Published: Sunday, Feb. 17 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
The solution isn't exclusively about guns, but guns, specifically some
control, is part of the solution.
The common denominator in most violence is HATE.Hate is the basic
weapon of choice in politics, economics and war. It’s easy to find
someone who will kill your enemies, all you have to do is spread enough hate.
It also helps if you have lots of discouraged and discontented people seeking
help and finding none. Guns provide the means to do it easily and
effectively and that part of their use should be controlled to the best of our
ability. But, in the end, if we want to suppress the need to kill,
we will have to find ways to discourage hate as a way of life.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.I carry a gun because
men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love. I
don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.I carry a gun because
unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate. I don't
carry a gun because I love it.I carry a gun because I love life and the
people who make it meaningful to me.
Like the right to vote, the 2nd amendment applies only to qualified American
citizens. Require background checks on all gun sales to ensure the protection
of this right.
"Shouldn't we make it more difficult for criminals and the emotionally
or mentally unstable to get guns?" That's a good question, however,
closing the so-called "loopholes" in laws on background checks is not
the answer. Criminals and those determined to kill do NOT adhere to laws. When
is everyone going to understand that? More gun laws only restricts the freedoms
of law-abiding citizens. I wish people, especially the media, the
president, and congress, would stop calling military-looking rifles "assault
rifles". The public cannot buy military assault rifles. AR-15s are NOT
military rifles, even though they LOOK like them. Educate yourselves. An AR-15
will make tiny holes in any one or any thing, compared to a 12 gauge shotgun,
which will blow a good 2-3 inch hole - producing instant death if strategically
placed. A 30-06 hunting rifle will kill much quicker than an AR-15, which is why
it are used for hunting big game. But no one calls a shotgun or a 30-06 an
"assault rifle". (They're all semi-automatics BTW.) It's about
how they "look". There is no method, logic, or reason to ban
What is needed is WISDOM in thinking and COOPERATION between all of us as we
seek solutions to a very serious -- and deadly -- problem.Unfortunately, that seems to be a scarce commodity in some circles.
Re: "What is needed is WISDOM in thinking and COOPERATION between all of us
. . . ."Both of which are extremely rare commodities among
true-believing liberal activists.Wise Americans understand NONE of
the unconstitutional anti-gun measures proposed by liberals -- "assault"
weapon bans, magazine capacity limitations, ineffective and needlessly
burdensome background checks -- could have the slightest effect on the
prevalence of violence, even if they could be legally enacted.Yet
they refuse to discuss measures we all know WOULD work -- things like an
increased presence in schools of armed first responders.That's
what passes for wisdom and cooperation among liberals.
procuradofiscal claims "Yet they refuse to discuss measures we all know
WOULD work -- things like an increased presence in schools of armed first
responders."I think that is a great idea. The minimum cost for
your idea is 4 billion dollars, but we could easily pay for that with a tax
(constitutional) on gun owners. Gun owners should carry the tax burden since
the only reason we'd need armed first responders in school is... the threat
In response to Melanie Read's letter: The worst gun tragedies are not those
where one uses "guns able to kill people in rapid succession." The
worst tragedies are those where the killer is able to kill innocents in rapid
succession. In the last fifty years, mass murders using guns have ALL taken
place (save one) in "gun free zones." In places where good citizens are
armed, and mass murder attempted, the body count is usually kept at four or less
(the arbitrary cut off amount for mass murder by some). Thus, disarming good
citizens reduces public safety - statistics show this. Reducing the ability of
good citizens to defend themselves, through reduced capacity magazines, waiting
periods only decreases our ability to prevent tragedies such as Newtown. If you
knew much about weapons, you would not use the term "military assault
rifle," as its definition is varied. Automatic fire guns have been outlawed
in the US since 1932. Semi-automatic weapons are the most common in society,
and they come in all varieties: handguns, hunting rifles with wood stocks,
rifles that look like military rifles (which can be set to automatic fire),
shotguns, for example. Limiting this type of gun is foolish.
Re: "The minimum cost for your idea is 4 billion dollars, but we could
easily pay for that with a tax (constitutional) on gun owners."Funny how liberals' first thoughts always run to new, ever more onerous
taxes.And, a confiscatory liberal tax would constitute an
infringement, which is NOT constitutional.Real people understand
that an increased presence of armed first responders could be obtained at very
low cost by government simply stepping out of the way, and permitting willing
staff and faculty to be trained and arm themselves.But that
wouldn't, of course, accomplish liberals'primary goal -- disarming
decent Americans, to stifle any opposition or dissent.
Re: ". . . we could easily pay for that with a tax . . . ."This liberal tax-your-enemies scam is the most insidious, yet.It
could readily be adapted to punish any of liberals enemies -- eg. the only
reason we need healthcare is sports, tax athletes and fans to pay for it. Or,
the only reason we need a country is to protect the rich, make them pay.Oh, yeah. We're already doing that.
Crazy logic. Gun advocates argue that easy access to guns will make us safer.
Yet we already have easy access to guns, and it hasn't seemed to make us
safer. Why persist in doing something that doesn't work? Isn't that
the definition of insanity? Why not try a different approach, see if it works,
and if not, try something else. That's generally how progress is made. I
honestly think that gun advocates are very afraid that if we have universal
background checks, and restrictions on magazine capacity and sales of assault
weapons, it might actually reduce gun violence, and thereby discredit their
theory. If they are so confident of their theory, they should be willing to
allow those restrictions for a time in order to prove that they don't
work.It's kind of like arguing that lowering taxes on the
wealthy will solve our fiscal problems. Been there, done that, and it
"But with military assault rifles?"Oh, if Military Assault
Rifles are bad, then I guess the Winchester 1892 is bad as well.AR15
rifles have been the number 1 best selling rifle in America since the Assault
Weapon Ban expired, and yet the violent crime rate has continued to fall.And so, Curmudgeon, allowing normal people to own assault rifles
actually is making us safer. So why would anyone want to change that?
When has the Federal government done ANYTHING sensible? Can you cite just one
Re: "I honestly think that gun advocates are very afraid that if we have . .
. restrictions . . . it might actually reduce gun violence, and thereby
discredit their theory."Unlikely.Particularly since
we've already tried those restrictions, and it only gun violence only
decreased when the loony laws were sunsetted.Seems unlikely anyone,
even a liberal, could honestly believe discredited, unconstitutional
restrictions that apply only to the good guys could possibly decrease
violence.I honestly believe liberal leaders' anti-gun agenda
has little or nothing to do with reducing violence, and everything to do with
increasing their power over real people, who actually are the majority in our
Nation.Credulous, uncurious liberal followers may actually have come
to believe such an unlikely assertion, but their power-hungry leaders
If no reasonable limits, then time to repeal second amendment.
"Funny how liberals' first thoughts always run to new, ever more
onerous taxes."I anxiously await your solution to paying for your 4
billion dollar plan."And, a confiscatory liberal tax would
constitute an infringement, which is NOT constitutional."You
can't just read the Constitution, and think you "get it". You have
to read all the subsequent court cases as well. The Supreme Court is the
opinion that matters.
@procureador -- Maybe in some rural areas you could get teachers to all become
armed guards at school, but city folk (where the majority of people live) are
less likely to own guns. So I think having armed guards at schools might cost
more than you think. Typical conservative. Coming up with ways to spend money
but refusing to pay taxes to pay for it. You people always want something for
Wait... I thought reasonable action was simply to confiscate all guns in
America? Sounds reasonable to any liberal anyway. One need look no further than
Chicago to learn what a gun-less society produces..... VIOLENCE!!
@patriot -- For the 999,999,999th time, no one wants to take away your guns.
You guys get your knickers in a wad over everything you hear, even when
it's not true, and then wonder why you have high blood pressure.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments