Gun laws and reality

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    March 17, 2013 2:09 p.m.

    You are right, this is not LA, Chicago, Washington, DC, or Detroit. As opposed to Tombstone, we have an established police force and a relatively low violent crime rate. So let's make laws that are relevant and rational for today's Utah.

  • Silence Dogood Caliente, NV
    March 16, 2013 7:32 p.m.

    Gun laws that restrict guns should be there only for people that deal drugs and commit violent crimes etc. That way we can put them in prison longer with "enhancements".

    As far as good decent people go, I believe that we who are good and decent and desire to carry a gun AND is willing to get the proper training so that they can carry a gun safely and not make dumb mistakes...well...these people should be able to carry a gun wherever they want. Personal protection should be paramount to any restrictions. Unfortunately I am frowned upon by many people because I have this view. But I grew up in a community in which guns were common and we were all taught how to safely use them. I'll bet that virtually every car in my high school parking lot had guns in it back then...and no one was ever shot at my school. Guns aren't the problem. It's the people who wield them wrongly and the lack of guns in the hands of decent people to stop them. This is the problem. Statistics prove it.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 16, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    Joe Blow, you use the murder capital of the U.S. Chicago as an example of how restrictive gun laws help out. That's a good one since Chicago's murder rate with firearms keeps going up year to year and shows no sign of going down with their restrictive gun laws.

    Your analogy of Chicago's poverty Vs. Utah's quality of life is a better characterization of the problem.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    March 16, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    Those who will not work to solve the problem are the problem Deseret News. Your statistical sophistry in support of your position lets decision makers justify legislative inaction leading to countless more innocent victims being slaughtered. You are not a blessed peacemaker DMN, the only peacemakers you value are named Colt. But, you are correct about one thing DMN, if you think that you can do nothing to solve the problem, then you are right. And that seems to sum up a reprehensible opposition strategy, publish editorial commentary to discourage those forces that support reasonable steps to curb the violence. I thought you were owned by the LDS Church, I now have to wonder if your real owner isn't the NRA or perhaps Colt or Browning, or Remington, or maybe all of them.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 15, 2013 9:25 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" so then you agree that the problem isn't the legal gun owners who purchase their guns legally. The problem is the criminals. What new laws can we enact that will stop them from getting guns?

    Better yet, how about we enforce the laws that we already have, rather than punishing the law abiding citizens.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    March 15, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    RedShirt --

    Virtually all of the gun violence happening in Mexico,
    is from illegal weapons and ammo smuggled in from the Unted States.

    Since you blame Mexico for our drug problem -
    I blame America for their gun problem.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 15, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    You are wrong for thinking Enterprise Utah has a low crime rate because of guns.
    It's a rural area.

    About the only things worth stealing are cattle or pick-up trucks.
    i.e, not alot of home invasions going on there.

    BTW --
    does banning pornography account for Utah having the highest on-line rates in the nation?

    Using your 'logic',
    we should not ban pornography, and maybe even require everyone to have it.
    That way, sex crimes will be reduced.

    [BTW -- I don't believe that sort of 'logic'...]

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 15, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    To "Scoundrel" would you rather it devolve into an "Adgenda 21" culture?

    Why do you blame guns for our cultural problems? Do you blame kinves, forks, and spoons for obesity?

    To "There You Go Again" why do you hate guns so much? You live in a relatively quiet town. Meanwhile, the poor in cities like Detroit will be disarmed and left unprotected as the police force can't protect them. See "Detroit Police To Cut Back On Alarm Response" at CBS Local.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    March 14, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    "...Restrictions are anti-gun...".


    What we need is an arms race.

    He/she with the most weapons/rounds/kills wins...

    The weapons industry and their nra shills will be more than happy to oblige.

    RPG's and Flamethrowers...

    To protect our families, of course.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    March 14, 2013 8:25 p.m.

    As a follow up, and using more examples than just Utah and Sri Lanka, in the UK there was a spike in suicides due to people consuming large bottles of Tylenol. The reaction was to lower the amount of Tylenol somebody can purchase at one time, and the suicide rate went down. In China there was a rash of suicides, again, by insecticide, and making it tougher to get lethal quantities of the insecticide lowered suicide rates.

    It's lazy for people to reflexively reply that there's a wide array of means to end one's life, and unquestionably some people are bent on suicide by whatever means available. But, again, the desperation felt by many suicide victims is short-lived, and removing or restricting the most easily available means will make a sizable difference. In Sri Lanka, restricting pesticides reduced the suicide rate by 50%.

    Part of the problem in the US is the lack of data on firearms safety, which is because the NRA has successfully pressure Congress to prohibit research on the subject.

    There is strong evidence to suggest that a gun purchase waiting period and mandatory trigger locks would save many lives in Utah.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    March 14, 2013 7:48 p.m.

    Utah has an impressively low gun homicide rate. That is good.

    Utah also has a distressingly high rate of suicide by gun, amounting to over 80% of gun deaths, and taking 10.6 of 100,000 Utahns every year. It's highly likely that each of us who debate here knew dead Utahns who took their own lives via guns. I've known too many, personally.

    It turns out that many people who commit suicide decide on the action in a short period of time, often in less than an hour. "We had no idea they were struggling. He was always so happy."

    Sound familiar?

    In Sri Lanka, they had a high level of suicides by insecticide (which is also a very quick, non-reversible means of taking your own life). The government made insecticides tougher to get, and contrary to what the common stereotype we hear from the gun lobby, the suicide rate actually went down. Many would-be suicides were averted, the victim did not find another method. (Certainly there are cases where a determined person will succeed via a wide variety of methods.)

    Considering Utah's rate of suicide, it would be immoral to not consider waiting periods.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 14, 2013 6:36 p.m.

    Rights of people, especially constitutional rights
    should only be curtailed if exercising those rights
    Infringes on the rights that other people have.

    Letting good law abiding people carry a gun
    concealed does not infringe on anybody's

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 14, 2013 6:01 p.m.

    Re: "Restrictions on guns is [are?] nowhere near Anti-Gun."

    Restrictions are anti-gun.

    And yes, it is quite simple living in the real world, where most things are either good or bad -- mostly good, of course -- and real people are free to identify them as such. As opposed to living in a liberal bizarro-world, where political correctness and strict, big-tent political orthodoxy prevent telling the truth and pointing out genuinely funny, often ironic, "progressive" hypocrisy.

    In that real world, genuinely bad people continually work hard to ban and confiscate the tools real people need to protect themselves, their families, and their freedoms.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 14, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    "Utah is dead last in the most recent rankings, scoring a big fat zero out of 100 "

    WOW - COOL!!! Utah is a shining star in 2nd amendment protections!! Any time you score 0 on a liberals ranking list you know you are doing something right! Utah may score zero on this list but it scores 100 on my list!!

  • ravonal Syracuse, UT
    March 14, 2013 4:37 p.m.

    Hold on here "unintentional firearms" deaths are now fodder for this specious argument? Are you kidding me? Since 1980, firearms accidents have been reduced 80% largely because of hunter education courses which provide basic fundamental gun safety as part of their curriculum. Those courses are endorsed and promoted by every gun organization on the planet including the BIG BAD NRA! You would be hard pressed to find another sport or hobby that can boast such success. And yet, Truthseeker has to marginalize the argument by comparing 23 other countries to the US. Why? Which countries? Of what relevance is that? Why should I care that some third world country shackles their subjects in democracy and masks it as freedom? Frankly, I don't. I pity them. Figures lie when you lose the objectivity to decipher them. No country in the world has as many privately owned firearms as the US.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 14, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    Rights of people, especially constitutional rights
    should only be curtailed if exercising those rights
    Infringes on the rights that other people have.

    Letting good law abiding people carry a gun
    concealed does not infringe on anybody's

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 14, 2013 3:57 p.m.

    Basically what the editorial did was the equivalent of me picking Massachusetts (1.8 gun murders per 100k people) and Texas (3.2 gun murders per 100k people) and suggesting that this problems gun regulation saves lives.

  • Roscoe West Jordan, UT
    March 14, 2013 3:02 p.m.

    I'd buy this argument if gun violence was non-existent in states with tough gun laws. We know that isn't true. Tougher gun laws penalize the responsible members of society who are not involved in gun violence to begin with.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 14, 2013 2:56 p.m.

    To "Truthseeker" this article shows that it is culture. Even the other articles show, indirectly, that gun related homicides are a cultural issue.

    I will assume that you agree that criminals will find a way to get guns illegally, either by crossing state lines where things are more lax.

    The result is the same criminals get guns and can kill people.

    Guns are not required for suicide. Look at Japan, their suicide rate twice as high as the US, yet they have few guns, so how do they die?

    To compare deaths in other countries is wrong and deceitful. It is like saying kindergarteners don't get as many speeding tickets as HS Seniors.

    The only thing you got right is that corruption and crime bring more gun deaths. So, how do you propose getting the crime rates down in the inner cities? Making guns harder to get won't do this.

  • Che Payson, UT
    March 14, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    Wow!! I've been carrying for more than 5 years since moving from CA to UT. Guess I've been missing those shootouts every morning.

    The only shootouts I've heard about in Utah involve a regular citizen defending himself, herself, or others against the "bad guys".

    Too bad a bunch of college students or professors in Virginia weren't carrying when 30 were killed by a "nut job" on their campus several years ago.

    I recently watched a film at the university where I work. The film showed us what to do to defend ourselves if unable to flee or hide from a shooter on campus. Well, I'll tell you what. I'm not going to be hitting him with a chair or a fire extinguisher. He'll get seven in the chest. Then I'll reload.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 14, 2013 1:54 p.m.


    The article (WBUR/Boston Globe) you cite says nothing about culture.

    But it does say
    "Deaths by firearms in New Hampshire occur at twice the rate in Massachusetts; in Maine, the rate is triple."
    (States next to MA with lax gun laws).

    "Only two states have a higher percentage of out-of-state guns found at crime scenes (than MA) according to a study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group cofounded by Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino." D.C has the same issue--lax gun laws neighboring states.

    In my experience i've found that much of the time you cite articles, your representation of what they say doesn't match what they actually say.

    Unintentional firearm deaths in the U.S. were more than five times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, the U.S. accounted for 80 percent of all firearm deaths; 87 percent of all children under 15 killed by firearms were American children. In 2005, 5,285 U.S. children were killed by gunshot compared with 57 in Germany and none in Japan.

    Mexico has major corruption and a drug war going on.

    Last post

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    March 14, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    Re: Truthseeker

    More police per capita and higher homicide rates, You have got to be talking about the Mega Huge cities like NYC or Chicago. They are a unique problem unto themselves. And I think RedShirt above does point out a very important point. Mexico. Very gun control, very homogenous, very violent. So that leaves poverty. I do not believe that poverty equals crime. Too many exceptions to make the connection of poverty and crime, but I do know that has been a staple of liberal thinking for decades now. One that I and many conservatives don't agree with.

    And how do we "enforce" gun laws as you say we need to do. It would take a huge violation of constitutional rights for police to be able to enforce many of the laws on the books, much any new ones purposed.

  • JKR Holladay, UT
    March 14, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    This is a rather foolish editorial that attempts to compare violence rates between Utah and California without controlling for other factors. That is, California is a huge diverse state with 15 times the population of Utah. It has several ghetto areas including Compton, Watts, and Oakland, that are plagued by drugs and gun violence. California also has very large immigrant populations, both legal and illegal. Trying to compare gun violence rates between such very different populations is disingenuous and invalid. We need to let controlled scientific studies guide us along the path to less violence whatever that means, including harsher penalties and/or more controls on guns.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 14, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    Tooele, UT said: Re: "I'm not anti-gun. But we do need some common sense safety rules placed on guns to try to reduce their use in mass shootings . . . ."
    You're anti-gun.

    It must be very simple living in a black and white reality?
    Restrictions on guns is nowhere near Anti-Gun.
    I own several guns and none of them make me a better person, or a bigger person, or a safer person.
    Guns don't make the man/woman, contrary to worshipers of the 2nd Amendment.

    Who would Jesus Shoot?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 14, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" and "JoeBlow" you need to step back into reality. In nearly every country around the world where they have enacted the strict gun laws that your ilk wants to put in place, they have experienced a surge of gun violence.

    You say that the cities with all the gun violence would be worse without the gun restrictions, but that is completely wrong. Look at Mexico. They have more strict gun laws and few guns available, yet have several times the gun homicide rate that the US has. If your claims were true, there should be fewer gun homicides.

    See "Gun Laws and Crime: A Complex Relationship" in the NY Times. They go through the DC Hand Gun ban. Apparently banning guns INCREASED crime.

    From WBUR in Massachussetts we read "Mass. Gun Crimes Rise Despite Strict Laws"

    As this article points out, the problem isn't gun ownership, it is the culture. In Utah we like our neighbors and respect them. We also have strong communities. California does nto have the sense of community or neighborhoods that we have here.

    How are you going to legislate a change in people's attitudes?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 14, 2013 12:24 p.m.

    Poverty is absolutely linked to higher crime rates--which is why it is important that we try to lower poverty rates.

    Research has also shown that areas with higher heterogenity have higher crime and homicide rates than homogenous ares. One could speculate as to why that might happen. For example, greater mistrust, suspicion, perceived threat or hostility of people outside your ethnic group etc.

    I could show you many cities with more police per capita with higher homicide rates. Number of police alone doesn't explain lower crime rates. Simi Valley also has a more homogenous population.

    Few to no people are arguing for "no guns."

    The presence of a gun does increase the risk of death and injury. Guns are lethal weapons whose sole purpose is to kill or injure. People even get injured at gun shows-- where presumably people know what they are doing. How many people are killed every year from a gun they didn't know was loaded? How many children die every year from the guns owned by a parent?
    We do need sensible safety measures, and we need more enforcement of gun laws.

  • ravonal Syracuse, UT
    March 14, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    In the final analysis of the gun v. no gun argument, those who oppose firarms ownership believe one of two things: 1) a gun owner/advocate/ enthusiast cannot be trusted because he is inherantly dangeorus to himself and others, 2) because he controls a weapon of lethal capacity, the weapon itself will compel him to create situation #1. Bigoted, and clearly a miscalculation. Argue all you want about "common sense" and "reasonability", but those are mere smokes screens from a faction that simply prefers their chattel unarmed and ignorant; precisely how they want everybody else to view proponents of the 2nd Amendament. If you want this ambulanace chasing, phony "leader' to parrot the narrative of 'reason" and "common sense" then who really is ignorant?

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    March 14, 2013 11:30 a.m.

    Re: Truthseeker (again) and Dyanrider84

    Yes thank you Truthseeker for asking. I'll give you one. In California there is a city called Semi Valley. It just so happened that there was a time a few years ago when the crime rate was very low for its population. The reason was it was known that a large number of police officers from Southern California departments, like LAPD, lived there. Do I need to say more. OK I will. If it is known a gun is in the house, or maybe on the streets in the hands of an off duty cop, then the criminal will look elsewhere.

  • happy2bhere LAYTON, UT
    March 14, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    Re: Truthseeker

    "Los Angeles has an extremely economically and ethnically diverse population ...".

    Do you realize what you are saying? Well if you don't, it is that rich and or white people are less likely to be involved in violent crime. Gun or otherwise. If that's true, then what do you make of it since I believe you are probably one of those open-minded tolerant diversity loving liberals.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 14, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    Dynarider84 - I see from your address that we are almost neighbors. But I also see from you comments that you and I couldn't be farther apart in our philosphies. But that's OK, that's what makes America what it is. I'm interested in your comment that " I have a RIGHT to own and bear arms to protect myself from our own government." Yes, you certainly do have that right but I'm wondering how you came to make that parnoid statement. And I'm certainly not going to try to interpret what the Founding Fathers intended with the Constitution and Bill of Rights but I can find many, even most Constitutional scholars who will state that the right to bear arms was originally intended to protect the homeland from ourside governments, not our own; to establish and build up a militia because our nation did not have a strong standing armed force. My how attitudes have changed.

    How about if we just try to find out why the U.S has a gun death rate 42 times greater than Great Britian, where the police don't even carry guns? Just wondering.

  • louie Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 14, 2013 10:42 a.m.

    Murders may be lower in Utah compared to other higher populated urban states. But so are DUIs. Does that mean we reduce DUI enforcement. Dont kid yourself. Is the Editorial Board happy that Utah teenagers are committing suicide at an alarming high rate with guns. Adults are not totally in control of the guns they own. In Utah in 2012 two two-year were playing with loaded guns and were killed. No charges were filed against the responsible adults. Does the Editorial Board think these and other deaths are acceptable. If we are going to promote the ownership of guns we need to also implement rules to include screening and other measure to make owners accountable due to the many wrongful deaths that occur.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 14, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    "The point is that If the guy or lady who commits the crime thinks before hand "maybe I will get shot, or what if the other person has a gun?" IT's the fear factor it stops many criminals from commit crimes,"

    Nice theory
    Can you provide an example of a city, state or country where more guns results in fewer homicides or deaths from firearms?

    We should raise the bar, not lower the bar, for owning a lethal weapon. If Republicans truly wanted to support enforcement of existing gun laws they would allow the confirmation of an ATF director. Under current laws the bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions. So while detectives on television tap a serial number into a computer and instantly identify the buyer of a firearm, the reality could not be more different.

    The 2003-2004 Tiahrt Amendment requires that records of background checks of gun buyers be destroyed within 24 hours of approval, making it harder to identify dealers who falsify records or buyers who make “straw” purchases for others.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 14, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    Re: "The people in upsate New York and the State Trooper in Virginia were killed because the wrong people had access to a gun. I don't know how to change that . . . ."

    No liberal politician knows how, either. But, that won't stop them from demagoguing gun-control issues and persecuting gun owners.

    Makes you wonder what their REAL agenda is, huh?

    The only sure way to produce the needed change is a nationwide return to the Judeo-Christian values that made America great -- and safe. But, we know secular liberals are never going to adopt that agenda.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    March 14, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    Chicago, New York, Washington D.C. --

    I love how ultra-conservatives refuse to use logic and practical reasoning of cause and affect.

    For example --
    Those areas may have a higher gun crime per capitca than Utah. granted.

    But have they ever thought about how many MORE violent gun crimes would have been committed WITHOUT those tougher gun laws?

    They SAY it's a break down of Society,
    But the DN Editorial Board has bought into the NRA lie of more guns equal less crime.

    Makes about as much sense as more alcohol equals less drunk crimes,
    or more pornography equals less sex crimes.

  • Dynarider84 Reston, VA
    March 14, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    And the reason is because your scared that other people have a firearm which in time will prevent many criminals from commiting crimes. I say stiffen up the Laws to people that commit the crimes not just a slap on the rist. other than that you have no right to tell any other person what they can and can not own, say, or do. Every person can and WILL do what they want thats the freedom of life. so just make it show that if people choose to do the bad things that they will not enjoy it at all and then bam they wont do it(after they have seen others get the stricter sentences) I also say get TV's and commercial foods and snacks out of prison its not a resort its a Prison!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 14, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    Re: ". . . this is not Tombstone, AZ circa 1890 . . . ."

    No, it's not. If it were, we'd be a lot safer than in latter-day LA, Chicago, Washington, DC, or Detroit.

    And that's primarily because people took responsibility for their own defense, not assuming the government could or would do a better job of it.

    It should probably be noted, as well, that the famous OK Corral shootout took place AFTER enactment of a strict gun-control law [at trial, the Earps and Doc Holliday successfully claimed to be enforcing an 1881 gun-control ordinance], and was the direct result of a government attempt to disarm citizens who believed they needed arms for their own protection, and who had been given a "permit," of sorts, to do so by County Sheriff Johnny Behan.

    So, if history is prologue, attempts to disarm America would quite probably plunge us into chaos.

  • Dynarider84 Reston, VA
    March 14, 2013 10:01 a.m.

    Again Just a few deaths from guns is not news breaking stories, if it wasn't a gun it would be something else, see now Obama wont tell you that he himself has personally allowed bombings from Drones that have killed thousands of inocent people. YOU CAN NOT MAKE LAWS TO PREVENT THINGS, WE NEED STRONG LAWS THAT HURT THE PEOPLE THAT COMMIT THOSE HEINOUS CRIMES. Thats like saying to prevent coffe spils they ban the sale of coffe. I have a RIGHT to own and bear arms to protect myself from our own government. When they tell me I can not purchase a gun that just "LOOKS" Like theirs and then they keep them and are buying up all the ammo for them(Obama has increased the ammunition purchases)Then there is something sinsster going on.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 14, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    dwayne - I'm sorry you misinterpreted my comments to mean anything other than we all need to stop the hyperbole and start getting serious about finding a solution to this tragic circumstance. I'm definitely not talking about taking away guns lawfully purchased by responsible citizens and I'm not advocating anything other than a reasonable discourse on what can and should be done that will make our children, indeed all of us, safer, at least to some degree. If you are suggesting that I would reject the notion that nothing can be done then you are right to do so. The only thing that will guarentee that nothing changes - or that it will get worse - is for us to shrug our shoulders and say nothing can be done. The people in upsate New York and the State Trooper in Virginia were killed because the wrong people had access to a gun. I don't know how to change that but I can guarentee that until we stop digging in our heels, on both sides of the issue, those sad headlines will be seen over and over again, perhaps even more frequently.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 14, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    Re: "I'm not anti-gun. But we do need some common sense safety rules placed on guns to try to reduce their use in mass shootings . . . ."

    You're anti-gun.

    There is no "common sense safety rule" that can possibly reduce the use of guns in mass shootings. There are just too many guns out there, and those conscience-free individuals who will ignore the law and engage in mass shooting are extremely unlikely to be worried about draconian gun laws and penalties.

    Suggesting we try such rules anyway merely reveals an anti-gun animus.

    What is needed is for politicians to stop demagoguing this issue and leave off persecuting those of us willing to protect ourselves and our families from the violence that secular liberalism has unleashed on modern American society.

  • Dynarider84 Reston, VA
    March 14, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    All I have to say is look at Kennesaw, GA. The good guy will not always stop the bad guy your correct and we all know that, but that's not the point. The point is that If the guy or lady who commits the crime thinks before hand "maybe I will get shot, or what if the other person has a gun?" IT's the fear factor it stops many criminals from commit crimes, but if you take them away like in California, Chicago, and Detroit the criminals don't have a fear other the the police(which the police are to affraid of going into their communities) So they do what they want.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 14, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    Way to draw conclusions while looking at just two states...nice cherrypicking you've got going on there.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    March 14, 2013 9:06 a.m.

    Preventing gun violence is not likely. Reducing or minimizing gun violence is a reasonable goal and all parties should work toward that end. In Cook County (Chicago) with its strict laws, gun violence is partly the result of readily available guns in adjacent counties. Utah legislators should remember that this is not Tombstone, AZ circa 1890 and make laws accordingly.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    March 14, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    If UT is so safe why are UT legislators pushing to relax gun laws in UT--allowing anyone to conceal carry?

    CA might have a higher homicide rate--but UT has a higher rate of death from firearms when suicides are included.

    Los Angeles has an extremely economically and ethnically diverse population of nearly 4 million--about 1 million more than the number of people living in UT. That CA's homicide rate is not higher is due in part to its gun laws.

    More guns does not mean more safe. A trained policeman hits his intended target 1/3 of the time. When the police officer is being fired upon his average drops to less than 20%.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 14, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    I'm not anti-gun. But we do need some common sense safety rules placed on guns to try to reduce their use in mass shootings and other common tragedies.

    Extremism on both sides is nonsense.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 14, 2013 8:08 a.m.


    I am a self proclaimed pro gun independent.

    I fully support peoples rights to own guns. And I would protest in the streets if guns were banned or confiscated.

    But, I do not support peoples rights to own any gun and carry it anywhere, anytime as many suggest.

    I think it is reasonable to have background checks, even though it wont stop all bad people from getting guns. Gun training is also reasonable if you intend to carry it around others in public.

    I don't want to live in a wild west type society where everyone walks around armed.
    I don't want guns on airplanes. Or in bars by those who are drinking.
    I am not fearful that the government will come after me.

    I believe that people should be held accountable when they leave their loaded gun laying around and a 6 year old dies because of it.

    I am sure that many will claim that I am not pro-gun at all because I believe that the second amendment allows some restrictions.

    To me, this is not a Republican or Democratic issue.

    We need common sense to prevail.

    It is mostly lacking.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 14, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    Re JoeBlow

    No I didn't notice, but thanks for pointing this out JoeBlow.

    Maybe you did or maybe you didn't notice that during the election I was doing everthing I could to get President Obama re-elected. I am a pro-gun Democrat.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    March 14, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    Joe Blow. All you need to know about guns and crime is to understand that cops carry guns to protect THEMSELVES, not you!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 14, 2013 7:41 a.m.

    "It is very important that the ruling class be subjected to the same laws as everyone else. "

    Did you notice that the Republican National Convention prohibited "everyone else" from bringing in guns? I think that makes a lot of sense and completely understand the logic.

    But, it is in direct conflict with the point that you are making.

    Wonder why the NRA did not highlight THAT hypocrisy as well......

  • vern001 Castle Rock, CO
    March 14, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    Obviously, gun laws alone aren't enough to eliminate gun violence. But imagine what a place like California would be like if it had Utah's gun laws! Clearly, what works in a state with a large Mormon and rural population is not going to work in a much more populated and urban state with a large drug and gang problem.

    To say that gun control laws don't work because California has tougher laws and more crime is a very reductionist and simplistic statement that ignores a whole host of other reasons why there is more gun violence in California.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 14, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    It need to be noted that many of the politicians who are actively working to take away our gun rights are themselves protected by guns. They either have guns themselves or have guards who have guns.

    The NRA was criticized for pointing this out when they produced and then showed an ad illustrating this which stated ... Politicians want the protection of guns for themselves, and gun free zones for everyone else.

    If gun free zones, calling 911, or uninating (to protect against rape) are good enough for the common people, then politicians ought to be restricted to this themselves.

    It is very important that the ruling class be subjected to the same laws as everyone else. This is the only way many of them will have the required empathy to be able to understand the needs and wants of those who they rule over.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    March 14, 2013 6:21 a.m.

    Sometimes the stats are used erroneously to make a point.

    People look at some places with strict gun laws (Chicago perhaps) with high crime rates as proof that gun laws don't work.

    In reality, many of those "strict" gun laws came into being BECAUSE of high crime.

    Crime and gun violence is generally higher in areas with high poverty. I would submit that Utah does not have lower gun violence BECAUSE of its gun laws but because it was not a violent place to begin with.

    We need to take an honest look at potential gun laws with an open and honest mind.
    They cannot all be summarily dismissed by gun advocates.

    In the same light, not all proposed gun laws should be supported without an honest review to determine their potential effectiveness.

    We need both sides to push for reasonable laws that accomplish a common goal.

    Unfortunately, the nature and divisiveness of anything to do with guns typically precludes "reasonableness" on both sides.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    March 14, 2013 5:56 a.m.

    "If one accepts the Brady Campaign's diagnosis, one would have to presume that California is a firearms-free paradise, while the lawless, gun-riddled streets of the Beehive State feature shootouts every dawn out in front of the local saloon."

    I really don't think that is what the Brady Campaign is implying with their diagnosis. And I don't think even the DN Editorial board would use those words to describe life in California. The Brady Campiagn has a single purpose in mind and that is to restrict the use of fireamrs in hopes that it will decrease the number of gun deaths in our country. The NRA has a seeminglty opposite mission which is to eleimninate all restrictions on gun ownership. Both arguments should be considered by the legislative bodies that govern our nation when determining what should be done to change a tragic pattern (one that continues with the report of a gunman killing four people in upstate New York just yesterday). The shooting death of a state trooper here in Virginia last week reminds me that even a good man with a gun often can't stop a bad man with a gun.

  • hobbes1012003 Kaysville, UT
    March 14, 2013 4:29 a.m.

    This is proof that all this gun legislation that the federal government is pushing on us has nothing to do with preventing gun violence but pushing their own agenda. someone has plans that start with gun legislation and it certainly isnt preventing gun violence.