Comments about ‘Letter: Protect gun rights — irrational gun control won't solve problems’

Return to article »

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

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

The great american experiment of "more guns are safer" will sadly continue. While the results have been disappointing, we are going to double down if the NRA and minions have anything to do with it. Gun lovers will continue to try to insert guns into every problem we have. I guess if you love guns everything looks like a target. Hammer to nails.

We have by far more guns per capita than any other. Twice as many as the nearest competitor.

Whatever you imagined it was going to solve, should have been taken care of by now.

But for the love of guns, love has reasons of which reason knows nothing of.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Need either more control or repeal of Second Amendment. It has to be done, guns in the house, none not locked up on the street.

Burke, VA

Over the past week I have read countless opinions stating the more restirctions on gun ownership will not prohibit the tragedy at Newtown and others like it from happening agsain. Some of these arguments are compelling and show legitimate evidence of truth. But what I haven't heard is any solution to the problem at hand. Do the writers of those opinions believe we should just throw up our hands in frustration? Do they genuine believe that first grade teachers should be equippoed and trained with a firearm in their classroom. Is that kind of environment they want 6 year olds to be taught in? Surely there are more answers than that. Surely there is a reason that the United States has ten times more gun related deaths per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world. Can't we at least talk about it and see if there is something we can do. Don't we all want the same thing - a more peaceful and secure world? What is the answer? Let's lay it all out on the table, for once.

Tooele, UT

Re: "Need either more control or repeal of Second Amendment."

Yeah, that'll do it. Let's make a new law. Criminals don't respect the ones we now have, but they'll surely respect a new one.

Making sure we grow the pool of law-abiding, defenseless victims, while doing nothing of consequence to actually reduce criminal access to the tools they'll use to victimize us, sure makes a lot of sense.

To liberals.

Hayden, ID

@ Screwdriver. Please explain to us why you think criminals will obey more gun laws? Criminals are criminals BECAUSE they will not obey laws. All gun control laws do it restrict honest people from protecting themselves and makes it easier for criminals to murder, rape and rob. Case in point; Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country and is the murder capitol of the nation!
The solution in part is to make crimes committed with guns mandatory prison sentences for life, or execution by firing squad or hanging! Make the punishment fit the crime. Ultimately gun control laws do not prevent crime.

Ogden, UT

"There seems to be a lot of emotional calls for gun control in the wake of the school shootings"

File this letter under the "emotional call for uninterrupted gun access" category. The letter writer waxes paranoid about defeating terrorism with your own personal armory and ignores the danger that firearm ownership poses to members in your own household. Today on the front page is the story of former marine Eric Carlton accidentally shooting his brother in the head with the firearm that Mr. Tischner erroneously believes will only be used on criminals by patriotic citizens. This is far from an isolated incident, and there is evidence that a handgun in a home is more likely to be used against a home's occupants than against an intruder.

We have this irrational juvenile fantasy in the country that gun wielding wunder-citizens are going to be able to stop Sandy Hook and Aurora style shootings without causing a lot of collateral damage in their wake. If strict gun control is an oversimplified and ineffective solution (which it is), gun right protection is doubly so. The truth is a bit more complicated than Mr. Tischner wants to believe.

one old man
Ogden, UT

And again in several comments here, we see a continuing display of such hate and paranoia and hero fantasies that we should all be very concerned.

I question the mental stability of some who frequently post here. Their endless strings of quotes from hate radio or the pages of NRA publications certainly do not evoke a picture of mental and emotional stability.

Provo, UT

I own guns and I grew up with guns (no military type or assault type weapons -- I'm not trying to prove how macho I am). However, I would like the people posting on here who say they think there should be no ban whatsoever on any type of gun to explain why the US has more gun deaths per capita than any other country. Why is that? Are we more crazy? Are we more Godless? I don't think so. Explain that to my satisfaction and I will agree with your theory that the more guns the better. Clearly we need more regulation that we've got right now.

Murray, UT

What is needed is responsibility and accountability by gun owners: keep your weapons secure. And that does not mean in a glass gun case.
There is no excuse for a child getting hold of a gun: if it happens and someone dies; then the gun owner should be held civilly and criminally responsible.
If a gun fires and hits a toilet, or table, or person; the gun owner should be charges and held civilly and criminally responsible.
It should be illegal to sell a gun to a known criminal or mental ill person: if you sell a gun to a criminal or mentally ill person at a gun show: then you should be held civilly and criminally responsible.
I would release the gun seller if they have made a reasonable effort to ensure they are not selling the gun to a criminal or someone who is mentally ill.
But that is not what happens: at the gun shows they sell the guns to whomever shows up to buy it.
If a gun owner cannot follow these rules: then they should not be allowed to buy a gun.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Laws punish people AFTER they have done something. We have all kinds of laws that will PUNISH anyone after they have used a gun or a knife or a club to hurt someone else. No law will prevent someone from breaking a law.

The fallacy in "controlling" guns as a way to prevent a tragedy like the latest school shooting is seen in the fact that the shooter broke the law by having a pistol in his possession when he was only 20 years old. The law requires that you have to be 21.

The law that restricted his access to pistols did not stop him. Law did not stop Cain from killing Able. Law has not stopped anyone who has killed another. Thinking that a law will stop crime is shown to be false everyday in every newspaper in America.

Criminals don't think about the law. They never have. They never will. Laws don't stop criminals from being criminals. Gun laws do not stop criminals from using guns.



Chicago's gun laws were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2010 and since then Chicago has seen a significant rise in homicides, despite adding more police.

We do need federal gun laws. As long as someone can purchase a gun in a neighboring state with less stringent laws, gun restrictions will be less effective.

We also need to address mental health issues and gang violence.

Burke, VA

Truthseeker - Thanks for pointing out an important point. The District of Columbia used to to have a ban on owning anc carrying weapons until the "States Rights" loving conservatives in Congress stepped in a did away with it. But the fact was that it was essentially a worthless law because my home state of Virginia had essentially no restrictions on guns sales and the District wasn't about to put check stationsat every entrance crossing the Potomac. We can talk about the pros and cons of stricter un laws all we want but until we examine what other indutrialized nations have done to bring their gun related deaths to about 10% or less of that found in the US, we will be fooling ourselves into thinking we have done any good.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

‘Letter: Protect gun rights — irrational gun control won't solve problems’

As opposed to what --
No gun control won't solve the problem either?


"People should have the right and option to defend themselves and their families from attack by criminals and also to be ready to defend our country from terrorism and tyranny both foreign and domestic."

1. We already do. Banning assualt type .223 weapons and high capacity magazine clips [the choice of these nuts opening fire on theaters and schools] won't take that right away to defend yourself.

2. As for defending ourselves against all enemies - foreign and Domestic ---
I'm a Veteran. I also served in our only Constitutionally approved "well regulated Militia" in the National Guard.

3. I don't hunt, I don't fish.
but I still keep all my rifles handy and operational, ready to protect myself and my family from any of YOU lone-wolf vigianties who suddenly decide to take matters of National defense or the possible over-throwing our Country and our Government into their own hands. Yes, Enemies - foreign and Domestic.

Salt Lake City, UT

If the Second Amendment confers the absolute right many of you claim, why do you put up with control of RPGs, tanks, IEDs? Get the government out of your face. Get your "rights" back. While you do that the rest of us will campaign for an assault weapons ban (without the tricks built into the last one to please manufacturers), high volume magazines and clips, and removal of the gun show exception on licensing.

The criminal will always have guns, but maybe we can slow down the mentally ill from getting them easily. We won't stop incidents but without high speed firing maybe we can make them reload long enough to take them out one way or another (gun or body block). The NRA wants armed guards in every school. Great idea! To pay for it lets make annual registration a requirement with the cost of defending children paid for by the folks causing the need for the guards.

Ottawa, 00

I'm ignorant of US history, but I don't see how anyone back in those days could envision the technological progress in weaponry that has occurred over the last 200 years. I don't see how personal weapons have any bearing on national security when so much of modern warfare is done at a distance.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Screwdriver" but according to the statistics more guns does equate to more safety and lss crime. 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. This was confirmed by the Brookings Institute in their study "The Impact of Conceal-Carry Laws". They point out that the more CC permits and guns you get out there, the lower the crime rate for crimes of opportunity.

Plus, it is a myth that more guns leads to more deaths by guns. For example El Salvador has 50 deaths/100000 due to homicides using firearms. They have 5.8 guns per 100,000. In fact the 9 of the top 10 nations for homicides using guns all have fewer guns per person than the us, some by large ratios. Only a fool would say that more guns means more deaths.

To "LDS Liberal" Again, what is the difference between an AR-15 .223 and a .223 Rugar Mini 14 Ranch? Same bullets, both are semi-automatic. Only one looks different. Why stop law abiding citizend from buying guns?

Mad Hatter
Provo, UT

With the NRA's recent non-solution to increasing gun violence in the nation, two points should be made:

(1) Adding armed police officers to each school as a deterrent suggests that several officers be available since no single individual can be in all places on a school campus at any one time. Hence, local taxes should be increased significantly to pay for these additional police officers who should probably be available 8-12 hours a day waiting for an incident to occur. They would have no other duties but to stand guard. That's a lot of money and overtime to sit around waiting. However, these are highly-trained police officers, so the costs will be substantial.

(2) It may be assumed that having armed police officers on a school campus may or may not deter this type of school violence since the assailent would probably prepare more carefully for their planned assault. Like the pro-assault rifle NRA, they would want more powerful weaponry to carry out their assault, dress with more body armour, have plenty of ammunition, and plan their attack with greater care so they can inflict greater damage before they are finally confronted.

J Thompson

Family councils rules to help everyone in the family grow and develop as quickly as possible without causing harm to individuals or to the family. Cerfews are often set. Rules of conduct are set. Times and places are defined. The children know what is expected and the parents know what conduct to expect from the children.

So, how many children follow those rules 100% of the time? How many children face the prescribed discipline when they break rules? How many lives are ruined because children said that they would obey the rules - and had no intention of keeping those rules?

Laws are the "family rules" of society. We told the Federal Government that they would NEVER make a rule about religion, about speech or about the right to keep and bear arms. We reserved the right to set our own rules; however, we NEVER told Congress that they could not set penalties for our misconduct.

Making rules does not mean that any problem is solved. The "rule" only defines the consequence for misconduct.

Gun laws do not stop criminals just as family rules do not stop teenage rebelion.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

Killing Machines.

The weapon the coward used at Sandy Hook was not a sporting rifle.

The weapon the coward used at Sandy Hook was a killing machine.

Lawnmowers don't cut the grass...people cut the grass.

Guns (Killing Machines) don't kill people...people kill people.

So yes...

Protect killing machine rights, irrational killing machine control won't solve problems.


Ying Fah
Provo, UT

"There is a Latin phrase that says, "SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM" — if you want peace, prepare for war."

Typical words of an anti-government zealot clinging to his military-type weapons and waiting for the black helicopters to descend. The Cold War was extremely hot in places like Korea and Vietnam. About the only safety to come out of deterrence was we didn't have a nuclear holocaust (Bay of Pigs, notwithstanding). But that was "almost". Lucky for the residents of New York City.

However, this argument over semi-automatic rifles, large-capacity ammunition clips, cop-killer bullets, a extensive background checks (including extensive training, licensing, and skill maintenance) is an issue only for the survivalists hiding in their bunkers waiting for armageddon.

Legitimate hunters, sportsmen, and responsible gun owners don't worry about legislation to develop reasonable firearms policy. About the only people who argue in favor of more and more guns are those paranoid-schitzophrenics waiting for the military to come charging through the front door.

Let's talk about mental illness and the crazies who don't believe in democracy.

to comment

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