Gun debate revives questions about self-defense

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • toptrakker Kansas City Clay, MO
    April 16, 2013 11:23 p.m.

    The most likely answer is that the more people who own a firearm the more fearful the potential criminal is of confrontation. Even a criminal is usually cautious. The idea behind concealed carry is expressed by a convicted street robber who told an FBI agent that had concealed carry been in effect when he comitted his crime, he would NOT have done it, for fear of being shot himself. This is likely why the crime rate has dropped. This is basically why a criminal, armed, drops his weapon when contronted by an armed police or security officer, he doesn't want to be shot himself. As to the question about how the robber got into the house in the first place, there are many ways to break into a building without too much noise, which I won't go into here for fear of giving someone ideas. I'm a former chief of police of a small town and later chief of campus law enforcement for a university.

  • david6162 Sunset, Utah
    April 15, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    Gun ownership by Americans should be extensive because the citizens have a God-given right to protect themselves against tyrannical government, criminals and militant Mexicans who claim that America was stolen from them. We do have a big threat from the Aztlan movement promoted by those who want to claim America for Mexico. I have seen the videos showing Mexicans shouting and holding up signs telling America that the white man should give up his property and there should be no block to Mexicans who want come here illegally. It is a fearsome sight seeing these loud and militant people shouting about their natural right to America. Americans should be armed. These Mexicans are organized and armed. The 2nd Amendment is vitally important.

  • grip Meridian, ID
    April 15, 2013 2:02 p.m.

    Negotiations and discussion will do no good. There is a total lack of trust between all parties. This means there can be no starting point, nothing to continue and no decision can be made. Politicians must do something to be re-elected, the anti gun lobby can do nothing or they will lose membership and easy money and the NRA is accused of being a lobbying organization because they are doing a great job of getting the word out. They lobby for me because I belong to the NRA
    and feel a firearm in my home is a necessity because of the lack of respect and trust which has been carefully nurtured by society.

  • johanngoethe SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 15, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    While drawn into the article I was disappointed by the lack of details during the St. George encounter. How did he pin him down? What did he say? Was the criminal prosecuted? What if he had shot him in the back in the house? Outside on his property? Running down the street with stolen goods in his hands? The real human interest story is: (1) the personal encounter and (2) the debate about self-defense, in that order. The author missed the mark here. More, please!

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 15, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    @ the old switcheroo. Can you even conceive of a situation where the criminal home invader would be at fault instead of the innocent homeowner? Why do you worry so much about protecting the criminal?

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    April 15, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    This a dismal failure not a success story. If someone gets into your house why you are sleeping you FAILED to protect your family. He got lucky and that's all.

    Gun nuts really want this to happen not keep their family safe in the first place. That would preclude having loaded guns unsecured in your house.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    April 15, 2013 9:22 a.m.

    What if the intruder had a gun, also. He had the flashlight and could see the other people. He didn't have to roll off the bed onto the floor and open a drawer and pull out the weapon. Technically, to be safe with children around, the gun should have had a gun lock or be in a position that was not accessible to children. The security of the house is a question that wasn't addressed. Even with Elizabeth Smart, the security of their windows was not good, especially for an individual that had worked in and knew their house and children. Guns, without proper training and use, is a much larger issue than just registering them, concealed or not. I remember living in Mississippi and when we were looking at buying a home and going through many of the homes in the 1970s how open pistols were in the homes and accessible to people, even the bad guys, if they got in the homes.

    Access is still a problem for good people, but bad people have ways to get one of the 300M guns in the United States of America. They may take months to get a gun.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 15, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    In 1938, Germans took guns away from the Jews, and self-defense was gone.

    Through out history, most human suffering have come from bad governments. Good government doesn't allow the killing of millions of babies.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    April 15, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    Here is all you need to know about gun control laws; cops carry guns to protect THEMSELVES, not you! All other discussions are just about who is going to control YOU, not guns, not criminals and not crime because gun control laws do not control criminals and crime because criminals do not obey laws. So the real issue and the only debate is really all about who controls YOU! Chicago's crime and their strict gun control laws are proof for anyone who is not blind, dumb or seeking to control YOU! Drat that darned 2nd amendment anyway!

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    April 15, 2013 12:32 a.m.

    What's with a debate? There isn't one.

    The second amendment spells it out.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    April 14, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    Thanks to the NRA for stifling gun violence research for more than a decade, the national debate about gun violence prevention has been focused mostly on speculation, common sense attitudes unsupported by the lack of science research, and emotions. Hopefully Obama's renewed efforts at federal science-based research on this important topic will allow future Congresses and Presidents to make more informed decisions about gun policy in this Country, instead of having to rely on NRA advertising to make our decisions for us.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    April 14, 2013 5:23 p.m.

    Sooooo, how DID the burglar get into the house anyway? Why don't we start talking about actual security instead of these security failures were the last resort of a gun is needed? A little journalism would be nice. This was NOT a victory, it was a dismal failure to keep his family safe by letting a burglar get in in the first place.

    Only in the US will men spend $20,000 on guns and not a penny on an alarm system or security blinds.

    "But most of the things that were presented (as self-defense) were little more than escalating arguments. It wasn't like this is a good guy and this is a bad guy. It's two people who got into an argument and somebody drew a gun."

    Guns are not the only defense.

  • Seronac Orem, UT
    April 14, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    For the most part, this is a good article that treats the issue fairly. But it misses one very important question: What is the cause and effect of guns ownership and crime. The article seems to want to say that the increase in gun ownership is pointless because the rate of crime is going down. But what if the crime rate is going down because of more gun ownership? I think that is likely what is really happening. Criminals aren't entirely stupid; they don't want to get shot and/or die, so, they're being more careful. Unfortunately, some crime has increased and continues unabated: that which takes place in our legislatures.

  • SilverbackedGorrilla South Jordan, UT
    April 14, 2013 2:49 p.m.

    It is not surprising to see the intesity of both sides of the gun argument and the obvious stretching of the truth by both sides with the justification that the other side is doing it so we are just keeping it even. In the aftermath of NewTown I have centered on just one major litmus test of any new gun laws, "would it have prevented or even mitigated this shooting"? The gun laws currently working their way thru congress would have done absolutely nothing. Motion is not progress.