Quantcast
Utah

3 killed, 1 hospitalized in Midvale shootings

Landlord was evicting 2 from what police called a 'known narcotics house'

Comments

Return To Article
  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    Guns keep us safe...

    Guns keep us safe...

    Sarcasm, off.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 12, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    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 now.....

  • Wyomex Burlington, WY
    Feb. 12, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    @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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 12, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    Back Ground Checks anyone?
    Why can't pro-gun people support something as common sense and simple as Back-ground Checks?

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    @Pagan
    Criminals 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.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    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?"

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    @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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    @Pagan
    Criminals will have guns. - Say No to BO

    Correction.

    They DO have guns.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 12, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    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,

  • Mountain Bird West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    Gun control laws won't stop these kinds of shootings any more than anti-drug laws stopped these people from operating a "known narcotics house."

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    '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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 12, 2013 11:11 a.m.

    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.

  • AzPete Mesa, AZ
    Feb. 12, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    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 using it.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 12, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    Wyomex
    Burlington, 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?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 12, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    AZPete

    Can 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.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Feb. 12, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    Chris B. Apples and oranges!

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    @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 danger

    I'll follow barack's example of how he wants to protect his kids.

    Carry.

    Always.

  • Missourian Fulton, MO
    Feb. 12, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    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?

  • rlsintx Plano, TX
    Feb. 12, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    If it's a "known" drug house, why hadn't it been shutdown and the participants incarcerated ?

  • not here COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
    Feb. 12, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    Obviously, Quentin Tarantino / Video Games are to blame, right? Or are we done beating that dead horse?

  • Wyomex Burlington, WY
    Feb. 12, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    @Open minded mormon

    First 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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 1:39 p.m.

    Chris B
    12:25 p.m. Feb. 12, 2013
    Salt 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?

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Feb. 12, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 1:45 p.m.

    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.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 2:51 p.m.

    @not here
    Say what?

  • RunningOnMT Orem, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 4:09 p.m.

    "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.

  • suzyk#1 Mount Pleasant, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 4:39 p.m.

    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 Americans.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 4:54 p.m.

    "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

    Outlaw? You did a really poor job of spelling "require background checks on all purchases of".

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Feb. 12, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    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 attacks.

  • RunningOnMT Orem, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 5:15 p.m.

    @atl134
    If 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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 6:00 p.m.

    Bad guys will always have guns and so will the good guys. I call those people Cops.

  • far north Providence, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 6:42 p.m.

    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...

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 9:12 p.m.

    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.

  • yankees27 Heber, Utah
    Feb. 13, 2013 1:29 a.m.

    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.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Feb. 13, 2013 6:52 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 13, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    yankees27
    Heber, Utah
    Do 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 told.

  • midvale guy MIDVALE, UT
    Feb. 13, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    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.

  • joseywales Park City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    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.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2013 11:52 a.m.

    " 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.

  • JohnInSLC Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 13, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    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!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 13, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    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?