Letter writers respond to DDN's Mary McCarty

One month later, the Dayton Daily News has finally published one of the letters they received in response to Mary McCarty's fear-mongering diatribe about Ohio's new concealed handgun law.

March 5, 2004
Dangerous people carry guns now

RE MARY MCCARTY'S FEB. 1 COLUMN, "GUN LAW conceals its danger": McCarty and Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, still don't get it. Why do they think law-abiding citizens pose a threat?

Passing a concealed-carry law does not mean more dangerous people will carry guns. That number won't change. What will change is that safe people will have the legal right to carry, if they so choose.

There are dangerous people who carry firearms every day now. Bad guys will not go through training and background checks to obtain a permit from the state. They simply will carry illegally.

It could be the person behind you in the checkout line, or maybe the guy working on your house, or waiting beside you at at the bus stop. You just don't know who has a firearm.

But, not everyone is a criminal. So why is there a need to publish the names and birthdates of concealed-weapons permit holders?

You can be sure the concealed-carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens who already legally own firearms and choose to protect themselves and their families. For those of you who wish to remain unarmed, that is, of course, your choice. Feel free to publish those names in the paper, so the criminals will know whom to target.

As for me, I won't be a victim, and wait for law enforcement to arrive afterward to take the report.

Pattric Gould
Medway

Click on the "Read More..." link below for two more excellent letters supporting concealed carry.

Letter misses point of new law

The Feb. 9 letter to the editor, "Public needs to know," completely missed the point.

First, not all members of the NRA carry guns, because in some places that is illegal, and, unlike what the media and others want you to believe, we follow the laws.

Second, she states that there have been incidents where law-abiding citizens carrying guns have snapped and used their firearms on other people. But she offers no support for that statement. Every month in The American Rifleman magazine, there are six or seven short statements on how firearms were used to stop criminals. Yes, sometimes violently, sometimes not.

Third, she wants journalists to publish the names of everyone who has a concealed-carry permit. Does she not realize that undermines the whole purpose of concealed carry? The point is that criminals do not know who is carrying, so they leave more people alone.

Also, it seems to me that if this list was published, all criminals would have to do is cross check-names on the list with a phone book, and then go attack the people who do not have a permit.

Finally, a business has every right to say whether it wants to allow someone to carry in its establishment. Would a business want someone who is trained in the proper use and handling of a firearm and has the mindset to protect innocent people in its store, or would that business want to wait for the police to show up after a crime had been committed?

William Thornbury
New Carlisle

24-7 police protection a myth

Re the letter to the editor "Public needs to know," Feb. 9: The letter writer suggests that businesses that post notices about banning concealed weapons would be her choice to frequent. I suggest that the opposite may be closer to the truth.

Gun-toting predators will not attack where the risk of retaliation is greater than the value of the probable prize. It is the same in the natural world, so why would one assume that human predators are less intelligent than animals?

As the myth of "police protection" has long been foisted upon the public, many have come to believe it must be true. However, in reality, no community can afford the cost of true 24-7 police protection.

The idea that some "guardian angel" police officer is at your beck and call is preposterous. As good as they are, police agencies can only act, for the most part, after the fact.

Your personal security will never be someone else's job; it will always be yours, and yours alone.

Therefore, it is my recommendation that you consider that there really is strength in numbers.

Applaud, embrace and shop wherever honest, law-abiding and, yes, maybe even gun-toting people, are welcome. One of them just may cover your back some day.

J. Paul Henderson
Brookville