Re: mark [Can you name one piece of legislation that is actually
under consideration that would take away your guns?...But neither Kenya, nor
what happened in the mall in Kenya, has anything to do with this discussion]YES..I can think of several. But I’m sure in this internet age
you can do your own research if you choose to…however I was responding to
others' posts calling for new gun ban laws.Missing your second
point. Are you saying that because we don’t live in Kenya we don’t
need to worry about some crazy shooting up a mall here? That potential is what
has others on this thread ranting about getting rid of guns. People can say they
believe access to firearms in our country is too easy and causes mass killings.
And I will strongly argue against. I don’t believe it. But I still accept
that as their opinion. But it makes no sense to me to proffer an argument to
limit citizens’ access to firearms because we don’t have a firearm
problem here. Ya gotta pick.
"Mark: It was not me doing the comparing to russia & Luxembourg, but
professors of law at Harvard University. And they suggest you are wrong in
saying that "It doesn't apply." "Yeah, meta, I
understand its not you comparing the countries, but the professors. So I read
the paper, and I think it is rather flawed. Sorry, can't go into an indepth
analysis, this being my last two hundred words on this article, and also because
I really don't want to. But I will say they are suffering from the same
problem I pointed out initially: they are trying to compare violence between
Russia and the USA (and other countries). And they are trying to make an
argument based solely on a claim that the amount of guns in each country is the
main determiner of violence in the country. What causes violence and
gun violence is far more complicated then a single factor. They are trying to
drastically oversimplify a very complex situation. I just don't
think their study is worth very much in trying determine causes of violence, let
alone possible curbs on it.
Hey md: You have every inalienable right to pack a gun in Utah, it's called
open carry. But hey maybe it is not for you. And now that he's in jail for
something that he only planed to do, and not something he had not done,
do's that make it any less costly to the tax payer's? Oh and how do
you feel about universal back ground checks now that this and the ship yard
Mark: It was not me doing the comparing to russia & Luxembourg, but
professors of law at Harvard University. And they suggest you are wrong in
saying that "It doesn't apply." Here's why: Startling as the foregoing may seem, it represents the cross‐national norm, not some bizarre departure from it. If the man‐tra
“more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal lessdeath”
were true, broad based cross‐national comparisonsshould show that
nations with higher gun ownership per cap‐ita consistently have more
death. Nations with higher gunownership rates, however, do not have higher
murder or sui‐cide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed
manyhigh gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates.More pointedly, in this cited study, the authors present data showing that
states that had enacted conceal carry laws had seen DRAMATIC drops in violent
crime. And this is very pertinent to the on-going discussion of restrictive gun
GiuseppeG, You said: "So I'd prefer not to give up my right
to protect myself. . . "Can you name one piece of legislation
that is actually under consideration that would take away your guns? You also mention Kenya and their gun laws. I will assume they are strict. But
neither Kenya, nor what happened in the mall in Kenya, has anything to do with
this discussion. Kenya is a very different culture in very different
circumstances. It's like the comparison to Russia and Luxemburg that
someone else did. It doesn't apply. If you want to compare to other
countries try another first world country that is similar in culture, like
Germany or Canada.
The authors of the study are Don Kates and Gary Mauser. The title of the study
is "Would banning firearms reduce murders & suicides."
The individual is so unhappy. He needs a friend.
@ranch...So I suspect you didn't take the time to look up the
Kenyan gun laws. If not, I don't know why I should bother, but the point
is....since you so obviously missed it....is that all those gun laws didn't
protect anyone in that mall. I'm not saying that someone carrying would
have necessarily prevented it, but for certain passing all those laws
didn't help. So I'd prefer not to give up my right to protect myself
for any silly knee-jerk law depriving me of that right that doesn't, in the
end, protect anyone.
LDS Liberal:Thank you for the ad personam argument. Name calling
makes you look really intelligent.My argument is not that sane law
abiding citizens SHOULD carry a firearm (that is a personal choice that should
be allowed in a free society as long as one has not surrendered that right
through poor behavior), but that every sane, law-abiding citizen should always
and foreve have the RIGHT to do so. No government can protect you from criminal
elements intent on doing harm. And given that certain criminals and thugs by
definition will not obey any gun law written, law abiding citizens should have
the right to keep and bear arms. BTW, my radical position happens
to be the constitutional law of the land.
@atl134 - "(you're not going to get stabbed to death if you handed over
the Wii U)."Cool, you have magic powers that can tell the
future! You should use that for stock-market powers rather than wasting time on
the internet! Sorry bud, but I am OK with protecting myself. He made the
decision to threaten me. Sorry if I don't buy into your nanny-state vision
and just sit there and be a victim.
Neither arming everyone, or disarming everyone is the answer! If everyone is
packing, then shootouts will happen more often. If nobody is carrying then the
bad guy shoots away. Please don't think that just anyone can carry
responsibly, or then anyone having a bad day could go off on a shooting rampage.
Back in the wild wild west, it was just that! In the east where gun laws were
strict,shootings happened less often, in the west well... it got it's name
because anyone could carry and you could shoot anybody by feeling threatened, so
people just shot first. I have guns, I love to hunt, but I'm smart enough
to realize that letting the population pack is a very bad idea!
There is somethng really fishy about this story... the man supposedy planned to
commit his heinous acts on Sept 25 (2 days from now), yet he had yet to obtain
'silencers'.Well. since the process to buy
silencers/suppressors is very highly regulated and requires a great deal of
paperwork and lead time to accomplish, I think his planning was about nine
months too late.A good lawyer will point out this fallacy in no time
flat.I'm not advocaing for the guy, just seems there is a lot
unexplained in this story.
It would have been a shootout before police responders because many of us in the
city creek area proudly carry under our Second Amendment. I think it would have
been quite a scene with a very dead perpetrator and no trial costs.
@jskains"The individual was willing to kill ME over a $199
console."And you pulled a gun on him so you both were
considering it (you're not going to get stabbed to death if you handed over
the Wii U).
What a way to remember the anniversary of your mother's passing... by
bringing that pain to as many other people as possible?I don't
get where people now days think shooting up the place is a valid response to
being upset, being wronged by another, etc. Maybe it's the games or the
movies, I don't know. But I know in my youth (although we had guns)... we
didn't go around shooting up the place if we were upset or having a bad
southmtnmanProvo, UTAre you implying that Nordstroms is a safe
haven if there is an attack? If so, Trolley Square and the Kenyan mall may be
hoping for a Nordstroms.
" see Luxembourg and Russia" Luxembourg and Russia? Really?
That's what you are comparing the USA to for gun fatalities? Luxembourg
and Russia? "And I am sorry to tell you this, but he will first
protect his life and mine if there is ever an attack,"As he
should, MoJules, which would involve leaving the area. And I hate to break it to
you, but if he has to go up against someone with an M16, er. . . excuse me,
AR15, with a 30 round magazine, he is going to lose. See this isn't the
movies, and in real life these things happen very fast. Even well trained police
officers have a very hard time hitting target when in a gun fight. So while I am all for personal carry rights and gun ownership (within reason),
I gotta tell all you wanna be Rambo's the odds of you saving the day are
very slim. You even got a guy here that thinks if he'd had his pop gun in
Kenya he could have limited the fatalities. Some of you guys live in a fantasy
@LDS Liberal - You seem a bit confused. The individual was willing to kill ME
over a $199 console.
@MoJules;Your hypocrisy is showing; you demand the right to carry a
weapon yet want to ban the civil rights of lgbt couples. The only reason
I'm pointing this out is because of the hypocrisy.
To Metamoracoug - a link or other identifier for the Harvard study you
referenced would be very helpful to all.
@jskainsOrem, UTI personally had an incident where someone
tried to kill me over a Wii-U. He had a knife. I exposed my firearm. He ran off.
Would you have felt better if I were killed, cause the cops couldn't be
contacted, nor could get there in time to save me?8:48 a.m. Sept. 24,
2013========= Let me get this straight --- You'd kill or be killed over a $199 video game?Mormon was
right --a materialistic society is ripe for it's own destruction.
For all you anti gun people, you have the right not to carry a gun. I know this
can't idea can't get into your brain, but I will say it, those people
who do the violent killing, will find guns or other means to kill. I will be
very content to have my husband by my side while he carries. And I am sorry to
tell you this, but he will first protect his life and mine if there is ever an
attack, there could be victims, but the more responsible people who carry are
out there, the better chance you won't get hurt. But it is like food
storage, a family that has supplies, has to feed their family first. So if your
ever at a mall, and someone starts shooting, you start praying that there are
people who can stop the person because they carry.
BB4683, Aaron Alexis showed that a person doesn't need an AR15 or
"other high capacity killing machine" to kill a lot of people. He used a
pump shotgun a type of weapon that has been around and in common usage since the
1890s! The fact is even if a ban was successful (and it wouldn't be check
out how well Prohibition worked)criminals psychopaths and terrorists would still
be able to use all sorts of other means to kill large numbers of innocent
No the ability to conceal carry would not have prevented what happened in Kenya,
but it may have reduced the bloodshed. Nearly all of the mass shootings have
occurred in "gun free zones." The few instances where someone has tried
a mass shooting where others are armed usually ended with the perp being short
after he killed a couple of people. Ideal? no. But I would rather than 2 dead
+ the perp. than a dozen or more.Look how well Illinois' strict
gun laws have worked. Chicago has more gun homicides in a month than Utah has
in a year, though each has a similar population and Utah has much more liberal
gun laws.Talk to many Americans 60+ and they will tell you about how
they used to take their guns to school and put them in their locker. Why
didn't we have many mass shootings in the 40s, 50s, 60s? The problem is
not the guns. We have a sickness in society where we no longer value human
life. Until we work on curing that we will not solve the problem.
@Eliyahu No one is drilling anything into you. No one wants to force you to do
anything. People simply want their rights to remain available for them to
protect their friends and family how they see fit. I personally had an incident
where someone tried to kill me over a Wii-U. He had a knife. I exposed my
firearm. He ran off. Would you have felt better if I were killed, cause the cops
couldn't be contacted, nor could get there in time to save me?
Just so I am clear, the anti-gun folks would feel much better if he planned to
use pipe bombs and pressure cookers, or perhaps even plow through a crowd with a
car, as long as it isn't a gun, right? Your focus on the tool is overly
annoying and it provides no value to the debate. These people will do harm no
matter how many gun laws we enact. Worse, they will move to scarier methods,
like u-hauls full of fertilizer, to do their harm.
I'm still a bit befuddled by the constant litany from the Right that, in
order to be safe, all we need are more guns and more prisons. We already have
over two hundred thirty million guns in civilian hands and we already have the
most prisoners and the highest per-capita rate of incarceration of any nation in
the world. If the "guns and jails" approach actually worked, we would
be, by far, the safest country in the history of mankind. Back in my
native Brooklyn, I felt pretty safe going anywhere unarmed. When I lived in
California, Washington, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas and Maine, there was no need
for me to have a gun. (I'll concede that I did carry my Army-issued M14 and
M16 while stationed in Korea and Vietnam.) Here, though, in Utah County,
it's being drilled into me that the only way I can be safe in this tough
neighborhood is to be armed to the teeth and be ready to get the drop on my
A study, recently released by the Harvard Law School, provides a very broad
perspective and how useless gun laws are. Those areas that have the strictest
gun laws are also those that have the highest murder rates -- see Luxembourg and
Russia. The same is true within a country. Those places with the strictest gun
laws are also the ones with the highest murder rates. The liberal authors of
the study confessed it was not what they expected to find.
This guy sounds like a really mean man.
Sounds like a dangerous adverse reactions to his anti-depressant meds to me.BTW - carman8:14 p.m. Sept. 23, 2013[and the rest of you
pro-gun 2nd amendment Chuck Norris wanna bes...]This is America -
Not the Gaza Strip or Somalia.I shouldn't HAVE to be carrying
ANYTHING to protect myself and my family to go to City Creek to go shopping,
ride TRAX, or the movies!A universal background check would have
been sufficient to stop this guy.A simple interview in a hospital
was enough to stop this guy, and guys like you are against even THAT!
What is wrong with people?@DN Subscriber 2 & GiuseppeG;It is because we allow people like this to have guns in the first place that
you need a gun to protect yourself.
@2bits He only had planned to purchased the guns. It doesn't say that he
actually succeeded in purchasing the guns. So, the background check didn't
fail in this instance.@toosmart... Hopefully it won't happen,
but someday, you may be very grateful for the guy next to you who is carrying a
weapon...This guy said that he would surrender if the police showed
up because they are "faster shots" than him. From the girth of his
neck, I would say most of us would be faster shots. One opposing gun may bring
this guy to surrender way sooner than waiting for a cop to show up. Waiting
sure didn't help our disarmed military members, on base, from having many
killed. How about arming our military, allowing the rest of us our inalienable
right to bear arms, and providing mental health care for those who are truly
Hey Des News: just what is an "automatic handgun"? Did you mean
semi-automatic? I thought automatic weapons of any kind were highly restricted.
What is the dealer doing selling automatic weapons?
Often times a guy like this has no mental health record because he hasn't
quite "snapped" yet but has simmered and plotted his big event for years
while staying under the radar. This is why AR-15's and other high capacity
killing machines should be banned. I am for the Second Amendent, but
I also interpret "well-regulated militia" as meaning it should not be
possible for one-day mass murderers like him to plot and carry out a mass
shooting with a gun he bought legally. There's nothing
"well-regulated" about that.
Carman and DNS2: AMEN! Protect our 2nd Amendment rights.
So this guy goes to a hospital with "issues",,, talks with a
"crisis" worker, and he get's arrested. Uhhmm,, the guy
wants to talk rather than act on his urges so he seeks help, and gets
arrested,,,I'm trying to wrap my head around this. If someone is at witts end and knows he needs help, but also knows he'll
get arrested if he seeks help why should he try to get help?.Where does one go when they need help?
Good guys become bad guys by pulling triggers.
"You can't get silencers at a gun show. They are highly regulated and
you have to have a SERIOUSLY good reason to own one."2bits,
sorry to break it to you, but you don't have to have a reason, serious or
otherwise, to own a silencer in Utah (or many other states). There is a small
amount of paperwork, you'll have to submit fingerprints, and the signature
of your local police chief, but no specific reason. And yes, it is relatively
easy to do. (If you can't get your police chief signature, contact an
attorney that can set up a special trust for you that will allow you to get the
silencer.) I guess "highly regulated" is relative. You want a
suppressor? You don't have a crimanal record? You are a citizen? Start the
process to get one. DN subscriber? You think you and your little
concealed weapon could have stopped what happened in Kenya? Really? Yeah, you
and John McClane. Yippie ki yay. . .
People like this are out there, along with actual terrorists.Some
people think that a "no guns allowed" sign will keep killers out, but
that was a dismal failure at Trolley Square.Other people recognize
that there are wolves, sheep and sheep dogs, and prudently prepare to act as
sheep dogs in case wolves attack. Police officers are clearly sheep dogs, and
so are private citizens who have taken the steps to legally carry a self defense
weapon. Given this case, and the Kenya attack, and Trolley Square
killings, people really should think about possible dangers, and possible
countermeasures for their own protection. And, those who choose to do nothing
are welcome to make that choice, but please do not take away the choice from
those who chose to have a means of self defense.
Why devote so much airtime to a sick criminal's plan? Isn't it enough
to say it was a detailed plan, rather than unfolding every detail? What will the
next idle, sick mind think when reading such things? And I would add a little
more praise for the law enforcement who stopped it.
toosmartforyou....see what just happened in the Nairobi, Kenya mall and look up
their gun laws.
Yes, Carman, I, too, love the peace of mind I get when I have to pack heat while
shopping at Nordstroms.
Yes, carman, let's give everybody a gun and then we'll all be safer.
I get it.
This is why sane, law-abiding citizens should always and forever have the 2nd
Amendment right to bear arms. We have the right in a free society to protect
ourselves from the thugs and scum who will always be around.
A West Valley police officer interviewed this suspect of August 12 and he is
just now being charged? Sam Gill is the DA? The suspect was planning to buy
guns? This story has too many holes in it!
How does a guy in this mental state and with this goal in mind buy two automatic
hand guns and silencers?Obviously the screening system doesn't
work (if guys like this can still buy guns).I'm glad they
caught him in time.. but we have to make the screening process better if he got
screened and approved to buy these guns. You can't get silencers at a gun
show. They are highly regulated and you have to have a SERIOUSLY good reason
to own one.
So they were so concerned that a judge granted bail to this sick person. He
needs treatment, not unlimited access to weapons and public places. Does he
have to actually go through with it to be committed or arrested and not just
turned out onto the streets?Something's fishy with our legal
system when psychopaths can murder at will and we don't do thing one about
it. At least they didn't wait until Sept 26 and then decide the guy was