Published: Tuesday, Aug. 12 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
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
"...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you just figure you'd throw a couple rocks at the hornets' nest,
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.
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.
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
Well said, Mike Richards.
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
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
@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.
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.
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.
@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??
Maybe we should bring back gunfights as sport. Firing a high peered weapon
should become a daily event. Only the best shoot survive.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments