I don't know who said it, but I agree with the words. If you give up your
liberty for security, You'll get neither. What is the risk to drive a car
around a lot of other cars. I like my car. It's a deadly weapon, and every
place I go, There is a lot of these deadly weapons. I not concern about the
risk. I believe in people. I count on them and depend on them.
It's obvious that we've gotta do something other than kick the can
down the road. The NRA says that we need to have armed guards and
teachers at our schools. Great. Are they going to pay for that???
Dave, you are wrong! When threatened by mentally ill people or criminals with
guns, a gun in MY hand is much better than a cop on the phone! It is my right to
defend me and mine when NO one else can or will! Cops carry guns to protect
themselves from bad guys with guns, not you! And by the way, I really do know
how to use my guns and I would much rather have a gun and not need it than if I
really needed it but didn't have it. I choose NOT to be a victim. What you
choose is up to you but you shall not make my choices for me! Merry Christmas!
So grateful for the armed "good guys". The vast majority of them know
exactly what they're doing...or they wouldn't be "carrying" in
the first place.
This article makes it sound like proficiency with a gun is rocket science. It
isn't.Also, anyone who bothers to get a carry permit,
isn't likely to not know how to handle a gun. This is a non issue. The
likely purpose of this proposal is to throw another obstical at gun ownership
and gun use.Should one be educated in safe gun use? Absolutely. Guns
make a person and a family safer, when the owner of the gun follows the rules of
gun safety. Otherwise guns are a liability.
Criminals will always have weapons. ALWAYS! Where was the police protection
when a criminal used a firearm in the Colorado school? Was it legal for a
student to take a firearm into that school? Was it legal for a minor to
discharge a firearm? Did the laws forbidding those actions keep the school and
the people at the school safe? Why didn't the "government" keep
that crime from happening? Why didn't the "police" do their job and
keep a crime from happening?The anti-gun zealots would have us think
that the world would be a perfect place if we would just listen to them; but,
the most ridiculous argument that anti-gun zealots can make is that
"laws" prevent criminals from committing crimes. Criminals don't
obey laws. Those who must be forced to do the right thing will do whatever they
want, whenever they want to whomever they want.
Maverick. How do we pay for armed guards in schools? Easy! The same way the
government hired thousands of Obamacare web site navigators!
"New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let
alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases
where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364
bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent,
according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report.In
2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82
times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that
year.In all shootings — including those against people,
animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers
achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy
rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots
they fired last year were within that distance."In Los Angeles,
where there are far fewer shots discharged, the police fired 67 times in 2006
and had 27 hits, a 40 percent hit rate, which, while better than New
York’s, still shows that they miss targets more often they hit
Truthseeker just made a perfect case AGAINST gun control when she told us that
the police hit their target less than 50% of the time. She convinced me that I
should never just rely on the police to protect me or my family. Not only were
the police too late to stop the shooting in Colorado, but according to her, had
they been there, they most likely would have missed if they tried to shoot the
criminal."Gun control" is not open for debate. It is a
constitutionally guaranteed right. Only those who think nothing of the
Constitution would tell us that government has the "right" to control
arms. The rest of us know that government has no right to infringe our right to
keep and bear arms.
To lump all Utah concealed carry permit holders into a group of people who have
no clue how to use a gun is a bit extreme.
Dave Jensen is absolutely right. The proliferation of guns makes us less safe,
not more safe. The best words in the Second Amendment are "well
regulated." Let's face it, some people would argue that the way to
prevent hijacking of planes is to issue all passengers a gun.
Yup. So we can have a bunch of Walter Mittys running around packing guns while
fantasizing about being heroes.It's just a matter of time
before there is a tragedy when one of these folks try to be the hero and only
make things worse. Will they be charged with murder if they hit the wrong
target and take out an innocent bystander instead of the bad guy.Will the police officer who mistakes little Walter for the bad guy and shoots
him be crucified for his error?It's going to happen some day.
@ Steve Warren. Do you really think that if all passengers on a plane had guns,
any hijacker would attempt it, really? Come on, man!
I can't really argue with the need for better gun training, but let me
point out. The shooters in the recent tragic incidents were pretty well trained
in how to effectively use those weapons. And that was a factor in making them
sucessful in mass killings it seems to me.
@Mike in Cedar City: They were also not mentally stable, which is another
volatile subject. So addressing the subject of "training" in the context
of Dave's article and the commenters about police accuracy, it seems
it's a moot point. Guns can kill in anyone's hands. The bottom line
is: laws do not prevent shootings. So I'll keep mine close by my
How will those who propose "gun control" get firearms out of the hands
of criminals? Chicago had a total ban on handguns for decades. A TOTAL BAN.
Did that stop criminals from using handguns? According to Wiki in Chicago in
1975 "75% of murders involved a firearm . . . 85% of victims and 93% of
offenders were male. 76% of victims were African American (77.4% of offenders
were), 18.3% were Hispanic (17.3% of offenders), and 5.6% were white (5.3% of
offenders). . . Over 75% of victims and 88% of offenders had a prior arrest
history."Convicted felons cannot carry firearms, yet 88% of
offenders had a prior arrest history. Making laws against using firearms does
not work. Taking guns out of the hands of law-aiding citizens does not stop
criminals from using guns. Obama does not believe in gun control;
he surrounds himself with men and women carrying firearms. Harry Reid and John
Boehner do not believe in gun control. They surround themselves with people
carrying guns. The justices on the Supreme Court do not believe in gun control.
They also surround themselves with armed guards. Yet, liberals tell us to do
what they say, not what they do.
Statistically a gun in the home is more likely to end up resulting in a bullet
to someone in the home (either via attack, suicide, or accident) than it is to
injure/kill anyone else.
Two shootings in a week that made the news. But what is most disturbing is that
both this and the school shooting in Colorado have generated virtually no
attention and no outrage.Have shootings become so routine that they
merit little attention unless they involve huge numbers of victims and then only
when the victims are children?Have shootings become such a part of
our nightly TV entertainment and our weekend movies that we as a nation have
become inured to them? Are the imaginary and ever more graphic shootings we
allow into our living rooms virtually every night of the week lulling us into
some kind of lazy complacency?Instead of national outrage, we seem
to now have a national yawn. "Ho hum, another shooting. What time is CSI on
tonight?"Disgusting.And downright frightening.But exactly what the NRA is hoping will happen.How many more
people must die? Or will it only become real to us when the dead are someone
close to us -- like a family member. Is that what it will take?
I have to respectfully disagree with the letter. I for one feel safer. You
don't every know who is armed and neither do the criminals. BTW our level
of violent crime here in Utah is way below other states so the correlation is
not really accurate. What happened in Colorado was sad, however blaming the
legal gun owners and lumping them in with that psycho is also not an apt
comparison. Until something happens in the mental health area to ferret these
people out and keep guns out of their hands.
Dave,Can you define what you mean when you say "Gun Lobby"?Is it just the NRA? Or is it anybody who thinks we really have 2nd
Amendment rights like me?I think I understand the reason for the 2nd
Amendment (and it's not for sport). I think it's an important right
guaranteed by the Constitution. Does that make me part of the loony gun lobby?
MM -- "Do you really think that if all passengers on a plane had guns, any
hijacker would attempt it, really?"Do you have any idea what a
bullet does inside a pressurized aircraft at 35,000 feet? I didn't think
so.Come on, man!
@2bits"I think I understand the reason for the 2nd Amendment (and
it's not for sport). I think it's an important right guaranteed by the
Constitution. Does that make me part of the loony gun lobby?"If
you're not part of the gun lobby then it just means you buy what
they're selling. Unless you believe the 2nd Amendment is so that people can
arm themselves to overthrow the gov't if necessary, then the loon part
Truthseeker,The success-rate for an armed person may be between 38-40%...
but what is the success-rate for an un-armed person? (Hint... 0%).You can quote statistics all day, but in the end you can't deny the fact
that if everybody is unarmed in one of these active-shooter situations... there
is absolutely nothing to stop the shooter (until they eventual stop
themselves).You can say, "Just run"! But what if there is
nowhere to run?You can say, "Just wait for the police"!
But what do you do while you wait in a room of scared kindergarten children for
the police to respond... and the shooter walks in?Disarming
everybody that could possibly stop the shooter is NOT the answer. Disarming CRAZY people IS the answer. We need to become better
at doing that. But the Government can 100% reliably do that. They don't
know who's crazy! But his father knows, his mother knows, his brothers
know. WE need to keep guns out of the hands of family members we know are
unstable.We don't need the government to do away with 2nd
Amendment rights because some people are scared.
I'm a little bemused by how many people posted without actually reading the
letter. It didn't say "give up liberty for security". It
didn't say "laws prevent criminals from killing people." And it
definitely didn't say "ban all guns."What the letter
said was that it's a mistake to promote more gun ownership without also
promoting responsible usage and training.The biggest problem with
the gun debate is the attempt to frame every argument, statement, and proposal
as either "pro-gun" (GUNS EVERYWHERE!!!!) or "anti-gun" (BAN ALL
GUNS!!!). Neither is feasible, neither will make society safer, and neither
allows enough open dialogue to actually fix our society's problem with gun
violence. Any comment that advances a moderate proposal (or rejects extreme
positions like the NRA's) is immediately slammed and dismissed as stupid...
and the shootings continue.
Mike,All of your statistics are not going to sit well with some of
the posters on this board. The facts don't fit well with their narrative
therefore they won't pay attention to them.
atl134,What do YOU think the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was?Just curious.
@2bitsNational defense, hence the need for a "well regulated
militia". However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that guns
shouldn't be allowed for anything other than military and police (though I
do believe gun owners should be first in line if we have a draft). But... there
is no hunting purpose for large capacity magazines. There's no need for
long-distance high-power sniper rifles. There's no reason to not have
background checks on all gun purchases.
To "The Real Maverick" yes, the NRA is willing to pay for training
teachers how to use firearms. After the shootings this last year, there were
many NRA affiliated groups that were offering free classes to teachers on how to
handle firearms or were giving them training to obtain conceal carry permits.To "Steve C. Warren" actually, you are wrong. The proliferation
of guns has been shown to cut down on crime. While there is no correlation
between number of guns per person and crime rates, there is a correlation
between conceal carry permits and crime rates. In areas where there are more
people with conceal carry permits, there is also a lower crime rate. See
"Do concealed-weapon laws result in less crime?" in the Washington Post.
Re: "Criminals will always be better armed than the public at large . . .
."Particularly when we have callow, uninformed, but curiously
opinionated liberals pushing as hard as they can to unilaterally disarm that
public at large.It never ceases to amaze that anti-Second-Amendment
evangelists will freely admit the abject weakness of their position, and yet, in
the same breath, increase the shrillness of their deranged bleating on behalf of
"solutions" that will only make things worse.Since criminals
will always be armed, perhaps even better armed than us, how could anyone
genuinely believe that gun control -- which ONLY applies to further disarm
law-abiding Americans -- can, in any way, make us safer from criminals?It's simply amazing that otherwise-intelligent liberals can advance and
advocate ideas whose only result can be chaos and disaster for America and
Americans.Makes you wonder whether they really like America,
Re: ". . . I do believe gun owners should be first in line if we have a
draft."Oh, they would be, trust me. Many camped out all night to
be the first in line.And, that's the very point liberals try to
hide from America -- there could be no well-regulated militia if politicians
erroneously began applying the "well-regulated" Second-Amendment
language to people and guns, rather than militias.The National Guard
is simply one well-regulated militia. It's not the only one, or the only
legal one. State, city, and community militias have been the backbone of
American continental defense since, well, the Continental Army.The
movie "Red Dawn" fictionally portrays what could become a real event --
the need for well-regulated militias to defend America from her enemies. Foreign
or domestic.It's unlikely to be the Cuban Army, but gangs?
Yeah.And, since those enemies are unlikely to be armed with 1-shot
muzzle loaders, the very weapons the Second Amendment absolutely and irrevocably
protects are military weapons.Sorry liberals. Your arguments are
morally wrong, demonstrably wrong-headed, and just plain wrong for America.
atl134,Sounds like we agree that the 2nd amendment was about national
defense (not just hunting). So maybe I'm not as looney as you thought.I don't care about what TYPE or capacity the citizens have... the
important thing is that everybody know that the people the RIGHT to be armed,
and not even our own government can infringe on that right.I love
the Constitution, and I don't think it's obsolete or
"fundamentally flawed" (Ref Barack Obama).I think the
Constitution is there for OUR protection. Not for the politician's
protection.I don't care if we have laws pertaining to guns.
Of course we need rules of what is acceptable and what is not. But our
fundamental RIGHTS... should never be taken away. Even if some think we would
be safer without Constitutional rights.I don't know about your
draft thingy... never seen that in the Constitution. But IF/when an armed
citizenry is needed to defend our country... I think the people who respect the
2nd Amendment are going to be the FIRST people to volunteer. So don't
worry about making your rule into a law.
@procuradorfiscal"Since criminals will always be armed"That's not true but it probably feels that way because we make it
extremely easy to acquire guns in this country. Don't even need a
background check for a private sale. "It's simply amazing
that otherwise-intelligent liberals can advance and advocate ideas whose only
result can be chaos and disaster for America and Americans."There is no reason at all to believe limiting magazine size would cause chaos.
Limiting access to particular things can reduce their use for evil, that's
why we don't see reports of people using machine guns to commit crimes in
this country.@2bits"I love the Constitution, and I
don't think it's obsolete or "fundamentally flawed""There are flaws in it, thankfully the egregious ones have been fixed
over time (by repealing slavery, expanding voting rights, etc). I don't
consider the 2nd Amendment flawed, I just consider it to be interpreted too
broadly by many.
Old man. Do I know what a bullet would do inside a pressurized cabin at 35K
feet? Yes, I do and we are not talking about howitzers here, only small caliber
firearms with hollow point bullets. Even if the bullet hit the side of the
cabin,(which if I were shooting it would hit the hijacker and take him out
immediately) it would do very little damage and would not penetrate outside the
cabin walls. Why do you think these nuts always target schools, theaters and
other places where there is almost no chance of anyone else having a gun? Hint:
Tts so no one can stop them! At least until cops show up several minutes later
with GUNS! The reason they don't target police stations is because everyone
there has a GUN! Wise up!
Re: "There is no reason at all to believe limiting magazine size would cause
chaos."Sorry, but it certainly would create chaos if the
criminals are the only ones with standard-sized magazines, the law-abiding
citizenry being required to make-do with 5-rounders or less.You've apparently never been in combat or on a range's
combat-course. A shooter's most vulnerable moment is while reloading. And
if bad guys have to reload six times less often than good guys, the result will,
indeed, be chaos.If you don't believe me, just ask General
Custer and his troops at Greasy Grass [that's Lakota for "Little
Bighorn"].Liberals hate to admit it, but it's inarguably
true that the very weapons protected by the Second Amendment are military
weapons. You won't see military armories reducing the size of their rifle
magazines any time soon. With good reason.To avoid chaos.
The problem with gun nuts is they are easily scared men both prone to violence
and quick to be armed with lethal force.We're seeing a rise of
"stand your ground" laws which are really shoot when ever you are scared
laws and get away with it.If you worship guns, be ready to answer
for it at the pearly gates. In the meantime I'll vote to limit the
manufacture and sale of guns and promote less lethal forms of actual defense.
Get an alarm and strong door for goodness sake. If someone actually
gets into your home to threaten your family, you are already a miserable
failure. Don't be proud of it, or tell us how well your gun worked.
"Do you really think that if all passengers on a plane had guns, any
hijacker would attempt it, really?"Huh? Seriously? Is this a
serious question? I think we'd see a huge increase in terrorist violence on
planes if they knew that everyone had a gun. Citizens would do all the
terrorists' work for them! All it would take is a few stray bullets from a
few gun tooting citizens to bring down a plane of 300 people.
According to many liberals, George Washington, and all of the founding fathers,
were "gun nuts", "red necks", and anything else that they can
think of to smear the reputations of those brave and valiant citizens. King
George was a tyrant. He is not the only tyrant to have ever "reigned".
Those founding fathers knew that God has given us rights to protect ourselves
from tyrants, tyrants who would take away the agency that God has given us to
choose for ourselves how we would live our lives. Some liberals would like us
to believe that God gave them the right to force the rest of us to bow down to
their will and to give away our agency so that they can pat themselves on the
back and declare that they, not God, gave us our rights.It is the
height of contempt for those liberals to dictate to this nation that they, and
their current "King George", has the right to dictate "rights"
to the people, when the fact is that the people retain all rights except for
those 17 "rights" that they have delegated to the Federal Government.
Gun control has not been delegated to the government.
UT is a major exporter of concealed gun permits. Recently it was reported that
62% of UT permits were granted to out-of-state applicants. UT makes it easy and
cheap to get a concealed gun permit. Which is why we need federal
laws. As long as people can cross the border to a neighboring state
to purchase guns, the effectiveness of state-imposed gun laws are limited. UT has a higher rate of death from firearms than CA.
Re: "Get an alarm and strong door for goodness sake."You've obviously never seen what a 12-gauge slug will do to a door lock.
Just so's you know, it's what we use in Afghanistan to open a locked
door we need to get into -- including some way, way more substantial than what
we have here.And alarms? Yeah, they might, under the right
circumstances, provide help in minutes -- when you need it in seconds.You have, and apparently hold dear, the freedom to choose to be a victim.
I'll never understand that, but you enjoy that right.But,
I'll also never understand how liberals, or anyone, for that matter, can
feel good about denying me the freedom to protect my family. It's certainly
NOT "for goodness' sake."I don't love guns, any
more than I love my table saw or drill press. But I appreciate that they are all
important tools. Guns are absolutely necessary to my protection plan for myself
and mine.And, yeah, I'm perfectly willing to answer for my
actions and desires at the pearly gates.Hope you are, too.
So exactly how are we safer with all the liberal progressive created defenseless
zones? If things are so dangerous, How about mandatory gun education
on school?We have sex education and condoms to "save
lives", why not gun education and a first firearm.It's the
liberal way!Or is really it about using fear toward total
progressive control of the people.
Some people have either no understanding of the Constitution or else they have
utter contempt for it. We don't need any federal law to regulate firearms,
in fact the government is not allowed to create a federal law without
overthrowing the Constitution."A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of the a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed."The Court ruled that WE,
THE PEOPLE have the individual right to keep and bear arms, whether or not we
belong to a "militia".That is the law of the land. No one,
conservative or liberal, has the right to overthrow that law without being held
in contempt by all citizens. Our rights do not come from government; they come
from God. No government on earth has the right to take away God-given rights.
Switcheroo, are you talking about MM here?
I don't understand the vitriol directed at the NRA. There is no national
organization better equipped or more inclined to provide training in firearms
safety. Oh, wait, I see it now. If people were better trained, that would be one
less talking point for those who wish to eliminate the Second Amendment.
I'm talking about all gun nuts, they get their ideas and thoughts from the
same place and never stray from the shallow water. If every
passenger had a gun it doesn't keep someone from blowing up the plane. And if you can't imagine a door that a shotgun can't get
through, you have a poor imagination. So yes, get an alarm and strong door. Ask
a gun nut prepper, they have their bunkers with strong doors all ready for the
The fact that one of these Utah Rambo wannabes hasn't shot and killed
innocent victims is actually the perfect testament as to how rarely a persons
life is threatened by a criminal with a gun. Go figure the odds sometime of
your gun harming you or your loved one accidently (or in a suicide) versus your
chance of defending your loved ones life in a crime. Truthseeker
stated the facts "knowing how to use a gun" is far and away not the same
thing as being physically, emotionally, and psychologically competent to
appropriately react to a life threating situation. More people
are killed with guns in America than in car accidents, and it's not the
police shooting criminals. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
the Second Amendment grants the right of all citizens to carry weapons. Most
twelve year old boys and many girls in Utah go through the Gun Safety course
before they can hunt. This course is well taught and not only teaches gun safety
but also gun responsibility. A well armed well trained society is a society I
want my kids and grandkids to grow up in. To hide our heads in the sand and
think a gun-less society is safe is sadly ignorant and non-fact based. Chicago
and many other large cities who enforce a gun-less society have THE most violent
crime rate in the nation.
I'm still waiting for Obama to send his Socialist thugs door-to-door to
confisgate all the weapons the Conservative promised us over and over again he
would.FYI -- The last President to "ban" weapons was
To "Open Minded Mormon" You mean like "The Gun Confiscation Notice
an NYC Resident Reportedly Received Will Likely Send Chills Down Your Spine"
reported by The Blaze? That was a really nice thing that NYC did to send out
the notices to citizens to turn in their guns.The story was
confirmed by the UK Daily Caller article "New York City confiscating rifles
and shotguns". It was confirmed again by Fox News in their article
"NYPD cracks down on long guns that hold more than five rounds"How much longer until they come for all guns? Your ilk is already bold enough
to confiscate guns that were legally purchased.
Is people having guns and not knowing how to use them really a problem? There
is load the gun, aim the gun, pull the trigger, this isn't rocket science.
Oh then there are the rules of safety. May I suggest we teach these rules in
school, in health class? Problem solved.And yes more guns (in the
hands of good guys) does make our community and our world safer. If not then
lets take guns away from the police and the military. My gun in my house makes
us safer too. This is because we have learned and follow the rules of gun
safety. In the event of a home invasion have a means to protect ourself.