In his article, “Gun bill moves to Utah’s House floor” Brandon Loomis reported that Utah’s House of Representatives accepted Republican representative Stephen Sandstrom’s bill, HB 78. According to Sandstrom, the bill will allow concealed carry holders to mention or reveal they have a gun in order to prevent arguments from escalating to physical fights. The bill, it is hoped, might also help prevent lawful gun carriers from having to point a gun at an aggressor.
As a strong second amendment supporter, I reject this bill until it can be worded more fully and precisely. My reluctance in supporting it comes from the understanding that the bill will allow a gun owner to intimidate someone who is merely arguing with them. This is the incorrect use of a firearm. Verbal arguments are not lethal while guns are. So showing guns for nonlethal arguments is an unjustified act of intimidation. People have as much right to speak their piece in an argument as the lawful gun owner and no one should be silenced by the threat of a gun.
The mere possibility that an argument might turn into a fist fight still does not justify a show of lethal force. That is because a fist fight, like a verbal argument, is not lethal towards your person.
The only justification for showing a gun, let alone using it, is for protection against lethal physical attacks.
Nevertheless there can still be special instances where unveiling your concealed weapon might be necessary. Suppose, for example, you are in an argument with a troublemaker who threatens a severe attack and points to, say, a visible golf club as his weapon of choice. (Legally, a golf club is a lethal weapon). Then a lawful gun owner should show his gun and warn the aggressor.
However, the proposed bill does not specifically define such special circumstances. Because of that, passage of the bill will also “justify” instances where unveiling a gun is sheer intimidation of an argumentative but non-dangerous person.
In order to gain acceptance from rational gun advocates, like myself, the bill would have to explicitly oppose the unveiling of a gun to gain the upper hand in an argument. Next, the bill would have to very carefully define the rare situation that might merit the revealing of a concealed gun. By contrast, Sandstrom does not do this for HB 78.
So how else can lawful gunowners handle confrontations if not show their gun? The first and most important way of dealing with potential physical threats is to a)
Avoid the danger zone. Use your awareness to spot potential trouble. If you know there’s a bad area of town where many criminals congregate, then use an alternative route.
The next thing to try is b)
Verbal de-escalation. If the danger or trouble cannot be avoided and you are confronted by an emotional person, then verbally deescalate the situation.
If you can not deescalate the situation, and the suspect attacks you, without lethal force, then use c)
Unarmed defense—even if you are wearing your concealed firearm. Every responsible gun owner should learn unarmed self-defense to protect themselves since not every attack on your person is going to be a lethal one.
Otherwise, d)
Use your firearm. If you are attacked with deadly force then you are legally permitted to use your own deadly force. Even then, you may be able to deter a criminal by pointing the gun at him and holding him until the police arrive. But you must be willing to shoot to save your life if it becomes necessary.
Replacing “verbal de-escalation” and “unarmed defense” with unveiling a lethal weapon for a nonlethal threat is premature, unethical and marks the gun-owner as the one provoking the situation. So let’s use some commonsense.
