Landlord was evicting 2 from what police called a 'known narcotics house'
Guns keep us safe...Guns keep us safe... Sarcasm, off.
We don't need back-ground checks...Good guys with guns, Bad guys with
guns...If everyone just had an assault rifle and high capacity magazine
clip this never would have happened...Why do the pro-gun
ultra-conservatives support and defend these guys?Isn't that
indirectly being an accomplice?Back-Ground Checks....100%....do it
@Pagan Guns, knives, fists, cars, bombs and so on are merely
"branches" on the "tree" of violent, criminal or antisocial
behavior. The branch is not the tree.Climb down off the "gun
branch" and seek to understand the "root" causes of violence,
criminal or antisocial behavior. Once understood and solved, to the extent they
can be, the branches will be far different - one might even say
'pruned.'In this instance, there is an underlying root
issue that probably has nothing to do with guns. It is, however, unfortunate
that a gun was the tool of choice in the ultimate violent action.
Back Ground Checks anyone?Why can't pro-gun people support something
as common sense and simple as Back-ground Checks?
@PaganCriminals will have guns. They don't care about laws and FOID
cards and gun safety and serial numbers and clip capacity.Chicago has
tough laws.This perp has been before a judge and done time for breaking
weapons laws. Do you think the judge didn't warn him about guns? Do you
think he wasn't told that repeat arrests for gun violations would lead to
more serious time in prison?Pass all the laws you want. Only the
law-abiding will be impacted by them. Perps gotta be perps.
The first two comments illustrate perfectly why we may never accomplish very
much in the way of reducing violent deaths. It seems that these commenters see
the issue as either more guns/less guns, without any alternatives. Part of the
tragedy is that we have become so accustomed to news of violent deaths that the
first thought of many is "what witty comment can I make on this article to
advance my political agenda?"
@xscribe, Are you serious? Of course I dont think barack should
tell the secret service to not carry guns while protecting his family.However, NO, this is not comparing apples and oranges. I'm making a very
simple point that barack has decided the best way to protect his family is for
people to CARRY GUNS.He has a choice to either have them carry or
not carry.Barack's choice for his family?Carry.And don't tell me only barack's family is in danger.Are you telling me the parents of Sandy Hook victims didn't need to worty
about anything because their family was never in danger?Give me a
break.Criminals have and will always use guns.What has
barack decided to do about this?Have people protecting HIS family
carry.I'll do the same.And encourgae others to do
as barack is doing.
@PaganCriminals will have guns. - Say No to BO Correction. They DO have guns.
Talk about denialism -- 3 people shot and killed, 1 person shot and
hospitalized -- and here we have the all gun people telling us
it's not an issue related to Guns....And drowning isn't
about water, and lung cancer isn't about cigarettes,
Gun control laws won't stop these kinds of shootings any more than
anti-drug laws stopped these people from operating a "known narcotics
'I wonder if barack will ask those protecting his family to stop carrying
weapons.' - Chris B Why is it my comment about the clam of gun
safety is removed in a story about a gun shooting... but Chris B.
can lie, factually lie about what 'Obama says' on this news paper day,
after day? I guess the standards of 'civility' are
different at the Deseret news? FYI? Obama didn't
say that. Allowing someone to lie about what another person
'says'... is far from civility.
Guns, knives, fists, cars, bombs and so on are merely "branches" on the
"tree" of violent, criminal or antisocial behavior. The branch is not
the tree. - Wyomex Ah, the 'everything kills too'
argument. In defense of guns. Ok. 1) x3 people were
killed today due to guns. Not fists. 2) In the month of December,
all x2 months ago, 20 children were killed in Sandy hook due to lax gun
legislation. i.e. all guns in the Sandy hook shooting were legally
purchased. In China, a man attacked a school with a knife. Knife attack in China? All victims survive. Gun shooting in
America? All victims die.
Boy, it sure didn't take long for posters to politicize what others might
actually feel sad about. The lesson I take away is - don't cross some of
these folks on a bad day, no matter what you're carrying. Note to Chris B:
Your little attempt to belittle the president by calling him "barack"
says much more about you than him.
Re: Open Minded #1:The guy is a multiple-convicted felon. By possessing a
firearm, he is committing another crime. A background check would not have
stopped him because he wouldn't have gone through one in the first place.
Laws mean nothing to him. He will get his gun or other weapon regardless.Re: Open Minded #2:Are you proposing that we ban water? Can I have
10 inches in my tub, or am I limited to 7?I know people with lung cancer
that never smoked a cigarette. I also know people who have smoked all their
life and don't have lung cancer. What's your point?Do you also
blame Roseanne's fork for making her fat? Are you blaming the gun for
making the perp commit the crime? If he couldn't get a gun, he would have
used a knife. If he couldn't get a knife, he would have used a bat. If he
couldn't get a bat ..... The problem is not the tool, it's the person
WyomexBurlington, WY@Pagan Guns, knives, fists, cars,
bombs and so on are merely "branches" on the "tree" of violent,
criminal or antisocial behavior. The branch is not the tree.In this
instance, there is an underlying root issue that probably has nothing to do with
guns. It is, however, unfortunate that a gun was the tool of choice in the
ultimate violent action.10:35 a.m. Feb. 12, 2013============== U-huh...ya.I'm sure the killer would not
have managed to get away with killing 3, possibly 4 people by smothering each of
them with a fluffly down pillow in his fit of rage."... has
nothing to do with guns."Why do you all insist on defending this?Try starting with this; Back-ground checks.This guy had a rap
sheet on him a mile long.He never should have be able to get his hands on
a weapon.But - $300 cash at a gunshow, and guys like this can get
away with murder.Stop Defending them.Stop enabling them.Explain to me where the intent of the Founding Fathers, he Consitution, and
the 2nd amendment should be guarnateed to people like this?
AZPeteCan you name one law that prevents Anything? Dui laws dont
stop people who drink and drive.But, don't you think that they
help? Dont you think that some are more likely to get a designated driver?The same argument can be made with fully automatic weapons. Most would
feel that banning them has saved lives.Isn't a 3 day waiting
period reasonable? Should someone be able to walk into Walmart in a rage and
purchase a gun?It is a matter of balance. We all have a line, but
they are different for everyone.
Chris B. Apples and oranges!
@xscribe,Are only barack's kids in danger? You're not
answering the question?Were the Sandy Hook children not in
danger?You go ahead and tell the Sandy Hook parents their kids were
never in dangerI'll follow barack's example of how he
wants to protect his kids.Carry.Always.
The most unfortunate part of this crime is the person of interest if guilty
demonstrates a failed judicial system where we allow a person with this kind of
background loose on society.No law can stop this, but the exisiting laws
provided for him to be incarcerated for a much longer period of time. Why
isn't he at the point of the mountain where he belongs?
If it's a "known" drug house, why hadn't it been shutdown and
the participants incarcerated ?
@ say no to bo: If you did some research you would find out that
New Orleans has a higher gun murder rate per capita than Chicago. But
seeing's how you have this hate for the President because he's from
Chicago i guess that why you keep bringing up that town. Oh and if you would
please show us how just the law bideing is going to suffer you know post where
we can see it in print. Oh and not of the NRA web site.
Obviously, Quentin Tarantino / Video Games are to blame, right? Or are we done
beating that dead horse?
@Open minded mormonFirst of all, I am not "defending this."
Weird. Who would defend this?Second, the issue was drugs. Legalize
them and many issues disappear.Third, background checks are a great
idea. However, bad guys get stuff - legally or illegally. He'll get a
gun. A background check may stop the enraged person, but not the calculating
one. I am not defending them, nor enabling them. All I am saying
is look at and deal with the root issues, like drugs, unemployment, abuse, etc.
and many, not all, of the violence will disappear. We are too prone to respond
knee-jerk fashion and with outrage when violence occurs without thinking a bit
deeper about it.
Chris B12:25 p.m. Feb. 12, 2013Salt Lake City, UT@xscribe,Are only barack's kids in danger? You're not answering the
question?Were the Sandy Hook children not in danger?================== Ummm, Perhaps it’s because
you don't have Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Levin telling 40% of
America 12 hours a day that; you are not an American Citizen, you
are secretly part of the Muslim Brotherhood, that you want to destroy
America, that you want to take away freedom of Religion and right to bear
arms, that you want to bury America in debt for generations to come, that most of the people who listen to these lies about you hang on and believe
every word coming out of that radio day after day. And IF your house
had actually been shot at, and daily having your family threatened like
President Obama already has --Perhaps I could support your need for armed
security.But Chris B - the reality is you live in Salt Lake City,
Utah.You are not in danger.You are not being threatened.Everything you are so afraid is imaginary.So whynot use an imaginary gun
to shoot imaginary bad guys?
It's true - you can turn just about anything into a weapon and kill someone
with it.But it's a lot easier if that "anything" is a
gun.Some things are just too easy to kill with. There's a
reason it's not legal to own a rocket launcher. Or an F-16. Or a nuclear
warhead.Time to add all automatic weapons and high-capacity
magazines to that list.
Did you know that the "good" guys have and use guns for the same reason
the "bad" guys do?1. To protect themselves,2. To
protect their property,3. To threaten their enemies,and 4.
They don't feel like they can depend on the Police.
@not hereSay what?
"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." I am getting a bit
tired of hearing that argument when the facts clearly show that a nation's
gun policy directly influences the rate of gun-related deaths.For
example, a quick look at gunpolicy DOT org shows that gun related deaths per
capita are 10 times higher in the U.S. than Australia. Gun related deaths per
capita are 40 times higher in the U.S. than the U.K.Those statistics
mean either one of two things. (1) The citizens of the United States are
inherently more evil and/or careless with guns than other civilized countries.
(2) U.S. gun policy plays a major role. You decide.
The President is no different than anyone else. We love and value our families
and should be able to have protection for them as the Second Amendment states.
What is good for the goose is also good for the gander in this case. Remember:
it's not the gun that is dangerous - it is the holder of that gun that is
the problem. There are more responsible Americans than there are irresponsible
"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."Outlaw? You
did a really poor job of spelling "require background checks on all
Pagan.Your say, folks in china lived from knife attacks.You say
everyone dies from gun attacks.You didn't say, how to stop any
@atl134If your point is that the U.S. needs a stricter gun policy, I think
we are in agreement. If your point is something else, please elaborate.
Bad guys will always have guns and so will the good guys. I call those people
If we're going to round up the guns so that a knife is the most threatening
weapon available, we'd better do a very good job of making sure that all
the guns are gathered except for those few registered to the police. Short of
that, we risk stripping citizen defenders of law and order and empowering those
with criminal or homicidal intent. Does anyone believe that we can gather up
all the guns from bad guys (never mind the second amendment)? We would have to
shut down our borders completely and isolate ourselves (Australia has no
neighbors) because otherwise smuggling cartels will make sure criminals have
guns. Does anyone think by stripping the citizenry of automatic weapons will
strip the criminals, or those willing to deal with the black market, of
automatic weapons? Wouldn't it just make criminals with automatics less
timid of anyone except the police? Americans have never assumed that our safety
should be left completely to the police (who can't be everywhere bad guy
and his guns arrive as he did at the mall). Where's safety? If only we
were all peace-loving and moral. But...
The suspect has multiple felony convictions, and existing background checks
would stop him.However, criminals get their guns from illegal
sources- the steal them, trade drugs for them, get "straw purchasers"
with clean records to buy them (a felony itself) or they get a fake ID and pass
the background check under the fake name.Background checks do not
disarm criminals, and are worthless.
Do some of you actually believe that a criminal would actually try to get a gun
at Cabelas? Or, for that matter, from a gun show? Gun shows aren't known
for being all that cheap. No, gang members, which I'm sure this guy was,
steal them from a variety of places, usually other gangs or during robberies.
You can bark up the background check tree all day long and it will not stop this
type of crime at all. Sure, there have been gun sales stopped at stores because
of BC's, but, I'll bet you that 100% of these people have found a gun
some way (if they wanted it bad enough). I think what I'm
seeing here is it's more convenient to sensationalize a few shootings and
use scare tactics to get some new laws passed. However, what good do new laws
do, if you can't even enforce old laws? Criminals have guns right now, no
new law will stop that. All stricter laws will do is make it tougher for 99% of
people who use guns properly to get a gun. Sorry, the truth needed to be told.
Liberals do not understand the crime culture who abuse others with guns. this is
where the probem is. Assault weopens are not weopens at all, they are in fact
people who are criminal minded and who are running loose on our streets
commiting crimes. Sometimes they use guns as weopens against others. the justice
system fails to incarcerate and adaquately punish them for using weopens in
commiting crimes. Why can't liberals get this straight. Most of
us (99.5 % of people who use guns even the military type for hunting, target,
and home defense do not own assault weopens because we do not assault people.
Get your terminology and thinking straight folks and go after the criminals and
get off of the backs of the 99.5% of us who obey the laws.
yankees27Heber, UtahDo some of you actually believe that a criminal
would actually try to get a gun at Cabelas?1:29 a.m. Feb. 13,
2013============ If the buying of selling guns is a GOOD
thing, Could you please explain why the newspapers parent company [the LDS
Church] has taken down the classified sections of all it's news outlets
barring the buying and selling of guns?Sorry, the truth needed to be
Everyone is so quick to blame guns for this crime. This guy was serving 1 to 15
in 2007. I think he got out too soon! He is a convicted felon and cannot legally
possess a firearm yet everyone looks to gun control for the answer. This is a
perfect example proving that when guns are outlawed only criminals will have
guns. This person has no regard for human life, is involved in a drug lifestyle
and has no problem obtaining illegal weapons. For him, all weapons are illegal
but it makes no difference. He was in custody five years ago and many times
after that for other crimes. Maybe the court and penal system should be
empowered to do their jobs. This guy should've never been on the street.
LDS liberal- I don't understand your comment to Yankees27. Are you saying
that honest, well minded people who want to buy or sell a gun is wrong?
I've both bought and sold many guns. Yes, some on KSL. I don't agree
with them taking down their gun section, but it's their right to do so.
It's tragic that a few bad apples ruin a great service for the rest of us.
Like Yankee said about gun shows, even on KSL guns are more expensive than the
criminal type will pay. Criminals steal! or they pay pennies on the dollar for
things that have been stolen. I agree with his/her comment about the strict
laws. The honest man, can't get rocket launchers, grenades, fully automatic
weapons, etc.,(we don't need them anyway) but guess who can? Criminals!
Tougher laws will only make it harder for honest people to attain hunting rifles
and handguns. Criminals will always have their "source" to attain their
weapon of choice. That is the real truth. I'm glad it has been shared.
" Tougher laws will only make it harder for honest people to attain hunting
rifles and handguns. Criminals will always have their "source" to attain
their weapon of choice. That is the real truth. I'm glad it has been
shared."You are glad you shared it? I'm glad you are glad
with yourself. Tougher laws make it harder for honest people to
attain handguns and rifles? And you think there is a "real truth" here?
Whatever. If having to take the few minutes it takes to run a
background check is the burden a person has to endure, I think society can live
with that. My gosh you gun people are a pampered lot. "It's
too hard to wait five minutes before I get my gun, whah. I want my gun right
now!" Stamping of little feet. "Everybody is going to take all my guns,
whah! I'm not going to be able to play, whah!"And you guys
actually think you are what stands between freedom and tyranny. Pathetic.
Back-ground checks. This guy had a rap sheet on him a mile long. He never should
have be able to get his hands on a weapon.Open Mind:Of
course, once every transfer requires a background check, THAT will prevent all
criminals from getting a gun. They'd NEVER steal one, or six, without
submitting a transfer approval request. Fail!
If what the pro-gun people say is true, That criminals don't buy guns
anyway - they only steal them, then;1. Since the guns just get
stolen anyway, then the gun didn't do what it was intended to do in the
first place, stop thieves and protect the owner.2. Banning certain
types of guns, just means there is LESS of them to be stolen.BTW -
for the last time...I'm not Anti-Gun.I have them myself.But BE responsible.Keep them in a secure gun-SAFE.That
way, We can have them.Those mentally ill can't shoot us and
take them, and criminals can't STEAL them.Is any of this
sinking into those think-stubborn-Never Compromising-conservative-heads yet?