To Mike in Cedar City "often due to some latent safety defect" ...
"to be imprudently in the way of the bullet"Both of these actions
still require a human to load the gun, aim it and point the trigger. Guns do
not magically do so on their own. "modern gun technology has
exponentially expanded killer or criminal power" It has also likewise
expanded the capacity to protect and defend.
Thank you Ryan Phillips for your comments. They make more sense than the
All I will say is I am glad to live in Australia, where we rationally looked at
the violence of the gold rush years and our mass murder incidents and we removed
the majority of guns from society. It is not perfect we still have criminals
that have guns etc, but I would prefer to live here with our attitude to gun
ownership than in the US.
Mike in Cedar City writes: Planes are built with the purpose to transport
peopleTry telling that to the pilot of an F-16. Guns, like
airplanes, are built of various designs for various purposes. In the case of
the Second Amendment the Founding Fathers simply said "the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Until such
time as that amendment is repealed you are just going to have to get used to
being uncomfortable over it.
Eric Samuelsen:I'm a gun owner that would happily give up my
firearms if you could snap your fingers and have them ALL go away. But
that's not the world we live in. I don't expect I'll ever shoot
anything living. Even an animal. But I enjoy target shooting. Your statement
that grown up's find better things to do with their time is ignorant. What
one person does as a hobbie is not superior or inferior to others. My wife and I
enjoy going to the gym together, but I know people who play boardgames for fun.
One isn't "better" or more "grown up" than the other. The
people shooting clay pigions and shooting holes in targets are not the people
commiting drive by shootings and robbing stores as gun point.
All True Flying Finn. But one question-- Planes are built with the purpose to
transport people. We have a lot of Guns out there that were manufactured for
only one reason- to kill. Accidents involving technology can't always be
avoided. But we have the power to make it more unlikely that a school get shot
up with an tech 9, and a that bunch of children will die.
@Mike in Cedar CitySometimes wings fall of airplanes or their
engines explode and they crash killing all on board. That doesn't mean I
won't continue to fly. When it comes to guns fortunately the Supreme Court
didn't see it your way. Probably one of the reasons why Democrats in Utah
can't understand why we don't vote for them.
That old saw that "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" has
some logical flaws that gun oficionado's always seem to ignore. The first
is, that sometimes guns do kill people, often due to some latent safety defect,
and sometimes where the only human interaction with the gun is to be imprudently
in the way of the bullet. So, we enact certain safety regulations and laws in an
reasonable effort to protect the public. The second, is that modern gun
technology has exponentially expanded killer or criminal power. And it has done
so to the point that most reasonable people can see a critical need to put some
limits on gun technology and weapons distribution. But in the end, the
unreasonable always parrot this old saw in a vain attempt to justify their
one vote writes: Guns are designed to kill people.No, actually guns
are designed to fire bullets. Where those bullets go depends on where the owner
points the gun.
Guns are designed to kill people.
In 1976, Washington, D.C. instituted one of the strictest gun-control laws in
the country. The murder rate since that time has risen 134 percent (compared to
a rise of only 2% nationwide). In 1986, Maryland banned small, affordable
handguns. Within two years, Maryland’s murder rate increased by 20
percent, surpassing the national murder rate by 33 percent.On the other hand,
New Hampshire has almost no gun control and its cities are rated among the
safest in the country. Across the border in Massachusetts, which has very
stringent gun-control laws, cities of comparable size have two to three times as
much crime as New Hampshire. Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law.
It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited
from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license.
Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50
in all crimes and 47th in murders. States which have passed concealed-carry laws
have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated
assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent.
the argument "there are more cars so of course traffic fatalities are more
common" does not hold water. Statistics from recent years taken from Dept.
of transportation and CDC: Estimated number of Americans who own a car: 250
million. Number of annual traffic fatalities in America: 33,000. Estimated
number of gun owners in U.S: 80 million. Number of annual accidental gun shot
fatalities in U.S: 613. Statistically, accidental deaths by vehicles are almost
20 times more common than accidental deaths by guns, even when adjusting for
higher number of cars owned. The point to all this is that we shouldn't
have a knee jerk reaction and put strict bans on things just because they are
scary or we don't understand or agree with them. We don't hear cries
for bans on cars, only because we are familiar with them. Safe and responsible
gun ownership will go much further than gun control legislation that is ignored
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.
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?
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
@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.
"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.
"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.
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.
louie Cottonwood Heights, UTThe 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@Eric SamuelsenGet 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.
I simply cannot understand why we ignore completely the first half of the
amendment's text. Does no one understand the words "well
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.
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
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.
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.
Great letter. Well said. Gun control laws only make things more dangerous
for the law abiding.