More on Spring City

Another thought on Spring City, the Utah city of close to 1,000 residents that is considered requiring every household in town to have a gun, and is still considering requesting that each household own a gun.

I heard Mark Shurtleff, former Utah attorney general, say mandating it would have been illegal. Thought of the law that would make it illegal (having been looking at state laws a week or two ago), and looked it up. It's 53-5a-102-4, "All authority to regulate firearms is reserved to the state except where the Legislature specifically delegates responsibility to local authorities or state entities."

Is asking the city's asking residents to own a gun in any way a form of regulation? Don't know. Guess as long as you are not making gun ownership a requirement, it isn't regulation.

Spring City Wants a Gun in Every Household

   Here's the exact opposite thing from what I'd like to see happen: Spring City has the notion everyone should go out and buy a gun. They thought about passing an ordinance requiring gun ownership, but then thought better of that, and now are just considering asking the good folks to make sure there's at least one gun in every household.
   Every home needs a refrigerator, a stove, and a gun. I've heard that in the rental advertisements down there, when they say an apartment comes with all amenities, it means that along with the washer and dryer, the place comes stocked with a gun. (Just kidding, of course.)
   Me, I've been saying that I'm all for those in risky places having guns . . . and I wouldn't outlaw them . . . and, I'm not in favor of gun control. But, as you know, I hardly like guns. My thought is, we have too many of them laying around, and they too easily fall into the wrong hands.
   But, you know, a gun in every kitchen just might work. The idea's been tried before, and it came out mighty fine. In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance requiring every head of household to own a gun and ammunition to go with it.
   Burglaries decreased, and to this day Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate in all of Cobb County.
   Here's my thought on that: There is, indeed, going to be a fear factor for criminals if they know in advance they are breaking into a home where a gun is going to greet them. If I were a criminal, and I had a choice between doing my burglary shopping in Kennesaw or in nearby Acworth, think I'd head over to Acworth.
   But, all this doesn't negate the negatives of too many guns. It's still a fact that 600,000 of them are stolen every year in America. It's still a fact that a good chunk of crimes are committed with stolen guns. And, it's probably true a few criminals wouldn't go a criminalizing if they didn't have a gun waiting in their closets. It's definitely true many suicides would not be a happening but for a handy gun. And, it's probably true some amount of our domestic violence murders would never take place but for ready availability of a gun in the home.
   I go one step further. I say not always, but sometimes the gun is a tempting and harmful influence. All our hobbies and toys affect us. All have a sway. There are only so many things you can do with a gun, and it is from that list of possible uses that the influences of a gun must come. You could leave heroine on the counter, and nine out of ten church-goers who had never before touched drugs wouldn't go near it.
   But sooner or later, someone would. Why do we suppose guns are any different? I say, in places where we don't need them, we are better off without them. 
   
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865570152/A-gun-in-every-household-Utah-town-drafting-a-resolution.html

Gun Ownership a Cause for Suicides Being High in Utah

   Ah, I've found in a scientific journal that the availability of weapons leads to more deaths. The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, April 2007:
   "US residents of all ages and both sexes are more likely to die from suicide when they live in areas where more households contain firearms." The researchers took the states with the highest gun ownership and compared them to those with the lowest. What did they find? That twice as many suicides were committed in the states with the most guns.
   Another link, this one from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention says guns are used in more suicides than homicides. It follows, then, that if the availability of a weapon is a factor, then having a lot of weapons is going to drive up the number suicides. This probably is a factor in why Utah is among the states with the highest suicide rates.

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2007&issue=04000&article=00031&type=abstract

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/health/17risk.html?_r=0

http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=050fea9f-b064-4092-b1135c3a70de1fda

 Scattering Weapons Aimlessly no Way to Wage War on Crime

  Would we bring our soldiers to Afghanistan, dump them at the borders of the country, give them a gun, and tell them to wander on in and start fighting?
   That doesn't fit the mode of deployment.
   Fighting a war that way would not make sense. Nor does it make any more sense to suppose we should scatter weapons aimlessly across America in hopes of fighting crime.
   If we did sent soldiers blindly, one by one, into Afghanistan, many would run into armed units that would easily out number them and overpower them, and their newly issued guns would be taken by the enemy. It is no different in our war on crime. Having weapons scattered everywhere leads to many of them to fall into the hands of the enemy, to be stolen and used against us. A good portion of the violent crimes in America are committed with stolen weapons.
   Rather than scattering guns aimlessly, we should deploy our weapons. It is the same with the war on crime as it is with a literal war. This does not mean we do not allow everyone the right to keep and bear arms, but it does mean we should not, as a nation, teach each other that everyone should go out and buy a gun.
   Put guns where they can do some good. Scatter them everywhere and you are leaving them where they can do some harm.

Mark Shurtleff Made Mistake as He Walked Out the Door

It does seem this a case of conflict of interest, elected official using his office to help someone who lines his or her pocket.

And, it does seem we, as the public, should demand that it not happen. What was done was not illegal, but if this was not a case of being sold out, the appearance of being such is so great we should not just glance at our feet or turn our eyes the other way.

Mark Shurtleff, out-going attorney general. Bless him, but not for what he did as he walked out of office, not for one of his final acts.

Shurtleff's next job will be with Troutman Sanders LLP, an international law firm with Bank of America as a client.

Bank of America. The Utah Attorney General's Office was pursuing a foreclosure lawsuit against the bank. The judge already had issued a strong ruling against the bank and a final ruling was yet to come. In a last act in office, though, Shurtleff signed a settlement letting Bank of America off the hook.

Despite the fact lower attorneys in the office counselled against doing so. Despite the fact the move was seen as weakening the state's ability to enforce the law. 

Shurtleff said there was no connection between his action and Bank of America being a client of his upcoming employer. I would say, though, that if he so much as was aware that B of A was a client, he should not have taken the action he did.

Using public office for personal benefit is wrong. Doing so at the expense of the public is wrong. Using public office to let someone out of legal obligations is wrong. Doing so when they will be part of your income is wrong. Standing by the case as it progressed and prospered, only to make a 180 shortly and drop it just after accepting a job with B of A as a client is . . .

Wrong.

Guns: If They are Evil, They are a Necessary Evil

"It will be necessary for men of peace to have guns, as long as men of violence do. We can't put all the force in the hands of evil." -- Louis L'Amour

For all the need to have fewer guns in America, there remains a need to have guns.

And, in the hands of the populace. 

I do not know the proportion of crimes cut short by citizens with their own guns. Nor do I know how many shootings are only made worse when citizens do intercede. If statistics show me wrong, I likely will change my opinion.

Until then, I hold that guns can make a difference. I am with those who argue that if the principal at Sandy Hook had had a gun, instead of just rushing the shooter, she would have shot him, shortening the carnage.

I'm with those who say that if you don't have a gun to defend yourself, then you are a sitting duck.

I'm with those who say that while it takes a while for the law to arrive, a gun already at the scene can stop the criminal about as quick as he is getting started.

Guns are not inherently good. But, if they are evil, they are a necessary evil. They are an instrument of death, but they can also be the instrument that saves lives. 

Two Stories Suggest to Me Crimes of Impulse are Higher

Yesterday, the Salt Lake Tribune's lead article spoke of how gun deaths in Utah are mostly suicides, which, it occurs to me, are often committed on impulse. Today, the Deseret News website comes along with an article on how domestic violence cases account for many of the homicides. Domestic violence also tends to be a spontaneous thing. These are not planned crimes we are talking about, but crimes where the availability of a weapon is going to be a factor.

Now, Utah has a low enough crime rate, overall, but with crimes of impulse, judging from these two articles, I begin to wonder if the rates are higher. 

Should we be surprised? Should we -- having so many weapons -- be surprised to learn that a high percentage of our gun killings are crimes of impulse?


http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55526844-78/gun-utah-health-deaths.html.csp

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865569730/Domestic-violence-behind-many-of-Utahs-2012-homicides.html?pg=2