Comments about ‘Letters: Behavior, not gun type’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 8 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mountanman
Hayden, ID

These calls for gun laws are only symbolic, to make liberals feel better about themselves. "Gun laws will not guarantee a stop to mass shootings". Joe Biden

cjb
Bountiful, UT

There is a movement to make election of the president by direct election instead of the electoral college. One of the consequences of this would be that small states wouldn't have as much voice as they do now. If that happened, America would be more likely to elect presidents in the future who are not friendly to the 2nd Ammendment.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

Cars that go faster than 5 miles per hour kill significantly more people than cars that go under 5 miles per hour.

Why doesn't barack immediately ban all cars that go faster than 5 miles per hour.

Additionally, cars that go faster than 5 miles per hour kill more people than all civilians killed by any gun, every year.

In other words, someone is more likely to die from a car that goes faster than 5 miler per hour than they are from a gun

Barack, please outlaw these dangerous cars that go faster than 5 miles per hour.

And NO, the fact a gun may be designed to kill does not change anything.

If bananas suddenly were killing more people than guns and cars, we'd have to look into limiting banana access, even though bananas aren't designed to kill.

The FACT is that cars that go over 5 miles per hour kill way more people than guns.

Barack, do the right thing.

Ban all dangerous cars!

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

To Mountainman..""Gun laws will not guarantee a stop to mass shootings". Joe Biden"...and? This is exactly what many of us here find so disingenuous about your posts. You argue against what you want us to say not what we say. The argument against high capacity magazines and certain types of weapons is not..let me repeat is not that if they were banned mass shootings would end. The argument is if such tools are bannded the mass portion of violent crimes could be reduced.

I can do a lot of damage with a shot gun to targets or anything else I aim at but not as much damage or as quickly as I can with a semi automatic loaded with a 30 shot magazine. Why would you possibly be against limiting such carnage?

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Guns are purposely designed to kill, cars are not.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

Some drunk drivers are required to have a breathalyzer interlocked with the car ignition.

If only there were some way to connect an idiotalyzer to a gun. For example, saying "The government wants to confiscate our guns!" would cause the idiotalyzer to engage a locking mechanism on the trigger.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Both will have no impact on the state of mind or behavior leading to the violence.

Ron Paxton

===========

So then --
Pro-Gun Ron fully supports our liberl push for universal background checks.
Thanks for your support Ron.

FYI - Assault vehicles are already banned to the general public.
And fuel tank are already limited in size for safety factors.

But, thanks anyway for playing....

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

One of the major problems of logical thinking about guns, is the vast number of people who can’t see and understand the difference between guns and cars.

Another major problem is the people who think that the individuals in small groups, states, are better and more intelligent about electing a president for all the people of America.

Another major problem is the people who think that guys 250 years ago should tell the current world how to live.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Weapons designed for war have become a civilian's weapon, a play toy for some, a liability for all of the general public when they fall into the wrong hands. Is it worth it in the name of the Second Amendment? Where is our common sense?

SteveD
North Salt Lake, UT

The discussion about limiting guns and the accessories that go on them, is not a debate about guns -vs- cars or guns -vs- abortion, it is about reducing deaths. On one side they think smaller magazines and a ban on semi auto rifles will reduce deaths. According to the CDC and other studies, the 1994 assault ban and magazine limits, did very little to nothing, in reducing gun deaths. The attempt to pass these laws is just an attempt, by the gun grabbers, to feel better about themselves.
The best answer is to make stiffer penalties and enforce the laws we have, before making more useless laws that just hamper freedoms for law abiding citizens.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

Roland, you forget the Pinto.

This letter makes a point, though. Restricting certain types of semiautomatic rifles and the size of magazines may reduce the carnage in mass shootings, but they do nothing to solve our larger gun/violence problem, which was illustrated a couple of weeks ago on the NBC Evening News. By 6:00 p.m. EST that day, 203 people had been injured or killed with guns. In other words, in part of one day, ten times more people were killed or maimed by guns than at the school in Newtown.

When are we going to come to our senses and realize that we long ago gave up the "right" to own guns, because we are unwilling, as a society, to responsibly possess them, unlike, say, the Swiss? When a large enough sector of society is irresponsible, all of us lose rights.

In our society, we must decide which is more precious to us, the right to life or the right to own a weapon. We have proven over long years that we are not capable of enjoying both rights.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

SteveD,

"....The best answer is to make stiffer penalties and enforce the laws we have, before making more useless laws that just hamper freedoms for law abiding citizens."
____________________

Can you explain why a ban on civilian access to military weaponry is an undue encroachment on American liberties?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Chris B
Cars have a non-violent purpose. Guns do not. Next time you want to make an analogy, do one that isn't silly.

SteveD
North Salt Lake, UT

@ Craig Clark. There are already very tight controls on "Military Weaponry" The weapons the liberals want you to think are "military Weapons" are just semi automatic guns dressed up to look like military guns..
Making it illegal for me to purchase a semi auto rifle is an undue encroachment on my liberties. And, it isn't about need, it is about freedom.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

SteveD
North Salt Lake, UT

Making it illegal for me to purchase a(a assault weapon with high capacity magazine) semi auto rifle is an undue encroachment on my liberties. And, it isn't about need, it is about freedom.

10:58 a.m. Feb. 8, 2013

==========

No, this is about someone's unfounded insecurity - and a sincere and real desire to over-throw our Government and go against our Democratic process.

However - I will concede this,
I'll support your crying about banning weapons of ANY sort, when you loose your right to vote.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

No!

No regulations!

Period.

Any regulation on guns is an infringement and an attack on my dear 2nd Amendment! We should all have access to semi-autos, autos, machine guns, bazookas, drones, tanks, nerve gas, nukes, and aircraft carriers! No background checks and no regulation. I should have the freedom to buy any weapon ever invented.

The only way for teachers to stop school shootings is to pack machine guns and bazookas in their classrooms.

If we regulate weapons then pretty soon only the terrorists and criminals will have these weapons.

At least, that is what AM radio and Foxnews have told me.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

SteveD,

"....it isn't about need, it is about freedom."
____________________

That argument could be made against every law we've ever had, Federal, state, or local.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

The claim that 'behavior' not guns is the problem rings false....

when this month a veteran was killed at a gun range and an ex-cop is wanted for murder.

Guns kill people.

Not video games.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I see this common pattern amogst extremeists of all sort...

If anyone or anything is deemed one tiny tick-mark off -- it beomes the absolute opposite.

It can only be Black or White, All-or-Nothing, Zero or One.
Nothing inbetween.
No gray, No raindow, NO COMPROMISING.

The uber-far-right-wing seems to rank with this sort of mind-set.
As any GOP politician who might even so much as TALK to a Democrat, and they label him a RINO.

...and to the radical right LDS listeners out there --
the LDS Church has warned repeated about those who are extremeists.

There must be a moderation is ALL things.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Roland Kayser" you and your ilk are wrong about what guns are designed to do.

I could take a gun and point it at you all day, and it will never kill you. The only way a gun alone has a chance of killing you is if I hit you with it repeatedly.

Guns are designed to fire bullets. The bullets are designed to do different things. Some are tracer rounds, some are designed to kill. Others are designed to just go through its target. Some bullets just make noise.

Guns are no more dangerous than a car, yet we still drive cars without people screaming about appearance, or engine capabilities.

to comment

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