Gun show packs 'em in as enthusiasts fear showdown with government

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 10, 2013 6:11 p.m.

    My 2 Cents. We choose not to be subject to government. Really . We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. I am not anti-gun. However if your rational for gun ownership is to defy the laws of the land as opposed to self defense that concerns me.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    Midwest Mom...The "well regulated" applies to Militias, not firearms. If you read the actual Second Amendment, "well regulated Militia" is first, the last statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". What of the, "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Jan. 9, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    Truthseeker you are full of bunk! Cite your source for that alleged statistic. Far more people have died from Auto Accidents in this state than from Homicides.

    By the DNews count out of 47 homicides last year, I counted 26 were with guns. Maybe I was off by one or two. Even with accidental gun deaths, we are still well below how many die on the roads. We have had around 200 traffic fatalities in 2012, but no final statistics yet.

    You can't control suicides, nor the method people use to take their own lives. Some use guns, some don't.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 1:10 p.m.

    To keep the citizen militia up to date they age going to have to start selling drones at 20 million each.

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Jan. 8, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    It is ironic that the biggest boost to the gun industry is when the politicians begin to threaten the 2nd amendment. I'll bet Rememington, Glock, Sig-Sauer, ect. would love for that to happen monthly.

    As for those of you who claim to care about human life being taken by guns, what do you say about cars? We as a nation accept about 30 thousand deaths on American roads every year for the privilidge of driving 60 to 70 miles an hour. Want to save a lot more lives than guns take yearly? Just have the nations speed limit reduced to 25 miles an hour. Few if any people would die in car accidents unless they died of old age trying to get somewhere. Would any of you accept that life saving change? Doubt it. As for me, I love it that a person, particularly a woman, can defend herself from rape and possible murder with a gun in her purse. And, these kinds of things do occur more often than any of the mainstream media would have you believe.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:46 p.m.

    Have we really stooped to who is more educated or not? Wow!

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" actually, your "information" is wrong. Liberals live in areas where there are more educated people. However, that does not mean they themselves are more educated.

    If you look at the statistics, they only show the areas where a majority are liberals are more educated. For example, if there is an are with a lot of conservatives with high levels of education, but the area is predominately undeduated liberals, the studies you are looking at would conclude that liberals are highly educated.

    However, you should look at studies like "Conservatives Better Informed, Most Consistent, More Open-Minded, Says Pew" at National Review. There are other studies out there that show that conservatives are more educated, more intelligent, happier, more generous, and donate more time than liberals.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 12:45 p.m.

    Somewhere in Colorado, CO
    "Shall not be infringed."

    To liberals that somehow gets translated into: Taken away.

    But the original founding fathers meant "Shall not be infringed."


    That's because Liberals are more educated and use a dictionary to define such "big" words.
    Infringed means "tresspass", i.e., the Government can not tresspass on your property to take away your guns.
    As in, can not Confisgate, as in can not take away.

    Liberals use a dictionary to define words,
    Conservatives trust college drop-outs on the radio to define it for them.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    My wife has never shot a gun in her life but she wants to change that. She works as a secretary at a grade school and she wants a concealed permit and her own 9mm. It is highly doubtful that the school district will ever allow guns to be carried but I think her attitude is common across the country as more and more people realize the need for self protection. It is too late when the police arrive - the damage and death have already taken place. Bad guys will always have guns - legal or illegal - and no law will ever prohibit that. I always carry my .40 semi auto Smith and Wesson when I back pack and hike - not just for protection against wild animals but more so 'wild' and bad humans. Shooting someone is a last resort but people at least want an option as to whether they live or die.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:48 a.m.

    Despite all the rhetoric about wanting to do something, guns are more popular than ever in Utah.

    Heck, within the next couple months we'll have TWO gun ranges within a mile of my house that are opening. Weirdness.

    After Sandy Hook, my neighbors all went out and bought guns--and are applying for Conceal Carry licenses. Guns are no longer seen as an extreme form of self-protection, but as the primary form of self protection, which imo, will only lead to more tragic tangential cases of gun violence.

    I'm not a huge fan of the systematic arming of my neighborhood--I think it breeds mistrust and contempt for neighbors, and our media teaches that the only way to solve one's problems is through decisive steps like gun violence. How often have we not cheered for the good guy, when he blows away the bad guy--leaving all question as to whether he'll torment the innocent in a movie again?

    That sort of indoctrination plus more guns in our hands will only lead to further disrespect and harm to our society.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    The idea that we can solve our gun violence epidemic by making more guns available is as absurd as the idea that we can solve our DUI epidemic by opening more bars.

  • tejas washington, utah
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    gun control is nothing short of a declaration of war on the american people by the government

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    Gun safety should be taught in schools by responsible NRA teachers. People in the USA live around guns so teach them accordingly. If your son is Boy Scout he can learn about gun safety at scout camp from a qualified, certified teacher but how about the girls?. Hunters safety classes beed to beef up the safety issue also. Lets leave it that way. Education must never be taken out of the equasion. I am a life long hunter and gun enthusiast but see no use for a large clip military rifle in a household exscept to fill a landfill with .223 bullets. We have had bans before on large clip capacity guns and it was removed. Criminals will have whet they want to use and always will in the USA. We also live in a much different society that we did 50 years ago and adjustment need to be made to match the threats.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 7, 2013 7:02 a.m.

    I was talking last night with a friend who is an expert on gangs in Utah. He works with the Utah Attorney General's office. Although he is pro-gun, he has some serious concerns with the lack of adequate background checks, the gun show loophole, and the fact that before being prohibited from possessing a gun, a person must have been convicted of a felony.

    According to him, at least two thirds of gang members cannot be restricted from packing. Most have fairly extensive records of misdemeanors, but no felonies -- yet. It is not unusual for police agencies to have to return weapons to gang bangers because their possession of the weapon is permitted under current law and the Second Amendment. Because there is no registration of gun serial numbers, there is no way of learning if the gun has been stolen.

    He also points out that in almost every case of a gun being used in domestic violence, the gun was lawfully possessed by the shooter. Even though the shooter may have had a long history of previous violence, nothing can be done until he crosses the line from misdemeanor to felony.

    Something to think about?

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:38 p.m.

    Jemezblue: "Gun control, gun control, the words of the leftists whose knee jerk reaction to something upsetting"

    More guns, more guns, the words of the righties whose knee jerk reaction to something upsetting...

  • Jemezblue Albuquerque, NM
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    Gun control, gun control, the words of the leftists whose knee jerk reaction to something upsetting....they always blame their fellow countrymen for something that became out of control where, in the case of Sandy Hook, people were mainly blameless.

    But if you want to live in a country where gun ownership is not allowed, try living in Mexico. Without guns, 50,000+ people are killed every year. In the United States, 30,000+ people are killed every year. Mexico's gun violence still happens even with totalitarian gun restrictions. I dare you to go to Mexico and live there for a day, especially along the border.

    Personally, I would prefer to live in a country without such gun restrictions, even if I do not own a gun.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:48 p.m.

    I have to wonder how many felons bought a weapon at this gun show.
    Have to wonder if a potential mass shooter bought one of the AR15's.
    How many bullets bought were purchased by a criminal?
    Why are there not background checks at guns shows?
    Thinking back to the recient mass shootings
    How may of the weapons were bought at a gun show? How many of the weapons were obtained because the owner did not have the secured.
    Citizens certainly have the right to own guns.
    What need need is more responsibilty, and liabilty for gun owners.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 6, 2013 5:05 p.m.

    Right. More armed people are what our society needs.

    Consider this:

    According to a 2008 analysis of NYPD firearms discharge data done by the New York Times, between 1996-2006 officers hit their intended target about 34 percent of the time.

    Another analysis, published in 2006 by the RAND Center on Quality Policing at the request of Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, found that in the years 1998-2006, the average hit ratio for officers involved in a shooting where the subject does not fire back was 30 percent. During a gunfight, where the target is shooting at officers, the study reported that the hit rate falls to just 18 percent.

    The Times reported that in 2006-2007, Los Angeles police officers hit their targets between 27 and 29 percent of the time, respectively. There is no reliable national data on hit ratio.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 4:50 p.m.

    @ Sneaky Jimmy I'd bet you are an anomoly in the Bay Area. It is nice to have someone from CA that has a lick of sense. Hang in there.

  • no fit in SG St.George, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    Too bad there isn't a "Learn to be tolerant, understanding, and get along with others without using guns" show.
    Or....a "Why are people so scared of everything that they need multiple assault rifles?" show?

    Any chance "They" could pack em' in?

  • 1hemlock Tooele, Utah
    Jan. 6, 2013 4:21 p.m.

    When someone is deranged/stupid/attention-seeking and wants to "do something" you will not stop them by "hiding/confiscating" the guns.
    There have been several people killed in Yew York City as "someone" pushed them into the rail tracks. Should we ban the subway and close up all access to the subway stations? Should we "confiscate" the railcars? Should we make the rail cars go more slowly (and defeat the purpose of the subway . . . to get folks to places fast)? Should we only let people that can pass an IQ test above a certain level get on the subway?
    Would any of the proposed regulations (or previously proposed regulations) have stopped any of the tragedies?
    Probably not. Have there been any folks who know guns, have learned to shoot, enjoy shooting who is proposing any bans? The fearful, because of lack of knowledge and a feel a need to do something, seem to be beating this drum.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Jan. 6, 2013 4:18 p.m.

    By reading these posts, there sure are a lot of paranoid people out there. Just as there were 45 years ago, when these same arguments were being made. And I'm sure before that; I just don't have a memory that far back. A hundred bucks says in 10, 20, 30 years, you will still be able to buy a gun, and this same sky-is-falling, the government is going to take all our guns away mentality will continue!

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    Jan. 6, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    It's amazing how ill informed people are and how they let the media influence them. If guns are so bad let the police turn theirs in first. How about all you intellectuals put a sign on your door that says "gun free zone" or better yet let the DN post a map of all the homes with no guns. I fear the government. If you don't you are a fool.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 2:45 p.m.

    @ one old man- There is a difference between preparedness and desire.

    Our Founders wisely foresaw the need for multiple checks and balances when they established our government. And they hoped that the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment would never be needed.

    I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, a spare tire in my car, and insurance on my house and car. That does not mean I WANT or LOOK FORWARD TO a kitchen fire, a flat tire, a car accident or loss of my house or car. It is called smart people being prepared for unexpected and undesired possible events.

    If the Founders were alive today, they would have fire extinguishers, spare tires, insurance, and some guns. And, their guns would not be flintlock muskets!

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 2:32 p.m.

    As the Tories used to say: These are fearful people. I wish they'd participate in society and governance, instead of preparing to take up arms against it.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    Re: ". . . the need to be prepared to resist when our government needs to be overthrown."

    The best way to make sure we never have to fight our own government is to stay strong enough, that the threat of insurrection operates as a meaningful deterrent to liberals looking to take away our freedoms.

  • DH48 West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 2:19 p.m.

    The behavior and obsession being demonstrated by gun enthusiasts right now is sickening. We live in a very sad world where the things that really matter are ignored while people obsess over things that ultimately only bring pain and suffering. Guns are just one of these items. Wake up people and start looking for the things that matter.

    I was at South Town yesterday also, for the home show. What a sorry sight these people were!

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 2:14 p.m.

    Fear is often based on nonsense. What gun owners need to fear is the accidental gun death or gun death suicides by their family members. The accidental gun death of a grandchild recently dropped off in a Layton, Utah home to be watched by grandparents while the parents went on a short vacation; the love struck teenager whose loss of a boyfriend or girlfriend causes them to feel life is not worth living and commits suicide with the readily available gun in the Utah home - that is what should be feared. Buying a gun for protection from criminals is a good example of unfounded fear. Homes with guns in them have twelve times (12X) as many gun deaths than homes that do not have a gun in them. The instant death from a gun in Utah homes kills more young people than you can imagine, certainly kills more innocent people than are hurt or killed by criminals.

  • Beverly Eden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    The idea that a gun is going to keep safe you from criminals is not realistic. Homes with guns in them have twelve (12) times as many gun deaths than homes that do not have guns in them. Your teenage son, whose girlfriend tells him to take a hike, and he becomes despondent and in this foolish moment can't see all the other opportunities that are available ahead, and he commits suicide - that is what you need to fear with the gun in your home. Ask the Layton Grandparents, whose grandchild was accidentally killed, with the loaded gun in their home. Before this child's parents reached the airport for a short vacation, the home with a gun in it was the home where a child was accidentally killed - that is what you need to fear. These events do not occur in homes that do not have a gun. The instant death is 12 times more likely in homes with guns. Stop and think about this. Utah is not a crime ridden ghetto - Utah is a gun crazy killing zone filled with suicides and accidental gun deaths.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 1:32 p.m.

    People announcing themselves as the seeker of truth usually means just the opposite. You seem to have an obsession with the LDS church. Look at the totality of it's emphasis (Actually seek the truth and start by reading the Family Proclamation of 15 years ago.) on following Christian doctrine and applying it in one's life. That will answer your questions.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    Juni4ling -- I can't even begin to count the times I've read right here in these comments that pro-gun folks have included the need to be prepared to resist when our government needs to be overthrown.

  • juni4ling Somewhere in Colorado, CO
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    People are buying guns, and Hutterite assumes that they are preparing to take up arms against the government.

    Not for self-defense.

    Not for home protection.

    Not for target shooting or practice.

    But to take up arms against the government.

    I bet there were very, very few folks going into the gun show thinking, "I hope I can get a good gun so that I can take up arms against the government."

    Yes... That was the intention of the founding fathers. The intention of the founding fathers was that an armed and prepared populace could not be bullied by the government.

    There are bad guys who are resisting the government. The Obama administration funneled guns into cartels in Mexico.

    The Obama administration intended those guns to be used *against* the government, against officers, and against citizens.

    But I bet the number of ladies and gentlement purchasing guns, thinking, "I can't wait till I can shoot police officers" is zero.

    I bet there was not a single gun purchaser thinking about putting rounds down range against police officers. None.

    I bet they are worried about a volatile Obama administration fighting the rights of average citizens.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Insane. Just insane.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    No girly men at the South towne Expo Center.

  • juni4ling Somewhere in Colorado, CO
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    "Shall not be infringed."

    To liberals that somehow gets translated into: Taken away.

    But the original founding fathers meant "Shall not be infringed."

    The original founding fathers meant for the populace to have the same guns as the police and the military.

    It had nothing to do with hunting.

    It had nothing to do with target practice.

    It had everything to do with citizens having the ability to resist. It had everything to do with self defense.

    Liberals can mock gun owners. Liberals can site guns in "suicide" deaths in an effort to make it appear that guns are the "bad" thing.

    But the truth: Liberals want a government that is armed to the teeth, but averace citizens unarmed in comparison.

    At the gut-deep level, we need to ask ourselves: "What ultimate goal do liberals have in mind when they want an armed government, but an unarmed populace."

    Because we can look at history to see what an armed government can do to an unarmed populace.

    In the not-too-distant past we can see cattle cars of unarmed citizens.

    The intent of the founding fathers was the freedom of self-defense.

    Liberals want to reduce freedom.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 10:21 a.m.

    Re: ". . . if you own a gun it is 22 times more likely to be used to kill you (suicide) or someone you love (accident, homicide in a heated argument) than a stranger in self-defense."

    That's a classic false analogy.

    While the quoted numbers may approach validity, the reasoning doesn't. It's comparing apples to kumquats.

    The only valid comparison would be to compare accident/injury rates in homes with and without guns, or assault/suicide rates in homes with or without guns. And, to be valid, the studies would need to be normalized for other possible confounding factors, such as income, drinking, drug use, etc.

    Since such studies have not been proposed or funded, and since most investigators and grantors are liberals, one may assume the results of such a study would not be helpful to the gun-control cause.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    These are fearful people. I wish they'd participate in society and governance, instead of preparing to take up arms against it.

  • Rynn Las Vegas, NV
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    Not sure what the answer is. As long as there are people walking the Earth, there are going to be people that want to do bad things. And they will find a way to do so.
    At the same time, the idea of every person walking around with a gun seems a little unnerving too.

    Unless a citizen is one of those highly skilled gun owners that have trained to shoot with precision...I don't think I'd feel comfortable around them.

  • justamacguy Manti, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    If you are going to talk about suicide then you better talk about the route cause and lever the gun out of it. Both Canada and Australia, which have very tight gun control, have higher suicide rates than the US. Canada, Australia and England also have a higher victim assault rate, more than double the US. These same gun control countries also lead the US by a factor of 2 to 1 for rape. There is more to the "gun violence" than the gun. I you look at the FBI crime statistics violent crime is down by half in the US. We are actually improving despite intermittent sensational stories. If you take the world crime statistics demographic and look at violent crime you will find that it exists in pocket of population, in particular those greater than 250,000. If you compare this demographic with England the violent crime rate is equal. The US looks worse because we have 186 of these vs 32 in England. Fact: Only 3.5% of violent crime was committed with rifles, of which the AR-15 is a subset. Shows how much you can trust the media in portraying truth.

  • JapanCougar Apo, AP
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    I agree with Screwdriver! Owning a gun may make you feel safer but all evidence points to the fact that it does not add to your safety, rather it is a risk. If you do choose to own a gun, please be smart and lock it up where kids and others cannot easily gain access! Of course if you own a gun to keep yourself safe against a random intruder you'll probably want to keep it locked and loaded and within an arm's reach at all times.
    If this is you, be responsible enough to let your neighbors know that you have loaded, unlocked guns in your home. Please think about children's safety!!

    Also, I think it is ridiculous to hear people say they are opposed to gun control as if it were an all-or-nothing proposition. Even in the pictures of this gun show had signs saying "No loaded guns". That's gun control! At a gun show, nonetheless!

    We all believe in sensible gun control. Now let's enforce these laws!

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 9:08 a.m.


    Are you serious? The .223 (5.56) round was designed for stability in flight and instability on impact. Those rounds will end up going through walls and everywhere else, where you want them, and where you don't. The AR-15 is quite possibly one of the worst weapons for home defense, unless you are lucky enough to be defending your home as people attack from 50-150 yards away. You are much better off with a short barreled shotgun with size 4 buckshot, where you get 40+ pellets for an effective spread. 00 buckshot has too much penetration and might go through a wall, unintentionally injuring someone you care about.

    BTW. I am one of the few people in this debate who thing a realistic compromise from both sides needs to happen. You know, compromise, where neither side gets everything they want, and both sides need to admit to the merits of the other side's position.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 6, 2013 7:16 a.m.

    News flash to Democrats! Americans will never give up their guns. The criminals will never stop using guns and the rest of us will never stop using guns to protect ourselves. The only question is, whose side are the Democrats on? I think we already know the answer to that question.

  • Third try screen name Mapleton, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 7:13 a.m.

    Gun bans will lead to an underground market of undocumented owners.
    Take a look at Chicago. They've got the toughest gun laws in the country for 20 years running.
    And they had 500 murders last year.
    Rarely do they find a FOID card or a weapon with a serial number when investigating those crimes.
    Beware the unintended consequences of the imperious immediacy of interest. All that do-gooder political will...all those headlines...all those photos of our "leaders" protecting the people...all that fluff for the constituent newsletter...
    In the end you will find, "That's not what we meant to do."
    You should read an excellent work on public policy by that same title, written by Steven M Gillon over a decade ago.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 6, 2013 5:02 a.m.

    They are buying guns because they are convinced Obama is going to take them? How nice of them to provide more for Obama to take. Aaawwwua.

    "Honey, we need to spend this money on guns and ammunition. I had to buy it."

    It's just like the urgency every salesman tries to give you that it's a one day sale or this is the last one in stock at this price... I've just never seen it last so long like this.

    Fools and their money.

    I'm thinking of asking Obama to blurt out that he intends to ban high heel shoes so republican women can go on a shoe buying spree and leave no money left for the hubby to buy guns with.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 4:17 a.m.

    Hunters don't need assault rifles?

    Heck hunters don't even need guns. They can use a bow and arrows.

    Neither do people really need cars. They can live closer to work, and walk or ride a bike or take the bus.

    We don't need computers. There are ways to make due. We don't really need cell phones either.

    Actually I am hard pressed to think of any specific thing that we really 'need'.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 6, 2013 3:33 a.m.

    We are not enthusiast, we are patriots willing do die for and defend this country our families, and property, from invasion, oppression, and dictators in power. When you fight for your freedoms and life, surrendering is the ending of freedom.

    Patriotism is what these gun shows are about, and patriotism kills the enemy of freedom. Any one foolish enough to think you can have your freedoms and disarmament at the same time are very foolish. Look what this disarmament cost the Jews in Germany in WWII, 7 million lives up in smoke. They were promised peace, but not their lives.

    This day was forewarned by our forefathers and their wisdom is still supreme and beyond socialist understanding. We choose not to be the subjects of government and that is our cause, lives lost to keep this choice are the sacrifices we believe in, and they are profound beliefs and with the same prejudices that drive all free willed peoples.

    Because a mad man shoots up his school mates is not indicative of patriotism, it is indicative of schools turned prisons, so much so the children in the schools want body armor to keep their peers from shooting them.

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:49 p.m.

    Oops. Typo.

    That's fear, not far.

    "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe." (Proverbs 29:25)

  • Midwest Mom Soldiers Grove, WI
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:48 p.m.

    Ironic how those who fear that their rights are threatened are all for making lists of those who suffer from mental illnesses so that they can be controlled.

    Fear does not preserve freedom. It takes courage to defend precious rights. Like the courage to defend the free speech of those whose politics you dislike, or the religions you do not support. I have yet to see that kind of courage from anyone in the pro-gun camp. They cry for the "right to bear arms," yet gloss over the recommendation to keep this right "well regulated."

    "The far of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the Lord shall be safe." (Proverbs 29:25)

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:06 p.m.

    I guess we're all safer now that millions more people have the ability to kill other people. And their motivation wasn't personal safety, but the fear (that's right....fear) that they wouldn't be able to buy weapons in the future. That makes me feel safer, for the fact that everyone takes care of their firearms and a deranged person just wouldn't be able to get their hands on a gun that a family member suddenly felt the need to buy. It would be impossible to obtain the weapon that a family member owned because they'd keep it under lock and key, along with the ammunition, so even if they somehow got the rifle or hand gun, they wouldn't be able to use it bexause they lacked the ammo. (Might as well allow drunk drivers to keep their cars after being guilty of multiple DUI's.)

    Oh well.....

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 5, 2013 10:05 p.m.


    From 2007-11, Utah averaged 271 gun deaths annually, with suicides accounting for 84 percent of them, a slight increase from 2001-05, the health department said.

    By comparison, the Utah Highway Patrol reported an annual average of 263 traffic fatalities from 2007-11. Data from the Utah state medical examiner show guns in Utah kill 11 of every 100,000 people annually, compared with last year's national average of 10.4 gun deaths per 100,000.

    Actually, the on-line version of Deseret News had a "pop-up" ad for a gun show in the past month.

    The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) wrote several letters that repeated and reinforced the bishops ongoing call to create a circle of protection around poor and vulnerable people and programs that meet their basic needs and protect their lives and dignity. The bishops message calls on Congress and the Administration to protect essential help for poor families and vulnerable children and to put the poor first in budget priorities. The bishops letters oppose measures that reduce resources for essential safety net programs.

    What is the LDS Church stance on social safety nets?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:59 p.m.

    I don't think a gun ban would be wise. We can just show how dumb it is to think a gun makes you safer. A public campaign similar to the anti-smoking don't be a butthead commercials may reduce the insanity. Guns have butts too.

    The main benefits of gun ownership are feeling safe, free, independent, and powerful. However, if you own a gun it is 22 times more likely to be used to kill you (suicide) or someone you love (accident, homicide in a heated argument) than a stranger in self-defense. The costs of living in a society of gun owners also means a substantially higher rate of homicides, suicides, and accidents. - psycology today

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:52 p.m.

    When powerful people say they are going to take your guns, it is wise to take them at their word.

    Sen. Feinstein said in 1995 that "she would have taken them all- every one"
    and just last week NY Governor Cuomo talked about confiscation. Many other powerful Democrats have been just a bit more cautions and clever about their choices of words, but their goals are obvious. And every proposal they have marches towards that confiscation goal, even if indirectly!

    The nice people "protesting" are sincere, but oblivious to the fact that no gun law anywhere, including confiscation, has disarmed criminals. And, while terror-sponsor Iran nearly has nuclear weapons (which they WILL
    share!) and box-cutters were used on September 11th, thinking that gun bans on law abiding American citizens will disarm terrorists is wishful thinking, and almost delusional.

    If the Second Amendment is gutted, the First will not be far behind.
    "First, they came for the guns, but I worked at a newspaper..."

    Truthseeker is also factually incorrect about more deaths from guns than cars, by a huge amount.

    Stock up on guns and ammo while you can!

  • eastcoastcoug Danbury, CT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:30 p.m.

    A whole lot of paranoid people. Just great. I hope they (and JParkerfan) don't have a kid like Lanza living in their household...

  • JParkerfan St. George, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:21 p.m.

    I think your numbers are way off "truthseeker"(Lol).

  • JParkerfan St. George, UT
    Jan. 5, 2013 9:18 p.m.

    You people on the west coast need to worry about your own mismanaged and pathetic states.. As for me I'll rest comfortably with my AR-15. The best home defense weapon period,,,,,,

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    Jan. 5, 2013 8:53 p.m.

    I keep seeing lots of anti-gun control advocates claiming that gun control would be a knee jerk reaction as they run out and buy guns and ammo for fear of new laws. Do two knee jerk reactions make a jerk?

  • TMR Los Angeles, CA
    Jan. 5, 2013 8:47 p.m.


    I share your sentiment, but your facts are wrong. The LDS church has opposed the carrying of guns on church property and has said much on poverty. Also, the Deseret News is not publicizing a gun show; if anything, the paper is drawing inferences to the absurdity of the show and its popularity. However, in principle you are correct: it defies logic to deal with a gun problem by increasing the number of guns.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 5, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    How nice.

    The Catholic Church is supportive of gun control.

    The LDS Church says nothing about guns or poverty but the LDS Church owned Deseret News is publicizing a gun show.

    More Utahns will die from firearms than auto accidents.

  • Rutland vs. Medfield Seattle, Wa
    Jan. 5, 2013 8:18 p.m.

    "The ammunition lines are insane"