Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Gun ban needed’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 24 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

In NM a 15 year old child took the gun out of his families closet and killed them.

A gun safe would have kept that family alive.

In Colorado, a man purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition and no one stopped him from killing Americans.

I can go to any gun show and purchase any gun if I use cash.

I am not trying to 'ban' guns. I am trying to offer solutions when 20 children are gunned down in elementary school...

last month.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Good letter, but the Obama plan lacks an assault weapon buy back provision. A buy back will be needed if the weapons at issue are to be removed from the street. Without that there will eventually be a strong "black market" for the weapons. In a black market professional criminals will dominate the market, and these weapons do have a very long shelf life.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

The title assigned to this letter is disingenuous at best.

With hard searching, one can probably find some people who want to "ban guns".
However, the mainstream is not advocating "banning guns"

But it is heard all too often.

Outlawing "assault" style weapons is a far cry from "banning guns"

Reasonable arguments can be made and discussions can be had, but to classify ANY proposed legislation as a "gun ban" is only meant to feed the flames.

How about we talk about the real issues and leave the imaginary ones out of the discussion.

higv
Dietrich, ID

Gun ban will bring zero people back and stop zero murders as most are used illegaly anyway. 2nd amendment saves lives.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

All you need to know about this issue is to remember than cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you! Self protection is THE best protection because bad guys will ALWAYS get guns and a gun in your hand is always better than a cop on the phone!

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"cops carry guns to protect themselves"

The cops I see do carry guns. They carry pistols. They are highly trained and accountable for their actions. They are screened for mental stability and proficiency with their weapon. They control their weapons at all times. They practice periodically.

I support similar requirements for your average citizen. Do you?

Another Perspective
Bountiful, UT

Military type guns are exactly the kind of guns the constitution meant to protect.

A people's militia must have arms sufficient to protect themselves, their homes and their community or the people's militia will be vulnerable to threat from roving gangs or other threats in the event of a natural or other disaster.

As recent events have taught us and as the framers of the Constitution predicted, government militias can't always be counted on to be there or be there on time. This is why they provided that people keep the right to protect themselves by forming up into well regulated militias when required.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Bartley: "Now is the time to do something about gun violence."

Often the best deterrent is to fire back.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Joe Blow. You make very good points. If you can guarantee any law will eliminate mentally unstable and people not proficient with their weapon will never obtain a gun, I will enthusiastically support it. Since that is impossible, I will use a gun in a proficient and responsible way to protect myself and my family from the bad guys who will NEVER obey laws including gun laws. Any by the way, cops don't just carry pistols, they have all the firepower they need, including "assault weapons".

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

How soon we forget our history.

On October 27, 1838, Missouri Governor Boggs issued an extermination order directing the extermination of any "Mormon" in Missouri.

In 1857, US President Buchanan ordered the US Army to put down the rebellion in the Utah Territory. What rebellion? The religious worship and doctrine of the "Mormons" were protected by the 1st Amendment, but that was "rebellion" to Buchanan.

Now Obama wants to overthrow the foundation of the 2nd Amendment. He has found a political cause that he thinks gives him authority to disregard the rights of the people and the Constitution of the United States. He thinks that he has the right, like Governor Boggs before him and President Buchanan to use the power and authority of the government to destroy the rights of the people.

So many agree with Obama. What will they think when they are driven, like the Native American Nations, at gun point from their homes, their businesses, their families? Didn't the "government" make promises to them?

We, the people, are responsible to keep the government honest. They won't do it by themselves.

Thinkin\' Man
Rexburg, ID

Spoken like a true non-gun-owner.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Another Perspective
Bountiful, UT
Military type guns are exactly the kind of guns the constitution meant to protect.

A people's militia...or the people's militia...the people's militia
...IS called a gang.

A militia is the National Guard.

As as noted previously --
Those Assualt rifles you say you need, that are used by the Military and the Police.
The same rules should apply then:

Extensive background checks,
Pass pysical AND mental evaluations,
Are required to have extensive annual and semi-annual training,
and must ALWAYS must keep those weapons secured in a Gun Safe or ARMORY.

The same is the SAME.

SteveD
North Salt Lake, UT

Other than the background checks,the only result of the proposed gun control laws, will be stepping stones to more draconion laws. The size of the magazine or the way a gun looks, will have no effect on criminals.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Excellent letter.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Mike, yes we have forgotten our history. Unfortunately, though, most of us never knew the other half of that history. Our forebears had a way of making enemies out of people who would really have preferred to leave them alone. Look at the citizens of Quincy for the best example. They harbored the Mormons in their homes after the exodus from Missouri. But after getting to know the Latter-day Saints during the next five years, they signed a resolution demanding that the Mormons leave the state. They were willing to take up arms to make it happen, if necessary. Ever wonder why?

In Missouri, the Mormons came in proclaiming they were going to take over all the land and set up their own utopia. Not exactly what the locals had in mind. Look into the affairs in Caldwell and Daviess Counties, and you'll find that the Mormons weren't just victims of evil oppression. Truth is always much more complicated than myth.

If we start talking about establishing our own vigilante "militias" today, I can imagine we might face similar consequences. Thank goodness Church leaders are more wise and cautious than many of their followers.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

re Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

This is probably my last post due to desnews frequency restrictions.

A WELL REGULATED people's militia is NOT a gang. A well regulated people's militia is people banding together in event of an emergency to defend themselves against gangs and other invaders.

If the 2nd Ammendment were talking about national guards (a government militia), it wouldn't have been necessary to give regular people the right to have guns (so they could form a peoples militia when necessary). A government militia can always keep its guns in a central location, which is what army units and national guard units do.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"If you can guarantee any law will eliminate mentally unstable and people not proficient with their weapon will never obtain a gun, I will enthusiastically support it"

Well Mtnman, we both know that is not possible. Name one law that eliminates any bad behavior.

People will still drive drunk, but I support laws that reduce the likelihood.

When people get a license to carry in public, they should have some training. Doesn't that make sense? Could you imagine getting a car license without driving a car?

Look. In many ways, I am on your side. I fully support people owning guns. Any attempt to take away peoples guns would have me in the streets in protest.

I, however do not fear the govt raising arms against me.

Therefore, I do not support those who want any number of weapons, any kind of weapons and an unlimited amount of ammo.

I do not feel that background checks, waiting periods and types of weapon restrictions are unreasonable.

Can you share what, if any, restrictions that you could support?

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

"In NM a 15 year old child took the gun out of his families closet and killed them.

A gun safe would have kept that family alive.

In Colorado, a man purchased 6,000 rounds of ammunition and no one stopped him from killing Americans.

I can go to any gun show and purchase any gun if I use cash.

I am not trying to 'ban' guns. I am trying to offer solutions when 20 children are gunned down in elementary school..."

At mount carmel elementary school, a 5 year old girl was arrested and treated like a terrorist for bringing a pink toy bubble gun to school. In another school a child made a paper gun and got the same treatement. talk about paranoid whackos.

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

This just puts a bandaid on mental illness. It doesn't help treat those types of people in any way shape or form. If you defang a rabid dog, the dog is still rabid.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@Bartly "Assault rifles and similar weapons were designed for war and killing the enemy by laying down a 'field of fire.'"

I think you may be confusing semi-automatic weapons with fully automatic weapons. The so-called "assault weapons" banned by Feinstein's proposed legislation are semi-automatic, which means that you pull the trigger once for each shot fired. These are not "field of fire" weapons. The automatic weapons you describe are already illegal.

The nation has tried a ban on "assault weapons", and it didn't stop Columbine from happening. It seems that murderers don't stop to think whether they might be breaking a gun law.

to comment

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