Quantcast
U.S. & World

NRA: Get 'homicidal maniacs' off streets

Comments

Return To Article
  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    Great idea.

    Only one small problem.

    It's frequently only after a tragedy that the homicidal maniac become known to be a homicidal maniac.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 22, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    I know of a few who should be put away.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 22, 2013 3:33 p.m.

    Let me get this straight.... their proposal, incarcerate people because they might become a threat, and that is not a violation of our rights as provided under the constitution. Checking to see if you are a mentally ill person before selling you a weapon - that there is a clear violation of our constitutional rights.

    I am a gun owner, and enjoy using them. But I see no reason why a quick background check to see if one is mentally ill before selling guns or ammo to this person is a problem for the NRA. People go under deeper background checks before boarding a flight then they do to buy a firearm.

    Again - lack of sensible compromise seems to be the mantra. We would be more willing to lock up thousands of mentally ill people in the chance they might act out - and pay for their incarceration, rather then simply have a check that would prohibit these people from buying guns.

    Guns are a right, and a responsibility. Why is that so hard to agree upon.

  • Bob K porland, OR
    Sept. 22, 2013 5:12 p.m.

    This is the game:
    The gun manufacturers and sellers figured out, years ago, how to transform the NRA into a front for their businesses.
    First, they spread the lie that "bearing arms" is not about raising a militia or joining in an organized defense -- it does not mean "owning guns" -- however, there is nothing wrong with reasonable and safe gun ownership.
    Average Americans have heard years of scare tactics about Government takeovers, confiscation, etc etc.-- all of this intended to block laws that would result in the sale of fewer guns and less ammo, costing the industry potential profits.
    Average Americans have been sold a cruel lie that inner city people are less worthy than they are, and are just going to find guns and shoot one another, no matter what.

    If firearms and ammo were regulated reasonably, like cars and driving, sales of handguns, which are so profitable, would be much less. Sales of ridiculous amounts of ammo would stop. People are making money from sales to the wrong people, and blame "criminals"

    Folks in rural areas who are Christians need to accept gun control to help avoid these deaths that take place every day in cities.

  • Phranc SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    this reckless attempt to villainies those that suffer mental illness rather then have an honest debate about violence and gun control is sickening even for the NRA.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    No what we really need is to ban all guns which look cosmetically like they might be a military style gun.

    We need to ignore the crazies among us, giving them the help they need won't help at all.

    ---

    Or so one would think by reading a lot of letters to the editor and listening to many of our politicians.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 5:54 p.m.

    Perhaps we should increase background checks, both in what they check and where sales are checked, to reduce the availability of guns to some who obviously should not have them.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 6:22 p.m.

    Fine... incidentally stockpiling heavy weapons and ammo likely correlates with homicidal tendencies.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 6:56 p.m.

    Let's take some of our most heinous shootings.

    Columbine: Dylan Klebold and Todd Harris had no prior criminal record but had access to a cache of weapons.

    The shooting at the military base in Texas: The guy had no previous record and was a soldier in good standing. Obviously he had access to weapons.

    The shooting in at the Colorado theater: Guy was a little weird but had no past criminal history and again gained access to weapons.

    THe Sandy Hook shooting: No prior criminal record but Mom had a huge cache of weaponry.

    The VA Tech shooter had no past criminal history.

    So in most cases, mass shootings are not done by Ted Bundy type or some released murderer on parole. They are most often committed by relatively young males (white mostly) that are mentally unstable. Their parents are often clueless and often provide the very weapons used in the attacks. It seems like in some cases violent video games are watched by the shooters in mass amounts. I guess saying there could be a connection there is opening up a huge can of worms.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 8:08 p.m.

    The issue is not a criminal record. Criminal record is what the background check checks. The issue is mental illness. These shootings all have mental illness as a factor, and the family and friends, and even the doctors of these shooters knew they were troubled, but had no legal means of keeping them safe, and society safe from them.

    But NAMI wants us to think that 80% of the population is mentally ill, and that mental illness is normal. It is not normal, and those hearing voices need intense treatment and supervision, not privacy and seclusion.

    Not an NRA member, but they are absolutely right on this one.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 8:24 p.m.

    The Connecticut school killer was STOPPED by a background check, because his problems were documented in the system.

    The difficulty is deciding "how crazy" someone has to be before they get committed, and therein lies the disagreement. Some mental health zealots say you must never restrict the liberties of even the craziest person, until after they have acted. But many of their liberal friends say [see above] that "anyone who wants a gun must be crazy and therefore prohibited from getting one."

    When all the definitions and standards and criteria for a bill are in writing, then we can discuss the merits.

    Many of the mass killers WERE being treated with psychotropic medications, and perhaps that is a criteria which should trigger a ban on gun possession. Violent video games seem to be a frequent addiction, so that is another criteria.

    The NRA knows that those who seek to ban all guns want incremental steps towards "Goldilocks gun control" where every gun is too big, or too small, or prospective buyers are too young, too old, too rural [see above!] or too urban.

    Freedom is not without risks.
    It's not the guns, it's criminals and crazies!

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 9:29 p.m.

    I would suggest that the culture of guns in America, of which the NRA is a prime supporter, has made us all potential 'homicidal maniacs'. Their tactic of blaming others while promoting the addition of infinitely more guns into society is ludicrous. And we refuse to see it, on a monumentally hypocritical scale. For example, let's play with the wording:

    Freedom is not without risks
    It's not the guns (or liquor, or cigarettes, or cars), it's criminals and crazies (or drunk drivers or smokers or unlicensed drivers). Every time someone tells me regulating guns won't work i tune out.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    Sept. 22, 2013 10:51 p.m.

    A monumental problem appears to be that a large number of disturbed, and/or mentally ill individuals, cherish their membership in the National Rifle Association.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 6:07 a.m.

    The NRA are not called gun crazy for no reason. Listen to some of these people talk as to why they need assault weapons and tons of ammunition.

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    Sept. 23, 2013 8:16 a.m.

    Didn't St. Regan close the mental institutions and assured the public that people like this are safe if they take their meds? Save a few bucks at the risk of the general population. Now we yell "Lock up" these people or is it really get them out of sight.

    Oh my, if investing in mental hospitals again is the answer, what will it do to my "taxes"? They will scream NO to this or building new jails and hiring staff. Any thought of a waiting period between buying and ownership will assault the Constitution.

    I am of a mind that the extremist who demand no controls, who Gerrymander their districts and depend on very deep pockets and voter suppression just might have won their cause. They won the "right" for anyone to own a firearm immediately..... But murdered the same Constitution for everyone to get there.

    Shame on you.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 8:49 a.m.

    Now that we have" mandatory healthcare" It would be easy to include mandatory mental health checkups. What matter is a trillion or so more on the debt? Of course we would soon learn that we are all nuts.

  • JohnInSLC Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    "I would suggest that the culture of guns in America . . .has made us all potential 'homicidal maniacs'.

    Hutterit:

    Speak for yourself.

  • Zaruski SLC, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    About 160 mil. in 2008 and 150. mill in 2012 voted. Presidential elections normally split 45-55.

    So basically, a quarter of the country go one way, another quarter of the country goes another, and half of the country don't really care/don't pay attention/think it's too complicated/think "both sides are equally bad".

    A Sandy Hook mother went on Maddow's show and explained to how she didn't even know what a filibuster is.

    Which of the 3 categories above do you think she fit into? But all of a sudden when political failure comes to roost in your backyard, politics cease to be complicated. All of a sudden it's no longer abstract and immovable. All of a sudden it becomes pretty clear, pretty black and white.

    While half the country sits on their posteriors watching the latest America's Next Whatever and refuse to look at what goes on beyond the fences in their backyards, one party is doing everything it can to destroy the country and hand what's left over to the wealthy, while the other wonders why we allow our political system to be overrun by lunatics.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 23, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    There are certainly "homicidal maniacs" out there that have, as of yet, committed no crime. And I am confident that some of our healthcare professionals know about some of them.

    Can someone please tell me how we could possibly prevent "homicidal maniacs" from buying guns without a background check?

    Basically, the NRA is looking to point towards ANY solution that does not affect gun ownership. In fact, most of their solutions involve more guns.

    Big surprise with that. As is always the case - FOLLOW the MONEY

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    The NRA spins paranoia of the government to sell more guns. Maybe a reasonable approach may calm down people with large capacity guns designed to assault and kill, not hunt deer.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 23, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    UtahBlueDevil--I'm surprised you would own a gun, when Obama would wish you didn't.

    I am surprised our country would send weapons to maniacs in Egypt, Mexican cartels, etc.

    Doesn't make sense.

  • metisophia Ogden, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    I was thinking the same thing, Itsjstmeagain. Reagan ended federal spending on mental health in the '80s and many hospitals shut down, sending patients to live on the streets. I think this anti-society - put the responsibility on irresponsible states - huge turkey is coming home to roost.

  • Mike in Sandy Sandy, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    NO homeowner or hunter needs an assault rifle, PERIOD.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    why do gun owners and shooting sports people need lost of guns and ammo? why do golfers need lots of club and golf balls. They both enjoy their sports and equipment. People get killed with both by fanatics and homicidal types. Remember the little girl who was killed by the Kennedy relative with a golf club?

    Any number of things are available for killers use to perform their crimes. No, guns are not just to commit murder, they are used mostly by law abiding citizens to shoot at targets and for hunting legally.

    The NRA is for gun owners and they promote training, safety, and our Second Amendment rights.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 23, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    Ok people, lets see what happens when you ban guns. Liberals say that thing will be better for the world if we ban guns. Lets see what what has happened to Australia when they banned their law abiding citizens from owning guns.

    From WND "Crime up Down Under" there we find that crimes comitted using guns increased by 45% after the ban.

    From "Increased gun control lead to increased gun violence in Australia" in the Examiner we find that criminals were using guns more and more to commit crimes.

    The lesson we should learn here is that banning guns just disarms the law-abiding people and makes them bigger targes for criminals and mentally disturbed people.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    Where are all the "shall NOT be infringed" - on anyone, for any reason, even the homicidal maniacs - pro-gun 2nd amendment constitutionalist gun nuts today?

    Cat got their tongues?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 23, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    "Liberals say that thing will be better for the world if we ban guns."

    You may find a few liberals who want to "ban guns" but very very few.

    We already ban fully automatic weapons, and that is generally supported by even the NRA.

    You have created a classic straw man argument.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 1:16 p.m.

    @ mike in sandy, define an assault rifle. The navy yard killer just used a simple shotgun is that in the parameters of an assault rifle? Describe your concept of an assault rifle, by caliber, loading mechanism, number of cartridges it carries, color, stock, and what ever more. And then identify what of those characteristics should make it wrong for a homeowner, farmer, hunter, rancher to not own it. Keep in mind a 4.5mm projectile can kill as well as a 50mm projectile.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "Ok people, lets see what happens when you ban guns. "

    The vast majority of people in favor of increasing gun regulation are only looking to strengthen some gun laws like increasing penalties for trafficking, applying background checks to more gun purchases, limited the number of rounds in a magazine... all things filibustered by Senate republicans.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 23, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    To "atl134" but those don't work either. Just look at Chicago or Washington DC. What criminal will worry about the penalty for traficing? What criminal gets a background check before buying a gun?

    You want to give the guy with a brain tumor an asprin because it makes the symptom go away.

    Come back when you have a solution to the mentally ill, drugged, and violence addicted people that want to harm others.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    The NRA opposes any effort to get the maniacs off the street. Ironic, isn't it?

  • TRUTH Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 3:28 p.m.

    We can possibly name one GOP terrorist in the last 50 years....but I can seriously name 10 liberal democrat terrorist in the last two years. Ban guns from Libs and you will have no gun deaths!

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    Here is were I have a problem with the logic often espoused on these threads, first people claim that guns are not any part of the problem but rather it is only the criminals that use them. Then they claim that if law abiding citizens are not allowed to own guns the gun crime rates will go up. So if it is true that guns are not a factor in the crime then why would law abiding citizens need guns as a response, why would a knife or a bat not do just as well to defend ourselves if the gun is not an important factor?

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 4:15 p.m.

    Did somebody equate golf club violence with gun violence? Did I actually read that?

    I believe in the second amendment but at the same time with freedom and rights comes responsibility.

    But back to the golf club. Not following the logic in that one...I guess the Sandy Hook killer could have brought his Mom's golf clubs and the death toll would have been the same.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 23, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    To "Sorry Charlie!" which is easier to conceal when you go out to dinner at Olive Garden. Your Louisville Slugger bad, or a Glock 23?

    In your home, sometimes just getting a shot gun ready to fire makes enough of a distinct noise that criminals run.

    Look at it this way. If a criminal broke into your house and was determined to find you and kill you, would you want to have to get within swinging distance (and hope you have room to swing a bat) before you can defend yourself or would you rather be able to defend yourself at a distance?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 23, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    "@Mike in Sandy

    Sandy, UT

    NO homeowner or hunter needs an assault rifle, PERIOD."

    Most human suffering, and un-natural deaths have come from governments. I am more than glad to see our citizens armed. That's a reason this country hasn't been attacked.

    Questions for you! What kind of weapons have our government been giving other countries? Where have Mexican cartels got their weapons from? Why does Obama want a civilian army, and how are they going to be armed?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 5:19 p.m.

    @redshirt

    You seem to have missed the point but from your comment I assume you agree the gun is a factor despite claims to the contrary.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 5:24 p.m.

    Truth, do you have any idea at all what truth really is?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 23, 2013 9:33 p.m.

    @worf..... I have many guns.... not just a gun. i've been collecting them for nearly 40 years. And I don't have the time to waste hunting either... I just like to shoot them.

    As to where the cartels' get their guns....... most recent numbers show they came from gun shops and gun shows in the US - not the US government. I know you wish the single event represented a trend, but unfortunately facts just don't support.

    But if you really want to talk about the government providing drug runners with weapons, lets just get Oliver North to tell us all about it. It seems the Reagan administration had the practice down to a science. But in the end, that has absolutely nothing to do with the NRA.

  • JohnInSLC Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 10:05 p.m.

    Hutterite, old man, LDSlib, Sandy Mike, etc:

    Why is it that when someone commits a crime with a gun, all the 'progressives' want to punish the people that didn't do it?

  • Let's Agree to Disagree Spanish Fork, UT
    Sept. 26, 2013 10:26 p.m.

    Howard Beal
    Provo, UT

    "Let's take some of our most heinous shootings.

    Columbine: Dylan Klebold and Todd Harris had no prior criminal record but had access to a cache of weapons."

    Yes to prior, albeit non-violent records. Yes to prior mental health issues. No to a cache of weapons. Guns were basically bought off the street.

    "The shooting at the military base in Texas: The guy had no previous record and was a soldier in good standing. Obviously he had access to weapons."

    Obvious red flags that he was an Islamic radical. Today's PC military did not investigate.

    "The shooting in at the Colorado theater: Guy was a little weird but had no past criminal history and again gained access to weapons."

    A little weird? He described his plan for mass murder in a notebook and to his psychiatrist (allegedly).

    I could go on but I think you get the point. The real discussion needs to be how to stop the mentally ill from harming people even if it is with a knife as we saw here in Utah today.