Utah Legislator proposes allowing concealed firearms without a license

He hopped the fence and broke into our back door, which admittedly isn't locked during the day. The next day she put a gun in her room and the kitchen.

Doors have locks for a purpose. What is better for everyone, a locked door with no gun behind it or an unlocked door with a gun behind it?
The locked door will keep those methheads away without risk for you or them. The gun will let them enter your house, maybe catch you off-guard, maybe leave a huge blood stain on your carpet after you shot a confused person accidently entering the wrong house.
I'd go with the lock.
 
I'd like you to put those numbers of successful defensive gun uses next to the number of offensive gun use in the US and in other countries.
Do post the figures though, go ahead. Don't be scared, I'm not pointing a gun at your user name.
I'm not going to get into another uninvent-the-gun-fantasy-world discussion. It's pointless. I'm only referring to your insistence that a gun could never save your life or do any good.

For example Brazilians manage to buy armoured cars without drivers. I'm sure Americans can do what Brazilians can do. After all, it's The Greatest Nation On Earth, right?
I didn't say anything about buying an armored car. Of course you could buy one here. I'm just referring to armored car services who are charged with safely transporting important individuals. They don't put all their faith in the armor alone. The driver is almost always armed and trained to avoid certain situations. And they usually include other armed security personnel, sometimes in a second armored vehicle.
 
I'm only referring to your insistence that a gun could never save your life or do any good.

When did I say that? I gave better ways of protecting against all the bad scenarios brought up in this thread, but I didn't say a gun could never do any good. All I'm saying is there usually are many better, more effective alternatives.

I didn't say anything about buying an armored car. Of course you could buy one here. I'm just referring to armored car services who are charged with safely transporting important individuals. They don't put all their faith in the armor alone. The driver is almost always armed and trained to avoid certain situations. And they usually include other armed security personnel, sometimes in a second armored vehicle.

Obviously there are incremental levels of protecting yourself in your car. I'd say in increasing order of protection:

- nothing
- firearms
- armoured car
- armoured car with firearms
- armoured car with professionals
- armoured car with professionals with firearms

with the biggest step up being the introduction of an armoured car - a firearm can attempt to turn a bad situation around, an armoured car makes that bad situation not bad in the first place with no need of turning it around.
Professionals don't put all their faith in the armour alone, true. More importantly for this thread though, they don't put much faith in firearms. What do professionals usually do when getting shot at in an armoured car? Get out or wind the window down to shoot back? No, drive away. Whether they have firearms or not is irrelevant in most situations. Whether they have an armoured car or not is relevant in most situations. Guess which of those two they would rather give up if they had to choose?


PS: You still owe me a baffling.
 
Doors have locks for a purpose. What is better for everyone, a locked door with no gun behind it or an unlocked door with a gun behind it?
The locked door will keep those methheads away without risk for you or them. The gun will let them enter your house, maybe catch you off-guard, maybe leave a huge blood stain on your carpet after you shot a confused person accidently entering the wrong house.
I'd go with the lock.

You seem to A) Over estimate the power of a closed door and B) underestimate how desperate and powerful a drug addict can be.

Back when the US was carving out the nation of Panama and the Panama Canal, the workers were constantly attacked by the natives who, understandably, didn't want us digging a big ditch through their yard. These natives would chew on the leaves of the coca plant before going into battle and our .38 slugs would hardly slow them down unless you hit the head or center mass. We developed the .45 to knock down anyone, no matter how high. Now, if a raw plant combined with adrenaline can do that, do you really think someone high on the wonders of modern chemistry is going to be stopped by a locked door? I've heard of drug addicts going through plate-glass windows like they weren't even there and run away full speed.

Doors can't always stay locked. We open our windows to let air in, and keep often only have a screen door closed so the dogs can use the pet door.

I will NOT be made a prisoner in my own home. I will NOT allow the threat of violence deter me from living my life and enjoying it. In most cases, the idea that a homeowner or potential victim might be armed is deterrent enough to have a clear-thinking criminal go elsewhere - if that isn't enough then nothing short of poured concrete and iron bars will keep a meth-head out - and if someone high on meth or PCP or so desperate for a fix that they have nothing to lose is the problem, then I have a .45 caliber solution. Someone like that is so dangerous that nothing short of deadly force will stop them.

Oh, and deadly force can be used against an intruder ONLY if that person as entered by stealth or force. Walking in the front door and shouting "Hello? Honey, I'm home!" is not grounds for deadly force - at least not in my state. And really, how often does someone just walk into the wrong house?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TC
When did I say that? I gave better ways of protecting against all the bad scenarios brought up in this thread, but I didn't say a gun could never do any good. All I'm saying is there usually are many better, more effective alternatives.
More effective alternatives? Like doors and door locks? Yeah, I'm sure criminals have never found ways around those. Regardless, we all have doors with locks. But short of building your house out of concrete and using thick steel vault doors and having no windows, you'll only get minimal protection.

Obviously there are incremental levels of protecting yourself in your car. I'd say in increasing order of protection:

- nothing
- firearms
- armoured car
- armoured car with firearms
- armoured car with professionals
- armoured car with professionals with firearms

with the biggest step up being the introduction of an armoured car - a firearm can attempt to turn a bad situation around, an armoured car makes that bad situation not bad in the first place with no need of turning it around.
Professionals don't put all their faith in the armour alone, true. More importantly for this thread though, they don't put much faith in firearms. What do professionals usually do when getting shot at in an armoured car? Get out or wind the window down to shoot back? No, drive away. Whether they have firearms or not is irrelevant in most situations. Whether they have an armoured car or not is relevant in most situations. Guess which of those two they would rather give up if they had to choose?
Obviously they're going to run, it is their job to keep the client safe, voluntarily getting into a firefight defeats that purpose. The guns are there for when all else fails, for when they're cornered into a situation where they can't turn tail and flee. Which is what a lot of us are talking about in this thread. If you wake up in the middle of the night, half naked and half asleep, hearing people in your house. Running for your life is certainly an option, but it's not always practical, especially if you live on the 3rd floor of an apartment building and the criminals are between you and the only exit. Even if you do own a gun though, chances are you're going to do your best to avoid a firefight. Lock your bedroom door and call the police. According to criminals, the worst thing you could hear while committing a crime isn't a scared voice saying the police are coming. Nope, it's the sound of a shotgun cambering a round. They are not going to go through that door after hearing that sound, armed or not. ...unless they're suicidal.

PS: You still owe me a baffling.
What's the point? I was going to post some figures for defensive gun use, but you'd just claim those people could have fared better with more doors or something. Or move to a country where guns are banned and knives are next. I'm getting weary of these same exact arguments with no actual outcome. Guns are legal in the USA, protected by the constitution, that's not going to change anytime soon. And even if they did try and ban them, it would be almost impossible to actually get rid of them all. Your hypotheticals about no one having guns are not very useful in the real world, here at least.
 
Last edited:
You seem to A) Over estimate the power of a closed door and B) underestimate how desperate and powerful a drug addict can be.

So you're saying you should not lock your doors because doors can not stop everything?

Do you really think someone high on the wonders of modern chemistry is going to be stopped by a locked door?

Yes. All you need is a proper door. Oh, and not leave it unlocked.

More effective alternatives? Like doors and door locks? Yeah, I'm sure criminals have never found ways around those. Regardless, we all have doors with locks. But short of building your house out of concrete and using thick steel vault doors and having no windows, you'll only get minimal protection.

So your argument against locked doors is that there are cases where the door failed? I'm sure there are countless cases where carrying a gun did not help, does that make carrying a gun pointless as well?
"Minimal protection" is bullshit. "Minimal protection" is leaving your doors open and praying to the Baby Jesus that nobody will hurt you. Locking a bad door will keep many baddies outside. Locking a good door will keep all non-professional baddies outside. No offense, but I'd say your gun is rather useless against professional baddies. All the baddies that may have been stopped by your gun already were kept outside by a good, locked door.

Obviously they're going to run, it is their job to keep the client safe, voluntarily getting into a firefight defeats that purpose. The guns are there for when all else fails, for when they're cornered into a situation where they can't turn tail and flee. Which is what a lot of us are talking about in this thread.

A lot of what I am talking about in this thread is avoiding those situations. See doors, a good door will avoid having baddies in your house. See armoured cars, an armoured car will avoid you getting shot in your car or getting carjacked. A gun can not avoid those situations. Quite to the contrary, adding a gun to both sides just makes the situation worse.

If you wake up in the middle of the night, half naked and half asleep, hearing people in your house. Running for your life is certainly an option, but it's not always practical, especially if you live on the 3rd floor of an apartment building and the criminals are between you and the only exit. Even if you do own a gun though, chances are you're going to do your best to avoid a firefight. Lock your bedroom door and call the police. According to criminals, the worst thing you could hear while committing a crime isn't a scared voice saying the police are coming. Nope, it's the sound of a shotgun cambering a round. They are not going to go through that door after hearing that sound, armed or not. ...unless they're suicidal.

Let's expand that example - baddie enters your bed room, you wake up. If you have a gun it is too late. If you have a good locked door the baddie would likely not have entered your house in the first place.

Your hypotheticals about no one having guns are not very useful in the real world, here at least.

They're not hypotheticals, I don't know anyone in person who ever had the need for a gun in their private life. Except for my grampa, but the only thing seeing the wrong end of his rifle are deer. In every day life they're locked away, and the safe is heavily bolted to the house just as our laws require.
 
So you're saying you should not lock your doors because doors can not stop everything?



Yes. All you need is a proper door. Oh, and not leave it unlocked.

Why should I have to lock my doors when I'm at home?

And even if I did lock my doors someone who is determined will find a way through it, or through a window. Or should I lock those too? My house gets kinda stuffy when I don't have a window open... or should I buy a better air circulation system?

You are relying on one single argument that is valid, but ultimatley flawed because guns are legal, and whether or not someone chooses to carry a gun should be their choice. Not the governments. (yes that is my opinion but it is what the legislation is about)

Also, I'm pretty sure this thread is derailed, because this thread is about gun licencing, not home defense. :)
 
Last edited:
So your argument against locked doors is that there are cases where the door failed?
I'm not arguing against locked doors. I have doors, they're all "proper" and all have the latest deadbolt locks. I also own a gun. It's not a one or the other situation. I just don't like the idea of putting all my eggs in one basket.

"Minimal protection" is bullshit. "Minimal protection" is leaving your doors open and praying to the Baby Jesus that nobody will hurt you. Locking a bad door will keep many baddies outside. Locking a good door will keep all non-professional baddies outside.
Now who's spouting bullshit. You don't need to be a professional to throw a brick through a window or sliding glass door. I'd really like to see those amazing doors you must have on your house. Because I've been to high security complexes and I've seen the doors they use and they look nothing like the modern doors and locks on my house.

A lot of what I am talking about in this thread is avoiding those situations. See doors, a good door will avoid having baddies in your house. See armoured cars, an armoured car will avoid you getting shot in your car or getting carjacked. A gun can not avoid those situations.
Again, every single thing you're suggesting are things that most gun owners already do. Well, maybe not armored vehicles, but definitely good solid doors and even security systems. They just take that extra step of owning a firearm, should the worst happen and all else fail.

They're not hypotheticals,
When you keep referring to the "baddies" not having guns either, then they are hypotheticals. We are talking about a change to Utah gun laws in this thread, not some other country where private gun ownership is illegal and the baddies don't already have guns.

Quite to the contrary, adding a gun to both sides just makes the situation worse.
But if the baddies already have guns, than it really makes no difference, which is quite typically the case here.
 
Why should I have to lock my doors when I'm at home?

To keep baddies out. Unless you want them to come in and have a reason to shoot them, of course.

And even if I did lock my doors someone who is determined will find a way through it, or through a window.

You'd end up with fewer baddies in your house. That's a good thing.
 
So you're saying you should not lock your doors because doors can not stop everything?

No, I'm saying that I refuse to be a prisoner in my own home. The dogs need to go outside, the house needs to be aired out, often I am going in and out of the house to do yard work, clean up, take out trash, whatever. I don't go to sleep and leave the door unlocked, or even after the sun goes down, but I'll be damned if I am going to stop enjoying our yard, patio, deck, and playing with the dogs. I will not let fear make me a prisoner in my home.

Yes. All you need is a proper door. Oh, and not leave it unlocked.

Did you read anything I said? A door is the first line of defense, but it will not stop everything. There are about a hundred different ways to break into a home, not the least of which involve picking up a rock and chucking it through the window or sliding glass door.

If you think that a closed and locked door is all you need then you are a fool.

Not only does a locked door not provide much of a deterrent to a determined trespasser, you can't take it with you. Many assaults occur from an unarmed perpetrator who thinks he can simply overpower his victim. Many others happen at knife point. This isn't like Rock-Paper-Scissors, the always wins. These types of assaults aren't just limited to women or men who appear weak, fat, or unable to fight. My brother's Army buddy has a CFP and the one day he didn't strap his pistol on before going to the store he was assaulted by a druggie with a knife who slashed his chest open. Fortunately the cut didn't make it through the ribs and he recovered.

Tell me how a locked door would have prevented that one.
 
Last edited:
he was assaulted by a druggie with a knife who slashed his chest open.

How would having his gun with him help? Unless the druggie pulled out the knife from a distance, or called out "yo dude, get out your gun, I'll stab you soon".
Of course, you could just shoot everyone coming within 10 meters of yourself.
 
How would having his gun with him help? Unless the druggie pulled out the knife from a distance, or called out "yo dude, get out your gun, I'll stab you soon".
Of course, you could just shoot everyone coming within 10 meters of yourself.

The guy approached him and asked for a handout, then followed him to his car and mugged him there, where he was cornered between two cars and a wall. He drew his knife at about 6 feet or so, giving the victim plenty of time to draw and fire had he been armed. The perp didn't just walk up, produce a knife out of thin air and start stabbing.

EDIT: Most people who carry do so in the belt, slightly behind the hip. That's when you tell the guy "Ok, here's my wallet" and draw your gun instead.
 
Last edited:
6 feet? SIX BLOODY FEET? You know what Norwegian police estimate the response distance for reacting efficiantly to someone with a knife is? Studies have shown that you need, wait for it... 9 meters. And that's REALLY pushing your luck. And it's not just the Norwegian police, their American counterparts agree.
 
That's why you... wait for it... LIE! Tell him you are going for your wallet but pull your gun. If someone pulls a knife on a cop they expect him to go for a gun, so they will just go in for an attack. Muggers display a weapon to frighten and intimidate the victim into handing over valuables.
 
That's why you... wait for it... LIE! Tell him you are going for your wallet but pull your gun. If someone pulls a knife on a cop they expect him to go for a gun, so they will just go in for an attack. Muggers display a weapon to frighten and intimidate the victim into handing over valuables.

So you're saying if you don't look like you're pulling a gun you won't get stabbed?

How did your friend who did not carry a gun at that time, hence did not look like he pulled one out, get stabbed then?
 
Because he refused to give up the money. He thought that he could use his military combatives training, and it worked, he got a flesh wound as he deflected the attack , but he didn't get stabbed or face life-threatening injury. However, the assailant got away.

Narf, have you ever done any tactical training, carried a gun, practiced drawing and firing, or lived in a place that allows people to own and carry a firearm?
 
If someone is six feet away from you, they can get at your chest with a knife in the time it takes you to get the gun out. And I sure as hell hope you don't walk around with a loaded gun next to your hip with the safety off.
 
Because he refused to give up the money. He thought that he could use his military combatives training, and it worked, he got a flesh wound as he deflected the attack , but he didn't get stabbed or face life-threatening injury. However, the assailant got away.

In other words, he saved a bit of money and got a flesh wound in return. Bad trade.

Narf, have you ever done any tactical training, carried a gun, practiced drawing and firing, or lived in a place that allows people to own and carry a firearm?

No, I live in a civilized country. Those things are unnecessary for me over here.

My country allows carrying loaded firearms in public by the way, you only need to show how you personally are threatened and how a gun would reduce that threat - then you will get a Waffenschein, it requires liability insurance, qualification tests, shooting proficiency, etc. Addicts, convicted felons, mentally unstable persons and similar conditions are of course barred from getting a license.
 
If someone is six feet away from you, they can get at your chest with a knife in the time it takes you to get the gun out. And I sure as hell hope you don't walk around with a loaded gun next to your hip with the safety off.

Loaded, safety on. Of course my weapon has several safety systems, including a switch and a grip safety, however, if you are packing a Glock the only safety is on the trigger itself. One motion disengages and fires. My double-action revolver, like all revolvers, has no safety. Even with a safety, you flip it off as you draw, it's one motion.

Narf, you've descended into name-calling. You're done.
 
As for the revolver and the Glock, I agree. I still think it's a very big risk to take.
 
Top