Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utahns in Congress take wait-and-see approach on proposed gun laws’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 19 2012 5:10 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Utahns in Congress have been waiting for Mit to win the presidency, since that didn't happen they will wait another 4 years before doing anything.

midvale guy
MIDVALE, UT

Gun legislation is not the answer. You cannot legislate crazy. He could have driven his car through the playground during recess just as easy.The only reason that gun legislation is brought up is because people are unwilling to blame themselves for allowing our society to not confront and treat mental illness . We have too many strict HIPPA laws and do not give social workers and law enforcement agencies the ability to intervene when the obviously see something wrong.

hermounts
Pleasanton, CA

OK, two things. First, we know liberals already wanted to circumscribe 2nd Amendment rights, and it's pretty cynical of them to use a tragedy like this to advance their agenda. Second, any new laws won't do any good, because the relevant group of people won't obey them.

jparry
Provo, UT

In the wake of the Newtown catastrophe, I hope that Rep. Chaffetz and other members of the Utah congressional delegation will not just call for the nation to address mental health issues only as a way of avoiding or distracting us from addressing gun control issues. With the possible exception of Rep. Matheson, I have heard very little from our other representatives and senators from Utah that gives me confidence that they will suddenly be willing to increase federal funding for mental health care and disability services. Money isn't the only solution, but it is essential to finding solutions. I hope I'm wrong, and that they are all willing to do something significant and meaningful for mental health and disability health care. I also hope I'm wrong about my expectation that they will resist sensible gun control measures

suzyk#1
Mount Pleasant, UT

As usual, the Democrats are blind and ignorant when it comes to the fact that first we need to implement new programs for the mentally ill, etc. Get them into treatment and off the streets and it will solve many of our problems. I believe we would not have that terrible tragedy in Connecticut if that boy had been in treatment. His Mother was in the process of arranging for that and that is why she shot her. He is a menace to society. Let's focus on what is the most important issue here - progressive mental health for those who are in need.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

I can believe the wait-and-see part. What troubles me is that the waiting and seeing is over who's going to be the next incumbent to get a nasty primary challenge from their own right based on a vote or two opposing assault weapons. Don't want to be the next Bennett? Be veerrry careful.

Benjamin Heward
Orem, UT

Cigarettes, Alcohol, drunk driving, child abuse, illegal drugs.... these all kill thousands of people, and hundreds of children every year in America. The focus should be on those things, far before gun control. A few small incidents should not create a nationwide ban on firearms.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "'I hope they are successful in coming up with solutions . . . rather than using it to pursue an anti-gun agenda . . . ,' Sen. Mike Lee said."

Yeah, and there are those out there that hope to see a unicorn in the flesh, too.

Democrats have already tipped their hand. The only measures they're discussing are their anti-gun "holy trinity" -- ban "assault weapons" [which would undoubtedly be defined to include most guns], "high" [meaning normal] capacity magazines, and any sale at a gun show.

We're as likely to see real solutions from liberals as we are to see unicorns.

Carol@1959
DRAPER, UT

Former comments are right on when saying nobody should use this latest tragedy to discuss gun-control laws (or lack of). Actually, this should have happened many many years ago. When the second amendment was ratified I honestly don't think our forefathers thought for a minute that semi-automatic assault rifles would be in the hands of anyone besides military or police. Why do we all tip-toe around this issue? Is the NRA really that powerful? The constitution needs to be amended (as it has many many times since it was written) to careful consider gun violence. The comment 'get the mentally ill off the streets and into treatment' astounds me. I work in mental health and trust me when I say, What treatment and where? Unfortunately, a crime must usually be committed before a person can be 'locked-up' and off the streets and treatment is still non-existent. What must it take for Americans to step up and say "NO MORE senseless gun violence'?

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

The issue is supposedly "reducing violence against innocent kids in schools from crazy people with guns."

However, the lilberals' only solution is more gun control, which has been proven to fail at reducing crime. In reality, this is an opportunistic attempt to pass an item that has been on the agenda for many years- banning as many guns as they can from as many people as possible. (And figure out ways to get the rest of them later.)

Real solutions will include looking at arming teachers, locking up mentally ill, making civil commitment easier, and better mental health treatment, and reducing the privacy protections that prevent proper handling of the mentally ill.

The Utah delegation is on the right page, but many in Washington are, as usual, off pursuing an agenda that increases their power not help the country or protect our cherished freedom.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Happy Valley Heretic,
what has your comment got to do with gun control? But then, you posted that 49.2% and 43.7% constitute majorities, so we know you have no credibility

Instereo
Eureka, UT

It's a matter of math. Over 36000 a year die from guns wounds. 18000 of those deaths are suicides. If guns were harder to get, deaths from guns would be much lower. So to say criminals would still have guns may be true in the short run but in the long run there would be less guns, period. Hence, there would be less death by guns. I doubt there would be 36000 homicides or even suicides by knife, it would just take to much energy.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "It's a matter of math."

Yeah -- but, in liberal "new math," they don't even count the murder, robbery, rape, and mayhem that is prevented or deterred every year by people with guns.

Knowledgeable estimates come in somewhere around 200,000. Plus.

So, liberals suggest we sacrifice 200,000+ Americans per year on the gun-control altar, in return for a pig-in-a-poke security scheme based on the unsupported notion that, "in the long run there would be less guns, period," that they believe might result in some reduction in suicide rates.

Hmmmmmmm.

And, by the way, that "long run" would be long, indeed, given that there are nearly as many guns out there today as there are Americans, a goodly number in the hands of people -- on both sides of the law -- that are extremely resistant to giving them up.

Liberal math! No wonder they're so confused.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

It is a sorry state of affairs when a nation that has rejected God in the classroom now seeks to stop more carnage without his aid! Every person on bended knee would do more good than a host of bureacratic red tape depriving law abiding citizens from doing more of what everyone wants--a safe place for children. I'm absolutely certain that for all of the law abiding citizens in the community where this tragedy occurred, the first notion was not 'we need more gun control', but a deep sense of soberness and reflection on the timeless values of kindness, respect, family life, and dependence on God.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Been there, done that. Maybe let's try a 'don't wait' let's DO' approach. Waiting to see if this was the last of these incidents is insanity.

Wonder
Provo, UT

@bandersen -- People can pray and we can still ban assault weapons. Both are possible together. I didn't know God wanted us to have assault weapons, so I didn't know the two things were mutually exclusive. And I can also tell you that if my child were shot 10 or 11 times by a semi-automatic assault rifle, the first thing I would want to do would be to ban them. My guess is that the law abiding citizens in that community might feel the same way. So might you if it were your child that was killed.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

So Chaffetz and Company can't come up with their own simple solutions? As a layperson, may I suggest restrictions on military-style semi-automatic weapons, "cop-killer" bullets, high-capacity magazines, and loose background checks at gun shows? I'll be happy to continue to brainstorm on behalf of the esteemed congressmen if they continue to be short on ideas.

Salsero
Provo, UT

Utahan's in Congress take their orders from the NRA. They have chosen to hunker down until they feel they can emerge to further the interests of the gun industry. They will accept the murder of children as the price to be paid to keep assault weapons and flesh-destroying bullets available to anyone who wants them.

They really don't care. Somehow they think that killing children is acceptable as long as someone can have access to a assault rifle (or other weapon with the capacity of massive killing power) just in case someone else decides they want to invade a school or public place and start shooting.

In fact, they argue that everyone should have a gun. They believe that a world with guns is somehow safer because everyone can then shoot at each other whenever a gunfight breaks out. Such Wild West imagry dominates their thinking as something exciting and ideal.

And then there is the ultimate claim that people need these weapons to fight "the government" sometime in the future . . . sheer insanity!

Esquire
Springville, UT

Wait and see. Provide no leadership at all. Tremble before gun advocates. Let innocent people die. Sit back and let children be massacred again rather than do the right thing.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

What a sad week for this town and school.

However, they had a very up to date emergency plan for their school with very good procedures, which saved a lot of children and teachers. It did even help with prevention of more trauma to the minds and souls of all those involved.

Principals have to deal with people with mental issues, everyday. These people are students, parents, and others that may come or be at the school. However, this was a person, who supposedly had access and used on a regular basis with his mother high powered rifles and guns are shooting ranges.

It is one thing to have people register their weapons but if a parent chooses to take a child or an adult without full mental capabilities, that is a problem.

The principal could have had everything right in her school but a non-student arrives with plans to take down little defenseless children and their teachers is a planned event. The school procedures saved many but those teachers and staff died trying to save all students.

to comment

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