Las Vegas Sun

October 25, 2014

Currently: 80° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Responsibility lies with gun owners

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Let’s be honest: Responsible folks may buy guns. However, it’s not the buying that should have more controls but what happens after. Every person buying a gun should be required to sign a certificate or, better yet, write in their own handwriting, “I will take complete responsibility for this gun, making sure it never falls into the wrong hands and if it does and kills someone, I accept responsibility for that death,” and sign their name.

Worst case, if a child gets hold of a gun and kills someone, the owner of the gun goes to jail. If it’s the mother of both children, she goes to jail. Bet she’d take extra care that didn’t happen.

What if the gun was in a locked cabinet? If it can be broken into, it is not secure. Stolen? Then it must be reported to police immediately or the owner remains responsible.

Why in the world did the mother of the Sandy Hook killer need such guns? She must have been fully aware her son wasn’t completely stable.

She, not her son, is the first one responsible for the tragic episode.

Perhaps all these folks buying guns, if they had to sign such a statement, would hesitate a little and be aware of their responsibility to keep that gun under safe control at all times.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 33 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Polly,

    The same should hold true for the abortion deaths caused by irresponsible parents. Here is your US Abortion Clock. Approximately 54 million abortion deaths since 1973.

    Why do women have abortions?

    74% say having a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities.

    73% say they cannot afford to have a child.

    48% say they do not want to be a single parent, or have relationship problems with husband or partner.

    Less than 2% say they became pregnant as a result of rape or incest.

    http://www.numberofabortions.com/

    http://www.mccl.org/us-abortion-stats.ht...

  2. It is quite unlikely that the current Congress will pass a Federal Assualt Weapons ban extension. Why? In 2014, there are 20 Democrats up for reelection in the Senate. At least 5 of them, critical to a ban win, are top rated NRA supporters. Reid will not bring any bill to the floor, just as he hasn't in the past, that will be jeopardize these Dems' reelection in 2014. So.. President Obama will HAVE to use Executive action to reinstate the ban.

    Too bad Obama didn't and wouldn't do the same for abortion: Issue an Executive Order to ban abortion. After all, 54 million innocents have been killed since 1973 and thousands more everyday.

    CarmineD

  3. "Perhaps all these folks buying guns, if they had to sign such a statement, would hesitate a little and be aware of their responsibility to keep that gun under safe control at all times."

    If I recall correctly, at the very top of a gun purchase form, in big bold print, is a warning: The penalty for falsifying information on this form is $250,000 and 5 years in jail. All gun buyers have to sign it. How's that working?

    CarmineD

  4. The American mental health system is broken, and even promoting mental health in our country is NOT high on the priority list. We are witnessing the results of its dysfunction and lack of support.

    Commenter Future provides some perspective, with, "Deranged people will not care what they sign but the people around them must be responsible.

    If there are deranged mentally ill in the house they must not have guns available to them.

    Also no violent movies or video games

    To enforce this we need healthcare intervention laws to force the mentally ill to receive help and control their environment

    HIPAA-1996, Privacy Rules, passed under Clinton, must be modified to allow sharing appropriate information with immediate family and law enforcement."

    If we do not empower those who are close to a person who is mentally ill to assist that ill person in getting them help, then there is NO help. Over the years, I have seen this with families of troubled members, and it breaks my heart. Things could have been much different if not for these broken laws that impede help.

    Blessings and Peace,
    Star

  5. Gee, why stop with guns? Why not the same qualifications, restrictions and demands upon car owners? After all, cars kill far more people then guns do. Ridiculous suggestions demand ridicule and Kelly's "solution" is more than just ridiculous, it borders on the nutty!

  6. The phallic symbolism of a firearm is well known as is the symbology of discharging one with the completion of the male sex act. It should not then be surprising that two of our male commenters segued into abortion statistics.

    When last I looked an unwanted or unintended pregnancy always involved participation of a sperm donor. Yet, the abortion debate always seems to revolve around the responsibilites of the female partner in a pregnancy and its aftermath. If our societal norms were different and the responsibility and decadeslong committment after birth instead fell to the male partner, I wonder if our neo-patriarchal commenters might hold another view.

  7. "What if the gun was in a locked cabinet? If it can be broken into, it is not secure."

    Kelley -- it seems you've never had to face a home invader. I have. It's definitely not the time to be finding then fumbling with the key for that "locked cabinet," then finding and fumbling with the ammunition. You'd be under too much stress to do any of it quickly and efficiently enough to meet the threat. Better to teach your kids proper use and respect for the weapon.

    "The same should hold true for the abortion deaths caused by irresponsible parents. Here is your US Abortion Clock....."

    BoliBB -- since your posted name is Jeff I assume you lack a womb. So your relevance for injecting abortion into this Discussion would be what exactly?

    "...To enforce this we need healthcare intervention laws to force the mentally ill to receive help and control their environment..."

    star -- I question your point. Who gets to decide who's mentally ill and who isn't? How about people who are just different, or who refuse to fit in with the rest of the herd? This country's history of involuntary commitment isn't sterling. Remember forced lobotomies and worse, eugenics?

    "Gee, why stop with guns? Why not the same qualifications, restrictions and demands upon car owners?"

    lvfacts -- or knives? or subways? or one's own teeth? or flammables on one's person? All have been reported as used to kill in the weeks since this current issue heated up.

    "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." -- Barry Goldwater in his acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican Convention (he paraphrased Cicero)

  8. "since your posted name is Jeff I assume you lack a womb. So your relevance for injecting abortion into this Discussion would be what exactly?" from KillerB

    Two words, death and responsibility.

  9. The letter expresses a view that is similar to the one I have, that rights come with responsibility.

    The key to this is enforcement. I have heard that some States do require purchasers to make such a statement as part of the application process. But when was the last time you have heard of anyone being prosecuted for not properly securing a weapon that is not in use?

    Current law makes it a crime to intentionally lie on a background check, yet very, very few people are prosecuted for doing so.

    Laws that are not enforced are just about as bad as no laws at all. (It is debatable if selective enforcement might be worse.)

  10. "Two words, death and responsibility."

    BoliBB -- you forgot the third and most important word, *privacy*. That's what Roe v. Wade was based on, if you bothered to actually read it.

    "...when was the last time you have heard of anyone being prosecuted for not properly securing a weapon that is not in use?"

    boftx -- that was actually part of the Heller case. The syllabus explained the District of Columbia law not only made handgun possession a crime, it also required "residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device." The court found in syllabus #3 "the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

    Some here should at least read the Heller and McDonald syllabi before posting.

    "We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." - Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  11. We might, realistically, be able to legislate some degree of civil liability, as opposed to criminal culpability, for mere possession of multiple-shot firearms.

    Ideally, this would require high-dollar liability insurance coverage, to compensate "anyone wrongfully injured by discharge of the weapon". First-offense infractions, involving only lack of coverage, punishable only by confiscation and perhaps a low-dollar fine.

  12. Mr. Fink says automobiles kill far more people than guns do the United States. He's wrong! They both kill about 30,000 people a year.

    Abortion is legal. Gun crimes are not. The argument that people that can't afford children choose to have abortions is the same thing as people shooting each other is ridiculous at it's face.

    Grossly irresponsible sexual behavior doesn't justify irresponsible gun behavior or vice versa. We live in a nation of uneducated idiots.

    The letter writer is correct. People should be responsible for their guns. Vast numbers are stolen every year and the accident statistics are just as mindnumbing.

  13. The US gun industry is killing people the world over. So far they have been able to avoid getting hit with serious litigation. At some point they will get sued out of existence.

  14. Women can choose to kill their unborn baby. Those 54 million babies didn't have a chance to live. I guess we only value life when it's politically expedient to do so. We get it now.

  15. Killer... The core purpose for gun ownership in the United States is criminal activity, not self-defense. The National Rifle Association and the Cato Institute keep very good statistics on guns used for self-defense in the United States. The Cato Institutes heat map includes guns used against wild animals and goes back 10 years. There are a few instances a month where guns are used for legitimate self-defense purposes. There are millions of crimes committed every year using guns.

    In Vegas people blast each other nearly every day. Go back through the archives and figure out how many self-defense shootings have occurred in the last 20 years. You would be very lucky to find ten.

  16. Jeff... Because we allow abortion we should allow people to kill each other whenever they want? You've obviously never been shot or shot at. I have and it's not nearly as much fun as you think.

    You could make abortion illegal tomorrow and we would still have 300 people a day getting shot.

  17. We get it hageman. Killing babies is not important unless it's a cause you believe in.

    Hold gun owners responsible? Yes.

    Hold baby killers responsible? No.

    We get it. 54 million babies without a chance to breath, grow up or experience life, laugh, smile, love and being loved. It's just not important to you.

  18. The topic is responsible gun ownership. Not abortion or car accidents.

  19. Just for the record I am opposed to irresponsible sexual behavior and rampant gun proliferation. Having millions of abortions and millions of gun violence victims is a national disgrace.

  20. "Killer... The core purpose for gun ownership in the United States is criminal activity, not self-defense."

    "Just for the record I am opposed to irresponsible sexual behavior and rampant gun proliferation."

    Zippert -- first, wrong again. Start with Heller. Second, consider how "rampant gun proliferation" is a natural and perhaps intended result of this climate of fear imposed by a predatory government and omnipresent media manufacturing public opinion. And a willing herd.

    "Women can choose to kill their unborn baby....."

    BoliBB -- you're off topic, so give it a rest. Get a letter featured here and start up that Discussion. I'll be happy to participate there. Until then expect to be ignored here.

    "I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically." -- Henry David Thoreau 1849 "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience"

  21. The subject is death and responsibility. KillerB and hageman can't wiggle away that easy.

    It's okay guys. Liberal democrats always have their own definition to their causes but obviously, some deaths are more important to you guys than others. Sleep well.

  22. KillerB,

    Please note that I say that guns "not in use" must be properly secured. "In use" can mean a gun used as a ready weapon in the house.

    My point is that weapons, of any type, must be under proper supervision at all times.

    It is one thing to keep a weapon at hand, say on your nightstand when you are sleeping. It is quite another to leave it unattended there when you go out. I see conflict with Heller by requiring proper supervision.

  23. Gun proliferation has nothing to do with government. It has everything to do with Rambo movies. People didn't know what battle rifles and assault rifles were until they started seeing them on the big screen. When Hollywood started putting these weapons in every movie they made people started buying them in mass. Prior to the 1970s they were almost nonexistent in society. Every drug dealer in the world has a picture of Al Pacino holding an M-16 with a grenade launcher on his wall. Scarface made assault rifles popular with the drug dealing crowd.

    Very few people owned .44 Magnum handguns before Clint Eastwood and dirty Harry. He put the Smith & Wesson model 29 on the map.

  24. Nehemiah Griego, the 15 year old New Mexico shooter who shot his family to death was home schooled by his Pastor Father, Grieg Griego who gave sermons at the the Calvary Chapel. Nehemiah was not allowed to play video games or watch violent movies on TV. His family lived out in the country, most likely to prevent being tainted by the temptations and sins of city life.

    Nehemiah had had a "minor disagreement" with his mom Sarah Griego on Friday night. In all, he shot his three younger siblings and waited all night for his father to come home to shoot him.

    No mental evaluation of anyone in that family would have ever predicted this outcome, so it would be worthwhile to listen to the NRA's or gun proponent's determination of responsibility in this case.

    My personal question: why would a person who is deeply religious, with such a strong faith and exuding Biblical values need an AR-15 and handguns in his house to feel secure?

    My suggestion to these people, is to exchange their guns and ammunition for lessons in martial arts such as Karate, Taekwondo, or Kung Fu and acquire a true peace of mind that doesn't require stoning human beings to death for minor indiscretions.

    Those that stopped Gabrielle Gifford's shooter had no weapons - they had something much more important: an extremely high personal integrity, bravery and intelligence. Someone who needs military style weapons and hundreds if not thousands of rounds of ammunition at home or nearby is never secure. They can only experience momentary complacency that can and will disappear quickly with the slightest provocation.

    The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries. Causality and responsibility is just that simple.

  25. Assault rifles were developed so that the individual soldier could engage multiple targets as well as fortified positions. Today we have teenagers doing drive-by shootings with these weapons. This was never the intended purpose. They were developed for the military and should stay with the military.

  26. The discussion on abortions has no relevance to gun responsibility because embryos are not human beings. Guns kill living human beings; early term abortions do not.

    In the beginning stages of pregnancy up to 20 days, the human embryo has the same form as a fish. It has a prominent tail, no brain and no organs. It is not possible to look at the early embryo and determine whether it is a fish, amphibian, reptile, chicken, bird, goat, pterodactyl, whale or human. This is because embryos of all creatures undergo the successive stages in development, similar those in the evolutionary history of the specific creature.

    The first kidney in a human embryo is structured like a fish. The second kidney to appear is that of a reptile and the fish kidney is consumed as the embryo matures. The third kidney to appear is that of a primate, then the reptile kidney disappears.

    The only part of the reptile to remain after birth is the reptile brain, the 'inner brain'. It controls the internal organs but may well have a retrograde effect on the consciousness for the highly emotional.

    Only ~5% of the entire DNA chain carries the instructions and regulatory coding for the development of the human animal. 95% of the human genome is junk and baggage, amino acid sequences from eons past that have no part in developmental function. This baggage carries fossil genes from the past, no longer used and junk virus that have inserted themselves into the DNA chain.

    The embryo evolves through the same sequence and shapes as creatures from it's evolutionary past. If there has ever been a member of the family that looked like a Big Mouth Bass, there is a substantial reason for this.

    To end the life of a fish, a frog or a mocking bird with no reason is nothing to be proud of, but it is not at all the same as killing a human being with a gun. Abortions have no relevance to the slaughter of innocents with weapons of mass destruction.

  27. SunJon says "The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries. Causality and responsibility is just that simple."

    To which I ask, do you have a tattoo with the saying "cum hoc ergo propter hoc"?

    Or to make it simple for you......
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation...

  28. gerry says "Assault rifles were developed so that the individual soldier could engage multiple targets as well as fortified positions."

    If you are referring to large capacity semi-automatic rifles (as targeted in the current drive for a new "assault weapon ban") then you are seriously deficient in history.

    The first widely produced semi-automatic rifle with large capacity removable magazines was the Winchester Model 1905. It was produced for the civilian market starting in (not surprisingly) 1905.

    The first semi-automatic rifle adopted and widely issued by a major military power (France) was the Fusil Automatique Modele 1917.

    With the standard equipment removable magazine and the optional pistol grip, the Winchester Model 1905 meets the criteria of an "assault weapon" from the 1994 ban.

    So "assault weapons" were in widespread use the civilian market for 12 years before they were adopted by any major military.

    Of course you may be referring to fully automatic "assault rifles" in which case you are correct about the reason for their development....but since they've already been illegal in the US since 1934 it doesn't really help your point.
    (especially since the 1934 "machine gun" ban also failed to achieve any decrease in violent crime, gun crime, or gun deaths)

  29. Nobody's going to take our guns. Guns like cars, the government wants to regulate safety.The last time I checked there are restrictions on automobiles.You need a license to drive, take a written and road test to acquire one. The car has to be registered and insured.Some states require you to obtain a safety check.You have to wear seat belts and children under a certain age need to be in a car seat. Drivers that transport goods or people need special licenses. You can not drive while intoxicated or on drugs. You can not exceed the speed limit.Certain modifications on autos are illegal.Can not drive down a one way street, must stop at a red light, go on green. On and on and on...
    Those that complain that this is an attack on our Second Amendment rights were ever so mute when our Fourth,Fifth,and Sixth Amendments were trampled by the Patriot Act.

  30. @KalihiValleyBoy....You are right, "The last time I checked there are restrictions on automobiles.You need a license to drive, take a written and road test to acquire one. The car has to be registered and insured....You can not drive while intoxicated or on drugs. You can not exceed the speed limit.Certain modifications on autos are illegal.Can not drive down a one way street, must stop at a red light, go on green. On and on and on..."

    However, that brings up two questions. 1)Considering the number of vehicle related deaths far exceeds the number of gun related deaths in this country, how effective has all that government regulation been? 2) Exactly which one of the Constitution's 27 amendments states " the right of the people to keep and DRIVE CARS, shall not be infringed."

    You see while this county found the time to make the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited" and then 13 years later, repeal that very amendment, we have never once even considered providing the same constitutional protections to car owners that guns owners now enjoy. Nor, have we once considered an amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment as we did with the 18th.

    That being said, I do agree that some of the comments here, in their zeal to protect our 2nd Amendment rights, seem to have no problem gutting the rights we enjoy under the 1st "no violent movies or video games" and the 5th guarantee against being "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.." as those who call for "laws to force the mentally ill to receive help and control their environment" seem to endorse.

    But that's what comes from reactionary attempts at solving problems without first understanding the true breadth of the problem and by caring about one issue at the expense of those that don't matter to you.

    One can't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution should be defended.

  31. "Carmine,

    You seem to disagree with everything about the government.

    How's that working?" @ antigov

    With your untrusted name here, you should tell us.

    CarmineD

  32. KalihiValleyBoy mixes apples with oranges and bghs1986 goes along. For your info, guys, one is a "Right;" the other a "priviledge." Obtaining a drivers license is a "priviledge," while gun ownership is a "Right." There is a vast difference. Authorities have a wider latitude in dealing with "priviledges" than they do with "Rights." Take gaming licenses as another example. The state has made it extremely tough to obtain them. applicants have to jump through many hoops and prove their worthiness to be licensed. Not so with, say, "Freedom of Speech." Almost all of us, except the nuts on the far left, agree that "Free Speech" is a Constitutional right and must be treated with the utmost respect. So it is with gun "Rights." The nuts on the left want to abrogate gun ownership rights and are frustrated that they are limited in what they can impose by way of regulations so they urge the guy with the Cheshire Grin, empty rhetoric and ignorant policies to ignore the Constitution and impose illegal regulations. In response, the cretin in the Oval Office is busily trying to find ways around the Constitution. He will have no luck in doing so. Thank God and our forefathers for that.

  33. @Lvfacts101..."KalihiValleyBoy mixes apples with oranges and bghs1986 goes along. For your info, guys, one is a "Right;" the other a "priviledge.[sic]"

    So, how did I "go along" with Kalih's nonsense. What part of my pointing out that not "one of the Constitution's 27 amendments states 'the right of the people to keep and DRIVE CARS, shall not be infringed.' leads you to believe I don't get that one's a driving is not a right.

    Perhaps my pointing out that "we have never once even considered providing the same constitutional protections to car owners that guns owners now enjoy," that confused you.

    The bulk of my post was pointing out that driving restrictions are not applicable to the discussion since driving isn't a right.

    I do find it interesting that this very same drivers licences argument and how often its use required is used by tea party wackos when it comes to voter ids. It's odd how a group so quick to point out the difference between the RIGHT to bear arms and the PRIVILEGE to drive, fail to see the difference between the RIGHT to VOTE and the PRIVILEGE to board a commercial airplane.

    It's not just the far left who tries to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are sacrosanct, the tea party nuts on the far right do the same thing.