Yeah, John, I know that is the study you are referring to. Sorry, but Prof
Kleck's study has been shown to be very flawed. And by saying flawed
I'm being kind. Fantasy would be a better word. Read some of the critiques
of it. There are any number of them. There is very good reason you never hear
about Kleck's study from the media.
mark:Yes it is. Google Prof. Gary Kleck, Florida State Univ.
John, because it's not true.
Seeker:If its anecdotal evidence you want, you need to read the
studies that show armed citizens use a firearm to prevent a crime thousands of
times each day in this country. But we never hear that from the leftist media. I
In the old days we were pretty well all trained in gun safety supported by the
NRA. I can remember our Jr. High Coach, a real boys man letting me take home one
of his revolvers without ammo to show my parents. He had loaned this to me for a
prop in a coowboy show at the Jr. High School. That was over 70 years ago an no
one even on the school bus even worried about it. I had been trained in gun
safety by my grandpa and dad and knew the dangers of mishandling a firearem. who
trains nowdays aside from the Boy Scouts, Front Sight, Conceal Carry Instructors
and the NRA. Certainly not the schools.Governor, veto the bill,
there are too many nut jobs and revenge freaks running and driving around
nowdays who have never had any trainsing at all, especially from schools. It
gives a call for more frequent display of a firearm in the hands of trained
individuals.We do ot need this.l
Craig Clark, you are from Colorado where liberals want control and have it to a
large degree with legalizing drugs, refusing Jessica's law, etc. We are not
Colorado. The second amendment is not about drivers licenses or car
registration, it relates to the right to bear arms without infringment. Please
at least, stay on topic.
in 2003, New York City Councilman James Davis (D) was shot and killed by a
political opponent in the City Council chamber prior to the meeting. Davis'
assassin, Othniel Askew, who was killed by police, had purchased his weapon
legally. He was able to bring it into City Hall under rules then in place that
allowed council members and their guests to bypass metal detectors. Davis, a
retired police officer, was also carrying a gun when he was shot."In 2010, NY police hit three bystanders in a shootout with a
gunman."" In another incident, gunman, Jeffrey T. Johnson,
collapsed and died: nine bystanders were struck, cradling bloody arms or lying
on the sidewalks and curbs.The police commissioner, Raymond W.
Kelly, confirmed on Saturday that all nine were wounded by police bullets,
bullet fragments or shrapnel from ricochets. Mr. Kelly also confirmed that the
shooter, Mr. Johnson, never fired another shot after killing a former co-worker,
Steven Ercolino, moments earlier."And these incidents happened
with fully trained and experienced professionals.What do you suppose the
chances of "success" are with average citizens taking the law into their
I think effective gun control would be passing laws that target the criminal
element something like if a gun is used in the commission of a crime it will be
punishable by a 25 year prison sentence without the possibility of parole. A
sentence like that would make anyone think twice before using a gun to harm or
threaten a person.
Re:AntiBushFirst, D.C. Does not have a total gun ban. It did have a
ban against handguns until the Supreme Court struck it down in 2008 in Heller v
D.C.Second, It is a very short trip from D.C. to VA where gun laws
are lax.D.C. is illustrative of why we Federal gun laws.
Did anybody read about the drive by shooting that Happened in DC this week where
there is a total Gun ban? It probably didn't make many headwaves seeing as
how this is counter productive to all of the anti-gun propoganda out in the news
these days. This just proves that Criminals will always find ways to get Guns.
Not letting people make their own choices and having the fear if people were to
have that option that they would make the wrong choice. It sounds
like something that Satan would do because thats what he wanted.Why
are we even here if the Government wont even give us the power to make our own
choices out of fear of us making the wrong choices? Supressing the
Free will is Facist. You got to let people make their own choices even if
it's the wrong choice because how are they going to learn?
This guy isn't being liberal enough. Lets ban all marriages
because there are people who kill or abuse their spouses. Lets ban
all birth because the world is overpopulated and some kids are born into an
abusive enviornment. Lets ban automobiles because somebody can kill
as many people nehind the wheel as they can with a gun. Lets ban
anything else that can be used as a weapon regardless of what people need it
for. Lets do away with Names, Hairstyles, and Clothes because these
things create invidualism. And somepeople may look better than others. Lets just have everybody wear uniforms, call everybody by numbers, live in the
same type of house while our government lives in palaces.
Those that feel background checks are a good idea are neglecting the fact that
criminals don't need background checks to obtain a firearm. Background
checks are merely a formality, a way for government to keep track of where
"legal" guns are located. Government is doing nothing to locate and
remove illegal weapons or to prevent illegal activity. Government can't
guarantee our safety no more than they can secure our border from terrorists and
those intent on committing crime. Criminals are not afraid of the law. They know
that if they get arrested, judges will release them in a few years anyway. They
don't mind risking time in jail as it is just free room and board. Their
logic is completely different than that of a sane, law abiding citizen.The fool is that person who thinks government can protect and secure us.
Those intent on doing harm to others will use a gun no matter what the law. They
have no respect for either the law or humanity. Gun owners for the most part are
responsible, law abiding citizens. Carrying a weapon in public merely adds
another dimension to this responsibility. True, accidents may occur but for the
most part having responsible gun owners on the streets may deter criminal
activity and make us more safe. We have delegated the responsibility
of public safety to the police and as a result 'public safety' is
worse not better. Gang bangers aren't afraid to shoot up the streets
because they know no one will stop them. Maybe, just maybe, knowing they could
be killed will stop a criminal. Fear is a strong motivator to those with a
shallow mind. Why do we always punish law-abiding citizens? Sadly,
it has gotten to the point where I fear government (the law) more than I fear
criminals. Progressives (Obama) want us totally dependent upon government and
unfortunately many have gotten sucked into this mindset. The concept of limited
government is no longer understood."Freedoms, just another word
for nothing left to loose." Joan Baez
America's love affair with guns is disgusting, embarrassing sick.
@Th. Jefferson:Actually, I think the Hon. Bishop Wester would simply
say your comment was an ad hominem attack, meant to distract people from the
"Driving is niether a right nor a privilege."Craig Clark -
it has to be one or the other and since it is not a right it has to be a
priviledge. Call it what you wnat, it is a priviledge.Gun ownership
is a right guarentteed by the constitution of the United States of America.
"People are being killed by guns at an alarming rate," Bishop Wester
said. "Anything that touches on guns, especially the proliferation of guns,
is a concern."A gun is a very forceful instrument, a very lethal
thing and it makes sense that we do have laws that require background checks as
a way of protecting the sanctity of human life."Perhaps the good
Bishop doesn't know that guns are actually low on the list of weapons used
to take life. Why is he not speaking out on those items on the list that top
guns? Guns are a very dramatic display of force, but cars are 34+ times more
likely to kill someone and yet he does not speak out against them. Maybe he
should educate himself before he speaks in favor of slavery; YES! slavery
because that's the aim of those who would take the insturment that would
prevent them from enslaving you.
"When the bill of rights was written, individual citizens owned the most
powerful arms there was, cannons!"This is true. So
as such, I will concede, you have an absolute right to own, uninfringed, the
weapons available in the Founders' days. Help yourself to all the muzzle
loaders you want, as the Founders intended. But just the muzzle loaders, that is
all the Founders had, all they could imagine, and all they were writing about.
Anything else, and we will have to discuss it and see if we all
agree it is okay. All you people (actually very, very few except for
on the D News boards for some reason) that think you should have access to any
type of weapon, anytime and anywhere you want, well sorry, you don't get
your way. And I don't care how much you stamp your feet, nor how long you
hold your breath. You aren't going to get them. The adults are going to
talk and make this decision. We'll let you know what we decide.
YarrlydarbAntibiotics kill period.Soldiers who defend
our nation likewise.
Passing a background check does not infringe on anybody's right to bear
arms, unless they have no business bearing arms because of mental illness or
criminal record. The argument is that people need to arm themselves to the teeth
to protect themselves from the government. I think that if the government were
to issue a proclamation require all to surrender their arms, the insurrection
would start right then; people who arm themselves against the government would
not comply. Therefore, registering weapons does not threaten anyone's
right to own it. People have become so spiteful in their hatred of the
government that they have lost the ability to see straight.
@spudmanEven Scalia said that not all regulation on guns is
unconstitutional.Besides, I've seen how this state works with
the 21st Amendment and 1st Amendment. Why is the 2nd the only one some of you
seem to believe should be unlimited?
"The states you named, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming are all ranked in the top
10 for number of firearm deaths. But i suppose they are states with rampant
crime?"Seeker:Nearly 3/4 of which are suicides. To
compare meaningful statistics, how about looking at criminal homicides with
firearms in those states and areas like Chicago and DC? But they are not
included in the skewed study you allude to. Guess why.
I am not anti-gun. But I am very much anti-stupidity.Allowing
unlimited access to deadly weapons by untrained people is stupid. Allowing
anyone to go to a gun show and purchase a gun without a background check is
stupid. Thinking that anyone needs a clip carrying more than six rounds is
@WildcatThe right is guaranteed to the people,not to
militias,and not to the state.And it talks about well
regulated militias, not well regulated arms.When the bill of rights
was written, individual citizens owned the most powerful arms there was,
cannons!The right is not about hunting nor self defense.That tells you all you need to know.If the government is too
powerful to fight against, that is just an argument that the people rights are
infringed.infringed means to limit or to reduce,So, our
right to bear arms shall not be limited or reduced.It could not be
any more clearer.
Guns kill, period! Anyone who thinks he or she needs a gun to be
reasonably secure in this world is demonstrating an extreme level naivete about
his or her ability to protect themselves together with severe symptoms of
paranoia.The popular but inane comment that it's not guns that
kill; it's people who kill might boast that they are technically right, but
there's no denying that it's a gun that does the dirty work.How anyone can claim they have religious beliefs toward their fellow man and
still harbor the intent to kill someone for supposed self-protection speak out
of both sides of their mouth.Just sayin' ...
Re:JohninSLCThe states you named, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming are
all ranked in the top 10 for number of firearm deaths. But i suppose they are
states with rampant crime?
The stated purpose of the 2nd amendment is to provide the necessity of a militia
to protect the free state. It also says "the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Arguments can be made on both sides
as to its meaning, but its purpose is to protect a free state, not to provide
for personal protection or hunting. Personal safety and hunting are irrelevant
to the stated intent of the 2nd amendment. I believe that a person should be
allowed to hunt or protect himself or others so long as he doesn't impose a
threat to the rights or freedom of society, but if you're using the second
amendment to argue the right to hunt or for personal safety reasons, you're
out of context.
Re: MapleDonSo, you believe that the problem with this article is
not that the legislature passed a bill allowing everyone to have the right to be
untrained and carry a concealed device, the sole purpose of which is to kill
others, but it is that Bishop Wester, a prominent community leader, shared his
views on the bill and the media published it? Don't look now,
but your hypocrisy is showing.
Suggestion to Utah government.Put educational videos on the Utah
government webto teach people the rules of gun safety and the legaluse of guns in Utah.Guns like cars need not be scary and most
peoplecan be counted on to use them responsibly, buteducation will
So for everyone that is in support of unlimited, unfettered access to guns I
have a question for you. Would you be ok with nudity, and every profane word
ever invented on broadcast channels during prime time? Should I be able to walk
around the city without pants or underwear on? What about sex in public? Should
I be able to walk into a movie theater and scream that the place is on fire to
cause a panic? Or are restrictions on these things reasonable in the name of
decency and public safety? Or is it only the 2nd amendment that can have no
This bill is bad for citizens because it doesn't help them understand the
use of deadly force. Carrying concealed if for one purpose and that is to use
their weapon in a time of great urgency. Proper training should accompany that
time so they know when they can pull their gun, when they can fire in self
defense and where they are ok to carry. The current law does not infringe on
our rights to bear arms all it calls for is education prior to carrying deadly
force concealed in public.
More "blood in the streets" fear-mongering. The gun-grabbers who
don't trust the law-abiding electorate have used that argument for decades
in trying to prevent the proliferation of "shall issue" concealed carry
legislation across the country, and the growing movement of
"constitutional" carry legislation, starting with Alaska, then Arizona
and Wyoming. You'd think they'd be embarassed to be proven wrong so
I need weapons grade plutonium to protect myself from a potential government
threat. From reading the postings on this board, I think the second amendment
gives me that right. The right to bear arms. a nuclear missile or bomb is an
arm of types. Get off my back government...I am a responsible person...no need
to worry.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.One of the definitions of Militia:a body of
citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill
but serving full time only in emergencies. Doesn't that sound
like the National Guard? I don't think Thomas Jefferson had envisioned a
day of assault weapons and WMD--I don't think it was his intent to protect
those at the expense of the safety of the public. Regulation doesn't
equate to infringement. Not to worry, Governor Herbert is spineless
and will sign it along with the bill that would help 150,000 people get health
coverage. Does this sound like good governance?Move over
Mississippi--here comes Utar, God bless the Beehive State!
Once upon a time, there were no firearms laws and people were happy. Then
somebody thought they should impose laws on law abiding people. And they
didn't work. So they thought they would impose more laws. And that
didn't work. Now they want more laws, that won't work. Why make
criminals out of law abiding citizens. The real criminals go through the
judicial revolving door and are let back out on the streets to violate again and
again. The said you couldn't carry a loaded gun in your car, and that was
repealed. What happened? Nothing. Repeal the registration laws and what will
happen. Nothing. Just a free society. If these laws work so well, why don't
we just make a law that says, "Murder is illegal." Oh, wait, we have
that? How is that working for you? If Herbert veto's it, it will be his
A right, especially a constitutional right shouldonly be infringed when
exercising that rightcurtails the rights other people have.Good law abiding people having and carryingguns does not curtail the
rights of anyone.Therefore taking away the gun rights of thelaw
abiding ought to be seen for what it is. Aninfringement of 2nd Amendment
It's obvious to me where the DesNews is going to take us. KSL has had Doug
Wright telling us now for two weeks straight that some gun restrictions are
necessary. And now, by posting the good Bishop's opinion, it isn't
difficult to figure out what the "powers that be" are trying to espouse
through their communication channels.The fact is, that by putting
restrictions in place regarding gun ownership or gun rights, we are violating
the 2nd Amendment. And if any type of "infringement" of those rights can
be put in place, and the Supreme Court goes along with it, then the 2nd
Amendment is dead, and with it our freedom.We should be addressing
mental illness and violence in our entertainment, which often glorifies mass
murder. The rationale of the left (and those who like to cozy up to
the left) regarding guns is the same as taking all fatty foods from everyone
because a few people ate themselves to death. Oh wait, they're working on
that one too.Let's not forget that freedom and liberty are at
the root of this issue.
If taking guns away from the law abiding madeanyone safer this call to the
governor wouldmake some sense.
Thank you Bishop Wester for speaking out where necessary. Thanks Gov Herbert for
already speaking that this is a bad law, I hope you veto this law and don't
call the "legislature" that tried to do this back into session. The
"lawmakers" who did this are deluded, nutty.You want to
carry a concealed weapon? legally? go thru the law's steps that attempt
to verify that you're clear minded enough and not a threat to the rest of
us. that's a reasonable limitation on the 2nd amendment.
The legislature rejected a proposal to tear down the "Zion Curtain."
They want to allow the carrying of a gun without a permit (and thus no
training). After all, seeing a drink mixed by a professional baretender is more
dangerous and lethal than an untrained citizen with a concealed weapon. What you
don't see can't hurt you.
Re: Craig Clark, by the way I commend you for using your name when posting.The thing is, with the atheist entering a church and shouting his views,
that would simply be called a trespass on private property violation. He does
have the right to shout those views anywhere in public and that right does come
from the 1st amendment. Yes, it has been found by courts that rights do have
some limits. Yelling fire in the theater, or making private ownership of
maching guns illegal for most people. Still, courts have usually been very
specific on those limitations. Trying not to step on the right as a whole.And I do think that when a judge takes away a drivers license he calls it
"revoking a privilidge."
"I have to get my automobile license plates renewed annually" Not so you
can have the privilege to drive it, but for the purpose of taxing it.
Maybe liberals ought to get together and figure out a way to get criminals to
get background checks, safety training, gun law education, and gun registration.
Good luck!!!!!!!!! Gun owners do not want to give up any rights because
once you get these things you want now, you'll move onto other laws that
infringe on our 2nd amendment rights.Reminds me of the liberal progressive
tax system we have!
Driving is niether a right nor a privilege. It's a regulated activity under
state licensing authority. The 1st Amendment doesn't give an atheist the
right to enter a church with a bullhorn to shout his views where people are at
worship. No right is without limits. That's not what American liberty is
The only trouble with your argument Craig Clark is that the gun issue is a
constitutional 2nd amendment issue. Like free speech or religion in the 1st
amendment is. Driving is not a constitutional right, but a privilige given by
I find regestration of guns a step forward. I have to get my automobile license
plates renewed annually and my vehicle operator's license renewed every
five years. Resistance to gun registration would be negligible were it not for
laws requiring it having been so lax or nonexistent before now. Change always
takes some getting used to.
Criminals carry without a permit. Criminals carry without a background check.
Criminals carry without gun safety training. All this law does is put
law-abiding citizens on the same footing as those who threaten our property, our
safety and our lives. I am in favor of having a fighting chance to protect
mine. Please, Governor, don't veto this law.
What part of "shall NOT be infringed" does no one understand? The Second
Amendment is NOT about hunting; it's about freedom and liberty and
protecting ourselves, our family and others. When the founding fathers drew up
the Bill of Rights they started out with basic GOD GIVEN rights then asked
themselves how are we going to guarantee those rights from an overbearing
government. We as humans have a BASIC right to protect ourselves. The only thing
the police can do after the fact is clean up the mess and find the perpetrator;
they cannot protect us. That is our job.
I don't think this bill will be harmful or be of much value either way.
Those who really wanted to carry found it rather easy to get the concealed carry
permit to begin with. And if a person really didn't want to carry, I doubt
many will now just pick up a gun and carry because they can. I'd be
surprised if it changed peoples behavior much if any. And after all,
that's what we are talking about with most any law, controlling peoples
behavior. Arn't we?