Comments about ‘Letter: Guns kill people too quickly’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 27 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended

What the writer says is true, guns do allow faster killing than knives, even though there are other ways to kill people quickly. The point is that guns are morally neutral. They don't decide whom to kill. The fact that they're efficient can be a good thing as well as a bad thing, it all depends on how they're used.

I notice that the guy who shot the firemen in New York was illegally armed. Too bad the existing gun control laws didn't stop him. It isn't clear how more laws or tougher laws might have changed the outcome. It seems that only law-abiding people are affected by gun control laws.

Dietrich, ID

It was already illegal to bring a gun to school anyway what would gun control do? That evil man in New York that shot the firefighters was out of prison after murdering his own grandmother I believe. If someone was afraid of capital punishment murder would go down. Likewise if someone feared a gun or if there was a gun more innocent people might have been saved. I beleive a concealed carrier stopped a good deal of innocent people from getting killed in Oregon. Guns can save lives. Besides criminals will find a way to get guns anyway.

Hayden, ID

Blaming guns for crime is as illogical as blaming spoons and forks for obesity. A gun in my hand is better for me and my family than a cop on the phone.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Have shootings become so commonplace that they merit very little attention? Have they become as routine as auto accidents and obtain no news coverage beyond a mention unless they are as horrific as the school shootings?

Notice how little attention is being paid to the firefighter deaths in New York and how little coverage has been given to two recent Utah shootings that left two dead and two wounded. Have Americans in general become so accustomed to shootings that they stir no real concern?

Apparently there is no one keeping good records of shootings. The few sites I can find are usually badly slanted to either extreme. There is little information about how many guns used are "legal" versus "illegal." The New York shooter was "illegal." The two in Utah were apparently "legal." Based on what I've been able to find, it appears that the majority of guns used in shootings and suicides are "legal."

We have a serious problem that we've ignored far too long.

Solutions are out there -- but finding them might be very hard unless both sides soften their stances.

If absolutely no regulation was intended, why is that word in the Second Amendment?

Eden, UT

Homes with guns in them are twelve times (12X) more likely to be used against a family member or a family friend than homes that do not have guns in them. Over 17,000 people, each year, commit suicide with a gun. This is a national disgrace. The NRA will label people like Adam Lanza as "Monsters" or "Predators" in order to scare and dehumanize these individuals. In the NRA's warped thinking, there is a criminal class and a good citizen class. They want everyone to buy a gun to protect themselves from their made up "criminal class." This is a fantasy and deflects clear thinking. Most murders occur in the home. Guns are used in domestic violence much more offend that the are used to protect a family against an intruder. The Sandy Hook School shooting has exposed the NRA's weak thinking. Good editorial and on target.

salt lake city, utah

Mountainman is the epitome of the issue.."a gun in my hand is better than a cop on the phone"..only if that's the only consequence of brandishing a gun..and only if it's probable that you will some day be the victim of a face to face criminal who intends on physically killing you or yours. Fact is reality doesn't meet either of those requirements.

This is the danger of violent movies, tv shows, etc. it helps create this fantasy of a boogey man around every corner so I need to be ready at a moments notice to blow his head off.

Fact is 99.9% of everyone we know will go through life and never go face to face with a malintentioned gun..and I have been in a face to face robbery and a concealed weapon wouldn't have done me any good at all. Spout all the trite macho saysing you want..but the world just doesn't fit into your little fantasy world.

Hayden, ID

@ pragmatistferlife; Macho? You completely misjudge me! Not many years ago a man with a criminal history moved to this area and broke into a family's home and brutally murdered both parents and one older son with a hammer. He took the two remaining children to a remote area and raped them both for days. He eventually killed the young boy and took the young girl to a restaurant in town. A waitress recognized the girl and called police. That man is still in prison wasting taxpayer money with appeal after appeal. If only the parents of that family had a gun, it is highly likely their family would not have been destroyed by an evil man. Has nothing to do with being macho as you suggested, has to do with protecting my family.

Christian 24-7
Murray, UT

"Guns Kill People Too Quickly"

So we prefer a long slow death? Being stabbed repeatedly, strangled, or bludgeoned?

How about ripped apart by a dog? That was my experience. Had it not been for someone intervening, I would be dead. If I had had a gun, I would have had one bite instead of rips all over by body.

Facing an aggressive dog is much more likely than facing an armed nut job. Dog bites are much more common than shootings. Irresponsible people get dogs, big aggressive dogs, for their "protection". Unlike a gun, dogs can go off without the aid or someone to pull the trigger. Shall we outlaw large dogs because a few owners are irresponsible? Even I, the victim, say no. Don't punish the good dog owners because of the bad ones. But let me, the responsible gun owner, have my gun too. Again, don't punish the responsible gun owners because of the irresponsible owners.

Now all the liberal naysayers will probably call me a liar. They have done that to others who post their experiences. There is no provision here to post pictures of all the scars, but I have them, inside and out.

Tooele, UT

Re: "If absolutely no regulation was intended, why is that word in the Second Amendment?"

The Second Amendment talks of a well-regulated militia, not of well-regulated arms or ammunition.

There is no mention whatever of regulating arms in the words, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You gave it the old liberal college try -- but no cigar.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@ Mountanman

Sounds like you think about this a lot. But since you are about a million times more likely to be injured or killed in a car accident then by a gun wielding home invader, then by your logic shouldn’t you be driving a vehicle with Nascar like protection?

Also, your “spoons” logic only goes so far – would that logic apply if a terrorist were to nuke NYC? “Nuclear bombs don’t kill people, terrorists do.” What about fighter jets, tanks, rocket launchers, etc…?

The point is that simplistic “logic” never tells the whole story, let alone provides all the answers. We need pragmatic sense to know where to draw the lines. Obviously we draw the line at nuclear weapons and tanks. Maybe assaults weapons and high capacity clips should fall on that side of the line and not on the “musket” side.

Either way, it is worth discussing rather than thinking a bumper sticker is the place to find wisdom and public policy.

Everett, 00

So let me get this straight....

Republicans think it's OK to attack and invade a country over weapons of mass destruction that do not exist and never killed or threatened a single American,
Want that very same over-reaching Government to NOT ban or restrict it's own citizens who possess weapons of mass destruction that DO exist and DO kill Americans.

BTW -- Conservative All-or-Nothing extremeists
None of are saying ban ALL guns, confiscate ALL guns, arrest ALL gun owners...

Just the assualt weapons (yes, an AR-15 is a weapon first that just so happens to be a gun second) of mass destruction.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Procura, have the Founding Fathers come to you in your dreams to explain to you exactly what they meant when they wrote that?

Hayden, ID

@ Tyler. I agree with most of what you said. However, rocket launchers and machine guns can be purchased on the black market, by those who can afford them subject to supply and demand.
I take no offense from people who CHOOSE not to own firearms, just at those who tell me I can not!
I would support any gun law that guarantees criminals can not get guns, even high capacity clips! To me, that is logic in action, not just words!

Powell, OH

This is true. Guns kill too fast. Lets opt for more drought, starvation, knife wounds and slow poisoning. Get real you nincompoop, PEOPLE shoot PEOPLE.

Farmington, UT

Remember that the purpose of a gun is to "kill" something or someone. They are not designed to be a threat, but to make good on a threat. If you have a gun but are unwilling to actually use it and "gun down someone" they will take it away from you and use it on you. The problem isn't people who keep the laws (that is very obvious), but those who are "fixated with killing" and can't wait for the supposed attention and glory that think such action brings to them. Anyone or anything that glorifies killing shares in the blame, too, whether it be hollywood, the media, gun shows, violent games, etc. To glorify killing is to desensitise the value of life, either human or animal, and reduces ones ability to think clearly. Killing animals for food is indeed justified and proper. Killing animals for the thrill of killing something is not moral, ethical or praiseworthy.

Everett, 00

Hayden, ID

I take no offense from people who CHOOSE not to own firearms, just at those who tell me I can not!
I would support any gun law that guarantees criminals can not get guns, even high capacity clips! To me, that is logic in action, not just words!

10:11 a.m. Dec. 27, 2012


As former military soldier,
How do you feel about my 2nd amendment right to keep and bare Nerve Gas, Blood agents, Coughing agents, Blistering Agents (Chemical weapons)
Boubonic plauge, Typhoid, Malaria, Anthrax, Ricketts, Shingles, and Yellow Fever (Bio-Weapons)

I have no problem when my friends and neighbors CHOOSE not to posses them,
just those of you who say I can not.

are you only going to support laws if you could only guatantee they not get into the hands of criminals?

Weapons of Mass destruction --
Assault rifles and high capacity clips fall into these categories as well, for exactly the same reasons.
One person -- Mass killings.

Not safe in the hands of common citizens.

Why would I?
Farmington, UT

"As former military soldier,
How do you feel about my 2nd amendment right to keep and bare Nerve Gas, Blood agents, Coughing agents, Blistering Agents (Chemical weapons)
Boubonic plauge, Typhoid, Malaria, Anthrax, Ricketts, Shingles, and Yellow Fever (Bio-Weapons)"

I don't believe you have any such right and it strains logic to use such examples in the present discussion. Why would I think you are being rational about the issue?

Tyler D
Meridian, ID


Sounds like we are closer than it seemed at first. It’s a complex problem that will likely require a number of different approaches… and even then there’s no way we’re going to stop every shooting.

My problem with groups like the NRA is that gun restrictions (better background checks, assault weapons, gun show loop hole, high capacity clips, etc…) are simply off the table before the conversation even begins. And the Left (Hollywood) does the same regarding censorship (violent movies, video games, etc…). When I see some of these actors (who have done horrible acts of violence on screen, often gratuitous and without merit) lecture us on values, the hypocrisy makes me nauseated.

None of these rights (free speech, guns, etc.) are absolute and when they begin to trample on other’s rights – like to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – the law allows for some restrictions (e.g., you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater).

Of course the elephant in the room is mental illness… no easy answers there.

Hayden, ID

@ Tyler, I also do a lot of backpacking in wilderness areas where I pack a .44 mag handgun. I have never used it but I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it! Wolves are getting aggressive up here, had them howling outside my campsite many times.
Thanks for your civil discussion. Happy New Year to you and yours!

one old man
Ogden, UT

Ah, MM, my congratulations to you. You've had the chance to finally know the thrill of hearing that deep, throaty wild sound echoing through a wild place. It has been gone from our land far too long.

Now if we can only help some of our fellow Americans to put aside their irrational fears and learn to appreciate what is truly of value. We can only hope that not so many of our neighbors have become citified to the point that they recoil in senseless fear when they hear the cry of canis lupus echoing through a wilderness night.

But for those of us who live for the times when we can disappear into truly wild places with a backpack or string of horses, there is nothing better than that wildly wonderful sound.

Don't you feel sorry for anyone so cowardly that they find themselves cringing in fear and feeling in the dark for the handle of some kind of weapon?

to comment

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