Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: Guns kill people too quickly

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 5:28 a.m.

    What the writer says is true, guns do allow faster killing than knives, even though there are other ways to kill people quickly. The point is that guns are morally neutral. They don't decide whom to kill. The fact that they're efficient can be a good thing as well as a bad thing, it all depends on how they're used.

    I notice that the guy who shot the firemen in New York was illegally armed. Too bad the existing gun control laws didn't stop him. It isn't clear how more laws or tougher laws might have changed the outcome. It seems that only law-abiding people are affected by gun control laws.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Dec. 27, 2012 7:04 a.m.

    It was already illegal to bring a gun to school anyway what would gun control do? That evil man in New York that shot the firefighters was out of prison after murdering his own grandmother I believe. If someone was afraid of capital punishment murder would go down. Likewise if someone feared a gun or if there was a gun more innocent people might have been saved. I beleive a concealed carrier stopped a good deal of innocent people from getting killed in Oregon. Guns can save lives. Besides criminals will find a way to get guns anyway.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 27, 2012 7:18 a.m.

    Blaming guns for crime is as illogical as blaming spoons and forks for obesity. A gun in my hand is better for me and my family than a cop on the phone.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 7:23 a.m.

    Have shootings become so commonplace that they merit very little attention? Have they become as routine as auto accidents and obtain no news coverage beyond a mention unless they are as horrific as the school shootings?

    Notice how little attention is being paid to the firefighter deaths in New York and how little coverage has been given to two recent Utah shootings that left two dead and two wounded. Have Americans in general become so accustomed to shootings that they stir no real concern?

    Apparently there is no one keeping good records of shootings. The few sites I can find are usually badly slanted to either extreme. There is little information about how many guns used are "legal" versus "illegal." The New York shooter was "illegal." The two in Utah were apparently "legal." Based on what I've been able to find, it appears that the majority of guns used in shootings and suicides are "legal."

    We have a serious problem that we've ignored far too long.

    Solutions are out there -- but finding them might be very hard unless both sides soften their stances.

    If absolutely no regulation was intended, why is that word in the Second Amendment?

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 7:44 a.m.

    Homes with guns in them are twelve times (12X) more likely to be used against a family member or a family friend than homes that do not have guns in them. Over 17,000 people, each year, commit suicide with a gun. This is a national disgrace. The NRA will label people like Adam Lanza as "Monsters" or "Predators" in order to scare and dehumanize these individuals. In the NRA's warped thinking, there is a criminal class and a good citizen class. They want everyone to buy a gun to protect themselves from their made up "criminal class." This is a fantasy and deflects clear thinking. Most murders occur in the home. Guns are used in domestic violence much more offend that the are used to protect a family against an intruder. The Sandy Hook School shooting has exposed the NRA's weak thinking. Good editorial and on target.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 27, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    Mountainman is the epitome of the issue.."a gun in my hand is better than a cop on the phone"..only if that's the only consequence of brandishing a gun..and only if it's probable that you will some day be the victim of a face to face criminal who intends on physically killing you or yours. Fact is reality doesn't meet either of those requirements.

    This is the danger of violent movies, tv shows, etc. it helps create this fantasy of a boogey man around every corner so I need to be ready at a moments notice to blow his head off.

    Fact is 99.9% of everyone we know will go through life and never go face to face with a malintentioned gun..and I have been in a face to face robbery and a concealed weapon wouldn't have done me any good at all. Spout all the trite macho saysing you want..but the world just doesn't fit into your little fantasy world.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 27, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    @ pragmatistferlife; Macho? You completely misjudge me! Not many years ago a man with a criminal history moved to this area and broke into a family's home and brutally murdered both parents and one older son with a hammer. He took the two remaining children to a remote area and raped them both for days. He eventually killed the young boy and took the young girl to a restaurant in town. A waitress recognized the girl and called police. That man is still in prison wasting taxpayer money with appeal after appeal. If only the parents of that family had a gun, it is highly likely their family would not have been destroyed by an evil man. Has nothing to do with being macho as you suggested, has to do with protecting my family.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    "Guns Kill People Too Quickly"

    So we prefer a long slow death? Being stabbed repeatedly, strangled, or bludgeoned?

    How about ripped apart by a dog? That was my experience. Had it not been for someone intervening, I would be dead. If I had had a gun, I would have had one bite instead of rips all over by body.

    Facing an aggressive dog is much more likely than facing an armed nut job. Dog bites are much more common than shootings. Irresponsible people get dogs, big aggressive dogs, for their "protection". Unlike a gun, dogs can go off without the aid or someone to pull the trigger. Shall we outlaw large dogs because a few owners are irresponsible? Even I, the victim, say no. Don't punish the good dog owners because of the bad ones. But let me, the responsible gun owner, have my gun too. Again, don't punish the responsible gun owners because of the irresponsible owners.

    Now all the liberal naysayers will probably call me a liar. They have done that to others who post their experiences. There is no provision here to post pictures of all the scars, but I have them, inside and out.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 9:47 a.m.

    Re: "If absolutely no regulation was intended, why is that word in the Second Amendment?"

    The Second Amendment talks of a well-regulated militia, not of well-regulated arms or ammunition.

    There is no mention whatever of regulating arms in the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    You gave it the old liberal college try -- but no cigar.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 27, 2012 9:59 a.m.

    @ Mountanman

    Sounds like you think about this a lot. But since you are about a million times more likely to be injured or killed in a car accident then by a gun wielding home invader, then by your logic shouldn’t you be driving a vehicle with Nascar like protection?

    Also, your “spoons” logic only goes so far – would that logic apply if a terrorist were to nuke NYC? “Nuclear bombs don’t kill people, terrorists do.” What about fighter jets, tanks, rocket launchers, etc…?

    The point is that simplistic “logic” never tells the whole story, let alone provides all the answers. We need pragmatic sense to know where to draw the lines. Obviously we draw the line at nuclear weapons and tanks. Maybe assaults weapons and high capacity clips should fall on that side of the line and not on the “musket” side.

    Either way, it is worth discussing rather than thinking a bumper sticker is the place to find wisdom and public policy.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 27, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    So let me get this straight....

    Republicans think it's OK to attack and invade a country over weapons of mass destruction that do not exist and never killed or threatened a single American,
    but
    Want that very same over-reaching Government to NOT ban or restrict it's own citizens who possess weapons of mass destruction that DO exist and DO kill Americans.

    BTW -- Conservative All-or-Nothing extremeists
    None of are saying ban ALL guns, confiscate ALL guns, arrest ALL gun owners...

    Just the assualt weapons (yes, an AR-15 is a weapon first that just so happens to be a gun second) of mass destruction.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    Procura, have the Founding Fathers come to you in your dreams to explain to you exactly what they meant when they wrote that?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 27, 2012 10:11 a.m.

    @ Tyler. I agree with most of what you said. However, rocket launchers and machine guns can be purchased on the black market, by those who can afford them subject to supply and demand.
    I take no offense from people who CHOOSE not to own firearms, just at those who tell me I can not!
    I would support any gun law that guarantees criminals can not get guns, even high capacity clips! To me, that is logic in action, not just words!

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Dec. 27, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    This is true. Guns kill too fast. Lets opt for more drought, starvation, knife wounds and slow poisoning. Get real you nincompoop, PEOPLE shoot PEOPLE.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    Remember that the purpose of a gun is to "kill" something or someone. They are not designed to be a threat, but to make good on a threat. If you have a gun but are unwilling to actually use it and "gun down someone" they will take it away from you and use it on you. The problem isn't people who keep the laws (that is very obvious), but those who are "fixated with killing" and can't wait for the supposed attention and glory that think such action brings to them. Anyone or anything that glorifies killing shares in the blame, too, whether it be hollywood, the media, gun shows, violent games, etc. To glorify killing is to desensitise the value of life, either human or animal, and reduces ones ability to think clearly. Killing animals for food is indeed justified and proper. Killing animals for the thrill of killing something is not moral, ethical or praiseworthy.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 27, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID

    I take no offense from people who CHOOSE not to own firearms, just at those who tell me I can not!
    I would support any gun law that guarantees criminals can not get guns, even high capacity clips! To me, that is logic in action, not just words!

    10:11 a.m. Dec. 27, 2012

    ==============

    As former military soldier,
    How do you feel about my 2nd amendment right to keep and bare Nerve Gas, Blood agents, Coughing agents, Blistering Agents (Chemical weapons)
    or
    Boubonic plauge, Typhoid, Malaria, Anthrax, Ricketts, Shingles, and Yellow Fever (Bio-Weapons)

    I have no problem when my friends and neighbors CHOOSE not to posses them,
    just those of you who say I can not.

    or
    are you only going to support laws if you could only guatantee they not get into the hands of criminals?

    FYI
    Weapons of Mass destruction --
    Assault rifles and high capacity clips fall into these categories as well, for exactly the same reasons.
    One person -- Mass killings.

    Not safe in the hands of common citizens.

  • Why would I? Farmington, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    "As former military soldier,
    How do you feel about my 2nd amendment right to keep and bare Nerve Gas, Blood agents, Coughing agents, Blistering Agents (Chemical weapons)
    or
    Boubonic plauge, Typhoid, Malaria, Anthrax, Ricketts, Shingles, and Yellow Fever (Bio-Weapons)"

    I don't believe you have any such right and it strains logic to use such examples in the present discussion. Why would I think you are being rational about the issue?

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 27, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    @Mountanman

    Sounds like we are closer than it seemed at first. It’s a complex problem that will likely require a number of different approaches… and even then there’s no way we’re going to stop every shooting.

    My problem with groups like the NRA is that gun restrictions (better background checks, assault weapons, gun show loop hole, high capacity clips, etc…) are simply off the table before the conversation even begins. And the Left (Hollywood) does the same regarding censorship (violent movies, video games, etc…). When I see some of these actors (who have done horrible acts of violence on screen, often gratuitous and without merit) lecture us on values, the hypocrisy makes me nauseated.

    None of these rights (free speech, guns, etc.) are absolute and when they begin to trample on other’s rights – like to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – the law allows for some restrictions (e.g., you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater).

    Of course the elephant in the room is mental illness… no easy answers there.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 27, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    @ Tyler, I also do a lot of backpacking in wilderness areas where I pack a .44 mag handgun. I have never used it but I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it! Wolves are getting aggressive up here, had them howling outside my campsite many times.
    Thanks for your civil discussion. Happy New Year to you and yours!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 12:23 p.m.

    Ah, MM, my congratulations to you. You've had the chance to finally know the thrill of hearing that deep, throaty wild sound echoing through a wild place. It has been gone from our land far too long.

    Now if we can only help some of our fellow Americans to put aside their irrational fears and learn to appreciate what is truly of value. We can only hope that not so many of our neighbors have become citified to the point that they recoil in senseless fear when they hear the cry of canis lupus echoing through a wilderness night.

    But for those of us who live for the times when we can disappear into truly wild places with a backpack or string of horses, there is nothing better than that wildly wonderful sound.

    Don't you feel sorry for anyone so cowardly that they find themselves cringing in fear and feeling in the dark for the handle of some kind of weapon?

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Dec. 27, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    Then they will just use chainsaws in the future. People will die in even greater agony with a chinsaw than a gun.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 27, 2012 1:34 p.m.

    @Why would I?
    Farmington, UT

    I don't believe you have any such right and it strains logic to use such examples in the present discussion. Why would I think you are being rational about the issue?

    10:46 a.m.

    ============

    Do you know the terms sarcasm or trial test?

    Of course no "normal" person would feel safe with my having such dangerous weapons stored at my house or garage.
    But this same 2nd amendment rights fails by those saying they need assault rifles and high capacity clips for defense as to my choosing to have chemical and biological weapons in my defense.

    Name for me ONE instance of anyone anywhere "protecting" his family or property against dangerous criminals or evil bad guys attacking them,
    and his thworting their attackers and saving the day due to his use of an assault rifle?

    ZERO

    Now --
    How many times have you read about some nut-job getting ahold of and using these same weapons and going on a rampage shooting indicriminately at innocent by-stnaders, movie goers, mall patrons and litte kids in schools?

    Almost weekly.

    It's about time we do something.
    because I serious don't want to make my own weapons.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 27, 2012 2:14 p.m.

    What is the price of FREEDOM? We have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court has ruled, upholding that amendment.

    How many people have died so that the GOVERNMENT cannot take away our firearms?

    8,000 - Revolutionary War

    1,056 - Northwest Indian War

    2,260 - War of 1812

    1,733 - Mexican American War

    212,938 - Civil War

    919 - Indian Wars

    1,020 - Philippine American War

    53,402 - WWI

    291,557 - WWII

    33,686 - Korean War

    47,424 - Vietnam

    4,977 - War on Terror

    Yet, even with precious blood spilt, many Americans are first in line to give away their Freedoms. They're first in line to TAKE AWAY our Freedoms. So many preach "anything goes", then when someone decides that anything goes, they want to use governmental force to keep us from doing wrong. That plan was voted down long before we were born. Why do so many think that Lucifer was right and that Christ was wrong? Christ gave us agency. Lucifer uses force to take away our agency.

    At least those who want to take away our freedom can truthfully say, "the devil made me do it".

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 2:20 p.m.

    I hate guns

    But that didn't stop me from noticing that the "monster" at Sandy Hook only stopped shooting others (and turned to himself) when the police showed up with a GUN

    Or that the heroic principal may have been alive now if she had a firearm, instead of sacrificing her body

    Or that the firefighters killed in a Christmas Eve ambush were killed by a man who was prohibited by law from having a gun

    Or that despite it being illegal to own one in DC: David Gregory brandished a high-capacity ammunition magazine on Meet-the-Press.

    Seems that criminals (and liberal elitist journalists) think that gun laws don't really apply to them - merely to me.

  • Why would I? Farmington, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 2:35 p.m.

    airnaut

    We likely agree on several things, among them that a regular person has absolutely no need for an assault rife.

    Since you like sarcasm, how about this: We mount an assault rifle on our car as a hood ornament and if someone tries to steal the car the rifle swings around, pointing at them, and a recorded message declares "You have 5 seconds to exit the vehicle or this weapon fires." (Of course it would only be in one language as their wouldn't be time to press 1 for english, 2 for spanish, etc.)

    When it comes to guns, there are two observations: 1- A rational discussion is almost impossible, and 2- Yes, we do have a problem in this country.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 27, 2012 2:56 p.m.

    Probably Nancy Lanza also believed the rhetoric we hear from pro-gun enthusiasts.

    But nothing can change the fact that there are 20 children who are dead from guns she bought and introduced to her troubled son.

    The ATF has not had an official director, only acting directors, for several years because Republicans changed the way ATF directors were appointed to require Senate confirmation. As a result, Senate Republicans/NRA refuse to confirm someone as ATF director.

    ALL gun/ammo purchases should require background checks and a waiting period. There should be a limit to the number of guns one can purchase on a monthly/yearly basis--to reduce the likelihood of "straw purchases," just as decongestants are tracked/limited for meth manufacturing.
    /

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 2:59 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    They're first in line to TAKE AWAY our Freedoms.

    That plan was voted down long before we were born. Why do so many think that Lucifer was right and that Christ was wrong? Christ gave us agency. Lucifer uses force to take away our agency.

    At least those who want to take away our freedom can truthfully say, "the devil made me do it".

    2:14 p.m. Dec. 27, 2012

    ==============

    Mike,

    This is hilarous! --
    Are you serious?

    This coming from the same guy who wants to take away;
    Smoking,
    Drinking alcohol,
    R-rated movies,
    shopping on Sunday,
    short skirts,

    and yet here you are going off on another rant about arming paranoid citizens to the hilt -- able to gun down less armed Police and thinking they are somehow entitled to be on par with our Military, who have at least been thoroughly Trained, back-ground checked, Certified and keeping arms firmly secured and away in gun safes 24/7/365!

    Private citizens are NOT that "well regulated Militia" you right-wingers dream you are.

    Thanks for trampling the Constitution.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 3:24 p.m.

    @toosmart

    "They are not designed to be a threat, but to make good on a threat."

    Not sure I agree completely with that sentiment. Usually the threat is sufficient to ward off attacks. But you are correct that one should not brandish a weapon unless one is prepared to use it. Good firearms training is essential, which is one reason why I support the NRA.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 3:35 p.m.

    @Truthseeker

    "ALL gun/ammo purchases should require background checks and a waiting period."

    Nancy Lanza obeyed the laws on the books when she acquired her firearms, laws which are more strict in Connecticut than most other states. The background checks and waiting periods did not change the outcome. Tracking her purchases would not have changed the outcome. Having an "official director" of ATF would not have changed the outcome. I don't understand your line of reasoning.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 4:01 p.m.

    I have YET for someone to provide an example of someone ever using an assault rifle to defend his family or property from evil criminals, or deadly attackers.

    Yet -- in just the last several weeks we have case after case of a nut-job after nut-job using them to indiscriminately open fire on innocent by-standers, Mall patrons, and little school children. There has probably hundreds of this sort of instance happen over the last few years.

    It's time to take them away -- from your cold dead hands...

    For the good of this nation.

    BTW - If you want an assault rifle -- join the military.

    A pick-up truck, gun rack in the rear window, and target practice a couple times a year is not the "well regulated militia" the Constitution makes allowances for.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    @airnaut:

    "So let me get this straight.... Republicans think it's OK to attack and invade a country over weapons of mass destruction that do not exist and never killed or threatened a single American."

    I'll try to help you out... Saddam Hussein DID have WMD. He used them to kill Kurds in northern Iraq. And he was in the process of developing more effective WMD such as what his neighbor, Ahmadinejad in Iran is now doing.

    As for invading... Bush invaded Iraq because Saddam invaded Kuwait and then refused to honor a no fly zone requirement after the war. What was Bush supposed to do, send Saddam a nasty note of some sort?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 27, 2012 4:57 p.m.

    re:Pops

    My overall point is that we have been too lax about firearms in this country.

    Too many gun fanatics (not all gun owners) hold unrealistic, naive, mythical views about the safety risks poised by firearms in the home and in society. Unfortunately, it appears Nancy Lanza fell into this category. Perhaps she kept the guns locked up? We don't know. At one time I had 3 teenaged sons living at home and would never presume they couldn't get figure out a way to get into a gun cabinet if they were determined to do so. I erred on the side of caution, choosing to not have any guns in my home. Granted, if one of my sons was determined he could figure out another way to procure a gun. But why make it easy? After all, burglar alarms don't deter all burglaries either.

    Perhaps additional questions need to be asked for gun purchasers--such as who is living at home and do they suffer from any type of mental illness? Perhaps the Nancy Lanza's could still own guns, but be required to keep them at a shooting range in a locker somewhere.

  • Mr. Bean Ogden, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 5:09 p.m.

    @Why would I?:
    "We likely agree on several things, among them that a regular person has absolutely no need for an assault rife."

    No one needs an assault weapon. The only thing an assault weapon is good for is to assault someone. And no one should be assaulting anyone. Especially with a gun.

    But, on the other hand, the US Constitution authorizes guns in the hands of citizens in the event we need a militia in case the government needs to be overthrown... and that would include assault weapons. And perhaps many other types of weapons.

    Perhaps we need to analyze whether we need a militia to overthrow the government in the first place. And more importantly, whether we need to use force these days when we have a ballot box. Certainly the current government needs to be overthrown and those in government, including the White House, needs to be thrown out. But I doubt a militia with assault weapons are going to be able to overthrow our current government considering that it has ships, guns, tanks, airplanes, large bombs, including (gasp) H-bombs, and a million man professional military.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Dec. 27, 2012 5:13 p.m.

    @beverly

    over 17,000 suicides are committed every year by other than guns. Are you going to call for outlawing the other methosds used? You say the NRA is going to label the shooter a monster, as if every other group, news agency, and civilized person has not already done that. He was a monster.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    Dec. 27, 2012 8:06 p.m.

    @Mr. Bean – “Perhaps we need to analyze whether we need a militia to overthrow the government in the first place. And more importantly, whether we need to use force these days when we have a ballot box. Certainly the current government needs to be overthrown…”

    Wow, my head hurts! So let me get this straight… you question the very idea of force because we have a ballot box, but then (with no apparent irony) you say the current government – which was elected by a majority of the people, and a big majority of electoral votes… TWICE! - needs to be overthrown?

    Maybe overthrowing the government is not the only reason the Founders drafted the 2nd amendment…

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 27, 2012 8:54 p.m.

    Re:Jsf
    "Are you going to call for outlawing the other methods used?"

    Is anyone calling for all firearms to be "outlawed"?

    Of the other methods of suicide, how many involved items whose sole/main function is to kill?

    More people die from suicide by firearms than by car accidents in the U.S.

  • Salsero Provo, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 12:34 a.m.

    All this noise about how more guns will make us safer from "bad guys" begs the question: Who are these bad guys you're talking about and why should I trust you not to be one of them? Should I buy a gun to protect myself from you just in case you are not who you claim to be?

    As for keeping the mentally ill from obtaining guns, what makes those on the Far Right of the gun issue sane when they sound like paranoid psychotics about having to fight the government someday?

    Finally, is the gun lobby really suggesting that we have paramilitary forces patrolling our streets, neighborhoods, and business areas with automatic, military, assault weapons like they do totalitarian regimes we currently distain for their political system but apparently worship for their security acumen? Where are the libertarians on turning the country into a police state where everyone is armed and gunning for a confrontation?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 28, 2012 12:33 a.m.

    Dear Mr. Washington,

    "I was outraged. in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. LaPierre, V.P. of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.

    ....I am a gun owner and avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.'s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.

    However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.

    You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A. Please remove my name from your membership list. Sincerely, George Bush"
    (5/3/1995 edited for brevity)

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 5:13 a.m.

    @Truthseeker Suicides by firearms is about 17,000, total suicides are about 34,000, annual car deaths are about 36,000, per the cdc.

    Of the other methods of suicide, how many involved items whose sole/main function is to kill? All of them. they were used to kill. That is why using suicides as an argument for gun control is not a valid arguement. We could argue that because certain vehicles sole design was to kill. Outlawing assault vehicles as any vehicle over a certain weight and number of passengerslike maybe five. After all look how many tragedies have been committed by such. Right here in utah.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 5:52 a.m.

    There have been a lot of disparaging remarks about "assault weapons" and semi-automatic weapons. Does the fact that a firearm is semi-automatic qualify it as an assault weapon? Does that include handguns, many of which are semi-automatic? Does it include weapons that use non-gas methods to chamber the next round, such as revolvers or the Winchester lever-action rifle? What about bolt-action rifles with magazines? Or do assault weapons have to have scary-looking stocks or bayonet mounts?

    The obvious downside of banning weapons on the basis of rate of fire is that it is saying, in essence, that it's okay to defend oneself against one attacker, but not against multiple attackers. Does that make sense?

    There is already a compromise in place, a dividing line between what is generally viewed as sufficiently safe and what is not (e.g. automatic weapons). Has the general public evolved to the point where we are too incompetent to be trusted with semi-automatic weapons? Or are we trying to solve a mental illness problem with gun control laws?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 28, 2012 8:15 a.m.

    "The obvious downside of banning weapons on the basis of rate of fire is that it is saying, in essence, that it's okay to defend oneself against one attacker, but not against multiple attackers. Does that make sense?"...Yes it does. My point to mountainman yesterday was not that criminal attacks don't take place..I've been in one..it's that the probability of you being in such an attack and being able to defend yourself is very very low and their are consequences to guns other than your unlikely self defense. So once again it does make sense to not allow high volume weapons and mags because the probablility that they will be used for anything other than mayhem is probably about zero.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 28, 2012 8:29 a.m.

    It's contemptible when people distort, misrepresent, and lie to promote their point. It shows how weak their point is. Truth always stands on its own. It doesn't require misrepresentation. It doesn't require distortion. It doesn't use sarcasm or mockery.

    The truth about guns in America is that we have a right to keep and bear them without government interference. The truth is that no one, including anyone in the government, has the authority to take away that right. The truth is that people with weak arguments will continue to tell us that citizens have no rights - except those granted to them from the government. Can't they read? Can't they comprehend the Constitution. Don't they know what, "shall not be infringed" means?

    If you want to argue against our freedoms, have the decency to tell us that you don't believe in freedom. Your lies, your distortions, your misrepresentations do not help your cause.

    There are over 300,000,000 of us who are mostly law abiding and decent, yet there are some of you who would enslave 300,000,000 people because a handful commit criminal acts. Just what does it mean to you to be an American?

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 10:11 a.m.

    Bill of Rights Preamble:

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    Amendment 2

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Well stated Mike.

    If you don't know the words in the preamble, look them up.

    In summary, in order to keep the federal government from misusing and abusing its powers, and to keep this government doing what is good for the people and the nation, the rights of the people need to be guaranteed.

    The bearing of arms is one of those rights.

    So if bearing arms keeps the government from doing bad things and keeps it doing good things, don't we need more people bearing arms right now? Our government needs all the help it can get.

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    Dec. 28, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    Last post

    Re:Jsf
    I misspoke. Firearm deaths do exceed auto fatalities in some states, UT for example.
    2010
    Suicides: 38,364 (CDC/National Center Injury Prevention and Control)
    Car accident fatalities: 32,788 (NHTSA)

    A 2007 study that grouped the 15 states with the highest rate of gun ownership alongside the six states with the lowest (each group had a population of about 40 million), Hemenway and his associates found that when it came to all nonfirearm methods, the two populations committed suicide in nearly equal numbers. The more than three-times-greater prevalence of firearms in the “high gun” states, however, translated into a more than three-times-greater incidence of firearm suicides, which in turn translated into an annual suicide rate nearly double that of the “low gun” states.
    (NY Times)

    Furthermore, often people who attempt suicide, unsuccessfully, don't have a 2nd suicide attempt. But suicide using firearms is 82-95% successful the first time.

    CA has a lower firearm death rate/100,000 people than UT.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    Can't they read? Can't they comprehend the Constitution. Don't they know what, "shall not be infringed" means?

    @Christian 24-7
    Murray, UT

    Amendment 2
    A well regulated Militia...

    Can't you read? Can't you comprehend the Constitution. Don't they know what, "A well regulated Militia" means?

    The Constitution ONLY refers the 2nd amendment to be the State's individual National Guard.
    Those who meet One weekend a month for Military training,
    Those who meet ALL Federal requirements for Deployment,
    Those who meet all conditions for Active Duty,
    Those who actaully are deployed once a year on Temporay Duty.
    Those who actually ARE the people living next door to you, working a regual 9-5 and attend your Church.
    Those who ARE actually the true Minute Men.

    Not some Billy-Bob Joe citizen and his AR-15 high capacity .223 assualt rifles in his pick-up truck.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 11:12 a.m.

    Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

    Can't you read? Can't you comprehend the Constitution. Don't they know what, "A well regulated Militia" means?

    I repeat,
    Guardsmen --
    A well regulated Militia...

    Not some Billy-Bob Joe citizen and his AR-15 high capacity .223 assualt rifles in his pick-up truck.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 28, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    New York Times, June 28, 2010 "Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment was fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights setting out such fundamental protections, he said, it must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments."

    The 2nd Amendment is clear. Some twist it. Some misrepresent it. Some lie about it. The Court ruled. The 214 page decision was clearly and concisely summarised by the New York Times. ALL levels of government are bound by the 2nd Amendment.

    Upholding the Constitution is the duty of every American. Unfortunately, there are many who desire to do away with liberty. They use any excuse to distort and misrepresent that contract. They twist the words and add their own interpretation.

    The greatest danger to our freedom, is people who think that they have the right to change the Supreme Law of the Land without the consent of 75% of the States - as required.

    "Shall not be infringed" means that nobody has authority to "infringe" that right.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 2:27 p.m.

    Beverly, you are flat wrong. While there are a lot of people that committ suicide by firearm in the US, it isn't 17,000. In 2009 it was less than 12,000 which is still too high.

    I know at lest 12 people over the years, that have foiled a night time home burglary without even having to fire their gun. Just the threat of use is enough to get the burgler to leave.

    You are not 12 times more likely to have your own gun used against you. Why don't you cite some specific examples? I know people that have had guns stolen, mostly hunting rifles, from their homes while they were not home. I know of exactly no instances where a bad guy took a gun away from a home owner and shot them with it.

    Guns have to have human interaction to work. Whithout it, they don't work.

    Look at the video of the Bear Man that got ate in Alaska by bears. I'll bet he now wishes he had a gun to defend himself in the wild.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 2:39 p.m.

    Toosmartforyou, I was a cop and had occasion to point my weapon at many people over the years. I never once had to fire it at anyone, but nearly had to a few times. You say guns aren't designed to be a threat. The intimidation factor and the threat of shooting the bad guy made them back off every time. The threat of use of deadly force is way better than having to use it. That is why proper training is so important for those that choose to have weapons. There are many classes out there for anyone to take. The Utah Shooting Sports Council offers them all the time.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 10:10 p.m.

    I don't want to sound like I'm agreeing or disagreeing with anyone but I have to say this: an arm is a gun, it's not a thermonuclear device so the analogy people have used to suggest that is insipid.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Dec. 28, 2012 11:09 p.m.

    I had no idea that the constitution, when put in context, was so inflammatory.

    Some people really don't like the Preamble of the Bill of Rights. It doesn't support their narrative. They would rather hyper focus on 4 words than read it all. They don't want the holistic insights, and they don't want you to have them either.

    They even misconstrue the tax section of Article 1 of the constitution as a definition of militias. It is the section on taxing authority of congress and what taxes can be used for. ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..." and then a list of To's) That is all. It does not prohibit or define what legal militias are. It only tells which ones federal taxes can be used to fund.

    The Constitution is best read fully, not in bits. You won't find it all here, with a 200 word limit, but clearly you can find it online. Here you will find those who will cut out the smallest bits to wrest them to their viewpoint.

    Even with the 200 word limit, including passages before the one you are drumming, is important. Context does matter.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Dec. 29, 2012 7:25 p.m.

    I find it laughable that there is the cult of weekend hunters that think their AR-15 is even slightly effective against a modern military and the weapons available to it. If these people who at best shoot and kill a defenseless dear are even a slight match against even such groups as the Taliban who have been fighting not against antlered combatants, but those who actually fight back, they are sorely over estimating their skills. It is only the morals of our military that have kept them from using enough force to eradicate the Taliban. Dear hunters would be no contest for the US military.

    I have no problem with citizens owning weapons. I also find it laughable that some believe that holding gun owners responsible for crimes committed with those weapons is unconstitutional. Securing your weapon should be an absolute requirement for any gun owner. Any crime or "accident" committed with these weapons, stolen or not, the owners of these weapons should be held as accessories for not safeguarding their weapons. Owning a gun is a responsibility. As harsh as it sounds, none of these events would have happened if these guns had been secured.

    Freedom requires responsibility.