American history points toward limiting, not abolishing, firearms

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    Martin Blank

    Salt Lake City, UT

    "If your gun fetish involves fantasies of defending against "the government" (or the North Koreans), realize that by the time you've squeezed off 30 rounds with your AR-15, a well-trained platoon will have turned your home..."

    Tell that to the Iraqis, Afghans, Vietnamese, Koreans etc. How do you live in a fantasy where there are zero evil people in the world? I suppose Japan never attacked Alaska, California, Hawaii. I suppose Germany never had ships off our shore. Currently Russia has subs sneaking up to our shore lines. Canada has never invaded the US. Drive by shootings never happen in the US. We have never been at war with Mexico. Germany would never invade Poland (they promised after all). Germany also promised Russia to never invade. Germans attacked the cities in Britain.

    Even with gun control. Look at our airports. Firearms and explosives are not allowed. Everyone is screened and checked. Yet September 11, 2001 the enemy crept in and took over 3,000 lives. Small knife one plane one building. Small knife one plane another building. etc.

    Your right nothing bad will ever happen. Keep your head in the sand. It's okay.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    Open Minded Mormon

    Everett, 00

    Real socialists gave everything to the government and rulers. I say everyone that wants the government to babysit them, give up their property, assets and checks to the government and then be babysat. Give all of it to them. Every last penny.

    For the true Tea Partier, we'll keep our freedom, guns and religion.

  • Martin Blank Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 18, 2013 5:34 a.m.

    Anyone who needs to put 30 bullets into a deer to kill it shouldn't be holding a gun. Anyone who buys a rifle as a "home defense" weapon isn't very bright (you really want to risk putting a bullet through your, your neighbor's, and THEIR neighbor's walls?). A shotgun is much more effective at "home defense." Anyone who buys a gun with a 30-round magazine with the intent of using it as a very expensive paper punch might find it more "sporting," and more challenging, to use a single-shot rifle for the same purpose. The gun control I was taught involved needing fewer bullets, not more. If your gun fetish involves fantasies of defending against "the government" (or the North Koreans), realize that by the time you've squeezed off 30 rounds with your AR-15, a well-trained platoon will have turned your home (and you, probably) into swiss cheese even if they've limited themselves to a three-round burst instead of full auto. There's absolutely nothing wrong about talking about limiting access to weapons that have no other use but mayhem. And let's talk about liability insurance while we're at it, okay?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 15, 2013 3:12 p.m.

    The REAL Tea-Partiers had single shot muzzle loaders.

    I say - Give them what they want...all of it, right back to 1776.

  • Mike in Texas Cedar City, Utah
    Jan. 15, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    Longfellow, If we have to ban knifes to get the Assault weapons off the street, well then let's do that too. And while fully automatic assault "rifles" are expensive and illegal, semi automatics with large capacity clips are cheap and might even be more dangerous as they allow for more precise aiming. One pull one bullet, one death. Two pulls two bullets two deaths, 2o pulls twenty bullets, twenty innocent children dead, dead, dead. Can you live with that? I can't.

  • Longfellow Holladay, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    "One also imagines that the old Reagan would say there's no reason a citizen needs an assault weapon or a magazine that can destroy dozens of people in minutes."

    This is utter nonsense and yet another example of a journalist too lazy to take the time to understand the technology, but always ready to put forward an uninformed opinion.

    There is no such thing as an "assault weapon". It is a fictional term invented by gun control advocates and dishonest politicians. The proper term is "Assault Rifle"; a fully automatic (one trigger pull, many bullets) weapon used by militaries. These are heavily regulated by the federal government and very expensive(about $10,000.).

    What Kathleen Parker wants to ban are semi-automatic rifles (one trigger pull, one bullet) that look like the military assault rifles. These semi-automatic rifles have essentially the same action (the main mechanism in the rifle) as modern semi-automatic hunting rifles.

    FBI statistics indicate that far more people are murdered by knives than all rifles. The semi-automatic rifles she wants banned are responsible for only a fraction of the deaths caused by all rifles. Shall we ban knives?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 15, 2013 8:50 a.m.

    Excellent column. We need more thoughtfully considered columns like this one. Not until all sides of the debate can sit down and reason one with another can we have any hope of finding good solutions to a very difficult challenge.