Parents of shooting victims provide unique perspective on events

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Tumbleweed Centerville, UT
    June 14, 2014 11:57 p.m.

    Utah has unequivocally allowed its teachers with concealed weapon permits to carry guns at school from kindergarten through college since 2001. Many carried long before then, but it was in 2001 that the HR rules were amended to let all state employees carry. We've not had one injury to a teacher or student during this whole time, nor have any state employees who have carried guns to work caused any injuries. Yet almost all of the school and workplace shootings in this country occur in "gun-free" zones. Hmmmmm.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 11, 2014 7:10 p.m.

    @ 2 bits

    "Who opposes more stringent background checks? Not me!"

    Republicans in the House and Senate. They're the ones bought off by the NRA and are afraid of being labeled as soft on the 2nd amendment.

  • OneWifeOnly San Diego, CA
    June 11, 2014 4:56 p.m.

    What has this nation come to if we have to send our children to school with a "Bullet Proof Blanket"?

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    June 11, 2014 3:23 p.m.

    2 bits - There are nuances from state to state but background checks are not typically required for many, many types of gun transactions (ie gun shows or private sales). The issue is not one of inputing stringent restrictions in place, rather it is one of uniformity in the application of a common-sense limitation. If you don't oppose reasonable background checks then you ought to support it at all levels of purchase, no matter how many iterations removed from the original sale.

    Further, gun registration must be required. There are folks who fear a federal "watch list" (which is incredibly ironic considering those same people typically support the NSA's actions) but, setting hypocrisy aside, try telling those people that the gun registration will be handled by an independent governmental arm with considerable oversight or non-profit third party and you'll see an otherwise rational discussion unravel quickly. Folks who believe their shotgun will be used to defend themselves against a tyrannical gov't (armed w/ Bradley tanks, drones, etc...) ought not be taken seriously; however, conservatives have decided these people actually belong at the head of the table. There is no rationalizing with an irrational person.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 11, 2014 2:21 p.m.


    Who opposes more stringent background checks? Not me!

    I think background checks are good... but we already have them. And they obviously aren't working.

    How much more "stringent" could we make them?

    My wife works in a sporting goods store, so she does BCS background checks every day. It's already a pretty stringent process. What more could they do? It doesn't work!

    I agree we should have them on all gun sales... but we have to acknowledge the FACT that the current background checks didn't stop ANY of these incidents!


    What more "stringentness" are you suggesting that you think would have stopped these incidents??

    The people involved in these incidents got the weapon legally (they passed the background check)... OR... they got it illegally, meaning they stole it or got it some other way... so enhancing our background checks (which they didn't go through because they stole or borrowed the gun from somebody) would do nothing in these instances.

    Which of these incidents would have been prevented by more stringent background checks??

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 11, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    Some how it always gets spinned that gun owners are the victims after events like these. The NRA and its minions refuse to do even simple things that have broad support. How do more stringent back ground checks limit a person's right to bear arms?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 11, 2014 1:41 p.m.

    Re: "But there is still some hope for change, according to Salon, especially that brought about by the community of parents directly affected by GUN violence"...

    This is where the agenda gets exposed. To the letter writer... it's about guns, and gun violence. I'm concerned about victims of ANY violence (not just gun violence).

    Do the parents feel any better if their son or daughter was killed by a guy with a knife (like the one a few weeks ago)? Do they only care if they were killed with a gun??

    If we are addressing ALL violence.. I'm with you. But if this is just another Huffington Post attack on guns and the assumption that anybody with a gun is a threat to society... not so much.

    There are responsible people out there. We don't take everybody's rights just because SOME people abuse their freedom to make their own decisions.

    The gun is not the problem. The decision the person made... is the problem.

    IMO... We need to find a way to get less people to make these decisions (whether they use a knife or a gun).

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    June 11, 2014 12:21 p.m.

    Re: "Imagine what we can accomplish if we check our agenda at the door and just sit down and talk . . . ."

    Unfortunately, liberals are never willing to check their agenda at the door. Of course, since their talk is always patronizing, insincere blather, anyway, it does little to no good to talk to them, even if you could get them to suppress their unsupported, unconstitutional agenda.

    It's sad that liberals never appreciate the irony and comedy inherent in the true-believer rants that result from their attempts to be serious.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    June 11, 2014 12:11 p.m.

    Canada, Australia, England all have far lower rates of murder and suicide because of sane gun laws. Canada just had its first murder of a police officer in 7 years.You can still get guns in those places, you just have to follow sane regulations.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    June 11, 2014 10:04 a.m.

    Richard Martinez has been making some good points through is emotion...but we're not ready to listen yet. I hate to think of what will have to happen before we are.