Criminals force need for armed law-abiding citizens

Surely, there are few more controversial subjects than gun ownership in the U.S. ("Gun rights: Are there limits?," Common Ground, The Forum, Thursday).
But some of the opinions expressed in the commentary by Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel deserve clarification. As someone who has worked in local and federal law enforcement for more than 24 years, never have I met another police officer who feared an armed law-abiding citizen.

If some magic trick could make every firearm disappear, the world would be a better place. But the sad reality is that as long there are criminals, law-abiding citizens need to defend themselves. It takes several minutes, sometimes more, for police to respond to a 911 call. A gunfight lasts seconds. If a gun-wielding criminal suddenly attacked, with which would you trust your life? The overworked police or your own lawfully purchased firearm and proper training?

Even as the Supreme Court has ruled on this emotion-filled topic several times, I always wonder: Which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is unclear?

Ken Pulliam; Houston
--------------------------

Keep guns visible

Let's take a new approach to gun control in America. Let's let average citizens take their guns anywhere. But those carrying should have to wear their guns in a place where everyone can see them.

That gun doesn't make the carrier a trained police officer.

Carriers represent danger. A seat next to a person with a gun is a more perilous seat than others. That carrier can get me killed. He can be both a shooter and a prime target. Let those of us who don't like guns see those who are carrying them so we can cross the street as quickly as possible to get away from them.

We should challenge gun carriers to have the courage to tell us they are armed. We have the right to know. We have the right to give danger a wide berth.

Paul Hancy; Berea, Ohio
---------------------------

Gun ownership and police

I read with great interest "Gun rights: Are there limits?" I have to question Bob Beckel's statement that the strongest advocate of the Chicago gun laws is the city's police department.

As a Chicago police officer, I can say that my experience has been that this is far from true. Every police officer I've talked to is in favor of gun ownership. The claim that we fear entering a home and having a legal gun used against us is baseless. No matter what the situation I, and everyone I've worked with, have always inquired about weapons immediately upon entering a residence.

As far as domestic violence calls are concerned, the police dispatchers are trained to ask about any weapons that may be present, and relay that information to the responding units.

To claim that "it's reasonable to assume more police and paramedics will die as a result of the Supreme Court decision" is another example of the fear-mongering the citizens of Chicago are experiencing.

Ray Haran; Chicago

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/le ... 0_ST_N.htm