Submitted by Ed Shell, Feb 29, 2008 10:56

Mr. Abramson, while I realize that your comments are directed to Mr. Stossel, I would like to make a few respectful remarks on your assertions.

First, it is not all about "crazy random killers", but also as much about the general right one has to self defense, and the denial thereof that makes these sort of crimes possible.

Violent crime in general (assault/rape/robbery/muggings/homicide) occurs at a much greater rate than these few tragedies held up by Mr. Stossel in his examples. While government statistics proving or disproving your assertions are difficult to find, and I would expect you to disregard the multiple studies on record by groups like the NRA, according to the US Department of Justice suggest you are mistaken.

Self-defense statistics taken from their website article "Guns & Crime" this morning say that, during the most recent study period, there were 1 in 8 violent crimes were committed with a handgun. The annual average of these "handgun crimes" totaled 32,000, from which figure one can reasonably infer that there were a total of 256,000 violent crimes, 224,000 of which were NOT with handguns. Then, from the same study, there was an annual average of 62, 000 instances of self defense with a firearm, more than DOUBLE. This would indicate that, on the average, for every violent crime by handgun, there were TWO occurrences of self defense with firearms. This is not always what our sensational headlines read, who play upon tragedy and victims to sell soap, but seem to be the real facts.

It must be terrifying to have such little faith in one's fellow man as it think anyone with a firearm is somehow inclined to fly into a homicidal rage. "Uncontrolled rage", as is any irrational behavior, is a people problem and not a gun problem. Intense firearms restrictions in England and Australia, "model legislation" if you will, have proven that people will be people. Irrational and/or criminal people went from firearms violence to knifing violence to clubbing violence and now, in England, one must show due cause to own a machete for clearing out brush, yet the *people problem* remains. Go figure.

" . . . freedom, choice, self-responsibility"? You bet. I make many choices. I buy hazard insurance for my home, and hope to never need it. I have health insurance, and hope to not need it. I have car insurance, and hope that I never need it. I have first aid kits in my vehicles, shop, home and place of business, and hope I never need them. I keep fire extinguishers in all the same places, and hope I never need them. I wear my seat belt, which once saved my life, and *really* hope I never need that again. Self-responsible choices? I think so. . .

I also have a license to carry a concealed weapon, which I have had for 7 years. I legally carry a concealed firearm everywhere it is legal for me to do so, and, trust me when I tell you this: I PRAY I never need that either. Not only do I not want to have to make that choice, but in today's society, one often suffers financial and/or emotional ruin in the aftermath of self-defense shooting. I make the choice to go about armed because I realize I alone am responsible for myself and family, and I would prefer that risk to being at the mercy of criminals, and prefer it to being unable to defend my wife and child.

I have called 911 several times and Mr. Stossel is "on target" with his statement that police will get there in time to take photographs. My typical response time has been between 10 and 20 minutes, which, as you would point out, is plenty of time to even be beaten to death.

For what it's worth, a "meeting of Citizens With Loaded Firearms Ready For A Shootout" would appeal to me MUCH more than a meeting of "Citizens who have been Raped, Beaten, Stabbed, Shot and/or Watched their Loved Ones Victimized". I see or feel no need to apologize for this, it's true.

I attend many shooting events in which, obviously, everyone is armed, and the feeling is far from discomfort. It may seem strange to some, but there is a certain feeling of security and increased politeness in areas where firearms may be legally carried, either openly or concealed, versus "unarmed victim areas" (Gun Free Zones), that comes with knowing that criminals will look elsewhere for (unarmed) victims.

Further, whether realized or appreciated by those who choose to go about unarmed, they have a certain increased security brought about by those of us who Do exercise our rights. While the knee-jerk reaction may be to think that they are safer because an armed citizen would come to their aid, it is more powerful than that. The fact that anyone and everyone *could* be armed is a powerful deterrent to crime that has been proven over and over in those states that have instituted readily available concealed carry permits, and crime rates have dropped substantially.

A wonderful example of this is where "Gun Town, USA" (Kennesaw, GA) has just celebrated 25 years without one murder. Kennesaw has the requirement that each head of household own and maintain a firearm, and contrary to emotional opinion, the streets do not run red with blood.

Going about legally armed is personal choice and I do not suggest that everyone MUST do this, but that we all have the freedom to make this choice for ourselves, freedom that is already supposed to be guaranteed by our US Constitution and it's amendments.

I firmly believe and respectfully submit that anyone with the real facts will leave behind the emotional and irrational fear of their fellow man and come to understand that the armed, law-abiding citizen is NOT a threat to public safety. The vast majority of us are not inclined to irrational fits of rage or impulsive behavior, and, armed or not, will act as law abiding and responsible adults, and the truth about the armed citizen is really quite the opposite, a real deterrent to crime for all of us and asset to the community.

ES

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