Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: A realistic solution to gun control is needed ASAP

Comments

Return To Article
  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    Jan. 25, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    Pagan: What is your source of "More Americans have been killed due to gun violence than in all the wars since 1968"

    If you want to look at some truly staggering, sobering, brutal numbers and patterns, examine these historical facts. Governments have murdered/killed/starved to death more people in the 20th century than all of the wars of the 20th century combined.

    Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917 1-1.5 million killed,

    Soviet Union 1929-1945 20 million killed

    Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe 1933-1945 20 million killed

    China, Nationalist 1927-1949 10 million killed

    China, Red 1949-1952, 1957-1960, 1966-1976 20-35 million killed

    Guatemala 1960-1981 100,000- 200,000 killed

    Uganda 1971-1979 300,000 killed

    Cambodia (Khmer Rouge) 1975-1979 2 million killed

    Rwanda 1994 800,000 killed.

    Prior to/during each of these genocides, governments step by step disarmed the citizenry to allegedly keep them safe & control crime.

    Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic 20th century wars combined

    gun control agenda + globalist/one world order agenda = not a good future for the defenseless

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    Jan. 22, 2013 6:55 p.m.

    Peanut Gallery expressed realism well. Thank you to all to try to reason with those who think that having more gun laws will solve problems. It is a frustrating challenge (to try to reason with them).

  • L White Springville, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 6:47 p.m.

    What a terrible tragedy when people tell us that it is perfectly acceptible to destroy 4,075 unborn children in America, one-hundred-thirty-five kindergarten classrooms full everyday, but it is unthinkable that 330,000,000 Americans who mostly obey the law should have the guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. They have twisted and turned the Constitution into a pretzel when they continually links militia with the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't matter to him them the Court ruled on that matter. It doesn't matter that their argument was popped four years ago. It sounds good to them, so they say it. Meanwhile, everyday in America another 4,075 unborn babies are destroyed. Where is their weeping and wailing for the most innocent among us?

    The founding fathers didn't have to tell us not to destroy our children. They would never have thought that a nation would become that decadent, but they did know that conspiring men would take every opportunity to enslave the citizens by taking away their right to keep and bear arms. That they saw coming. They just didn't see people who would rip apart the unborn.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    L White
    Springville, UT
    Mr. Irony Guy,

    Even I, a moderately old lady, knows that you can't give meaning to a dependent clause if you take it out of the sentence that it depends on.

    Our forefathers understood English. They knew what the words meant. They knew how to use it properly. They didn't make silly grammatical mistakes.

    2:53 p.m. Jan. 22, 2013

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

    That's why they used words like "infringed" -- i.e., can not be confisgated by the Government.
    and
    "well regulated militia"

    to which each and every pro-gun-nut completely disreagards.

    BTW, speaking of English lessons -
    That's what "tramplng the Constitution" means. Twisting and disregarding, reading bits, and ignoring pieces -- to suit a twisted agenda.

    It's called taking things out of context.

    If you plan to defend the 2nd Amendment and not make mistakes in grammar - read and defend ALL of it.
    Please?

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 22, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    The second amendment could have been written this way: "Since we have to have an army, we'd better preserve the right of the people to arm themselves."

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 22, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    To "one old man" we can go to strict US numbers.

    In the US for 2012 there were 35,900 deaths. During that same time there were 31,328 deaths that used fire-arms. But that includes suicides which would have occured with or without the gun. If you get it down to murders comitted with guns, there was less than 10,000.

    So, tell us, what is the bigger problem, people dying in car accidents or gun related murders?

    Your auto statistics are highly questionable because it does not count the age when kids drive, you know, that 14 to 18 age range where the kids are driving.

    You can also look at the statistics for gun deaths, and very few are with "assault" rifles. Most are with handguns. Why go after rifles when most murders are committed with hand guns?

  • L White Springville, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    Mr. Irony Guy,

    My, but you have a different understanding of English than I do. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 is part of the "one sentence" that makes up all of Section 8. Even I, a moderately old lady, knows that you can't give meaning to a dependent clause if you take it out of the sentence that it depends on. In other words, Clause 18 is referring to the "foregoing powers" listed in the preceding seventeen clauses found in that one sentence.

    Maybe a visit with an English teacher would help you clear up the confusion. Don't feel badly, you're not the only person who has made that mistake and you probably won't be the last person either; but, live and learn. There is no reason to constantly make the same mistake over and over. There is no reason to pretend that something is true when it is so easily shown that you have misunderstood the meaning of a sentence and the grammar that holds that sentence together.

    Our forefathers understood English. They knew what the words meant. They knew how to use it properly. They didn't make silly grammatical mistakes.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 2:42 p.m.

    RedShirt -- another distortion of facts. That 260,000 number is WORLDWIDE.

    Yet if anyone suggests comparing gun violence in the U.S. with gun violence in other countries, you and your NRA friends cry foul.

    Let's look at some REAL American statistics:

    In 2008 and 2009, 5740 Americans between the ages of 1 and 14 died of gunshot wounds.
    3892 were murdered. 1548 died by suicide. 300 were victims of accidental shootings.

    The only data I could find for traffic deaths came from 2003 when 2136 Americans aged 1-14 died in auto accidents.

    The truth can be really inconvenient, can't it?

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    I suspect that if a town had a militia which met, strategized, drilled, and practiced marksmanship once a month, for the protection of the town in emergencies, to prevent looting, those towns would be the last target of crazed shooters. Seems like the presence of guns and people trained to use them would diminish the likelihood of shots being fired at all in that town.

    What are y'all in Murray doing the last Saturday of each month? We can make it a branch of CERT training.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 22, 2013 2:12 p.m.

    Mr. Michael Richards fails to include in his reading of the Constitution Article 8.18, which grants Congress the power to pass any law deemed necessary and proper to carrying out its enumerated powers. Without this so-called "elastic clause," James Madison said, the Constitution would be a dead letter. Who decides what is necessary and proper? The Supreme Court, eg., the Court has viewed the interstate commerce clause as very broad indeed. Firearms regulation could easily fall within the domain of interstate commerce.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is unconnected to service in a militia.

    The rants made by those who disregard the that ruling show that they think that they are above the law and that they have somehow obtained authority to define the law.

    There is no connection between being a member of a militia and the right to keep and bear arms. Let's all repeat that until we understand it. There is no connection between being a member of a militia and the right to keep and bear arms.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    Eric Samuelsen
    Provo, UT
    Good letter. As for constitutional concerns, I'm fully in favor of well-regulated militias. I guess that would be the National Guard today.

    10:38 a.m. Jan. 22, 2013

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

    Agreed!

    The National Guard of the US. is a reserve military force composed of National Guard MILITIA members...under federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States.

    MinuteMen
    NationalGuard members are...the MILITIA as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 311. The NationalGuard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a NationalGuard member.

    The NationalGuard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation's armed forces with the NILITIA Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code.

    Title 10 of the US Code states:

    (a) The militia of the UnitedStates consists of all able-bodied males [added females]...and those citizens or those delaring intent to be come US citizens (i.e, Private Huerez)-
    (b) The militia are — (1) the organized MILITIA, consists of the NationalGuard and the Naval MILITIA;

    Anyone declaring anything else is trampling the Consitution and America's rule of law.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 1:25 p.m.

    KDave
    Moab, UT
    The worst attack on children in this country was perpetrated by the Govt. Waco!

    9:41 a.m. Jan. 22, 2013

    ==========

    Perpetuated by ultra-religous gun-nuts, holed up in an Anti-Government compound, who'd rather kill themselves and die to be with God than put down their pride, and comply with the law.

    See any similarity with what happening in today's topic of discussion?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 22, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    There are posters who continually try to deflect attention away from the Constitution by telling us Justice X said this or Justice Y said that. The Court has nine justices who examine appeals. They render a ruling according to the votes of the entire Court based upon the Supreme Law of the Land.

    If individual justices could change the Constitution, we would have a Constitution much like the South African Constitution, because that is what Justice Ginsburg prefers.

    Seventy-five percent of the States are required to ratify any changes to the Constitution. Congress passes laws that conform to the Constitution. The President enforces that Constitution. The Court measures every appeal against it.

    The problem that we have is that Congress thinks that it can pass any law that it wants. The President thinks he can sign and enforce a law whether it conforms to the Constitution or not and the Court thinks that it has the right to change the Supreme Law of the Law without first requiring that 75% of the States ratify changes to the Constitution.

    The people must demand that all branches of the government restrict itself to authorized duties.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 22, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    Ok liberals, lets look at one of the top killers of children, and tell us what to do about it.

    According to the NPR article "Traffic Accidents Top Cause Of Fatal Child Injuries" each year car accidents kill 260,000 children between 10 and 19 years old each year. Yet you don't want to ban high capacity vehicles or mandate stricter laws for obtaining a drivers license.

    If you want to talk guns, why go after the semi-automatic "scarry" looking guns? More homicides are comitted with handguns than rifles, according to the FBI. In fact more people are killed using hands, fists, and feet than with assault rifles.

    Your liberal policies are like giving people with brain tumors asprins for their headache. Yes you did something that is supposed to work, but it does nothing for the underlying cause.

  • Jon W. Murray, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    @ugottabkidn: gun laws on the books in Conneticut and througout the US didn't keep the young and restless Mr. Lanza from carrying the weapon of his choice into a sensitive area such as a school.

    Until someone - anyone - can give me a satisfactory solution to the conundrum "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", I insist on the legality of owning guns. I've been following the 2nd Amendment debates for 30 or more years, and I still haven't heard a direct logical refutation of the above statement. I begin to suspect there might not be one.

    By the way, it is clear, once you understand the difference between "militia" and "military", that the writers of the Constitution envisioned a trained and armed citizenry, much like Switzerland has today, rather than a standing army (including the various state National Guard units) like the US has today. On the whole, I think we'd all be better off if that's what we did have.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    Mr Richards, your favorite Justice Scalia has even interpretted that the 2nd Amendment does not give you unlimited rights to carry any weapon of your choice into sensitive areas such as schools, churches, etc. In other words, common sense restrictions do not infringe on your right to bear arms. Let's drop the archaic arguments, talk sense and take steps to keep military style weapons from the unfit. I reject that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals rights that supercede the right to live and live in safety.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    Good letter. As for constitutional concerns, I'm fully in favor of well-regulated militias. I guess that would be the National Guard today.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    Guns don't kill people?

    Ok.

    Tell me how your hunting trip for a bear goes...

    when you only bring a bat.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    The worst attack on children in this country was perpetrated by the Govt. Waco!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    Yes, a REALISTIC solution is needed.

    But they are not coming from the NRA.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    So many comments filled with so many false arguments and so little common sense.

  • booshway Woods Cross, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    The worst attack on children in the U.S. was not perpetrated with a gun. It was done with dynamite. The worst attack on a school in Canada was not done with a gun. It was done with gasoline.
    Laws only affect law-abiding people.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    Re: Pagan: You're right, something has got to change. We need to get rid of "gun-free zones" and encourage more concealed carry by responsible, stable, law-abiding adults. Almost all of these terrible attacks occur in gun-free zones. That's not a coincidence.

    Dr. Metcalf is a good, decent man, but he's wrong on this issue. His proposals will only put the good guys at a disadvantage to the bad guys, which invites more attacks against the good guys.

  • booshway Woods Cross, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    Why is it that after the obligatory expressions of sympathies when something like the Connecticut shooting happens that the Democrats next words are “now we must take away your rights”?

    The Mayor of Boston has called for a ”national” policy on guns.

    Guess what? We already have one. And this is it:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. “
    What don't you get about "shall not be infringed"?

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 22, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    Several times more people are maimed and killed by baseball bats than guns.

    To be consistent, are you proposing a ban on all weapons that maim and kill people?

    A truly rational beginning would be to address mental health issues and violent attitudes.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 8:18 a.m.

    "Banning large-capacity magazines and non-military possession of assault rifles...None are a threat to law-abiding citizens."

    Unless you live in a rough neighborhood where the gangs have them, or you happen to be the unlucky one who encounters a thug in a 'good neighborhood', say in a school or a theater, then the ban is a threat to the law abiding citizens.

    Historically, those with some kind of tactical advantage, like superior weapons, win the vast majority of battles.

    These guns are like gossip, now that they are out there is no way to take them all back. Better to have them for defense, in the hands of good guys, than pretend if we give up ours they (bad guys) will give up theirs.

    The second amendment rocks!

    Too bad the government is broke, or we could have a public service campaign to educate gun owners on keeping legal arms away from children and mentally ill family members. That would be constitutional, and it would help, as it did with smoking.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 22, 2013 7:54 a.m.

    It is interesting that the same people who want to reduce gun violence favor violence of those yet to be born. As for gun laws already illegal to use gun to kill people. And how many murdered people come back because of gun laws? They won't reduce crime and may make crime go up as guns won't be in the hands of safe people.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 22, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    Who has the authority to "inhibit" us from keeping and bearing arms?

    The President clearly does not. Look at his job description in the Constitution. (Article II)

    Congress clearly does not (except to propose amendments to the States. Look at their list of responsibilities in the Constitution (Article 1)

    The Court clearly does not. Look at its list of authority in the Constitution (Article III)

    The States have that responsibility. The Amendment process requires that 75% of the States agree to change the Constitution. (Article V)

    Until the Constitution is amended, it remains as written as the Supreme Law of the Land. As the Supreme Law of the Land, no other law has authority over it. No law can contradict it.

    The laws that most people, most Congressmen and the President want passed cannot be passed because those laws contradict the Constitution. Those laws would be superior to the Supreme Law of the Land. That is impossible - unless we abandon law and rely on government edict for our Supreme Law of the Land.

    King George learned that we do not tolerate government edict. Has Obama learned nothing from history?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 22, 2013 2:31 a.m.

    In NM a 15 year old child took his parents gun from their closet and killed them.

    Last month, 20 children were murdered in elementary school.

    In Colorado, a man purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition online and moved on to kill Americans watching a movie.

    If you bring cash to a gun show, no background check is required for any gun purchase.

    More Americans have been killed due to gun violence than in all the wars since 1968.

    Columbine.

    Ft. Hood.

    Gabriel Giffords.

    Trolley Square.

    Something has got to change.