John Curley


Most popular
Help us build a Fisher House
Bonneville Seattle is raising funds for the construction of a second Fisher House at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma and we need your help.
handgun.jpg
KIRO Radio's John Curley argues if more people carried guns, they'd be able to stop a mass shooter much sooner. (AP image)

John Curley: More guns would deter shootings

BY Josh Kerns  on December 12, 2012 @ 2:03 pm (Updated: 3:20 pm - 12/12/12 )

Tuesdays mass mall shooting near Portland has many calling again for increased gun control. But in a debate on Seattle's Morning News, KIRO Radio's John Curley argued more guns are actually the way to stem shootings.

"If one of the 10,000 [people in the Clackamas Mall], maybe four of them, would be near that shooter as that kid walks into the one store and yelled out 'I'm the shooter,' it would be nice for somebody to say 'Oh what a coincidence, so am I' and with that they shoot and kill the guy," Curley said.

But co-host Tom Tangney vehemently disagreed. He argued there's a big difference between trained gun users and the average Joe packing heat.

"The thing is that when everybody has guns, I think more people would die with friendly fire than from these individual nut jobs who were going off shooting," Tangney said.

It's a controversy that rears up whenever there's a mass shooting, like the one this summer at the Batman premier in Aurora, Colorado, and there's no easy answer.

Gun control advocates argue more guns mean more shootings. They've called for, at the very least, more restrictions including longer waiting periods, closing the gun-show loophole, and mandatory reporting by mental-health professionals of patients they believe shouldn't own guns.

Curley, however, pointed to a recent Atlantic report that found despite passing a controversial concealed-carry law in 2004, the firearm crime rate stayed steady rather than increasing.

A study from a UCLA professor found concealed weapon permit holders commit crimes at lower rate than the rest of the population.

With approximately 300 million guns already in America, many argue it's too late to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people.

Curley says all the efforts to create gun-free zones and keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens do nothing to stop the unstable ones.

"That [gun-free zone] sign says to the gunman 'Come on in. It's a free shooting range. You can kill anyone you want because most of the law abiding citizens are not bringing guns in here.' If there was a sign that says 'Owner of store is armed' do you think there's a likelihood that person will be shot or robbed?" Curley asked.

"I'm just saying more armed citizens that know what they're doing are more likely to be able to stop the guy," Curley said. "Most people will say 'I don't wish I had a gun, but I'm hoping the guy next to me did.'"

Josh Kerns, MyNorthwest.com Reporter
Josh Kerns is co-host of KIRO Radio's Seattle Sounds (Saturday nights 7-8) and a digital content producer for MyNorthwest.com.
More Ross and Burbank

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (81)


  • Add A Comment

  • Chip Sansalsa wrote...
    Curley logic.
    December 12, 2012 2:46 pm
    Plus, more alcohol will deter drinking. John Curley is nothing more than a third-rate Howard Stern or Don Imus with cleaner language. His whole schtick is based on making arrogant, outrageous statements to get him recognition. Yawn. Unfotunately for KIRO, I'm probably not the only listener who's now switched stations since they put him on the morning show.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • saylean wrote...
    Good for Curley!
    December 12, 2012 5:26 pm
    Good for Mr. Curley for speaking out on what he believes in, even though it is an unpopular stance in todays liberal media. As a CWP holder myself, I can confirm that the so called "gun free zones" do nothing to stop criminals, only those law abiding people like me. Oh, and I always ALWAYS carry when going to the mall, etc.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Sure Curley
    December 12, 2012 5:32 pm
    You and your PPK gonna take on a guy with an AR-15?

    BTW, if your PPK is stainless it's not what Bond used. That would be Austin Powers.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Witchwood wrote...
    Hoplophobes are too funny
    December 12, 2012 6:18 pm

    They think certain kinds of firearms are magical. Remember what Chuck Yeager said: "It's the man, not the machine." Hasan had a couple of hanguns and racked up a far higher body count than this joker. Why? He knew what he was doing. Someone who knows how to use a PPK could certainly "take on" a guy with an AR with minimal difficulty. And if the shooter isn't aware of you (in mass shootings, the shooter is surrounded by definition), .22 LR will suffice.

    "The thing is that when everybody has guns, I think more people would die with friendly fire than from these individual nut jobs who were going off shooting," Tangney said.

    Naturally, Mr. Tangney would rather not address the fact that LEO's are ten times more likely to shoot a citizen than vice versa. In fact those trained, organized, certified professionals that Tangney and his ilk are so eager to defer to have a much higher pile of bodies to answer for than spree shooters, and several orders of magnitude more than the apparently untrained "average joe" who accidentally kills someone in a firefight. I don't recall ever having read a story about that, yet cops murder Americans with tiresome regularity.

    Mr. Tangney is simply horrified by the notion of an armed citizenry and is therefore not qualified to be an American. I encourage him to take his talent to Vancouver.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Witchwood
    December 14, 2012 8:01 am
    I own a PPK, know how to use it and am familiar with firearms. The odds of getting within range to get enough accurate shots off to neutralize an adrenaline pumped up individual that has a rifle are slim at best. It would take a very lucky shot with a .380 to pull off that stunt...the stuff of movies.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Saltchucker wrote...
    Todays sign the end is near.
    December 12, 2012 6:03 pm
    Hate to steal from Dori but rarely do I agree with John Curley. A tip for Tom Tangney; stick to movie reviews Tom. You're a walking victim waiting to happen. And to Chip....as bad as the Curley/Tangney combo do the morning news, that pair of wingnuts they replaced Curley with in the evening are the true knobs. They've made me turn off the radio several times already and pick up an ad free book. Hear that KIRO advertisers?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Newton wrote...
    More Guns Equal less Crime. A proven FACT!!!!.
    December 12, 2012 6:50 pm
    Talk to Mexico why are they getting slaughterd by the Cartel because they have no guns to fight back with. Mexicans are not in this country because of jobs. They are because they fear for thier lives. In Chicago gang crime is sky high do to the no gun law in the city gangs are feeding on everbody because they are the only ones with guns. NY same thing. California LA same thing. More Guns Less Crime FACT!!!.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Newton
    December 13, 2012 2:01 pm
    If you believe that Mexicans can't legally purchase guns your uninformed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Eta Huinya wrote...
    I agree and disagree
    December 12, 2012 7:19 pm
    More gun control is definitely not the answer, but more people with guns isn't the answer either.

    Guns are nothing more than a tool designed to do a specific job; kill something. The problem is that people who buy guns aren't required to take the very important safety training that is necessary to properly understand the use, maintenance, and storage of these very dangerous tools. Instead they all seem to think they already know everything about guns from watching TV.

    Most people who live in the country buy guns for hunting as well as protection. These people are the ones who will typically take gun training and also have their children go through it as well. City people buy guns for one reason, they are scared for their safety. They typically will never get the training, nor will they ever probably fire their weapon.

    City people are the ones who are constantly waving their guns around, trying to intimidate others with it. Anyone who has been through gun training will not; if they pull their weapon out it is for a reason. It shouldn't come as a surprise that most people who are against guns are city dwellers.

    To me this is the reason so many of these mass shooting occur in highly populated areas. Rather than demanding Big Brother take away all our guns, which is what Big Brother wants, we should require gun training and certification before anyone is allowed to take ownership of a gun.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Witchwood wrote...
    You had me until...
    December 12, 2012 7:40 pm

    The problem is that people who buy guns aren't required to take the very important safety training that is necessary to properly understand the use, maintenance, and storage of these very dangerous tools.

    And who shall be the gatekeeper for these requirements? Who will assess a shooter's skillset when it comes to safety, or anything for that matter? A government agency, that's who. And probably one that has an abysmal record when it comes to the negligent or malicious discharge of its own firearms.

    You complain about Big Brother yet you would give him power to enforce the very tyranny you supposedly seek to avoid: all he has to do is stamp your new gun passport NOT QUALIFIED, and no gun for you. Maybe we could rewrite that pesky 2nd Amendment thusly:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed so long as they apply for and obtain a permission slip from the federal government.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Eta Huinya wrote...
    Witchwood
    December 12, 2012 8:34 pm
    i respect your opinion, but I ask you what is your solution to the lack of training problem? Government agencies do not do training seminars, you get that training at gun ranges. Perhaps just like when you get your drivers license you should have to take a simple written test. I don't have the magic answers, just my observations and opinions. All I know for sure is that most of the problems involving guns would be alleviated if people would get training before owning a gun. People should not have to be told to go and get this training, they should view it as their duty as an American if they really believe in what America is supposed to represent. Perhaps that is naive of me, but that is what I believe.

    As for giving Big Brother more power over me or you; I am completely against it. I am a firm believer in our Constitutional rights and am deeply concerned that they are being slowly stripped away. Big Brother does NOT want any of us to have guns and are doing all they can to brainwash the masses into demanding our right to have weapons be taken from us. Is it any wonder that these stories are front page news while stories of armed citizens stopping crime are buried and suppressed?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @witchwood...
    December 13, 2012 7:44 am
    Your own use of the words from the second amendment show how silly some pro-gun folks are whenever gun laws are mentioned.... "A well regulated militia being necessary...." What's so well regulated about a position that denies all regulations? That position is the exact opposite of what the Constitution says. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" -- no one suggesting that rigourously solid proper gun safety training be required wants to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who is not a criminal. The absurdity of the 'no on all gun laws' crowd makes me ill. There are improvements needed in our gun ownership laws, and this hypocritical NO to any thoughts regarding solving these problems is not helping. I am a gun owner, I have a concealed carry permit AND I respect the 2nd amendment. However, I am also tired of children killing/being killed or injured by picking up and playing with guns left laying around by careless parents who ignore gun safety rules and by the sheer number of people killed and injured in gun violence. I am also sick of the absolutism that the extremists on either side of this issue are displaying.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Witchwood wrote...
    I'm grateful there's a "former" in your moniker
    December 13, 2012 12:50 pm

    What's so well regulated about a position that denies all regulations?

    Those words were written in the 18th century, child. "Well regulated" meant that your arms were in proper working order, you had 60 rds powder and ball etc etc, and you were able to muster at a moment's notice. But it's 2012, so 2012 thinking must apply to all history, right? Therefore it follows that "regulation" in any context means state or federal regulation, full stop.

    no one suggesting that rigourously solid proper gun safety training be required wants to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who is not a criminal.

    Required by whom? This is what's not sinking into that calcified skull of yours: there must be an authority to determine who is qualified and who is not. And if someone is not qualified, his or her 2nd Amendment rights are suspended indefinitely. Your position rests on the assumption that the state will always act in good faith. While I'm not surprised that someone like you would believe such a thing, it doesn't exactly bolster your argument.

    I am also sick of the absolutism that the extremists on either side of this issue are displaying.

    Tough. Extremists will always rule the center. Just 3% of the colonists took up arms against the British Empire. That revolution was fought and won by a very small number of motivated extremists, and the same is true of all revolutions, including the one that marched through the halls of higher education. You'll always be sheep. Accept your place.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @witchwood...
    December 13, 2012 1:14 pm
    Sorry. 'Well Regulated' never meant 'it's in good working order'. I'm not stupid enough to assume that 'the state' will act in good faith - but I'm not stupid enough to think that I have the only possible answer to the question. And I like how you have to stoop to lowly insults to try to make your point. Why? Do you not haver any rational responses? Do you have to betray some lack of arguement on your side by cheapening your position with cheap insults? You need to man up and argue your point like an adult and not like a child.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Witchwood wrote...
    Spare me your fake outrage
    December 13, 2012 1:26 pm

    And I like how you have to stoop to lowly insults to try to make your point.

    It's very convenient to believe that if someone is somewhat impolite (and my comments were laughably mild), his entire argument is made invalid. Curious that this standard never seems to be applied to the left. I know why you do it, of course: why answer my points when you can just complain about the tone? That all-important tone. So the very comment that accuses me of dodging the issue is itself evidence of your own dodge. Thanks for playing.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @witchwood
    December 13, 2012 7:43 pm
    IF that's your defintion of 'mildly impolite', I'd hate to see you in a full on rage.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Doctor Fronk wrote...
    Eta Huinya
    December 13, 2012 8:05 am
    I don't think Eta Huinya was suggesting government oversight? If Big Brother were involved, that's exactly what would be happening.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Lady Vader wrote...
    What gun control advocates fail to see....
    December 12, 2012 7:35 pm
    is that a criminal will ALWAYS find a way to acquire a firearm if they want one...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gomariners wrote...
    Exactly
    December 12, 2012 8:04 pm
    Not at all surprised at who was on which side in this discussion. Who pays attn to the signs that say no guns allowed? Us normals or the non-normals? Would I be able to stop a non-normal like this kook? I don't know, doubtful. However, if it comes down to 1:1... yes, I would fight for my life. Being armed just levels the playing field. What in the world is so hard to understand that the crazies don't care about no gun zones or gun control. Those rules just make it easier for them to make victims of us. I'll pass.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Liberals
    December 12, 2012 9:37 pm
    Are just to stupid to grasp common sense. A gun is a good way to Stop a Crime before it happens. Been there. Done that.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    WRONG AGAIN.
    December 13, 2012 7:18 am
    i'm a moderate liberal.

    READ MY POST ON THIS ARTICLE AND THEN REMOVE YOUR FOOT FROM YOUR MOUTH.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Lady vader
    December 13, 2012 7:50 am
    Some of these requests are valid Lady Vader. Try to see past your personal bias (that being 'pro-gun' and 'apparent hate of anyone who dares bring up any kind of gun law'). If people were properly trained on gun safety - actual strong consistent training (not something on the order of a 2 hour 'overview' like most people get who then think they are 'experts' on the subject), then we wouldn't have so many children being killed or injured by parents who leave thier loaded guns laying around for the kid to pick up and play with... There's much more than can be done if we stop the blind allegiance to oen side or the other of the issue of 'guns' - and it can be done without any grand violation of the 2nd amendment if we can just work together.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ironhdron wrote...
    More Guns
    December 12, 2012 7:42 pm
    What alot of the anti gun crowd doesn't understand. Many people carrying today practice alot. We shot hunreds of rounds a month we are not the average joe that decides to carry.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @ironhrdon
    December 13, 2012 7:54 am
    Very few of the people 'who practise alot' have any experience or practise of shooting during an extreme pressure / crisis situation. Even well trained for that kind of situation Cop(ok - at least far better trained than your average citizen or gun owner) misses alot in thse situations. Shooting at a target is quite different than shooting under the pressure and stress of that kind of a crisis situation. You think that most folks who have absolutely no training for that kind of situation are going to make the situation better by spraying bullets around trying to 'get the shooter'??? I'm a gun owner, but come on - get real. Few gun owners would be able to achieve the goal of taking down the shooter without endangering other people and themselves.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Witchwood wrote...
    Excellent point, Former
    December 13, 2012 12:55 pm

    Few gun owners would be able to achieve the goal of taking down the shooter without endangering other people and themselves.

    That's a good argument for disarming cops, and I agree completely. Having a gun on their hip just makes them more aggressive and prone to escalate the situation.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @witchwood
    December 13, 2012 1:17 pm
    I assume you were being sarcastic about disarming cops. Try arguing with facts and let's see how we can work this. I can honestly be convinced to another point of view with facts, but neither I nor anyone else will because of sarcasm or your other post of just insults and cheap shots.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Witchwood wrote...
    I'm not being a bit sarcastic
    December 13, 2012 1:32 pm

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/24/mayor-bloomberg-says-cops-should-go-on-s

    I can honestly be convinced to another point of view with facts

    Liberals always say this to make themselves appear impartial, which is the exact opposite of what they are. Since your own arguments are not fact-based I see no reason to take you at your word.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @witchwood...
    December 13, 2012 7:53 pm
    1) I may be more liberal than you are, but I do not fit the right wing definition of a liberal. Years ago, I would have been considered a moderate republican, but because of how far to the right the party has moved, many of that ilk call me a liberal. 2) I would like to see the source of the statistics that the website article uses for it's dramatic claims as I have never, ever seen statistics showing "ten times more civilians regular people were killed by cops than cops were killed by perps." And that's also a very misleading way to word that specific statistic. It's clearly intentionally worded to inflame the reader against cops. If you don't beleive what I'm writing, spend a moment to find the facts that prove my statements wrong instead just skipping along and providing cheap theatrics.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Hayduke wrote...
    Perhaps the better question to ask would be, "Would the general public feel more at ease, or LESS at ease, if say, half the people in any given mall were doing "open carry?"
    December 12, 2012 7:47 pm
    I'm not anti-gun. I grew up hunting, and still do from time to time. And I certainly support the right to use guns to protect one's home from intruders.

    But my support starts to waver there. There's a difference between having a gun for protection in the home or car, versus carrying one around in the general public.

    Seeing someone doing "open carry would make me uncomfortable, for i don't know the guy, and i have no idea if he's just a gun lover or someone about to pull it out and start shooting. I'd say that concealed carry makes me even more uneasy, IF I happened to notice that bulge in his jacket was something other than a wallet.

    Lastly, I've heard the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

    I have a new definition of insanity: allowing "open carry" IN BARS, and not expecting some pissed off drunk to start shooting someone who looks at him funny.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Eta Huinya wrote...
    Hayduke
    December 12, 2012 8:51 pm
    Is it the fact that they are carrying a gun that concerns you, or is it the uncertainty about their knowledge about the guns that makes you nervous? I ask because in some situations and places I feel the same way.

    When I go back home to the country people with guns on their person doesn't bother me at all because I know everyone around has went for training and knows how to safely handle that weapon. When I'm in any large, populated area i am nervous when I see someone carrying a gun because I really doubt they have ever even learned or know the safe way to use a gun. I have seen young idiots in California shoot holes in their walls by mistake because they didn't know the gun was loaded, thought the safety was on, or were just trying to act like they were tough.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @eta Hhinya...
    December 13, 2012 8:00 am
    I believe Hayduke's is the same as mine. How in the F do I know if the dude packing openly right next to me (or carry concealed) isn't about to whip it out and start shooting? How do I know that the guy is a law abdiding citizen (with a permit in the case of a concealed weapon), or if he's a nut job about to let loose??? In the words of Wednesday Adams from the Adams Family when asked about her haloween costume.... "Homicidial maniacs - they look just like us". You can't tell whether the guy packing is law abiding or about to blow your head off. Add to that the general lack of training that most gun owners have. And the generally beligerant attitude of many gun owners who think they know it all when in reality they have little weapons training. (I own guns btw).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HappyPappy wrote...
    Bulge?
    December 13, 2012 11:26 am
    First how do you know what is causing the bulge and if the carrier is intelligent you won't even know they have a gun. I guarantee you this, you will never know when or where I am carrying mine.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    Another fact to consider.
    December 12, 2012 7:49 pm
    Most people not in the service in this area have never been around weapons. When something like this happens, they don't know how to react, panic and become easy targets for the shooter. Notice how this type of thing is infrequent in Israel. I'm not suggesting that all people carry. That's up to them. Just learning about and being around firearms is a useful skill to have. Even if unarmed, you'll have the situational awareness to better protect yourself and those around you.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @snout
    December 13, 2012 8:03 am
    Using Israel as an example isn't an apples to apples comparison. They are a tiny country - not any bigger than some of our smaller states. The population count is just as small. To do a proper comparison you'd have to compare them against one of our states, not the entire country. If you do that, you'd see that thier rate is about the same as an average American state.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Snout
    December 14, 2012 9:59 am
    Hey dummie even if your in the service or been around weapons when the shooting starts chaos takes over.A few trained gunmen stationed at exit areas have plenty of targets as people flee the area.No one needs to be trained to flop on the ground and crawl behind something solid ,that survival 101.Do you also believe that people need to be told that if someone is punching the he-ll out of them that they need to flee the area?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Sam Sasquatch wrote...
    SINCE WHEN
    December 12, 2012 8:14 pm
    does 2 victims constitutes a mass shooting?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    @samsquatch
    December 13, 2012 5:41 am
    duet shooting?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Sam Sasquatch
    December 13, 2012 8:03 am
    umm, figure it out. he shot LOTS OF PEOPLE. That = mass shooting. It's quite different from MASS KILLING.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @Sam Sasquatch -part 2
    December 13, 2012 8:05 am
    Wow. Leave one word out by accident and it sure changes the meaning of what I wrote.... What I mean to write was this: "he shot --at-- LOTS OF PEOPLE"
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    It Would Have Been a Mass Shooging....
    December 16, 2012 5:00 pm
    ...if the perp had an Kalashikov. He was using a rifle of the AR15 type design which did what they do too infrequently. A Kalashnikov would have kept operating.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }