Quantcast
U.S. & World

Giffords makes plea for gun curbs

Comments

Return To Article
  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:46 p.m.

    When are our politicians and law makers going to have the courage, commitment, selflessness, integrity and honesty sufficient to dig deeper into the core issues that underlie the killings and other violent crime that takes place on a daily basis in this country.

    Why do so many children & young adults in this country have a lack of a properly developed conscious?

    Why do so many people have such a little regard for human life?

    Why do people refuse to honor and uphold the rule of law when ever it suits them?

    Why are kids drawn to gangs that glamorize and normalize violence and killing?

    Why do so many find notoriety and 15 minutes of fame more desirable and worthwhile than personal integrity, leaving peacefully, and character?

    Why are so many becoming mentally ill and not getting the help that they need.

    Then when are we as voters going to have the courage, commitment, integrity and unity enough to demand that our politicians start solving these problems or be relieved of their offices in short order.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    Chase and Iron -- thanks for proving my points.

  • CA. reader Rocklin, CA
    Jan. 31, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    In the majority of these cases, the shooter had mental and emotional issues. Why doesn't Congress do something to help those folks, like doing away with restrictive privacy laws that allow such folks to go undetected? I have nephew who has been hospitalized two or three times for emotional problems, yet because such info is not readily available for background checks, he owns three handguns.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 12:20 p.m.

    The 'SOLUTION' is the loss of the right to bear arms.
    In order to have a SOLUTION , you must first have a problem.

    THINK TANKS such as "The Institute for the Future' create the problem (mass shooters galore)
    and hope to manipulate the population to accept the above solution.

    As I said, only a human with a mind controlled by such an institution as the above "THINK TANK" would be promoting the above SOLUTION on this comment thread.

  • Chase Saint George, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    One old man

    There can not be liberty without responsibility. When you get in a car you accept the fact that you may be killed. That's the trade off. Some people choose to not use cars and are still killed by them.

    There is nothing paranoid about insurance. The Fathers, in their wisdom, provided insurance against tyranny with the second amendment.

    You have home insurance, health, auto, and maybe more. People can insure anything they wish. In this case, liberty.

    Besides, the war on drugs has not worked, prohibition did not work, why would you trust a gun-walking administration to protect you?

    The moral and cultural decay of our hedonistic society is killing America. Drunk drivers. Smoking. Sexually transmitted diseases. Abortions. These things kill Americans... Stop them, prevent lots of deaths!

    Guns are a rouse, propaganda. Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.

  • iron&clay RIVERTON, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    @ one old man:
    How does the Deseret News allow you to call everyone who disagrees with you "insane" or "mindless".
    It is far better to be the above than to be a mind controlled robot.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    Chase asks: "Liberty never meant freedom from consequence..."

    I have to ask, who pays the consequences?

    Is it Gabby Giffords, children in a school, a little boy in Alabama right now?

    Who?

    Or is it the shooter who goes berserk and then frequently kills himself?

    RESPONSIBLE gun owners should be fully supporting RESPONSIBLE gun safety regulations.

    Spouting paranoid rants about imaginary "government tyranny" is not only irresponsible, it is also bordering on insane.

  • Leopard Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    So what does Reagan have to do with today's assault on the constitution? Do you assume that I have human idols? Democrats idolize people. Celebrities, Kennedys, you name it, that is the mind of the progressive, worship men.

    Reagan also gave amnesty, what would his mistakes have to do with my positions on the issue? The resort to authority, (Reagan, Giffords, or anyone) is a fallacious argument.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    "Using this injured girl, Gabby, to promote a national gun conversation, is shameless."

    In an article titled "Why I'm for the Brady Bill" President Reagan penned the following:

    Jim Brady, my press secretary, who was standing next to me, wasn't as lucky. A bullet entered the left side of his forehead, near his eye, and passed through the right side of his brain before it exited. The skills of the George Washington University medical team, plus his amazing determination and the grit and spirit of his wife, Sarah, pulled Jim through. His recovery has been remarkable, but he still lives with physical pain every day and must spend much of his time in a wheelchair.

    Is this also "shameless"?

  • Chase Saint George, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    Americans cling to their guns as a means to ensure their own liberty. Liberty is the object. Guns are the tools.

    Liberty never meant freedom from consequence...

    Our liberty was procured by brave men with guns. Nothing short of that will preserve it...

    The problem with America is the degradation of culture and morality. You can not legislate morality. You can not legislate the reinforcement of strong cultural values. It is a cancer. Cancer either consumes or is cut out.

    Renounce war and proclaim peace. But if the hearts of our corrupt leaders become saturated with power and greed, prepare for the worst.

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time...

  • Leopard Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    Using this injured girl, Gabby, to promote a national gun conversation, is shameless. It's hyperbolic and emotional manipulation. And please spare us from people who must "do something". Beware the law of unintended consequences and "act in haste and repent at leisure" All we need do is look at countries with disarmed populations, now and in the past and see the consequences. There are already 9000 gun laws, 9001 will not solve what is a mental and spiritual issue.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    Reading some of the comments here makes me realize how deeply entrenched our national obsession with guns has become.

    But what is most frustrating is that most of them simply mindlessly repeat a few nonsensical talking points.

    What about actually doing some THINKING and trying to come up with workable solutions to a horrible national problem?

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    @what now

    The point is if Obama wants gun control let him begin at home. Remove the guns from the people protecting his children. What do you say about that?

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    "...What has barack decided he wants to do with his own kids?...".

    IF a republicon was in the White House, YOU would whine about whatever steps our country took to protect the Presidents' children?

    The hypocracy(sic) IS so thick you can choke on it.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    Time after time we see that banning guns invariably brings on more not less homicides. The M-16 the military uses is an assault weapon with a 30 round clip, which by the way is exhausted after 4 seconds if on automatic. The AR-15 is a look alike, but only semi automatic. Moreover the round is relatively small and more designed to wound than to kill. Hunting guns are much more potent. The concealed carry law I would say has been a great success. I just hope more teachers carry.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    Maybe Gifford could have mentioned that the deranged kid that shot her and killed others. Was a registered democrat that was tired of her policies on top of his mental problems. He didn't use an "assault rifle" to commit the crime.

    Maybe she should understand what it's like to be defensless while a criminal is armed better and doesn't care about his own life or the lives around him. Too bad no one was armed and could have shot and killed him sooner.

    It's a horrible crime that happened. But, the issue is the mental care system.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    I empathize with Ms. Giffords and her undeserved suffering, but her pleas for "gun control" should be ignored.

    They are irrational and favor a "solution" that has repeatedly proven to not fix the problems. What would have prevented her tragic incident, and the horrendous killings in Connecticut is "nut control," not gun control.

    Criminals and crazy people do not obey laws, and if gun control kept people safe, Chicago with its gun ban would not be more dangerous than Afghanistan.

    Many of those pushing for gun control, and using emotionally powerful props like Ms. Giffords are motivated by goals far different than preventing criminals from having guns.

    The Second Amendment is there for a reason. Yes, there are risks associated with freedom, but the benefits fare outweigh the costs.

    Remember, Deseret News, that if gun rights can be infringed, your free speech rights can be too! Will you support waiting periods before releasing stories, "training and test requirements and background checks" on reporters, limitations on the size or format of your newspaper, or banning of digital since it was not around in 1791 and therefore beyond the protection of the First Amendment?

    No new gun laws!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    CrisB writes

    "What has barack decided he wants to do with his own kids?
    Allow people to carry guns to protect them or not?

    Enough said."

    Really a bad argument.

    Kind of like this one (also a bad argument)

    What did the Republican National convention do about guns on premise?
    Allow people to bring in guns or not?

    Enough said.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 31, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Finding a path forward to decrease the gun violence in this country is a tough one.

    While I do not know the best solution, or set of solutions, I cannot believe that we should just Do nothing.

  • Cris B. Sandy, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    What has barack decided he wants to do with his own kids?

    Allow people to carry guns to protect them or not?

    Enough said.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    I remember Obama a few years ago visiting the border with Mexico and mocking those who advocate better border enforcement. He pointed to the fence and said that conservatives wanted to built a 100 foot fence, put in a moat, put aligators in the moat,...., and in general said such measures were pointless and only far-right extremists favored them.

    Fast forward to today... now the left parades gun victims in front of congress and uses the sympathy factor to push a radical gun control agenda.

    If the anti-illegal immigrant movement in this country found one of the thousands of innocent victims whose loved one was killed by an illegal criminal, drunk driver, or other careless illegal person to testify in front of congress, the media would be going nuts about how unfair such tactics are to push better border enforcement measures.

    The hypocracy is so thick you can choke on it.

  • Stephen Kent Ehat Lindon, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    I'm trying to remember when I read about MADD calling for car control.

  • mostevenings Lebanon, IN
    Jan. 31, 2013 7:17 a.m.

    So how's that working in Chicagoland where exists the most restrictive gun laws in the country?