The city council of Spring City, Utah believes more guns means less crime. The city council recommends that every head of household own a firearm. They believe that guns in the hands of properly trained citizens will deter any criminal.

KUTV has more:

A city councilman in Spring City, Utah is proposing to have a gun in every home – however not every resident is in agreement with the proposal.

Neil Sorensen initially wanted to require all 340 homes in Spring City to have a gun – but his proposal was met with disagreement from the community.

Many residents of the rural town of 1,000 residents said they had never had a problem with crime, but many, including the San Pete County Sheriff said they were concerned about many people, including the mentally ill, getting a gun in their hands.

In response, Sorensen said the ordinance he was looking for a way to ensure that every residence was prepared to protect themselves against intruders. Sorensen changed the language of the proposal, making it a recommendation for residents to have guns instead of a requirement after he was met with negative feedback. Many residents now say they are hesitant but think it may be beneficial.

 

Did Obama Help ISIS?

 

Disable Refresh for 30 Days

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled for your setting to be saved.

1 2

`
  1. Like mandatory service, this bill sounds nice. But no one should be forcing citizens to do anything. Also, guns are a dangerous tool that require a high level of maturity and responsibility. They should be in the hands of people who want to own them. Want to train with them. Want to be proficient. And feel capable of using them to defend others. Not everyone is a sheepdog. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Forcing guns into the hands of people that don’t want them, don’t like them, or fear them is a recipe for disaster. Work on educating the public on firearms and maintain our freedom to own them. Gun ownership will rise on its own.

  2. If it weren’t so cold so long i would move there for the freedom .
    what a great idea imo . 2nd Admin cheerleaders . A whole town with good sense .

  3. This is dumb. The head of the household should make this decision, not the government. Period. Ever.

    On another note of common interest, here: We need to keep tabs on what’s going on in our “education” system.

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/dishonest-educators/

    “There’s some basis in fact for the speculation that it’s mostly black teachers buying grades, and that includes former Steelers wide receiver Cedrick Wilson, who’s been indicted for fraud. According to a study titled “Differences in Passing Rates on Praxis I Tests by Race/Ethnicity Group” (March 2011), the percentages of blacks who passed the Praxis I reading, writing and mathematics tests on their first try were 41, 44 and 37, respectively. For white test takers, the respective percentages were 82, 80 and 78.”

    “This test-taking fraud is merely the tip of a much larger iceberg. It highlights the educational fraud being perpetrated on blacks during their K-12 education. Four or five years of college — even majoring in education, an undemanding subject — cannot make up for those 13 years of rotten education. Then they’re given a college degree that is fraudulent, seeing as some have difficulty passing a test that shouldn’t be challenging to even a 12th-grader. Here’s my question: If they manage to get through the mockery of teacher certification, at what schools do you think they will teach?”

    My Conservative friends, take heart. You have more friends and allies than you know. Read the whole article.

    It is not racist to look critically at the most spectacular failures among our primary and secondary schools, and notice who is being cheated out of a decent education.

  4. Agreed–the concept is worthy but no place for the govt to be involved.

  5. Valerie, you are off-topic but in an interesting place.

    You say “look critically at the most spectacular failures among our primary and secondary schools”

    I assume you mean among our PUBLIC primary and secondary schools. Correct?

  6. Fine as long as it’s NOT a taxpayer funded program and doesn’t create any government agencies.

  7. Today’s Headline:

    Mistaking him for a burlar, man unintentionally shoots and kills his brother.

  8. Stupid. It would be no different than requiring people give up guns. It’s not for the government to decide! We already reserved the right for ourselves in the constitution to make these decisions on our own.

    GTFO

  9. DUMB commenters:

    circa 1979- Morton Grove, Illinois village idiots passed the strictest CITIZEN control law in the country

    circa 1981- Kennesaw, Georgia City Fathers issued a “Take That, you fools” law mandating a gun in every home.

    can you figure out the rest of the story?

  10. A better law would be to require the schools to set up/contract with firing ranges and teach proper firearms operation and safety as part of the cirriculum. The 2nd amendment is a constitutionally guaranteed right and also a responsibility. Also make it very easy to manufacture and sell rifles and pistols without a bunch of headaches (ie: quality weapons should be cheap and available).

  11. Call it a tax and not a mandate and the Dems and the Supreme Court will approve it.

  12. In Kennesaw GA it’s the law:

    http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

    My Kind of Town…

  13. The problem is with the word “require” a gun. Change that to “encouraged” to have a gun, and make it a resolution not a law. Now you have a great attitude about the second amendment and have done all you should to make the homes in your community safer through the homeowners efforts.

  14. Leslie Brillstein commented:

    Today’s Headline: Mistaking him for a burglar, man unintentionally shoots and kills his brother.
    ______________________________________________________________

    And your point would be? 5 killed on their way home from church by suspected drunk driver
    http://www.wafb.com/story/18662289/5-killed-on-their-way-home-from-church-by-suspected-drunk-driver
    But hey lets license drivers, oh we do that.
    OK make it a crime to drink and drive, oops done that also.
    How about outlawing booze, that might work. NOT.
    Then how about preventing anyone suffering from a drinking problem, or who has ever attended AA from owning a car or being allowed a drivers license.

  15. You’re right, if everyone were driving around drunk we’d have less drunk drivers on the road.

  16. Finally, someone in government with some common sense. That would indeed deter crime. We all know that not everyone should have a gun. We definately want to exclude those with criminal, violent, and mental issues. However, I agree with commentor #16 RKflorida it should be encouraged, not required. And to #9 Leslie: The Feb. 8, 2012 headline in the Milwalkee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel (a 2008, 2010, 2011 Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper) reads “Researchers at the Cato Institute have reviewed eight years worth of news reports about shooting in self-defense and conclude, “the vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent, and tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.” Now go away you one-sided, single-minded Liberal Markist/Communist.

  17. Opps, should be spelled Marxist.



1 2


`

© Copyright 2014, TheGatewayPundit.com. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions