Quantcast

Comments about ‘Police: Oregon mall shooter used stolen rifle (+video)’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 12 2012 6:27 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
one old man
Ogden, UT

Yet despite too many incidents like this, our legislators haven't enough courage to try to stand up to the insanity of the NRA and other gun nuts to try to find a good way to stop this kind of insanity.

The Second Amendment does not need to be scrapped. Just find ways to effectively screen potential gun buyers and to eliminate the "need" for assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

Brave Sir Robin
San Diego, CA

@one old man

"The Second Amendment does not need to be scrapped. Just find ways to effectively screen potential gun buyers..."

Did you even read the article? It says the shooter STOLE the gun. He didn't buy it. He STOLE it.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Yes, I read it. But are assault weapons needed by anyone other than the military? Screening is just one of many things we need to do when it comes to possession of weapons capable of mass destruction.

Coach Biff
Lehi, UT

Typical liberal reaction. Unless the AR is illegally modified, it is nothing more than a military looking semi automatic rifle. Do you anti-gun guys want my Marlin .22 cal also? It's semi automatic. Does it need to be classified as an "assault weapon"? Bad people do bad things.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . are assault weapons needed by anyone other than the military?"

You wouldn't ask that if you'd ever had someone shooting at you with an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine.

The whole idea behind the Second Amendment is that we should be able to arm ourselves, at least to the same degree as the bad guys, so we are not left to the tender mercies of people like this shooter. And, make no mistake -- whatever any deranged, demonic gun-control law may or may not permit, people like this shooter WILL have serious firepower.

There's an appropriate old saying -- "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight."

Or a small handgun, shotgun, or bolt-action rifle -- with a 5-or-so round capacity fixed magazine -- to protect yourself from a madman assaulting your home with an AR-15 with a 30-round banana clip.

Meadow Lark Mark
IDAHO FALLS, ID

I agree totally with the notion that we need to be able to defend ourselves. Why legislate laws so only criminals have the guns. We must be able to defend ourselves. If someone comes into my home I need to be able to defend myself. Do I need to repeat myself anymore?

one old man
Ogden, UT

There is a big, big difference between being able to "defend" oneself and being on the offensive.

Paranoia is a powerful form of irrational fear.

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but there is no law against carrying a weapon as long as it is not concealed; and if one has a concealed weapon permit, then they have the right to carry a concealed weapon. Am I correct so far?

Then why was there no one there at the mall with equal fire power to stop this guy except the police? And if he person's gun hadn't jammed, how many more would have been killed. Unless we go back to the wild west days where everyone is packing, then the argument that we need to be able to arm ourselves with semi and automatic weapons is ridiculous.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

We have by far more guns per-capita than any other nation in the world. It hasn't made us safer or kept government officials from doing pretty much anything they want.

lesson: 1. Guns don't prevent crime - people do. 2. Guns don't prevent anarchy - people do.

If you are a gun nut, I guess you can be, but you are just admitting that violence is still the first way you think of in handling life's problems. It takes a lot more courage to be like Gandhi or like most of the rest of the people in the country. You are not a majority.

You can buy more guns, my guess is you will never feel safe. Get some counseling.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . why was there no one there at the mall with equal fire power to stop this guy except the police?"

Because in the People's Republic of Oregon, as well as various of its municipalities and many private properties -- probably including this mall, though we're unlikely to hear it in the state-controlled media -- access to the means necessary to defend oneself is either tightly controlled or prohibited.

Liberals always invoke the "Wild" West to instill fear of guns. Most of that "Wild" West of yesteryear was, however, safer than it is today -- at least in part because people were more likely then to be carrying self-defense arms.

The the credible threat of confrontation with an armed citizen, willing and able to defend himself, operated then -- as it would today -- as a deterrent to criminals and crazies.

Alas, that threat is no longer credible, however, and we're seeing the results.

freedom in 2017
paradise, UT

old man
we ought to make a law against stealing weapons from someone. I think that wll eliminate this problem. Libs love to react to everything with restrictions, taking away rights and more laws. How about enforcing the ones on the books?

azgal
Buckeye, AZ

DN-- the title would be more accurate if it read: "Oregon mall shooter used rifle stolen from someone he knew" rather than as you currently have it, stolen rifle from someone he knew... I had to read the article to find out if he (the shooter) stole it, or if he used a rifle from someone he knew who had stolen it.

To the rest of you readers -- the thing that convinced me that we SHOULD have guns is an article posted in the security office of my campus that I read a few years back. I can't quote it now, but it was a VERY good article about how society is actually SAFER when people have guns.

I for one would prefer to have had other people have guns with/on them if some deranged criminal starts shooting in the mall or movie theater or park that I'm in.

The whole point behind the 2nd amendment is so that CITIZENS can defend themselves against a rogue government or invasion of some sort. If the early colonists didn't have their own guns, do you think we'd have an America today?

Mark B
Eureka, CA

I don't understand why patriotic types like proc don't simply suggest keeping your "serious firepower" locked up until such time as it's needed to fight off the big, bad government.

In the meantime, we could also combine the Second Amendment with the Nanny state by adopting a policy of giving "beginner" weapons to 12 year olds. This will keep employment in the firearms industry high even if peace breaks out. And if local crime fails to go down, we can restore the "Peaceful West" implied by proc by giving the adolescents TWO guns apiece. That should solve all our problems.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "And if local crime fails to go down, we can restore the "Peaceful West" implied by proc by giving the adolescents TWO guns apiece."

Might work. Kinda like Switzerland.

It's worth a try.

One thing we know does NOT work is gun control.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

We'll never know whether "gun control" works here, because we won't try it. The countries which HAVE, however, have gun crime at a fraction of ours. All I said was that they should be locked up, and I'm amazed that anyone could oppose THAT.

to comment

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