Quantcast
U.S. & World

President Obama set January deadline for gun proposals

Comments

Return To Article
  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 1:53 p.m.

    I have to side with NRA on this one. The AR 15 is a semi-auto rifle that has been around a long time that can and is used for both self protection and hunting. The .223 round is perfect for deer and it is semi-auto not fully automatic. Banning this gun is nothing more than a knee jerk ...we gotta do something ... response to the Connecticut shooting and will do nothing to stop gun violence but will take away from a persons right to defend his home and family as well as remove a great hunting rifle. The problem with the political left they want to ban all guns period. You give an inch and then what's next? A killing with a regular handgun and now they want to ban handguns. A killing with a bolt action deer rifle and now they want to ban hunting rifles and on down the line with shotguns etc... until they reach their goal of a gun-less society. The real problem is NOT being addressed here and that is violence in movies - video games - RAP songs etc... and getting help for the mentally ill.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 2:08 p.m.

    I hope the NRA uses their influence to stop any gun ban from Obama. Gun bans do nothing except hurt the responsible citizen who wants to protect him and his family against crazy people bent on doing harm. Expect Obama to jump back out on the campaign trail and label all those who aren't for gun bans heartless child haters. Watch and see. If the man is anything he is easy to predict.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 2:40 p.m.

    More "gun ban" nonsense from nonsensical posters.

    There is a huge difference between a "gun ban" and sensible restrictions. But a degree of intelligence is required to understand that.

  • bcandersen Pleasant Grove, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 3:26 p.m.

    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
    In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
    In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
    Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
    Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
    I for one, do not want to see a repeat.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 6:44 p.m.

    old man,
    Those with whom you disagree are nonsensical? yes, again the typical "tolerance" of the left is fully manifest in your derogatory comment.

    Additional gun control will do NOTHING to prevent future occurrences.

    Gun laws hurt rational, law-abiding citizens; they do not stop criminals or the insane.

    Additional gun laws in reaction to the CN tragedy is like taking Rogaine for a broken leg - you can say you received some sort of treatment - but it was entirely the wrong kind.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 19, 2012 6:55 p.m.

    Stupid, stupid, stupid.......

    This is just a knee jerk reaction to this event, and doesn't come close to getting to the root cause of what happened.

    Yes, we need to insist people secure their weapons. This is the second instance of someone other than the owner using guns to inflict great damage... so the NRA shouldn't have any resistance to sensible demands that gun owners secure their weapons.

    But this was NOT a gun incident. This was a mental health failure. Plain and simple. We need a plan in 30 days that addresses this issue. We have far too many mentally ill homeless. We have far too many soldiers coming home with trauma from the recent two wars. Fix the mental health issues, and most of these "gun" issues go away.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 7:06 p.m.

    The top of list should be

    1. Gun education in schools, that teaches respect for guns,

    2. Teaching or morals and values.

    Anything else will just deprive law-abiding citizens of rights, freedoms and liberties and maybe their lives.

    Murderers and crazy people do NOT care about laws or bans.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 19, 2012 7:57 p.m.

    If Obama wants gun control he should start with Eric Holder and fast and furious!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 19, 2012 9:14 p.m.

    Mountainman.... and if we follow that train of though, we should do the same with drug dealers.... lets just nab the little guys and not worry about where the drugs lead.... and we should just grab the guy who stole the car, and not worry about chop shop people. This "Fast and Furious" is a common police technique used for decades.... it isn't anything new. We have let spies go to see if they lead us to hired them.... get over it... and stay on topic.

    And don't forget... and you'll love this, fast and furious, was authorized by the Bushed administration, and carried out under the Obama administration. These two incidents have nothing to do with each other what so ever. These were legally purchased guns that were not secured by their owner and kept out of the hands of someone who was not mentally right....

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 19, 2012 9:23 p.m.

    UtahBlueDevil. Not according to ABC news. There was some gun walking during the Bush administration but the fast and furious scandal operation exclusively belongs to Barrack Obama, he owns it. But don't worry, he is going to get away with it even though perhaps dozens of innocent people were murdered.

  • Salsero Provo, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 12:54 a.m.

    OK. Let's talk specifics and consider only one issue: Background checks.

    Should there be background checks on everyone wanting to purchase a firearm? Should the gun show exclusion be recinded? Should anyone wishing to purchase a firearm be required to undergo a background check regardless of how they purchase the item?

    Now, we can see those on the extreme fringe of the gun controversy objecting to this because they will argue that background checks will alert "the government" as to who has a gun. Their paranoia will manifest itself with the psychotic fear that "the government" will come and take away their weapons when they need their guns to fight "the government" when the black helicopters come. They don't want anyone to know what type or numbers of weapons they have when they need to take up arms and fight "the government (i.e. other Americans) in their fantasy.

    The deaths of the children of Sandy Hook Elementary is the price they are willing to pay as they prepare for the armageddon they believe in their heart will soon be upon us. This is mental illness at it's most extreme.

  • ? SLC, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 5:27 a.m.

    How about setting a deadline on proposals to help those with mental illness instead. Taking away guns and the right for one to defend themselves, their family, and their property isn't going to solve very much.

  • RandomTraveler Livermore, CA
    Dec. 20, 2012 6:02 a.m.

    Consider the following two articles:
    Hint: Use a Google search for them

    Active shooters in schools: The enemy is denial
    Preventing juvenile mass murder in American schools is the job of police officers, school teachers, and concerned parents

    Active shooters in schools: Should teachers be trained by police firearms instructors?
    Should at least one teacher on every floor of every school in America be armed, trained, qualified, and ready/willing to end a deadly threat in their school?

    We need to have our schools just as prepared for violence and intruders as we have them prepared for fires by setting up drills and having armed security on the premises.

    Write to your Senators and Congressional Representatives now!!

    I have already done so. There is no need for more "feel good" legislation!!

  • Chris B, Jr. Saint George, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 6:23 a.m.

    Its funny how some gun owners think that they are going to be rounded up and killed in some mass genocide, and that having an automatic weapon will thwart these exterminators plan.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 6:37 a.m.

    Any 'fix' to the fact that every few years a school gets attacked won't work, unless we go to the root of the problem, and that is too many children aren't being raised properly. Children should be raised by parents, not day care facilities. Mothers who have children in their formative years shouldn't be expected or encouraged to work. And if rights are going to be taken away in an attempt to fix this problem, it makes more sense to prohibit mothers from working than to take away guns, this because guns are not the problem, improperly raised children are.

  • ute alumni paradise, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    this is rich. anti-gun joey will head up this group? why would anyone think anything will happen?

  • Mortoon Idaho Falls, ID
    Dec. 20, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    I hate to see the deaths of these beautiful children politicized by this president. Some one please share a rational gun control measure that would stop these disasters. The truth is that, short of confiscating all guns, there are no laws that will keep people like this from taking innocent lives.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 7:35 a.m.

    Re: "There is a huge difference between a "gun ban" and sensible restrictions."

    Sure there is. But no liberal or Democrat is talking about sensible restrictions.

    What they want is to ban "assault weapons," [which they define to include any gun that's fun or useful], "high" capacity [meaning anything more than single shot] magazines, sales at gun shows [an "embarrassment" they've tried to eliminate for years], and more "comprehensive" background checks [meaning complex, liberal-controlled star-chamber proceedings, in which you're guilty 'til proven innocent, to some impossibly high standard].

    And then, they claim not to understand how we could possibly object to any of these "sensible" restrictions.

    Liberals' real problem? Real people know what's in their hearts, and we don't trust them.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:00 a.m.

    City folk don't understand what guns are.
    But, they understand wine and coffee.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:02 a.m.

    "short of confiscating all guns, there are no laws that will keep people like this from taking innocent lives."

    So, the extension of this is not even try.

    Utah is great at limiting and regulating alcohol. Does it stop all DUI and alcohol related crime? Of course not. So, should we just do nothing?

    There are a lot of areas that one can apply this logic. And it is faulty logic most of the time.

    There is usually a balance between freedom and the rights of others. Lets look for that.

  • JDL Magna, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    The shot heard round the world on the little bridge in Concord Massachusetts was to prevent the British army from confiscating the cache of arms the militia had stored away as a defense against tyranny and as a right to self preservation. Look it up and learn the real history and not sugar coated or mythical history.

    The notion that guns or any other form of arms as stated so directly in the second amendment are for the private use for hunting and sporting is to re-write and revise history and is an insult to the blood of the maters of the revolution.

  • JDL Magna, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    In a state of tranquillity (Franklin described it as temporary safety), wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

    Samuel Adams.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    My knee jerk reaction is: Arm teachers.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal, once agagin you couldn't be more wrong. I'm just curious if you were to ask a "liberal" what time of day it was, would you argue with their response..because that's all your post is. It's a complete distortion (kindest word useable here) of the argument.

    I do think that someday America will grow up emotionally to the point that new generations will look at our gun culture as insanity. But it will take an increased trust in society and our ability to govern. It took Europe hundreds of years to get there and I'm sure it will us also.

    bcandersen, states the case for this feeling perfectly. His/Her, "gun history" that justifies individual gun ownership...has nothing to do with criminals, hunting, or sport..it's all about if you don't own a gun the government will come in and round you up and kill you. Eventually America will get over this fantasy.

  • Itsme2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:48 a.m.

    I'm glad Obama has his priorities straight at this crucial time. Never mind about the economic disasters that are here and the fiscal cliff heading our way. Let's make sure we rush to create a new bill that bans assault weapons and will only affect law-abiding citizens. I'm glad we can make ourselves feel better over this type of do-nothing legislation, meanwhile, our country is headed for economic doom. Thanks, Mr. President! Oh, and thanks to the 47 percenters who voted this indivdual back in. I can go to sleep peacefully tonight.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    ? "How about setting a deadline on proposals to help those with mental illness instead" Done, folks..helping those with mental illness is all preventative care...accessible to those with health insurance..Obamacare gave 40,000,000 more people access to health insurance, and increased preventive care for all. So obviously you have now changed your mind about the ACA.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:54 a.m.

    Re:pragmatistferlife

    "Eventually America will get over this fantasy."

    So you are declaring that we have seen the end of tyranny?

    Are you declaring that despite all the lessons of history, that mankind has changed and that we now have nothing to fear?

    Just want some clarification on your view. Have we entered the age of enlightenment and the nature of man has changed forever?

    You seem to be declaring to the world that if any man fears for his/her freedom, they are delusional.

    Have we seen the last threat to our republic and the rights of man are guaranteed now forever?

    Just what are you declaring here?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:57 a.m.

    Re: ". . . once agagin [sic -- again?] you couldn't be more wrong."

    Thanks for proving me right!

    The "gun culture" liberals love to mock is, in reality, nothing more than a pragmatic, time-tested, near universally-accepted approach to confronting and deterring evil.

    It's sad that rigid liberal orthodoxy prevents them from thinking for themselves, and actually prevents liberals from even considering real, pragmatic solutions.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 20, 2012 9:50 a.m.

    Grundle, no tyranny will not end. The fantasy is that in America the government is going to come into your home and drag you out to a gulag..and that even if the government tried to physically subject it's citizens that you running around with your rifle would do anything to prevent it.

    To procuradorlfiscal..Re: ". . . once agagin [sic -- again?] you couldn't be more wrong."

    Thanks for proving me right!...huh..what are you talking about? Your definition high volume, your definition of assault weapon, your definition of comprehensive background checks, are pure hyperbolic fantasy.

  • JDL Magna, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 10:19 a.m.

    Very Sad and even grotesque that the Obama Administration after Fast and Furious, where, under his watch and supervision many murders equal to or at least no less devastatingly sad to families and the country would use this latest tragedy as political capital.

    It makes me really sick in the stomach.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    We need a law that requires all parents and children to be good. In a society that can't define what evil is, a law such as this isn't far behind. The irony is watching otherwise decent, but ignorant, citizens follow the pied pipers of ignorance and corruption, which includes most politicians of our ruling criminal class.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 11:19 a.m.

    Re: ". . . your definition[s] . . . are pure hyperbolic fantasy."

    I agree the definitions are liberal fantasy, but they're not my definitions. Each has been, and will continue to be advanced by one or another liberal politico or think tank.

    Look up the old, failed assault weapons ban that designated semi-auto handguns, rifles or shotguns as assault weapons, if equipped with telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, grenade launcher [no civilian weapon fits in this category], or flash suppressor.

    Look up proposed amendments to Title 11 CA penal code, Section 5469 to define "high capacity magazine" to include ". . . any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm . . . ." [which is the current definition of "detachable magazine"].

    Look up Eric Holder's attempt to impose Chicago-style [demonstrated need] background checks a year ago -- abandoned for then-extant political reasons, but sure to resurface in the new Obama regime.

    It would be hyperbolic fantasy, indeed, to suggest any of these measures would make a single American safer.

    But then, that's not liberal's true aim, is it?

  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    There are many more children killed in foreign lands by drone strikes, but reports of their deaths do not make the news. If Obama truly wants to reduce violence he can start with the man in the mirror.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    The irony of it all is that the people that are calling for bans on guns or increased regulations on guns are all protected by people who carry guns.

    If guns are good enough to protect them from crimials, why can't we have guns to protect ourselves from criminals too?

  • teleste Austin, TX
    Dec. 20, 2012 12:29 p.m.

    Old Man and Pragmatist have no solid arguments. Society won't be made safer by disarming law abiding citizens. That is absurd. And criminals will continue to get guns--a ban won't prevent that. (Heroin and Cocaine are banned...nobody ever gets a hold of drugs, right? /rolls eyes.)

    Old Man and Pragmatist are for controlling others and taking away 2nd Amendment rights from the American people.Pure and simple. Shame on both of you and all the knee-jerking illogical folks who support this kind of ban.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 20, 2012 12:45 p.m.

    Blaming guns for crime is as illogical as blaming spoons for causing obesity or matches causing arson. What has happened in America is the same ideology that other countries have experienced; increased dominance of the secular progressive, moral relevance (liberalism) politics. What I find incredibly sadly ironic is that Barrack Obama only recently instigated a fast and furious gun running operation to Mexico where those guns were used by drug dealers to murder perhaps dozens of innocent people and these secular progressives, who are running our country turn their hypocritical heads and hearts to claim they care deeply about protecting innocent people, not from evil people but from "evil" guns! What they can't promise is that any gun control law will be obeyed by evil people. So gun laws never work, never have, never will.
    I own guns partly because there are evil people running loose who do not obey our laws against murder, rape and robbery and they certainly will not obey any gun control laws either. A gun in my hand is much better for my family and me than a cop on the phone.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 2:06 p.m.

    Question to all you conservatives who say liberals are too extreme and don't have any reasonable proposals for gun control but also say you want to have a discussion on the matter... what proposals (anything you can think of) would you consider to be reasonable new regulations on guns?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 2:08 p.m.

    @Mountanman
    "What has happened in America is the same ideology that other countries have experienced; increased dominance of the secular progressive, moral relevance (liberalism) politics"

    Then why does Canada have a homicide rate 1/5th that of the US? Spain has one 1/20th the US. Germany, the UK, Norway, and Japan have even lower gun-crime rates than Spain. How can secular liberalism lead to more crime when crime rates have actually dropped over the past 20 years, and those nations (and many others) are way more socialist and have way less gun-crime? Your argument just doesn't seem to be backed up by the facts at all.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 2:42 p.m.

    Re: ". . . what proposals (anything you can think of) would you consider to be reasonable new regulations on guns?"

    Nothing springs to mind. But then, I don't lie awake at night, straining to think up new restrictions on guns, as do liberals.

    I'd say the burden's on you.

    We already know what would actually work -- screening, training, and arming willing school personnel. It would provide both a meaningful response -- if the Newtown principal that was killed trying to intervene had been provided the proper tools, no one in the school would have died -- as well as a significant deterrent to the cowards perpetrating these attacks.

    If you've got something to propose, now's the time. But we know NOTHING liberals have proposed to date would make schools or society more safe.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 3:03 p.m.

    alt134
    Resistance is futile. Using logic, facts and reson will not be considered. Join the masses knee jerk reaction to the problem and arm yourself. And don't give us that liberal garbage citing statitics that the gun has a much higher probabilty of being used on you or your family than for your self defense.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 20, 2012 3:11 p.m.

    "(Heroin and Cocaine are banned...nobody ever gets a hold of drugs, right? /rolls eyes.) "

    So, are you suggesting that if we no longer banned heroin and cocaine that nothing would change?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 20, 2012 3:53 p.m.

    I love the argument that more guns equates to less crime. I would love to see one stat that backs that claim up. It just can't be supported with any level with facts.

    That said, like any freedom, the only way to really be free is to also take the risks associated with that freedom. If we allow guns, as we should, we need to accept the risks of that freedom. If we allow free speech, we need to accept that there are those who will make their living abusing free speech. If we truly believe in freedom of religion, we have to allow for those who will choose that freedom to choose what we don't agree with.

    This is about freedom. Every freedom has a dark side to that choice - gun ownership is no different. Painting the world as being safer with everyone armed is a distortion of reality.... we need to accept and acknowledge the risks of freedom as well.... burying your head or making up facts discredits that choice.

  • teleste Austin, TX
    Dec. 20, 2012 3:59 p.m.

    @JoeBlow

    Everyone on this board is smart enough to understand the
    analogy. Criminals will get guns whether they are legal or not.

    And no, Heroin and cocaine should not be legalized.

    Because...

    Heroin and Cocaine can't be used by law abiding citizens to hunt or
    defend one's person or one's family as guns can (and are regularly
    used to do). The Second Amendment protects citizens rights to bear
    arms not use cocaine and heroin.

    @FT and UtahBlueDevil

    For every "Fact" the Brady Campaign feeds you, I can show you an FBI Uniform Crime Report that shows violent crime drops when concealed weapons are made legal. Year after year, in state after state.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    Too many guns means too many accidental deaths as was the case with two two-yr olds this summer in Utah and nobody was at fault. Put that in your collective pipes and smoke it. Most of you really don't care.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:17 p.m.

    louie

    There are almost 7 million auto-accident deaths every year. Do you think we need to ban cars? Put that in your collective pipe and smoke it. You really don't care.

    Blaming guns for these deaths is like blaming cars for drunk drivers or utensils for obesity. Nobody wants to put the blame on the responsible party--the person. We've come so far in this country that we are willing to make all sorts of excuses, but never blaming the real perpetrator.

  • John Brown 1000 Laketown, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 8:36 p.m.

    What's going to deter a future killer?

    Option A: A "No Guns Allowed" sign

    Option B: A "Teachers and Principal certified Concealed Carry Permit Holders"

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 20, 2012 9:07 p.m.

    @ Louie
    "Too many guns means too many accidental deaths as was the case with two two-yr olds this summer in Utah and nobody was at fault."

    Okay, right after we take care of the problem of the dozen kids killed in their own driveways when run over by a car, usually by their parents'. If you want to save more lives, get busy on that one first.

    This whole gun ban push is not about preventing violence, but about executing the liberal's long-standing eagerness to just ban all guns. And, right now it also serves Obama's interests by deflecting attention away from (a) fast and furious; (b) the fiscal cliff he is not doing anything to avoid; (c) the bankruptcy of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; and (d) the obscene and unsustainable and unrepayable $16 trillion debt he is heaping on our children.

    Never let a crisis go to waste. Even when the "solutions" have been proven to be unworkable. He may fool 51% of the people yet again, but he is destroying our country.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 20, 2012 9:54 p.m.

    The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.

    Economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

    The South is the most violent region in the United States.

    Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward.

  • KTC John Wetumpka, AL
    Dec. 20, 2012 10:32 p.m.

    President Obama,
    How about tasking your administration to come up with ways to promote and strengthen two parent families with children and to instill a work ethic in the rising generation? Now that would be positive change. There will never be a law that prevents unpredictible evil. Evil is here to stay until the millenium and that's one of the reasons our forefathers reserved the right to bear arms. Another was to protect against an unconstitutional government that would deign to confiscate private arms.

  • kingtuf Spanish Fork, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 2:10 a.m.

    I think we need more carry permits so people are prepared to defend against such things as mass shootings. Apart from that, stronger sanctions on the mentaly ill would go a long way toward
    ending these mass shooting sprees.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:14 a.m.

    To "atl134" maybe, as others have suggested, the increase of homicides and mass murders within the US is caused by the increased use of psychiatric drugs. You know those drugs that have the warnings that using them may result in suicidal or violent actions.

    With the US leading the world in psychiatric drugs, and those drugs resulting in suicidal or violent acts, do you think there is some link between the two?

    The web site Citizen Commission on Human Rights International has a search engine you can use where they will list out studies where they found links between drugs like Ritalin and violence. Don't you think that if we are becoming such a drug dependant nation that uses drugs that increase violence that maybe that is the cause of the violence?

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 1:34 p.m.

    So, if I listen to the logic of these postings the best thing I can do for society and my family's safety is to arm myself. Yet, I cannot find one statistic that says society or my family will be safer. The fact remains, the gun(s) I purchase are more likely to harm me or someone I know. No thanks, I won't fall victim to the propaganda being put forth by the NRA and 2nd amendment nuts. Two types of people need guns, sportsman and cowards.