Sensible regulations

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Pendergast Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:30 p.m.

    To OMM (1/15 18:45)

    Lets hear it for the 53% trash talking the current "regime" while 47% have their "snouts in the trough" ROFL!!

  • Mister J Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 8:26 p.m.

    2 Mike R...

    "The most priceless possession that we have are our children."

    I'll set aside the grammar issues above...

    IF we are projecting what is (subjectively) priceless; my vote is for sanity & intelligence

  • SG in SLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 5:44 p.m.

    I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that Mike Richards and L White apparently believe that Second Amendment rights are unlimited absolute regarding the type of "arm" that I am entitled to "bear", and the manner in which I am entitled to "bear" it.

    Shoot, I don't even need to go the "nuclear arms" route . . . that's just ridiculous.

    On the other hand, an M240B, an SMAW, and an FIM-92 Stinger (look them up) might be fun . . . I think I'll go place my orders now.

    (but I won't hold my breath; y'see, there's this funny little thing called the National Firearms Act - Title II, which incidentally, was upheld directly by SCOTUS in United Stated v. Miller and indirectly in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago)

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 11:36 a.m.

    I find it interesting that the biggest gun-banners are the non-gun people. People who have never shot a gun seem to want to tell us all about guns - which ones we need and which ones we should ban. The majority of these people live in complete ignorance regarding guns - they don't know a semi-auto handgun from a nuclear reactor! I don't see a gun-banner who is a hunter for example. I don't see a gun banner who is trained in fire arm use and regularly practices at the range. All the gun banners are the crazies on the left who want communism or at least communism - lite (socialism) as well as some of the women and other non-gun users. By the way my wife happens to work as a grade school secretary and she now WANTS her own 9mm and concealed permit. Barack Obama falls into both camps - non gun user and second amendment destroyer. New York is making gun ownership nearly impossible and all I can say is expect the same result as your sister city - Chicago - where violent crime went up (way up) after guns were banned.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 17, 2013 11:23 a.m.

    The reason to get a drivers license is ensure the collective safety of society on the road.The reason to have to register your guns is so an overreaching socialist government can -at some point or any point - go door to door and confiscate your firearms. I also find it funny that people - such as the writer of this post - have never shot a gun before and have no idea how to use one yet they tell us what kind of gun we need. Go figure.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 16, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    Kearns, UT
    So, if I read this letter right, we can no longer drive Ferrari's, Lambourghini's, BMW's, Fiats, Vipers, Camaro's, Challengers, Mustang's, etc.

    9:30 a.m. Jan. 16, 2013


    No, you read it worng.

    You can still drive anything you want,
    You just need a background check, prove you are phycially and mental capable, pay taxes, and buy liability insurance, you also pass annual testing proving safety of both vechile and operator, and must obey all driving laws or face having your vehicle impounded, confisgated and you being sent to jail for breaking laws in place to assure public safety.

    Nobody is taking anything away from you - if you obey all the rules.

    The gun legislation we've been discussing is nothing more than this same sort of sane regulation.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 16, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    So, if I read this letter right, we can no longer drive Ferrari's, Lambourghini's, BMW's, Fiats, Vipers, Camaro's, Challengers, Mustang's, etc.

  • Salsa Libre Provo, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 7:30 p.m.

    I haven't heard anyone on this board who is recommending reasonable gun policy write anything in opposition to the 2nd amendment, deny hunters and sportsmen the rights to their guns, or suggest that people should not have the right to have a gun in their home for self-defense.

    Rather, those desiring unlimited, unrestricted gun access for everyone and the right to have the same weapons as the police and military are stuck with the strawman argument that the "liberal Left" wants to take away their guns. There is no talk of that, but they continue to argue their position because they have no realistic argument beyond "a gun in every home" and the ridiculous "a good guy with a gun . . . " bromide of nonsense.

    Nothing is going to stop a suicide terrorist bent on mayhem except preventing that individual from obtaining the tools of their lunacy. The NRA and other extremists of the Far Right do no service by insisting that these people also should have easy access to all manner of weaponry because they are opposed to any and all types of reasonable regulation.

    In fact, they consider it all acceptable collateral damage.

  • Salsero Provo, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 7:10 p.m.

    Mountanman Hayden, ID 9:44 a.m. Jan. 15, 2013

    Anyone with a gun can be considered to be a "good guy" until that person uses his/her gun to commit a crime. Then, and only then, does that person become a "bad guy". Hence the recommendation that everyone have access to a gun. And not only a particular type of gun, but any type of gun (and its accompanying attachments) that person chooses to have.

    As for a national database for those judged unfit to have a weapon, usually that judgement is not made until after the person in question has used their gun to commit some horrible act. Until then, according to the logic, everyone has a right to any type of gun they want. And, following the same argument, there should be no background check to ascertain who is purchasing a gun lest it be an "infringement of their rights under the Second Amendment!"

    Lastly, having studies of gun violence on a national level (which might support any anecdotal evidence that is referenced as positive gun use to thwart crime) would provide a better understanding for developing better gun policy. However, gun extremists oppose such studies.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 15, 2013 6:45 p.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    Is there anything more offensive to society than someone who tells us that we are his enemy and that he has fought against people like us in other parts of the world while serving in the military?


    Perhaps self-righteous Americans trash talking our President, just about everything about our Government and our Country...

    and more than 50% of each and every other citizen of this fine country [in your case -- non-Republicans] simply because we aren't just like you, didn't worship just like you, did not agree with you 100% - and therfore HIS sworn enemy?

    Yes --
    It was just like that....

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 15, 2013 6:41 p.m.

    I am sorry.... but I am a bit with Mountainman on this issue. Laws like the ones they are proposing are just "feel good" experiences. The are like the laws passed that prevent people from parking in front of an air terminal to prevent car bombs..... no suicide bomber is willing to risk getting a parking ticket while blowing up an air terminal..... these laws are pointless.

    Same with the guns. I have friends who are guns enthusiast - one of whom just built himself a fully automatic A%-15. Now this guy is as stable as they come. He is not a violent guy. He just grew up hunting and shooting. Yes there are a few less ducks in the world because of him.. but he is harmless And the only people these new laws will effect are people like him. Just as dumb are laws like arming every teacher.... or requiring photo id's to enter schools. A suicidal killer isn't going to care about those, he or she is intent on dying.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 4:17 p.m.

    I'm hoping that the only practical use of your car isn't to kill people. Although in Utah sometimes people make you wonder on that one.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    Re: "I'm duly sworn, ALL enemies - foreign and domestic."

    Me too. But just a quick reminder -- it's the "Constitution of the Unites States" you swore to protect. Not bloated, unaccountable, unconstitutional government. Not some anti-American liberal agenda. Not even the President.

    What you, and I, and lots and lots of others, all swore to defend -- is the Constitution.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" the only people talking about overthrowing the constitution are the liberals, like yourself. The Conservatives are talking about upholding the Constitution. If you bothered to learn history, you would realize that part of the reason why the Founding Fathers included the right to bear arms was to allow the people to protect themselves from the US Government if needs be.

    Are you saying that you are smarter and know the original intent of the constitution better than the founding fathers?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2013 3:38 p.m.

    Is there anything more offensive to society than someone who tells us that we are his enemy and that he has fought against people like us in other parts of the world while serving in the military?

    Where are the moderators when that kind of post passes through? Does "free speech" include those kinds of veiled threats to use his military training and his military weapons on us "whack jobs"?

    Come on moderators, are you going to let Open Minded Mormon threaten your readers?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 15, 2013 2:46 p.m.

    I have to laugh when --

    Mike Richards

    and the rest of the soldier wanna-bees talk big about over-throwing the Government, the Constitution, Tea-Parties, and their right to bare arms, and militias, etc. --

    when not a single ONE of them has ever served in the Military.

    Mob Rules...

    As a veteran -- I have my weapons -- of ALL varieties.
    And it's not for fighting our Government - but to protect my family from the whack jobs who decide they're above the laws and order of our Country.

    Besides - I'm duly sworn, ALL enemies - foreign and domestic.

    BTW - I've fought rifle3rd world rifle carriers in foreign lands -- I'm just as capable of doing so here.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2013 2:40 p.m.

    The most priceless possession that we have are our children. We do not need permission from the government to have children or a license. We do not have to prove that we can teach children properly or that we can care for their needs. If we mess up, we might hurt them severely, but that matter is not a matter for the government to decide before we are allowed to procreate.

    God gave us unalienable rights. We, in turn, authorized various levels of government to administer certain duties, but we made the government guarantee that it would not interfere with our right to keep and bear arms.

    There are some people who want to let the schools raise our children, including feeding them breakfast and lunch. There are some people who want the government to restrict the amount of sugar that we feed our family. But, there are some enlighten people who know that butting into the relationship between a parent and a child is something that must only happen after the parent has proved that he/she has harmed the child.

    Gun laws must deal with a crime after it is committed, not before.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 1:38 p.m.

    @L White
    First sir. I don't believe that all guns should be taken away. I have a Tarus Judge and i'm very fond of that firearm. However, I don't believe that it should be so easy to get a gun or a CWP. I have my CWP, even though I don't normally carry. You don't even have to show you can shoot a gun to be able to carry out in public. That's insane, a gun is dangerous, you need to be able to show you can safely carry before you are allowed to strap it to your waist and hide it. Second, the whole culture of unregulated sales at gun shows needs to be changed. Anytime a firearm is purchased you should have to go through the waiting period and have a background check. Just like when you do when you go to a sporting goods store, gun shop, Walmart or pawn shop. All i'm saying is that the second amendment specifically indicates regulating guns, and there are ways to regulate, without taking all the guns away.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 1:30 p.m.

    To "L White" the Supreme Court has already ruled on gun bans, and has stated what the 2nd ammendment means. See "Supreme Court Overturns D.C. Gun Ban; What Next?" at NPR. They state that "Americans have a right to own and keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense and hunting."

  • L White Springville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    Mr. LDS Liberal,

    You seem to have twisted things. I do not condone the killing of unborn babies. I have never had an abortion. I have never advocated that others have abortions. I respect life. I respect God. I respect his doctrine. It does not require a judge sitting on the supreme court to tell me that I can or cannot kill a life inside my own body.

    On the other hand, you think that you have the right to tell women to have an abortion. You think that you have the right to tell them that the life within them has only as much worth as you or they think that it has.

    There is no Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to destroy an unborn baby. A court told us that a woman can choose - up to the end of the 1st trimester. Obama tells us that we cannot save the life of a baby who survives a blotched late-term abortion.

    You can defend your right to destroy life with all your zeal. That question will be answerable to God. He doesn't have much of a sense of humor when it comes to destroying unborn babies.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    "..."Arms" is not limited in the Constitution to BB guns or to toy pistols. "Arms" is open-ended. It will require a Constitutional Amendment to limit "arms". Deal with it!...".


    I've always wanted a flame thrower as well as an RPG Launcher with at least 1000 RPG's...

    To protect my family...

    of course.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    @L White
    Springville, UT

    I beg your pardon. But it is you who disagrees with the Court.

    Maybe I should return the favor and encourage you to read court decisions [Roe v. Wade] before chiding others about their opinions.


  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    Re: "Is that what you Neo-Cons are supporting?"

    Hey, at my age, I'm just happy to be called NEO-anything.

    But, there's a much more recent example of what can happen when mobs run amok -- the Obama regime.

    Both the Missouri mobs and the current regime could learn a lot from the Constitution. If they'd follow it, NONE of the problems we're arguing about today would even exist.

    We'd have to find less important topics to argue over -- BYU v. Utah, maybe?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:29 p.m.

    Re: "If you have no standing army, there is more of a need for ALL citizens to be armed and educated on how to use those arms."

    By the same logic, since we have no more slavery in the United States, liberals want us to repeal the outdated Thirteenth Amendment at the same time we repeal the Second.


  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    L White... There we have it. Someone who believes that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding individuals to own and possess nuclear weapons.

    Now that you've come out and admitted your belief, do you realize that your government is actively working to deny your perceived right to own those weapons? Every single member of congress and every President, Dem and Rep, has worked to subvert the rights of individuals to own and possess nuclear weapons.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:22 p.m.

    I might point out,

    The Missouri mobs called themselves a "militia".
    And they all had their Constitional rights to bare arms.

    And just like Conservatives today, they took the law upon themselves to judge Joseph Smith for breaking the Consititional right of Freedom of the Press.

    That's why no one ever went to jail for killing the Prophet.

    Is that what you Neo-Cons are supporting?
    Missouri Mob rules?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" you probably have chemical weapons in your garage, but you just don't realize it right now. You yourself are a biological weapon, your kids were biological weaponts (remember Nursery at Church?). As for nuclear weapons, just try and construct one.

    To "Noodlekaboodle" and others who want to get rid of guns. What good will that do? Look at Japan and other nations that have strict gun bans. People go around killing with other objects. Even using the example of the car from the original letter. What good do the laws do when a criminal decides to drive illegally?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    Hayden, ID

    There are laws against drunk driving aren't there? Then why do some people NOT obey laws? Because some people drive drunk shall we confiscate all cars? Same applies to owning guns!

    9:44 a.m. Jan. 15, 2013


    Mountanman, you just made our case for having gun restrictions.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:13 p.m.


    I beg your pardon. Do you also disagree with the Court? J Thompson answered your statement before you even asked it. The court told us that there is no connection between being part of a militia and the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms.

    I got a good laugh out of your chastisement about my Constitutional scholarship. Maybe I should return the favor and encourage you to read court decisions before chiding others about their opinions.

    So many people want to tell us what marriage is, when life begins, who has the right to live, who can speak, who can own firearms and what constitutes a firearm. What they seem to forget is that no one appointed them to that position. Their opinion is just that, their opinion, no matter if their name is John Doe or Obama. He believes that he has the right to define what the Constitution means. He is just as wrong as anyone outside the Court.

    The 2nd Amendment belongs to the people, not to the government. It is not "up" for re-definition.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    L White, Mike Richards etc.
    As long as I keep seeing your rants about bearing arms and acting like constitutional scholars I will continue to say this. The second amendment also mentions a well regulated militia. Probably because the founding fathers never intended for the United States to have a standing army. If you have no standing army, there is more of a need for ALL citizens to be armed and educated on how to use those arms. So why no complaining about our military? I guess what bothers me is that you pick out the well regulated part of the second amendment, because you don't like that part. However, like it or not, it is just as much of the second amendment as the parts you like to quote.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Re: "However, if I wish to use it, I must have a state license . . . ."

    Why didn't we think of that before?

    All we have to do is require a state license for guns, and then, just like our automobiles, no one will ever be killed by one again!

    It's so simple!

  • L White Springville, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    My, my, don't we have a bunch of people hollering as loud as they can that they know what "arms" means and that the Supreme Court and the Constitution should be ignored?

    Look at how many are demanding that we accept their definition of "arms". Who put them in charge? Who asked them to define for the rest of us what "arms" mean?

    One poster has even demanded an answer to his question while he ignores the words of the Constitution. Are we really here to debate whether LDS Liberal or anyone else is the person that the courts go to for definitions or are we here to stand up for the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN, not as he or anyone else wishes that it was written.

    Mike Richards clearly told us that if we want to define what "arms" means then we need an amendment to the Constitution that does that. As he said, until that amendment is written just deal with it!

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 15, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    Amendments can be changed Mike and other gun nuts.

    The NRA instead of helping to self regulate the gun industry like it used to has completely sold out to the devil and is now inviting a tyrannical military coup by self declared militia.

    You're on the wrong side of the issue. And you will will be the loosing side because the majority of Americans are sick of it and will legally vote sooner or later to change the second amendment.

    All I can say is you all should self regulate or the people will do it for you. The laws on guns are YOUR failures not ours.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    Mike Richards - are you making the argument then that law-abiding citizens have the constitutional right under the 2nd Amendment to privately possess nuclear weapons?

    If you don't believe a law-abiding citizen has a right to privately possess nuclear weapons, then aren't you defining and then limiting a law-abiding citizen's right to bear arms?

    And are you willing to answer this question with a straight-forward reply knowing the quandary it puts you in either way?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    "Arms" is not limited in the Constitution to BB guns or to toy pistols. "Arms" is open-ended. It will require a Constitutional Amendment to limit "arms". Deal with it!

    10:08 a.m. Jan. 15, 2013


    So -
    You're perfectly fine supporting my right to posses Conventional, Chemical, Bilogical, and Nuclear arms in my garage along with my food storage?

    You have no problem with me strapping on an explosive vest and riding the new TRAX line to your home in South Jordan?

    Just because the "Constitution" does specifically speel out that I can't?

    Mike - there is such a think called "Common Sense".

    God gave us intelligence -
    I believe he expects us to USE it.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 10:15 a.m.


    Did you read the 2010 Court decision? It "untied" that link. We have the absolute right to keep and bear arms regardless of membership in a militia. That is the supreme law of the land. That decision is binding on you and on me and on every level of government in America.

    Read the decision. It is only 210 pages long. Until there is another ruling, that ruling is the "defintion" that prevails.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    This analogy breaks down at the most fundamental level: a car is a vehicle, not a weapon. A gun is a weapon. Period. It's primary purpose is to shoot and damage or kill things. Some guns have only one purpose: to shoot and kill or injure people.

    And Mike, the Constitution includes a phrase that qualifies gun ownership. It ties the right to keep and bear arms directly to the maintenance of a well-regulated militia. In the eighteenth century, the well-regulated militia needed to provide its own weapons, since the government didn't supply them. Hence, the second amendment.

    The exact text passed by Congress is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Nowhere in the Constitution do we find the blanket right to keep and bear arms for any other purpose, even for hunting or feeding your family.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    What is "insane" is someone telling us that he has the true definition of "arms", that he can decide for the entire country what "arms" we can keep and bear, that he has any authority to restrict us because of HIS definition.

    "Arms" is not limited in the Constitution to BB guns or to toy pistols. "Arms" is open-ended. It will require a Constitutional Amendment to limit "arms". Deal with it!

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    Just about any thing in this world could be used to kill someone. If you stuff a clean white handkerchief down a persons throat, he will probably die. The same could be accomplished by holding him under water or dropping him from a tall building.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    The Contitution protects the rights of speech, religion, and alcohol, but we can't yell fire in crowded theatres, offer virgins to volcanoes, or well... we live in Utah, I don't need to show how alcohol is regulated...

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    It is insane to assert that the state has no authority to impose any restrictions or qualifications at all on gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment refers to the 'right to bear arms'. It doesn't mention guns, just arms. If someone is going to state that the 'shall not be infringed' clause means complete, unrestricted access to whatever weapons are desired, then everyone would have a constitutional right to own nuclear weapons, missile launchers and fighter jets, not to mention fully automatic, military style guns.

    Is there anyone posting here that believes law-abiding citizens have a right to private ownership of those weapons? How does one justify private ownership of assault style rifles with 50-round clips but not surface to air missile launchers? How do you win an argument that the government cannot infringe ownership of weapons but then agree with the government infringing ownership of certain weapons?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 15, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    @ Steve Warren. By the same logic, if a person buys a car, do we know whether of not that person will drive drunk and kill someone? There are laws against drunk driving aren't there? Then why do some people NOT obey laws? Because some people drive drunk shall we confiscate all cars? Same applies to owning guns!

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    Thanks for the letter Katherine, which makes a good point.

    By the way, concerning this argument that it takes a good person with a gun to stop a bad person with a gun, doesn't everyone who owns or packs a gun view themselves as "good people"? It's only AFTER they start killing people that they become "bad." In other words, by placing guns in the hands of good people, we are increasing the pool of those who will potentially use a firearm when they go bad.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 15, 2013 9:25 a.m.

    @ one old man. These stories are usually buried deep on the last few pages of the newspaper. Not politically correct you see! Suggestion; Subscribe to the "American Rifleman", they re-print segments from news reports, police reports and eye witnesses from all around America where honest people protect themselves with guns from criminals who have guns. There are literally dozens of these nearly never reported experiences every month with documentation. So, yes, they actually do occur more frequently than the left wants you to know.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2013 9:15 a.m.

    There is no Constitution guarantee to "keep and bear" an automobile. Because of that, the State has authority to license the use of an automobile. "Shall not be infringed" means that the State has NO AUTHORITY to license, restrict, or even know about "arms" that we "keep and bear". In short, we have told the government that they have no authority over us concerning our "arms". We have the unalienable right to own them, to keep them, to carry them.

    Improper USE of those arms can be penalized, just as improper USE of speech can land us in prison; however, the improper USE does not allow the government to pre-limit our access to or ownership of "arms".

    Our liberties have been purchased by the ultimate sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Now, many wring their hands and tell us that we are not "worthy" to be free and independent of government watchdogs who tell us how much sugar we can consume, what kinds of light bulbs we can purchase and what kinds of "arms" we can keep and bear.

    It's time for Americans to grow up. It's past time to limit the government.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 9:12 a.m.

    I'm still waiting to see any kind of reliable documentation that shows that "hundreds" or even "thousands" of these kinds of incidents actually occur anywhere.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 15, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    @ Joe Blow. Thank you for clarification. My source on this issue was sketchy on the details. It is interesting and telling that hundreds of these stories are never reported by the main stream news. They fall all over themselves to report any misuse of a firearm but are suspiciously silent when guns are used to prevent murders.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 15, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    A bit of clarification, Mountainman.

    The off -duty policeman was working security at the theater. Shots were fired and a person was killed prior to entering the theater.

    "An off-duty police officer working security at the Mayan Palace eventually cornered Garcia in a restroom, shooting him several times until she could take his gun."

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    An excellent letter. It stands in stark contrast to the frequent, thoughtlessly repeated nonsense against gun control that the NRA and its supporters keep tossing out.

    But thinking, reasoning, and making sincere efforts are much more difficult that just repeating the mindless mantras of extremists.

    We need more thoughtful people like Katherine.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 15, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    But Katherine, not everybody is as responsible as you are with their cars as you are! That's why people are killed by cars everyday. In my home I have a tool I use to protect my family and myself from those who use guns for criminal behavior. Everyday, law abiding citizens use guns to protect themselves from criminals. Two days after the Sandy Hook murders, an off duty police officer was in a movie theater in Texas when a gun man came into the theater and brandished a gun obviously intending to commit mass murder. The officer drew her concealed weapon and killed the would be mass murder thus saving the lives of many people. While these events rarely make the news, it happens nearly everyday somewhere in our country. The only way bad people with guns can be stopped is not by more gun control laws that they will not obey, but by more good people with guns!