Yes but everything is backwards there so we need even more guns here to make it
safer. The NRA has lots of research to say it's so. Anyway, were going to
buy the guns anyway.
Reasonable gun control measures work. The United States has 30,000 gun deaths
every year. It is a national tragedy and a national disgrace. As the President
said, "We can do better." No one's guns should be taken away - we
need to support the 2nd Amendment, but we need to prevent gun deaths. The
President's recommendations need support. The Deseret News has been
completely silent on this issue. Supporting the President would show
leadership. The cry for leadership during the presidential election was loud
and the Deseret News reported regarding the need for leadership. What about
leadership now? 30,000 people will die and the Deseret News is silent??? No
position?? I question the leadership of the Deseret News at this time in
America when we need leadership on the gun issue.
So there Deseret News! The only real wseakness in the Presidents postion is the
lack of a buy-back program. Want to rethink your not well thought out position
on an Assault wseapons ban in view of some facts and not IRA Republican party
Can anyone back that up. Most guns used in crimes in the US are already
obtained illegally and it is already illegal to kill. Gun laws who do they
bring back murdered? Besides more gun laws don't curb gun deaths.
You gun control advocates should move to Chicago, where guns are banned. You
will be safe there, right?
@higv:The letter writer did back up her position. She says that in
Australia, they tightened gun controls, and gun deaths decreased. Now, you might
not believe there are raasons Australia's experience has been different
than ours has been. But she at least provided some evidence. You did not.
While assault weapons bans and gun buyback programs may have worked well for
Australia, I have to wonder if there are enough cultural and demographic
differences between the US and Australia that would prevent a similar benefit
here. Americans love to kill each other with guns. Hand guns, assault rifles,
you name it, we worship it & we'll kill each other with it. Mountanman & higv,For the one billionth time, selective use of
statistics does not a strong argument make.
@Emajor. For the one billionth time, if you can come up with any gun control law
that guarantees bad people will not get their hands on guns, I will support it!
After all, we both know that laws prevent criminal behavior don't we?
That's why no one murders or steals or drives drunk because its against the
law, right? Your naivety is exhausting!
@MountanmanThat's an absurd argument. Name me one law that prevents
the illegal action 100% of the time. I mean, we can't guarantee someone
won't drive drunk. So clearly there shouldn't be a law against it. We
can't guarantee a woman won't be raped, so we don't need a law
for that either. We can't guarantee any laws will be followed 100% of the
time. So using your logic we should just eliminate all laws and be anarchists?
@ Noodlekaboodle. Here is what you don't get! Since some people will never
obey laws, including all and any gun laws, a gun in my hand is better than a cop
(with a gun) on the phone! The ONLY way to stop bad guys with guns is more good
guys with guns! Get it? The alternative is victimhood, and I refuse to be a
victim! If you choose not to protect yourself, that's your business. I
challenge you to put up a sign in your yard, "Gun free family" and
practice what you preach!
Instead of telling us that another nation has lower "gun deaths",
shouldn't we first ask what freedoms are guaranteed to that nation by their
Constitution? Does Australia have the same guaranteed right to keep and bear
arms that we have? Is that part of their Supreme Law of the Land? America is a land of liberty where the people are expected to conduct
themselves properly. The freedoms that we enjoy are unalienable rights bestowed
on us by our Creator, not by government. We cherish freedom because we know
from whom it came. Agency is the supreme "gift" from God. Giving away
our agency is returning to the plan that was submitted by Lucifer and rejected
by every one of us. We chose to be free. We chose to be responsible. We chose
to control ourselves with minimal interference from government.Too
many people want someone else to be responsible for their actions. Its time that
we thought seriously about what it means to be free Americans and contrast that
with being baby-sat by Washington with its "parental control" of our
First of all mountainman guns are not banned in chicago. They have strict
ownership requirements, and don't allow concealed carry permits, but guns
are not banned. Secondly gun deaths in chicago are mostly amongst the criminals
themselves and the innocent who are caught in the violence (mostly children..270
last year). So for the most part gun deaths in chicago are perputrated by
illegal guns on others who posess illegal guns or on those who wouldn't be
permitted to own a gun anyway. The problem for chicago is it
doesn't exsist in a vacuum. Chicago has an imense crime problem. Chicago
has an imense poverty problem, and therefore chicago has an imense violence
problem armed by a country awash in legal guns sold illegally to chicago
criminals. Chicago stands as an island and your circular logic of..because
criminals can get legal guns illegally we should just have more legal guns is
just that, silly circular logic. NO, the question is how to stop the illegal
sale of guns to chicago criminals?
I think Mountainman makes a good point. We can't just ban guns in cities
like Chicago, we need to restrict firearms nationally!
@Mike RichardsThe number of gun deaths is certainly relevant to this
discussion. You might believe the freedom to carry any kind of weapon you choose
outweighs the toll of gun violence. But others might disagree, and the scope of
violence is important when making that balance.I don't believe
that keeping certain kinds of guns and ammunition out of the marketplace
constitutes a meaningful erosion of freedom. I think that being a free American
includes being more free from the risk of so many guns and so much ammunition
circulating in this country.
MountanmanHayden, ID@ Noodlekaboodle. Here is what you don't
get! Since some people will never obey laws, including all and any gun laws,===========So, what you are saying is; since criminals
don't obey laws anyway, why pass laws?Great.So
prosecuters have nothing to prosecute.Law enforcement has no laws to
enforce.No one can go to jail becuase criminals are just going to commit
crime anyway?Pass the laws, and when these laws get broken,
prosecute them.Do restrict assault guns, because criminals will just
ignore them anyway?!Conservative logic is so illogical.Where there is no law given, there is no sin.
Change the argument to the right to speak without restraint. How much
government control are you willing to have on censoring speech BEFORE you speak?
How much "thought policing" are you willing to abide by because having
"dangerous thoughts" and "dangerous speech" impedes society? How
much "book burning" would you tolerate before you realized that you had
not authorized the government to censor your thoughts, your speech or your
writing?How many governments have restricted speech and censored all
writing so that the people would not be exposed to "far right" ideas
about freedom, about liberty, about agency?How many of you would
like to live in China where Internet access is limited, where speech is
controlled, where writing is censored?Speech is a guaranteed liberty
with prosecution reserved for violations after speech was used. Keeping and
bearing arms is a guaranteed liberty that forbids governmental interference.
Those who argue for governmental control argue for the dissolution
of the Constitution. They encourage Obama to breech his oath of office. He
took an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution forbids him from
interfering with our right to keep and bear arms. We can limit
ourselves without the government's help.
Gun deaths are a consequence of profit for Rambo like high capacity killing
machines for the patriots in camouflage.
Who cares what the right wing thinks? When have they been right in the past
decade?SS needs to be privatized! (The market later crashes and had
SS been privatized many more Americans would be lost right now)We need to
invade Iraq because they have WMDs! (No WMDs have been found)We need to
give tax cuts to the rich because they'll create jobs! (The past decade has
been horrible for job creation)I could list about 20 more examples,
but ya kinda get the point already, don't you?
The Real MaverickOrem, UT"Who cares what the right wing
thinks?"And the liberals think they are the ones with an open
I don't understand why death by gun is so unacceptable and yet death by any
other form is acceptable. Death by automobile and medical accident far surpass
death by any other form, yet there is no outcry for bans, or restrictions, so
those deaths must be acceptable. When a bus rolls off the road killing and
wounding dozens, that must be acceptable, no one blames all bus drivers or
restricts the manufacture of buses. All behavior in our society carries risk,
and what we label as acceptable and unacceptable risk is greatly swayed by your
political persuasion. As for Australia, apparently there is no death by
any other form other than by gun in the great down under. So their homicide
rates must have dropped to zero after they passed restrictive gun laws. Oh, I am
sorry, it didn't, their murder rate has been following the same declining
curve for the past 80 years, with no statistical change post the gun ban.
And Australians have a well deserved reputation for hard drinking, hard living,
and hard fighting.Maybe they are living proof that you don't
need a really BIG gun to be a real man.
No emotional ranting can change the fact that Australia seems to be succeeding
with their approach. Clearly, the gun enthusiasts on this thread care about
their macho guns more than they care about the children of Newtown...
You have the right to bear arms in self defense. You don't have
the right to declare yourself judge and jury and exact the death penalty for
trespassing or "scaring" you. You also don't have the right to
endanger my family with the endless, "I thought is was unloaded
stupidity". Google gun accidents where people get killed in their sleep
while Mr, Geniuses are cleaning their guns. With the widespread
availability of less lethal defense measures, you already have the ability to
defend yourself without lethality.You better hope that after killing
someone I'm not on the jury that decides if YOU go to jail or not.
The murder rate in Australia following their gun ban initially INCREASED
(peaking in 1999) before gradually declining over time. The murder rate in the
USA has been steadily declining for decades; this trend has continued since the
assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Murder rates in Australia and most
European countries have ALWAYS been much lower than in the USA -- even when
their gun laws were more permissive than those in the USA. There is NO valid
study which shows that restricting gun ownership reduces murder or crime.
@MountainmanOr they should move into Detroit. Its a liberal paradise
there. Just ignore the sign that says enter at your own risk.
If a person wants to murder but doesn't have a gun, what is to stop them?
There are plenty of other means to do it. Our own murder rate has been going
down for decades now and guns are as available as ever. Our murder rate going
down is due to demographic reasons. Probably it is in Australia too.
9mm: "Death by automobile and medical accident far surpass death by any
other form, yet there is no outcry for bans, or restrictions, so those deaths
must be acceptable."So you're saying we shouldn't be
registering cars, or requiring drivers to be licensed and carry insurance,
restricting how and where cars may be driven, or enacting regulations designed
to make cars safer? We shouldn't take steps, both regulatory
and through professional training, to reduce medical accidents?Your
point about cars and medical accidents actually argues _in favor_ of gun
Conservative America -- Somali of the New World.
Mexico has similar gun laws as down under. We had an assalt weapon
ban. It changed nothing. Putting a pistol grip on a rifle is not the problem.
Re: "Reasonable gun control measures work."How would we
know? Liberals have yet to propose or enact one.The moronic measures
they have enacted, to date, have done nothing to make us safer.Best
evidence? US states and cities with the most draconian gun-control measures have
the highest gun violence.Attacking "assault" weapons is the
silliest of an extremely silly universe of vacuous, useless, liberal feelgood
measures. These arms operate in exactly the same fashion, use less powerful
ammunition, and are statistically much less likely to kill an American than
every style of hunting rifle. Less likely than a coke machine falling on you.
Less likely than drowning. Less likely, even, than being struck by lightning.Yet, for all the liberal hype, you'd think we all have one pointed
at us this instant.Or that somehow, by making them look different,
or painting them some sprightly color, or limiting magazine size, liberals can
somehow affect the already-tiny rate at which they're misused.Balmy.
Conservatives take note: You would have a lot better chance of defending your
righr against bans if you yourselves were not calling for bans of everything
from working on Sunday to the use of marijuana. I happen to agree
that a ban on guns won't work. A ban on assault rifles is reasonable though
and don't pretend they aren't especially lethal or you all
wouldn't be paying 10 times as much for them.
We tried an assult weapons ban and a magazine capacity limit of 10 in the
90's. It didn't work to reduce crime.And besides, the U.S.
constitution lets us have guns, other countries constitutions apparently
don't.I for one feel safer in my home because I have a means of
defense in the event of a home invasion. I have a carry permit, so in the event
I am out on the town and someone does something similar as what happened in
Trolley Square, I will be able to do something to help the situation rather than
nothing.I also feel good that in the event of a disaster that would
affect my entire community, that we have guns and can protect ourselves and our
community against invaders. If we as people band together, this would be known
as a peoples militia. As Hurricane Katrina taught us, government's militias
(Police or National Guard) can't always be counted on to arrive on time, it
may take days or weeks before they arrive.
Here is a great response I found for letters like this.In 2002
— five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of
Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use
of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a
firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent).Here
are some statistics from Australia:In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and
robbery 6.2 percent.Sexual assault — increased 29.9 percent.Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in
Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.Sexual
assault — increased 29.9 percent.Overall, Australia’s violent
crime rate rose 42.2 percent.Australian women are now raped over
three times as often as American womenSo, if you want to ban guns or
make them harder to purchase, are you prepared for the consequences and the
increased violent crimes that will follow?
This is all a red herring, Please include the increased rate of
violent crime that has happened since this "Gun Ban". Just
because it doesn't involve a gun doesn't mean it is benign.I have seen a lot of statistics on those new rates and this article is truly
biased. Not all is well down under.
9MM: Innocent deaths are not acceptable whether they are accidental or
deliberate. However, the gun deaths that we are talking about often involve
criminal intent. Most accidents often involve some level of driver negligence
but usually not criminal intent. But what I object to is leaving deadly weapons
not designed for legitimate shooting activites readily available where the
potential for a criminal missuse is simply too high. Cars are designed for
transportation. But,guns are designed to kill, and assault weapons are so good
at mass slaughter that we morally justified in restricting access to them.
After all, we permit cars in the hnads of qualified drivers, but I think you
might get pulled over if you are not military and if you drove a tank down a
highway. Because you see, tanks are mobile killing machines with the ability to
accomplish mass slaughter.
The real story on Australia's gun control:"Homicides by
firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase
in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper:
65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the
gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly.
Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm
ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning
statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass
shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia
since. Since there was no corresponding rise in homicides or
suicides not involving firearms, individuals weren’t simply shifting to
other methods to harm themselves or others. They were actually deciding against
committing acts of violence in the absence of easy access to guns. Researchers
found that a buyback of 3,500 guns per 100,000 people reduced the firearm
suicide rate by as much as 74 percent."
I lived in Aussie soon after the govt took guns and was a personal witness to
the effects of their gun buybacks and bans. One of my best friends there is a
policeman in Sydney. Stats you read in the media are misleading and biased one
way or the other depending on the objectives of the writers. Facts are: 1) When
guns were reduced, accidents and deaths with guns were reduced & even some
crime with guns decreased. 2) Overall crime drastically increased, but other
tools were used by the "low level" criminals. 3) The percentage of
citizens that were victims of violent crime with & without guns involved
increased dramatically. Summary: The removal of the majority of guns helped
prevent some accidents but overall it increased violent crime and more innocent
people are hurt or killed than before. Professional criminals still have guns
and commit even more crime with little resistance. In fact, my police friend
showed up to work one day to find that as an officer of the law he wasn't
allowed to carry a gun but was still expected to arrest armed criminals! With
this mentality legislating in both nations is it any wonder gun laws don't