Letter: Gun lobby

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 22, 2013 1:03 p.m.

    Is people having guns and not knowing how to use them really a problem? There is load the gun, aim the gun, pull the trigger, this isn't rocket science. Oh then there are the rules of safety. May I suggest we teach these rules in school, in health class? Problem solved.

    And yes more guns (in the hands of good guys) does make our community and our world safer. If not then lets take guns away from the police and the military. My gun in my house makes us safer too. This is because we have learned and follow the rules of gun safety. In the event of a home invasion have a means to protect ourself.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 19, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" You mean like "The Gun Confiscation Notice an NYC Resident Reportedly Received Will Likely Send Chills Down Your Spine" reported by The Blaze? That was a really nice thing that NYC did to send out the notices to citizens to turn in their guns.

    The story was confirmed by the UK Daily Caller article "New York City confiscating rifles and shotguns". It was confirmed again by Fox News in their article "NYPD cracks down on long guns that hold more than five rounds"

    How much longer until they come for all guns? Your ilk is already bold enough to confiscate guns that were legally purchased.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 19, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    I'm still waiting for Obama to send his Socialist thugs door-to-door to confisgate all the weapons the Conservative promised us over and over again he would.

    FYI --
    The last President to "ban" weapons was Reagan.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Dec. 19, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    the Second Amendment grants the right of all citizens to carry weapons. Most twelve year old boys and many girls in Utah go through the Gun Safety course before they can hunt. This course is well taught and not only teaches gun safety but also gun responsibility. A well armed well trained society is a society I want my kids and grandkids to grow up in. To hide our heads in the sand and think a gun-less society is safe is sadly ignorant and non-fact based. Chicago and many other large cities who enforce a gun-less society have THE most violent crime rate in the nation.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 19, 2013 7:58 a.m.

    The fact that one of these Utah Rambo wannabes hasn't shot and killed innocent victims is actually the perfect testament as to how rarely a persons life is threatened by a criminal with a gun. Go figure the odds sometime of your gun harming you or your loved one accidently (or in a suicide) versus your chance of defending your loved ones life in a crime.

    Truthseeker stated the facts "knowing how to use a gun" is far and away not the same thing as being physically, emotionally, and psychologically competent to appropriately react to a life threating situation.

    More people are killed with guns in America than in car accidents, and it's not the police shooting criminals. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Dec. 19, 2013 7:06 a.m.

    I'm talking about all gun nuts, they get their ideas and thoughts from the same place and never stray from the shallow water.

    If every passenger had a gun it doesn't keep someone from blowing up the plane.

    And if you can't imagine a door that a shotgun can't get through, you have a poor imagination. So yes, get an alarm and strong door. Ask a gun nut prepper, they have their bunkers with strong doors all ready for the zombies.

    Dec. 18, 2013 8:53 p.m.

    I don't understand the vitriol directed at the NRA. There is no national organization better equipped or more inclined to provide training in firearms safety. Oh, wait, I see it now. If people were better trained, that would be one less talking point for those who wish to eliminate the Second Amendment.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 8:50 p.m.

    Switcheroo, are you talking about MM here?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 7:11 p.m.

    Some people have either no understanding of the Constitution or else they have utter contempt for it. We don't need any federal law to regulate firearms, in fact the government is not allowed to create a federal law without overthrowing the Constitution.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    The Court ruled that WE, THE PEOPLE have the individual right to keep and bear arms, whether or not we belong to a "militia".

    That is the law of the land. No one, conservative or liberal, has the right to overthrow that law without being held in contempt by all citizens. Our rights do not come from government; they come from God. No government on earth has the right to take away God-given rights.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 6:28 p.m.

    So exactly how are we safer with all the liberal progressive created defenseless zones?

    If things are so dangerous, How about mandatory gun education on school?

    We have sex education and condoms to "save lives", why not gun education and a first firearm.

    It's the liberal way!

    Or is really it about using fear toward total progressive control of the people.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 5:52 p.m.

    Re: "Get an alarm and strong door for goodness sake."

    You've obviously never seen what a 12-gauge slug will do to a door lock. Just so's you know, it's what we use in Afghanistan to open a locked door we need to get into -- including some way, way more substantial than what we have here.

    And alarms? Yeah, they might, under the right circumstances, provide help in minutes -- when you need it in seconds.

    You have, and apparently hold dear, the freedom to choose to be a victim. I'll never understand that, but you enjoy that right.

    But, I'll also never understand how liberals, or anyone, for that matter, can feel good about denying me the freedom to protect my family. It's certainly NOT "for goodness' sake."

    I don't love guns, any more than I love my table saw or drill press. But I appreciate that they are all important tools. Guns are absolutely necessary to my protection plan for myself and mine.

    And, yeah, I'm perfectly willing to answer for my actions and desires at the pearly gates.

    Hope you are, too.

  • Truthseeker2 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
    Dec. 18, 2013 5:44 p.m.

    UT is a major exporter of concealed gun permits. Recently it was reported that 62% of UT permits were granted to out-of-state applicants. UT makes it easy and cheap to get a concealed gun permit.

    Which is why we need federal laws.

    As long as people can cross the border to a neighboring state to purchase guns, the effectiveness of state-imposed gun laws are limited.

    UT has a higher rate of death from firearms than CA.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 18, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    According to many liberals, George Washington, and all of the founding fathers, were "gun nuts", "red necks", and anything else that they can think of to smear the reputations of those brave and valiant citizens. King George was a tyrant. He is not the only tyrant to have ever "reigned". Those founding fathers knew that God has given us rights to protect ourselves from tyrants, tyrants who would take away the agency that God has given us to choose for ourselves how we would live our lives. Some liberals would like us to believe that God gave them the right to force the rest of us to bow down to their will and to give away our agency so that they can pat themselves on the back and declare that they, not God, gave us our rights.

    It is the height of contempt for those liberals to dictate to this nation that they, and their current "King George", has the right to dictate "rights" to the people, when the fact is that the people retain all rights except for those 17 "rights" that they have delegated to the Federal Government. Gun control has not been delegated to the government.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    "Do you really think that if all passengers on a plane had guns, any hijacker would attempt it, really?"

    Huh? Seriously? Is this a serious question? I think we'd see a huge increase in terrorist violence on planes if they knew that everyone had a gun. Citizens would do all the terrorists' work for them! All it would take is a few stray bullets from a few gun tooting citizens to bring down a plane of 300 people.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Dec. 18, 2013 4:03 p.m.

    The problem with gun nuts is they are easily scared men both prone to violence and quick to be armed with lethal force.

    We're seeing a rise of "stand your ground" laws which are really shoot when ever you are scared laws and get away with it.

    If you worship guns, be ready to answer for it at the pearly gates. In the meantime I'll vote to limit the manufacture and sale of guns and promote less lethal forms of actual defense. Get an alarm and strong door for goodness sake.

    If someone actually gets into your home to threaten your family, you are already a miserable failure. Don't be proud of it, or tell us how well your gun worked.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 3:22 p.m.

    Re: "There is no reason at all to believe limiting magazine size would cause chaos."

    Sorry, but it certainly would create chaos if the criminals are the only ones with standard-sized magazines, the law-abiding citizenry being required to make-do with 5-rounders or less.

    You've apparently never been in combat or on a range's combat-course. A shooter's most vulnerable moment is while reloading. And if bad guys have to reload six times less often than good guys, the result will, indeed, be chaos.

    If you don't believe me, just ask General Custer and his troops at Greasy Grass [that's Lakota for "Little Bighorn"].

    Liberals hate to admit it, but it's inarguably true that the very weapons protected by the Second Amendment are military weapons. You won't see military armories reducing the size of their rifle magazines any time soon. With good reason.

    To avoid chaos.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 18, 2013 2:29 p.m.

    Old man. Do I know what a bullet would do inside a pressurized cabin at 35K feet? Yes, I do and we are not talking about howitzers here, only small caliber firearms with hollow point bullets. Even if the bullet hit the side of the cabin,(which if I were shooting it would hit the hijacker and take him out immediately) it would do very little damage and would not penetrate outside the cabin walls. Why do you think these nuts always target schools, theaters and other places where there is almost no chance of anyone else having a gun? Hint: Tts so no one can stop them! At least until cops show up several minutes later with GUNS! The reason they don't target police stations is because everyone there has a GUN! Wise up!

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    "Since criminals will always be armed"

    That's not true but it probably feels that way because we make it extremely easy to acquire guns in this country. Don't even need a background check for a private sale.

    "It's simply amazing that otherwise-intelligent liberals can advance and advocate ideas whose only result can be chaos and disaster for America and Americans."

    There is no reason at all to believe limiting magazine size would cause chaos. Limiting access to particular things can reduce their use for evil, that's why we don't see reports of people using machine guns to commit crimes in this country.

    "I love the Constitution, and I don't think it's obsolete or "fundamentally flawed""

    There are flaws in it, thankfully the egregious ones have been fixed over time (by repealing slavery, expanding voting rights, etc). I don't consider the 2nd Amendment flawed, I just consider it to be interpreted too broadly by many.

  • 2 bit Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 1:18 p.m.

    Sounds like we agree that the 2nd amendment was about national defense (not just hunting). So maybe I'm not as looney as you thought.

    I don't care about what TYPE or capacity the citizens have... the important thing is that everybody know that the people the RIGHT to be armed, and not even our own government can infringe on that right.

    I love the Constitution, and I don't think it's obsolete or "fundamentally flawed" (Ref Barack Obama).

    I think the Constitution is there for OUR protection. Not for the politician's protection.

    I don't care if we have laws pertaining to guns. Of course we need rules of what is acceptable and what is not. But our fundamental RIGHTS... should never be taken away. Even if some think we would be safer without Constitutional rights.

    I don't know about your draft thingy... never seen that in the Constitution. But IF/when an armed citizenry is needed to defend our country... I think the people who respect the 2nd Amendment are going to be the FIRST people to volunteer. So don't worry about making your rule into a law.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 1:08 p.m.

    Re: ". . . I do believe gun owners should be first in line if we have a draft."

    Oh, they would be, trust me. Many camped out all night to be the first in line.

    And, that's the very point liberals try to hide from America -- there could be no well-regulated militia if politicians erroneously began applying the "well-regulated" Second-Amendment language to people and guns, rather than militias.

    The National Guard is simply one well-regulated militia. It's not the only one, or the only legal one. State, city, and community militias have been the backbone of American continental defense since, well, the Continental Army.

    The movie "Red Dawn" fictionally portrays what could become a real event -- the need for well-regulated militias to defend America from her enemies. Foreign or domestic.

    It's unlikely to be the Cuban Army, but gangs? Yeah.

    And, since those enemies are unlikely to be armed with 1-shot muzzle loaders, the very weapons the Second Amendment absolutely and irrevocably protects are military weapons.

    Sorry liberals. Your arguments are morally wrong, demonstrably wrong-headed, and just plain wrong for America.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    Re: "Criminals will always be better armed than the public at large . . . ."

    Particularly when we have callow, uninformed, but curiously opinionated liberals pushing as hard as they can to unilaterally disarm that public at large.

    It never ceases to amaze that anti-Second-Amendment evangelists will freely admit the abject weakness of their position, and yet, in the same breath, increase the shrillness of their deranged bleating on behalf of "solutions" that will only make things worse.

    Since criminals will always be armed, perhaps even better armed than us, how could anyone genuinely believe that gun control -- which ONLY applies to further disarm law-abiding Americans -- can, in any way, make us safer from criminals?

    It's simply amazing that otherwise-intelligent liberals can advance and advocate ideas whose only result can be chaos and disaster for America and Americans.

    Makes you wonder whether they really like America, doesn't it?

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    Dec. 18, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    To "The Real Maverick" yes, the NRA is willing to pay for training teachers how to use firearms. After the shootings this last year, there were many NRA affiliated groups that were offering free classes to teachers on how to handle firearms or were giving them training to obtain conceal carry permits.

    To "Steve C. Warren" actually, you are wrong. The proliferation of guns has been shown to cut down on crime. While there is no correlation between number of guns per person and crime rates, there is a correlation between conceal carry permits and crime rates. In areas where there are more people with conceal carry permits, there is also a lower crime rate. See "Do concealed-weapon laws result in less crime?" in the Washington Post.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    National defense, hence the need for a "well regulated militia". However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that guns shouldn't be allowed for anything other than military and police (though I do believe gun owners should be first in line if we have a draft). But... there is no hunting purpose for large capacity magazines. There's no need for long-distance high-power sniper rifles. There's no reason to not have background checks on all gun purchases.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    What do YOU think the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was?

    Just curious.

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 11:30 a.m.


    All of your statistics are not going to sit well with some of the posters on this board. The facts don't fit well with their narrative therefore they won't pay attention to them.

  • JenicaJessen Riverton, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    I'm a little bemused by how many people posted without actually reading the letter. It didn't say "give up liberty for security". It didn't say "laws prevent criminals from killing people." And it definitely didn't say "ban all guns."

    What the letter said was that it's a mistake to promote more gun ownership without also promoting responsible usage and training.

    The biggest problem with the gun debate is the attempt to frame every argument, statement, and proposal as either "pro-gun" (GUNS EVERYWHERE!!!!) or "anti-gun" (BAN ALL GUNS!!!). Neither is feasible, neither will make society safer, and neither allows enough open dialogue to actually fix our society's problem with gun violence. Any comment that advances a moderate proposal (or rejects extreme positions like the NRA's) is immediately slammed and dismissed as stupid... and the shootings continue.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    The success-rate for an armed person may be between 38-40%... but what is the success-rate for an un-armed person? (Hint... 0%).

    You can quote statistics all day, but in the end you can't deny the fact that if everybody is unarmed in one of these active-shooter situations... there is absolutely nothing to stop the shooter (until they eventual stop themselves).

    You can say, "Just run"! But what if there is nowhere to run?

    You can say, "Just wait for the police"! But what do you do while you wait in a room of scared kindergarten children for the police to respond... and the shooter walks in?

    Disarming everybody that could possibly stop the shooter is NOT the answer.

    Disarming CRAZY people IS the answer.

    We need to become better at doing that. But the Government can 100% reliably do that. They don't know who's crazy! But his father knows, his mother knows, his brothers know. WE need to keep guns out of the hands of family members we know are unstable.

    We don't need the government to do away with 2nd Amendment rights because some people are scared.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    "I think I understand the reason for the 2nd Amendment (and it's not for sport). I think it's an important right guaranteed by the Constitution. Does that make me part of the loony gun lobby?"

    If you're not part of the gun lobby then it just means you buy what they're selling. Unless you believe the 2nd Amendment is so that people can arm themselves to overthrow the gov't if necessary, then the loon part would apply.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    MM -- "Do you really think that if all passengers on a plane had guns, any hijacker would attempt it, really?"

    Do you have any idea what a bullet does inside a pressurized aircraft at 35,000 feet? I didn't think so.

    Come on, man!

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    Can you define what you mean when you say "Gun Lobby"?

    Is it just the NRA? Or is it anybody who thinks we really have 2nd Amendment rights like me?

    I think I understand the reason for the 2nd Amendment (and it's not for sport). I think it's an important right guaranteed by the Constitution. Does that make me part of the loony gun lobby?

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    I have to respectfully disagree with the letter. I for one feel safer. You don't every know who is armed and neither do the criminals. BTW our level of violent crime here in Utah is way below other states so the correlation is not really accurate. What happened in Colorado was sad, however blaming the legal gun owners and lumping them in with that psycho is also not an apt comparison. Until something happens in the mental health area to ferret these people out and keep guns out of their hands.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    Two shootings in a week that made the news. But what is most disturbing is that both this and the school shooting in Colorado have generated virtually no attention and no outrage.

    Have shootings become so routine that they merit little attention unless they involve huge numbers of victims and then only when the victims are children?

    Have shootings become such a part of our nightly TV entertainment and our weekend movies that we as a nation have become inured to them? Are the imaginary and ever more graphic shootings we allow into our living rooms virtually every night of the week lulling us into some kind of lazy complacency?

    Instead of national outrage, we seem to now have a national yawn. "Ho hum, another shooting. What time is CSI on tonight?"


    And downright frightening.

    But exactly what the NRA is hoping will happen.

    How many more people must die? Or will it only become real to us when the dead are someone close to us -- like a family member. Is that what it will take?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:47 a.m.

    Statistically a gun in the home is more likely to end up resulting in a bullet to someone in the home (either via attack, suicide, or accident) than it is to injure/kill anyone else.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    How will those who propose "gun control" get firearms out of the hands of criminals? Chicago had a total ban on handguns for decades. A TOTAL BAN. Did that stop criminals from using handguns? According to Wiki in Chicago in 1975 "75% of murders involved a firearm . . . 85% of victims and 93% of offenders were male. 76% of victims were African American (77.4% of offenders were), 18.3% were Hispanic (17.3% of offenders), and 5.6% were white (5.3% of offenders). . . Over 75% of victims and 88% of offenders had a prior arrest history."

    Convicted felons cannot carry firearms, yet 88% of offenders had a prior arrest history. Making laws against using firearms does not work. Taking guns out of the hands of law-aiding citizens does not stop criminals from using guns.

    Obama does not believe in gun control; he surrounds himself with men and women carrying firearms. Harry Reid and John Boehner do not believe in gun control. They surround themselves with people carrying guns. The justices on the Supreme Court do not believe in gun control. They also surround themselves with armed guards. Yet, liberals tell us to do what they say, not what they do.

  • All American Herriman, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    @Mike in Cedar City: They were also not mentally stable, which is another volatile subject. So addressing the subject of "training" in the context of Dave's article and the commenters about police accuracy, it seems it's a moot point. Guns can kill in anyone's hands. The bottom line is: laws do not prevent shootings. So I'll keep mine close by my "trained" hand.

  • Mike in Cedar City Cedar City, Utah
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    I can't really argue with the need for better gun training, but let me point out. The shooters in the recent tragic incidents were pretty well trained in how to effectively use those weapons. And that was a factor in making them sucessful in mass killings it seems to me.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:09 a.m.

    @ Steve Warren. Do you really think that if all passengers on a plane had guns, any hijacker would attempt it, really? Come on, man!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 10:02 a.m.

    Yup. So we can have a bunch of Walter Mittys running around packing guns while fantasizing about being heroes.

    It's just a matter of time before there is a tragedy when one of these folks try to be the hero and only make things worse. Will they be charged with murder if they hit the wrong target and take out an innocent bystander instead of the bad guy.

    Will the police officer who mistakes little Walter for the bad guy and shoots him be crucified for his error?

    It's going to happen some day.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 9:44 a.m.

    Dave Jensen is absolutely right. The proliferation of guns makes us less safe, not more safe. The best words in the Second Amendment are "well regulated." Let's face it, some people would argue that the way to prevent hijacking of planes is to issue all passengers a gun.

  • EPJ Grantsville, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    To lump all Utah concealed carry permit holders into a group of people who have no clue how to use a gun is a bit extreme.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    Truthseeker just made a perfect case AGAINST gun control when she told us that the police hit their target less than 50% of the time. She convinced me that I should never just rely on the police to protect me or my family. Not only were the police too late to stop the shooting in Colorado, but according to her, had they been there, they most likely would have missed if they tried to shoot the criminal.

    "Gun control" is not open for debate. It is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Only those who think nothing of the Constitution would tell us that government has the "right" to control arms. The rest of us know that government has no right to infringe our right to keep and bear arms.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 18, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    "New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report.

    In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.

    In all shootings — including those against people, animals and in suicides and other situations — New York City officers achieved a 34 percent accuracy rate (182 out of 540), and a 43 percent accuracy rate when the target ranged from zero to six feet away. Nearly half the shots they fired last year were within that distance."

    In Los Angeles, where there are far fewer shots discharged, the police fired 67 times in 2006 and had 27 hits, a 40 percent hit rate, which, while better than New York’s, still shows that they miss targets more often they hit them."

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 18, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    Maverick. How do we pay for armed guards in schools? Easy! The same way the government hired thousands of Obamacare web site navigators!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 18, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    Criminals will always have weapons. ALWAYS! Where was the police protection when a criminal used a firearm in the Colorado school? Was it legal for a student to take a firearm into that school? Was it legal for a minor to discharge a firearm? Did the laws forbidding those actions keep the school and the people at the school safe? Why didn't the "government" keep that crime from happening? Why didn't the "police" do their job and keep a crime from happening?

    The anti-gun zealots would have us think that the world would be a perfect place if we would just listen to them; but, the most ridiculous argument that anti-gun zealots can make is that "laws" prevent criminals from committing crimes. Criminals don't obey laws. Those who must be forced to do the right thing will do whatever they want, whenever they want to whomever they want.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    This article makes it sound like proficiency with a gun is rocket science. It isn't.

    Also, anyone who bothers to get a carry permit, isn't likely to not know how to handle a gun. This is a non issue. The likely purpose of this proposal is to throw another obstical at gun ownership and gun use.

    Should one be educated in safe gun use? Absolutely. Guns make a person and a family safer, when the owner of the gun follows the rules of gun safety. Otherwise guns are a liability.

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 7:20 a.m.

    So grateful for the armed "good guys". The vast majority of them know exactly what they're doing...or they wouldn't be "carrying" in the first place.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    Dec. 18, 2013 7:09 a.m.

    Dave, you are wrong! When threatened by mentally ill people or criminals with guns, a gun in MY hand is much better than a cop on the phone! It is my right to defend me and mine when NO one else can or will! Cops carry guns to protect themselves from bad guys with guns, not you! And by the way, I really do know how to use my guns and I would much rather have a gun and not need it than if I really needed it but didn't have it. I choose NOT to be a victim. What you choose is up to you but you shall not make my choices for me! Merry Christmas!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 6:32 a.m.

    It's obvious that we've gotta do something other than kick the can down the road.

    The NRA says that we need to have armed guards and teachers at our schools. Great. Are they going to pay for that???

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Dec. 18, 2013 6:17 a.m.

    I don't know who said it, but I agree with the words. If you give up your liberty for security, You'll get neither. What is the risk to drive a car around a lot of other cars. I like my car. It's a deadly weapon, and every place I go, There is a lot of these deadly weapons. I not concern about the risk. I believe in people. I count on them and depend on them.