Comments about ‘Letter: Assault weapons ban, colossal failure in 1994’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 21 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Casa Grande, AZ

Gun lovers are pretending that assault rifles are just like hunting rifles yet their own publications say otherwise. Not mention these same people claiming there is no difference are paying 5 -10 times as much for the assault "tactical" type rifle. What for then?

The are dozens of publications dedicated to assault type "tactical" weapons that go into great detail of the nuances of those types of weapons. A hunting rifle is great for making 1 shot accurately.

You might want to use a tactical rifle if you were hunting AN ENTIRE HERD of buffalo.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Need to go beyond that earlier ban. Otherwise the second amendment will have to be repealed.

liberal larry
salt lake City, utah

You're right, the new gun laws need to be tougher!

We need to get rid of the gun show loop hole, and ban military type, assault weapons.

Tooele, UT

Re: "Assault weapons ban, colossal failure in 1994"

Just as the coming 2013 ban will be.

Banning a gun whose action is identical to hundreds of others simply because liberals don't like its looks is not only foolish, it's the perfect illustration of knee-jerk liberal politics -- the elevation of sophomoric symbolism over substance.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

This letter is the usual drivel from the Gun community. But he is right, the Brady Bill was not nearly as effective as it should have been, saturated as it was with loopholes and amendments that weakened it enough to gain passage. But, that can not be an excuse for not passing effective assault weapons legislation, or even a constitutional amendment if necessary. There can be no liberty without life, and no happyness either.

Those that fight against reasonable legislation to solve this horrendous problem, or bury their heads in the sand, will have blood on their hands. There are sins of commision and sins of ommission, but they are all sins just the same. So, pick your side. Are you for life, or the for Gun Manufacturers and their syncophant the NRA? Are you on the side of life, liberty, and happiness, or on the side of profit, because that is what this fight is really all about. It's not really about civil rights as those conspiring men would have us believe.

Eugene, OR

So 20 innocent children are slaughtered and three people on the Opinion page respond by doubling down on their Rambo fantasies. Besides one's insecurity, what legal reason is there to own an automatic weapon?

Hayden, ID

@KJB1. Because criminals will always get any kind of weapon they want! No law will stop them, no law will protect you from them! The police can not protect you either any more than the police protected those poor children in Ct. The only security you and I have is to protect ourselves! That's why!

one old man
Ogden, UT

What is most frightening is that right now there are thousands of people flocking into guns shops (which, by the way, outnumber the number of McDonalds in America) to buy even more weapons of mass destruction for their personal arsenals.

They are determined to make any future efforts to control these dangerous and unnecessary weapons more difficult. But I guess that is the aim of those who have overdosed on hate radio paranoia.

Even more frightening is the question of when some of these people will be prodded by their own mental problems and the rants they hear on hate stations into opening fire on other Americans.

one old man
Ogden, UT

And once again the gentleman from Idaho is demonstrating his Rambo fantasies for all to see.


Larry Alan Burns, the federal district judge in San Diego who just last month sentenced Tuscon shooter Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison, is no darling of the gun control movement.

Burns is a self-described conservative, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, and he agrees with the Supreme Court's decision which held that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for self-defense. He is also a gun owner.

But while sentencing Loughner in November, Burns questioned the need for high-capacity magazines like the one Loughner had in his Glock, and said he regretted how the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. Reacting to last weeks mass shooting, , Burns called for a new assault weapons ban with some teeth this time.

Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, Burns wrote. Don';t let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether its called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it."

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

The NRA. Their solution. Arm everyone, because we all have a target on our back. Put cops in all schools. Wow! How about armed cops in every shopping center, movie theaator, park, church, hospitals, gas stations, restaraunts, office buildings. And to be sure we are safe arm every citizen with a 50 caliber automatic weapaon or two. One could be mounted on our front port and another on the back of our 4 wheel drive truck. No truck? Well to be safe you will just have to buy one.

Hayden, ID

@ One old man. Rambo has nothing to do with this. Let me try to explain it again. Not many years ago a man moved here from another state and broke into a family's home and brutally murdered both parents with a hammer. He then took the two kids to a remote area where he raped both of them for days and then he murdered the young boy. He took the young girl to Coeur d'Alene to a cafe where a waitress recognized the little girl and called police. That man still sits in prison appealing his arrest. Now, it is highly possible that had that father or mother had owned a gun, that family would not have been destroyed by an evil man! I would do everything in my power to protect my family from this ever happening to any of them. If you feel differently, that's up to you. but for me, I will not, can not allow that to happen to my family.

Eugene, OR


Regardless of what propaganda wants you to believe, only a very small fringe wants to ban all guns. If someone wants a rifle to hunt with, fine. If someone wants a gun for self-defense, they should have that right. What I'm talking about are the assault weapons that can fire twenty bullets at the flick of a finger. What legal justification is there for needing that?

I'm not claiming we can stop every gun-related crime, but we can do a lot better than we have been. The gun-loving crowd's response seems to be that we should just throw up our hands and arm everybody because...I don't know. So they can go on feeling powerful, I guess?

Newtown has made it abundantly clear that doing nothing is no longer an option. Something has to change.

Provo, UT

Mountanman, I can see your point. But why would you need an assault type weapon for this type protection? I know a lot of people just use them for fun, but why is someone's fun more important than trying to stop, for example, a group of 6 and 7 year olds from being shot 10 or 11 times each?

one old man
Ogden, UT

And yet again, the gentleman from Idaho sidesteps the real question.

WHY are high capacity, semi automatic assault weapons needed? Is he such a badly trained poor shot that the only way to protect himself is by using a spray of poorly aimed bullets?

What is wrong with regulating high capacity semi-autos and closing loopholes that allow easy access to such weapons?

I have no problem at all with someone using reasonable tactics of self defense. The question now is what is reasonable and what is not.

Regurgitation of the same tired talking points will not answer the question. It will require some real, honest-to-gosh THINKING and an exercise of wisdom.

Both seem hard to find in some quarters these days.

West Jordan, UT

It is interesting that the left is readily drawing the correlation between the shooting in Connecticut and Gun control.

My opinion is...lets study the issue instead of proclaiming the problem as self-evident.

Let's commission a research group to study the actually efficacy of gun control laws with all its contextual factors and determine if this is a wise course of action.

Instead we are have discussions where inflammatory phrases such as "colossal failure", "horrendous problem", " blood on their hands", " innocent children are slaughtered", "Rambo fantasies", "weapons of mass destruction", and "hate radio paranoia".

Let's have the study and accept the findings.

My guess is that those who use the inflammatory language really don't care about the facts and are more emotion driven than logic driven.

My daughter asked me if I thought it was safe at her high school today...I replied that it was statistically safer than the drive to her school.

And yet...I don't hear any of the people above that I quoted using the same language in their comments about cars and driving...Strange.

Hayden, ID

Old man, because the definition of an assault weapon is arbitrary. Some would expand it to mean any gun, that's why.

Orem, UT

We need a law that says "only good people can own guns". Bad people can't have them. That will fix everything.



Studies won't satisfy those who oppose gun laws. Those on the right can't even respect overwheming scientific studies on climate change. They don't care about facts or reality. Otherwise your suggestion might be a good one.

The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.

Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.


Truthseeker - you're saying that Washington, DC and Chicago should have the lowest rates of gun violence. Study that.

to comment

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