‘Gun safety’ a misleading term

Re: “Gun safety measures pose no threat to 2nd Amendment” (10/14).

(9) comments

Stephen Wenger

Steve Neely is right on with his comments on Democrats' misuse of the term "gun safety." The only actual safety measure they ever seem to mention is locking up firearms, unloaded, with the ammunition secured separately, While this may be fine for sporting guns that are not in use, it is irrelevant for those who choose to keep a gun in condition of readiness for emergency use.

True gun safety is primarily the basic rules of safe handling. If gun safety were their goal, they'd be howling to start teaching them in grade schools. Instead, they usually oppose even such simplistic "don't touch, tell an adult" programs as Eddie Eagle because it was created by the NRA.

As the saying goes, if government control provides safety, prisons would be the safest places in America.


This is in response to the opinion of "Myra Larsen" who believes that Proposition 310 should be voted down. Thankfully the beautiful forests are for all to admire and respect. Anyone, including those that do not live in Arizona full-time, get to enjoy the beauty and serenity that these majestic trees offer. Wouldn't it be sad if these trees were to catch on fire thus leaving black residue in its place since there was not enough funds to pay for fire services in the area? I would gladly pay an additional amount of taxes knowing that our local Fire Department is available at all hours of the day and night to protect our beautiful trees. I have lived in Arizona all my life and have witnessed already the devastation of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire. Please do not let this happen again. Vote to support Proposition 310.


Totally agree with Steve Neely's letter on the asinine gun article written by some woman who's NOT our own Linda Gilbertson.


Myra Larsen's letter regarding prop 310 gave it a little different perspective than I would have come up with, but I agree with her. At some point taxpayer dollars are going to run out and, until the agencies who are supported by them learn the term 'budget' they will keep spending like drunken sailors.


The Center for American Progress reports that “States that received an ‘F’ grade based on the strength of their gun laws—according to the latest scorecard from the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence—saw the highest homicide rates: States with ‘F’ grades saw 25 percent higher homicide rates than states with ‘C’ or ‘D’ grades, and 61 percent higher homicide rates than states with ‘A’ or

‘B’ grades—states with the strongest gun laws. The states with the highest firearm mortality rates are Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Wyoming. These states all received an “F” grade for their weak gun laws.

In 2020, the 10 states with the highest rates of gun deaths among children and teenagers ages 1–19 were Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, South Carolina, Arkansas, Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, and Alabama. All of these states received an “F” grade for their weak gun laws. Reports also show that rates of nonfatal gunshot injuries sustained during assaults are higher in states with weaker gun laws. Each state’s firearms control laws apply to the cities in those states and may be further strengthened by cities.

What the evidence shows is that a deadly combination of weak firearms laws and a massive concentration of guns (which increases availability) are the direct causes of our national epidemic of gun homicides and injuries. Throughout America and the world those places with the lowest firearms violence are those with the strictest gun safety legislation and the lowest gun saturation rates.


Gun Safety! LOL! Tell you what. How about the Republicans come up with something new. How about they come up with some sort of plan besides doubling down on the old More guns make us safer!!! Obviously if more guns make us safer, we would already be the safest country on earth! There are already more guns per capita in the USA than anywhere except a warzone. There are more mass shootings than days in the year. There are school shootings almost every day. Yes, outlawing guns is not the answer, but how about at least trying some other options instead of just throwing tantrums and screaming my 2nd amendment rights and screaming no like 2 year olds.


Gun control supporters, like Ron oppose the use of firearms for self-defense. However we see that with the recent rise in Right To Carry states, violent crime has dropped. Gun control advocates recognize the right to self defense as “not a federally guaranteed constitutional right.” (Brady Campaign) . Americans support gun ownership for defensive purposes. (20 million guns purchased by law abiding citizens last year.) In 2014, the Pew Research Center found that 57 percent of Americans believe that gun ownership protects people from crime, while only 38 percent disagree, and that support for the majority viewpoint is increasing among men, women, whites, blacks, all Republicans, conservative Republicans, Independents, and conservative and moderate Democrats. The poll also found that support for protecting, rather than restricting, gun ownership increased among men, women, all age groups, persons of all levels of education, all Republicans, conservative Republicans, Independents, all Democrats, conservative and moderate Democrats, parents, non-parents, urbanites, suburbanites, and rural dwellers. In 2013, Gallup found that personal safety is the top reason Americans own guns. More guns may make it easier for criminals to get one illegally but they are criminals and will get their guns regardless. A lawfully armed and protected populace will prevent and curtail violent crimes that occur with the criminal using a gun or not. Ron adheres to lies.


Russ, if you really want to be a purist in the interpretation of the 2nd amendment "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!" Then why are you willing to restrict gun ownership by age? Why are you willing to restrict gun ownership to non-felons? What about those who are in mental institutions? How about inmates in jails and prisons? It reads Shall not be infringed, doesn't it? Yet here you go restricting ownership to select groups of people. What groups of people do you think should be allowed to own guns? Why is that group not named specifically in the 2nd amendment? Or are they named specifically in the 1st part, the defining part of the amendment? AKA the militia. Keeping in mind that when the USA was formed, there was no standing army and every able-bodied adult male was required to be an active member of the militia to be called upon by the government to protect the government against attack. That was later used as basis for the Selective Service and National Guard, the draft. etc. It was interesting seeing you put out something more than your normal one line tantrum, and have complete sentences. Let's hear your thoughts?


Russ: I have never opposed the possession of legal firearms for the purpose of self-defense. If you have any such statements from me, please put them in quotes and cite your source. What I support is effective regulation of all firearms (as already approved by SCOTUS) in the form of a national gun registry, a comprehensive background investigation and a professional mental exam not more than five years old for anyone to own, possess or have ready access to a firearm. I my view that is the best way to reduce gun homicides and injuries while still respecting the 2A rights of all citizens.

From professor John Donohue and his team at Stanford University we have a massive new study which finds that, “Since lowering the bar for concealed-carry licenses gradually leads more people to get those licenses (Florida alone has nearly 1.8 million people permitted to carry concealed guns, and Pennsylvania and Texas each have around one million), and because more guns in public is supposed to reduce crimes, then we should expect states to see less crime as ‘Shall Issue’ laws kick in. The Stanford team found precisely the opposite: “Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws,” they write, “violent crime is estimated to be 13-15 percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law. For years, the question has been, is there any public safety benefit to right to carry laws? That is now settled,” said paper’s lead author, John Donohue. “The answer is no.”

The PEW and Gallup surveys you quote are right-on and from unimpeachable sources. It should, however, be obvious that what respondents believe or feel and the facts on the ground are two entirely different things. It stands to reason that millions of Americans “feel” that possession of a firearm will make them and the community safer. As the above study shows, those feelings are refuted by fact.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.