This is proof that all this gun legislation that the federal government is
pushing on us has nothing to do with preventing gun violence but pushing their
own agenda. someone has plans that start with gun legislation and it certainly
isnt preventing gun violence.
"If one accepts the Brady Campaign's diagnosis, one would have to
presume that California is a firearms-free paradise, while the lawless,
gun-riddled streets of the Beehive State feature shootouts every dawn out in
front of the local saloon."I really don't think that is
what the Brady Campaign is implying with their diagnosis. And I don't
think even the DN Editorial board would use those words to describe life in
California. The Brady Campiagn has a single purpose in mind and that is to
restrict the use of fireamrs in hopes that it will decrease the number of gun
deaths in our country. The NRA has a seeminglty opposite mission which is to
eleimninate all restrictions on gun ownership. Both arguments should be
considered by the legislative bodies that govern our nation when determining
what should be done to change a tragic pattern (one that continues with the
report of a gunman killing four people in upstate New York just yesterday). The
shooting death of a state trooper here in Virginia last week reminds me that
even a good man with a gun often can't stop a bad man with a gun.
Sometimes the stats are used erroneously to make a point.People look
at some places with strict gun laws (Chicago perhaps) with high crime rates as
proof that gun laws don't work.In reality, many of those
"strict" gun laws came into being BECAUSE of high crime.Crime and gun violence is generally higher in areas with high poverty. I
would submit that Utah does not have lower gun violence BECAUSE of its gun laws
but because it was not a violent place to begin with.We need to take
an honest look at potential gun laws with an open and honest mind.They
cannot all be summarily dismissed by gun advocates.In the same
light, not all proposed gun laws should be supported without an honest review to
determine their potential effectiveness.We need both sides to push
for reasonable laws that accomplish a common goal. Unfortunately,
the nature and divisiveness of anything to do with guns typically precludes
"reasonableness" on both sides.
It need to be noted that many of the politicians who are actively working to
take away our gun rights are themselves protected by guns. They either have guns
themselves or have guards who have guns.The NRA was criticized for
pointing this out when they produced and then showed an ad illustrating this
which stated ... Politicians want the protection of guns for themselves, and gun
free zones for everyone else.If gun free zones, calling 911, or
uninating (to protect against rape) are good enough for the common people, then
politicians ought to be restricted to this themselves.It is very
important that the ruling class be subjected to the same laws as everyone else.
This is the only way many of them will have the required empathy to be able to
understand the needs and wants of those who they rule over.
Obviously, gun laws alone aren't enough to eliminate gun violence. But
imagine what a place like California would be like if it had Utah's gun
laws! Clearly, what works in a state with a large Mormon and rural population
is not going to work in a much more populated and urban state with a large drug
and gang problem.To say that gun control laws don't work
because California has tougher laws and more crime is a very reductionist and
simplistic statement that ignores a whole host of other reasons why there is
more gun violence in California.
"It is very important that the ruling class be subjected to the same laws as
everyone else. "Did you notice that the Republican National
Convention prohibited "everyone else" from bringing in guns? I think
that makes a lot of sense and completely understand the logic.But,
it is in direct conflict with the point that you are making.Wonder
why the NRA did not highlight THAT hypocrisy as well......
Joe Blow. All you need to know about guns and crime is to understand that cops
carry guns to protect THEMSELVES, not you!
Re JoeBlowNo I didn't notice, but thanks for pointing this out
JoeBlow.Maybe you did or maybe you didn't notice that during
the election I was doing everthing I could to get President Obama re-elected. I
am a pro-gun Democrat.
cjb.I am a self proclaimed pro gun independent.I fully
support peoples rights to own guns. And I would protest in the streets if guns
were banned or confiscated.But, I do not support peoples rights to
own any gun and carry it anywhere, anytime as many suggest.I think
it is reasonable to have background checks, even though it wont stop all bad
people from getting guns. Gun training is also reasonable if you intend to
carry it around others in public.I don't want to live in a wild
west type society where everyone walks around armed.I don't want guns
on airplanes. Or in bars by those who are drinking.I am not fearful that
the government will come after me.I believe that people should be
held accountable when they leave their loaded gun laying around and a 6 year old
dies because of it.I am sure that many will claim that I am not
pro-gun at all because I believe that the second amendment allows some
restrictions.To me, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue.We need common sense to prevail.It is mostly lacking.
I'm not anti-gun. But we do need some common sense safety rules placed on
guns to try to reduce their use in mass shootings and other common tragedies.Extremism on both sides is nonsense.
If UT is so safe why are UT legislators pushing to relax gun laws in
UT--allowing anyone to conceal carry?CA might have a higher homicide
rate--but UT has a higher rate of death from firearms when suicides are
included.Los Angeles has an extremely economically and ethnically
diverse population of nearly 4 million--about 1 million more than the number of
people living in UT. That CA's homicide rate is not higher is due in part
to its gun laws. More guns does not mean more safe. A trained
policeman hits his intended target 1/3 of the time. When the police officer is
being fired upon his average drops to less than 20%.
Preventing gun violence is not likely. Reducing or minimizing gun violence is a
reasonable goal and all parties should work toward that end. In Cook County
(Chicago) with its strict laws, gun violence is partly the result of readily
available guns in adjacent counties. Utah legislators should remember that this
is not Tombstone, AZ circa 1890 and make laws accordingly.
Way to draw conclusions while looking at just two states...nice cherrypicking
you've got going on there.
@ECR All I have to say is look at Kennesaw, GA. The good guy will not
always stop the bad guy your correct and we all know that, but that's not
the point. The point is that If the guy or lady who commits the crime thinks
before hand "maybe I will get shot, or what if the other person has a
gun?" IT's the fear factor it stops many criminals from commit crimes,
but if you take them away like in California, Chicago, and Detroit the criminals
don't have a fear other the the police(which the police are to affraid of
going into their communities) So they do what they want.
Re: "I'm not anti-gun. But we do need some common sense safety rules
placed on guns to try to reduce their use in mass shootings . . . ."You're anti-gun.There is no "common sense safety
rule" that can possibly reduce the use of guns in mass shootings. There are
just too many guns out there, and those conscience-free individuals who will
ignore the law and engage in mass shooting are extremely unlikely to be worried
about draconian gun laws and penalties.Suggesting we try such rules
anyway merely reveals an anti-gun animus.What is needed is for
politicians to stop demagoguing this issue and leave off persecuting those of us
willing to protect ourselves and our families from the violence that secular
liberalism has unleashed on modern American society.
dwayne - I'm sorry you misinterpreted my comments to mean anything other
than we all need to stop the hyperbole and start getting serious about finding a
solution to this tragic circumstance. I'm definitely not talking about
taking away guns lawfully purchased by responsible citizens and I'm not
advocating anything other than a reasonable discourse on what can and should be
done that will make our children, indeed all of us, safer, at least to some
degree. If you are suggesting that I would reject the notion that nothing can
be done then you are right to do so. The only thing that will guarentee that
nothing changes - or that it will get worse - is for us to shrug our shoulders
and say nothing can be done. The people in upsate New York and the State
Trooper in Virginia were killed because the wrong people had access to a gun. I
don't know how to change that but I can guarentee that until we stop
digging in our heels, on both sides of the issue, those sad headlines will be
seen over and over again, perhaps even more frequently.
@ECRAgain Just a few deaths from guns is not news breaking stories, if it
wasn't a gun it would be something else, see now Obama wont tell you that
he himself has personally allowed bombings from Drones that have killed
thousands of inocent people. YOU CAN NOT MAKE LAWS TO PREVENT THINGS, WE NEED
STRONG LAWS THAT HURT THE PEOPLE THAT COMMIT THOSE HEINOUS CRIMES. Thats like
saying to prevent coffe spils they ban the sale of coffe. I have a RIGHT to own
and bear arms to protect myself from our own government. When they tell me I can
not purchase a gun that just "LOOKS" Like theirs and then they keep them
and are buying up all the ammo for them(Obama has increased the ammunition
purchases)Then there is something sinsster going on.
Re: ". . . this is not Tombstone, AZ circa 1890 . . . ."No,
it's not. If it were, we'd be a lot safer than in latter-day LA,
Chicago, Washington, DC, or Detroit.And that's primarily
because people took responsibility for their own defense, not assuming the
government could or would do a better job of it.It should probably
be noted, as well, that the famous OK Corral shootout took place AFTER enactment
of a strict gun-control law [at trial, the Earps and Doc Holliday successfully
claimed to be enforcing an 1881 gun-control ordinance], and was the direct
result of a government attempt to disarm citizens who believed they needed arms
for their own protection, and who had been given a "permit," of sorts,
to do so by County Sheriff Johnny Behan.So, if history is prologue,
attempts to disarm America would quite probably plunge us into chaos.
@JoeBlowAnd the reason is because your scared that other people have a
firearm which in time will prevent many criminals from commiting crimes. I say
stiffen up the Laws to people that commit the crimes not just a slap on the
rist. other than that you have no right to tell any other person what they can
and can not own, say, or do. Every person can and WILL do what they want thats
the freedom of life. so just make it show that if people choose to do the bad
things that they will not enjoy it at all and then bam they wont do it(after
they have seen others get the stricter sentences) I also say get TV's and
commercial foods and snacks out of prison its not a resort its a Prison!
Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. -- I love how ultra-conservatives
refuse to use logic and practical reasoning of cause and affect.For
example -- Those areas may have a higher gun crime per capitca than Utah.
granted.But have they ever thought about how many MORE violent gun
crimes would have been committed WITHOUT those tougher gun laws?They
SAY it's a break down of Society, But the DN Editorial Board has
bought into the NRA lie of more guns equal less crime.Makes about as
much sense as more alcohol equals less drunk crimes, or more pornography
equals less sex crimes.
Re: "The people in upsate New York and the State Trooper in Virginia were
killed because the wrong people had access to a gun. I don't know how to
change that . . . ."No liberal politician knows how, either.
But, that won't stop them from demagoguing gun-control issues and
persecuting gun owners.Makes you wonder what their REAL agenda is,
huh?The only sure way to produce the needed change is a nationwide
return to the Judeo-Christian values that made America great -- and safe. But,
we know secular liberals are never going to adopt that agenda.
Re:Dynarider84"The point is that If the guy or lady who commits the
crime thinks before hand "maybe I will get shot, or what if the other person
has a gun?" IT's the fear factor it stops many criminals from commit
crimes,"Nice theoryCan you provide an example of a city,
state or country where more guns results in fewer homicides or deaths from
firearms?We should raise the bar, not lower the bar, for owning a
lethal weapon. If Republicans truly wanted to support enforcement of existing
gun laws they would allow the confirmation of an ATF director. Under current
laws the bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun
transactions. So while detectives on television tap a serial number into a
computer and instantly identify the buyer of a firearm, the reality could not be
more different.The 2003-2004 Tiahrt Amendment requires that records
of background checks of gun buyers be destroyed within 24 hours of approval,
making it harder to identify dealers who falsify records or buyers who make
“straw” purchases for others.
Murders may be lower in Utah compared to other higher populated urban states.
But so are DUIs. Does that mean we reduce DUI enforcement. Dont kid yourself.
Is the Editorial Board happy that Utah teenagers are committing suicide at an
alarming high rate with guns. Adults are not totally in control of the guns
they own. In Utah in 2012 two two-year were playing with loaded guns and were
killed. No charges were filed against the responsible adults. Does the
Editorial Board think these and other deaths are acceptable. If we are going to
promote the ownership of guns we need to also implement rules to include
screening and other measure to make owners accountable due to the many wrongful
deaths that occur.
Dynarider84 - I see from your address that we are almost neighbors. But I also
see from you comments that you and I couldn't be farther apart in our
philosphies. But that's OK, that's what makes America what it is.
I'm interested in your comment that " I have a RIGHT to own and bear
arms to protect myself from our own government." Yes, you certainly do have
that right but I'm wondering how you came to make that parnoid statement.
And I'm certainly not going to try to interpret what the Founding Fathers
intended with the Constitution and Bill of Rights but I can find many, even most
Constitutional scholars who will state that the right to bear arms was
originally intended to protect the homeland from ourside governments, not our
own; to establish and build up a militia because our nation did not have a
strong standing armed force. My how attitudes have changed.How
about if we just try to find out why the U.S has a gun death rate 42 times
greater than Great Britian, where the police don't even carry guns? Just
Re: Truthseeker"Los Angeles has an extremely economically and
ethnically diverse population ...". Do you realize what you are
saying? Well if you don't, it is that rich and or white people are less
likely to be involved in violent crime. Gun or otherwise. If that's true,
then what do you make of it since I believe you are probably one of those
open-minded tolerant diversity loving liberals.
Re: Truthseeker (again) and Dyanrider84Yes thank you Truthseeker for
asking. I'll give you one. In California there is a city called Semi
Valley. It just so happened that there was a time a few years ago when the
crime rate was very low for its population. The reason was it was known that a
large number of police officers from Southern California departments, like LAPD,
lived there. Do I need to say more. OK I will. If it is known a gun is in the
house, or maybe on the streets in the hands of an off duty cop, then the
criminal will look elsewhere.
In the final analysis of the gun v. no gun argument, those who oppose firarms
ownership believe one of two things: 1) a gun owner/advocate/ enthusiast cannot
be trusted because he is inherantly dangeorus to himself and others, 2) because
he controls a weapon of lethal capacity, the weapon itself will compel him to
create situation #1. Bigoted, and clearly a miscalculation. Argue all you want
about "common sense" and "reasonability", but those are mere
smokes screens from a faction that simply prefers their chattel unarmed and
ignorant; precisely how they want everybody else to view proponents of the 2nd
Amendament. If you want this ambulanace chasing, phony "leader' to
parrot the narrative of 'reason" and "common sense" then who
really is ignorant?
Re:Happy2betherePoverty is absolutely linked to higher crime rates--which
is why it is important that we try to lower poverty rates.Research
has also shown that areas with higher heterogenity have higher crime and
homicide rates than homogenous ares. One could speculate as to why that might
happen. For example, greater mistrust, suspicion, perceived threat or hostility
of people outside your ethnic group etc.Re:m.g.scottI could
show you many cities with more police per capita with higher homicide rates.
Number of police alone doesn't explain lower crime rates. Simi Valley also
has a more homogenous population.Re:ravonalFew to no people
are arguing for "no guns."The presence of a gun does
increase the risk of death and injury. Guns are lethal weapons whose sole
purpose is to kill or injure. People even get injured at gun shows-- where
presumably people know what they are doing. How many people are killed every
year from a gun they didn't know was loaded? How many children die every
year from the guns owned by a parent? We do need sensible safety
measures, and we need more enforcement of gun laws.
To "Open Minded Mormon" and "JoeBlow" you need to step back into
reality. In nearly every country around the world where they have enacted the
strict gun laws that your ilk wants to put in place, they have experienced a
surge of gun violence.You say that the cities with all the gun
violence would be worse without the gun restrictions, but that is completely
wrong. Look at Mexico. They have more strict gun laws and few guns available,
yet have several times the gun homicide rate that the US has. If your claims
were true, there should be fewer gun homicides.See "Gun Laws and
Crime: A Complex Relationship" in the NY Times. They go through the DC Hand
Gun ban. Apparently banning guns INCREASED crime.From WBUR in
Massachussetts we read "Mass. Gun Crimes Rise Despite Strict Laws"As this article points out, the problem isn't gun ownership, it is
the culture. In Utah we like our neighbors and respect them. We also have
strong communities. California does nto have the sense of community or
neighborhoods that we have here.How are you going to legislate a
change in people's attitudes?
procuradorfiscalTooele, UT said: Re: "I'm not anti-gun. But we do
need some common sense safety rules placed on guns to try to reduce their use in
mass shootings . . . ."You're anti-gun.It must be
very simple living in a black and white reality?Restrictions on guns is
nowhere near Anti-Gun. I own several guns and none of them make me a
better person, or a bigger person, or a safer person.Guns don't make
the man/woman, contrary to worshipers of the 2nd Amendment.Who would
This is a rather foolish editorial that attempts to compare violence rates
between Utah and California without controlling for other factors. That is,
California is a huge diverse state with 15 times the population of Utah. It has
several ghetto areas including Compton, Watts, and Oakland, that are plagued by
drugs and gun violence. California also has very large immigrant populations,
both legal and illegal. Trying to compare gun violence rates between such very
different populations is disingenuous and invalid. We need to let controlled
scientific studies guide us along the path to less violence whatever that means,
including harsher penalties and/or more controls on guns.
Re: TruthseekerMore police per capita and higher homicide rates,
You have got to be talking about the Mega Huge cities like NYC or Chicago. They
are a unique problem unto themselves. And I think RedShirt above does point out
a very important point. Mexico. Very gun control, very homogenous, very
violent. So that leaves poverty. I do not believe that poverty equals crime.
Too many exceptions to make the connection of poverty and crime, but I do know
that has been a staple of liberal thinking for decades now. One that I and many
conservatives don't agree with.And how do we "enforce"
gun laws as you say we need to do. It would take a huge violation of
constitutional rights for police to be able to enforce many of the laws on the
books, much any new ones purposed.
Re:RedShirtThe article (WBUR/Boston Globe) you cite says nothing
about culture.But it does say "Deaths by firearms in New
Hampshire occur at twice the rate in Massachusetts; in Maine, the rate is
triple."(States next to MA with lax gun laws)."Only
two states have a higher percentage of out-of-state guns found at crime scenes
(than MA) according to a study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group cofounded
by Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino." D.C has the same issue--lax gun laws
neighboring states.In my experience i've found that much of the
time you cite articles, your representation of what they say doesn't match
what they actually say. Unintentional firearm deaths in the U.S.
were more than five times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23
countries, the U.S. accounted for 80 percent of all firearm deaths; 87 percent
of all children under 15 killed by firearms were American children. In 2005,
5,285 U.S. children were killed by gunshot compared with 57 in Germany and none
in Japan.(Bloomberg)Mexico has major corruption and a drug war
going on. Last post
Wow!! I've been carrying for more than 5 years since moving from CA to UT.
Guess I've been missing those shootouts every morning.The only
shootouts I've heard about in Utah involve a regular citizen defending
himself, herself, or others against the "bad guys".Too bad a
bunch of college students or professors in Virginia weren't carrying when
30 were killed by a "nut job" on their campus several years ago.I recently watched a film at the university where I work. The film
showed us what to do to defend ourselves if unable to flee or hide from a
shooter on campus. Well, I'll tell you what. I'm not going to be
hitting him with a chair or a fire extinguisher. He'll get seven in the
chest. Then I'll reload.
To "Truthseeker" this article shows that it is culture. Even the other
articles show, indirectly, that gun related homicides are a cultural issue.I will assume that you agree that criminals will find a way to get guns
illegally, either by crossing state lines where things are more lax.The result is the same criminals get guns and can kill people.Guns
are not required for suicide. Look at Japan, their suicide rate twice as high
as the US, yet they have few guns, so how do they die?To compare
deaths in other countries is wrong and deceitful. It is like saying
kindergarteners don't get as many speeding tickets as HS Seniors.The only thing you got right is that corruption and crime bring more gun
deaths. So, how do you propose getting the crime rates down in the inner
cities? Making guns harder to get won't do this.
I'd buy this argument if gun violence was non-existent in states with tough
gun laws. We know that isn't true. Tougher gun laws penalize the
responsible members of society who are not involved in gun violence to begin
Basically what the editorial did was the equivalent of me picking Massachusetts
(1.8 gun murders per 100k people) and Texas (3.2 gun murders per 100k people)
and suggesting that this problems gun regulation saves lives.
Rights of people, especially constitutional rightsshould only be curtailed
if exercising those rightsInfringes on the rights that other people
have.Letting good law abiding people carry a gunconcealed does
not infringe on anybody'srights.
Hold on here "unintentional firearms" deaths are now fodder for this
specious argument? Are you kidding me? Since 1980, firearms accidents have been
reduced 80% largely because of hunter education courses which provide basic
fundamental gun safety as part of their curriculum. Those courses are endorsed
and promoted by every gun organization on the planet including the BIG BAD NRA!
You would be hard pressed to find another sport or hobby that can boast such
success. And yet, Truthseeker has to marginalize the argument by comparing 23
other countries to the US. Why? Which countries? Of what relevance is that?
Why should I care that some third world country shackles their subjects in
democracy and masks it as freedom? Frankly, I don't. I pity them.
Figures lie when you lose the objectivity to decipher them. No country in the
world has as many privately owned firearms as the US.
"Utah is dead last in the most recent rankings, scoring a big fat zero out
of 100 "WOW - COOL!!! Utah is a shining star in 2nd amendment
protections!! Any time you score 0 on a liberals ranking list you know you are
doing something right! Utah may score zero on this list but it scores 100 on my
Re: "Restrictions on guns is [are?] nowhere near Anti-Gun."Restrictions are anti-gun.And yes, it is quite simple living in
the real world, where most things are either good or bad -- mostly good, of
course -- and real people are free to identify them as such. As opposed to
living in a liberal bizarro-world, where political correctness and strict,
big-tent political orthodoxy prevent telling the truth and pointing out
genuinely funny, often ironic, "progressive" hypocrisy.In
that real world, genuinely bad people continually work hard to ban and
confiscate the tools real people need to protect themselves, their families, and
Utah has an impressively low gun homicide rate. That is good. Utah
also has a distressingly high rate of suicide by gun, amounting to over 80% of
gun deaths, and taking 10.6 of 100,000 Utahns every year. It's highly
likely that each of us who debate here knew dead Utahns who took their own lives
via guns. I've known too many, personally.It turns out that
many people who commit suicide decide on the action in a short period of time,
often in less than an hour. "We had no idea they were struggling. He was
always so happy." Sound familiar?In Sri Lanka, they
had a high level of suicides by insecticide (which is also a very quick,
non-reversible means of taking your own life). The government made insecticides
tougher to get, and contrary to what the common stereotype we hear from the gun
lobby, the suicide rate actually went down. Many would-be suicides were
averted, the victim did not find another method. (Certainly there are cases
where a determined person will succeed via a wide variety of methods.)Considering Utah's rate of suicide, it would be immoral to not consider
As a follow up, and using more examples than just Utah and Sri Lanka, in the UK
there was a spike in suicides due to people consuming large bottles of Tylenol.
The reaction was to lower the amount of Tylenol somebody can purchase at one
time, and the suicide rate went down. In China there was a rash of suicides,
again, by insecticide, and making it tougher to get lethal quantities of the
insecticide lowered suicide rates.It's lazy for people to
reflexively reply that there's a wide array of means to end one's
life, and unquestionably some people are bent on suicide by whatever means
available. But, again, the desperation felt by many suicide victims is
short-lived, and removing or restricting the most easily available means will
make a sizable difference. In Sri Lanka, restricting pesticides reduced the
suicide rate by 50%.Part of the problem in the US is the lack of
data on firearms safety, which is because the NRA has successfully pressure
Congress to prohibit research on the subject.There is strong
evidence to suggest that a gun purchase waiting period and mandatory trigger
locks would save many lives in Utah.
"...Restrictions are anti-gun...".Exactly.What
we need is an arms race.He/she with the most weapons/rounds/kills
wins...The weapons industry and their nra shills will be more than
happy to oblige.RPG's and Flamethrowers...To
protect our families, of course.
To "Scoundrel" would you rather it devolve into an "Adgenda 21"
culture?Why do you blame guns for our cultural problems? Do you
blame kinves, forks, and spoons for obesity?To "There You Go
Again" why do you hate guns so much? You live in a relatively quiet town.
Meanwhile, the poor in cities like Detroit will be disarmed and left unprotected
as the police force can't protect them. See "Detroit Police To Cut
Back On Alarm Response" at CBS Local.
You are wrong for thinking Enterprise Utah has a low crime rate because of
guns.It's a rural area.About the only things worth
stealing are cattle or pick-up trucks.i.e, not alot of home invasions
going on there.BTW -- does banning pornography account for
Utah having the highest on-line rates in the nation?Using your
'logic', we should not ban pornography, and maybe even require
everyone to have it.That way, sex crimes will be reduced.[BTW
-- I don't believe that sort of 'logic'...]
RedShirt -- Virtually all of the gun violence happening in Mexico,
is from illegal weapons and ammo smuggled in from the Unted States.Since you blame Mexico for our drug problem - I blame America for
their gun problem.
To "LDS Liberal" so then you agree that the problem isn't the legal
gun owners who purchase their guns legally. The problem is the criminals. What
new laws can we enact that will stop them from getting guns?Better
yet, how about we enforce the laws that we already have, rather than punishing
the law abiding citizens.
Those who will not work to solve the problem are the problem Deseret News. Your
statistical sophistry in support of your position lets decision makers justify
legislative inaction leading to countless more innocent victims being
slaughtered. You are not a blessed peacemaker DMN, the only peacemakers you
value are named Colt. But, you are correct about one thing DMN, if you think
that you can do nothing to solve the problem, then you are right. And that
seems to sum up a reprehensible opposition strategy, publish editorial
commentary to discourage those forces that support reasonable steps to curb the
violence. I thought you were owned by the LDS Church, I now have to wonder if
your real owner isn't the NRA or perhaps Colt or Browning, or Remington, or
maybe all of them.
Joe Blow, you use the murder capital of the U.S. Chicago as an example of how
restrictive gun laws help out. That's a good one since Chicago's
murder rate with firearms keeps going up year to year and shows no sign of going
down with their restrictive gun laws.Your analogy of Chicago's
poverty Vs. Utah's quality of life is a better characterization of the
Gun laws that restrict guns should be there only for people that deal drugs and
commit violent crimes etc. That way we can put them in prison longer with
"enhancements". As far as good decent people go, I believe
that we who are good and decent and desire to carry a gun AND is willing to get
the proper training so that they can carry a gun safely and not make dumb
mistakes...well...these people should be able to carry a gun wherever they want.
Personal protection should be paramount to any restrictions. Unfortunately I am
frowned upon by many people because I have this view. But I grew up in a
community in which guns were common and we were all taught how to safely use
them. I'll bet that virtually every car in my high school parking lot had
guns in it back then...and no one was ever shot at my school. Guns aren't
the problem. It's the people who wield them wrongly and the lack of guns in
the hands of decent people to stop them. This is the problem. Statistics prove
procuradorfiscalYou are right, this is not LA, Chicago, Washington, DC, or
Detroit. As opposed to Tombstone, we have an established police force and a
relatively low violent crime rate. So let's make laws that are relevant and
rational for today's Utah.