Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Behavior, not gun type

Comments

Return To Article
  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 11, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    Flashback
    Kearns, UT

    Whatever --
    I'm a military veteran.

    I have what I need, and what I don't - I've been trained know how to improvise.

    Clinging to your guns, is a sign of insecurity.
    Possessing and clinging to it gives you the false sense of security you feel you lack.

    Let me ask you a few questions --

    Will there be guns in Heaven?
    Will there be guns in the Celestial Kingdom?
    Are guns allowed in the Temples?

    So,
    If we are to make our homes a Heaven on Earth, our own Temples, a sancuary from the evils of the world {NOT of the World] -- why must you put guns in them?

    You are putting your faith in a false god of death and flint and steel.
    I put mine in the one true and living God.

    ~ Peace

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    Sorry Open Minded Mormon. I can't resist. See Revelations 3: 15-16 for an answer to your last statement. You want shades of gray. The gray spectrum won't get you to heaven. I find that the word "Moderation" is mentioned exactly once in scripture in Philippians 4:5. On a certain church's web site that word points you to Self Mastery, Temperance, Word of Wisdom.

    I think in this case it is talking about Self Mastery. That is a good thing to have when guns are involved. You lean to master your self, then you won't have a problem. You don't want to own a gun, then fine. Don't begrudge me my right to own and posess one for my own purposes.

    A close reading of Alma 48 would indicate that at times preparing to defend yourself and others is ok, hoping that you will never have to do so. Pay particular attention to verses 11-14.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Feb. 10, 2013 6:59 p.m.

    Ia there a cognitive dysfunction here? There has been no proposal to ban all guns. It makes you look silly to keep talking about it.

  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 11:57 a.m.

    per cjb Feb 9 3:27a

    You mean like The Joker?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 3:36 p.m.

    If guns are banned, what guarantee is there the criminally insane won't find another way to kill innocent people? - cjb

    None.

    But we had x20 examples of children killed by guns...

    less than x2 months ago.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    Everyone should be free to issue a facebook manifesto and unload an extreme clip from a weapon designed to kill people? Good guys quickly become bad guys by squeezing a trigger and unleashing 100 rounds at other people.

  • EDM Castle Valley, Utah
    Feb. 9, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    This letter is just one more example that the far right doesn't have a better suggestion than "let's not even try. "

  • Bergbub Midway, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 7:27 a.m.

    Not only a false analogy, but an opinion not based on fact. It is a fact that changing magazines in fact have provided a break to allow others to intervene in the assault. Limits on magazines, universal background checks and limits on availability of assault weapons only make sense. Those who argue about this infringin on their Second Amendment rights probably haven't read it - courts have ruled that this is not unlimited and that I can't tote around an uzi or shoulder launched nuclear warhead. It's time for some common sense and to stop fearing the NRA, which has bee hijacked by the survivalist wingnuts.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 3:27 a.m.

    If guns are banned, what guarantee is there the criminally insane won't find another way to kill innocent people?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 1:23 a.m.

    "...you and your ilk ..."

    Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder how your hurling this phrase at anyone who disagrees with you doesn't violate the DN's "civil dialogue" standards. - Res Novae


    You too?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 1:09 a.m.

    I agree w/the letter writer... But perhaps, not in the way he intended.

    We definitely need a behavioral change. But it isn't the left that needs it, but the right.

    A month or so ago a large man walked into a JC Pennys carrying an assault weapon. A mall full of women and children.

    The right, praised and worshiped him as if he were some returned war hero or deity.

    Watching the right gush over this man was incredible. The party which started 2 wars in the middle east and which prides itself on being patriotic somehow found this act noteworthy? What would George Washington thought of it? Would Joseph Smith thought this man a hero, carrying a large gun in front of women and children? Where have the standards of the right gone?

    I have a tip for this man...

    Want to be a real Patriot? Sign up for the armed forces. Want to display real courage? Lead men into battle. Don't invade a shopping mall full of women and children. Want to show true honor and make a real difference? Save a child from a burning building.

    The right desperately needs a change in behavior.

  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Feb. 8, 2013 8:43 p.m.

    @Redshirt

    If guns aren't designed to kill, but bullets are, there's an easy compromise to this issue: ban the bullets. You're free to buy all the semi-automatic, military-style knockoffs and high-capacity mags you want and the Second Amendment as interpreted by you remains intact. Gun homicides go down sharply and I can go to the mall, the theater, and my kids' school without worrying about where the next mass shooting will be. Everyone wins.

    "...yet we still drive cars without people screaming about appearance, or engine capabilities."

    But we still regulate safety features, require licensing that varies for vehicle types, mandate drivers insurance, enact and enforce traffic safety laws, and pull licenses from people who can't meet minimum competence standards. If you want to draw analogies between guns and cars, I'm quite willing to enact similar regulations governing gun ownership and use.

    "...you and your ilk ..."

    Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder how your hurling this phrase at anyone who disagrees with you doesn't violate the DN's "civil dialogue" standards.

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 7:49 p.m.

    The gun and auto comparisons are wearing thin. The "obvious" answer as to which is more lethal is changing. The numbers of death by gunshot is virtually a "dead" heat with auto deaths. So stop making stupid non factual comparisons of the two. Another stat that has been fact checked by Politifact: "1,171,727 people killed in all wars since the founding of the USA. 1,384,171 have died in gun violence since the death of Robert Kennedy in 1968."

    So spin those numbers if you can!

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 5:09 p.m.

    @Kent "In our society, we must decide which is more precious to us, the right to life or the right to own a weapon."

    False. The right to own weapons derives from the right to life. It is the right to protect life.

    "We have proven over long years that we are not capable of enjoying both rights."

    Speak for yourself.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 3:57 p.m.

    Referring to the original letter: There are laws that prohibit drunk driving. We don't have regulations that ban assualt vehicles, but we have lots of laws that regulate how much a person can drink and still drive.

  • SteveD North Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    @ Craig
    "If you can make a rational case for how the benefits of loose or no restrictions for purchase and ownership of such weapons outweighs the growing menace to public safety I see being posed via their proliferation in American society, go ahead. I’ll listen"
    You see you make all kinds of inflamitory statements with nothing but your own perception to back them up. It is simply your opinion that we have "loose or no restrictions." And they are far from a menace, That is just a word used by the liberal media to inflame the topic. And I am sure, that no matter what I told you or how many facts were cited, you will never change your mind. You will just keep arguing your illogical ideals. So don't bother listening, I see you have already made up your mind.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 8, 2013 3:35 p.m.

    SteveD,

    "....It is the position of rational people, that our safety is in line with our lost liberties as far as guns are concerned. Since it has been substantiated that more gun laws will do no good, we should not so easily give up our freedoms."
    ____________________

    If you can make a rational case for how the benefits of loose or no restrictions for purchase and ownership of such weapons outweighs the growing menace to public safety I see being posed via their proliferation in American society, go ahead. I’ll listen.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    I'm thinking some people have been handling the lead in their bullets a little to long, and have got it into their brain, which is the only reason they can't logically understand regulation vs. lawless free for all.

    Please remember to wash your hands w/soap and cool water after handling your ammo.

    Really redshirt now it's guns don't kill the bullets do? and who would Jesus Shoot?

    AM radio is seriously affecting peoples ability to reason.

    The founding father would enjoy a good laugh at the nutty arguments of the NRA.

  • SteveD North Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    @ Craig
    "That argument could be made against every law we've ever had, Federal, state, or local."
    Yes it can and it has. When the safety of the many is greater than the freedom of the few then liberties are curtailed. It is the position of rational people, that our safety is in line with our lost liberties as far as guns are concerned. Since it has been substantiated that more gun laws will do no good, we should not so easily give up our freedoms.
    @ open mormon
    "I'll support your crying about banning weapons of ANY sort, when you loose your right to vote."
    Your logic is in need of some explaination. What does the right to vote have to do with the right to self protection? And what does "Crying have to do with anything other than you are trying to belittle others?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" why do you hate Jesus and the LDS church so much?

    Jesus said "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth." (Luke 11:23) That seems quite clear that with Jesus the situation is either black or white.

    If nothing is black/white, then why is it that the prophets of the church you claim membership in have said that the world is black/white, not grey?

    See D Todd Christopherson speaking out against Moral Relativism (shades of gray) in May 2009.

    Dallin H. Oaks speaking out against Moral Relativism (shades of gray) in October 1992 in an article titled "Religious Values and Public Policy". He repeated this message again in February 2011 in an article titled "People of Faith Should Defend Freedom of Religion". He again repeated the message about the evils of shades of grey (Moral relativism) in a CES fireside in September 2011 titled "Truth and Tolerance".

    Neal A. Maxwell spoke out against it in May 1995 in a talk titled "Deny Yourselves of All Ungodliness"

    There seems to be a contradiction between your beliefs and the LDS leaders.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 8, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    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.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 12:02 p.m.

    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.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 8, 2013 11:46 a.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 8, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    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.

  • SteveD North Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    @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.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 8, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    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?

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 10:17 a.m.

    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.

  • SteveD North Salt Lake, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Feb. 8, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    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?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    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....

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    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.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    Guns are purposely designed to kill, cars are not.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 8, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    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?

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 7:56 a.m.

    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!

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 8, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 8, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    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