1.2 million times a year citizens stop or deter crime. Research also shows of America's 20,000 plus gun laws not one has prevented a criminal from obtaining a gun, so unlikely passing more would be any more effective. Approx 1/2 of 1% of crime guns come from gunshows. It is also interesting to note that the cities with the most gun control laws have the highest gun crime rates.
17 - Clavos
No, but you're refusing to agree to measures that would PREVENT many criminals from getting guns.
Nuts. Prohibition and the ongoing War on Drugs, utter failures both, disprove that claim.
You're beating a dead horse with that dumbass remark.
18 - uncommon_sense
Over 300,000 people have concealed handgun carry permits in my state. None of them harmed or even endangered anyone yesterday, the day before that, or the day before that, and so on. And the remaining 2.2 million citizens who own firearms (but don't have concealed carry licenses) in my state didn't harm anyone yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that either. How can this be? Almost all of the 24 or so criminals who will murder someone every day with a firearm have previous criminal records. Stop equating the armed citizenry with criminals!!!
As for concerns that armed citizens will shoot bystanders, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN!!! If such an event happened once, the lamestream media would be all over it ... not to mention the media response if it were commonplace. The TRUTH of the matter is if you can successfully point your finger at a person that is a few feet away, you can successfully point a pistol at a criminal who is a few feet away. I say "a few feet away" because that is how close virtually all criminals are when they attack armed citizens.
As for "common sense" gun laws, please explain how registration will prevent any violent crimes. And while explaining, please also tell me how it would be impossible for a government agency or foreign power to use that registry to disarm our citizens.
19 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Apples and oranges - there you go with a false equivalency again. You CANNOT compare alcohol and drugs to guns. Why? Because the normal person cannot manufacture guns in his house, whereas any idiot can manufacture drugs and alcohol in his house. Next time please try to use a comparison that works.
20 - Charlie
No law ever passed has prevented a criminal from getting a gun. No law will. They don't obey the laws. That's why they are criminals. It's tragic that 24 people die each day. Yet, how many of them would not have died had they had the means to protect themselves. 2.5 million defensive uses a year. That is over 6,000 a day. 6,000 potential new murders overted while 24 were completed. Those who seek to make self-defense and gun ownership more difficult are still on the losing side.
21 - Glenn Contrarian
"Charlie"
No? Perhaps you should ask STM, a BC regular who lives in Australia, about how things have changed since they instituted stricter gun regulation. And perhaps you should check and see what the gun death rates are in certain places where guns are banned, like Singapore and Hong Kong.
Or you could see what the gun death rates are in nations where guns are much more strictly regulated - like Israel and Switzerland.
But no, you'll ignore all that. You're paying too much attention to obviously made-up numbers like that "2.5M defensive uses a year" to ever use enough common sense to figure out what that would require in order to be true. Let me guess - you're a birther, too.
22 - Jordan Richardson
Charlie, what does it mean to "overt" a "potential new murder?"
And isn't there a more sensible way to make your case than to rely on imaginary gun heroism?
I won't even bother with your ginormous "defensive uses" digits. I think that's crap.
23 - Jordan Richardson
None of them harmed or even endangered anyone yesterday, the day before that, or the day before that, and so on
How could you possibly know this?
Also, are people really still saying "lamestream media?"
As for concerns that armed citizens will shoot bystanders, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN!!!
Bull. You can't possible know that either. Accidents happen.
24 - Igor
That "2.5 million defenses a year" claim is unsound. I investigated it several years ago and it's not based on actual counts, which are meager, but on tricky statistical extrapolations.
25 - Dr Dreadful
Nuts. Prohibition and the ongoing War on Drugs, utter failures both, disprove that claim.
No, they don't. They only prove that just because you outright ban something it doesn't mean people will stop wanting it. It simply means that criminal enterprises will move in to meet the demand since law-abiding businesses can't.
Professional criminals aren't really the issue here. If a pro wants to use a gun in the commission of a crime he will most likely either find an unregistered one or steal one, just as he does if he wants to use a car.
There are regulations governing the distribution, sale and use of alcohol and tobacco, and while black markets in both substances do exist, they are not accompanied by massive and destructive crime waves as the narcotics business is.