Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Gun control’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Dec. 18 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

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

The author makes some good points about family breakdown, media violence, and isolation via electronic devices, but the comment that guns don't kill people is altogether trite and unpersuasive in light of the Newtown tragedy, which follows on so many similar incidents. Without a gun, the shooter would not have been able to slaughter so many innocents. I mourn for the victims and their families, and for the gun advocates who are deluded into thinking that free access to automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles is any kind of solution. Somehow I doubt that the framers of the Second Amendment would have condoned such access if they could witness its consequences in today's world.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

I don't feel sorry for gun enthusiasts at all. You all failed to set a responsible tone in this country regarding guns and instead fanned the flames of discontent, rebellion and glory of killing with assault rifles.

You deserve all the regulation you get in the near future.

ECR
Burke, VA

The author makes a legitimate point that our culture contributes to the gun violence that we have witnessed in mass killings over these past several years. But the statement that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is getting old and certainly doesn't belong in this discussion.

I think those who will fall on their sword (or their rifle) before they allow any gun laws to change should at least answer this simple question: Why is that last year, the United States, with 330M residents had 9120 gun related deaths and Germany, with 55M residents had 148 gun related deaths. One reason, it seems, is that there are approximately 10 times as many guns owned by private citizens in the US as in Germany. Of course the US is 6 times larger than Germany. So what is the rest of the answer? I'd like to know. Can anybody explain?

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Jan, the simplicity of your argument is one of reasons the discussion of how to prevent mass murders is so hard to have, and that is the discussion now... the prevention of mass murders. Someone as deranged as this person has problems far more serious and complicated than self alienation. I would say also that violence in games, tv, and movies has a tendency to de-sensitise an individual to violence (an issue directly related to guns) rather than lead them to self alienation. Shooting someone over and over in a game and having them just pop again the next time you turn the computer on is a very different outcome than developing a dislike for the character.

If the discussion is about preventing mass murders..you as a gun enthusiast have to explain and defend a weapon whos sole purpose is mass murder. Semi automatic high capacity guns have only one purpose and that is to kill many many people very quickly without the need for re-loading and giving your victims access to you.

Lastly you have to defend policies that allow the deranged unencumbered access to such a weapon.

Sal
Provo, UT

How can an ordinary citizen defend himself against an assault-carrying criminal if assault weapons are banned? The police? They arrived quickly at the Sandy Hook school but not in time. Criminals will always carry assault weapons whether they are banned or not.

What has the banning of illicit drugs done to prevent their use? Zip.

Why aren't we banning alcohol? It kills, too.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Screwdriver. As long as we have a society dominated by the secular progressives, the moral relativism cultures, we will continue to have these tragedies. Excellent examples of this are the evolution of the cultures we see everyday on the news in Chicago, Detroit and New York. As long as we have these cultures, a gun in my hand is much better than a cop on the phone for me and my family!

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@Mountanman

Aren't some of the most dangerous places in the world dominated by religious fanatics rather than secular progressives? You cite Chicago, Detroit, and New York. Perhaps they are dominated by "secular progressives," but I'll counter with Baghdad, Kabul, and Rio De Janeiro, which are cities hardly dominated by "secular progressives."

A gun in your hand may well be your best protection, but to blame a lack of religion for crime is just foolhardy.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mental illness has been with us for 6,000 years.
Guns have been around for 1,000 years.

Mass shootings (schools, malls, going postal, ect.) erupted 20 years ago.
SSRI medications were indroduced 20 years ago.

Coincedence?

Read the FDA warning labels on the box.
We've been warned.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

How about some resources for our abysmally underfunded public mental-health system?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

I say allow the sale of assault type weapons to Military, Police, or veterans of both.
We've had the proper training.

Keep them out of the hands of the general public.

I grow tired of people sighting Switzerland as an example.
Switzeerland has a 100% Military enlistemnet requirement.

so, if you want an assault weapon - join the Military.
And get the proper training.

Oh ya, and one other thing -- it's FREE.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ CHS. The difference between Baghdad, Benghazi, K. Korea and Tehran is not religion, its just the size and kind of the weapons, i.e. WMDs. Your example of Rio De Janeiro is a perfect example of leftist, secular progressive culture, not religion. Religion has NOTHING to do with gun violence. Switzerland, Sweden, Finland and Israel are among the highest citizen gun ownership countries, yet very low if any gun violence. The difference, again, is secular progressive, and moral relevance cultures that have infested much of America. I lived for two years in a small country in SE Asia where private gun ownership is banned! Only the crooks had guns and trust me, they used them frequently against an unarmed victim citizenship. History is full of nations were citizens were disarmed only to allow dictator (the only ones who had guns) to murder millions of defenseless citizens without moral conscience. Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim Jung Il. Mao tse Tung and Joseph Stalin to name a few of the more recent ones. Guns in American citizen's hands is our best defense against dictatorship.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Curmudgeon, ECR,
the statement "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is trite and getting old and certainly doesn't belong in this discussion.

just because you do not like a statement does not make irrelevant or untrue.

LDS Lib,
the DN publised an article by John Fund yesterday refuting your comment about mass killings erupting in the last 20 years. "In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

To Mountanman: Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland are all far more secular and progressive than the U.S. The U.S. is a theocracy compared to those three.

ECR
Burke, VA

Lost in DC - I would say that none of us should give equal status to statements from the Bible and those promoted by the NRA. The Bible has just a little more credibility, to me anyway.

And by the way, would you like to stake a stab at answering my question from my earlier message? Would anyone?

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Guns don't kill people but they make it simple. As killing devices, they are effective and easy to operate. So easy, in fact, that a child can work it. So easy that you hardly have to think about it. Just hold it in your hand, aim, and with a single movement of your finger you send a piece of lead flying through the air at 1200 feet per second or faster to tear through flesh, arteries, and organs before you can blink your eye.

After the bullet exits the muzzle, there is no calling it back.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

One of the stupidest statements I have ever heard (and I hear it every time someone massacres lots of innocent people) is "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Actually, it should be "Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people."

And for the record, guns sometimes do kill people. How often does a gun being cleaned go off and kill the owner? How often do kids find a loaded gun, and it accidentally kills one of them? Too often. So don't give me that nonsense about guns not killing people.

Gun deaths in the U.S. are so much higher than in those countries where strict gun laws prevail that we don't need to ask stupid questions about how we can prevent many of these tragedies. We will never prevent all of them, and our violent culture certainly needs to be reformed, but it is obvious that stricter gun laws are necessary. At a minimum, ban assault rifles. That's a no-brainer. And if you don't think so, well, as I said, it's a no-brainer.

a bit of reality
Shawnee Mission, KS

You'll be happy to know that folks who want gun control readily agree that guns do not kill people--people kill people. By the same token, please know that "gun control" has nothing to do with controlling guns--it's about controlling people. We are in favor of guns being left by themselves to be what they are. We simply want to restrict the ability of people--whom we agree are the cause of the problem--to aquire the instruments of death that are needed to committ mass murder.

Bifftacular
Spanish Fork, Ut

I am weirdly pretty neutral on the gun debate. I own a dozen guns but I also have some sympathy for the assault weapon ban argument. With that said, I can't listen to anyone too seriously that isn't at least consistent in their argument. Ban assault weapons because they kill people? Okay, great. Are you also just as - or even more serious about banning alcohol too? Drunk driving killed nearly 10,000 people last year along in the U.S - many, many of those completely innocent children. That's A LOT of Sandy Hooks EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Where's the outrage over that? Please... someone who is anti-gun but pro alcohol use enlighten us.

one old man
Ogden, UT

This is a problem that goes far beyond any simplistic discussion of either gun control or mental health.

It needs to be tackled very seriously while examining all aspects of it. It's society, mental health, culture, weaponry, and a perhaps a hundred other interrelated factors all rolled together into one incredibly complex casserole.

But this America. And if any nation can solve it, we can.

We just need to find the will to work together to do it. And that will require ALL of us to put aside preconceived notions -- no matter how sacred they may seem to us.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

"Please know, guns do not kill people; people kill people."

Says someone who then blames violent movies/video games. "the incessant violence that our children are watching at younger and younger ages "

A lunatic in China went into a school that same day and stabbed 22 children with a knife. The good news from that sad story is that unlike in Newtown, nobody died. Guns are manufactured for one purpose, to injure or kill. I'll buy the idea that people kill people... but guns make it a heck of a lot easier. Since the right to life is something that is supposed to be inalienable, I would think we would take reasonable steps to help preserve that. After all the Second Amendment itself specifically has the words "well-regulated" in it.

to comment

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