Submitted by David Abramson, Feb 29, 2008 17:13

"… the general right one has to self defense, and the denial thereof that makes these sort of crimes possible."

Ed, I see that you are in agreement with Charles Bronson in "Death Wish.

You and Stossel and the rest of the right to bear concealed side arms for self-defense crew do agree that you need guns to protect yourselves from the criminal who might shoot someone. Right?

Now you also agree that this is an extremely rare occurrence, right? I would suggest that those, such as yourself, who think a lot about this are really the ones who walk in fear.

I'm dizzy from your stats and your stories, including the one about a hermetically sealed southern town. They don't seem to support any particular point, other than that you like carrying a gun and you need to justify to yourself that you're doing the right thing.

So far, no one defending Stossel's position (including Stossel) has offered stats or logic that would survive the first round on the debate team.

However, one stat that you can easily verify is that much more violence is done between people who know one another than between strangers. Since this is true, the logical extension of your argument would lead to his and her guns in the home, since there is much more violence domestically and between friends than between strangers.

Two other considerations in which ease of availability of guns advocates, in their zeal for "self protection" and personal rights have not addressed:

[1] What about the safety of people near the crazed killer -- even those expertly trained miss their marks on occasion. Will all of those you want to allow guns have expert training?

[2] Even cops, with all their indoctrination and training, make irreparable mistakes. Does Sean Bell ring a bell?

It doesn't take a genius to get that the more side arms on the street among the general public, the more unjustifiable homicides and accidental killings there will be.

But I understand John Stossel's reason for taking his position: John is a debunker. He's a professional debunker, but he could use a little help with logic and clarity.

My position is based on public safety, not on an abstract ego driven "right."

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.