Comments about ‘Gun control debate begins to simmer after massacre’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Dec. 17 2012 10:05 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

Worf, people in Switzerland are not required to have guns. That statement is factually incorrect.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Want to save lives? Ban:

* abortion
* alcohol

LDS Liberal--my neighbor is from Geneva, and I grew up on military bases.

This is one of the few times I agree with you.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: ". . . people in Switzerland are not required to have guns.

This statement, while factual, is also misleading. Perhaps intentionally so.

The Swiss military has a tiny professional cadre, with draftees between 18 and 30 [34 for officers] composing 90%+ of its numbers. Since 2003, it has been on a downward glide path toward an overall strength of about 200,000, though its current strength is probably higher.

Swiss soldiers ARE required to keep their assigned weapons and equipment at home.

So, technically, they are not required to own them -- they belong to the Army -- but they ARE required to keep them at home, as well as clean, maintain, practice, and drill with them. The cost of practice ammunition is subsidized.

At discharge, Swiss soldiers may elect to keep their issued weapon [after de-mil to semi-auto]. Most do.

The point? High gun ownership rates [1/2 that of the US]. Most current and former soldiers possess guns in Switzerland. Where gun violence is rare.

That's a fact.

xscribe
Colorado Springs, CO

I agree with everything you wrote except saying that somehow my comment was misleading. Worf said it was a requirement that everyone own a firearm. That is not correct. Nothing misleading about that, intentional or otherwise.

However, if you can point us to reliable evidence that says gun violence in Switzerland is directly related to folks owning firearms, I would welcome it. Please point me in that direction. Without evidence, it is only opinion! And that's a fact!

UT Brit
London, England

Also a note about Switzerland, they have the worst gun violence statistics in Western Europe. They also have strict gun control as well.

jwarkentin
Riverton, UT

LDS Liberal,

You have to start from a realistic perspective. Guns are already out there. This isn't the military - it's not so easy to control. How are we to get rid of everyone's guns? Even if you tried going door-to-door and taking them, you wouldn't be very successful for several reasons. 1) People would try to defend their right by using their guns, 2) People would hide and stock-pile them, and 3) There would still be a black market (like drugs) feeding them into the country. So fact is, there will always be people with guns. The question is, will the good folk doing nothing wrong have guns to defend themselves with? As one police officer said recently, "when seconds count, cops are only minutes away". People need to have a way to protect themselves.

You said "I'm more afraid of right-wing 2nd amendment remedy folks right here". Assuming you have a gun and you know how to use it, as you claim, then you really shouldn't be too afraid. Besides, how many of those folks are actually the ones doing the shooting? None that I know of.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

What seems to be forgotten is that there are literally millions of legal assault type guns already existing in the U.S.. That means that even if a ban on new sales was to go into effect, there would still be a thriving market for used weapons for many, many years to come. On top of that, it's not difficult to buy separate parts and assemble your own gun. All things considered, this talk of banning new sales of such rifles is just feel-good talk for political gain... an attempt to make the public feel better, but without much realistic effect.
Considering the tens of millions (or more) of guns currently in the USA, a person could always find a way to get one, no matter what laws Congress passes. And if someone wants to kill a bunch of people badly enough, there are many other ways of doing so without the use of guns.
Guns shouldn't be blamed in these types of deaths, anymore than cars should be blamed when a drunk driver kills someone on the road. It's the person shooting or driving who is the real cause.

Tators
Hyrum, UT

I'm absolutely certain that nearly every one of the teachers, and especially those that were victims, would've much preferred to have had a gun with the knowledge and training to use it, rather than just standing there defenseless and getting shot, as was the case last Friday.
Because of the school intercom system (and the janitor), each teacher had prior warning that the wacko was in the school and what his intentions were. As such, had the administrators and teachers had ready access to guns for defense purposes, and been trained on how to skillfully use it (as teachers are in Israel), there is absolutely no doubt that many innocent lives would've been saved last Friday.
In fact, if it was common knowledge that all teachers are well armed and trained in gun defense, it's extremely doubtful that wacko would've even gone to any such school in the first place. He committed suicide at the first signs of resistance.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Many men, women, and children have been killed along the border by American weapons flowing through ATF to cartels.

Why was there an executive order halting an investigation, and where is the tear?

to comment

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