Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: A place to start’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, April 6 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
cjb
Bountiful, UT

Change must start someplace Jim Carrie?

Look some place else besides my gun rights.

If not I say take away your right to drive, and to drink alcohol. Why you ask? Here is why, because others drive drunk.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

It is one thing to not know that someone is unstable.

But Lanza's mother knew quite well.
I have not seen this reported, but have to assume that her guns were accessible to her son.

This woman should have had a large gun safe or should not have had guns in the house.

With gun ownership comes huge responsibility. It would be refreshing if gun advocates would be first to speak out against those who do not take that responsibility seriously enough.

Midwest Mom
Soldiers Grove, WI

Yes, begin with violent video games and films, but don't stop short of holding the gun lovers accountable for their fear-mongering and using the deaths of innocent children to promote the sales of their products.

10CC
Bountiful, UT

The highly disturbed thinking of this young man is a great place to start, but we've had crazy people with us since the beginning of time.

The combination of mental health and easy, unaccountable access to mass amounts of weapons designed to kill, make this an easy prediction to make:

We will see this type of tragedy again.

I think Hollywood and game makers should be looked at as sources of mental illness, or at least factors that exacerbate violent thought.

But, just like a grenade, you need both the hardware and an action - pulling the pin - to make it deadly. Who is likely to actually pull the pin, and should we then restrict who can have access to that hardware?

Why are the NRA and so many gun owners so opposed to background checks? We're not saying you can't have your weapons and ammo. We're saying if you're James Holmes and your psychiatrist has warned the police that you are a potential homicidal time bomb, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to buy a lot of guns and ammo.

Is this unreasonable? Really?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Is this unreasonable? Really?"

Not according to a recent poll

"voters still support universal gun background checks 91 - 8 percent, including 88 - 11 percent among voters in households with guns, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today."

In fact, the NRA once supported background checks at gun shows.

"We've always supported instant background checks," LaPierre declared at a Friends of NRA banquet in South Carolina in May 1999

So, no 10CC. It is not unreasonable at all. Not according to Americans today, and the NRA 14 years ago.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"When Electronic Arts created the marketing material around the latest title in its blockbuster Medal of Honor series, the Warfighter installment, it made a website that included links to the manufacturers of the guns and other weapons show in the game, according to a chilling New York Times story.

Links from that site led to the companies’ online catalogs, turning the EA Website into a “virtual showroom for guns,” Ryan Smith, who writes an online gaming magazine, told The Times. Now, those links are down. Still, EA proudly displays a list of 14 partners. Examples: Magpul, a manufacturer of large-capacity magazines, and McMillan Group, which produces highly powered sniper rifles. While the links are inactive, it doesn’t take much more now to click through to the gun companies’ websites."
(Forbes 12/26/2012)

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

My theory is that Adam Lanza was a bomb created by his mother who covered her disappointment in her son by putting him down and threatening putting him in an institution. The high hate level for the children probably came from her comparisons between him and the children.

The build up of hate and fear in Adam Lanza simply reached the point where he had to fight back. The bomb exploded.

1aggie
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Come on DN, certainly we can do better than lame one-pronged approach. How about the following three-pronged approach? First, as you suggested, let's study what makes crazy people do crazy things. Second, let's get some serious background checking in place and operating properly. Third, let's let gun owners pay for the mayhem caused by guns by requiring gun owners to purchase an insurance policy for each gun they own covering the possible death and destruction that could reslult from their gun being used improperly. I don't believe there is anything unconstitutional about requiring people to bear the true financial cost of the items they choose to own.

one old man
Ogden, UT

cjb -- your post is pure nonsense.

Here are a couple of numbers to consider: In 2011, murders by firearm totaled 8,583. The total for ALL OTHER weapons was half of that, or 4081. (Source, FBI statistics)

But trying to talk sense to someone who has been deluded by NRA's propaganda, paranoia and fear mongers is fruitless, isn't it?

James1105
BOAZ, AL

People love to point fingers, but generally don't think about the three other fingers pointing back at them. What were the causes of all of this mayhem by Lanza?

Like the Columbine massacre, it couldn't be related to bullying which all them received at the hands of forced education in public schools, could it? What was done about the rather constant bullying, anything? Did the bullying stop? Or, continue.

Given mental illness, what was done to aid Adam Lanza to minimize its negative effects?

If he didn't respond well to efforts to help him, why was he given access to weapons of many different forms? Where was his psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, school counselors, etc. besides his mother?

Why aren't fingers being pointed at THEM instead of the tools themselves?

Mickey Kovars
Tampa, FL

We keep hearing that 9 out of 10 people favor expanded background checks, but that is just the beginning of the argument. How many of that 9/10 want a permanent registry kept by the government? All of them? Not likely. If a government registry were in place, how many feel that this could lead ultimately to gun confiscation? Why not? Obama and other Dems have made it crystal clear that they want guns gone, and they've shown their willingness on a host of issues to lie about their true intentions.

By the way, once we have hammered the 2nd Amendment into a shape progressives would like, when can we start doing the same to the 1st Amendment?

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"Obama and other Dems have made it crystal clear that they want guns gone"

Certainly you can find some who think that no guns is better.

Obama has not shown that.

The truth is that he has said just the opposite on many many occasions.

Barack Obama in 2008 made this promise to his supporters.

“I believe in the Second Amendment. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away… But I am not going to take your guns away. So if you want to find an excuse not to vote for me, don’t use that one because it just ain’t true. It ain’t true.”

Mickey Kovars
Tampa, FL

No offense, JoeBlow, but Obama's promises are worthless. I remain convinced that he, like Bloomberg, Emanuel, Schumer, Biden and many others do indeed want guns confiscated.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

In 10/2012 the House passed HR 2349, the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2011. The bill contains a provision that would forbid the Department of Veterans’ Affairs “from determining a beneficiary to be mentally incompetent for the purposes of gun control, unless such a determination were made by a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority based upon a finding that the beneficiary posed a danger to himself or others.” In other words, the VA would no longer be able to alert federal authorities that a veteran is mentally unfit to own guns, unless they are able to get a judge to certify it. Currently, professionals at the VA simply make the determination and pass it on to the FBI.

The House passed HR 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, basically says that states with tough laws on concealed-carry can’t enforce them on people who come there from other states with weak laws.

to comment

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