NOT a CCW thread

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

I never said that guns were not effective...guns are not the issue.

People on the other hand....

I for one would love to be able to carry a gun under appropriate circumstances. I would not mind that others might be permitted to do the same but... not a concealed weapon and not in the hands of anyone not specifically trained in the appropriate laws and specifically trained and conditioned on how to react in crisis situations...escalation avoidance and finally... trained in armed response to threats and killing.

Its serious business and not for anyone unwilling to commit to something more than a filling out an application and buying a new holster.

Still waiting for some answers by the way... just sayin.

You have said in post after post how GUNS do not prevent crime, do not prevent death or serious injury.

Now you change your position to PEOPLE do not know how to use guns to prevent crime or serious injury\death.

I am not a police officer, but have a couple relatives that are and support CCW.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bl.../3075680/posts

[connexion123]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

For a guy that took the position that he needed to feed everyone else hard "facts" you sure seem to be sensitive about a fair response in kind.

So... accepting that those stabbing could have been prevented please pray tell us... how CCW would have prevented them and while you are at it tell us if there is anything else that might have prevented those stabbings just as neatly.


Oh....and tell us have there been times that CCW and Open Carry actually did not prevent a tragedy or worse yet...when it actually caused a tragedy?

Man pulls out knife and starts stabbing. CCW man pulls out firearm and neutralizes. Done. That is how.

When seconds count the police are minutes away.

There are times unprotected sex caused std's to spread and other times it didn't.

The argument doesn't hold water. CCW won't provide a be all end all fix, but would ( and has been proven in the US) be a drastic and significant improvement.

You started with a poor tone and insults, and you're surprised I get upset over that? Wow. That should be common sense.

[connexion123]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

There ya go... making your own
"facts" again.

Prove it.

Do us all a courtesy and stop guessing and think about exactly what you are saying then back it up with facts. While you are at it include the data that argues otherwise.

FBI stats prove it. Where there is more CCW, violent crime decreases.

[connexion123]

Originally Posted by bison

Yep, that worked excellent that time in the case of James Roszko in Mayerthorpe for one

99% of the time cops are just a cleanup crew after the fact, no need for guns at all.
The one that may have needed the gun is probably dead as a door nail

That is correct.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by expmler

You have said in post after post how GUNS do not prevent crime, do not prevent death or serious injury.

Now you change your position to PEOPLE do not know how to use guns to prevent crime or serious injury\death.

I am not a police officer, but have a couple relatives that are and support CCW.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bl.../3075680/posts

No...you are picking fly poop out of pepper and drawing conclusions based upon your scued view of what I am saying.

Guns do not prevent crime.... but they can be a useful tool in the hands of the right persons.

I reject your suggestion that because you happen to be related to a couple of cops who share your view that it is valid.
I know cops as well and they would disagree. I also have a friend that is a farmer...I walked in his barn once.... but I'll never produce milk.

Finally...Free republic?
Really? And a blog no less... thats legit.

Isn't that Glen Becks rag?

And what does that mean anyway?

The question is not about whether CCW folks are more likely to commit murder but rather whether CCW does more good than harm.

I also find it funny that you refer to your police officer relatives to lend legitimacy to your position then provide us an article indicating that they are statistically less reliable than the average handgun owner.

All I originally asked you to do was to tell me how many people were saved from certain death by CCW.

I'm still waiting.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by connexion123

Man pulls out knife and starts stabbing. CCW man pulls out firearm and neutralizes. Done. That is how.

That is not crime prevention....

When seconds count the police are minutes away.

There are times unprotected sex caused std's to spread and other times it didn't.

BS.... please do not engage me in false epidemiology claims.

The argument doesn't hold water. CCW won't provide a be all end all fix, but would ( and has been proven in the US) be a drastic and significant improvement.

The jury is still out on that unless you wish to acceopt the funny numbers that come out of some sites in the US.

You started with a poor tone and insults, and you're surprised I get upset over that? Wow. That should be common sense.

[BAnd there was no tone in the post that I responded to?
Interesting. Oh well I guess some folks are just more emotional about things than others.
All I did was offer you some honest truths. I didn't think a fact guy such as yourself would need them delivered with sugar...guess I was wrong.[/B]

[Redfrog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAvY...&feature=share

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by connexion123

FBI stats prove it. Where there is more CCW, violent crime decreases.

Good... here is a little homework for you since you seem to be of the mind that more guns have made the USA safer than even here...relatively speaking.

Go to this site...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...nt/crime-clock

Figure out how how many crimes per year each category adds up to.

Compare that to Canadas crime rates and then tell me how Lott and his followers could be correct.

Then...compare the rates at which violent crime has been in decline over the last several decades and ask yourself if CCW or Open Carry made a real difference over the long haul or if its actually either a marginal difference or even just a happy co-incidence.

Then perhaps you can tell me why the country with the highest per capita crime rate in the developed world is the one that you think we should model ourselves after when it comes to issues of law and order.

Its actually counter-intuitive in a most spectacular way.

[raab]

I dunno if CCW would make sense here in Canada, but I don't see why we couldn't have a open carry. Be nice to be able to take a pistol when hiking, fishing, hunting, etc.... Also be nice to be able to walk out in the general public with one. If it's an open carry the police should be able to tell right away if they need to take precautions which they can't with CCW.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by raab

I dunno if CCW would make sense here in Canada, but I don't see why we couldn't have a open carry. Be nice to be able to take a pistol when hiking, fishing, hunting, etc.... Also be nice to be able to walk out in the general public with one. If it's an open carry the police should be able to tell right away if they need to take precautions which they can't with CCW.

Now that observation does have some merit.

I'd like to be able to legally carry a sidearm in the bush if I chose to or on private land for plinking...gophers etc.
The real question with those parts of the law is...why not?

Open carry could be a viable option under some circumstances and open carry in public could be workable if we went about it in a thoughtful fashion.
I still hold that something more than a license should be necessary though and that it is not really necessary for personal safety.

Not that being necessary is the only criteria by which we should make our decisions.

[raab]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Now that observation does have some merit.

I'd like to be able to legally carry a sidearm in the bush if I chose to or on private land for plinking...gophers etc.
The real question with those parts of the law is...why not?

Open carry could be a viable option under some circumstances and open carry in public could be workable if we went about it in a thoughtful fashion.
I still hold that something more than a license should be necessary however.

I agree, I think anyone who wanted an open carry permit should have to go take an extra course on safety in public, violent situations, etc... Just to have a basic understanding of what to do if an issue did arise, and to keep the general public safe as well as themselves.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by raab

I agree, I think anyone who wanted an open carry permit should have to go take an extra course on safety in public, violent situations, etc... Just to have a basic understanding of what to do if an issue did arise, and to keep the general public safe as well as themselves.

You are on a roll tonight....

There you go again making sense and cutting to the core here.
The unspoken concern is of course that a well meaning fella does not get his butt in a sling Trying but failing to do the right thing.

Great freedom comes with great responsibility and risk the ay around that is not to change laws and make that which is unlawful lawful but rather to make sure that people act in a manner that is acceptable within the confines that society has set out.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

. but I'll never produce milk.


All I originally asked you to do was to tell me how many people were saved from certain death by CCW.

I'm still waiting.

Not that you'll accept a scientific study verifying other scientific studies AND not be able to come up with any of your own, but here's yet another scientific study that shows CCW saves lives. In addition to all of Lott's work, Mauser's work, Mustard etc etc etc. No facts from you though. Just guesses and anecdotal stories.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...&#.U0ahirBOVdj


At least you have a rudimentary understanding of human biology and milk production.

Apologies for the continuation of the derail re: CCW.

[220swifty]

No need to apologize. If we had made the 200 post mark without a derail, I would have had to double check that it was the sun rising this morning, not the 'bright light' you hear about from near death survivors. This is AO

[brownbomber]

Originally Posted by bison

Well i guess you read it wrong,.i was trying to say arm the law abiding citizen and issue a broom to the cops

Would training be provided for both ?

[expmler]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

No...you are picking fly poop out of pepper and drawing conclusions based upon your scued view of what I am saying.

Guns do not prevent crime.... but they can be a useful tool in the hands of the right persons.

I reject your suggestion that because you happen to be related to a couple of cops who share your view that it is valid.
I know cops as well and they would disagree. I also have a friend that is a farmer...I walked in his barn once.... but I'll never produce milk.

Finally...Free republic?
Really? And a blog no less... thats legit.

Isn't that Glen Becks rag?

And what does that mean anyway?

The question is not about whether CCW folks are more likely to commit murder but rather whether CCW does more good than harm.

I also find it funny that you refer to your police officer relatives to lend legitimacy to your position then provide us an article indicating that they are statistically less reliable than the average handgun owner.

All I originally asked you to do was to tell me how many people were saved from certain death by CCW.

I'm still waiting.

Guns stop crimes in progress.

You asked if I was a cop, I answered.

You have said that you are OK with citizens who had the same training as police carrying guns because it some how made them safer than an average citizen.

The link I posted refutes that but you choose to reject it because it does not support your position.

Your question about certain death is ridiculous. If a CCW person is killed you say it did not help, and if the person is not killed you will say death was not imminent.

You mocked my rape prevention post by saying the woman would have to be a mind reader.
She does not have to be a mind reader, if she feels threatened and warns the stranger not to come any closer because she is going to shoot him if he does and the man advances she knows he intends to harm her.

If he continues to advance and she shoots him she has prevented a crime from happening. (rape, assault, robbery)

If the man retreats she has prevented those same crimes by simply having a gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CInmI...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0SloK6pB4g

[bison]

Well,maybe Tim Hortons can provide free training for these cops by letting them sweep the floor,..they're part of the furniture there anyway .

To be able to buy a gun. you need a PAL anyway, and to get the PAL you need to get first the proper training so that part is covered.
The only thing i would ad before issuing a gun permit is a mental evaluation of the person applying for one.

[brownbomber]

I've seen to many cops on Timmy's. I think that's another urban/rural myth. Those that don't like the police usually have a bad experience or a history, that's another legend. How true is that one?

[CanadianReich]

handguns?

how about simply letting self defense be acknowledged as a right, at all, period.

you can not carry anything for protection in our country, nothing.

hell, in nova scotia you cant even carry a long gun in the woods for self defense, even with a PAL .......

(you have to pretend you are hunting, you can not use self defense as a reason)


you can not own a gun for the purpose of self defense, thats illegal for all of us, even with a PAL/ RPAL.

a woman in a high crime area can not carry pepper spray or *anything* to protect herself........


the problem here is self defense is pretty much illegal....... and IMO it comes down to international "norms and standards" thanks to the disarmament crowd at the UN.

they use their "small arms survey" data, which is junk science imo funded by governments produced by IANSA- to claim that women and children are in danger, so guns and self defense should be denied.

see wendy cukier on the news talking of polytechinqe, or womens shelters noting they need the long gun registry, to protect women and children....... this is IANSA at work- blaming every legal gun owner in Canada for the actions of a few people that have nothing to do with us, but on a global scale.

See green party, NDP, liberals...... gun control platform. See the Firearms Act, all due to IANSA's input (UN, and their Programme of Action to combat "illicit" arms (ie any gun not owned by a cop or soldier)).

Eliz May even mentions we need to abide by the UN standards and live up to our end.

The war on self defense is a global one.

So long as CFO dictate who gets to CCW it will never happen. So long as RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police dictate policy to our MLAs and MPs (these groups are also influenced by or part of IANSA (aka Coalition for Gun Control here in CAnada)) dont count on CCW in Canada any time soon.......... actually, count on a total handgun ban, semi auto ban, and eventually a ban on pump action firearms and centerfire firearms afterward.


Wont list any sources, google some of my keywords for few hours and youll find plenty


Best we can hope for is our government sees the junk science behind the gun control lobby- "gun deaths" (cops shootings, civilian self defense shootings, criminal shootings all grouped together), "gun violence" (ignores total violence and causes of)- all they care about is correlating total guns in a population VS "gun death" and "gun crime" and then using that to ban guns - any guns- from the population- ie legal gun owner's guns.

"more guns = more death" is their main theme.

Ill stop talking now, I type too damn fast.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by CanadianReich

handguns?

how about simply letting self defense be acknowledged as a right, at all, period.

you can not carry anything for protection in our country, nothing.

hell, in nova scotia you cant even carry a long gun in the woods for self defense, even with a PAL .......

(you have to pretend you are hunting, you can not use self defense as a reason)


you can not own a gun for the purpose of self defense, thats illegal for all of us, even with a PAL/ RPAL.

a woman in a high crime area can not carry pepper spray or *anything* to protect herself........


the problem here is self defense is pretty much illegal....... and IMO it comes down to international "norms and standards" thanks to the disarmament crowd at the UN.

they use their "small arms survey" data, which is junk science imo funded by governments produced by IANSA- to claim that women and children are in danger, so guns and self defense should be denied.

see wendy cukier on the news talking of polytechinqe, or womens shelters noting they need the long gun registry, to protect women and children....... this is IANSA at work- blaming every legal gun owner in Canada for the actions of a few people that have nothing to do with us, but on a global scale.

See green party, NDP, liberals...... gun control platform. See the Firearms Act, all due to IANSA's input (UN, and their Programme of Action to combat "illicit" arms (ie any gun not owned by a cop or soldier)).

Eliz May even mentions we need to abide by the UN standards and live up to our end.

The war on self defense is a global one.

So long as CFO dictate who gets to CCW it will never happen. So long as RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police dictate policy to our MLAs and MPs (these groups are also influenced by or part of IANSA (aka Coalition for Gun Control here in CAnada)) dont count on CCW in Canada any time soon.......... actually, count on a total handgun ban, semi auto ban, and eventually a ban on pump action firearms and centerfire firearms afterward.


Wont list any sources, google some of my keywords for few hours and youll find plenty


Best we can hope for is our government sees the junk science behind the gun control lobby- "gun deaths" (cops shootings, civilian self defense shootings, criminal shootings all grouped together), "gun violence" (ignores total violence and causes of)- all they care about is correlating total guns in a population VS "gun death" and "gun crime" and then using that to ban guns - any guns- from the population- ie legal gun owner's guns.

"more guns = more death" is their main theme.

Ill stop talking now, I type too damn fast.

Good post

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by raab

I agree, I think anyone who wanted an open carry permit should have to go take an extra course on safety in public, violent situations, etc... Just to have a basic understanding of what to do if an issue did arise, and to keep the general public safe as well as themselves.

And the few people in Canada (law enforcement excluded) that have a permit to carry a side arm do have to be certified and pass a proficiency test with said side arm. I know I did.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by expmler

Guns stop crimes in progress.

You asked if I was a cop, I answered.

You have said that you are OK with citizens who had the same training as police carrying guns because it some how made them safer than an average citizen.

The link I posted refutes that but you choose to reject it because it does not support your position.

Your question about certain death is ridiculous. If a CCW person is killed you say it did not help, and if the person is not killed you will say death was not imminent.

You mocked my rape prevention post by saying the woman would have to be a mind reader.
She does not have to be a mind reader, if she feels threatened and warns the stranger not to come any closer because she is going to shoot him if he does and the man advances she knows he intends to harm her.

If he continues to advance and she shoots him she has prevented a crime from happening. (rape, assault, robbery)

If the man retreats she has prevented those same crimes by simply having a gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CInmI...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0SloK6pB4g

feeling threatened and being threatened are different things keep in mind.

personally what people do in private, on their own property, on property they're allowed to be on (private or crown) is of no concern to me. I rather not be out in the bush, on the river or lake outside of hunting season and have to listen to gunfire on a regular basis(key words here). this would detract from my peaceful enjoyment. if guys are shooting when I arrive I can always find a quieter spot, but haven't seen many guys who refrain from shooting or move on if others are around. nothing wrong with any of it really, but I like the quiet more then gunfire.

guns in public, I'd have to draw the line. I wouldn't make a big fuss, cast my vote as that should be a referendum issue imo, and vote with my wallet, but if it passes it passes. it's a personal thing, I'd like to live in a society that doesn't require everyone to be armed for protection, and I believe that we do already. Violent crime in Canada has been on the decline for many years now. There are instances where a firearm would be beneficial, but they are rare occurrences and there's not a huge need for an alarmist approach. the alarmist approach is not going to convince the Anti crowd what so ever.

if a balanced approach was presented with private use on private lands and away from the public within reason on crown lands, and transport permits that go beyond single use, 6mo-3years issued after some sort of public safety seminar 1-2 hours tops. coupled with swifties why not defense you could get some positive change for you shooting enthusiast. keep hunting with a hand gun out for now, one battle at a time animal activists + gun control activists are a loud bunch.

[raab]

Originally Posted by CanadianReich

handguns?

how about simply letting self defense be acknowledged as a right, at all, period.

you can not carry anything for protection in our country, nothing.

hell, in nova scotia you cant even carry a long gun in the woods for self defense, even with a PAL .......

(you have to pretend you are hunting, you can not use self defense as a reason)


you can not own a gun for the purpose of self defense, thats illegal for all of us, even with a PAL/ RPAL.

a woman in a high crime area can not carry pepper spray or *anything* to protect herself........


the problem here is self defense is pretty much illegal....... and IMO it comes down to international "norms and standards" thanks to the disarmament crowd at the UN.

they use their "small arms survey" data, which is junk science imo funded by governments produced by IANSA- to claim that women and children are in danger, so guns and self defense should be denied.

see wendy cukier on the news talking of polytechinqe, or womens shelters noting they need the long gun registry, to protect women and children....... this is IANSA at work- blaming every legal gun owner in Canada for the actions of a few people that have nothing to do with us, but on a global scale.

See green party, NDP, liberals...... gun control platform. See the Firearms Act, all due to IANSA's input (UN, and their Programme of Action to combat "illicit" arms (ie any gun not owned by a cop or soldier)).

Eliz May even mentions we need to abide by the UN standards and live up to our end.

The war on self defense is a global one.

So long as CFO dictate who gets to CCW it will never happen. So long as RCMP and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police dictate policy to our MLAs and MPs (these groups are also influenced by or part of IANSA (aka Coalition for Gun Control here in CAnada)) dont count on CCW in Canada any time soon.......... actually, count on a total handgun ban, semi auto ban, and eventually a ban on pump action firearms and centerfire firearms afterward.


Wont list any sources, google some of my keywords for few hours and youll find plenty


Best we can hope for is our government sees the junk science behind the gun control lobby- "gun deaths" (cops shootings, civilian self defense shootings, criminal shootings all grouped together), "gun violence" (ignores total violence and causes of)- all they care about is correlating total guns in a population VS "gun death" and "gun crime" and then using that to ban guns - any guns- from the population- ie legal gun owner's guns.

"more guns = more death" is their main theme.

Ill stop talking now, I type too damn fast.

Good post. I honestly don't get why some groups are advocating so hard to get rid of all firearms. If no average citizen has any firearms we are sittings ducks if/when any political sort of strife happens in this country. Personally I'd rather see something like Switzerland use to have where pretty much every male at 20 undergoes basic recruit training, and enlisted into the militia until 30. They were then issued a rifle and 50 rounds of sealed ammunition that they kept at home.

Maybe its just my internal conspiracist coming out but something just doesn't seem right about wanting to take away ALL firearms.

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by raab

Good post. I honestly don't get why some groups are advocating so hard to get rid of all firearms. If no average citizen has any firearms we are sittings ducks if/when any political sort of strife happens in this country. Personally I'd rather see something like Switzerland use to have where pretty much every male at 20 undergoes basic recruit training, and enlisted into the militia until 30. They were then issued a rifle and 50 rounds of sealed ammunition that they kept at home.

Maybe its just my internal conspiracist coming out but something just doesn't seem right about wanting to take away ALL firearms.

I agree. It has nothing to do with being a conspiracy theorist. All you have to do is read up on some not to distant history.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by 220swifty

That had me thinking today, how does this forum view handguns as a defensive tool, in places other than the urban public. Let's say, for example, a bill was introduced tomorrow that allowed handgun owners to essentially use them as they would a non-restricted, and store them as they see fit at home. It would also make it legal to use a firearm on your own property for defense of life and livelyhood.

Discuss, without getting this one locked too.

The OP is mentioning 2 distinct topics,
1-using a restricted weapon as non-restricted, and
2-Castle Doctrine.

(BTW I do not agree with the 'store them as they see fit' line, to some hidden under a kleenix in a shoe box beside the bed may see fit.)

1-I would love to be able to take out my legally registered handguns to a farmers field and shoot gophers. Beyond that and now very occasional target practise I don't care.

2-if I have the time to get my properly secured weapons out of the safe, remove the trigger lock, get into the other room where the ammo is kept, (yes in the magazine, omg I know!!!) lock and load to intercept someone that is threatening and capable of harming myself or my family/friends in my house I will take my chances in court with or without Castle Law.

If it came down to it I would grab a shotgun before a handgun anyway, 3 shots from a 12 ga are far more likely to hit home than a handgun in a panic situation which much less chance of collateral damage.

[Wild&Free]

the right of self defense exists. and has been used countless times as a defense successfully that saying it doesn't is ridiculous.

the right to carry a weapon in public however does not exist. there is no distinction between benign carry and carrying with intent until the moment of the crime. so if you're carrying a weapon, it is easier to assume that it will be used then it is to constantly second guess everyone in public. would you accept people walking around with batons, cludgels and sword on their hip/back along side firearms? or would you wonder what he intends on doing with that weapon? no weapons in public makes peace officers jobs easier. on the ccw side, good criminals can operate inside the law as well. how many murdering mobsters and traffickers have ccw permits?

[Ryry4]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

the right to carry a weapon in public however does not exist. there is no distinction between benign carry and carrying with intent until the moment of the crime. so if you're carrying a weapon, it is easier to assume that it will be used then it is to constantly second guess everyone in public. would you accept people walking around with batons, couches and sword on their hip/back along side firearms? or would you wonder what he intends on doing with that weapon? no weapons in public makes peace officers jobs easier. on the ccw side, good criminals can operate inside the law as well. how many murdering mobsters and traffickers have ccw permits?

I know dozens of people that carry a knife around with them at all times. Does that frighten you.

The definition of a "weapon" in the Canadian Criminal Code is "anything that can be used to physically harm someone". Yes, anything. High heel shoe, rock, hockey stick, golf club, stapler, television set, etc.

[Gust]

Interesting name, I was going to originally go with "Khmer Moulin Rouge" or "Pol Pot Calling Kettle Black" instead of Gust, but thought they were monikers insensitive to those AO members of a Cambodian background.

What's the Reich angle in your name and how many threads on CGN have you been booted from, and on your CGN acct sig-line, does it say "Canadian Reich on AO"?

Do you hunt and/or fish?

So many questions, such little time.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by Ryry4

I know dozens of people that carry a knife around with them at all times. Does that frighten you.

The definition of a "weapon" in the Canadian Criminal Code is "anything that can be used to physically harm someone". Yes, anything. High heel shoe, rock, hockey stick, golf club, stapler, television set, etc.

fair enough, but someone carrying a rock large enough to be used as a weapon in public wouldn't make you question his intent? hockey stick, bat, high heels could all be used as a weapon, but really are not considered weapons until they are used as one. see the distinction.

[Gust]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

On the ccw side, good criminals can operate inside the law as well. How many murdering mobsters and traffickers have ccw permits?

It really doesn't matter in some states as cops can't ask to see a CCW permit. This article is funny and should help give you a good idea of the answer to your question.

I like how because the low numbers/deaths of improper use of a CCW user, nobody seems to bat an eye,, of course, the answer will be "it's not rivers of blood and the numbers are negligible in the larger scheme of things".

I wonder how the family of the popcorn incident are feeling right now, or the
family of the kid who taunted the CCW'er with his car stereo?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...rmit-guns-utah