In our opinion: Enough shots in the dark


Return To Article
  • Blackstone Law
    Aug. 6, 2009 1:49 p.m.

    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.

  • bcrockett
    Aug. 5, 2009 9:39 p.m.

    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.

  • A Fearful Man
    Aug. 5, 2009 9:00 a.m.

    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.

  • A Fearful Man
    Aug. 4, 2009 4:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Rodger
    Aug. 4, 2009 2:25 a.m.

    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!

  • mogar
    Aug. 4, 2009 1:47 a.m.

    Smart guys don’t bring fists to a gunfight, so much for your tough guy taunt.

  • Cory
    Aug. 2, 2009 11:53 p.m.

    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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 31, 2009 5:43 p.m.

    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 self defense.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 31, 2009 5:36 p.m.

    @ 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?

  • B.S.N.
    July 31, 2009 4:01 p.m.

    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 have them!

  • Jim In Houston
    July 31, 2009 2:54 p.m.

    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?

  • JKimball
    July 31, 2009 1:37 p.m.

    "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?

  • Cougseatboogs
    July 31, 2009 11:52 a.m.

    I don't know if I really have a problem with these gun nuts shooting each other and reducing their numbers.

  • NRA=Numbskulls Run-Amok
    July 31, 2009 11:31 a.m.

    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?

  • SamT
    July 30, 2009 4:04 p.m.

    This editorial is a joke; trite and smirking. Small wonder print media is sinking like a rock.

    Keep up the good work DN!

  • William
    July 30, 2009 2:19 p.m.

    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.

  • News Outlets
    July 30, 2009 12:56 p.m.

    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.

  • American
    July 30, 2009 12:19 p.m.

    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.

  • abe froman
    July 30, 2009 9:59 a.m.

    "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.

  • Bernard T
    July 30, 2009 9:46 a.m.

    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?

  • Sam
    July 30, 2009 8:52 a.m.

    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).

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 30, 2009 7:16 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 29, 2009 8:56 p.m.

    @ Naruta

    You 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 Daley

    Chicago 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.

  • Anonymous
    July 29, 2009 4:21 p.m.


    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?

  • Winston Smith
    July 29, 2009 4:08 p.m.

    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

  • Naruto
    July 29, 2009 4:06 p.m.

    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!

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 29, 2009 3:38 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Bill
    July 29, 2009 2:58 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 29, 2009 2:55 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 29, 2009 2:45 p.m.

    "standard weapons" versus "specialized weapons"??


    No, I mean REALLY?

    Point still made.

  • Todd M.
    July 29, 2009 2:37 p.m.

    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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 29, 2009 2:36 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Creed
    July 29, 2009 2:20 p.m.

    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 disarmed?

  • Anonymous
    July 29, 2009 2:14 p.m.


    "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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 29, 2009 2:03 p.m.

    @ Anonymous 12:33 PM

    Actually 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 Up
    The 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.

  • Des New made up my mind
    July 29, 2009 2:00 p.m.

    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 your paper.

  • Back the truck up!
    July 29, 2009 1:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 29, 2009 12:33 p.m.

    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!

  • Winston Smith
    July 29, 2009 11:07 a.m.

    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

  • Adolf
    July 29, 2009 9:12 a.m.

    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?

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 29, 2009 8:28 a.m.

    @ lng

    Concealed 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.

  • Rob
    July 29, 2009 6:11 a.m.

    This article is a joke, right? This writer cannot really be that stupid!!!!

  • Happy D
    July 29, 2009 4:28 a.m.

    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.

  • Sam
    July 29, 2009 3:41 a.m.

    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.

  • Ing
    July 29, 2009 2:33 a.m.

    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
    July 28, 2009 7:01 p.m.

    I will protect myself and my family with a firearm! It is the moral thing to do!

  • Anonymous
    July 28, 2009 6:41 p.m.

    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?

  • Nation of Laws
    July 28, 2009 6:12 p.m.

    So are we abandoning our Justice system? Everybody armed, carrying weapons and administer "justice" as we see fit.

  • Winston Smith
    July 28, 2009 5:22 p.m.

    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 natural right...

  • HiVelSword
    July 28, 2009 5:22 p.m.


    "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.

  • The Mission Field
    July 28, 2009 5:09 p.m.

    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.

  • @before you say no guns
    July 28, 2009 4:59 p.m.

    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."

  • negator
    July 28, 2009 4:27 p.m.

    a disarmed populace: feeding tyrants' ovens since, well, forever.

  • before you say no guns......
    July 28, 2009 4:14 p.m.

    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?

  • the last thing
    July 28, 2009 2:09 p.m.

    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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 28, 2009 2:05 p.m.

    @ out of touch with constitution

    Just 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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 28, 2009 2:01 p.m.

    @ Common Sense

    Background 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-Packer

    You'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.

  • out of touch with constitution
    July 28, 2009 1:43 p.m.

    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.

  • Common Sense
    July 28, 2009 1:26 p.m.

    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.

  • A Red by any other name...
    July 28, 2009 1:23 p.m.

    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!

  • jake
    July 28, 2009 1:02 p.m.

    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!

  • Non-Packer
    July 28, 2009 12:44 p.m.

    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!

  • Winston Smith
    July 28, 2009 12:44 p.m.

    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, Joe...

  • Red
    July 28, 2009 12:31 p.m.

    "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.

  • Michael
    July 28, 2009 12:23 p.m.

    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...

  • Red
    July 28, 2009 12:18 p.m.

    "victims don’t pack firearms. Prepared people do."


    "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.

  • Bill
    July 28, 2009 11:17 a.m.

    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!!!!

  • So I guess
    July 28, 2009 10:36 a.m.

    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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 28, 2009 10:04 a.m.

    @ Anonymous 9:43

    I'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.

  • Did you know?
    July 28, 2009 9:51 a.m.

    Most police officers in Britain DON'T carry guns?

  • Anonymous
    July 28, 2009 9:48 a.m.

    "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.

  • Anonymous
    July 28, 2009 9:43 a.m.

    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 way overstated.

  • Passionate
    July 28, 2009 9:41 a.m.

    This article is filled with emotion; lacking in fact.


  • Roger Young
    July 28, 2009 9:40 a.m.

    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 weaknesses.”

  • Hillbilly
    July 28, 2009 8:32 a.m.

    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 post...what hypocrites.

  • Maher
    July 28, 2009 8:10 a.m.

    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.

  • Bill
    July 28, 2009 7:46 a.m.

    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?

  • Charlie
    July 28, 2009 7:43 a.m.

    So the DN feels that police officers are weak, fearful men?

  • HiVelSword
    July 28, 2009 7:39 a.m.

    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?

  • fred hilmer
    July 28, 2009 7:19 a.m.

    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?

  • ETC
    July 28, 2009 5:11 a.m.

    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, D.N.
    July 28, 2009 1:10 a.m.

    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.

  • kobalt
    July 27, 2009 11:23 p.m.

    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.

  • Mark B
    July 27, 2009 11:22 p.m.

    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.

  • Re: anon. 10:44pm
    July 27, 2009 11:13 p.m.

    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.

  • vontrapp
    July 27, 2009 11:11 p.m.

    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.

  • Randy
    July 27, 2009 10:49 p.m.

    I knew there was a reason I didn't subscribe to the DN.
    I just realized it after reading this editorial.

  • @UK Ban Guns Not Safe
    July 27, 2009 10:45 p.m.

    You are absolutely wrong.

    The UK's murder rate is HALF that of the U.S.

  • Anonymous
    July 27, 2009 10:44 p.m.

    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

  • yung1s
    July 27, 2009 10:26 p.m.

    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.

  • UK Bans Guns Not Safe
    July 27, 2009 9:58 p.m.

    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.

  • MMc
    July 27, 2009 9:30 p.m.

    Your article is so full of logic holes it resembles Swiss cheese.

    Remember...when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

  • T. Wineberg
    July 27, 2009 9:12 p.m.

    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.

  • J. M.
    July 27, 2009 9:10 p.m.

    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 responsible adults.

  • gkw
    July 27, 2009 9:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Retired Cop
    July 27, 2009 8:34 p.m.

    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.

  • R.D.N.
    July 27, 2009 8:29 p.m.

    Bottom line: Do you believe in the Constitution? You sure don't write like you do. 'nuf said!

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 27, 2009 7:31 p.m.

    @ @Nutty Computer 5:52 p.m. July 27, 2009

    Now 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.

  • Horace
    July 27, 2009 7:22 p.m.

    "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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 27, 2009 7:15 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • Re: "Days of yore"
    July 27, 2009 6:58 p.m.

    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.

  • Disappointed in DN
    July 27, 2009 6:43 p.m.

    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.

  • No Golden Days of Yore
    July 27, 2009 6:27 p.m.

    "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.

  • Blaine Nay
    July 27, 2009 6:21 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 27, 2009 6:18 p.m.

    Nobody is gonna take my Betsy from me.
    If they try, I'll git my NRA buddies and shoot everyone who dares try.
    Dang ya!
    Dang all of ya liberals!

  • To: Retired Cop
    July 27, 2009 6:01 p.m.

    So are you in favor of most people having a concealed gun permit? Do you believe that would reduce crime and crime/murder rates?

  • Dangerous Homes
    July 27, 2009 5:54 p.m.

    Exactly right! I want my home to be more dangerous to all evil doers everywhere. Why would anyone want it otherwise?

  • @Nutty Computer
    July 27, 2009 5:52 p.m.

    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.

  • Concerned Citizen
    July 27, 2009 5:50 p.m.

    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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 27, 2009 5:48 p.m.

    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?

  • dg
    July 27, 2009 5:40 p.m.

    "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.

  • SAM
    July 27, 2009 5:33 p.m.

    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.

  • Jake
    July 27, 2009 5:32 p.m.

    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!"

  • Retired Cop
    July 27, 2009 4:46 p.m.

    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!

  • RS
    July 27, 2009 4:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Where ?
    July 27, 2009 4:07 p.m.

    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.

  • answer
    July 27, 2009 3:59 p.m.

    Arm yourselves and prepare yourselves to defend against evil people who have guns! Don't be caught without an ability to defend yourself!

  • Cynical Saint
    July 27, 2009 3:00 p.m.

    "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.

  • Anonymous
    July 27, 2009 2:51 p.m.

    Is the author a "tough guy" and didn't need to put his/her name on the by-line?

  • Jeremy Nicoll
    July 27, 2009 2:40 p.m.

    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.

  • ArmedCitizen2
    July 27, 2009 2:36 p.m.

    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.

  • scott
    July 27, 2009 2:28 p.m.

    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.

  • ArmedCitizen2
    July 27, 2009 2:26 p.m.

    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.

  • avgjoe
    July 27, 2009 2:19 p.m.

    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.

  • only one
    July 27, 2009 2:14 p.m.

    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!

  • @ "Doctor"
    July 27, 2009 2:13 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 27, 2009 1:56 p.m.

    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.

  • A. Krietzer
    July 27, 2009 1:43 p.m.

    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.

  • The Doctor
    July 27, 2009 1:30 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 27, 2009 1:07 p.m.

    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 way.

  • Scott
    July 27, 2009 12:53 p.m.

    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!

  • C'mon Jay
    July 27, 2009 12:52 p.m.

    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 . . . .

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 27, 2009 12:47 p.m.

    @ re: Nuttycomputer 11:56 AM

    Contrary 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.

  • Joe Moe
    July 27, 2009 12:45 p.m.

    @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.

  • Vincent DeCaria
    July 27, 2009 12:34 p.m.

    "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!

  • One who knows
    July 27, 2009 12:32 p.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 27, 2009 11:58 a.m.

    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 to.

  • re: Nuttycomputer
    July 27, 2009 11:56 a.m.

    The Facts
    The Dept of Justice finds the data regarding DGU to be unreliable and states "Much debated is
    whether the widespread ownership of
    firearms deters crime or makes it more
    deadly–or perhaps both–but the
    DGU estimates are not informative in
    this regard."

  • D Adams
    July 27, 2009 11:54 a.m.

    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 editorial anyway?

  • Guns Banned
    July 27, 2009 11:44 a.m.

    The LDS church does not allow guns in any of its buildings. That's all this Liberal needs to know.

  • Actually
    July 27, 2009 11:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Dee F McDaniel
    July 27, 2009 10:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Don
    July 27, 2009 10:32 a.m.

    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.

  • QBall
    July 27, 2009 10:14 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 27, 2009 10:06 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • @ Anon 9:09
    July 27, 2009 10:06 a.m.

    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.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 27, 2009 10:02 a.m.


    I'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 YEAR.

  • Texas
    July 27, 2009 9:38 a.m.

    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 Amendment rights!!!

  • Cosmo
    July 27, 2009 9:25 a.m.

    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.

  • MormonDem
    July 27, 2009 9:19 a.m.

    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 the way.

  • Anonymous
    July 27, 2009 9:09 a.m.

    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.

  • Joe Moe
    July 27, 2009 9:05 a.m.

    @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.

  • DesNews logic
    July 27, 2009 9:01 a.m.

    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 fantasies.

  • Zach
    July 27, 2009 8:44 a.m.

    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

  • Wow
    July 27, 2009 8:44 a.m.

    I can't believe that the supposed Conservative Joe Cannon allowed this tripe to be printed.

  • Nuttycomputer
    July 27, 2009 8:41 a.m.


    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 27, 2009 8:19 a.m.

    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!

  • Hmmmm
    July 27, 2009 7:59 a.m.

    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.


  • Jack
    July 27, 2009 7:58 a.m.

    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.

  • Chad
    July 27, 2009 7:47 a.m.

    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?

  • vidar
    July 27, 2009 7:45 a.m.

    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.

  • Imo
    July 27, 2009 7:24 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards
    July 27, 2009 7:16 a.m.

    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?

  • Same Old - Same Old
    July 27, 2009 7:08 a.m.

    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 - your opinion.

  • wow
    July 27, 2009 6:53 a.m.

    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)

  • Sam Fidler
    July 27, 2009 6:47 a.m.

    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.

  • Captain Kirk
    July 27, 2009 6:30 a.m.

    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.

  • William Grigg
    July 27, 2009 6:10 a.m.

    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?

  • NRA
    July 27, 2009 6:09 a.m.

    Dare Obama's administration try and take my gun rights away. I know who'll lose!

  • Not a hand gun owner yet
    July 27, 2009 6:00 a.m.

    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.

  • Citizen
    July 27, 2009 4:40 a.m.

    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 alcohol.

  • Mike
    July 27, 2009 3:35 a.m.

    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.

  • Fearless?
    July 27, 2009 2:37 a.m.

    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:

    Virginia Tech
    The list goes on and on

    Of 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 of us.

  • Confused again.
    July 27, 2009 2:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Anonymous
    July 27, 2009 2:05 a.m.

    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.

  • Ridgerunner
    July 27, 2009 1:28 a.m.

    How many cops shall we hire to protect a populace who is totally unarmed and all the criminal know we are all unarmed?

  • What would you suggest?
    July 27, 2009 12:41 a.m.

    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!!!!