Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Gun laws’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 12 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT

Updated: Monday, Aug. 11 2014 7:41 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

ECR
Burke, VA

"...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.

Karen R.
Houston, TX

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.

Ranch
Here, UT

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.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

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.

Esquire
Springville, UT

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.

MaxPower
Eagle Mountain, UT

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.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

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.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

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

Kent C. DeForrest
Provo, UT

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.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

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.

ECR
Burke, VA

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.

micawber
Centerville, UT

Well said, Mike Richards.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

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!

Blue
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@Blue,

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.

Anti Bush-Obama
Chihuahua, 00

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.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

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.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

@ugottabkidn,

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??

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

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

to comment

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