Comments about ‘In our opinion: Tone down the gun rhetoric, look seriously at what is proposed’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Jan. 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

"Some of these, such as an outright ban on certain military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, stand little chance of passing the Republican-controlled House and would be of dubious effectiveness anyway. Americans must confront the legitimate argument that such laws target law-abiding gun owners and would not have much impact on serious criminals or those who, for whatever reason, intend to commit mass murder."

Well, we see that the Deseret News is in the grip of the NRA. Look again at Sandy Hook Deseret News, and ask yourselves what would have happened had there been no reedily available assault weapon? Your assumption that weapons control will be ineffective is purly subjective. And so what do we do,just let the slaughter continue? "Little chance of passage" are not, we will be judged in this life and in the next for our positions and effort on this issue.

Such laws target both "legitimate" and non legitimate gun owners. But your position fails to note that only assault weapons are targeted together with high capcity magazines. There is no real effect on hunters or target shooter with a assault wseapons ban. Your position is deadly wrong.

Burke, VA

Thank you DN for this reasonable and common sense essay about this important issue. As you suggest, this issue is too important to let this moment pass without addressing the tragic circumstance that seems to be almost unique to the American culture. And while I disagree with your assertion that an "outright ban on certain military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines" is unreralistic, I share your beleif that people are speaking from their heart, rather than their head. And while it is important to try to weigh all the factors and come up with a comprehensive plan it is also important to do something now, while the fire is still hot, rather than let this issue get muddled down into a bureaucratic swamp and eventually die out with nothing significant changing.

Let's be diligent in honoring the memory of the innocent victims who are now gone because in the past we have been too lazy or cowardly and didn't have political will to do the right thing. Thanks again for your essay.

  • 6:06 a.m. Jan. 18, 2013
  • Like (15)
  • Top comment
Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The Deseret News is wrong on this issue. How would they feel if Washingtion created a speech "clearinghouse" that required them to submit all articles and editorials to that "clearinghouse" before publication?

The 1st Amendment allows speech without restriction. Penalties for improper use of speech come after that improper use, not before.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms without infringement from any level of government. Penalties for improper use of firearms come after that improper use, not before.

How many deaths occur daily from over-the-counter drugs? Should there be a "clearinghouse" that we must pass through before purchasing over-the-counter drugs?

How many deaths occur daily from alcohol? Should there be a "clearinghouse" that every barkeeper must check with before serving a drink?

Think about government intrusion into our lives. How many firearm deaths were caused by law abiding citizens who followed the rules in keeping and bearing arms? Criminals don't obey laws. Laws will not stop them from obtaining any weapon.

We're not in kindergarten. We shouldn't be using kindergarten logic to solve problems.

Hayden, ID

The problem is our culture, not guns. Massive break downs in families, secular progressive, moral relativism permissiveness and poor parenting are the reasons we have and will continue to have ever more social problems, including mass murders. Banning guns is like forcing people to take an aspirin to cure a mass outbreak of an unknown form of cancer in our society, it way make the politicians and others feel like he did something, anything, but it will never solve the problem at all and wastes precious time as the real cancer grows and grows. If America survives, it will be because we were wise and treated the real problem and not the symptoms. While the left scoffs, we need to turn our families back into the incubators of societies future generations that they need to be ,they used to be and to teach correct principles that define proper behavior to the next generation that God has revealed. If we don't, well, we can see our future clearly.

Far East USA, SC

"The 1st Amendment allows speech without restriction. Penalties for improper use of speech come after that improper use, not before."

kind of hard to compare the aftermath of a free speech violation to the aftermath of gun violence.

Rather than dismiss all attempts of a fix outright, how about looking at them with an open mind and judge them on the merits.

Kind of hard to be against background checks for all gun purchases.

Far East USA, SC

"The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms without infringement from any level of government"

Mike. Do you draw the line anywhere? Do you advocate allowing any and all citizens to carry any weapon anyplace?

If not, what restrictions would you support? Specifics please.

SLC gal
Salt Lake City, UT

All for the training on how to confront an armed attacker, but unless they teach how to turn the attackers gun onto the attacker, I'm afraid it may be a moot point. You can't reason with someone crazy enough that they'd shoot up an entire school.


@ Mike: You are absolutely right - the punishment comes after the violation. Which is why background check makes sure people with violent criminal histories are not allowed to buy guns - very similar to the way that a bartender cuts someone off when they have had too much to drink, or you can only buy so much over the counter antihistamine.

Perhaps you should not only listen to what other people are saying, but also listen to what you, yourself, are saying.

Poplar Grove, UT

Mike, when it comes to the first amendment there are restrictions. They don't even necessarily make sense. A printed publication can print almost anything, but certain literature is discouraged and made difficult to view, such as the Anarchist Cookbook. When it comes to broadcast media over the air TV and radio have daytime restrictions on their first amendment, the FCC regulates what they can say. Also Mike, drugs are regulated by the feds through a national data base. When you go to the pharmacy and sign that special card reader, you are signing to confirm you have a right to receive those drugs, that information is sent to the feds, who have a data base of that info. Your listing of alcohol on this list is interesting, When you go to the bar in Utah you have to have your ID run through a scanner, that stores that information in a data base. Many times when you are in a gas station buying beer or cigarettes your ID is scanned and stored. Fact is most other amendments come with restrictions. So either we should drop restrictions on all amendments or none of them.

Ogden, UT

Dear DN, It sounds as though you trust this President. I and many like me do not trust him in any way shape or form. His motives are alway to be suspected as he is only interested in pushing forward his own agenda. He is with out a doubt a Socialist bordering if not fully commited to Communism and his only agenda is Control. Control comes a little at a time.

salt lake city, utah

First of all to ECRs point the point of this article is well taken. Calm down and see what the other side says before you blast off. Secondly, to the assault weapons point. It does not target law abiding citizens only. It may impact them first but eventually it impacts all. The point is to rid the entire population of these weapons as they are discovered. You also need to remember the assault weapons used in the recent killings were all legal, and the assailants weren't criminals until they pulled the triggers.

Secondly the second amendment guarantess your "right" to bear arms be uninfringed. As long as you're allowed hand guns, shot guns, rifles etc. an assault weapon ban does not infringe on that "right".

Third to those crying about a breakdown in our culture caused by progressives, please look at the facts. School shootings have been recorded back to the mid 1800s. With the height being in the 1970s. School violence and shooting in general have declined since then. There is no mass deterioration. What we are talking about is a specific kind of horror.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

It looks like there are many to whom "freedom" means nothing. It looks like there are many who think that control starts with the government instead of from the people. It looks like there are many who want a king to lead us, perhaps thinking that freedom and liberty are to be entrusted to Washington and then parcelled out to the people.

That's not what America is all about. We are a nation where all freedom and all liberties originate with the people. We are a nation where the people limit the scope and authority of every level of government. We are a nation that enumerated the duties of its highest level of government to restrict and restrain that government from taking away our freedoms.

This editorial condones the government's "right" to restrict us in an area that we have specifically stated "shall not infringe". "Shall not infringe" is an absolute. It is not negotiable. Obama has no authority from the People or from the Constitution to limit the 2nd Amendment. Anything that he proposes or does to the 2nd Amendment is outside the scope of his authority.

Bronx, NY

Please tell us how many people are killed by over the counter drugs mike, I do not recall any mass murders committed using over the counter drugs.. With regards to alcohol do you really want guns regulated at the same level? Shall we require that you go to a state owned store to buy anything larger then a 22?

one old man
Ogden, UT

Once again in the posts here we see a clear display of why it is so difficult to find reasonable solutions.

Some are reasonable and thoughtful.

Others simply repeat endlessly the same mindless rants. Unfortunately, those are shouted more frequently and loudly than the ones based on thought and reason. They have big money behind them to act as an amplifier.

We need to be very careful not to allow sheer volume to drown out the solutions to a very serious problem.

South Jordan, UT

"This editorial condones the government's "right" to restrict us in an area that we have specifically stated "shall not infringe""

I'm still waiting to hear which well regulated militia you belong to? Picking and choosing words from the Constitution to better suit your agenda is just as disrespectful to the Constitution as you claim your political opponents are.

Far East USA, SC

"Shall not infringe" is an absolute. It is not negotiable."

I will ask again Mike. Are you saying that ANYONE should have the right to carry Any Weapon, Anywhere? Yes or no question.

I fully support gun rights. As does virtually every "liberal" on this board.

If your answer is NO, then what do you see as reasonable restrictions?

Kearns, UT

Hmm, let's think about this.

We have Speed Limits because it is shown that driving to fast can cause serious harm to ones self and others.

We don't have a limit on ammunition magazines - even after it is shown that the more rounds one has, the more damage they can do to ones self and others.

We require all vehicles and drivers be licensed to ensure the safe operation of the vehicle and knowledge of the laws.

We don't require gun owners to license their guns nor gun owners to receive a license to use a gun. How do we know that all gun owners know how to use a gun safely and responsibly.

I feel that guns and vehicles should have the same requirements. License each and yearly inspections for both. Don't need to tax guns yearly however.

Same for gun owners and drivers, regular renewals on a 5 to 7 year time frame. Vision checks for both. Make gun owners show that they can safely remove ammunition from the weapon as well as safely load the weapon.

If these were put into place, there will be some that complain but many others would feel safer.

Orem, UT

Joe Blow: "kind of hard to compare the aftermath of a free speech violation to the aftermath of gun violence."

You are right, there is no comparison. Free speech is a much more powerful weapon than any gun can ever be. Ever heard "the pen is mightier than the sword"? More people have died because some dictator used free speech to convince a bunch of people that a bunch of other people were bad and should be exterminated than could ever be killed by some madman with a gun or a bomb.

So if we don't value our freedoms and we just want to end all kinds of violence against others, then it would be much more beneficial to society to take away the first amendment instead of the second.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Mike R: "The 1st Amendment allows speech without restriction. Penalties for improper use of speech come after that improper use, not before.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms without infringement from any level of government. Penalties for improper use of firearms come after that improper use, not before."


Well, I think the main difference between these two is that the improper use of our 2nd amendment can take away our greatest right - that of life. The first amendment abuse rarely does so.

To me, that is HUGE.

salt lake city, utah

Trust me folks the point of arguing with some on this thread is simply to either hone your own thoughts or just a little recreation because when the premise of their life views is there is simply right and wrong, if you don't agree with them you are by definition wrong. Forget the fact that they need to interpret..well regulated militia..while clingling with a death grip to "uninfringed".

to comment

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