What needs to happen for America to unite behind a gun policy like New Zealand did?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • msmith9596 Lake Forest, CA
    March 25, 2019 8:02 p.m.

    Please study our history, including the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, including the fact that our rights guaranteed by the Constitution are unalienable. As a reminder, please note that PRIVILEGES bestowed by government (drivers licenses, etc.) are subject to being taken-away by the grantor government, whereas our God given RIGHTS are UNALIENABLE.

  • dogbreath Francis, UT
    March 25, 2019 12:39 p.m.

    No way I want the USA to be like New Zealand. Not interested. I'll not say if I have guns or not but it is none of your business. Mine alone.

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2019 12:03 p.m.

    An unarmed person is a slave. I will not be. They can have my gun when they peel my fingers off it.

  • tonyloaf New York, NY
    March 25, 2019 11:54 a.m.

    "In order for the U.S. to reach a consensus on gun policy, Americans will need to let go of the 'conviction that guns have something to do with freedom.'" I for one, am not going to let go of that conviction since guns do have to do with freedom. The truth is that without the private ownership of guns in 1776 we probably wouldn't exist as a free nation. The founders recognized this fact and as well as the fact that continuation of private gun ownership was essential to the preservation of that freedom. Our nation is founded on the radical idea that government derives its power from the People, not the other way around. If the People do not have the ultimate physical means of keeping that government in check and preserving their freedom, even by force if necessary, then the notion of the People being the ultimate source of government power is meaningless rhetoric. Abuse of power by government is more to be feared than abuse of power by private citizens. History has shown that the greatest perpetrators of gun violence against private citizens are governments against their own unarmed people.

  • haile1 Mendon, UT
    March 25, 2019 10:46 a.m.

    I like every other sane individual is sickened by the Mass shootings that have happened, and all of them by unstable individuals with some sort of Mental issues going on. I fail to understand though how anyone thinks that taking my guns away from me will make them safer. I had a break in to my home thirty five years ago while I was working swing shift a fellow broke in on my wife with a gun, my son 5 at the time woke up and entered the room he was at, for some reason that rattled him some what and he exited the house, my wife in that moment got the doors barracaded shut and got my Rifle, he had cut the phone lines so no call could be made. A few minutes later he tried to return and get back in. My wife yelled through the door for him to leave or she would shoot, he left. I have often wondered what I might have found if she didn't have that Rifle when I got home that evening. You bet I have conceal carry and semi automatic rifles with large magazines and I know how they should be used and how to use them properly and that is for the protection of my home and family, and no Politician has the right to take that protection away from me.

  • ConradGurch Salt Lake City, Utah
    March 25, 2019 9:32 a.m.

    @Brave Sir Robin - San Diego, CA

    Its a people problem not a gun problem.

  • Thomas Thompson Salt Lake City, UT
    March 25, 2019 9:30 a.m.

    I assume the headline here means to ask merely a rhetorical question, as the answer is clear: we need to re-think the Second Amendment and craft some carefully written exceptions into the "right" to keep and bear arms.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 25, 2019 8:06 a.m.

    Oh and one more thing.

    The Vegas shooter, no one saw him coming and there was no indication that he had flipped his lid.

    What would people be saying if he had perhaps, parked a U-Haul full of Diesel and Ammonium Nitrate by the venue, or thrown a few pipe bombs into the crowd? People would have been just as hurt and just as dead in that scenario.

    As I said before, it is the people that are the problem.

    I have a few firearms. I lock them up in my very expensive Liberty gun safe. Same with the ammo. Two people have the combination. Me and my wife. Even my adult kids don't have it.
    Safety first.

    The problem with this whole argument is that people have Agency. Agency to do as they will. Sometimes using that Agency in a negative manner causes hurt, pain and sometimes death. It happens in all walks of life. I remember specifically three airplanes on that really bad day in September where some evil men exercised that agency to kill and destroy.

    It is the fault of the people.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    March 25, 2019 7:36 a.m.

    To "Brave Sir Robin" actually, guns do have more than one purpose. Guns are designed for shooting paper targets, some clay pigeons, and other non-living targets. Some are designed to just make a really loud noise and not actually fire a projectile.

    To "casual observer " that was done in the 1980s. It is next to impossible for civilians to purchase legal military equivalent weapons.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    March 25, 2019 7:13 a.m.

    Nothing in this article, other than background checks, say nothing about the perpetrators of these heinous crimes.

    The guns are not the problem, the people that misuse them are the problem.

    Sandy Hook was not caused by a gun or guns. It was caused by a crazy, deranged, totally off his rocker individual that broke into a locked closet, took his mom's guns, killed his mom and then went and perpetrated this crime.

    We shouldn't be talking about a Bushmaster AR-15, we should be talking about Adam Lanza and how to prevent someone like him from doing it again.

  • Seldom Seen Smith Orcutt, CA
    March 24, 2019 10:23 p.m.

    The United States of America is not Nigeria, not China, and not New Zealand.

  • Ranmakr SIGURD, UT
    March 23, 2019 9:09 p.m.

    Is it human life that we are concerned about? I'm sorry for the lose of life from these crazy people in these mass killings. But, why are we so enraged over this lose of life when there are SO many things that are much more horrific. In this ole US of A alcohol kills 90,000 annually, tobacco kills almost half a million, and abortion takes the chance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from more than 600,000 innocent infants each and every year.

    Where is the outrage?

  • The MB san jose, CA
    March 23, 2019 10:04 a.m.

    I enjoy sewing and quilting. I'm a grandma, mom, and teacher. I like to go mountain biking and ride a motorcycle. I also enjoy shooting various guns. Why do so many people equate gun ownership with having a "fetish" or obsession?

    Because of the expense, I mostly shoot/practice with my .22 handgun and .22 rifle. My favorite gun to shoot is the AR 15. We shoot an AR pistol (don't like it as much) and rifle (easier to handle). We practice positive gun etiquette, and all safety laws. I have a conceal/carry permit. I cannot, and do not, use it while in CA, where I live part time. I use it only when legal. I hope to heaven that I never have to use it on a person, but would if myself or family were threatened.

    I do not have statistics to boast upstanding gun owners against sloppy or illegal gun owners. I don't have the answers, but taking away guns from all would be like putting a bandaid on a melanoma. The problem is much deeper.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 23, 2019 9:37 a.m.

    It's clearly not going to happen, although it can and should. Banning certain classes of weapons would not in any way infringe on your right to keep and bear arms, or mine.
    It works, by the way, despite claims here to the contrary. It works all over the world.
    And our rights? They're not 'god given'. They were crafted by east coast liberal elites. The second amendment is just that, an amendment. It can be fixed if necessary.
    But, that's all moot. The NRA controls this issue, not the government or the people.

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 23, 2019 8:57 a.m.

    If the objective is to stop terrorist attacks, why are we not talking about banning diesel fuel and fertilizer? They are readily available with no background check or waiting period or purchase limits. And they were used in our worst domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma City where 168 people were killed.

    It's not the guns, or the diesel and fertilizer, it is the criminals and crazy people who desire to kill other people.

    Instead of praising New Zealan's banning guns in a matter of days, we would be much better off if we could simply try, convict and execute terrorists in a matter of days. Oh, wait, there are constitutional protections which don't let us do that.

    Thank God for our Constitution, and the wisdom of the founders.

  • casual observer Salt Lake City, UT
    March 23, 2019 7:47 a.m.

    Restricting military function weapons to law enforcement and the military would be a step in the right direction. They are not needed for recreational shooting or hunting where magazine size is already restricted. More than 2 shots are seldom fired in home or personal defense cases. What we haven't learned from Sandy Hook, Las Vegas and many other mass murders, we should learn from New Zealand.

  • BYU Alum Cedar Hills, UT
    March 23, 2019 7:22 a.m.

    The first thing that Hitler and the Nazi regime did to consolidate and keep their power was to confiscate under penalty of death, all firearms from the German people. Most Germans, over 90%, were not members of the Nazi party. We can learn from history.

  • Gamerchanger Herriman, UT
    March 23, 2019 12:53 a.m.

    Nope not ever.

  • Scott G. NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    March 23, 2019 12:32 a.m.

    I would really like to know how some of these commenters know that owning a gun is a God-given right. How do you know that? Did God tell you personally? Is it in scripture somewhere? You may think that it is ,but it's not. It is a right in the United States but has nothing to do with God.

  • Captain Green Heber City, UT
    March 22, 2019 11:09 p.m.

    In the USA, we have a God-given, fundamental, natural, unalienable, constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. It is so sacrosanct that the protection of this right was placed directly next to the First Amendment, of free speech. You can't have one without the other. In the last century, 200 million people were first disarmed and then executed by their own governments. Our greatest danger is a government turning tyrannical. And with the shouts from the Left wanting to move in the direction of totalitarian socialism, now more than ever, we need to protect our right to arms. We must NEVER give up our guns... not under any circumstances!

  • shadowfx Mesa, AZ
    March 22, 2019 10:40 p.m.

    Right now, There is NOT chance in Hades. Democrats want you to believe Gun Laws work. They haven't worked, only aided criminals that can careless.

    I highly doubt 2/3 of each Chamber can get together for a Constitutional Amendment to be sent to the States and/or a President to sign it. It is extremely unlikely 2/3 of the states will ratify the Amendment.

    If, by chance, the Federal Government attempted any mass gun confiscation, hope they really think about it really hard, though probably not.

    There are probably over 150,000,000 legal gun owners. They have over 1,000,000,000 guns. They have over 12,000,000,000 rounds of ammo. These are estimates, I reckon they are a lot higher.

    Who will confiscate?
    Military? Probably NOT. Their OATH - I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic

    States? The Military may step in and and make sure it doesn't happen.

    No matter what - History will REPEAT itself - last time Gun Confiscation started it ended in the Revolutionary War. What will the the next time?
    "God Help Us"

  • Tumbleweed Centerville, UT
    March 22, 2019 10:35 p.m.

    It is extremely disturbing that NZ's left-leaning Prime Minister could unilaterally dictate disarming her fellow countrymen of effective firearms without debate. That could never happen in the US as long as the 2nd Amendment and supporting Supreme Court precedent exist. The latest FBI statistics (2017) show murders by all rifles was only 403, far fewer than edged weapons (1,591) and even hands and feet (696). Civilian ownership of semi-auto rifles is a vital component of our National Defense. Federal Law instructs the US Army to sell surplus semi-auto rifles more powerful than AR-15's to civilians through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It would be treasonous for any US leader to unilaterally attempt to dispense with this vital guarantee against domestic tyranny, foreign invasion and violent crime like the NZ Prime Minister just did. An ISIS spokesman just called upon sleeper cells in NZ to take revenge. Ms. Ardern's foolish dictatorial edict will leave her countrymen defenseless. France bans "assault rifles." 130 French citizens were machine-gunned to death at one "gun-free" rock concert in 2015.

  • Holy-Schamoly-What Baloney Kaysville, UT
    March 22, 2019 9:19 p.m.

    Are you kidding? We can't even agree to eliminate "bump stocks". And there are those that think guns aren't designed to kill and I guess didn't have one thing to do with the mass killings in Las Vegas.

    Oh well, keep that testosterone flowing and just hope the violence doesn't affect your family because it does affect many innocent families.

  • Bob Tanner Price, UT
    March 22, 2019 8:27 p.m.

    As Americans, we are known as the "people of the guns." America will never take a gun away from anyone, citizen or not. We have plenty of non citizens living in America that have guns...as many as they want or can afford. In my opinion all this article did was provoke another series of worn out commentary on who should or who should not own guns and should we legislate or not legislate more controlling laws. The comments, mine included, solve absolutely nothing and never will. We will carry on with gun in hand.

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    March 22, 2019 8:21 p.m.

    I am thankful we are not NZ. I am thankful we have the 2nd Amendment. I am incredibly sad for the victims of violence in any form, but gun laws will not eliminate violence. Another poster has already said that black market guns flourish in countries where gun ownership is restricted, and I think it would be even more so here. We are a nation of inventive citizens, and underground gun makers would have a heyday.

    Why would we even want to follow the example of NZ, which bears no resemblance to our nation?

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    March 22, 2019 8:16 p.m.

    Screenname:
    "Putting aside the fact that you'd have mass defections among the armed forces if it came to that, largely neglecting the training and leadership disparity, smaller, less well equipped forces win all the time. Besides, it'd be a battle of attrition, with one side fighting for what they saw as their freedom."

    Thank you...you've proven my point that the first question I asked (US military aligned against US citizens) is far-fetched. I also realize it wouldn't be one side against another across a field. Technology with the military wouldn't even let it get to that point. Surgical strikes would be the strategy, and ARs would do little against it.

    Also, the examples you gave were against governments that did not have the technological sophistication of the US armed forces, so bad examples. We aren't the most powerful military in the world because of numbers or even combat superiority...it is because of superior technology (that's why China is constantly trying to steal it).

  • Thomas Paine South Jordan, UT
    March 22, 2019 7:53 p.m.

    Let’s not confuse the false sense of security with real security.

  • The Great Helmsman Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 7:25 p.m.

    Nope, we will never get behind a ban like this because Americans have a fetish for guns.

  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    March 22, 2019 7:06 p.m.

    Never

    It is the 2nd amendment

    Think about it... the first amendment... nobody would hesitate to call this one the most important freedom we ever won for humanity

    The second amendment protects the individual and his and her god given rights in a very practical way

    It was obvious to the founders of the country... nobody was going to take away our rights and all free men would have the utmost ability to do so... if they chose to

    Pretty smart weren’t they

  • jparry Provo, UT
    March 22, 2019 6:56 p.m.

    Thanks for this article. It does a nice job of showing that New Zealand, like Australia did before, is acting very reasonably in doing their job of protecting its citizens. Protecting citizens, especially our most vulnerable citizens, is what government is elected to do, and a big part of that includes regulating access to and use of dangerous substances and technologies, whether its cars, opioid painkillers, flame-throwers, poisons, or guns.

    I want a government that acts reasonably in fulfilling its duties. I want a government that asks what can we do that we're not doing now to reduce the alarming frequency of mass murder. New Zealand is setting a good example for us.

  • dski Herriman, UT
    March 22, 2019 6:55 p.m.

    What needs to happen? Constitutional amendment to take away our freedom to bear arms. That’s highly unlikely to ever happened. New Zealand is about the size of California and have fewer people than the State of Washington. Changing their gun laws is simpler just like California changes it environmental laws. In the height of the emotions generated by this tragic incident, this approach appears to make people feel good about themselves. But truthfully, this law does not guarantee safety. Criminals will always have the banned weapons to use during their criminal activities. The funny thing is, those who try to legislate strict gun ownership have an entourage of people with guns to protect them 24/7.

  • Puukko Orem , 00
    March 22, 2019 6:47 p.m.

    We will never throw away our freedoms like New Zealand did. We are the United States of America. Thank god for fellow Republicans and the NRA.

  • windsor Logan, UT
    March 22, 2019 6:32 p.m.

    FT said: "Given we have already had the mass slaughter of children, church attendees, concert goes and thousands more I find it likely America will ever take the steps to ban many weapons and groups of individual from having guns."

    We already have many laws to forbid the killing of people such as you described--yet they did it anyway.

    Ban guns and these types will ignore that too.
    And still get them and still kill with them.

    Or get a truck load of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane, and diesel fuel and make a bomb like the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

    There is no way to totally protect against people bent on committing these insanities.

  • JohnInSLC Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 22, 2019 6:16 p.m.

    “When a car kills someone, it wasn't functioning as intended. When a gun kills someone it was functioning as intended.
    I'm not sure which makes me sadder: That people still use this tired old argument, or that they can't understand the simple logical fallacies in it.”

    Sorry, BSR, but your argument has some logical holes.

    First, you pretend to assume all firearm use is malicious and deadly. It most certainly is not. Prof. Lott, quoted in the article, has found that privately owned firearms are used millions of times each year in the U.S. to PREVENT a crime. Those are beneficial uses.

    Second, what if we compare guns and alcohol. You know which one is responsible for more deaths in this country each year, don’t you? It isn’t guns. So, where’s your outrage?

    Americans are not willing to give up individual constitutional rights, rights by which law-abiding citizens can protect themselves, just so we can slide into nanny-statehood like the Kiwi’s and the Aussies, like the Canadians and Brits, and like every communist country and third-world dictatorship. THAT would make me sad.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    March 22, 2019 5:37 p.m.

    There are a lot of believe it or not stuff. All I can do is keep looking for the truth. If you have liberty your not oppressed.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    March 22, 2019 5:13 p.m.

    @worf

    "There are people killed in car accidents.

    Shouldn't we ban automobiles?"

    I can't express how tired I am of this worn out, strawman argument.

    Automobiles have a purpose besides killing. You can't say the same thing about guns.

    When a car kills someone, it's a byproduct of it doing its job. When a gun kills someone, it did its job.

    When a car kills someone, it wasn't functioning as intended. When a gun kills someone it was functioning as intended.

    I'm not sure which makes me sadder: That people still use this tired old argument, or that they can't understand the simple logical fallacies in it.

  • worf McAllen, TX
    March 22, 2019 5:02 p.m.

    There are people killed in car accidents.

    Shouldn't we ban automobiles?

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 4:56 p.m.

    The shooter in NZ could take comfort in knowing that hardly any NZers have guns. The shooter was Aussie, not Kiwi.

  • screenname Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 4:50 p.m.

    Cougsndawgs,

    To your second point, ask the American revolutionaries, the Viet Cong, the Arabs vs the Soviets, or any other successful guerrilla operation. It wouldn't be a bunch of civilians with AR rifles lining up on one side of a field with the full might of the military on the other.

    Putting aside the fact that you'd have mass defections among the armed forces if it came to that, largely neglecting the training and leadership disparity, smaller, less well equipped forces win all the time. Besides, it'd be a battle of attrition, with one side fighting for what they saw as their freedom.

  • DMRogers Orem, UT
    March 22, 2019 4:34 p.m.

    The three pillars of gun control are totalitarian in their assumptions. Either the right to self defense (and the proper tools to allow defense at least equal to a possible adversary) as outlined in the Constitution is a "natural" or "God given" right or it is not. As soon as any State is allowed to define this as a "privilege", the state assumes the power to remove any aspect of defending oneself it finds out of line with current thought, and any benefit from the right is revocable.

    Most countries that surrender this right eventually regret it. According to the University of Hawaii democide project, all 20th century state sponsored genocides, accounting for over 120 million dead, were preceded by gun confiscation. No American, or any other person, should be asked to surrender this right. It has a price, but liberty never was free.

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    March 22, 2019 4:32 p.m.

    Virtually none of the articles on New Zealand implementing gun control detail the method used for that implementation. This article barely skirts it, showing that the article is an outright advocacy piece designed to advance an agenda and not to educate the readers.

    How exactly did New Zealand implement their gun control? Their chief executive just declared it law. At least this article says that the issue will eventually go before parliament, and that there will be some intense debate.

    So let me ask you: How many gun control advocates would like to put that power in the hands of Donald Trump? There was absolute hysteria when he announced unilaterally that he was going to build a wall. Will we let him simply declare that something is illegal? Can he, on his word alone, outlaw abortions? New Zealand's Prime Minister apparently can. Should Trump be able to declare the press a national nuisance on his word alone? Apparently the Prime Minister can.

    People wake up! We have not wanted, from the founding of this nation, to have an executive with that much power. This is not talking gun control alone, but the entire Bill of Rights. Wake up! Wake up!

  • Angelsings Glendale, AZ
    March 22, 2019 4:31 p.m.

    Even though America has United in the name of our country, it's doubtful we could ever be UNITED re some issues; firearms being at/near the top of the list. We're territorial, even, divisive re state, county & city legislation. To me, National laws that unify & strengthen America make more sense. You know the platitude, "All for one & one for all".

  • MGoodwin Murray/USA, UT
    March 22, 2019 4:16 p.m.

    Respectfully, we're not talking about unity here, unity does not allow for utterly diametrically opposed viewpoints, at best we're discussing compromises that will leave both sides unfulfilled, at worst we're discussing who is going to gain enough control to impose their will in those who disagree.

    I'm not parsing words like some lawyer here, you really need to think about what the actual results of changing established laws are. If you make licensing mandatory for all owners and firearms, everyone who does not comply is now a criminal, conservatively lets say 75% do, that only leaves around several million new criminals to be dealt with, criminals whose primary defining trait is being armed. What can possibly go wrong with that equation?

    I can't unify with someone when I fundamentally disagree with the entire premise of their answer. The pillars are flawed on their entire basis, thinking that such measures will prevent violence. How would you even know to look for a weapon until it has been used? You can't search for something until it has been used, unless you automatically assume the weapons and their owners will engage in violence.

  • Manti Manti Manti, UT
    March 22, 2019 4:03 p.m.

    Let's hope not.

  • Red Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 4:01 p.m.

    No we Should not follow them.

    The crooks and villains don't obey laws. What are you guys missing about that?

  • Copybook Headings Draper, UT
    March 22, 2019 4:00 p.m.

    No! Because they don't have Democrats over there. They'll start here with 'military-style semi-automatic guns and assault rifles' and within ten years the only people in America with guns will be criminals; who Democrats will go nuts keeping out of jail because they want their votes. No thanks!!!

  • Book 'em Dano Artesia, NM
    March 22, 2019 3:52 p.m.

    So, I am trying to follow the logic of making these changes to our gun laws in the US...how many law-abiding citizens have killed someone or have a gun illegally? How will I or my children be safer by enacting these laws? So, because there is a law against drinking and driving, I am supposed to feel safer that no one will drive drunk?

  • Bifftacular Spanish Fork, Ut
    March 22, 2019 3:49 p.m.

    I have over a dozen guns in my home and have had guns my entire life and yet my guns have never shot anyone. Why? I'll bet, per capita, there are several guns per resident within 20 miles of my home and yet kids play in the street day and night and old ladies are out gardening without a care in the world. How is that possible? Shouldn't there be death and gun shot mayhem everywhere?

  • one old man MSC, UT
    March 22, 2019 3:33 p.m.

    "We united behind the second amendment and signed it into law. What more do you need to know?"

    Who is this WE you speak of?

    None of us were here 250 years ago and a LOT has changed in that time.

    And don't forget that 250 years ago WE also included something about "a well-regulated militia."

    Unfortunately, WE have forgotten all about that little detail.

    I'm afraid the only way we the people today will have any chance of change will be when finally harm comes to some family members of wealthy prominent citizens or powerful politicians.

    There IS middle ground out there, but so far WE refuse to even look in that direction.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    March 22, 2019 3:30 p.m.

    Cougsandawgs your comment at 3:11 was excellent. Unfortunately, it is probably much too sensible and sane for any of the gun-totein' NRA folks to consider for even a moment.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    March 22, 2019 3:27 p.m.

    @ridal

    "It is a little disturbing to see a society abandon its rights so quickly and easily in a knee-jerk reaction to *one* incident carried out by a disturbed lunatic."

    Oh if only it were just one...

    There's a shooting by a "disturbed lunatic" every week in this country.

  • THEREALND Mishawaka, IN
    March 22, 2019 3:23 p.m.

    If it's left up to the gun crowd, we'll be traveling to Mars and taking our guns with us.

  • RJohnson Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 3:22 p.m.

    It became abundantly clear with Sandyhook and every mass shooting since that if an occasional slaughter is the price to pay to ensure our gun-toting rights remain sacrosanct then, so be it.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    March 22, 2019 3:11 p.m.

    Reactionary legislation usually isn't in anyone's best interest. That said, I'm conservative, a gun owner, and avid believer in the 2nd amendment.

    But to the avid NRA gunslingers and tinfoil hat-wearers I have just a couple of questions.

    1) There are certainly scenarios where the US military may turn their guns on US citizens, but how likely do you think those scenarios are? Again, realistically, not your garden variety conspiracy theory about tyrannical socialists.

    2) If the scenario above actually came to fruition (not likely, but for the sake of argument), how well do you think citizens toting personal assault weapons would do against a "well-regulated", trained, and disciplined army...to say nothing of the technological superiority of US forces?

    It's time for sanity to rule the day. It's time for our children to be more safe, and if far-fetched conspiracy theories about tyrannical governments are your only reason for clinging to ARs it's time to be honest with yourself, and ourselves as a society about whether these outlandish scenarios are more realistic than making even a small difference in the safety of our kids.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 3:06 p.m.

    "What needs to happen for America to unite behind a gun policy like New Zealand did?"

    Ballot initiatives. There are gun policies supported by up to 90% of the public that keep getting blocked (particularly background checks on all gun purchases).

  • ute alumni Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 3:02 p.m.

    Let me teach Robyn and others that haven’t studied world history. Everytime the government takes guns from citizens it ultimately leads to government control of EVERYTHING. Japan, Germany, Soviet Union. I prefer to have the ability to protect myself and loved ones. If you want to be at the Mercer of the government turn them in.

  • Forty Six & 2 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 2:55 p.m.

    So if that gunman used bombs made out of five gallon gas cans, instead of guns, should they ban fuel? Why do people think if you "ban" something like guns, all will be well in the world?
    Should we ban automobiles as well? Terrorists have used those to run people down. Evil people will ALWAYS exist, and find any means necessary to carry out their acts. It's the unfortunate world we live in. Try taking the guns away from the citizens of the United States, and say hello to Civil War II.

  • ute alumni Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 2:51 p.m.

    No way

  • Weston Jurney West Jordan, UT
    March 22, 2019 2:31 p.m.

    When I was young, cars were "unsafe at any speed," in the words of Ralph Nader. They didn't even have seat belts! Highways were dangerous too. The number of Americans killed in traffic accidents was upwards of 50,000 a year.

    When I was young, if you owned a gun, it was probably a .30-06 deer rifle, or a 12 ga. pump shotgun, or some such thing. If you had a handgun, it might have been revolver. Gun deaths were so low, they didn't even compare to traffic deaths.

    Today, cars and highways are far safer. With far more people on the roads, annual traffic deaths are down under 30,000.

    But now if you own a gun, it may well be an assault "style" rifle (yes gun nuts, I know about the distinction). Handguns are mostly semi-automatic too.

    And now, you are more likely to be killed by a bullet than a car.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    March 22, 2019 2:30 p.m.

    To "Brave Sir Robin" yes, it is so horrible, those older people who know the constitution and want to enjoy the freedoms that it guarantees. If only they didn't know the Constitution, then we could get rid of the guns...

    To "tothemoon" that is still better than imposing gun laws that only make it harder to buy guns legally and don't actually stop criminals from getting guns. It is also better than disarming people so that your ilk can feel "safe". Getting rid of guns doesn't work. Ironically what does work is gun ownership and teaching kids gun safety. See "REMEMBER THE 2007 HARVARD STUDY SHOWING MORE GUNS LED TO LESS CRIME?" in the Daily Caller. They reference a Harvard Study showing more guns is better for society. See also "Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet" in Forbes. Again more guns, less crime. See also "Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America" at Heritage.

  • banliberals Bountiful, UT
    March 22, 2019 2:25 p.m.

    Could the United States ever unite behind a gun ban like New Zealand just did?

    Uhhh...that would be a NO WAY!

    With libs like Obama and Bernie, we need guns to stave off a probable revolt!

  • DudeDude Chicago, IL
    March 22, 2019 2:18 p.m.

    Couple of things wrong in the article first paragraph, 'assault rifles' have a specific definition and they are already heavily regulated in the US. I personally don't know of anyone who owns one and have never seen one outside of the military. Second, 'military-style semi-automatic guns' is ambiguous. I am not sure if they are talking about something that looks like something the military uses or any semi-automatic weapon. In either case, nothing makes them any more lethal than any other gun.

    The bottom line is the US is different than New Zealand because of the 2nd amendment. Has nothing to do with the squishy, hand wringing in the article. Too many talking points and not enough in-depth journalism.

  • NEAD SLC, UT
    March 22, 2019 2:10 p.m.

    Love the argument that your small arsenals of AR-15s are what keeps you safe from the government and what preserves your individual rights. It'd be rock solid if the Civil War never happened and destroyed it via counterexample.

    Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to have guns. There's no reason why those law-fearing gun owners shouldn't be happy to register their weapons and be licensed to own them, including accepting responsibility for any damage caused by their guns via their own actions and/or negligence.

    We should probably explore banning semi-autos with a muzzle velocity (or some other quantifiable measure of destructiveness) above a certain threshold. You want a gun that fires big-caliber, high velocity ammo? Fine, work the bolt like a real man.

  • Nichol Draper West Jordan, UT
    March 22, 2019 2:01 p.m.

    With all the claimed gun violence here you would expect that people would be leaving the USA in droves. Mexico which has all the gun restrictions you want us to have should be seeing people move there. But the reverse is true. Too bad you have to manipulate the truth for your story. You started out listing mas shootings, then you switched to all gun deaths. See if you leave out suicides and accidental shootings, you have only 40% of your gun deaths. Read headlines in England, you will see how many people were stabbed to death yesterday. You will read about people being afraid of roving gangs. Here you read about people shooting people who break into their homes. The world is a violent place. Good thing I can protect myself when someone kicks in my door. And that is why people move here and don't move back to other countries.

  • xert Santa Monica, CA
    March 22, 2019 1:47 p.m.

    No--we are a less that courageous nation and we are under the delusion that we would be able to protect ourselves with our cache of guns if the government ever tried to enslave us. Meanwhile we willingly admit that we aren't able to protect our own children and that our freedom to perpetuate the first notion is more important than children's freedom from fear. In short--I look at this in much the same way as the rest of the civilized world does--meaning--US + guns=fear and insanity.

  • lars44 draper, UT
    March 22, 2019 1:29 p.m.

    According to the Uniform Crime Report, 692 persons were killed with “personal weapons” like “fists, feet.”
    138 TOTAL active shooter deaths in 2017, with 10 - 15,000,000 military style semi automatics in circulation. Obviously a single death is tragic, but with 320+ million people out there, I would say that the total taken by sociopaths / psychopaths is remarkably low.

  • jks123 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 1:27 p.m.

    Already did in 1994.

  • Really!? Logan, UT
    March 22, 2019 1:10 p.m.

    Short answer: No. Long answer: Heck No!

  • IJ Hyrum, Ut
    March 22, 2019 1:09 p.m.

    1. Why is it that people don't remember that we won our freedom from England with guns?
    2. Why is it that people can't remember Hitler?
    3. Why is it that people get all up in arms when someone kills a few with a gun but not many more with cars, hammers, bats, airplanes, etc.?

    How hard will it be form a few radicals to take over and subject New Zealand's citizens with no means to fight back? Ask Mr. Hitler.

    Having guns is all about freedom. The 2nd Amendment IS the only one protecting all of the others.

    Treat the disease and the symptom will go away.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    March 22, 2019 1:04 p.m.

    Given we have already had the mass slaughter of children, church attendees, concert goes and thousands more I find it likely America will ever take the steps to ban many weapons and groups of individual from having guns.

  • tothemoon Centerville, UT
    March 22, 2019 1:04 p.m.

    If gunning down 40 children at Sandy Hook couldn't make us come together to pass laws, nothing will....ever. It will be 'thoughts and prayers'. And the right (I'm mostly conservative myself) believing that if we limit guns we will somehow turn into a 3rd world dictatorship. And yes, if the only thing preventing us from being Venezuela as one commentator said, is owning massive amounts of guns, we will become Venezuela sooner or later anyways.

  • gianna Tooele, UT
    March 22, 2019 12:59 p.m.

    I do not agree with your article! This is naÏve on your part to think that by banning guns will resolve all problems. Whoever has an intention to hurt someone else, will do it with or without guns.

  • Arkpears Bella Vista, AR
    March 22, 2019 12:57 p.m.

    Why are leftists so consumed with denying rights to mankind? Why do they trust big government? History shows taking guns away is prelude to the destruction of liberty and often leafs to the death of millions by the state.

  • Marxi$t Plymouth, NC
    March 22, 2019 12:42 p.m.

    The Holomodor and Cultural Revolution are compelling historical examples of what happens when you let those on the left take away your gun.

  • eigerjoe Sandy, UT
    March 22, 2019 12:41 p.m.

    Here we go again. Could the United States ever unite behind a gun ban like New Zealand just did? The answer is no!

    The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people in this country to keep and bear Arms, including semi-automatic rifles and it has everything to do with freedom.

    Other countries are free to do what they want but, realistically, it is a waste of time to think the Second Amendment will be repealed. Not going to happen.

  • RiDal Sandy, UT
    March 22, 2019 12:39 p.m.

    It is a little disturbing to see a society abandon its rights so quickly and easily in a knee-jerk reaction to *one* incident carried out by a disturbed lunatic.

    This explains why liberty is constantly eroding and never expanding. The rights of law abiding people are continually eroded based on trying to control the actions of an infinitesimally small fraction of criminals.
    But since there is always something that a disturbed individual can do to create mayhem, more and more rights disappear. Last week Britain jailed a woman for "misgendering someone".

  • Reasonable Mormon Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 12:36 p.m.

    In the immortal words of Miracle Max and his wife in The Princess Bride:

    Think it'll work?

    It'll take a miracle.

    But that's exactly what I'm praying for.

  • RebelScum Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 12:23 p.m.

    "In order for the U.S. to reach a consensus on gun policy, Americans will need to let go of the "conviction that guns have something to do with freedom..."

    I can't decide if that statement is incredibly naive, or just obtuse. Guns have always been used to gain or preserve the freedom of the United States of America.

    And with the second amendment in place. It will always be that way.

  • 100MillionDead RU, 00
    March 22, 2019 12:20 p.m.

    I would rather unite with reason, logic, and historical fact than with a leftist trying to steal freedoms away from her nation.

  • Trad Life Gettysburg, PA
    March 22, 2019 12:15 p.m.

    @Elizabeth Bennet - Pemberly, UK, 00
    March 22, 2019 11:57 a.m.
    "We united behind the second amendment and signed it into law. What more do you need to know?"

    Well said. When we formed the nation, we decided on the principle that citizens would be able to defend themselves with guns. Venezuela would be in a much better place if they had not turned over their guns.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    March 22, 2019 12:16 p.m.

    Not until the older generation goes by the wayside. Too many of them think that their right to feel awesome by owning a gun is more valuable than your right to not get shot.

  • Yes_I_Am South Jordan, UT
    March 22, 2019 12:07 p.m.

    Yeah, it's the NRA's and GOP's fault. Might as well throw the founding fathers in there as well. Banning guns is never going to happen here. And you're delusional if you think gun control will stop horrific acts of terror perpetrated by a lone gunman.

  • Musketman Stansbury Park, UT
    March 22, 2019 12:04 p.m.

    Interesting. I have yet to see ONE single (mass) shooting of any kind. Where someone or anyone was killed by a gun. I have seen several where an evil person/persons killed people, using a firearm,bomb, knife, vehicle or even a plane! But, yet to see one where a gun did the killing!

    The author of this article, should be asking why a single individual(the New Zealand PM) believes they have the right to diminish the freedoms of an entire nation. For the actions of a single evil person!

  • Guido Pescatore Layton, UT
    March 22, 2019 11:58 a.m.

    No, we could never affect such a ban. We are too selfish, and we have had too much practice making excuses to justify our reprehensible behavior.

  • Elizabeth Bennet Pemberly, UK, 00
    March 22, 2019 11:57 a.m.

    We united behind the second amendment and signed it into law. What more do you need to know?

    We need to encourage other friendly nations to adopt it and encourage owning guns, especially in Taiwan.

  • Weston Jurney West Jordan, UT
    March 22, 2019 11:56 a.m.

    Thanks but no thanks for the suggestion, New Zealand. We'll just stick with thoughts and prayers.

  • JLindow St. George, UT
    March 22, 2019 11:53 a.m.

    Sandy Hook proved that not only is there no tragedy so great that it will unite this country on guns, it showed that the greater the tragedy the more we become polarized.

  • T-money$$$ Salt Lake City, UT
    March 22, 2019 11:48 a.m.

    Probably not going to happen here.

    The NRA has too much money tied up with the GOP and Republican lawmakers will never allow it under the fake guise of "freedom".

    Even as the number of Americans impacted by gun violence continues to skyrocket..