Utah shooting poll

Byron Quick

Staff In Memoriam
Go to http://deseretnews.com/dn

There is a poll on (surprise!) if you think there should be more gun control in the wake of the Utah shootings by a mentally ill man.

We're comfortably ahead at present but let's swamp them with these damn polls.

The following is a email I sent to the editor of Deseret News:

Sir,

There are over 20,000 laws regulating the purchase and ownership of firearms legislated by federal, state, and local governments. The concept that more gun control laws will somehow "fix" the problem of access by the mentally ill is ludicrous. It is already a federal felony for someone who has been diagnosed with mental illness to purchase a firearm and has been so for decades.

I am a registered nurse with specialties in psychiatric nursing and emergency nursing. I have worked in a community mental health center that was attacked by one of our schizophrenic patients who like the man in Utah had ceased taking his medicine. Non-compliance with their prescribed medication is a common problem with many schizophrenics. However, there are long acting injections available for people with this behaviour pattern. Often, when non-compliant schizophrenics are prescribed these long acting medications they then begin to miss the scheduled appointments. Perhaps, a better solution to this very real problem is legislation that requires schizophrenics to be placed on long acting medicines at the first signs of medication non-compliance and also requires the authorities to locate them when they miss scheduled appointments.

This would certainly be a better solution than more "gun-control" laws that further violate the constitutional rights of all Americans. On a purely pragmatic note, if 20,000 laws have not solved the problem then 20,000 plus 1 will not. Perhaps the people using this issue do not want to solve the problem of violence perpetrated by the mentally ill. Perhaps they prefer to cynically use this tragic event to further their true agenda: denying the 2nd Amendment to every American except, of course, themselves and others of their elitist ilk.

Sincerely,

Byron Quick


"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
-- William Pitt 1783, speech to the House of Commons
 
Spartacus: Sadly this is one of those cleaverly worded polls that could be interperted in any.
Quote from dessertnews.com:
"Do you think the recent shooting at the LDS library and similar incidents should force lawmakers to revise current gun laws?"
Any answer could be taken to mean the opposite of it's intention. This poll is clearly propaganda fodder. A no vote could be taken to mean, " No leave gun controls in place,and don't weaken them" A yes vote could mean " Yes strengthen gun control laws"

OR

A no vote could mean " No, do not restrict guns any further". And a yes vote could mean "Yes, it is time to rethink restricting the legal carry of arms for protection".

Be careful on this one.


Another way to look at this poll:
A no vote in MO, and a No vote in Vermont would be completely different. The gun control advocates use these types of polls to establish a fact base. In Mo, all they would have to say to oppose CCW laws would be:
"A recent poll shows that 78% of all respondents oppose revision of current gun laws".
This would be 100% factual, but diametrcly(sp) opposed to what is really meant.


[This message has been edited by Hal (edited April 17, 1999).]
 
Sent a letter to the editor:
It is too bad the Mayor and other reactionary folks can't see the real problem here. Not guns... but Mentally Ill persons. What are the options?
We need to ban the insane? More Sanity Control?
How about we start "Sanity Control, Inc."

Okay, that is not realistic - but what can we do? We already have TONS of GUN LAWS. They are not working... Why? Because some one who is going to comit a crime, does not care about breaking any other laws. Why can't people see that? Thats is why they are called criminals! We have to deal with that fact. Reactionary legislation has NEVER solved the problem. What next? Banning criminals? Ah, basicaly already done...
So, what can we really do?
I have 2 suggestions that while may be less than popular - would work. And problems like this will be fewer and farther between.

1. More law abiding people carrying concealed weapons. What is wrong with having the GOOD GUYS carry? Legally liscensed gun owners have ALWAYS prooved to be an aid to the community rather than a hinderance. Why? Because they are law abiding people who consider the law as well as public and personal safety. We need to change the attitude on legally carried guns. It is a GOOD THING. Where ever you are. Period.

2. Training and Arming ALL security staff people at every level. The arguement here is that security folks are the dregs that didn't graduate from high school. Well, if you are only offering minimum wages - your not going to get the best people. You get people you wouldn't want to be armed let alone be in charge of the safety and well being of what ever area they are in. Here is what to do.
Take the starting salary figures and TRIPLE IT. Then take the requirements and DOUBLE THEM. Give the security the power to arrest and all other police powers -limiting them to certain areas as needed for duty of course. Give them similar protection as a cop gets. (You can't "resist arrest" from security - you only assualt them.) Make security a profession to be proud of - make it some thing to work for. Then is becomes a career instead of a job - resulting in professionals rather than employees. You will soon get people just as good as or better than the Police Officers who would respond. You will need much less police response as the security will then be able to handle most situations that the police would have had to respond to.

Had the security officer here been trained properly, and armed (even concealed to keep a low profile) this would have ended much differently.

But this will never happen. It would actually cost MONEY.
So as a result we will continue to have problems like this. And we will constantly get new laws that don't do any thing other than make some folks FEEL better. I would feel much better knowing the security officer on duty was COMPITENT and that there are more armed good guys around than the bad guys - if you know what I mean.


I doubt they will print it.
If you have a moment - send them a letter too. I am sure there are more eloquent writers here than I am... letters@desnews.com
They need to hear from you too.

------------------
"There is no Spoon"
 
I was going to start a new thread with this clip, but I think it will be very appropriate here:

----

"..Studies funded by the Center for Disease Control focus on the presence or absence of guns, rather than the characteristics of the people who use them. Yet if there is one fact that has been incontestably established by homocide studies, it's that murderers are not ordinary gun owners but extreme aberrants...."

Source: "Public Health Pot Shots's by Kates, Schaffer, and Waters, Reason, April 1997 pg.27.


------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."



[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited April 17, 1999).]
 
I visited the site and abtsained from taking the poll, but read the article where Otega is calling for more gun control. Here is an interesting clip from that article: http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,75004520,00.html?

----

His [Ortega's] belief, he said, is that if people are not willing to play by the minor rules regarding weapons, they aren't going to follow the more serious laws.

----

So, even as he is calling for gun control, he is acknowledging that the criminals will not obey them anyway... Have I got that right? :D

------------------
John/az

"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."



[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited April 17, 1999).]
 
JohnAZ2 You got that absolutely right. Gee. No gun for you. You done a misdemeanor. What will be their next reason be to ban your possession of a firearm? Traffic tickets? Spitting on the sidewalks? Breathing? (You've exhaled germs into the atmosphere.) People! I get so damn mad I can't even see straight. For example, even though I am not a violent person, when I see Chuckie Schumers face on the screen, I want to stomp on it, just because he is the cockroach that he is. (And I know what is is, unlike some people we know.) I have a daughter living in Utah, and when we went to visit, she had a group of her friends over for a party. Us guys were talking about many things, but one thing really got my attention. There was NO anti-gun feeling in any of the group, not even with the women. If the rest of Utah, and especially Salt Lake City, all have that kind of attitude, chief Ortega's tenure may not be long for that city.
Paul B.
COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!
 
Back
Top