I am a gun owner and a ccw permit holder. I believe the 2nd Amendment protects
an individual right to own firearms. That said, Mr. Painter's letter
letter makes absolutely no sense. Our nation's crime statistics make it
abundantly clear that living a a society saturated with firearms and minimal
restrictions on their sale is a recipe for mayhem, not public safety. The
notion that elementary school teachers should be armed in their classrooms is
"...if the restrictive gun laws were removed, then we the people would be
able to protect ourselves.."What restrictive gun laws? Jaime
Fuller of the Washington Post commemorated the 20 anniversary of the Brady Bill,
which has resulted in over 100 million background checks since it was put into
place in 1994. And yet, since then:1. When new gun policy gets
passed, it's usually about loosening gun restrictions, not tightening them.
2. 242 members of the House had an "A rating" from the National
Rifle Association in December 2012.3. In 2013, a plan to expand background
checks failed.4. In 1993, 34 percent of Americans thought it was more
important to protect the right to own guns than control gun ownership.5.
Firearm homicides reached a peak of 17,075 in 1993.6. In October 2011, 47
percent of Americans said they had a gun in the home -- the highest number since
1993.Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting gun
owners in this country are somehow overburdened, or even inconvenienced, by
restrictive gun laws. And study the tragedy of Chris Kyle - a good man, with a
gun, was murdered, by a gun, at a firing range.
Those calling for private citizens to arm themselves are calling for a world
that encourages people NOT to trust each other. They want us to view each
person as a potential criminal looking to assault us. Does this even qualify as
a "civilization"? Does it reflect reality? Are there just as many
criminals waiting to assault us with their weapons as there are non-violent
citizens going about their daily business?And how does arming
society address the underlying problems associated with gun-related assaults?
Does this solve the mental health issue or the domestic violence issue? Does it
address the male propensity for violence? Or does it abet it? Arming the populace sounds like the solution a 13-year old boy might come up
with, not a mature adult. Seriously, America, we are allowing a fear-filled
minority to foist their dystopian worldview upon us. Keep pushing back. And
women, think twice before bringing a gun into your home because the reality is
that, more often than not, the person it gets used on is you.
1) More guns isn't the answer.2) That "off-duty" police
officer was trained to do what he did. Your average joe isn't.
Everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. The police could be minutes
away. In a fire fight do you want to come unprepared? We need more guns and more
bullets available to all, without time consuming background checks. That way we
can hit and kill the bad guy before innocent civilians are killed. Do you know
of any gun free zones that don't have deaths? What about any gun zones?
There's a reason why no one dies at a shooting range while every month we
have people being killed in schools and churches.Besides, any
restrictions on guns is a violation of the 2nd amendment.The only
way to have a civilized and safe society is for everyone to be armed to defend
themselves. No matter what Obama says, guns are a sign of patriotism and respect
for the 2nd amendment.
Not another unsolicited letter from a gun lover. These folks need to think it
through a little better and get a grip on the real world. Fantasy drives their
perceptions of how guns can same the world.
If there had been more "trained" people at Trolly square, we probably
would have had much more death. Innocent people most likely would have gotten
hit by stray bullets and caught in cross fire with the inability to determine
friend or foe.Sandy Hook probably would have had the same scenario.
Good guys and bad guys don't wear special markers in a
firefight, you get a bunch of people that have never trained together, suddenly
everyone in your mind is a bad guy.In my Concealed Carry class, they
taught a trained cop, with adrenaline is only about 40% accurate. What about
Ol' Billy Boy who dreams every night if getting his bad guy?The
answer is prevention and education. Teach people what to do if a shooting
arises. Teach people how to identify signs in a loved one and get them the help
they need. Statistics bear that we as a society have never been
safer than now; in spite of these shootings.
The problem with responsible gun owners is that it doesn't seem to take
very much to turn many of them into irresponsible gun owners.
Did you just figure you'd throw a couple rocks at the hornets' nest,
If the authors of the Bill of Rights had been able to see our day, they
certainly would have worded the Second Amendment differently, or perhaps omitted
it completely. The Constitution certainly needs to be updated on several counts,
gun rights being one of the most critical.
Who is this "we"? How can "we" put more guns in the hands of
citizens? The Constitution does not REQUIRE us to keep and bear
arms. It ALLOWS us to do that. It guarantees that right.There is a
short distance between law abiding and "vigilante". I
don't carry a gun. I would not want to be responsible for using a gun in a
public place. I would not want to risk injuring a bystander.The
RIGHT to keep and bear arms is not the same as the DUTY to keep and bear arms.
Members of the military and members of police forces have the DUTY to keep and
bear arms at certain times and in certain places.I would trust an
off-duty police officer to carry a concealed weapon. I would also trust many of
the people whom I know who have concealed carry permits, but I do not want to
turn America into a modern version of the wild-west. Using deadly
force should be the last remedy, not the first. Drawing a weapon is a very
serious matter. It should be respected, not encouraged.
Can I take this rare opportunity to say that I totally support what Mike
Richards has said. His words, coupled with the wise counsel of Karen R. should
be something we all consider carefully. Thanks to both of you for your
Well said, Mike Richards.
Ranch said: "2) That "off-duty" police officer was trained to do
what he did. Your average joe isn't."And to offset that
happy little story is the police officer who left his side arm on the coffee
table for his young child play with.With Great power....Great
Wow. I need to sit down, take several slow deep breaths, and wait for my
equilibrium to return. You see, I just found myself agreeing completely with
@Blue,So... what you're saying is... YOU should be armed, but
TEACHERS should not?I think what YOU are saying makes no sense!Why should YOU be allowed to be a gun owner and a ccw permit holder, and
believe the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms.... but
you can't comprehend why teachers like those at Sandy Hook would want the
same thing you have??I get the feeling something in your story is at
least disingenuous...=============I don't know if
we need a society "saturated with firearms and minimal restrictions"...
but that's not what the letter was about! Where did he ask for EITHER of
those??I didn't see that in his letter.=========I think you are making a lot of "Assumptions" about the "gun
crowd" or "2nd amendment supporters".We do NOT want a
society saturated with firearms and minimal restrictions.I
don't own guns today. But I COULD. And that's the important part.I don't want a society saturated with firearms and minimal
restrictions... but I also don't want that right infringed upon by my
government, or well meaning people in politics.
So do you anti-gun people think that all these police officers are
incorruptible? If they are the only ones with Guns who's to say they
won't exercise unrighteous dominion? If they are the only ones with guns
they can do anything they want regardless if it's lawful or not.
That's what made the Gestapo so dangerous.
Maybe we could work a bit harder at keeping guns out of the hands of those who
are unstable and unqualified to handle them. This argument is too all or nothing
for me. Expanded background checks and demonstration of competency would be
adequate for me. Even Utah's political deity Reagan believed in reasonable
controls. Not a single person has demonstrated to me how an audience with guns
could have saved a single soul in an Aurora theater. I'm sorry, I
don't feel safe with any of you packing.
@ugottabkidn,Re: "Maybe we could work a bit harder at keeping
guns out of the hands of those who are unstable and unqualified to handle
them"...Are teachers "unstable and unqualified to handle
them"? That's what the letter was about.=============As for the Aurora theater attack... Let me be the single person to
demonstrate to you how an audience with guns could have saved a SINGLE soul.When he started shooting... at least one of them would have fired back,
and he would have had to duck for cover or be hit and taken out. When a
shooter ducks... he's not shooting. That would have saved a soul.If the shooter is taken out... he can't shoot anymore. THAT would
have saved a single soul.You really think one man against a hundred
armed individuals... and he would not have ducked, taken cover, or been taken
out??You really don't understand that?Even if a
SINGLE person in the audience was armed... they could have fired a shot and
distracted him for a second (allowing one more person to get out safely).
Saving a single soul... What's so terrible about that??
Maybe we should bring back gunfights as sport. Firing a high peered weapon
should become a daily event. Only the best shoot survive.
In my view, there have been many good comments here (and a couple of disturbing
ones, again in my view), but I would like to particularly praise Karen R. and
Mike Richards for very articulately and civilly addressing the problems with the
viewpoint expressed in Isaac Painter's letter.I support our
Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, but because someone CAN do
something, does not necessarily mean that they SHOULD do it. Owning and
carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility; one it seems that some who own and
carry firearms are not adequately prepared for or refuse to acknowledge. A
person carrying a concealed weapon in public, in a very real sense, has the life
and safety of everyone in their proximity in their hands, but I'm concerned
that many don't get that.Again, kudos to Karen and Mike.
A well-regulated militia... words that have no meaning to pro-gun people. I
assume they can be added to any sentence without changing anything. Let's
see...A well-regulated militia, BYU will win 10 games this year.
More guns do not make us safer for the same reason that more drugs increase the
addiction rate and more cars on the road increase your chances of being in an
accident. While it's true that guns don't kill people, people with
guns often do. Guns provide a quick and convenient release of anger for people
who lack the self control to deal with hostility in a civilized manner. Even if guns served as a deterrent to crime (which they don't),
criminals will always have bigger and better guns, such as automatic weapons,
than law-abiding citizens or even the police.The bizarre worship of
guns by the Utah legislature borders on psychosis.
Yee-Haw!rooin' tootin' shootin'...That's
what we need, more guns.
To "Ranch" actually more guns are the answer.How many mass
shootings have occurred where it was well know that people were allowed to carry
weapons?Compare the Colorado Theater shooting to the attempted mass
murder in January 2013 in another theater. Read "Two Wounded in Theater
Shooting" in My San Antonio. Similar scenario, but one ended with a couple
of people wounded and the other with massive loss of life.Ask
yourself, why do mass shootings occur in gun free zones and rarely where guns
How! Libs like Mike Richards are goin crazy with today's letter! Let's
bring some common sense here. Our founding fathers knew that the
only thing between a well organized and thriving civilized democracy and anarchy
was our guns. If we are experiencing too much gun violence at our schools why
don't we arm the students? The only way to stop a good guy with a gun is a
bad guy with a gun. So why not nip this problem in the bud? Police take too long
to respond. By the time they get to schools the damage has already been done. So
why not arm the kids? Armed 8th graders will discourage punks from invading
their schools. Armed cheerleaders will prevent boys from taking advantage of
them. Armed students can and will stop gun violence.Also, we need to
allow teachers to be armed and trained on how to use automatic weapons. Instead
of boring planning days for teacher development, why not send them to defense
training?A well armed and trained citizenry will stop the mindless
gun violence we see today. The constitution demands it. And so do we, no after
what the libs say.
Demo Dave,Re: "The bizarre worship of guns by the Utah
legislature borders on psychosis"...IMO the Left's
irrational fear of guns (which are inanimate objects) borders on psychosis.I've seen people who when they see a gun just sitting there... they
curl up in a ball and almost start balling because they can see a gun (mostly
girls)... because it frightens them!It's just a piece of steel!
It can't hurt you just sitting there in the case! But I've seen
some people just act like their skin is crawling and they're almost in
tears because they can see a gun. That's "Irrational" fear some
parents and teachers are instilling in their children!A gun is NOT a
scary thing. We should NOT be teaching our children to be afraid of guns. We
should be teaching them what guns are, what they are for (no... not just what
the LEFT thinks they are for). And teach them how to respectfully handle them.
And how to keep them out of the hands of their friends who should not have
them, and what to do if a nut-case has one.
Murder rate in the US 4th from the top. Remove Chicago, Detroit, etc. just the
5 major cities and the rate is 4th from the bottom. The police chief of Detroit
said some citizens are acquiring guns and the murder rate is going down. A
weapon is a great equalizer. I feel the Christians in Iraq and those that do
not want to be beheaded might want to have something to defend themselves with.
@The Real Maverick,That is A Modest Proposal, if ever I've heard one
. . .@2 bits,I'm not afraid (irrationally, or otherwise)
of guns, though I don't consider myself a Leftie, either. On the other
hand, some of the characters who wield them (former State Representative Carl
Wimmer comes immediately to mind) give me some cause for concern, and those who
suffer from mental illnesses and also "carry" are a much greater cause
The Real MaverickOrem, UTA well armed and trained citizenry
will stop the mindless gun violence we see today. The constitution demands it.
And so do we, no after what the libs say.12:46 p.m. Aug. 12, 2014======== Loved it!haha - perfect.BTW -
While I reading it, This is why the neo-con don't think we need a
Police Department, Fire Departments, Social Services or other State agencies and
associated taxes.Everyone pitches in building the roads, laying the pipes, volunteer bucket brigades showing up putting out
fires, baking hot meals 3 times daily for the hungry, taking in the
homeless, and harmed to the hilt, patroling our streets,
neighborhoods, staving off invading Federal troops, and the invading
"socialists" from Canada...The Neo-Con fantasy world of
To "airnaut" if well armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime, then
explain why so few mass shooting occur where people are armed? Why is it that
the worst shootings occur in gun free zones?FYI, Neo-Cons are
LIBERALS that use guns to push their liberal agenda.If guns in the
hands of citizens is so bad, explain why the store owners who stood outside
their stores this past week were able to successfully protect their businesses
from looters.If guns are so bad, then why is it that the nations
with the most gun violence are the ones with the fewest guns?If
armed citizens is so bad, why is it that the most dangerous cities are the ones
where the citizens are disarmed?Your ilk knows it has to disarm the
populace to completely subjugate them. A disarmed populace is easier to control
than an armed populace.Your arguments for disarming the populace go
against the facts of what happens when you disarm the populace.Why
do you want to make our cities more dangerous, and make it easier for a corrupt
government to oppress us? Are you really a Gadianton?
Haha! Hilarious to watch liberals spin their little webs.Oh, so if
we only take away murder rates from (the most gun restrictive) and violent
cities then we're not that violent? Wow... If Brazil could eliminate murder
rates from Recife, São Paulo, Rio, and Salvador then it's a pretty
peaceful place too!The problem has never been too many guns and
bullets, but too few!Have any of you gotten stuck in an odd water
current? Instead of swimming towards land you need to swim parallel to the land!
Same thing with guns.The only way to stop gun violence isn't to take
away guns, but to swim parallel to it. Everyone needs guns. Bazookas and
automatics. No background checks either. Background checks were never mentioned
in the 2nd amendment.And yes, redshirt is correct. Neo-cons are
liberals. As are nazis. They're liberals too. NAZI even stands for
socialists. Hitler took away freedom, took over industry, and took away guns.
Obama is out to get our guns too. No matter what liberals like Mike
Richards say, our 2nd amendment rights shall not be enfringed!
@Redshirt1701"actually more guns are the answer."There's a correlation between murders in a state and gun ownership in a
state (it's fairly linear so this suggests that there's nothing
changing proportionality, a doubling of guns just matches doubling of gun deaths
and halving guns halves gun deaths). More guns is not the answer at all.
@Schnee"regulated" had different meanings and usages over
two hundred years ago.It does not mean to have rules and regulations
to govern something or a people.No, it refers to functioning or
working in a proper or expected way.In order for the people to
function or work as a proper militia, the people need the right to bear arms.
This is another example of the extreme left intentionally
misinterpreting the constitution to take away or limit rights guaranteed to
OMG, Mike Richards has become a pod person! I agree with you wholeheartedly,
Mike. Miracles never cease (and it didn't even require a god to perform
@Anti Bush-Obama'I own a gun and I know how to use it. That
said, I have no problem with comprehensive background checks on every gun
purchase. I also believe in reasonable controls.
Wonders never cease. The Real Maverick and Mike Richards have switched places!
Could it be they are both trying their wings at satire?
Many of you seem to be remembering some gun incidents but forgetting what
happened at Fort Hood. A gunman (Islamic terrorist) began gunning down many
soldiers who all were well trained with the use of firearm. Why didn't the
gunman get killed much sooner before killing many? Answer. Because the
soldiers on base were not allowed to have firearms available to them. They had
to, as we in society, wait for the 911 call to go out and the police to arrive.
By then many more were killed. And this is what happens whether at schools or
malls, or military bases. How many of you anti gun types would not want a gun
in your home if some criminal was trying to break in and do harm to your family?
Would you really feel safe with having only 911 to call and wait for the
police? If so, then keep that information a secret. And as for this "Wild
West" nonsense, (sorry Mike R) if that were going to happen, it would
already have. We have hundreds of millions of guns here already. About the
only place it is happening is in Chicago. But that's a whole other story.
@RanchHand,The letter wasn't about comprehensive background
checks. Nobody's AGAINST comprehensive background checks (at least nobody
I know, and not the NRA, they support background checks).We already
HAVE comprehensive background checks (Brady Bill). So what is your point?If you point is that current background checks are not working... I
would agree with you. Obviously they are not working. Because we have them,
and people are still doing these attacks! So it's obviously not stopping
them.I think it has stopped some (so I think we should keep them).
But realise that they aren't the whole solution. They CAN'T stop all
of them.That's why it's good that SOME people are armed
and able to stop an active shooter when one does slip through the cracks of our
existing background checks.==========Zero of the guns
used in these well investigated attacks were obtained at gun shows... so
don't pretend THAT's the problem. Background checks at gun shows is
something we should do. But don't pretend it would have prevented ANY of
the attacks we have had. People close to the attacker can stop
him... not folks in Washington.
If anybody should skim this thread, they should read the comment by Mike
Richards. He has distilled this issue down to a few lines that sum up my own
views entirely. Well done. This issue, like so many others, are not
as simple as gun libertarians think them to be. Then again, these simplistic
viewpoints might be rather complex when viewed from eyes unfamiliar with
critical analysis. Those are my 2 bits.
2 bit you take the all or nothing position which in itself is fantasy when
speaking with others. Your comments on Aurora is as much fantasy as the movie
was. If a perp knows you are armed then how are you really going to protect
yourself? You can't. Nevertheless, let's start attempting to keep guns
out of the hands of those who should not carry and only then will you have a
chance to have a rational discussion. Paranoia of confiscation is a bigger
problem than paranoia of association.
To "Schnee" prove it. Where is the study that shows that fewer guns
correlates to few gun deaths. There are studies that show the opposite. Read
"More Guns, Less Crime" in the WSJ where they report on a study the FBI
did that shows that where you have more guns you end up with less crime.From the Detroit News we read "Detroit police chief gives credit to
armed citizens for drop in crime". They found that they have had a 37% drop
in crime since encouraging people to buy guns.Do you want crime
rates to go up? Do you really hate the poor and want them to be victims of
Here is another way to look at violent death. Yes guns take lives, sometimes
intentional, sometimes not, but so do automobiles, sometimes intentional, (I put
drunk driving in the intentional category as the person knew what they were
doing and went ahead being irresponsible anyway.) Sometimes not. So how could
we just about eliminate driving deaths on the roads? Simple. Make the national
speed limit 20 miles per hour. And strongly enforce it of course. Not many
people dying on the highways then, (except maybe from old age) and we could
almost eliminate all driving related deaths. Now, do we as a nation want that
strict of a driving regulation to save lives? Why not, it SAVES LIVES!
However, I doubt most Americans would want to make that kind of sacrifice of
only going 20 MPH to save lives. The same with gun regulation. Very extreme
regulations of guns could likely save more lives. How far would you be willing
to go? How slow would you be willing to go?
@ Mike Richards... a most reasonable and well thought out response. Totally
It sounds good to say the person with a carry permit is untrained. However just
showing the weapon has a big effect. Moreover though the US is rated 4th in
murder rate, if you take away the 5 largest cities we are 4th from the bottom.
In Detroit the Chief of Police said as people acquired guns the murder rate