Comments about ‘Letters: Laws don't change intent’

How simple, convenient, and lazy, to dichotomize the world into only two classes--criminals and non-criminals, good and evil, saints and sinners, conservatives and liberals, us and them. It's the classic foundation for discrimination and bias of almost every type. Does every person who commits a crime never obey any law? Does every person who obeys one law never commit a crime? To answer those questions, simply drive down the highway and observe. The world is more diverse and nuanced than the author supposes. Will a law restricting access to assault weapons or large ammo clips deter no person who would otherwise use a gun to commit a crime? What if such a law were to deter only one or a few such persons? Would it be worth it? Ask the Newtown parents.

This argument ignores the fact that criminals could not use guns to commit crimes if the criminals were locked up where they belong. The left-wing government ignores this irrefutable fact because it runs counter to their dogma and propaganda.

The left-wing extremists are using guns as a red herring to distract a gullible public from the real issue. The real issue is that the welfare state has created vasts hordes who feel entitled to have their every want and need satisfied by others, with no work on their own part. When these hordes find that their needs are not met willingly by others, they feel justified in getting what they want by robbing, stealing, and assaulting. Clearly, these criminals will not hestitate to use guns to commit these crimes, but the guns are not what caused the crimes.

Rather than throwing all the focus on guns, an honest government would focus on the fact that the effort to create an American welfare state has created an unprecedented crime wave. If these socialistic welfare policies are abolished from government and society, gun related violence will end as well.

JCS: "criminals could not use guns to commit crimes if the criminals were locked up where they belong."

So do you lock up the Adam Lanzas of the world, who have no prior criminal record? How do you identify such "criminals"?

And where is this "unprecedented crime wave" caused by socialistic welfare policies? The Bureau of Justice statistics show a declining violent crime rate in recent years.

JCS, we lock up more people than any other country in total numbers and per-capita. How in the world do you suppose the "left wing" is keepin people out of jail?

The last few mass shootings have been law abiding citizens until the lost it and started shooting. I can't remember any parolees that have gone on a shooting spree.

We are told that James Holmes spent months buying (legally) an arsenal of weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo.

There were people who say now that they had concerns about Holmes' mental state but didn't know where they could report them.

People are not prohibited from packing guns legally until they have been convicted of a felony. But in many cases in which guns have been used in domestic violence, the shooter had a very long record of misdemeanors. The majority of gang bangers have not been convicted of a felony, but do have long misdemeanor records. They can pack legally.

Would a better solution be to change laws to include violent misdemeanors as a cause to remove the privilege of packing a gun?

Would a national data base tracking system that would record purchases of weapons and ammo be a way tip us off that someone is imitating Holmes in buying up an arsenal?

Would setting up a way for people to easily report someone who seems to be mentally imbalanced help?

There ARE sensible ways to solve this without confiscation of guns. We just need to find them.

A couple comments.

1. I read yesterday about 2 guys arrested during a routine traffic stop. They found drugs, guns, and cash. As it turns out, they could only be held on the drug charge, since having Guns and Cash is perfectly legal.

2. I listened to a cop on the radio the night before last. He said it's stupid to arrest a criminal, and upon their release - [via bail, or at the end of jail time] that the prison gives them their guns back along with their other personal items....because gun-nuts refuse to allow ANY laws to ban ANY weapons, to ANYone, for ANY reason!

3. Only in America can anyone can buy assault rifles, ammo, bullet proof vests without background checks or questions being aksed -- but
have to go behind the counter, fill out a background papers, and they can restrict and regulate buying overthecounter cold medine?

It's about time to pulls some heads out of the sand, use some common sense, compromise, and stop this unrestricted and unregulated gun idiocracy.

A gun is the creator of the opportunity to do great harm. The intent of a person is not changed but the extent of the damage can be changed by eliminating the opportunities of the gun.

I do not believe that we can stop the free individual from killing others in anger, greed, love or madness. But we should try our best to limit the extent of the carnage. And we might do that by limiting the availability of guns.

So you want to track ammo purchases? What about those who target practice weekly and compete on weekends? Totally law abiding people, and you want the department of homeland security to put surveillance on them because of the ammo they buy? Do you want them locked up in Guantanamo as potential terrorists?

If you are so interested in violating privacy laws, let's stop concealing who is mentally ill. Let's flag for no gun purchase people who are on psych meds instead of invoking hippa laws. Let's educate families who have someone in treatment for mental illness about the dangers of weapons within their reach. Let's allow families to commit those who are dangerous instead of just giving them the latest psych med.

Let's deal with the real problems instead of going after those who have weapons and keep in practice with them. The guns don't walk out and shoot people. There is a nutcase holding the gun and pulling trigger. Society is still in danger if they have knives or pipe bombs, or cars instead. The problems are the people.

So because people speed we should have no speed limits? Yeah a speed limit and enforcement doesn't stop anyone but you have to believe that it helps.

Here's the deal, yes, it'll still be possible for criminals to illegally purchase guns. It'll be more difficult though if they can't exploit say... the gun show loophole. Closing that won't stop all gun crimes obviously, but if it makes it harder for someone to obtain a gun who isn't supposed to have one, then it can help reduce gun crimes.

Christian, thank you for (in a way at least) supporting what I was trying to say here earlier.

The point is that if we have some way of flagging large amounts of weapon and ammo sales along with some way of reporting people who may be unbalanced, it would provide an opportunity for someone to make contact and begin an evaluation.

If the evaluation supports removal of their weapons, then remove them.

If it does not, then don't.

But as it stands now, there are no adequate safeguards in place -- or even possible.

How you can support monitoring all ammo purchases while decrying the invasion into private lives by the Dept or Homeland Security is beyond me.

So inconsistent.

I think what you really want is to have the democrats have access to everything in the private lives or anyone who is not a registered voter with a D in the party box.

That is not even social justice. It is no justice. It sounds more like, dare I say it, Hitler's Germany.

Let the railing begin!

Think about this, would you rather get murdered by a semi-automatic weapon and die quick or by a chainsaw or worse and die in agony? This is basically the choice our leadership is making for us. If these drugged out people don't have accesss to guns, what is going to stop them from usging something else?

1776/The Civil War 2 will commence again if they try to take the firearms.

Christian 24-7 said:
I think what you really want is to have the democrats have access to everything in the private lives or anyone who is not a registered voter with a D in the party box.
That is not even social justice. It is no justice. It sounds more like, dare I say it, Hitler's Germany.

"They're learning from radio" ...paranoia, hate, and poor analytical reasoning.
How do you expect to be takin' seriously? The "D" are coming for your ...information?

Buy guns!
Buy gold!
Buy food!
Buy Life-Lock!

Just listen to the targeted audience these commercials sell to during the AM hate radio programs.

The same people who get whipped into a paranoid frenzy,
are suckers to buy all the DoomsDay - protect yourselfs, protect you family - garbage being hawked during these programs.

Most of the suggestions would be challenged by the ACLU. They emptied the state mental hospitals in the 1970's with lawsuits, hence lots of dysfunctional, chronically homeless. Think of a solution that is constitutionally workable with both guns and mental health.

Comments like the one earlier that asks if you would rather die from a chainsaw or gun certainly call into question the quality of thinking behind them. It's stuff like that that should really make other people think very seriously about the NRA's position.

LDS Lib

We don't need to store food. We have lots of Mormon friends, and a president who will always have enough social programs to take care of everyone.

And yes, maybe we should outlaw having cash. Dang rich people! Guns too, for that matter. Dang Constitution!

@one old man:
"The point is that if we have some... way of reporting people who may be unbalanced..."

How you gonna determine who's unbalanced? Nerdy kids/bullies in school are unbalanced in my view. Same with loners and school dropouts (and even some posters on this thread appear unbalanced... especially those who disagree with me). :)

The point being, it's virtually impossible to determine who's unbalanced until after they've committed some heinous crime of mass murder, etc.

The main source of the problem starts in the home... Parents are responsible to see that their kids are taught respect, love and not hate, and above all self-control. The breakup of the American family is endemic and adds, in my view, substantially to the problem with unruly, angry kids who blow up at the least provocation and go berserk. Of course, they know about guns because their parents have them in the home and, in many cases, kids are taught to use them.

If the people are allowed carte blanche, to possess lethal weaponry (second Amendment), then they must be aware of extreme possibilities for damage and work to prevent same. It's everybody's responsibility/job.

Paranoia continues to be endemic with the survivalist, anti-government fringe. Although Utah has its share of people motivated by unrealistic fears than a rational knowledge of the world, we must consider those who perpetuate these fears as major contributors to the carnage.

So, why does one need a semi-automatic assault rifle (easily converted to fully-automatic capability) with a high-capacity magazine and should not have to go through a background check (much less a mental health evaluation)? And, why should the authorities not know that a person has such a weapon (or any firearm, for that matter) just like we register cars and voters?

One can understand why so many anti-government extremists support a need for such weapons. They hunker down in their caves, clinging to their guns, nurturing their fears, and hating those who are different. Unfortunately, they have a greater need for mental health assistance than for their guns. But, then, they don't want to be part of the greater society, hence the isolation they seek from the community.

There is a reason the anti-government extremists oppose responsible gun safety legislation. It contradicts their reality and the basis of their fear.