Regarding Steven Mayer’s front page article (“Mass shootings raise level of anxiety, hypervigilance for locals,” Aug. 6), I want to try and clarify, in my mind, what one person’s viewpoints were.

That person said, “It’s not a matter of if, but when” Bakersfield will be added to the mass killing list. They also said that they have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. However, they said they hardly go out at night and won’t go to concerts or movies. This person believes that situational awareness and hypervigilance is how they will survive gun-related problems. The speaker also wants to move, ASAP, to a state that’s more gun-owner friendly.

To begin with, Ohio and Louisiana are both open carry states. That’s gun-friendly. In Texas, with a permit, a concealed weapon is allowed just like California. Did this help save lives in those two more gun-friendly states? The Texas massacre lasted 90 seconds. Does anyone, other than a trained law enforcement officer, think that they could find shelter, locate their firearm, draw, find the shooter and fire without hitting innocent bystanders?

I own firearms and, at one time, also had a concealed weapon permit. I have many friends who are hunters, farmers and ranchers who carry firearms as a matter of policy. I have no problems with any of this.

So, I genuinely hope this person is able to find solace, solitude and safety somewhere. However, is moving to a more gun-friendly state really a solution to the mass shooting problem?

Steve Bass, Bakersfield