Quantcast
Opinion

My View: Several actions needed in gun debate

Comments

Return To Article
  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 2, 2013 6:09 a.m.

    After hearing the very sad story of a co-worker of how his teen daughter committed suicide with his own gun and how much guilt he felt I decided to never let that happen to me and my daughter.

    We have a shotgun but don't keep any ammunition for it. When we occasional go to the range with family, we shoot all the shells we buy so we don't bring any home. Kids brains haven't fully developed until about age 24. Why think they can always handle having a loaded gun nearby? There is some tipping point for everyone.

    As for home defense I have good locks, good emergency procedures and an alarm. True defense.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    We could ban everything that could potentially cause harm. We could take away driving privileges until a driver had "driven" a simulator for 2,000 hours - like pilots are required to do. We could take away all kitchen knives and "pointy" things, just in case those "pointy things" were used to hurt. We could ban all household cleansers and heavy-duty soaps, just in case. We could ban bicycles and scooters. We could ban walking, because a goodly number of people slip and fall while walking. We could ban all breakable glassware that could cut or maim. The list is endless.

    Doctors should be banned from using sharp instruments, because cutting people open surely causes harm.

    We should stop thinking and let others think for us. We should all become mindless robots who do whatever the state tells them to do. We should forfeit all freedoms because someday, someone will use his freedom to harm another.

    We should all crawl back into the womb because this world is just too dangerous for human habitation.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:28 a.m.

    Poor false equivalency Mike. And dishonest as well.

    But you pointed out that we don't let pilots fly over our heads and carry passengers without training. So when will you and NRA accept a training and registration requirement for guns?

    You're just going to keep railing against the "ban" that nobody is really talking about aren't you? Fan the flames of fear instead of responsibility is plan for you and the NRA. It's a dishonest business.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    Some people refuse to accept the FACT that we have a Constitution. All rights are retained by the people except those rights that we have listed in the Constitution as authorized duties of the Federal Government. In addition to that, we have the Bill of Rights where the right to keep and bear arms - without infringement - is guaranteed. That is the Supreme Law of the Land. No government at any level, according to the recent Supreme Court decision, has the authority to limit our right to keep and bear arms.

    America is about liberty, not about restriction. Some people cannot handle freedom. They are given their day in court AFTER they have violated public trust. If found guilty, they are sentenced to pay for their crime AFTER they have committed that crime.

    No one, not the President and not a group of politically active citizens, has the right to infringe on our guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:03 a.m.

    Screwdriver -- thanks for hanging in there. Someone needs to keep beating the drum for sanity.

    And thank you, Doctor, for having the guts to speak the truth in a public place even though you may face scorn from people whose intellectual capacity and maturity has not progressed beyond playing with guns.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Mike, so what do you think of Justice Scalia, writing these words in D.C. v. Heller, striking down the handgun ban?

    "3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    "No government at any level, according to the recent Supreme Court decision, has the authority to limit our right to keep and bear arms."

    Mike Richards always conviently leaves out the Constitutional requirement of "well-regulated".
    i.e., regulations, restrictions, requirements to possess, regulatory....boundaries.

    Do you support my right (per your interpretation) to keep and bare anthrax? boubonic plague? Typhoid?
    How about Sarin gas, or other nerve or blood agent chemicals?
    Iridium or Uraminium -- (you know, they make a quick, easy and wicked dirty bomb)?

    The Constitution does not give a common citizen a free pass on weapon ownership Mike.

    Thanks for once AGAIN trampling the Constitution with your myopic and selfish understanding of it.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    LDS Liberal always leaves out the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that specifically states that NO level of government has the right to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. He ignores the Constitution and he ignores the ruling of the court, but he continues to claim that he is the font from which we should draw all knowledge.

    Wouldn't it be more prudent to rely on the Constitution and on the Court to interpret the law than on someone who posts under a pseudonym?

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    Mr. Cosgrove's concerns are valid, and I agree with a few of his proposals. But his gun-control proposals will not help, and will only make things easier for criminals.

    Cosgrove's selected statistics ignore the fact that guns are used up to 2.5 million times a year to prevent crimes -- burglaries, robberies, kidnappings, rapes, and murders -- almost always with no shots being fired. Many of these prevented crimes involve the protection of children from harm.

    Gun control only makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals (those who ignore the laws).

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    @ Mike Richards. Great points but by now you have to know that liberals despise the constitution because it was written by our inspired founding fathers to limit the power of the government, and for them, thou shalt have no other God before the government! That also explains why so many liberals are atheist.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    Re: "As a pediatrician, father and grandfather, my heart goes out to the families in Newtown, Conn . . . [b]an the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines to the public."

    Real people's hearts are as moved by Newtown, but fortunately, we've left our brains engaged.

    Pediatricians, mostly live in patrolled, gated communities. Maybe that's why they have less common sense than the rest of us.

    I'll keep it simple -- disarming your kids and mine, Doc, will have, not the slightest effect on the availability of guns to bad guys.

    Gun bans only apply to those who obey the law.

    As you said -- there are nearly as many guns out there as there are Americans. So sophomoric attempts to ban them are just not workable.

    That horse left the barn. That train left the station.

    Gun/ammunition/magazine bans can only make the world a more dangerous place for those of us who can't afford to hire private security.

    I know that's of little import to pediatricians, but it means a lot to real people.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    Words are important Mike, no mater how carefully you try to conceal your true motives they betray you.

    The real problem with the gun culture the NRA has built is that it changes the way they think about solving problems.

    The gun nuts because they think of guns first when they have a problem immediately skip to "you'll take my guns over my dead body". Implicit in that of course is that you intend to shoot back. cont.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    They have this sick fantasy of killing someone that "deserves it" as well. They want to shoot the guy that gets into their home. They NEVER talk about actual home security, locks or other ways to keep the guy from getting close to their family. Priority one?

    Well you know what. I went to a gun range yesterday and shot an AR-15 my brother-in-law recently purchased. I shot a few other guns but it doesn't seem too fun after hearing what I heard. His nephew after shooting it proclaimed happily that he felt like "a stone cold killer". And this kid serves the sacrament every Sunday. Words are important.

    The gun culture needs to reign it's self in or the public will do it for you.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 2, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    What have we become when we depend on "locks" to protect us? We have the right to be secure in our homes. We have the right to protect our possessions. We have the right to NOT have to protect us from those criminals who would take from us our assets.

    Too many people place the "blame" on the property owner instead of blaming the thief who would take from us something that he has no right to take. The law protects us from thieves, but too many tell us that we are wrong in having the right to keep thieves from taking from us.

    Isaiah told us that wrong would become right and right would become wrong. He saw our day and he said those who pretend that those who steal from us have the right to steal unless we prevent them from stealing.

    What ever happened to the concept that thieves have no right to take anything and that we have the right to prevent any thief from taking, even when it means that we destroy the thief?

    Obama tells us that he has the right to "redistribute" our wealth. Some actually believe him.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 12:08 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Wouldn't it be more prudent to rely on the Constitution and on the Court to interpret the law than on someone who posts under a pseudonym?

    10:24 a.m. Jan. 2, 2013

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

    That was hilarious!
    Gotta hand it, you really out paced yourself with that comment....

    I mean, coming from the very same guy you DAILY routs the court ruling on Roe v. Wade.

    Speaking of prudent Mike --
    Try practicing what you preach.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 12:33 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    What ever happened to the concept that thieves have no right to take anything and that we have the right to prevent any thief from taking, even when it means that we destroy the thief?

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

    So Mike -- seriously, this troubles me....
    Are you suggesting justifying killing a teenaged buglar over a television set or X-box?
    Because that just showed a HUGE disregard for human life.

    Ironic it's coming from someone so who is so anti-abortion.
    With a comment like that, I'd swear you'd support it, just to lower the crime rate.

    I could possible accept killing someone in self defense,
    but killing someone over property and materialism?
    Talk about Babylon.
    Didn't the Nephites aslo stood to that lowest of levels before they were destroyed by God?

    As for your quoting Isaiah....
    Need I remind you that Jesus taught that if someone takes your coat, that you should give him your cloak as well?

    I'm curious -- as self professed follower and disciple of Christ -- What type of Glock does Jesus tote?

    Good becomes bad / Bad becomes good.

    It's a New Year brother,
    a good time to Repent.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    Re: "Mike Richards always conviently [sic] leaves out the Constitutional requirement of 'well-regulated'."

    LDS Liberal conveniently leaves out the fact that the "well-regulated" clause does not operate in any conceivable way to limit the "right of the PEOPLE" [my emphasis] which "shall NOT be infringed" [again, my emphasis].

    The right to keep and bear arms is NOT a right of government, or of the militia, or of liberals, to be limited or abrogated any time they feel like it.

    The Supreme Court made it clear that, far from conferring a right on government, the Second Amendment is a LIMITATION on government. What the militia clause actually DOES indicate, however, is that the PEOPLE have a right to military arms, not just those liberals deign to permit us.

    I know that makes liberals mad, but, since the Second Amendment is crystal clear, and, since the highest court of the land has spoken to the matter, you'd think they would have the integrity to quit digging themselves into that same old, discredited hole.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    You claimed to have served in the U.S. Military. Did you carry a list when serving of those whom the military considered "enemies" or were you permitted and required to use deadly force against enemy combatants?

    Does your local police force run to a judge to see if they can take action against a criminal who is robbing a store, or do they have permission to use deadly force?

    Does the Constitution give a citizen the authority to protect himself against those who would endanger him or take his property or do those citizens first have to check with you to see if that person is a danger to them or to society?

    Muddled thinking makes for muddled actions.

    We the right to protect ourselves and our property against criminals. We are the VICTIMS, not the criminals. We are entitled to not require a sentence to be passed on those criminals when they are caught in the act inside our homes.

    Unless you incriminate every soldier and every policemen, you have to allow every citizen the right to defend himself against criminals who invade their homes.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    This is getting to be funny. The liberals have turned things so far around that they are backwards in their thinking.

    We, the citizens, are required to do everything that we can for ourselves. When we have used up all of our ability, then we have the right to ask for help from our cities. When they have used up all of their abilities, they have the right to ask for help from the County and the State. When the State has used up its ability, it has the right to ask the Federal Government for help.

    We are required to protect outselves and then to ask for help from the police. They are not obligated to rescue us. They are not our private paid "army". They are our first line of defence after we have lost our ability to defend ourselves.

    Liberals seem to think that our first call should be to Obama and that he will make the necessary calls to the various police forces to help us. They seem to think that we have the right to personal bodyguards to be assigned to us as if we were royalty.

    We are independent citizens.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 4:43 p.m.

    Mike Richards convienently failed to answer Truthseeker's question about the Justice Scalia quote, and he has used up his 4 post limit; so, without a response from Mr. Richards, I have to assume that he is fine with Justice Scalia's legal opinion that "[t]he Second Amendment right is not unlimited".

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:11 p.m.

    Just a couple of thoughts about the 2nd amendment:

    1) When the founding fathers penned this amendment, what were the most advanced weapons? Muskets were probably the most common (inaccurate), rifles (much more accurate) were new technology and greatly feared by the British, and cannons were top-of-the-line. I am certain that the Founders felt we should be allowed to have muskets and rifles to match the best of what the military had. I haven't researched it, but I expect that there were no restrictions on owning a cannon or two if you could afford it. Fast forward to today. The 2nd amendment allows me to have 'arms' -- not just for hunting, not just for 'self-defense', but just because. I should be allowed, if wealthy enough, to buy my own F-16, nuclear sub, or aircraft carrier. (Due to patents, I may have to design and build my own.)

    2) Should there be limits? If someone has proven themselves to be a threat to society, I guess we have options such as putting them in prison, or restricting their right to own 'arms.' But for average citizens, the 2nd amendment says, "no limits."

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 2, 2013 10:24 p.m.

    @Truthseeker re Scalia:

    I can concur with Scalia's assessment of "laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill." These PEOPLE are threats to society, and do not need the help of weapons to increase their threat.

    However his assessment of "laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings" are totally knee-jerk and cause more problems than they solve. These types of laws only serve to make "schools and government buildings" to be easy targets for criminals. If, instead of barring firearms from schools, we instead require schools to have a certain percentage of its faculty and staff trained in the use of arms, with weapons available to these professionals, then situations like this school shooting would be less common, with less carnage when they do happen. Teachers and principals would be able to nullify a criminal quickly, and knowing this, such criminals would often not even attempt their murderous rampage.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 3, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    I will just say Amen to this letter. `Nuff said.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    "What ever happened to the concept that thieves have no right to take anything and that we have the right to prevent any thief from taking, even when it means that we destroy the thief?"

    ===========

    In other Deseret News making headlines this morning:

    “Theater robber makes off with popcorn and cash”
    A robber stole popcorn and an undisclosed amount of cash at Movies 10 on Highland Dr. last night....

    So Mike, you profess to be a devout follower of Jesus Christ (as do I).
    – is killing someone over stealing popcorn and cash justified before God?

    You also beleive in absolutes.
    I don't think it is, and you say you do.

    So,
    One of us has to be absolutely right, the other has to be absolutely wrong.

    I know where I stand...

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 3, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    LDS Liberal, Jesus would carry the good old Colt 1911 A-1. So quit bagging on Mike Richards.

    Cosgrove was my kids pediatrician and I've dealt with him a lot over the years. He is a reasoned, temperate man, who truely does have the best interests of his patients in mind.

    I found very little in his op-ed to disagree with. Mainly because he didn't go off of the liberal cliff, and he doesn't appear to be anti-gun. I agree that trigger locks and gun safes should be purchased by every gun owner. I have a gun safe, spent quite a bit of money on it because it is top of the line. It also waighs 900 pounds. My guns reside therein and are safe from marauding criminals and my children and grandchildren. My wife and I are the only ones with the combination.

    The true problem, and this won't be solved by the banning of magazines or weapons, is the continuing propensity of people that intend to do harm to ignore the law.
    When I read the article about the 47 homicides in Utah, a good chunk of them were with knives.