Comments about ‘Letters: Sensible gun action’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Feb. 17 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The solution isn't exclusively about guns, but guns, specifically some control, is part of the solution.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

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.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

All American
Herriman, UT

"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 assault-looking rifles.

one old man
Ogden, UT

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.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

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 of guns.

SixthNephi
Holladay, UT

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.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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.

Curmudgeon
Salt Lake City, UT

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 doesn't work.

sohmdaddy
NAMPA, ID

"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?

JayTee
Sandy, UT

When has the Federal government done ANYTHING sensible? Can you cite just one instance?

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

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 couldn't possibly.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

If no reasonable limits, then time to repeal second amendment.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

"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.

Wonder
Provo, UT

@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 nothing.

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

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!!

Wonder
Provo, UT

@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.

to comment

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