Curt, I see you are from "Bountiful". Would that be here on Planet
Earth, or are you telecommunicating from some other universe?
Allright, Get rid of the speed limits too. Freedom to drive means no limits at
all. Move the troopers out there sneaking up on people to raise revenue to guard
kids in school against those with assault rifles they give away at gun shows.
Drive fast as your equipment allows in the name of freedom and liberty.
I guess I've been mistaken in the definition of "always", I thought
it always meant the same thing. Clearly, even though always, always means always
it can always be used in unintended ways.Guns are 22 times more
likely to kill their owners than a person that threatens them. Always.
@dwayneProvo, UTGuns are always used for their intended
purpose which is defense.=============Care to explain
how on earth a firing squad or a outright massacre such as NewTown, CT
could possibly be considered "defensive"?
I didn't mention one important item above...By implementing and
requireing all those "restrictions", The mean old nasty Government
[as the far-right-wing keeps saying they are] isn't "banning"
anyone from owning or operating anything.Restricitons such as size,
weight, speed, as well as testing, licensing, taxing and regulating all in the
best interest of public safety....and NOT banning the use all together.Perhaps - rather than taking their All-or-Nothing - stance on the issue, the whacky far-right should consider this example as the best option...instead
of waiting for the NOTHING option to fall upon them.
Freedom is a funny thing that few seem to understand anymore. Inherent in a
decent understanding is the idea that we should be free to pursue our chosen
path in life without restraint until such time that it can be shown that our
actions infringe on the rights of others. Cars should not be regulated nor
licensed, but their owners and operators should be fully held responsible for
all their actions as should all people all the time. Would that society could
return that understanding to the discourse and eliminate protected classes like
corporations and return personal responsibility.
@WRZ - I was wondering about comparing the data... it is kinda what I do... but
alas...I was feeling too lazy. Of course the raw data tells you nothing. You
have to normalized it so you are comparing apples to apples... number of deaths
per 1,000 users. I don't know what that answer would be, but it would be
interesting none the less.That analogy though itself is rather
comical. Guns are made to do one thing - destroy things. Cars - hardly. If
you use a car for its intended use, get to go from point A to point B. If you
use a gun for its intended us.... you end up with dead people. Fortunately guns
are not always used for their intended use.
@LDS Liberal, Farmington, UT:"OK - let's look at the legal
requirements to own and operate a vehicle."One could flunk
everything you list and still drive on Utah roads. It does not take a license
to drive a vehicle. And don't worry, as another poster noted you rarely
see a cop on the freeways.
@omni scent:"you don't see cops on the freeways?"Rarely if ever.Cops could make a mint pulling speeders over...
until finally speeders would get wise, slow down, and everybody lives."I'm starting to wonder the effacacy (sic) of the eye exam we give on
the car regulations."I'm starting to wonder about the
efficacy of your spell checker."... you said 'More people
die on the highways as a result from speeding then from guns.' In Utah,
the average number of traffic deaths per year (from 2007 to 2011) was 263. Over
the same period, the average per year for firearms related deaths was 271.Yes, but much of the deaths from guns are suicide. Why would that
@Lagomorph:"... we would react with equivalent horror had someone
deliberately plowed into a playground with a car to kill them. Car or gun is
irrelevant; intent matters."If it were your loved one who died
in a car crash from speeding, your reaction of horror would likely be much
greater than some unknown child in a school shooting.We have numbed
ourselves re deaths on the highways from speeding because it's so common.
We would be equally numb if deaths from shootings in schools were as common.
It's the commonality or rareness of the method of death that dictates the
degree of horror we feel. Take soldiers dying in Iraq or Afghanistan...
It's so common we rarely give it another thought... Yet the soldier is dead
and he has loved ones at home who grieve. But, who else? No one. Why, because
it's expected and common. Kids dying in school is totally unexpected and
uncommon... so we all grieve. @omni scent:"Yes, the
cold-blooded murder of children in school is more horrific then the tragic (but
accidental) deaths of users of the freeway."See above.
The right to bear arms protects a basic, express constitutional RIGHT, not a
privilege - which is what owning, lncensure and operation of a motor vehicle is.
That said, many of the points to assure the safety of others are already in
place regarding guns. The most pervasive privilege being abused in
this country is operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. If this Jan 1st
was in line with the past, 465 people died due to actions of drunk drivers and
most of those drivers will continue to drive in the future. Lets fix that
problem post-haste, since it rolls up to around 10,000 dead year in and year
out. Several of them are my deceased friends. Where is the outcry for this
far greater number of dead ?
This argument is so ridicules it blows my mind. I want to preface my statement
with I am an Iraqi war veteran and I am currently in law enforcement, so I know
a little about guns. The intended purpose of vehicles is to get from point A to
point B. Do people get hurt in the process sometimes, yes. But, the purpose of
a vehicle is not to kill people. The entire purpose of a 30 round magazine for
a gun is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. There is no
practical application for a 30 round magazine except for combat. I am not for
overreaching gun control but there is a tipping point where a weapon is too
dangerous for the general public to have.
OK - let's look at the legal requirements to own and operate a vehicle.1. Mandatory Training - you fail, no license.2. Testing - written
and pratical - if you fail, no license.3. Back Ground check - you must be
physically and mentally capable.4. You and the Vehicle BOTH need to be
licensed and registered with the Gv'ment.5. You and the Vehicle BOTH
must periodically retest, reregisture and relicense with the Gv'ment.6. Your vehicle must comply and pass annual safety and testing in order to be
considered legal and to license and registure.7. You MUST purchase
insurance. Persaonl Injury, Liability, and Collision, and Under Insured.8.
You must pay taxes. Sales tax, annual property tax, gas tax.9. You must
have built in safety features, and you must use them.10. You must obey ALL
the traffic laws, and can and will be sighted for failure to do so. Including
having your vehicle confisgated and impounded.11. You ARE restricted on
size, weight, speeds, ect. Bigger and more powerful vehicles all require
additional training, certifications, licesnses, endorsements and....taxes and
insurance.We could go on and on....Still want to stand
by that analogy/metaphor?
It's appallingly bad taste to lampoon cold-blooded of anyone via an
inappropriate corollary of accidental death on the nation's highways. Not
suitable material for comic relief by any stretch of the imagination.
wrz: "I guess deaths of children in schools are far more horrifying than
deaths of users of freeways."Well, frankly, yes. It goes to our
perception of risk and harm and the intentions of the perpetrators of the harm.
When we get in a car or cross a street, we recognize that we are assuming some
risk of accidental injury or death. The key word is "accidental." Cars
are rarely used as intentional instruments of death. We would respond
differently to twenty school children killed in a bus traffic accident than we
did to the Newtown shootings because we understand that it was unintentional.
On the other hand, we would react with equivalent horror had someone
deliberately plowed into a playground with a car to kill them. Car or gun is
irrelevant; intent matters.
Also (to wrz): Yes, the cold-blodded murder of children in school is more
horrific then the tragic (but accidental) deaths of users of the freeway.
@wrz: you don't see cops on the freeways? I'm starting to wonder the
effacacy of the eye exam we give on the car regulations.Also, you said
"More people die on the highways as a result from speeding then from
guns". In Utah, the average number of traffic deaths per year (from 2007 to
2011) was 263. Over the same period, the average per year for firearms related
deaths was 271.
@omni scent:"Curt, I don't believe we should outlaw cars, but I
realize that it is in the interest of public safety that we regulate
them."Car usage is regulated... It's called traffic laws...
including speed limits. More people die on the highways as a result of speeding
than from guns.Are cops there to see that deaths from speeding is
kept to a minimum? Don't seem much of them when I drive (@ the limit or
less) the freeways.If we put cops in schools to assure deaths from
guns don't happen... shouldn't we put cops on the freeways for the
same reason? But they mostly ain't there. I guess deaths of children in
schools are far more horrifying than deaths of users of freeways.
What a waste of ink to print this sarcastic editoral opinion.A) The
primary purpose of cars is to (what?...enter 4th grade answer here.)B) The primary purpose of guns is to (what?...enter 2nd grade answer here.)Answer KEY: A) Transport persons; B) Kill.
False equivalencies are a way of life for conservatives (letter). Ad hominem
attacks are really their first bread and butter though. (first comment).If you think guns are just a fun way to poke holes in paper then I think
you should have compared them to a paper punch right?
Re: "There isn't any one person, Bill Clinton or other, who has the
power to enact a complete ban on gun possession."That won't
stop them from trying, however. And, if enough of us don't care, they might
succeed.Nothing in the Constitution authorizes liberals to impose
sophomoric artificial distinctions between perfectly acceptable arms, either,
like those they're currently pushing between "hunting rifles" and
"assault weapons." In fact, the Second Amendment clearly applies to
military arms -- those useable by a militia.But they're
trying.Every "assault weapon" is a fine deer rifle. And WAY
more people have been killed with .30-06 deer rifles than with "assault
weapons." So, once they get their nose under the tent, you know the next
argument they'll make is the one I just did.Liberals are famous
worldwide for disingenuous incrementalism.They bleat, "We only
want 'reasonable' restrictions on the 'most dangerous'
weapons" -- knowing full well that's only step one, and that the real
aim is a docile, disarmed citizenry, unable to resist imposition of their
communitarian, totalitarian, eurosocialist agenda.
Obama is a confusing guy. First he provides guns to the Fast and Furious crowd
all of whom are criminals and crooks and murderers of the basest sort. Then he
says that law abiding citizens shouldn't have guns. Does he really think
that because he is charismatic, that he can dupe the American people into giving
up their protection from his Fast and Furious friends?
Nobody builds or buys cars with the express purpose to kill people. And
they're tougher to get, own and operate from a legislative perspective than
guns. If we want to play the car analogy then every gun and operator should be
licensed...and insured to operate it.
So the letter writer thinks we should require all gun owners to register their
gun, then license it every year there after submitting to an inspection of the
gun to insure it meets safety standards and that they should be required to
carry liability insurance on each gun they own? Please stop and think before
speaking you are not helping.
"That's why it IS and all-or-nothing proposition.US giving
an inch will result in THEM taking and unconstitutional mile."There isn't any one person, Bill Clinton or other, who has the power to
enact a complete ban on gun possession. Not even the current President can do
that. It would take an act of Congress, and even that would be ruled
unconstitutional and would never actually be enforced. So the
argument that you can't give an inch or else gun-ban proponents will take a
mile is ridiculous. When 90%+ of Americans support the right of individuals to
own hunting rifles and low ammo-capacity handguns, there is absolutely zero
chance of a complete ban being enacted. There is absolutely zero chance. The
most that will happen is banning high-capacity ammo clips and assault style
rifles. Your right to own a hunting rifle and/or a self-defense handgun will
not be taken away.Quit focusing on the extreme and discuss the
middle ground. The middle ground is where the large majority of Americans
Very clever letter. Point made.
@joeblowI am a "liberal" and fully support gun rights, this type
of letter does nothing to help insure gun rights and actually gives those that
do want a gun ban more material to work with. think about what you say before
you speak,. do you really want guns regulated at the same level that cars and
driving are regulated.
I love each of these ideas. They would really cut down on carbon emissions and
could prevent illness, death, and misplacement for many resulting from climate
change. I understand your letter to be a snarky one related to gun control, but
you raise some interesting points regarding climate change and pollution. All
three of your suggestions could only help.
In my neighborhood, I have no use for a gun. But, there are areas in some large
cities where drugs and crime are rampant and a gun to protect your home and
family makes perfect sense. I don't understand all the fuss and opposition
to a person wanting a gun for self protection.
JoeBlow: "Will any of you "lefties" admit to wanting a total gun
ban?"Nope - I'm a fang-toothed liberal, but I also have no
illusions about the folly of an attempt to ban private ownership of firearms.
There are just so many of them, and those that own them are generally pretty
passionate about them.For the record, I own a few myself. I even
used to be a member of the NRA but cancelled my membership in the 1990's
after they morphed into a wingnut branch of the GOP.I know the
functional differences between an AR-15 and a Mini-14. None. Banning certain
firearms on the basis of their cosmetics makes no sense.Banning
high-capacity magazines makes a lot more sense. But even then, the efficacy of
such a ban is questionable.Ultimately, the efficacy of pretty much
all gun control measures currently being discussed are questionable.Arm teachers? Worst. Idea. Ever.PeanutGallery:
"Great letter. Cleverly put. Good logic."You're being
So curt do you really want there to be as many restrictions on gun ownership as
there already are on cars and driving?
Great letter. Cleverly put. Good logic.
Re: "I don't know a single person who supports a complete ban on
private ownership of every kind of gun."There are plenty of them
out there in the Democrat Party [eg. Bill Clinton -- "When we got organized
as a country, [we] wrote a fairly radical Constitution . . . . [w]hen personal
freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it."] Even a few
Repubs.That's why it IS and all-or-nothing proposition.US giving an inch will result in THEM taking and unconstitutional
mile.Always has. Always will.No slack. Stick with our
divinely-inspired Constitution.Don't fall for the
liberals' disingenuous plans. Plans whose inspiration is much more suspect.
In the gun debate, there are basically three camps. Those who want
absolutely unlimited access to virtually anything.Those who want to
completely ban everything.And those willing to go to work and seek
some real solutions.It's very easy to see in these comments
representatives from all three branches.Here's an open
invitation to extremists to join the sensible folks in the middle and find
something that will help all of us.
Exactly merich,I am for reasonable gun restrictions, but if ANYONE
introduced legislation restricting my right (or your right) to own a gun for
protections, I would be out protesting loudly.So, while you can find
some on the left who will advocate total firearm bans, they are by far the
miniscule minority. Will any of you "lefties" admit to wanting a total
gun ban? By contrast, MANY on this DN board in the past have
advocated that there should be absolutely NO restriction on the type of gun you
own, the number of guns, or places that you should be allowed to carry it.How many of you fall into this category?
The DesNews specializes in printing ridiculous analogies, as long as they are
conservative analogies, but I repeat myself.
In the author's sarcastic analogy, he suggests that we limit car
ownership/possession to only the police, military and government officials.
This is a red herring.I know literally hundreds of people who
support increased regulation on gun ownership. I don't know a single
person who supports a complete ban on private ownership of every kind of gun.
Certainly there are people in this country who do believe that all private
ownership of any kind of gun should be banned. But those people are a very
small minority. It isn't all or nothing. We already have bans
against private ownership of nuclear bombs, missile launchers and such. We can
include in the list of banned arms such things as assault style rifles and
high-capacity ammo clips.
Whoops--- 100/30 = 3.3 (not 33). Mea culpa. Gotta watch those decimal places.
Satire is a useful means to make a point. Swift, Twain, and Mencken were great
at it. The reductio ad adsurdum approach to an alleged double standard is a
fine form of satire when properly applied (see Swift's "A Modest
Proposal"). Unfortunately, Curt misses the boat here. Satire doesn't
work when your foil undermines your case rather than buttressing it. As Blue
and omni scent have pointed out, automobiles are already heavily regulated
because of their potential lethality when misused (and fatalities are an
unintended byproduct of car use, not the specific intent as is the case with
guns). The gun/car analogy only points towards more regulation of guns as the
logical conclusion. It is not a compelling argument. It fails as satire.However, to continue beat the dead car/gun horse...There were 1.1
fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven in 2009. Assuming an average
speed of 30 mph (accounting for iding time, etc.), this works out to 1.1
fatalities per 33 million hours of vehicle use. I doubt that the statistic has
been measured, but what is the comparable value for firearms (fatalities per
hour of use)? Any takers?
I love the author's analogy. Let's roll with it but turn it around
just a bit.Let's require all gun owners to be licensed and have
to periodically take a proficiency test in order to maintain their license.Let's require all gun owners to acquire liability insurance on each
and every gun they acquire. If their gun causes any kind of harm or damage,
their liability insurance covers the costs of that damage.And
let's tax guns and ammo and dedicate those taxes collected to cover the
costs of providing security at schools and other public venues against those
guns and gun owners.
Chris and Monty: The laugh here is that since neither of you has ever taken a
logic class you can't see your entire "cars are like guns" is a
classic of example of false logic that would give your opponents the win in any
high school debate. Alas, the comment boards of newspapers have no such rules
and the megaphone is the same size for a real logician and a ranting partisan
who will stop at nothing (including faulty logic) to make a point. If you want to play the game, Blue makes excellent logical followup questions
to your attempt to discredit gun control. Yearly registration, special taxes for
ammo, taxes for the excess cost to society as a whole for you to exercise your
"freedom". Hey wasn't it one of your side who said: "Freedom
isn't free"? You brought up excellent points for the non-gun crowd to
work on, because all of your concern about mental health and video games will
disappear as soon as the heat is off for gun restrictions.
mountain man..just where did I say I was going to deny you the right to own
"a" gun. I would restrict some weaponry but that's a far cry from
denying you "a" gun. Secondly in order for your "gun" to be
more valuable than a cop on the phone..you would have to carry a loaded gun with
you at all times..from room to room..or have a loaded gun in every room. Now
you may just do that but if so I'm sure glad you live a thousand miles
away. By the way..my personal experience with this is a close friend..gun
enthusiast, active marine, who was awakened one night by a burgler downstairs.
He grabbed his gun and blew the heck out of his house missing the burgler all
nine times. In the meantime his wife had called the police who responded while
he was re-loading and difused the situation..that's the anecdote I have to
make my bayesian probablity prediction. A true story.
Blue said it perfectly. His comment, with its good sense and thinking behind
it, stands in stark contrast to many other comments here.
Guns = Cars? It's a really dumb attempt at equivalence, but useful
nonetheless.You want to regulate guns the same way you regulate
cars? Fine by me.Take it on public streets? Register it and
license it. Also, pay taxes on it.You want to "fuel" it?
That's taxed, too.You want to operate it somewhere other than
on your own private property? OK, but you must be licensed to operate it.
Also, you must renew that license every few years, and pass a test to prove your
competence and understanding of the applicable laws.Oh - and if you
plan to take it off your private property then you have to have at a minimum a
liability insurance policy.Treat guns the same as cars? Sure. See
Curt and MountanmanThanks for the laughs. This is a great analogy,
and the libs are going nuts. What fun.Too bad you are out of posts.
I am not an expert on guns and gun laws to pick it up for you. I guess we just
sit back an laugh at the circus about to commence.Bring out the
Volkswagen Beetle and filler-up!!!
Re: ". . . limit vehicles."And don't forget -- gas
tanks that hold not more than 5 gallons.
Mountanman You are behind your times when it comes to guns so please allow me to
bring you up to date. "All guns have safeties," FALSE"In every state, you must have a license (concealed weapons permit) or at
least a hunting license to carry a weapon" FALSE"there is a back
ground check when you buy a gun" Partially true, But not from Private
citizens (classifieds or gunshows)"a functional education class
required to obtain the permit to carry and even to go hunting" FALSE and it has to be renewed depending on the state every year. FALSE, unless your
referring to your hunting licence which has nothing to do with the gun, but
permission to harvest an animal. Please at least use the truth to
Pragmatistferlife. The purpose of my guns is to protect my family. The police
can't protect you or me any more than they protected those poor children in
Sandy Hook or those people in the theater or anyone else from criminals who want
to kill you! A gun in my hand is far better than a cop on the phone. That
is not only very logical but it is true! If you don't want to own a gun,
that's your privilege. Please stop trying to deny me my privilege of self
defense because as we have all seen, all the gun control laws in the world will
not stop bad guys from getting guns.I hang around here for the same
reasons you do, I refuse to let ya'll just willy nilly spout your stuff
@ Omni scent. You are behind your times when it comes to guns so please allow me
to bring you up to date. All guns have safeties, its a device that prohibits the
gun from firing until it is switched off. In every state, you must have a
license (concealed weapons permit) or at least a hunting license to carry a
weapon and there is a back ground check when you buy a gun and a functional
education class required to obtain the permit to carry and even to go hunting
and it has to be renewed depending on the state every year. Just as it is
illegal to drive Forumula-1 race car on the streets, there are existing laws
against many kinds of firearms such as fully automatic weapons. Again, the
problem isn't the good guys, its those bad guys who do not obey any laws,
including gun laws. Please explain why you think criminal will obey more gun
Mountain Man...acurate analogy..please. The only purpose for a gun is to kill.
The purpose of a car is not to kill..when mishandled they can kill, so society
heavily regulates all of the activities of driving that lead to mishandling (see
above responses). You know such tortured logic is the only reason
many of us hang around here..we refuse to let ya'll just willy nilly spout
this stuff without argument. I think it's going to be a fun year for us.
Curt, I don't believe we should outlaw cars, but I realize that it is in
the interest of public safty that we regulate them. Cars have to pass safty
examinations. They must all have saftey features like seatbelts. You must
licence and register your car every year. People who operate cars have to pass
both a written and a functional exam. On the renewal every 5 years, there are
questions about health and an eye exam. There are some cars deemed not
street-legal (like a Formula-1 racecar). What practical measures for something
that can be so dangerous! We should apply those same principles to other things,
don't you think?
Curt; see what I mean by JoeBlow's reaction?
Curt,There are certainly reasonable analogies to be made between
guns and cars.Unfortunately, yours is not one of them. Makes
absolutely no sense.
Curt. Wonderful sarcasm but liberals will be offended and confused by your
accurate demonstration of logic.