Friday's school shooting in Connecticut appeared to prompt a renewed effort by lawmakers to curb gun rights, as a top Democrat vowed Sunday to introduce new legislation on the first day of the new Congress next year.

Well, good luck with that. As we speak, I'm sure the NRA is pooling every available resource to fight this tooth and nail. Their very existence may hinge on whether or not laws can be passed eliminating certain weapons and ammo clips from being owned by private citizens. I guarantee it will not be easy. If you think the fiscal cliff issue is huge, wait until this hits the fan. Meantime, I suggest we start to learn to respect each other. Teach our children that too.

What is the "gun show" loophole? I have been to gun shows and when the dealer sells a gunm a background check is done just like when they sell a gun in a store. Try to go to a gun show and buy a gun from one of the dealers and see if you can buy is without a background check,

Not all states have background checks. And this fellow took the guns from his mother who had them registered. You're fighting and uphill battle on this one.

Not a new phenomena, just a new method of slaughter, man has been perfecting killing to a fine art for every age and era since the dawn of time.

Indy here in peace:

NOT an NRA supporter but a gun owner: yes to the ban on assault weapons, yes to the ban on large clips - they AREN'T necessary.

BUT CAN WE PASS LEGISLATION TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE GUNS FALLING INTO THE HANDS OF THE MENTALLY ILL PLEASE? This like the fifth MAJOR shooting in the last year brought to you by someone without all of their marbles. And THAT is the crux of this.

We need to get the list of registered weapons in a home, let them keep a hunting rifle and confiscate the rest. By force if necessary!

So you advocate a civil war then? First off, you are not going to peacefully disarm this country. Do a reality check and know that's impossible. Secondly, I agree with responsible gun owners, like myself, that we do have the right to own and possess firearms. The debate is over which types and where they can be possessed is the question. Not an easy subject to debate, but it has to be done. That I agree with.

tonybeeerm

- The background check is federal law, not state law. It is part of the Brady Bill. All dealers must do the background check unless the buyer has a permit, in which the state has already done the background check.

@ Steven -

They don't want to hear it if it doesn't blame the guns.

They don't want to hear how, over fifty years ago when people like me were growing up, every show on the TV had guns as the tool of the hero, and the screen was dominated by Westerns and violent cop shows. At the end of the show, the hero always had to kill the bad guy with his guns blazing.

The difference between those shows and violent video games is this.... during the entire length of time you were watching the TV, the hero tried his best to refrain from using that tool. He was constantly talking with other characters about how guns were not the best solution and should be used only as a last resort. And in all those shows, even the bad guys were given a touch of humanity that made you regret, just a little, their demise.

Video games are exciting, violent, colorful, hands-on, sucks you into the make believe world and makes you feel you are a part of it. I have met so many kids who want to be known on the streets of the real world by their avatar in the make believe one.

These video games can make young kids with impressionable minds grow up to think nothing is real... not the world around them, not the people in it, not even themselves. So what it they kill off a bunch of kids and adults? So what if they themselves are snuffed out? Someone can just hit "Reset" and the game begins again.

Fools can take Roadrunner off Cartoon Network for being violent but capitalism and free market won't touch these games that target kids who live in a make believe world. Virtual reality will be the downfall of civilization.

And the horse? I have read nothing that the republican have put forward to the Constitution taht move it forward, but instead backward? Give some examples please?

America, and the world in general, is in denial of the CAUSES of our ills. We want to ban abortion, without addressing the CAUSES for abortion. We want to ban assault weapons, without addressing the CAUSES for assault. The push to treat the "symptoms", ignores the infection. True, I'd rather not have a runny nose and fever (crazies with assault rifles and high-capacity magazines), but the infection (mental illness) goes untreated. I guess, since we don't have a cure for these "mental meltdowns", the best we CAN do is treat the symptoms (access to guns).

Time to increase $$$ sent to the NRA to fight those want to suppress gun ownership. In their happy place if gun rights were reduced or eliminated tragedies of this nature wouldn't happen. I strongly disagree but will respect their opinion. I guess the battle is on between that don't believe in the gun culture and those that do. It will be interesting to see where this lands. Before everyone jumps all over this post I do care about our children and I feel a great deal of sympathy for those who lost loved ones. I am a father and don't love my children any less because I support gun ownership. I just don't believe stricter gun control is the answer.

CLW, Personhood Amendment, premised on the 14th Constitutional Amend. Balanced Budget constitutional Amend.

This hypocrite Senator Feinstein carries a .38 When asked earlier why she carried that .38 Smith & Wesson concealed in her purse while promoting gun control for the rest of us, Feinstein answered, “I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I’d walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Chris, she is speaking of assault weapons and 30+ round hand gun clips. Apple and Oranges. Not hypocritical at all.

clwyd nice comment you are an idiot to want some one to kill themself , am a responsable gun owner but no one will ever stop a killing if one wants to bad enough . you can not control ones actions!

Mark, I have to admit that I'm puzzled with people's fascination with guns. I hate them, just like I hate the idea of pot usage becoming legal. But I also know I'm in the minority.

The more responsible people who own guns speak out, the better for everybody. It's voices like yours and other gun owners we desperately need right now.

Desperately.

Bill Austin - I need a semi-automatic weapon that has the capacity to combat whatever the criminal element has. I need a semi-automatic weapon that has the capacity to at least give me a fighting chance on the off-chance that we ever become a police state. Check the 2nd Amendment. We need to be able to form a militia. A militia is not the army. It is not the National Guard. It is civilian soldiers banded together for the good of their community. THey bring their own weaponry. One of the first things done to subjugate the people is to take away their means of fighting back. Needing these weapons for hunting? I don't get that and don't agree. But for self preservation? You bet.

Instead of just having the expected knee jerk reaction and trying to pass gun control laws - which will do NOTHING to eliminate this sort of violence as the barn door was already left open - the discussion should be WHY these young men commit these sorts of crimes. WHY massacres of this sort did not occur 40 years ago. Having a discussion on gun control because of Friday's tragedy is ridicuous since CT has strict gun control laws. Since all of his mother's weapons were legally purchased. Since he was refused a rifle when he tried to purchase at Dick's. It is just an excuse because our hearts are breaking over the death of 20 innocent babies (and of course the 6 who tried to protect them).

The background check is federal law, not state law. It is part of the Brady Bill. All dealers must do the background check unless the buyer has a permit, in which the state has already done the background check.

You're right and I stand corrected. I admit my mistakes and take full responsibility for them. Do you?

The NRA is a cash cow for the people who run it. Its a business plain and simple.

The irony is that the NRA could be a leader in the fight against gun crime in the US, and in doing so have no effect upon responsible gun owners. They choose, however, to base their platforms on paranoid absurd premises and actually end up encouraging irresponsible and dangerous behaviors. A cultural shift is needed.

I couldn't agree more. Mark in SoCal gets my vote for post of the day.

It's my understanding and correct me if wrong, but the nut tried to BUY a gun and was denied. He killed his mother and stole her guns and used them.

If true, the new laws wouldn't matter because he didn't BUY them. He stole them.

Secondly, they can't keep 12 million illegals and 8 billion tons of marijuana and cocaine from crossing the borders. How are they going to stop criminals from getting guns?

I know can't have even one crazy person right to own gun being denied. Yet the republicans don't seem to have a problem denying Americans the right to vote.

What a sick nation we have if we think controlling and denying voters rights is more important than stricter gun safety laws?

Gun safety and gun ownership are two different things. I don't think we should take all the guns away from responsible people but at the same time I should not have to carry a gun and wear protective armor just to go shopping, to school or to the movies.

Funny the republicans want to protect every unborn child as precious while being beholden to the NRA protecting crazies rights to have guns and kill our children after they are born.

If you cling to the idea that the 2nd amendment written in the 18th century by farmers/tradesmen could foresee the weapons of today, then you are also a moron. Following SCJ Alito bizarre logic, it seems arguments that follow "reduction to the absurd" are also warranted here. In order to maintain a citizen militia relevant to the 21st century, you should also be entitled to own mortars, bazookas, tanks and perhaps a tactical nuclear weapon. After all, a militia with only rifles doesn't meet the intention of those 18th century writers.

Its fairly clear you don't understand the historical value of the second amendment. History Lesson: Britain banned the colonist from owning guns, because they knew they wanted independence, and an armed society, meant it was easier for them to fight. Now, if as colonists, we said "oh yes, the government is right, lets give them all up" where would we be today?

Second argument, Militia is 1787 meant something entirely different than it does today. Think to the movie with Mel Gibson, The Patriot. Someone would ride into town on horseback, and say "I need help fighting the redcoats" The men would gather their guns (and they all had them, otherwise, they didn't eat - no Stop N Shop in those days), and then ride off to fight - There is your militia - everyday townsfolk willing to help.

And to those that say, with all the highly technical weaponry of the military these days, its absurd to think you could overthrow them: I point to two examples in the past couple of years: Egypt and Libya - two countries that were tired of an oppressive government, with nothing more than pride, valour, and "assault rifles" took back their country.

And before you label me a "gun nut" I am a hardcore liberal democrat, I voted for Obama. I have never voted for a republican, I'm gay, I'm married to a dude. and I just happen to be an NRA member. The only thing more oxymoronic that me is a Gay Republican. That being said, I have a functioning brain, and I don't follow talking points. Come at me with more than, "guns are bad, mmkay"

As a gun owner, I'm all for background checks, with no loopholes. I am for gun safety classes. I am for frequent qualifications on those weapons - meaning, if you're gonna own it, you should know how to shoot it.

Everyone talks about an assault weapons ban...ok, fine, I could go along if you can convince, but none of the weapons used in any of these tragedies have been assault weapons. If you don't know the difference, you shouldn't be commenting. Furthermore, what constitutes "high capacity magazines" (again, if you call it a clip, you don't know what you are talking about - the two terms are not interchangeable) My handguns hold 17 round clips. I've heard banter by people only advocating 6 rounds in a magazine. Now, first off, most guns with a 17 round magazine, are 9mm. Police for the most part don't even carry them anymore, because they are not lethal enough, they switched to .45 caliber, they have more stopping power, and they only hold 9 rounds.

Scenario: 3 people break into your house at 3am. You have a 9mm, you can only have 6 rounds in it. That's a maximum of 2 rounds a person, and that might not stop them, even if you hit them in the dark of night, when you are scared sh*tless. With 17 rounds, you can stop them.

Now, try to convince me.

Watch, now there be a boom in weapon sales. Always happens when they talk about making new laws on guns.

Some people have it in their minds..I better get a gun now before I can't, or be thinking no more guns for sale..but if you own one now it will be grandfathered into law and OK to own..be something like that.

Just my opinion.

clwyd-2621393 - You are the one mentally ill. Chicago, NY, California all have strict gun controls, yet thousands of their citizens die each year because they can't protect themselves. You will be one of the sheep for slaughter. Gun free zones established by gun control advocates are free fire zones for criminals and mentally deranged people because they know there will be no one there to stop them. 1927 Michigan - School blown up by administrator - 44 killed. If a nut pops, there isn't any way to stop them. Lets back up with your logic. Semi-automatics - banned - now bolt action - banned - now single shot - banned - now black powder - hmm - explosives - easy to make a bomb - banned - hmmm - lock the doors - arson - everyone dies in the fire - hmm - ban fire - NOT. You and the other anti-gunners would never survive in the NRA. You keep missing the target! The single common denominator in all the mass murders regardless of method used is the individual responsible for the act. Quit blaming the delivery device and place the blame where it belongs. On the person committing the crime. Stop teaching our kids Grand Theft Auto, stop the music glorifying rape and murder, stop the government interference in how we raise our children. As a matter of fact, our government is complicit by not swiftly administering justice when murders occur. We worry way too much about cruel and unusual punishment for murderers instead of how those murdered died. Frankly, if you kill, I don't care if your veins are hard to get to for lethal injection, I don't care if you are fat, I don't give one rats rear end if you are mentally defective, you need to be taken out of the population immediately.

Perhaps in your state, but not in ours - common knowledge and for decades, and MANY documentaries made about it. There has been NO background check enforcement at Gun Shows.

Everything but a rocket launcher is possible - and who really can confirm that either?

An al Qaeda operative made a video for this country not long ago, inviting Americans to buy at Gun Shows and join AQ in their fight.

Any sane questions?

Many of you are reactionary fools, and need a good solid dose of statistics and facts.

Overall, the US is getting safer. Things are getting better. Go look it up. You can use the internet; you're here posting your drivel. Do something intelligent.

Isolated incidents like this are terrible. How can we prevent them?

By taking guns away from law abiding citizens who've never committed crimes and are statistically extremely unlikely to do so?

Good luck with that, Pol Pot. Have fun, Adolph. We've seen what happens historically. But I suppose it's handy to ignore history when your feelings and fears are more important, right?

Also, concerning assault weapons.

This kid didn't use one, did he?

Easy to omit that for sensationalist purposes and get people even more polarized.

Also, for those of you blaming the NRA (talk about delusional; did they put the gun in his hand?) and calling for them to be leaders in gun control - well -

....will criminals listen to the NRA MORE than they listen to existing laws?

Yeah, right. Go visit Chicago or DC and get back to us on that one.

Look back in History...the closing of Mental Hospitals put the insane out onto the streets of the World...it's their Right to do as they please...murder and mayhem are what they do best.

A Bushmaster .233 rifle is also a AR 15..Assault rifle.

How are they going to stop criminals from getting guns?

Stop mass producing them and then making them available to the public.

As is often the case this is a problem which pits money and profit against public safety. The sale of automatic assault type weapons is an industry which employs large numbers of people and brings in huge profits for the manufacturers. Vast amounts of money are used to purchase votes from legislators to allow such lethal weapons to be sold. Any legislator who denies that is lying.

The proliferation of weapons of warfare in the hands of ordinary citizens and criminally minded thugs has gone beyond any simple solution to control or eliminate them. The first thing we need are lawmakers with integrity and courage to stand up for the right of the people to live in a safe society. That is almost non-existent. Next we need people with commonsense to exercise responsible behavior with respect to lethal weapons. That is another challenge in our society of individual freedom. And third we need laws which make gun owners accountable for preventing their legally purchased weapons from being used to commit crimes. The gun lobby has mounted fierce resistance to any such restrictions. Paid for, of course, by the gun manufacturers.

Gun control does not mean confiscation, it means making everyone more responsible for doing their part to reduce gun violence. We need to have a serious conversation about how this can be accomplished.

Any laws passed will only raise the price of a weapon. The profiteers will continue to sell their product to an already weapon/booze saturated world. I still don't know what a 'gun-nut' is, but I'm not a herd animal (NRA, RNC,...ad nauseum). Growing up in Chicago - which has (had) some of the strictest weapon laws in the nation, I remember the words of Alphonso Capone "Ya getta' lot furder is dis life widda kind word ana gun den ya wood widda kind word". His words - not mine. It's the mind-set of America & I agree, it's insane & generated by fear - a lack of faith. Illinois legislature recently passed a conceal/carry law to give the innocent bystanders a fighting chance. Here in Montana (not so many scared puppys), my neighbor's 13 yr. old son just got his first elk (w/a .270 bolt action). Is he one of those "right-wing neo-con NRA gun-nuts?? Insidious rascals. Bottom line, if you come to take our weapons, bring your own & it might be wise to inform your next of kin where you're going.

This won't work; there's already a ton of these guns out there and attempting a ban will simply mean that a lot of these will disappear from public view and the reach of the government. And you can't just confiscate the ones you can find; they were bought legally and the owners are due reimbursement. Who is going to pay for this? How many billions would it take?

Make the owners responsible. Require licensing of all gun owners, including education, mandatory storage requirements, and a full background check. The NRA claims to represent responsible gun owners, put them on the spot; how would they prevent these tragedies. Take the NRA's own 'voluntary' programs, stiffen them up, and make them mandatory, with penalties big enough to make everybody know we mean it. The NRA can effectively fight a ban, but they'll have a much harder time opposing what they claim to stand for.

America has tried bans before; prohibition and the 'war on drugs' should be a clear warning that these don't work or poorly at best. Calling for a unrealistic ban is simply the other end of the spectrum from the NRA, we must find a middle ground.

Bill_Austin:

Furthermore, if they founders couldn't foresee the types of weapons we have today, they certainly couldn't envision, Radio, TV, Internet, etc. Does that mean the 1st amendment should only apply to quill pens and hand operated printing presses?

peteMT - tell all of us why you think you need military assault weapons, body armor and enough ammo to kill an entire village to feel safe. Please, the stage is yours...

Tell the GOP-NRA that Assault Rifles with 15-30 Clips are for Wars, not the Public !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, concerning assault weapons. This kid didn't use one, did he?

Actually Pete, he did. You must have missed the report from the medical examiner where he stated that of the seven autopsies he personally performed, all seven died of multiple rifle shots, with from three to eleven shots.

@ethan tyler

Because you have a gun in the home, you are far more likely to die from gun violence. If three people break into your home in the middle of the night, they are probably there just to rob the place, but when you pull a gun on them, they get scared, and it becomes a situation of self-preservation. They were unlikely to commit murder to get your LCD TV and whatever cash you had, but they will kill you to preserve their own life.

For that matter, a hardened criminal with street smarts will probably be able to take your gun away and then shoot you anyway.

There is always the day where you get in a fight with your significant other, and in a deeply emotional state, pull the gun and shoot them. Or you get in a heated argument with the neighbor because he ran over your cat with his car and wouldn't admit to it. Then he insulted you with a slur referring to your sexuality. Can you tell me that you wouldn't at least THINK about going to get your gun? (Not for nothing...) What about the day your father dies, you go on Lexapro to help with the depression, and you have an adverse reaction, causing you to become suicidal. Then what? Sure, we could say that we are bigger and better than that, but until we are in that state, we don't know WHAT we would be capable of.

Thinking about this and reading plenty of comments, the lives of these students may have been saved if their classrooms were designed like bank vaults, at the expense of their educations, social interactions, and freedoms to grow up as children. The designs of future engineers of schools and classrooms must ponder what we as a society are willing to take from childhood to see that they reach adulthood. Those who want more stringent gun controls must ask themselves, " What if a segment of society which we fear, doesn't want to participate in these gun controls". Bin Laden certainly wasn't concerned about landing jet planes safely, why would a murderer of school children pause to ponder munition clip capacity?

This tragedy is "off the charts". Even in the olden days when barbaric hoards would rape, pillage, and murder, the children would be spared, rounded up. and raised into an adulthood of slavery. Mass murderers of fame, like Ted Bundy, or Son of Sam, etc., targeted adults. Beheadings in the Mexican drug wars, target adults. I, of course, must admit to the fact that I don't have the intellectual capacity to see how a bank vault style classroom setting will benefit society, even though I would admit it would help see kids to the next grade level. I don't see why anyone needs a machine gun either. I don't see how liberties and freedom as we understand those concepts as a culture can be preserved if we interfere before the fact between gun loving mothers and their non adult sons. We as a culture still don't have prevention of pedophiles, let alone the murder of small children. Restrictions against machine guns isn't going to phase me, I don't own a machine gun. I was a gunner on a machine gun in the service, and preferred semiautomatic even then.

There hopefully are some damned smart people thinking this issue through, because I don't see people giving up their guns and ammunition, law or no law. I don't see how this tragedy could have been foreseen, nor prevented. Maybe it could have, but by whom... someone who has equally deranged thinking?

Interesting comment about the 'gun in the home', Will. Unfortunately, you are opinionating and have no facts to back this.

I think we all know the genesis of this violence in our society over the last 40+ years. We are not allowed to talk about it, but we know.

Video games do not cause gun violence: there has been no link to that and no REAL 'psycological' proof.

You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I take the view of the American Psychological Association:

http://www.apa.org/research/action/games.aspx

studies by psychologists such as Douglas Gentile, PhD, and Craig Anderson, PhD, indicate it is likely that violent video games may have even stronger effects on children's aggression because (1) the games are highly engaging and interactive, (2) the games reward violent behavior, and because (3) children repeat these behaviors over and over as they play (Gentile & Anderson, 2003). Psychologists know that each of these help learning - active involvement improves learning, rewards increase learning, and repeating something over and over increases learning.

Dr. Anderson and colleagues have shown that playing a lot of violent video games is related to having more aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Furthermore, playing violent games is also related to children being less willing to be caring and helpful towards their peers. Importantly, research has shown that these effects happen just as much for non-aggressive children as they do for children who already have aggressive tendencies (Anderson et al., under review; Gentile et al., 2004).

Parents have an important role to play. Psychologists have found that when parents limit the amount of time as well as the types of games their children play, children are less likely to show aggressive behaviors (Anderson et al., under review; Gentile et al., 2004). Other research suggests that active parental involvement in children's media usage-including discussing the inappropriateness of violent solutions to real life conflicts, reducing time spent on violent media, and generating alternative nonviolent solutions to problems-all can reduce the impact of media violence on children and youth (Anderson et al., 2003).

Because you have a gun in the home, you are far more likely to die from gun violence

This is probably one of the most played out myths of all time, right up there with the shooter on the grassy knoll.

The "statistics" you are referring to, are by a study done in 1986 by Arthur Kellerman...his study was extremely biased. Kellermans study looked a group of people who were victims of a homicide, he excluded any non homicides, which meant anybody wounded by a handgun or scared off by a handgun, and he said, "who are these people that are the victims", and decided that "family members" were anybody living in the house, or known to anyone living in the house...so a drug dealer and a junkie would be "family", so many seedy relationships were included as family....He excluded all the positive uses of a handgun in self defense, which eliminates about 92% of self defense uses, based on the Klegg study from the Univ of Florida, which determined how many times a weapon was used in self defense in the home, and 92% of the time, a weapon was displayed, no shots were fired, and no one was killed.

Even looking at raw numbers, there are about 300 million people in this country, and approximately half of them have guns, and in order for your statistics to have validity, we'd be seeing huges numbers of homicides or mass killings.

To all the morons saying "this kid didn't use and assault rifle"...have you even watched one of the Ct State Police press conferences, especially the one with the medical examiner? They have clearly stated that all of the victims were shot with a Bushmaster .233 rifle. That is an assault rifle. Try getting a fact or two before you start ranting nonsense.

To all those expounding how our Forefather's wanted us to have weapons for protection.

I doubt our forefathers had any clue that one person could be so well armed as to have the ability to kill hundreds of people solo. They used muzzle-loaders, not 100 round clipped equipped rapid fire Bushmasters.

P.S. Same rifle used by Malvo in the Washington area shootings.

Malvo shoplifted the Bushmaster XM-15 from Bull's Eye Shooter Supply, and practiced his marksmanship on the Bull's Eye firing range adjacent to the gun shop.

While there are certainly reasonable restrictions that Congress and the states could pass to regulate firearms without banning them, ultimately the top factor is simply the number of guns out there. Violent crime has declined over the past few decades in lockstep with a decline in the percentage of households that own guns. It is a cultural shift, not a legislative one. And if we want to see gun violence reduced in the future, that will be the key, reducing voluntary gun ownership.

This, in a nutshell, is why the NRA is so dangerous. It is not their opposition to reasonable legislation, but rather their role as a partisan actor in the cultural debate. Their agenda is to tell people that they should be afraid, that they need guns to protect themselves from their neighbors, from gangs, from liberals in the government who are salivating over the opportunity to impose a fascist state. And as people become more fearful, and then arm themselves in response, the predictable outcome is an increase in gun violence. In trying to protect themselves, they only make society more dangerous.

Let there be no confusion: the NRA does not do this to protect anyone's rights. They do this to further the political agenda of electing Republicans, which is why rather than engaging on reasonable proposals that their own members actually support, they demagogue any attempt to address the problem of gun violence as a dictatorial government trying to eliminate their rights, thus stymieing all efforts at positive reform and further terrorizing and galvanizing their members into voting Republican. They are cultural warriors, in multiple senses of the term, fighting for a partisan cause, and that is why they are so harmful and dangerous. We will see true progress with the nation collectively realizes what the NRA is and then rejects them for it.

To all the morons saying "this kid didn't use and assault rifle"...have you even watched one of the Ct State Police press conferences, especially the one with the medical examiner? They have clearly stated that all of the victims were shot with a Bushmaster .233 rifle. That is an assault rifle. Try getting a fact or two before you start ranting nonsense.

An assault rifle is one that is capable of fully automatic rifle, ie ,pull the trigger and it sprays bullets. The bushmaster is semi automatic, meaning, one trigger pull, one bullet.

I refer you back to your comment: Try getting a fact or two before you starting ranting nonsense.

An assault rifle is one that is capable of fully automatic rifle

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. That is not the definition of an assault rifle, that's the definition of a fully automatic weapon.

Don't pretend to know about firearms when you obviously are ignorant about them.

By the book.

assault rifle

noun
1.
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.

2.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

And for your information. It's easy to convert a Bushmaster to fully auto. You can get the info from Google.

I find it funny that it's harder to buy Sudafed in America than it is to buy a gun. If I need Vicodin for pain, I need a prescription, or Rush Limbaugh's dealer. I think the 2nd Amendment nuts should be allowed to buy all the guns they want in any caliber or configuration. Shoot, let 'em buy 60 caliber machine guns. Just make them have a "prescription" in order to buy the ammunition. I typically can't get more than a 10 day supply of prescription medication at one or two tablets per day. I think a maximum of 20 bullets per ten days would be a good start. Maybe somebody in law enforcement, the ATF, or whomever would notice who was stockpiling and could find out why. Shot up your supply at the gun range or hunting? Turn in the casings to get your "prescription" refilled. I know it wouldn't stop the hard core criminals or even that many of the gang-bangers, but if it kept one crazyass kid from killing dozens of people it would be worth it.

Thousands of our gun murders each year are committed by individuals who have extensive criminal history and are only walking the street because we only gave them a short prison term after their last terrible crime.

As for these school shootings perpetrated by young adults, the majority of them have been medicated for ADD or ADHD with amphetamines. Yes, that is what those meds are made of. Should we be surprised when this happens? With millions of kids on those drugs you will have a small percentage (even if only a few percent) who experience the worst side effects of paranoid delusions and extremely aggressive behavior.

This and many of these types of incidents are the result of giving very powerful and dangerous drugs to kids in the name of calming them down. Well kids are supposed to be hyper and active but as soon as a kid is slightly behind his/her classmates in terms of maturity society pushes amphetamines down that kid's throat.

Get rid of these meds and then we can talk about more gun control.

LANZA SPRAYED BULLETS.

AT LEAST TWO PER PERSON. MOSTLY MULTIPLE SHOTS INTO EACH PERSON.

**Let's not put up with the usual crowd trying to FAUX this.

Pat Boston MA.

I agree Pat. Republicans look like crap right now. The brand, as they say, is at a horrible low. If the do nothing Republican props in Congress care anything about their image, they will not wage a media talking points battle for the NRA. The GOP/ Tea Potty despite the fact they look like crap, must exercise the one thing they boast about the most; the Constitution. If this the democratic republican they want to adhere to, it's time for them to realize we the people elected President Obama; rather rhan the NRA, alec & the Kochs

Gun control needs to become a voting issue for millions. President Obama should issue an executive order.

People all over the world play video games (the same ones), they watch the same movies. They read the same books, and get the same media. Yet they dont have the violence anywhere else.

Its not because of video games or movies. Its because of access to arsenals, and kids driven to extreme rage toward society. These kids are on a revenge mission for some preceived slight they suffered.

This law that is proposed would not have stopped this from happening. there are others ways. Like helping troubled kids getting help at a very young age and as they grow. This is working from the bottom up not the top down. The down method takes the guns away and you still have very emotionally unstable people that will find other ways to harm others. the bottom up method helps develop the person into a responsible citizen or someone that is watched closely.

Assault Weapon and Assault Rifle are two different things. As you mentioned, Google it, The United States Department of Defense (an organization I would consider experts on weaponry, consider an Assault Rifle to be one that is capable of fully automatic fire.

Words have meanings: Just like, their, there and they're are not all the same.

You said it.

An assault rifle is one that is capable of fully automatic rifle

And you're FOS.

Pat,

No one loves our President and my fellow Chicagoan more than me, I think. Here is a picture I got from the Obama Photo Diary which echoes my support and plea.

http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/5b830dd5-33c2-340c-a219-235b8d71ba2e.jpg?w=800&h=532

Eric Boehlert tweet:

And yes, in the 48 hrs since the Newtown shooting, more than 160 Americans have died from gun fire; 300+ have been injured;

- nobody seems to understand that an "assault weapon" in the US at retail is simply a semi automatic rifle that is styled like a military rifle... to ban them is akin to saying because someone got run over with a red car that we should ban red cars.... it"s appearance, that"s it.... military features like automatic fire and armor penetrating ammunition are already heavily controlled

- conversely, there is potentially some sense to limiting magazine size... but really that is a minimal inconvenience to a crazy person as they just bring more magazines ans have to spend 1.5 seconds switching more often

- the 1994 assault weapons ban did both and there was zero impact on crime...

- there are so many guns out there that there is no way to effectively ban them all, so that's never happening

- the real issues here are social: our warrior culture, lack of comprehensive mental healthcare because insurance companies own congress, poor laws around people with mental health problems and ascertaining their threat to society, lack of national firearm backround checks that truly combine all data sources....

I"ll caution the anti gun crowd: in 1994 there was public outrage that resulted in knee jerk legislation in order to shut the voters up.... that legislation was absurd and ignored the real problems, which is not how scary something looks... it"s access to mental healthcare and access to ANY weapons for people who should not have them...

if you guys keep on beating the 'assault weapons' drum and continue to not understand it... congress will throw you that bone again just to make you go away... and nothing about violence in our society will change.... this is a long fight about better healthcare and true background checks... its not about getting the only catchword you guys know banned.... they snicker at you when you say that.

mj899

This law that is proposed would not have stopped this from happening. there are others ways. Like helping troubled kids getting help at a very young age and as they grow. This is working from the bottom up not the top down. The down method takes the guns away and you still have very emotionally unstable people that will find other ways to harm others. the bottom up method helps develop the person into a responsible citizen or someone that is watched closely.

mj899,

Could you please get serious! !!You have made a mockery out of common sense. When the people of a democracy can not fend for themselves it becomes the responsibility of the government to step in to protect its citizens. That's why we have the police, militia , and legislators to write the laws for a society and its culture to flourish. Assault weapons have no reason to be in the hands of any citizen, let alone mentally challenged people.

You post makes you appear to be a mentally challenged person; if you cannot see the gravity of the need for such a law. This is not the America we had during the Bill of Rights time.

Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither....

Feel free to march on washington and demand the second amendment be stricken from the constitution.

Go ahead... see what happens....

You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if I take the view of the American Psychological Association:

Again, Steve, gun violence is at exactly the same level as it was in 1965. Unless some other group has dramatically reduced using guns, the data doesn't support a video-game/gun violence link. It just doesn't.

Aggression does not equal gun violence. They're different.

Bev, here's hoping President Obama sees that sign. It's why we voted for him.

Why is it that we every day Americans do what has to be done at our jobs, yet politicians, not so much.

So GD irresponsible most of them are, and that includes democrats.

No pro-gun Republican would assent to going on MTP today.

They truly frighten me with their support behind the NRA instead of the American people's safety.

The same politicians who make it harder for people to vote than it is to buy all the guns they desire.

"It's time for the president to stand up and lead and tell this country what we should do," said the New York City mayor. "This should be his No. 1 agenda."

NO, Mr. Obama's #1 AGENDA should be "SPENDING CONTROL".....PERIOD !!!!!

But, but, but....Who taught this mentally ill person to shoot? His mother. This is not about guns...It's about bad mothers. I see them at Wal-mart all the time raising the next little serial killer.

You liberals have it all wrong going after guns. You should be attacking BAD MOTHERS!!!!

We should ban bad parents. Why are women and men not sent to parent training before allowed to have children so that they are taught that if your kid is mental....DON"T TEACH HIM TO USE A WEAPON.

I read about these nasty little kids in school attacking classmates and teachers, but the mother defends her child instead.

BAD PARENTS ARE THE PROBLEM..!!! WHAT CAN WE DO TO THEM BEFORE THE NEXT ONE GOES OFF!!!!

Beverly in Chicago..... Sorry hon, but the last place this country needs to emulate is Chicago....look at your gun laws.... you are seriously 'the pot calling the kettle black'....... Frankly, its you who appears to have some issues with reality.

The NRA has bought and bribed politicians for decades.

The NRA and its fanatic supporters have bullied Americans who want reasonable gun laws for decades.

The NRA is interested in ONE THING and ONE THING ALONE ... MONEY.

The NRA hides behind bogus slogans like "protect the second amendment" and "protect your rights" for decades.

It only cares about PROFIT, and if that means putting automatic or semi-automatic assault weapons in the hands of American citizens, they will stoop to anything to make their millions.

The blood of every child and teacher that was killed is on the hands of the NRA.

Thank you to every politician of either party that stands up and says NO to the NRA and YES to the safety of our citizens.

BAN ALL AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS OF WAR.

There seriously needs to be an amendment added to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution becacuse this amendment was written for a specific period in our history that is not even remotely applicable to today's standard.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Notes for this amendment:
Proposed 9/25/1789
Ratified 12/15/1791

As for background checks prior to purchasing guns they need to be as comprehensive and extensive as the background checks given to those individuals applying for a law enforcement positions.

All gun sales at gun shows should be prohibited by federal law.

All gun purchases should be entered into a national database including the names of the buyers and the serial numbers of the guns.

All crimes committed by unregistered guns in the national database the owners should be subject to substantial fines and/or imprisonment.

All transport of guns across state lines should be subjected to substantial fines and/or imprisonment. Exception should be made for licensed hunters, who should be required to pay a nice federal fee (which should be used for training in gun safety and mental illness healthcare).

All high capacity weapons and ammunition should be for only law enforcement and military usage; any violations should be subject to huge fines, imprisonment and forfeiture of said weaponry.

The mother according to her aunt, had those guns for protection. Who was she afraid was going to harm her? She lives in a very safe place. As it turns out, it was a family member that did her in which btw is typically the case.

I was thinking these sort of heinous acts must be on the rise, but I did some searching on the subject today and found that is simply not the case. The number over many decades has pretty much remained the same. So our perception is that these events are more common which isn't the case.

Nobody is talking much about the fact that anybody doing such a crime has got to be mentally ill and frankly evil. I personally think both. I do wonder if people like this mother, think they can deal with the illness which clearly in many cases they cannot. In most cases, it is a question of money and getting the right help. Not all doctors are good ones just because they have a license. I sympathize with those dealing with the mentally challenged. As that person becomes an adult, getting them help and keeping them getting constant care is really hard.

At the same time, I am left perplexed why any mother with a mentally challenged child, would ever keep guns around in the house. I know...they could use a knife and frankly I would maybe limit that as well. I sure wouldn't be teaching them how to use the gun.

I feel very strongly about the right to bear arms. At the same time, I am confused about the need for assault weapons like the one used this time. It was said this am that such a weapon, the bushmaster, is used for small game. Really? I live rural. I am surrounded by thousands of acres of dense woods with bears, bobcats, wolves, etc. I can't imagine spraying the yard just to take out a rabbit. If I can't use gun with control and aim, I shouldn't have one IMO.

BTW, the ONLY hunters I know, and I know a lot, are all liberal democrats. I allow them to hunt on my land. I don't know any conservative that hunts today.

Another interesting stat I read as I was investigating crimes, etc. In 2010, 2.2 m people worldwide were killed due to alcohol. Isn't this a problem? It took my sister and brother and has ruined countless lives that I know about. Where is the outrage?

How about as a culture we stop attending movies that are steeped in violence? How about we stop buying violent video games which apparently this sick young man liked to play? How about Hollywood, that loves to teach morality, stop making big money playing parts in movies that are violent and often sick?

Hey, better yet, how about rethinking snuffing out life before the first breath?

This all ties together. We are constantly giving out mixed messages.

Yes, violent video games and movies play a part, poor parenting plays a part, divorce and family dysfunction plays a part, and mental illness plays a part.

But, the biggest part that we can actually do something about is

BAN ALL AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS OF WAR.

There is no gun law that will stop this kind of thing happening. It is not the gun. You liberals can decry freedom all you want, ignore the facts, ignore the statistics. Listen only to the politicians and corporations who do you the favor of thinking for you as they get rich off your misery. The gun is just a tool. The AR 15 is a. not an assault rifle, b. the worst weapon to carry out a mass shooting with for a variety of reasons, and c, with 10's of millions registered to legal owners, statistically insignificant on a case by case basis.

THERE IS A SOLUTION; bar the release of any information ever relating to the identity or specifics of these shooters. It is the fame and glory they want. To stain the earth with their names, they live lives without any thing to offer. The answer? Mass murder, and the press will do the hard work.

You want gun laws like Australia? The minute those laws took effect, violent crime went up 65% where it stays today. If a criminal thinks you may have a gun, he won't attack you. Armed citizens, 95% of the time discourage crime, never having to reach for a weapon. The fear the criminals have becomes a barrier to attempting many crimes against persons in the first place.

This government can not, will not help you by passing more laws. Ms. Feinstein is virtuosic at barking up the wrong tree. Her bill makes the problem far, far worse as it ignores the real problem and makes us all less safe.

Hey, Robin, I've been called a teabagger and a bleeding liberal on the same day in this forum. So keep your labels to yourself.

This is not the first time a deranged person has shot a classroom full of children. In 1996 at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland, a man burst into a room full of 5 and 6 year-olds and killed sixteen small children and their teacher.

Following this massacre, a range of automatic and semi-automatic guns were banned in the United Kingdom, and now the UK has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.

Now is the time, America, for us to stand up and say NO to the gun advocates and start enforcing stricter gun laws.

Take a look at this link of the children and their teacher killed in Scotland, and think of the children and teachers killed yesterday. There are many other links as well.

http://fareehaali.com/2011/09/18/september11/

WE WON'T LET THE NRA OR ITS FANATIC SUPPORTERS BULLY US ANYMORE.

Folks, just to make sure we all don't lose focus on our own partisan political viewpoints.

THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT GUNS.

It's also about how we treat, respect and help those with disabilities of all sorts. By all account this kid had issues. We also need to discuss the other quotient, his mental state and how society can deal with those unstable as he evidently was.

1. Were there warning signs gone ignored?
2. How are schools he went to equipped to handle behavioral issues?

I just don't feel a meaningful discussion only revolves around weapon banning alone. It doesn't.

Having once been a Proud Republican, I can give you the "Psycho-Political-Spiritual-Insight",

on the "Common Loon", I mean the "common typical Republican mind".

The NRA and the REPUBLICANS are RIGHT about ONE thing!

GUNS do NOT KILL PEOPLE

rather it's

REPUBLICAN "GUN-NUTS" that KILL PEOPLE.

I don't see that this tragedy has anything to do with politics except who is the NRA paying to make sure they can sell all the weapons of war they can possibly sell and make the the most profit. And what politicians are brave enough and honorable enough to stand up to the NRA and its fantatic supporters?

Now is the time to speak up, America, and let your President and your State Representatives know you are behind them in support of strict gun laws banning all semi-automatic and automatic assault weapons.

Yes, mental health issues, family dysfunction issues, etc. need to be addressed, too, but let us start by removing as many of these weapons as we can from the hands of those who kill our innocent loved ones.

Lets look at "assault" rifles that are available to the public, it is all semantics, case and point

Ruger mini 14
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html

AR15

http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/competition.asp

They are both semiautomatic rifles, both have 20 round magazines, both shoot .223 round and both are very accurate.

Ruger mini 30

http://www.ruger.com/products/miniThirty/models.html

AK47

http://www.cabom.se/img/products/30551204/product-30551204-big.jpg

Both are semi automatic rifles, both shoot the 7.62x39mm round, the Ruger is very accurate, the AK not so much, the Ruger has a 20 round magazine, the AK pictured has a larger magazine 30 round I believe.

Higher capacity magazines are available for each but will effect the balance of the rifle, all four are semi automatic, each pull of the trigger shoots one round only. The main difference in these rifles is in their appearance, not much else.

A true assault weapon has burst capacity, one pull of the trigger shoots three rounds, or have full automatic(machine gun) capabilities. None of these rifles have either of these capabilities, nor are they readily available to the public, the rules about owning a true assault rifle are very strict and in the full auto versions are usually very expensive(thousands of dollars), usually $8,000 and up.

We need to stop arguing over the semantics of appearance and focus on the true issues, registration and transfer, be it a private or commercial sale, proper background checks, and a list of those who are not mentally stable enough to own a gun.

An assault weapons ban is little more than a feel good response to an issue, that doesn't address the real issues. Gun crime statistics during and after the assault weapons ban show little if any difference per capita. We have responsibility, accountability and mental health care issues that need to be addressed, a feel good assault weapons ban will accomplish nothing and avoid addressing the real issues. The NRA is nothing but a conservative lobby, no I am not a member and do not agree with much of their philosophy or political agenda, however to the best of my knowledge they do not support the sale of true assault weapons to the general public, I could be wrong but I have never seen anything to say the NRA supports the sale of true assault weapons.

Lets not be blinded and misled by catch phrases and lets address the real issues in a way that will make a real difference, and the members of congress need to educate themselves on the real information instead of uneducated, empty speech and legislation that will not accomplish anything of any real value.

Here's a link so everyone can see what kind of guns killed these children. These were assault weapons, not guns for hunting animals, but guns for shooting people. Some say the semi-automatic handguns killed the victims, but last I read, the coroner said they were all killed by the assault rifle. Does it make any difference which weapon of war killed them?

Today is a day to mourn for these precious children and their teachers and today is the day to speak up, Americans, and tell the NRA that we will not let them or their supporters bully us anymore.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/15/inside-sandy-hook-elementary-school/1772307/

BAN ALL AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

There is no amount of sorrow, compassion, or grief that can deal with this tragedy, which is probably on the same scale as Columbine. That is first and foremost.

Secondly, to those who think it is too early to talk about gun control or oppose the concept of "infringing upon the Second Amendment," shut the @!$%# up. This is the PERFECT time to be talking about gun control; America currently has nearly 10,000 deaths every year due to firearm homicides and consists of nearly 42% of ALL firearm homicides in the WORLD. This is a crisis that MUST be dealt with. We have more guns per people than ANY other nation in the world, and this is what we get for it. I acknowledge the 2nd Amendment's validity; hell, I myself would like to own a gun one day. But to let 10,000 people die every year for this "right" is pure insanity. Yes, there are other factors to gun violence, but guns are at least 50% of the problem. People kill people, with guns. Period.

And finally, I have come with a solution; a tough solution, but a solution nonetheless. First and foremost: there is a ban on high power firearms and high capacity clips. No handgun magazine can have more than 15 rounds, and no rifle can have a magazine larger than 25 rounds. Also, there is a cap at the number of bullets you can buy at one time: the equivalent of 4 handgun magazines or 2 rifle magazines. Any gun made after 1950 cannot be over .32 caliber unless you have a pretty damn good reason for having one. Any gun made between 1840-1949 has to be under .60 caliber and must have a restricted permit. And any antique gun made before 1839 is permitted, but it has to be able to fire properly without blowing up and you must have experience on operating it. Secondly, every dealer has to have a permit, and every gun owner must have a license and a permit to own a firearm; the newer and bigger the gun is, the more exclusive the permit for owning it is. Thirdly, each and every gun-owner's info has to be compiled into a national database. This database, managed by the Department of Justice and the ATF, will help any criminal investigation. Fourth, certain guns are off the table: they include the AK-47, AR-15, most high-powered and high-telescope sniper rifles, heavy to medium machine guns (larger than .30) , and heavy sub-machine guns. And finally, there is going to be a goal of reducing the number of firearms in actuality and per 100 people; from 310 million firearms today, to 200 million firearms in 2050; from 89 guns per 100 people today, to 67 guns per 100 people in 2040. That will follow a massive education focus on guns, both for children AND adults, just like with anti-smoking campaigns.

The Columbine High School Massacre took place in 1999-- 5 years before the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. Something to consider, isn't it?

The law then didn't quell the violence, how will a new (but identical) law hope to have any better success now?

The answer, to me at least, is not a new gun law-- especially since that law exactly mirrors the last gun law that was allowed to expire because it failed to curb gun violence in any statistically relevant way. If you want to legislate something that will actually make a difference, then we should look at reforming mental health treatment and access in this country.

To paraphrase a comment from another forum on this subject, with 270,000,000 estimated guns privately owned in the US, the Gun-genie is out of the bottle-- and that bottle is smashed all over the damn place. Is America's love affair with firearms a broken system? Maybe, maybe not. Overall gun violence has been trending down over the last 2 decades (according to the FBI's own crime statistics), despite an increase in the volume of gun purchases over the same time frame. But what is absolutely, terribly broken in this country? Access to mental health care. Fix that and we'll be a hell of a lot better off.

all i've read on here is people attacking the other side. the politicians like to use tragedies like this to bring attention to themselves and campaigning. there is no good answer to this problem. it was one really sick pos that did this not the nra or anything else. lets put the blame where it belongs on the sick pos that did it. read above some idiot said make a list of weapons in each household and leave one hunting rifle and confiscate the rest. I don't think he knows what he is really saying but caught up in the moment and is confused. i personaly do not own weapons but i know banning them and confiscating them will do no good.if you take from the normal because of the sick it kinda says we are all sick and can't be trusted.as i said i own no weapons had enough in 73 to last a lifetime but do not say others should not be able to own them. if its a big deal why in the heii do we arm other countries that turn around and use them against us.

You want gun laws like Australia? The minute those laws took effect, violent crime went up 65% where it stays today. If a criminal thinks you may have a gun, he won't attack you.

An unsupported claim with a big ole whopper too boot - 65% increase in violent crimes. Even the most ardent search of pro-gun sites will only support a 42.2% increase. But of course, that comes only from pro-gun, NRA supported sites.

Folks, read this link from FactCheck that gives are far more balanced and view of the claims. Several studies are cited that claim a direct decrease is violent crimes as a result of the ban as well as studies that say the ban had a minimal impact. It is hard to find a study beyond one published with an NRA slant that supports a 42.2% and 65% increase as dubiously claimed in the drivel cited above.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

I know can't have even one crazy person right to own gun being denied. Yet the republicans don't seem to have a problem denying Americans the right to vote.

Excellent point, Americans First.

In my state, churches have traditionally been polling places. That is changing because churches do not allow guns, and voters here want to be able to take their guns into polling places.

The gun culture is insane.

Having never been Intimidated by the like of the NRA and/or those "Wacko-Republican Gun-Nuts",

because I can See the Fear and Hatred that exists in their "darkened hearts and warped minds",

I say: TAKE AWAY all their GUNS and BIBLES,

and Reinstate OBAMA'S "SNITCH LINE".

That would be a "good start" to "keep them in line".

Wouldn't you all agree?

Of course you all would.

And remember, I was Once a "Proud Republican"

so my words and political-insights have lots of weight and credibility!

All I can say is THANK-GOD, OBAMA was RE-ELECTED for Another FOUR MORE LONG YEARS.

That shoul teach all you NUTS that voted for GEORGE BUSH for a SECOND TERM.

As a follow up to my post above, in at least 1 article I've read about this tragedy it was reported that the weapons used by the perpetrator were stolen from his mother-- the same mother he shot and killed. With her own weapons. Now, the sick, twisted horror of that matricidal fact is something that we must all confront, but it also means that this sick ticket didn't go to a gun store and buy these weapons. He murdered the legal owner of these weapons and stole them. Now tell me how, in what world, in what country, a law that makes it harder for someone to purchase these "assault weapons" has any effect whatsoever on the psychopath who never sets foot in a gun store, never undergoes a background check, never registers on the federal radar in any way, but instead murders someone else and steals their legal firearms?

If you answered "it wouldn't," then you're right.

I hear all of the comments about restricting gun ownership, and I as a parent after all of this is highly conflicted. I see that restricting some ownership of gun related issues is in order, but most of the comments here are over the top. I do not own a gun, but I would like to for many reasons. I truly believe in the second amendment which should never be reversed. However, I do think that restrictions on clips and the ammunition threshold should be changed.

The thing that is bothering me the most about gun control conversations in light of these events is that we as people can have many hobbies. Who is to state that your hobby is more justifiable than anothers? We have people who own cars that can go 200+ mph. When things go wrong with those cars innocent people die. There are many ingredients that people use for good causes, but combined enough can cause deadly gases and explosives. Are we saying that we need to ban all of this? You can not pick on people who love guns. It is their hobby. I know some people who have many guns that some would claim as an arsenal. THey would question why someone would need so many guns. I can easily answer that. They love them. THey love the science behind them; they love the smell of them; they love the beauty of the craftsmanship. They love guns because it is their hobby as much as someone loves collecting dolls. I never understood someone who collects dolls as an adult, but they have the freedom to do so.

In short, I am deeply afraid of my children's safety when I am not with them. However, I am fearful of someone without control using bombs, gas, guns, knives, or anything that could cause harm. We can regulate some pieces of the puzzle (clip amounts and the type of ammunition available such as armor piercing or hollow tipped rounds), but we should not jump overboard and regulate people's freedom.

To paraphrase a comment from another forum on this subject, with 270,000,000 estimated guns privately owned in the US, the Gun-genie is out of the bottle-- and that bottle is smashed all over the damn place.

That's right, WMG. We can't get rid of all the guns. Guns, like diamonds, are forever.

But what about controlling access to ammunition?

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do.

To answer your other question, Lanza would not have killed his mother with her own guns if she didn't have any guns. Or if she had kept her guns under lock and key, unloaded, with the ammunition stored separately also under lock and key.

When my father, who owned a lot of guns, passed away, I advised my mother to get rid of those guns since they only made her a target for thieves.

The best way to honor the memory of those twenty little children and their brave teachers and administrators is to put aside partisanship and self interest and find a way to work together to make this incident the last of its kind.

Don't we owe that to their families and to the first responders who will never live another day free from this horror?

Thank you, Senator Feinstein, for having the courage to do what should have been done years ago. If it had been done, we might not be here today discussing how to protect our precious children from this out-of-control gun violence .

Our armed forces and some police need large capacity clips, semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

So do mass murderers.

Why does anyone else need these tools of death?

All the passed laws and gun bans in the world won't stop the violence. We need better funding for mental health programs across the country so people have better access to services.

It's not a perfect answer, but right now the cuts have been so deep that people are not getting the help they need. At least it is a step the right direction by getting to the source of problems (in the region between peoples ears) rather than all these radical ideas as confiscating guns from homes, etc. Even with that, people can still use knives and other instruments when more expedient means aren't available. But, get the public better educated about mental illness and able to recognize the signs and symptoms then more might be helped. That awareness is a far better 'weapon' to carry than any gun; knowledge is power. People are asking "why?" today and here is where we have to start facing the cold facts and act upon them.

Silverton, England's violence was lowered because of the relenting of the IRA, they've always had relatively little gum crime. So I state sir that your misapplication of statistics is a lie. You want a statistic? The M16 and AR15 collectively fire the highest percentage of rounds that do not strike a single living thing. Want to know what has the highest kill rate? Bolt action. You have been lied to my friend, you have begun to believe the lies and now you repeat them. Think for yourself. That can be your Mt Everest.

You're right about Americans needing better access to mental health care, ProFreedom. We also need to stop stigmatizing and bullying the mentally il, the 'different' kids who commit these horrifying deeds. We are all at risk of falling victim to mental illness and we all need access to treatment.

But we must find a way to keep automatic weapons out of the easy reach of unbalanced individuals. I think that means that gun owners need to take a long look in the mirror and decide if those guns in the closet are worth the risk.

the tragedy on friday is simply appalling, no explanation can take away the pain being suffered by the family and friends of the victims.

we currently have hundreds of laws on the books regarding guns and gun control. i am not clear on how any new laws will make much difference.

in reading about this i came across this paragraph in a story about chicago gun laws:

"As you may know, the city outlawed the sale and possession of handguns way back in 1982. (Not that the move was very successful in disarming Chicagoans: Police here confiscate an average of about 10,000 firearms each year.) In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the handgun ban, saying it was in violation of the Second Amendment."

i also looked at another source of child death in america and that is alcohol. we continue to tolerate alcohol- related deaths as just a part of society. more than 200 children died in 2011 as a result of alcohol-impaired drivers.

someone suggested an adult conversation is needed. i agree completely but imagine that as i read many of these comments the majority of the posters have made up their mind and will not likely be persuaded to change their views.

Kaybee and ProFreedom,

There will ALWAYS be crazy people, that's why gun regulation IS a solution and only focusing on the mental health aspect of this won't work. We can deal with crazy people better, but there is NO way to completely eradicate mental illness from our society. Just like there's no way to completely eradicate bad parenting, or poverty, or anger, or violence from our nature.

The common denominator here isn't just insanity, it's insanity with a gun in its hands.

.

Pat Boston MA.

Bev, here's hoping President Obama sees that sign. It's why we voted for him.

So GD irresponsible most of them are, and that includes democrats.

No pro-gun Republican would assent to going on MTP today.

Pat ,

Yup, 31 oof them.

What was that GOP/Tea Party slogan again. Let's review. It's FAMILY VALUES. What a bunch of evil, hypocritical, obstructionist who do not live by their own values.

Somebody, anybody, please define for me what makes a gun be considered an assault weapon?

peteMT - tell all of us why you think you need military assault weapons, body armor and enough ammo to kill an entire village to feel safe. Please, the stage is yours...

I'm still waiting for your response to my question, pete. It's been several hours, where is it?

Why does anyone else need these tools of death?

one word, don. Fear. The whole gun culture thing is predicated on fear and it's always been a convenient tool for the NRA and other right wing groups. A scared society keeps 'em roped in.

Go for it, Senator!

Conservative Republican here.

Our country needs a gun control debate, at least for argument's sake!!

We can do better.

Clwyd, #1.15 - The NRA should be listed as a terrorist organization.

What about the crazy GOP that supports the NRA ??????????????????????

Ihave to wonder where peoples minds are at concerning gun control.. Ok...let stop all sales of guns and ownership of same..then what ? Does anyone believe for a minute that if someone wants to use a gun in a crime , that any kind of gun control will stop them ? If so....you should become a politican..they too are in another world. Consider also..if we honest folks are not allowed to protect our selves who will ? The police ....politicans....? Not likely until after you are dead.

drive-by-observer

Was awake at 4, so turned on WHO-Des Moines. Some dickweed on there already faulting the 'main stream' media for all this Conn. shooting crap

They do share the guilt when they plaster these killings all over the front pages for weeks and make these killers famous. Also the Movie "Heathers" started these school shootings when they glamorized the serial killing pair played by Winona Ryder and Christian Slater. Great movie, but it came out not long before the Columbine school massacre. The Movie came out in 1988, and since then there have been 33 major assaults on school children around the world.

Here is how the end of "Heathers" went down.

"

Veronica tells J.D. that she will not participate in any more killings. He climbs into her room with a revolver to kill her, but Veronica instead tricks J.D., having used a harness to make it look like she has hanged herself. Thinking she is dead, he rambles about his plan to blow up the entire school during a pep rally. A petition he has been circulating via Heather Duke, to get the band Big Fun to perform on campus was actually a disguised mass suicide note. Most of the students had already signed, so the mass murderwould appear to be a mass suicide instead.

Veronica confronts J.D. in the boiler room, where he is rigging timed explosives. She shoots him when he refuses to stop the bomb. As J.D. collapses, he stabs the timer and it stops. Veronica walks out through the pep rally with everyone cheering, unaware there is still a bomb under the bleachers. The severely injured J.D. follows her outside with the bomb from the bleachers now strapped to his chest, offers up what amounts to a personal eulogy as Veronica looks on in respect, and detonates the bomb.

In the film's final scene, Veronica, covered in ash and bleeding slightly, confronts Heather Duke in the halls, takes Heather Chandler's red scrunchie, says "Heather my love, there's a new sheriff in town" and invites Martha Dunnstock to hang out on prom night and watch movies with her, a final display that the Heathers' reign is over."

Ivan,

I responded to that same exact post from you yesterday...

I don't want to stop the sale of guns. However, the truth is that 40% of the guns used in these shootings have been legally purchased. They're not criminals, until they are criminals. How to stop illegal arms purchases and the accompanying violence is different from how to stop the wrong people from legally purchasing arms.

They're two different issues, both needing to be fixed, with two different sets of solutions. That's why painting this with the wide sweeping, "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" argument is disingenuous.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

To all the gun geniuses out there. The .223 Bushmaster would not fire if you used a "clip" as you morons put it. It requires a magazine. The last weapon to use clips was a M1 Garand, "clip" went in the top of the magazine well, you pushed down on the rounds and loaded the gun. It was an assault rifle and held only 8 rounds. As far as a rapid fire weapon, that is any weapon in the hands of a skilled marksman. Gun laws and more enforcement would not have stopped this. Good parenting would have. She may have been doing the best that she could on her own, but did not seek help, otherwise we would be hearing from the doctors. The gun laws we have are not enforced, problem one. Stricter penalties and penalties enforced in a court of law are needed. We coddle criminals in this society. They live in country clubs at our expense for the rest of their lives. Go to Turkey and commit a crime and see where you will be locked up. That is punishment. And for the bigger issue, not one of you can make your Congressmen do their job and fix the budget let alone make a reasonable decision on anything to do with guns. You all make me laugh. These very Congressmen who are opening their mouths to get their 15 seconds of fame at the expense of these children will be going home for thier paid holiday and enjoying themselves and will not think twice about any of this ubtil they can get in front of the camera or media again when they decide to come back to work. Get real, they care about nothing but their paycheck and the benefits they recieve for the rest of their lives for a term of service. They have not done their jobs for over a decade, i have no fear that they will implement anything of worry with regard to guns. Give me a break. You people voted for this indifference to the countries well being.

The only thing most Americans want is to Ban Assault Rifles and 15-30 round Clips, but the GOP Militants will fight this to the Bone, wake up America, this party is for the NRA and the hell with our kids & families !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wish that "Pig Faced" Feinstein keep her opinions to herself. She did not once, yet, produce anything worthwhile.

gunner-3867236To all the gun geniuses out there. The .223 Bushmaster would not fire if you used a "clip" as you morons put it. It requires a magazine. The last weapon to use clips was a M1 Garand, "clip" went in the top of the magazine well, you pushed down on the rounds and loaded the gun.

Not true the SKS also uses a clip and the AK can top load the magazine using the same clip. Other than that everything is a magazine, but is has become common practice for people to call a magazine a clip.

A common thread here is that many of these shootings happen in gun free zones.

I am trying to think of a time when there was a massacre at a gun show or a shooting range.

Unfortunately, our courts have determined that mentally ill individuals have the right to refuse treatment (an unintended consequence of liberal legislation following the movie One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest).

Up until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine(Tommy Gun) or even a BAR. Where were all the spree shootings then(other than criminal gangland)? If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?

NO, the only thing that has changed in the last 50 or so years is the Secular Progressive agenda has wove its tentacles into society. Family is irrelevant. Dads are irrelevant. Males, especially white males, are irrelevant or even 'need' to be marginalized. Morals and Personal Responsibility are irrelevant.

My point is, since the 60's and the Progressive march toward hedonism in this country, with the rise of the welfare state, and easy divorce, discipline in this country is gone. No longer are men being raised by fathers. And how do you become a real man, if you don't have one to show you the way? Granted it isn't always successful, but it is more successful than the alternative.

As far back as the Whiskey Rebellion, the government has used Federal Militia, later the National Guard to "restore" order. And as recently as the '70's, there have been several clashes between the National Guard and civilians, especially during labor disputes, but other protests as well, witness Kent State and Mississippi. It is definitely not unheard of for the Government to use military forces to impose its will upon the populace. Thus far, it has been, relatively supported by the majority, but what about the day it isn't?

And do you know when the end of civilization will be? When the solar flare will strike? Youtube "Doomsday Preppers" I am not that paranoid. My guns are for putting deer meat in the freezer, and stress relief. (while you on Youtube, "Exploding Pumpkins") But seriously, do you know when the NEXT meteor is going to hit? While never a Boy Scout (4-H) I believe their motto, Always be prepared. I am not going to wait for FEMA to show up. (They have such a wonderful track record)

**NOTE, I am a little more pragmatic as well, I have black powder guns as well. When these guys are all done shooting their "leads", I can make my own powder, ball and patch. (I can even make my own guns (if I can generate electricity)

***Another Note

I CAN STILL MAKE MY OWN GUNS, all it takes is a mill, a lathe and a broach or 2. I have a mill, a buddy has a lathe. If you ban and confiscate guns, somebody is still going to make guns and sell them to "whoever", just like they do Meth. The difference is, only the Gangsters/Criminals will control the guns.

And if I knew somebody, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, with a CNC machine I could mill out a full auto firearm, with ammo being the only restraint. But if you leave hunting rifles, no problem, or better yet I'll call my buddy in the Marines, he can supply me a couple cases. I got a friend in the sheriff's office too. ;-) All it takes is a little corruption.

KGW.com is also reporting that a CCP holder confronted the Oregon Mall shooter, before he shot himself. I haven't been able to confirm if this is a hoax or real. (Was the mall "no guns allowed"? If so, what was a CCP doing with his gun in there?) Maybe someone else has some more info on it? If this is true how many people were saved?

As a side note, I say if a place, like the mall or school, is going to ban guns from the premises then they need to take full responsibility of those who are on those premises. If they won't let me protect myself and others, then they need to ensure that safety, or be held accountable.

We'll talk about gun-control when you agree to LABEL the mentally ill & convicted felons with a big tatoo across their foreheads........ now we will have addressed the actual problem.......

No OBJECT is responsible for it's mis-use..... only PEOPLE can be held responsible for their actions......

I guess it's time I take some of my hard earned savings and get a few assault weapons of my own before it's only the cops and the corrupt Gov. that think they are special enough to own one. As a vet, I feel it's my right as a soldier to own a dozen or more. Heck, if I could get my hands on a 50cal., 60cal. or M203 and a few LAW rockets I'd be set for hunting season. Maybe someone can make my Christmas special this year and send me a case of Claymores to use for property protection. God I miss the smell of Napalm in the morning.

This is as stupid as the war on drugs. How about our Government spend the money on rebuilding a network of places to hospitalize the insane rather than let them walk among those of us with brains. Oh that's right, states never found a way to MAKE A BUCK on asylums so they closed them down, opened the gates and outsourced it.

Sarah

We already have all kinds of gun control laws. Gun Crime rates are 24% LOWER than states that have heavy gun control, specifially not permitting concealed carry.

Now, Silverton yesterday pointed out that Scotland banned all Weapons and have experienced an drop in gun related crimes. I looked into it.

What I found was YES, weapons rated did decline in Scotland by about 5000, BUT, air weapons (which also shot bullets) and are not included in the weapon statistic experienced an increase of about 5000.

The False conclusion says that crime decreased, when the correct conclusion shows that eliminate one tpe of weapon, another will be substituted and the crime committed anyhow.

When the Federal building in Oaklahoma was leveled by a truck load of fertilizer. That much fertilizer was not seen as a possible weapon. Now it is and is watched closer. That has not stopped people from trying to bomb more buildings and bridges. We don't see them happen anymore because we get tips from concerned citizens and intercept communications with suspected terrorists from outside our country.

You clearly haven't seen statistics on how many shootings have been foiled in the US. This is because more people are being identified as a possible shooter and get intecepted before they get to a campus or workplace. There are actually several times the successful plot being foiled all the time. We simply are missing too many who are or are becoming unstable.

Here is the reality:

NO guns owned by individuals will prevent the US Government from deciding to use the full force of the US military to put down any kind of insurrection or protest.

The rational for the 2nd Amendment which existed over 225 years ago went out the door when, after WWII, the US government became the police force for the world. WE, as a country, decided that we wanted a permanent standing army AND a permanent FEDERAL police force (the FBI, DEA, DHS, CIA et.al.)

Since the only thing the "right to keep and bear arms" does is allow children to be killed, it is now time to end this anachronism and put it in the dustbin of history, along with slavery.

How many dead children are worth your "right to bear arms" ?

Do you just want to be able to KILL ?

Reading through all the libs that want guns cut, that won't help... seriously. I don't see the need for a civilian to have an assault rifle. I also don't have any guns in my house, so don't think I'm some rabid gun supporter.

Last week 22 kids were injured/killed (not sure which, barely scanned the article at work) in China by an individual with a knife. If the guns are gone, another weapon will be used.

The root of the problem I see here is the complete lack of responsibility of the mother. The guns should not have been that accessible that easily. They should have been locked up in a safe.

My wife and I do plan on getting a few guns this next year just because we fear for the knee jerk reactions of the liberals. If any of you have read the plans Holder has on gun control, he'll pretty much outlaw any gun that is used by law enforcement or military, which in the end will cover all guns except a bb gun.

Responsibility. That is where the issue is. Violence is way to prevalent in our society through the news, video games, movies, tv shows, it's all around us constantly. Our kids are hammered with it from every direction. There are solutions to this, but they will never happen.

1. Tone down the violence in electronic media of all forms drastically.

2. Stop the war on religion (I see libs turning red already). Religion brings structure into life, something our country is seriously lacking in the family.

3. Outlaw guns such as assault weapons.

Just outlawing the guns will NOT fix the issue. Like one of the posters here said, the use of guns in these horrific massacres is nothing more than a symptom.

Call me stupid, a rwnj or whatever tickles your loins, but you know I'm right.

@ gunner #1.129

... weapon to use clips was a M1 Garand, "clip" went in the top of the magazine well, you pushed down on the rounds and loaded the gun. It was an assault rifle and held only 8 rounds. ...

Not to nit pick an otherwise excellent post, but I am going to have to nit pick. ;-)

The M1 Garand is NOT an assault rifle, as it is neither capable of full auto fire in its original condition and it uses a full rifle strength cartridge. (even the M-14 is not truly classified as an assault rifle, even though some versions come in selective fire)

And to all the gun geniuses out there. An ASSAULT RIFLE is defined as using a medium strength cartridge, having full automatic fire selective fire and a detachable box magazine.

I know all you geniuses like to abbreviate "Assault TYPE Rifle", but it is inaccurate. And even the Federal government has corrupted it into "Assault Weapons", but again, it gives the impression it is full auto when they are in fact, not.

And to concur somewhat with AntiStupidity, "clips" (even though you are absolutely correct in your demonstration) are most often used to describe Pistol Magazines. And the Box Magazine, is usually just called a magazine or rifle magazine.

Also, it is very annoying when you refer to a semi-automatic firearm as an "automatic". As in "The Sandy-Hook shooter had an automatic rifle" or an "assault rifle". To those of us who are familiar with firearms it gives a misleading assessment of the situation.

Maybe if more of you would educate yourselves about firearms, their history and their use, we would not need to have these discussions.

Ok, my rant is over.

The only reason to have a gun is because you have already decided you want to KILL.

People who have decided that they will kill, if given the opportunity, are mentally ill.

It is time to get the guns out of the hands of the mentally Ill.

It is time to get rid of all guns.

The only reason to have a gun is because you have already decided you want to KILL.

Wish I lived in a black and white world like yours, ignorance is bliss.

If you go duck hunting, in most jurisdictions the state 'Fish and Game' folks have laws governing how many shells can be stuffed into the weapon. Cheat and risk confiscation. So magazine size is an EASY start to this sort of control. These same authorities should also govern which rifles are permitted in the woods. Clearly small calibre high velocity ammunition is LOUSY for game hunting (spoils one quarter). There are a number of small steps that can be taken - all of which the NRA will resist - to wean away fellow Americans from their love of those side arms and long guns that have no use other than killing people. Home protection with a twelve-gauge ? Why not? You do not even have to be a good shot.

The real issue is not about guns, it's about mental illness. The people that commit these type of crimes have serious mental issue that go unaddressed. This country needs to have better treatment options for the mentally ill.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Some dickweed on there already faulting the 'main stream' media for all this Conn. shooting crap

All I have seen so far from the gun loving nuts is, a whole bunch of finger pointing, disgraceful comments and denial...

Not a one of them wants to have an adult conversation to search for solutions...

Exactly. Instead they run to Newsvine and spam Jefferson and Ben Franklin quotes at us like the opinions of people who lived 250 years ago and in a completely diff world have much relevance.

First of all, the event in Connecticut being used for a political agenda is nauseating.

Second, the Constitution guarantees protection of the rights of individuals to bare arms. Make no mistake...it is a RIGHT, not a priviledge to own firearms.

Third, if you think putting conditions on gun ownership and infringing upon individual rights is "fair game", then you would then also agree with doing background checks on people to make sure they are not criminals or mentally diminished to be able to vote. I'm fine with that.

Blaming an inanimate object for the actions of a PERSON is the ultimate break with reality.

Fiesty red head

More like a SICK PRICK to me.

All I have seen so far from the gun loving nuts is, a whole bunch of finger pointing, DISGRACEFUL COMMENTS and denial.

How hypocritical can you get?

@Beverly in Chicago.......................unfortunately I don't like what you post so please stop posting immediately. I have decided that you don't have the RIGHT to post on this site. When and if you decide to leave my 2nd Amnd right alone I will lift my ban on your 1st Amnd right. Fair enough???

I am at the point where I think some group of people is facilitating these events to drum up support for disarming the people.

Jefferson and Franklin lived in a less technically-advanced world. But it wasn't that different. They had concerns about a government that wanted easily to be able to overpower the people. Those concerns remain valid to this day. Government is necessary; but it is not to be trusted. And, once the tanks can roll in with impunity, the right to vote will disappear.

DIRP...............you haven't posted anything that makes sense yet. Yup, just ban guns, that's the answer.............idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I heard a good rebuttal to those advocating "gun control"

How many people were killed in the last 24 hours in car wrecks.

According to the "ban gun advocates" so cars should be banned by the liberal government is a cure all!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_in_car_accident_in_the_US

Oh, yes, Dirp, by your reasoning:

The only reason the police have weapons of any kind is because they want to KILL. They should be disarmed so that they don't have the opportunity. In fact, because all police are clearly mentally ill, law enforcement should be abolished.

The only reason the military exists is because government leaders want to KILL. Our military at all levels should be disbanded. Anyone who suggests that there is a good reason to have a military is clearly mentally ill and should have no say in the matter.

Those are the necessary consequences of your reasoning. Do you actually support your own reasoning?

The father of Newtown Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza is Peter Lanza who is a VP and Tax Director at GE Financial. The father of Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes is Robert Holmes, the lead scientist for the credit score company FICO. Both men were to testify before the US Sentate in the ongoing LIBOR scandal.The London Interbank Offered Rate, known as Libor, is the average interest rate at which banks can borrow from each other. 16 international banks have been implicated in this ongoing scandal, accused of rigging contracts worth trillions of dollars. HSBC has already been fined $1.9 billion and three of their low level traders arrested.

Some of you clowns at the top make some of us laugh. Your a bunch of monday morning quarterbacks that only jump on the bandwagon when someone hits you up the head with a tragedy. I didn't see you making the same statements when the university of VT was shot up. What you fail to understand is, that if Obama wants to help push for stronger gun control, he would have to except responsibility for fast and the furious. That only makes you look like a two faced bought and paid for president with no backbone. You don't wave your finger at responsible american gun owners then turn your back and commit the same crime you accuse the bad guy of doing. It only figures a tool of a senator from the peoples republic of california, would take a stand against the entire country so she can soapbox her face on the media and you idiots would support her in helping to take your rights away. California has some of the toughest gunlaws in the country, and yet they have just as high of gun related crimes as anywhere else in the country. Why?? because you only punish the responsible gun owners and not the criminal. Gangs will always get guns, nomatter how many laws you want to write. When our government is sending guns down to Mexico and they find they way back on the streets here in the USA, you have no chance when your stuck in the crossfire. Just look at the Hollywood shootout, the Rodney King riots, and many other events where the public was given no chance to defend itself. Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that controlling rapidfire full automatics shouldn't be outlawed on the streets, but this was a case of a psycho who used his mothers hand guns not an AK47. You have to wonder why a teacher had that many guns in the first place, then you have to ask why she wasn't responsible to keep them under lock and key. It's obvious she never took a handgun education class. So Feinstein now says we all should pay for this A-holes crime. The bigger crime is having someone like Feinstein in office telling someone like me in a different state i should have to abide be her B.S. law. I have a CCW and have taken gun safety courses, as well as was put in a position to shoot an intruder in my own business, but because i can think and not make a poor decission, i was able to capture one of the two assailants and didn't have to kill anyone. So why should I have to be a sacraficial lamb for someone elses crime?

I'm so sick and tired of the anti-gun crap my wish is that this country gets attacked next by a slavo of EMP weapons delivered of course by some mentally disturbed mad scientists. American society needs to take a bath in the filth it had created.

I myself feel bad for the parents and victims of this heinous crime. Instead of facilitating immediate gun control laws, the liberals should remove the obtacles of the murerers on death row, leeching on our monetary resources. An make an example these convicted murderers, for the rest of the barmy out there contemplating such monstrous acts. I feel once they see that we give no quarter to the insanity of murder, it will change the culture and the acceptance of having sympathy for the populace performing these appalling acts. We have to let these people who glorify such actions in their horror movies, video games, and other numerous outlets, need to know that our society and culture will no longer abide them, if they desire to act on their evil inclinations..

god it kills me reading all these statements a few ppl seem to have a good head on their shoulders but most of you are just spewing your party lines. You really think your politicians will do anything, even if they manage to get more control laws, nothing will change, incidents like this will continue to happen as long as we have a society that doens't give a crap about anything anymore. Kids now rule this world, discipline is a thing of the past, males no longer have role models, until priorities that made this country great (the family unit) you will never see a change, ban all the guns give it a go for a few years you might see a few incidents drop like this one would have, since the mom wouldn't have had the guns, but I guarantee someone else would have taken up that mantle of destruction. You now have well over 2 generations of kids who are bascially abandoned vagabonds living in one parent homes, doing whatever they please.

You can try and blame the video game too, but good luck, if your kid was supervised on what kind of games he played and explain to them that even there is shooting in that game, in real life it's very real and very dangerous. If you kid had any supervision you should be monitoring what they are playing, reading, who they are playing with ect..... No one to blame but yourself, it's not the teachers job to raise your kids either.

Maybe we should put a ban on ppl having kids instead of worrying about stuff you can't change, half the ppl in this country shouldn't be allowed to breed, they can't afford the kids anyway. I don't see restrictions on that do you? You don't have to take parenting classes, or show proof of income on having kids why not, it's ok the gov't will take care of you I guess. What good has the gov't done for anyone that is truly a responsible citizen, absolutely jack-sh-t.

The more you let the gov't in, the worse this is gonna get, the more you try and let other ppl raise your kids, like tv, video games, neighbors, teachers, day-care, the worse it's gonna get, the only ones that should be raising your kids is you and if you can't do that much you should have never had them in the first place. Save us all time and money on your f-cking problems. Now because of this d-bag mom who just left her guns laying around for a mentally unstable kid the whole country is in an uproar over nothing that you can fix, what is done is done. Is it horrible yes it is, but pointing fingers at everyone but yourself solves nothing.

And I like how everyone throws out these gun/murder stats, how many of these cases are there a year?? Really?? How many are drug related probably most of them, how many drug/gun murders do you hear about everyday, probably none even though my guess is a few die a day due to drug violence, where is your tears for them??? Where is your war on drugs, the same ppl you want to solve your gun problem are the same ones giving guns to the drug cartels and killing ppl even our own border agents, I don't see anyone all up in arms about that?

This whole countries people makes me sick, not the country itself it was founded with a purpose what that purpose is anymore I don't think anyone could tell you anymore. Still the best place in the world but for how long, I'll keep my guns thanks you very much for some of the previous posters comments I've read, I think I'll need them in the end.

I understand being fed up with tragedies like this. But I can just about guarantee no constitutional legislation is going to stop them. This shooter stole the weapons he used. He was undoubtedly acting illegally and without his mother's permission. His mother obviously didn't recognize his issues. What is the government going to do...try to track down every firearm out there in the hands of private citizens and take them away? Short of successfully doing that...and people will traffic illegally in guns no matter what safeguards or regulations are put in place, not to mention switching to other weapons like explosives that are hardly less deadly...things like this will keep happening. The real issue is the mental/spiritual sickness that impels these shooters. These shooters want to go out in a blaze of recognition and glory. They want to make a splash. They will find a way to do it.

This is incredibly tragic and painful. But there is a price to any necessary freedom, and the personal right to bear arms is a necessary freedom. If our federal government in particular isn't justifiably scared of us the people and scared of armed revolution if they drive us to it, it'll have no reason to care what it does. We will lose the main check we have on our federal government. Are we really so complacent about our liberties that we'll trade them for an illusion of security? Ultimately, it's up to us to be prepared and sometimes to accept that freedom will have a high price. But it's a price we should be a whole lot more willing to pay than the alternative of Big Brother controlling our lives and living in a fantasy that the government will protect us when it won't.

The liberal feeding frenzy going on here is quite predictable. They won't be satisfied until the 2nd amendment is repealed. They come from a position of "needs" based positions; why does anyone need this, or that?" You can never justify anything from a needs perspective, because there are really very few things we "need" in life.

When we become a nation governed for needs, needs that someone else decides on, I sincerely hope someone sticks a butter knife in my head - if they can still get one.

What a bunch of whiny, spineless, wimps. Relinquishing their rights so easily. What happened in Connecticut and elsewhere are tragedies for sure, but they will continue on until the root of the problem is solved....and it has nothing to do with guns and gun availability.

Unbelievable.

Seriously, people keep saying mental health is the issue, but does any one you who say this have any idea how many Americans have mental problems? And anyone is capable of snapping! Trust me I have worked with mental health children as a paraprofessional in schools. These kids have been treated and medicated....yet they are still aggressive and violent. Sometimes the medication makes them more hostile! All the treatment does is make them calmer, but it does not CURE their mental health problems. The best way to help them is to make sure weapons are not accessible to them. Weapons, especially guns are more effective in helping their violent streak. If it doesn't help this generation of people (who already have guns) maybe it will help the next generation to be stricter about enforcement on gun laws. And maybe the can keep a closer eye on anything from the black market or improperly sold guns anywhere.

Added, they need to make these schools safer. The schools should not be that easy to get in. I suggest no glass doors. And police should surround the schools more frequently. Children are most vulnerable and need to be protected at all times. And drills for these kinds of things should be addressed, not just in heavy crime areas, but in all school, in case an incident like this should happen.

Gun control will actually make crime sky rocket, without the unknown of the e pepetrator being hurt. Let the games begin. A person intenting on doing harm to others with no regard to self, will go at any length to get these weapons. Oh i cant buy it legaly ok I will be it off the street. More people caring weapons will gurantee, no more than a few people will be hurt in these big instancesis in the schools, theaters and malls.

1.That kid needed help.

2.His momther needed help.

3.America needs help we are broken.

4.Its not the Gun,Knife,Swoard or even a Box Cutter that kills it is the Human that uses it as a tool to kill.

AND IF YOU OWN A GUN LOCK IT UP.

This article was as expected in the aftermath of this tragedy as it is a ludicrous attempt at politicizing the deaths of 20 children and 6 adults. The shooter did have a "semi-automatic" rifle but it was left in the car and not used in the attack. Instead two high capacity handguns were used to take the lives of these innocent victims. Where is the justification for a ban? I would support stronger enforcement measures of existing laws, I will welcome better background checks, I would even go so far as to support a waiting period for rifles and shotguns. I do not see any need or justification for a ban on any type of weapon that is currently legal. I do not see a reason for, nor agree with any intrusion into our second amendment rights! Instead let's take a look into the real problems that are at the heart of mass murder and tragedies of this nature, people! I am not normally a bible thumping christian with an all religious agenda, but I am forced to agree that the decline of religion and the loosening of morality in this country is part of the problem. Another part is the politically correct attitudes that are pervasive in the judicial system that refuse to hold criminals to any reasonable standard of self responsibility or to incarcerate them for an adequate length of time! I realize that early parole is a useful tool in keeping prisoners in line,(I have several friends that are prison guards), but the thresholds used to release these idiots is far to low. In the case of Newtown, we probably never know why the shooter decided to kill indiscriminately. We probably also never know if he truly had some type of treatable mental disorder, or whether he just became a hand of evil. He is dead and life must go on. If we wish to prevent another mass killing, we should look more into our own homes, our own lives and ask what we are doing to make sure that we and those around us are stable enough to not melt down as this individual did and take another life. The Brady Bill and the Assault weapons Ban did not keep weapons from being used when they were in effect. Neither will any new legislation that happens to get through congress into law. We are not the only country that sell or manufactures weapons and ammunition. By banning we set up another opportunity for the black market sale of weapons to expand and we can all see how successful our federal authorities are at preventing the smuggling of illegal narcotics and illegal aliens into country. What rational individual thinks that they will be anymore successful with illegal firearms? Enforce the laws already in place to their fullest extent, strengthen penalties for use of any weapon in the commission of a crime, and stick to truth in sentencing guidelines for those found guilty. Include in the screening process an area for mental disease or defect which could prohibit a person from purchasing a gun. Even with these measures a tragedy of this nature may be repeated, but in our free society we are not always safe, nor are we meant to be. If we allow our rights to be eroded any further than they are, then we may as well embrace communism and give them all up entirely. Our system will only continue to flourish with rational thought and rational acts not dictated by knee jerk reactions to events.

Silverton says the NRA is all about money.....

SO ARE YOUR UNIONS!!!!

LOL!!! Good one.

Bryan, your post touched on the exact symptoms of the infection that plagues society today, and that is the acountabilty of parenting in the American Family unit. We let violent Music, TV, Video Games, and Horror Movies shape the psyche of our youth today. Instead of eradicating Constitutional Rights of the law abiding citizens of our great nation, maybe their should be more stringent laws made in procuring or viewing such media by our youth, and parents should be held accountable if they let their progeny's mind be fashioned by this grotesque imaging. Violent illustrations by music, videos, and movies are molding the devastation of morality in our youths deeds. Thus spring boarding the future of our society into a bullying, ridiculing, and lack of esteem for one anothers feelings and lifes. But yet Hollywood as had unrestricted profiting from such proliferation of these medias. And your right, there shouldn't be laws forbidding free speech, just a bit more campaigning of morality from our media outlets toward our youth.

To those who think gun control will effect criminals think again they never follow the law period,if they can't steal or buy guns they will start making guns,heck if they want a sten submachine gun they could find everything they need to make one from any hardware store and from living in england a while back where all guns are banned I can tell you that gun control will only make crime worse,hell that's the whole reason I moved to America many years ago was to escape the chaos that is the UK.

Hitler said it best...

"To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens"

You can accomplish this in steps because a frog never jumps out of boiling water if you turn the heat up slowly. First ban high capacity magazines and what politicians consider "assault weapons".

Next ban pistols with high capacity magazines, then shotguns. Leave the population with hunting rifles but require them to separate the weapon from its ammunition.

Sound ridiculous citizens of the USA? Well that's exactly what happened to a "T" in Australia and the crime and murder rate of its citizens have increased 62%.

Good luck with your little anti-gun project. Its saves no one and has been proven in nation after nation to fail.

What's going to happen to all the people who are buying up guns like crazy now, because they fear that Obama will get a Gun Control Law passed? Sales have never been better for the manufacturers of guns, the sellers, and the buyers----how do we control this?

I am definitely for Gun Control. This event "broke the rules"----I am devastated and sick over this tragedy.

What can we do?---if it isn't a gun, it could be a homemade bomb learned to be made from the Internet?

What if someone steals someone else's guns? What if the Security Person at the School packs a gun, and the perpetrator guns down the Officer at the door first? There are no answers---Surveillance, Security Posts and Metal Detectors did not work in this case--The slime balls that do these acts are smart, cunning like a fox, and EVIL.

How do we get rid of the EVIL in this country---I am perplexed. It's more than the guns--it's the person behind the gun. Everyone around that person is in Denial that he/she could actually commit an act as horrific as this one--

Gun Control. My Vote---will it work? Congrats to Diane Feinstein on finally bringing this matter to the attention of all people's. We are sick of the sickos--it could be us the next time---The entire country is traumatized by this weirdo--who had to take everyone with him. Selfish Bastard.

Rights? what rights? the right to have a 30 round clip? the right to have a gun that is automatic? the right to a coroner? the right to a child size coffin? The right to kill children? I'm guessing republicans don't think much of kids rights. Now if these kids where still in fetus form, then the right wingers would want to defend them. They would be marching from here to Washington. and of course they would be blaming liberals. once you are born, they don't care about you. They want the right to bare arms but don't want you to have the right of collective bargaining. they want the right not to pay for america, but they don't believe in health care. they love the corporations, but hate the workers. Funny how the "patriots" fear the gov. so much. If it was up to me, i would have made the gun makers attend the autopsies of these little kids. I would let them explain face to face with he parents why 30 round clips should be easy to get. why large caliber exploding rounds are so good. good thing I don't run the world.

GeorgePaul:

It is silly to blame a Political Party for the deaths of these young children, and 6 adults.

Face the "music", and know that it was a extremely mentally ill person---you just might have one in your family, so don't crow so high--

One of the problems with Gun Control (I am for it); is what "if" Terrorists confront us with weapons, or bombs, and we have no way of defending ourselves. What do you suggest as the alternative weapon; a knife--a baseball bat, bow and arrow, put in our purse, or back pocket; What?---There are no answers to this heinous type of crime. No answers at all--but banning Guns is a good start--how do we defend ourselves against those who have the guns---there are many examples of this type of violence where no one had a defense weapon--in other countries with Persecution, the Middle East blowout, the Holocaust, etc.

So stop blaming a Political Party being responsible for this hideous act. No one here will fall for your reasoning.

Instead of endorsing speech of Revenge or Hate by our leaders and media outlets for an individuals affiliations, beliefs, and ideals. There should be an examples of bipartisianship and intelligent discussions to resolve our problems, and not condemnations of the individual americans right to their freedom.

Of course humans kill. And we have been doing so long before guns were even invented. We would continue to kill with or without guns. But what exactly do you all think guns were made for? That's right, they were made to kill. Guns are weapons. Not only that, but they are the most efficient and deadly handheld weapon ever made. The fact that they also have the range that melee weapons like the knife some people unrealistically compare to guns don't have makes guns that much better a choice over other handheld weapons.

There's a reason why armies stopped using melee weapons as their first choice and started using guns instead.

It's because guns were that much more effective and that much harder to counter. Again, guns are the deadliest and most efficient handheld weapon we have made to date. THAT IS WHAT GUNS ARE DESIGNED TO DO. KILL. Of course humans will kill with or without guns. Guns just make it that much easier to do so, as well as that much harder to counter. And that's why we need to focus on preventing guns from being allowed to fall into the wrong hands, and limiting tragedies like this one. We must do that because guns are so deadly, and when used by the wrong person help said person create a tragedy that much more easily. That's what our gun control should focus on. Preventing that.

I realize it is easier said then done and we won't stop every one. But we have to try gun reform to stop at least some of this. And if we can even prevent one more tragedy like this from not occurring, wouldn't that be worth it? I realize that would be hard to measure. However, it needs to be done. And it can be done so long as we are willing to do so for the sake of those poor kids and other unfortunate victims who perish at the hands of a sick person with a gun.

For anyone who cares about facts and what actually causes a nation to have more gun deaths than another nation (not for those who make up their minds without all the facts and look for evidence to support their preconceived notions):

Mass murder shootings happen 20 times a year in the USA on average...but that is less than 2% of all gun murders. It isn't the big threat in terms of annual gun murders. It is also one of the least preventable causes (because crazy people use cars, knives, rope, fire, fists, bombs, etc., to murder people). So what are the causes of the vast majority of gun murders (which would matter to those interested in actually reducing gun murder)?

A Mathematical Approach to What Causes Gun Murder in America

Some wish to have gun control and gun bans in the wake of our last few mass shooting tragedies.

At what cost? Childproof society because a SMALL number (per capita) abuse the right? There are 200,000,000 guns in the USA, and 40-60 million people own those guns. Until this last year, which the FBI will have no official stats for until 2 years from now BTW, the crime rates, including violent crime and gun crime, had been falling for 30-50 years (moreso in the last 30). And this year there was only a slight uptick (several years into a recession no less, where people turn to drug "crime" for supplemental income). The population growth and guns in circulation, not to mention legal permits to carry guns, over that 30 years has far outpaced the gun murder growth. So even though the total gun murders probably went up this year, we still have a declining rate overall in the last 3 decades. I'll overestimate and say we had 13,000 gun murders, and do a little math for you.

Let's say the 40-60 million gun owners are 50 million owners...right in the middle (the average estimate).

200 million guns / 50 million = 4 guns per owner on average.

200 million guns / 13,000 gun murders = 15,384.62 guns per murder (that's a lot of guns not killing people)

Percentage chance a gun in the USA will murder = .0065% (or 6.5 in every 1000 guns...that's 993.5 guns in every 1000 guns not murdering people)

50 million gun owners / 13,000 gun murders = 3,846.15 gun owners not murdering for every 1 gun murder (that's a lot of gun owners not murdering anyone)

Percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun = .026% (or 26 in every 1,000...that's 974 gun owners in every 1,000 not murdering anyone)

315,000,000 American people / 13,000 gun murders = 24,230.77 Americans per 1 gun murder victim

Percentage chance you as an American will be murdered by a gun = .0041% (that's 4.1 in every 1,000...or a tiny threat for the mathematically challenged. You have a better chance at dying of the flu - 33,000 flu deaths per year in the USA)

Permits to carry guns and total guns in circulation in the USA has never been higher (which is not the same as ownership rate, which is actually down)...and yet the threat is very, very low. Still think all those other people should give up their rights for a threat less than the flu? Please recall that almost 70% of gun murders are commited by criminals, not law abiding citizens. No gun ban or gun control logically affects them, as they already don't abide laws, and we aren't on an island where getting guns is hard when they are banned (it's easier in say England or Australia, because of geography, to ban guns).

Now let's compare to the Holy Grail of gun control advocates (Canada and England) who value freedom so low as to want "to purchase temporary safety at the expense of liberty", as Ben Franklin put it (he said you will "get neither" when you do that, and I'll add "you deserve neither"). BTW, I'd point out Canada didn't outlaw guns at all in reality :

Canada's population 35.5 million / 126 gun murders = 281,746 citizens per gun murder

Percentage chance of being murdered by a gun as a Canadian = .0004% (4 in every 10,000)

Gun owners in Canada is 10.934 million / 126 gun murders = 86,777.78 gun owners per gun murder

Percentage chance a gun owner in Canada murders you with a gun = .0012% (1.2 in every 1,000)

Now let's look at England's gun ban paradise:

England's population 53 million / 39 gun murders = 1,358,974 citizens per gun murder

Percentage chance of being murdered by a gun in England = .0001% (or 1 in 10,000)

Gun owners in England 1.8 million / 39 gun murders = 46,153.85 gun owners per 1 murder by gun

Percentage chance a English gun owner murders you with a gun = .0022% (2.2 in every 1,000)

I'd point out gun CRIMES (not just murders) in England have soared upward 35% since the gun bans. Criminals used handguns in 46% more crimes, and it was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise...there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year, the most since the previous peak in 1993.

Stats show the number of crimes involving handguns have more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre, which brought about the ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

Quote:Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.

Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: "These figures are truly terrible.

"Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offenses.

"The only word for this is failure: the Government's response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either."

So England's gun bans may have lowered total murders, and even the rate of murders, but the violent crime rates are soaring. Guns are a game theory mathematical deterent to crime, especially violent crime, believe it or not.

So what can we get from all these stats?

Population matters, as does other factors besides guns themselves:

The whole story is told in the percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun - USA is .026%, Canada is .0012%, and England's is .0022%.

As you can see, Canada has a higher rate of ownership of guns and more total guns than England, and yet has a LOWER gun owner murder rate than England! That means it isn't guns that are the factor making England murder more. So why is Canada so low, while England is nearly double that? Why is the USA more than 10 times higher than England? All of this is adjusted for population and total guns in society...so what is the factor making us so much more prone to murder (even if it is a tiny threat overall to life) here in the USA?

THE DRUG WAR.

In England they have a drug war, but they do not focus on possession. Meanwhile we lock up nonviolent criminals at the almost the exact same rate as violent ones in America. Canada has legal marijuana in some areas, and has for years, and takes a very relaxed attitude toward drug use in general (although they have laws which are largely unenforced).

Just like during the Prohibition of alcohol, murder rates have soared under the Drug War. So has our incarcerations and incarceration rates...we now lock up more people in total than any other country in the world (yes, even the vastly more populated China and India)! That's total and per capita! "Land of the Free"? Think again. "Land of the prisoner" is more accurate. We arrested more than 750,000 people last year for just marijuana! 86% of those arrests were for small amounts; simple possession charges. It's not only tyrannical, it's a waste of resources which fuels a black market run by criminal sociopaths, and takes resources away from fighting actual violent crime like theft, property damage, assault, rape, child abuse, and murder.

This War on Drugs (and personal adult freedom) has given us the street gang phenomenon on the scales we see today. Chicago alone has dozens of separate drug gangs. They also have a high murder rate to go along with super-strict gun control in comparison to other cities...because guns aren't the problem, the Drug War is. Many of their gangs can trace their roots to either the beginning of Prohibition, or the beginning of the modern Drug War.

In Honduras where gun murders are most common and horribly frequent, they have gun rights...but they also have a country which is a main thoroughfaire for the illegal drug trade. By comparison, Uruguay has almost the same gun ownership rates as the USA and the same gun rights as well, yet they have a lower gun murder rate because they have no war on drugs. In fact, their govt is seriously considering selling marijuana to its citizens to get the drug trade completely above-board!

If you want our rate of murder to decrease via guns you don't take away guns, you end the Drug War. If you have any doubts about this go look at the murder rates after alcohol Prohibition began, and then after it ended. Also look at countries that have already ended their Drug Wars.

Crime rates in Prohibition rose immediately 78%, 24% in just one year from 1920-1921 (the first year)

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/0049...e_Rate.htm

The murder rate was cut in nearly half (40% decline), from 10 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000 when Prohibition ended. This was directly caused by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-...as-failure

If we want to half our gun murders, legalize drugs. If you want to further bring it down address the next major cause; domestic violence. Spanking children leads to many issues surrounding violence, but especially domestic violence. If domestic violence is how you raise children, then expect them to use it themselves as adults. A small number of those people will kill a domestic relative or partner. The gun simply facilitates it.

The final point I'll make is that if only .026% of gun owners murder someone with a gun, then 99.974% of gun owners don't kill someone with a gun. It's hard to argue we need to punish the 99.974% for what the .026% do. That kind of illogic is used in schools to punish classrooms full of kids for what one anonymous child has done...and it leads to bullying, because children then ostracize their peers who are guilty (and they don't know how to ostracize responsibly, so it ends up in bullying). We should use a more logical approach on adults. In a nation of 315 million people, with a Drug War raging and domestic violence against kids being the norm, a 99.974% responsible gun owner rate is unbelievably good. Perspective, instead of irrational fear and knee-jerk reaction, is what helps here.

Someone said they thought we could half gun murder by ending the drug war, but the we'd double the drunk/drugged driving deaths...but that is illogical. No one has any problem getting drugs now, and they already drive on them now. Also, when drugs were legalized across the board in other nations the usage only went up slightly, and in some nations actually decreased. Plus, when we re-legalized alcohol the usage here only went up slightly, while alcoholism went down (especially among minors), and the murder rate fell in that first year (1933) 40%. THINK through why your criticisms might not be logical...and Bing or Google them to see people have already answered these illogical and/or irrational reservations.

Lastly, someone else said they would never change their mind about being anti-gun no matter the evidence...but again, that is irrational. There are irrational people who won't fly even though they ADMIT cars are more likely to kill them. They drive but won't fly...that is irrational. Guns are less likely to kill a kid than swimming pools. How afraid are you of swimming pools? Cars kill more people than guns...how afraid are you of cars? Gun murder is almost 3 times less likely to kill you than the normal flu virus...how afraid are you of guns vs the flu? Being rational means fearing things based on thr actual RATIONAL chance they have to kill you, not the IRRATIONAL fear of HOW it might kill you. Guns are not nearly as dangerous as the media and most anti-gun people think they are.

In fact, more lives are saved in the USA every year than are taken by guns every year. They are in reality, indisputably, a NET GAIN of life. If only 2% of the 750,000 crimes prevented by private guns (FBI stat) save one life (or 1% saves 2 lives, etc.), then more lives are saved than taken. BTW...sutdies show many more than that are saved by guns...the estimate by Clinton tAdministration study was 2 million lives per year...which might be high...and other more intensive studies show the number to be in the tens of thousands, up to 200,000, per year. But EVEN IF the number was only 15,000 as I suggested with my 2% number, we're still looking at more lives saved than murdered.

I have read so many ignorant liberal comments in this thread that I now have a headache. You people are the same hypocrites you accuse Republicans of being. You advocate gun control laws, yet you also allow abortions for convenience sake. What kind of screwed up logic are you all practicing?

Some of you have talked about video games and movies. Equally ridiculous. The entertainment industry is overwhelmingly Democratic leaning and is producing the violence, yet calls for gun control laws. I have been sitting here watching the Patriots-49ers game on NBC and have seen ads for a new gangster movie coming out. Apparently, these guys are policemen who leave their badges at home and simply kill the bad guys at night.

You have also talked about the mentally ill. I think that's an interesting angle, but here's some reality for you. I have been diagnosed with Bipolar II disorder. For those of you who don't know what that is, Google it. I am on Lexapro, Depakote, and Xanax as I try to get through this thing called life. I do own a gun. Mine is a .357 revolver made by Tarus (sp?). Someone said earlier that if I owned a gun, I only wanted to kill people. Not so. I hope I never have to kill anyone, but I will use it to protect my family, if needed.

Another idiot said that I am more likely to die by a gun because I have one in my home. Why? My kids know about the gun and know where I keep it. But since I am a good parent, they know not to touch my gun. They also know the consequences if they disobey.

I personally don't care if certain kinds of weapons are banned, but that is not the answer. The answer is to do a better job of parenting and to hold people accountable for their actions.

Yeah we need weapons for our militia and self defense. Automatic assault weapons are necessary. Really ? You are going to fight invaders with an assault weapon while they bomb you ? What we need now is to be armed with bombs and rocket launchers. What do you people think guerrillas fight with ? This is ridiculous.

So you want me to blame who? the parents? the kids? There is something very wrong in this country. the political cess pool known as the GOP is a real part of that problem. I have every right to blame. I don't see you admonishing them for their blame. they love the fetus and hate the child. they love the corporation and hate the worker, they call themselves patriots but don't want to pay for america. Seems very clear to me. the selfish join the republican party and look down on us who care. then they call themselves religious as they try to take grandma's food stamps and kick down the stairs. As they call for an end to breakfast programs for poor kids. as they shoot down health care programs cause the insurance companies will lose money. so tell me how silly I am again, it's so nice to hear.

Beverly and Fiesty, your name calling and hate filled garbage won't solve anything except to create more animosity and divisiveness. Both of you are stunningly ignorant.

Derek, im guessing the liberal media forgot to tell you that half the abortions in the nation are had by republican women. nobody likes abortion. the only difference between you and me is this. I don't want to put your sister in jail for it, you do want to put mine in jail for it. real simple. right wingers are all about punishing people. well guess what, punishment is GOD"S job, NOT YOURS.

Replying to any of these idiotic dem's is pointless.

@ Pro-individual,

It is true that a relatively small number of people with guns abuse their rights. But it only takes one person for a tragedy like this to occur. I support the second amendment as much as anyone. But isn't it more than time to start looking to see what we can do to make it safer? We aren't going to stop you from owning guns. That's your, my right, and the right of citizens in the USA. However, we should have the discussion on how gun reform can make things a little safer without restricting that right. We may have to give up a little bit like (just an example) large clip/magazine size, or make the process with owning a gun require things like a smarter license system which could be a bit of a hassle. But if you really cared that much about the guns, it would not be that big a deal. Just a small inconvenience is a small price to pay to help prevent deaths. No, gun reform would not stop murders or even all gun murders. But if we are smart about it, we can cut those murders down without imposing too many restrictions.

@ Pro-individual,

It is true that a relatively small number of people with guns abuse their rights. But it only takes one person for a tragedy like this to occur.

And again, this is about being rational. Rational people are afraid of things based on the LIKELIHOOD they will occur. Are you wanting to make it SAFER, or pefectly safe? If SAFER is the point, you might want to address the cause of 50%-t70% of gun murders, not less than 2%. The 2% will always occur, new regulations or bans or not. Being rational means fearing things and addressing things based on threat level, not the irreational fear of HOW you might die and much that scares you. For example, terrorism; it killed 3000 people on 9/11...that was a one time event overt a decade ago. Over that same period, bathtubs have killed just as many people as 9/11 and the over a decade following, as terrorism. If we had a 9/11 every year, every dingle year, house fires would still be more dangerous (your home is morel ikely to kill you). House fires kill 4,000 Americansa year. A rational person is more afraid of house fires than terrorism by a factor of more than 10 (300 annual terrorism deaths, rough estimate for the sake ofthis discussion, and 4,000 house fire deaths annually). But most people aren't rational.

I'll reprint the prargraphs that I already wrote above that covers this issue:

Mass murder shootings happen 20 times a year in the USA on average...but that is less than 2% of all gun murders. It isn't the big threat in terms of annual gun murders. It is also one of the least preventable causes (because crazy people use cars, knives, rope, fire, fists, bombs, etc., to murder people). So what are the causes of the vast majority of gun murders (which would matter to those interested in actually reducing gun murder)?

In fact, more lives are saved in the USA every year than are taken by guns every year. They are in reality, indisputably, a NET GAIN of life. If only 2% of the 750,000 crimes prevented by private guns (FBI stat) save one life (or 1% saves 2 lives, etc.), then more lives are saved than taken. BTW...sutdies show many more than that are saved by guns...the estimate by Clinton tAdministration study was 2 million lives per year...which might be high...and other more intensive studies show the number to be in the tens of thousands, up to 200,000, per year. But EVEN IF the number was only 15,000 as I suggested with my 2% number, we're still looking at more lives saved than murdered.

If guns, as is, are a NET GAIN to life, and the fear of mass shootings is irrational because they kill less people annually than bathtubs (300 annual American deaths), then perhaps we should start trying to think rationally, quickly, instead of attacking those who share the rational and logical perspectives with us.

As I've already pointed out, guns are not CAUSAL to gun murder...but the Drug War is. We don't need any legal reform to gun laws...because logically it isn ot the cause of the problem. We need to end the Drug War, logically, and address the domestic violence we us to raise children (which causes them to murder people, with guns or not, as adults). Those two causes are far more important and effective. There isn't even a consistent correlation between gun murder and gun ownership rates, guns in total in a nation, or gun bans/regulations. It's counter-intuitive, but deductively logical.

Here comes the anti weapon people. All the "enlightened" to tell us how to live our lives and that our founding fathers could not have foreseen. How our second amendment is outdated and we should be better people by leaving our weapons at the boarders. Letting me know that everyone out there should live in their Utopian delusion. Pathetic.

Here's some fun facts about the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment from the Supreme Court.

"As originally ratified, the Constitution primarily addressed the structure of the government and provided for few individual liberties. Instead, they were set forth later in the Bill of Rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the Constitution. A bill of rights was demanded by many states in return for their ratification of the Constitution, which they felt needed to outline individual liberties as well as government structure. As a result, the Constitution began its evolution as soon as it was ratified and continues to be changed through amendments based on the will of the people and the interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court. Nonetheless the fundamental principles on which this country was founded remain at the core of this document more than 200 years later."

Basically, these are your "inalienable rights" that our founding fathers spoke of in the Declaration of Independance. So since we don't like what news stories show up on Fox (Faux...whatever you want to call it), does that mean we should trim a little fat off the First Amendmant? Maybe you don't like the "Gay and Lesbian Pride Parade", does that mean you would like to take away the right to assembly? You don't like that citizens of certain states filed petitions to sucede, should we take away the right to petition? How much fat would you like to trim off what gives us our freedoms? On to the Second Amendment.

"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.' - From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775"

The sad thing is, we aren't anymore. Oh I don't mean "trained in arms from their infancy" I mean "animated by the love of liberty". I'll explain that one in a bit. Next quote.

"The Second Amendment has been one of the most controversial amendments to the Constitution. Advocates of gun rights and supporters of gun control have debated the true intent of the amendment for more than a century. In fact, the grammatical structure of the single complex sentence constituting the entirety of the Second Amendment has caused a multitude of complex issues. Opposing sides have divided the sentence in half, resulting in two theories on gun rights—states’ rights and individual rights."

See the quote above this one to find the truth about why the Second Amendment was written. You can play on the words any which way you want, but the writers wrote it so that the people could defend their liberty. Part of that being country, part of it being personal. It guarentees that I will NOT be conquored in my own home. Next quote is kinda long, but worth the read.

"On the other side of the argument, advocates of gun rights point out that, grammatically speaking, the first half of the amendment is merely a subordinate clause, and the second half—the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed—is the main clause, which gives meaning to the amendment as a whole. Gun rights’ advocates argue that the right to bear arms was considered by the framers to be an additional safeguard against an overly powerful central government. According to this argument, the framers intended the First Amendment, particularly the freedom of speech and press, to reassure citizens that they would always have a meaningful outlet for opposing the government without resorting to violent resistance. Nevertheless, the Second Amendment provided additional insurance. Moreover, gun rights’ advocates argue that the right to bear arms preseved the natural right to defend against the loss of life, limb, or liberty caused by the criminal acts of others.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court officially denounced the states’ rights argument. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court formally recognized the Second Amendment as protecting the right of individual citizens to possess firearms for lawful purposes without interference by the federal government. Then, in 2010, the Supreme Court “incorporated” the Second Amendment into the due process clause of the Four teenth Amendment in order to protect an individual’s right to bear arms from intrusion at the state level.
Still, the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right. Gun laws remain on the books in virtually every state as well as at the federal level. At this time, there is much debate about which laws will be upheld and which ones will be struck down as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made it known that certain regulations are acceptable, such as prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding firearms in schools and government buildings, and rules requiring firearm dealers to apply and qualify for licensing."

If you are following my train of thought (might be difficult for some, but I'll try to dumb it down a bit), then you see that the whole "ban guns...ugg...guns bad" arguement will get you nowhere. All of my quotes can be found on justice.gov, which is the United States Supreme Court web site. The fact is kiddies, there are laws which prevent the person who comitted this crime from having a gun. It was the mother's lack of responsability that did this. So you want to punish the other people who are law abiding weapons owners? The ones who are more ACLU then NRA (like me)? The ones who believe in responsible ownership and weapons safety? Because criminals aren't going to care what these "law makers" have to say. These "law makers" can't even manage to balance a checkbook yet, let alone figure out what responsible gun ownership would mean. This person who committed this crime was a mentally unbalanced criminal. Did it matter to him that no guns were allowed on school grounds? Did it matter to him that the weapons were registered to his mother and that he was not to be in posession of them? So you'll punish me because of someone else's failing? Typical of lefties.

What I said before about being "Animated by liberty", just look at some of the posts. Things from Beverly and Silverton. You think that because people are not responsible, the government can "make" them responsable. GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND!! Our government is not here to save us. Our government is not here to make your life easy. Here is the problem with things like this, there is no personal responsibility in this country anymore. We'll blame the inanamate object first. People are just there. NEWS FLASH: IF I TAKE ONE OF MY WEAPONS AND KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING, THEY DO NOT PUT MY WEAPON ON TRIAL! IT IS EVIDENCE, I AM RESPONSIBLE!!!!

Gun advocates have had the right to own these over kill weapons for eight years, in my opinion they have failed to show that the right to own over kill weapons is justified.

Most of these weapons are being bought by people who have never hunted in their lifetime. On Black Friday, I was at Walmart to purchase a freezer, Walmart had an assaulttype rifle on special, not a one of the people coming into the store asking about that rifle were over 30yo and they looked like they wanted the gun more as a statement than a need. Even the young male workers at Walmart went into their wanna be gang slang while gushing over that gun.

and how screwed up was the shooters mother? I lived with a bi-polar step son who claimed he wanted to be a gangster when he got older - I searched his room almost every day to make sure he couldn't get his hands on any weapons. Rich dumb-ass mother who didn't want her poor little baby to feel left out - so much for conservative stereo types.

Name one popular Rap group/rapper who doesn't glorify bad behaviour? More than ironic when conservatives and rap punks support the same crap.

And another couple of politicians grab the microphone to tell America more laws and less personal responsibility is the answer. Never mind the fact that cities and states with the most stringent laws also have some of the highest crime...including gun crime. This is so typical of a nation of legislators who want to put a band-aid on the very problems they caused...that is right...anyone remember Fast and Furious, Ruby Ridge, Waco? The Democrats have been looking for a chance to clamp down on anyone who disagrees with them and their agenda...NDAA of 2012 anyone? So lets let another air head politician convince us that only they are capable of controlling guns, violence, and national policy...how is that working out so far with our debt, wars, and fiscal cliff? Politicians are not the answer the American people who care about their neighbors, country, and personal accountability are. Lets face it the politicians are the only ones here with single digit approval ratings...wonder why? Maybe they should talk less and just enforce the multitude of laws already on the books including illegal immigration if they want the rest of the country to take them seriously.

More mindless drivel from the far lunatic fringe. Good luck with that Senator.

Dismissed

The only people who need guns (aside from the military of course) are cops and criminals. If you aren't a cop on duty, and you aren't a criminal, you have no valid need for a gun.

Hunters: You can go down to the 7/11 and get yourself a hot dog. No need to be out in the woods hunting. Half the time you don't get anything, the other half you end up shooting yourself or another hunter by accident.

Home protectors: When you are siting on the couch watching fox news and eating Cheetos and three guys surprise you by crashing through your windows armed to the teeth, do you think they'll stop and wait while you run down to the rec room, unlock your gun safe, and then unlock the trigger lock so you can come back and defend yourself?

Protectors against unjust government: Bin Laden was in a heavily secured concrete compound. A dozen body guards armed with fully automatic weapons and plenty of recent combat experience were on full alert. Bin Ladan had a gun out and right next to him. A special forces team took them all out no problem. You think you'd do better alone in your suburban house built of recycled paper, gypsum dust, and vinyl siding with your 9mm and shotgun? Good luck.

It's 2012, it's time to put the 1700's law to bed.

Diane Fienstein is a hypocrite POS

This twit has the audacity to ask for more gun control when she herself has a CCW.

I love the Anti gunners frothing on the Vine hey guess what your the minority and we are the majority.

Good luck trying to pass your gun control.

This guy was Evil who committed these heinous crimes.

have a good evening I'm going to play far cry 3 8)

Hunters: You can go down to the 7/11 and get yourself a hot dog. No need to be out in the woods hunting. Half the time you don't get anything, the other half you end up shooting yourself or another hunter by accident.

@Robert - You have no business telling anyone else what THEY should be doing, you liberal emotion-driven fascist. And hunting accidents per capita are rare. More rare than fatal car accidents that happen daily per capita.

Home protectors: When you are siting on the couch watching fox news and eating Cheetos and three guys surprise you by crashing through your windows armed to the teeth, do you think they'll stop and wait while you run down to the rec room, unlock your gun safe, and then unlock the trigger lock so you can come back and defend yourself?

Do you have any idea how contradictory that sounds, MSNBC watcher? Trigger locks are voluntary. Not everyone has kids in their homes. Second, I'd rather take my chances defending myself and my property(*) than sitting on the couch with 9/11 on hold waiting to talk to some $9/hr local government employee looking at her nails.

* Yes, I know. You liberal fascists don't really believe that our property is OUR property. In your emotion-driven minds, we didn't earn it, someone else earned it for us. Either that or we stole it from someone else. That's you people's mentality on the left.

Name one popular Rap group/rapper who doesn't glorify bad behaviour? More than ironic when conservatives and rap punks support the same crap.

@Patches: how many redneck shootings at redneck/country music bars do you read about? How many redneck "gangs" are there in the hills of Alabama and other red states that roam streets and kill their own because one "dissed" the other or a drug deal went bad? Yeah that's what I thought. You are talking about two completely different cultures and two completely different environments. But alas, when dealing with you irrational, emotion-driven knee-jerk liberals, stupid just can't be fixed.

@ Pro-Individual,

Rational people are those who realize that something designed to take lives isn't a "net gain" on lives. I don't know how anyone rational and not clouded by biased could come up with that conclusion. And net gain? Is that how you view lives? Like a statistic? Statistics (when not warped by bias or agenda) are very rational. The thing that gets me most is, those statistics you brought up are lives. This isn't a numbers game, but real people dying. Reason all you want, but even one life is much more valuable than any number.

Here's some rational:

Each "statistic" you have is a life that can never be brought back. What does that mean to you? Do you have no humanity? Those kids are dead and you are over hear with your statistics saying that it is very unlikely so we shouldn't do anything? That is both defeatist and an insult to those who died not just in the Connecticut shooting but those who died in every shooting like this. Doing nothing is not making anything completely safe, safer, or even the same. Doing nothing encourages more things like this to happen because the problem grows as we don't address it.

What your "rationality" and "statistics" don't answer, is why more and more of these tragedies seem to be happening more and more frequently. Or is that just an anomaly in your "statistics." Crunch all the numbers you want to fit your views. Making excuses won't do anything to stop things like this from happening in the future. Of course, I would hope you value human life at least a little bit despite some things you said that, on the surface, imply otherwise. Even if only enough to understand that this problem is getting worse, and we need to start taking efforts to address it before it gets even further out of hand.

The only people who need guns (aside from the military of course) are cops and criminals.

What a bunch of authortitarian nonsense. First of all, if you were at home and someone broke in with a knife, do you really think a cop will arrive in time to save you from rape and murder? A gun would save your dignity and life. Your fear of guns is as irrational as your opening sentence.

2nd of all, the 2nd Amendment was NOT for self defense, or cops, or military, or hunting. I know govt schools suck, but you have the internet. Go read the Founders as to the UNIVERSAL reason they had the 2nd Amendment.

It was to overthrow the govt by force in case it ever got tyrannical.

They were aware of the dangers of a standing army, and the weakness of having no standing army. They also knew England made the mistake of having a standing army with no militias and that led to a coup of the govt by that military. To prevent a military takeover they crafted the 2nd Amendment and a balance between professional military, militias, and an armed populace...so the citizens could be armed and stop the military, if need be, in a genocide or coup. Unlike Egypt we are not at the mercy of our military. Logistically it would be impossible for the militatry to defeat the 40-60 million gun owners here, because they are so few in number (the soldiers, a few hundred thousand) and some of them would refuse to bomb us. Also, they can't use the worst weapons they have because it would render them no country left to rule. Hence the Soviet Union fell without even having guns, and even though they had a huge military, an great air force, navy, and nuclear bombs...and since we have so many guns and gun owners, we would have no issue taking over if we needed to.

Thank goodness we haven't needed to. And thank goodness people like you live in safe places where you don't have to worry about crime so much that you intimately understand the need for guns. I've buried people and I've been saved by a gun more than once...along with saving a women whose boyfriend was beating her to death in front of my home. She lost 6 teeth and had a broken orbital bone in her face along with a broken jaw, but she lived because I had a gun and scared him off without even firing a shot. So all your fantasy nonsense is just BS you tell yourself because you've been brainwashed by statist authoritarian nonsense and reject the principles of liberty this country was founded on. You have the right to belief that garbage, but you don't have any right to force me to sit here without telling you how utterly ignorant you are, and how what you advocate is essentially cheerleading for tyranny.

This is why mob rule is such a bad idea...the masses are, in majority, fickle and stupid. They wouldn't understand logic or rational thought if they're life depended on it.

now the nra will try to keep the second ammendment intact.just as our government will try to control us.taking guns away from law abiding citizens wont stop a crazy person from killing

I think some people need to think this through a little more. No one sane here is out to get the second amendment. No one here is going to start a revolution. Nobody is going to take away the right to own a gun, especially for self defense.

Gun reform is simply being a little smarter about how we regulate guns so it results in less tragedies like this. That's all. I don't see how that is so hard to understand, or why everyone seems to think it's one extreme or the other. We are a country who never look at anything but extremes anymore. Just a bit of smarter regulation. The majority of it probably won't even effect you. People hear gun reform and they think somebody is going to come to their door to take away all their guns. Such silly overreactions. My word...

I have read literally thousands of posts on this subject in the last few days and close to 200 here. It is extremely disturbing to note that not a single post by a person identifying themself as pro-gun (for lack of a better definition) has conceded that there is a problem with our laws controlling guns except for those who claim there should be no control. Why is it more important for them to split hairs about clips and magazines and what constitutes an assault rifle than it is to recognize today's system is failing all of us?

For them the events of Friday were apparently just the price we must pay for their interpretation of the Second Amendment. Where are those who believe we can do better to make our country safer? Where are those who understand gun control is not synonomous with the banning of all guns? Why must the purveyors of paranoia be the clearest voices in the NRA camp? And why is it acceptable to place an array of lethal weapons in a home that a legitimate adoption agency would not place a cocker spaniel in?

Rational people are those who realize that something designed to take lives isn't a "net gain" on lives

But in fact guns are a net gain of life...hence your irrationality. Guns clearly have saved more lives annually than they have taken. PLEASE SHOW A STUDY THAT CONFLICTS WITH FBI, DOJ, CDC, AND INDEPENDENT STUDY NUMBERS, OR STOP DEBATING...because I provided stats, logic, and reason...you provided nothing but nonsense.

Let me explain to you game theory mathematics in a quick example:

Nuclear weapons were decried to kill all of life, but instead they saved us millions of lives. No two nuclear nations EVER went to an extended HOT war against one another. If not for mutually assured destruction via nukes, something designed to kill, we and the USSR would have been in a HOT war where millions would have died. Game theory is what our launch computers and location arrangements depend upon...and it created the DETERENT factor that made HOT war into a new phenomena that never previously existed: the COLD war...a war of words.

Nukes were meant to kill, but instead saved more lives than they ever took (in Japan when dropped)...yet the politicians and the masses are irrationally afraid of them to this day. How many lives have been saved in Pakistan/India's cold war? America's and the Soviets? How about North Korean and Amertican lives since they (N. Korea) got a nuke (and you see what happened to Iraq and Libya because they didn't)?

The same goes for guns, that FACTUALLY save more lives than they take, both because of deterent factor (criminal psychopaths like to target "soft targets", not people they KNOW are armed, or people who COULD be armed) and because of their actual ability to be used in self defense (unlike nukes, using a gun is not necessarily suicide when the other person has mutual arms).

Here's another reason they save lives:

A woman vs a man, the man wins 80-90% of time on average if they are unarmed and get in a physical fight. A man vs a woman, the man wins 60-70% of the time on average if they both have knives. But there is no inherent edge for either the male or female when they both have guns. Also, the male has less reason to hold off on violence when they only lose the fight 10-20% of the time, and only slightly less deterent when they lose 30-40% of the time (even though losing to a knife fight means being maimed or killed). However, when both have guns game theory mathematics shows us that the 50/50 split in success means not only do they have no real rational or logical incentive to get into a conflict, but the deterent factor is 6 times higher because guns are 6 times more likely to maim or kill than a knife.

Game theory mathematicians like myself have shown over and over that guns save more lives than they take, due to deterent factors like the threat they pose to aggressors, and the fact that people of mutual arms are equally likely to win such conflicts. In essence, the criminal flips a coin for his life.

But we don't NEED game theory to prove this...studies done in the real world prove it. If guns are not able to save lives, Mr. Illogical, then why do soldiers and cops have them? Oh...because them being used actually can and does save NET LIVES. Otherwise we'd all be pacifists.

This is why mass killing shooters almost always pick places where guns are not allowed. Human brains are built to make these kind of risk vs reward ratios intuitively. Even in the Ft. Hood case, the shooter shot up an area of the base where no one but MPs were allowed to carry weapons...and they weren't nearby. In fact, base police (regular cops practically) showed up before MPs did.

A gun merely being ABLE to be in an area makesi t less likely to be struck by a mass shooting murderer. Police stations, firing ranges, and hnting clubs are very unlikely to be struck by a mass shooter.

Oh, and the Oregon mall shooting...it was stopped by a liscenced firearm carrier:

http://www.dailypaul.com/266471/oregon-mall-shooting-stopped-by-licensed-gun-carrier

They can't save NET lives, huh? Think again, genius.

Huckleberry Mike is yammering it's because;

"We ask why there is violence in our schools, but we have systematically removed God from our schools," Huckabee said on Fox News. "Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?"

It takes some pretty big balls to say something so outrageous while claiming to be a "compassionate Christian" conservative!

Why is it so outrageous? It's the truth. Telling it like it is is not a sign that he lacks compassion. Why do you, Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL, feel compassion and the truth have to be mutually exclusive emotions for someone? And even if you don't believe the lack of God to be the root cause here, anyone who says what they believe to be the root cause is no less compassionate just because they talk about *why* a tragedy occurred. People can talk about the why and still be compassionate. He isn't saying the community deserved this or that the kids deserved to die. He is saying we shouldn't be *surprised* that evil manifests itself like this in a location in which God is not allowed. If you didn't hate conservatives so much you might actually be able to take the time to understand them instead of yammering away on your own about how this conservative is an idiot or this one isn't compassionate.

Can evil manifest itself in other places besides schools? Yes, it did so at the mall in Oregon earlier last week. Why? Because kids grow up and they aren't allowed to completely learn to respect their fellow human beings through Jesus' teachings, unless they are at home. You don't even have to be a religious person to know Jesus still had sensible teachings that can help people be better people for themselves, their family and their community. So don't give me the crap about separation of church and state.

So when kids grow up without that reinforcement in school (and maybe not at home either) then they can grow up to not value human life. Gang members in the inner city already have this problem since there are 12 year olds who will shoot you if you look at them wrong (you can't deny that). So if our kids grow up to be evil because they never learned to respect life and fend off Satan trying to convince them they should just kill people, then they can shoot us anywhere we are, whether it's at their school, at a mall, restaurant, etc.

If you hate religion and hate God then don't be surprised when evil people infiltrate our society and kill us. God isn't be so willing to protect us if we hate Him and don't want to acknowledge Him. At the least, you should then be advocating for giving guns to teachers and store/restaurant employees so they can defend themselves and maybe even kill a shooter when he starts shooting into a crowd instead of wanting to restrict what people can do with guns. I thought we had freedom in this country, or is it only the freedoms that the liberals want to give us that we have? Liberals want to throw out the Constitution and then they can do whatever they want. They can rewrite what rights we are granted, not by God, but by them.

silverton, patriotic american, etc. etc..

While what happened in this school is a tradgedy, what is the difference between guns owned say 50 and 60 years ago from today. People legally owned m1 carbines, m1 garands, colt semi auto .45's, and numerous weapons with all kinds of "high"cap mags. The "assault" type weapons have not changed...I think some people have problems....and some people lack the values of what people used to have.

two six shot revolvers and a shotgun used for hunting and you have the same result, so where does your "ban" stop.

The 2nd ammendment is the about the same thing as the 1st, 5th, 6th...etc. When do you start limiting those to fit your world. Alter one part of the Constitution, one freedom, and yes, the rest will eventually fall, as attorneys use the scrapping of one, to address the others.

We shouldnt look any further than to the country directly south of us, to see what un-armed civilians are subjected to, corrupt government, and drug lords. Innocent people just sandwiched in between.

What happened at that school was terrible, unthinkable. A knee jerk reaction wont keep it from happening again though, and I dont want to live like a civilian in Mexico. Instead of sending Billions of dollars overseas, how about grants funding a uniformed Police Officer at every school, think of it, more jobs here in the U.S., less chance of something like this happening, and preserving rights of every American....

nah, that would be to easy, and you guys would be offended by a uniformed Police officer and complain your kids are intimidated....right??

I have read literally thousands of posts on this subject in the last few days and close to 200 here. It is extremely disturbing to note that not a single post by a person identifying themself as pro-gun (for lack of a better definition) has conceded that there is a problem with our laws controlling guns except for those who claim there should be no control.

You haven't read my comment (the very long one above...the 1st one I left in this chain) or you'd see guns are neither correlated nor causal to gun murder RATES in nations around the world. Less than 2% of gun murder are mass shootings, whereas 50-70% are directly or indirectly tied to the Prohibition of drugs. Again, we had a one year decline in the murder rate of 40% in 1933 when we ended alcohol Prohibition. Mexico has military policing their streets and some of the strictest gun laws ever..yet they have a higher murder rate than us. England is more restrictive of guns than is Canada, yet England has higher gun murder rate. Honduras and Uruguay are another example...both having gun rights, bit only one with a high murder rate because the other has no Drug War.

Is this about a convenient excuse to limit gun rights? Or is it really about trying to cut significantly our gun murder rate? Because the top two causes of gun murder are the Drug War and domestic violence against women and children (who grow up to use domestic violence, and a minority of those adults then kill a relative or mate in their home, whether by gun, knife, hammer, car, etc...).

Let's address the major causes (something like 50-80% total gun murders between those two causes), and stop acting like less than 200 (mass shooting victims annually) of the over ten thousand gun murders per year in America are the major problem, and that more restrictive gun laws will do anything (given the data) to effect those 2 major causes and their effects.

Logic and reason are needed...period.

In my opinion there should be some common sense gun laws. No citizen needs a high capacity magazine. No one person needs 20 Glocks. No citizen needs AR-15s...heck you can even have a sniper rifle if you want. I fully agree with background checks and closing the gun-show loopholes.

However...

I do believe in the right to bear and keep arms for home defense and hunting for food. I have a family and as such I own a shotgun. My wife is considering taking a safety course so that she will feel comfortable using it if she ever needs to. If I ever need to use it, I would rather live with the pain of taking the life of an intruder than spend the last few moments of my life knowing that I was unable to save my family. Will I ever need to use it? It's doubtful, but I'd rather prepare for the worst and hope for the best than get caught with my pants down.

Bad people are always going to find a way to get weapons. While I may agree with some restrictions, sweeping changes to ban firearms are not the answer. Firearm bans won't cure crazy, nor will they fix the economy and jobs...or any other reason people use for killing other people.

As a last point - it isn't a good idea to rush change in legislation on the heels of tragedy. Emotions run high, opportunists pounce, irrational proclamations run rampant. Take the time now support those who are suffering, and come back to this when cooler heads might prevail.

I knew this garbage would come up, We have a right to own a handgun. We have to fight to keep control of the "Right To Bear Armns".

This is not going to be an easy fight and if we quit without a fight we are crazy.

Automobile accidents kill more people than horrible situations like this.

Don't be stupid Washington! For once

My condolences to all families involved.

Many who have posted here are very ill. Wonder what is wrong with our culture? Look in the mirror.

Pro-Individual,

I see you still don't understand. Sill talking about lives as if they are just numbers, math, and statistics. I could go into it with you on all the hypothetical on what if weapons like guns were never made. I could go into irrelevant things like bathtubs and men verse woman in an unarmed fight when this is a discussion on guns. I could let this conversation drag on for hours with neither of us getting anywhere. It is a waste of time for me to approach it that way. I won't even bother arguing against your statistics. It opens a whole new can of worms that lead farther and farther away from the actual issue at hand.

As much as I have been put off with some of the things you said, I could almost understand you in that last post. I see you believe that weapons are necessary for self-defense. To a point, you are right. However, weapons also are designed to kill. This brings up a lot of lengthy and relatively unimportant arguments about things like more guns verse less guns. Let's skip that and all the rest of the BS and get right to the point:

What should we focus on here to help solve this issue?

You don't have to worry about keeping guns. You can still have guns. I fully support the second amendment and the right to self defense with guns. That isn't the issue. The issue is when these sick people decide to use guns for things like these mass shootings. I believe gun control should focus on two things:

1. The main problem is guns winding up in the wrong hands. If this doesn't happen, they can't do things like mass shootings in the first place. For instance, I don't want a mentally unstable person with serious bipolar walking around with a gun. Nor do I want convicted murderers with guns. Those are things we can take steps to better prevent against. No it won't stop everything, but it should help cut down.

2. We should start limiting their effectiveness of guns in large crowds. This is a lesser step compared to the first one, but might help in mass shootings. While many murders on specific individuals are done with guns, those can generally be done with pretty much anything. What I'm worried about here is the lethality in large crowds. Obviously, guns are quite lethal in large crowds. But by limiting things like clip size, we might be able decrease the deadliness and efficiency of bullet spray into a mass of people. No, it won't stop people from dying in those tragedies. There is only so much you can do, and we shouldn't take this too far. But it might help limit the casualties even by a little, or give people lucky enough to survive the initial attack the extra instant to find cover or get away. If even one life is saved this way, it's worth it. And remember, even a little bit can help a lot over time.

What is wrong without culture is that God has been kicked out.

Like I said - opportunists pounce (Debora-389330).

@ God of Fate #1.179

You are absolutely correct, it only took one person for this Tragedy to occur.

Had that one person been this guys mother and gotten him the help he needed, but maybe she did?

Had that one person been this guy's Father and given him the discipline to be a man, but maybe he did?

Had that one person been his brother, ...but maybe he did?

Had that one person been an armed Principle or teacher...

But it only took one person to make a tragedy Like this occur, and it did not even require a single firearm.

The Bath School Tragedy:

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. The perpetrator died of suicide in one of the explosions as well. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age^[1]) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.

The bomber was the school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe, 55, who had opposed construction of the consolidated school in the early 1920s as it required increased property taxes.

Oh sure it is more difficult, but not impossible to get explosives. Just pass a few tests, get you license. or make them yourself.

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO STOP THIS TYPE OF THING, until the thing is unfolding. The only way to have stopped this shooting was to have someone there who could shoot back. If someone had said he had a mental problem and was a danger, the legal system would just have regurgitated him back out into society.

The only way to prevent things like this is not to let them get programmed like this.

I hear all you liberals screaming about the fat cats on Wall street collecting obscene profit, how about Hollywood repeating those same profits glorifying drug use, violence and anarchy. But that probably had no effect on this guy.

ProIndividual has added a handful of very long posts to the thousands that refuse to concede that there is a problem with our laws controlling guns. As a self styled "game theory mathematician" he fails to realize we live in the real world not the fantasy world of games and in the real world real people are maimed and killed daily. Here's some logic and reason for him: Adam Lanza had access to weapons his mother either gave him access to or failed to properly secure which he used to slaughter innocent people. We must find a way to separate lethal weapons and those with the potential to be the next Adam Lanza, regardless of any statistical "game theories".

I still advocate the expediting the executions of the muderers on death row. And do it publicly, with tact, as to paradigm the evil behaviour of a murderer. Thus, promoting the fact that we as a society will no longer support murderous tendacies, that are glorified in todays media. In hopes, that people will be penchant toward refraining from such horrific deeds, that are society will no longer endure.

a mental patient escaped from a hospital in california and broke into my grandmothers house he cornered her in her bedroom.he told her he was going to rape her.he was in his thirties and she was in her 70s.she had no access to a phone.when he turned his back to get a bed sheet to tie her up she took my grandfathers 44 out of the night stand and shot him 3 times.fortunately my uncle had replaced the slugs with birdshot so all she had to do was get close.when the police got there he was huddled into a ball crying.all the police said was the good guys won this time.im glad she had the gun and the balls to use it

George Paul:

Blame yourself for everything, because you don't know anything--NADA.

It is blatantly clear you do not have a sense of finance, nor a Financial mind, nor a reality check..

Blame the Republicans?--silly chatter. I'm the one for Gun Control---the rest of your diatribe is nonsense. When you mature, you'll understand the facts of life, and what a privilege it is to live in the United States.

@ Jeff-159 #1.72

An assault rifle is one that is capable of fully automatic rifle

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. That is not the definition of an assault rifle, that's the definition of a fully automatic weapon.

Don't pretend to know about firearms when you obviously are ignorant about them.

By the book.

assault rifle

noun
1.
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.

2.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

And for your information. It's easy to convert a Bushmaster to fully auto. You can get the info from Google.

Just exactly which Politically Corrected Dictionary did you pull that out of?

In the industry, an assault rifle is defined by three definite characteristics, 1) It uses a medium power cartridge 2) it is selective fire, meaning it can be set to fire either semi or full auto (or bursts) 3) it has a detachable box magazine.

Anything else is an assault TYPE/STYLE rifle or in the Politically Correct parlance of the Government, strait out of the Clinton administration, (again misleading) an Assault Weapon. I say misleading because it gives the impression of being full auto.

Being an amateur gun smith, I have made a few single shot muzzle loaders from scratch. I have also researched and am familiar with the steps required to convert most semi-auto rifles to full auto. If by easy you mean, completely disassembling the gun in question, setting it up in a mill, doing some machining, manufacturing more than a few components, reassembling the gun in question, testing it, and repeating this process until it functions correctly, then yes. it is easy. there are ways to override the locking sear, but this usually leads to misfires, jamming or other malfunctions and is not reliable or safe.

Just letting you know,

@ I resigned # 1.203

I have read literally thousands of posts on this subject in the last few days and close to 200 here. It is extremely disturbing to note that not a single post by a person identifying them self as pro-gun (for lack of a better definition) has conceded that there is a problem with our laws controlling guns except for those who claim there should be no control. Why is it more important for them to split hairs about clips and magazines and what constitutes an assault rifle than it is to recognize today's system is failing all of us?

And I have read the same posts and have yet to hear an "Anti-Gun" person admit that these are social problems and not 2nd Amendment problems. I have given numerous examples of people committing mass murder (you will note that this is not the worst incidence of violence and killing at an elementary school in US history. No, that was in '27 and the guy used explosives) with things other than firearms. I have given numerous examples about how fully automatic guns were available through mail order prior to 1934, and yet there were few if any spree killings, in schools or else where.

So there you have it, you guys just keep saying the same thing.

But it is Boehners fault we aren't getting a budget deal, (I would be all for raising taxes if I had a guarantee that the left would cut spending by at least an equal amount) and it is our fault that these things keep happening.

Did you ever think that maybe it is time for you guys to quit shouting in the streets and actually sit down and talk?

For those who do not know or do not care to look it up.

The Gun Show Loop hole has been found to be a serious problem. People went to a gun show and purchased a gun, while talking about how they could not pass the required background check. At a gun show its not required. I think this need to be fixed.

The mental health people (their advocates) blocked legislation to include the names of those people clinically proven to be mentally incapable. Three people who were on this list would not have been able to get weapons if their names had come up in the background checks. The mental heath advocates did not want their clients discriminated against. I think this needs to be fixed.

A stronger background check, yes. Bans will not work. Any one of you can go down to the sporting good store and buy a gun of any size. And find a way to get a bigger clip for the weapon, either by going to a gun show, going online or even making one at home. Clips are not that hard to make. Every time the government tries to ban anything, Americans find a way of getting them.

You want to talk about number of deaths, look up the statistics of cars deaths, cancer deaths and so on. You will find that car deaths outweigh shooting deaths by more than 20 to 1. Cancer deaths are up there as well. Neither cars or cigarettes are being banned. Before you start spouting that guns are only made to kill, cars have so many more uses, ask yourself if seeing the guy next to you on the highway doing 75 mph while texting is safe. That car is not designed to be a killing weapon, but if it kills you your just as dead.

Robert1717

The only people who need guns (aside from the military of course) are cops and criminals. If you aren't a cop on duty, and you aren't a criminal, you have no valid need for a gun.

This has to be one of the most idiotic opinions I have ever read in my lifetime. Do you know what the average response time in an urban area is for police? 55 minutes. Most crimes, ie home invasions and assaults with a deadly weapon, are over in 3-7 minutes. How do you propose I protect myself and my family when my home is invaded by armed criminals. Its happened twice before we moved, once the guy tried to grab my 4 year old son as a human shield when I came out of my bedroom armed.

Hunters: You can go down to the 7/11 and get yourself a hot dog. No need to be out in the woods hunting. Half the time you don't get anything, the other half you end up shooting yourself or another hunter by accident.

Have you ever hunted? You sound like you dont have the first clue what it is intrinsically and your statistics are made up. You, are a fraud whose opinions are backed by personal delusion not fact.

Home protectors: When you are siting on the couch watching fox news and eating Cheetos and three guys surprise you by crashing through your windows armed to the teeth, do you think they'll stop and wait while you run down to the rec room, unlock your gun safe, and then unlock the trigger lock so you can come back and defend yourself?

I keep my weapons closer than that, most do. My children are now educated on what a weapon is, how it is dangerous and do not touch it until they are in a controlled (range) environment with adults. Kids who play with weapons were never taught that it is a dangerous tool just like a knife or a lighter.

Protectors against unjust government: Bin Laden was in a heavily secured concrete compound. A dozen body guards armed with fully automatic weapons and plenty of recent combat experience were on full alert. Bin Ladan had a gun out and right next to him. A special forces team took them all out no problem. You think you'd do better alone in your suburban house built of recycled paper, gypsum dust, and vinyl siding with your 9mm and shotgun? Good luck.

Seal Team 6 is not going to come invade my home. That being said, any government that wants my guns wants much much more for nefarious purposes. If they are going to assault my home, they have certain gone about stripping our rights and freedoms away prior. You, on the other hand, are willing to just roll over and give yourself to a government that would do this? You are certainly a turncoat and the same type of person who would roll over on your neighbor just to get leniency.

It's 2012, it's time to put the 1700's law to bed.

Well maybe we need to forgo the right of free speech and rights against illegal search and seizure then, those were written in the 1700s or maybe you just want to pick and choose what works for you and screw others? You sound like a real stand up person.

Use logic and reason in thinking about all of thise. Before Kent, there were no mass killings like this at schools every 1 or 2 years. Guns were around before that and gun laws were more lenient, it was easier for people to buy guns and they could purchase more powerful weapons - but there were not mass killings. Since then, 1997, something has happened. We have stricter laws on ownership of guns and regulations on who may buy guns and longer waiting periods for people to gain their guns - but there are more mass killings such as this. What has changed since before Kent and now that are causing all of these killings? That is what people should be asking themselves? One thing most people ignore and the media wants to bypass are the drugs kids who have attention disorders are forced to take and it seems like almost all of these killers were forced to take to be able to attend school, then they got out of school and dropped these drugs and soon after killed! School shootings every 1 or 2 years since 1997 and very few before then. Don't you think that is a question that needs to be answered why? Or is someone or some few making billions of dollars who don't want you to ask the question why so they can continue to make billions of dollars? Most likely, their kids don't go to school with your kids who are being killed. Guns have been around a long time, these drugs forced to control kids behavior have only been around for about 20 years. Use logic, use reason, use common sense - something else is going on here besides guns.

Let's seek out the real root problem instead of going after the weapons. This guy proved that he didn't have to purchase the guns to gain access to them and kill people with them!

I read all of these posts and I find that most people are blinded by guns and gun ownership but do not take into consideration that such shootings as this are a recent thing since they started with Kent. They've become a 1 - 2 year event. Guns have always been around and they have been easier to get in the past than they are now. So, with that knowledge, why focus on the guns when you have to realize since they are harder to get that something else has to be the root problem. Some wealthy guy making money on this root problem doesn't want you thinking about what that problem is because he is sitting back making a fortune as kids are killed. He doesn't worry because his kids go to some private school that you will never be able to afford for your own kids.

Everyone seems to be having the wrong discussion. The is not the Republicans fault because they support gun ownership.

This is the Republicans fault because Ronald Reagan defunded the mental health care system.

In the end, we're going to end up with a few new laws and regulations that do nothing and in 2013 or 2014 we'll all be reading about another school mass killing and wondering what the hell happened because we are going after the guns and not the root problem. It's like going after the drug growers, smugglers and sellers but not trying to change the drug users - without the users, there would be no drug problems! Something in America has changed since before 1997 and that is not what our government is looking at. Someone/some people are making billions of dollars and that is why our government is not looking in their direction!

@ Britt Carter #1.209

For those who do not know or do not care to look it up.

The Gun Show Loop hole has been found to be a serious problem. People went to a gun show and purchased a gun, while talking about how they could not pass the required background check. At a gun show its not required. I think this need to be fixed.

You need to get your information somewhere else besides the liberal webpages.

Yes, it is legal to purchase a gun at a gun show from a private person without a background check, just as it is legal to purchase a gun from a private citizen from a newspaper ad, or word of mouth. But the gun shows I have been to, that amounts to half a dozen tables out of hundreds. If you purchase a gun from a dealer, at a gun show, you have to pass a background check. Just because you are at a gun show, does not mean the are NO background checks conducted. If you are looking for a LOOPHOLE, it is the private sale loophole, not the gun show loophole. And I seriously doubt, it is a serious problem, as it probably makes up a miniscule amount of the illegal arms trafficking in this country.

The mental health people (their advocates) blocked legislation to include the names of those people clinically proven to be mentally incapable. Three people who were on this list would not have been able to get weapons if their names had come up in the background checks. The mental heath advocates did not want their clients discriminated against. I think this needs to be fixed.

I agree, but we also need to balance it against being able to get off the list as easily. I was hospitalized after a car wreck and to be on the safe side(cha) a doctor wrote mild concussion in the report. When I went to renew my airman's medical for my pilot's license, the physician saw this in my records and reported it to the FAA. I had one hell of a time straightening out that mess.

This is a perfect example, FarmBoy. Why should there be a different standard for a purchaser depending on whether the seller is a dealer or not? You admitted you don't know how much of a problem private sales are - neither does anyone else. Legislation requiring all weapons transfers to meet the same background check requirements would be a big first step. Virtually every firearm starts out legally but way too often it gets sold, traded, stolen or otherwise transferred without any record. When one of those guns is then used to commit a crime those who turned it from legal to illegal and everyone else who possessed it should be charged as an accessory. That includes the next mother who bought a gun for their son not qualified to own it himself or failed to secure it from him.

We can pass the most stingent of laws prohibiting guns and amunition. We can do everything possible except confiscate all weapons. Then majically turn back the clock to before last Friday. Guess what. this tragety would still have happened BECAUSE the weapons were NOT the cause of the killings. We can ban and take away ALL assault rifles and this would still have happened because he had two other weapons with him and if that rifle wasn't available he would have grabbed another one. This was not an assault rifle either I have read, It was an assault "style" rifle. Big difference. Kids have plastic toy guns that look like real weapons too but are not.

I agree we do have a problem and it needs to be addressed but in a clear and adult manner. Not clouded by this horirific attack on children. The fact children are involves maeks this more emotional .We have to think with clear heads before causeing even great problems.

There are several things that will help. Smaller clips is one. i don't know how many are out there now but at least that number would not increase. many ne weapons have fingerprint ID on the trigger and will not fire without the owners print. I don't know if it is possible to add this to existing weapons but maybe this is a possibility as well. I think it should be manditory for anyone owning more than one weapon to have all but one locked in a safe at all times unless it is in use or being cleaned by the registered owner.If there are more than one registered owner in a home each must have thier own safe.

Another thing that will slow this type of thing happening at schools will take place over thenext several years IMO. Home schooling is becoming more and more previlent but so is onlins schooling. I see the day not too far off where school building will be used for plays and sports but the teachiing will take place in the childs home via internet. I think this will not only minimize the opportunity for a crazed person to attack but will save money as well.

The most important issue to be addressed here is not gun ownership or availability. this boy was not legally able to possess the guns he used but he still had them. So more law would not have stopped him. that is a fact many of you must face. Adding laws will not fix this. We need too find a way to identify people like Adam and give him the help he needs to not act out this way OR put him in a place where he can do no harm if he is determined to be too unstable.That is a tough thing to do but mental illness is the root cause of these tragic things and that is where we must start. Not by busting down honest peoples doors a TRYING to take thier guns.

If you want to know where the violence comes from in this country, just look at some of the posts in here. And it starts at or near the top. Name calling, hateful, posts to one another. This is how we as a society deal with things. Don't like what someone thinks or feels or even their opinion? Call them a nasty name! The problem is that in the real world it goes further. All of a sudden calling someone a "dickweed" in the real world brings out a knife or a gun. It's how society is teaching the youth to deal with differences of opinion.

Figure out how to change the way society behaves and you can solve the problem.

I am at the point where I think some group of people is facilitating these events to drum up support for disarming the people.

And we are at the point, where we the think the point you are at, is bat @!$%# crazy.

Fred,

You have a good point! "since we can't controls actions we can't stop killing!" All the more reason to take your guns away!

Reagan defunded the mental health care system, now we have the Tea Loonies running our Laws !!!!!!!

I've got a better solution. Instead of getting rid of guns, why don't we get rid of all the crazy people and the mentally ill?

Isn't the mentally ill just as responsible for this tragedy?

Come on liberals.....Lets get rid of mentally ill people. We can force everyone to take a test. If you fail, then it's off to an asylum.

Since no crisis can be allowed to go to waste, never expect the media to do anything other than demand more gun control legislation any time a whacko (or a patsy) kills people with a gun. Case in point: on Tuesday night, a complete idiot walked into a Portland, Oregon mall, and began firing. Obviously the shooter, Jacob Roberts,was an imbecile to start with, since he managed to kill only two people before turning a gun on himself, but that's not the whole story.

As it turns out, 22-year-old Nick Meli was at the mall, and walking with his friend and their friend's son. Nick said: "I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?'" Nick then directed his friend to a safe location and took up a position behind a pillar away from the shooter.

The anti-gun types would suggest that this man call the police and watch the shooter kill a dozen or more people until the cops finally showed up. Nick had other ideas. Being a legal Concealed Carry permit holder in the State of Oregon, Nick determined that he should try to prevent more deaths. He said: "[The shooter] was working on his rifle, he kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side," as the shooter dealt with a jammed gun.

Nick drew down on the shooter as they made eye contact, and Nick prepared to fire. However, he determined (like any conscious firearms owner should) that there were other people behind Roberts, and his shot was not safe.

The only shot fired after this point was Roberts taking his own life. What could have ended as tragically as the school shooting in Connecticut ended much less tragically, with only two innocent people dead instead of 29.

Of course, the media completely ignored the part that Nick Meli played in this situation, but that's to be expected from an anti-gun, pro-government media. However, it must be recognized that guns DO save lives, and citizens with firearms DO take the necessary precautions not to harm more people.

This could be contrasted with the recent police shooting in New York where the cops on the scene were responsible for nine bystanders being wounded.

There are many people in Portland, Oregon, who are alive today most likely because of Nick Meli possessing a concealed firearm. One could only wish for such an outcome yesterday in Connecticut.

@ I resign #1.216

When one of those guns is then used to commit a crime those who turned it from legal to illegal and everyone else who possessed it should be charged as an accessory.

Since we already register and license vehicles, does that mean we will also start prosecuting the previous owners of a car that was used in a hit and run, or felony DUI homicide, because they sold a car to a drunk, without first doing a driving history check? What an asinine idea. Do you people think before you blurt out these comments?

That includes the next mother who bought a gun for their son not qualified to own it himself or failed to secure it from him.

Well, let's see, Mom was the first one killed. So unless she had them in a gun safe with a combination lock he was unaware of, could have simply gotten the key, unlocked the guns and been on his way. The last time I checked, it is possible for someone on the far side of the world to figure out how to steal you identity, I can imagine it would not be to difficult for someone living in the same house to figure out a safe combination. Also, given this woman's background, I would surmise that she had no inkling the danger her son presented, or else I am sure she would have secured her guns. But I could be wrong, she may have been a Democrat, they don't seem to be able to see the dangers right in front of their faces.

@ Jerry #1.223

I know, I have posted this too, and have requested anybody with anymore info on post it as well. This guys story sounds pretty weak, and it could just be the way the reporter reported it. I want to believe it, but I would like to have a corroborating testimony to go along with it.

It could be another guy just looking for that 15 minutes of fame.

Steven in 1.9,

This may be the case but I could guarantee you that the entire study also found that kids and adults with mental issues are tens of times more likely to be set off by violent media than non-mentally ill ones. further more I will what I have always said in response to these kinds of posts:

Kids that were raised correctly, had responsible parents, and have a stable family life will not suddenly become violent from playing Bulletstorm or watching CSI. It is the kids in families where the parents do not do their jobs, where the kids have mental health issues, and where violence is glorified (WWF families I like to call them) that we run into trouble.

Parents who glorify guns are also a problem; there is nothing sacred about firearms, they are designed to kill and to make it very easy to kill. Respecting guns for the tools of death that they are is the first step to getting things under control. The second is to ban everything except hunting rifles, hand guns, and shot guns from civilian ownership. The Second Amendment does not guarantee you the right to own whatever type of weapon you want just that you may own one.

Listen to Joe Scarborough thoughts on the matter from Morning Joe (its on the front page). He has is right, many of you have it wrong. Violent media is not the only factor and it is pretty much harmless without the other factors which are:

Improper parenting

Mental Illness

Ease of Access to Weapons

Improperly practice gun safety

If that last one had been practice by this guys mother not only would she still be alive but so would these kids. Maybe he would have found something else to use, he certainly was not going to go out and buy a weapon though because he already tried that and because of the waiting period had to move elsewhere.

Stating that arming teachers is the only way to fix this is like saying the only way to stop nuclear war is to use nukes on the countries participating in that war; it is not a rational argument and it is not a logical one either. You do not add more fuel to the fire and expect it to go out. Instead you just intensify it.

So, FarmBoy, you believe it is perfectly acceptable to avoid background checks by privately transferring weapons? Then you will use the tired old saw that "the criminals will be the only ones with guns", but it is people like you who have created the black market for guns that feeds so much criminal activity in our country. Man up, and take responsibility for your actions! And because you are too lazy or too "Dumb" (your self description, not mine) to secure your weapons, you'll make excuses when some kid or some hardened criminal takes yours when you're not home. Why bother locking them up when somebody in China can steal your identity, right? Whether you could pass a competency test to own a weapon is in question, certainly your political analysis is failing you.

So just exactly how do you propose to plug the "Private Sale" loophole? I am so dumb, Please explain to me just exactly how do we prevent non law abiding citizens from transferring guns from one to another? The solution is obvious for dealers, and the mechanism is in place.

However, to do what you want we would first have to register every firearm in the country, not unlike vehicles. Would it interest you to know that own at least one unregistered car? (Oh, I am restoring it, and I will eventually register it)

But just exactly how do you propose to get every gun registered so that it can then be followed, so that you may then go back charge the previous owner with an illegal transfer.

Because I for one "No longer own any guns, I saw this registration thing coming and sold all of them before it took effect". can you prove I own guns? are you going to violate my 4th Amendment rights and search my belongings? or is past behavior probably cause? (it don't work for drug dealers, but we'll make an exception for gun owners?)

And FYI, in the city in which I live, there is an ordnance that requires a background check for private transfers of firearms. I wonder how often that gets used? as it is so readily enforceable.

Farm, you have drawn the parallel to vehicle registration or titling and that is precisely how weapons must be tracked. Private sales of vehicles are recorded just as dealer sales are. Part of the process of titling and registration relieves the prior owner of responsibility for any criminal use of the vehicle, the same would be true for a firearm. Right now the previous owner of your unregistered vehicle will be the first to get a knock on the door if it is used in a crime because he was the last recorded owner.

I would expect a reasonable time for people to register any weapons they legally hold and after that time any penalty for unregistered firearms would be increased and drastically increased if that gun was used in a crime. These systems aren't perfect and will take time for them to be effective, but they'll certainly be better than what exists today.

Like I said, good luck with that. A vehicle is large and often in public where its registration can be checked. Many law abiding citizens like myself WILL NOT subject themselves to this. Because this happened in Australia, register the guns, then take the guns.

And there is not one single non law abiding citizen that will comply, and they hold most of the guns used in crime.

Just how long do you think that "reasonable amount" of time will be?

clark,

I just read what you wrote yesterday and nowhere did I tell anybody to take their life or anybody elses. Your are really sick and need to read. I said, "That they should turn in their gun before it was too late!" You are an absolute fool!

Robert:

BinLaden was unarmed. The intended story was that they were trying to capture him but that he started a firefight. But some of the truth came out. Then the administration clamped down hard. I don't believe that anyone in the whole place was armed. Why would he need any real protection? He was nothing more than a cheerleader, easily replaced.

Why don't you just tell us that you would like martial law with George W. Bush in total charge. Then you get to be executed as an "insurgent," without even the bother of a trial. That is what you advocate, right?

First: All the people who do not believe in the constitution please LEAVE! Find another country that doesn't have one, like Mexico, you will be so much happier there.

Second if you want to change the constitution make an amendment and get it passed by a majority vote. Just because you talk louder than me doesn't mean I agree with you.

Third: if there had been an armed guard at that school the outcome would have been totally different. It is sad, if there were money at that school there would be an armed guard, but not for our children. Interesting note about our priorities.

Fourth: we need our guns. 1200 peopled died that day in cars, but we need our cars, we need our guns in case our government fails to be responsive to the population, so people may die because of guns. But look at number 3.

I just want to point this out again, since no one seemed to pay attention when I posted it earlier:

The Columbine Massacre occurred in 1999.

1999.

That's 5 years before the last Assault Weapons Ban expired. Allow that to sink in. This law they want to pass now was on the books then and Columbine (gasp!) still happened. How could that be if this law is the answer? You expect this exact same law that failed in 1999 will magically work better now that it's 2012? Do you know why they allowed the law to expire? Because every study on the subject determined that it had no effect on crime whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada. There was no correlation between the law being passed and the level of crime in the streets. So they let it go. And now, after the law failed its burden of proof, Feinstein wants to enact the exact same law?

What's that saying about doing the same thing and expecting different results?

So the FarmBoy calls himself a law abiding citizen but also tells he will not obey a law he doesn't agree with. So much for "law abiding".

@ I resign

I don't know how to explain this to you. But as a firm believer in what the Fathers of this country fought to create, and how they describe the need to preserve it. And knowing that one step leads to another. And I do not trust those with power, for all they want is more power.

But yes, for this one, if they ever mandate registration, that is one law I will violate. I can only compare it to the owner of a business who's religious principles are violated by the ACA. But you evidently have no principles worth defending or standing for.

Resigned:

The Founding Fathers were law-abiding until King George pushed too far with the laws. Perhaps you think the redcoats should have won.

Excellent point Pvblivs, I should have remembered that. We should hang to together, for otherwise we shall hang separately.

So, FarmBoy, if you refuse to comply with a simple law to help regulate the most lethal weapons do you see anything that can be done to reduce the chances of Friday's events being repeated, or is that just the price we must pay for our freedoms? And what about that inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - or is that good only to the age of six?

Resigned:

I note that these events seem to happen more often when the Congress in session is more amenable to passing laws outlawing guns. Something stinks.

It's funny Conn. is a Democratic state with some of the tightest gun control laws in the country and this still happened. The only way to stop these things are to address the HUGE looming social issues that no one wants to face because it puts the responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the people of this country!! It's easy to go "it's not my fault its the gun laws!" There is a call for a ban on assault weapons... ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE ALREADY BANNED!!! You can't go down to the local gun store and buy a select fire, automatic firing weapon; those are assault weapons. You can buy rifles that looks scary, but in reality they are the same as any other semi-automatic rifle. When you depress the trigger one round is fired. Low capacity magazines don't matter, all it means is that a person has to reload, so they'll just carry 4 magazines instead of 2.

Redhead and others who agree with her opinion,

We DID remove God from our schools along with His commands to NOT murder. Then you people want to ask where God is or do you believe we are just a accident without any value or purpose? Where is the call to ban violent video games, movies, television shows, music, or toys? How about banning abortion except only when woman's life is endangered? Abortion lessens the value of human life and so does the teaching of evolution in our schools. We need to ban those. Teachers are not allowed to tell children they were created for a purpose and have value and meaning. The problem is SIN and there is ONLY ONE cure for sin. We have all sinned and come short of God's standard of righteousness and perfection. That is why He came to earth as a man and die for our sin. The payment of our sin is death or eternall separation from a Holy and Just God, but the gift of God is eternal life and is only found in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life and no one can come to God, but through repentance and a personal relationship with Jesus. Religion will not save you from sin; trying to be "good" enough by trying to follow God's laws and commands will not get you to Heaven. We are made right with God through grace (God's free gift) through faith (belief and trust) in Christ Jesus alone and not of ourselves preventing us from boasting about anything we have done. Repent and give your life to Christ and allow God to live in and through you; transforming you more and more like Jesus, the only sinless one to walk this earth. If we all were more like Him, there would not be any hate in this world. Hate is sin and leads to murder, rape, and other acts of violence. Greed is sin and leads us to want what others have and to deceive, lie, cheat, and steal to get what others have. Sin is what lead to the deaths of those 20 children and many others throughout time. We have murdered many other through abortion and wars resulting from people rejecting God. Christmas is about God's gift to us wrapped in human flesh, who died so we do not have too. Jesus took upon the sins of those who would place their trust and hope in Him. Yes, it is called faith; being confident in what we don't see and sure of what we hope for. Jesus died and took and paid our sin debt in full. God then as a sign of His acceptance of the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf raised Jesus back to life and gave Him His rightful place in Heaven. When those 20 children were murdered, their souls went to Heaven to be with Jesus. Their bodies are still here until one day they will be resurrected and be given a new glorified body that will never die, grow old, and feel pain, get diseased, or sin. People who gave their life to Christ, who lost sight, hearing, limbs, or scarred with have a new body restored the way God had originally meant for us in a place without the effects of sin. There will be no cemeteries, hospitals, nursing homes, prisons, jails, starvation, sickness, crime, hate, or sin in Heaven. I know this sounds foolish to the Atheists, who don't believe in such things, but what if you are wrong? What is so wrong with loving others as we love ourselves as Jesus commanded us? I know we Christians don't always live like we really believe God or His word and I'm sorry. I'm sorry that we who say we are followers of Jesus Christ don't live like it most of the time. I'm sorry that people who call themselves Christians (Christ-like) are everything, but like Jesus Christ. Don't base Christianity upon us (followers of Jesus), but upon Jesus Himself and what He taught and how He lived. He taught two things; love God and love other!!! We can't love God without loving others and we can't really love others as God would have us without first loving God, Himself!!! If people loved God and one another there would be no murder, but we live in a sin-filled world. We also live in a world where God allows us to accept Him and His Word or reject Him and His word. My prayer is for those who don't know God's salvation; they don't know His love, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and peace. All those things can be yours through Jesus Christ. That is the greatest Christmas gift you will receive ever!!!!

I Resigned

So, FarmBoy, if you refuse to comply with a simple law to help regulate the most lethal weapons do you see anything that can be done to reduce the chances of Friday's events being repeated, or is that just the price we must pay for our freedoms? And what about that inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - or is that good only to the age of six?

• !

#1.239

If you can prove to me that banning these guns will work then fine. But, if you have read all of my posts I have shown that this will not work. We need to change society's respect for each other and of the gun not access to it.

What will happen is this. We ban "Assault Weapons", that doesn't work, so we confiscate "Assault Weapons" that don't work, so we confiscate handguns, etc. By then from provisions of the ACA, the government is dictating what we can eat, drink and smoke. We must have stress management programs to reduce the rate of assaults, to include confrontational speech. The media can only report non-stressful stories, as dictated by the Dept. of Information. Think this is fantasy? Where can you get a large soda in NYC?

I have never seen so much stupidity about guns in my life. It’s like candy being thrown down in a parade.

I would like to comment about Ms. Feinstein. She owns two AR-15 assault rifles and has a concealed carry permit. This is the typical liberal hypocrisy we have seen in the last 10 years. Sort of like Obama exempting himself and his family from Obamacare. It never ends with these Socialists, trying to find equality at others expense. The group known as Democrats (Socialists) just can’t accept the facts that bad things happen in life. They always have and always will and there is nothing we can do to stop pure evil. But the Democrats get real excited when one of those subjects fall under their liberal agenda. Shame on the media, and the socialists, for taking advantage of this terrible situation.