Quantcast
Utah

Connecticut school shooting stirs debate about competing liberties, gun violence

Comments

Return To Article
  • JJL Eugene, OR
    Dec. 20, 2012 1:13 a.m.

    How did Norwiegian gun control laws work out for that country in 2011 when nutjob killed 77 people?

  • ML1776 SLC/SL, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 11:52 p.m.

    If you think living in a free society means living with risks, live in a communist society. There is a reason we have a Constitution for the People by the People. That is to reduce risk of TYRANY. Have you not noticed that when a terrible event happens the power mongers say they are the CURE. Do you really think that a paper pushing bureaucrat has any effect on a evil criminal mind or a law stops them from acting out? This sad event is being used to push a non related agenda period. What is sad, the families are being interviewed and asked loaded questions by the media puppets to sell ads and sway public perception. A good dose of privacy and help consoling these poor families would be nice. The media should be ashamed of themselves.

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Dec. 18, 2012 2:35 p.m.

    While many are jumping on the ban assault weapons band wagon it is interesting to look at actual school shootings from 1994 to today. The ban was in place from 1994-2004 so we should have had very little if any school shootings in that time frame, however that is not the case. There were in fact 28 school shootings in that time including Columbine just in the US. There have been 30 since the ban ended in 2004. The count is close when you look at the facts that from 1996-2004 (8 years) you only have 2 fewer school shootings with the ban than 2004-2012 (8 years) with out the ban. Can anyone really say the ban worked? Was it really the guns that were the problem or was and is there something else going on? Also has anyone seen the latest on why they believe the gunman snapped? the most recent report is that his mother was going to have him commit-ed. That should tell us it is something other than guns we need to look at.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    Look at what happens when you allow the public to be armed. This was an off duty police officer doing security. However, if the anti-gun people had their way, she would not have been armed while off duty. See "Man Attempts to Open Fire on Crowd at Movie Theater, Armed Off-Duty Sergeant Drops Him" at The Blaze.

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Dec. 18, 2012 11:03 a.m.

    SlopJ30
    There is a difference between an old "Cowboys and Indians" movie were when a person is shot they just fall down and what we see today were the camera is splattered with fake blood. I am glad you son was reluctant to hold a real gun the problem is all the violence really does act to make us numb to it. Why do you think the military uses it to train recruits? Why did they see a 10% drop in the willingness to pull he trigger from WWI and WWII just going from a round target to a human sillhouete and then less than 1% reluctant to pull the trigger after going to simulations?

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Dec. 18, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    one old man
    Ogden, UT
    Anyone want to bet what will happen this week?

    Gun sales will soar as more paranoid people stock up before they "lose" their rights

    This is the problem with the quick knee jerk calls for gun laws. This has already happened. Sales have gone through the roof. People who otherwise would not have bought them are buying them now. There are two reasons for this, some just worried they will not be able to in the future and others knowing that those already sold will be grandfathered in and they will be worth even more then plan to resale them as private citizens after the law is passed. When people act with knee jerk reaction they do not think this kind of thing through. The simple fact is that the shooter tried to buy his own guns but the current laws stopped him. That is why he took his mothers. Under a new law, as well as the current law, he could just look for a private citizen looking to sell. The difference is their would likely be more people willing to sell under a new law.

  • KC Mormon Edgerton, KS
    Dec. 18, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    My2Cents
    The real issue is not why do kids hate school but why do we let our kids become cold and callused as we do our military though their music, TV, movies and video games. Look at what we do in training our military. Many of their cadences are designed to harden you to the thought of killing such as "Airborne Ranger" or "The Spirit of the Bayonet" compare this to the songs our kids listen to about killing in every other rap song. Or how about the video games were they play solders out killing people. Do any of you know the original use for such "games"? In WWI we used round targets for training and found that 13% would not pull the trigger the first time in combat, by WWII we moved to silhouettes and the rate dropped to 3%, around Vietnam we started looking at simulated targets and found the rate dropped even lower to less than 1%. Those simulations developed into what has now become our video games today. Add on to the music and the games the violence they see in movies and it is no wonder they are shooting people.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 8:51 a.m.

    Look at the nations that have banned people from buying guns. You have people going around cutting and slashing people. Are we going to ban knives too?

    All a gun ban will do is change it from gun violence to knives. Crazy people with a desire to harm others will find a way to do carry out their acts of violence. If you can legislate away crazy, then you may get some support from all people.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:43 p.m.

    @zoar63
    because mandatory sentencing has works so well right? there is a reason states have moved away from not towards mandatory sentencing.

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:24 p.m.

    There is definitely a problem but it is not with the law abiding citizens who own guns. We need to address the criminal element. How about 25 years with no parole for anyone that uses a gun to commit a crime. It does not matter if no one was injured when the crime was committed. and judges would have no leeway in handing down a lesser sentence.

  • Vintage ME Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 6:39 p.m.

    Do any of you anti-gun advocates realize how easy it is to make a gun? Mechanically they are relatively simple devices. The equipment needed is readily available and getting cheaper. The materials are common and can be ordered online from hundreds of sources. We have 3D printers now that can turn them out by the dozens. Forget it! it simply cannot be done! You can pass a law so complex that it makes Obamacare look like a children's story book and there will still be guns, lots of them, primarily in the hands of those we least want have them. Producing ammunition for them is equally easy.

  • Vintage ME Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 6:25 p.m.

    The predominantly pro/con gun control comments miss the central issue and will never contribute to much less help solve the real problem. Comments about morality and media violence are apropos but again have little hope of change. Any solution must have few if any political enemies and be affordable. We live in an age of mind boggling technology. It is neither hard nor expensive to sense the presence of metal objects such as a firearm! And the devices can be very small and innocuous. They can easily be distributed well around the perimeter, in the parking lot... of a school or other institution to flag a potential problem in time to respond. Nor is it difficult to isolate and secure all areas in a building very quickly. Yes a moderate degree of access control would be needed and staff and students would need emergency response training. Inexpensive bulletproof autonomous roving robots could patrol the premises, sense the presence of weapons, interrogate a potential mass shooter, initiate lock down, alert police and stop or impede his progress (no I am not suggesting we arm them).

  • Vintage ME Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 6:16 p.m.

    We have the technology to detect the possible presence of a firearm well before an individual enters a building, challenge that individual, secure the building if necessary and prevent entry. The needed components are for the most part mass produced for other applications and very inexpensive. We do not need to compromise anyone's freedom.

    There is no place here for the endless pro/anti gun control diatribe by poorly informed idealists. We have a real problem to solve and no amount of gun control will solve it or even help very much.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 5:19 p.m.

    merich39,

    Okay, how about this for gun control. How about we don't arm criminals. How about we figure out why there are still 1,300 weapons at large from Operation Fast and Furious. How about we prosecute those who took part in the scandal or are trying to cover it up. How about we quit arming terrorists all over the world. That sounds like reasonable gun control to me. The federal government is the problem here, not some hillbilly gun club. How about instead of more limitations on individual rights, like the right to arm and defend yourself, we start limiting what the inept and immoral federal government can do. I mean, how many innocents have THEY gotten killed over the years? People are dying every day from gun violence but when one person with a legally purchased weapon shoots up a school, it becomes front page news? The story wasn't so sickening as the hypocrisy.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 5:00 p.m.

    dixie kid

    I am very skeptical of any calls for further gun control but alcohol is already regulated to a much greater extent then guns, not really the best argument.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 17, 2012 4:36 p.m.

    @patriot
    So then you and all the other right wing posters are going to ignore my comment to you and the comments of other "left wingers" that say we do not support further gun control and continue to post the same false claims? nice to see we can have a rational discussion.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 4:34 p.m.

    killpack...

    How about if we limit ourselves to passing reasonable and constitutional laws, then? I'm 100% in support of passing reasonable and constitutional gun control laws. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. There is some middle ground here when it comes to gun control laws. The NRA would like everyone to believe that any one single gun control law is just a small step away from a complete ban on private gun ownership. But the NRA lies.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 4:18 p.m.

    merich39,

    Militias and guerilla forces, armed only with small arms, have withstood and even defeated conventional armies with far superior weapons systems on several occasions throughout history. In fact, I guarantee if our own immoral and corrupt federal government keeps pushing its limits, especially where guns are concerned, we will probably see it happen here. Barack Obama does NOT have the support of the active military. My prediction is that most will desert. They will bring all kinds of weapons to the rebel side and it will be a bad day for the authoritarian US Government who went too far when they decided to ban assault weapons. They had better stop stoking this fire. This nation is divided enough. Using a tragedy to pass unreasonable and unconstitutional laws is going to push us over the edge.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Dec. 17, 2012 3:44 p.m.

    cjb,

    "....We need to keep in mind that guns save many lives each year too allowing people to defend themselves from home invasions and robberies etc, we also need to keep in mind that automobiles kill more Americans than guns...."

    ______________________________

    Here in Colorado, the ratio of traffic deaths to gun deaths per year is 12.3 to 10.4 per 100 thousand. Not exactly a lopsided ratio. I don’t recall the exact statistics I read a few years ago but they showed that a gun in the home was far more likely to be used to kill a neighbor or a family member in a domestic dispute than to kill an intruder into your house. Grim prospect, isn’t it?

    I’m not saying you shouldn’t keep a gun in your house for home protection. But if you do, don’t assume it’s more likely to prove to be an asset than a liability. Too many people who made that assumption came to regret it.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 1:56 p.m.

    A young child needs their mother around (or at least a parent) during their formative years, to give them a sense of security, to reinforce right from wrong, when you don't have that, you are going to get an increase in these kinds of incidents. When mothers with children at home tended to stay home with their children, we tended not to have so many of these kinds of incidents.

    Do we require that women with children not work? Do we take away gun rights?

    We need to keep in mind that guns save many lives each year too allowing people to defend themselves from home invasions and robberies etc, we also need to keep in mind that automobiles kill more Americans than guns. We also need to keep in mind that were guns to be taken away, these types of incidents would continue. There was murder before guns, and there will be murders if guns were to disappear.

    There was one of these kinds of incidents just last week where the perpertrator used a knife, not a gun to kill and maim about the same number of students and teachers. China has a lot of these incidents.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 1:50 p.m.

    To "merich39" um.....you seem to have missed the whole Libya uprising. They had lots of guns in the hands of people. You seem to be missing the Syrian uprising too.

    You also missed out on the fact that in Afghanistan they kept the Russians busy for a long time, and now those same people are doing to the same to the US forces that have their F-16s and drones.

    Wanna try again.

  • tejas washington, utah
    Dec. 17, 2012 1:14 p.m.

    zoar63 @ 12:43 p.m
    they dont understand "SHALL NOT"

  • zoar63 Mesa, AZ
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:43 p.m.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Infringe

    1

    : the act of infringing : violation

    2

    : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

    Synonyms: contravention, infraction, breach, transgression, trespass, violation

    What part of the meaning of infringe do people not understand?

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:41 p.m.

    RedShirt...

    Tyrants armed with tanks, fighter jets and drone aircraft are not going to be too afraid of civilians armed with the types of guns that killed those children. Those types of guns will put fear into the hearts of kindergartners but not very much fear into the heart of an air force pilot flying an F-16. Besides, it would take an unbelievable amount of collusion for a tyrant to circumvent the separation of powers in the Constitution and gain control of the country.

    I'm a lot more afraid of the solitary, suicidal looney with a stash of guns and ammo than a wannabe tyrant kept in check by the Constitution.

  • killpack Sandy, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:37 p.m.

    It my hope that when discussing this terrible tragedy we don't lose sight of reality. The federal government wants to use this as an excuse to infringe on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, the rationale, of course, being that such infringement would lead to more safety and security. Please, don't allow them, or their propagandists in the media, to convince you of this. The federal government is inefficient, incompetent and immoral. They and their increasingly corrupt, ineffective actions do NOT make you more safe. Ever heard of Fast and Furious? What happened in CT was horrible, but how many more innocents have died because of that debacle? Do not think that they are going to take care of you when they make gun ownership illegal. They won't. Even if they weren't so incapable, they couldn't anyway. You can't have policemen patrol every section of this country at every second. Nor would you want them to. People need to start getting used to fact that there are dangerous, bloodthirsty criminals wandering around and they possess firearms. Whether or not they purchase them legally is totally irrelevant. They have them. You better have them, too!

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    All of these attacks take place in gun-free zones. You never see one of these attacks a your local sporting goods store, or the firing range, or the police station.

    The model to be followed is the same one that TSA has taken. "We will have an armed agent on our flights." No hijackings of US aircraft since 2001.

    When our country perceives a threat from another country, we increase our military, not decrease it.

    President Obama's security continues to arm itself with the most state of the art lethal weapons.

    If it works in all of these scenarios, why aren't we arming our teachers (at least those that would like to participate). Israel does it.

    When it comes to those with no moral compass. Force makes better friends of them.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    @dwayne
    Nobody is land-invading the US. That's just suicide to attempt. Our air force would obliterate their transport aircraft/ships.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "The Obama regime has a long, LONG history of circumventing law and Constitution to accomplish its transparent totalitarian aims.

    Real people are rightly concerned."

    I'm concerned about people that far gone from reality stocking up on guns.

  • sportrealist FILLMORE, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:16 p.m.

    lET'S MOVE AWAY FROM THE GUN CONTROL ISSUE. SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO KILL WILL FIND A WAT TO DO IT. We need to talk about what we endorse in the name of freedom. Check out your children's MUSIC, VIDEOS, TV PROGRAMS AND VIDEO GAMES. WE HAVE LEGALIZED MURDER IN THE FORM OF ABORTION.(whoa I feel there are times it is necessary and acceptable but this is another discussion) We are continually bombarded with violence. Our children's minds are full of violence and disregard for human life and respect. When we allow all of this, Why are we surprised with these acts of violence. If we want to stop this violence we need to get back to the basics of parenting in our own home. Teach our children right and wrong, bring in proper behavioral standards, eliminate the violent images in their lives whenever we can, get involved in society in curbing the violent content of their music and videos etc.. We can get rid of all of the guns, knives, explosives, cars, trucks, or planes and we will still have acts of violence if we do not change what is acceptable in our society.

  • JoCo Ute Grants Pass, OR
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:14 p.m.

    "We already have gun control at every level." Not even close to the truth. Some state like Utah and Virginia make it easier to get a gun than a drivers license. We need standardized gun control for the entire nation. Mandatory criminal background checks, 10 day waiting period, no assault weapons, no over-sized clips and no bullets than can go through body armor.

    A National medical plan to seriously address care of mentally ill citizens. Right now mental health care, if offered at all on medical insurance, is very limited and expensive. Doctor should flag individuals w/ serious mental illness so they can not purchase guns.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:11 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "Unfortunately, single-trick liberal ponies "

    Single-trick conservative ponies have only one answer... more guns everywhere. Ever bother to realize that the US is the highest gun per person rate in the world and yet our levels of gun violence are 5-25x that of Canada, Germany, Spain, England, or Japan?

    @patriot
    "but the left wing crazies want only one thing - NO GUNS PERIOD. How do you have a discussion with these types?"

    Very few on the left want no guns period. Most, including myself, just want tighter regulation. That's not the same as a ban.

    "but the NRA well knows if it gives and inch the left will go for a mile immediately so that is why we can't have a sensible discussion."

    You just admitted what the problem is, the NRA refuses to budge at all, even for things the majority of their members support. So we can't have a sensible discussion because of the NRA.

  • Observation-ist Ogden, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:07 p.m.

    If this is truly to be an a-political discussion, can we include, along with Gun Control, Mental Illness, etc. a discussion about societal norms and respect for human life?

    A society that embraces partial-birth abortion and promotes personal irresponsibility by encouraging dependence upon the government contributes to a victim mentality that has the right to use force to right social injustice.

    This tragedy follows on the heels of Aurora CO and, before that, Columbine HS. Gun control can be discussed but shouldn't be the only focus.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:51 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal,

    "....The Second Amendment is actually quite simple -- " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    It doesn't take an "advanced" grasp of the Constitution to understand those 14 words. Liberals suggest, however, that only "progressive" gnosticism can unlock the key to its true meaning -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL be infringed."
    ______________________________

    To begin with, it’s 27 words, not 14. Your arithmetic skills could use some brushing up on along with your understanding of history. Now let’s look at those 27 words.

    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    I find that wording just perfect as is. I wouldn't change a word. Now if you can just explain to me how a heavily armed population whose use of its firearms is left to nothing more than the individual judgment of each person constitutes a well regulated militia, you and I might be a step closer to finding some common ground.

  • John Brown 1000 Laketown, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:50 a.m.

    It appears that there’s no correlation between gun control and murder rates, as odd as that conclusion may sound. The 2007 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence”
    (you can google it and read the full article online) presents some surprising findings and conclusions. They found a negative correlation, which is just strange. But there it is. It’s a fascinating read which leads me to think that a real solution lies somewhere else. Not in guns. Do something, yes. But do something that works!

    At the same time, I can see how limiting access to certain types of weapons makes it harder to kill larger numbers of people. It’s not like we allow all US citizens the right to have their own personal nuclear bomb or stockpile of anthrax. And for good reason. Even if just a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent used a bomb, well, that would be more than enough. But does that same logic scale down to guns?

    Again, I look at the Harvard report above.

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:33 a.m.

    Why is it that the liberal Left in this country insist on making all schools and most public places "Gun Free Zones" yet the very first reaction they have when something goes wrong in one of these places is to call 911 and ask for someone with a gun to come rescue them? If a person with a gun can help AFTER a problem occurs, would it not have been better to have a person with a gun in place BEFORE something bad occurred?

    In 1982, the Kennesaw, Georgia City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. (There was no enforcement mechanism for ensuring the law was followed.) Following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city in the first year but there was no significant change in the surrounding communities. The second year saw a reduction of 45% compared to the first year. Today, 30 years later, the population of Kennesaw has grown six fold but the crime rate is still the lowest in the Atlanta metro area. And yes, the law is still on the books.

    Coincidence? I think not. Guns save lives.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:25 a.m.

    Left wing looney, controlling nut jobs, left wing crazies, Obama circumvents the law, ignorant and fearful, shrill voices on the left, left wingo wacko, fear monger. It doesn't matter what the topic is, those who claim to be conservative on this board, much like their national leaders Shaun, Rush and Glenn seem to feel a need to call people names and try to belittle them rather than have an intelligent conversation about real solutions to real problems. This country is in deep trouble and love of country and love of freedom is not something exclusively owned by those on the political right.

    The writing of the constitution was a grand compromise with many disagreements and strong battles and feelings. The difference was that these men showed respect one for another and were able to disagree without being disagreeable. They didn't believe that if someone said something they didn't like they were entitled to respond in kind or even with more venom.

    Contrary to what some of you have said I am not lib or democrat I am actually a registered republican tired of the attitude of superiority of the far right. We are Americans above all else.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:25 a.m.

    Re: "I think Barak Obama’s grasp of the Constitution is far more advanced than that of folks who argue that the solution . . . is to have . . . principals and teachers . . . armed . . . ."

    No doubt you do.

    Fortunately, that doesn't mean that Obama's grasp actually IS "far more advanced."

    The Second Amendment is actually quite simple -- " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    It doesn't take an "advanced" grasp of the Constitution to understand those 14 words. Liberals suggest, however, that only "progressive" gnosticism can unlock the key to its true meaning -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL be infringed."

    Sad.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:20 a.m.

    To "eastcoastcoug" your logic is severly lacking. The problem isn't the legal gun owners. What you want to do will only disarm the law-abiding people and make it easier for criminals to commit acts of violence. Just look at the cities that have done exactly what you ask for, they have high crime rates involving guns.

    The solution is actually counterintuitive. Make getting guns easier, and allow teachers to conceal-carry.

    The 2nd ammendment was not just for hunting and national defense. It was also put in place as a warning to the government about getting out of control. An armed people can prevent tyrany because tyrants fear an armed populace.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:10 a.m.

    People here (and the NRA) bemoan the mention of any kind of gun control. We already have restrictions on personal ownership of many types of weapons. Private ownership of surface to air missile launchers is not legal. Why? What if someone feels they need a surface to air missile launcher to protect themselves? Why is it acceptable to the NRA and their followers to outlaw that type of weapon but unacceptable to outlaw armor piercing bullets or 50-round ammo clips? Why are we allowing the NRA to dictate our national agenda on gun control and use coercion to prevent even starting discussions of reasonable controls? Why is it unacceptable for someone to own a missile launcher that can shoot down a commercial airliner full of innocent people but acceptable for someone to own a high-powered gun with multiple 50-round ammo clips that can shoot down a room full of kindergarten children in a matter of just a few minutes?

    It is way past time to have these discussions and take the NRA out of the drivers seat on policy! Way past time!

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:09 a.m.

    Providing resources for the mentally ill should be a priority. I know people who suffer from schizophrenia and depression but are not always aware of medication that can help them or cannot afford them. While nobody doubts that we can't make everyone 100% safe, that simply isn't an excuse to do nothing.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    "The Obama regime has a long, LONG history of circumventing law and Constitution to accomplish its transparent totalitarian aims.

    Real people are rightly concerned."

    This was posted here not long ago.

    It is this kind of nonsensical paranoia that does have real people concerned. Very concerned.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:04 a.m.

    @eastcoastcoug and other critical thinkers. There is only ONE way to stop people using guns to commit crime. That is ban the possession of any firearm with the penalty of death. No guns for the police or any agency. No guns period. Confiscate every gun and melt them down. Even this would not prevent some guns from getting into a criminals hands. Any thing less that this is just wishful thinking.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:44 a.m.

    Fewer student are going into mental health fields; because they are told that their degrees are worthless, and of no value.
    No one wants to fund mental health treatment, so there are few openings to work in the field.
    Few people want to get a masters or doctorate degree; and make as much money as someone with a high school or bachelor’s degree.
    If as a society we will not fund mental health treatment; then the mentally ill will go untreated.

  • activ2004 Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:43 a.m.

    There was a young boy who approached his father who had just returned from a hectic day at the office and asked if he would play with him, the father told him to go and play for a few minutes, then he would play with him, minutes later the boy again approached his father and plead the same inquiry, the father took a map of the world tore it up in several pieces and told the little boy to go and put the picture back together then he would play with him, the little boy went and returned just a few moments later with the assembled picture, the father was amazed and asked how he did it, the intelligent little boy said, easy dad, on the back of the picture was picture of the family, I just put the family together and the world fell into place.

    The heavens are weeping not for the little ones who have returned to the loving arms of a Heavenly Father but for the fact we have left His piece of the puzzle out of the picture of the world.

    I hope this does not offend anyone. Jesus healed many with "chemical imbalances".

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    much of the talk surrounding guns is based on ignorance and fear unfortunately. The non-gun crowd of America is fearful of guns and believes that somehow guns themselves induce violent behavior. This is ignorant and completely irrational but you will find people on the left ranting away with all sorts of non-fact based emotion such as was the case on CNN the other night with left wing wacko Pierce Morgan. The man was unhinged ranting about banning guns. Senator Dick Durban (Democrat in the Senate) said there needs to be a rational calm discussion about common sense gun control such as having back ground checks at guns shows. This is all fine and good and I agree with Senator Durban but the problem is there are no rational - calm - common sense voices on the left and all you get is the Michael Moore types driving the conversation which is to ban all guns in America and become Russia or China. I have heard the shrill voices on the left and it is frightening. Americas have the right to defend themselves - now more than ever. Conservatives want to have common sense laws - the left doesn't.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:32 a.m.

    Craig Clark

    "If there are any whose thinking needs to rearranged, it’s those who have turned their homes into mini arsenals out of fear that the U.S. Government is so tyrannical that we must be prepared to form a citizens army to take on the U.S. Army to restore American freedom"

    Actually a number of military have vowed to stand down if they ever have to do such a think as take on the American people. The military has ever admitted that they have been trained for door to door gun confiscation and they are disgusted by it. That's why they have vowed privatley to not follow that order.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:14 a.m.

    Won't work they will just resort to using pipebombs, anthrax, cyanide, vehicles, machettes and chainsaws.

    How did a total gun ban work for North Korea? Well only the the government has guns so that should be a leftist utopia. Only thing is, the government can take anything they want from you because they have guns and you don't. If you don't like it, you will be stuck in a gulag.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:14 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal,

    "....The Obama regime has a long, LONG history of circumventing law and Constitution to accomplish its transparent totalitarian aims...."
    ______________________________

    You don't say. I thought basic American Civics was still being taughts in school. There is no Obama regime. There is an Obama Administration, the result of something we in this country call an election. As for circumventing the Constitution, I think Barak Obama’s grasp of the Constitution is far more advanced than that of folks who argue that the solution to these shooting rampages is to have public school principals and teachers all armed with guns when they go to work each day.

    If there are any whose thinking needs to rearranged, it’s those who have turned their homes into mini arsenals out of fear that the U.S. Government is so tyrannical that we must be prepared to form a citizens army to take on the U.S. Army to restore American freedom. People of that mentality are not the people I want to see dictating gun policy for this country.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    I would just like to know for many of you, what exactly is a "nut job"? How would you exactly "control them"? Are you going to lock down everyone with Aspergers or Autism? How about Paranoia? If you are afraid of an invasion by the Chinese/Russians, think the Feds are on a pre-planned path to gradually enslave you, or fear people coming in and tie-ing you up while they take your weapons, you just might qualify...

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    @lost in dc
    actually it was reagan that closed the mental health hospitals in the 1980's and republicans (oh right they are the founders of the pc crowd, the hole swearing thing and all) that generally show an open hostility towards the mental health field. I for one am all for very carefully considered regulations to better ensure that those that present a harm to society due to their specific illness be institutionalized with very strict oversight of the institution to insure they do not harm others,a re kept safe them selves and not held one day longer then necessary.

  • tejas washington, utah
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:56 a.m.

    It should be required that to be a teacher you must have a concealed weapon permit. Any teacher not capable of getting a permit has no business around children.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:40 a.m.

    @patriot
    I don't think it is any secret on these threads that I am a liberal an I think the conversation could start by not assuming everyone on the liberals wants NO GUNS PERIOD and that everyone that supports gun rights are violent lunatics. I happen to think any discussion about further gun control of any kind should be done with great care. I do not favor the idea that people should not own guns. Frankly I think the discussion following this last tragedy should focus on how to better educate the public about mental illness and how to help those that are suffering. Including educating their families making wise choices when they have a family member that is suffering.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    Another example of the far right digging in to an extreme position and refusing to move and then calling the far left names for digging into the opposite extreme position and refusing to move.

    Reasonable people however would probably look at this situation and come to a few basic conclusions without all the rhetoric.

    First this was a horrible tragedy and no matter what measures we impose short of turning schools into prisons, we cannot guarantee this will not happen again.

    Second because we cannot guarantee it won't happen again that doesn't mean there are not things we could do to reduce the chances of this type of tragedy in the future.

    Third the second amendment doesn't guarantee Americans the right to have any and every gun, ammo clip etc of their choosing.

    Fourth because somebody uses the word gun control that doesn't mean they are trying to take away your second amendment right and overturn the constitution.

    With all that being said it is time to have a grown up reasonable conversation about assault weapons and other semi-automatic weapons and ammo clips or these types of incidents will continue.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    New gun laws would be like drilling a tooth when you have a broken arm – you can say that you have done something to address the problem – thing is, it’s the wrong thing.

    As DN Subscriber 2 said, we need to control the nut cases. The PC crowd would rather allow the nut-jobs to kill us all than to impinge on their rights.

    Owlmaster2
    Bogus – what has BO proposed to deter violence? Nothing. HE is the party of NO. Thanks for playing, though.

    JoeBlow,
    Yes, the left wing crazies DO run the show

    Eastcoastgulag,
    Driving cars is not a right enshrined in the constitution. Controlling nut-jobs is NOT a do-nothing solution.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    While reading your newspapers and social media this morning, leave the these pages. Seek a historical site that will explain America's early history.
    These sites discuss the fighting, uncontrollable greed, anger, wars, guns/weapons, death, and the enormous need for power that came with those who settled our country.
    We citizens now are paying for this in the most unexplained, surprising, and horrendous way.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    Re: "Gun sales will soar as more paranoid people stock up before they "lose" their rights."

    As well they should.

    The Obama regime has a long, LONG history of circumventing law and Constitution to accomplish its transparent totalitarian aims.

    Real people are rightly concerned.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:14 a.m.

    Assault rifles were designed for combat use by trained soldiers fighting in defense of this country. Being available to the general public has made them popular among men who use them to spray the countryside with hot lead indulging Rambo fantasies. These men need to grow up.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:12 a.m.

    Re: "Is DO NOTHING a solution?"

    Unfortunately, it's the only solution liberals seem able to grasp.

    Gun control is a DO NOTHING solution. It never has, never will work.

    Bad guys and crazies already have weapons. They will be absolutely and forever unaffected by any deranged gun, ammunition, or magazine-capacity ban or control unconstitutionally imposed by the Obama regime.

    The ONLY measure that has a chance of working is to decrease the size of the defenseless victim pool currently guaranteed by law.

    The principal in this case died in an heroic unarmed attempt to intervene, but, denied the proper tools, could not meaningfully respond. Training and arming her and other willing staff would permit effective response, but would also provide a genuine disincentive and deterrent to prevent such attacks. Evil/disturbed cowards are less likely to step into the line fire to perpetrate their crimes.

    Our Nation's founders understood that standing up to evil is the only real solution.

    Sadly, liberals, curiously considering themselves their -- and our -- intellectual superiors, don't.

    They prefer DO NOTHING.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:02 a.m.

    I ask this question to the folks wanting to ban assault rifles.
    Tell me the main difference between a deer rifle, and a AR-15?

  • SlopJ30 St Louis, MO
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:41 a.m.

    Reasonable gun licensing laws and the banning of certain types of weapons I can get behind. What strikes me as hopelessly naieve and simplistic is the blather about violence in entertainment and video games.

    Look, a lot of people dislike violent media, and that's fine and well. However, violence has been a part of entertainment for centuries and is not going to stop. Cowboys were shootin' up Indians since the dawn of cinema, and little kids ran around with cap guns pretending to kill each other well before the XBox or PS3 arrived. All but the most maladjusted and mentally unstable kids see games as just that . . games. It has no bearing on their behavior in the real world. My son (15) plays all kinds of super-violent FPS games, and when we went to a shooting range he could barely bring himself to hold a real gun. Why? Because, like 99.999% of us, he clearly distinguishes between fantasy and reality.

    Regulating media to protect us from the .001% is not going to work, nor is it noble. It's a solution based on fantasy as much as any video game ever was.

  • activ2004 Clearfield, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    Why is it not considered "gun violence" when a female uses a gun to defend herself and her 'children' against an abusive male?, or when a police officer uses a gun to serve and protect the public?, or when a law abiding 'concealed carry permit' holder in an Oregon mall displays a gun which causes the evil punk to turn the gun on himself, thereby preventing the loss of more life? And on and on and on.

    The issue on trial in "we the peoples" court is not about competing liberties, it is about competing selective outrage over the tragic consequences of evil and what makes the best tabloid headlines, once we get that figured out then perhaps we can truly progress as a society.

    Where is the consistency? Progressive individuals have screamed bloody murder over the 'Uniting and Strengthening America, by, Providing America Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism act, and are screaming bloody murder over more gun (moral behavior) control laws.

    I don't get it!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:15 a.m.

    Anyone want to bet what will happen this week?

    Gun sales will soar as more paranoid people stock up before they "lose" their rights.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:09 a.m.

    Dwayne, you are conveniently forgetting a very important, but completely ignored, part of the Second Amendment. There are two little words in there that are supposed to mean something -- but don't: WELL REGULATED

    And Patriot, only a few on the fringe left are calling to ban all guns. There is a big, big difference between a complete ban and sensible regulation. It's probably also true that the only ones calling for completely unlimited access to weapons on the right are a fringe minority. But they sure are very loud.

    What about everyone sitting down and having a sensible conversation seeking a sensible balance between regulated and unregulated?

  • Jazzledazzle Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:03 a.m.

    I have said it so many times. The media is a big problem. Quit freaking reporting it all over and making the nut job who does this a celebrity. The media makes me as mad as the shooter does.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Dec. 17, 2012 7:52 a.m.

    @Dixie Kid and the rest of you "Do Nothing" people,

    MADD was organized and significantly reduced the number of teenage drunk driving deaths. The culture of smoking in all public places has completely changed in my lifetime. There are many variables contributing to these shootings and clearly some do happen in countries with stricter laws (not nearly as often), but that is no excuse for doing nothing.

    1- All gun owners should have a license and be registered and it should be difficult to get one. We license car drivers, and a lot of other things. Guns should licensed.

    2- No assault weapons or ammunition. There is simply no reason for all of us to have access to these kinds of weapons. Don't tell me we need to arm all our citizens for an eventual invasion or takeover of the government. If you are suffering from that level of paranoia right now, you should not have weapons.

    3- No concealed weapons. Period.

    4- Do something finally about violence as entertainment. But we also need to strengthen the family and community. All of us doing more to reach out to neighbors and especially our youth will do more than all the above combined.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Dec. 17, 2012 7:46 a.m.

    Which will have a greater affect on school shootings: increased gun control or removal of violence in the media? Media violence produces violent people and violent people will still do violent things whether they have guns or not.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 17, 2012 7:33 a.m.

    Look people. This is a complex problem and solutions will not be easy.

    There are always lots of breakdowns in a situation like this but the extremes (ban all guns vs do nothing) are NOT the answer.

    Lets look at what was at play here.

    Gun enthusiast mom
    Mentally unstable son (this was known)
    semi-automatic weapon
    Large capacity fire power

    How about locking up guns in a gun safe? Is that an unreasonable step to take? Or a trigger lock. How about gun owners take a bit of ownership of the problem and recognize their responsibilities concerning gun ownership.

    We hear about the anti guns crazies with their NO GUN stance. (minority)

    Well, how about the Pro Gun people. What is your solution? What would you accept? What does the NRA believe would help. What would they promote/accept?

    Make some proposals.

    Is DO NOTHING a solution?

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 7:10 a.m.

    While we are discussing gun control why not mention (although the mainstream media won't allow it)violence on T.V. and in movies?

    What about violent video games?

    How many kids do we know who have let computers, (and their misuse)totally take over 10-12 hrs of their day?

    WHY NOT have computers set at the factory to shut off after more than 1 hr. per day of violent video game use?

    The reasons for mental illness are many. Sadly, the state-run media will accept no blame whatsoever for THEIR part in the resulting psychoses that afflict some individuals.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 6:53 a.m.

    Gun control is like the war on drugs. It won't work it hasn't worked. Especially in America.

    It is frequently said the solution to bad speech is not to restrict the right to free speech, but it is more speech (to set the record straignt). In otherwords we let Nazis and the Klan say what they want, with the hope and expectation that others will set the record straight.

    The same is true with guns. We now have armed policemen in most schools. It is somewhat likely the policeman would be able defend against a school invasion. However we have not yet allowed principals or teachers to qualify to carry a gun for the protection of themselves and the school children. Perhaps its time we do this.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 17, 2012 6:49 a.m.

    "it's too bad there can't be better gun laws but the left wing crazies want only one thing - NO GUNS PERIOD. "

    I have little doubt that this is a correct statement. We can always find "crazies" in any group.

    But, the "left wing crazies" dont run the show.

    I would venture to say that no a single "liberal" on this board would support a "no guns period" stance.

    And, unlike the right, the crazies on the left dont run the show.

  • TOO Sanpete, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 6:43 a.m.

    Yes, let's ban guns. You know since it's obvious that if guns are banned, then there is no way that anything like a shooting will ever take place again. I'm pretty sure all the shooters lately thought that killing was legal--otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
    Criminals will always find ways to break he law. Ban guns of every kind and you will see it will make no difference. In fact, it will make murder go up because people will murder to get to the guns. People who are desperate to commit a crime will stop at nothing.
    Blaming guns for these shooters is absurd. It's like blaming cars for drunk drivers. Are we going to start talking about auto control next to decrease the rate of DUIs? Get real people.

  • The Dixie Kid Saint George, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 6:31 a.m.

    There are 75,000 alcohol related deaths per year in the US. But nobody talks about banning alcohol.

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Dec. 17, 2012 6:16 a.m.

    This is a systemic and cultural problem coming from violence as entertainment, the breakup of traditional families and communities, the rise of mental illness, etc.

    We have an arms race out here, and in the hands of a mentally ill young man (which most of these shooters are), it becomes a bloodbath. Arming teachers or shoppers is not the answer. It's bad enough thinking of one shooter in a room or store, let alone 10 or 12. Ever heard of friendly fire??

    I'm sick to death of the gun lobby and it's blanket protection of weapons and ammunition of all kinds. You are a minority and I pray the majority of us with more sense will eventually hold sway in this country.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    Dec. 17, 2012 5:23 a.m.

    Lets have this discussion about gun control ( which is really a general term for gun ban). But if we are serious about banning things that kill the innocent, let's ban everthing which kill the innocent. Let me start with suggesting alcohol. Yes that's right, more people die each year at the hands of drunks or with the ritual of drinking, than are killed with guns... and it's not even close.

    I'll support gun bans when we also ban alcohol from all college campuses and until a person reaches 30, then they need to take "drinking" classes and learn about all the laws and dangers of consumption, then apply for a permit to drink and pay a large fee for a license to drink. The license expires in 5 years and they need to repeat the course. And their license may or may not be recognized in all 50 states.

    We need to remember the second admendment wasn't created for hunters, it was written down to protect citizens from their own government.

  • On the other hand Riverdale, MD
    Dec. 17, 2012 5:22 a.m.

    @dwayne, do you think a foreign army can simultaneously attack every city and street in America?

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 4:02 a.m.

    There is no decision to make, the law is written and legal and constitutions, we can have hold and carry guns without any infringements or controls, period.

    Its a national epidemic that children are killing children, and this 20 year old is still a child in mind and spirit that hadn't learned the meaning of life. Bombs are less plentiful or they would be weapon of choice for any child with a grudge against educational prisons.

    A gun has no concept of killing these 20 souls in this attack? Guns just tagged along for the ride. There is nothing for the supreme court to decide, our inalienable rights are not negotiable laws. They are the law that not even a dictator can invalidate or take from us.

    Its time to evaluate and ask the children why they hate schools and what they represent so profoundly they will give their life to destroy them? Guns can't talk, children can and its time for one brave news man or senator or governor to ask the children this question. If anyone really cares about why, its the living children they need to study and question, not the dead sacrificial lambs.

  • owlmaster2 Kaysville, UT
    Dec. 16, 2012 10:23 p.m.

    @DN Subscriber2
    Obama's first 4 years would have been even more successful than they were had he had some cooperation from the party of NO. Even the writers of the Constitution compromised. Compromise is what our Nation was built on. Lack of compromise is destroying our Nation. Just saying.

    We definitely need to ban clips that hold more than 9 rounds. There isn't a hunter in the world that needs a clip of 30 rounds. It's insane to manufacture clips of that size for the general public.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 16, 2012 10:22 p.m.

    it's too bad there can't be better gun laws but the left wing crazies want only one thing - NO GUNS PERIOD. How do you have a discussion with these types? Of course there should be back ground checks at gun shows but the NRA well knows if it gives and inch the left will go for a mile immediately so that is why we can't have a sensible discussion. Let's face it - the left will say if there were no guns there would be no gun deaths but they won't say if there were no alcohol there would be no alcohol related deaths. Both are bogus. Chicago violent crime has gone way up since the no-guns policy was instituted. Liberal policy just never works.

  • Janet Ontario, OR
    Dec. 16, 2012 9:38 p.m.

    There is zero need for the public to have access to assault weapons. Period. There is a strong argument to be made for the rights of citizens to defend themselves with handguns, but those rights come with risk and responsibility. Emotion seems to rule the discussion on both (all?) sides. What's needed is careful analysis and decision-making by people who care more about balancing safety and security.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 16, 2012 9:16 p.m.

    Re: "Permitholders can carry concealed firearms into Utah public schools. Connecticut does not allow the practice."

    Thus, in Connecticut, the law guarantees evil/deranged killers an inexhaustible source of innocent, defenseless victims.

    The "conversation" feckless liberal deniers should be demanding should center around why we don't permit willing teachers and school staff to be trained and to carry the tools necessary to protect themselves and their charges.

    Unfortunately, single-trick liberal ponies can only return to what they know -- strengthening the guarantee, and enlarging the pool of defenseless victims.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Dec. 16, 2012 8:31 p.m.

    We already have plenty of gun control at every level. And, it never works.

    What we need is some "nut control" to get the dangerously mentally ill folks off the streets. Will that infringe on their rights? Probably, but if you are going to go around trampling on individual rights, why stop with guns, or mental health, speech, or religion, or ...

    The Chicago Way advocates "Never let a crisis go to waste" and at a time when we are bankrupt, spending way beyond our means, approaching the "fiscal cliff," about to hit the debt limit (again!), having Iran closer to a nuclear weapon every day, a highly emotional issue like this horrendous crime is perfect for diverting the attention of most Americans away from the vital issues that President Obama has not addressed in his first four years.

    As serious as 27 dead in a school is, those other issues hold far more serious long term consequences for our nation.

    Meanwhile, Utah needs to aggressively pursue training of more of our teachers to legally carry self defense guns so they can protect their students, and knowing they are armed will also deter many criminals and crazies from doing anything.