Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Gun violence

Comments

Return To Article
  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    The Eyres are right that gun violence is a serious problem. But they're completely wrong when they push for more gun control. Gun control laws only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Criminals will ignore those laws (that's why they're called criminals - because they break the law) and get guns anyway.

    In their column the Eyres suggest that guns were needed for defense when the Second Amendment was written, but not now, as if our modern society has magically done away with those who want to injure, rob, rape, or kill. News flash: We still have bad guys among us. And one of the best ways to stop or deter their evil acts is for the law-abiding citizenry at large to own (and, yes, even carry) guns. This helps to keep our society more civil.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    May 2, 2012 8:29 a.m.

    You really think banning guns is going to stop violence?

    Get real: marijuana is illegal, alcohol and cigarettes to underage people is illegal, pornography to minors is illegal, murder in itself is illegal but ya know what? People get a hold of these things and do them anyways.

    These criminals will always find a way. If you outlaw guns that will start more violence trying to get to them. You think criminals are all of a sudden going to say:
    "I better not do this, it's illegal."? Such a thought is naive.

    I played video games as a child that were violent and guess what? The biggest thing I have ever killed was a rabbit--on the highway in my car. FYI, it ran out in front of me, I didn't hunt it down.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    May 2, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    Yeah, I've played plenty of violent video games, and I don't hunt or kill anything. I remember shooting a crow in boy scouts and feeling dumb about it. Never shot anything else again. I can't associate video game/TV violence with actions I take in real life. It just isn't the case.

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    May 2, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    The first two comments express the opinion that because some people will refuse to obey gun control laws, we shouldn't have such laws. This is tantamount to saying that because some people will refuse to obey laws prohibiting rape and murder, we should take those laws off the books and simply overlook rape and murder. This is a recipe for disaster.

    The legislature believes that the best way to prevent crime is to arm every man, woman, and child in this State. This is so laughable as to be astounding. Anyone with any logic knows that societies with more guns have more violence.

    The Eyre's should be commended for taking a stand against violence. Hopefully, more will do so before we devolve into a lawless anarchy plagued by freelance gunslingers.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 2, 2012 9:33 a.m.

    Target shooting has been part of the Olympic program since the first modern Olympic Games which took place in Athens in 1896. And no, target rifles are not designed to kill.

    That issue aside Operation Fast and Furious was an ill conceived Obama Administration operation which resulted in the arming of Mexican drug dealers and the death of at least one US border patrol agent. Unfortunately those individuals who cooked this plan up have taken the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent when questioned by the US House.

    Fortunately for us the US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of our individual rights to own and bear firearms.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 2, 2012 9:41 a.m.

    The Census Bureau reported 23,000 murders and 83,000 forcible rapes in 2009. To those 106,000 people, the police were not fast enough or near enough to stop the crime. To those 106,000 people, they had no one to protect them except themselves. It is obvious from the statistics that they were not able to protect themselves.

    How many of them would have been murdered or raped if they had been trained to kill their attacker?

    Yes, I agree that violence in media is not necessary, but I do not agree that taking guns from law abiding citizens is the solution - and neither do the 106,000 people who were murdered or raped in 2009.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 2, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    It's not the gun as a machine, it's the gun as an attitude. That's where the problems come in.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 2, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    I own guns because having a gun in my hand is much better than having a cop on the phone! If guns cause crime then matches cause arson.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 2, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    Re: Hutterite American Fork, UT
    "It's not the gun as a machine, it's the gun as an attitude. That's where the problems come in."

    We can all thank the private citizen with a gun who stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people at a Salt Lake City Smith's store. He obviously had the right "attitude" whatever that is.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 2, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    All more guns do is put guns in the hands of people who should not have them. And what redeeming value do certain types of guns have in our society? Even accepting the more extreme interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't say the type of guns can't be regulated.

    In any case, in reality, I would bet that 99.9999% of all gun incidents are due to either people acting in rage against those they know (family and friends), people with mental illness, or people actually putting themselves in harms way. Guns are way overrated, folks.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 2, 2012 11:01 a.m.

    Re: Esquire Springville, UT
    "Guns are way overrated, folks."

    Try selling that fable to the Springville man who shot and killed an intruder the police say woke the sleeping couple in their bedroom and demanded they take him to an ATM for cash.

    As far as "extreme interpretations of the 2nd Amendment" the US Supreme Court debunked that fable as well.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    May 2, 2012 11:43 a.m.

    Hutterite writes: It's not the gun as a machine, it's the gun as an attitude.

    Those with an unreasonable phobia regarding guns embody them with supernatural powers. Guns lurk in the dark shadows waiting to take the life of unwary passersby. Killing someone while driving drunk is understandable as long as a gun wasn't involved.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    May 2, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    It is unnecessary to own a gun in Utah; it is more likely that the gun will be used in an accidental shooting then to stop crime.
    A gun is not the only way to stop a crime from being committed.
    Too many gun owners in this state do not secure their weapons.
    We have children getting hold of them
    Gun owners leaving their weapons on top on their car and driving off.
    Toilets being shot, tables being shot.
    Children accidentally shot while hunting.
    We also have many gun owners that do not seem to me to have commons sense, it seems that they go around dreaming of a chance to use their weapon.
    They pull out their guns, rather than call the police to resolve conflicts,
    In my opinion the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits.
    I believe people have the right to own guns, but I also believe gun owners need to be held more responsible when they do not secure the weapon, and when it is used in an accidental shooting.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 2, 2012 11:58 a.m.

    Look people. We can all find specific cases that justify our point of view.

    We need reasonable gun laws.

    A 3 day waiting period is not unreasonable.
    Limiting your ability to own a machine gun, an RPG a tank or a drone also makes sense.
    When a guy in Prove walks around the mall with a rifle, we need gun advocates to chastise him for showing gun ownership in a bad light. And they should do it whether it is legal or not.

    And to the anti gun people. Trained, reasonable people discretely carrying guns is a good thing.

    I believe that what Hutterite meant when he said "It's not the gun as a machine, it's the gun as an attitude."
    is that those who carry a weapon strapped to their leg scare me. They carry and display for the wrong reasons, just like the guy at the mall in Prove.

    Others that scare me are those who carry but are not that familiar or trained with their weapon. You know those people. They bought a gun, went to a class and now carry it everywhere.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 2, 2012 12:06 p.m.

    @ Rifleman, that fits within the miniscule percentage I left open. But for every case like that, there are thousands of deaths by the unwarranted use of guns by family, friends, crazies and stupidity. Weigh them. And as for the Supreme Court, this court is right wing. So will you then accept decisions you don't like, such as Roe v. Wade?

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    May 2, 2012 12:41 p.m.

    VIDAR writes: It is unnecessary to own a gun in Utah

    The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't deal with whether it is necessary to own and bear firearms. It simply gives us the right. For those who think a cellular phone has some mysterious power to save their life or the life of a loved one they are cordially invited to carry several of them. I feel much safer around a man with a concealed firearm than I do around that drunk driver behind me on the freeway.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 1:08 p.m.

    Re: John Charity Spring: You've misunderstood my comment. I'm not claiming because criminals ignore gun control laws, that we should not have laws. I'm saying that because LAW-ABIDING citizens OBEY gun control laws, they find it more difficult to defend themselves against criminals - who will get guns regardless. So gun control laws actually lead to more people getting robbed, raped, or killed, because these laws tilt the scales in favor of the bad guys.

    Also, in previous years I've seen your same post that the legislature wants to "arm every man, woman, and child in this state." Your claim is preposterous, and undermines your credibility and the respect I have for many of your posts on other subjects.

    Re: Joe Blow: If you think a 3-day waiting period is reasonable, try telling that to a woman who is attacked and knows that her attacker will return the following night.

    Re: Esquire: No, actually, the private citizen stopping the knife wielder last week is the type of thing that happens ALL THE TIME (a couple of million times a year), where the presence of a gun stops a crime, usually without a shot being fired.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 2, 2012 2:14 p.m.

    Several years ago I purchased a sign that says, “We don’t call 911”. There is an image of a gun barrel pointing at the reader standing in front of the sign that I hung on my gate. Under the image of a muzzle of the gun it says, “Smile and wait for the flash”. I have never had a burglary or been the victim of any other crime and not one innocent person has been shot by my guns.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    May 2, 2012 2:31 p.m.

    Flying Finn
    Murray, UT

    The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't deal with whether it is necessary to own and bear firearms. It simply gives us the right

    RE: I believe people have the right to own guns also; I just want gun owners held more resposible when the gun is used in an accidental shooting, or if children get hold of it.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID

    Several years ago I purchased a sign that says, “We don’t call 911

    I also have hever had someone try to break into my house, and I do not have a sign;
    if anything your sign would cause a criminal to come armed if he wanted to break in.
    Plenty of innocent people and children are shot becuase gun owners do not secure thier weapons

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 2, 2012 2:39 p.m.

    @ Vidar. More children drown in swimming pools than are victims of gun accidents. More children would be alive today if we banned swimming than banning guns.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    May 2, 2012 3:12 p.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID

    so the chilren who die through gun accidents do not matter?

    I can teach my child to swim, my child does not drown because another parents fails to teach their child to swim.

    However my child can be shot because another parent has failed to secure their weapons or fails to teach their child not to play with guns.

    either way is is the fault of an adult that should be held responsible.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    May 2, 2012 3:22 p.m.

    VIDAR writes: I just want gun owners held more responsible when the gun is used in an accidental shooting, or if children get hold of it.

    Any accident that involves serious injury or death is tragic. For some irrational reason however the anti 2nd Amendment crowd places greater emphasis on an accidental death caused by a firearm than they do an accidental death caused by someone who inadvertently drives off the road and rolls their car. Perhaps we should hold car owners more responsible when the car is used in an accidental death, or if children get hold of it.

    It only makes sense if you are a liberal.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 2, 2012 3:48 p.m.

    When will the words "well-regulated" become part of the discussion?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 2, 2012 3:51 p.m.

    "No, actually, the private citizen stopping the knife wielder last week is the type of thing that happens ALL THE TIME (a couple of million times a year), where the presence of a gun stops a crime, usually without a shot being fired."

    Let's see some documentation on that claim of "a couple million."

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    May 2, 2012 3:53 p.m.

    Flying Finn
    Murray, UT

    There are people in prison for accidental automobile homicide.
    Perhaps they need to be joined by those who are not responsible with their weapons.
    Of course with cars there is neglegence which causes injury or death. in those cases there needs to be consequences.
    unlike a gun; a cars main purpose is not to kill.
    there can be accidental deaths from cars that are an accident.
    There really should never be such a thing as an accidental shooting, only properly trained individuals should use a gun, and they should only shoot at something they intend to kill.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 2, 2012 4:11 p.m.

    In other news today,

    Former NFL super star Junior Seau is found dead of a self inflicted gunshot wound.
    and Four people are shot dead in Arizona by man in body armor.

    Thankfully, none of the guns were violent.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    May 2, 2012 6:33 p.m.

    LDS Liberal writes: Thankfully, none of the guns were violent.

    Only a liberal would attempt to ascribe a gun with a personality as though it were a living organism with a mind of it's own. Since the liberals insist that the only purpose for guns is to kill, and since the Founding Fathers gave us the 2nd Amendment right to own and bear guns than the only conclusion that can be reached is that the Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to take human life in defense of our own.

    That would make gun owners "pro-choice".

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 2, 2012 7:48 p.m.

    "If you think a 3-day waiting period is reasonable, try telling that to a woman who is attacked and knows that her attacker will return the following night."

    And you believe that is more common than someone who in a rage, goes to Walmart, buys a gun and kills the object of their rage?

    Look, we can always find exceptions to common sense laws and rules. And sometimes the laws DO need to be changed.

    But, too many gun advocates seem to long for the days where EVERYONE had carried a sidearm and gunfights were common.

    That is not the society I want to live in.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    May 2, 2012 9:30 p.m.

    Re: Joe Blow: When people start to talk about "common sense" gun laws and "reasonable" gun restrictions, that's when I start to worry about the safety of my community. Gun control laws tilt the odds in favor of the bad guys.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    May 3, 2012 8:17 a.m.

    I have guns in my home because it makes me feel safer.

    I don't go around parading them in public, or even really carry one too often (I have my concealed weapons permit). But I would rather be safe than sorry. Chances are small that someone enters my house with a gun to do some damage to my wife and me, but I would rather have a gun and feel safe than have to chuck steak knives at them like a ninja.

  • EPJ Grantsville, UT
    May 3, 2012 8:40 a.m.

    Speaking of well-respected opinions, remember Paul Harvey? He was a radio commentator who had a daily news and commentary show followed faithfully by millions and millions of listeners. If you want to read what he had to say about gun control, google "Paul Harvey gun control facts".

    After you read his message on the results of 20th Century gun control, who has historically implemented gun control, and what resulted in that gun control, then you come back here and post your honest response about gun control.

    Gun control to keep guns inaccessible to the criminal is just a dream, and will only infringe upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

    I do concede that MUCH more needs to be implemented to identify and help the mentally unstable members of our society, and our youth, . . . who are so easily influenced by the media, . . .who then lash out violently, be that with guns or with knives or with rocks.

    Paul Harvey also gives about a dozen reasons why our society is in such turmoil, and why so many turn to violence. Our violent society did not come about because of guns.

  • JayTee Sandy, UT
    May 3, 2012 8:54 a.m.

    If you want to make the situation more unreasonable, unfair, and unbelievably expensive--just put more government in the mix. I spent a quarter century working with every level of government, and I can tell you emphatically that government (like all other organizations that don't have competition) operates 100% on politics. It's usually the worst and most expensive way to address anything. Our lawmakers should be REPEALING laws, not writing more. Passing more laws to control citizens will just cost more money, reduce freedoms, and complicate more obvious situations. It doesn't work, it never has worked, and it never will work. I don't need the government making sure that my toilet tissue is soft enough or that I'm staying away from sharp objects. I need the government out of my life as much as possible. I'm surprised more taxpaying citizens don't feel the same.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    May 3, 2012 2:37 p.m.

    one old man Ogden, UT
    "When will the words "well-regulated" become part of the discussion?"

    They won't. The US Supreme Court has answered the question and the discussion is over. For those who may be unaware the Court voted in favor of the rights of the individual gun owner. Our 2nd Amendment rights are "over-regulated" and so your question is moot.

    My question is what was the Obama Administration thinking when they decided it might be a good idea to provide firearms to Mexican drug dealers?

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    May 3, 2012 2:41 p.m.

    A knife was invented to kill... all you do is stab someone...

    A hammer was invented to kill .... all you have to do is hit someone in the head with it...

    So I guess guns are not the only thing invented to kill...

    If you want to reduce gun crime, do what Viginia did....

    They created a law that lowered the boom on people who use guns in criminal act. If said person is caught using a gun they first try them in State court for any law they have violated, then they turn the guy over to us government for any gun laws they have violated. The sentences can not run at the same time. So if a the state law is 5 years and the federal law is 5 years, they will spend 10 yrs in prison.

    they did this a gun crime went down 50 percent.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    May 4, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    I'm more scared of drivers who text (two known deaths in the last few months) than responsible gun owners. A good, reponsible gun owner stopped a violent crime without having to shoot the bad guy. Would he have been justified? Yes, he would have been under current deadly force laws. While I like and respect the Eyer's, their feel good approach to life sometimes doesn't wash with me.