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 (73)


  • Add A Comment

  • cdbtx wrote...
    So libs
    December 13, 2012 3:54 pm
    What was the average number of people killed per city/town in the 1800's by gunfire?

    You're not going to like the answer.. because you 100 times more likely to die from a bullet in Chicago, LA, or Detroit today from gunfire than in the 1800's.

    1881 - the average was 1.5 per year - with the most in any city 5 in one year..

    Education - it's a wonderful thing.. heck.. dig up the history of the bloodest city (LOL) in the wild west - Tombstone... read the stats... if was safer than Seattle..

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @cdbtx
    December 13, 2012 7:59 pm
    Go do an apples to apples comparison. Number of people killed in a city or town in the 1800's vs. today is not an accurate way to count it. Count it as a percentage of the population and come back and tell us if the rate is higher. Telling us the body count is higher now is like telling us the sun will rise tomorrow. Of course it will. The population of most cities is thousands if hundreds of thousands of times greater than it was in the 1800's. So the death by gun rate will be at least thousands of times greater. Go find the rate per 1000 residents or something like that and tell us if it's any higher or lower.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • calapete wrote...
    your point is?
    December 14, 2012 6:29 am
    guns are more dangerous and powerful than 200 years ago? brilliant.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Many Towns Were Gun Free Zones Back Then
    December 17, 2012 9:05 am
    That is what precipitated the OK Corral gun fight.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Regularjoe44 wrote...
    The more the merrier?
    December 13, 2012 8:25 pm
    Probably gonna fall close to Curley on this one. Too many arguments both ways that will never really change anyone's position. To many what ifs to know whether you could take the dude out with your conceal weapon be it a gun, knife, or a well aimed can of chili. I do believe that carrying gives me options. These whack jobs seem to go after defenseless victims. They go where they can find lot's of them. If people weren't so helpless...maybe it would give the dirt bag pause. If something happens around my family, I hope one of the good guys is nearby and has a clue about what he or she is doing...and there in lies the catch22. So I'll be the guy next to somebody that carries. I carry most everywhere I go. I'll have options. And when it comes to you standing (or cowering) while someone stands by to execute you or your family....you'll wish you had options too.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Regularjoe44 wrote...
    Ps...
    December 13, 2012 8:30 pm
    About the morning show comments. Who can listen to anyone on the morning show. It's 10 minutes of content and 50 minutes of commercials per hour. There is no morning show regardless of who's the host.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    I have a C.P.L
    December 14, 2012 2:01 am
    and a Glock 32 a flat shooting , hard hitting accurate caliber..357 sig. My Glock is my constant companion a terrorist does not stand much of a chance.John Curley is spot on.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    So the solution to today's tragedy is...
    December 14, 2012 3:58 pm
    We give our schoolchildren guns? We post armed guards at the school doors? Every teacher is packing? Please, our society would look more like an old western movie. The only problem is how to make sure the bad guys wear black hats.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @ Pair o'dimes...
    December 15, 2012 10:23 am
    The problem is that the extremists on both ends of the spectrum (pro-gun, anti-gun) have pre-decided that their side is the only one with the right answers and no other answer is possible (Sounds a lot like the Republicans in the House of Representative doesn't it? - and they're just about as effective as they are too). Nothing is getting done because neither extreme will shut the ____ up long enough to let those in the middle to talk and see what is reasonable, common sense and works without being honorous. Maybe some tweaks to gun laws, maybe thinking outside the box and looking at other laws that aren't directly aimed at guns. Who knows? We can't tell because the extremes won't shut up and let the rest of us talk. I own guns and I respect the 2nd amendment. I also know that we cannot sit idly by and let things stay the same without finding something that will stop this kind of loss of life. The extremists on both sides are shaming the memory of the 20 children who died in this most recent event - along with the memory of EVERYONE who's died in all of these events by causing paralysis that won't let anything change.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Give all the teachers guns!
    December 15, 2012 5:47 am
    Just remember, Patty Murray used to be a teacher. I shudder to think of someone like Patty carrying heat. Especially if one of my grandchildren was around her.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @forrest
    December 15, 2012 10:26 am
    While I think the cheap shot against Patty Murray is pathetic, I think arming teachers is not the right way to go about doing this - because more people fit the vision you have of Patty Murray carrying than those who would fit the 'hero' vision that sooo many people think of when they want 'everyone' to pack.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    Well sarge,
    December 15, 2012 2:01 pm
    I don't really understand what you mean by cheap shot. That was put in to make the conservatives who hate Murray think about what it would be like arming teachers. As far as arming anyone, if you pull a gun on someone, you better be willing to pull the trigger otherwise the gun will be taken from you and stuffed in your mouth (with dire consequences).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Regularjoe44 wrote...
    It doesn't get any more dire....
    December 15, 2012 8:49 pm
    ...and if you couldn't pull the trigger in case, i guess you never could. I can not image being in that situation the teachers found themselves in. I don't have any idea what I would do other than follow the training they had practiced and try to save kids. However, regardless of those teachers perspective on firearms, when the nut job made his intentions clear, I can't imagine them being in that situation and not wanting a tool to give them a chance. I think they did, and would have done, anything within their power, including pulling the trigger, to save kids.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Ron_Spins wrote...
    Ok So the left want's gun control -then we need Hollywood control.
    December 16, 2012 4:29 pm
    Jamie Fox recently joked about killing "white people"that will be banned speech. So will his violent movie(Django) coming out of all times Christmas ..banned. The Conn shooter played video games (violent video games banned)all violent movies already purchased will have to be registered.TV shows will not show any violence like today and the display of guns *every 5 seconds" and Mess 101 I am highly trained and a crack shot and AWARE!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    Knee jerk...
    December 17, 2012 5:04 am
    The last report I read said the shooter left the rifle in the car and didn't use it. So why is it that liberals "exploiting" the murder of these children to ban a class of weapons that wasn't used in these killings?

    The reason is liberals are evil and will use the deaths of little children to promote their political agenda.

    I see no future for this nation when a significant portion are dedicated to supporting the party of evil.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }