Editor:

In her column (“Concealed carry should be enough for gun owners,” Aug. 25), Alicia Williams suggested that “U gun owners should have appreciation for all they enjoy, not muddle the system with unnecessary demands.”

How dare we, it seems.

Utah concealed firearm permit holders include many, like me, who are disabled. While our disabilities do not affect the legal, responsible and safe use of our weapons, they can unnecessarily delay or prevent the access and retrieval of our weapons if those weapons are required to be concealed.

Expecting us to be thankful for a policy that protects our safety only slightly more than a complete ban is nothing about which to be thankful.

If a person, including a law enforcement officer, chooses to carry a weapon concealed, unconcealed or not at all is completely up to the person. Officers may request duty which doesn’t require only one mode of carry. The fact that most officers choose to carry unconcealed speaks for itself. It is the safest and most reliable way to carry a weapon.

If a person believes that it’s easy to take away someone’s weapon, let’s test that idea: I’ll point my loaded firearm at you and you try to take it away from me. Ready? I thought so.

As long as an individual’s right to keep and bear arms is protected by our federal government and constitutions, it’s wrong to suggest that those who choose to own, possess or carry weapons may not do so in other ways that are at least as legal, responsible and safe as those who choose to carry concealed.

David Nelson
Political Science Alumnus