It has been illegal to drive drunk, yet criminals still do so. It is illegal to buy, sell, use, and produce methamphetamines, yet criminals still will. It has been proved that no matter how many laws are enacted criminals will still violate these laws. Laws against rape robbery and assault have been on the books since the West was still the West, and not a gathering place for anti-US mamby-pamby liberals.

It is not the laws that will curb violence and crime; it is the fear a criminal will be shot while attacking a victim who is armed. Criminals themselves will tell you the biggest fear they have is encountering an armed citizen. Not, as some would have us believe, the laws which are supposed to protect us. The police, as good as they are, cannot prevent all crimes from happening. Neither can a concealed carry law. But when a criminal is choosing his victim he does not want to encounter a trained and armed citizen. It is about self-preservation.

The current states with concealed carry on the books have seen a dramatic decrease in violent crime. Women and the elderly are safer, even if they choose not to carry a firearm for defense. They are safer because the state has enacted a law that gives her honest citizens equal footing against criminals and those criminals do not know who among us is armed. On the contrary, states and countries without armed citizens see a rise in brazen and violent crime.

Let’s not listen to the dishonest and misguided individuals who want to bar you from having the ability to defend yourself but want to have the very right they wish to keep you from exercising. It is not fair and equitable when a spokesperson for the "Million" Mom March has an armed bodyguard. Is her life more important and rosier than ours? That must bring the agenda of the whole organization in to question.

John K. Bailey
Ashtabula

The Cleveland Plain Dealer published three letters to the editors on Sunday in response to an article by Julie Carr-Smyth a week ago Thursday, claiming concealed carry reform could cost as much as $5.7 million.

The first two of these letters expose Carr-Smyth's article for the misleading piece that it was. One of the letters is from OFCC President Jeff Garvas.

A lawyer from Maple Heights penned the third letter. To his discredit, he appears to have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the concept that passage of HB12 has any relation to the budget crisis. If that wasn't enough, he threw out the obligatory "for the children" connection that doesn't exist to begin with.