Quantcast

Comments about ‘Nathan B. Oman: Good guys, bad guys and gun control’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 19 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
4601
Salt Lake City, UT

Assault rifles are for, well, assaulting. Good for our military, but with no civilian purpose. You collect them? The next thing you'll tell me is that my mustard gas collection is a danger to the public.

JKR
Holladay, UT

Today I took care of a man shot 4 times in a carjacking and robbery in Texas. His life is forever changed. I have helped take care of one survivor from the Trolley square shootings. Both these men are confined to a wheelchair and have terrible, chronic medical complications from their injuries.

I am also a gun owner. All 3 of my guns are locked tightly in a steel cabinet. They won't protect me in the event of a home invasion, but I recognize that they are far more likely to be used in a homicide or suicide within my home. Locking up my guns is part of protecting my family. My children don't have access to the guns. In fact, as a responsible gun owner, I am willing to follow the European lead, and would be willing to lock these guns up at a shooting range. Are there any other responsible gun owners out there willing to do their part to reduce gun violence in America?

one old man
Ogden, UT

Lledrav, when you are waiting for the fire department or police to arrive, time slows down dramatically.

But dispatch records in Connecticut indicate the first officers entered the building less than five minutes after the call was received.

The entire shooting incident took less than ten minutes -- allowing time for someone to make the initial call.

Someone firing and semi-automatic weapon can get off more than one shot per second.

The officers who first entered that school knew full well what they were up against. DO NOT denigrate their courage with a post like yours.

Grundle
West Jordan, UT

Re:Hutterite

"Good guys and bad guys aside, no gun control as a policy is insane."

Fortunately for us, that condition does not exist.

Re:One Old Man

"DO NOT denigrate their courage with a post like yours."

You missed the point.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "Are there any other responsible gun owners out there willing to do their part to reduce gun violence in America?"

Millions of us.

We and our kids/grandkids are safe with and around our guns, but they are reasonably available to protect our families in our homes. We are trained and ready to use them as protective tools -- many, like myself, during long military or police service. We often carry them with us [concealed, of course] into places where, though we hope it will never be required, but where we could protect ourselves -- and you -- in the face of a monstrous evil like Newtown.

We ask no thanks or permission, but we do wonder at the curious motivation of one so personally affected by monstrous evil, who would so willingly surrender to it and invite others to do the same.

one old man
Ogden, UT

No, Grundle. I didn't.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Nathan B. Oman" since you are a smarty pants lawyer, explain to us why making it more difficult for law abiding citizens to buy guns keeps them out of the hands of criminals? Japan has the laws you are asking for, yet their criminals find ways to get guns.

While you are out thinking, tell us how many violent crimes are committed by people who legally purchase and use their weapons.

To "4601" what good is a sports car that can go 150 mph? It has no purpose other than driving fast. Should we ban cars that go more than 75 mph from everybody except for race car drivers driving on a track?

Why can't citizens have something like a semi-automatic rifle (Assault rifle is a meaningless term because it is justa semi-automatic rifle) that they can go and shot targets or varmits for fun?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I spent 12 years in the Military.
He were all trained in using all sorts of "assault" weapons (they are not 'guns').
We all passed extensive background checks.
We all were "fit for duty" - including "mentally".

Guess what? M-16 were all secured in safes under lock-and-key -- 24/7/365.

MPs even had a SAFE in the chowhall at breakfast/lunch/diner.

The problem is the irresponsible Joe-Q-Public citizen.
Leave weapons (they are not guns) only accessible to those responsible enough to have them.

Why do "citizens" have $1500-$2000 for a Bushmaster XM-15,
but can't afford $399 for an 18 gun safe?

They are called SAFEs for good reason!

In the seerve, we were held personally responsible for any and all crimes or accidents for the weapons in our possession.

That’s what the mindset and responsibilities he had as soldiers.

Kind of goes the lines of all those yahoo's who insisted Pres. Obama was responsible for Fast and the Furious?
Why the DOUBLE-Standard about-face now?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Open Minded Mormon" tell me what the difference is between the Bushmaster XM-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch. Why should one be banned and the other remain legal? Just because you were trained doesn't make you an expert. I could buy a Cabela's 50th Anniversary Citori Shotgun by Browning for $2200 does that mean that it should bin included in your gun ban?

Your closed minded attitude shows that you live a double standard. You want to ban a gun based on appearance or cost.

Also tell us, how many people commit crimes with guns that they legally own and are permitted to carry?

If it is all about being responsible, should we also require "breeding" permits for people to have children? I would hate for people to be irresponsible with children and for any crimes or accidents that the children may commit. What about vehicles, should we make it tougher for people to get a drivers license? Look at the number of deaths due to cars.

You may have been in the military at one time, but it does not seem like you learned much while in training.

5th grade
Slc, UT

I am a 5th grade teacher and a retired Deputy Sheriff. I am tired of the word (Assault Weapon) when ever their is a debate on guns. First of all in the two shootings the one in Conn and Oregon the shoot used hand guns. Not assault weapons, but the media wants to get the big ban for the story so they lead with the term Assault weapon.

The Constitution is clear and that is why Assault weapons have not been banned as of yet. Guns kill, people kill. It doesn't matter the type of weapon. I just wished everyone would get off the ban assault weapons when someone gets killed.

When the police were called they all showed up with Assault weapons ready to use. No they showed up with guns and were prepared to use them to stop the threat before them.

As far as banning looked what happened when the Brady Bill went into effect, all everyone did is run down and buy the gun that they were going to ban and when it was all said and done the guns were not banned because the constitution said they could not ban them.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

re:Redshirt
Why don't you pose your questions to Justice Scalia? He believes the proper reading of the 2nd amendment would allow banning some firearms--such as those used for military purposes.

How could a gun ban help? Yes, the U.S. is awash in guns. Perhaps we should ban/restrict certain kinds of ammo. Eventually, if firearm restrictions were inacted and stayed in place, certain guns would be more difficult to get, more expensive etc. Perhaps it wouldn't be so easy for a criminal to obtain one.

Jack
Aurora, CO

I am quite curious as to the mechanism of making it harder for criminals to obtain guns. Please tell me how enacting another law on top of the existing laws would be more effective in restricting criminals from obtaining guns. If it is currently illegal for a felon to have a gun, and it is, then how is making another law prohibiting a felon from having a gun going to be more effective? Hint: they are criminals already because they broke the law, so breaking another one doesn't matter. Refer to Oregon and Connecticut, one stole the weapon, the other killed to get it. So? How is this going to work?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Jack
Aurora, CO
I am quite curious as to the mechanism of making it harder for criminals to obtain guns.

===================

Do you know what a gun "SAFE" is?

Read the comments.

Even the Police and Military keep then under lock and key 24/7/365.

You guys all want your guns (aka, assault rifles are weapons, not guns)
but don't want to take or accept ANY of the responsibilty they entail.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" but according to the FBI, most deaths caused by homicides where a gun was used involve hand guns, not rifles. See Washington Examiner article "If you want to end gun deaths, don’t start with rifles" Apparently handguns are used more tha rifles. In fact, according to FBI statistics, more murders are committed with knives OR hand and feet OR other non-gun weapons than are committed with rifles.

Again, the statistics and data show that rifles are not the weapon of choice for crime. They are blamed the most, but not used the most.

According to FBI statistics we should ban hand guns if you want to blame a gun. However, when you read "MILLER: Gun ownership up, crime down" in the Washington Times you find out that we need more people with CC permits and handguns because that helps to lower crime rates.

You want to take away people guns, but don't want to take responsibility for the increased crime that comes with it.

ECR
Burke, VA

"These also are not the kind of people who start shooting innocent children, nor does their culture encourage such things."

I totally agree with everything stated in this op-ed except that staement above. Unfortunatelky we ALL live in a culture that encourages such things. Look at the most popular video game sales. Look at the most profitable movies. Look at virtually everything about our culture and it equates to a culture where might is greater than right and the meek and peaceful are not only subject to the harm perpetrated by the bad guys but are typically ridiculed by the good guys as well. Until we return to a peace loving culture that values reasonable discourse over paranoia and false images of John Wayne heroes we will continue to see tragedies like Newtown occur more frequestly.

Schwa
South Jordan, UT

I keep seeing comments about robbery. Please remember that if an unarmed burglar is stealing your stuff and not threatening your life, and you shoot him, that is murder.

Parry is a Farce
Layton, UT

@Schwa

You need to figure out what you are talking about.

Robbery: The felonious taking of personal property from someone using force or the threat of force.

A "robber" uses force to commit theft. Using like force against a "robber" is justifiable.

Burglary: Entry into a building illegally with intent to commit a crime, esp. theft.

A "Burglar", usually tries to commit their theft when no one is around. So shooting an unarmed burglar IS murder. But using a gun to stop a robbery is likely justifiable

durwood kirby
South Jordan, UT

Mr. Oman is spot on. Thanks, Desnews, for printing this one.

Cincinnatus
Kearns, UT

Redshirt, I would have to question your gun ownership and "expertise" simply based on your reading comprehension.

You might take note that Open Minded Mormon did not advocate banning a gun simply based on its expensive price tag. His question was, if someone can spend SO much on a weapon, why can't they also spend a fraction of that amount on a safe to secure them?

In your subtle name calling at the author of the article, which makes me question how you handle situations, you use cars as a comparison point. With cars, we require training (driver's education), testing (DMV), and licensing (by the state through the DMV), and periodic renewals. We also require the owner to insure their vehicle. I'm not advocating banning all guns, but I certainly think that we would could put more training, testing, and licensing in place. If nothing else, this places better trained individuals in place to use a weapon when it is needed. And maybe a requirement of owning a gun should be some form of insurance (I.e. owning a gun safe).

Malachi
Riverton, UT

We should point out that Connecticut has had one of the most restrictive sets of gun control laws in the United States since 1994. Do you see exactly how much it helped at Sandy Hook?

We should also point out that contrary to media reporting absolutely none of the guns that were used in killing 26 people in Sandy Hook would qualify as an assault weapon. None. And every one of the weapons used were legally registered.

Please consider that after the assault weapons ban that existed from 1994 to 2004 a commission studied the effectiveness of the ban and determined that it had absolutely no effect on crimes which used such weapons. None. Criminals simply don't care about such laws. That is why they are criminals.

So we are left to ask what exactly is the best thing to do about violent crimes such as Sandy Hook. May I suggest that we begin in Hollywood by eliminating all the movies that glorify mass murders and violence? Or would that tread on yet another culture that has become more mainstream? And is there a connection? ...

to comment

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