John Curley


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

  • sohojo wrote...
    Peace Through Strength
    December 12, 2012 8:17 pm
    "Peace through strength" is an ancient phrase and concept implying that strength of arms is a necessary component of peace. The phrase is quite old; it has famously been used by many leaders from Roman Emperor Hadrian in the first century AD, to Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @sohojo...
    December 13, 2012 8:34 am
    "Peace Through Strength" is a phrase used by countries in regards to thier military and political might, not in reference to whether individuals have willy nilly access to guns.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Witchwood wrote...
    Who do you think is more likely to be mugged, Former?
    December 13, 2012 1:11 pm

    Someone walking down the street alert, aware of his surroundings, and confident that he can physically defend himself, or someone who is skittish, unarmed, and looking around trying to find the nearest cop? The brain is a biochemical computer that takes in and processes data every nanosecond. A thug understands the difference between the two examples, though he may not be able to articulate that difference. And he'll always go after the low-hanging fruit.

    Btw, the quote is: Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. Whomever seeks peace, let him plan for war (Vegetius). In the context of security, there is zero difference between a nation's army and an individual, unless you believe that the state should always have a monopoly on violence. The Founders clearly did not.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @witchwood
    December 13, 2012 1:23 pm
    In your example (Someone walking down the street alert, aware of his surroundings, and confident that he can physically defend himself, or someone who is skittish, unarmed, and looking around trying to find the nearest cop?), a gun isn't the deciding factor. A gun carrying individual is just as likely to be mugged/attacked/etc. if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time or if they meet the definition of what they look like that you used. I'm not against people carrying guns - I'm against the arrogance that comes with some people who do carry guns. Most people would not be successful in the position you place them in your example whether they had a gun or not. THAT is my point. I am not advocating taking guns away, nor am I advocating crazy gun laws that take away reasonable rights from reasonable people. You and I clearly have a different view on what makes sense with guns. Let's respect that we have different opiniosn on some parts of this issue and not get into a stupid urination contest with each other over that difference. I am not as 'anti-gun' as you think. Not by any stretch. I am only anti-arrogance and anti-'my extreme view of the world is the only one that counts'.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    Take a look a Israel
    December 12, 2012 10:01 pm
    It's not uncommon to see a righteous citizen with a gun -- Look at Chicago.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • JMinIssaquah wrote...
    Dumb logic
    December 12, 2012 10:17 pm
    Curley is an idiot... Most people who go shoot people in public places turn the gun on themselves in the end or are looking to have the police shoot them. More guns means more people getting shot. His asinine comments and rambles are why I stopped listening to the a.m. show.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HappyPappy wrote...
    Hmmm...
    December 13, 2012 11:35 am
    Are you advocating taking our weapons away? If so please step up and volunteer to do the job, most people like you would give others the honor to protect your sorry butts or in other words you want some else to do your dirty work. If you want the job done, do it yourself, start first with criminal element and then work your way to me.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • murr wrote...
    sohojo wrote...
    December 13, 2012 3:45 am
    whats out of date also is ???? World peace..... Keep dreaming and keep talking world peace. Notice how all the Religious beliefs are in harmony. Get your dope out and smoke a bit more. It will all be good.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SickofSeattleite wrote...
    i agree with curley
    December 13, 2012 5:33 am
    right to bear arms....we seem to only hear the stories about the nut jobs massively slaughtering people....we do not hear to often about the citizen who took out the nut job before or during a mass shooting....anyone messes with me I'm pulling out my gun. Moral of my story...try to harm me or my family...I'm shooting. Defend yourself while America still has the freedom to do so. I bet the economy has more to do with the cause of mass shootings than access to firearms.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ratrustle wrote...
    You don't have to have one
    December 13, 2012 6:10 am
    I have to agree with Curley. There are a lot of examples of well intended laws like "gun free" zones that have the reverse consequences -- just look at the facts. The people who commit these crimes are cowards and know that they're going in to these place like theaters, shopping malls, and schools where they're the only one with a gun. I'm absolutely not saying we should allow kids in schools to have guns! I am saying lets STRONGLY enforce the gun laws we have and quit trying to make rules that criminals have no intention of following. Here's something to think about; would you feel safer at concert knowing there are 50 citizens with concealed carry permits in the crowd or 10 young men carrying firearms that they got through questionable means. This should be simple to answer. Unfortunately, many people are scared of guns no matter who has them. In America, you still have the right to defend yourself -- I plan on it, you don't have to...
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    hm...i think i'm with Curley...
    December 13, 2012 7:08 am
    think about it. the people who GET the guns usually STEAL them, or get them through some other means that isn't exactly above board.

    meanwhile you tighten restrictions on people who FOLLOW restrictions/laws and fewer guns are in the hands of responsible people and the crazies will STILL get ahold of guns and use them on the public. a public, that now, is getting more and more flak for even thinking about having a gun.

    i can tell ya that my father, an old farm boy, with his concealed carry license, would have drawn on this kid and taken him out. AND i'm sure Clackamas, OR has at least a FEW people that would fit my father's pac-northwest farmer profile. THOSE are the people you WANT armed. 'cause THEY will do the right thing WHEN IT MATTERS.

    i might be a naive to something, but i know i don't want more regulations for THOSE people. not when MOST shootings that happen are done with stolen or illegally obtained guns.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    "naive to some things."
    December 13, 2012 7:18 am
    that's what i meant.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    anything for a headline, eh Curley?
    December 13, 2012 8:43 am
    No legitimate journalist would want a shoot out in a mall. He is just trying to be controversial and get more free publicity.

    why is it site even called My Northwest? Is curley.com taken?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Oly80 wrote...
    wow...
    December 13, 2012 9:44 am
    bitter much?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    bitter? more like outraged
    December 14, 2012 6:31 am
    that some two bit radio hack would get all these ignorant gun nuts fired up.

    read through the comments, how many would take a shot in a crowded mall, ignorant to the fact that most guns are capable of passing through the body of the intended target and hit an innocent bystander.

    "anything for a headline" Curley should be more responsible.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Seattle Dad wrote...
    Mr. Tagney assumes
    December 13, 2012 11:25 am
    that citizens carrying guns are somehow not trained. There are a LOT of civilians trained to use firearms. Former military, shooting experts, current military. Mr Tagney needs to adjust his assumptions.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Shooting targets and Killing people with a weapon
    December 13, 2012 11:56 am
    Are entirely different skills.Hitting someone carrying a rifle or pistol is a bit more difficult then shooting at that target at the range.And good luck standing up to some FOOL with an assault rifle with your 38.You will become his number one target if you miss with your first shot.Plus my understanding was this shooter was wearing some body armour
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HappyPappy wrote...
    Nope you are wrong!
    December 13, 2012 5:07 pm
    He was not wearing body armor but a load bearing vest! These come in many configurations, styles and colors...it would be nice to have one but they offer no ballistic protection. Best to wait a few days to get the right information than to spout misleading information, unless that's what you intended!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Happy Pappy
    December 14, 2012 7:57 am
    All I said was what was reported same as you. After all neither one of us was at the scene so we must rely on the info released to us by the media.How do you know that what you were told about the vest was true?The difference between you and I is that I prefaced my statement by saying that it was "my understanding"I wasn't not inferring it was fact
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HLC wrote...
    The mall patrons were lucky the shooter didn't know much about rifles.
    December 13, 2012 12:03 pm
    AR-15/M-16 = Jam City. If he were carrying my favorite the AK-47 the toll would have been much higher. If a person could have pulled on him they could have stopped him. He wasn't looking for a firefight or it wouldn't have ended like it did. Most that do this type of deal are cowards that would run like a little girl if facing a gun. Curly nailed it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    HLC
    December 13, 2012 2:05 pm
    Yeah and if those who were wearing body armor they would not have died.Why do you assume that these crazy people who attempt mass murders are cowards? How does anyone conclude that?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HappyPappy wrote...
    Wow
    December 13, 2012 5:16 pm
    Because only cowards attack unarmed civilians, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. When you have the freedom to shoot without consequences what or who do you fear? In these cases committing suicide are acts of cowardice and selfishness, you steal a persons most precious possession and then won't stand to face what you have done. Messiah 101 maybe you should change your moniker to Ignorant 101!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Happy Pappy
    December 14, 2012 7:54 am
    So your inferring that US troops that kill unarmed Afghans are "COWARDS".I'll stick with Messiah 101,Dunmmie
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SGal50gml wrote...
    Someone did confront him
    December 17, 2012 6:38 am
    Several news reports in the last couple of days have reported that the mall gunman was, indeed, confronted by an armed civilian shopping at the mall. He made sure those he was with were safe, then took shelter behind a pillar before confronting the shooter. This man determined that it was not safe for him to fire because of people behind the shooter, but his action seems to have been enough to stop the rampage and cause the shooter to hide, then kill himself. Contrast this to the school shooting – the school was a gun-free zone, so there was no-one able to confront the shooter, who could continue on his deadly mission. It appears that this shooter also ended his own life when he knew that deadly force (this time by arriving police) was about to be brought to bear against him. Perhaps the loss of life would have been much less had there been someone in the school that was trained and prepared to meet such a situation.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }