The Eyres are right that gun violence is a serious problem. But they're
completely wrong when they push for more gun control. Gun control laws only
make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.
Criminals will ignore those laws (that's why they're called criminals
- because they break the law) and get guns anyway.In their column
the Eyres suggest that guns were needed for defense when the Second Amendment
was written, but not now, as if our modern society has magically done away with
those who want to injure, rob, rape, or kill. News flash: We still have bad
guys among us. And one of the best ways to stop or deter their evil acts is for
the law-abiding citizenry at large to own (and, yes, even carry) guns. This
helps to keep our society more civil.
You really think banning guns is going to stop violence?Get real:
marijuana is illegal, alcohol and cigarettes to underage people is illegal,
pornography to minors is illegal, murder in itself is illegal but ya know what?
People get a hold of these things and do them anyways. These
criminals will always find a way. If you outlaw guns that will start more
violence trying to get to them. You think criminals are all of a sudden going to
say: "I better not do this, it's illegal."? Such a thought
is naive. I played video games as a child that were violent and
guess what? The biggest thing I have ever killed was a rabbit--on the highway
in my car. FYI, it ran out in front of me, I didn't hunt it down.
Yeah, I've played plenty of violent video games, and I don't hunt or
kill anything. I remember shooting a crow in boy scouts and feeling dumb about
it. Never shot anything else again. I can't associate video game/TV
violence with actions I take in real life. It just isn't the case.
The first two comments express the opinion that because some people will refuse
to obey gun control laws, we shouldn't have such laws. This is tantamount
to saying that because some people will refuse to obey laws prohibiting rape and
murder, we should take those laws off the books and simply overlook rape and
murder. This is a recipe for disaster.The legislature believes that
the best way to prevent crime is to arm every man, woman, and child in this
State. This is so laughable as to be astounding. Anyone with any logic knows
that societies with more guns have more violence.The Eyre's
should be commended for taking a stand against violence. Hopefully, more will do
so before we devolve into a lawless anarchy plagued by freelance gunslingers.
Target shooting has been part of the Olympic program since the first modern
Olympic Games which took place in Athens in 1896. And no, target rifles are not
designed to kill.That issue aside Operation Fast and Furious was an
ill conceived Obama Administration operation which resulted in the arming of
Mexican drug dealers and the death of at least one US border patrol agent.
Unfortunately those individuals who cooked this plan up have taken the Fifth
Amendment right to remain silent when questioned by the US House.Fortunately for us the US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of our individual
rights to own and bear firearms.
The Census Bureau reported 23,000 murders and 83,000 forcible rapes in 2009. To
those 106,000 people, the police were not fast enough or near enough to stop the
crime. To those 106,000 people, they had no one to protect them except
themselves. It is obvious from the statistics that they were not able to
protect themselves.How many of them would have been murdered or
raped if they had been trained to kill their attacker?Yes, I agree
that violence in media is not necessary, but I do not agree that taking guns
from law abiding citizens is the solution - and neither do the 106,000 people
who were murdered or raped in 2009.
It's not the gun as a machine, it's the gun as an attitude.
That's where the problems come in.
I own guns because having a gun in my hand is much better than having a cop on
the phone! If guns cause crime then matches cause arson.
Re: Hutterite American Fork, UT"It's not the gun as a machine,
it's the gun as an attitude. That's where the problems come
in."We can all thank the private citizen with a gun who stopped
a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people at a Salt Lake City
Smith's store. He obviously had the right "attitude" whatever that
All more guns do is put guns in the hands of people who should not have them.
And what redeeming value do certain types of guns have in our society? Even
accepting the more extreme interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, it doesn't
say the type of guns can't be regulated.In any case, in
reality, I would bet that 99.9999% of all gun incidents are due to either people
acting in rage against those they know (family and friends), people with mental
illness, or people actually putting themselves in harms way. Guns are way
Re: Esquire Springville, UT"Guns are way overrated, folks."Try selling that fable to the Springville man who shot and killed an
intruder the police say woke the sleeping couple in their bedroom and demanded
they take him to an ATM for cash. As far as "extreme
interpretations of the 2nd Amendment" the US Supreme Court debunked that
fable as well.
Hutterite writes: It's not the gun as a machine, it's the gun as an
attitude.Those with an unreasonable phobia regarding guns embody
them with supernatural powers. Guns lurk in the dark shadows waiting to take
the life of unwary passersby. Killing someone while driving drunk is
understandable as long as a gun wasn't involved.
It is unnecessary to own a gun in Utah; it is more likely that the gun will be
used in an accidental shooting then to stop crime. A gun is not the only
way to stop a crime from being committed. Too many gun owners in this
state do not secure their weapons. We have children getting hold of
themGun owners leaving their weapons on top on their car and driving off.
Toilets being shot, tables being shot. Children accidentally shot
while hunting.We also have many gun owners that do not seem to me to have
commons sense, it seems that they go around dreaming of a chance to use their
weapon.They pull out their guns, rather than call the police to resolve
conflicts,In my opinion the risks of owning a gun outweigh the
benefits.I believe people have the right to own guns, but I also believe
gun owners need to be held more responsible when they do not secure the weapon,
and when it is used in an accidental shooting.
Look people. We can all find specific cases that justify our point of view.
We need reasonable gun laws.A 3 day waiting period is
not unreasonable.Limiting your ability to own a machine gun, an RPG a tank
or a drone also makes sense.When a guy in Prove walks around the mall with
a rifle, we need gun advocates to chastise him for showing gun ownership in a
bad light. And they should do it whether it is legal or not.And to
the anti gun people. Trained, reasonable people discretely carrying guns is a
good thing.I believe that what Hutterite meant when he said
"It's not the gun as a machine, it's the gun as an
attitude."is that those who carry a weapon strapped to their leg scare
me. They carry and display for the wrong reasons, just like the guy at the mall
in Prove.Others that scare me are those who carry but are not that
familiar or trained with their weapon. You know those people. They bought a
gun, went to a class and now carry it everywhere.
@ Rifleman, that fits within the miniscule percentage I left open. But for
every case like that, there are thousands of deaths by the unwarranted use of
guns by family, friends, crazies and stupidity. Weigh them. And as for the
Supreme Court, this court is right wing. So will you then accept decisions you
don't like, such as Roe v. Wade?
VIDAR writes: It is unnecessary to own a gun in UtahThe 2nd
Amendment to the US Constitution doesn't deal with whether it is necessary
to own and bear firearms. It simply gives us the right. For those who think a
cellular phone has some mysterious power to save their life or the life of a
loved one they are cordially invited to carry several of them. I feel much
safer around a man with a concealed firearm than I do around that drunk driver
behind me on the freeway.
Re: John Charity Spring: You've misunderstood my comment. I'm not
claiming because criminals ignore gun control laws, that we should not have
laws. I'm saying that because LAW-ABIDING citizens OBEY gun control laws,
they find it more difficult to defend themselves against criminals - who will
get guns regardless. So gun control laws actually lead to more people getting
robbed, raped, or killed, because these laws tilt the scales in favor of the bad
guys.Also, in previous years I've seen your same post that the
legislature wants to "arm every man, woman, and child in this state."
Your claim is preposterous, and undermines your credibility and the respect I
have for many of your posts on other subjects.Re: Joe Blow: If you
think a 3-day waiting period is reasonable, try telling that to a woman who is
attacked and knows that her attacker will return the following night.Re: Esquire: No, actually, the private citizen stopping the knife wielder
last week is the type of thing that happens ALL THE TIME (a couple of million
times a year), where the presence of a gun stops a crime, usually without a shot
Several years ago I purchased a sign that says, “We don’t call
911”. There is an image of a gun barrel pointing at the reader standing in
front of the sign that I hung on my gate. Under the image of a muzzle of the gun
it says, “Smile and wait for the flash”. I have never had a
burglary or been the victim of any other crime and not one innocent person has
been shot by my guns.
Flying FinnMurray, UTThe 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution
doesn't deal with whether it is necessary to own and bear firearms. It
simply gives us the rightRE: I believe people have the right to own
guns also; I just want gun owners held more resposible when the gun is used in
an accidental shooting, or if children get hold of it.MountanmanHayden, IDSeveral years ago I purchased a sign that says,
“We don’t call 911I also have hever had someone try to
break into my house, and I do not have a sign; if anything your sign would
cause a criminal to come armed if he wanted to break in. Plenty of
innocent people and children are shot becuase gun owners do not secure thier
@ Vidar. More children drown in swimming pools than are victims of gun
accidents. More children would be alive today if we banned swimming than banning
MountanmanHayden, IDso the chilren who die through gun
accidents do not matter?I can teach my child to swim, my child does
not drown because another parents fails to teach their child to swim.However my child can be shot because another parent has failed to secure their
weapons or fails to teach their child not to play with guns.either
way is is the fault of an adult that should be held responsible.
VIDAR writes: I just want gun owners held more responsible when the gun is used
in an accidental shooting, or if children get hold of it.Any
accident that involves serious injury or death is tragic. For some irrational
reason however the anti 2nd Amendment crowd places greater emphasis on an
accidental death caused by a firearm than they do an accidental death caused by
someone who inadvertently drives off the road and rolls their car. Perhaps we
should hold car owners more responsible when the car is used in an accidental
death, or if children get hold of it.It only makes sense if you are
When will the words "well-regulated" become part of the discussion?
"No, actually, the private citizen stopping the knife wielder last week is
the type of thing that happens ALL THE TIME (a couple of million times a year),
where the presence of a gun stops a crime, usually without a shot being
fired."Let's see some documentation on that claim of "a
Flying FinnMurray, UTThere are people in prison for accidental
automobile homicide. Perhaps they need to be joined by those who are not
responsible with their weapons. Of course with cars there is neglegence
which causes injury or death. in those cases there needs to be consequences.unlike a gun; a cars main purpose is not to kill.there can be accidental
deaths from cars that are an accident.There really should never be such a
thing as an accidental shooting, only properly trained individuals should use a
gun, and they should only shoot at something they intend to kill.
In other news today, Former NFL super star Junior Seau is found dead
of a self inflicted gunshot wound.and Four people are shot dead in Arizona
by man in body armor.Thankfully, none of the guns were violent.
LDS Liberal writes: Thankfully, none of the guns were violent.Only a
liberal would attempt to ascribe a gun with a personality as though it were a
living organism with a mind of it's own. Since the liberals insist that
the only purpose for guns is to kill, and since the Founding Fathers gave us the
2nd Amendment right to own and bear guns than the only conclusion that can be
reached is that the Founding Fathers wanted us to be able to take human life in
defense of our own.That would make gun owners "pro-choice".
"If you think a 3-day waiting period is reasonable, try telling that to a
woman who is attacked and knows that her attacker will return the following
night."And you believe that is more common than someone who in a
rage, goes to Walmart, buys a gun and kills the object of their rage?Look, we can always find exceptions to common sense laws and rules. And
sometimes the laws DO need to be changed. But, too many gun
advocates seem to long for the days where EVERYONE had carried a sidearm and
gunfights were common. That is not the society I want to live in.
Re: Joe Blow: When people start to talk about "common sense" gun laws
and "reasonable" gun restrictions, that's when I start to worry
about the safety of my community. Gun control laws tilt the odds in favor of
the bad guys.
I have guns in my home because it makes me feel safer.I don't
go around parading them in public, or even really carry one too often (I have my
concealed weapons permit). But I would rather be safe than sorry. Chances are
small that someone enters my house with a gun to do some damage to my wife and
me, but I would rather have a gun and feel safe than have to chuck steak knives
at them like a ninja.
Speaking of well-respected opinions, remember Paul Harvey? He was a radio
commentator who had a daily news and commentary show followed faithfully by
millions and millions of listeners. If you want to read what he had to say about
gun control, google "Paul Harvey gun control facts".After
you read his message on the results of 20th Century gun control, who has
historically implemented gun control, and what resulted in that gun control,
then you come back here and post your honest response about gun control. Gun control to keep guns inaccessible to the criminal is just a dream,
and will only infringe upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
I do concede that MUCH more needs to be implemented to identify and
help the mentally unstable members of our society, and our youth, . . . who are
so easily influenced by the media, . . .who then lash out violently, be that
with guns or with knives or with rocks. Paul Harvey also gives about
a dozen reasons why our society is in such turmoil, and why so many turn to
violence. Our violent society did not come about because of guns.
If you want to make the situation more unreasonable, unfair, and unbelievably
expensive--just put more government in the mix. I spent a quarter century
working with every level of government, and I can tell you emphatically that
government (like all other organizations that don't have competition)
operates 100% on politics. It's usually the worst and most expensive way
to address anything. Our lawmakers should be REPEALING laws, not writing more.
Passing more laws to control citizens will just cost more money, reduce
freedoms, and complicate more obvious situations. It doesn't work, it
never has worked, and it never will work. I don't need the government
making sure that my toilet tissue is soft enough or that I'm staying away
from sharp objects. I need the government out of my life as much as possible.
I'm surprised more taxpaying citizens don't feel the same.
one old man Ogden, UT"When will the words "well-regulated"
become part of the discussion?"They won't. The US Supreme
Court has answered the question and the discussion is over. For those who may
be unaware the Court voted in favor of the rights of the individual gun owner.
Our 2nd Amendment rights are "over-regulated" and so your question is
moot.My question is what was the Obama Administration thinking when
they decided it might be a good idea to provide firearms to Mexican drug
A knife was invented to kill... all you do is stab someone...A
hammer was invented to kill .... all you have to do is hit someone in the head
with it...So I guess guns are not the only thing invented to
kill...If you want to reduce gun crime, do what Viginia did....They created a law that lowered the boom on people who use guns in
criminal act. If said person is caught using a gun they first try them in State
court for any law they have violated, then they turn the guy over to us
government for any gun laws they have violated. The sentences can not run at the
same time. So if a the state law is 5 years and the federal law is 5 years, they
will spend 10 yrs in prison.they did this a gun crime went down 50
I'm more scared of drivers who text (two known deaths in the last few
months) than responsible gun owners. A good, reponsible gun owner stopped a
violent crime without having to shoot the bad guy. Would he have been
justified? Yes, he would have been under current deadly force laws. While I
like and respect the Eyer's, their feel good approach to life sometimes
doesn't wash with me.