Comments about ‘Letter: Gun lobby’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Dec. 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I don't know who said it, but I agree with the words. If you give up your liberty for security, You'll get neither. What is the risk to drive a car around a lot of other cars. I like my car. It's a deadly weapon, and every place I go, There is a lot of these deadly weapons. I not concern about the risk. I believe in people. I count on them and depend on them.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

It's obvious that we've gotta do something other than kick the can down the road.

The NRA says that we need to have armed guards and teachers at our schools. Great. Are they going to pay for that???

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Dave, you are wrong! When threatened by mentally ill people or criminals with guns, a gun in MY hand is much better than a cop on the phone! It is my right to defend me and mine when NO one else can or will! Cops carry guns to protect themselves from bad guys with guns, not you! And by the way, I really do know how to use my guns and I would much rather have a gun and not need it than if I really needed it but didn't have it. I choose NOT to be a victim. What you choose is up to you but you shall not make my choices for me! Merry Christmas!

West Jordan, UT

So grateful for the armed "good guys". The vast majority of them know exactly what they're doing...or they wouldn't be "carrying" in the first place.

Bountiful, UT

This article makes it sound like proficiency with a gun is rocket science. It isn't.

Also, anyone who bothers to get a carry permit, isn't likely to not know how to handle a gun. This is a non issue. The likely purpose of this proposal is to throw another obstical at gun ownership and gun use.

Should one be educated in safe gun use? Absolutely. Guns make a person and a family safer, when the owner of the gun follows the rules of gun safety. Otherwise guns are a liability.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Criminals will always have weapons. ALWAYS! Where was the police protection when a criminal used a firearm in the Colorado school? Was it legal for a student to take a firearm into that school? Was it legal for a minor to discharge a firearm? Did the laws forbidding those actions keep the school and the people at the school safe? Why didn't the "government" keep that crime from happening? Why didn't the "police" do their job and keep a crime from happening?

The anti-gun zealots would have us think that the world would be a perfect place if we would just listen to them; but, the most ridiculous argument that anti-gun zealots can make is that "laws" prevent criminals from committing crimes. Criminals don't obey laws. Those who must be forced to do the right thing will do whatever they want, whenever they want to whomever they want.

Hayden, ID

Maverick. How do we pay for armed guards in schools? Easy! The same way the government hired thousands of Obamacare web site navigators!


"New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report.

In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.

In all shootings — including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance."

In Los Angeles, where there are far fewer shots discharged, the police fired 67 times in 2006 and had 27 hits, a 40 percent hit rate, which, while better than New York’s, still shows that they miss targets more often they hit them."

J Thompson

Truthseeker just made a perfect case AGAINST gun control when she told us that the police hit their target less than 50% of the time. She convinced me that I should never just rely on the police to protect me or my family. Not only were the police too late to stop the shooting in Colorado, but according to her, had they been there, they most likely would have missed if they tried to shoot the criminal.

"Gun control" is not open for debate. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Only those who think nothing of the Constitution would tell us that government has the "right" to control arms. The rest of us know that government has no right to infringe our right to keep and bear arms.

Grantsville, UT

To lump all Utah concealed carry permit holders into a group of people who have no clue how to use a gun is a bit extreme.

Steve C. Warren

Dave Jensen is absolutely right. The proliferation of guns makes us less safe, not more safe. The best words in the Second Amendment are "well regulated." Let's face it, some people would argue that the way to prevent hijacking of planes is to issue all passengers a gun.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Yup. So we can have a bunch of Walter Mittys running around packing guns while fantasizing about being heroes.

It's just a matter of time before there is a tragedy when one of these folks try to be the hero and only make things worse. Will they be charged with murder if they hit the wrong target and take out an innocent bystander instead of the bad guy.

Will the police officer who mistakes little Walter for the bad guy and shoots him be crucified for his error?

It's going to happen some day.

Hayden, ID

@ Steve Warren. Do you really think that if all passengers on a plane had guns, any hijacker would attempt it, really? Come on, man!

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

I can't really argue with the need for better gun training, but let me point out. The shooters in the recent tragic incidents were pretty well trained in how to effectively use those weapons. And that was a factor in making them sucessful in mass killings it seems to me.

All American
Herriman, UT

@Mike in Cedar City: They were also not mentally stable, which is another volatile subject. So addressing the subject of "training" in the context of Dave's article and the commenters about police accuracy, it seems it's a moot point. Guns can kill in anyone's hands. The bottom line is: laws do not prevent shootings. So I'll keep mine close by my "trained" hand.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

How will those who propose "gun control" get firearms out of the hands of criminals? Chicago had a total ban on handguns for decades. A TOTAL BAN. Did that stop criminals from using handguns? According to Wiki in Chicago in 1975 "75% of murders involved a firearm . . . 85% of victims and 93% of offenders were male. 76% of victims were African American (77.4% of offenders were), 18.3% were Hispanic (17.3% of offenders), and 5.6% were white (5.3% of offenders). . . Over 75% of victims and 88% of offenders had a prior arrest history."

Convicted felons cannot carry firearms, yet 88% of offenders had a prior arrest history. Making laws against using firearms does not work. Taking guns out of the hands of law-aiding citizens does not stop criminals from using guns.

Obama does not believe in gun control; he surrounds himself with men and women carrying firearms. Harry Reid and John Boehner do not believe in gun control. They surround themselves with people carrying guns. The justices on the Supreme Court do not believe in gun control. They also surround themselves with armed guards. Yet, liberals tell us to do what they say, not what they do.

Salt Lake City, UT

Statistically a gun in the home is more likely to end up resulting in a bullet to someone in the home (either via attack, suicide, or accident) than it is to injure/kill anyone else.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Two shootings in a week that made the news. But what is most disturbing is that both this and the school shooting in Colorado have generated virtually no attention and no outrage.

Have shootings become so routine that they merit little attention unless they involve huge numbers of victims and then only when the victims are children?

Have shootings become such a part of our nightly TV entertainment and our weekend movies that we as a nation have become inured to them? Are the imaginary and ever more graphic shootings we allow into our living rooms virtually every night of the week lulling us into some kind of lazy complacency?

Instead of national outrage, we seem to now have a national yawn. "Ho hum, another shooting. What time is CSI on tonight?"


And downright frightening.

But exactly what the NRA is hoping will happen.

How many more people must die? Or will it only become real to us when the dead are someone close to us -- like a family member. Is that what it will take?

Kearns, UT

I have to respectfully disagree with the letter. I for one feel safer. You don't every know who is armed and neither do the criminals. BTW our level of violent crime here in Utah is way below other states so the correlation is not really accurate. What happened in Colorado was sad, however blaming the legal gun owners and lumping them in with that psycho is also not an apt comparison. Until something happens in the mental health area to ferret these people out and keep guns out of their hands.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Can you define what you mean when you say "Gun Lobby"?

Is it just the NRA? Or is it anybody who thinks we really have 2nd Amendment rights like me?

I think I understand the reason for the 2nd Amendment (and it's not for sport). I think it's an important right guaranteed by the Constitution. Does that make me part of the loony gun lobby?

to comment

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