Assault weapons ban, colossal failure in 1994

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • DurkSimmons Stevensville, MD
    Jan. 7, 2013 7:05 a.m.

    There is no denying that many people have lost their lives due to crazy people shooting guns. The question here is freedom, plain and simple. Personally, as a military veteran, I feel it's not only my right, but my civic duty to be armed, for my families protection, as well as protecting my non-gun bearing neighbors. Many of these comments are about automatic weapons, but those permits are TRULY difficult to obtain, and usually take over a year. The fact is, we are a nation that was founded with guns, was expanded with guns, and have been the strongest nation on earth because of it. We've never been invaded by a foreign force because 'they' know we the citizens of the US are armed to the teeth, period.
    Most of these heinous acts could have been avoided if our mental health system wasn't in its current state. We only have one out of the 20 beds that were available 30 years ago, with a 15% rise in population, and many more social problems to deal with than we had back then, like new drugs, the internet, etc.
    Durk Simmons

  • James1105 BOAZ, AL
    Dec. 25, 2012 7:33 p.m.

    The ignorance still runs high in the comments to this column.

    Assault weapons can be VERY inexpensive compared to other American semi-automatic rifles made by Browning, Remington, etc. When I purchased by used SKS "assault rifle", I paid $75. Recently I purchased a Mosin-Nagant military rifle for $100. Should I have paid 5-10 times that much so I can have another semi-automatic gun that isn't an "assault" weapon?

    Yeah, another "assault weapon" ban will be just as effective as the last one had during Clinton's years - a complete waste of time/money, etc. Great plan - blame objects instead of the people who cause these catastrophies.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 25, 2012 12:33 a.m.

    Re: "The State's individual National Guard (a "well-regulated-militia") under the statess GOVERNOR as supremem [sic] Commander-in-Chief, is the constitutionally defined 2nd ammendment [sic] is the ONLY Force . . . ."

    Transparently and demonstrably false.

    The Second Amendment refers only to a "right of the people." NOT of a militia, a governor, a Congress, or even a liberal messiah of a President.

    As if such a simple and straightforward assertion needed interpretation, the Supreme Court recently affirmed as much.

    What the "well-regulated militia" clause DOES prove, however, beyond any honest doubt, is that it applies to weapons useable by a militia, including assault weapons and normal-capacity [what liberals disingenuously call "high capacity"] magazines, not just to single-shot, bolt-action hunting rifles.

    It is fantasy, indeed, to suggest that the reach of the Second Amendment extends only to a state's National Guard.

  • jfarker Temecula, CA
    Dec. 24, 2012 12:26 a.m.

    I am heartbroken about what happened in Newtown last week, but I am also convinced that none of the proposed 'solutions' will prevent future similar incidents because none of the solutions are absolute. WE CAN NEVER BE ABSOLUTELY SAFE IN A FREE SOCIETY! This is a basic reality that second amendment supporters acknowledge, but no one else seems to understand. I prefer not to live in a police state. I certainly don't want my children's schools to look or feel like prisons. I am willing to take the risk of everyone else having freedom of choice, but I also demand that my right to protect myself and my family be respected. Benjamin Franklin warned us that if we traded our freedoms for security we would end up with neither. I hope that we can rise above the partisanship, the name calling and the blame game long enough to discern what is in our best interest long-term. If we need to act in this matter, may it be a careful, measured response rather than a hair-trigger reaction to the latest tragedy.

  • Rob Justice Shoshone, ID
    Dec. 22, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    I fail to see what most of these comments have to do with the issue at hand. I also fail to see how a weapons ban will prevent crime. High capacity magazines or not there is no limit on how many bullets one can own, or how many magazines you can purchase. Most AR style weapons on the market to date are semi-auto weapons (meaning you pull the trigger once-it fires one bullet) so how removing these from store shelves prevent crime? The previous ban did little to nothing to stem violent crime in this county. As the british goverment is also learning removing guns does not stop criminals. Is this arguement truely about stopping crime or just about removing guns? Gun owners as does everyone know the need for responsible ownership. And would surely doubt that many gun would owners support any measure that would effectively prevent another tragedy. The problem at hand is we have drifted so far left and right we have lost sight of reason. There was a time in history when a tragedy meant communties came together to heal, not demean or crimialize one another, blame was left on the crimials.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 10:13 a.m.

    Centerville, UT

    You Rambo mis-logic is flawed.

    Please re-read;

    Millcreek, UT
    4:40 p.m. Dec. 21, 2012

    His comment is bang-on-the-head right.

    The State's individual National Guard (a "well-regulated-militia")
    under the statess GOVERNOR as supremem Commander-in-Chief,
    is the constitutionally defined 2nd ammendment and is the
    ONLY Force that even comes remotely close to possibly keeping the FEDERAL Government and military force in check and balance.

    I see that AK-47s in the hands of millions of the Taliban citizens (including children) didn't stand a snow-balls chance in you-know-where over in Afghanistan.

    If you want to compare REAL life situations -- look into how well they faired before spewing your made-of-TV movie fantasies.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Dec. 22, 2012 9:09 a.m.

    “Armas para que? (“Guns, for what?”)”
    A response to Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba.
    - Fidel Castro

    “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
    – Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
    - The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001

    “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”
    - Mohandas K. Gandhi

  • SteveD North Salt Lake, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:27 p.m.

    Just like the limits on free speach are imposed, the limits on the right to bear arms is imposed. Basically, safety trumps freedoms where neccessary. So we debate where to draw the line. It seems to have come down to high capacity magazines.We can suppose all kinds of scenarios and speculate when and where we may need to produce a never ending stream of fire power. Or we can argue why we never need any fire power, but the fact remains, we are a free nation and that fact is the most difficult to reconcile. Being a free nation, and arguably the most free nation, we need to err on the side of freedom.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:50 p.m.

    Good grief Redshirt, of course taking way guns will not solve the mental health problem. There is no logical connection between the two. You know,basic logic, action and reaction. Making assault weapons harder to get will make it much less likely that such can obtain weapons of mass murder. And if they can't obtain these weapons because they aren't available, if follows that it will be much harder for them to shoot 20 kids and 6 adults. But it is useless to try to reason with those that think like you, "for reason is not what you care for". You like NRA talking points, so much easier than thinking for yourself.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 21, 2012 5:48 p.m.

    Utah’s suicide rate is the 10th highest among all states in the U.S.

    Firearms and hanging were more common as methods of suicide among young people in Utah, accounting, respectively, for 67% and 20% of suicides at age 21 or under.

    "Suicide is an important cause of death in Utah, especially for boys and men in the age group 15 to 44 years. Firearms are the most common way that suicide is committed, and having firearms present in a home is a demonstrated risk factor for suicide. Restricting access to firearms for persons at risk of suicide is one potential way to prevent suicide."
    (Utah Dept of Health 1999)

    "Utah leads the nation in suicides among men aged 15 to 24.

    Utah also has the 11th highest suicide rate — 14.3 deaths per 100,000 people — in the nation over all age groups, according to the most recent data from the American Association of Suicidology."
    (Deseret News May 2006)

  • War dog Taylorsville, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 5:09 p.m.

    People can comment all they want, bottom line is nothing will change because of the worthless politics of the country, no matter what the bad guys will always get guns. Criminals don't have history of mental illness, they are not card carrying wackos, in fact in most cases people who know killers can't believe could do it

  • Noodlekaboodle Millcreek, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 4:40 p.m.

    You still didn't address the point of my post. Even if every man, woman and child in Centerville had a military grade weapon would they really be able to take on a military force that spends at least 600 billion a year on weapons and soldiers? Name me another COUNTRY that could match the US military. The only one that could come close is possibly China, but even they are decades behind the technology our military has. The only reason they would have a chance is they have 4x the population of the US, 1.3 billion vs 314 million. Again, if you are really that worried about the government your primary concern should be the size of our military. Because unless we are allowed to buy cruise missiles, tanks and fighter jets an armed citizenry wouldn't stand a chance.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 4:03 p.m.

    I guess we need legislation that goes much further, then.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 3:14 p.m.

    @Noodlekaboodle. "Let's go with your tin foil hat conspiracy worst case scenario." You are naive and ignorant of history. The second amendment was so put as to guarantee the constitution. In 1938, the Nazis passed a law outlawing gun ownership for the Jewish population. How did that go for them in the next seven years. After Katrina, the police in New Orleans unconstitutionally seized all guns owned by private citizens. You think it couldn't happen? It doesn't need to be Obama, it could be the next Republican president. Obama has expanded the bad policy started under the Bush administration.
    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
    - Patrick Henry

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    To "Noodlekaboodle" I didn't know that Reagan developed all of the psychiatric drugs, and he is the one who recommended that US mental health professionals use them rather than go through the effort of helping somebody to learn to cope on their own.

    Explain the connnection between psychiatric drug use and anything that Reagan did.

    You probably can't, which is why you are grasping at straws trying to sound smart, when in fact you just look desperate.

  • Noodlekaboodle Millcreek, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 2:38 p.m.

    Wasn't it St Regan who gutted the mental health system in this country in the first place?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 2:20 p.m.

    To "Mike in Cedar City" you failed to understand the question. The problem isn't the guns, it is the mental health problems that these people had. So how does taking away guns resolve the mental health problems?

    All you are doing is disarming the public because of the results of a poor mental healthcare system.

    The problem may not be the guns at all, but the drugs that we are pumping into people at alarming rates. From the Huffington Post we read "Medication Madness: How Psychiatric Drugs Cause Violence, Suicide, and Crime". This is again reflected in the warnings put on psychiatric drugs.

    The US leads the world in psychiatric drug use, and most of the mass murderers have been on prescriptions for those drugs. If you do a search for it, most of the school shootings in the past 20 years were by people who were on psychiatric drugs. Start looking there before you go chasing rainbows.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 1:55 p.m.

    jsf's post at 1:35 is a prime example of the kind of extremist paranoia that feeds the nonsense out there.

  • Noodlekaboodle Millcreek, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 1:54 p.m.

    Let's go with your tin foil hat conspiracy worst case scenario. Obama really is the secret dictator that you are hoping he is. He stops all elections and declares himself president for life and orders the extermination of white people. You think a bunch of guys with AR-15's and AK-47's can really stand up to the might of the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard? Those guns aren't going to stop anything if the government really wants to attack citizens. There isn't another military force on the planet that could stop the US military, let alone some guys in a Salt Lake City suburb who have no tanks, bombs, airplanes, ships or training. If you are really that terrified of our government you shouldn't support the massive size of our military.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 21, 2012 1:43 p.m.

    "The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death. Those persons with guns in the home were at significantly greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a suicide in the home relative to other causes of death. This finding was particularly the case for males, who in general have higher rates of completed suicide than females do. The findings showing an increased risk of homicide in homes with guns are also consistent with previous research (14, 20, 23, 24), although, when compared with suicide, are not as strong. "
    (American Journal of Epidemiology, 2004 "Guns in the Home and Rick of Violent Death...")

    "CDC has been wary of studying gun issues after NRA lobbyists convinced Congress to cut into its funding after a series of studies in the mid-1990s were viewed by the NRA as advocating for gun control."
    (Gun Rhetoric vs Gun Facts, Factcheck)

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 1:35 p.m.

    2. I believe that assault rifles (automatically fires rounds until the trigger is released) should preferably be banned or at least controlled in some manner.

    In Venezuela, civilians are not allowed to possess machine guns, sub-machine guns, carbines, pistols and revolvers, be they automatic or semi-automatic. Civilians are only authorized to hold bolt action .22 rifles and shotguns. Number of total gun homicides 2009: 11,000; Rate per 100,000 in 2009: 39.0. The corresponding rate for the U.S. is 2009: 2.98 per 100,000.

    Facts are relevant. Now why the difference? All these anti gun ownership arguments that say the gun owners will not listen to facts. I'll give you a good idea, a corrupt government, and citizens that can not defend themselves from the government, Can you say 2nd amendment. Oh no because that is unreasonable to think our government would ever abuse the citizens. Obama is already campaigning for term three, Michele has said Obama can't get things fixed in the next four years he needs more time. Can you say Hugo. And remember Hugo has a high homicide rate.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 21, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    Redshirt. "How does making it more difficult for law abiding citizen to buy guns fix the Mental Health problem"? A false analogy if I ever read one. There is no connection between someone becoming mentally ill and the purchase of guns. This discussion about the real problem is mentally ill people is a diversion for weak minds. Yes, we do need to see what can be done to keep weapons out of the hands of such. But the sad truth is that we lack any real capability to identify such persons until after they have comitted gun violence. If the weapons are available they will get their hands on them.

    So, Redshirt making guns harder for law abiding (or not) citizens will not fix mental heath problems. But it will make it harder for nuts to get their hands on weapons. And that is what the objective of any real legislation should be. The NRA of arming school officials will lead to the largest increase in the scope of government in History and will create the environment for the implementation of a police state.
    By the way, Redshirt, not all gun violence is committed by nuts.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Dec. 21, 2012 1:18 p.m.

    Millcreek, UT
    After all. the second amendment does say "A well regulated militia" to me that means there is some room for, ya know, regulation.
    11:24 a.m. Dec. 21, 2012

    "regulated -- i.e., regulation" -- nailed it! hahaha!
    Amen and Amen!


    Bountiful, UT
    Re LDS Liberal

    "The Constitution wasn't refering (exclusively) to the National Guard. [um, YES - it was.]

    Certainly National Guard is one way to join a militia, but it is not the only way nor should it be. In the event of societial break down, such as an EMP nuclear bomb or solar flare taking out the entire national electrical grid, it may not be possible to call up the national guard.'

    I was in the militray -- worked in the nuclear arm of the USAF in infact.
    I'm more afraid of a bunch of unregulated, unskilled, and untrained rednecks running amok with guns & pitchforks than all the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons on earth.

    Your MadMax post-apocolyptic story is funny however, -- fake, but funny none-the-less.

    FYI -- Anarchy is the direct result of the breakdown of the chain of command, not the loss of weaponary.
    All Soldiers know that.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 1:01 p.m.

    Could've worked better with additional regulation like closing the gun show loophole that makes it easy for freaking anybody to just go in and buy a bunch of guns (like that Virginia Tech student working with Dateline or whatever program it was to see how easy it was to get guns at a gun show in the wake of the VaTech shooting).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 12:27 p.m.

    "lets study the issue instead of proclaiming the problem as self-evident. "

    10,000 people died last year due to shootings. Therefore, we have a gun problem that is self-evident.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    Re LDS Liberal

    The Constitution wasn't refering (exclusively) to the National Guard.

    Certainly National Guard is one way to join a militia, but it is not the only way nor should it be. In the event of societial break down, such as an EMP nuclear bomb or solar flare taking out the entire national electrical grid, it may not be possible to call up the national guard.

    Also if the national guard were all that the constitution were talking about, it wouldn't be necessary for people to be given the right to keep and bare arms. (The national guard keeps all guns at the armory). The kind of militia that the constution refered to was armed people in communities band together in times of emergency for the protection of the community, when the government can't or won't come to the rescue.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 11:53 a.m.

    To "Mike in Cedar City" according to the statistics, more conceal carry permits and more handguns equate to less crime.

    According to the FBI, most deaths caused by homicides where a gun was used involve hand guns, not rifles. See Washington Examiner article "If you want to end gun deaths, don’t start with rifles" Apparently handguns are used more tha rifles. In fact, according to FBI statistics, more murders are committed with knives OR hand and feet OR other non-gun weapons than are committed with rifles.

    According to FBI statistics we should ban hand guns if you want to blame a gun. However, when you read "MILLER: Gun ownership up, crime down" in the Washington Times you find out that we need more people with CC permits and handguns because that helps to lower crime rates.

    The point is, taking away guns is not the solution, and even removing semi-automatic rifles will not solve the problem.

    The problem is mental health. How does making it harder for law abiding people citizens to buy guns fix the mental health problems in the US?

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    A ban on "assault-style" rifles is completely meaningless. Cosmetic features are irrelevant to a firearm's function.

    The AR-15 (and clones) is functionally identical to the Ruger Mini-14, yet according to the 1994 ban the AR-15 was prohibited but the Mini-14 was fine. That makes no sense.

    The only way to go after the weapons themselves would be to ban _all_ semiautomatic rifles capable accepting detachable magazines. Good luck with that.

    Instead, re-institute the ban on hi-capacity magazines. That makes sense. Seriously, a limit of 10 rounds per magazine is still more than enough for self-defense, target shooting and hunting.

    Magazines wear out faster than guns so you'll see the results from the ban far sooner than if you tried going after the guns themselves.

    But if it's really another Connecticut or Tuscon or Colorado massacre you're trying to prevent, then the focus needs to first be on mental health awareness and intervention.

  • Noodlekaboodle Millcreek, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 11:24 a.m.

    For 95% of the population a shotgun, not a tactical weapon, is the most effective weapon for home defense, because you don't have to be a good, or even average shot to hit someone. If you insist on carrying at all times a pistol is better than an tactical weapon because it can be carried discretely. I'm an avid deer hunter, while you certainly can kill a dear with a military style weapon, a simple bolt action rifle will also do the trick. What practical application do you need a high capacity, semi automatic rifle for? What do you need full metal jacket or hollow point bullets for? Let's put some reasonable restrictions on guns. After all. the second amendment does say "A well regulated militia" to me that means there is some room for, ya know, regulation.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 11:11 a.m.

    Bountiful, UT
    I often hear the argument that there is no reason for a citizen to have an assult rifle. This couldn't be further from the truth.

    The reason people are allowed to have guns under our constitution is so that when necessary they can serve in militias. Militias are not for hunting. Their purpose is to fight gangs, or invaders. Militias are the good guys.


    If you want to be in the Militia - per the Constitution,
    join the National Guard.

    you are an un-regulated lonely citizen who should be thankful you can own ANY sort arms right now.

    If I had MY way,
    I'd only let Military Veterans own weapons.

    You guys love tout Switzerland and Israel as such fine examples to follow,
    the you must follow ALL of the example - 100% mandatory Military service.

    Otherwise --
    You remain just a bunch of unregulated, and untrained un-Militia red-necks to me...per the Constitution.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 11:01 a.m.

    Hayden, ID
    @ One old man. Rambo has nothing to do with this.

    Now, it is highly possible that had that father or mother had owned a gun, that family would not have been destroyed by an evil man! I would do everything in my power to protect my family from this ever happening to any of them. If you feel differently, that's up to you. but for me, I will not, can not allow that to happen to my family.

    9:49 a.m. Dec. 21, 2012



    The facts and data all heavily conclude that
    1 12 gauge security or "hunting" shot gun would do more damage and protect one "family" or property than a .223

    By not only hoving 3 times the firepower, and 10 times the spray pattern,
    the shot is less likely to penetrate walls or go futrther distances.

    A shot gun holds limited rounds.
    Say What 3-7?

    I'll even go one step further and agree the can go for a handgun.

    The DIFFERENCE is assault rifles can hold hundreds of rounds are the weapon of choice to these cooks to mow down innocent people.

    Ban them,
    Ban them now.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:56 a.m.


    Thank you for your reasonable response.

    The problem with the studies you mentioned are that they are very narrow in their scope.

    For example...the statement you made "States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths." is true. However, the violent crime rate did not show the same correlation.

    This is why a study needs to be commissioned. Like polling, we can influence the outcome by the nature of the questions we ask. Or...we can surmised a conclusion based on an outcome that is not truly correlated (as in the studies and articles you mentioned.)

    We also need to avoid our natural tendency to predict outcomes that could have been if controls were in place. For example, when the recent incident of the football player occurred, many surmised that such an incident would not have happened if a handgun had not been present. We were willing to look at the negative and yet ignore what happened in a movie theater last week when an armed off-duty police officer stopped a shooter in the lobby of the theater. Anecdotal evidence abounds and is useless...we need empirical data.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    I often hear the argument that there is no reason for a citizen to have an assult rifle. This couldn't be further from the truth.

    The reason people are allowed to have guns under our constitution is so that when necessary they can serve in militias. Militias are not for hunting. Their purpose is to fight gangs, or invaders. Militias are the good guys. They are there to protect society, when the police can't. In this day and age, gun fighters have assult rifles. It doesn't make sense that the bad guys would have these and militias not. This is why it doesn't make sense to make assult rifles illegal.

    Even though we can't constitutionally limit peoples right to have an assult rifle, we can deal with the problem of people shooting up schools and gatherings of people.

    It starts with raising kids properly. Mothers who have children in their formative years, ought not work. They should stay home and provide emotional security and moral training for the children they have. We should encourage this, in the schools and even provide tax credits.

    Dec. 21, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    Truthseeker - you're saying that Washington, DC and Chicago should have the lowest rates of gun violence. Study that.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:25 a.m.


    Studies won't satisfy those who oppose gun laws. Those on the right can't even respect overwheming scientific studies on climate change. They don't care about facts or reality. Otherwise your suggestion might be a good one.

    The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different states.

    Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    We need a law that says "only good people can own guns". Bad people can't have them. That will fix everything.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:20 a.m.

    Old man, because the definition of an assault weapon is arbitrary. Some would expand it to mean any gun, that's why.

  • Grundle West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:11 a.m.

    It is interesting that the left is readily drawing the correlation between the shooting in Connecticut and Gun control.

    My opinion is...lets study the issue instead of proclaiming the problem as self-evident.

    Let's commission a research group to study the actually efficacy of gun control laws with all its contextual factors and determine if this is a wise course of action.

    Instead we are have discussions where inflammatory phrases such as "colossal failure", "horrendous problem", " blood on their hands", " innocent children are slaughtered", "Rambo fantasies", "weapons of mass destruction", and "hate radio paranoia".

    Let's have the study and accept the findings.

    My guess is that those who use the inflammatory language really don't care about the facts and are more emotion driven than logic driven.

    My daughter asked me if I thought it was safe at her high school today...I replied that it was statistically safer than the drive to her school.

    And yet...I don't hear any of the people above that I quoted using the same language in their comments about cars and driving...Strange.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    And yet again, the gentleman from Idaho sidesteps the real question.

    WHY are high capacity, semi automatic assault weapons needed? Is he such a badly trained poor shot that the only way to protect himself is by using a spray of poorly aimed bullets?

    What is wrong with regulating high capacity semi-autos and closing loopholes that allow easy access to such weapons?

    I have no problem at all with someone using reasonable tactics of self defense. The question now is what is reasonable and what is not.

    Regurgitation of the same tired talking points will not answer the question. It will require some real, honest-to-gosh THINKING and an exercise of wisdom.

    Both seem hard to find in some quarters these days.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    Mountanman, I can see your point. But why would you need an assault type weapon for this type protection? I know a lot of people just use them for fun, but why is someone's fun more important than trying to stop, for example, a group of 6 and 7 year olds from being shot 10 or 11 times each?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:56 a.m.


    Regardless of what propaganda wants you to believe, only a very small fringe wants to ban all guns. If someone wants a rifle to hunt with, fine. If someone wants a gun for self-defense, they should have that right. What I'm talking about are the assault weapons that can fire twenty bullets at the flick of a finger. What legal justification is there for needing that?

    I'm not claiming we can stop every gun-related crime, but we can do a lot better than we have been. The gun-loving crowd's response seems to be that we should just throw up our hands and arm everybody because...I don't know. So they can go on feeling powerful, I guess?

    Newtown has made it abundantly clear that doing nothing is no longer an option. Something has to change.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:49 a.m.

    @ One old man. Rambo has nothing to do with this. Let me try to explain it again. Not many years ago a man moved here from another state and broke into a family's home and brutally murdered both parents with a hammer. He then took the two kids to a remote area where he raped both of them for days and then he murdered the young boy. He took the young girl to Coeur d'Alene to a cafe where a waitress recognized the little girl and called police. That man still sits in prison appealing his arrest. Now, it is highly possible that had that father or mother had owned a gun, that family would not have been destroyed by an evil man! I would do everything in my power to protect my family from this ever happening to any of them. If you feel differently, that's up to you. but for me, I will not, can not allow that to happen to my family.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    The NRA. Their solution. Arm everyone, because we all have a target on our back. Put cops in all schools. Wow! How about armed cops in every shopping center, movie theaator, park, church, hospitals, gas stations, restaraunts, office buildings. And to be sure we are safe arm every citizen with a 50 caliber automatic weapaon or two. One could be mounted on our front port and another on the back of our 4 wheel drive truck. No truck? Well to be safe you will just have to buy one.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:12 a.m.

    Larry Alan Burns, the federal district judge in San Diego who just last month sentenced Tuscon shooter Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison, is no darling of the gun control movement.

    Burns is a self-described conservative, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, and he agrees with the Supreme Court's decision which held that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for self-defense. He is also a gun owner.

    But while sentencing Loughner in November, Burns questioned the need for high-capacity magazines like the one Loughner had in his Glock, and said he regretted how the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. Reacting to last weeks mass shooting, , Burns called for a new assault weapons ban with some teeth this time.

    Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, Burns wrote. Don';t let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether its called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it."

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 9:07 a.m.

    And once again the gentleman from Idaho is demonstrating his Rambo fantasies for all to see.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    What is most frightening is that right now there are thousands of people flocking into guns shops (which, by the way, outnumber the number of McDonalds in America) to buy even more weapons of mass destruction for their personal arsenals.

    They are determined to make any future efforts to control these dangerous and unnecessary weapons more difficult. But I guess that is the aim of those who have overdosed on hate radio paranoia.

    Even more frightening is the question of when some of these people will be prodded by their own mental problems and the rants they hear on hate stations into opening fire on other Americans.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:52 a.m.

    @KJB1. Because criminals will always get any kind of weapon they want! No law will stop them, no law will protect you from them! The police can not protect you either any more than the police protected those poor children in Ct. The only security you and I have is to protect ourselves! That's why!

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:29 a.m.

    So 20 innocent children are slaughtered and three people on the Opinion page respond by doubling down on their Rambo fantasies. Besides one's insecurity, what legal reason is there to own an automatic weapon?

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 21, 2012 8:04 a.m.

    This letter is the usual drivel from the Gun community. But he is right, the Brady Bill was not nearly as effective as it should have been, saturated as it was with loopholes and amendments that weakened it enough to gain passage. But, that can not be an excuse for not passing effective assault weapons legislation, or even a constitutional amendment if necessary. There can be no liberty without life, and no happyness either.

    Those that fight against reasonable legislation to solve this horrendous problem, or bury their heads in the sand, will have blood on their hands. There are sins of commision and sins of ommission, but they are all sins just the same. So, pick your side. Are you for life, or the for Gun Manufacturers and their syncophant the NRA? Are you on the side of life, liberty, and happiness, or on the side of profit, because that is what this fight is really all about. It's not really about civil rights as those conspiring men would have us believe.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 7:44 a.m.

    Re: "Assault weapons ban, colossal failure in 1994"

    Just as the coming 2013 ban will be.

    Banning a gun whose action is identical to hundreds of others simply because liberals don't like its looks is not only foolish, it's the perfect illustration of knee-jerk liberal politics -- the elevation of sophomoric symbolism over substance.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    Dec. 21, 2012 7:26 a.m.

    You're right, the new gun laws need to be tougher!

    We need to get rid of the gun show loop hole, and ban military type, assault weapons.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 21, 2012 7:06 a.m.

    Need to go beyond that earlier ban. Otherwise the second amendment will have to be repealed.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 21, 2012 6:42 a.m.

    Gun lovers are pretending that assault rifles are just like hunting rifles yet their own publications say otherwise. Not mention these same people claiming there is no difference are paying 5 -10 times as much for the assault "tactical" type rifle. What for then?

    The are dozens of publications dedicated to assault type "tactical" weapons that go into great detail of the nuances of those types of weapons. A hunting rifle is great for making 1 shot accurately.

    You might want to use a tactical rifle if you were hunting AN ENTIRE HERD of buffalo.