Bill, you’re analsys is flawed.

The officers were ambushed.
Had the 35 occupants of the hall all had CCW permits, they all would have had firearm training. You would not have had 35 people spraying bullets around.

Ironic that your letter is published about the time news is breaking of another campus shooting. This is the second mass shooting in Illinois in the past few weeks. Perpetrators knew their law abiding victims were defenseless. Illinois is one of only two states that do not allow any form of CCW.

Mr Klopfenstein shows he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

“…how many innocent people would have been killed or wounded in the hail of bullets from the guns of 35 basically untrained and unskilled shooters?”

Mr Klopfenstein seems to have forgotten about the training requirements that go along with obtaining a concealed carry permit.

“Since the letter writer seems to think that taking away the concealed-carry permit is sufficient punishment for those who use their guns illegally, I certainly hope that Mr. Thornton’s permit has been rescinded!”

I’d like to ask Mr Klopfenstein how he knew Mr Thornton had a concealed carry permit. Since it wasn’t the leading headline in the Post Dispatch you can pretty well bet he did not.

You’ll notice Mr Thornton selected those he KNEW to be armed as his first targets. But just one person who was not known to be armed might have stopped this before three additional people were killed. Of course, the court house being a gun free zone assured Mr Thornton that would not happen.

Mr. Klopfenstein,

Your letter is a perfect example of emotionalism masquerading as a reasoned argument. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Thornton had a concealed carry permit. The lack of permit in no way would discourage a criminal from committing murder. Do you think Mr. Thornton, if he had survived, would be worried about being charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon on top of the five murder charges?

I know of not a single person that is advocating that everybody must be armed. Most concealed carry advocates only want properly trained and willing individuals to have the option. The gunman logically first killed the two people he knew to be armed. If anyone was carrying concealed, the gunman would not have known it. This would have made it impossible for him to preemptively eliminate them.

Also, you letter is written as though concealed carry is some kind of untested theory. Concealed carry laws have been on the books of many states for a long time. They have been statistically shown to reduce crime. The biggest drops in crime have been in multiple victim shootings where there is a greater chance they will be stopped by an armed citizen.

You certainly have a right to your own opinion. However, if you wish to be taken seriously take the time to learn the facts of the issue and make your argument in a logical manner.

Hey, “Si” -
The first writer’s name is “William.” Doesn’t the NRA make etiquette lessons available along with the form letters for you folks to send?
And “Si,” you forgot the comma in your clever nom de fusil - and only the first word should be capitalized - unless that is the name on your birth certificate…

Yeah, yeah, yeah - obviously all of the concealed-carryin’ folks are trained to react in combat situations.
Sure…think about it.
And how would 35 carryin’ folks have decided who was the most qualified to return fire? Sure…think about it.
They’d all be right!

Two words FOR CCW….

Bernie Getz.

The respondents seem to have the idea that anyone with a concealed-carry license will be trained to the same level of expertise as any police officer and will be capable of facing down another person who is shooting at them. I don’t think this is at all a realistic expectation - even for police officers.

A few years ago, a man named Amidou Diallo was shot to death by four supposedly-experienced New York City police detectives. The remarkable thing about the incident is the way in which it happened. Apparently Mr. Diallo, who was unarmed, made a move that was interpreted as threatening by the police officers. They responded by wildly firing some forty rounds in the general direction of their intended target. They didn’t aim; they simply sprayed bullets at the front of the building where Mr. Diallo had been standing.

More recently, another team of New York City detectives killed a man on the eve of his wedding in much the same way. Based on the rumor of a gun in the car, the detectives fired wildly at the car the victim was driving, killing him. Rounds and ricochets landed blocks away from the scene of the shooting.

Now, if supposedly experienced and well-trained police officers can give way to panic, what expectation can we have that a civilian with a gun could calmly engage an adversary with a gun in the middle of a chaotic situation. The expectation seems to me excessively optimistic. Another gun in a bad situation seems like a recipe for getting more people killed, not less.

We can argue “ifs” all day. The truth is that even if one of the attendees of the meeting had a firearm, including a council person, the out come would be different. Zbvhs does point out that often police officers don’t always hit there target. Now assuming this would be the same for my fellow CCW holders would be wrong. While many police officers only do the minimum amount of firearm training, while balancing the other courses they must complete, I know many of my fellow CCW holders wouldn’t give it a second thought to go to one of the many ranges in the area on a nice afternoon. I personally have been shooting every weekend for the last month or two.
Now come even more “ifs.” If a CCW holder would be confronted in a dangerous situation would they be able to keep on target? Would they be able to ensure the safety of others around them? These questions can never be answered. As a CCW holder I train when ever I can in hopes that I never have to use my firearm, but if my life or the others around me are in imminent danger, I know I have the means to protect.

I just looked at this morning’s headlines: SLAUGHTER ON NIU CAMPUS.
Happy Now?
How many will die today?

The headline of the original letter is right. More guns will not solve the problem of violence; just as fewer guns will not solve the problem of violence. As long as the discussion is focused on the guns rather than the violence, nothing will solve the problem of violence. We’ll just have to deal with it.

I don’t patronize businesses or go into places that have “No Concealed Firearms” signs prominently posted on their doors. They are simply advertisements to armed robbers and loonies.

I have a CC permit and practice at the range several times a month. Haven’t used a weapon in anger since Desert Storm but wouldn’t hesitate to use on if need be. Why I’d even use a gun to save the life of a smarmy little fascist like garrison, but he’d probably spit on me afterwards.