The President made that point that there's no excuse for inaction - we must begin to take steps to prevent such massacres & daily shootings that take the lives of (specifically) our children.

It is not credible that we are helpless. We most certainly are NOT helpless. We can stand UP as a nation of parents - and speak out.

We can act in the loving interests of ALL our children.

Pat,

Every adult needs to come together to protect the children as best we can. We do need a call to action: to ban assault weapons, tighten the registration process and recertify people who own guns. We need to increase security in all of our schools. We need to revisit the laws that prevent parents from getting their young adults the mental health services they need. Of course it will have a cost, but so did the senseless death of the children and teachers on Friday.I never want to pay this price again.

We can do this as a community and as a nation.

Ok - Many people and even some conservatives agree that some new common-sense gun laws should be put in place to protect people's lives and at the same time preserve people's 2nd amendment right.

.

I have a tentative recommendation about sensible gun regulation. If big brother can track everyone's cell phone and know your whereabouts, why can't pig brother also insert some computer chips in every gun, especially powerful weapons, so government would be able to track their movements down and pay more attention when such weapons approach ...not hunting grounds...but schools, government building, churches, etc. Then take appropriate precautions. Gun owners got to keep their right to own guns, but precautions are in place to protect innocent people.

.

I don't know. Just food for thought.

When will you shut up long enough to listen to those that are saying we must change things?

We are not helpless

Exactly Backhouse. Nor is this political. It's our responsibility as Northstar wrote - as citizens, as adults - to get this right.

Look at this post from The Daily Kos:

My husband just texted from the bar where he’s watching football with buddies. He said the entire place fell silent with people hanging on the President’s every word. Afterwards, everyone in the place started talking about needing to do gun control–even the Republicans. Note that I live in Virginia. Wow.

Gosh Pig, I can't believe this, but I am inclined to agree with you. But knowing where the gun is doesn't change the person who is holding the weapon. I agree with the 2nd Amend., but I disagree with the need to own an assault weapon for any reason.

But controlling the weapon will not, unfortunately, stop the ability of a deranged person from committing a violent act. In China, a nation with strict weapon controls, a similar situation with school violence happened. Over 30 children were killed, and the person doing the killing did it with a knife.

I'd love to see this wanton act stopped, but I can't see how we can stop outright.

Different interest groups unfortunately attempt to capitalize from this tragedy by using it as an excuse to promote themselves. The politicians who stand to profit from promoting a "gun control" agenda are an obvious example and another example are those involved in the "mental health" industry, be it practitioners, bureaucrats, or those seeking to get their hands on more government funding for proposed widening of government-mandated programs.

Let's ask ourselves what could possibly be the trends that are making such tragedies more prevalent in our society. Let's start by asking ourselves what are some of the common denominators that apply to perpetrators of such horrible acts as these murders. I think that in every case we see a perpetrator with mental health issues, but we also see that the very fact that we can identify that history of diagnosed mental health issues indicates that in the case of each such perpetrator there was at least some degree of "treatment" by mental health professionals. So when the proponents of the "mental health" solution propose a widening of government-funded mental health programs as a possible deterrent of such acts, what they are saying is that these perpetrators must not have received sufficient such mental health treatment. Which begs the question: How much availability of such government-funded mental-health treatment is enough? We could be flippant and answer "until we have solved the problem", but that of course opens the door to an unmeasurable bottomless pit of tax-dollar usage ripe for abuse by every government bureaucrat and mental health provider bent on getting their hands on public funds.

I believe that we may not be asking the right questions. I believe that one question that we should be asking is what trends in parenting may be contributing to the creation of such monsters who may perpetrate such horrible acts as those of Adam Lanza. Is it possible that the trend we are seeing has to do more with trends in parenting than with the availability of "mental health treatment"?

" We are not going to put up with our youngsters being slaughtered on the alter of the Second Amendment any longer."

Geez, Sail- this post ranks up there with Patick Henrys famous quote! DAMN, man!

And rember folks, ALL of our amendments come with built-in 'controls'. Think the first amendment: You still can't holler fire in a full theatre.

Or walk up to a guy , and call him a N***R or...well... just think ok? As in:

"you can still have enough guns to protect your family- you just can't do it with a grenade launcher......"

Just think, for crying out loud, people.

For real guys, some might claim that we lost a few constitutional rights after the 9-11 terrorist attack because we had to come up with some measures against terrorism. Now, when faced with some of these situations (which in fact are terrorism) we definitely have to come up with measures to prevent them from happening again.

I do respect the lovers of our constitution, especially when they're law abiding citizens. But the present fact is that there's no guarantee when constitutional lovers are going to come insane, as anyone else. In addition to one of the most heinous acts in history, we have hundreds of innocent kids dealing with PTSD and other problems that (YES, CONSERVATIVES) we will be taking care of.

Our president WILL DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT during his second term. He doesn't have to appease lobbyist or legislators seeking reelection. Take this to the bank, along with your profits from a recovered economy.

1funnygirl, that's not entirely true. Only 7 children died in China, the rest survived. Since it was a knife, they had a chance. That's the big difference. With a semi automatic weapon, there are no survivors.

Just like the first and now second election of President Obama, this seems like a test of America's character. Who does America want to be, what is she willing to become?

Bri, Please keep on the subject. Acts of war always involve innocent people no matter where they are. I am sure President Obama or any other President for that matter wants to kill children. This however was planned, deliberate and evil!

How about you put the bigoted hate away bri? It seems way out of place in the first place but in these times of morning it is downright rude.

correction, the 7 children in china died in an attack a year ago. The attack in China last week no one died. Again because the sicko didn't have access to an assault weapon.

If we take the money out of politics, politicians won't be scared of lobbyists and might start doing their jobs again. And some common sense laws could get passed.

This thread just lifted my spirits..that there are still rational Americans, willing to re-evalute our ideals when necessary, as our society changes.

We didn't have these massacres when couples stayed married and their top priority was teaching their kids right from wrong, and some discipline. At school, the teachers weren't the kids "friend", he/she was an authority figure who also taught right from wrong, and disciplined the kids when necessary....with the parents' full support. Families also attended churches, who reinforced the morality teaching. Entertainment was entertaining, and didn't mock morality and glorify violence. In short, the "enlightened" society, with it's situational ethics and irresponsibility has created a whole bunch of mentally screwed up kids....who have become dangerous....fatally so.

Passing gun control legislation at this point in our history will not result in fewer tragedies like the one on Friday. The barn door was already left open on that one. The only way to ensure that would be to confiscate all the weapons in the country...good luck with that one. You will most certainly have a civil war then. The real question is why do young men behave in this manner? Why now and not 40 years ago?

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Sunday that gun control should be Obama's "No. 1 agenda."

Bloomberg once again showing us all that he is a moron.

Americas thirst for illegal drugs drives a $100 billion dollar a year illegal drug industry that is the root cause of tens of thousands of people dying every year in Mexico.

We could simply secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws and it would be saving tens of thousands of lives a year.

Legalization of all drugs would help stop the gangs.

They call them ASSAULT weapons for obvious reasons. BAN them and high capacity clips.

I am not comfortable with the idea that only the military/police would have access to assault weapons. You place far too much trust in the government.

Hasn't violence in general gone down in the last 20 years? I own guns but also believe it is the perfect time to talk about gun control. That being said we should probably start focusing on the real problem, mental illness.

Legalization of all drugs would help stop the gangs.

Did the repeal of prohibition stop bootlegging?

Maybe you should tune into the Discovery channel and watch "Moonshiners".

Right Wing Plank:

Outlawing Pot or Abortion? OH MY GOD!! God will destroy our country! Our families!

Outlawing assault weapons? "Mehh..."

Immediately following a tragedy as sad as what happened in Connecticut is a terrible time to discuss what to do to prevent future similar tragedies because emotion is running high and emotion is a very poor substitute for critical thinking. In addition, political hacks will try to use a tragedy (any tragedy) to further their political ambitions whatever they may be.

As to the poor substitute for critical thinking, I offer the following:

What happened in Connecticut, and in Columbine, and in Blacksburg and in far too many other places was that an individual used a tool in an illegal manner and intentionally killed people as a result. Emotion says to ban that tool, because the emotion implies that if not for that particular tool, that tragedy could not have happened. Critical thinking points out the delusion buried in such an emotional response.

Consider the following examples:

A few individuals misused box cutters to hijack four airplanes on 9/11/2001. Emotion says to ban box cutters. A few individuals used airplanes heavily laden with fuel to attack the Pentagon and the twin towers. Thousands died as a result. Emotion would say to ban airplanes. On 12/13/2012 in China, a man with a knife slashed 22 children at an elementary school. In 2010, the state of Maine ranked first in the country in its percentage of killings with knives (28.6% of all murders in that state that year). Nearly 20% of all murders in the United States is done with a knife. Emotion would say to ban knives. On 9/21/2012, in China, a man with an axe went to a day care center and killed three children and wounded thirteen more before he was stopped. Emotion says to ban axes.

I could go on nearly forever with such examples, but that is not necessary. The point is sufficiently
made, and that point is simply this. Banning everything that is misused and causes harm does not stop someone from causing harm with something else. Banning the object used is simply an emotional knee jerk reaction to a very serious problem. Or, is it that the argument to ban an object is a political expedient to justify a desired political end result. Neither will make children more safe, not in America and not in China and not anywhere else.

What does make children safe then? This is the question that should be asked, but for some reason is not being asked nor pursued. To answer this question, let’s first look at how protection is privided to those that are deemed by the management of our society to be so valuable that protection must be provided. The president, all members of congress, federal judges, virtually all airports, employees at most
government office buildings, state and local offices of high ranking elected and appointed individuals, etc. are all protected by hardening the target. This is done with defensive deterrent measures such as traffic barriers, bullet proof glass, limited accessibility, guards and metal detectors at entrances, etc.. Protection is then enhanced with counter measures such as snipers, and other lethal reactionary forces should the
barriers prove insufficient.

My question is why are these people so protected more precious than our children? To me, politicians
are far more expendable than children, so why do we protect politicians and other government office holders and not protect our children? Again, this is the question that should be debated. Not whether or not we should ban some type of gun. Why do taxpayers allow their money to be spent to protect politicians and the like, and yet no protection is provided to children of the parents that are providing the very money that is protecting the politicians? I’ll concede that we need to protect our government leaders, but I will not concede that we do not need to protect our children. That is where I draw the line. This is where we have a bad priority set by those being protected that is leaving our children so unprotected. To me, this is inexcusable.

If we set emotion aside, and if we also set aside a very dangerous political movement that would like nothing more than to enact one gun ban after another to ultimately ban ownership of all firearms, then and only then can we begin to have a logical discussion about what can be done to protect our
children (which is our future) that will ultimately lead to protecting the most valuable among us.

It is simply a ridiculous argument designed to be swallowed by the emotionally vulnerable that we can ban assault rifles and make anyone safer. Any nut that would use an assault rifle would simply use something else if assault rifles were banned. So OK, ban assault rifles. What then? Then he will use a semi-automatic shotgun. Ban it. Pump action rifle. Ban it. Lever action rifle. Ban it. Bolt action rifle. Ban it. Semi-automatic pistol. Ban it. Revolver. Ban it. Etc. Etc. Etc.

This is why the logic (if there is any at all) of banning assault rifles has to lead ultimately to banning all guns entirely. If not, then banning assault rifles only makes absolutely no sense on any level and will make no one any safer. Any other firearm can be substituted for the banned assault rifle, therefore banning one type of firearm will simply lead to the misuse of another and another and another and so on and will not add to the safety of anyone. Banning all guns will result in only criminals having guns and will open up everyone to more home invasions, and to more and more violent crime. Banning all firearms will also force the use of some other weapon type, but will not stop murder and will not make anyone any safer. If you goal is the perception of safety, then ban assult rifles. But perception of safety and safety are two entirely different outcomes.

People high on emotion do not want to hear such as this and will immediately dismiss this argument as so much babble. But this is not babble. We are at a very critical cross road in our nation’s history and crisis after crisis is already being laid in our path in the near future. We do not need the additional crisis of the government trying to disarm the citizenry, nor the inability to protect our homes because of the overnment’s desire to confiscate firearms which is what a ban is.

You can’t ban one type of firearm without confiscating that type of gun from those that legally own them.
And since banning one type of gun makes absolutely no logical sense, banning one type has to lead to the banning and to the confiscation of many if not all types. You are talking about civil war if that is the course we take. Long ago, a president had the choice to talk to a delegation sent from the south to
discuss how to avoid civil war following the incident at fort sumpter. That president refused to talk to that delegation as did the then secretary of war. The choice was there foar a peaceful solution and the president chose civil war instead. We built a statue to that man. This may not be the revisionist
history you have been taught, but this is historical fact. Don’t think for a minute that powerful forces
within our government today are not willing to make the same decision again with respect to disarming this country even if it meant civil war. There are those that would do it in a heart beat if they thought the result would be citizens with no firearms.

The real issue in all this noise is why do we harden the offices of politicians and judges and the like, and not harden the schools that our children attend? Don’t give me that argument that we can’t afford it. We spent far more on saving a bunch of idiot, too big to fail banks than protecting our kids would cost. Which brings me to another question. Why was it more important to our government to save the banks than to protect our kids given the money to save the banks came from the parents and neighbors of the kids we
need to protect?

The root of our problem is our priorities are poorly structured and those that are creating and reacting to these priorities are the very people that are already protected and working in a “hardened work
environment. Logically, it would appear that our children are mostly unprotected because that fits a political agenda and that agenda is and can only be the goal of disarming America.

Until we get our priorities straightened out, until we decide that our children are important enough to be protected, until we elect people that understand this simple logic, we can all expect more of the same,
and more and more attacks on our freedoms as a result.

Protecting our children is a jobs bill when we desperately need a jobs bill. Protecting our children by hardening our schools is the only course to take because it is the only vialbe solution. You simply cannot
ban everything that can be used as a weapon, and even if you could and did, then only criminals would still have those banned weapons and our children would still be no safer.

This is why hardening our schools is the only logical course to take, which begs the question Why has this not yet been done? I would like to see this question asked to all those politicians that offer to ban something instead. The only thing standing in the way of protecting our children and once and for all hardening our schools against such attacks, is the very government that sets the priorities that says politicians and judges and government officials are so valuable that their working environment
deserves to be protected, but our children are not so valuable and therefore are not deserving of such protective measures.

Basically to these politicians, our children are expendable. I reject that line of thinking in total and
submit to you that the only proper reaction is to fire them all. Until all our children are protected by
making schools a hardened target, I would deny any further funding to protect anyone else. These incidents happen because they are allowed to happen by the spending and funding choices made by
elected officials and nothing more. That these very politicians that make these decisions operate in a cocoon of security that is by these same "protected" individuals denied to our children is disgraceful. That my friends is a damning indictment of government if there ever was one.

why is no one agreeing with Spider-737231 he or she is 100% right you can dance around it all you want but it is the truth FACE IT! you would rather debate this and debate that, but refuse to see the way we are raising our kids is wrong it is only because in doing so you would admit that you are also wrong stop blaming everyone and everything else God get a clue.

The reason you don't compromise is that once they ban assault rifles, there will be some other random act of violence - some new "injustice" involving guns that needs to be remedied - and then the Michael Bloomberg types will immediately start working to place further restrictions on guns. Next it will be magazine fed weapons, then handheld weapons of any kind...and then eventually they'll just try get rid of them completely.

We see the same thing with smoking. Its one thing to try and limit smoking in public places, but now activists are trying to eliminate smoking completely. The same is true with athletics - its one thing to have our kids wear protective padding, but now activists are trying to prevent contact of anykind in high school sports. Pretty soon EA Sports will be the only athletics our kids will be familiar with. It's already begun with food as well. And once they're done with that they'll move onto alcohol, and then unprotected sex, and then coughing in public. And then they'll continue on with something else...they won't be happy until every human being is living in a completely sterilized enviornment.

Given the trend of curtailing our freedom and liberty, and given the reality that there is literally no logical end point as to how far we can go for "public safety", I'm going to cast my hat in with the NRA. I don't think there should be a single inch of compromise on this issue...

Did the repeal of prohibition stop bootlegging?

Maybe you should tune into the Discovery channel and watch "Moonshiners".

Bootlegging is not as big now that prohibition is over and I never said that legalization would end the drug cartels. But it would make them much less powerful. Bootlegging now is usally done to avoid high alcohol taxes. So all of these 'problems' are government created.

bhonest

I have an alarm system on my home. From the time I get to the keypad and push the alarm buttons (assuming the phone line isn't cut or the wireless system isn't jambed) the police will be at my door in 2 minutes 30 seconds. Now, studies show that the time it takes for an intruder to kick in your door and shout you dead is 45 seconds.

There are 5 guns for every US citizen in this country. You are not going to get rid of them without violence like you wouldn't believe. If you get rid of the legal guns, then only the criminals will have them.

The best defense against a gun is a gun.

Even in martial arts, they tell people if a guy has a knife take your chances. If they have a gun cooperate.

If obama really cared he would have started a LONG time ago to curb the violence in his home state. obama knows he can do nothing more then lie to the victoms families as he did to the families reguarding the Bengahzi deaths.

I will, fmas

I bet Spider grew up like me-

Had a 'tiff' with a classmate? Cool- take it outside, and settle it. And, in the process, probably wind up the best of friends afterwards.

Team lost? Sorry- weren't good enogh- sorry, no trophys just for trying.

Right, Spider? Were were 'folks'. Nothing less, nothing more.

I think, by your post, you get this completely.

We all may have been brought up differntly, but we were 'brought up'.

Under one God, or no God.

Period

The sad thing is that driving an automobile is a privilege with a lot of checks and licensing before one can drive while any nutjob can go buy a weapon of mass destruction or just steal it from his/her Mom.

I could buy a car from someone on Craigslist then drive it through a playground. I wouldn't need to follow any laws at all. Or I could simply steal the car from someone else then use to run people over. Your argument is not very good.

The democrats are about to squander their newfound political clout before the 2014 elections.

If they want to fix the problem and keep their jobs they should reinstate all the mental health programs Ronald Reagan gutted in the '70's and 80's. This is a mental health problem not a gun problem. We used to put them in institutions where the most dangerous thing they could lay their hands on was a crayon or a spork. Now we pump them up on mood and mind altering drugs and live with them in our neighborhoods.Doesn't it make more sense to lock the nuts up where they can't get a gun or a butter knife than to reduce everybody to crayons and sporks.

Keep guns away from the nuts and criminally minded? How do you do that? 90% of them steal them or get them illegally. I saw one comment in here that made sense. PARENTING! What has changed in the way parents raise their kids in the past 25-30 years? Spank the child for doing something wrong, go to jail. Kids do not play outside anymore,they play video games,watch reality shows, and live on Facebook. Discipline does not occur. I was whipped so bad as a kid that I thought I wouldn't be able to walk the next day, but I never did that again. Neighbors whipped you when you screwed up and called your house so that your parents got you again when you came in the door. We didn't do it again. If I went out a picked my own "switch" that wa too small, I had to go get a bigger one. I bowed up on my father once and got knocked out. Never did that again. Now, you all call that abuse. Sorry, it is correction and punishment for doing wrong. There are no scars and I have not one on any killing sprees. I do not hate them for doing it. I deserved it. Problem is there are plenty now who deserve it, but they are protected and allowed to get away with it and turn into the new generation. Be proud, you who do not PARENT, caused it.

And Sumka proves himself an idiot. First, if you think this is a civilized society, and i am not talking about the prescence of guns, you are fing nuts. Driveby and spider have it right. You want to keep kids safe? Teach them how to behave in a civilized manner. You want them safe? Give the teachers the ability to discipline them. As a parent, spank your kid when warrented. Children are animals, they need to be taught and sometimes timeouts don't work. I am not talking about beating a kid, I am talking about discipline. Quit worrying about their 'precious' egos and let them face the consequences of their actions. Don't give me that crap that timeouts work either. Every parent that tells me that has children that act like savages. They are uncourteous, selfish, and mouthy.

Given the trend of curtailing our freedom and liberty, and given the reality that there is literally no logical end point as to how far we can go for "public safety", I'm going to cast my hat in with the NRA. I don't think there should be a single inch of compromise on this issue...

The liberty and freedom that is being curtailed is our right to attend school, walk in a mall, watch a movie without fear of being killed.

Over the last two centuries, guns have never guaranteed liberty or freedom. We know this from empirical evidence. The only times when a nation was able to overthrow a tyrant was specifically without guns. Gandhi fought a world empire without any guns and succeeded - before him, there had been plenty of armed uprisings that were brutally suppressed. It is far harder to suppress an unarmed man. This was also evidenced recently in Egypt where TWICE now the unarmed population has faced down two different tyrants.

Armed resistance begets armed suppression. And guess what..the government has bigger guns. If an American President wanted to declare himself Fuhrer, you don't have any chance against the weapons that he is capable of commanding. Your guns will not save you. If anything saves you, it will be the conscience of the army generals who should refuse to obey him. And they are far more likely to by sympathetic if you don't shoot at them.

By contrast to being unarmed, you can see, not very far from Egypt, a heavily armed population also fighting for liberty. How successful have the Palestinians been, with all the guns and rockets they have?

But you are right, we have compromised too much with the NRA. This must stop.

Keep guns away from the nuts and criminally minded? How do you do that? 90% of them steal them or get them illegally.

You are making an excellent argument for banning all guns. Europeans also have nuts and criminally minded. Their violence and death rate, on the other hand, is a tiny fraction of ours.

I saw one comment in here that made sense. PARENTING! What has changed in the way parents raise their kids in the past 25-30 years? Spank the child for doing something wrong, go to jail.

And again, Europeans treat their children pretty much the same way we do. The only difference between them and us is the easy access to guns.

You are making an excellent argument for banning all guns.

There are many different ways to take care of a problem, ammunition is one of them. Guns without powder or ammunition are not very effective.

Seriously?? You think all of society is civilized in the US???? We are a nation of many types, rural, urban, black, white, different religions, etc, yet you think all of the US is civilized? There are no evil people or criminals in the US? I hate to think of someone so ignorant as you voting or trying to come up with any kind of reasoning for a policy on the 2nd amendment, or any part of the Constitution for that matter. Getting rid of legal guns does not get rid of the illegal ones, or the criminals that would use them. And anyone can steal a car too, or rent a ryder truck to build a giant bomb in...use your head idiot.

I am hopeful that the president will do as he says. To end these tragedies at whatever cost, because they HAVE to stop. He's the only one who can. Future lives depend on it.

In a tragedy like this, sometimes people need to talk it out. Over the next few weeks, we will see many irrational arguments from people tying to promote their agendas on both sides of the argument. Many will be politically inspired. My only agenda is cutting down on tragedies like this, but in a way so that it doesn't involve compromising the right to own a gun. We just need smarter regulation, which I have posted a bit about before but won't get into tonight for the sake of keeping it straighter. A lot of emotion is going into this, as tends to happen after a tragedy like this occurs. But we must remember the lives that were lost and what could be done. And while there is certainly no need to nix the second amendment, we may have to give up a bit of that to make our society a little safer. Not too much, mind you. We can't afford to get carried away in the moment and take this too far the way. But we have to start talking about it so that we can even begin to address a major problem that appears to be getting worse. These infamous mass shootings are starting to happen more and more, and in places you never would expect. Something has to be done.

You try and ban ammuntion I can promise you a revolution.. The only difference? The military will side with the citizens.

^ Are you going to head this revolution yourself? Right...

My family owned a gun store many years ago. My father was a collector and loved finely crafted firearms. Most of them were never fired. That was then...now I am looking for the most effective gun-control group or advocacy so that I can send them money. I think President Obama should call on Michael Bloomberg to head a commission made up of the best of law enforcement, mental health professionals and legal minds with the goal of crafting legislation and public policy addressing mass firearm killings in the U.S. Enough!

I won't have to.. Because that executive order would be illegal, and have no enforcement.

@Glenn-974637-

You, sir, are about to go viral. How more spot-on can you get than what you just said?

/salute!

I don't know about anyone else, Glenn, but I won't live in a land of "hardened islands". Where is the freedom in that? How about banning those devices that necessitate the "hardening"?

malith: Could be that a professional evaluation of your perspective is in order. Somehow, I don't think I'd be interested in your revolution or one driven by the banning of golf balls. A God given right to possess the means of lethal force, and the right to use it whenever you 'feel' it's necessary. Google 'civilization'.

"You try and ban ammuntion I can promise you a revolution.. The only difference? The military will side with the citizens." You can promise these future events? You realize you are another of those "odd men out" that endanger the rest of us? Just heard a wonderful quote - "God/Mother Nature, whatever, gave you two ears and one mouth". I'll leave it to you to figure out just what that means.

"I won't have to.. Because that executive order would be illegal, and have no enforcement."

Well, aren't you brave. But I have to ask, how do you figure this gun control movement has no support? Even if it came to it, and executive order by the president would have the majority of people's support. I mean especially so soon after the latest tragedies. Like it or not, that seems to be how most people feel now. I don't understand where you get the confidence that no one would enforce it. Anyone who went against it would likely be risking their next election cycle.

Some of the righteous conservatives here argue that guns are not to blame, but it's mental health issues.

You do have a point. But do you also know that many GOP-controlled states have cut many services in the name of fiscal health? Among those services cut is mental health - institutions, personnel, and other related things. Some conservatives say family can do best in taking care of those mentally ill. But obviously, Nancy Lanza failed!!! Some others can fail ...in the future ...too.

How do you square that?

@satanic, probably it will be more difficult to buy a car without a driver license than to buy a gun from someone on craigslist. cars are not tanks that can go through fences and buildings without a high probability of stopping. Also people tend to run away from things coming in their direction.

@Rosco, I can see what a good parent you will make, saying things like "kids are like animals". I can see a brood of nutjobs in the making if by chance you become a parent or are a parent.

@arcticfusion, I think you have an aptly named title, you should just go to the deep freeze. If we are not a civilized nation, doesn't mean we should stop trying to become one. Yeah arming oneself to the teeth will ensure we become a civilized country, or making guns easily available to the elements that make us uncivilized will.

My condolences to all families involved.

A lot of sick people posting today. What is wrong with America? Look in a mirror.

glen 974837 gonna have to call BS on your comment dawg.even if you write a full fledge novel on this thread or no matter how you try those delay tatics, it was too late 20 yrs. ago. times up on this horse manure.it's time right now to put end to the madness. emotions are what makes us human my man.sorry about that dawg,when ever i see BS i gotta call you out.it's my job, after all i am the BS Spotter!!!

@Pigotry.

The Fast and the Furious program was exactly what you suggested using microchips to track the guns. This is actually old news to any that paid attention at the time. The problem was the batteries ran down and you can't exactly make the bad guys recharge them especially if you don't want them to know they're being tracked. If you know of a cell phone that only needs to be recharged every 50 years please tell me so I an buy one. To the best of my knowledge you'd have to use material that was radioactive to make a battery that has a life span longer than a human being. Even Big Brother can't track your cell phone if it has no battery.

While I agree that something needs to be changed, I'm interested in hearing what that would be. Let's not forget that the rifle used in this case, while based on an assault rifle platform, was the civilian version that fires 1 round per trigger pull-- just the same as every semi-automatic firearm going back to WWII. The main weapon used (AR-15) isn't any deadlier than any other firearm available. The projectiles, are quite small in fact.

So, again... what is it that everyone is proposing here? Banning the (AR-15) and other "assault-style" rifles? There are already millions that are legally owned and people aren't just going to turn them over. I know I'm not letting mine go.

Realistically, what law(s) would have prevented this shooting? I know everyone is heartbroken and wants desperately to come up with a solution for this problem, but if we're honest with ourselves, I think we'll find that the media coverage these jerks get and the psychiatrists they don't get-- are the real problem here.

Maybe a magazine capacity ban will get through, maybe a few blacklisted rifles as well. In the end, whatever they come up with will be just as ineffective as the last time they did it (i.e.- it didn't help at all).

Hug your kids. And treat everyone as if you may never see them again. My heart aches over this...

God bless and God speed, our prayers go out to all these families. Huge your kids, and love your parents.

God willing, they will ensure, that next time there is some one else armed besides the killer.

Save your money, Karen, it ain't gonna happen.

Do you remember when 9/11 happened and everyone, including liberals, was running around screaming, "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!"?

So other than the fact that I'm certain many of those same liberals are forever ashamed of how quickly they were willing to completely abandon their belief system simply because they were afraid of a few ignorant zealots (cowards really), within a matter of months they were able to collect themselves, pretend they didn't really say what they said, and revert right back to the same ol' same ol'.

This will be no different...

Those trying to lay blame at Bushs feet for fast and furious need to take into consideration that when he was running his program the Mexican authorities were in on it and the guns didn't get lost like they did under obummer. You see, Obummer failed to let the Mexican authorities know anything.

Byron Raum,

I'm not sure where you got your statistics, but Europe is not so far behind the US as you suggest in mass murders. Let alone overall murder and suicide rates. Mass murders, (4 ormore victims), have occurred in Europe at numbers only slightly less than the US. True their total population is about double, but that doesn't mean it is "a tiny fraction of ours". Likewise you must realize that gun regulations in Europe vary considerably by country and it is nothing like a homogeneous set of laws. When analyzed on a country by country basis, some significant contradictions to your claim exist.

A study done by the Harvard Jounal of Law and Public Policy reports some interesting statistics.

The study, which appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Read the report for yourself. What this report finds is not all that unlike what the varying statistics within the individual US states tell us. States with the most restrictive gun control have some of the largest problems with violence overall and gun violence in particular. And states with more liberal gun regulations have lower rates of gun violence.

The trouble is that those who propose much stricter control, typically are not gun owners. This automatically means that you see those who have guns as having an "unfair advantage". But most are thinking as law abiding citizens. If you want to understand this, you need to think like a criminal.

The criminal or one who seeks to do damage and/or kill people, wants to make certain that he possesses overwhelming force to maintain the advantage. When the criminal knows that only a small percentage of the public are gun owners, he knows that if he is armed with a gun, he will most almost always have the advantage. The odds are in his favor. But in areas with high levels of gun ownership, the criminal realizes that his advantage isn't at all significant. The odds are not in his favor. Criminals are fundamentally "lazy". They want to gain with very little work. So the key then is always having the advantage which allows them to just take whatever they want while facing little resistance.

Guns are quite effective at providing a force advantage. That is why as a gun control advocate, you don't want other people having guns. It really is that simple and the evil doers will always seek to keep the advantage. They could care less about laws telling them it is illegal to do so. Whatever it is they are planning to do by force is already illegal anyway. At that point he will be more concerned about keeping the edge that makes him successful and also works toward lessening the possibility he will get caught.

In the case of these mass murderers, they are concerned with the most effective way of inflicting the most damage in the shortest time while lessening the odds that someone will stop them. If you eliminate guns altogether, (an impossible task within the US), the evil doer will just move to the next best thing to maintain that advantage.

We have long ago very effectively eliminated guns from commercial aircraft. Did that stop hijackings? No. All of a sudden, box cutters became the next advantage, explosive devices, to shoe and crotch bombs. Eliminate those and there will be something to take their place. We have very clear history to support this. If you don't believe the statistics about the level of regulation vs. the incidence of violence, just look at commercial air flights and hijackings. No guns available didn't stop the hijackings.

We could ban all assault weapons and high capacity magazines tomorrow and it changes nothing. There are plenty already out there. You can ban all gun sales and the same situation exists. All this will do is increase the value of every gun out there.

The problem isn't the guns. The reality is that only about one 10 thousandths of a percent or less, of all guns out the will ever be involved in some violent act. The problem with such acts as these school shootings is people with severe mental illness.

Years ago we used to just lock people up who had mental problems. They couldn't hurt anyone. We stopped that process and rightfully so. But we did not even use the funds that we used to use to institutionalize these people and transfer it to outpatient care. In recent years, many states have cut budgets for mental health treatment, (along with a lot of other important things too). So we have these folks who fifty years or so ago, would have been locked up, and today they are in neighborhoods and walking the streets while not getting the care that they need.

Illinois and Chicago in particular, has very strict gun control, yet they have an epidemic of gun violence. Washington DC was/is pretty similar. New York City has strict gun rules too, but has only recently improved their statistics, but they have done so by clearly violating peoples rights with their profiling and stop and frisk programs. Effective maybe, but not right, just like locking up mentally ill people was effective too.

We don't offer easily obtained mental health treatment, and when someone does get it, it comes with a stigma. For someone already a bit paranoid, why would they even seek treatment knowing they'll be branded? We are trying to make the gun laws even stricter by urging reporting of anyone receiving any kind of mental treatment and then blocking them of their rights. These are people not judicially determined to be a danger, but basically people who might benefit from some early treatment. But with that would come the stigma of being mentally ill. We are asking the medical professionals to violate doctor/patient confidentiality to the extreme, supposedly erring on the side of caution while violating the patient's rights.

I personally am a progressive and a strong believer in individual rights. I frankly see gun ownership as a personal right not unlike most others my fellow progressives stand for. I believe that we need regulations but I don't agree with the approach of bans and my concerns are that many of the current regulations just limit the rights of law abiding individuals while doing little to keep guns out of those who would use them for illegal means. I think that many on the left really don't understand gun ownership or the legal uses, for he simple reason that they can't relate to them and see them as as threat to their own personal safety. But I also think there are a lot of things in our daily lives that pose a potential risk to our safety that we just accept and tolerate.

We will not eliminate guns altogether and far too many exist, so it seems to me we need to focus on the very small percentage of people that abuse them. We can talk about accidental deaths and injuries, but we have those with cars, bathtubs, home furnaces and many, many more things that we just accept as being too important to eliminate. The real problem comes from people who don't use them properly.

I believe the best thing we could do is spend money to make treatment universally available and it probably ought to be available anonymously, at least until society realizes that mental illness isn't really so much different than physical illness. The most important thing is getting people treatment as early on as possible. To me, this is a responsibility that society has to its fellow citizens. If we don't do this, somewhere down the line we end up paying for it. If people are sane and think responsibly, a basement full of assault rifles is no threat to any of us. Personally, I would rather be out in public knowing that 30% or more of those around me were responsible gun owner legally carrying a concealed weapon, than to know that the only ones with these weapons were the criminals. What some struggle with accepting is that the vast majority of legal gun owners are reasonably responsible people. The problem is that when we see a bad example, it gets blown out of proportion and reflects badly on the many millions of responsible owners.

I think something that many non gun types don't realize is that in order to get a CCW permit, the individual gets fingerprinted and put on file. That simple little thing means that these permit holders are very easily traceable if they do virtually anything wrong. We are not would be cowboys or one of those individuals that's just a bad day away from becoming a psychopathic killer.

I am not a proponent of "anything goes" when it comes to guns, but I also think sometimes we've already gone too far the other way. For example, "gun free zones" just make for easy target areas for the criminally minded. Kids in a school are fish in a barrel with no one there to remove the advantage the armed evil doer has. If we want to really protect our kids from things like this, make it common practice to have an armed policeman and/or an armed responsible school official on site. Not just anybody, they'd needed to be screened and trained, but they would make schools a far less soft target. This could provide decent jobs for retired and/or possibly injured police officers no longer physically capable of patrolling a beat. It could potentially provide jobs for well screened veterans. This is something we could do immediately that would have a very positive preventive effect.

I know a lot of people seem to be against this. But isn't it just more practical to have a relatively small group of individuals, screened and well trained, providing protection for our children, than trying to disarm the entire rest of society? We provide this type protection to many of our politicians and "important" businessmen while they are at work. We can't do this for our kids? Our President has an armed troop of Secret Service personnel around him 24/7, but we can't provide some minimal protection for our kids gathered together in large groups like in schools? This might even have some deterent effect on student on student abuse problems. I'm not suggesting we just let the janitor bring his .357 with him to work, but people specifically trained for this purpose.

Frankly, it is almost a bit surprising that some lone terrorist with links to geo-political organized terror groups, hasn't target a school. Remember, these are people who have no moral objection to killing children if it fits their purpose.

Guns are a part of life in America. Some may not like this, but it is reality. That isn't going to change so maybe we'd be better off trying to find ways to embrace that fact. Everywhere across the country we have armed guards protecting things we see as very valuable. Aren't our children valuable? It is some weird mental block based on some unrealistic idealistic principle that stands in the way of seeing the logic to this. it doesn't solve all the problems, but it is a relatively inexpensive way to improve the situation dramatically. If you have school age kids, ask them this question, "Would you feel safer in school if there was a police officer there?"

Maybe it also helps send a message to kids about police being there to serve and protect you rather than to catch you doing something wrong.

Our society has changed, and obviously not for the better. I can remember when divorce was almost unheard of, marriage was something that took a lot of consideration, because once you got married, it was permanent, and anything less would be a public disgrace. Then there was parenting, the house, food, everything needed was a family effort, we all had a garden, and preserved things for the year, most times those that didn't have a place to grow were allowed to borrow a small plot from a neighbor, and some like my Grandfather, a WWI veteran, would grow extra then carry it to others. We worked, it was about survival, but taught the importance of self sufficiency. When we misbehaved, we got our tail warmed up with a belt, paddle, or hickory switch, if it was done at school, well, gotta face Dad when he got home from work, because the teacher or principle would tell on you, and Dad would give you another reminder, just so you would remember to not misbehave. When we smarted off to an adult, expect to pick yourself up from the other side of the room, and IF you were lucky, you didn't get your mouth washed out with soap. Firearms were never a problem, well until JFK, then things kinda changed. It was common for kids to take a rifle or shotgun to school, and a box of shells, too, nobody thought a thing about it. After school you could go with your friends and shoot or hunt, that is, when you had the shells to shoot, if you didn't, well, not much need to take the firearm, unless a friend would share some ammo, or you were trading. When you turned 18, you would register for the draft, and if called up, you would go, if you didn't it was a disgrace on you and your family, everybody knew. Those who would practice acts of moral turpitude were well know, and disliked, normal people wouldn't associate or do business with them. Your word was your bond, and a deal was done with a handshake, seldom a contract. Things have changed, and not for the better. Now people want more laws, and regulations, well, in my opinion, that only benefits the lawyers. What we need is to get away from this liberal idea that the world is a warm and fuzzy place where everyone it taken care of and protected for life, from anything that might inconvenience us. Get back to Dad goes to work, it's Mom's job to take care of home and hearth, that worked for centuries, but now we can't afford it, too many luxuries, everybody has to have a car or two, and all those gadgets peer pressure demands, the latest fashions. We got dungarees, and brogans from the local stores, and the girls got material, they could sew, they learned to cook from scratch, not out of a box, I've seen many do a good job making clothes from feed sacks, but that is unheard of today. Also, what was unheard of was mental cases going on a killing rampage, they went to the state hospital, if a parent had a child that had mental issues, it wasn't the 'little darling has a little problem', it was either send them for help, or someone else would. Have we progressed as a society? I think not, but I have a whole lot less time ahead of me, than I have behind me, so take it as you will.

Glenn, Perfect post man. A voice of sanity in troubled times, thank you.

Notatroll, please stop looking to Obama as the only person who can fix things. He is not all powerful and has his own checks and balances that he must work through to get anything done. There are other avenues to pursue. I'll cover that in a minute.

SmuKa, there ain't no point. You are one of the most irrational posters I've ever seen.

I've said something about how to create an office to ensure responsible weapons ownership on another thread, and I don't want to boar anyone with how long that was at 5 am, so I'll just cut to covering what is done in a town near me. Mostly because this story is on the safety of our children. Gun control is really not the issue, public safety is. In every state, every county, every town, there is a department for that...they're called police. Now, in a town near where I live the schools were having problems. Bullying, violence, and gangs were getting really bad. (this part is for you Notatroll) The board of education, in conjunction with the mayor and police, came up with the idea of a "Resource Officer" in the school. YES!! IMAGINE THAT!!! A board of Education that was so concerned with the safety of the children, that the town actually put a cop in the school!! And they're still there!! In fact, in the wake of this tragedy the county Board is following suit! Insane!! School systems and governments that are so concerned with the safety of the children that they are willing to have full time police protection for them! Now that's what I'm talking about! My children with a police officer guard!! The only way I would feel better about it would be if they would let me set up a defensive position to guard them myself. My wife and I got that phone call from the principle last night.

You see kids, it's not just up to Obama to secure our youth. It's not just up to the federal government to do what is right for the citizens. There's a whole lot of government out there. Why not try looking to your local officials to see where their priorities lie...or are they just a lie. This isn't just about "what Obama can do", he is not the only elected official in this country. And there are an aweful lot of school districts. First and foremost, I would rather be the one to take a bullet if I needed to, or have someone to break into my house (not that there's much to take), just so long as I know my child is safe. Hell, I'll even bring the deputy a hot cup of Dunkin Doughnuts coffee and the doughnut of his/her choosing.

My state, county, and local government is more concerned with my kids safety then giving out a speeding ticket...how's yours doing?

While I personally support a ban on 'Assault Weapons', we should keep in mind that these weapons were not the ones used to commit this unspeakable crime in Connecticut.

Guns don't kill people - people do, but guns certainly make it easier. I understand that Connecticut has fairly strict gun control laws, so most gun control measures proposed would not have changed this tragic outcome, and it is undeniable that States that allow people to freely carry guns have a lower rate of gun violence by criminals - perhaps the fear of getting shot by a legally armed citizen has a deterrent effect on criminals - who don't seem to be bothered by laws against carrying guns.

Northstar:

You haven’t got the slightest idea what you’re talking about, but you’re willing to babble your smug, moronic drivel to the disgust of every thinking person who reads your claptrap.

What person is going to argue against protecting children? The trouble is whom are we going to protect them from? The sanctimonious idiots who don’t understand the problem, and can only make matters worse, or the dangerously mentally ill, who have the potential to do them harm?

You claim that “We do need a call to action: to ban assault weapons, tighten the registration process and recertify people who own guns.” No, we don’t need a knee-jerk call to action. We need to step back and examine the evidence, and make informed, adult decisions about what happened, and what we can do to prevent it from happening again.

Since you think you have it all figured out, please answer these two questions: Who owned the weapons that Adam Lanza used in his attack? Would tightening the registration process and recertifying the gun owner have prevented this event from happening?

The readers are waiting for your reply.

There are just so many issues at play here. Gun control is merely one aspect, maybe not even a primary one. It is absolutely correct that such horrors in the future can not be prevented simply by banning guns. I have to go back to what I have been saying the last couple days about cultural factors, America's unique relationship with firearms. With that in mind -

1. What made a school teacher in Pleasantville think she needed to have an arsenal? Let's face it, none of those guns she had were sporting or hunting arms. That these weapons were legally acquired and were apparently easily accessible to the shooter in this case is a central issue here. To say the shooter would have used some other method had the Bushmaster not been readily available is an utterly specious argument.
2. The concept of personal firearms for self-defense is largely incompatible with responsible, safe storage of those firearms. In order for my gun to be an efficacious deterrent it must be readily accessible. If it is readily accessible to me, it is also for others.
3. The whole concept of guns for self-defense falls apart on so many levels. Using a gun to defend against a potential gun crime is not prevention, it is escalation.
4. A common objection put forth is if restrictions are placed on one type of weapon, what is to stop restrictions being placed on all? In my opinion, a ridiculous stance. The same line of reasoning is used in issues such as gay marriage - make that legal and what is to stop the legalization of multiple spouses, marriage to animals, etc...... I propose, for the sake of argument, the opposite extreme - complete removal of rule of law. Absurd, right? Balance makes us civilized.

I think it is a uniquely American trait that culturally we feel we need to own guns to defend ourselves - a meme that has persisted from the days when that was actually true. This needs to change and though I personally advocate restrictions on the personal ownership of certain types of weapons, simple bans solve very little. But we must be open to realistic and constructive dialogue. Do we seriously think the solution to this is to make schools fortresses and arm teachers? Talk about a band-aid on cancer.......

Sorry, all, I don't know why my numbered points are larger font than the rest of my post. Didn't do that on purpose.

Expect MORE OF THESE TRAGEDIES IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SOMEONE OUT THERE IS THINKING ALREADY IN A COPY CAT. Because they have the guns, and they can.

Ban weapons of war. The NRA uses the 2ND amendment as a platform to do business.

The NRA didn't kill those precious people a lunatic did.

Obama needs to remember not everyone who has a gun kills people, many of us use that gun to hunt for the meat we eat throughout the year.

The Constitutional says that owning a firearm is a right, not a priviledge...I find it awkward that we see liberals foaming at the mouth to reject any attempt to implement voter id laws regarding voting yet think we need to "certifiy" or "register" people to exercise another RIGHT...to own a firearm.

If you think it's appropriate to run background checks, weed out the criminals and the mentally ill to own a firearm then I think it's equally appropriate to do the same for voters.

After all, owning a gun does not affect every single American but voting does.....

Additionally, the reason the citizenry is guaranteed the right to bear arms is not for "hunting" or "shooting sports"....it's that the people have a means to overthrow a government which becomes oppressive. We know from history that the first thing that political powers do is disarm a population they mean to conquer. The right to own firearms is every bit an unalienable right as voting.

Jr Browenstein: What a ridiculous load of false equivalency. More people being able to vote doesn't get people killed. Unrestricted firearm sales and ownership certainly does.

Neither voting nor owning a gun is an "unalienable right." Also note: The Constitution and Bill of Rights can and has been changed in the past, and will again in the future.

On to other topics: I love the "Well cars kill more people than guns, why don't we ban cars or anything else that can be dangerous?" logical fallacy types. For one thing, Cars have a purpose that doesn't involve the taking of lives. They are a means of transportation. Just like many things that can be potentially dangerous.

But anyone that calls a gun a "tool" is full of crap. A gun is a weapon designed for one purpose alone: To take life, whether that of an animal or a man. Sure, people choose to use them for recreational shooting, but barring target pistols and the like, that is not the purpose most guns were designed for.

But hey, if you want to equate guns to cars, then I propose this: Everyone has to get a license to own their guns by passing safety tests, registers their gun with their state, and pays property taxes on their guns...just like we do with automobiles.

Because despite to what I've said above, I don't believe people should NOT have the right to own firearms. This is not a call to ban all firearms or much less confiscate the already-existing. As others have said, that door is already opened and can't really be closed again. However, we CAN and SHOULD do a better job of trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. Will we ever be able to stop tragedies like these from happening completely? No, we won't, but it's idiotic to think that because of that we shouldn't even try.

many of us use that gun to hunt for the meat we eat throughout the year.

Oh PLEASE !!!!! Don't give that BS. You probably do that BY CHOICE!!!!! and that is fine. MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF WEAPONS ARE NOT USED TO HUNT FOR THE MEAT PEOPLE EAT!!

Get out of the woods sometime, and see that now we have SUPERMARKETS, WHERE YOU CAN BUY THE MEAT

I dunno, IRESPOND, there is nothing you can buy in a supermarket that comes close to fresh, wild venison loin. Deeelicious!

there is nothing you can buy in a supermarket that comes close to fresh, wild venison loin. Deeelicious!

And I guesss you need two 9mm handguns and an AR-15-type assault rifle to do that, right? Bad joke!

I find it awkward that we see liberals foaming at the mouth to reject any attempt to implement voter id laws regarding voting yet think we need to "certifiy" or "register" people to exercise another RIGHT...to own a firearm.

We are only asking to ban weapons of war! Paranoid gun owners need not to be concerned!!!!!

IRESPOND,

And I guesss you need two 9mm handguns and an AR-15-type assault rifle to do that, right?

Wrong. I neither said that, nor made that implication. Read my previous posts, we are likely on much the same page.

Pigotry

Ok - Many people and even some conservatives agree that some new common-sense gun laws should be put in place to protect people's lives and at the same time preserve people's 2nd amendment right.

.

I have a tentative recommendation about sensible gun regulation. If big brother can track everyone's cell phone and know your whereabouts, why can't pig brother also insert some computer chips in every gun, especially powerful weapons, so government would be able to track their movements down and pay more attention when such weapons approach ...not hunting grounds...but schools, government building, churches, etc. Then take appropriate precautions. Gun owners got to keep their right to own guns, but precautions are in place to protect innocent people.

.

I don't know. Just food for thought.

Then whats next , putting chips in people too ? I think the government is more then enough into the private lives of the american people. The original intent of our government is long gone and has slowly turned into a very overgrown society controlling bully.

Jmacq1

Jr Browenstein: What a ridiculous load of false equivalency. More people being able to vote doesn't get people killed. Unrestricted firearm sales and ownership certainly does.

Are you sure ? What if the wrong president, or the wrong senate, house, mayors, ect ect are put in office who are not fit for the jobs and as a result they either use their power to kill, or dont do enough to prevent killings. The issue isnt gun control, its people . A fallen society that will always, no matter what, have people who are ready to go on a killing spree at any time.

As for guns main purpose is to take life. That is your opinion. We all know that a gun can kill a living thing, BUT a gun will for ever just sit there in its case until its picked up by a human being and the trigger is pulled. A gun is nothing with out a person wielding it. More people are killing by drunk drivers than by guns by some person going on a shooting rampage.

I own guns myself. Im not a big gun advocate. I keep a 9 mm with in grabbing distance behind my head board. I have never used it, and its only purpose will be to shoot the person stupid enough to break into my house in the middle of the night. I pray it never happens, but I wont think twice of shooting to defend my home against invaders.

My son is a Deputy Sheriff and wants to retire and become a teacher. He wants to know if anyone will ok him to carry a gun.

Lets start by banning the violent use of guns on TV and video games. Lets be honest folks, that's where it has to start. Kids growing up seeing good and bad people shot to death on TV every day of their lives........that is where the seed is planted in the minds of these misfits that do heinous crimes.

THONOTOSASSA, Fla. – A Tampa-Bay area man who authorities say attacked his neighbor with a hammer has been charged with second degree murder with a weapon.

A Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office press release says 28-year-old Jarrett Kyle Brooks was booked into jail late Saturday. It was not immediately known if he has an attorney.

Authorities say Brooks approached Jonathan Acree from behind at a Thonotosassa trailer park, striking him in the head and neck multiple times with a hammer.

Acree was pronounced dead at the hospital.

WE NEED TO BAN HAMMER'S NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IF HAMMERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO ANY NUTJOB ACREE WOULD STILL BE ALIVE. BAN THEM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a tragic and horrific event and an I think of my two boys in elementary school.

But, we do not shave rights off from the U.S. Constitution because this is the emotion of the day.

It is exactly this wide spread and accepted practice of giving into emotion that has created these situations. Stop promoting this behavior by continuing to show those around us, when we suddenly see fit, is is ok to violate our laws (which is exactly what this 20 year old did.)

Stand up for our U.S. Constitution...

Murder is illegal....firearms are not!

This killing never should have started. It is the selfish gun owners who should realize the 2nd amendment has as its title for a Militia. If you are in the National Guard you maybe should own a gun, but the NRA , ( a terrorist group) is not to be listened to after this. Those of you who support them seem to be supporting a new terrorists group at home!

Dawgfan,

Please get a brain in your head!

I wonder how many little kids died as a direct result of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq we started and still continue. It is our own warmongering and a general culture of violence that is the problem, not guns. We spend more on 'defense' than the rest of the world combined and glorify the 'solutions' to the world problems that are based on violence and constant threats of force. You shall reap what you saw.

Nothing needs to be done to the 2nd Amendment. No bans on any weapon. I can take the restrictions on full-auto, but it's still legal to own them. What needs to be done is require every gun owner to have a safe that will keep their firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. I nearly all the shootings in the last 10 years the majority of firearms have been stolen. As was the case in the most recent event.

I'm a gun owner and take every precausion I can to protect them from the wrong people. That includes 3 1,200lb safes with biometric and numeric locks. They keep my firearms and ammo safe, and only my wife and I have access to them. They are also housed in a steel reinforced concrete room with a metal door and biometric and numeric lock. Not everyone has the money to do this, but I would say I'm the poster child of protecting my right to bear arms RESPONSIBLY.

Without getting into "my political party can beat up your political party" nonsense, here's one solution. Require gun owners to keep their guns locked up in a safe meeting certain standards. For example, it can't be keyed (too easy for somebody to "find" a key). Combination and/or biometric unlock mechanism only.

I have several guns for both hunting and home defense. I keep mine locked up though.

Marmaduke: No, most guns being created for the purpose of killing is a FACT not an opinion. That is the typical kind of fallacy that gun fanatics (not necessarily applying that label to you here) try to pass off to justify their (actual) opinions, and it seems you've bought in. The gun was invented to kill, PERIOD. The only other purpose it can be applied to basically involves simulated killing, or honing the skills that would be needed to kill. And YES I'm sure that stricter gun regulation will most likely lower gun violence. Maybe not violence as a whole, but surprise surprise, in most modern nations with strict gun controls, there are much lower rates of gun violence than we have in the United States. Imagine that...logical correlation!

Dawgfun: Unlike a gun, a hammer can still be used to help build or repair. A gun only shoots, unless you're using it in a wholly unintended manner. But hey, I guess since murders still happen, we should get rid of laws against murder, right? Since apparently 100 percent prevention is the only way we should ever even TRY to do something.

Clwyd,

Every citizen of the United States of America is part of the Militia. If our country comes under attack you are expected to defend it.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we
shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to
disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the
soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the
sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where
I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Dawg,

Oh please. Really? We're expected, as civilians to defend it, in this day in age? Why the hell do we spend so much on the DOD than??? Why even have a military? Because your hand guns and hunting rifles will be so effective against air forces, bombs, radar, spec ops... Take off the tricorn hat and let your brain breathe.

When those men said those things, an army of red coats could show up at your door with no warning and back up was weeks away, IF you could even get a message to them. Our central government/military was weak and we didn't have the greatest, most efficient armed forces the world has ever seen. We have planes THAT FLY THEMSELVES and you think YOU and your HAND GUN are going to be the deciding factor?

Just to prove a point.

In 2001, UK banned firearms ownership and gun crimes skyrocketed 90%.

Canada has a larger base of gun owners than America and yet has less violent crimes with firearms.

This is an individual accountablity issue.

For those calling private gun owners "terrorists" I respond, you sir are the domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution.

sumka

Every "civilized" society, that doesn't recoginize the importance of being vigilant to defend itself falls to those who understand they have lost the will to defend themselves.

These libs never miss an opportunity to use somebody's personal tragedy as an excuse to pimp their own political agenda. Connecticut had the toughest gun laws in the country, Norway had the toughest gun laws in all of Europe...'

Yet here the libs are looking to take guns out of the hands of their victims; and the bodies of this latest tragedy are not even in the ground.

@ Sarah

Your wrong that it was just because of the Red Coats.

The Second Amendment was also added as a protection against the U.S. Government itself incase it ever decided to ignore our Rights and begin a slide into a dictatorship.

We are accountable to the U.S. Constitution, not the to U.S. Government. It is this simple reversal of logic that makes you a liberal.

Sabot,

Then answer these questions for me...

Who are these representatives in our government that you need a gun to protect your liberty from? How are they planning on getting around our systems of checks and balances? Why are they out to destroy the very source of their power (as in the government)?. Are they planning on using our military against us? Why would the military be okay with that? If not, why wouldn't we use our military against them? If they did infiltrate our military, how would they go about it? How would they convince EVERY member? Why wouldn't the dissenters fight them? Why wouldn't we use our national guards? How do you think handguns would hold up to drones and Navy SEALS? Have you forgotten, WE elect these people? When they're not reelected, are they planning on chaining themselves to their desks? How would they still have power once we've elected someone else?

The GOVERNMENT is accountable to the U.S. Constitution. We are PROTECTED by it. THAT'S why this argument is stupid.

"How are they planning on getting around our systems of checks and balances?"

Judicial fiat; your weapon of choice - used to mandate the acceptance of abortions on demand and currently being used to pimp the pervert agenda; found nowhere in the Constitution and existing in opposition to the right of conscience and free exercise thereof.

Judicial fiat; your weapon of choice.

Because we don't have a legislative and executive branch? Tomorrow the SCOTUS can rule they are the supreme intergalactic emperors, and our military, legislators and executive powers would just say, "Sure". You've confused, "Not getting your way" with "Persecution".

PS. The judicial branch IS in the constitution, and so is the concept of their "interpreting the laws".

I believe the our constitution and government are inseparable - one can not exist without the other. The constitution is deliberately and necessarily vague - the framers and ratifiers of that great document were a contentious lot, disagreement was rife in the ranks. The constitution was a huge compromise. Whether it was intended or not the US Constitution has proved, in concert with the government it supports, to be remarkably adaptable.

The second amendment neither authorizes or prohibits certain types of arms. That is up to the government (of, by and for the people, remember) to decide.

Emotion is running high in the wake of last week's horrible events, and policy should not be based upon emotion. However, we Americans tend to have a distressingly short attention span and this atrocity will soon be largely forgotten by most of the country. We need to at least get started on real ways to prevent such an event's recurrence before it fades into yesterday's news.

Sarah,

Japan during WWII , said it was impossible to invade the US as there would be a gun behind every blade of grass. The second amendment is a good thing. Do you really expect that if guns were banned from private ownership, that the govt would stop with that? They already try to tell us that everyone should be provided contraception, or state govts telling people they can't have soft drinks bigger than 16oz. Would you really like to live with more restrictions? Without the 2nd Amendment there would be nothing stopping some one from imposing harsh restrictions on the mass. You talk about the military having planes and all that stuff, but would you really expect them as US citizens to follow every order? Don't you think that some of them would think for themselves and disregard an order and turn against the govt? Just look at Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria. Army personel are turning against the govt, and using those same military tools against the govt. Why should we even take a chance at that?

Dawg,

Japan during WWII , said it was impossible to invade the US as there would be a gun behind every blade of grass

And you find our military power, communications, transportation, and technology in WWII comparable to what we have now?

Do you really expect that if guns were banned from private ownership, that the govt would stop with that?

You've confused regulating with restricting.

They already try to tell us that everyone should be provided contraception

You've confused availability, with mandating everyone take something.

Without the 2nd Amendment there would be nothing stopping some one from imposing harsh restrictions on the mass

Except our system of checks and balances, our system of elections, the courts...

You talk about the military having planes and all that stuff, but would you really expect them as US citizens to follow every order? Don't you think that some of them would think for themselves and disregard an order and turn against the govt?

Sure they would, that's why you thinking that your hand gun would be the deciding factor is ridiculous.

You all WISH it was the guns that was the problem and the solution - banning them. But it is not. The problem is our own society and our own promotion of violence 24/7 - from entertainment industry (violence sells just as much as sex) to our foreign policy (the ever hungry monster of military industrial complex).

Just to prove a point.

In 2001, UK banned firearms ownership and gun crimes skyrocketed 90%.

yeah. Gun crimes went from like, say 20 incidents a year, all the way up to 35 incidents a year, which is a 90% increase. Meanwhile, we have roughly 12,000 incidents a year.

For all intents and purposes, the 90% increase is statistical noise because their gun crime rate is so ridiculously low compared to ours...

You all WISH it was the guns that was the problem and the solution - banning them. But it is not. The problem is our own society and our own promotion of violence 24/7 - from entertainment industry (violence sells just as much as sex) to our foreign policy (the ever hungry monster of military industrial complex).

I'm glad you mentioned our foreign policy. I'd say watching "Shock and Awe" in 2003 on CNN and Fox has far more to do with it than "Law and Order: SVU." We may have more violence in our entertain industry than several decades ago, but our foreign policy has done far more to desensitize our children to violence than movies and video games...

PS. The judicial branch IS in the constitution, and so is the concept of their "interpreting the laws".

And Thomas Jefferson thought so highly of them that he removed half for doing what you advocate for. The judicial branch is supposed to interpret law as intended; not rewrite it so as to better represent their personal ideology.

Or to quote ex-Jurist Walker: Sometimes you have to move the strike zone to get the answer you want

For those of you that are calling for an "assault weapons" ban, I realize that you do not understand this, but:

a) we already have one - it is called the Gun Control Act, and it was enacted in 1934. It prohibits the private ownership of fully automatic weapons, except under licensure by the federal govt. (very expensive, and requires VERY thorough background checks)

b) the weapons that were prohibited under the recently lapsed "gun control" laws were functionally absolutely NO DIFFERENT than many of the rifles used as 'sporting arms' that continued to be sold. They simply LOOKED menacing because of the STYLING of the gun. Otherwise, they were NOT assault weapons.

c)high capacity magazines are another story. While fun for shooting at the range, they have little practical value in the field.

d)all that said, neither "assault weapons" nor high capacity magazines were used in the Newtown shootings.

For those suggesting that hunters can "buy meat at the grocery store", that is a high-handed, bigoted response. I know a number of poor families that, for the cost of a 25.00 license fill their freezer with the meat that will sustain them through the coming year. SURPRISE Not everyone can afford $4.00 and up / lb for even the cheapest cuts of beef.

What really needs to be done is to take steps to make our schools safer. Better security at the door for one, and 2) we need to get rid of the "gun free zone" that designates these places as "easy targets" for nut-cases. Allow the faculty to arm themselves. They are allowed to do so off-campus, why should they become easy targets at work ? While this may not be the answer at inner city schools where the presence of a firearm might invite a bunch of young hoodlums to overpower the teacher, a liason officer or two in the building might be a bettr answer there.

Gun shows and private sales should not be exempted from background checks, period. Although, once again, that would not have prevented this tragedy.

Lastly, persons with anti-social / sociopathic mental issues probably should be institutionalized. This was often the case until, as a nation, we largely shut down most of the mental health facilities opting instead to medicate and trust that these people would actually TAKE their medications as prescribed and that the medications would actually be effective. You can thank Reagan, and probably a combination of the powerful Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical lobbies for that one (medication is cheaper and more profitable than either institutions OR intemnsive therapy).

Sarah

Japan in WW II had no intention of invading the US. Why? Too many guns in citizens hands.

During the Cold War with the Soviet Union never had any intention to invade us. Why? Guns. What did they choose as a their weapon? Psych-ops. They found people who want themselves to be seen as intellects can be fooled easier than common people. They instead worked on getting the news media and into the universities as professors and feeding the intelligencia intellecutally, solid sounding, false concepts such as being too strong creates war and there is no place in civil society for guns.

How can we do this. Go find a naturalized American who is a former KGB agent under Nikita Kruchev.

Sarah, you and many others have been duped.

; not rewrite it so as to better represent their personal ideology.

Pot, meet kettle. Again, you've confused "Not getting your away" with "Incorrectly interpreting laws". You may have a point, if you could even remotely, legally defend any of your positions. But we all know how badly that goes for you, when you attempt it.

Obama offered no specifics as to what type action he might take or legislation he might seek to address these incidences of violence.

He never does.

A top Senate Democrat said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that she would introduce legislation on the first day of the new Congress next year to re-institute a ban on assault weapons, something which Obama has previously endorsed but not actively sought.

When will we stop thinking that the idiots in Washington can solve every one of our problems with their political posturing and playing on people's emotions? There was nothing that could have been done about this tragedy given the strong civil liberties laws enacted in response to the mental health treatment abuses in the 1950s. Revisiting these laws might be a good start. Reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban will do nothing to prevent further attacks. Most people don't even know what it is. All it does is ban the import and manufacture of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We have more guns than people in the US. There are very bad and evil people out there who will find a way to hurt and kill regardless of the method or tool. What we need to do is try to identify these individuals before they attack. In failing that we need to be able to protect ourselves and our families.

@ Sarah

Surely checks and balances will hold this pretend internal enemy in place. Unless the enemy is an ideal that is completely contrary to the U.S. Constitution and our rights. Then the enemy would have to find a manner that is so slow at eroding our rights that the average American becomes completely complacent. Using tactics like promoting a completely emotional response to situations to push further erosion of rights. The proverbial frog on a hot plate.

Who indeed?

Should we have taken Casey Anthonys rights away because virtually the entire country was in agreement she killed her child? No...our rights are not subject to your emotions Sarah.

P.S. Arguing our militarys strength, while you liberals cry for continued defunding of our military past the point that our Generals have stated will be almost impossible to protect our interests, is laughable.

Coincidence or by accident.

Nearly all school shootings end by the shooters killing themselves, as authorities with guns are closing in?

Glenn-

What does make children safe then? This is the question that should be asked, but for some reason is not being asked nor pursued. To answer this question, let’s first look at how protection is privided to those that are deemed by the management of our society to be so valuable that protection must be provided. The president, all members of congress, federal judges, virtually all airports, employees at most
government office buildings, state and local offices of high ranking elected and appointed individuals, etc. are all protected by hardening the target. This is done with defensive deterrent measures such as traffic barriers, bullet proof glass, limited accessibility, guards and metal detectors at entrances, etc.. Protection is then enhanced with counter measures such as snipers, and other lethal reactionary forces should the
barriers prove insufficient.

My question is why are these people so protected more precious than our children? To me, politicians
are far more expendable than children, so why do we protect politicians and other government office holders and not protect our children? Again, this is the question that should be debated. Not whether or not we should ban some type of gun. Why do taxpayers allow their money to be spent to protect politicians and the like, and yet no protection is provided to children of the parents that are providing the very money that is protecting the politicians? I’ll concede that we need to protect our government leaders, but I will not concede that we do not need to protect our children. That is where I draw the line. This is where we have a bad priority set by those being protected that is leaving our children so unprotected. To me, this is inexcusable.

Very well said Sir. I was going to say something similar.

Everyone just assumes that because President Obama is a Democrat that he's going to automatically go for more gun control (they're probably correct BUT) let's play devil's advocate what if he has this plan?

3 of our area schools had 9 bomb threats in 8 days, they closed down all the schools last week, so they could investigate AND come up with another contingency plan, they came up with something they just haven't told us what it is yet, I'm going to assume we now have more police patrolling our campuses and kids will now be searched going into school. Each of our campuses already has 2 police officers patrolling during school hours (one male one female) yes we still have idiots that are calling in false bomb threats (at 22 thousand dollars a pop mind you) but we have very little actual problems on school grounds.

Maybe this is the way to go?

DB,

The USSR never invaded us because of mutually assured destruction. They weren't thinking "hand guns" they were thinking "nukes". And, by the way, they lost.

Sabot,

You didn't answer a single question. Try again...

Who are these representatives in our government that you need a gun to protect your liberty from? How are they planning on getting around our systems of checks and balances? Why are they out to destroy the very source of their power (as in the government)?. Are they planning on using our military against us? Why would the military be okay with that? If not, why wouldn't we use our military against them? If they did infiltrate our military, how would they go about it? How would they convince EVERY member? Why wouldn't the dissenters fight them? Why wouldn't we use our national guards? How do you think handguns would hold up to drones and Navy SEALS? Have you forgotten, WE elect these people? When they're not reelected, are they planning on chaining themselves to their desks? How would they still have power once we've elected someone else?

Sarah,

You've confused regulating with restricting.

They already try to tell us that everyone should be provided contraception

You've confused availability, with mandating everyone take something.

Without the 2nd Amendment there would be nothing stopping some one from imposing harsh restrictions on the mass

Except our system of checks and balances.

You talk about the military having planes and all that stuff, but would you really expect them as US citizens to follow every order? Don't you think that some of them would think for themselves and disregard an order and turn against the govt?

Sure they would, that's why you thinking that your hand gun would be the deciding factor is ridiculous.

First off, regulating that people even offering contraception is against the religious freedoms protected under the FIRST AMENDMENT. We will see where that plays out in court, but generally has sided with the organizaiton's view of religious freedom.

Second, Checks and balances? Are you forgetting that Obama went around Congress and the Senate and issued an executive order allowing ILLEGAL ALIENS to STAY IN THIS COUNTRY? How about him ordering the DOJ to stop charging and deporting illegals, eventhough it states in our Constitution that the govt has a duty to arrest and deport illegals?

Third, I never said my handgun would be a deciding factor, nor did I say my M107, M1919, or anyone of my other firearms including my flint locks would be, but in masses it is a great deterent, and a freedom which I enjoy. I have a right to defend myself from threats. THAT INCLUDES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

First off, regulating that people even offering contraception is against the religious freedoms protected under the FIRST AMENDMENT. We will see where that plays out in court, but generally has sided with the organizaiton's view of religious freedom.

Second, Checks and balances? Are you forgetting that Obama went around Congress and the Senate and issued an executive order allowing ILLEGAL ALIENS to STAY IN THIS COUNTRY? How about him ordering the DOJ to stop charging and deporting illegals, eventhough it states in our Constitution that the govt has a duty to arrest and deport illegals?

And you got the chance to NOT vote for him didn't you. And his actions are checked by the two other branches, one of which you can vote for delegates who will oppose and fight his decisions. And his term will be over in 2016. Just like Randy, you're confusing "Not getting your way" with "Tyranny".

Third, I never said my handgun would be a deciding factor, nor did I say my M107, M1919, or anyone of my other firearms including my flint locks would be, but in masses it is a great deterent, and a freedom which I enjoy. I have a right to defend myself from threats. THAT INCLUDES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Sure, and regulating guns better won't stop you from your "Flag pin, tricorn hat wearing, freedom fighter" fantasy. Seeing as, if you're as responsible and sane you claim, you'd still get to own them.

It's too late to clean up the guns out of america. It's never going to happen. The best way to curb psychos from snapping like this is to clean up the corruption and raise the quality of life in this country and create a thriving middle class. When psychos have nothing to lose and no way out that's when they come out of the wood work.

@ Sarah

I did answer it.

You just didnt want to see yourself as part and parcel to the answer.

P.S. Again.

Should these dangerous individuals not exist now...you don't wait until it happens to get your firearms. Its too damn late then.

I don't have to name names. I only have to resist poeple like you who are the enemies of our Constitutional rights.

Gun control is not the answer, it just a stupid excuse. There are so many more cultural issues, healthcare issues (i.e. mental health), education issues (these shooters tend to be young), etc. that are factors in causing these types of mass killings.

And I'm no supporter of guns...I believe assault weapons should be banned, and I'd love to see a very expensive tax on all ammunitions that are not used for hunting or are not purchased and used at gun ranges.

But it doesn't matter how much money you spend to regulate guns....killers like Lanza will always be able to obtain a gun if he really wanted to. In Canada, it's the same thing. Guns are highly regulated, but if someone really wanted a gun, it's no harder to obtain than it is to get some marijuana.

Gun control is an example of stupid politics, where neither side will budge an inch and the process will be enormously expensive, for very little and certainly unproven improvements.

Lorielle,

The real question is why do young men behave in this manner? Why now and not 40 years ago?

I think you answered your own question. These individuals are not men. They are children in grown-up bodies. We, as a society, are raising a bunch of immature sociopaths. 40 years ago we still had the nuclear family. 40 years ago the father taught their boys what it meant to be a man. Chivalry, responsibility, et al.

Sabot,

Nope, you didn't answer a single one. Here you go...

Who are these representatives in our government that you need a gun to protect your liberty from?

How are they planning on getting around our systems of checks and balances?

Why are they out to destroy the very source of their power (as in the government)?.

Are they planning on using our military against us?

Why would the military be okay with that?

If not, why wouldn't we use our military against them?

If they did infiltrate our military, how would they go about it?

How would they convince EVERY member?

Why wouldn't the dissenters fight them?

Why wouldn't we use our national guards?

How do you think handguns would hold up to drones and Navy SEALS?

Have you forgotten, WE elect these people?

When they're not reelected, are they planning on chaining themselves to their desks?

How would they still have power once we've elected someone else?

If the threat is that insidious, that we can't even improve gun regulation (not restriction) without risking our freedom, you should be able to copy and paste each question, while providing a specific answer underneath. Cryptic conspiracy theories aren't answers.

Thousands of people are dying each year, RIGHT NOW, as in that's a FACT, not a maybe that you can't even substantiate with a single specific.

Pigotry

You do have a point. But do you also know that many GOP-controlled states have cut many services in the name of fiscal health? Among those services cut is mental health - institutions, personnel, and other related things. Some conservatives say family can do best in taking care of those mentally ill. But obviously, Nancy Lanza failed!!! Some others can fail ...in the future ...too.

She didn't fail all by herself, we as a society failed, our Government failed when they cut the programs that could have given her the help she so desperately needed. Like Glenn said, If we can bail out banks we can damn well afford to bail out the mental health programs.

@ Sarah

The USSR never invaded us because of mutually assured destruction.

Interesting you find that logical on a national level. But, at the private level, in your house, in your room, a would be intruder wouldnt think about the possible mutually assured destruction of invading a house with a firearm.

Your absurd.

P.S. As per your questions, perhaps you should ask our forefathers..I didnt make the laws.

Sarah,

During WWII we were still developing the A-Bomb. That was not a known threat to the Soviets then, but American's right to firearms was known. The Soviets knew there was a new technology surrounding a fission type weapon, but a practical application had not been invented yet. The time span we are talking about is 1939 with the creation of the Manhattan Project in to dropping of Little Boy on Hiroshima August 6, 1945.

Sabot,

Interesting you find that logical on a national level. But, at the private level, in your house, in your room, a would be intruder wouldnt think about the possible mutually assured destruction of invading a house with a firearm.

Can you quote where I said anything about personal home defense in regards to gun ownership? Quote where I ever said someone doesn't have the right to keep a gun to protect their home.

But, now that you said that, since the U.S. has the highest level of personal gun ownership, why DO people still break into homes? The very fact that people feel the need to keep them, in order to deter crime, implies that crime itself is still rampant and they aren't deterrents.

@ Sarah

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

Sarah, nothing is a 100% deterrent against the willing.

Sarah,

What new law, regulation or restriction, short of outright banning of all guns, would have stopped any of these tragedies?

Dawg,

During WWII we were still developing the A-Bomb. That was not a known threat to the Soviets then, but American's right to firearms was known. The Soviets knew there was a new technology surrounding a fission type weapon, but a practical application had not been invented yet. The time span we are talking about is 1939 with the creation of the Manhattan Project in to dropping of Little Boy on Hiroshima August 6, 1945

Yes, and we still had an air force, bombs, submarines, a military... You've watched Red Dawn one too many times. The soviets didn't invade us prior to WWII and the bomb, for the same reason we didn't invade them. It was a clash of ideology, where both sides felt the need to protect themselves, and not necessarily the malicious aggression to invade the other .

Glenn, you provide a strong and thoughtful argument with many good points. However you sidestep a logical part of the thought process. Your point is valid that people can cause attrocities with any manner of weapon, from a box cutter to an aircraft. No doubt and no one, logically speaking, would suggest those things be banned. Here is where you logic trips up. What we need to do is make it harder to carry out those acts. We beef up security (for my money its mostly for show) at airports and secure the cockpit. The logical step is not to BAN guns in total, the logical step is to remove assualt weapons from the easy access to the civilian population. A rifle, a shotgun, perhaps even a handgun, they have a logical and functional place in society, when used correctly. A machine gun/assualt rifle/rocket launcher/flame thrower...these do not. They are designed for one thing and one thing only: maximizing casulaties. Thats it, there is no other point to them. As a gun owner I want to own my gun and I would never turn it on anyone but someone entering my house in the middle of the night. But we are a nation that supposedly draws it laws from the people, as a democracy. We need to negotiate and navigate levels of acceptability. Simply saying that the 2nd ammendment says we have guns so go away is not a solution. What about life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

So here is the problem, if we allow assualt rifles in society, it is only a matter of time until the next mentally stable person accumulates a small arsenal and goes out to kill 5-100 people. Its going to happen, assault rifles or not. No one disputes that. We can try to look for warning signs, be more vigilant, etc, but it will happen. It is a fact of human nature as sad as that may be. But if that person cannot easily obtain the type of weaponry used in almost all of these massacres, the death tolls will drop a great deal. You won't get far in a crowded mall with a six shot pump action .22 shotgun because it is to cumbersome and clunky for slaughtering large numbers of people in seconds. You make access to planes for difficult and you tell people they may not use certain things at certain times. To make the argument that not allowing assualt weapons to anyone who wants them is somehow a slippery slope to a dictatorship is nuts. It is an acedemic argument that fails because it does not also consider that we as humans need to walk the fine line between common sense rules and restrictions and personal liberties if we are all to live together and give everyone the greatest chance at life liberty and happiness.

Sabot, this goes way beyond individual accountability. True, Canada has a larger percentage of its population owning guns, yet they have less violent crime and gun homicides because they have tough laws. They have fewer gun accidents, because they require, and as a culture insist upon, people with guns be well trained in the care of those guns. Here in the US it is far different. Any long gun doesn't need a permit, nor are there any requirements beyond a few cursory actions for someone to get a gun permit (presuming that they even bother to obtain one, as the 500 Gun Shows a year and private sales don't bother to check to see if the buyer even has one).

Since so many in the gun culture use the "why, then don't we ban cars?" false argument, let's look at what it requires to buy and own an auto:

1) You need a valid driver's license, which can only be obtained after passing two tests, the practical and the written.

2) You must register the auto every one-two years, and it must have at least one two in some States) visible license plate(s).

3) Every auto has a VIN number located in many places on the auto that is registered and can be tracked by law enforcement. Tampering or removing any of those places with a VIN number is a crime.

4) Many places require you to have the auto inspected to make sure it meets a certain quality and driving level before it can be re-registered.

5) Every State requires the owner and the driver if separate people) to carry liability and damage insurance.

6) Private sales still require the old owner and the new owner to give their State's DMV records showing the sale and change of ownership.

This is every auto out there, and yes, some will drive illegally, and most of them get arrested at some point.

Contrast that with gun ownership:

1) Long guns, such as shotguns and rifles (the main weapon used in this killing was a rifle) do not require any permit or safety training.

2) Once you apply for and receive a permit, you may purchase any number of handguns, limited only buy a State's or City's daily purchase limit (many have none).

3) Once you pass a three day waiting period, which is supposed to run a background check (many don't bother to run it or if they do, don't check it), your handgun is yours and you never again need to go through the permit or registration again.

4) Ammo may be purchased in any amount the buyer wants if he/she has the money.

5) Private and Gun Show sales are either never, or only marginally, regulated, meaning if you want a gun, you can buy one, permit or not, sales records being haphazard and any documentation of the real identity of the buyer is easily subverted by rampant use of false identities (and still the NRA doesn't want these sales regulated).

And these are just the obvious and easily checked facts. Autos can kill, but they are well regulated, and while some may drive illegally, the autos themselves can be tracked. Ownership of a gun is far harder to track, especially after a private sale or theft (and that happens when those guns are not kept locked up in a large, heavy and well made gun safe).

Now in this case, the mother was a gun "enthusiast", who owned her guns legally, and who taught her sons to shoot. She obviously allowed them to have access, or at least didn't store them in such a way that her mentally ill son couldn't get to them. He got the guns and shot her multiple times. He then went to where she taught (a school he attended) and killed 20 children all between age 6 and 7, plus 6 adults and only then killed himself. As a collector and "enthusiast" his mother should have known to keep those guns out of a mentally ill son's hands, but so far it looks like he had an easy access to them, as no word of a broken safe or other safe guards were found. We may yet hear there were, but obviously, they were too little to prevent him from getting to the guns and killing his mother before she could react. An easily bypassed gun safe is the same as having no gun safe at all.

Now for years we've heard from the NRA that "Guns don't kill people, people do". Yet they fail to ever mention that people with guns are likely to kill more people if their intent is to do harm. At least three guns were brought with the killer from his mother's home, 2 9mm handguns and a .223 assault rifle. The police said they found at least three more guns, but haven't said where they found them. This killer intended to do as much carnage as possible, and he did just that. Yes, he was mentally ill, but we, as a society stigmatize that and would rather believe it doesn't exist, so funding is cut to treat such people, all while we also ignore the ease by which this ill people can get their hands on killing tools.

As a society, not just individuals, we must change all of this; a gun culture and a culture that turns its back on people who need help with mental illness. Individual responsibility won't solve this problem. In fact it can't. Only when we address both issue by regulating the sale and ownership of guns to at least the same extent as we do autos, and we stop cutting funding for the mentally ill, will we be able to reduce both these mass killings and homicides (including suicides). That requires the community, the country, as a whole.

As the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment, which makes it the law of the land (for now) people may own guns, but it is hardly a burden upon them to have to register all guns owned and carry insurance on them, along with having to renew gun permits and registration. They can still buy their guns. Ultimately I believe the 2nd amendment needs to be fixed to properly read that only a well regulated militia (Law Enforcement, National Guard and the various Military branches) can own guns, but that will take years and a maturity not yet found in the US.

Until then, close loopholes such as with gun show and private sales, and make registration and permits renewable every two years, and all guns, long and hand, should require said registration and insurance. Anyone who owns a gun and lets their permit and/or registration lapse will need to either turn in the gun(s) or fill out an affidavit attesting to no longer owning any guns, and provide the sales documentation. Sane, simple, and reasonable. Now as a suggestion to any Insurance company out there, if you are going to offer gun insurance, make sure you require the policy holder to have both a very good, to-large-to move gun safe and an alarm system before you will underwrite such a policy. You'll pay out on fewer claims this way, and it will make the public at large safer.

For anyone who violates these new laws (and fixed old ones), make the penalty stiff, especially if any gun is used in the commission of a crime. Tack on a 50 year mandatory sentence, without possibility of parole or shortening for "good behavior", and the convicted felon must serve that 50 years before any other sentencing years are served; so a violent assault and robbery in which the convict is sentenced today to 20 years, would under the new law have to serve 50 years + the 30 years, and only once the 20 years has started can he/she be considered for any parole (the prior 50 years don't work in the person's favor, though they can work against them if they were violent during those years). Maybe not the best solution, but one that will act as more of a deterrent than the death penalty has proven.

Oh, Sarah, the US did invade the Soviet Union between 1918 and 1924. Few people know this, but Wilson sent an expeditionary force and we took control of the port cities of Archangel and Vladivostok, as well as most of the Trans-Siberian RR. The Soviets and the Russians haven't forgotten this fact. 52 US soldiers died in that invasion, and are buried in a military cemetery in or near Chicago. An unknown, but larger, number of Russians in both the Red Army (Communists) and the Green Army (Anarchists) died fighting us.

@ Sarah

13,000 Americans die a year due to drinking and driving. Completely avoidable and intentionally undertaken by the driver. It's essentially third degree murder.

Should we outlaw alcohol again?

Should we outlaw cars?

13,000 drinking and driving related deaths each year, RIGHT NOW, as in that's a FACT.

GUNS ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN

All of the "well we can't do anything about it so leave our guns alone" arguments fail.

You either put children first in this or guns......choose.

Sarah,

Sabot,

Interesting you find that logical on a national level. But, at the private level, in your house, in your room, a would be intruder wouldnt think about the possible mutually assured destruction of invading a house with a firearm.

Can you quote where I said anything about personal home defense in regards to gun ownership? Quote where I ever said someone doesn't have the right to keep a gun to protect their home.

But, now that you said that, since the U.S. has the highest level of personal gun ownership, why DO people still break into homes? The very fact that people feel the need to keep them, in order to deter crime, implies that crime itself is still rampant and they aren't deterrents.

Your suggestion on gun control makes it out to sound like you don't want anyone having firearms. Firearms are a defensive weapon, and that was the basis of their creation. Crime doesn't always happen inside the home. That is why we are able to carry concealed weapons. I would be either severly handicapped or dead if I didn't carry my firearm. I was the target of an attempted robbery and carjacking a little over a year ago. I was leaving my local mall after buying an Ipad, and approaching my car when I saw a young man approaching me from behing in the window reflection. He had a brick in his hand and was about to hit me over the head with it. Had I not been armed I would have been seriously hurt or dead. That guy is in prison for 15 years because of his crime and his long list of crimes he was on parole for. You never know where a crime will take place and it's better to be prepared than to be a victim.

1. Bottom line is that Mothers, woman and other concerned citizens are a far more powerful voting block than the stupid NRA. Put that power to use. Stop the madness of a GUN CULTURE that the NRA has given us!!!
2. And don't give us this crap about mental illness or that it's a problem with people. NO, people have PROBLEMS and making it easy for them (especially men and boys) to act out their revenge, aggressiveness, evil is just plain WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. Most people don't have any problem with someone owning 1 rifle for hunting or 1 handgun at home for protection. It's the rest of the CRAZY crap we can thank the NRA for - magazine clips suitable for killing 100 people (kids! ..babies..) in a matter of minutes, stockpiling weapons, supporting weapons on college campuses and open places, etc, etc.
   

Sabot,

And we're right back to the beginning...

We're expected, as civilians to defend it, in this day in age? Why the hell do we spend so much on the DOD than??? Why even have a military? Because your hand guns and hunting rifles will be so effective against air forces, bombs, radar, spec ops... Take off the tricorn hat and let your brain breathe.

When those men said those things, an army of red coats could show up at your door with no warning and back up was weeks away, IF you could even get a message to them. Our central government/military was weak and we didn't have the greatest, most efficient armed forces the world has ever seen. We have planes THAT FLY THEMSELVES and you think YOU and your HAND GUN are going to be the deciding factor?

We DO highly regulate alcohol and we DO outlaw drunk driving? Since we can't stop ALL drunk drivers, should we NOT do that?

Six,

This is what I'd start with...

A national data base, tracking inter and intra state gun purchases and ammo purchases.

Yearly registration of all privately owned guns, just like we do with our cars.

Legal penalties for inappropriate storage, and consequences for those who fail to keep their legally owned guns out of the hands of the wrong people. Set this up as an affirmative defense. You want to get out of the consequences of someone misusing your weapon, show us that you did everything in your power to keep that from happening. If you can, you're free to go.

ALL gun show loop holes are closed. Background checks for every person, on every purchase.

During initial purchase and registration, a test is given on basic usage, self defense law, gun law and psychology. Do this every five years, just like with a car.

NONE of that, would stop a single, responsible, sane gun owner from owning a gun. And yes, it won't stop ALL gun violence and people will come up with other ways, but we don't legalize or deregulate EVERYTHING because we can't stop ALL crime and ALL criminals with a SINGLE law, right? People are still killed by drunk drivers, but we don't deregulate alcohol because we can't stop ALL drunk driving...

@ Celtic Pagan

I agree with insuring our gun owners are proficient and versed in legal laws over firearms ownership.

This does not constitute restricting the owner from aquiring or owning.

This however will not prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook, just as licensing car drivers does not prevent the misuse of vehicles...i.e. drinking and driving or movie stars driving their cars into crowd.

@ Sarah

We're expected, as civilians to defend it, in this day in age?

You are not expected to do anything. You are given the right to defend yourself.

The entire Bill of Rights is protections against the Government. I'm not so sure why it so difficult for you to swallow the 2nd Amendment is.

Do you think the 3rd Amendment is against quartering other countries troops in your home?

Sarah,

Your suggestion on tracking and requiring registration is an infringement upon my rights to keep and bear arms. Most murders are the result of arguments. Should we impose restrictions and regulations on free speech because it clearly causes people to die? A car is a privilege not a right. That is why there are so many test and requirements to own and operate one on public roads.

Please tell me how any of your suggestions would have stopped this latest event from happening? The 20 year old shooter was not the owner or purchaser of any of the weapons used. We don't know if the lady had a safe or not. We don't know if the kid was given access to the safe if she did have one in case of an emergency. We don't know that. But we do know he was not the registered owner to them and that makes the firearms stolen. Which is already illegal, as with possession of a firearm on school property, discharging a firearm on school property, possession of a firearm while in commission of a felony, murder, attempeted murder, destruction of school property, possession of stolen property, but even with all those laws that are suppose to prevent crime did nothing to stop it. No amount of laws will prevent someone from killing another person.

Isn't something like this the fault of the person who did it, not the particular weapon/tool he used? Couldn't he have accomplished the same thing with a bow & arrows? Or the right mixture of the right ingredients (bomb)? If this was what he really was absolutely determined to do, I'm not sure that not having guns in the house really would have prevented it. I wish that were true, but I fear that the mind is often a much more dangerous thing than a gun.....

You are given the right to.

And I'm not advocating taking that right away. Regulation doesn't equal restriction. And when that right infringes on the rights of others, i.e. the right to life, liberty and property, as it did with these children and the other thousands guns kill each year, the government ALSO has the right to BALANCE those rights.

Sarah-3043284

Who are these representatives in our government that you need a gun to protect your liberty from? How are they planning on getting around our systems of checks and balances? Why are they out to destroy the very source of their power (as in the government)?. Are they planning on using our military against us? Why would the military be okay with that? If not, why wouldn't we use our military against them? If they did infiltrate our military, how would they go about it? How would they convince EVERY member? Why wouldn't the dissenters fight them? Why wouldn't we use our national guards? How do you think handguns would hold up to drones and Navy SEALS? Have you forgotten, WE elect these people? When they're not reelected, are they planning on chaining themselves to their desks? How would they still have power once we've elected someone else?

No one... But the operative word is YET. That's kind of the point though. All of this is in place so that they can't even TRY. Try looking at it as "preemptive"

My husband and I have had the "what if" conversation, he says that 90 +% of our military would lay their weapons down and/or turn them against the Government and fight side by side with the American people.

Dawg,

Your suggestion on tracking and requiring registration is an infringement upon my rights to keep and bear arms.

How would that stop you from purchasing or owning a gun?

Most murders are the result of arguments. Should we impose restrictions and regulations on free speech because it clearly causes people to die?

Straw man. The argument per se and the speech that comes from it is INCAPABLE of killing. The gun people use IS.

If arguments lead to murder with a knife, or a bat, or via bare hands, should the government restrict free speech?

Please tell me how any of your suggestions would have stopped this latest event from happening?

You must have missed this part...

NONE of that, would stop a single, responsible, sane gun owner from owning a gun. And yes, it won't stop ALL gun violence and people will come up with other ways, but we don't legalize or deregulate EVERYTHING because we can't stop ALL crime and ALL criminals with a SINGLE law, right? People are still killed by drunk drivers, but we don't deregulate alcohol because we can't stop ALL drunk driving...

If Adam Lanza had been locked up in a mental institution then killings would not have occurred. May be we need to get back to locking up the dangerous crazy people?

May be the solution is to lockup Micheal before he can kill like Adam did?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

Someone name one thing that is banned in this country, that you can't get. Drugs? Child porn? Cuban cigars? It is quicker and easier to get an illegal gun, than it is a legal one. All a ban on anything ever accomplishes, is to give criminals another way to make money. Most assault rifles were banned in California in 1989. They just forgot to tell the gang bangers and the guys from the North Hollywood shootout.

If you think the bad guys are going to give up their toys, forget it. In Waco, it cost the lives of 86 people, when the government tried to disarm a "church group". When they go to disarm the L.A. gangs, it will make Afghanistan look like a block party.

1stSerg,

But that doesn't address any of those questions. For that argument to be seriously logical, those questions could be answered. It's cryptic at best. And most definitely outdated. Plus, regulation is not restriction, and there is a societal interest in better regulations.

@ Sarah

The entire Bill of Rights is protections against the U.S. Government. I'm not so sure why it so difficult for you to swallow the 2nd Amendment is.

Do you think the 3rd Amendment is against quartering other countries troops in your home?

Celtic-

And these are just the obvious and easily checked facts. Autos can kill, but they are well regulated, and while some may drive illegally, the autos themselves can be tracked. Ownership of a gun is far harder to track, especially after a private sale or theft (and that happens when those guns are not kept locked up in a large, heavy and well made gun safe).

You have made valid points, but the counterpoint I must bring up is this....

What if it's stolen? Most of the guns that have been used in these mass shooting lately have been stolen, so it's traceable back to the owner yes, but what good is it when it's a stolen gun (or stolen car?)

haggisbingo-2225582

1. Bottom line is that Mothers, woman and other concerned citizens are a far more powerful voting block than the stupid NRA. Put that power to use. Stop the madness of a GUN CULTURE that the NRA has given us!!!
2. And don't give us this crap about mental illness or that it's a problem with people. NO, people have PROBLEMS and making it easy for them (especially men and boys) to act out their revenge, aggressiveness, evil is just plain WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3. Most people don't have any problem with someone owning 1 rifle for hunting or 1 handgun at home for protection. It's the rest of the CRAZY crap we can thank the NRA for - magazine clips suitable for killing 100 people (kids! ..babies..) in a matter of minutes, stockpiling weapons, supporting weapons on college campuses and open places, etc, etc.

I'm a mom, my daughter and I have SIX guns between us, we're competition shooters, we're VERY good. Neither one of us have ever considered killing kids.

Sabot,

I'm not advocating for repealing the 2nd Amendment. But using "protection from our government" as a simplistic answer, while being incapable of answering any specific questions in regards to it, failing to look at it in a historical context, society has an interest in regulating the right and no one is advocating restricting the right, is illogical.

I have to go study. Later everyone...

I have an alarm system on my home. From the time I get to the keypad and push the alarm buttons (assuming the phone line isn't cut or the wireless system isn't jambed) the police will be at my door in 2 minutes 30 seconds.

That time is only if they are not busy with other calls and are close....and if you use the panic or ambush alarms. Police have priorities, and unfortunately, commercial alarms trump residential alarms of the same type. If your burglar alarm is going off and there is an alarm going off in a business, you're going to wait till the police can get to you.

Alarm responses have an order of priority. Ambush, panic then burglary...with commercial alarms of the same type having priority over residential.

....brought to you by someone with over 20 years experience in the alarm industry.

Sarah-

We DO highly regulate alcohol and we DO outlaw drunk driving? Since we can't stop ALL drunk drivers, should we NOT do that?

We also outlaw murder. Human beings have been killing eachother since the beginning of time, either intentionally or unintentionally. I think you answered your own question.

Sarah,

I didn't miss anything. Please enlighten us how any amount of registering, tracking or punishments against the owner for not keeping the firearms safe would have prevented this from happening? Tracking won't work, because people drive by schools every day with a firearm every day and it's not against the law. I do it daily. Registering a weapon doesn't do much good. Take a look at Canada's registration process and see what a waste of money it is. Besides, the 20 yr old stole the guns, and how are you going to punish the registered owner when she's dead? Those are just worthless laws on top the the 30,000 laws we already have. There are roughly 306,000,000 million firearms in this country. How many do you think would be given up or taken in to have a tracking device installed? How many criminals do you think would do that? Wouldn't that amount to an invasion of our privacy? Illegal search? You have to take every other Constitutional right into account before throwing out some of those ideas. I would be willing to make people buy a biometric and numeric safe as a condition, but tracking and registering is an infringement on EVERYONE'S Constitutional rights.

@1SGFitzsWife4ID

I'm a mom, my daughter and I have SIX guns between us, we're competition shooters, we're VERY good. Neither one of us have ever considered killing kids.

Hey I'm sure Lanza's mother didn't either.....

1stSerg,

Right, the answer is NO we shouldn't stop regulating alcohol because we can't stop all drunk driving. Just like NO we shouldn't discount increasing regulations on guns because we can't stop ALL gun violence.

@ 1SGFitzWife

Good to see you out today hitting grand slams.

Once more into the fray. Into the last good fight I'll ever know.

@ Haggisbingo

Hey I'm sure Lanza's mother didn't either.....

Then lets make murder illegal then Lanza would have to have complied.

Dawg,

Tracking won't work, because people drive by schools every day with a firearm every day and it's not against the law.

I'm not talking tracking devices, I'm talking keeping track of who's purchasing what and where they're purchasing it, so if someone's building themselves an armory we can flag it and investigate. If you're building an armory, legally, sanely and responsibly, than you'll be cleared. If you aren't you'll be caught.

Please enlighten us how any amount of registering, tracking or punishments against the owner for not keeping the firearms safe would have prevented this from happening?

Because maybe this mother, knowing she had an unstable son would've been more precautious. Maybe the people the Clackamas shooter stole his gun from would have had it locked up better... See, they could still own them, ergo no rights infringement.

Registering a weapon doesn't do much good

So, because we can't stop it all, we shouldn't stop any?

Sarah-3043284

1stSerg,

But that doesn't address any of those questions. For that argument to be seriously logical, those questions could be answered. It's cryptic at best. And most definitely outdated. Plus, regulation is not restriction, and there is a societal interest in better regulations.

It addresses every one of those questions, it's the whole point of the 2nd ammendment, I see where you're coming from in the sense of that was then and this is now, and I agree with you that regulation is not restriction, we have regulations already in place, but they don't stop crazy people.

I live in Texas we're one of the states that pretty much "has a gun behind every blade of grass" but every single one of the ones I own (even the ones bought at gun shows) I had to fill out paperwork for, I had to wait around for them to call whoever it is they call and run a check on me.

It's not a societal interest, it's a knee-jerk reaction to a horrible tradgedy.

haggisbingo-2225582

@1SGFitzsWife4ID

I'm a mom, my daughter and I have SIX guns between us, we're competition shooters, we're VERY good. Neither one of us have ever considered killing kids.

Hey I'm sure Lanza's mother didn't either.....

She didn't kill anyone, blaming a dead person is very wrong, she's just as much of a victim as those precious children and the other adults who died trying to protect them.

Is First Read going to argue its way into no action again?

I'd put my money on it.

There's people who make sense about solving problems with these shootings on both sides of the aisle. But apparently they are 'the enemy.'

You know, when Osama Bin Laden was killed, I personally wasn't stupid enough to care who was President when it happened. I gave him credit. And if it has been Bush, I would have given him credit too.

So, do I absolutely have faith that the people who can't bring themselves to thank the President, regardless of which party he came from, for killing our most wanted enemy in the new millenium will not be useful in coming up with answers for the current crisis?

Yep, I have pure faith that one party voters need someone else to come along and sort their good ideas out for them.

But good on you First Read! I love how you try to use a tragedy to advance your personal one party agendas!

Very good conversation today y'all, it's nice to be able to debate without all the name calling, Sarah as always it's good to see you (you don't know it and I promise I'm not a stalker I just think you're a very intelligent witty person and even though I rarely agree with you I do look forward to seeing your posts)

Sabot my friend good to see you too! Hope all is well.

Has anyone seen the relationship between over prescribed antidepressants and violence?

http://ssristories.com/

Sarah,

I'm not talking tracking devices, I'm talking keeping track of who's purchasing what and where they're purchasing it, so if someone's building themselves an armory we can flag it and investigate. If you're building an armory, legally, sanely and responsibly, than you'll be cleared. If you aren't you'll be caught.

"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"

Can you show me where in the that sentance it states how many weapons a person can have is? Can you show me where in our constitution it states what I can't spend MY MONEY on is? You are free to buy as many cars as you want, even though they kill over 32,000 people a year. You are more likely to be killed by a car than by a firearm. That's just statistical fact. Are firearms dangerous? Yes they are, but they are intended to be defensive weapons. NOT OFFENSIVE. Even back in the 10th century when the first firearms were created, they were intended as defensive weapons. They were invented to defend cities from potential threats. Any offensive use of a firearm is completely against it's intended use.

Instead of infringing on the rights of every American, why don't we impose harsher penalties for people who use them during a crime? How about a minimum of 30 years for being in possession of a firearm while committing a felony or any forcible crime? And a Minimum of life in prison if a firearm is used during a crime? Armed robbery where a firearm is brandised=minimum Life in prision. That may make the people that use firearms in the completely wrong manner to rethink their life of crime while not infringing on the rights of the law abiding.

Liberals are distracted!!! Fiscal cliff....Here we come!!!

It's not the guns, it's the people behind the guns! why can't you people understand this?

It's not the alcohol, but the person drinking it.

It's not the car or truck but the person driving it.

We need to "love our neighbours as ourselves!" A good rule to follow.

When God and public prayer is outlawed, in the public schools and public functions this is what happens!

Why can't you people understan this!!???

How can I best put this... I don't care at all one way or the other if you ban guns or not or whatever. Just whatever you do, fixt the dam problem. I don't care how you do it- just DO IT.

It is time to stop debating with those who are too obstinate to admit we must ban assault weapons, armor piercing ammunition, and take whatever other reasonable steps are necessary to make it more difficult to commit mass murders.

The debate now should be about what we must do and how we should do it.

Unsolicited advice to anti-gun-control fanatics: If you wish to avoid gun control, spend less time defending unfettered firearms possession and more time preventing gun violence.

First of all there is this
By Michael O'Brien, NBC News

The call-to-action was weaved together with words from the president meant to console mourners in Newtown, with whom Obama met earlier in the day.

I have never heard of anything being weaved in the tense that reporter used it but I have heard of things being woven together. This is just indicative of the level of intelligence our society is sinking to when reporters cannot even employ proper English.
Secondly the president and the media need to quit attempting to play upon our emotions and quit lying to us about why and how this happened. We are aware of the connections between Adam Lanza's father, Peter Lanza, and James Holmes, the alleged Aurora, Colorado shooter, and his father, Dr. Robert Holmes. Both fathers were about to testify before the senate banking committee about the LIBOR rate fixing scandal. And why has nothing else been reported about the mysterious adult male found lurking in the woods outside the school, attired in camouflage, whose first comment to anyone after being apprehended was, "I didn't do it."?
Third; assault weapons are already illegal to own, that is if you are speaking of actual automatic firearms because, if you are speaking about semi-automatic firearms that resemble military style weapons, those aren't assault rifles. Those are sporting rifles.
Fourth and finally, what of all the references to Sandy Hook, Aurora and LIBOR in the recently released to DVD movie, "The Dark Knight Rises"?
I'd like to know, out of respect to those innocent murdered babies, who actually commited this atrocity and why. Wouldn't you?!?

Okay Ian, ban assault weapons, then what? The crazies will use revolvers, should we ban those next?

We NEED to stop bailing out banks and auto industries, and dump that money back into mental health care.

Almost ALL of these mass shootings were done with STOLEN guns Ian, us "anti-gun-control fanatics" haven't killed anyone.

Either or, conversations. How quaint.

I'm with Hal and I think either/or conversations sound pretty infantile given the scope of the problem.

How about this?

1. Ban Assault Rifles

2. People with a history of mental illness cannot own firearms nor can they be in the household with them.

There, you want to protect some of your rights? Then you get to put the adult pants on and come up with laws that let you protect them.

Vaporheads, of course, will scream one of these two things is 'too restrictive and our government shouldn't be involved!' Yeah, and those people should live in Pakistan, in the Tribal Region, where they don't have laws. I hear it is going smashingly well over there!

"When God and public prayer is outlawed, in the public schools and public functions this is what happens!"

(a) The shooter was home schooled, (b) public prayer is not outlawed, (c) Jesus spoke against praying in public, (d) you haven't a clue, and I am tired of the clueless having such a big political impact.

I'm so sorry for the loss of these people. It is horrible for their families to loose someone in such a horrible act of violance.

I would like to ask how these murders differ in the minds of the women on the vine from the murders of unborn babies. Babies who had a life; just like these babies had a life, and then someone: who is as cold blooded as this man, took their life.

It is all death and it all makes me sick and breaks my heart.

I will not respond to your answer because I will not argue with you but I will read your response and I certainly hope you answer after searching your heart and not in the heat of anger. That is what happened here, this man killed so many in the heat of anger.

IAN,

Assault looking weapons are used so infrequently that the FBI doesn't even list them by themselves as a type of murder weapon. More people die annually by being being drowed than by assault looking weapons. True assault weapons are never used in crime. Mostly becuase they cost so much. A true assault wepon that is the basis for the AR-15 costs at a minimum of $15,000. How many criminals are going to spend that kind of money? We don't have unfettered firearms possession. We have to submit to a background check just to purchase. If you want to carry a handgun you have to submit to even further background checks, fingerprints, pay a license fee, some states require training and testing, and then have to renewal that license every few years undergoing all the same tests, checks and printing. How many criminals go thru that? We have a crime problem and we need to start with the criminals not the law abiding.

@jerry-1795679

It's not the guns, it's the people behind the guns! why can't you people understand this?

It IS the people behind the guns AND we CAN'T control them. BUT we can control guns. Not rocket science here, people....

@Eric-913730

GUNS ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN

All of the "well we can't do anything about it so leave our guns alone" arguments fail.

You either put children first in this or guns......choose.

-

We don't have to choose...our rights are concrete.

Your emotional reaction is very "touching" but astoundingly out of touch with reality. How about...

-

-

CARS ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN

BUNK BEDS ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN

WINDOWS ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN

DOGS ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN

ELECTRICAL SOCKETS ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN

WILD DOG DISPLAYS AT THE PITTSBURGH ZOO ARE NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN CHILDREN

-

-

Ban everything that puts a child to risk? Your living in a fairy tale world.

Your dripping emotions don't change our rights, Eric.

Debora,

First, your question would be better asked to those women who have HAD abortions, since being pro-choice isn't the equivalent of being pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice, but don't believe I'd ever have an abortion. I simply can't scientifically prove that my personal feelings on abortion are correct, because there is no scientific evidence of when HUMANITY begins, therefore I can not than dictate to others what they should do.

Obviously, I'm failing in my studying endeavors.

Mental illness is a "red herring". it's a problem with people. people have problems and making it easy for them, especially boys and men, to act out their aggressiveness, revenge, evil is just wrong!

@ Haggisbingo

It IS the people behind the guns AND we CAN'T control them. BUT we can control guns. Not rocket science here, people....

-

Your right...it is the people behind the guns. But, your mistake is thinking you can control the guns.

Why wouldnt an uncontrollable person (by your own words) just continue to illegaly own guns and commit crimes?

Your just afraid of the confrontation. Removing guns won't remove confrontation. Life is as safe as it gets behind your keyboard arguing your Un-Constitutional stand.

why does the assault rifle ( its not a fully automatic weapon so I disagree with the term) lots of post about banning the rifle but I read it was all done with two handguns and the rifle was in the car. so how did the topic of banning assault type weapons get started? shows how a tragedy like this makes people think irrational while morning is still happening. I think spider is on the right path. its like the prison thing why would the bad guys worry about being locked up. the threat of going to prison is meaningless anymore. my wife and i were in a place having some icecream and some kids 13-15 came in and started throwing food all over i politely ask them to stop and was told sit down old man you can't tell me what to do when i stood up he said i'am only 15 you can't touch me

I can certainly understand the anguish and pain that last weeks tragedy brings out in everybody, but it is very important that we provide context, facts, and dialog around the factors in the story. Here goes:

1. Gun Contol=Stopping the Violence. Going to invoke the CDC and FBI statistics here. Fact is that while gun violence gets air time (and is awful) it isn't nearly as dangerous on a day to day basis as almost anything else in society. Did you hear that in China a father went through an elementary school (the same day) with a machetti- same results, different weapon. Cities like Chicago and DC have the strictist gun laws (you can't have them) and they have the highest gun violence rates in the country. The point is that I understand that people are sickened by the event, but that doesn't make the tool used the reason. If you took that logic as the rule then we shouldn't have cars that can go fast, alcohol should be banned, etc. as statistically they kill more people directly and indirectly every year then guns do. I heard a lot of sad people (understandably) calling for no guns and why did his mom have them. I don't know why she had them but what if she liked competition shooting, relaxed by target shooting, liked hunting, or felt that self defense was needed for some reason? We don't know if she kept them responsibly (locked up, etc.), we don't know ANYTHING other then she owned them legally, he killed her with her own weapons and then went on a rampage. You can't be kneejerk when discussing this.

2. Innocence lost. Just look around for a second and what do you hear/see? We have a society where the media live/dies by "if it bleeds, it leads" so you are seeing violence every day on tv. We have music, games, and movies that constantly promote "no snitchin'", vengence, high levels of violence and blood, no liability for your lifestyle, no personal responsibilities, etc. I think it's time to think about whom we've allowed ourselves to become and if that's something we are willing to raise our children to become. Maybe that's a time for change.

3. Protecting the kids. How do you want to do this? I heard a teacher note that the only way was to either put officers in the schools or create teacher based defenses (like the air marshals). Similarly, schools are really soft targets and unless you are going to build federal kid prisons of education you aren't going to make them inpenetrable. Armor up the doors, they'll find a window. Armor up the windows, they'll find somewhere else to get in or just wait for a moment outside. You armor up the place enought and I hope you never have a fire- those windows don't just pop out easily. You have to be careful when you think about what "protection" means.

4. Mental Illness. The latest reported rumors (a lot of media stories are put out then debunked lately) state that the mom was concerned that her son was getting worse. Makes you ask if/what services they were receiving, if they tried to warn anyone of changing tendencies, and if we have sufficient ways of monitoring and evaluting those with issues (while letting them live their lives) before they have a real breakdown.

All I can ask is that people take the time to really think about the factors in the case. We'll all grieve for the victims, but we need to take some time to review the what's and why's of the case. Go hug your kids, be kind to your neighbors, and participate in your communities.

Is this the same checks and balances of our government your talking about when our president decided to push obama care through , forcing everyone to accept it even though the majoirty of our country didnt want it, most states dont want it, the house didnt want it, and its an insult to our freedoms. Now lets see what BO does now with guns since this tragic event in conn. He said he will use his powers.... I wonder how much he will over step there.

Sarah-3043284

Debora,

First, your question would be better asked to those women who have HAD abortions, since being pro-choice isn't the equivalent of being pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice, but don't believe I'd ever have an abortion. I simply can't scientifically prove that my personal feelings on abortion are correct, because there is no scientific evidence of when HUMANITY begins, therefore I can not than dictate to others what they should do.

Yeah pretty much this. I'm pro-choice, but not pro-abortion myself, I chose not to hahve an abortion when my daughters were conceived, but I have no right to tell someone else what they can do with their bodies.

@SabotAndHeat

Your just afraid of the confrontation. Removing guns won't remove confrontation. Life is as safe as it gets behind your keyboard arguing your Un-Constitutional stand.

Yeah, your confrontation involves hundreds of people (kids!) possibly dying whereas mine (stronger gun control) would have much fewer casualties. i don't see how it could be any clearer...

About a year ago my company was tinkering around with the idea of partnering with another company on developing a biometric lock for firearms. The idea was that a gun would be manufactured with a small biometric scanner, and an ATF or FBI-licensed technician would be the only one capable of programming it to 'unlock' the gun only when the scanner picked up its owner's or other authorized user's fingerprint. (it could also be designed as a handprint scanner built into the grip.)

*2-4 persons' fingerprints would be able to be stored in the match memory at one time (depending on the size of the memory chip installed in the scanner)

*the battery required would need to be changed with the same frequency as a watch battery (depending on use.) It would also need to be reprogrammed each time the battery is changed--since a person acquires scars, burns, and other marks on their fingers that can change their fingerprint, also, someone might lose that finger in an accident and the match memory would need to be updated with a different finger's print.)

*If someone not the owner or not permitted by the owner to handle this tried to fire the gun, his fingerprints would not match the printlock memory and it would not fire.

* The programmer would have to have the person whose print will be stored in the print memory actually present at time of programming. A mental competence statement could also be signed at this time if it's decided to ask this question.

*If you bought one from someone in a private sale, you'd have to take it to a technician to have it reprogrammed to accept your print. The technician would be the only one capable of reprogramming it because the programming codes would only accept an FBI or ATF-licensed programmer's number. This reprogramming would cost maybe between $10 and $30 depending on if a memory chip with more memory needed to be substituted for the old one.

*If it were stolen the thief would have to take it to a programming technician to reprogram and unlock it---and the serial number would be checked against a database of stolen firearms (because legal responsible gun owners will call the police if their gun were stolen) and the thief caught.

Is this going to eliminate all illegal shootings committed by firearms? No. There will be someone out there who will pay a corrupt technician to reprogram a lock, and there will still be illegal weapons. (These biometric locks wouldn't be on all models, leaving it up to a customer to choose if they want a biometric-lock equipped firearm or a 'normal' firearm.) But those would be hardcore criminals; this printlock would mainly be used to secure a civilian-owned weapon from the child who accidentally shoots another while playing with Daddy's gun, and people like this mother who legally owned them but had a mentally unstable son. It has the potential to cut down drastically the number of shootings like this one caused by unauthorized users getting hold of weapons they don't personally own.

The technology already exists--the entry doors at my company headquarters are biometrically locked, and we have to place our index finger on the scanner in order to unlock the door and enter the building. It takes approximately 2 seconds for my print to be scanned and matched to the match memory, and I think part of that time is that we have a lot of employees. A gun's biometric lock would only have up to four prints in the match memory and unlocking would be almost instantaneous.

Just out of curiosity--how many of you reading this would buy a gun with this biometric lock? Or would support an initiative to develop this? No laws would need to be changed, firearms would still be available to buy for whoever wanted them, but even if people left biometric-lock-equipped guns out of a safe where a mentally ill or unstable individual could get at them, it would be useless.

I think people with guns and people without guns are both going to have to face up losing some rights to save lives. Sorry. And to all you making the slippery slope arguement, you already give up your rights in some ways that make sense, or you'd be living in Pakistan. So this is about coming up with an adult answer and recommending solutions. Not cry cry time for you to say don't tell me what to do, wah wah.

Unfortunately the president was a little irresponsible in his comments. To say "These tragedies must end" is implying we can stop these tragedies but we can't - there is no way to stop "crazy". He should have made the comment "we will do everything in our power to try to keep these tragedies from occurring again". That implies we CAN'T stop them but we CAN do things that will reduce the threat and/or reduce ACCESS to these these types of threats.

So the question becomes "why"? Why are these occurring with greater frequency? Liberals immediately jump to the idea of removing or limiting access to guns is the solution. But is it? We have had private gun ownership since this country was founded. Has gun OWNERSHIP changed? Not much. So we CAN'T say gun ownership is the cause of these tragedies.

In science we always look to see "what has changed". For example: Say there is a city with a consistent number of cars and in the last 30 years we have seen significantly more car accidents. Do you immediately say we need to limit car ownership? Of course not. You look to see WHY car accidents have increased. Maybe the city allows bars and alcohol purchases where they had not before and thus the car accidents are due to alcohol. Or maybe 20 years ago you had to be 18 to get a drivers license AND pass a safety course whereas now you only need to be 16 and you find that more accidents are occurring due to inexperienced drivers. In other words you looked to see what has CHANGED and focus on that topic.

So now we seem to have an influx of "crazy" and tragedies like this are occurring. But is it the fault of gun ownership? No, it can't be because gun ownership hasn't changed. There is something else. Now I have my theories but, unlike liberals, I don't rush to rash decisions and ask for immediate changes without researching first. But I DO believe research in two areas will be telling.

1) We have drifted away from God. We are no longer allowed to pray in school or have any teachings of the moral beliefs of God. Don't you find it ironic that we cannot pray in school but yet AFTER this event they had a prayer vigil AND yesterday an interfaith vigil with the president leading the discussion but containing both prayer, god, heaven, and faith throughout? Wouldn't it make more sense having the prayer BEFORE a massacre?

Plus we are teaching our younger generation that "god doesn't exist" but yet over the last four days there has been more prayer on public property than the last year combined. We tell kids that we were created on this planet by sheer random nature and "luck of the draw" and God was not involved in it whatsoever and then at this vigil tell children we are all made from God and those unfortunately killed are now in heaven with our lord Jesus Christ. Can you imagine the confusion?

Is there a correlation between 1963 when prayer was was previously allowed in school and the last 50 years of "losing our way"? I think so. Maybe we should research this correlation further because teaching our children there is no God removes the moral compass that lead so many of us Christians 40 and 50 years ago. Now our children are taught morals don't matter and whatever you want to do is fine. Premarital sex. Homosexuality. Respecting your elders is no longer a requirement. Respecting God and living your life in God's words and actions is no longer requested.

2) Violence on TV, movies, and video games. When I was growing up we played "cowboys and indians" all the time as well as played "war". In my younger days I "killed" (while playing) countless indians, germans, and japanese. We had toy guns with rolls of caps to simulate the sound and function of a firing gun. At the age of 7,8, 9 and 10 I always had a gun holster on me ready to shoot any "indians" that I came across. All us kids did. And we would play "war" throwing hand grenades at "bunkers" filled with germans ready to free U.S. soldiers held captive by the Nazis. But yet we rarely heard of massacres and gun violence.

But then in the late 70's and 80's "psychologists" told parents that "shooting play guns" teaches violence. Really? All of us kids who grew up in the 60's turned out fine. We all had our own businesses by the mid to late 80's and virtually all successful. We didn't turn into killers because we played with toy guns. We could separate "fantasy" from "reality". But the psychologists won and stores stopped selling "play guns" and lord have mercy if you have a toy gun in school nowadays (or even point your index finger and thumb to SIMULATE a gun shape). Yes, THAT must be the problem. But it wasn't. We watched "heroes" like Batman and Robin - exactly how can two grown men wearing tights living in a home together be "realistic" and violent? When they have to put in bold letters on the screen BAM!! and POW!! Did THAT drive us kids to want to massacre children in an elementary school? Of course not.

No, this issue of "massacre killings" did not occur until movies became so realistic you can't separate reality from fiction. And you can't pretend to "shoot" your friends because they are portraying a Nazi. That was no longer acceptable. But take them to a movie where blood, guts, and people being shot 8 times can still attack. Movies like Halloween are made where the killer massacres a number of individuals but the killer can't be stopped. He can't be killed. Only to come back in a sequel.

And then we have T.V. where massacres are a daily occurrence and kids watching as many people are murdered. And this is called a "thriller". And let's not forget video games are so realistic. Not the games like "Pong" or "Galaxia" we played in the 70's. Or a video basketball game we played with a "box" as a player and a small moving "box" is the basketball. No video games today are remarkably realistic. Watch someone playing a football video game and you have to look twice because at first you thought it was a real football game being played. But now we have video games where you go INTO the game and see how many people you can kill. With blood and guts so realistic it would make many squeamish.

Why are we not talking about this? Video games TEACHING kids to massacre groups of people. Now 99.9% of kids at least can separate "fact" from "fiction" but all it takes it a small handful of "crazy" people who can't and we have the issue we have now.

In summary gun ownership is not the problem. This problem is NOT because we own guns it is because we have lost the moral fabric of this nation. We don't parent anymore and, heck, 25% of our children only have one parent. We have lost the ability to teach our children faith in God. Statistics show 9 out of 10 adults say they believe in God - but you wouldn't know that by our actions and our children are not taught either whether in school or at home. We let liberals take away Christmas celebrations and simply say "well, it is not worth the fight". We let liberals take away to ability to pray before a football game and simply say "well, it is not worth the fight". Now kids do not have to say the Pledge of Allegiance because we certainly can't force a child to show respect for their country. And schools now need bars on the windows and security at the doors NOT because we have gun owners but because we have "crazy" that has lost their moral way.

Conservatives have been saying for years this country is not the country we grew up in where there was teaching of god and discipline. And if you "acted up" you got spanked by your friends mother and THEN when you got home and found out your friend's mother called YOUR mother you got spanked again. We were taught there was right and wrong. We were taught there were consequences to your actions. We were taught that God was watching you and you should live your life to please God. And we turned out fine. It wasn't until everyone was told this was NOT good that the country began to tumble into sin and destruction.

I am sorry for the length of my rant but we knew this would occur. We warned 30 years ago that marriage and traditional family values is when held society together. We warned that when you take God out of a person's life they become selfish and live for their own personal satisfaction. The solution is we need to push family values again. We need to teach God to our children. We need to teach them the difference between "fact" and "fiction". We need to restrict access to violence on T.V., movies, and video games. We need to teach love and respect. We need to teach respect of elders. We nee to teach moral values and God.

THAT is the only solution. Taking away guns is NOT a solution - that is a copout. That is an excuse. Even if you took away guns you still would have "evil". You still would have "crazy". You still will have tragedy. Let's look at the CAUSE and not the excuse.

We need to do away with the constitution, it is way outdated and the founding fathers knew that this document was nothing more than words on paper that would need to be done away with when the time comes!! The freedom of speech needs to be the first thing to be eradicated, this supposed "right" has done nothing but create problems from the start, no one should have the right to say anything that someone else does not want to hear or finds offensive!! Next the separation of church and state is nothing but an obstacle to true enlightenment and peace on earth and this should be taught from kindergarten thru 12th grade (Christianity has never killed anyone in it's name or cause and if this school would have been right with the lord then he would have protected every single one of them) and mandatory 4 years of bible college for every child who has proven their devout faith in god by sacrificing a non believer for being a heretic! Public burnings at the stake would do this country some good!

Then the right of women to vote needs to go away, they need to worry about cooking and kids, leave the important stuff to the men. Put the brown people back in the fields or on a boat! Lets let god run the country/world, everything will be fine within a week or two! Just you wait and see!!

I believe all guns need that biometric lock. I would purchase a gun with that lock if it could easily be disengaged when it really needed to be.

Debora,

I can see a couple of problems with that biometric system. 1. The battery. It could die when/if the only time you would ever need it. That is the problem with that sort of technology, and why it hasn't been implemented. There have been other devices over the years, but they are so expensive and not really reliable. 2. The print reader. In times of high stress would you really want to rely on something that can't read a print after using sand paper or some dried substance that blocks your prints? I have a biometric safe at home and all 10 of my fingers are programed into it. I have sanding or painting and the reader some times doesn't always authorize my print. 3. then you have the problems with the glass getting scratched from carrying or dropping the weapon. There is just too much at stake with having that kind of security on an item that is suppose to protect you.

ProBusiness said:

teaching our children there is no God removes the moral compass that lead so many of us Christians 40 and 50 years ago. Now our children are taught morals don't matter and whatever you want to do is fine. Premarital sex. Homosexuality. Respecting your elders is no longer a requirement. Respecting God and living your life in God's words and actions is no longer requested.

I beg to differ. Just because I don't teach my children about the Christian God does not, in any way, means that I teach them whatever they want to do is fine, that they no longer have to respect their elders, and morals don't matter.

We need to teach them the difference between "fact" and "fiction". We need to restrict access to violence on T.V., movies, and video games. We need to teach love and respect. We need to teach respect of elders.

I agree...but the caveat to that is that we need to reduce the cost of living to where parents can afford to be home with their children to teach them the difference between fact and fiction, love and respect, for everyone as well as themselves. We don't need to restrict access to violence on TV, but we need to have rational, intelligent conversations with our kids on real-life consequences of those actions.

I volunteer at an animal shelter and we had the local news come out to cover an animal cruelty case, but then refuse to film the animal that had been abused because their watchers were going to call and complain about their children being upset over graphic pictures. Instead of letting our kids live in a sheltered bubble, they need to learn personal responsibility, that their actions have consequences, some direct and some indirect, and teach them to think. And we parents have to be able to be there to do that!

My family is lucky enough to be one of those where a parent is home. I work, my husband is disabled, and between what I make and his disability, we can afford to keep the bills paid and he stays home with the kids, picks them up from school, supervises their homework and what they do (and give them a good swat on the behind when necessary). We may live in an inner-city neighborhood with five different gangs, but the teachers at school (even for my youngest son, who is autistic) say that both my boys are kind, polite, cheerful, respectful, helpful, and well-mannered, and the worst trouble either have had (so far--they are 10 and 9 now) was my oldest getting suspended from school for sneaking into the girls' bathroom.

We nee to teach moral values and God.

We need to teach moral values, but I don't agree we need to teach 'God'. My husband is a Deist, I'm a Pagan, and although my husband's family is Christian, and I was raised by devout Irish Catholic parents, we want our boys to make up their own mind about what they want to believe instead of blindly absorbing whatever we want them to believe. Faith is not a matter of rote learning, doctrine and religious dogma, faith is a personal decision based on what you believe true about yourself and the world around you.

The Westboro Baptist folks, who I understand are planning on picketing some of the CT child victims' funerals under the assumption that this is God's judgment on CT for legalizing same-sex marriage, teach their kids plenty about God..and yet I would say that with this latest example, they have shown they are devoid of morals regarding respect for others, irregardless of their having learned about God.

It's what you do that matters, not whose Name you do it in.

I see 2 issues here--first, there needs to be a background check in each and every state whenever someone goes to buy a firearm. And not only should criminals be automatically banned (sorry, those of you who go to gun shows and buy a firearm and take it home the same day) but anyone with a history of psychosis. The second issue I mentioned--psychosis--represents the brokenness of our Mental Health system as it stands today. I am a retired Substance Abuse Counselor, and before that, I worked in the Mental Health field. With the reduction in funding that has occurred, and the release of the mentally ill into society without adequate followup and supervision, we have a huge problem of the mentally ill homeless, and also a lot of mentally ill people falling through the cracks, such as the shooters in the mass shootings that have occurred. In California where I live, we have a 10 day waiting period between purchase of a firearm and being able to actually take possession of it. During that time, a background check is made. I am in favor of that 10 day wait and background check. I also own firearms, and have undergone that 10 day wait and background check. I am NOT in favor of banning firearms totally--but I AM in favor of sensible gun laws. The sane, law abiding citizen should be able to own firearms within reason.

Amanda: My post was not intended to divert the discussion to be about God and moral values. My point was simply to say that gun ownership has not changed much in 50 years so that now we see more gun violence cannot be associated with gun ownership. My parents owned guns in the 60's and 70's and we did not need bars on the windows at school. I got my first gun in the early 80's and we didn't need bars on the windows at school then either. But now we need bars on the windows and security guards. Why? Certainly not due to gun ownership. If THAT hasn't changed much in 50 years then it cannot be blamed as to the cause.

So when you see an issue it is wise to not "knee-jerk" a solution. Gun control is not a solution. Gun control is a copout. It is an excuse. We have a SOCIETY that now has become more violent. That certainly cannot be blamed on gun ownership since our country has had private ownership since this country was founded. So if gun OWNERSHIP has not changed but we have more violence there must be another cause.

So let's focus on what that cause it and work towards fixing that. Trying to limit gun ownership is not a solution because that is not the problem. I suggest society no longer respects itself and gave reasons why. I might be mistaken as to the CAUSE but at least I am trying to IDENTIFY to cause. Nobody else (for the most part) is doing that. They simply go immediately to "gun control" but it is clear THAT is not the problem otherwise we would have had these tragedies frequently in the 70's and 80's as well - but we didn't.

So there is another cause and believe we should be spending our time and energy on identifying that rather than using "gun control" as a solution that is clearly not involved.

I believe in the right to bare arms, but I also believe that assult weapons should be made ILLEGAL PERIOD. There should be ONLY ONE WAY to get a gun, and that is a licensed dealer with a strengthened background check to now include phsych evals.

I now think its time that we instill a sense of fear in out kids for doing the wrongs and USE of the word NO is not a bad thing. The older generation knows consequenses for our actions which today seems losts.

Dang!! I made a few changes--must have run out of time--because it published what I had written BEFORE editing!

Well, one of the things I had added is that most mentally ill are not dangerous--it's a small subset that is dangerous. There were a few things I had reworded better--oh well, I don't have the time to rehash it now. Dang!!

Debora:

As a parent with an autistic child, I would too if one could be retrofitted to the firearm I own--my Dad's Vietnam Smith & Wesson 39, the first American-made 9mm. It has historic and sentimental value, hence I am reluctant to get rid of it, but the safety of everyone around me is important. I am not saying my son would do this deliberately, but because of his disability he can't make the connection between cause and effect. He would be remorseful and crying his eyes out if he were to accidentally shoot his brother, but he wouldn't be able to make the connection BEFORE he started playing with the firearm.

For that reason neither of my children presently know we even have a firearm in the house, and it does have a lock on it to keep it from firing if they should accidentally come across it (the back of the top shelf of Mommy and Daddy's bedroom closet).

dawgfan:

You do have some valid points, let me address those one at a time:

1. The battery. It could die when/if the only time you would ever need it.

The battery has a low-charge-indicator--like smoke detectors these days, that emit a tone when it's time to change the battery. You will know the battery is getting low way before an emergency arises in which you may have to use the firearm.

2. The print reader. In times of high stress would you really want to rely on something that can't read a print after using sand paper or some dried substance that blocks your prints? I have a biometric safe at home and all 10 of my fingers are programed into it. I have sanding or painting and the reader some times doesn't always authorize my print.

How old is your safe? Biometrics technology has been advancing by leaps and bounds in the last few years, what with all the money Homeland Security is putting into biometric technology, retina scanners, and biophysical behavior-prediction software.

I'm a biometrics technician--I take fingerprints for medical licenses, etc. and I can tell you from personal experience that the scan technology has been getting much more accurate the last few years. The scanner plates today do have some trouble reading dry hands/dry skin, but if there is ever an emergency situation in which you have to draw your gun and possibly use it, your skin is going to be sweating from the adrenaline and enough moisture to contact the plate will not be a problem. Also to consider is that if you do sanding and painting or other manual labor, that activity can change your fingerprints from accumulation of scars, burns, warts, even a papercut...and so if it has been a while since your print was originally programmed into the safe, you may need to have it reprogrammed.

I doubt someone who goes hunting on a regular basis would want a gun equipped with one of these, but for the average person who just wants to keep one around but doesn't intend on using it much and who also has children or vulnerable adults in the home, I could see this being fairly popular. I live in a neighborhood with five different gangs and only once have i ever needed a weapon--a stoner tried to break into my house and i greeted him at the door with my sword--and held him at swordpoint until the cops arrived.

3. then you have the problems with the glass getting scratched from carrying or dropping the weapon. There is just too much at stake with having that kind of security on an item that is suppose to protect you.

The scanner plates aren't glass anymore, they are self-healing silicone film. Let it sit and the silicone molecules fill in any scratches that may form. Also, when you go in to the programmer to have the battery changed and your prints reprogrammed (between 6 months and 2 years, depending on use) the technician can do a 'tune-up' and make sure everything is in perfect working order. That includes replacing/repairing any broken parts. Don't you take the weapon out to clean it and make sure it is in working condition once every so often? This would be no different than taking your car for a tune-up every x years/x miles, or going to the doctor for a routine checkup every x months.

I have yet to hear one gun owner answer this question:

Which is more important: the life of a child or "the right to keep and bear arms" ?

It really is an either / or type question because it is abundantly clear that this nation can not keep having our children killed by guns.

I can see how there could be some problems with this system. I do a lot of baking and if my hands are covered in Bread dough that would be a problem for me. There must be something we can do to make them safer rather than just lock them away. Guns do us no good if we cannot get to them if and when we really need one.

My children were always taught DO NOT TOUCH the gun unless we hand it to you. I never had a problem but then again I may be very blessed.

I can also see having a Mentally challenged child could cause great concern. Amanda on that note, I pray God will help you as you cope each day with you child's needs. I have a friend who has a young son who is autistic, so many times we have seen her in tears trying to figure out what to do. I pray God will give you strength as you cope daily with Your needs as well as your child's needs.

I don't see much difference between what this kid did and what a serial killer does. They both take the lives of a lot of people. The serial killer just takes longer to do it and can use other means in addition to a gun. What do both have in common? They're both freakin nuts. That's the common denominator. Let's focus on a solution to this problem instead of being distracted by politically driven unrealistic answers.

Dawgfan-4710266.......you said:

Quote.......Assault looking weapons are used so infrequently that the FBI doesn't even list them by themselves as a type of murder weapon......EndQuote

How many mass murders must be perpetrated using "assault looking" weapons (together with high capacity magazines) before you consider such incidents worthy of your concern? Please, go make that absurd argument to those victimized in Connecticut and elsewhere. The reaction you receive won't likely be as courteous as that you receive here.

.......and.......

Quote.......More people die annually by being being drowed than by assault looking weapons......EndQuote

So what? More people die of a LOT OF THINGS including stupid stunts. But, people can CHOOSE whether they subject themselves to those dangers. These kids had NO CHOICE as to if they would be murdered by an ASSAULT WEAPON with a high capacity magazine. If you can't understand that difference, then you don't deserve to have a voice in this debate.

........and.......

Quote.....True assault weapons are never used in crime. Mostly becuase they cost so much. A true assault wepon that is the basis for the AR-15 costs at a minimum of $15,000. How many criminals are going to spend that kind of money?......EndQuote

That is an OUTRAGEOUS untruth. YOU have not been granted sole license to define ASSAULT WEAPON. Whether fully or semi-automatic, assault weapons (particularly those capable of utilizing large capacity magazines) are not only easily available, they can be purchased at gun shows, online, from individuals, and even WalMart for a tiny fraction of the amount you cite. Furthermore, as has been tragically demonstrated several times by murderers wielding such weapons, a semi-automatic assault weapon with a large capacity magazine is no less capable of mass murder than a fully automatic one. A case could even be made that, against unarmed civilians (esp. children), a semi-automatic assault weapon is a more capable mass murder implement than a fully automatic one. Less ammo is wasted. Full-auto is rarely used even in military scenarios. Mainly, full auto is used to repel an assault or to assault a fortified position.

......and.....

Quote......We don't have unfettered firearms possession.......EndQuote

Yes, no thanks to you, that is true. But, (many of) you WISH you had unfettered firearms possession.

......and......

Quote......We have a crime problem and we need to start with the criminals not the law abiding.......EndQuote

Ok.....NOW.....tell us why ("law abiding") you need:

1. Assault style weapons.

2. Large capacity magazines.

3. Armor piercing ammo.

See if you can do this while still sounding sane.

Probusiness said:

Amanda: My post was not intended to divert the discussion to be about God and moral values. My point was simply to say that gun ownership has not changed much in 50 years so that now we see more gun violence cannot be associated with gun ownership. My parents owned guns in the 60's and 70's and we did not need bars on the windows at school. I got my first gun in the early 80's and we didn't need bars on the windows at school then either. But now we need bars on the windows and security guards. Why? Certainly not due to gun ownership. If THAT hasn't changed much in 50 years then it cannot be blamed as to the cause.

My apologies, with your repeated statement that 'we need to teach God' that fed into my misunderstanding of your post.

While there are just as many guns now as there were before--it's the gun owner that isn't teaching the next generation about the responsibility that goes with the right. Therefore, I would argue that it is ownership that is the problem--people being irresponsible about where they leave their weapons and who has access to them that shouldn't. If you have a mentally ill/unstable individual in the house and that weapon is registered to you, then it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make sure to secure your weapon. The last generation--our parents--were responsible about them--I never knew my Dad had a firearm until i was old enough to understand what one was for and what it did and Dad made sure to show me pictures of people shot in Vietnam (he was a Vietnam and Korean war vet) to impress on me what this was and what it could do and why I needed to handle it with care and respect and never EVER treat it as a toy, locked or unlocked, loaded or unloaded.

There have been pit bull-type dogs for centuries now. Only recently within the last few decades has there become an epidemic of dog bite fatalities. So what's changed? Irresponsible ownership, people who don't secure them properly and aren't trained to handle them safely around others.

There have been guns for centuries now. Only recently in the last couple of decades has there become an epidemic of mass shootings. So what's changed? Irresponsible ownership, people who don't secure their weapons and aren't trained to handle them safely around others.

Assault weapons are weapons of war. Moreover, it is a weapon of war which will not help you one iota if you think it will save you from your govenment, and you seriously have a fear of that (yet haven't gotten yourself to move countries for some ludicrous reason). If you like to shoot one as a hobby, then find a new hobby. This is where you SHOULD play an adult video game over the real life equivalent.

Having said that, a person with a history of mental illness must surrender their rights to own a weapon, nor should anyone be allowed to have one on the premises with that person.

These are easy things to fix. They might have to be hashed out in more detail, but there is no reason why the debate as to 'how' and not 'if' should be started on both these things.

dirp said:

I have yet to hear one gun owner answer this question:

Which is more important: the life of a child or "the right to keep and bear arms" ?

I say the life of a child. However, other gun owners (a guy named George Zimmerman comes to mind), might say differently under different circumstances.

And there was an article on the news earlier this month about a father who went to a gun store to sell his gun. Didn't sell it, took it back to the car with him, put it down on the back seat while he got his child belted into a carseat, then got in the drivers seat. He reached back to grab the gun and put it in the glove box, and it accidentally discharged, killing the child he'd just strapped into a carseat.

Ian,

High capacity mags? We don't know what size mag this guy was using. I'm ASSUMING he was using the factory made and designed 30 rounds. Yes, there have been a spat of mass shootings, but let's not for get these are isolated incidents. There will be copy cats, there will be threats, but even without firearms or Assault style weapons there will always be these kinds of incidents. Please go back and read my statement on "more people die annuall by BEING DROWNED". Thats not accidental drowning. The last time a True Assault Weapon (full auto) was used and well documented in a crime was the North Hollywood Bank robbery on Feb 28 1997 three years after the Federal ban on assault rifles and 11 years after the 1986 restrictions on full auto weapons. Now tell me how those laws prevented one of the most infamous bank robberies in history? I'm ok with the background checks that we have. I think that private sellers should be able/required to use the same system that dealers use when making a sale at gunshows or private sales.

Why do I need Assault style weapons? Self-Defense and historical significance. That's what they are intended for is a defensive weapon. I like to collect firearms from major events in the history of firearms. I have some deuling pistols from the 1,600's, flint locks from the time of our Independence, some from the Civil War, a couple from WWI, a couple form WWII, a couple from the Vietnam, a couple from Desert Storm, a couple from Operation Iraqi Freedom, and others are ones that I just liked and wanted to get. I also like to target shoot, competition shoot, and long distance shoot. Large Capacity Mags aren't really reliable for rapid fire. The rounds usually jam in the drum if you are alluding to the 100 round drums for assault type of weapons. I have a couple and only use them for target shooting. That way I can spend more time on accuracy than spraying lead indiscrimately which is a complete waste of money. As far as I'm aware armor piercing ammo is illegal to possess without a proper license.

Dirp,

Children are most important. That's why I have firearms to protect them from sickos.

Derek said:

Having said that, a person with a history of mental illness must surrender their rights to own a weapon, nor should anyone be allowed to have one on the premises with that person.

In my municipality, it's a rule that if a person is under treatment by a mental health professional for any sort of mental disorder, and especially if that disorder is being treated by mood-altering drugs, that person must surrender all weapons and permits until said mental heath professional declares that person 'cured' or fit to carry again.

I don't understand why this isn't the case everywhere.

Dawgfan: Good answer.

Dirp: I agree with Dawgfan - children are more important and that is why we need to protect them. Just ask Dr. Petit also from Connecticut whose home was invaded and he was beaten and left for dead. Then his wife and two young girls raped and then set on fire with the house while still alive. Maybe if he owned a gun he could have saved the lives of two dear children.

Or lookup the North Carolina case regarding Channon Christian and her boyfriend Christopher Newsom who were carjacked and the next several hours so gruesome I don't even want to give you the summation. If you want to know more look that up and read but keep a tissue nearby because if it doesn't bring a tear to your eye you are not human. I am certain their PARENTS now wish both of them were "carrying". They might be alive today.

The cases are endless. You want to ask the question of what is more important the life of a child or the "right to keep and bear arms" and my answer is "yes".

Hollywood, the culture of murder and death, has a part to play in this problem.

Daily influence and diet of violence and blood.

You are what you eat.

Big surprise... the Fast and Furious Murderer-in-Chief, the Liberal Elite totalitarian wannabe's, and Pravda here are leveraging a tragedy with typical Liberal hysteria to push forward their gungrabbing agenda... to turn law-abiding armed citizens into defenseless subjects... before the economic collapse and chaos....

Been to Dachau... know what govt's are capable of... you can have my guns... bullets first... Can't happen here, huh? It's already happened here... at Ruby Ridge... and Waco....

Any knee-jerk legislation will be ineffective. Creating policy during emotional times creates surface-level band aids and does not solve the root cause problems.

Obama vows action on gun violence: 'These tragedies must end'.

There is no way to stop the problem but it sure makes good electioneering and good slogans. Maybe an Insanity Tax on people who earn $250,000/yr and up would solve the problem?

2 things:

Using this thread to get political and slam the Prez makes me want to puke. You look so small.

My reply to those who are voicing your support of the 2nd ammendment is most do not want to take away your rights to hunt ect. The need for assault weapons and 20/30 round clips is what is in question. Also as many gun supporters in rural areas want the rest of us to support their rights, please understand that these weapons represent a very different thing in populated areas,

Its time for sensible reform...please

Fed Up,

You are screwed up! Fast and furious began and was started with the ball rolling under none other than, Yes, Bush again! That man sure has screwed up so much and lives up to his reputation as the Worst President Ever!

Dawgfan,

I'm not nor will I ever be a part of a Militia. I hate the military!!!!!!!!!! If given a gun I would throw it on the ground, burn it or destroy it in some way. I will protect and defend my country from these nuts and the right wing terrorists group called the NRA , however with every breath I have!

Probusiness,

Then why are there only dead children's bodies lying in schools and school yards if we are protecting them? I know of noon in my community or state that has protected their children with a gun. I do know two families in my small town that had little kids get into their gun collections and kill themselves or a little friend. With even Rupert Murdock coming out for gun control yesterday maybe you fellow nuts will listen to him. You seem to otherwise!

I'll bet Obama owns a couple of handguns. I wonder which rights he will go after next ?What we actually need are more liberal gun laws so that when an attack happens, there are sane people armed nearby who can take the @!$%# down.

@ Pagan..

"Fix" the Second Amendment?

Not a chance. I thank God every day the few, but very loud, far left ramblings I read here are exactly that- the VAST minority.

The AWB had NO EFFECT on violent crime.

But hey, let's do it again, because it will make you liberals feel good- because deep down, you really DO hate guns...

Makes far more sense to do that, than something that would actually be EFFECTIVE- like armed security at school campuses. Just like Air Marshals, plainclothes so as not to present a clear target...

I'm in favor of additional sensible legislation- close the gun show loophole.

Eliminate FTF intrastate transfers without registration. No reason every firearm shouldn't be traceable and registered to a legal owner.

But banning "ASSAULT WEAPONS"- first- a term incorrectly used by the left media- would accomplish NOTHING. An "assault weapon" is a MILITARY, SELECT FIRE, weapon. The civilian AR-15, even though based on the same technology, is NOT select fire, is NO different than any other semi-automatic rifle.

Ban large capacity clips?

What's that going to accomplish? Mostly, NADA. I can drop the clip, insert a new one in less than two seconds.

I do get some joy out of seeing the regulars here getting their panties in a wad dreaming that they will finally get to take away our "evil" guns...

Not going to happen. As tragic as this event was, our Nation has far more pressing problems.

And this President, and Senate, has already shown they can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Sabot,

And we're right back to the beginning...

We're expected, as civilians to defend it, in this day in age? Why the hell do we spend so much on the DOD than??? Why even have a military? Because your hand guns and hunting rifles will be so effective against air forces, bombs, radar, spec ops... Take off the tricorn hat and let your brain breathe.

When those men said those things, an army of red coats could show up at your door with no warning and back up was weeks away, IF you could even get a message to them. Our central government/military was weak and we didn't have the greatest, most efficient armed forces the world has ever seen. We have planes THAT FLY THEMSELVES and you think YOU and your HAND GUN are going to be the deciding factor?

Hello there, let's have a simple lesson in logic. What is the point of having civilians armed if you have a heavily armed military? Give up? It's to protect from a well-armed military. Question two: what happens if only the military has guns, if only rapists and murderers are armed? Had ANYONE had the wherewithall to shoot the guy, he'd have stopped before 26 were murdered.

Now let's do some more simple logic exercises. What happens if nobody had a gun at all? Murders stop, right? Wrong. People use knives. Let's take those away. People can no longer cook for themselves. So no murder? People use bombs. Take those away, in fact let's get rid of July 4th (because we obviously don't need our freedom anymore). People can still use cars to run people over. Why, let's take cars away, and while we're at it, houses are leaky and can crumble people can die inside them. Hmmm, what happened to private ownership? What happened to our freedoms?

We happened to it.

Yeah, right.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Just like Obama promised to push for an easier certification of unions called "Card Check" and to "renegotiate NAFTA" and to close Gitmo.

He dropped them completely as soon as he was elected.

The only promises he really kept were the ones he made behind closed doors to Wall Street that no bankers would go to jail or suffer and loss of $$ for swindling the economy off of a cliff in 2008.

He's cutting Medicaid (He cut 600 Million from California Medicaid) which includes mental health services.

Adequate Mental Health services could help detect a potential killers advanced state of emotional deterioration and save lives. At least that's what the experts on this kind of thing say.

Jmacq1

Jr Browenstein: What a ridiculous load of false equivalency. More people being able to vote doesn't get people killed. Unrestricted firearm sales and ownership certainly does.

Neither voting nor owning a gun is an "unalienable right." Also note: The Constitution and Bill of Rights can and has been changed in the past, and will again in the future.

lol. I see you have some real issues with cause/effect. Also, you seem to not quite understand what an "unalienable right" is.

The constitution and bill of rights have been changed but never to take away unalienable rights...only to further define those rights specifically protected. Even Prohibition couldn't take away a person's right to make and consume alchohol as an individual.

And if you think that how we vote doesn't affect whether or not people get killed, you shouldn't be voting as you clearly do not understand that your vote is implicit in enabling our President to authorize our military to kill people. Our President has authorized the killing of more people than any single person with a gun could ever imagine doing. So, yes...if we should be requiring people to be of competent mind to own a gun then the least we could do is require people to be of competent mind to vote.

That is an OUTRAGEOUS untruth. YOU have not been granted sole license to define ASSAULT WEAPON. Whether fully or semi-automatic, assault weapons (particularly those capable of utilizing large capacity magazines) are not only easily available, they can be purchased at gun shows, online, from individuals, and even WalMart for a tiny fraction of the amount you cite. Furthermore, as has been tragically demonstrated several times by murderers wielding such weapons, a semi-automatic assault weapon with a large capacity magazine is no less capable of mass murder than a fully automatic one. A case could even be made that, against unarmed civilians (esp. children), a semi-automatic assault weapon is a more capable mass murder implement than a fully automatic one. Less ammo is wasted. Full-auto is rarely used even in military scenarios. Mainly, full auto is used to repel an assault or to assault a fortified position.

Speaking of outrageous untruths....you spin some whoppers yourself.

If you think that there is virtually no difference in the amount of damage a person can do with a semi-automatic weapon vs. a fully automatic weapon, you are a moron. And the military teaches using 3-round bursts...something not possible with a semi-auto. As a person who was, at one time, a qualified expert with an M-16, I can say I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

Amanda while I would applaud any operational safeties to be installed to reduce or eliminate what happened....the biometric lock can and would be defeated.

Just as simple as turning a semi auto into a full auto.

IMJ3,

Well, I'm not sure we should be locking people up in general, but I think the lack of good mental care is the issue. I do believe that there may be a very small percentage of people though who may ultimately need to be institutionalized. However, all other attempts to help these people should be attempted first. I find it amazing that a parent/legal guardian can not get a dependent admitted for "confined observation" as some minimum step in a case like in the link you posted. www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

This is a horrifying story and it might be more common than we think, because this stuff is swept under the rug and hidden.

I have a friend who I knew for years, but did not realize was a closet alcoholic. He went through a painful divorce shortly after getting married. (I would have bet it wouldn't work, but kept silent) This drove him into a depressive state which contributed to getting into work related problems. Late one night he called me and asked me to come over because he thought he was dying and needed someone to talk to about it. It was all night and into the day until about noon, that I learned a lot of things. Little had I known that a guy I'd frequently have a few beers with, was going home every night and drinking a quart of booze. He'd been doing this for at least 15 years.

I learned a lot of dark secrets that night about the demons he'd been fighting since his teen years. Not at all violent, or suicidal. This is a very highly principled and intelligent guy. A person who it was hard not to like, but he had this hidden side. He felt himself crashing and burning and reached out for help. That night before he passed out from exhaustion, he asked me to keep his guns for awhile because he knew he wasn't thinking clearly and was worried he could possibly accidentally hurt himself or others.

Over the next several days I spent the vast majority of the time with him talking. He agreed that first thing he needed to do was stop drinking and get some medical help to address his health concerns. I was there when he made an appointment for later in the week. He stayed home and gave me his car keys. I would leave and come back with food. I took a couple days off from work to stay close and if I wasn't there for brief periods I'd call every half hour or so. A couple days I had left for awhile and came back to discover he'd been drinking. Turns out he had booze stashed around the house. We spent a couple hours going over every nook and cranny in the house and came up with half a dozen partial bottles and several pints stashed here and there. He explained that he'd frequently buy "extra" in case he needed some in the middle of the night or if he'd get snowed in. During this he agreed that he couldn't do this on his own and needed professional help. We called his mother who was in the healthcare industry and explained at some level what was going on. I was pretty sure she wasn't surprised completely and she made some contacts at a local hospital and then came to "visit" a couple days later.

He went for a consuling interview and self commited himself. Turns out he had no major health issues but needed to dry out and get into regular counselling. I was a bit surprised to find that the hospital had a lock-up section on an upper floor. Nothing really that would give you a clue that it was there but it wasn't really secret either, just very confidential in nature. They had a couple dozen people in there for a variety of issues including alcohol and drug abuse. Young and old. Almost like a dormitory arrangement but with locked doors in and out of the facility. A small attending staff and specialists coming in and out. After three days they allowed visitors and he was allowed out for a couple hours with supervison. Pretty weird. But they got him pretty well straightened out in about ten days. Then he had regular out patient counselling sessions and they set him up in AA. They put him on some meds.

Took almost a year until he was really back on his feet and learned how to deal with his demons. He was lucky he had good insurance and connections or he'd probably never have gotten in to the treatment. It worked pretty well for him, but there was a young girl there while he was in who was a "cutter", and about 6 months after she got out she killed herself. It was many years ago and my friend is doing good having rebuilt his life and having learned about himself and his weakness that would always be with him. They taught him how to watch out for things that would indicate that he might be slipping. He knows he has a depressive personality and learned techniques to get himself out of these periods. He sold his guns deciding he's probably be better off without them and he needed the money. I have always been somewhat surprised and also quite impressed at how easily he seemed to be able to open up about all the details, once he got over the initial hurdle. I even asked him about that and he said it was because he knew I wanted to help him. It was about trust I guess.

I think about what might have happened had I not answered that call that night. I personally don't think this guy ever posed a danger to anyone but himself, but who knows. I'm not sure that he would ever be considered a "restricted" person from the standpoint of firearms ownership. He voluntarily got treatment and no criminal, even misdemeanor records exists.

I suspect that some mentally ill people know that something is wrong, at least early on and likely someone around them may know too. I wonder about people who may not have anyone they trust to talk with, or who may want some kind of help but can't get it. This individual's issues aren't all that uncommon and on a scale of 1 to 10, they're probably fairly low on the scale. But still, they were issues that he wouldn't have been able to fix on his own. It was a plus too, that when he got to his crisis stage, he wanted help. I don't know how this relates to the individuals who commit these horrific acts, but I suspect there may be similarities. I suspect that the earlier someone gets some help, the better their chances of recovery. I think that's where the real focus should be rather than some token "feel good" effort to regulate guns that really will achieve very little and doesn't address helping these people.

After reading the story in the link, it really hits home about how potentially serious these kinds of mental issues can become. It is absolutely horrible that this woman has nowhere to turn to get the help her son needs. It sounds like the Lanza case might have similarities. It is a tragedy that got happened, but it is also a tragedy that it got to this point. It is the long building tragedy that we need to address if we will ever hope to stop such incidents.

Sailcat-2064101 The time is approaching when the American people are no longer going to tolerate gun violence against them and their children. The unregulated and unfettered ownership of arsenals of deadly toys by immature wannabe Rambos is going to come to a halt. We are not going to put up with our youngsters being slaughtered on the alter of the Second Amendment any longer. Things are going to change. Oh yes...

There is going to come a time when the Real American people are no longer going to tolerate you people trying to take us "wannabe Rambos" 2nd Amendment rights away. You enthusiastically express your 1st Amendment right which is poisoning the minds of countless American children yet I can't have my 2nd? Our founding fathers so firmly believed in this right along with many others that are being misconstrued and locked away that they were willing to die for its cause. I believe so firmly in my right to bear arms that I am more than willing to die for it to secure the benefit for my children. I have served two tours to give you the right to say you want to relieve me of mine. When all you people who think like sailcat try and come relieve me of my way of life, my source of family protection, and my pursuit of happiness, just remember who has their fingers on the trigger willing to die for a just cause.

Amanda-2017567

We nee to teach moral values and God.

We need to teach moral values, but I don't agree we need to teach 'God'. My husband is a Deist, I'm a Pagan, and although my husband's family is Christian, and I was raised by devout Irish Catholic parents, we want our boys to make up their own mind about what they want to believe instead of blindly absorbing whatever we want them to believe. Faith is not a matter of rote learning, doctrine and religious dogma, faith is a personal decision based on what you believe true about yourself and the world around you.

The Westboro Baptist folks, who I understand are planning on picketing some of the CT child victims' funerals under the assumption that this is God's judgment on CT for legalizing same-sex marriage, teach their kids plenty about God..and yet I would say that with this latest example, they have shown they are devoid of morals regarding respect for others, irregardless of their having learned about God.

It's what you do that matters, not whose Name you do it in.

Base teaching morals and values from what ? If your going to teach them, what is your point of reference ? People who say they can live a moral life with out God, but what is a moral life with out an absolute truth point of reference to fall back on ? Morality can be subjective and is if you look around the world and compare ALL people.

As for the WBBC people, they are a bad excuse for any one to think they are christians. If anyone knew anything about theology and knows how to test scripture vs people actions lifestyles , would see this place as not falling in line with Biblical teaching.