Gun control debate begins to simmer after massacre

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 20, 2012 9:17 a.m.

    Many men, women, and children have been killed along the border by American weapons flowing through ATF to cartels.

    Why was there an executive order halting an investigation, and where is the tear?

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 9:15 a.m.

    I'm absolutely certain that nearly every one of the teachers, and especially those that were victims, would've much preferred to have had a gun with the knowledge and training to use it, rather than just standing there defenseless and getting shot, as was the case last Friday.
    Because of the school intercom system (and the janitor), each teacher had prior warning that the wacko was in the school and what his intentions were. As such, had the administrators and teachers had ready access to guns for defense purposes, and been trained on how to skillfully use it (as teachers are in Israel), there is absolutely no doubt that many innocent lives would've been saved last Friday.
    In fact, if it was common knowledge that all teachers are well armed and trained in gun defense, it's extremely doubtful that wacko would've even gone to any such school in the first place. He committed suicide at the first signs of resistance.

  • Tators Hyrum, UT
    Dec. 19, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    What seems to be forgotten is that there are literally millions of legal assault type guns already existing in the U.S.. That means that even if a ban on new sales was to go into effect, there would still be a thriving market for used weapons for many, many years to come. On top of that, it's not difficult to buy separate parts and assemble your own gun. All things considered, this talk of banning new sales of such rifles is just feel-good talk for political gain... an attempt to make the public feel better, but without much realistic effect.
    Considering the tens of millions (or more) of guns currently in the USA, a person could always find a way to get one, no matter what laws Congress passes. And if someone wants to kill a bunch of people badly enough, there are many other ways of doing so without the use of guns.
    Guns shouldn't be blamed in these types of deaths, anymore than cars should be blamed when a drunk driver kills someone on the road. It's the person shooting or driving who is the real cause.

  • jwarkentin Riverton, UT
    Dec. 18, 2012 8:10 a.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    You have to start from a realistic perspective. Guns are already out there. This isn't the military - it's not so easy to control. How are we to get rid of everyone's guns? Even if you tried going door-to-door and taking them, you wouldn't be very successful for several reasons. 1) People would try to defend their right by using their guns, 2) People would hide and stock-pile them, and 3) There would still be a black market (like drugs) feeding them into the country. So fact is, there will always be people with guns. The question is, will the good folk doing nothing wrong have guns to defend themselves with? As one police officer said recently, "when seconds count, cops are only minutes away". People need to have a way to protect themselves.

    You said "I'm more afraid of right-wing 2nd amendment remedy folks right here". Assuming you have a gun and you know how to use it, as you claim, then you really shouldn't be too afraid. Besides, how many of those folks are actually the ones doing the shooting? None that I know of.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Dec. 18, 2012 4:36 a.m.

    Also a note about Switzerland, they have the worst gun violence statistics in Western Europe. They also have strict gun control as well.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:31 p.m.

    I agree with everything you wrote except saying that somehow my comment was misleading. Worf said it was a requirement that everyone own a firearm. That is not correct. Nothing misleading about that, intentional or otherwise.

    However, if you can point us to reliable evidence that says gun violence in Switzerland is directly related to folks owning firearms, I would welcome it. Please point me in that direction. Without evidence, it is only opinion! And that's a fact!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:40 p.m.

    Re: ". . . people in Switzerland are not required to have guns.

    This statement, while factual, is also misleading. Perhaps intentionally so.

    The Swiss military has a tiny professional cadre, with draftees between 18 and 30 [34 for officers] composing 90%+ of its numbers. Since 2003, it has been on a downward glide path toward an overall strength of about 200,000, though its current strength is probably higher.

    Swiss soldiers ARE required to keep their assigned weapons and equipment at home.

    So, technically, they are not required to own them -- they belong to the Army -- but they ARE required to keep them at home, as well as clean, maintain, practice, and drill with them. The cost of practice ammunition is subsidized.

    At discharge, Swiss soldiers may elect to keep their issued weapon [after de-mil to semi-auto]. Most do.

    The point? High gun ownership rates [1/2 that of the US]. Most current and former soldiers possess guns in Switzerland. Where gun violence is rare.

    That's a fact.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 17, 2012 7:57 p.m.

    Want to save lives? Ban:

    * abortion
    * alcohol

    LDS Liberal--my neighbor is from Geneva, and I grew up on military bases.

    This is one of the few times I agree with you.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Dec. 17, 2012 4:21 p.m.

    Worf, people in Switzerland are not required to have guns. That statement is factually incorrect.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 4:02 p.m.

    Mcallen, TX
    People in Switzerland are required to have guns. They also have a low rate.



    Are you a veteran?

    I'm curious, because I am, and I'm glad most gun owners are nothing more than vermit hunting locally-oakles red-necks who spend there saturdays target splinking or chasing non-predatory woodland creatures in flouresant orange vests. Who's bark is always louder than their bite.

    As a Veteran myself, I rest assured knowing I have the far superior advantage because I had the proper training over 90% of the other gun owners around here.

    Did you stop to think:

    1. Switzerland has a 100% mandatory military requirement?
    2. Switzerland doen't have these sorts of problems due to professional training, and everyone learns a serious respect that guns are for killing, and not for fun or sport?
    3. In the military, weapons were ALWAYS under lock and key. No "normal" person had easy acess to them, let alone children or the mentally ill.
    4. I'm more afraid of right-wing 2nd amendment remedy folks right here in the good 'ol USofA, than I was of all the muslim extremeists or Asian Communists in the world over there.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 17, 2012 2:36 p.m.

    People in Switzerland are required to have guns. They also have a low rate. Compare that to Chicago, and New York with its gun laws.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 17, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    Why is it so hard to post facts here? Are facts blocked while baseless opinions are ok?

    Again. Regions with strict gun laws such as Asia and Europe have low murder rates. Europe is more secular than the US and Asia doesn't have many Christians so I have no idea where many of you are coming up with your conclusions.

    UNODC murder rates most recent year

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:58 p.m.

    Why is it so hard to post facts here? Are facts blocked while baseless opinions are ok?

    Again. Regions with strict gun laws such as Asia and Europe have low murder rates. Europe is more secular than the US and Asia doesn't have many Christians so I have no idea where many of you are coming up with your conclusions.

    UNODC murder rates most recent year

  • jwarkentin Riverton, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:43 p.m.


    Let's be realistic. It is true, maybe the killer will have killed 10 children by the time other teachers get there. It is impossible to stop all killing. Whether you take guns away from everyone or arm everyone someone will still get shot before help can arrive. But there's a difference between 10 students dead and 20. I'd rather that someone around is able to lessen the damage/impact than be completely at the killers mercy. Yes, some people are suicidal. It will always happen and we can only do so much. If you were in one of those classrooms would you rather someone around had a gun or be left knowing the only hope is the killers mercy?

  • Sasha Pachev Provo, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 12:00 p.m.

    I agree with the Mountainman. I grew up in the Soviet Union which would be a classic case of moral relativism with almost non-existent religious mitigation. It is one thing to study and compare violent crime statistics. Violence resulting from moral relativism takes on a new dimension when you live in constant fear for your safety. Americans have not yet experienced what it is like when a large portion of the population loses the sense of moral right and wrong to a sufficiently large degree. Some people may call themselves agnostics, etc, but they are still surrounded by a sufficiently large group that still has some belief of moral right and wrong, and they develop a measure of intuitive self-restraint that keeps them from acting out their true ideology. That lasts a generation or two, maybe three. And then you see its true colors, but by then it may be too late.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:56 a.m.

    Re: "Gun control debate begins to simmer"

    Well, calling it a "debate" dignifies it more than it deserves. It's been a liberal monologue, to date. True-to-form, liberals NEVER miss an opportunity to politicize tragedy.

    As both we and they well know, however, no ban or control of guns, ammunition, or magazine capacity will have the slightest beneficial effect. All have been tried and failed. All could exacerbate the problem by creating a larger pool of innocent, defenseless victims, but none will decrease the supply of weapons in the hands of evil/deranged killers.

    The debate that should be occurring centers around whether and when liberals will wake up to the unalterable fact that safety and the kinder, gentler America we all want can only come about -- as our Nation's founders foresaw -- by force of arms.

    Real school safety will result only if schools train and arm willing teachers and staff. Such a policy would provide, not only a credible response, but a credible deterrent, to cowardly, evil/disturbed criminals.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:21 a.m.

    I saw someone post over the weekend that there are something more than 88,000,000 privately owned firearms in the U.S. Their point was that 88,000,000 weapons were not used illegally last Friday. It's a valid point. Another valid point is that 88,000,000 privately owned guns did not prevent that shooting tragedy. How many million more weapons will it take to stop mentally unstable, suicidal young men from committing mass murder with easily accessible, legally and privately owned guns? Almost all of these shooters end up killing themselves at the end. It's the common thread. They are suicidal and want to take as many innocents with them as possible. Arming the kindergarten teachers isn't going to stop someone who is suicidal. The shooter bursts through the classroom door and caps the teacher with the first shot and now the kids are defenseless. Maybe the teachers from the other classrooms come running with their guns but before they can stop the shooter, he's killed 10 little kids. Is 10 dead kids somehow acceptable? Are any dead innocents acceptable? We have to reign this in!

  • Lledrav West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    I'm a crusty old outdoorsman but this tragedy has given me nightmares. I think it would help to have more Bible study at home and fewer violent video games.
    Trying to ban guns isn't going to work. "Gun free zones" means "shooting gallery" to a deranged killer. You will never hear of a mass shooting taking place at an NRA convention, or a gun show.

    And is anyone familiar with Israel schools? I hear their teachers are armed and have had no such shootings there.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 11:02 a.m.

    Someone here posted that we should require grade school teachers to be armed and trained in order to prevent future tragedies like this. Are you serious? This shooting happened at a grade school. The other shooting last week was at a shopping mall. I remember one last summer at a church. That one in Colorado was at a movie theater. Are we seriously proposing that kindergarten teachers. mall workers, church priests or bishops, and movie theater ushers all be required to be armed and trained? The next step is just to require that every man, woman and child in the U.S. carry a concealed weapon to protect themselves from every other man, woman and child in the U.S. It's a ridiculous suggestion.

    And how exactly is an armed kindergarten teacher going to protect her class and teach at the same time? Keep her loaded gun in her right hand and learn to write on the chalkboard with her left? Little Billy leaves to go the the bathroom and the teacher draws her gun on him when he opens the door to return?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:56 a.m.

    I am a member of the NRA - a hunter and I carry a .40 cal semi-auto for self protection. I find it reasonable to enforce back ground checks at gun shows but that is it - no gun banning and no gun restrictions. Of course every back ground check would flag someone with mental illness or past violence and stop the legal sale of a gun to that person. The AR 15 semi-auto rifle is a beautiful gun and there is no way a law observing citizen should be prohibited from protecting his family and his home with one of these. I personally believe schools should have responsible trained men and women who carry concealed weapons - principals, asst principals etc... It is the ONLY way to protect our kids. By the time the police arrive the damage has been done. Too little too late. Chicago tried to ban guns and the violent gun related crime rate sky rocketed. Pretty simple really - predators will attack the weakest and most vulnerable. What we ought to looking at is countries like Switzerland who have successfully lowered violent crime by using responsible gun ownership.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:31 a.m.

    We've had mental illness for over 6,000 years.
    We've had guns for almost 1,000 years.

    I'm still waiting patiently for the report of what type of meds this kid was taking.

    Co-incidentlay the same time,
    and the same meds have been associated for this sort of violence over the last 20 years.

    It's the reason the FDA (and the lawyers) require the "black label" warnings on each and every box.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Dec. 17, 2012 10:22 a.m.

    Gun rights were not for deer hunting. Its to protect people from government.

    How many people have been killed by governments? Where do you think Mexican cartels got their guns? The U.S. government! opps! Executive order stopped that investigation. Men, women, and children were killed with those weapons.

    How about banning guns of all nations?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    you are correct, we need to address the mental health issue.

    Gun laws are not the solution - we have seen the BO administration arm Mexican Drug gangs, contrary to our laws. We need to keep the loonies off the streets.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Dec. 17, 2012 9:11 a.m.

    Mountain man

    While I think the vast majority of christian people truly try to be consistent with and follow their moral beliefs I hardly think that many of the conservative posters on these threads including yourself can hardly claim to not be the poster children for moral relativism. You wield select christian morals as weapons while ignoring others, kind of the very definition of relativism.

    Having said that I hope in the furious debate over gun control (which for the record, as a democrat and liberal) am not a fan of) that the mental health piece of this puzzle does not get shuffled into the deck and ignored.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    And Mountainman, If god is in the heart of christian students then he is "in" the schools and everywhere else.

    There has never even been shown a correlation with atheism and homicide rates of any kind. You find that Europe is HIGHLY secular and has overall lower homicide rates so facts just don't support your beliefs. Not that that will stop you.

    Anyone with any intent could easily show that religion has throughout history been a major contributor to violence and homicide rates. Many on the right still have angry feeling for Islam don't they and support any war towards an Islamic nation.

    Guns don't kill people - they just allow people to kill a lot more people from farther away so much easier with less effort and emotion than with a knife. Every mass knife murderer (can't think of any) wishes they had had an assault rifle. Do we arm our solders with knifes or assault rifles?

  • UT Brit London, England
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:49 a.m.


    "Of course gun death rates will be lower (but still exist) in a place where it's harder to get guns, but probably overall crime and murder rates will be higher."

    The US has the worst murder rate in 1st world countries. I am 4X more likely to be murdered in the US than my own country and the murder rate in the UK is not very good compared to other EU countries. Just wanted to post some factual information instead of assumptions.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:27 a.m.

    Why not put the blame for these kinds of tragedies where it belongs; the secular progressive ideology? After all, don't these proponents constantly tell us that morality is relative, there is no God to hold people accountable and that good and evil are subjective, what's right for you isn't necessarily right for everyone and that we are evil if try to we force our values on them? If a person accepts that ideology, what's wrong with murdering people? Instead of debating more gun control, lets teach children that they are accountable and that there is a difference between good and evil, God defines it, they are accountable and their behavior matters! Consider the mindset of people who do acts instead of the tools they use because ultimately we can not take away all their tools!

  • jwarkentin Riverton, UT
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:12 a.m.

    Wow, really? Quoting "gun death rates" as a defense isn't very helpful. I don't care what the means for killing is. Let's look at overall murder rates. Of course gun death rates will be lower (but still exist) in a place where it's harder to get guns, but probably overall crime and murder rates will be higher. I'm guessing death rates from beating, strangling or whatever else are higher. It just doesn't make any sense to make laws for criminals, because they don't obey the law. Instead let's make laws for law abiding citizens that can indirectly affect the criminals - like requiring every teacher to be trained and carry a weapon. They are the front-line defense when it comes to the children they are responsible for. There is no one else in that classroom to protect them.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 17, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    I'm afraid talking about gun control just makes them buy more guns.

    Hopefully we will address more mental health issues and SECURE your guns at home.