Quantcast

Comments about ‘The search for real cures to gun violence’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 22 2013 11:00 a.m. MST

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

The gun nuts insist on bending the conversation to a complete gun ban. "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns."

At least talk about the issue honestly. Obama has never called for a complete gun ban nor has he suggested he's going to take any guns you already have. Start there.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

How high is "up"? What is the difference between "shall not be in fringed" and "shall not be infringed except"?

Screwdriver would have us change the Constitution without first requiring an amendment to the Constitution. Would he like someone else to restrict his right to speak, to assemble to worship? Would he like someone else to tell him that he is the only person on his block who has to pay taxes and that his taxes will go to the welfare of everyone else living on his block? Would he like to be told that his children or his grandchildren cannot be educated at public expense because a group decided that they had the right to re-define who could be educated?

We have a Constitution to protect us from people who think that they have the authority to change the foundation of all US laws without having those changes ratified by 75% of the States.

The Constitution protects us against people like Screwdriver who imply "except" when that "except" is not a ratified amendment to the law.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Bratton's record has been debunked. The real reasons for NYC's crime drop were the gentrification of the city and the age curve--young male boomers grew out of their crime age and matured. Fewer criminals in a gentrified, older population. Bratton is claiming credit for factors far beyond his control.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

Right, that's why OBAMA HAS NOT SAID THERE IS A GUN BAN and neither did I. The supreme court said reasonable REGULATION is completely in bounds. WELL REGULATED. Reading comprehension is very low on this subject.

Must be lead poisoning.

J Thompson
SPRINGVILLE, UT

There is no link between "militia" and our right to keep and bear arms. That was settled when the Court ruled on Columbia v. Heller in 2008 - four years ago. How long does it take some people to read the "news"? Yes, Screwdriver, reading comprehension is very low on this.

There can be no "reasonable" regulation when the Supreme Law says "shall not be infringed". "Shall not" is an absolute. It doesn't depend on what the President thinks, or Congress or the Court. It depends on what the Constitution SAYS. "Shall not be infringed" leaves no room for argument, unless you are against law and order, unless you despise our freedoms and our liberties.

No matter how often someone tries to assert his personal authority to take away a guaranteed liberty, that person will always be wrong - 100% of the time.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

In a gunfight, the most important rule is..............HAVE A GUN.

Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.

Never say "I've got a gun." If you need to use deadly force, the first sound they hear should be the safety clicking off.

The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes, the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second.

If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. Nonsense. If you have a gun, what do you have to be paranoid about?
You can say 'stop' or any other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much a universal language

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@ J Thompson: There are limits on speech. These include laws against me standing outside your house at 3 am with a bullhorn, laws against pornography, laws against falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and laws against instituting violence.

There are limits on religion. These include not being able to offer human sacrifices, not being able to stone adulterers to death, seeking medical care for your sick children, and not being able to marry and procreate with children.

Many of our rights have limitations on them. Most of these limitations are based on the theory that "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This is also part of the Constitution. We can have limitations on our rights when necessary to fulfill the purpose of the Constitution and when necessary to protect our noses.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

There is no link between "militia" and our right to keep and bear arms.

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.

No link? Really? Looks to me like the amendment is dealing with militia.

There can be no "reasonable" regulation when the Supreme Law says "shall not be infringed".

So, are you also in the camp that people can own any and all firearms. Carry them anywhere, at any time?

Bars, Airplanes, Republican National convention? Is that what you want?

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

We don't get to own ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, or curise missiles. "Shall not", it seems, is not totally open ended. There's a line out there somewhere, like the one about shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre. The right to keep and bear arms is not being infringed, but there can be reasonable regulation. Against the unreasonable.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

Quote, "In a gunfight, the most important rule is..............HAVE A GUN."

Nope, not getting hit by a bullet and killed is the most important rule. That, sir does not require a gun to achieve.

You and the gun nuts need to change the way you think. You have the political process to guard against tyrany. If the conservatives would join the democrats in making bribery illegal we would have more control in our self-governance.

If you want to defend your family and yourself, there are dozens of DEFENSIVE measures you should have checked off before relying on a lethal gun as last resort.

Talk to me when you're serious about either subject.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

The title of this article shows the author is missing the mark.

It is not gun violence that needs fixing, but violence.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

If you are bored and shooting cans as targets...

you are not a well regulated militia.

There is no excuse for a 15 year old child having access to guns in NM and killing his family.

You want guns? Join the military.

I did.

Another Perspective
Bountiful, UT

Pagan

Where does the 2nd Amendment give militia members the right to keep and bare arms?

Last time I checked, it assures this right to the people, not militia members.

It does this so they can band together to defend their selves, their homes and communities when the need arises (this forming a militia if or when the need arises). When the police and/or the national guard (the government's militias) don't arrive on time.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Following the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Wayne LaPierre stated that the Federal law enforcement agents killed in the bombing were, “jack-booted thugs who got was coming to them.”

President George H.W. Bush, who was a gun owner and life member of the NRA resigned with the following statement: ““…. Al Whicler, who served on my Secret Service detail when I was Vice President and President, was killed in Oklahoma City. He was no Nazi. He was a kind man, a loving parent, a man dedicated to serving his country and serve it well he did.

"I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of the NRA’s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.

"However, your broadside against federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slandered a wide array of government law enforcement officials who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us…”

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Ok. Lets try another tactic?

When were you in a gun fight?

When did you need to defend your home with a gun?

For most people, this is a rare occurrence. Happening once, maybe twice in a lifetime at that.

Of course there will be those who say 'I did!' with no evidence, but how reliable with zero evidence?

So, if you need to fabricate the reason to have guns, you are lying about the reason.

And it's 'themselves'. Not 'their selves'.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

I have taught my kids from the time they are young to not mistreat others. To not tease or make fun of them. To stand up to for people who are picked on. They have listened to me and they don't pick on others. I have specifically told them to treat others as they would want to be treated .. the golden rule.

I have guns in my house, I have no fear that any of my kids would use a gun to harm another person wrongfully. I have not focused on gun violence or even violence, but on the golden rule.

If all children were raised like this, there wouldn't be the problems society is seeing today regarding violence, or at least it would be a small problem.

Taking away or chipping away at the right have guns is wrong. Innocent people should not be punished for the actions of a guilty few, especially given that the 2nd Ammendment is part of our law.

Any problem is best resolved by resolving the root causes, and the problem gun violence is no different.

to comment

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