Submitted by Ed Shell, Mar 3, 2008 10:57

I must admit I was initially take aback by your reference to fantasy in what I had thought to be serious discourse, but then realized you wished to evoke and/or display an emotional response.

We should first realize that movies and television are essentially pure fantasy, and have no place in serious discussion of serious topics.

Then, for your information and for the record, I do not at all agree with the fictional actions of Mr. Bronson's character, Paul Kersey, in the fantasy movie you reference in an otherwise logical discussion. We should observe that Mr. Bronson's character was in violation of MANY laws, which is not condoned here in any way. Everything said here regards law abiding citizens and their right to self defense, which is being denied in many situations.

I apologize that the analysis of statistics from the US Justice Department have made you dizzy.

Let us simplify with just the summary: The ratio is 2:1. This means there are TWO successful self defense incidents for every ONE incident of firearms violence. Better?

The one isolated statistic you so desperately crave, but cannot find on your own, the" incidence of shooting among acquaintances/friends/family", is INCLUDED in this official figure. So, even if EVERY one of these violent crimes was among "friends", which of course they are not, there would still exist a large majority of firearms used for self defense.

Further, we are discussing concealed carry, which actually has no bearing at all on guns in the home, which are already quite legal almost everywhere and probably much more widespread than one would realize. This would indicate your concern that more readily available concealed carry permits would lead to more husbands killing their wives over burnt dinners, etc. (already against the law) is completely without grounds.

Or, for that matter, wives killing their husbands (already against the law), as some seem prone to do . . . To paraphrase: Does Clara Harris and her evil BMW ring a bell for you? I find it noteworthy that there is very little mention of critical information on her car's make, model, year and options, just her act - the "people problem" part. Had she shot him, we'd all know the make, model, caliber and bullet used, the graphic would accompany every hourly news blurb and there would be a mob wanting to shut down the dealership. . .

As for your numbered concerns:
"1)" of the " . . safety of people near the crazed killer . . " (or other criminal). I quite simply find this ludicrous and insensible. These people are ALREADY in dire jeopardy, or does that not occur to you? That you would propose to simply let the killer run his course, without intervention could somehow be safer than trying to stop him is beyond humor. Certainly, there is always risk of hitting someone else, but, that risk is far outweighed by the overt and more direct risk they currently experience.

"2)" "Sean Bell ring a bell . . ": Yes, I am familiar. There are several critical differences here, between what *may* have happened between someone who allegedly said "yo, get my gun" and these officers, and the constraints imposed upon armed citizens. These officers have duties to respond that exceed those of a citizen, and may have prior experiences that color their decisions. Whether they were justified in what they did, who could say? The jury, quite literally, is still out. . .

Under common law, a citizen would have had the obligation to retreat, and this is always the first option. Only when you are directly threatened, when there is no escape, AND fear for your life or grievous harm, are you allowed to meet force with force. You cannot shoot someone to avoid embarrassment, or for a parking place, or if you "think" you might be at risk - you would face criminal charges yourself. The law is quite specific as to what constitutes valid circumstances under which to defend one's self or others.

Your concern that more firearms equates to more crime is as much a fantasy as the movie you cite, and it has been proven repeatedly that the opposite is true. The presence of more restrictive gun laws is inversely proportional to crime, in EVERY case. Witness DC, where handgun are nearly totally illegal, and any sort of firearms stored in the home must be disabled AND locked up and DC's crime rate leads the nation. So much for "model legislation", again.

We are ALL concerned with public safety, but some of us would use facts to make our decisions, and the facts support allowing law abiding citizens their right to defend themselves. The facts suggest this is a valid deterrent to crime. Simply because one buys a fire extinguisher does not mean one wants to experience a fire, nor does owning or legally carrying a firearm in this context imply an eagerness to hurt someone..

" . . "John" (Mr. Stossel) is a professional debunker . . ". . . Thank you, I am pleased to see that we DO have some common ground and can agree on at least one point:
"Answers dot Com defined ""Debunk" as to expose or ridicule the falseness, sham or exaggerated claims of . . "

The sham, the falseness, the exaggerated claim is that "more guns = more crime", and as much hand wringing and gnashing of teeth as this may induce in some circles, it's just not true. I know, I know: My mind is made up and don't confuse me with the facts . . .".

And finally, do we know each other Mr. Abramson? Your unwarranted familiarity and disrespectfully inappropriate use of my first name in addressing me is one reason I would ask this. Another reason I would ask is that I am both a certified firearms instructor and I happen to shoot at Quantico quite a bit, and it was funny, almost as if you knew this.

If you would like to come out and see first hand, please do. I'm sure I can arrange for some familiarity training to help you get over at least some of your irrational fears. I have found that "fear of the unknown" is a large factor in how many people view firearms, and with some simple hands on training, they quickly learn that real guns are nothing like TV and the movies, and that shooting can actually be an interesting and rewarding sport, in addition to being a valuable skill. For you, I would not only not charge, but would also provide the ammo, as I would see it a great investment for both of us. You don't have a criminal record do you? If so, it would be against the law to allow you to even hold my firearm and I would withdraw the offer.

Since we seem diametrically opposed on this issue, and that you do not seem inclined to use facts and logical deduction upon which to base your opinions and emotions, I really don't see myself as having any more to contribute to this topic.

Best regards, and try to stay out of the line of fire,
ES

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