Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Gun control’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, May 6 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

Great letter. Well said. Gun control laws only make things more dangerous for the law abiding.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Want to play the odds with guns? In order for a gun to be useful it needs to be accessible. If accessible I'll bet the odds are far greater that a grandchild is going to find the gun and harm themselves or someone else than a burgler is going to enter my house at night when I'm there and try and harm me. Both events occur and are anecdotaly used by advocates.

I'll also bet that the odds are greater that the grandchild incident would occur if I carried a gun than if I were out and about and found myself in a robbery where a gunman shot people. I've been in one robbery and everyone laid down gave up a few bucks and it was all over. Something I'd do every day if I thought it would help save a grand child...oh I guess I do.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Louisiana is the state with the highest firearm related homicide rate at 7.75/100,000. Vermont is the lowest at .32/100,000. Both states have no significant gun control laws, so there is not much of a correlation there. Obviously that's a limited sample, but clearly there are many other factors at play.

Interestingly in another section of this paper it showed Vermont as the least religious state in the country. It would be interesting to see correlations done on that score.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Guns are an attitude. In a society that finds the concept of entitlement repugnant, gun ownership is seen as an entitlement to use said gun without thought. People can drag out an astonishing array of statistics to support their argument on this issue so I'm not going to bother. But at some point we have to recognise that doing more of the same expecting differnt results is insanity.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

I just think it's pretty difficult to shoot someone with a swimming pool.

A swimming pool is for swimming in. I suppose a determined assailant could drown someone in one, but that's not what they're for.

Guns have really NO purpose except shooting something. They have no positive function. We're never going to make progress on violence unless we get rid of them.

one old man
Ogden, UT

I simply cannot understand why we ignore completely the first half of the amendment's text. Does no one understand the words "well regulated?"

tim_the_tool_man_taylor
PROVO, UT

@Eric Samuelsen

Get rid of guns?

If you believe in the law of the land, and that our founders were truly inspired, why would you ever make such a narrow-minded comment?

The article is not suggesting that swimming pools are used to shoot someone, but instead that they are tools that can be used for sport or harm. Just as one can drown in a swomming pool, a gun can be used to murder someone. Just as a pool can be used for sport and fun, so too can a gun be used for sport and fun. Obviously, you have never been clay pigeon shooting.

To suggest that we get rid of guns, based on your conclusions that they have no positive function is simply ridiculous. You should get out more often--maybe even for some target practice.

If we get rid of guns, what is next bows and arrows, I mean come on, what a joke of a suggestion.

We need to uphold the 2nd Amendment, as our founding fathers were inspired men.

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

Re: Eric Samuelsen: You say you want to get rid of guns, but I don't think you'd like the results. Prior to the existence of guns, the physically strong preyed upon the weak (using swords, clubs, knives, or bare hands), and millions of defenseless innocent people were slaughtered, robbed, raped, or enslaved. But now that many ordinary citizens own guns, suddenly a 98-lb. grandmother can defend herself against a young, strong, 250-lb. attacker. That's why guns are called "the great equalizer."

Yes, guns are misused when in the wrong hands, but if we were suddenly able to magically get rid of all guns, unfortunately we would return to the same old strong-preying-on-the-weak, with the same widespread horrific results. Partly due to ownership of guns by the common folk, we are a safer, more civil society (yes, in spite of the misuses of guns). The "great equalizer" concept keeps many bad things from happening in the first place.

We should seriously punish the use of a gun in the commission of a crime, but we should not make it more difficult for responsible law-abiding adults to keep and bear arms.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Actually, historically, the private ownership of guns accomplished exactly nothing when it came to reducing violence. It was only when a philosophy of non-violence took hold in society that violence was reduced. This notion that gun ownership reduces criminal violence is unsupported by evidence.
As for the Second Amendment argument, the operative word was militia. Gun ownership was vested in a government sponsored military force. The Founders recognized that the best way to reduce violence is to provide the state with a monopoly over firearm use. I'm all for cops carrying guns.
As for the suggestion that I've never been out shooting at clay pigeons, guilty as charged. Never been hunting, haven't set foot in a firing range since I was 12, and our Scout troop worked together on a merit badge. I thought it was kind of fun. So was archery. When I was twelve. Grown-ups find better things to do with their time.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Denmark & Sweden have low crime because of their heavy socialism, not because of strict gun control laws. Mexico has brutal laws and has only 1 gun store for the public to buy guns from. Gun laws don't do anything to lessen crime.

America doesn't have socialism. People can succeed or fail, but those who fail still feel entitled and will kill someone for their sneakers. Gun crime comes from a lack of morals, not a lack of laws.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: one old man Ogden, UT
"I simply cannot understand why we ignore completely the first half of the amendment's text. Does no one understand the words "well regulated?"

The US Supreme Court did address your question in two separate rulings as follows:

In 2008 the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

In 2010 the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Read it and weep.

louie
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Linda and Richard were speaking as parents and grand parents. Many of you should listen up. The proliferation of guns puts our children and young adults at risk. They can not pack heat to defend themselves and they become more and more vulnerable with each new weapon sold in this country. After it is said in done, even with the highest incarceration rate in the world, we still have crazies that can get weapons. Deaths caused by guns is way to high. In comparison check out the death rates in other civilized countries and you will be ashamed of what is happening here.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

louie Cottonwood Heights, UT

The proliferation of automobiles, knives, airplanes, boats, and tanning beds are putting all of us at risk. Deaths caused by cars produced by Ford Motor Company are way too high. Perhaps it is the texting and drunk drivers and not the cars we should be more concerned about.

The Obama Administration solution to gun control was Operation Fast and Furious that only succeeded in arming Mexican drug dealers. They should be ashamed …… but they aren't.

Ryan Phillips
herriman, ut

I am the author of the original post. Deseret News will not allow a link to be inserted here, but anyone can just Google statistics on violent crime rates and gun control and will see that my assertion is not hyperbole--it is back by a mountain of statistical evidence.

To clarify the point on cars or swimming pools--the fatality rate (by automobile accident) among automobile owners is exponentially higher than the fatality rate (by gunshot) of gun owners. By this rationale, we should enact more strict "car-control" laws to keep us all safe.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"the fatality rate (by automobile accident) among automobile owners is exponentially higher than the fatality rate (by gunshot) of gun owners."

Most people use their cars everyday. And sometimes for hours a day.

It is ludicrous to compare the two.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"However, the adage "guns kill people" needs to be put to rest. Guns are inanimate objects. They do not kill people any more than cars or swimming pools kill people."

Of course, there is the matter of... we regulate cars. We limit their use to people of a certain age, eyesight, and people who are devoid of certain levels of alcohol. Many swimming pools require lifeguards to be on duty and untrained swimmers to stay out of the deep end. So... actually you're making a good argument for regulation of guns.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@PeanutGallery
"but we should not make it more difficult for responsible law-abiding adults to keep and bear arms."

We live in a nation where you can go to gunshows and snag assault weapons without even having a permit to own guns as numerous exposes have shown. We live in a nation with the highest per person rate of gun ownership (way above second place Yemen). We live in a nation where gun sales have spiked the past few years and the only thing Congress has done on guns during this administration is pass an amendment to a credit card regulation bill that lets people bring guns into national parks. It's not difficult to keep and bear arms in this country and a bit more regulation sure is not going to change that.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re:JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
"It is ludicrous to compare the two."

Yes you are totally correct. The one is a constitutionally guaranteed right which the US Supreme Court has ruled applies to individual US citizens. The other is a privilege and not a right.

When it comes to understanding that basic concept the liberal left has proven to be mentally challenged.

louie
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Re Rifleman:
Your arguments make sense for our society 150 YEARS AGO, but needless killing will continue because of our inaction and irresponsibility. Are you all proud of yourselves?

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
"Your arguments make sense for our society 150 YEARS AGO"

We enjoy the same right to life today that our forefathers enjoyed 150 years ago. Nothing has changed. The world we live in today is actually much more dangerous than it was back then and that is all the more reason for the 2nd Amendment.

Luckily for those who support the 2nd Amendment we don't need your permission, blessing or approval. Thank heavens!!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments