Published: Thursday, March 14 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
This is proof that all this gun legislation that the federal government is
pushing on us has nothing to do with preventing gun violence but pushing their
own agenda. someone has plans that start with gun legislation and it certainly
isnt preventing gun violence.
"If one accepts the Brady Campaign's diagnosis, one would have to
presume that California is a firearms-free paradise, while the lawless,
gun-riddled streets of the Beehive State feature shootouts every dawn out in
front of the local saloon."I really don't think that is
what the Brady Campaign is implying with their diagnosis. And I don't
think even the DN Editorial board would use those words to describe life in
California. The Brady Campiagn has a single purpose in mind and that is to
restrict the use of fireamrs in hopes that it will decrease the number of gun
deaths in our country. The NRA has a seeminglty opposite mission which is to
eleimninate all restrictions on gun ownership. Both arguments should be
considered by the legislative bodies that govern our nation when determining
what should be done to change a tragic pattern (one that continues with the
report of a gunman killing four people in upstate New York just yesterday). The
shooting death of a state trooper here in Virginia last week reminds me that
even a good man with a gun often can't stop a bad man with a gun.
Sometimes the stats are used erroneously to make a point.People look
at some places with strict gun laws (Chicago perhaps) with high crime rates as
proof that gun laws don't work.In reality, many of those
"strict" gun laws came into being BECAUSE of high crime.Crime and gun violence is generally higher in areas with high poverty. I
would submit that Utah does not have lower gun violence BECAUSE of its gun laws
but because it was not a violent place to begin with.We need to take
an honest look at potential gun laws with an open and honest mind.They
cannot all be summarily dismissed by gun advocates.In the same
light, not all proposed gun laws should be supported without an honest review to
determine their potential effectiveness.We need both sides to push
for reasonable laws that accomplish a common goal. Unfortunately,
the nature and divisiveness of anything to do with guns typically precludes
"reasonableness" on both sides.
It need to be noted that many of the politicians who are actively working to
take away our gun rights are themselves protected by guns. They either have guns
themselves or have guards who have guns.The NRA was criticized for
pointing this out when they produced and then showed an ad illustrating this
which stated ... Politicians want the protection of guns for themselves, and gun
free zones for everyone else.If gun free zones, calling 911, or
uninating (to protect against rape) are good enough for the common people, then
politicians ought to be restricted to this themselves.It is very
important that the ruling class be subjected to the same laws as everyone else.
This is the only way many of them will have the required empathy to be able to
understand the needs and wants of those who they rule over.
Obviously, gun laws alone aren't enough to eliminate gun violence. But
imagine what a place like California would be like if it had Utah's gun
laws! Clearly, what works in a state with a large Mormon and rural population
is not going to work in a much more populated and urban state with a large drug
and gang problem.To say that gun control laws don't work
because California has tougher laws and more crime is a very reductionist and
simplistic statement that ignores a whole host of other reasons why there is
more gun violence in California.
"It is very important that the ruling class be subjected to the same laws as
everyone else. "Did you notice that the Republican National
Convention prohibited "everyone else" from bringing in guns? I think
that makes a lot of sense and completely understand the logic.But,
it is in direct conflict with the point that you are making.Wonder
why the NRA did not highlight THAT hypocrisy as well......
Joe Blow. All you need to know about guns and crime is to understand that cops
carry guns to protect THEMSELVES, not you!
Re JoeBlowNo I didn't notice, but thanks for pointing this out
JoeBlow.Maybe you did or maybe you didn't notice that during
the election I was doing everthing I could to get President Obama re-elected. I
am a pro-gun Democrat.
cjb.I am a self proclaimed pro gun independent.I fully
support peoples rights to own guns. And I would protest in the streets if guns
were banned or confiscated.But, I do not support peoples rights to
own any gun and carry it anywhere, anytime as many suggest.I think
it is reasonable to have background checks, even though it wont stop all bad
people from getting guns. Gun training is also reasonable if you intend to
carry it around others in public.I don't want to live in a wild
west type society where everyone walks around armed.I don't want guns
on airplanes. Or in bars by those who are drinking.I am not fearful that
the government will come after me.I believe that people should be
held accountable when they leave their loaded gun laying around and a 6 year old
dies because of it.I am sure that many will claim that I am not
pro-gun at all because I believe that the second amendment allows some
restrictions.To me, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue.We need common sense to prevail.It is mostly lacking.
I'm not anti-gun. But we do need some common sense safety rules placed on
guns to try to reduce their use in mass shootings and other common tragedies.Extremism on both sides is nonsense.
If UT is so safe why are UT legislators pushing to relax gun laws in
UT--allowing anyone to conceal carry?CA might have a higher homicide
rate--but UT has a higher rate of death from firearms when suicides are
included.Los Angeles has an extremely economically and ethnically
diverse population of nearly 4 million--about 1 million more than the number of
people living in UT. That CA's homicide rate is not higher is due in part
to its gun laws. More guns does not mean more safe. A trained
policeman hits his intended target 1/3 of the time. When the police officer is
being fired upon his average drops to less than 20%.
Preventing gun violence is not likely. Reducing or minimizing gun violence is a
reasonable goal and all parties should work toward that end. In Cook County
(Chicago) with its strict laws, gun violence is partly the result of readily
available guns in adjacent counties. Utah legislators should remember that this
is not Tombstone, AZ circa 1890 and make laws accordingly.
Way to draw conclusions while looking at just two states...nice cherrypicking
you've got going on there.
@ECR All I have to say is look at Kennesaw, GA. The good guy will not
always stop the bad guy your correct and we all know that, but that's not
the point. The point is that If the guy or lady who commits the crime thinks
before hand "maybe I will get shot, or what if the other person has a
gun?" IT's the fear factor it stops many criminals from commit crimes,
but if you take them away like in California, Chicago, and Detroit the criminals
don't have a fear other the the police(which the police are to affraid of
going into their communities) So they do what they want.
Re: "I'm not anti-gun. But we do need some common sense safety rules
placed on guns to try to reduce their use in mass shootings . . . ."You're anti-gun.There is no "common sense safety
rule" that can possibly reduce the use of guns in mass shootings. There are
just too many guns out there, and those conscience-free individuals who will
ignore the law and engage in mass shooting are extremely unlikely to be worried
about draconian gun laws and penalties.Suggesting we try such rules
anyway merely reveals an anti-gun animus.What is needed is for
politicians to stop demagoguing this issue and leave off persecuting those of us
willing to protect ourselves and our families from the violence that secular
liberalism has unleashed on modern American society.
dwayne - I'm sorry you misinterpreted my comments to mean anything other
than we all need to stop the hyperbole and start getting serious about finding a
solution to this tragic circumstance. I'm definitely not talking about
taking away guns lawfully purchased by responsible citizens and I'm not
advocating anything other than a reasonable discourse on what can and should be
done that will make our children, indeed all of us, safer, at least to some
degree. If you are suggesting that I would reject the notion that nothing can
be done then you are right to do so. The only thing that will guarentee that
nothing changes - or that it will get worse - is for us to shrug our shoulders
and say nothing can be done. The people in upsate New York and the State
Trooper in Virginia were killed because the wrong people had access to a gun. I
don't know how to change that but I can guarentee that until we stop
digging in our heels, on both sides of the issue, those sad headlines will be
seen over and over again, perhaps even more frequently.
@ECRAgain Just a few deaths from guns is not news breaking stories, if it
wasn't a gun it would be something else, see now Obama wont tell you that
he himself has personally allowed bombings from Drones that have killed
thousands of inocent people. YOU CAN NOT MAKE LAWS TO PREVENT THINGS, WE NEED
STRONG LAWS THAT HURT THE PEOPLE THAT COMMIT THOSE HEINOUS CRIMES. Thats like
saying to prevent coffe spils they ban the sale of coffe. I have a RIGHT to own
and bear arms to protect myself from our own government. When they tell me I can
not purchase a gun that just "LOOKS" Like theirs and then they keep them
and are buying up all the ammo for them(Obama has increased the ammunition
purchases)Then there is something sinsster going on.
Re: ". . . this is not Tombstone, AZ circa 1890 . . . ."No,
it's not. If it were, we'd be a lot safer than in latter-day LA,
Chicago, Washington, DC, or Detroit.And that's primarily
because people took responsibility for their own defense, not assuming the
government could or would do a better job of it.It should probably
be noted, as well, that the famous OK Corral shootout took place AFTER enactment
of a strict gun-control law [at trial, the Earps and Doc Holliday successfully
claimed to be enforcing an 1881 gun-control ordinance], and was the direct
result of a government attempt to disarm citizens who believed they needed arms
for their own protection, and who had been given a "permit," of sorts,
to do so by County Sheriff Johnny Behan.So, if history is prologue,
attempts to disarm America would quite probably plunge us into chaos.
@JoeBlowAnd the reason is because your scared that other people have a
firearm which in time will prevent many criminals from commiting crimes. I say
stiffen up the Laws to people that commit the crimes not just a slap on the
rist. other than that you have no right to tell any other person what they can
and can not own, say, or do. Every person can and WILL do what they want thats
the freedom of life. so just make it show that if people choose to do the bad
things that they will not enjoy it at all and then bam they wont do it(after
they have seen others get the stricter sentences) I also say get TV's and
commercial foods and snacks out of prison its not a resort its a Prison!
Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. -- I love how ultra-conservatives
refuse to use logic and practical reasoning of cause and affect.For
example -- Those areas may have a higher gun crime per capitca than Utah.
granted.But have they ever thought about how many MORE violent gun
crimes would have been committed WITHOUT those tougher gun laws?They
SAY it's a break down of Society, But the DN Editorial Board has
bought into the NRA lie of more guns equal less crime.Makes about as
much sense as more alcohol equals less drunk crimes, or more pornography
equals less sex crimes.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments