Since police are trained "to see everyone around them as a threat and think the
worst" of those they encounter, they are a uniquely suitable target for
disarmament, at least by the standard suggested by the Deseret News.If the DN are serious in their assessment that carrying firearms (particularly
handguns) is symptomatic of socially dangerous insecurity on the part of those
who carry them, then disarmament should begin with those most frequently found
in public possession of those weapons -- that is, the police.
Welcome to the reason we don't subscribe to the Deseret News. If you're going to
talk about statistics, provide–or at least cite them.Objective? At least you're not pretending to be.
Be sure to pray extra hard for protection when a wacko enters your church
meeting and starts shooting, as has happened several times around the country in
the fairly recent past.
One more thing: if you keep score on how many accidental shootings are committed
by civilians versus cops, I'm sure that the cops win. Shall we disarm the cops?
It is true that fewer of the sheeple are being shot nowadays. They're being
Tasered to death instead. But, hey, state-sanctioned killing is okay.
When did the Deseret News start having California liberals write their
editorials for them? There are so many things wrong with this piece it would
take me a full 10 page report to correct it!
Smart guys don’t bring fists to a gunfight, so much for your tough guy
This has to be one of the worst articles I have read in a long time. Is this the
deseret news official stance on the subject because that is how it appears in
the article? I am going to encourage everyone I know to cancel their
subscription to the Deseret News until you can actually do some responsable
reporting and fact checking don't just print an article to fill blank space. The
fact is that if everybody had a gun and was able to use it then crime and the
need to actually carry it with you will go way down.
Another Point to Add:A lot of individuals will cite drivers licenses
required for cars or how the government requires registration of a car.However two items to consider:1) Nowhere is driving or automobile
ownership listed in the Bill of Rights. It's not a right as guns are.2) There is no legal requirement to have any sort of drivers license or
registration to OWN or CARRY (if you were strong enough to) a vehicle. License
and Registration is only required in the operation of a vehicle for good reason.
They are USED by a lot of people in the same vicinity at the same time. Guns are
not used by a lot of people in the same vicinity at the same time in daily life
and USING a gun is illegal in most cities unless it's use is on a range or in
@ NRA=Numbskulls Run-Amok | 11:31 a.m.I've gone ahead and re-written
your comment to apply to another freedom:So what is wrong with
recognizing that not everyone is a "responsible, well-trained individual who
understands the power of language"? What is wrong with making sure those speak
REGISTER with the government, just as we do with automobiles? What is wrong with
ensuring that only those with documented language training and experience can
speak freely? What is wrong with ensuring that illiterate people (such as
children, criminals, etc.) cannot partake in public discourse.See
the difference? By the way even if you establish Registration the Supreme Court
in Haynes v. United States (1968) has ruled that anyone that cannot legally
possess a firearm has no legal requirement to register as that would be
self-incrimination. So what's the point of Registration?
I am sorry but I didnt realize that by me owning a gun I am supposed to or my
gun is supposed to kill people with it. Wow no I have been many places and have
been in situations where a gun has been handy never shot never really used but
there in protection. As for those who say if they come against a criminal armed
and the moral high ground is yours, what about your family. Do you let the
criminal kill your family as well. If we outlaw guns then the outlaws will
NRA=Numbskulls Run-Amok:"What is wrong with making sure those who
own firearms REGISTER their ownership, just as we do with automobiles? "Because registration leads to confiscation...and yes, it HAS happened here."What is wrong with ensuring that only those with documented training and
experience can own firearms? "Nothing, as long as everybody takes
mandatory training during high school, so that training per se does not
constitute registration."What is wrong with ensuring that irresponsible
people (such as children, criminals, etc.) cannot own or possess firearms?"Registration does not stop this. Besides, we already have Federal laws against
those people acquiring or possessing arms. How's that working for ya?
"First, tough guys don't pack firearms. Fearful guys do – people who
see everyone around them as a threat and think the worst of every face they
don't recognize. Guns don't showcase strength, they showcase weakness."This editorial showcases Deseret News' weakness. You guys can't find someone
who can write and reason better than an eighth grader?
I don't know if I really have a problem with these gun nuts shooting each other
and reducing their numbers.
To News Outlets,"Guns in the hands of responsible, well-trained
individuals that understand the power of a firearm and have used them are not
only protected by the US constitution, but represent a basic tenant of the
American way = Freedom."Unfortunately, the 2nd Amendment to the
Constitution does NOT say "...the rights of the responsible, well-trained
individuals that understand the power of a firearm and have used them shall not
be infringed."Implicit in your "defense" of firearms is an
acknowledgement of a certain level of 'GUN CONTROL'.So what is wrong
with recognizing that not everyone is a "responsible, well-trained individual
who understands the power of firearms"? What is wrong with making sure those who
own firearms REGISTER their ownership, just as we do with automobiles? What is
wrong with ensuring that only those with documented training and experience can
own firearms? What is wrong with ensuring that irresponsible people (such as
children, criminals, etc.) cannot own or possess firearms?OK, so
that is what is happening today. What is the problem? Why are gun-owners and NRA
freaks so bent out of shape?
This editorial is a joke; trite and smirking. Small wonder print media is
sinking like a rock.Keep up the good work DN!
Statistics DO NOT prove that having guns cause more crime. Check your stats,
you are more likely to drown in a neighbor's pool than to be killed by their
gun. If only wimps wear guns then where does this put the police?
Or the army? Guns are vital to my security, which is why I keep
several around. Always.
are reporting that one man put his gun on the ground and the other shot him
while he was unarmed. I am a life member of the NRA, a staunch conservative,
small business owner, etc. so you know where I stand on gun issues. I carry,
often in the open, and I would feel better if all good law abiding citizens did
the same. Guns in the hands of responsible, well-trained individuals that
understand the power of a firearm and have used them are not only protected by
the US constitution, but represent a basic tenant of the American way = Freedom.
The man in this story, by various accounts, shot an unarmed man who was not
attacking him or a threat. This is murder if the victim dies, plain and simple.
People kill people, and they will continue to do it as long as people do not
defend themselves. In this case, the problem was mitigated, and then one man
murdered (if he passes) the other. More often than not we hear of criminals
murdering innocent people with illegal firearms and nobody blinks an eye.
My home, and almost all my relatives homes, have had guns in them, for many
generations... we've never had family member shoot another. But then again, we
were taught, at a very young age (so young the writer of this article would
probably scream child abuse), the proper handling and use of firearms, and what
the purpose of these tools are. And we had to keep them clean too!Criminals have well established they have no respect for any laws whatsoever.
Disarming law abiding Americans (read the 2nd Amendment while you are
contemplating how we live in some Utopian 'new' psycho-fantasy age, and don't
need to protect ourselves with firearms) is simply advertising 'VICTIMS OVER
HERE' to criminals. Ask any Lakotah, Seminole, or Winnebago about the effects of
the firearm, when one population is deprived of it, while another is not.Saying guns kill people is like saying bad spelling is the pencils
fault. It is true that the only real purpose of the firearm is to kill another,
but the effect of the firearm is to bring mortal equality, where physical
inequality ruled the day in previous times.
"Fearful guys do — people who see everyone around them as a threat and
think the worst of faces they don't recognize."So you're
describing the police then? I would agree. The first people that should be
disarmed are government agents. They are bigger criminals than the people they
are going after nowadays.
If DN is so anti-gun, why not a call to disarm the police also? Why the
insistence on a police state by leaving the police, and by implication, the
criminal element armed? As for some of these clowns who think they will defeat
a burglar in a fist fight, this isn't the gymnasium and there may be more than
one burglar. And it's a fact, burglary and assault rises in areas where guns
are banned because the criminal has less to fear in attacking an armed
citizen.Why does the DN want to see people disarmed? If gun control
worked, would Chicago have so many murders every year?
Regardless of the reasons cited in the 2nd Amendment, you anti-gunners fail to
recognize one simple fact. The 2A does not grant any rights. It only
recognizes a natural right and specifically states, "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."Regardless of your
opinion or that of the DesNews, neither your nor the government has the right to
tell me I cannot carry (bear) a gun (arms).
@ Anonymous 2:55 p.m."Security of a Free State" has nothing to do
with citizens being safe from criminals. The second amendment is to ensure the
future of a free country. It's to keep citizens safe from a government run
amok."We have professonally-trained law-enforcement forces in every
city and county" Exactly. You can call the cops when a criminal breaks into your
home but who do you call against the cops?The 2nd Amendment is the
last check on the government if all others fail.
@ NarutaYou said "Don't worry, nobody is going to take your gun away
from you..." People always say that nobody wants to take guns away just "Keep
them away from bad people" Then I read this:"We are at the point in
time and terror when nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic
disarmament... " Patrick V. Murphy, New York City Police Commissioner"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand
guns..." Chicago Mayor Richard DaleyChicago currently bans handguns
by the way, despite the Heller ruling stating an individual right to own
handguns.Infact US Government Attorney argued in U.S. vs.
Emmerson:"Judge Garwood: "You are saying that the Second
Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the
public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all
people? Is that the position of the United States?" Meteja (attorney for
the government): "Yes" "There are plenty other quotes. The
passage of the legislation you mentioned would have never been constitutional
even if it did pass. You know that whole thing about not taking away rights
without due process.
Nuttycomputer,I think the ignorance is firmly in your corner.Tell me how the trivial distinction between standard and special weapons
is relevant to the point about the rationale for the 2nd Amendment? Are you
saying that the right to keep and bear standard arms does protect the safety of
the State, whereas the right to keep and bear special arms does not?
So, anon, you're suggesting that what the Founding Fathers said 200 years ago no
longer counts? Do you then believe that time just automatically alters
Constitutionality, based on modern opinion? I believe in a fixed
interpretation of our founding documents. For instance, Jefferson said in the
Declaration, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new Guards for their future security."Can the people
perform their duty to throw off despotism without similar firepower? Not
likely.Besides that, in the original American concept of delegated
power, all government power comes from the people, and we can withdraw those
delegated powers if needs be, whenever and for whatever reason we determine.
This means that we citizens have the natural right to prevent government from
having advanced weaponry, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND."The unlimited
power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state
governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the
people." - Tench Coxe
And out comes the neurotic, paranoid retort from all these gun toters. So
offended by a simple article. I think the editorial is justified by the reaction
of the majority of the posters here. Don't worry, nobody is going to take your
gun away from you, but if you keep listening to what the NRA says you will think
otherwise. How many people on the US terror watch list were allowed to purchase
guns last year? Something like 686 wasn't it. There was legislation to stop
these people from buying them, but the NRA shot it down. (pun intended) Oh boy I
feel safer already!
@ Anonymous 2:45 p.m.This continual back and forth over definitions
while you fail to address any of my other arguments is tiring.Standard Weapons: Anything a common soldier is issued.Specialized
Weapons: Everything Else.In other words the basic frontline guys are
not given Nuclear Weapons they are given an M16. Every soldier is not given an
M203 grenade launcher a specialized grenadier soldier or grenadier team is.If this basic concept continues to give you difficulty don't worry about
addressing my other arguments.Your point may be "made" as you say;
but it is made only with the foundation of ignorance.
I live in Texas and hold a CHL issued by that state. I'm 64, retired, have a bum
elbow and am 5-10 and 160 pounds. I can be as tough as I want, but if some
25-year-old musclehead crack-addict thug attacks me, I'm going to have a hard
time protecting myself and my wife with anything less than a gun. I carry
because I'm responsible for my life and the life of my wife and those I cherish.
I'm not a tough guy, just an honest citizen who served in the Air Force during
Vietnam, worked for almost 40 years to support my family and am NO danger to you
or anybody else who doesn't have his heart set on hurting me and mine. Pay
attention! It's a dangerous world out there.
To Nuttycomputer,The point is NOT simply that the 2nd Amendment was
written a long time ago.The point is that the RATIONALE for the
"right to keep and bear arms" has been completely altered by weapons,
communications, and other technology. That is just a fact.The
authors of the 2nd Amendment explained that [because] "a well regulated Militia
[is] necessary to the security of a free State..."Look over these
comments. You will find very few that argue they possess weapons because they
are members of a "well-regulated militia". Besides, with the advances in weapons
technologies, a few Glocks and shotguns are never going to contribute to "the
security of a free state"!Not only have weapons evolved (we have
Tazers now), but societal institutions have as well. We have
professonally-trained law-enforcement forces in every city and county, we have
military reservists, we have neighborhood watch programs... all things in which
common, everyday citizens participate freely. We have so many ways of ensuring
the "security of a free State" without the impromptu militias of 200 years ago,
that the RATIONALE is obsolete.That is the point.
"standard weapons" versus "specialized weapons"??Really?No, I mean REALLY?Point still made.
I have been concerned with the Deseret News liberal opinions for years and have
come to the conclusion that I will not renew my subscription. My second
amendment rights trump your opinion, it's the law.
@ Anonymous 2:14 p.m.I think the definition is pretty clear. Arms
were the standard weapons the common soldier carried whereas ordinances were
specialized weapons.In whole your argument is because the
Constitution was written a long time ago it has no place in todays society. Is
that correct?This article and our comments are being published on
the internet. The internet didn't exist 200 years ago and was well beyond the
comprehension of the founding fathers. Does that mean the Free Speech clause and
Free Press clause in the 1st amendment don't apply to anything on the internet?
What about anything not written on parchment with quill pens? Are those also
likewise not afforded the same protection?I don't know anyone who
would argue they aren't protected by the 1st amendment. Why doesn't that same
logic apply to firearms? Is tyranny less likely now that we live in the 21st
century? I don't think so.Atleast we agree on something. This
Editorial is poorly written.
1957-1959 Fidel Castro uses armed citizens to overthrow a corrupt and abusive
government.As soon as he is able, knowing full well what
effect-armed citizens have against a corrupt government; Castro outlaws
privately owned firearms. Those who didn’t comply where imprisoned or
murdered.Our Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in our
Constitution for a reason.Why does our current government want us
Nuttycomputer,"Ordinances, such as nuclear weapons, are not
protected under the 2nd Amendment."Why not? Who defines "arms"
versus "ordinance"?Yes, that's right, you guessed it: people who
have not been dead for 200 years. They make judgments about current weapons
(call them what you will) and whether it makes sense to restrict them or not.And that is the whole point. The 2nd Amendment is meaningless when it
comes to making such practical decisions.And that is all this
(poorly written) Editorial is trying to point out: that hand guns in public
places have no purpose in today's society. We must not dogmatically and naively
justify the ownership and concealed carry of handguns simply by appeal to the
2nd Amendment as if that proves anything!Point made. Thank you.
@ Anonymous 12:33 PMActually weapons of considerable destruction did
exist in Maddison and Jefferson's time. However they were not called arms they
were called ordinances. Ordinances, such as nuclear weapons, are not protected
under the 2nd Amendment. Neither are tanks, aircraft, RPGs, etc. as they are not
arms.@ Back the Truck UpThe church most certainly does ban
firearms according to U.C.A 76-10-530 which provides no exception for law
enforcement officers. Unless the officer is on official duty even their weapons
are forbidden. Note breaking this law though is less than a misdemeanor.
Well, this editorial made up my mind for me. I was finally going to buy the
paper, if for nothing else, to get the Church News. But after reading this
TOTALLY RIDICULOUS editorial, I've decided I won't send my money to an
organization that employes such weak-minded boneheads. I guess the members of
the NCAA Champion U of U pistol team are just a bunch of killers, since that's
all handguns are good for. Thanks for reinforcing my earlier decision not to buy
The LDS Church does not ban guns in its building,s it does not allow CCP owners
to carry. It does not/can not prohibit law enforcement officers from
carrying.While I wish that the recent church shootings would not
have happened, the fact remains that there are some out there who will prey on
those they know are not armed, even in church.
Winston Smith,You can quote from people living over 200 years ago
all you want. It proves nothing. Times, technologies, and weapons have changed
in the past 200 years. Madison and Jefferson were speaking within the context
and milieu of their time. Their words can only be understood in that context.
Pulling little quotations out of context is naive at best. Weapons of Mass
Destruction did not exist in their day. If they had, their tune would certainly
change, as Albert Einstein's tune changed when he proposed the Bomb and it was
built. Oppenheimer's tune changed dramatically when he "became Death". As such,
it is not only naive but dangerous to continue the obsolete rhetoric that "every
other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American."
Wake up and smell the Mustard & Tabun before it is too late!
Anonymous: Let's begin with the 2nd Amendment..."A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Tench Coxe, a
friend of James Madison and prominent federalist, asked in the Pennsylvania
Gazette of Feb. 20, 1788, “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other
terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.”
"What country before ever existed a century and a half without a
rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not
warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and
pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and
tyrants. It is its natural manure." - Thomas Jefferson
I agree with the editorial but it doesn't go far enough. We need spoon control
incorporated to stop obesity; match control incorporated to stop arson; phone
control incorporatd to stop texting while driving; hypocracy control
incorporated to stop lies; and perhaps frequent pre-emptive arrests. Welcome to
the USSA Comrade.Do away with the Bill of Rights, the government
knows what is best for you and will care for you. I'm sure the Desnews really
has no use for the first amendment either. Gotta love it when and editorial
lacks subtance, logic, and reason. That was the point though right? Let's see
how many we can drag down to our level and beat with experience?
@ lngConcealed Carry in Utah is illegal without a permit. To obtain
a permit requires a background check and training. According to the National
Center for Policy Analysis, who conducted a study of Texas concealed carry
revocation rates in the year 2000, Texas concealed carry holders proved to be
5.7 times less likely to commit a violent crime, and 14 times less likely to
commit a non-violent offense.Now lng even if we did do away with
issuing concealed carry permits would it stop making your skin crawl? It
shouldn't. Why? Because people can break the law and criminals, not suprisingly,
usually do. Even if concealed carry is completely illegal you still have no way
of knowing if someone is carrying a gun concealed illegally. Just as you have no
way of knowing if the driver in front of you is actually licensed to drive or if
the married couple down the stree actually has a marriage license.
This article is a joke, right? This writer cannot really be that stupid!!!!
Why would you "pack heat" at a church? I was living in Denver when I got the
answer to that. The threat tried to come in from outside. Kinda like 9/11/01.
But if you think victim disarmament is a good idea do not be surprised in your
grizzly end. No matter how horrible it is you deserve it.
Nobody here has suggested abandoning justice or arming criminals. We only want
the opportunity to carry insurance. This is why we consider many anti-gunners
as foolishly naive and illogical.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people, sure enough...using guns.I totally don't understand the concealed-carry thing. The idea of an unknown
number of possibly stupid or careless or paranoid people carrying concealed
weapons makes my skin crawl. If somebody's carrying a gun, I don't want it
hidden; I want to know they have it. I want it visible. Make it
illegal for anyone to *hide* a gun when they're carrying it, that's what I say.
I will protect myself and my family with a firearm! It is the moral thing to do!
To Winston Smith,So you are OK with LA gang bangers using RPGs and
.50 caliber automatic weapons and even nuclear weapons if they please?
So are we abandoning our Justice system? Everybody armed, carrying weapons and
administer "justice" as we see fit.
BTW, not only is being able to use weapons to defend your life, liberty and
property a natural God-given right, predating the Constitution, but carrying a
weapon concealed is also a natural right, not to be infringed upon by
government.For a free people, no license is required to exercise a
@Red"If someone comes to your door and announces, "I am here to kill
you and your family," your correct response should be:Have you
ridden far? Allow me to see to your horse.Are you thirsty or hungry?
Come in, and let me offer you food or drink.Now, *that's*
"principled."In a cosmic sense, sometimes principles *do* matter
more than life itself"And when the evil monster kills you and your
family because you were to naive to take action then what? And what
if he doesn't stop at you and your family? What if he kills more and more. YOU
could have stopped him yet you tried kindness instead. Not only is
the blood of your wife and children on your hands, so is everyone else that the
beast kills that you could have stopped. But hey, peace and love
will win the day. Right? So naive it's disgusting.
And Mormons in Utah wonder why those of us out in the 'mission field' don't care
much for good ol' Deseret.Sure, firearms confiscation is necessary
if you want to establish a theocracy.Suggest you apostates read D&C
98 and 134 and see how this meshes with that.
Brazil's problems aren't because citizens don't have guns. Citizens are allowed
to own guns in Brazil. Mexico is awash in guns. Mexico, Brazil and other third
world countries problems are due to grinding poverty alongside a wealthy elite
ruling class and corruption. Precisely why we need to ensure a strong middle
class and get rid of the notion of "trickle-down." It doesn't "trickle-down."
a disarmed populace: feeding tyrants' ovens since, well, forever.
i suggest you go to brazil. i spent a few months there visiting familie and just
in my immediate family, i can count three robberies at gun point in the past
four years, and i was there on one of the incidents. that is what happens in a
country where citizens aren't allowed to carry guns. a country which does not
allow guns for its citizens is lawless. you don't have to take my word for it.
ask anyone who has lived in a city in brazil. in a country where citizens are
not allowed to carry or even own a gun, is a country of terrorism, and that
terrorism is directed at the citizens, not the government. does a gun suggest
fear? maybe, but answer this: if you were a criminal, would you attack a fearful
man whom you know is carrying a gun? won't you think twice before robbing
someone, not knowing if they have a gun? won't you be afraid to commit a crime?
we need are emotional, immature young people packing heat. (the brain is not
fully mature until early 20's). The statistics speak for
themselves. The homocide rate in the U.S. is higher than many industrialized
countries and deaths from guns is the highest of any industrialized country.
@ out of touch with constitutionJust a point of clarification:Owning and bearing arms is not a right GRANTED by the US Constitution.
It is a fundemental right RECOGNIZED by the US Constitution. Like Free Speech
and all other individual rights recognized in the Bill of Rights it predates the
creation of the constitution.
@ Common SenseBackground checks are required by all Federally
Licensed Dealers... including Federally Licensed Dealers that sell at gun
shows.Your sensible laws require people to follow them. You are
trying to pass laws to stop people from breaking other laws. Can you give me an
incident where a mass killer decided that on his way to commit multiple felonies
he decided to obey a misdemeanor?@ Non-PackerYou're
right the odds are low. Not "astronomically" low but still fairly low especially
in Utah. However the risk of result is incredibly high including death, rape,
assault, etc. while the risk associated with prevention IS astronomically
low.The risk of a responsible alert driver getting in an accident is
also low but I still advocate wearing a seat belt.I for one hope my
handgun goes unused everywhere but the range for the rest of my life just as I
hope my seat belt does to, and my fire extinquisher, and my door locks, and my
home owners insurance. I hope to have a negative investment on all these things.
unfortunately D-News, you are sadly out of touch with the US constitution and
bill of rights. Gun ownership was "wisely" added as a basic right of a free
society. Gun ownership has always been banned from a communistic , repressive
society and for good reason because those closed societies are built on total
control from "big brother". I always find it interesting that all the "ban guns"
noise always originates from people whom have never fired a gun themselves and
have distorted personal visions of gun owners. A concealed weapon permit is
something EVERY citizen should have and gun education is something that should
be highly recommended to all. People carry guns (lawfully) because it is A RIGHT
GRANTED BY THE US CONSTITUTION by wise founders who understood the basic and
most precious ingredients of a free society.
NOBODY, not even those for gun control, are talking about gun owners giving up
their guns. We just need sensible laws--background checks at ALL venues which
sell guns, including gun shows. Laws prohibiting straw purchases, increased
surprise inspections by the ATF of gun shops to enforce current gun laws (they
are currently only allowed 1/yr and are very understaffed), limits on the number
of gun one person can purchase etc.
To Red,"Sometimes, yes. If you don't have values you'll defend to
the death, you don't really have meaningful values at all."Funny.
that's what the suicide bombers and Jet highjackers said just before...And they called themselves "principled" too!
as soon as the left can convince all the criminals to give up their guns and
promise not to use them anymore ill give up mine. so until hell freezes over,
ill be keeping my 12ga next to the bed. i am a 6'4" 250lb man. but im not so
stupid to think that there are bigger more dangerous people than myself who also
pack firearms. good article DN...ya right!
I own a gun-safe full of fire-arms. .45's, 9mm's, shotguns, and more.I go out and shoot up some paper targets once in a while.I don't
feel a need to pack heat. I don't live in Bagdad or Beirut. Why would I need
to?The chances that I will just happen to be in the right place at
the right time when a criminal needs to be "taken down" are so astronomically
low as to be silly. If I was concerned about that, I would be smarter to be more
concerned about dying or getting hurt in an auto accident! So it it is safety I
am after, perhaps I should stay locked up in my house all the time!There is no justification in today's society for everyone to own handguns.
99.9% of people own them for "sport", or just to have one as a physical symbol
of their fanatic political beliefs!One day when I get around to it,
I will sell off my "arsenal" and be no worse off for it.What a joke
the pseudo-militia crowd of gun crazies is!
It is quite disappointing when the DN mimics the New York Times or Washington
Post. I have read the DN for decades, but this silly, emotional, unsupported,
unprofessional opinion hit piece was ludicrous. Did a visiting East-coast
socialist author this? Certainly not a normal Constitution-loving conservative
we've come to expect from DN.As Patrick Henry declared, "Guard with
jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that
jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you
give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."Mr. Cannon, you just
approached the jewel of public liberty. I suggest you back off now. Whatever
weirdness is going on here at the DN, I certainly hope it stops. Yes, you
weren't calling for banning guns, but that always starts with such editorials,
and moves slowly in that direction. It's just sad we're seeing it here, and I
hope and pray you don't continue in this direction.Say it ain't so,
"So a dead victim is morally superior to a live survivor?" Sometimes, yes. If you don't have values you'll defend to the death, you don't
really have meaningful values at all. "If you truly belive that, you
are confused or deranged." Try "principled." In Jewish
commentary on the Old Testament, a Rabbi (who surely knew of pogroms, etc.) gave
the following advice (in substance):If someone comes to your door
and announces, "I am here to kill you and your family," your correct response
should be:Have you ridden far? Allow me to see to your horse. Are you thirsty or hungry? Come in, and let me offer you food or drink.
Now, *that's* "principled." In a cosmic sense, sometimes
principles *do* matter more than life itself.
So, using the logic of the Deseret News, I suspect then that President Monson,
along with the other members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the
Twelve are all "weak" because their bodyguards carry firearms? And
to the earlier poster who indicated that the LDS Church doesn't allow guns in
any of its buildings - not true. The bodyguards used by church leaders carry
guns and the Church has no problems with law enforcement carrying weapons in
their buildings It's only the lay member they do not want armed...
"victims don’t pack firearms. Prepared people do."Sorry. "Packers" can be victims, too. An armed man is as vulnerable as an
unarmed one, unless he somehow senses danger and reacts to it.Packing heat doesn't protect you from the maneuver known as "getting the drop
on" you. It doesn't give you 360-degree vision, either. It just
makes it more likely that a determined, desperate felon will shoot you in the
back instead of waving his "piece" in your face.
I am glad to see a welcome breath of rationality from DN. This is the first time
I've seen them call for all the weak and fearful people (POLICE) in the US to be
disarmed - BRAVO!!!!
The law of the criminal ought to be that only bad guys can be shot. That would
actually be a good law. Then only gang bangers would shoot other bangers. In
fact, why don't we just get all the bad guys together and let 'em shoot it up to
their heart's content-against one another. Then we'd be done with guns, right?
And murder and bad people, right? Yup - we need to outlaw guns, SUV's and all
other means of tragedy. And that way we do away with tragedy. Senseless.
@ Anonymous 9:43I'll be the first to admit Defensive Gun Use surveys
have one serious flaw. They are surveys and are based on human input. The
problem: It is effectively the only way to measure DGU, crime reports are rarely
filed for non-crimes, and deterrent effects can't objectively be measured at all
even by a survey.However, even if we take the lowest number of DGU
of the survey's I'm aware of and apply that it's still 800,000. Not as
impressive as the 2 million Kleck found, or the 1.5 million the DOJ found but
still significantly higher than death by firearms.The Center for
Disease Control shows in 2005 30,694 individuals died because of firearms.
Including Homicide, Suicide, Accidental, and Legal Intervention (Law Enforcement
and Other Justifiable Homicides)That's atleast 25 times the amount
of people saved versus killed by firearms each year and that is based on an
unsound survey. Which is why Kleck (previously anti-gun) conducted his own study
and the DOJ followed suit citing much higher numbers of DGU.
Most police officers in Britain DON'T carry guns?
"Kleck sticks with a position that is supportable by the data---that the bad and
good uses of guns mostly cancel out, leaving little net effect on crime."
That's the real message of Kleck. Gun advocates have distorted his message. I
still have yet to see any real life benefit of packing heat. I think it is a
machoism paranoia that does not not reflect reality. And I live in a big city.
I've looked at the articles referred by Nuttycomputer. The Kleck article states
"...even the best of the gun surveys had serious problems." As one experienced
in survey methodology, the conclusions are somewhat speculative. Each survey
would have to be examined, not only by who conducted it and who was the sponsor,
but also the phrasology of the questions. Based on the use of this article, gun
advocates pick and choose what they want to use. Even some of the conclusions
of this apparent pro-gun would make the NRA go nuts. The benefits of guns is
This article is filled with emotion; lacking in fact.Sad.
I guess people really ARE this ignorant.I guess the author(s) are so
tough that they’re too cowardly to list their names.I would
suggest to them- the next time a thug sticks a gun in your face and demands
your money, make sure to tell him how he is showcasing “his
The above statement (in red) says that any comments found to be abusive,
offensive, off-topic or unrepresentative will be removed.So I'm
asking the editor-in-chief to remove this offensive, misrepresented and abusive
article and apologize for being asleep at the wheel.I posted two
statements that were pulled and neither meet the above criteria anymore than
this load of offensive dribble that they proudly display on print and
Lame article. Lame evidence. Lame people writing this. This will be the end
of me subscribing to the Deseretnews. Pushing false propaganda will be the
death of your newspaper.
I picked up this edition in print after traveling. I had three newspapers in my
bag: USA Today, Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News. I had to double check to
see that I was reading the Deseret News. This is the WORST editorial
comment ever published by the Des News. 5 of the 6 points used to back the
opinion are extremely (and dangerously) naive.Was the editor in
chief on vacation?
So the DN feels that police officers are weak, fearful men?
Someone already said it. I'll say it again. I want the person who wrote that
editorial and all those who agree with him to put signs around your residence
stating that "This is a gun-free home".But they won't. What are they
afraid of? I though "I" was supposed to be the coward?
I made a pretty good comment earlier, which must have exceeded 200 words, about
substituting the word 'beer' for references to guns. It makes for funny reading
and points out the foibles of some of these arguments in utah, the nanny state
that is hyper liberal with its' guns. In addition, some guy a while back claimed
to be hunting venison with a handgun. Is that ethical?
The only thing the DN Editors understand is that controversy sells. That's why
they allowed this garbage to be printed. I say "Hit Them Where It Hurts", the
pocket book. I'm sure the vast majority of Gun owners know or patronize a
business that advertises in the DN. Stop patronizing any business that would
advertise in such a liberal "News" paper. And/Or encourage business owners to
take their advertisement business elsewhere.
Well said on a corageous stand! I have followed, chased down,
and/or brought down 3 criminals that were arrested in separate incidents--and
never once with a gun. If I did have a gun on those occasions, I might be in
jain now and/or someone, possibly me, could well be dead. These gun
fanatics are total nut-jobs, unsupported in their positions by logic, facts, or
statistics--only blind fear.
Even if the UK's murder rate is half that of the U.S., it isn't directly related
to the availability of guns. The rise in crime since the gun ban would be more
relative. I still believe that if only criminals have guns, and the criminals
know it, then the crime rate goes through the roof. I appreciate the efforts of
the police, but I would prefer a chance to prevent crime at my home, rather than
hoping the police can catch the criminal AFTER they have brought harm upon us.
Gun bans create more work for the police.
I just don't have much interest in reading the typical rants on this subject,
but do have a suggestion that usually never gets mentioned, which is - Keep you
guns locked up, preferably in a different place from your ammunition, until your
weapons are needed. If you feel the need to keep a loaded weapon at hand all the
time, do everyone a favor and move to somewhere else you consider safer.
Just thought you might check out the article regarding one of the "shooters"
(the only shooter) that started this quest to bring down the evil guns (per the
editorial). This didn't seem to be fear related, but rather a desire to
play cop. There are already laws that are in place (since he is under arrest).
The Constitution doesn't take foolishness into account, and it seems we
will never run out of those that don't think prior to acting. Because of this
there will never be a law that prevents "stupid" things from happening. No
matter how hard we try, we can't stop someone from acting poorly. That's the
real issue of the editorial. Compassion in the wrong place.
I love how the piece doesn't even reference ANYTHING relevant to the actual
incident besides "someone got shot." Oh that's right, because they were too
excited to "not let a good crisis go to waste" that they didn't even know
anything about the incident themselves besides that "someone got shot." Good
job. I'll go maintain my gun now.
I knew there was a reason I didn't subscribe to the DN. I just realized it
after reading this editorial.
You are absolutely wrong. The UK's murder rate is HALF that of the
The Editorial is right on. The Constitution gives the right to bear arms but
not fire arms. Those who hold hand guns for "self defense" are simply scared
and fearful. Thanks DesNews
Yes, this article WAS a "shot in the dark." LOL! I honestly can't believe this
was published WITHOUT the "statistics" that the writer claims are there for guns
being more dangerous then helpful! I would never get away with writing such
statements in college without a citation. If you say, "statistics prove it",
THEN CITE IT! Nuttycomputer, thank you for your references;
excellent source! You can't get any better then stats from the DOJ. I'd like
to see DN top that! ...or anyone else for that matter.
The UK bands guns, and their murder rate is comparable to cities in the US.
But, people in the UK are fearful of roaming gangs of knife wielding youth.
They have more stabbings. They have been discussing legalizing guns so that
women and older people feel safer. We are safer here. Guns are an equalizer.
Sure fewer people are shot in the UK, but more are stabbed and beat to death.
Here in the US, my wife has had three different coworkers murdered, one was
shot, one was stabbed, one was clubbed to death. I guess the author of this
opinion piece thinks a gun suddenly makes a person a murder and that a lack of a
gun will suddenly make a murder into a nice person.
Your article is so full of logic holes it resembles Swiss cheese.Remember...when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
What a naive article. By your way of thinking we should all live in foam
houses, etc. There are many items in life that can hurt and kill. Guns don't
kill people - people do. Cars kill people - should we ban cars, knives in
homes, or anywhere for that matter. Every nation that bans quns has an
increase in crime. I would've thought your newspaper would support our
constitutional rights. How sad that I'm wrong.
The only people who are in favor of gun regulation are leftists who A.) have
never owned guns B.) don't know anything about them and C.) feel they know more
about guns than gun owners do. I have never met one person in my life who bought
a gun and regretted it late. Fortunately we have liberals to run their mouths
for us and tell us all about how we don't know anything about how to be
Those who will not admit the obvious risks inherent in the vast number and
variety of guns ready at hand here and elsewhere in the U.S. will always be a
stumbling block to lessening those risks. Our local legislators are a prime
example. There are many steps, which taken, cannot end the plague of gun
violence, anymore than requiring the wearing of seat-belts can end the plague of
auto deaths and injuries, would still lessen the risks. Our legislators refuse
to even seriously discuss them. Meanwhile the carnage and heartbreak goes on.
I beleive in honoring and sustaining the law. And what ever the present law says
I am for. Self protection is a right not a privelege. Those who are lawful
should be allowed to carry concealed if they choose so long as they are not
ex-felons and are in their right mind. Concealed carry laws do reduce
crime and crime/murder rates. That is a proven fact. Newspapers I have found
print half truths, don't print the story or even tell the truth about the gun
that saved a life. Very seldom do you read that a concealed carry person saved
someones life. But you always hear when a gun has killed someone and then the
uproar. But the fact is that guns save many more thousands of lives than they
take in this country. Great Britain took the peoples guns away. Now they kill
each other with knives, clubs, swords and other stabbing intruments. Their crime
rate has soared. They even put people in jail who defend themselves. Please
don't beleive the opinionated editorial you have read in the Deseret News. It
simply is not true.
Bottom line: Do you believe in the Constitution? You sure don't write like you
do. 'nuf said!
@ @Nutty Computer 5:52 p.m. July 27, 2009Now your just arguing
semantics. No the DOJ didn't specifically say the Kleck study was useful for
calculating DGU. They did however use the Kleck Study Criteria for help in
weeding out false positives from their own study.My Assumption is
that when you use someone else's work to help with your own you must consider
their work as worthwhile. Maybe this is a faulty assumption... it's entirely
plausible the DOJ used Kleck's criteria for their own study because they
specifically found it to be of no value.
"Second, guns do not make homes safer, they make homes more dangerous.
Statistics prove it."According to best estimates, at least 1000
people a day deter a home invasion robbery by using their gun. These incidents
are never reported. The would-be criminal doesn't complain to the police that a
homeowner shot at him while he was trying to rob that homeowner. The homeowner
who did the shooting doesn't file a police report because all that would do is
result in the police coming out an confiscating the homeowner's gun. So the "statistics" have a huge hole in them, namely the count of incidents
where the homeowner with a gun protected himself and his family from a would-be
home invasion robber. There are occasional cases where an elderly
man or woman ventilates the torso of a robber as that person comes through a
door or window. As a senior citizen I have my trusty Beretta 9 mm (with hollow
point bullets) ready to do just that.
@ No Golden Days of Yore,In Colonial times "arms" usually meant
weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols.
Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was
spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are
theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks,
rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not. (Guncite, 2007)You
state the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that the citizenry could not be controlled
by a tyrannical government. You then state that because we have a standing army
(controlled by the government) we don't need the 2nd amendment? Aren't these two
statements in contradiction? What about individuals who ARE members
of the State Militia are they allowed to keep and have weapons? (Please Note: In
Utah almost every male over 18 is by law a member of Utah State Militia)To suggest the 2nd Amendment is as obsolete as flint-lock pistols and
black-powder rifles is also to suggest the 1st Amendment is as obsolete as the
quills and parchment of the 18th Century.
What a CROCK! Typical liberal thinking. The Constitution means what it says, not
how times change. If there is to be changes to the Constitution it is to be done
be amendment, not redefining what is now popular or convenient. Your
description of "tyrannized by a militant Gov't." is very appropriate though, and
is correct. It is not to far from fairy tales and make believe to see how this
country is drifting to that point.
This editorial was the worst I've ever read in the Deseret News! At the time it
was written, you didn't even have the facts. Instead of reading the police
report, you jumped to demonizing handguns. Had you waited, you would have
learned that the man who was shot had dropped his pistol to the ground and
kicked it away before he was shot. This wasn't a shootout at the O.K corral, it
was an upset father who by way of his training should have known better. That
is why charges have been filed against him!Your bias against
handguns is readily apparent. You actually printed the sorry excuse from Mr.
David Ragsdale that he wouldn't have killed his wife if he hadn't had a gun. It
was on the front page! Ridiculous.You might not like handguns, but
before you run to judgment again, you should study the statistics on how crime
decreases as more people in the community obtain their licenses to carry a
concealed weapon. Even those who claim American citizens shouldn't be allowed
to own weapons should study up or shut up.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."The "right to keep and bear arms" as guaranteed in the Constitution, was
referring to the fire-arms of the day, and was intended to ensure that an
"armed" citizenry could not be easily tyrranized by a militant government or
foreign invader.But in the past two centuries, "arms" have advanced
and evolved tremendously. There is no reasonable interpretation of the 2nd
amendment that can be construed to guarantee a US citizen "arming" themselves
with nuclear weapons! What about RPGs? What about M18A1 Claymore Antipersonnel
Mines? What about HEL TD Laser Weapon Systems?"A well regulated
Militia" has been replaced by a standing army to preserve our freedom. It is
supplemented by military Reserves (weekend warriors).The "right of
the people to keep and bear Arms" is as obsolete as are the militias, flint-lock
pistols, and black-powder rifles of the 18th century.
Once again, the Deseret News has proven itself a prime example that ignorance is
the root of bigotry. The Deseret News Editor-in-Chief must immediately limit all
staff to stories and editorials about which they have reasonable knowledge and
expect them to be unbiased in all research and reporting. The Editor-in-Chief
also must have a sufficiently broad base of knowledge to be able to identify and
expect well researched and unbiased reporting and editorials.
Nobody is gonna take my Betsy from me.Nobody!If they try, I'll git
my NRA buddies and shoot everyone who dares try.Dang ya!Dang all of
So are you in favor of most people having a concealed gun permit? Do you
believe that would reduce crime and crime/murder rates?
Exactly right! I want my home to be more dangerous to all evil doers
everywhere. Why would anyone want it otherwise?
You stated: ""For other purposes, the NSPOF is a reliable reference. Such
information is vital to the evaluation of the ongoing debate over government
regulation of gun transactions, possession, and use."Other Purposes
which include the purpose the study was designed for: Estimating the DGU yearly
based on a sample conducted by survey. The DOJ DID NOT SAY the Kleck
study was useful for estimating the DGU.
What a terrible editorial. All emotional handwaving and no basis in solid
evidence. We have one accident and the author would have us believe it's
epidemic. Lawful gun owner on lawful gun owner violence exists in what amounts
to statistical noise, where we have real tractable problems in society with much
more far reaching consequences. Left completely unsaid is the fact
that self defense is a fundamental human right up there with the right to
worship how, where, and what we may. And the gun is the present implement of
choice for self defense.
So along with my previous comments let me get this straight Deseret News:Someone who carries a gun for protection against violent crime, which
has been shown to exist, is paranoid- But -Someone who
constantly worries that otherwise rational gun owners will suddenly snap and
kill everyone, which has been shown not to happen, is a rational thinker?Did I miss something?
"He can shoot me dead, but the moral high ground is mine."Actually,
no. You have intentionally left the criminal who killed you able to continue
killing innocents. You take no effort to counter evil actions, so don't claim
to be on the moral high ground. Your death would serve no purpose.
Who wrote this? It seems an assumed authority. They have succeeded in making
them appear the fool /idiot they really are. All statements are irrelevant
unless this person was at the Luby's in Texas several years ago or missed the
daughter's/ Texas legislator's comments about that incident.
Okay, trying not to be paranoid......... alright I think I got it: You're
right, we don't need guns because no one is going to hurt us, and the world is a
perfect place! Oh, and all the news about economic turmoil, food shortages,
governments collapsing, rioting, etc. is all just fear mongering from the media!
It's not really happening, and even if it did happen - especially here in
America - we can just trust that Mr. Obama will instantly sweep down from the
sky and protect us from those who would do us harm!If only that was
true.... The evil in our society is a REALITY, and as soon as you come back to
earth you'll realize that looking around us and seeing the dangers in our
society is COMMON SENSE, not "PARANOIA!"
In the 26 years that I was Cop (I have been retired about 14 years) there were
times I came across people who had concealed permits and carried a gun. I never
found any who were not responsible. Now that I am retired I have a concealed
carry permit and carry all the time. You can say that if you see me, I am
carrying a gun. Now in all the years that I have carried with a permit, I have
used my gun four different times to protect myself and one time was because my
daughter was with me. Luckily there were no shots fired, but if I did not have
my gun with me I could have been cut up, beat up and my daughter was at risk.
Gun Beats Knife and fist and club. There were more than just one bad guy and
then there was the one with a knife. The Deseret News thinks a person is afraid
if he carries a gun. But I say I have nothing to be afraid of because I do!
The editorial says that "two well-meaning" people met. I do not wish to be
arguementitive, but it is hardly true that both adults were well-meaning. One
was watching the neighborhood, while one was taking matters into his own hands
by searching out someone (with a gun, illegally). How can the Editors
ignore such a basic principle as letting law enforcement do its job. This was
not a problem with guns as the story suggests, but rather about one father who
used poor judgement. If there needs to be training, as many suggest, it should
cover common sense.
It seems that the anti-gun posters are not reading the paper today. I
can't believe that common sense prevails so easily with so few responding to
such a biased editorial as the DN has given in this "In Our Opinion" piece.
Arm yourselves and prepare yourselves to defend against evil people who have
guns! Don't be caught without an ability to defend yourself!
"anyone who feels they must "pack heat" while attending church has a very low
opinion of God's children"First of all, it's already illegal to cary
in a church, at least it is in an LDS church. Taking precautions doesn't mean
you have a low opinion of someone. Even the LDS church has stopped building
restrooms into the nurseries because they fear incidents of molestation.
Is the author a "tough guy" and didn't need to put his/her name on the by-line?
Where are the facts to back up your claims? You say it's obvious, what is
obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else. Show me the studies, show
facts. Oh, and by the way, people who kill often do not care where they do it.
Churches, schools, government property. This article is full of unsupported
opinions and really faulty logic. Why have a gun? Well: when seconds count, the
police are only minutes away.
The unidentified writer of this hit piece on gun ownership should be ashamed of
themselves and give up their journalistic license for printing such falsehoods.
Better yet, fired for being too stupid to be a reporter.Keep your
guns, people. You will need them for neighborhood watches, as the crime rate
continues to rise. The rest of you, except for the "morally superior" ones, get
a gun. You will need it to keep criminals from killing you or the government
from raping you.
Constitution and liberties aside (which the author would like us to do)Whoever this is, he/she does not write very well.(Not that I'm
amazing... but neither do I try to write for a newspaper)As pointed out by
the dozens of people in the comments the logic falters frequently. Trying to
play the politician pulling on the heart strings. Name calling riddling
the article.It's really a shamble and a disgrace even to anti-gun
people... whoever this was that wrote this didn't do you any favors anti-gun
people.2nd ammendment is there for a reason (several). And this is
coming from someone who hasn't even gotten around to buying a gun yet. I want
that right to be around when I do.
Doctor: "If I found myself face to face with an armed criminal, he has a gun, I
don't. He can shoot me dead, but the moral high ground is mine."So a
dead victim is morally superior to a live survivor? Does that mean that an
unarmed rape victim is morally superior to the armed woman who stopped the
attack before she was raped? If you truly belive that, you are
confused or deranged. The laws of God allow you to defend your life
even at the expense of the attackers life.
Congrats to the D.N. editorial board. It must have been hard to read the final
draft and realize that as bad as the illogical tripe before you was, it couldn't
get any better. But, you stuck to your gut and published it anyway, and met your
deadline. Shame for claiming stats that don't exist, though it is
true that by not providing your sources some readers won't recognize the spin
you would have to put on the numbers.
In last weeks incident there was only one, and only one problem. The father who
went in PURSUIT of trouble. The neighborhood watch people have every right as a
private citizens to carry. In this case the individual was a trained military
person. The flaw in the logic with the DN is that they want to prevent
most, if not all tragedy. They should be well aware that it is impossible to
prevent misfortune and pain. (Wasn't that someone else's plan?)It is ones
right to bear arms, just as much as it is ones right not too! I for one am
tired of all the nieve and poor conceived gun rhetoric that begins when there
has been a lack in human judgement. You can try to fix stupid, and many do, but
in most cases the average person is who then suffers!
Hopefully you live alone with no one to depend on you for protection.
Otherwise, you are in complete failure to live up to your responsibilities to
provide a safe environment for those who rely on you. That, Doctor, is clearly
amoral by any measure.
Well "Doctor", you are certainly entitled to your opinion. If you choose to not
carry a weapon, then I recommend that you don't.But please consider this:
Suppose the mere fact that you, or someone in the situation with you had a
weapon, and the mere presence of it in the steady hands of someone not afraid of
it was enough to deter the criminal(s) who otherwise may have killed you/your
parents/children/spouse. No shot was fired, nobody harmed. It happens every day
somewhere in this world and most are not reported. The ones that are reported
are often mentioned in a small paragraph in the back of the newspaper.
Bad article by the D.N. Good news is: feel free to call any conceal carry
person to defend you when the bad guys come to your home.
I do not carry a gun, and I have no intention of carrying a gun. I don't believe
it is a necessary tool to survival, or to self-defense.Nor do I
allow guns in my house. They are designed to kill people. I have no intention of
ever killing a person, even in self-defense. If I found myself face
to face with an armed criminal, he has a gun, I don't. He can shoot me dead, but
the moral high ground is mine.
There is nothing wrong in the slightest with owning a gun to protect yourself.
There is, however, something wrong with owning a gun with intentions of harming
others. I own a gun in the chance that some lunatic comes into my home and I
need to protect myself and my family. That is it. I don't have a problem with
people who have a license to carry, if they do so responsibly. Also, to
touch on the subject of teachers having guns, I would like to say that I support
that to the fullest extent. My mother is a Jr. High school teacher and her life
has been threatened many times by angry students, which has now resulted in her
fearing for her life every day when she enters the school and even while she is
in her own home. So now what, should she just let these kids just go on ahead
and carry out their threats with no means to protect herself? No! I believe she
has the right to protect herself just like anybody else does if you are in harms
The Bluffdale incident proves that even idiots can own guns. Your editorial
raises valid points only in the last two sentences.... "In the end, we urge
citizens to dial it back. Shoot your mouth off if you must. Just don't shoot
someone else's off." Everything else is just plain malarky! The issue in not
gun ownership, but responsible gun ownership. This applies to all aspects of
life...use of alcohol, driving vehicles, boating, bicycling, eating, using your
tub, digging in your back yard, taking medications, ..... you name it.
Irresponsibility anywhere can be deadly and there are idiots in every one of
these areas. Those of us who are trained and responsible will use deadly force
to preserve our own lives if threatened with extinction. To argue otherwise
means you would like to see the cops without guns too, right? After all, all
guns are for are to kill people. But gun control really works, that is why
there are no illegal weapons in Mexico, Northern Ireland, Beirut, or even
Washington, D.C.--ha, ha, ha!
Dear Editorial Staff, I am not gun nut, but this editorial was
embarrassing for the DN to have even run. To resort to petty insults from a
professional editorial staff (the whole ‘tough guys don't need guns, guns
are for the weak’ thing) was pretty pathetic. And the “get out your
letter writing kits” stuff was very patronizing to your readers. I guess
were just dumb readers right? Why do you have to stoop to petty insults to
make a point???? Jay, you and your entire editorial staff should be
ashamed by this editorial. Although I agree with some of what you are saying,
your childish presentation is more worthy of the very gun nuts you pillory. Try using some of those journalistic skills you claim to have and please
write a grown-up version of this editorial. We’re waiting for it . . .
@ re: Nuttycomputer 11:56 AMContrary to what you posted the DOJ does
not find the data regarding DGU to be unreliable.What you quoted is
as it says. A statistical analysis on Defensive Gun Uses can in no way be used
to determine whether owning guns actually deters crime. This is of course true.
You can't use a study designed for one thing to show something else. However,
there are other study's that do show ownership of gun deters crime, some that
show no change, but I'm aware of none that show an increase.What the
DoJ does say about the reliability of this study is this (Note this is the next
paragraph to what you quoted):"For other purposes, the NSPOF is a
reliable reference. Such information is vital to the evaluation of the ongoing
debate over government regulation of gun transactions, possession, and use."Other Purposes which include the purpose the study was designed for:
Estimating the DGU yearly based on a sample conducted by survey.
@Qball 10:14.I based my statement on only one fact: how many times
I hear of innocent people killed in their own homes by gun accidents (and
similar circumstances) versus how many times I hear of someone successfully
defending themselves with a gun.The validity of that could be
questioned, of course; we might wonder if each type of incident is equally
likely to get attention. I don't know for sure, but I see no reason we wouldn't
hear about it if there were so many success stories. But I just never hear
them. I only hear about dead innocents.Again, I do not question a
person's right to have a weapon in their home, or even to carry one legally. I
only question the wisdom.
"Tough guys don't wear seat belts. Only the fearful do! What's the matter sissy?
Afraid you're gonna get in a wreck?""Tough guys don't have smoke
detectors in their homes! Only the fearful do! What's the matter you big boob?
Scared your house might catch fire??"Your editorial position is
completely one-sided and utterly pathetic!
As others have pointed out, human beings can deal with each other by reason or
by force. When someone is using force in place of persuasion, the personal
firearm is the best way to negate that force. This remains true whether one is
dealing with criminal thugs or thugs operating under the color of law. A gun in
the hands of the law-abiding simply means that the individual who carries it
must be reasoned with by persuasion rather than brute force. Sounds pretty
civilized to me. The personal firearm is a check on the uncivilized behavior of
those who live by the law of the jungle.
I'm just adding my comments to the previous ones. Not all people who carry guns
are "scared", most of us are simply aware. I am a 5'3" 115 lb. female who has
to walk around a dark campus alone at night. I also have to open and close a
branch of a bank, often walking from my car to the building and back alone. Yes,
I carry my gun with me when I know I'll be in these circumstances. Fortunatly,
I have never felt the need to even reach for my gun and hope that I never have
The Facts The Dept of Justice finds the data regarding DGU to be
unreliable and states "Much debated iswhether the widespread ownership
offirearms deters crime or makes it moredeadly–or perhaps
both–but theDGU estimates are not informative inthis regard."
This proves a point that the media truly is liberal. Scarey. Yes you certainly
do make me paranoid with dumb editorial's like this. By the way, who wrote this
The LDS church does not allow guns in any of its buildings. That's all this
Liberal needs to know.
I use my handguns for hunting. I have fed my family 3 different years with
healthy venison because of handguns. This year I will even try again! So, the
article is wrong, handguns are used for hunting. Additionally; can
you sue a policeman for failing to protect you? If your spouse gets killed
during a home invasion, can you sue the police department for damages? The
answer is no, the police have no individual liability to anyone. Until and
unless police can be sued for failing to protect me, I will exercise my
constitutional right to have guns not only for hunting but for self protection.
As I see the problem, it not "guns" it is "education", although the shooting in
Bluffdale is a tragedy it is the exception and not the rule. Most shootings are
caused by IGNORANCE of guns. Statistically almost all shootings (accidental or
drive by) are by those who have not attended firearms safety classes. This does
not mean we as gun owners do not have to be responsible, it means we need to
make sure our children understand the danger of and proper use firearms.
Education is the answer-not banning firearms.
Looks like the editors are guzzling the Obama Kool-aid.The logic you
used was sophomoric.So fear is the reason some of us carry a gun? Is
our nation's defense based on the same reasoning?Doesn't it really
have more to dow with mitigating risk. There is a risk of someone wanting to do
me harm. Though I don't carry a pistol, I should have that right to mitigate the
risk of danger to me and others.You apparently believe no mistakes
should occur with guns. But, even if you train our youth in gun safety, just
like we do with cars, mistakes will be made. Mistakes with guns, thank goodness,
are rare.Personally, I don't believe the editors really care about
our safety. Rather, there has been an agenda to take our guns away for
decades--that the Deseret News supports. It's part of taking the power away from
the people. They will use any excuse they can find to push it.Though
some of the masses are dumb and fall for this editorial, I'm grateful so many of
the citizens don't.
@ Anonymous, Joe Moe, (& the Editorial Writer):Please either support your
statements and "statistics", or save them for someone who is naive enough to
believe them. Back them up.I am familiar with Nuttycomputer, and know that
he can back up his statistic that you call "totally phoney". Please back up wour
statements regarding more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy" or that
guns make the home more dangerous, not safer. Back them up with "legitimate"
statistics, and I will personally recant right here. I'll be waiting.P.S.
If you're going to try and pigeonhole guns as only useful to kill people, please
provide the rationale for alcohol. What positive influence does it have? It
suspect it kills more people per week in Utah than guns do in a year, and we are
a fairly "dry" state. Note I used the word "suspect" since I can't back up my
inferred statistic... yet.I carry. I do it responsibly, and proudly.
@ Anonymous:Of course keep in mind that is USES only. So I suppose
you're right my statistic was phony because I stated 2 million lives were saved
by defensive gun uses. That would actually be much higher because if we take the
lowest statistic by the DOJ (1.5 million uses a year) and assume an average of
2 people saved for each of those uses. (A very conservative number) Well I guess
that is 3 million lives saved then. My Mistake.
In spite of your naivety, guns do stop crimes several times a day and most of
them are not reported or tracked. I could show you but links are not allowed
here, so, do your own homework.Apparently some here also think that
I need to become a victim before I am justified in carrying a gun for defense.
Talk about putting the cart before the horse.
@AnonymousI'm sorry you believe it's a phoney statistic. Of course
you're welcome to check the information you want: (DGU Stands for Defensive Gun
Uses)A study conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University
criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys
indicated a range of between 800,000 to 3.5 million DGU's annually. However
these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own
study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually. It
indicated 2.2 million to 2.5 million Defensive Uses. 1.5 million to 1.9 million
of those were handguns.His study was called "Armed Resistance to
Crime:The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun" and was
printed in Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995. Subsequent to Gary Kleck's
study the United States Department of Justice conducted their own study. It was
called "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of
Firearms" and it indicated 1.5 million defensive uses.That's EACH
How embarrasing. The DN's editorial staff doesn't know anything about guns or
the statistics behind gun violence. Evil people will always find a weapon to
kill others; It has been happening since the beginning of time. The
Founders of this country provided us means to protect ourselves. If we lose
that simple freedom we will lose everything. That is what Obama and his
followers desire. They want to take over everything and control our thoughts,
words, and actions. It is called Socialism.Protect your 2nd
If your church demands that those with concealed weapons permits, are not
allowed to carry legally in your church, does that imply your church guarantees
your personal safety? I can see the litigation, coming you way.
I applaud DN for this editorial -- frankly, I don't agree with them all that
often.And I fear we have more incidents like the one in Bluffdale on
To Nuttycomputer, guns will not stop more than a tiny, tiny fraction of violent
crimes. I would bet that these crimes are actually enhanced (worsened) by the
presence of guns. It is a folly dream to think guns will solve anything. And
in 54 years, growing up in Utah, living in big cities in the East, not once have
I ever seen a need for having a gun. If you need a gun, you are putting
yourself in harms way either on purpose or recklessly. I do not believe that 2
million lives are saved each year by the defensive use of guns. I think that is
a totally phoney statistic - a total fraud.
@Confused 2:19.What is to be confused about? They said nothing
about the legal right of people to carry guns. They just talked rationally
about the causes and effects of gun possession. I grew up with our
family guns stored on the top shelf in my bedroom. My brother just bought a
handgun, concerned about some suspicious activity at his young daughter's window
at night. I enjoy shooting guns. I believe in the 2nd amendment. I've thought
about getting a concealed-carry permit.But it doesn't change the
fact that far more INNOCENT people are harmed in cases like Bluffdale, or
accidental in-home shootings, than are helped. It's statistically a fact.
Stating this doesn't mean anyone is telling you you can't have a gun. It's your
choice. If someone is sending you death threats, like one writer
above; or, if you've caught someone trying to break into your house and fear it
could happen again; or, if you deal drugs and are worried about a hit by a
druggie; or, if any other myriad circumstances apply, then by all means arm
yourself. Most people have no need.
Well, it didn't take the DesNews long to dance in the blood of this tragic and
stupid incident, now did it? Although to be fair, after waiting 15 years for
such a case, I guess they are really anxious to be proven right even if it just
by a freak case.We now have 175,000+ persons with concealed weapons
permits. We've been issuing those permits objectively, and without
discrimination for about 15 years. Each year, slightly fewer than 0.3% of those
with permits do something--from shoplifting to DUI to non-violent technical gun
violations to actual criminal violence--that causes them to lose their permits.
Coincidentally, each year, slight more than 0.3% of sworn peace officers in the
State do something serious enough to lose their POST certification and thus
their badges; additional officers will do something to warrant discipline short
of losing their certification. There have actually been cases of police
officers losing their concealed weapons permits while retaining their badges.Hard cases make bad law. And statistical anomalies actually prove just
how well our gun laws are working. The DesNews needs to get over their paranoid
The DN has it wrong again in a perfect world where their were no bad guys then
yes.If you belive that guns have no place in our community take this
into consideation. Two years ago I was assulted by a large indvidual and his
friend on my poorch. It cost me over 80,000 in surgery's and dental work. Their
statue was bigger then mine and I was outnumbered. Their intent was to cause
severe bodily damage.I carry a Concealed firearm almost everyday. In
seven years never once had to use it. Instead have been able to defuse the
situation by talking.Guns in the home are only a tool. My children
have been taught gun safety and are educated. If the child does not have access
then what is their to worry about.It's funny how the LDS Church uses
security who some of them carry a firearm (Gasp) And the personal Body Guard for
the church guess what (Gasp) He has one to.In the Book of Mormon
again they used Weapons (Gasp)So in closing firearms are a necessary
tool in our community's At least we know the DN is unarmed
I can't believe that the supposed Conservative Joe Cannon allowed this tripe to
@Anonymous:You're right guns shouldn't be concealed especially in
this state where no license is required to Openly Carry a firearm. I therefore
carry openly everywhere I go and encourage others to do the same.However, In Utah 6,210 violent crimes were committed in 2007. Accepting the
REALITY that there are evil people in the world isn't paranoia. A head in the
sand approach is irrational not a love of civil rights.An estimated
2 million people a year are saved by the defensive use of arms... please tell
all those people they will never need their gun in dealing with others.
Why the irrational love and obsession about guns? The DN got this one right.
The rationale for the need to carry concealed weapons is weak and based on fear
and paranoia. Why conceal them? If you want them as a deterrent, wear the gun
on your chest, out in the open for all to see. Jack's argument is ridiculous,
that more die in the bathtub than by guns. How many take baths as opposed to
even possessing guns at home? Duh! How many use bathtubs as weapons against
family members when in a rage or intoxicated? But I still do not see why people
are so irrationally attracted to guns. In a normal life and mental state, you
will never need your gun in dealing with others (unless you put yourself into a
position of danger). Get over the gun madness!
I was going to make a point by point rebuttal of this silly editorial but others
have beat me to the punch.This editorial is as much a "shoot from
the hip" reaction to a really stupid incident as the stupid incident itself.I expect the DN editorial board to think things out a little more than
they did. Perhaps a bigger view and a little more realism.Disappointing.
Statistics show that you are much more likely to die at home in a drowning
accident than a gun accident. I hope all the Des News editorial staff will go
home and rip out their bath tubs, otherwise you are hypocrites.Note
for vidar. A thug with a gun breaks into your house. He probably has more
experience as a thug than you have defending yourself from thugs. So you,
without a gun, will beat him up, problem solved. And you believe that. Please
jot down a few notes now for your epitaph.
Sunshine, rainbows, and lollipops from the "it's a small world" editorial
board.In a perfect world, I would never have to worry about my
family's safety. In a perfect world, the police would always be just around the
corner and would show up to use their guns instead of their chalk. In a perfect
world, I could count on my fellow citizens to make good choices.Your
paper reports far more violent crime using guns than innocents injured by guns.
Why is it then, that you don't want me to be able to protect myself and my
family from the violent crime?
we got guys shooting up toilets, and restaurant chairs.We have parents,
and grandparents, leaving loaded guns in their homes, where children can get
them.Now we have wild west behavior in bluffdale.Good editorial,
with some great points.People who love guns so much scare me.If
someone broke into my house, I would beat them up. Don't need a gun.
The author and anybody that agrees with him should show us how fearless they are
by placing a sign on their front lawns that declares their residence as a "Gun
Free Zone" and that they will defend themselves, their families, and property
with non-lethal physical restraint only. That will show all us gunowners how
brave you are and prove to us that our fears are unfounded. Until you are
willing to do that you should mind your own business. I fear people like you
more than I do any outlaws around.
It's nice to know that the Deseret News has no locks on its doors, that the
employees of the Deserest News have no locks on their doors, that the children
of the employees and the grandchildren of the Deseret News employees are safe
and don't need watching and protection!Come on editor, get a grip on
life. There are three million people living in Utah. Almost every one of them
is a good, honest, kind person, but some are not. Almost every adult in Utah is
able to control his anger and relate civilly with others, but some can not.Do you expect every good, honest, law-abiding citizen to act perfectly
every minute of every day? If you do, then how do you explain your diatribe
against a Constitutionally protected Right? How do you explain your lapse in
commitment to our responsibilities as Americans? How do you explain your moment
of weakness as you instruct the people of Utah to give in and to give up a Right
- so that you feel better about yourself?
So. Two well-meaning idiots meet on the street and start taking shots at each
other. Someone gets hurt. Why is this news? Because it almost NEVER happens.
We read more frequently about kids drowning in the toilet than we do
about non-criminals shooting each other on the street.Please get
some journalistic integrity and cite your "statistics" that prove your points.
No valid statistics? I didn't think so. Your "opinion piece" is just that -
Nice little editorial. It surprises me that so many "educated" people just don't
get it. What did this "article" say? Only the innocent get hurt with guns?
I'll bet that's what the Trolley Square guy was banking on when he let loose.
Or the guy that killed 30+ on the campus of West Virginia. Yep, I definitely
think it's a good idea to take the guns away from the law abiding citizens...
(walking away shaking head in disbelief that people could be so naive)
This is very poor logic. Here’s some reality.First, victims
don’t pack firearms. Prepared people do.Second, guns do make
homes safer, especially when realistic training is included. Statistics prove
it.Third, anyone who feels they don’t need to “pack
heat” while attending church has a very short memory.Fourth,
taking pistols out of the hands of teachers has only created multiple mass
shootings at schools. BTW, the Edsel was really a good vehicle that only sold
poorly because it had incorporated safety features ahead of its time that the
public was not ready to buy.Fifth, if “revolvers”
didn’t solve anything, why do our police and military carry guns?Six, everywhere gun bans are incorporated violent crime skyrockets. Great
Brittan is a classic example; guns are banned but now the people are only
defenseless victims of a wave of violent knifings.
I mostly fear the destruction of our liberty that comes with ignoring our
constitution.You can never make everyone safe and you can't take
away the consequences of bad decisions by passing more and more laws. I don't own a gun. But that is my choice.
Would those whom you disparage as "fearful" pistol-packing people include law
enforcement officers, or are they blessed with some mystical quality that
immunizes them against both abuse of that "privilege" and petty criticism from
advocates of civilian disarmament?
Dare Obama's administration try and take my gun rights away. I know who'll lose!
Innocent people die in car accidents, should we push to get rid of cars?
Innocent children die in swimming pools, should we push to get rid of swimming
pools?Innocent people die prematurely because of their bad eating habits
should we push health food on everyone?There is a reason why the founding
fathers gave us second amendment rights. It is to help us keep our freedom and
protect our families.I think criminals would do more evil if there law
abiding victims did not have the option of having a hand gun on them.A
hand gun in skilled hands saved lives at the trolley square incident, in my
opinion. The bad guys will always have guns. Lets punish people who use guns
incorrectly but please don't push to make it hard for honest good people to
protect their families.Lets educate instead of regulate. I hope you all
can realize how many people have handguns that have not used them incorrectly.
Just because we have a hand gun doesn't mean we have to be reckless, careless or
stupid. Thousands more are injured and killed by automobiles because
drivers are reckless, careless and stupid. But we don't see any articles like
this suggesting that we should stop driving cars. I agree that we
should use caution but I think there are many hazards in our current society
much more serious than carrying a concealed weapon. One of the most dangerous is
the use of alcohol. And another is pornography. And another is the use of
drugs.Years ago I was a volunteer worker at the Utah State Prison. I
worked with those who were convicted of capital crimes. Almost without
exception, the prisoners that I worked with admitted to me that their crime was
precipitated by the use of drugs, alcohol or pornography, and almost 100% said
they were drunk or had been drinking when they committed their crime.Perhaps we should stop trying to ban guns and start thinking about banning
Dear Editorial writers:Grow up. Just because two really stupid
individuals didn't have the brains to call the cops when they should have,
doesn't mean that you should tar everyone with the same brush.I
can't wait until some Ward Finance Clerk and Bishopric member gets capped by
some gange banger for that Sunday's tithing receipts. What will you say then?
If I want to pack, and do it responsibly, who is going to know, and who's
business is it? Certainly not yours.Someone who packs a concealed
firearm legally is scared? Not hardly. I think you have been spending too much
time at the Unitarian Church. By the way, I don't even own a handgun. Just the
hard to conceal hunting rifles.
My father-in-law is a concealed weapons permit holder and regularly "packs."
Numerous death threats as a result of his profession have led him to this. Your
blanket statement that gun carrying citizens are weak and fearful is just plain
wrong. Guns in professionally trained hands could have stopped:Columbine9/11Virginia TechThe list goes on and onOf course, we'll never know because so many people fear guns when they are in
the right hands. Nevermind that we put our guns freely into the wrong hands all
the time. You're absolutely right: pistols are machines to kill people. And
until bad human beings all over the world (in Churches, in Universities, on
airplanes, and yes, in public parking lots) stop killing good human beings,
those who are brave enough to be trained on weapons use (police, pilots,
University security, and common citizens) will have to carry to protect the rest
Once again I am confused as to where the DN's stands. Do they
believe in the Constitution or don't they? Do they believe that we
have a right to bear arms or not? Do they believe the words of Alma,
"And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto
bloodshed.I must be the epitome of strength in their eyes because I
don't own a gun. I have always been confident in being able to handle myself
physically if I had to. But only a couple of weeks ago a group of
individuals attempted to enter our home via the basement while my wife and I
were home. Luckily we were still awake and we heard them. A little later and we
may have become another news statistic. For the first time in a long
time I have seriously considered getting a gun. Or maybe I could tell the
intruders to leave or I'll get up and take their weapon away from them and
pistol whip them with it. The DN's editorials assume a perfect world
and mimics our overreacting congress to every negative event that occurs.
You are more likely to shoot someone in your family than you are to shoot one of
the bad guys featured in your cliched argument. Which was the thrust of the
editorial. There was no mention of banning guns, just a plea for numbskulls to
leave them home.
How many cops shall we hire to protect a populace who is totally unarmed and
all the criminal know we are all unarmed?
What do you suggest if criminals are the only ones who have guns? They do not
obey gun bans you know! How do you recommend we protect ourselves against them?
Kung Foo? A gun in my hand is much better than a cop on the phone! I own a
handgun and fortunatly, I have never had to use it, but I would much rather have
it and not need it than if I NEEDED IT AND DIDN'T HAVE IT! Gun bans? No sale!!!!