Quantcast

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

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cjb
Bountiful, UT

I often hear the argument that there is no reason for a citizen to have an assult rifle. This couldn't be further from the truth.

The reason people are allowed to have guns under our constitution is so that when necessary they can serve in militias. Militias are not for hunting. Their purpose is to fight gangs, or invaders. Militias are the good guys. They are there to protect society, when the police can't. In this day and age, gun fighters have assult rifles. It doesn't make sense that the bad guys would have these and militias not. This is why it doesn't make sense to make assult rifles illegal.

Even though we can't constitutionally limit peoples right to have an assult rifle, we can deal with the problem of people shooting up schools and gatherings of people.

It starts with raising kids properly. Mothers who have children in their formative years, ought not work. They should stay home and provide emotional security and moral training for the children they have. We should encourage this, in the schools and even provide tax credits.

Grundle
West Jordan, UT

RE:Truthseeker

Thank you for your reasonable response.

The problem with the studies you mentioned are that they are very narrow in their scope.

For example...the statement you made "States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths." is true. However, the violent crime rate did not show the same correlation.

This is why a study needs to be commissioned. Like polling, we can influence the outcome by the nature of the questions we ask. Or...we can surmised a conclusion based on an outcome that is not truly correlated (as in the studies and articles you mentioned.)

We also need to avoid our natural tendency to predict outcomes that could have been if controls were in place. For example, when the recent incident of the football player occurred, many surmised that such an incident would not have happened if a handgun had not been present. We were willing to look at the negative and yet ignore what happened in a movie theater last week when an armed off-duty police officer stopped a shooter in the lobby of the theater. Anecdotal evidence abounds and is useless...we need empirical data.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Mountanman
Hayden, ID
@ One old man. Rambo has nothing to do with this.

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.

9:49 a.m. Dec. 21, 2012

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

Mountaman,

The facts and data all heavily conclude that
1 12 gauge security or "hunting" shot gun would do more damage and protect one "family" or property than a .223

By not only hoving 3 times the firepower, and 10 times the spray pattern,
the shot is less likely to penetrate walls or go futrther distances.

A shot gun holds limited rounds.
Say What 3-7?

I'll even go one step further and agree the can go for a handgun.


The DIFFERENCE is assault rifles can hold hundreds of rounds are the weapon of choice to these cooks to mow down innocent people.

Ban them,
Ban them now.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

cjb
Bountiful, UT
I often hear the argument that there is no reason for a citizen to have an assult rifle. This couldn't be further from the truth.

The reason people are allowed to have guns under our constitution is so that when necessary they can serve in militias. Militias are not for hunting. Their purpose is to fight gangs, or invaders. Militias are the good guys.

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

If you want to be in the Militia - per the Constitution,
join the National Guard.

Otherwise,
you are an un-regulated lonely citizen who should be thankful you can own ANY sort arms right now.

If I had MY way,
I'd only let Military Veterans own weapons.

You guys love tout Switzerland and Israel as such fine examples to follow,
the you must follow ALL of the example - 100% mandatory Military service.

Otherwise --
You remain just a bunch of unregulated, and untrained un-Militia red-necks to me...per the Constitution.

Noodlekaboodle
Millcreek, UT

For 95% of the population a shotgun, not a tactical weapon, is the most effective weapon for home defense, because you don't have to be a good, or even average shot to hit someone. If you insist on carrying at all times a pistol is better than an tactical weapon because it can be carried discretely. I'm an avid deer hunter, while you certainly can kill a dear with a military style weapon, a simple bolt action rifle will also do the trick. What practical application do you need a high capacity, semi automatic rifle for? What do you need full metal jacket or hollow point bullets for? Let's put some reasonable restrictions on guns. After all. the second amendment does say "A well regulated militia" to me that means there is some room for, ya know, regulation.

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

A ban on "assault-style" rifles is completely meaningless. Cosmetic features are irrelevant to a firearm's function.

The AR-15 (and clones) is functionally identical to the Ruger Mini-14, yet according to the 1994 ban the AR-15 was prohibited but the Mini-14 was fine. That makes no sense.

The only way to go after the weapons themselves would be to ban _all_ semiautomatic rifles capable accepting detachable magazines. Good luck with that.

Instead, re-institute the ban on hi-capacity magazines. That makes sense. Seriously, a limit of 10 rounds per magazine is still more than enough for self-defense, target shooting and hunting.

Magazines wear out faster than guns so you'll see the results from the ban far sooner than if you tried going after the guns themselves.

But if it's really another Connecticut or Tuscon or Colorado massacre you're trying to prevent, then the focus needs to first be on mental health awareness and intervention.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Mike in Cedar City" according to the statistics, more conceal carry permits and more handguns equate to less crime.

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.

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.

The point is, taking away guns is not the solution, and even removing semi-automatic rifles will not solve the problem.

The problem is mental health. How does making it harder for law abiding people citizens to buy guns fix the mental health problems in the US?

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Re LDS Liberal

The Constitution wasn't refering (exclusively) to the National Guard.

Certainly National Guard is one way to join a militia, but it is not the only way nor should it be. In the event of societial break down, such as an EMP nuclear bomb or solar flare taking out the entire national electrical grid, it may not be possible to call up the national guard.

Also if the national guard were all that the constitution were talking about, it wouldn't be necessary for people to be given the right to keep and bare arms. (The national guard keeps all guns at the armory). The kind of militia that the constution refered to was armed people in communities band together in times of emergency for the protection of the community, when the government can't or won't come to the rescue.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@Truthseeker said,

"Studies won't satisfy those who oppose gun laws. Those on the right can't even respect overwheming [sic] scientific studies on climate change. They don't care about facts or reality."

I have just one question. What does "gun control" have to do with "climate change?"

May I respectfully suggest that you are ranting? That convinces no one regarding the sincerity of your argument!

Now to demonstrate where your demagoguery fails to be convincing to me, please note the following regarding my position:

1. I do not own a gun of any kind.

2. I believe that assault rifles (automatically fires rounds until the trigger is released) should preferably be banned or at least controlled in some manner.

3. I believe that clip capacity should be limited to no more than 10 rounds per clip.

4. I subscribe to the purposes of the Second Amendment to the Constitution regarding other types of gun ownership.

5. Now the big one – I am a CONSERVATIVE Republican.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Grundle
"lets study the issue instead of proclaiming the problem as self-evident. "

10,000 people died last year due to shootings. Therefore, we have a gun problem that is self-evident.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Could've worked better with additional regulation like closing the gun show loophole that makes it easy for freaking anybody to just go in and buy a bunch of guns (like that Virginia Tech student working with Dateline or whatever program it was to see how easy it was to get guns at a gun show in the wake of the VaTech shooting).

airnaut
Everett, 00

@Noodlekaboodle
Millcreek, UT
After all. the second amendment does say "A well regulated militia" to me that means there is some room for, ya know, regulation.
11:24 a.m. Dec. 21, 2012

"regulated -- i.e., regulation" -- nailed it! hahaha!
Agreed!
Amen and Amen!

===========

cjb
Bountiful, UT
Re LDS Liberal

"The Constitution wasn't refering (exclusively) to the National Guard. [um, YES - it was.]

Certainly National Guard is one way to join a militia, but it is not the only way nor should it be. In the event of societial break down, such as an EMP nuclear bomb or solar flare taking out the entire national electrical grid, it may not be possible to call up the national guard.'

I was in the militray -- worked in the nuclear arm of the USAF in infact.
I'm more afraid of a bunch of unregulated, unskilled, and untrained rednecks running amok with guns & pitchforks than all the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons on earth.

Your MadMax post-apocolyptic story is funny however, -- fake, but funny none-the-less.

FYI -- Anarchy is the direct result of the breakdown of the chain of command, not the loss of weaponary.
All Soldiers know that.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Redshirt. "How does making it more difficult for law abiding citizen to buy guns fix the Mental Health problem"? A false analogy if I ever read one. There is no connection between someone becoming mentally ill and the purchase of guns. This discussion about the real problem is mentally ill people is a diversion for weak minds. Yes, we do need to see what can be done to keep weapons out of the hands of such. But the sad truth is that we lack any real capability to identify such persons until after they have comitted gun violence. If the weapons are available they will get their hands on them.

So, Redshirt making guns harder for law abiding (or not) citizens will not fix mental heath problems. But it will make it harder for nuts to get their hands on weapons. And that is what the objective of any real legislation should be. The NRA of arming school officials will lead to the largest increase in the scope of government in History and will create the environment for the implementation of a police state.
By the way, Redshirt, not all gun violence is committed by nuts.

jsf
Centerville, UT

2. I believe that assault rifles (automatically fires rounds until the trigger is released) should preferably be banned or at least controlled in some manner.

In Venezuela, civilians are not allowed to possess machine guns, sub-machine guns, carbines, pistols and revolvers, be they automatic or semi-automatic. Civilians are only authorized to hold bolt action .22 rifles and shotguns. Number of total gun homicides 2009: 11,000; Rate per 100,000 in 2009: 39.0. The corresponding rate for the U.S. is 2009: 2.98 per 100,000.

Facts are relevant. Now why the difference? All these anti gun ownership arguments that say the gun owners will not listen to facts. I'll give you a good idea, a corrupt government, and citizens that can not defend themselves from the government, Can you say 2nd amendment. Oh no because that is unreasonable to think our government would ever abuse the citizens. Obama is already campaigning for term three, Michele has said Obama can't get things fixed in the next four years he needs more time. Can you say Hugo. And remember Hugo has a high homicide rate.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death. Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death. This finding was particularly the case for males, who in general have higher rates of completed suicide than females do. The findings showing an increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are also consistent with previous research (14, 20, 23, 24), although, when compared with suicide, are not as strong. "
(American Journal of Epidemiology, 2004 "Guns in the Home and Rick of Violent Death...")

"CDC has been wary of studying gun issues after NRA lobbyists convinced Congress to cut into its funding after a series of studies in the mid-1990s were viewed by the NRA as advocating for gun control."
(Gun Rhetoric vs Gun Facts, Factcheck)

Noodlekaboodle
Millcreek, UT

@jsf
Let's go with your tin foil hat conspiracy worst case scenario. Obama really is the secret dictator that you are hoping he is. He stops all elections and declares himself president for life and orders the extermination of white people. You think a bunch of guys with AR-15's and AK-47's can really stand up to the might of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard? Those guns aren't going to stop anything if the government really wants to attack citizens. There isn't another military force on the planet that could stop the US military, let alone some guys in a Salt Lake City suburb who have no tanks, bombs, airplanes, ships or training. If you are really that terrified of our government you shouldn't support the massive size of our military.

one old man
Ogden, UT

jsf's post at 1:35 is a prime example of the kind of extremist paranoia that feeds the nonsense out there.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Mike in Cedar City" you failed to understand the question. The problem isn't the guns, it is the mental health problems that these people had. So how does taking away guns resolve the mental health problems?

All you are doing is disarming the public because of the results of a poor mental healthcare system.

The problem may not be the guns at all, but the drugs that we are pumping into people at alarming rates. From the Huffington Post we read "Medication Madness: How Psychiatric Drugs Cause Violence, Suicide, and Crime". This is again reflected in the warnings put on psychiatric drugs.

The US leads the world in psychiatric drug use, and most of the mass murderers have been on prescriptions for those drugs. If you do a search for it, most of the school shootings in the past 20 years were by people who were on psychiatric drugs. Start looking there before you go chasing rainbows.

Noodlekaboodle
Millcreek, UT

@Redshirt
Wasn't it St Regan who gutted the mental health system in this country in the first place?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Noodlekaboodle" I didn't know that Reagan developed all of the psychiatric drugs, and he is the one who recommended that US mental health professionals use them rather than go through the effort of helping somebody to learn to cope on their own.

Explain the connnection between psychiatric drug use and anything that Reagan did.

You probably can't, which is why you are grasping at straws trying to sound smart, when in fact you just look desperate.

to comment

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