Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Guns are self-defense’

Return to article »

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

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

You'll have plenty of guns available for 'defense'. And the organisation of which you speak, it does a pretty good job of villainizing itself, being so callous, inflexible and ideological. The status quo gotta go, if you'll excuse the poor syntax, and some sort of weapons restriction has to be part of the solution.

Mr. Bean
Ogden, UT

"Guns are self-defense"

No, no. Guns are authorized by the US Constitution in order to maintain a well regulated militia.

wrz
Ogden, UT

@Hutterite:

"... and some sort of weapons restriction has to be part of the solution."

Sorry, Hutterite, but the US Constitution disagrees with you. It says something like '...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' So, even if a crazy guy wants to 'keep and bear arms,' he is authorized.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

So, using wrz's reasoning, it would be perfectly OK to set up under the 1st amendment a religion which believes in and PRACTICES human sacrifice. After all, it isn't banned in the Constitution, right?

one old man
Ogden, UT

Isn't constant vomiting of right wing, NRA propaganda nauseating and disgusting?

wrz
Ogden, UT

@Mark B: "So, using wrz's reasoning, it would be perfectly OK to set up under the 1st amendment a religion which believes in and PRACTICES human sacrifice. After all, it isn't banned in the Constitution, right?"

The US Constitution says nothing about murder by sacrifice (or any other method). If the sacrificed human is murdered, it's against STATE law. That's a State issue. I would have thought you'd knew that, since you're such a Constitutional scholar.

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

As the letter itself admits, the statistics regarding guns used in self-defense are wildly inconsistent.

But here's a statistic to think about: In 2011, there were about 330,000 deaths in the United States caused by guns. Of these, two-thirds were suicides. The horrors of Newtown or Aurora notwithstanding, mass murders using assault-type weapons make up a very small percentage of the carnage. NBC Evening News reported a couple of weeks ago, for instance, that on that particular day, before 6 p.m. EST, there had been 203 gun-related deaths. Ten times as many as died at Newtown. In less than one day. Most gun deaths, of course, are caused by people wielding handguns.

So, what do we do? I guess at some point we have to realize that if we as a society are going to be irresponsible, we will have to start asking which right is more important, the right to carry a gun or the right to life.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

wrz
So, even if a crazy guy wants to 'keep and bear arms,' he is authorized.
9:48 a.m. Feb. 17, 2013

=========

Tell me how a back-ground check takes away a law abiding citizens 2nd amendment right?

Christopher Dorner, [ex-LAPD cop]
Adama Lanza, [New Town Elementary massacre]
James Holmes, [Aurora movie theater]
Jacob Roberts, [Portland mall shooter]
Seung-Hui Cho, [Virgina Tech massacre]

All crazies,
all assault rifles.

So - YOU support them? and their "right".
No questions asked?

wrz
Ogden, UT

@LDS Liberal:
"Tell me how a back-ground check takes away a law abiding citizens 2nd amendment right?"

Background checks are meaningless and a waste of time... since no one, sane or crazy, can be denied arms ownership and possession, per the 2nd Amendment. Check it out and tell me what you thing the Amendment says.

Also, try the 4th Amendment for authorization to do background checks ... 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated...'

"So - YOU support them? and their 'right.' No questions asked?"

Not me... I don't support them. As I indicated, it's the US Constitution that supports them.

Salsa Libre
Provo, UT

You never know when the black helicopters will come and you have to battle the police and the U.S. military. Forget about semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity ammunition clips. People need more lethal hardware to defend themselves against a government they don't like and want to rid themselves because they didn't choose it. The world's changing and, apparently, many people don't know how else to deal with it except to arm themselves.

However, if it is the government they want, they don't care how oppressive it is to the people they don't like. The survivalists want a dictatorship of the like-minded, everyone carrying guns and able to deal with any perceived threats they believe might cause themselves harm. It doesn't matter if it's church or school, the mall or the park; it's important to be ready to take action. The more armed people out there, the more the frayed nerves, the greater the paranoia, the more necessary it is to "protect" yourself.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

To wrz 11:14 p.m. Feb. 17, 2013

You ignore, or are unaware of, the fact that there is a limited and reasonable time-place-manner exception to every Constitutional right. You also ignore, or are unaware of, the fact that people can waive their Constitutional rights, which happens when a person consents to a background check by giving the information necessary to conduct the check. Your arguments are not well-founded or well-based and, consequently, fail.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Well let's see. If guns are for self defence, then how about some cannons? maybe I should park howizers in my back yard and a tank or two in the driveway. But wait! That might not be enough! Wll anyone sell me a F16? But to be really safe I might need to make a preemtory strike, how about a nice surplus B52? I don't live next to the ocean, so I guess a nuclear sub or a carrier my be overkill, but the maybe they could be parked in the great salt lake.

What! You point out that I am not trained for any of those weapon systems? Well the NRA better get busy setting up sessions, cause I jost don't think a handgun or a mere 20 or more 100 shot assault wseapon is going to be enough to protect me from all the crazy gun nuts out there.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

Defense can become offense with an assault weapon with high capacity magazine quickly. See the news.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

6,489 times a day, someone fights off a criminal using there guns? Where is this?

Even adjusted for population.

Utah represents just under 1 percent of the nations population. Even taking that number, that would break down to 68 times a day Utah citizens are engaged in gun battles to protect themselves or their property. I really really need to see the proof of that number. Its a real head scratcher.

68 times a day. Or 25,000 times a year... guns drawn, standing of a bad guy/gal.... in the state of Utah.

I have to tell you, if those are NRA numbers, they really need to explain their source for numbers like this. Could be true... but hard to believe.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" you should also remember that there have been pleanty of mass murders comitted by people without guns.

9/11 in NY was comitted by men with box cutters and airplanes, 2000 people killed.

Tim McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel to kill hundreds.

Hitler killed millions using gas chambers.

When you look at history, the largest mass murders are comitted without guns.

In 2007 Jeanne Assam prevented a mass murder by killing the would be murderer.

The Trolley Square incident was ended by an off duty officer using a concealed weapon.

Principal Joel Myrick stopped Luke Woodham from comitting a Columbine type murder after retrieving a gun from his car.

It seems that if you allow people to have access to guns, they are able to stop the crazy people before many are killed or injured.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

For home defense a multi shot shotgun is a whole lot more effective. How many of you have fired an AR 15 M16 AK47? They are not designed for short range accuracy but rather to put down a field of covering fire. Those weapons don't work so well in the confines of a house in the dark.

Confused
Sandy, UT

Wrz wrote
Background checks are meaningless and a waste of time... since no one, sane or crazy, can be denied arms ownership and possession, per the 2nd Amendment. Check it out and tell me what you thing the Amendment says.

Mr Wrz, if you are going to use the second admendment as your basis, at least check your facts...

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing the interpretation of gun ownership. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.

So the 2nd Admendment does NOT say you can own guns, a SCOTUS court case made that interpretation of the 2nd admendment.

Confused
Sandy, UT

WRZ

by the way, I am a card caring member of the NRA.....

to comment

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