I feel certain that I probably explained this in the past, but it provides a nice segue into the rest of my post, so I will go ahead and explain my position a little before delving into the rest.  First and foremost, I intensely and strongly believe in a person's inherent and inalienable right to self-defense.  A person's life is the only thing they ever, truly own, and someone who is trying to take it from them should be stopped by any and all methods available.  This does not mean that I believe in flagrant violence just for the sake of flagrant violence (though it does make rather entertaining movies and television series), but if someone is really trying to kill you, "you try and kill 'em right back".  In the same vein, a person does have a certain inherent obligation to defend the lives of those individuals around him, especially those who are dependent upon him, or those who are incapable of acting for themselves.  If person A has the capability of defending himself effectively, and observes person B being placed in mortal danger by person C, there does exist some degree of obligation.  I would not go so far as to say that person A is required to act and defend person B (this is definitely a matter of personal choice), but neither would I go so far as to say that there are no strings whatsoever.  Some people certainly have more obligation in these cases than others...  policemen, for example, but... yeah. 

To follow logically, I also believe in the rights to carry a firearm in a concealed manner.  Firearms are most definitely the most effective means we have of self-defense these days, providing intimidation, range, stopping power, and relative ease of use.  In fact, the very presence of a firearm can tend to defuse the situation, since people tend to view the prospects of being shot in a somewhat negative light.  Of course, if the firearm does not successfully put the situation on ice, it still has the capacity to stop the situation should it deteriorate even more, assuming its user is well-versed in its operation and application.  Potentially more importantly, the person who draws the firearm in self-defense immediately becomes the center of everyone's attention, more than likely allowing the other potential individuals in the situation the opportunity to escape, take cover, or help intervene. 

Any and all of those potential side-effects of self-defense and the use of a firearm to enhance that would have been useful in the situation discovered in Salt Lake City two days ago.  Sulejman Talovic, a displaced Bosnian, took a pump-action shotgun, a .38 calibre pistol, and a bandolier and backpack full of ammunition into the Trolley Square mall, and started indiscriminantly shooting anyone he came across.  He was impassive, effective, and deadly, and despite having been surrounded by armed police officers, even attempted to kill them, and was gunned down in the process.  No one has been able to isolate a motive from his actions as yet, though many, many theories are bouncing around the internet. 

After killing five individuals and wounding four more, the gunman was stopped by an individual carrying a concealed firearm, Kenneth Hammond.  Granted, the individual was an off-duty memeber of the Ogden County Police Department, but still an individual carrying a concealed firearm.  I agree with both Mr. Hammond and the Mayor of Ogden, Matthew Godfrey - he was both doing his duty, and acting heroically.  Dspite being a police officer, he was not required to directly confront the gunman, nor was he required to exchange gunfire with the individual.  He could have just as well saved his wife (pregnant, by the by) and anyone else he could reach, and escaped the situation - a series of actions that would have fully fallen within the realm of his duty.  However, he took it upon himself to help terminate the situation, something that definitely falls within the definition of "hero". 

Of course, as would be predictable for the situation, the issue of concealed carry has reared its little head.  And I have no doubt you can predict my viewpoint on the situation...  How much more quickly could the situation have been ended if more people were armed?  I am not naive enough to believe that someone armed would have been able to stop this individual...  he could have been armored, he could have been faster on the trigger, and he was definitely carrying more firepower than most people do in their waistbands.  However, every second someone distracted him by putting bullets downrange at him, and forcing him to do the same, gives all of the other people in the mall another second to get out of harm's way...  and that is not something to just pass up lightly.  As one of those articles mentioned,

    It appears as though off-duty Ogden police Officer Kenneth Hammond, who carried a concealed weapon, stopped the killing spree, said Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council.
    Aposhian noted that it is impossible to know whether a concealed-weapon holder could make a difference in every violent confrontation.
    "But we do know what happens when there is no one with a concealed weapon in these situations: people die."
    Aposhian spent Monday fielding telephone calls from individuals and groups seeking information on concealed-weapons permits.
    ''You won't hear the gun-rights community say, 'Everyone needs to get a gun permit.' That wouldn't be right,'' Aposhian said. "But people who never before desired a firearm now want to get a permit. These are moms and dads."

The more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with him...  Obviously not on the grand scheme level.... that was already a given.  I meant more on a personal scale.  God help me if I were to encounter that kind of situation (and they do seem to be cropping up more and more, recently), and I was incapable of doing a damned thing to defend myself, or, even worse, Better Half.  I mean, sure, there is supposedly always the option of fleeing...  but a shopping center mall is far from being the best place to find cover, especially when the gunman is mounting a shotgun.  And considering our society's architecture is not exaclty designed for people to duck and cover from someone sporting God-knows-what in the way of weapons, this situation is far from isolated in its inability to escape. 

Sure, you could always make the argument that stricter gun laws, even to the point of banning them entirely form the United States, could have prevented this inordinate tragedy.  However, let us consider the United Kinngdom, the country to which most gun-ban proponents point as an example of how bans supposedly "work".  Evidently, this is not really the case.  To be precise... 

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.

David Bredin
Campaign for Shooting

Oddly enough, this is the same thing gun rights advocats have been saying here in the good old US of A for the past... forever.  "Gun control" laws do nothing to stop criminals from owning firearms - they have already demonstrated a marked disregard for the country's laws... what is one more? - they only serve to keep law-abiding citizens from keeping firearms and being capable of defending themselves from those who would have them, regardless of the rules. 

What am I trying to say?  I am honestly not really sure.  But I am starting to think I will look into some concealed carry classes in my area, and see if they can fit into my otherwise chaotic, idiotic schedule.  It is starting to seem like something that would definitely be useful in this day and age, where seemingly no one has any regard for the meaning and value of a human life. 

Gotta love cathartic experiences. 

Hat tip to Free Constitution. 

(Bonus points for those who can define what the title describes.)