Letter: Gun laws


Return To Article
  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Aug. 16, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    It sounds good to say the person with a carry permit is untrained. However just showing the weapon has a big effect. Moreover though the US is rated 4th in murder rate, if you take away the 5 largest cities we are 4th from the bottom. In Detroit the Chief of Police said as people acquired guns the murder rate declined.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 13, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards... a most reasonable and well thought out response. Totally agree.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    Here is another way to look at violent death. Yes guns take lives, sometimes intentional, sometimes not, but so do automobiles, sometimes intentional, (I put drunk driving in the intentional category as the person knew what they were doing and went ahead being irresponsible anyway.) Sometimes not. So how could we just about eliminate driving deaths on the roads? Simple. Make the national speed limit 20 miles per hour. And strongly enforce it of course. Not many people dying on the highways then, (except maybe from old age) and we could almost eliminate all driving related deaths. Now, do we as a nation want that strict of a driving regulation to save lives? Why not, it SAVES LIVES! However, I doubt most Americans would want to make that kind of sacrifice of only going 20 MPH to save lives. The same with gun regulation. Very extreme regulations of guns could likely save more lives. How far would you be willing to go? How slow would you be willing to go?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 13, 2014 11:23 a.m.

    To "Schnee" prove it. Where is the study that shows that fewer guns correlates to few gun deaths. There are studies that show the opposite. Read "More Guns, Less Crime" in the WSJ where they report on a study the FBI did that shows that where you have more guns you end up with less crime.

    From the Detroit News we read "Detroit police chief gives credit to armed citizens for drop in crime". They found that they have had a 37% drop in crime since encouraging people to buy guns.

    Do you want crime rates to go up? Do you really hate the poor and want them to be victims of crime.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 11:19 a.m.

    2 bit you take the all or nothing position which in itself is fantasy when speaking with others. Your comments on Aurora is as much fantasy as the movie was. If a perp knows you are armed then how are you really going to protect yourself? You can't. Nevertheless, let's start attempting to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not carry and only then will you have a chance to have a rational discussion. Paranoia of confiscation is a bigger problem than paranoia of association.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    If anybody should skim this thread, they should read the comment by Mike Richards. He has distilled this issue down to a few lines that sum up my own views entirely. Well done.

    This issue, like so many others, are not as simple as gun libertarians think them to be. Then again, these simplistic viewpoints might be rather complex when viewed from eyes unfamiliar with critical analysis. Those are my 2 bits.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 8:53 a.m.


    The letter wasn't about comprehensive background checks. Nobody's AGAINST comprehensive background checks (at least nobody I know, and not the NRA, they support background checks).

    We already HAVE comprehensive background checks (Brady Bill). So what is your point?

    If you point is that current background checks are not working... I would agree with you. Obviously they are not working. Because we have them, and people are still doing these attacks! So it's obviously not stopping them.

    I think it has stopped some (so I think we should keep them). But realise that they aren't the whole solution. They CAN'T stop all of them.

    That's why it's good that SOME people are armed and able to stop an active shooter when one does slip through the cracks of our existing background checks.


    Zero of the guns used in these well investigated attacks were obtained at gun shows... so don't pretend THAT's the problem. Background checks at gun shows is something we should do. But don't pretend it would have prevented ANY of the attacks we have had.

    People close to the attacker can stop him... not folks in Washington.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    Aug. 13, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    Many of you seem to be remembering some gun incidents but forgetting what happened at Fort Hood. A gunman (Islamic terrorist) began gunning down many soldiers who all were well trained with the use of firearm. Why didn't the gunman get killed much sooner before killing many? Answer. Because the soldiers on base were not allowed to have firearms available to them. They had to, as we in society, wait for the 911 call to go out and the police to arrive. By then many more were killed. And this is what happens whether at schools or malls, or military bases. How many of you anti gun types would not want a gun in your home if some criminal was trying to break in and do harm to your family? Would you really feel safe with having only 911 to call and wait for the police? If so, then keep that information a secret. And as for this "Wild West" nonsense, (sorry Mike R) if that were going to happen, it would already have. We have hundreds of millions of guns here already. About the only place it is happening is in Chicago. But that's a whole other story.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 7:34 p.m.

    Wonders never cease. The Real Maverick and Mike Richards have switched places! Could it be they are both trying their wings at satire?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 7:08 p.m.

    @Anti Bush-Obama'

    I own a gun and I know how to use it. That said, I have no problem with comprehensive background checks on every gun purchase. I also believe in reasonable controls.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 7:01 p.m.

    OMG, Mike Richards has become a pod person! I agree with you wholeheartedly, Mike. Miracles never cease (and it didn't even require a god to perform it).

  • the greater truth Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 5:54 p.m.


    "regulated" had different meanings and usages over two hundred years ago.

    It does not mean to have rules and regulations to govern something or a people.

    No, it refers to functioning or working in a proper or expected way.

    In order for the people to function or work as a proper militia, the people need the right to bear arms.

    This is another example of the extreme left intentionally misinterpreting the constitution to take away or limit rights guaranteed to the people.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 4:25 p.m.

    "actually more guns are the answer."

    There's a correlation between murders in a state and gun ownership in a state (it's fairly linear so this suggests that there's nothing changing proportionality, a doubling of guns just matches doubling of gun deaths and halving guns halves gun deaths). More guns is not the answer at all.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    Haha! Hilarious to watch liberals spin their little webs.

    Oh, so if we only take away murder rates from (the most gun restrictive) and violent cities then we're not that violent? Wow... If Brazil could eliminate murder rates from Recife, São Paulo, Rio, and Salvador then it's a pretty peaceful place too!

    The problem has never been too many guns and bullets, but too few!

    Have any of you gotten stuck in an odd water current? Instead of swimming towards land you need to swim parallel to the land! Same thing with guns.
    The only way to stop gun violence isn't to take away guns, but to swim parallel to it. Everyone needs guns. Bazookas and automatics. No background checks either. Background checks were never mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

    And yes, redshirt is correct. Neo-cons are liberals. As are nazis. They're liberals too. NAZI even stands for socialists. Hitler took away freedom, took over industry, and took away guns.

    Obama is out to get our guns too. No matter what liberals like Mike Richards say, our 2nd amendment rights shall not be enfringed!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 12, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    To "airnaut" if well armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime, then explain why so few mass shooting occur where people are armed? Why is it that the worst shootings occur in gun free zones?

    FYI, Neo-Cons are LIBERALS that use guns to push their liberal agenda.

    If guns in the hands of citizens is so bad, explain why the store owners who stood outside their stores this past week were able to successfully protect their businesses from looters.

    If guns are so bad, then why is it that the nations with the most gun violence are the ones with the fewest guns?

    If armed citizens is so bad, why is it that the most dangerous cities are the ones where the citizens are disarmed?

    Your ilk knows it has to disarm the populace to completely subjugate them. A disarmed populace is easier to control than an armed populace.

    Your arguments for disarming the populace go against the facts of what happens when you disarm the populace.

    Why do you want to make our cities more dangerous, and make it easier for a corrupt government to oppress us? Are you really a Gadianton?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Aug. 12, 2014 2:21 p.m.

    The Real Maverick
    Orem, UT

    A well armed and trained citizenry will stop the mindless gun violence we see today. The constitution demands it. And so do we, no after what the libs say.

    12:46 p.m. Aug. 12, 2014


    Loved it!
    haha - perfect.

    BTW - While I reading it,
    This is why the neo-con don't think we need a Police Department, Fire Departments, Social Services or other State agencies and associated taxes.

    Everyone pitches in building the roads,
    laying the pipes,
    volunteer bucket brigades showing up putting out fires,
    baking hot meals 3 times daily for the hungry,
    taking in the homeless,
    harmed to the hilt, patroling our streets, neighborhoods, staving off invading Federal troops, and the invading "socialists" from Canada...

    The Neo-Con fantasy world of make-believe....

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    @The Real Maverick,
    That is A Modest Proposal, if ever I've heard one . . .

    @2 bits,
    I'm not afraid (irrationally, or otherwise) of guns, though I don't consider myself a Leftie, either. On the other hand, some of the characters who wield them (former State Representative Carl Wimmer comes immediately to mind) give me some cause for concern, and those who suffer from mental illnesses and also "carry" are a much greater cause for concern.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    Murder rate in the US 4th from the top. Remove Chicago, Detroit, etc. just the 5 major cities and the rate is 4th from the bottom. The police chief of Detroit said some citizens are acquiring guns and the murder rate is going down. A weapon is a great equalizer. I feel the Christians in Iraq and those that do not want to be beheaded might want to have something to defend themselves with.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 12:49 p.m.

    Demo Dave,

    Re: "The bizarre worship of guns by the Utah legislature borders on psychosis"...

    IMO the Left's irrational fear of guns (which are inanimate objects) borders on psychosis.

    I've seen people who when they see a gun just sitting there... they curl up in a ball and almost start balling because they can see a gun (mostly girls)... because it frightens them!

    It's just a piece of steel! It can't hurt you just sitting there in the case! But I've seen some people just act like their skin is crawling and they're almost in tears because they can see a gun. That's "Irrational" fear some parents and teachers are instilling in their children!

    A gun is NOT a scary thing. We should NOT be teaching our children to be afraid of guns. We should be teaching them what guns are, what they are for (no... not just what the LEFT thinks they are for). And teach them how to respectfully handle them. And how to keep them out of the hands of their friends who should not have them, and what to do if a nut-case has one.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    How! Libs like Mike Richards are goin crazy with today's letter! Let's bring some common sense here.

    Our founding fathers knew that the only thing between a well organized and thriving civilized democracy and anarchy was our guns. If we are experiencing too much gun violence at our schools why don't we arm the students? The only way to stop a good guy with a gun is a bad guy with a gun. So why not nip this problem in the bud? Police take too long to respond. By the time they get to schools the damage has already been done. So why not arm the kids? Armed 8th graders will discourage punks from invading their schools. Armed cheerleaders will prevent boys from taking advantage of them. Armed students can and will stop gun violence.

    Also, we need to allow teachers to be armed and trained on how to use automatic weapons. Instead of boring planning days for teacher development, why not send them to defense training?

    A well armed and trained citizenry will stop the mindless gun violence we see today. The constitution demands it. And so do we, no after what the libs say.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Aug. 12, 2014 12:43 p.m.

    To "Ranch" actually more guns are the answer.

    How many mass shootings have occurred where it was well know that people were allowed to carry weapons?

    Compare the Colorado Theater shooting to the attempted mass murder in January 2013 in another theater. Read "Two Wounded in Theater Shooting" in My San Antonio. Similar scenario, but one ended with a couple of people wounded and the other with massive loss of life.

    Ask yourself, why do mass shootings occur in gun free zones and rarely where guns are welcome?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Aug. 12, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    rooin' tootin' shootin'...

    That's what we need, more guns.

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    More guns do not make us safer for the same reason that more drugs increase the addiction rate and more cars on the road increase your chances of being in an accident. While it's true that guns don't kill people, people with guns often do. Guns provide a quick and convenient release of anger for people who lack the self control to deal with hostility in a civilized manner.

    Even if guns served as a deterrent to crime (which they don't), criminals will always have bigger and better guns, such as automatic weapons, than law-abiding citizens or even the police.

    The bizarre worship of guns by the Utah legislature borders on psychosis.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 12:16 p.m.

    A well-regulated militia... words that have no meaning to pro-gun people. I assume they can be added to any sentence without changing anything. Let's see...

    A well-regulated militia, BYU will win 10 games this year.

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    In my view, there have been many good comments here (and a couple of disturbing ones, again in my view), but I would like to particularly praise Karen R. and Mike Richards for very articulately and civilly addressing the problems with the viewpoint expressed in Isaac Painter's letter.

    I support our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, but because someone CAN do something, does not necessarily mean that they SHOULD do it. Owning and carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility; one it seems that some who own and carry firearms are not adequately prepared for or refuse to acknowledge. A person carrying a concealed weapon in public, in a very real sense, has the life and safety of everyone in their proximity in their hands, but I'm concerned that many don't get that.

    Again, kudos to Karen and Mike.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 11:56 a.m.

    Maybe we should bring back gunfights as sport. Firing a high peered weapon should become a daily event. Only the best shoot survive.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 11:55 a.m.


    Re: "Maybe we could work a bit harder at keeping guns out of the hands of those who are unstable and unqualified to handle them"...

    Are teachers "unstable and unqualified to handle them"? That's what the letter was about.


    As for the Aurora theater attack... Let me be the single person to demonstrate to you how an audience with guns could have saved a SINGLE soul.

    When he started shooting... at least one of them would have fired back, and he would have had to duck for cover or be hit and taken out. When a shooter ducks... he's not shooting. That would have saved a soul.

    If the shooter is taken out... he can't shoot anymore. THAT would have saved a single soul.

    You really think one man against a hundred armed individuals... and he would not have ducked, taken cover, or been taken out??

    You really don't understand that?

    Even if a SINGLE person in the audience was armed... they could have fired a shot and distracted him for a second (allowing one more person to get out safely). Saving a single soul... What's so terrible about that??

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 11:31 a.m.

    Maybe we could work a bit harder at keeping guns out of the hands of those who are unstable and unqualified to handle them. This argument is too all or nothing for me. Expanded background checks and demonstration of competency would be adequate for me. Even Utah's political deity Reagan believed in reasonable controls. Not a single person has demonstrated to me how an audience with guns could have saved a single soul in an Aurora theater. I'm sorry, I don't feel safe with any of you packing.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Chihuahua, 00
    Aug. 12, 2014 11:26 a.m.

    So do you anti-gun people think that all these police officers are incorruptible? If they are the only ones with Guns who's to say they won't exercise unrighteous dominion? If they are the only ones with guns they can do anything they want regardless if it's lawful or not. That's what made the Gestapo so dangerous.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 10:58 a.m.


    So... what you're saying is... YOU should be armed, but TEACHERS should not?

    I think what YOU are saying makes no sense!

    Why should YOU be allowed to be a gun owner and a ccw permit holder, and believe the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms.... but you can't comprehend why teachers like those at Sandy Hook would want the same thing you have??

    I get the feeling something in your story is at least disingenuous...


    I don't know if we need a society "saturated with firearms and minimal restrictions"... but that's not what the letter was about! Where did he ask for EITHER of those??

    I didn't see that in his letter.


    I think you are making a lot of "Assumptions" about the "gun crowd" or "2nd amendment supporters".

    We do NOT want a society saturated with firearms and minimal restrictions.

    I don't own guns today. But I COULD. And that's the important part.

    I don't want a society saturated with firearms and minimal restrictions... but I also don't want that right infringed upon by my government, or well meaning people in politics.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    Wow. I need to sit down, take several slow deep breaths, and wait for my equilibrium to return. You see, I just found myself agreeing completely with Mike Richards.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    Ranch said: "2) That "off-duty" police officer was trained to do what he did. Your average joe isn't."

    And to offset that happy little story is the police officer who left his side arm on the coffee table for his young child play with.

    With Great power....Great responsibility!

  • micawber Centerville, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 10:20 a.m.

    Well said, Mike Richards.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 12, 2014 9:57 a.m.

    Can I take this rare opportunity to say that I totally support what Mike Richards has said. His words, coupled with the wise counsel of Karen R. should be something we all consider carefully. Thanks to both of you for your comments.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 12, 2014 9:51 a.m.

    Who is this "we"? How can "we" put more guns in the hands of citizens?

    The Constitution does not REQUIRE us to keep and bear arms. It ALLOWS us to do that. It guarantees that right.

    There is a short distance between law abiding and "vigilante".

    I don't carry a gun. I would not want to be responsible for using a gun in a public place. I would not want to risk injuring a bystander.

    The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is not the same as the DUTY to keep and bear arms. Members of the military and members of police forces have the DUTY to keep and bear arms at certain times and in certain places.

    I would trust an off-duty police officer to carry a concealed weapon. I would also trust many of the people whom I know who have concealed carry permits, but I do not want to turn America into a modern version of the wild-west.

    Using deadly force should be the last remedy, not the first. Drawing a weapon is a very serious matter. It should be respected, not encouraged.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 9:30 a.m.

    If the authors of the Bill of Rights had been able to see our day, they certainly would have worded the Second Amendment differently, or perhaps omitted it completely. The Constitution certainly needs to be updated on several counts, gun rights being one of the most critical.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    Did you just figure you'd throw a couple rocks at the hornets' nest, Ike?

    Aug. 12, 2014 8:52 a.m.

    The problem with responsible gun owners is that it doesn't seem to take very much to turn many of them into irresponsible gun owners.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    If there had been more "trained" people at Trolly square, we probably would have had much more death. Innocent people most likely would have gotten hit by stray bullets and caught in cross fire with the inability to determine friend or foe.

    Sandy Hook probably would have had the same scenario.

    Good guys and bad guys don't wear special markers in a firefight, you get a bunch of people that have never trained together, suddenly everyone in your mind is a bad guy.

    In my Concealed Carry class, they taught a trained cop, with adrenaline is only about 40% accurate. What about Ol' Billy Boy who dreams every night if getting his bad guy?

    The answer is prevention and education. Teach people what to do if a shooting arises. Teach people how to identify signs in a loved one and get them the help they need.

    Statistics bear that we as a society have never been safer than now; in spite of these shootings.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 7:42 a.m.

    Not another unsolicited letter from a gun lover. These folks need to think it through a little better and get a grip on the real world. Fantasy drives their perceptions of how guns can same the world.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 7:26 a.m.

    Everyone should have a gun to protect themselves. The police could be minutes away. In a fire fight do you want to come unprepared? We need more guns and more bullets available to all, without time consuming background checks. That way we can hit and kill the bad guy before innocent civilians are killed. Do you know of any gun free zones that don't have deaths? What about any gun zones? There's a reason why no one dies at a shooting range while every month we have people being killed in schools and churches.

    Besides, any restrictions on guns is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

    The only way to have a civilized and safe society is for everyone to be armed to defend themselves. No matter what Obama says, guns are a sign of patriotism and respect for the 2nd amendment.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 6:24 a.m.

    1) More guns isn't the answer.

    2) That "off-duty" police officer was trained to do what he did. Your average joe isn't.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Aug. 12, 2014 6:09 a.m.

    Those calling for private citizens to arm themselves are calling for a world that encourages people NOT to trust each other. They want us to view each person as a potential criminal looking to assault us. Does this even qualify as a "civilization"? Does it reflect reality? Are there just as many criminals waiting to assault us with their weapons as there are non-violent citizens going about their daily business?

    And how does arming society address the underlying problems associated with gun-related assaults? Does this solve the mental health issue or the domestic violence issue? Does it address the male propensity for violence? Or does it abet it?

    Arming the populace sounds like the solution a 13-year old boy might come up with, not a mature adult. Seriously, America, we are allowing a fear-filled minority to foist their dystopian worldview upon us. Keep pushing back. And women, think twice before bringing a gun into your home because the reality is that, more often than not, the person it gets used on is you.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 12, 2014 5:32 a.m.

    "...if the restrictive gun laws were removed, then we the people would be able to protect ourselves.."

    What restrictive gun laws? Jaime Fuller of the Washington Post commemorated the 20 anniversary of the Brady Bill, which has resulted in over 100 million background checks since it was put into place in 1994. And yet, since then:

    1. When new gun policy gets passed, it's usually about loosening gun restrictions, not tightening them.
    2. 242 members of the House had an "A rating" from the National Rifle Association in December 2012.
    3. In 2013, a plan to expand background checks failed.
    4. In 1993, 34 percent of Americans thought it was more important to protect the right to own guns than control gun ownership.
    5. Firearm homicides reached a peak of 17,075 in 1993.
    6. In October 2011, 47 percent of Americans said they had a gun in the home -- the highest number since 1993.

    Please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting gun owners in this country are somehow overburdened, or even inconvenienced, by restrictive gun laws. And study the tragedy of Chris Kyle - a good man, with a gun, was murdered, by a gun, at a firing range.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 12, 2014 3:15 a.m.

    I am a gun owner and a ccw permit holder. I believe the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. That said, Mr. Painter's letter letter makes absolutely no sense. Our nation's crime statistics make it abundantly clear that living a a society saturated with firearms and minimal restrictions on their sale is a recipe for mayhem, not public safety. The notion that elementary school teachers should be armed in their classrooms is ludicrous.