E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSOn Monday several members of Congress have said they are open to restrictions on assault weapons, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg insisted it's time to take action. NBC's Tom Costello reports.
Updated 4:36 p.m. - A handful of pro-gun Democrats showed signs of willingness to consider strengthening regulations on firearms in the aftermath of last week’s elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn.
But that might not mean anything without the cooperation of Republicans, whose senior leaders and rank-and-file members have been mute about their interest in cooperating in a legislative effort to curb gun violence, making the prospects for any new, federal gun law unclear.
After President Barack Obama vowed at a vigil Sunday evening in Newtown to lead “an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this,” several Democrats with long track records of supporting gun rights said they would be willing to consider new proposals, like renewing the ban on assault weapons or limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines that are available for sale.
"Anyone saying they don't want to talk and sit down and have that type of dialogue is wrong," West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, D, said Monday morning on MSNBC. "Everything should be on the table."
If gun laws are going to be changed, advocates will have to overcome past opposition from strong NRA supporters in Congress. Sen. Joe Manchin, a lifelong member of the National Rifle Association, D-W.V., discusses.
That pronouncement carries a degree of weight, considering the source. Manchin has won endorsements and support from the National Rifle Association during his career, and even appeared in a 2010 campaign ad shooting a copy of the cap-and-trade environmental regulatory bill.
Another West Virginia Democrat, Rep. Nick Rahall, also suggested he was interested in action.
"As a lifelong defender of the Second Amendment, I believe that gun safety is essential, but, so is addressing the gaps in our mental health system and the issue of drugs and violence in our culture and prayer in our schools," he said in a statement. "Let us act deliberately, but, for the sake of too many already lost, let us act."
A Kentucky Democrat, Rep. John Yarmouth, a prior proponent of an assault weapons ban who hails from a Republican-leaning state, went so far as to apologize to the 27 victims of the Newtown shooting on Monday for not having pushed harder for new laws.
“I have been largely silent on the issue of gun violence over the past six years, and I am now as sorry for that as I am for what happened to the families who lost so much in this most recent, but sadly not isolated, tragedy,” he said in a statement.
NBC News' Chuck Todd joins a conversation on the Newtown shooting and what the political response may be. Will the president tackle gun reform in a second term? Todd thinks it could be possible.
And Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat who has had an “A” rating from the NRA, called the Connecticut shooting a “game changer” in terms of gun control.
“I join with the president – and, I think reasonable people in both parties and the overwhelming majority of Americans who are gun owners who believe that we’ve got to put stricter rules on the books,” he told a CBS affiliate in Richmond.
One of the reasons major gun legislation hasn’t advanced through Congress in recent years is the increased number of gun-friendly Democrats elected from swing districts and more culturally conservative states. The influx of these pro-gun Democrats made new gun control regulations a virtual impossibility.
But no Republican leader – so far – has joined this Democratic chorus in calling for stricter control of guns in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre. And a new poll, conducted in the aftermath of the Connecticut incident and released on Monday, showed that opinion on gun laws had only shifted marginally in the days following this most recent mass shooting.
Fifty-four percent of Americans said in a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Monday that they favor stricter gun control laws – a slight uptick in the poll numbers preceding Newtown, but hardly near the 67 percent who favored tighter gun control in May 1999, following the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado. And more Americans – 49 percent – said the most effective way to curb gun violence is through enforcing existing laws, versus 32 percent who favor passing new laws.
That said, 52 percent of Americans now believe that the recent shootings are emblematic of larger problems in society, a sea change from July 2012, when 67 percent of Americans, in the aftermath of the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., said recent mass shootings were more likely the isolated acts of troubled individuals.
In the meanwhile, Democrats are girding for a potential fight in Congress next year over guns after California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D, said will introduce new legislation on the first day of the next Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban, which lapsed in 2004. Other Democrats have discussed including rules to limit the capacity of ammunition magazines, or to address mental health.
One pro-gun Democrat who faces re-election in 2014, Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, emphasized mental health in a statement Monday and sidestepped any mention of guns.
"After multiple tragedies across the country, there is no doubt that we must do more to keep our families and communities safe and that is why I believe we must start with the ever-pressing issue of mental health services in this country," he said.
Feinstein said Monday on MSNBC that she had called the president this morning to enlist his support for her bill, but hadn’t heard back.
"I'd like to talk to him about his help in moving forward with this,” she said.
The GOP is afraid... With midterm elections 2014 not far away, Republicans in Congress are very afraid of their true master....the NRA and Norquist. The GOP doesn't serve the people, they only serve corporations interpreted by the Supreme Court Conservative majority as persons in Citizens United who have more right than regular people.
The GOP needs courage under brave leadership to break away from the vicious cycle of corporate corruption.
GNOP - still the party of NO except to filibusters, Norquist and gun control....I guess they will never learn that a lot of the country are getting fed up with their antics...2014 is coming and payback is a b****
P.S.: People should have their right to life. and there should be some middle ground between total insanity of unlimited access to guns and total government control to destroy freedom. There should be uniform national policies on this. It's up to creative leadership of our national leaders to do it.
Yes We can.
Republicans in GOP-controlled states across the nation have cut social services, including mental health services. The GOP has apparently argued that family first - families should do better in taking care of the mentally ill members. But I think - at least in this one case, Nancy Lanza failed...in taking care of her Adam.
We have to remember that President Obama has received something like 45,000 death threats.
He needs people in Congress to stand with him on this. Strongly.
He can't do this alone.
The GOP is silent because they A) lost the election in a really big way, B) know that their party is disintegrating, and C) the evangelical bloodthirsty rednecks have them by the balls. All you need to know.
President Obama Leaves A Message in Newton for coach:
Newtown High football coach Steve George got a special message from President Barack Obama on Sunday.
George and another teacher, Bob Pattison, had written a note to the president on a whiteboard in a classroom used as a staging area for Obama.
"The Newtown community is so thankful that you are coming to help us heal," they had written. "In times of adversity, it is reassuring to know that we have a strong leader to help us recover."
When George returned to the classroom, he found the president had written back. "You're in our thoughts and prayers," Obama wrote. George promptly took to Twitter to share the message.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/12/obama-leaves-message-in-newtown-high-152178.html
For the record, I make no claim that any particular law or set of laws would/could have prevented this weekends massacre. Hearing all of the events, laws did work.
What did not work however, are the shallow talking points about how packing heat gives the owner an upper hand. This woman owned 4 very powerful weapons and was presumably shot dead in her sleep by her TERRORIST and WHITE, male son. Unknown if any every 'saved' her, but now known that at least one definitely killed her.
The secondary tragedy is the underlying current that basically tries to peddle that events likes these are acceptable realities to 'freedom' in this Country and therefore, we should grieve, but ultimately do nothing to alter it.
We are a sad society when in my effort to buy a new home, I MUST sign 10 different addendum acknowledging why I might get a 'green' furnace, vs the 'brown' furnace that was shown in the Model because some idiot had a conniption fit, but then travel to a 'gun show' and buy volumes of weapons of mass destruction with barely even knowing my name. Someone please bridge this gap for me.
If the Republican Party remains silent, and they do nothing or do whatever it takes to thwart any efforts on changing existing laws or bringing new gun safety issues to the table, will only prove to many voters, especially lingering moderate Republicans or those on the fence about the party, that this party does not care what happens to our children. Their silence is a direct slap in the face to the parents, grandparents, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters of those viciously killed on December 14, 2012.
I thought the Selfish Right might know that now is not the time to scream undying support for the 2nd amendment, but Rash Limpbough was all over it today. Blaming the left for over-reacting and politicizing and wanting to destroy the constitution and his usual goofy extremeist crap. He's your spokesman GOPers. He's a freaking high-school educated, drug-addicted, tax dodging, neanderthal....and he's your spokesman. It's time you tea-baggers disavow the scare-mongering, hate-pushing, narrow-minded, obstructionist course your party has taken, and work towards the middle and the progress that can come with it.
Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony.
Thats what I read about gun laws in Connecticut. Really works doesn't it? I am for more gun control on weapons like these so we can help avoid another travesty like the one on Friday. I just don't think it's going to do any good.
Pondering the 2nd Amendment I realize the world is different. You can't organize a Militia Legally so whats the point? I understand a personal handgun but assault weapons have no place in our Society. The only reason to own a mass destruction weapon is to defend yourself against another mass destruction weapon!
From the article above:
Change is coming.
By the time President Obama leaves office in January 2017, there could be more women on the Supreme Court then men.
There are more women in Congress and in State legislatures than every before.
Women are going to have the final say in how they want their children to be safe in America.
Women are going to be the nation's megaphone when it comes to protecting their childrens rights.
The discussion has started.
We men need to listen.
Salud
makessense--not when you get get them so many other ways because they're available anywhere else.
The fact is they are standing true to form showing their true colors = COWARDS = they can not face the fact that this nation has changed and what worked 200 years ago is no longer valid. The problem is they have no one that is living in the here and now with enough understanding of the mega changes that have happened in the past 30 years or so to provide logical, rationale solutions to problems. So what do they have left - obscene hate and maniacal statements that further drive them way from mainstream America and make them worthless as leaders and worse - obstructionists.
Timothy McVeigh in 1995 bombed the Federal building in 1995 killing 168 people 16 of which were children and injuring 680.
You would have thought that we would have learned from that and could prevent it from happening again with all kinds of new laws , regulations etc. correct?
If it wasn't for, well call him John Doe, incompetence at bomb building he could have succeeded at killing hundreds of people in Times Square. I'm sure your remember the attempted Times Square bombing in 2010, it was only 15 years after Oklahoma, and after 15 years it can still happen.
How would your gun control have worked?
makessense-7131188
Sec. 53-202c. Possession of assault weapon prohibited. Class D felony.
Thats what I read about gun laws in Connecticut. Really works doesn't it?
===========
A) I guess you read wrong, because it has not been reported/confirmed to date that the Bushmaster she owned, was owned illegally. I'm also not certain that they were CT residents or from NJ.
B) If your logic was the new norm, what Law could you name that has NEVER been broken? It wouldn't have been a law if a 'violation' never happened. Isn't that kind of the point, one part determent, another part, defining who and what we are as a Nation?
No, there is no law that is a perfect determent and there never will be. But before you put your fingers to a keyboard and type such an idiotic friggin statement, do a Control Alt Delete and walk away from you computer.
I have to wonder..if all known guns are taken from law abiding citizens..how many guns would be left outthere ? Who is really punished for having a gun for real protection other than folks who actually live by our laws..which is more than some of our own congressional reps can say. Does anyone really believe for a minute that a criminal cares about a gun law ? Anyone bent on killing finds a gun if they want one.
This certainly is a complicated issue and there are many causes, none of which in-and-of-itself is solely to blame. That being said, several things are for certain 1) the more rapid fire, high capacity weapons of this nature there are in circulation, the greater the likelihood of events like this, 2) the more TV and radio "news personalities/entertainers" continue to stoke the fires of hate, the more likely it will be that violent events like those which we've seen too often in recent years will continue to occur.
Let's have a sensible discussion without all of the ranting, exaggeration and hyperbole. Very few of us who believe in restrictions on gun ownership have the slightest wish to ban all guns. There are some who do, and they are a minority ..... just as gun owners who want no restrictions on gun ownership whatsoever are in the minority.
NO ONE (outside the military and law enforcement) needs an Assault Weapon.
NO ONE (outside the military and law enforcement) needs a high capacity magazine.
NO ONE (outside the military and law enforcement) needs to own more than ONE firearm.
NO individual needs to purchase case loads of ammunition and multiple magazines.
But gun control is only partly the answer. We are a violent nation with a violent history. How often have you heard the saying "..guts, guns and GOD" made America? We revere violence. We mythologize violence. Since the 1950's we've had it delivered directly to our living rooms as entertainment. We flock to movies to see violence. We pass laws to protect it and quote our Constitution as our God-given rights as Americans to own as many guns as we want and they can only take our guns when they pry our cold dead fingers off the barrel. Samuel Colt made a fortune with the slogan "the guns that won the West."
That's the problem.
Secondarily, is our out-dated and under-funded mental health system. Since the late 1960's we've stopped putting the mentally ill in mental hospitals. Instead, we dumped them on the streets and kept them in their homes or with family members often without treatment or supervision. Unless a person has been deemed incompetent or "crazy" by a court of law any mentally ill person can walk into any gun store in this nation and within an hour walk out with a handgun or assault rifle with additional magazines and all the ammunition they can carry. What's wrong with that picture.
ALL of the shooters in the most recent rampages were mentally ill. ALL of the shooters in the most recent rampages LEGALLY bought the weapons they used in the commission of their crimes. Are we starting to see a pattern here?
I am a gun owner. Ironically, I spent Friday evening at a local gun range teaching a 66 year old woman how to properly handle and shoot a 9mm pistol. I support responsible gun ownership and rational gun control. In fact I would probably go much further than anyone has suggested to limit the NUMBER of guns a person can own and to require them to go through a thorough training procedure BEFORE they could own a gun.
But gun control is only a small part of the equation. You've got to the change the gun culture in this country. We've got to temper our taste for violent entertainments and We've got to answer the all important question regarding the housing and treatment of the mentally ill or you're not addressing the whole problem.
But first, we've got to look inward, at ourselves, and change as a people and a nation.
David, so because stricter gun control wouldn't prevent a bombing, we should just let people run around with guns that are meant to kill hundreds of people at a time? That's got to be the most ridiculous argument among the many the NRA apologists are spouting.
The other is that the restriction of some types of guns and clips are contrary to the Second Amendment.
@ Skip In addition parents of children with emotional problems should not use target shooting as a method of bonding with them and use gun safes to keep them from having access to all firearms. This mother was irresponsible as well like giving matches and gasoline to an arsonist.
Doesn't Chicago have some of the toughest gun regulations in the country? How is that working out?
I'm against guns myself, however I'm for the right to legally own a gun, mind you not an assault weapon like was used here.
Statistically about 36% of the population are registered gun owners. Of these the largest majority (49%) are white male southern conservatives (Gallup 7/20/2012). The rest are mixed among various ethnic minorities, and liberal or independent men and women. So, by this tally about 18% of the population, mainly southern white male conservatives are the largest single group of gun owners. It would surprise me if any of this group supports Obama, or would be in favor of any kind of gun control.
skip Nicholson, Oklahoma City
Well said, amigo.
Salud
I like to view myself to be about as pro second amendment as any true american, and I agree that something needs to change. However I do not believe that an outright ban on assault weapons or high capacity clips is a good solution. Rather than restricting people's access to a particular weapon, we need to restrict access of certain people to these weapons.
For example, contrary to popular belief, it is legal to own fully automatic weapons. But due to strict regulation the cost of them (average $20,000) is very prohibitive to those who seek them for criminal activities.
So instead of beating the drums for an outright ban, we should tax these 'military grade' weapons (say $10,000 per firearm) to bring the cost in line with what the market currently dictates. We should also should put into law mandatory background checks, registration, gun safety classes, and a purchase permits for all types of guns. These measures would go a long way in curbing access to those who buy firearms for criminal activity, while still abiding by the second amendment.
David Noah,
Oh, that's just a brilliant argument. By your logic we should do . . . nothing.
Just brilliant.
Lil Michelle--it's hard to believe you're a teacher. But if you really are, I'm glad you're not teaching my kids. I expect my kids to learn to think.
David: That is a poor argument. It took McVeigh(a right wing nut) TIME to make that bomb. It would take TIME to make a chemical or biological weapon. It did not happen in McVeigh's case, but in most instances some sanity will stop them because of the TIME involved. There is very little TIME for someone with an AR-15 to regain his mind.
No one is talking taking ALL guns away or making ALL guns illegal. But, there is NO PLACE for assault weapons in our society. They should be banned as should all clips of more than 10 bullets. The only reason for an assault weapon is to KILL people.
Lil Michelle - Your ignorance is overwhelming. Yes, we have shootings in Chicago. We are on the topic of a MASS shooting in Connecticut - which has NOTHING to do with Chicago. And, thank God we have not had a mass shooting in Chicago!
What I find strange is that all the mass shootings have taken place in rural areas. Frankly, I don't understand that.
Hello folks, as you have heard a million times, guns don't kill people, idiots pulling the trigger kill people. If you eliminate our 2nd amendment constitutional right only criminals/government will have guns. I had a close loved one shot to death and the murderer was legally banned from having weapons and that didn't stop him from getting a gun. I would still rather face the dangers then lose my civil rights. Remember we are only one of two nations in the world where gun rights are a right not a privilege. You allow the government any wiggle room and that right will be gone very quickly.
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution –
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.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
Benjamin Franklin
Sorry Seeking, but what was ignorant about my post? The discussion is gun regulations, right?
Are you really needing approval that you constantly are on here calling people ignorant for no reason?
grow up girl... and stop being a hater, it will kill you from the inside out!
Republicans have rendered themselves useless for everything except clown show theatre.
If they are too afraid of themselves to govern, I wish they would just get out of the way so the grownups can at least do their jobs as public servants! Just imagine how far ahead we would be if they had passed President Obama's jobs bills 4 years ago! We the People are not going to wait like that for some pro-active solutions to our gun and mental health problems. The first mental health problems needing to be addressed are in the Republican Party!
enough. Enough! ENOUGH!
Lil Michelle - when I need the approval of someone as low as you, I'll get help! The topic is NOT Chicago - which seems to be a favorite of low information people like you. It is assault weapons and tighter laws on those weapons. I understand for someone like you it's difficult, but try to keep up!
Your ignorance will kill you - from the inside out. It obviously already is!
seeking sanity:
I have often agreed with your positions, and I don't want to be a jerk here, but could we maybe tone down the rhetoric just a bit? Michelle said that we don't need assault rifles on the streets - don't you believe that as well? I find nothing ignorant about her position. The ignorant folk are the ones screaming about the gummint taking our guns to subject us to liberal tyranny. Michelle and I disagree about a lot of things, but in this case she seems to be making sense. How about let's take 'yes' for an answer, in these rare occasions where we agree?
Lil Michelle: You are 100% correct. The law must be national. You just have to leave Philly to buy any thing you want.
I'm talking about gun regulations - and citing a city that has some of the tightest gun regulations in the country. It has everything to do with the topic, gun regulation. I'm not sure why I spark hatred that you seem to hate, I'm against assault weapons....
The GOP kisses the NRA Butt for support and votes, the party of Wars & Blood !!!!!!!!!!!
Let them sleep with their guns and blankies!
An idea: all bullets sold over the counter are blanks, but you have to register and account for every bullet (no dumb-dumbs) sold from bullet stores which are run like ABC (liquor)stores in some states.
----------------
@seeking sanity
Really? seeking sanity? really?
snakebone - sorry - I just see so many people bring up irrelevant arguments (Chicago for example) as a way to couch what should be a very serious discussion about the kind of guns we DON'T need. You are, of course, right. I just get tired of people posting drivel on what is a serious topic - just to post some hatred they have of a city I love. It's sick and useless but I guess it is all some people have!
Lil Michelle - I won't respond to your sick hatred. It's clearly all you have.
And there ARE mass shootings in Chicago. Every weekend. It's just that they don't happen in the same building, and they're usually not white. But 37 died in one weekend alone this past summer.
Who else sees the timing of Bob Costas' comment about our gun culture on Sunday Night football a couple of weeks ago, a little weird? Right before Portland and now this. The NRA wanted his head on that Monday.
There is no easy solution, but doing nothing is not an option. Culture, mental illness, assault weapons should all be discussed. And it just sucks that today's children can't grow up like I did 40 years ago...
SeekingSanity
Lil Michelle - when I need the approval of someone as low as you, I'll get help! The topic is NOT Chicago - which seems to be a favorite of low information people like you. It is assault weapons and tighter laws on those weapons. I understand for someone like you it's difficult, but try to keep up!
--------
Assault weapons weren't used in this shooting. The Bushmaster in question was semi-automatic and didn't have a selective fire.
Why do you have to be insulting to someone who is just wanting to discuss gun control as a whole, since that's where this discussion is leading? If the topic is strictly Newtown CT, they already have laws on the books, and Washington wouldn't get involved.
Do we have to be at each others throats ALL of the time?
With over 300 million guns in the hands of private citizens, and ACTUAL crime statistics plummeting over the past decade or so, perhaps we should be informed by the periodic tragedies we have suffered as a nation, rather than succumbing to the knee jerk reactions above.
We are not going to ban guns, or even assault weapons. Even if we could, the "profile" of the type of individual who is capable of subjecting others to this brand of horror would be unlikely to be thwarted, or even deterred.
We can make the waiting period at gun shows align with the waiting period at other venues.
We can enforce gun laws as they exist, as there are a multitude.
We can better evaluate the EDP to assess the potential for violence
Families can be more vigilant in their supervision of same.
I wish we could legislate away random acts of senseless violence, as I am sure everyone regardless of their political position or opinion on guns in general would too, but faced with the harsh reality of things as they are, we will mourn the dead, wring our hands, call for an "end to this.."
and live in mortal fear of the next incident...
Reagan defunded the mental health care system and now we have the Tea Loonies !!!!!!!!!!
Repojam - You're right, it was not an assault weapon but it was a semi-automatic - the kind that should be outlawed. Again, these are only made to kill people, not for hunting or for self-protection. And, it is about limiting gun clips to no more than 10.
We are talking about gun legislation - not particular cities or states - and that is what we should be discussing since that is what the article is about. When people need to pinpoint a specific state or city - their agenda isn't on topic and shows their own hatred. I'm surprised you don't see that. Again, the topic is NATIONAL legislation to stop the sale of semi-automatic guns and large gun clips.
Chicago HAS been working on the problem and the number of shootings here has gone down. BUT - that is NOT the topic of the discussion.
So what good does a ban on "assault" weapons do? If you read the list of things that constitute an assault weapon it does nothing to help... He could have killed those same 26 people with the 2 semi automatic handguns that he carried...gun control is a farce due to the fact that as Americans we have the right to own guns and use them if need be...it will be a wasteful posturing of congress to even address the issue...What needs to happen is for women to be mothers and men to be fathers...single parent families (or same sex ones) do not create a healthy child...like everything else a sacrafice is required to achieve a good result.
I have yet to hear anyone claim that sensible gun laws would eliminate all acts of violence. It would be naive to think that. The point is that doing nothing is not nor should it be an option; that's the option we've chosen since Columbine only to see more and more violent mass shootings.
We have laws requiring safety guards on machines to prevent the loss of fingers, hands, arms. Those guards do not prevent every injury but they do reduce the numbers of them and we have a lot fewer people with missing fingers and hands as a result of a machine. Sensible laws such as background checks, mandatory waiting periods, closing gun show loopholes, banning extended magazine clips and banning assault weapons would not stop every determined person but at least those laws slow them down, put barriers in the way. That is the goal of laws, to eliminate as much of the risk as possible. We can never eliminate the human element completely but we can minimize the impact and the frequency. To do nothing is a failure of and to society.
Pat, Boston. What a nice story about the whiteboard.
Well, while we are pointlessly arguing amongst ourselves about (LOL) which party is "Afraid" to sign off on gun control or what party is looking out for OUR best interests lets take a moment to look at it from a Non Political view because , ya know, so many things that have ever came out of Washington have been successful, ha
If for some insane reason Both parties, which are one in the same and nothing but a show to keep the ordinary civilians piled against each other fighting over things that never come to pass anyway, come to agree to "Ban Guns" then the REAL criminals would STILL OBTAIN THEM NO MATTER WHAT people, just do the damn math, ill try to keep it simple
1) Drugs are illegal, yet Criminals still acquire them
2) Killings Illegal, yea i dont think ill have to add to that one
3) Theft is illegal, yet people still steel from banks, old ladies, little kids etc etc
So, when we (Law Abiding Citizens) are attacked by real criminals, may it be at home, at the store, or at our schoolhouses, what will you have to defend yourself against said gun toting criminals?
Well, im sure it wont be a gun now will it?
Youll just have to wait there with your thumb up your rear waiting for the Trained "Police"
Killers to get there with their guns to dispatch the criminal, which im pretty sure , will be long gone, leaving the defenseless bodies of kids, the elderly, and well pretty much anyone who couldnt defend themselves, behind
P.S.
This may be a Coincidence or just circumstantial evidence, but me having a PhD in common sense, im leaning more towards the latter
"The father of Newtown Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza is Peter Lanza who is a VP and Tax Director at GE Financial. The father of Aurora Colorado movie theater shooter James Holmes is Robert Holmes, the lead scientist for the credit score company FICO. Both men were to testify before the US Sentate in the ongoing LIBOR scandal. The London Interbank Offered Rate, known as Libor, is the average interest rate at which banks can borrow from each other. 16 international banks have been implicated in this ongoing scandal, accused of rigging contracts worth trillions of dollars. HSBC has already been fined $1.9 billion and three of their low level traders arrested."
All that i am asking is for you to do a little Personal Research on any of these topics that are presented to you as "Fact"
Cause as we all know, people used to KNOW that the Earth was Flat
and Everyone KNEW that we were at the Center of our universe,
Well, Look at what you "know" now
So silly. I am a gun owner. I agree that there is no need for assault rifles in our streets, but gun laws? This assailant obviously has no respect for any "gun laws" anyway. They weren't his guns to begin with. This only proves that anyone who wishes ill on someone will do anything it takes to acheive that end. The real question here is, why did the school let this man in?
single parent families (or same sex ones) do not create a healthy child...like everything else a sacrafice is required to achieve a good result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presented without comment...
TrustandVerify - Good points, however there is no County, State or Province that would allow an armed Militia that wasn't sponsored by Government. It may violate the 2nd Amendment but a Militia assembled to remove Government Officials is not legal or at lease would never be allowed exist in todays society.
happy42xxx - funny, I know families that are "single" parent and their children are wonderful, intelligent, loving children. I also know same sex families with healthy, intelligent, loving children.
The issue here was a child who had mental health problems. THAT is not a single parent or same sex family issue. It is mental health.
And, yes, it is semi-automatic weapons which should never have been near him.
Your blatant bias has nothing to do with anything - except your blatant bias!
David Noah has drawn the bonehead conclusion that if a gun control law is not perfect, if it does not prevent every violent death in the country, then it is no good and we should not even attempt to improve our security.
Timothy McVeigh's bomb was a fertilizer bomb and that Oklahoma City event lead to legislation that allows the FBI to more easily track those who buy large quantities of nitrate fertilizers for the purposes of terror. How has that worked?
why do any of you hold an emotional reaction to something that has nothing to do with you? was your child, relative, friend or co-worker any of the victims? this is a local crime issue, not national there was no reason for obama to speak and none for him visiting, he has more important things to worry about but then again hes never worried about them before.
do any of you people have any clue to the amount of violent deaths that occur in other countries? we aint the only ones with issues but yet you people only see whats in front of your face while ignoring anything else.
if none of you have any clue to as why we have the 2nd amendment then you have no right to speak about any ban or it. it has nothing to do with hunting or even personal self-defense, its all about preventing government tyranny as all governments have and will eventually oppress its citizens.
we are a republic not a democracy.
SeekingSanity
Repojam - You're right, it was not an assault weapon but it was a semi-automatic - the kind that should be outlawed. Again, these are only made to kill people, not for hunting or for self-protection. And, it is about limiting gun clips to no more than 10.
We are talking about gun legislation - not particular cities or states - and that is what we should be discussing since that is what the article is about. When people need to pinpoint a specific state or city - their agenda isn't on topic and shows their own hatred. I'm surprised you don't see that. Again, the topic is NATIONAL legislation to stop the sale of semi-automatic guns and large gun clips.
----
------------
Plenty of semi automatic rifles are made for hunting. Not all hunting rifles are bolt action single loaded with a slider.
The discussion of gun legislation has multiple parts, state and federal (edit, sorry). What I believe LilMichelle was questioning is if tighter gun control has actually made the situation safer. I didn't see anything that provoked a response as harsh as you sent, that is all.
I am seeing a lot of hatred and am hoping that it tones down so a rational discussion can ensue. I am not here saying people aren't seeing things, and I haven't even provided my observation except for hoping people could discuss this rational. It's a lot easier to discuss this if I know what people are specifically for (i.e. total removal of guns, removal of assault rifles, removal of semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, etc) before I start to cast judgment or suggest someone has an ulterior motive.
I haven't even begin to put in even the first of my two cents, as I am sure you can see.
The GOP Wishes the NRA Merry X-Mass for more Votes !!!!!!!!!
Hole
"There is no easy solution, but doing nothing is not an option."
So why does the solution have to start with Guns? How about start with Mental illness? How about protecting us without taking away our freedoms?
It is silly for people to completely ignore the problem and not address the real issue at hand.
Analogy for you. If a husband punches his wife frequently, the solution isn't to cut off his fist or arm. But gun control is the solution for the school shooting problem?
Next you will start telling people that if you spend a trillion plus more dollars than you have, the best solution would be to raise taxes about 80 billion and say you have solved the problem.
So, does "Right to Life" relate to Gun Control? We should abolish abortion and increase gun laws? Really, does an un-born child have any less right to life than these school children did?
Do we really need "tougher laws" when they only affect law-abiding citizens? By nature, a "criminal" does not obey "law". How, then, can tougher laws be the solution?
We started down this path, not because of the NRA, but because we decided to take God out of Public Schools. Or any other public venue. Seriously - this type of violence increased when more and more religous freedom was constricted.
I think a lot of people are missing the point here. Gun control or not, the owner of the guns was killed and her guns used in a heinous crime. No amount of gun control is going to prevent someone else from killing the gun owner and committing another crime. Bottom line, this guy was sick and we will never know the reasons why he did this.
However this will not stop the media from continuing to make up stories to explain why it happened, but that is another sad story.
Don - "David Noah has drawn the bonehead conclusion that if a gun control law is not perfect, if it does not prevent every violent death in the country, then it is no good and we should not even attempt to improve our security."
you ignore that fact that the laws we currently have also saves lives?
Did you read the story about the armed man in the Oregon Mall shooting?
http://www.infowars.com/report-armed-man-help-stop-oregon-mall-shooting/
Does anybody find it weird that all mass gun shooting happens in places were guns are allowed?
@Alaskagirl: wow you figured it out...that MUST mean that the republicans dont care about children at all. Wow, everyone everyone......you can all breathe easily now that she figured it out. Saved everyone a whole lot of time and effort and for that we thank you *SMH*
happy42xxx
Does burning sheep innards still do the trick?
Why isn't anyone talking about Hollywood's influence. Blood and guts. Guns and murder.
The writers and producers are promoting a culture of death.
You anti-gun nuts realize that he didnt use an assault weapon right? When was the last time an assault weapon was used in a mass murder in the US? He used 2 pistols. So thumping your chest and calling the right fear mongers is really quite pathetic and hypocritical. Also pathetic is that you use every tragedy to push your agenda. Tighter gun control has always seen an increase in gun violence. And again, an assault weapon was not used, so it would not have changed this at all. Yes, we definitely need to look at making schools safer, and address mental health issues in our country. What we dont need is a bunch of looney liberals trying to outlaw things that were not even part of the equation in these shootings. But then again, liberals dont use logic in their laws. Only fear and worry.
OK, folks,
What EXACTLY would you do to have more "gun control"?
What is an assault weapon and how would it have kept CT from happening?
Anyone of you banners want to give it a shot?
This will be entertaining.......... Let the ranting and raving begin.
Lil Michelle~ It only takes a 3 minute drive outside Chicago's city limits to purchase guns. The state doesn't allow carry on handguns however, but how often do you hear about that stopping a shooting? I never have unless the police arrive.
Seeking Sanity:
I absolutely understand. It is very difficult to rationally argue anything (and keep a cool head) when your opponents consistently call you an un-American commie who should leave the country. You have taken your share of unwarranted abuse, but much more often than not, you come back with good, well-reasoned arguments. Keep up the good work!
Chicago is one of the best cities in America, IMHO.
So miss piggy what do you think should happen?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/20856/adam-lanza-shooting-this-mass-murderer-might-have-been-motivated-by-drugs-not-by-guns
The GOP-NRA should be listed as a Terrorist Organization !!!!!!!!!
Repojam - NO - real hunters DO NOT use semi-automatic weapons to hunt. No real hunter would EVER be caught hunting with a semi-automatic weapon. It is not acceptable in any way.
The bush weapon this man used is NOT used for anything but killing people - period.
Swagganaut - if you don't understand why this is a national issue - you have bigger problems than can be addressed here. Did you consider 9/11 just to be an issue for New York?
All Presidents have made these unfortunate situations ones where they are present to represent the nation. If you don't like it, why are you even posting here?
Mr. Burns - you really need to keep up. He DID NOT use two pistols. He used a bush semi-automatic.
snakebone - Thank you!
Take guns out of the equation. This has nothing to do with "guns". That is just a power grab from the insane left (redundant) for more control over other people's lives. Being helpless doesn't make you safer. Those that think that are complete idiots. How many victims were armed? NONE> so being unaramed didn't make them safer DID IT? Guns aren't allowed in schools. THERE WAS GUN CONTROL ALREADY!!!! IT DIDN'T WORK!!!!!
This is about the lack of supervision of a mother over her child. PERIOD! He could've used knives or gasoline (like what recently happened). He could've run over them with a car! (like what recently happened).
Edit - meant to say.
Does anybody find it weird that all mass gun shooting happens in places were guns are NOT allowed?
Will someone please explain the loophole regarding gun shows.
Seeking -
Here is a link to Cabela's for the semiautomatic weapons. Do you think they are not used for hunting?
http://www.cabelas.com/semiautomatic-shotguns.shtml
I have to ask this, it instead of a gun a bomb was use would it have been any less violent? it is a lot easier to make or get your hands on other weapons besides firearms. for Example a glass bottle a rag and some gas, or a trip to your local fireworks store , or a car ramming a school bus off road . people you must understand there are over 300 million people in this country , each one has a mind if they want to find a way to kill they will. be it guns, knives, clubs, bombs, poisons you name it . the best thing we can do is do our best to keep our families safe. a gun ban will do very little to stop the killing , we cant even keep people from coming across our boarders and bringing in drugs, how you going to stop the guns from getting in ? when Jim Jones kill all those kill with the poison kool aid did we he cries of banning kool aid? 65000 people die in car wrecks in this country every year so should we ban cars? it we change the way we live because of a few nut cases are we not letting the ear and them win? what if the only point he was trying to make was to get us to change and live in fear if so then for us to change means he won and all those lost would have been for not.
Apple: from the information (or lack there of) that has been obtained by the MSM so far, the killer broke into the school and started shooting. His act of breaking into the school is what attracted the principal to where he was.
The reality is that many laws will be broken, but do we stop trying to hold back the forces of chaos and evil ?
It may be very difficult to put forth a ban on semi-automatic, automatic or assault weapons, but just because it is difficult, do we not try ?
It may be nearly impossible to change the Constitution to end the unfettered "right to keep and bear arms", but does that mean we should not do it?
Remember, at the time it was proposed, going to the moon within the next decade was thought to be nearly impossible, yet that difficult task was accomplished, so also can the task of ridding the nation of the chaos that has resulted from the abhorrent misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Any worthy cause may be very difficult. The question is, are the thousands and thousands of lives lost each year which could be saved worth the effort ?
For muglitt and others who comment on the various other methods of killing, guns are the only item mentioned in our Constitution which are designed and, when used as intended, remove LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, PERMANENTLY.'
Just as the implicit authorization to have slaves was eventually removed from the Constitution, so also this anachronism must go. The historical right to KILL must end.
You must be out of your minds to politicize this tragedy and use it as a forum to attack Republicans. Additionally, you have no clue as to what you're taking about. Gun bans will only assure that only the bad people have guns. All laws only serve to restrict the law-abiding while having no affect on the outlaws. Did prohibition work? NO! And, it won't work for guns either. The liberal press has said nothing about the individual who had a legally concealed carry weapon who stopped the Clackamas shooter, which otherwise could have been significantly worse. What about the recent (day after Newtown) in China who killed over 20 students with a knife? Are we going to ban knives too?
It's a pretty simple concept that even you should be able to understand. These nutcases attack at schools because they are soft targets. They are gun ban or gun free zones, which just means that only bad guys can have guns there. Gun free zones serve as huge billboards to all who would do evil that essentially read, WE'RE AN EASY TARGET BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY GUNS; JUST COME ON IN AND DO YOUR WORST.
Yes, I can live with restrictions on the capacity of magazines, but I can assure you that anyone who is proficient with his firearm can change ten-round magazines in a hunting rifle or hand gun with next to no perceived change in his rate of fire.
Now then, because I have a Concealed Carry Permit, this means that I've had training, a thorough background check, and I've been finger printed. So, everyone knows that I've been checked out, but bad guys don't do this. We have no idea about them.
I just wish that I could have been in that school on Friday with my weapon so that perhaps I could have stopped this deranged person, but then I guess I would not have had my weapon with me because I'm a law-abiding citizen and IT'S A GUN FREE ZONE!!!!!
SeekingSanity
Repojam - NO - real hunters DO NOT use semi-automatic weapons to hunt. No real hunter would EVER be caught hunting with a semi-automatic weapon. It is not acceptable in any way.
-----------------
A basic hunting rifle, a .22 can often be found in semi-automatic configurations. Many manufacturers do this with intent for smaller game. This is a cheap and basic rifle that often is used with young hunters.
SeekingSanity
The bush weapon this man used is NOT used for anything but killing people - period
----
Often deer are the intended target with a bushmaster. I have seen people keep one when they go hunting for smaller in the event of a black bear becoming aggressive.
Again, I'm just making sure I know the terms. I am not seeking to antagonize or set someone off, I just want to make sure I am understanding the position that caused you to insult LilMichelle.
A friend once said, "Guns don't kill...but people will, again and again and again."
And the death certificate does not state the "cause of death" as mental illness, bad parenting, social ills, violent movies & video games, anti-depression medication, bullying, etc. The clinical cause is " GSW-gun shot wound." Reflect a moment on what multiple gun shot wounds (3 -11) from a rapid fire gun does to the small body of a six year old.
Even Benjamin Franklin, a father and a grandfather, would have to contemplate how high a price is too high when our liberty costs the very lives for whom we hold liberty dear.
Dick Cheney is a Member of the NRA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see a lot of people talking about a AR-15 not being a hunting rifle and those saying that are wrong. I know many that hunt with them just as I do and they are the perfect weapon when up in a tree stand in the middle of a heavily wooded area where range isn't a issue. When I need range I use my 30-06 or when I'm out hunting a pack of coywolves I prefer to have my semiautomatic AR-15 because I don't have to work the bolt nor do I have to worry about getting put up a tree like my neighbor was with his bolt action rifle.
Also no amount of laws is going to stop this we have plenty of proof with the strict gun laws that some states already have. The only way to stop this is to address the root of the problem of why people feel like this is their only recourse and better education and medical help for people and families with loved ones that have mental health issues.
SeekingSanity: I don't know where you get off saying no real hunter uses semi-automatics I know plenty of real hunters including myself that hunts with them just as I do my bolt action and my bow.
Repojam.......you (may have) said.....(it isn't clear):
Some folks hunt deer with a muzzle loader. Some hunt them with bow and arrow. Some might get their jollies hunting deer with hand grenades if that was legal.
None of that matters. Assault style rifles (esp. with large magazines) are NOT NECESSARY to hunting, targeting, or self defense.
The primary market for assault style weapons are para-military wannabees, militia nuts, and chicken little survivalists. Our society can no longer afford to cater to this tiny (but loudly vehement) minority.
Instead of more redundant gun control laws, which obviously don't work, why don't the progressives try taking kids to church? Sure, I realize that true progressives have decreed that religion is mythical and a joke, but it seems that teaching kids that "Thou shalt not kill" might be at least as effective as condemning the NRA and badgering legitimate, peaceful gun owners. At the very least, it would probably be better than buying them computer games whose object is mass murder!
This topic is so visceral right now, its causing knee jerk responses! While understandable, it is not possible to solve overnight. The events that took place this weekend will live with many of us forever.
Unfortunately, no matter what we do to control/deny/restrict access to guns, PEOPLE KILL!! If not with a gun then a knife, if not with a knife, then a bomb and so on. The lost fragments of our society will find a way to cause the kind of carnage we all witnessed this weekend. It sucks, but we just can't control lunatics!
I could not agree more that there should be a ban on assault weapons, large clips, etc. And I am a Republican and the owner of many guns. I hunt and I would never consider giving up my right. For people to come on here and rip the GOP party for not standing up and yelling from the tallest building is absurd.
It might be the fact that they are taking the time needed in a matter of this magnitude to kraft the right message, right direction, and right tone to get everyone to focus on the best way to minimize these events from ever happening again. Silence is not necessarily a sign of disregard.
Please remember, the problem starts with talking. Both parties MUST find a way to find common ground on this horrible problem in America. I am confident that despite our constant bashing of each others party, there will be a new solution to this horrible problem. And just maybe a starting point to stop this country from falling apart.
Everyone hug your children or call them and tell them you love them. You NEVER know!
"A handful of pro-gun Democrats?" Seems to me the majority see this for what it is. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. Do words like self-discipline, personal responsibility or good moral judgement mean anything to you? This is the same as outlawing curbs because a person stubbed and broke his toe on a curb. Ever think it might be the person's fault, not the object? In these cases, ever think it might be violence laden video games and movies, the disintegration of moral values, or America failing those who have serious mental health issues? Let alone, these shootings are in areas that are pro-left, (like college campuses or college towns.) Not seeing this in the conservative parts of the US..... Look at the mentality, not the object.
Oh and those carrying on about the NRA....the NRA should have nothing to say since they didn't cause the problem. It would be like the Boy Scouts commenting on it.
More Media spin. How about some REAL news.
I'll respectfully point out what's wrong with this argument (which I very often hear): it's fallacious.
You're assuming causality in suggesting that tough gun laws are what causes gun violence or even that it doesn't deter it.
Chicago has a problem with gun violence because of demographics, poverty, gangs, population density, among many other problems. It's very likely that if its gun laws were a little laxer, it would be an even more violent city. The same is likely true for other big, violent urban centers like Detroit or Baltimore.
To assume that gun laws don't work because the average city with gun laws is more violent than the average city without them is tantamount to assuming that western medicine doesn't work, just because the average person on medications has more conditions and illnesses than the average person not taking any medications.
Gun controls?? Yeah, good luck with that.
Ian Emdee
Repojam.......you (may have) said.....(it isn't clear):
Some folks hunt deer with a muzzle loader. Some hunt them with bow and arrow. Some might get their jollies hunting deer with hand grenades if that was legal.
None of that matters. Assault style rifles (esp. with large magazines) are NOT NECESSARY to hunting, targeting, or self defense.
----
My comment was originally relating to the Bushmaster, which people do hunt deer with. With that said, assault rifles aren't necessary for hunting, I agree. I don't know anyone who goes hunting with a selective fire (or fully automatic) weapon. I do feel that semi automatic rifles are legitimate for hunting. I would even consent that large clips are not necessary, but I do not agree that semi-automatic weapons are simply for "killing people".
Skip, I was with you until you came to the no one should own more than 1 gun, I have to disagree on that one. I own multiple guns, I use them for recreational hunting and target shooting. I don't see any problem with folks owning mutiple guns, its the type of guns we need to talk about.
Semi-automatics are not the real problem. It is large capacity magazines and the weapons (e.g. assault style) designed to use them that need to be regulated.
Some of the "fast gun" artists use revolvers. Lever and pump actions can shoot nearly as fast as a semi-automatic.
Let's go after what most of us can agree on: assault style weapons which support large capacity magazines, and armor piercing ammunition. Bringing semi-auto weapons into the debate is liable to energize the opposition and not really provide more safety.
It may be nearly impossible to change the Constitution to end the unfettered "right to keep and bear arms", but does that mean we should not do it?
Hell YES it means we should not do it.
Nothing about loopholes in gun show laws?
Seeking,
If your talking about "real hunters", they use a bow, and yes they do use semi automatic rifles as well.
Hey, Patriotic American U.S.A. #1.79
... and cheney also spread bullets into a lawyer's face? Uncalled-for.
Repojam......you said:
Agreed.
Hell yeah they've stayed silent. They haven't been told what their postion is yet.
Yeah.
Here in Michigan they passed a law stating that you can now bring a handgun into a church, elementary school, or bar. It was passed THE DAY OF the shooting. Not kidding.
And today Michigan's newly rabid right-wing Governor/Dictator has said that law requires "some further review".
Nice to see you're finally seeing it our way Snyder. A little late, but it is a start. Say,....... why can't people take guns into Michigan's Capitol Building? How come guns are so peachy for the unwashed masses, but not OK for you "Nerd"?
Just askin'.
Lets ban everything bad for us! Ban meat, guns, candy, movies, tv, internet, central heating... Ban it all! Save us Democrats! Save us from ourselves! Only criminals will enjoy these sinful acts!
"but GOP stays silent"
So you want the GOP to come out and pretend to solve the problem with School shooting with gun control, so the next time it happens you fools will blame them?
Next the Dems will tell us banning drugs works or alcohol.
The Bushmaster, a .223 is a varmint gun. Not even big enough to legally hunt deer with in many states. They are intended for varmints. Rabbits, coyotes, wolves. The round is one of the smallest made next to a .22. In MN a .240 caliber is needed for deer because if its killing power. A .223 is not used because it wounds more than it kills. A shot gun slug, as many of you libs seem to have no problem with, is a much more lethal round.
Before you spout off about banning guns, know what you are proposing to ban.
If capacity is your problem, state it. As a hunter I don't need a 30 round clip for a gun. But even if 5 round clips are what we are limited too I person could just get 6 of them. Same diff, little slower.
What law could have changed what happened? The guns were purchased legally by an honest, sane woman that cleared a background check etc. Her guns were stolen from her. There are already laws against stealing guns, killing people, etc but it still happened. Criminals don't care about the law and any new ones that may arise. If they have it in their mindset to kill, they will, regardless of what is available. Gun, knife, bow, bombs, cars, trucks..
Society today is the problem. We find it entertaining to go to the movies and see a flick with violence and bloodshed. Hell, we even pay money to go see it. But then, when it actually happens in real life everybody gets a wakeup call, cries, mourns, gets angry, demands stricter laws, then catches another violent flick that weekend at the local cinema.
It is what the kids are being taught nowadays. Violent games, movies, television. Throw a little bit of mental challenge in there and we can see what might happen.
Tom - Plymouth-3672298.........
Neither assault style firearms nor large capacity magazines are addictive.
I personally don't own a gun and have no deisre to, but gun control will not solve anything. The problem is not an abundance of guns but a lack of God in this once great nation. When you eliminate God you invite evil and although most of you will not agree with me, the truth is the truth and Jesus Christ is the truth and the way to restore our nation. Go ahead and call me names and whatever but if we put God back into our homes, schools and governments these incidents will decrease much more than if we put more laws in about guns. FWIW.
GOP, nothing to offer America but lies.
A thoroughly disputed claim. You see, people are a problem, but the fact that we let problematic people have access to highly efficient killing machines only aggravates the problem.
By the same logic, you could argue that bad drivers, not cars, are the problem when it comes to traffic fatalities. And yet, regulations and improvements in automotive engineering have drastically reduced fatalities per mile driven for the past 50 years. Bad drivers will always exist, but if you don't give them bad cars, they won't be able to kill as many people. The same holds true for guns: hateful lunatics will always exist, but if you don't give them guns, they won't be able to kill as many people.
So, no, that tired old cliche doesn't address the issue.
Unfortunately, until we live in either a perfect, utopian paradise or a totalitarian, dystopian regime, self-discipline and personal responsibility will be neither a given nor imposed upon people by force. In a free, imperfect society, there will ALWAYS be people who, despite the best efforts of society, will resent everyone else. Again, why give them access to guns?
The difference is that curbs haven't been outlawed. And if the toe-stubbing problem ever becomes an epidemic, then yes, curbs will pay the price. They will probably be re-engineered to adjust to people's faulty walking skills. Again, you will never be able to fix the imperfect nature of humanity.
Oh, please. Video games don't have anything to do with it. Video game–free, moral America of 1980 had a murder rate of 10.2 murders per 100,000 people. Video game–ridden, amoral America of 2011 had a murder rate of 4.7 murders per 100,000 people. Overall crime rates have dropped similarly. Find a better scapegoat.
As long as there exists this culture that the government shouldn't do anything to aid people in need, then, yes, America will continually fail those who need us the most.
And yet, seven out of ten states with the highest murder rate in the country are reliably pro-right.
No, we need to look at BOTH parts of the equation.
Here is a legitimate question for the people wanting a ban and no flames please. How many of the roughly 2.5 million of the AR-15 style weapons will a ban actually get off the streets and out of homes?
How about having a president that does NOT condone violence? TWO DAYS before the shooting this man could watch the violence in Michigan by adult union members beating INNOCENT people. They knifed down a tent hoping to injure seniors and people in wheelchairs. These are the people the PRESIDENT encouraged the day before to stand up to the LAWMAKERS OF MICHIGAN. By not condeming their actions the president condoned VIOLENCE...encouraged, it approved it. Anyone with mental unstability could easily convince themselves that the president approves of violence. I was appalled that the president was as silent with the MI union violence as he was with the WI union violence. More people that I know spoke out about the president's lack of reaction this time.
Mr. President...before you lecture law abiding citizens about violence LOOK IN THE MIRROR!
Lets ban the news. Media attention fuels killing trends.
Morgs74......you said:
The U.S. Army's 5.56mm M-16 assault rifle (and its variants) fires almost exactly the same diameter round as the Bushmaster. The M-16 was expressly designed to kill human beings. These children, by the way, were not as large as some coyotes.
It is the energy delivered on target that kills rather than (only) the mass of the projectile. Let us know when you are willing to take a BB at 3000fps.
.....you also said:
Consider taking your own advice.
Proof of ignorance is you libs who blame the Repubs and the NRA for everything. Another law will not stop this kind of thing from happening. We already have a federal law prohibiting guns on school property. WOW, that law really helped. If you weren't so focused on talking @!$%# about the Repubs and NRA, you might actually take time to look at some facts. Do you really think that the ones who you need to worry about committing crimes buy their guns at a gun show or Cabelas. Those must be registered and a background check must be done.
Meth and other drugs are outlawed. How is that working? Or is that over your head?
I also propose a ban on all politically motivated Presidential speeches during good NFL football games. I missed the whole first quarter O'bummer!
Patriotic American U.S.A.:
Just when do you plan on becoming a "Patriotic American?" Rigt now you seem to be nothing but a hater searching for some sort of boggy-man, and you only look in the Republican party! You better check both parties for your demons because evil is not restricted to just one side (think Robert Byrd, Eric Holder, jeffery Dohmer, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, etc.)
Your hatred will consume you, it has already started to do so!
T_Bird69......you asked:
Not every existing budding mass murderer has an assault rifle. Likewise, those yet to become mass murderers would be less able to obtain an assault weapon if new sales are banned.
Just because a solution is not perfect does not make it useless.
Most of us don't advocate collecting existing assault weapons. However, we might consider making their sale (by existing owners) illegal except to the government.
Look, I've got no problem with tighter gun controls being legislated - really, I don't. What I have a problem with is people kidding themselves that they will make a difference - they won't. Pass all the gun control legislation you want - and a Cho or a Lanza will still make headlines in the future. Take away the assault rifle that he used, and he still showed up with two fully loaded handguns and a shotgun.
What we need to be focusing on - and aren't, because it's being lost in the "gun" shuffle - is mental health.
First, let's be clear: the vast majority of those suffering mental health problems are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators. The vast majority live productive lives. What we're talking about here are the serious cases that "fall through the cracks."
It seems like the basic plan the US has for those people suffering from serious, debilitating and potentially "dangerous to themselves and others" forms of mental illness is to ignore it until one of two things happen:
1. They commit a crime and can be locked up.
2. They end up homeless. Then we can call them "homeless" and ignore any mental issues they might have.
Truth is, solving this problem will be much harder than gun control. But just think - what the hell kind of demons tortured the mind of a kid like Lanza to get him to do such a depraved and senseless act? Was he beyond help? Maybe - probably - but we'll never know. And if he was indeed "beyond help," then where was the mechanism to protect society from him? This is what we need to talk about first.
Will one of you gun control morons show us a substantiated case.....just one.....where a mass murderer used a weapon that he legally purchased for himself?
Emdee, I am fully aware of the round a M-16 is. But what you don't mention is that a M-16 is a variant with a flipswitch from single shot, to burst to fully auto. This is a machine gun. They are already banned for the most part. I don't get one because of the $100k fine and prison time. Think this deters a criminal? No.
I will take your BB 3000 fps if you take my slug from 1500 fps. Not going to explain this to you...Go back to your physics class and listen better.
My quote still stands.
This is not a gun control issue, it's a mental health issue. Sane people do not massacre the innocent. Years of so called social reformers convinced us that the insane have more rights then we do. Instead of institutionalizing them we medicate them and turn them loose only to regret it latter. Even when they do not commit suicide after a massacre they are found incompetent to stand trial. We need to identify the threats and put them out of harms way, for their sake and ours.
As for gun control my opinion is that if you can afford a $1500 rifle you can afford a $500 vault to keep it in. The last two incidents were committed with stolen weapons. Most of the street crime is with stolen weapons. It won't prevent all thefts but it will certainly make it more difficult. If the government wants to do something about it, give a tax refund for the price of a vault and add a question on the ATF form, Do you have secure storage for this weapon?
Ian, "illegal except to the government." the same Government that sold them to Mexican Drug Lords, that ended up killing Americans and Mexican people? and the libs just want fast and furious to go away so we can have more control? Are F'N kidding me?
Yes, lets get the Government moved involved and creating a safety bubble for us mindless citizens.
It DOESN'T. AUTOMATIC weapons a) were not involved in this, or any other "mass killing" since the 1920's and b) Have been completely prohibited since 1934 for ownership by the general public except under license of the Federal Govt. (an EXPENSIVE and DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN license)
You are NOT helping your "cause" or position by spewing this completely false information as if it were true; it's NOT. The "bush weapon" as you call it is correctly identified as a semi-automatic rifle sold under the name "Bushmaster", and yes, it is FREQUENTLY used for hunting.
One of the things that gets the ire of legitimate, law-abiding firearms owners up is the complete and total mis-identification and categorization of the various types of firearms by those who so desperately want to "do something" yet refuse to educate themselves enough to even know anything about the topics on which they speak so "authortatively"
I have tried repeatedly in these forums to at least clear some of these misconceptions up. Now, I will simply state that a) "tis far wiser to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt" and b) PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT TEH TOPICS YOU WISH TO DISCUSS BEFORE SPOUTING OFF LIKE A KNOW-IT-ALL FOOL.
Have a NICE day !
Ian: Thanks for your answer and you are correct because anybody already owning them will grandfather them in. However I don't agree with a ban on them as I said before we need to get to the root of the problem of why people feel like this is their only recourse, address it and offer better education and help for the families of people with mental disorders.
Woodworker, facts that like just get in the way of the libs, so they ignore them and try to play on your emotions, and they think others are stupid. (Why else would they lie about facts a simple google search would tell you)
Remember Rahm Emanuel said it best "don't let a crisis go to waste"
So the left uses the murder of 20 children to push their agenda and then say the other side is heartless.
Weird huh?
Skip from OK City said it all, but I too disagree with the ! gun comment...everything else is 100% on target. Even the majority of those polled in Newtown agree that the emphasis needs to be on providing better Mental Health care to those in need.
We have definitely swung from the age old negative astigma of "crazies", who had to be put away for their own good and forgotten(only to be abused, mistreated and/or experimented on), to the modern abusive treatment of those who need the help and guidance of professionals by drugging the poop out of them and "saving them" from such institutions, by throwing them back out into a society they couldn't cope with to begin with.
We did this under the guise of "more humane treatment" and "patients rights". We said, "look how much $$$ we saved by shutting down those institutions", instead of setting things straight and providing proper help and guidance. We needed to save the institutions for those, who even with medication and help, are a threat to themselves and society.
It is so much easier to blame the "gun", than it is to focus on and treat the causes rampant in our society! The gun was mearly the tool of convenience. The knife is messy, but quiet. The axe, baseball bat, etc., are messier yet. All have been used in horrific fashion.
Stop blaming the weapon and focus on solving the problem...the people who need help!
Hey spider:
Cho, Va Tech - all purchased legally - even passed a background check.
Nice try Morgs74.......
Your original comment wasn't about semi vs full auto. It was about the size of the round and the (advertised) purpose of the weapon.
Those of us who used M-16's rarely did so in full auto mode. There are many graves which evidence that the M-16 is quite deadly in semi-auto mode (just like the Bushmaster).
You are right about one thing though: Your (ignorant) quote still stands (for all to see).
BTW---only an ignorant and/or foolish person would agree to take either a BB at 3000fps or a slug at 1500fps regardless of what anyone else agreed to do. Thanks for clearing that up.
Let's see how warm these pro-gun dems are when re-election time comes around.
Seeking Insanity - "were talking about a MASS shooting". Over one weekend in Chicago there were over 50 seperate shootings, how many of those guns do you think were registered? What does it matter when minorities in Obama's hometown kill each other at an average of 500 a year. He didn't care then, why now? What laws are going to change this? A nut job stole his mom's guns, why did she not have them locked up? I'm all for getting rid of every gun. Do you think a country founded on guns will let that happen? My wife was a mess all weekend over this tragedy. There are no answers, even a tough talking do nothing about Obama can make it better. Rhetoric will not make this better. Laws will not make a difference. This is the country we live in!
Andres, thanks for proving my points.
Ian, you are a tool and I am certain if you carried a M-16 everyone else walked behind you.
Do the math behind a .177 caliber traveling at 3000 fps and a .50 traveling at 1500 fps hitting a block of gelatin at 25 yards. @!$%# take even a bigger caliber, just google a .223 gelatin test and a slug gelatin test. View the results and then go back to twiddling yourself.
Facts are just lost on people like you.
What seems to escape the gun totting, sadistic mentality of the NRA type is that easy access to weapons is what motivates lunatics like the idiot in Connecticut, the wacko in the movie theatre, and all the others like them. These people are not seasoned terrorists or hardcore gang members who spend years amassing their gun arsenals through organized crime means. These are misguided, mentally unstable lunatics who decide to go Rambo at the flip of a switch. They have no clandestine access to weapons; they simply buy them legally or steal them from common folks (idiots) who also bought the weapons legally. If easy access to these weapons was not possible, these nut jobs would have a difficult time getting these weapons. Not only that, but the fact they have such weapons would be a clue that they're up to something dastardly.
While the shooting in Connecticut was going on, there was something similar taking place in China. Some wacko there went nuts and tried to kill as many people as he could. The difference was that he could not get easy access to weapons, so he branded a knife. Guess how many people died during his tyrade?? Exactly ZERO (0). Why did he not succeed in killing anyone? Because a knife wielding nut job is easier to stop than someone holding semi-automatic weapons.
Yes, there will always be lunatics out to commit mayhem, but making it harder for them to get their hands on mass killing weapons goes a long way to minimizing casualties. To you NRA freaks who feel manly by packing your weapons of mass destruction, I hope you never have to burry your 6-year old son or daughter because another lunatic legally purchased assault weapons and shoots up the school where your children attend-- I sure hope not!!
Gun control simply doesn't work as is proven by the recent events. We have plenty of "laws" but they can't stop people like this. You just take decent American citizens rights away while the criminals and the insane have a heyday. There will always be plane crashes, car wrecks, drownings, medical errors, bike accidents, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.......................
What do we do?? BAN EVERYTHING??????? The laws currently in place are adequate. @!$%# Happens!!! The media not making martyrs out of them might be a start also.
Poor Seeking, it seems that almost everything she railed on today that can be factually proved to be false. Except her opinion. Which of course she is welcome to. I see were NO one reported that the Mall shooter in Oregon immediately killed him self when faced with an armed citizen. Many facts that people dont know.....one that the Bushmaster (Which I have owned in one caliber or another for year) is not an assualt-weapon, its just that hunting platforms have been reduced to a allow manufacturers to build safer platforms with which to hunt. I have a 12ga PPD shotgun that can fire a much deadlyier round. To some people its about the scarey big gun. As Seeking also said she is tired of hearing "Chicago" but....I live in Detroit , you can read the Free Press any TV station web site in Detroit to see how many people are shot or killed during any weekend. Outside my house at night I can hear gunfire Its easy to tell automatic (yes automatic) gunfire mostly SKS's that have been modified to full AK's. I train monthly and shoot just about every week at my local ranges. My neighbors know that the Detroit police take 45 min to an hour to respond sometimes and the Fire Dept even longer. They are also happy to have two vets on the block they can count on in minutes.
Pigotry - you are so phenomenally misinformed. Guns are not the issue here. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL. The largest mass murder of children was done with home made bombs. Would you have preferred that method?? In Japan they are murdering the children using knives... maybe we should ban those as well, you moron.
The real cause of these mass murders is psychiatric drugs. Do the research. Almost every single person who has gone on a killing rampage was either seeing a psych and getting psych meds or getting the meds some other way. And it is not at all surprising that they kill others and then kill themselves as THE ACTUAL DRUGS HAVE A LABEL WITH THE SIDE EFFECTS OF HOMICIDAL THOUGHTS/SUICIDAL THOUGHTS. Duh!
SeekingSanity,
Sorry Seeking but you are incorrect. Many hunters use semi automatic guns when they hunt. I for one own a few, but that's my choice. I also own bolt action guns and even a lever action gun, rolling block gun, muzzleloader, and a few semi automatic handguns too! I hunt deer with a semi auto rifle, game birds with a semi auto shotgun. It's just a different way to shoot. Many folks can cycle a pump rifle/shotgun as fast as I can shoot my semi auto's accurately. Mine have never been involved in a crime, all have been obtained legally. Prior to purchasing a handgun in MI you have to pass a background check, but then again to purchase any gun, the seller (even at gun shows) must/shall call and do a NICS check (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics). That is the law, yes a Federal Law!
Allen - Omaha,
You can't go to any gun show in America and buy a "weapon of mass destruction" that is a ludacris statement!
Jody, Iowa and others,
There is no such thing as the "gun show loophole". That is fiction repeated by people who want to demonize the gun shows. All purchases and sales at gun shows are done with FBI approval, see the link above for the NICS check which is required under FEDERAL LAW!
Patriotic American U.S.A.
What purpose do you have here? Yes, mental health was defunded while Reagan was President. So what? It was a Democrat controlled House and Senate. If they didn't want to go along with it they could have funded it over Reagan's objections. Did Bill Clinton and a Democrat controlled House and Senate refund Mental Health care? Where was 0bama with his Super Majority of Dems. Did he fund Mental Health? NO!
And the answer to all of you who are wondering....Yes I am a MEMBER of the NRA. So what? I'd be willing to bet the perpetrator of the killings in CT. was not!
Gun control is really about people control! It is easier to control the population if they are incapable of fighting back. Check your history people! Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Lenin, etal ALL OF THEM INITIATED GUN CONTROL/CONFISCATION!
Man has killed since the Biblical story of Cain and Abel, they just use different methods now. You can't legislate morality or respect for life, it will not happen!
Should this kid in CT have had access to guns? NO! It was irresponsible of his mother to have not had her guns stored under lock and key. She knew her sons mental condition! That's the real problem in this whole sad event. If his mother had been responsible we wouldn't be having this conversation!
Statistics prove that with gun control there is no criminal control, but where law abiding citizens are armed crime has gone down. Israel does not have isssues like this, their teachers all carry real fully automatic Assault Weapons!
Hello folks, why don't we quit bitching and let the rule of democracy select the future course of gun regulation? In a democracy we let the American people vote. Those that are in favor of the 2nd amendment and those that aren't can have their say. When it passes one way or the other that will be the will of the people and the law of the land. If it were only that simple and fair.
Unfortunately we don't live in a democracy which is clearly evident by the wars we are taken into without the consent of congress or the people, so what do we do? No really, I'm asking what can we do? The government would love for us to hand in our guns since they have eliminated our search and seizure liberties, look at the stop and frisk programs being implemented all around our country. Getting front doors knocked down would be common place if they didn't fear the people.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
While everyone is worried about whether or not guns should be in the populace, the United States military is sitting with enough nuclear weapons on American soil to annihilate our planet many times over with just a push of a button and no one makes a peep. Where are people's priorities?
GOPisextinct,
You shouldn't spout off when you do not know what you are talking about!
The proposed law in MI (SB59) would allow people with existing CPL's (concealed pistol license) who have undergone special training to carry in areas that are currently closed to CPL carriers. It was passed by the Legislature prior to the news that there was the "massacre" in CT.
Gov. Snyder has not signed it into law!
Oh please. Exposure to violence, be it on TV or in computer games, is a crutch. I'm 56 years old and grew up watching the TV show Combat! -- which I still watch reruns of -- and I've never been prone to any type of violence. If that show would have influenced me toward violence I would have long ago bought myself a Thompson sub-machine gun and sprayed some unsuspecting place. As a kid we played Army, as did millions of kids in that era, with our toy weapons and plastic helmets...can you cite any time a Thompson has been used in a mass killing in this country this side of '20s and '30s gangsters? And don't say they aren't available:
http://www.gunbroker.com/All/BI.aspx?Keywords=thompson+submachine+gun
What needs to happen now is to tell the NRA to go @#$% itself and institute a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols. They have one use, and one use only: to kill people. Keep your hunting rifles (and don't give me any crap about needing a Bushmaster for hunting) like 30.06s and 300 Savages (my dad owned a 300 Savage) and your .357s and .44s for self protection, but make it an automatic 10 year prison term for even possessing an assault rifle, and when one is found turn it over to the cops, who can decide either to use it for their own purposes or to destroy it...preferably the latter.
If the killing of 20 first graders isn't enough to change gun laws, how many more of them is? 100? 1000?
The same group that's seeking gun-control to SAVE LIVES is the same group that MURDERS the unborn....
20 is a travesty....... what about the 1.2 MILLION children killed every year without notice?
DG_W
"Keep your hunting rifles (and don't give me any crap about needing a Bushmaster for hunting) like 30.06s and 300 Savages (my dad owned a 300 Savage)"
----
You do realize that the .30-06 caliber was originally used for a rather famous WW2 weapon right? Your idea appears that it would be okay to go hunting with an M-1 Garand (which uses .30-06 ammunition) but that a Bushmaster .223 shouldn't be legal for hunting?
A bushmaster isn't an elephant gun.
Sorry Trust, but I'm not sure putting our Constitution to a vote is a good idea. It's been working just fine for a long long time. The problem lies elsewhere.
If you think crime is bad now, just wait until the masses are defenseless.
In September 1963, Southern racist bombed a Church in Birmingham Alabama killing 4 little girls. Before that bombing the public was largely ambivalent about the struggles Blacks were facing in the South. But after that bombing and the murder of those four children, public opinion began to change. That bombing and those murders were the beginning of the end of the Jim Crow segregation in the South. The following summer, the civil rights bill was passed and the voting rights bill passes a year latter.
Perhaps the murder of those children last Friday will be the beginning of the end of the political influence of the NRA. Perhaps their murder will be the beginning of rational, reasonable gun regulation. And perhaps the murder of those children will cause Americans seriously examining how we approach mental health issues.
We spend trillions of dollars trying to prevent terrorists in caves in the Mideast from attacking our nation. When are we going to put at least 5% as much effort in keeping our children safe from mentally unstable people with military style weapons?
Just got off the phone with my brother who almost took my head off when I asked him to clarify if hunters use semi-automatic weapons to hunt. His response "only p*ss poor excuses for hunters use semi-automatic weapons. No REAL hunter would EVER use a semi automatic. It is unsportsmanlike and totally against most TRUE sportsmen's rules. Semi-automatics are for "hunters" who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn so they want as many shots as possible to take down their prey. REAL hunters can do it - cleanly - with one shot."
Again, semi-automatics ARE NOT used by true hunters.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
Face it. Nothing will be done. The right-wingers, like the one's posting on this board, won't let it happen. They have already gutted "A well regulated militia" out of the amendment. It says "well regulated".
Let the killings continue....it's what the founding fathers wanted. Adjusting a law that was written 230 years ago is out of the question. I need my gun to keep the government honest and defend myself against them if they choose to attack.
I'm hearing talk about arming the schools to protect against such attacks. Keep throwing the logs on the fire and it will burn itself out. Maybe if the kids all had guns, this would never have happened.
Unless this is a freaking joke, are you out of your damn mind??? Obviously they are not our children or relatives, but that is no reason to stare coldly at these victims, ESPECIALLY when most of them are too young to understand what happened!!! This IS a national issue because it is yet another example of gun violence in our great nation and the THIRD major gun-related tragedy THIS YEAR!!!.
Yes, but we are talking about violent deaths relating to GUNS; the US has the most guns per 100 people than any other nation in the world and more deaths than any other nation except war-torn Mexico. And FWI, it is not short-sighted to argue for tighter restrictions when 20 YOUNG CHILDREN died in this massacre.
Technically, the Second Amendment was a "concession" to our anti-Federalist ancestors who opposed the concept of a strong and unified central government so that they would ratify the Constitution. The Second Amendment was created to enable citizens to fight a hypothetical tyrant (a fear prevalent during that time), but it also served a practical purpose; tens of thousands of Americans (perhaps hundreds of thousands) had access to or were experienced with firearms, a necessity due to the fact that most Americans lived in rural areas and used them mainly for protection against Indians and outlaws or for hunting for food. While the Second Amendment serves a valid point on protecting the ability of Americans to own firearms, I don't think we ought to call gun ownership a "right." I'm going to take a conservative argument on entitlement by saying people shouldn't feel that they are entitled to own a high-powered sniper rifle just for the hell of it. I would prefer gun ownership to be more of a responsibility, where gun owners have proved that they are clear of mind and trained in the art of gunnery.
We are neither a republic nor a democracy; we are both. We are a republic in the fact that we seek to trust our nation's leadership to those whom we think are most capable of bearing that responsibility, but we are a democracy in the fact that we seek a nation ruled not by the aristocrat in his mansion nor the CEO in his conference room, but by the common citizenry united in their desire to improve the quality of the nation and to move ever closer to the immortal maxim that "all men are created Equal."
I am tired and not feel like changing my original post. Since the GOP cannot say anything I will. If you get butthurt easily do not read this. If you did not open up your mouth/post a bunch of B.S. and give me the opportunity, I would not be able to call you names btw.
"Just some facts logic for the morons who are in the lynch mob, and think that 10 round mags/banning semi-automatic rifles would have prevented some young children from being killed. Get the term "assault" out of your f***ing minds it is a semi-automatic gun and not the same as what is issued to the military, they get the 3 round burst and fully automatic versions that can shot much much faster.
It took 10 minutes for police to get there with guns. Had there been an armed police officer that roamed the campus like there was at my high school (while I attended at least and before the days of metal detectors ) or had the principal/staff been armed the gunman would have never made it to the children in the first place. That or he would have been slowed down greatly saving lives until police backup could arrive 10 minutes later. Someone did try to bring a gun to my school with the intention of shooting another student while I was there, but someone thankfully talked and it was found before anything could happen.
Let us say that he used the semi-automatic 9mm handguns he had instead of the semi-automatic "assault" rifle and they were limited to a 10 round mag, but he could still carry many of them. Would he have been able to break into the school and kill the principal? YES, HE WOULD HAVE. Would he have made into the classrooms and started to kill young children? YES, HE WOULD HAVE. Maybe had the people/children not had been trapped in a classroom not so many would have been killed.
Given 10 minutes how many children's lives do you think would have been saved by forcing him to change mags every 10 bullets instead of 30? Why not look up some videos on how fast people can change them. If you are practiced it does not take long at all, maybe a couple seconds if that. Therefore, if he shot say 90 bullets (over 3 per victim) he would have had to change mags eight times versus twice. If it only takes 2 seconds that is 12 whole seconds that you added to his time, at 3 seconds it is 24 wholes seconds. WTF ABOUT 10 F***ING MINUTES and WTF IS 12-24 WHOLE SECONDS GOING TO REALLY DO?
HOW MANY LIVEES WOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED? If it took him seven minutes to break in, find some victims, and begin shooting how long did it take him to kill each victim? 7 times 60 equals 420 divided by 28 equals 15 seconds per person. All this talk about banning semi-automatic rifles and limiting mag size would have maybe saved one life. How much time would the gunman been delayed if the staff had
been armed too? Over 15 seconds?
Are there any reason for having "large" 30 round mags? Yes there is. One was to do with packs of wild animals like dogs and hogs/pigs which we have both of in my state. Bears, wolves, etc. would be another animal that would cause me concern if I had them in my state. It is also hard to hit a moving target or one behind cover and even harder when it is shooting back at you too. Maybe you should try it with paintballs or even some of the more realistic video games to see how hard it is since you still need to hit something vital to kill. Another has to do with storage. Due to how most mags are made storing them fully loaded wears out the springs faster then if you were to leave out a round or two. I want 15-20 at least and do not see the issue with 30's.
The .223/5.56mm is one of the weakest rifle rounds there is, is not even considered "sporting" in some states on large game due to it not having enough power. A skilled hunter can still place bullets in the vitals to kill effectively with it however. It is pretty much the same with almost any gun. A .223 only has slightly more muzzle energy compared to a .44 magnum and double that of most handguns (9mm, .40 S&W, .45 ACP) with +P loads. The big advantage comes at long range accuracy due to the higher bullet velocity
and not having to compensate for a "rainbow" trajectory. The lighter .223 bullet will slow down faster going through walls and structures versus a big heavy handgun round in the case of a missed shot and is safer/better imo. A .44 or .45 bullet can weigh 4 to 5 times as much as a .223 one and once they are moving they do not like to slow down. Any gun with a stock (a rifle) will be more accurate and have less recoil versus a handgun in the same exact caliber.
I love how the dipchit media latches onto the fact that he used hollow point ammo like it is some great secret, mystery or unknown common fact... I guess only their dumba$$es do not know about hollow-point ammo and when, where, and why to use it. It is old technology just like semi-automatic guns. An "ideal"
round expends all its energy in its target doing critical damage to vitals, and does not come out the other side. That maximizes the gunpowder/energy and prevents over penetration or ricochets.
If you were really serious about saving children's lives then you would be talking about reducing the speed limit down to 55 miles an hour. How many lives are lost each year and what makes them ok? Where is your bleeding heart for them at? To busy to care or WTF? Not only would it save you gas money, reduce pollution, reduce overall gas consumption, reduce your insurance premiums through less costly wreaks, reduce the cost of autos since they do not have to built like tanks with 8 airbags, etc. but it WOULD SAVE LIVES. WTF do you need 600-1200 horsepower for and how many times do you take your car to the track? I own a 750 sportbike btw. and think people should need to take more then the "basic" driving test. Not to mention I think it would be wise to limit how fast of a vehicle we allow young people to drive/own. Why are most car accidents caused by young people? Why are most gun deaths caused by young people? Maybe age has something to do with it and the learning of responsibility.
Talk about mental health, gun safety courses, age restrictions etc. I do not care, but STFU about "assault" rifles and 10 round mags since HE STILL WOULD HAVE KILLED 27 PEOPLE. There are way more important things to be worried about at the moment. I know it hurts, but stop being a bunch or paranoid pu$$ies. Blame the person and not the tool. Guns do not kill people, people do."
DG_W - well said! And, let's not forget The Untouchables, Gunsmoke, Paladin, etc. Most of us didn't go out and shoot people because of them!
Tired - your post is pure garbage. NRA supporter no doubt. You're post is true and utter nonsense!
it's a good thing this group, right here, is not going to be writing any laws with regard to this nations problem with mass killing.
for starters, whoever begins the legislative process, needs a full grip on the issue. at this point in time, that individual or group of individuals is non existent.
and please, for the gun hating crowd who refuse to listen to anyone; i'll state it one more time, along with a small handful of other folks who have made the same point; the bushmaster used by adam lanza is NOT, i repeat NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. all the references about it being an assault rifle are wrong and can only lead to wrong conclusions. if laws are going to be written and enacted, i for one, want them written with regard to true conclusions.
We WILL make it better! Did we do nothing about terrorism when we got hit? We sure did change a few things.
"A country founded on guns"some of you say??? . LMAO I can think of very many reasons this country was founded upon, but on assault firearms?
Look, there are many bad neighborhoods all across U.S. but criminals don't decide one day they want to become insane and kill people for no reason. It doesn't happen. Crime is high in the U.S. but these types of lunatics here are not criminals, only that we could classify them as abnormal terrorists.
This IS terrorism and requires action. Whether you "let that happen" or not, things WILL happen, unless you can come up with your very clear solution to convince our lawmakers, and I doubt that.
Does anyone here gives a rat's ass about you "gun lovers" or what "you" think your rights are, after looking at this tragedy? Honestly, no. It's not "about you" now, wake up!
We might be able to deter terrorists coming into our country by intelligence and security, but I doubt any efforts to deter terrorism from American citizens will be successful by applying just security and intelligence (and making ALL our schools a prison confinement) even in rural areas.
Skip in Oklabygosh homa,
AND yet, you are in violation of both!! Hypocrite much. However, I was with you on the first two!!
2nd Amendment Rights and blah blah blah.
20 children and 6 adults are dead.
If there are no guns, they would not be dead.
We need to Amend the Constitution to get rid of the historical accident known as the "right to keep and bear arms."
No other result will allow this country to begin end this violence.
dave - the bushmaster is a semi-automatic weapon - nothing less. It SHOULD NOT be availabe for purchse by an individual. There is only one reason to use it - to kill people.
SeekingSanity,
I hope someday you find sanity, you need professional help. Your brother does too. I can't count the number of people I know who own semi-automatic shotguns and/or rifles for hunting. We are all REAL HUNTERS. Please spare us the tomfoolery, you are sadly misinformed and obviously incapable of rational thought.
Just because you have a keypad does not in any way shape or form make you informed, nor does it make you an expert on the subject of firearms and their use/purpose.
By the way, the largest mass killing at a school in history was in MI. A deranged man blew up a school killing all inside. 42 students and teachers, then he blew up a car and killed himself and 3 others.
What I see in the cries for more gun control laws are cries for the further pussification of America. Bottom line: every form of gun control you can think of did nothing, and I mean nothing, to prevent Newtown.
Adam Lanza was a determined, violent mental case. He was going to find a way to get his hands on guns to kill as many people as possible before killing himself. Any combination of locks and safes was not going to deter him. The only reason this guy did not wait for a responder to come into the room before offing himself in front of the responder is because, in his twisted mind, this was his end-game and he was calling the shots; he's going to take himself out before any responder can take him out for one final measure of control.
What would have gone a long way toward preventing Newtown? For starters, a few school staffers trained on firearms, with conceal and carry permits. Combine with staffers and students competently trained in room clearance. What I saw was this: very few people who knew anything at all about how to get out of this building alive and a sizable number of people who are alive today only because Lanza offed himself before he could kill them (they did what they were told to do and would have been easy kills for Lanza had he not offed himself).
The way out is simple: stay low, keep your eyes up, move quickly in small, organized groups, and stay away from main entrances/exits. You make yourself into as small a target as possible, you make the shooter expend more bullets than he expects, and you avoid the areas most likely to be booby-trapped if the shooter is a trained killer. I look at things this way: if you can train a kid to stand in a crosswalk waving an orange flag, you can train him to lead a pack of kids through the backdoors to safety. To do emergency safety drills right, you need to drill all day at least twice per month. Everyone needs to know what doors evacuate what areas. Everyone needs to know how to evacuate through first floor windows and how to open them.
I have a major problem with this "shelter in place, wait for responders" BS: one hell of a lot of time goes by from when the responders respond to the call, arrive at the call, then have to actually make it inside the building. I call it "fish in a barrel" because of what you are actually doing: piling a big number of people into small, confined areas which only have one entrance/exit. If you want to make it real easy for anyone, regardless of firearms proficiency, to kill a large number of people, then this is the way to do it. And this is before you factor in the possibility of multiple shooters, tactical shooters or trained killers.
If you have multiple shooters, those responders may never make it inside the building. It will be up to those inside to help themselves. Same is true if you have a tactical shooter. If you're talking trained killers, you're talking the distinct possibility of booby traps in main entrances or corridors; responders could be wiped out when they enter the building. Responders are no help to anyone if the bad guys kill them. It's only a matter of time before we see a mass killing of Beslan proportions in this country.
Easier access to guns and training is the way to go. Personally, any handgun/clip with a capacity of 20 rounds or less should be available for purchase with as little BS as possible. All you should have to do is complete a safety course and you should be free to purchase. There should be no restrictions on the quantity of clips or ammo. Same should be true for hunting rifles. I view hunting rifles as no different than a man going grocery shopping. I also believe in very few restrictions on assault weapons. Documented history of mental illness is a valid restriction. Arrests for bank robbery and drug dealing, along with documented gang affiliation are also valid reasons for restriction but look silly because these are the kinds of people who won't even bother trying to purchase a legal gun.
...and you gun guys, quit arguing, we're on the same team. just different semantics.
we all know 2 very basic things about any projectile:
energy = (mass*velocity^2)/2,
momentum = mass*velocity.
im sure we're all in favor of positive changes, but we'll all have to work together to prevent ignorant and detrimental ones...and reading this board gives me very little confidence rational thinking will stand any chance of surviving this issue.
To those who say that an ar-15 type weapon is not powerful, look at this site.
Warning! It is graphic and brutal. The victim was shot in the thigh and that little .223 shattered his femur and continued on out the other side. Now imagine what a 6year old would look like with wounds like that to the torso.
These type of weapons need to go away.
Why you do not want to get shot with an M16...(Warning: Disturbing photograph)
You people call for others to talk but yet you call them all kinds of names and claim how wrong they are for what they believe? What kind of SANE discussion is that... If you want people to talk first you must realize there are not just two sides to every topic, there are multiple sides to each topic especially this one and that does NOT mean your is correct.
Just look at this last shooting tragedy which was so heartbreaking, but the fact is the young man killed the owner of the guns (which happened to be his mother, makes no difference still the legal owner of the guns) So he killed her stole her car drove to a school that had security and broke into it and killed all of these people... FOLKS there are laws on the books that cover every singe bit of that situation already. The women did nothing wrong with her guns... The thief and killer did! those laws didnt stop that anymore than outlawing sexual assault will stop rape. You can ban drugs and see where that gets you, or theft or murder or rape or whatever but its the person that commits the crime.
It is our society that has changed NOT the guns, We are raising some evil people in this world so ask yourself why? What have we changed in our society that would cause this to happen? Maybe to much tolerance, maybe removing prayer and god from schools and all of society? Maybe to much violence on TV or video games that are baby sitting our children instead of parents raisin their kids like they used to.
That is the discussion that needs to take place, not guns control that is silly to blame an object for this wave of violence in our society. It is the people holding the gun NOT the gun and to be honest if everyone was armed you might have a few arguments turning violent but you would stop a lot of these type of shootings by cowards like this kid and the theater shooting Lubys Va Tech etc, they would never think of going in a shooting somewhere that everyone is armed. Just think about it, nobody goes in a guns shop and shoots everybody, why? We need to talk about this reasonably. Not just to win our side of the argument make it work out in the end
For those who wish to actually decrease the gun murder rate, as opposed to promoting some political agenda:
A Mathematical Approach to What Causes Gun Murder in America
Mass murder shootings happen 20 times a year in the USA on average...but that is less than 2% of all gun murders. It isn't the big threat in terms of annual gun murders. It is also one of the least preventable causes (because crazy people use cars, knives, rope, fire, fists, bombs, etc., to murder people). So what are the causes of the vast majority of gun murders (which would matter to those interested in actually reducing gun murder)?
Some wish to have gun control and gun bans in the wake of our last few mass shooting tragedies.
At what cost? Childproof society because a SMALL number (per capita) abuse the right? There are 200,000,000 guns in the USA, and 40-60 million people own those guns. Until this last year, which the FBI will have no official stats for until 2 years from now BTW, the crime rates, including violent crime and gun crime, had been falling for 30-50 years (moreso in the last 30). And this year there was only a slight uptick (several years into a recession no less, where people turn to drug "crime" for supplemental income). The population growth and guns in circulation, not to mention legal permits to carry guns, over that 30 years has far outpaced the gun murder growth. So even though the total gun murders probably went up this year, we still have a declining rate overall in the last 3 decades. I'll overestimate and say we had 13,000 gun murders, and do a little math for you.
Let's say the 40-60 million gun owners are 50 million owners...right in the middle (the average estimate).
200 million guns / 50 million = 4 guns per owner on average.
200 million guns / 13,000 gun murders = 15,384.62 guns per murder (that's a lot of guns not killing people)
Percentage chance a gun in the USA will murder = .0065% (or 6.5 in every 1000 guns...that's 993.5 guns in every 1000 guns not murdering people)
50 million gun owners / 13,000 gun murders = 3,846.15 gun owners not murdering for every 1 gun murder (that's a lot of gun owners not murdering anyone)
Percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun = .026% (or 26 in every 1,000...that's 974 gun owners in every 1,000 not murdering anyone)
315,000,000 American people / 13,000 gun murders = 24,230.77 Americans per 1 gun murder victim
Percentage chance you as an American will be murdered by a gun = .0041% (that's 4.1 in every 1,000...or a tiny threat for the mathematically challenged. You have a better chance at dying of the flu - 33,000 flu deaths per year in the USA)
Permits to carry guns and total guns in circulation in the USA has never been higher (which is not the same as ownership rate, which is actually down)...and yet the threat is very, very low. Still think all those other people should give up their rights for a threat less than the flu? Please recall that almost 70% of gun murders are commited by criminals, not law abiding citizens. No gun ban or gun control logically affects them, as they already don't abide laws, and we aren't on an island where getting guns is hard when they are banned (it's easier in say England or Australia, because of geography, to ban guns).
Now let's compare to the Holy Grail of gun control advocates (Canada and England) who value freedom so low as to want "to purchase temporary safety at the expense of liberty", as Ben Franklin put it (he said you will "get neither" when you do that, and I'll add "you deserve neither"). BTW, I'd point out Canada didn't outlaw guns at all in reality :
Canada's population 35.5 million / 126 gun murders = 281,746 citizens per gun murder
Percentage chance of being murdered by a gun as a Canadian = .0004% (4 in every 10,000)
Gun owners in Canada is 10.934 million / 126 gun murders = 86,777.78 gun owners per gun murder
Percentage chance a gun owner in Canada murders you with a gun = .0012% (1.2 in every 1,000)
Now let's look at England's gun ban paradise:
England's population 53 million / 39 gun murders = 1,358,974 citizens per gun murder
Percentage chance of being murdered by a gun in England = .0001% (or 1 in 10,000)
Gun owners in England 1.8 million / 39 gun murders = 46,153.85 gun owners per 1 murder by gun
Percentage chance a English gun owner murders you with a gun = .0022% (2.2 in every 1,000)
I'd point out gun CRIMES (not just murders) in England have soared upward 35% since the gun bans. Criminals used handguns in 46% more crimes, and it was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise...there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year, the most since the previous peak in 1993.
Stats show the number of crimes involving handguns have more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre, which brought about the ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
So England's gun bans may have lowered total murders, and even the rate of murders, but the violent crime rates are soaring. Guns are a game theory mathematical deterent to crime, especially violent crime, believe it or not.
So what can we get from all these stats?
Population matters, as does other factors besides guns themselves:
The whole story is told in the percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun - USA is .026%, Canada is .0012%, and England's is .0022%.
As you can see, Canada has a higher rate of ownership of guns and more total guns than England, and yet has a LOWER gun owner murder rate than England! That means it isn't guns that are the factor making England murder more. So why is Canada so low, while England is nearly double that? Why is the USA more than 10 times higher than England? All of this is adjusted for population and total guns in society...so what is the factor making us so much more prone to murder (even if it is a tiny threat overall to life) here in the USA?
THE DRUG WAR.
In England they have a drug war, but they do not focus on possession. Meanwhile we lock up nonviolent criminals at the almost the exact same rate as violent ones in America. Canada has legal marijuana in some areas, and has for years, and takes a very relaxed attitude toward drug use in general (although they have laws which are largely unenforced).
Just like during the Prohibition of alcohol, murder rates have soared under the Drug War. So has our incarcerations and incarceration rates...we now lock up more people in total than any other country in the world (yes, even the vastly more populated China and India)! That's total and per capita! "Land of the Free"? Think again. "Land of the prisoner" is more accurate. We arrested more than 750,000 people last year for just marijuana! 86% of those arrests were for small amounts; simple possession charges. It's not only tyrannical, it's a waste of resources which fuels a black market run by criminal sociopaths, and takes resources away from fighting actual violent crime like theft, property damage, assault, rape, child abuse, and murder.
This War on Drugs (and personal adult freedom) has given us the street gang phenomenon on the scales we see today. Chicago alone has dozens of separate drug gangs. They also have a high murder rate to go along with super-strict gun control in comparison to other cities...because guns aren't the problem, the Drug War is. Many of their gangs can trace their roots to either the beginning of Prohibition, or the beginning of the modern Drug War.
In Honduras where gun murders are most common and horribly frequent, they have gun rights...but they also have a country which is a main thoroughfaire for the illegal drug trade. By comparison, Uruguay has almost the same gun ownership rates as the USA and the same gun rights as well, yet they have a lower gun murder rate because they have no war on drugs. In fact, their govt is seriously considering selling marijuana to its citizens to get the drug trade completely above-board!
If you want our rate of murder to decrease via guns you don't take away guns, you end the Drug War. If you have any doubts about this go look at the murder rates after alcohol Prohibition began, and then after it ended. Also look at countries that have already ended their Drug Wars.
Crime rates in Prohibition rose immediately 78%, 24% in just one year from 1920-1921 (the first year)
http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/0049...e_Rate.htm
The murder rate was cut in nearly half (40% decline), from 10 per 100,000 to 6 per 100,000 when Prohibition ended. This was directly caused by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933.
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-...as-failure
If we want to half our gun murders, legalize drugs. If you want to further bring it down address the next major cause; domestic violence. Spanking children leads to many issues surrounding violence, but especially domestic violence. If domestic violence is how you raise children, then expect them to use it themselves as adults. A small number of those people will kill a domestic relative or partner. The gun simply facilitates it.
The final point I'll make is that if only .026% of gun owners murder someone with a gun, then 99.974% of gun owners don't kill someone with a gun. It's hard to argue we need to punish the 99.974% for what the .026% do. That kind of illogic is used in schools to punish classrooms full of kids for what one anonymous child has done...and it leads to bullying, because children then ostracize their peers who are guilty (and they don't know how to ostracize responsibly, so it ends up in bullying). We should use a more logical approach on adults. In a nation of 315 million people, with a Drug War raging and domestic violence against kids being the norm, a 99.974% responsible gun owner rate is unbelievably good. Perspective, instead of irrational fear and knee-jerk reaction, is what helps here.
ADDED:
Someone said they thought we could half gun murder by ending the drug war, but the we'd double the drunk/drugged driving deaths...but that is illogical. No one has any problem getting drugs now, and they already drive on them now. Also, when drugs were legalized across the board in other nations the usage only went up slightly, and in some nations actually decreased. Plus, when we re-legalized alcohol the usage here only went up slightly, while alcoholism went down (especially among minors), and the murder rate fell in that first year (1933) 40%. THINK through why your criticisms might not be logical...and Bing or Google them to see people have already answered these illogical and/or irrational reservations.
Lastly, someone else said they would never change their mind about being anti-gun no matter the evidence...but again, that is irrational. There are irrational people who won't fly even though they ADMIT cars are more likely to kill them. They drive but won't fly...that is irrational. Guns are less likely to kill a kid than swimming pools. How afraid are you of swimming pools? Cars kill more people than guns...how afraid are you of cars? Gun murder is almost 3 times less likely to kill you than the normal flu virus...how afraid are you of guns vs the flu? Being rational means fearing things based on thr actual RATIONAL chance they have to kill you, not the IRRATIONAL fear of HOW it might kill you. Guns are not nearly as dangerous as the media and most anti-gun people think they are.
In fact, more lives are saved in the USA every year than are taken by guns every year. They are in reality, indisputably, a NET GAIN of life. If only 2% of the 750,000 crimes prevented by private guns (FBI stat) save one life (or 1% saves 2 lives, etc.), then more lives are saved than taken. BTW...sutdies show many more than that are saved by guns...the estimate by Clinton tAdministration study was 2 million lives per year...which might be high...and other more intensive studies show the number to be in the tens of thousands, up to 200,000, per year. But EVEN IF the number was only 15,000 as I suggested with my 2% number, we're still looking at more lives saved than murdered.
FURTHER ADDED:
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)
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs...online.pdf
"several Democrats with long track records of supporting gun rights said they would be willing to consider new proposals, like renewing the ban on assault weapons or limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines that are available for sale."
There is no agreement of what constitutes an 'Assault Weapon', so I guess it depends on how you label the term. For example, here is a vague definition from Wikipedia ' "assault weapon" has no consistent or specific definition and so is subject to varying definitions for varying purposes, including definitions that include common non-military-style firearms".
Personally, I have no problem with limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines, but who decides what an 'Assault Weapon' is?
@sanity,
you missed my point. the point is, we need to understand what we are legislating. eg, though i disagree with your statement, a set of laws based on ignorance could give you something you do not want. such as writing more laws to ban assault weapons. in reality, that would do nothing to support your statement, as assault weapons are next to impossible to purchase in the first place. not only that, adam lanza living under such rules and placed back in the same situation, would still have access to that bushmaster.
again to restate; if we are going to write new laws, lets do it based on knowledge, not ignorance.
@miklit so what should happen to my bolt action rifle that shoots a projectile 2.5x the mass of a .223 at a velocity that is more than 200fps greater ?
Limitations on magazine size sure, reasonable enough. I still feel this is a very knee jerk reaction to this tragedy. There are many aspects that need to be looked at. Mental health concerns I feel would do the most to protect society and help those that are more or less pushed aside. Waiting period for purchase I see as reasonable as well. Should we do something to address what happened absolutely, but to focus only on banning "assault weapons" is foolish. To say all things semi auto are assault weapons is very very broad and I would say incorrect. The simple fact is we have people in this country who hate guns and will use what ever happens to push the issue rather than look and what other items may be at fault. Not to mention from the information given he didn't even use the Bushmaster AR-15 in the school, he used two handguns. So how would banning assault rifles help exactly?
ChevsMark - my brother is a dyed in the wool Republican and a very good hunter. Again, REAL hunters (you know, those who can actually hit a target) don't use semi-automatic weapons. The ones who do are NOT real hunters - just wanna be's.
Shesafatone - only in YOUR small world!
dave -I never said we should legislate without knowing what we are doing. And, I DO know what I am talking about. Semi-automatic weapons and assault weapons can be purchased- and not with much difficulty. Stop talking down to me like you know so much - when clearly you don't. Let's do make our laws based on knowledge and NOT the ignorance of many who posted here. Hunters indeed - NOT!
@proudnavyvet
No, but she was wrong to be a "gun enthusiast" and own several assault weapons unsecured, together with an unstable son.
Couldn't agree with you more. On this issue we all think the "other" side is at fault. No one has a definite answer about who is the one at fault, just speculation and accusations.
BUT
This national tragedy should go well beyond any political or winning of argument by anyone, unless some of us in these threads are very sick humans. Did you lose any dear one on the massacre? If not, then you should be equally mourning those little children because they're part of us, and our own family.
A few of my friends were invited as guests to attend local NRA meetings. They say that a third to almost half of the guys at these meetings are extremist demagogues, conspiracy theorists and political reactionaries that are, "two steps away from the loonie bin."
If nothing is done to stem the growing number of ever-more lethal military-grade weapons from ending up in the hands of civilians -- as the NRA prefers, as do their arms manufacturers that mutually support the other, and the latter for a profit or a killing -- a hundred years from now, I imagine that someone's going to ask this question:
"So when did nukes become a Second Amendment Right?"
lilirocks ,
How about to say she was wrong to own weapons and have them unsecured?
It is wrong to enjoy shooting firearms at a legal range at a target? I would say no.
@seeking:
1. how easy is it for you to buy a real assault weapon ?
2. view the posts; by and large there is a mis-understanding that the bushmaster in question is an assault weapon.
i didn't mean to be talking down to you. i apologize if it came across that way. i mean to be very emphatic about a situation where we as a nation may very well take oursleves down the proverbial "very slippery slope".
Hello Doesitmatter, it was more a rhetorical argument. While the deaths of little innocents is tragic I believe people are venting and looking for the cause which goes way beyond guns and a drugged up society. In any event to overturn a constitutional amendment it would be quite difficult.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
In other words it would take a near act of God to change the second amendment. Although I would have to argue with you that we are honoring our constitution right now.
We have lost most of our civil liberties through the passage of the Patriot Act, Foreign Investigation and Surveillance Act (FISA) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the new National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP)! They have authorized the use of spy drones in American skies! You can be surveilled by any number of Federal agencies, have your phone and computer tapped, bank, medical, and private records accessed! You can be arrested without gaining access to an attorney or a trial. We are molested at the airports or radiated for “security”. And just recently added National Defense Resources Preparedness (NDRP) which comes on the heels of NDAA. This Executive Order allows the government to take pretty much whatever it wants including crops, farm equipment, vehicles, boats, aircraft and fuel to “prepare” for the national defense. This includes making people work for free. You think I’m kidding about the free labor? Here’s a line straight from the EO that says, “. . . to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation. . .” This is authorized even in peace time!
NYPD’s aggressive street policing program, called “stop-and-frisk,” which predominantly targets low-income minority neighborhoods. In 2011, the program stopped and searched more than 900,000 New Yorkers, 85 percent of them black or Latino. This program is moving to a city near you!
Our constitution has not been working fine, it has been under assault!
And the debate continues without any regard to the mathematical facts...ugh. No one reads the truth because their attention span is so short and they can't fit it into their false arguments about guns vs anti-guns.
I'm not suprised no one sees or even addresses my posts in these threads...it's just plain sad.
SeekingSanity: If your brother is saying real hunters don't use semiautomatics then you and your brother are full of horse s@@@. I can shoot with the best and as I said before I hunt with a .223, bolt action as well as a bow so you have lost all credibility by continuing to repeat that silly a@@ statement.
@Pro, have no fear, your comments are appreciated.
another poster yesterday on a "sister thread" provided similar analysis. maybe it was you as well.
its amazing how the actual numbers disprove "conventional wisdom".
thank you.
ProIndividual: Just to correct some of your numbers last count there is somewhere between 300,000,000-500,000,000 guns owned in the US with right at 200,000,000 gun owners that's according to the latest stats I found.
@rookorami
Most of us have children, maybe you don't, but we adapt our lives and tastes according to our needs. It's just part of life.
Pigotry, you complain when the GOP proposes solutions and you complain when the GOP doesn't. Why can't you or the Democrats propose something that will actually solve a problem or two? Why is it always left up to the GOP to fix everything and propose solutions? Even Pelosi and Reid don't want to propose anything on gun control! Look at the pro-gun legislation that Obama has signed into law!
It seems the Democrats answer to the economy is to take the 500,000 people that have lost jobs in the private sector over the past 5-6 months and give them a government job. If that's the answer, why not take everyone out of the private sector and give everyone government jobs. The problem is that no one would be left to pay for it! Why can't the Democrats lead for a change? You won the election. When are you going to be stop being the party of problem spotters and start being the party of problem solvers? All you want to do is point fingers! How about you and the Democrats DO SOMETHING to fix the problems of this nation? I wonder what it is in their background that these "shooters" have in common.
"chevsmark"...If you require a semi-automatic shotgun to hunt, perhaps you should consider a new hobby...Knitting, perhaps? You can get really, really big needles so that you can satisfy your desperate need to compensate.
"lilmichelle" deserved being chastised. Instead of providing documented evidence of gun control laws vs. actual gun crime, she fell back on the tired old "Chicago" propaganda that the right has been using since President Obama took office. Everyone has heard that same stupid line...and to follow it up with a "how'se that werkin' fer ya" Palinism proved nothing more than "lilmichelle's" ignorance and desire to offend.
I fully understand Seeking Sanity's becoming indignant. Every time a tragedy like this happens, we here the same propaganda being barfed out by the right and nothing changes.
I personally do not have children, but will soon. I do however know quite a few gun enthusiast that do. They just take proper steps. Their kids have all been to the range with their parents, taught proper safety and operation. But when they get home the guns are secured properly, with only the parents having access. I would say it is not wrong to enjoy or have guns with children in the house. Saying its wrong to do so I feel is narrow minded. If you are a proper owner no adjustment should be needed when you have kids. Every thing should be locked up, ammo stored separately even if you don't have children. How many children grew up with guns in the house? Went hunting with dad? many of them did just fine.
@rookorami
Please go back to post #1.164
This particular man was 20 years old and living with his mother. By anyone's account, he wasn't normal.
Do we require any further explanation?
Something he couldn't get from mom?
from Atlas Shrugs
We are seeing the same reprehensible pattern with the slaughter in Newtown. Instead of grieving and prayer, Obama chose to go after gun control. The Loud Talker has a great piece here. Obama said, "We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end.
Yes, the absence of morality, Hollywood's culture of depraved violence, the war on family must be reversed. The pendulum needs to swing the other way.
American children are fed a daily diet of violence from early childhood on. A non-stop feed of gratuitous, mindless violence on television, in movies, on the internet, and particularly video games, desensitizes. Add to that the porn culture ....... We have crossed a terrible line. The four decades of the left's war on American values has resulted in declining moral values, the exaltation of failure and crime, the dehumanization of women, and a society bereft of virtue and grace.
The Republicans are silent because they are pussy's; afraid of the NRA; afraid of the Religious Right; afraid of the Tea Party and definitely incapable of exercising any independent thought or remember that they work for the good of the people - they work for us and not the other way around. If this doesn't spur some honest debate, then nothing will.
rookorami: I do have children (15 and 13) and I've taught the from a young age to respect weapons. They also know how to shoot, clean and carry just like I was taught by my dad. I was raised with guns readily accessible and was even allowed to shoot when my parents were not at home. Why you may ask was I allowed to do that? Because I proved to my parents that I was responsible and careful with them so I target practiced and went squirrel hunting out behind my house (we lived way out in the country) during some of my summers off from school. Now I'm raising my kids the same way and I have no fear about leaving them with guns in the house. My 15 yr old son and I go hunting and target practice together and my daughter will to in a couple of years, but what I'm getting at is it's all about how you raise your kids and teach them good morals and ethics.
You are right he was not normal. Had she properly secured them it wouldn't have made a difference. Glad you brought up he wasn't normal. How about we look at how we treat people that have mental health issues?
T_Bird69 That is great for you and your child (no sarcasm 100% Genuine). Yes, how you raise your kids and what they learn makes a massive difference. And being an involved parent you would not grant them access to your guns if they had shown any sign of not being of sound mind.
John Adams said the Constitution was for a moral and righteous people.
Sounds like we are ready for a dictatorship.
So who gets to define what an assault weapon is because all the definitions I am finding seem to be very ambiguous and open to interpretation whereas the definition of an assault rifle is very clear and straightforward in that it is a rifle capable of firing automatically or in bursts of 3-5 rounds per trigger pull.
I own a Remington model 742 semi-automatic .308 and have several 10 round magazines for it and I'll be dąmned if I'll let anyone try to classify my hunting rifle as an assault weapon just because it's scary to them.
My stats came from DOJ, CDC, FBI, and various national and international news services (like NBC, BBC, etc.)
Secondly IF there are more guns and more gun owners in the USA that AIDS my argument, as I was making a risk vs reward analysis based upon total guns and total gun owners divided by total gun murders (which I overestimated). So you're helping my argument.
Also, I was pointing out that those stats transnationally show NO correlation or causation to gun murder rates. In fact, as the Harvard study I linked to shows, they are negatively correlated. Overwhelmingly gun murder is causal unction of drug Prohibition in the particular tnation, NOT a function of total guns in society, total gun owners, or gun control laws.
I appreciate that. I have been posting modified versions of my large post above in many comments sections. I want people to face the FACT hat gun murder is overwhelmingly tied to drug Prohibition and NOT gun owneetrship rates, total guns owned in a society, or loose or tigtht gun regulations (let alone gun bans).
I'd also point out that studies that I did not link or quote show there is NO correlation to single parenthood, lack of religion or different religions, violent video games, TV shows, movies, music, etc. All those are also (like total guns, gun ownership, and gun laws) not causes of gun murder rate differences between nations. What is consistently correlated and causal are drug laws and how they are targeted and enforced upon a national populatiton.
Next I suppose people like "Seeking Sanity" will want to ban Physicians and Surgeons. Or perhaps Lawyers. After all, Physicians and Surgeons are responsible for far more deaths annually than guns. Lawyers are responsible for deaths by springing criminals from jail who go out and commit murder. It's not the weapon, it's the person with the weapon who chooses to use it and how they will use it. Knives kill, will we want to restrict the ability of people to buy knives? Baseball bats kill people. Shall we regulate bats? The possiblities are endless! We can shut down society because vehicles kill people, most often driven by people who are drunk/under the influence. Shall we ban alcohol? Oh wait, we already tried that...didn't work too well did it? Then there's drugs...ya, that worked really good too.
You can not legislate/regulate morality! Life is precious. You can not deny that today's people have a lessened value of life than in the past.
Sick people will do sick things to their fellow man, most often after guns are confiscated.
EDIT: Overwhelmingly gun murder is a causal function of drug Prohibition in the particular nation, NOT a function of total guns in society, total gun owners, or gun control laws.*
I want people to face the FACT that gun murder is overwhelmingly tied to drug Prohibition and NOT gun ownership rates, total guns owned in a society, or loose or tight gun regulations (let alone gun bans).*
No Greater Love.
There is no greater love than the love of a child for their parents and the love of a parent for their child.
This is a given.
Yet...Columbine...Virginia Tech...Tuscon...Aurora...Clackamas...and now Newtown to name a tragic few.
Because it was to soon to have the conversation at the first one, then came the next, after that the next, and now we're here. Looking at the faces of 20 (twenty!!!) children mindlessly slaughtered by a deranged maniac. This must be THE END!
The adult population of the United States is approximately 160 million.
Can even 4% show up in Washington to demand that the gun fetish of this country be regulated? Four percent would be about 6.4 million people.
Are there that many people who would turn out to save one more child? Perhaps their child?
If we, as citizens of this nation, cannot get up and fill the mall of the Capitol and then overflow the city to demand ACTION now, then perhaps this is the doom to which our sloth will relegate us.
MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! LET YOUR PRESENCE BE KNOWN! MARCH ON D.C. ON FEB. 14, 2013!
Show your love.
P.S. If you haven't watched "Bowling for Columbine", you owe it to yourself for understanding's sake.
Proud Navy Vet: Sorry but that woman did everything wrong with her guns.
I love target shooting and own assualt weapons, strictly out of sentiment for my time in service. Mine are locked-up and disassembled into tiny pieces. Children and others that come into my house are never even aware that I own weapons. This was a failure of resposiblity for a gun owner and parent.
I don't think a half-assed assault weapons ban like the last one will do much to end this violence, but I'm not going to BS about it and transfer the blame to anyone but the gun owner.
Spot on, Seymour-1012100. The problem here is the psychotic drugs people are taking. Someone with mass killing/ suicide tendencies can do it with a car as easily as a gun, but it's so pitiful that there's so little mention of it on this thread, and none whatsoever by NBC. Prozac, Ritalin, Luvox and a number of other PRESCRIPTION drugs are what need to be banned, not guns.
People pay no mind to Seeking Sanity. She lives in a city where there are dailly murders (chi town) and isnt outraged ever (see her past posts, they will be devoid of the atrocitiecs within the city of Chicago). This is a political stunt by the avid FR lefties. Obama gets on the TEEVEE, proclaims not to make this political and in the same breath talks of tight gun laws. Knee jerk reactions to a tragedy that hasnt been yet fully analyzed. this is political for the extreme left. Repealing the second amendment is pretty Knee Jerk if you ask me.
Remember 300 million people werent killed! If there were no guns, he could do it other ways, but first he could get the guns illegally. Remember, nutjobs and criminals, and individuals intent on killing a lot of people will NOT follow laws! ...besides if YOU dont want a gund to protect your family...dont get one, but i dont want to have my RIGHT to protect MY family because of people like you! Also, if it were that the principle was protected, yes, with a gun...he would have stopped this kid before he got to the children..dont be so ignorant!
Mass murder (defined as more than 4 murders in a 24 hour period) is nothing new. What has changed is motivation and technology. In the 19th century, the motivation was generally economic. The inequality of wealth was internalized. Failure to become rich was seen as failure on a personal level. Failure and the self-image of being a TOTAL failure is the common thread. That, and the projection (blame) for their personal deficiencies. By the depression, (1930-1940) we see murder suicides among small businessmen and farmers. Their "object of failure" was usually a bank or mortgage company. Being an armed guard, for these companies, was considered a death sentence. They were the first ones that a shooter would kill, as they went "postal". (A term coined in the 1980's due to the disgruntled mail worker mass murderers.)
What has changed? Obviously, reporting, for one! Papers would generally stay away from a "normal" murder-suicide because it was too common and depressing. When a neighbor would go over to a house, from which they hadn't heard from, in a while, they would find a note that said only, “All died. I had ruther be ded. Look in zellar.” (real note) These stories were not considered good print until the 1950's. And, yes, ever since there has been the phenomenon of copy-cats.
Secondly, the motivation has changed from mainly economic to perceived social injustice. Bullying, social awkwardness, etc... all the fault of so other people or organization (school maybe... failed love life, etc..)
Finally, the technology has made killing FAR more efficient, allowing for FAR more casualties. Why did this nut use the semi-auto? It had the fastest fire rate, even faster than the pistols. The cycle rate was as fast as he could pull the trigger. Yes, the other weapons had a larger caliber round, but the speed of fire allowed this jerk to "spray" bullets. Sadly, because the caliber was smaller, he used more rounds per victim.
Yes, the press needs to moderate how these stories are presented. The perpetrator should get ridiculing coverage. This is one time that our political correctness should be done away with. Given the evidence, don't call them a "suspect"!
Bullying, hazing, and other forms of harassment should be socially ostracized! However, there is a responsibility to maintain oneself own ego.
Some common sense gun controls are needed also. Limits on rate of fire, magazine capacity, etc..
But, most of all, mental health!
The conservatives will not support the cost of mental institutions, and liberals are too worried about the rights of the mental patient. Locking them up is both expensive and degrading. A lose/lose for both ends of the political spectrum. Likewise, how MUCH would you have to spend per patient, says the conservative. Will the patient be respected, asks the liberal. I ask, will the patient be a hazard to the public? Therein lies the problem! I'm not ever sure that this murderer was ever evaluated, yet alone treated!
KimH,re-#1.179, What is it you want to hear from us? Our opinion is to abide by the Constitution of America, that was written for the people,by the people. It should be rewritten to satisfy you or some idiot kid who fell through the cracks because he had rights? The President of the United States has not yet even proposed what you are demanding. And he has his own problems where he lives with his wife and daughters in Chicago! Who the hell are you? Go pet your pussy and stay out of it!
So the gun-banners would prefer people using bombs instead? How about using gasoline fire-bombs? How about Sarin gas like Japan? Is that what you want? That's the next choice. Guns will get into the country no matter what. The gun didn't make him do it any more than forks make people fat or alcohol makes people drink. That's STUPID THINKING PEOPLE!
@Shockedanddisgusted;
semi auto in wooded brown bear or big boar country.
you bet and big other kind of bore too.
The Democratic representative from Virginia had to pander to conservatives with his prayer in schools comment. We need to stop this mindset of tying everything to religion. Some of the craziest people around are religious fanatics. We need to reinstate the ban on assault weapons without any apologies to fanatics and wingnuts and it's too bad even some Democrats can't stand up to them. Prayers in school? Really? Prayers are going to cure mental illness? Prayers in school are going to stop Bubba down the street, with his personal arsenal, from snapping one day and taking out his anger on innocent victims?
I'm not going to bother pointing out why all the liberal/anti-gun Nazis are wrong.
The truth is the truth, but they lack the intelligence and basic critical thinking skills necessary to understand the truth. So I will simply say this:
If you want my guns, feel free to try and take them. Feel free to try and make our government a tyranny that demands law-abiding citizens to turn over their guns.
In either case, I hope your life insurance is paid up.
I have guns because I like to target shoot and I like to hunt occasionally. I also like to have the means to defend myself should some scumbag try to break into my house. I am a former law enforcement officer as well as former military, so I know weapons far better than any idiot liberal or anti-gun Nazi.
I am generally a peaceful person, but I will make an exception for anyone dumb enough to try and take my guns away from me just because THEY are afraid of them.
@ truther1234
Hey, I'm a gun owner myself. But I'm not about to start calling gun-control advocates stupid under the circumstances. Do you think you're winning hearts and minds here?
Same goes for you Wizard. How wise do you think it is to call these good people Nazis?
This is a terrible tragedy but I think it will require a constitutional amendment to impose the kind of limits necessary to restrict access in a way that might make a difference. There will be consequences and risks though. One of those consequences is making people vulnerable to victimization. Mass murderers are cowards that tend to choose targets that will not be able to defend themselves. In countries where guns are controlled criminals get guns illegally and have their pick of victims from among mostly unarmed population. For example, the Just Desserts shooting in one of the nicest neighborhoods in Toronto. There's also a risk that a change in the law won't make much of a difference.
In countries like Switzerland the people are all armed but they're not going on murderous rampages. Why is that? It's hard to admit that your country may be culturally more likely to breed flawed, anti-social and/or dangerous people but to think the easy access to guns is solely responsible is naive.
We suffer the consequences of every constitutional freedom we have. The extent of our freedom of religion and freedom of speech rights contribute to more social discord. Are you willing to give that up for a more harmonious society? What if the discord is what pushes people over the edge more easily and contributes to violent, anti-social behavior? Would you be willing to restrict it then?
David Noah
There was an anti-terrorism act passed as a result of the OKC bombing. Regulations were enacted regarding the sale of ammonium nitrate, etc.
And evidently facts elude you all together. Since when is a .223 larger than a .50 cal ? Since when does a .177 cal BB have more impact than any size .50 cal slug ? I'm actually NOT going to "esplain dis one to you Lucy" - go look up some ballistic charts, pick a few different slug sizes for each cal (hint - weight is measured in grains), and then look at the "energy" each carries (its in ft lbs)
@ Captive. The last assault weapons ban was pretty toothless. If it's really going to make much difference it's going to take more than that sort of window dressing, so you're right about the Constitutional Amendment.
One big difference between us and Switzerland is that the gun owners there undergo mandatory military training. They really are part of a well-organized militia.
Proindividual: I know I was helping :) I'm trying to find the sites I researched so I can post them. I've looked at so many the past few days that everything I'm pulling up shows as being clicked on and I can't remember exactly how I worded what I typed in so it's gonna take me a while.
I wanted to say some thing about posts on here but i don't know how to respond to such stupidity. starting with pigotry post and the blow hard redhead bellow this post.
Prove your points, Willowbrook? You mean, calling you out on your demonstrably false assertions? Sure, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Allen from Omaha (#1.7) and all of you that are in the unbalanced boat with him; therefore are you telling me that all of those little school children in Newtown should have been "packing their own heat"? And, really what good can you prove that would have done? (I know that I don't have to tell anyone what you are! At least tell me that you are not one of those who fell through the other cracks that are being so strongly discussed right now!)
Don't laugh to much; most of the rest of you are not even worth paying attention to in this matter.
Hal: As of Dec. 2011 no regulations have been enacted for ammonium nitrate. Congress did authorize the Department of Homeland Security to set a standard for it but public discussions on the subject closed in Dec. 2011 and I have yet to find anything being enacted as of today.
Assault Rifles need to go. Ban them from private ownership.
And those who have a history of mental illness will get to give up the right to gun ownership of any kind, forever. And if you live with a person with a history of mental illness, you give up the right to own a gun for as long as you do live with them.
That's the price to pay for this. Democrats and Republicans both get to suffer in the loss of rights to protect children. And if they have a problem with that, Pakistan is waiting for them to move there for good.
Well, no one seems interested, but I'm going to give my somewhat extreme opinion anyway. I think bolt guns, internal magazine semi-autos, and wheel guns should be available to those willing to undergo a background check, for felonies and mental illness. I don't think box-magazine fed semi-automatic weapons should be banned, but I think a term-of-service should be required to earn the right to bear these arms.
That any untrained yahoo like Nancy Lanza can own 4 box-magazine fed semi-automatic weapons and leave them unsecured so that her known-to-be-insane son has access seems far beyond the intent of the Framers to me. Just sayin'
I am a weapon owning liberal and will agree to a ban when I read a headline that says sane weapon owner with legal weapon commits mass murder in any town U.S.A.
Thank you, Captive Audience, I hope that my Republican Conservative endorsement of your post doesn't deter anyone who is on the fence about banning firearms altogether. The Left has to come to grips with the fact that the murder rate % in Gary,Indiana is way lower than Chicago. Although they border, and the ethnic population is very much the same as killing fields of Chicago's South and West side. The argument that the people of Gary know that they both could be legally packing a firearm, I'm not even going to go there. Let's consider this, it would make it possible that we were all very careful how we treated each other. In other words,respect.
@Derek & 11b2 these are such arbitrary restrictions; talk about slippery slope.
what happens the first time someone goes berserk with a bolt action rifle ?...oh wait, that already happened in austin.
ban all bolt actions.
hey ive got an idea, how about doing some honest analysis here, determining the problem(s) and addressing it/them ?
Wheel guns are great for that sort of self-defense Fender. Who wants to leave their box-magazines loaded anyway, only to have spring failure in the moment of truth?
Let's allow CCP according to local laws, but let's stop supplying the untrained with box-magazines.
Once again the republican party shows it is out of touch with reality and America today! It needs to be put out of its misery!!!!!!!!!!!! A dead and dying organism!
@ Dave, You're right, it won't end all gun violence. But it will limit it, and allow people to be self-determined for their own defense.
I'm not going to claim that there's any perfect solution here, but I stand firmly on the right to self-defense, and offer this compromise, not that I have any power to enforce it.
Republicans are silent because they hope we will forget about the murders in awhile. They hope we will get caught up in our TV shows and our busy lives and let them and the NRA slide on the issue of assault weapo, extended magazines, and ammunition designed to explode within the body. They hope we will all forget that 20 children were killed by someone who probably needed better mental health treatment, but we have shut down huge numbers of psychiatric beds in our hospitals. They hope you will forget that we live in a culture that actually thinks there is something redemptive about violence.
Hello, Republicans - I won't forget. I didn't forget any of other times mass murder took place. I hope others won't forget this time.
Also Dave, it's not arbitrary. We're talking the difference between a few casualties, and dozens. I know it won't matter to the relatives of the few, but what about everyone else?
People have the moral right to defend their homes. People do not have the moral right to possess weapons of war.
How about a compromise?
Start STAMPING the foreheads of nut-jobs & felons so we can tell the difference........ it's been proven over the past 75 years that gun-control DOES NOT WORK..... so let's go after the ROOT CAUSE......
i'm all for compromise 11B2, i do have my concerns about the slippery slope and everyone making a set of laws based on emotion rather than the encompassing set of issues at hand. there is a major concern, that focusing in on gun specific restrictions without taking all aspects of the problem into consideration opens the door to a never ending and continual set of restrictions on the firearm aspect of the problem and turns a blind eye to the other contributors. additionally, this approach could lead to ineffective gun specific restrictions rather than ones that could be more useful.
Gee dave, thanks for the slippery slope argument which is a way of saying I don't like your answer and don't have a counter solution. Good on you.
Well, Dave.... You've had a couple of decades to compromise and that didn't work out so well for this country. So, now, you are stuck with people being upset. Maybe your side should have compromised a long time ago and just maybe 20 kids would be alive today. So, please, don't give us the pity party. You guys made your choices and now we are all paying the consequences.
AndresTM
"And yet, seven out of ten states with the highest murder rate in the country are reliably pro-right."
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, California ,Nevada, South Carolina, Michigan, Illinois, Arizona and New Mexico are the states with the highest murder rate; according to the FBI. I would say that is 6 left leaning.
5,278
6,463
245
5,054
You people that responded to me attacking me about my last comment, and you said the mother was wrong for owning the guns and not having them locked up from her son, What makes you think they were not locked up? Have you looked at their home, and heard the stories about her and her son? I am sure she had them locked up but I have no knowledge of that at this time, nothing other than 20 years in law enforcement and ex military and my gut says someone with her experience and knowledge of him would have locked them up.
BUT that never stops a criminal and he was a criminal, You cannot ever stop someone that makes up their mind to shoot at someone else, its the first thing they teach in the police academy, if someone wants to shoot at you they are going to shoot at them, period.
And that stupid post with all those one sided statistics is as stupid as I have ever read. You listed every stat that helps you show more guns means more violence, but you left out countries like Mexico where it is illegal to own a gun and yet they had over forty thousand deaths in the past few years from gun violence!!! Gee kind of ruins your gun law argument doesn't it?
It is NOT the guns it is the mindset of the person with the gun. I have guns in my house and not one of them a ever jumped up and ran out the door and shot anyone... They could only do that if some creep picked them up and used them like this kid did. you can pass every law you want but that will never ever stop someone that wants to kill other people. How many rapes have been stop because the law says its against the law? Or how many dope smokers have stopped just because its against the law? the answer of course is NONE!
We have to change the morals of our society that is influencing these people.
And you must understand the purpose of Our "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" as an American... It is what sets us apart from every other Nation. It is what protects us as a Nation from any oppression from outside or within...
Our forefathers wrote that into our constitution knowing it would make us the strongest Nation in the world because under no circumstances can anyone every invade our Nation and take over America because we have the largest Army in the world "THE PEOPLE" It also protects us from an oppressive Government. And do not ever think someone could not over throw our government... They can't while we are all given the right to bear arms BUT if we are not anyone could over throw the government and we could do nothing about it. It happens everyday around the world because they do not have our rights. Every country that does not allow their people to bear arms still has mass murders, because when people choose to do harm they will, we have to change our morals as a nation if we want to change what is going on.
People have always had guns in this country but these mass murders have just started to be an epidemic ask yourself why? Its not that the guns suddenly got mad at people... No it is the way people think now days. We have removed God from our Nation, prayer from school, prayer from public, the ten commandments from public view, we allow people to tell us to shut up about God and the bible, so our thoughts change, then we make movies more violent every single day, the more killings the better the money and the more evil the more people want to see it, then we make the most violent video games and buy them all for our kids and let them play for hours and hours every day with no bible time no prayer time nothing to counter the violence and the parents work day and night trying to survive and then little johnny goes out and kills everybody he wants just like the movies and TV and games he plays and we wonder what happened? Why did it it happen?
And then some political group starts this stupid rant about new guns laws, which changes nothing. They do that because people are afraid to look at themselves and say maybe we have messed up kicking god out of our lives and our country maybe we need to get to the root of the problem and fix it instead of some stupid political agenda. Some new law will NOT change a thing.
The strongest gun restrictions in America was in the 90's and it did not effect the number of shootings and murder at all. If gun laws helped there would not be any shootings in New York or Chicago because it is illegal to own a gun there and they have multiple shootings daily at both places. Come on people don't get drug into this political debate that is meaningless, if you want to fix the problem open your eyes and ask yourself why is this stuff happening now, guns have not changed in America in the past 200 years, but we have changed as a christian based nation.
Our morals have changed. People are fighting over guns and yet they are totally ok with our government killing 4000 babies everyday in abortion... And you wonder if our nation has changed lets look at ourselves and see what we are doing.
You think a law will prevent this? Think how stupid that sounds, the kid woke up and killed his Mother, There is a law against that isn't there? then he stole her guns, lets see is there a law against that too? yes, then he stole her car, another law against that, then he took guns to a school which is against the law and then he killed 27 people all against the law as well and then killed himself which is against the law. Lets see how well did all those law help stop this incident from happening? Ill let you answer that, it shows how stupid this argument is!
And to the idiot that said I was not grieving with the nation over this simply because I posted my thoughts on here... shut up and go away, I'm a father and have served my country for my entire life to protect these freedoms we have and my heart breaks just like every fathers does this incident sickens me but people need to stop using it as a political tool and look at the real reason these things are happening and its NOT guns.
Jake2247,
Re: "The GOP is silent because they A) lost the election in a really big way, B) know that their party is disintegrating, and C) the evangelical bloodthirsty rednecks have them by the balls. All you need to know."
Since you desire to cast stones, I will toss you some facts;
95% of African Americans voted for Obama. And...according to the FBI of 17,040 murders;
5,278 by "white" 6,643 by "black" 5,298 by "other" or unknown. 13.1%
of the population is black. Six of the top ten states with the highest murder rate voted left.
spider-737231
Will one of you gun control morons show us a substantiated case.....just one.....where a mass murderer used a weapon that he legally purchased for himself?
Spider...Before you start calling people morons because they believe in gun control, let me show you ONE substantiated case where a mass murderer used a weapon he legally purchased for himself, then I ask you to reflect upon the old saying regarding "the pot calling the kettle black".
Suspected Colorado movie theater gunman James Holmes purchased four guns at local shops and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet in the past 60 days, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates told a news conference this evening.
"All the ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally, all the weapons he possessed, he possessed legally, all the clips he possessed, he possessed legally," an emotional Oates said.
The chief declined to say whether the weapons were automatic or semi-automatic, but "he could have gotten off 50 to 60 rounds, even if it was semi-automatic, within one minute," Oates said.
Source:
i keep hearing how he was mentally disturbed.he was anything but.he was looking at a life of loneliness, mental pain and poverty.he could look into a mirror and see he had no future.or at least not one worth living.so he decieded to kill himself.why not inflict some of the pain he was feeling on others.thats why he did it.he killed his mother because she started the whole mess.he never intended to leave the school alive.he knew exactly what he was doing.thats not crazy.guns are such a minor part of the equation
Here's a link so everyone can see what kind of guns killed these children. These were assault weapons, not guns for hunting animals, but guns for shooting people. Some say the semi-automatic handguns killed the victims, but last I read, the coroner said they were all killed by the assault rifle. Does it make any difference which weapon of war killed them?
Today is a day to mourn for these precious children and their teachers and today is the day to speak up, Americans, and tell the NRA that we will not let them or their supporters bully us anymore.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/15/inside-sandy-hook-elementary-school/1772307/
BAN ALL AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
Hey Navy Vet - I am not attacking you. I totally respect you as a fellow Vet. I'm just disagreeing with some of what you've said. I'm allowed to disagree, right?
There is no way you can know that the assault weapon ban didn't prevent some violence, just as there's no way I can know that it did.
Also, so far, the evidence points to Nancy Lanza being killed in her sleep, or at least dressed for sleep. I'm not claiming that I know for sure that she had her weapons completely unsecured, just that that's the way it looks, and that her insane child ended up in control of weapons for which she was responsible regardless. Anything else is hair-splitting, don't you think? I don't know about you, but my Drill Sergeant made me be responsible for my weapon, sleeping or not, else locked in the arms room, no hair splitting allowed.
So, the killer not only had a mental disorder, but also anti-social behavior. Perhaps instead of target practice with assault military weapons, his mother might have taught him sailing or tennis or chess or horseback riding ...
She obviously had the money to keep him involved in less dangerous activities than lock and load.
Since no one else will say it.
The Gun Show Loop Hole is that a gun show seller does not have to do a background check on any sell. They are encouraged to, but it is not required. This is one individual selling to another. You can sell your pistol to your brother's best friend without a background check. But a store is required to submit a background check before they can sell the weapon.
The biggest problem with gun shows, a reporter proved, is that most people selling there are unwilling to do background checks due to price. The reporter and several colleges, went to several gun shows and tried to purchase weapons, these purchases were done while the reporter was telling the seller about how he was sure he would not be able to pass the background check.
T_Bird69
Not true, but unfortunately too close to being true. The sale of ammonium nitrate fertilizer is tracked in South Carolina and Nevada as a result of the Oklahoma City Bombing. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/06/12/bomb_ingredient_restricted_in_2_states_fertilizer_mostly_goes_untracked/
Dont' warm -- DO!!!!! Show some backbone politicians...
BAN high-capacity magazines and assault weapons NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
Hello folks, the second amendment is here to stay. America will not tolerate the government from taking their right not privilege away. I'm not a conservative or a liberal but would vote against anyone who tampers with my second amendment right.
As you have heard a million times, guns don't kill people, idiots pulling the trigger kill people. If you eliminate our 2nd amendment constitutional right only criminals/government will have guns. I had a close loved one shot to death and the murderer was legally banned from having weapons and that didn't stop him from getting a gun. I would still rather face the dangers then lose my civil rights. Remember we are only one of two nations in the world where gun rights are a right not a privilege. You allow the government any wiggle room and that right will be gone very quickly.
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution –
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.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
Benjamin Franklin
TrustVerify:
Unfortunately, our citizenry is made up of many lambs.
I too, see our Constitution becoming not worth the paper it was written.
"trustverify"...Who said anything about taking away your second amendment rights? I think most of us are getting sick of the same old propaganda and seeing that nothing changes. Teabaggers are certainly willing to wipe their bums with the Constitution when it comes to the seperation between church and state and then, suddenly, become experts on the Constitution when there is anything mentioned about gun laws. If you wish to be rigid in your definition of what it means to bear arms, then why aren't you arguing for the right of every American to own a nuclear warhead? Do you think they may have left it vague for the discretion of future lawmakers?
"trustverify"...I would appreciate it if you and the rest of your teabagging klan would stop bastardizing our fore-father's quotes to advance your obvious fascist agenda. Show me one quote from one of our founding fathers with specific regards to semi-automatic weapons.
It saddens me deeply, "trustverify" that you and your ilk are more attached to your spoon-fed propaganda than you are to the lives of small children. How can you face yourself in the mirror?
What is TrustVerify's "fascist agenda"?
Not many people would appreciate a nuclear accident in our own backyard, such as the one witnessed in Japan. Many don't agree with having anything nuclear on American soil, for the adults sake and the lives of small children. A nuclear accident, or on purpose, should be much more worrisome.
The ignorance of the left on firearms is hysterical !!They bloviate about an assault style gun that can kill 26 people in 10 minutes has no place in our society , when in fact it's a ludicrous statement used to drum up sympathisers. Give me an everyday 12 guage shotgun with double odd buck and 15 rounds in 2 minutes the exact same tragedy could occur !!! The sad truth is keeping the deranged from getting guns is not going to happen and punishing honest gun owners won't happen !!! Put a gun using criminal away for mandatory 25 yrs for any crime would do a lot more at keeping gun crimes down , BUT OH I FORGOT mostly BLACKS would go away so no DEMOCRATS would back a bill like that !!!
"debi"...Everyone knows the teabagger movement is nothing more than yet another attempt of evangelical "christians" to push through their tired old fascist agenda. Get over it.
Some people, "debi", would not appreciate knowing their neighbor has a semi-automatic weapon. Who are you to judge what your neighbor uses to arm themselves when they exercise their right to bear arms? I don't have the numbers handy, but I'll go out on a limb to say that there are more American deaths caused by semi-automatic weapons than there are by back-yard nuclear accidents. Why do you think that is, "debi"?
I'd like to see documented evidence of your outrage each time Bush II violated the Constitution, "debi". Where were you 7 years ago?? Oh...you're just afraid that the commie Kenyan islamist without a birth-certificate is going to take over your world...right? It's no one's fault but your own that you hate the US Constitution. Oh....but in true Republican form...we wouldn't expect you to take responsibility for anything, would we...
"jonny n" above is a disgusting racist, but at least he is honest about it, "debi".
Shockedanddisgusted, spoken like a true lamb.
@Derek-381097 who stated:
Derek, i clearly stated the need for analysis and an intelligent solution. do you suggest dumping "witches"" in water and shoving loaves of bread down the throats of someone you don't understand to determine answers ?
something in our society has obviously gone wrong in the last decade and a half or so. i for one, would like to know what it is, rather than blaming it on an object that has been present for centuries.
maybe you need help with definition of "slippery slope". ill provide an example:
1. machine guns kill people; solution - outlaw machine guns.
2. semi-autos kill people; solution - outlaw semi-autos.
3. lever actions kill people; solution - outlaw lever actions.
4. bolt actions kill people; solution - outlaw bolt actions.
5. single shots kill people; solution - outlaw single shots.
6. bowie knives kill people; solution - outlaw bowie knives.
7. high powered pre charged air guns kill people; solution - out high powered pre charged air guns.
8. Compound bows kill people; solution - outlaw compound bows.
9....nth, things kill people; solution - outlaw things.
i dont know about you, but as far as im concrned, that is a slippery slope that our civilization will not benefit from.
i also dont know about you, but i would prefer to understand an issue and address the issue, as encompassing as it may be. is there a good chance it will involve some form of well thought out gun control and perhaps control of other potential weapons ? yes. but rather that pointing fingers and blaming blame at folks who had nothing to do with this disgusting culmination of actions in CT, i want changes based on comprehensive understanding of the root issues not emotional knee jerk reactions that very well could fial to address any of the pertinent issues.
@differhiuhnet
@differhiuhnet, i'm completely missing your point.
1. this mass murdering phenomena outside of war in this recent scale we are seeing within our borders is on a scale greater than usual in the last few decades. there was no issue to address decades ago. go back a century or more and the scale of mass murder was beyond anything recently reported, and yes these were mass murders initiated by "official forces" against un-armed women and children and well as grown men.
seeking truth and addressing truth has at least reduced those mass murders.
are you trying to tell me, seeking truth today for these recent outbreaks of heinous murdering is a "pitty party" ? what is between your ears ?
exactly, what is between your ears to come to such a pitiful and useless comclusion.
i want an end and solution to the trend of mass shooting we are experiencing.
you obviously have an agenda to follow and noting else.
i feel sorry for your inability to think beyond political lines.
btw, i've taken those tests to how left or right someone is. in all honesty i do in fact consider myself conservative. the test prove me a hundredthand a fraction of that to the left of center and and hundredth and a fraction of that down from center.
go figure.
There is no point in taxing the super rich as it will not solve our problems,so forget it. There is no point in trying to enact gun controls as we already have too many guns therefore anyone who wants guns will get them. Am I the only one who wonders if these are the same persons in the same instances? With that view point we would still be part of a vastly expanded British Empire ,jn- fact with that view point we would probably be a part of the Roman Empire.This country has become what it is by solving perceived problems. We have many more serious problems than this one,but this problem should be addressed and a solution sought to ,at the least, partially solved.Doing nothing to solve the problem,it may surprise some ,will not solve this problem.
I still find it stunning that not a ONE of the 31 PRO-GUN Senators refused to go on MTP yesterday to defend their positions....
Could it be because MTP doesn't allow them to "pack heat" while appearing on the show?
Even wacko Morning Joke has seen the light...
Correction - should read;
I still find it stunning that not a ONE of the 31 PRO-GUN Senators would agree to go on MTP yesterday to defend their positions....
OY!
Feisty - my guess is they couldn't getting their talking points on how important it is to own mega rounds of ammunitions and fast repeating guns to shoot "animals"....like 5 and 6 year old children.....
Yet the throngs will follow Huckabee to the gun store or the Chick-fil-A, didn't you know these massacres occur because we took God out of the Pledge of Allegiance??
The silence of the GOP on this matter, and the refusal of all 31 pro-gun Senators to go on MTP speaks to the cowardice of the average gun rights thug in this country. It must really, really hurt for the NRA to have their "brass" so tightly clinched in a vice grip they can't even speak to the horror of 20 little children sacrificed on the altar of their Second Amendment rights.
Sensing a sea of upcoming change, they spent the weekend stuffing their rods into their pockets, and strutted around looking for their last 'are you happy to see me' Mae West moment.
All kidding aside, a few of those activists showed up with George and talked about the need to put more guns in schools as a way to stop guns in school. I'm still trying to work through that brainiac notion.
And we still have Sarah Palin to weigh in with her words of wisdom.
charemor - oh please - NO!
feisty, it's because they've been saying the same thing over and over again for years, but people like you just don't listen to reality and would prefer to dream of a happy world that is filled with perfect people and money for everyone even though that doesn't exist... i'm not even going to tell you all the reasons why anti-gun policies a) don't make it harder for criminals to get guns and b) actually lead to law-abiding citizens becoming the victims... time to go out and buy the rifle i want before it becomes illegal, i can see stupidity is taking over the world again!
the state had just implemented a new safety policy and told the principle that it's their job to protect their students... with what? a sharpie? a ruler?
the media is involved in 100% of all crimes in the country yet i don't see you calling for media control... the reason why VT happened is because a twisted individual saw columbine and wanted to one-up it. then this kid saw VT and how do you one-up that? oh that's right, shoot up an elementary school. it's sad watching them try to compare tragedies like this as if a body count can somehow be correlated to which school shooting is worse... but i guess we should arrest the gun and throw it in jail, after all it killed people.
pandas - clearly reading comprehension is not your stong suit. NO ONE is asking for a ban on guns - just semi-automatic, automatic and large clips. I have a brother who is a hunter and I would never support a total ban on guns. But some are NOT appropriate for individuals.
Massacres are even smaller time then they were in the 1920's... I think the hype in the media is a disgraceful action for ratings and profit.
Enough with the ban guns or certain types idea, this country is too unstable to even allow such nonsense. The day congress can not secretly stick sections in bills that lead to examples such as indefinitely detaining citizens under military control is the day you can tell me that fighting fire with fire I.E. AR's vs AR's with every citizens right to maintain the system of checks and balances between the government and its people.
Increase the mental background checks and social care of people who are in need of such support. When they stop slipping through the cracks of society is when you can tell me we need to consider the topic of guns as an issue. Switzerland is a mainstay example of high weapons ownership and low crime. Don't tell me it doesn't exist nor could it.
Sweden, with its large population of hunters, has figured it out.
To own a firearm in Sweden:
-one must pass a thorough background check,
-pass a proficiency test,
-both weapon and owner are registered,
-the guns must be stored in a government approved safe with ammo stored in a separate storage safe. (A police inspection of the safe and its installation is required before the gun can be delivered.)
-No handguns, period. One can own a handgun for recreation purposes, but the gun can never leave the premises of a shooting club.
Any REAL hunter knows that 99.9999% of the time game is taken with the first shot. If a second shot is required for a wounded animal, there is plenty of time to chamber another round.
There is no good reason why any civilian needs automatic weapons.
All the NRA EXCUSES do not work anymore - statistics have proven them wrong!
What about the rights of We the People to live in a free and safe country?
Enough. ENOUGH. ENOUGH!
You Liberals sit on here and post how terrible it is that 20 children were murdered and yet you sit back and condone the murder of thousands of children from abortion, go look up the word HYPOCRITE Feisty you might actually learn something!!!!
An Individual
Sweden is a socialist country. And the real men leave the country..
Most countries in the world adopt some form of socialism, its not black a white governments my friend you'd do well to drop the hatred over what other countries find more appropriate for their people.
seekingsanity, semi-auto and fully auto ban... so just basically revolvers and shotguns are left? and yes, i see the a lot of people on the left calling for the outright ban of firearms. millions upon millions of people use those types of weapons you just listed on a daily basis between hunting and sport, yet only 8,500 people are killed each year due to firearm related incidents, and many of those are in cities like chicago which have outlawed guns, yet they still have one of the highest gun crime rates in the us.
oh and anindividual, in switzerland the gov't gives you a gun and trains you since they have an organized militia and not an organized military... their gun violence is one of the lowest in the world with 1/3 of the country owning guns and people are encouraged to buy guns. yet in london it's illegal to own guns and criminals just walk into your house even in broad daylight knowing you can't do anything to protect yourself..... statistics just proved you wrong. guns are only evil in the hands of evil, but all you see on tv is that evil.
You are stupid if you think it is only 31. I suggest you look at a map, outside of California just about every state to the east coast. I voted for Obama twice and have also had guns all of my life. Just like all Republicans don't walk lockstep together neither do the democrats As the gov of Montana said, he has more guns than he needs but not as many as he wants and both democratic senators from that state will not vote for gun control. Most independents aren't going to support it either until a middle of the road independent or moderate comes up with some ideas. The people shouting for gun control now are the ones that are against all guns and most people see that. The extreme left of the democratic party is every bit as insignificant and isolated as the tea party and christian taliban is on the other side.
pandas are awesome
The statistics prove nothing. Switzerland and America have vastly different mindsets.
ok would you like more...
in london criminals just walk into peoples' houses during the day and steal their stuff because it's illegal to own a gun there. they know you don't have a gun and it's not very hard for them to obtain guns illegally... 95% of criminals when asked if the thought of the owner of a house owning a gun deterred them from robbing the place said yes... i could go on, but it's simple things you could look up for yourself.
i'm sorry, but my RIGHT to own a gun shouldn't be infringed on by people who just don't like them... it basically boils down to this: most people don't need a gun... until you actually NEED a gun.
As long as you people keep blaming guns for the problem, these things will continue to happen.
A big part of the problem is the laws. Criminals commit murder and some are back out on the streets in a few years. Lax laws for murder fall directly on the liberals.
How many little kids got killed this last year due to drunk drivers? And those that have killed while intoxicated are back out driving again in a few years.
To Feisty's comment, I add:
John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Kelly Ayotte all clamored to the press microphones, couldn't get on MTP quickly enough to rant about Benghazi and make outrageous accusations at Susan Rice and the White House but stand silent regarding Sandy Hook Elementary and twenty murdered 6 and 7 year old children and six adults.
Kevin T, more stringent laws in recent years have reduced drunk driving and related deaths. As with any law, you never eliminate the human element; you never prevent every incident. As with mental illness, alcoholism is a disease--we need to provide more and better access to mental health facilities as well as alcohol and drug addiction centers. That in combination with sensible laws can make a difference. The point is that doing nothing has been the choice for far too long.
The police in every town should give firearm safety courses and have a gun range where citizens can be taught not to shoot themselves and each other.
Just how many laws on the books were violated in Clakamas, OR, Aurora, CO, and Newtown, CT? Tell me how those laws saved one life. Go ahead I am waiting. Criminals and the mentally ill don't respect any law. Yet the legislators who are grandstanding for re-election and public opinion are trying to tell you other wise. How many laws were broken by the terrorist who used box cutters to take over planes on 9/11/01? Lets start with the fact many were here illegally. So lets connect the dots...more laws are ineffective if no one respects or enforces those laws. So tell me again how more laws will prevent killings of this order? As long as evil exists so will the actions by evil exist. Even our moral outrage will not stop one death somewhere in the world today unless you stand up and face down evil. Even the discussion here is evil with citizens calling each other names in the battle for the domination of party politics. It is in the mind that actions are created. By harboring evil toward those with a different opinion you start down the course toward evil behavior. Left unchecked by reason and logic the exercise of untamed passions erupts in pure evil. We are advised to guard well the avenues to the soul. Those avenues are our thoughts, emotions, senses, and materials we watch, read, and consume. There is a relationship to all these things that result in the unbelievable conduct of humans killing other humans for no reason. Since we all agree we are higher life forms than animals, lets just begin to act accordingly with our choices and voices. New law will be scoffed by evil and evil may in fact use new law for greater evil in the future if our history is any indication.
Stop letting party affiliation be your "god" and lets start to watch each others back to prevent more evil through division and domination.
With a minimum of adjustment, our existing gun laws would be much more effective.
1. All firearms must be kept in a locked safe when not in use. The safe is accessable only by registered owner(s).The exception being " nightstand" home protection with electronic owner only identity verify triggers. 2 maximum.
2. ATF annual on site verification of the above.
3. All firearm use only in the presence of the registered owner(s).
4. All weapons found outside of compliance are confiscated.
5. The registered owner of any firearm used in a crime will be charged as an accessory to that crime.
Note that these regulations are very similar to automobile regulations.
Note also that these regulations do NOT interfere with responsible gun use.
Really surprising that feisty redhead is against guns and the right to defend yourself. They have some of the most strict gun laws around.
I wonder if she would walk around the south side at midnight? Those gun laws would certainly keep her safe, right?
AnIndividual, If you think Sweden has it so figured out, I'm sure there is a flight out to there today.
THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE IS CONFUSING.
Shouldn't it read "Pro-gun Republicans..." instead??
Jim number 2 and 4 interferes with the Fourth Amendment and number 1 is of no use if you also use your guns for self defense especially since the cost of the electronics are expensive unless you want the government to pay for them. Oh and one more thing I trust BATFE personal about as far as I can throw them.
@Blackcatwhitecat
"The statistics prove nothing. Switzerland and America have vastly different mindsets."
That's the problem bub... Mindset... the social care, the neglect THATS THE DIFFERENCE AND PROBLEM. So yes they do matter...
They're Human to are they not? Aren't we Human? Thought so.
Can't do anything about anything when lobbyists run our Government even when children get murdered.
Anything related to guns in the country is chaotic. We need someone to stand up and enter every crevice of it, limit the number of Gun outlets, control ammunition, arrest people who break the rules, contaminate if we have to..
Lusitania,
That works against law abiding people. Now what are you going to do to stop the people you really need to worry about? Are car trunks part of the outlets you think you can limit?
I know everyone has heard this before, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Lets carry that a few steps farther. A few gun laws lead to more gun laws until not even outlaws have guns. When only the government has guns, the government will become an outlaw. That is exactly what happened in Hitler's Germany. Do we really want that to happen to our children and grandchildren?
You need to join the Westboro Baptist church Lusitania, If you wanna think like that. The Government has enough control, and you wanna give them more, Go live in the white house as a maid.
Lusitania: How are you going to control ammunition when nearly all the hunters/sport shooters I know reload their own ammo?
T_Bird- That's my point.. ADJUST THE AMENDMENT.. Now is the time.These simple changes would have prevented Columbine and Sandy Hook..And others.!
Semi-auto firearms have been around for a century. They are not the problem. Look at the difference between a 1911 .45 semi-auto pistol and a modern .45 semi-auto pistol.
To me the 1911 is a good fiream for civilian use while the modern ones are not. The velocity of the bullet and especially the magazine capacity are way too much.
blackcatwhitecat,
pandas are awesome was talking about Sweden, not Switzerland. In Switzerland EVERY HOME HAS A FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON!
Changing the amendment now does not get rid of weapons and not even I who do not have any kind of gun will allow that freedom to be taken. Knowing we have the option is the best choice for us all.
Sweden also conscripts people into its military, in other words military service is mandatory at a certain age. Just have to love Freedom huh?
Hey lets just say some despot somehow becomes leader of America, bans guns and gets ahold of the registered gun owners? What do you think would happen. Dont answer, like every lib on here, they believe the US is inpervious to such boorish scenario.
Those pro-gun senators are cowards then. I can easily defend our right to own firearms because it's codified in our constitution. That doesn't mean that the constitution cannot be amended but if you can't defend your constitution then the constitution needs to be amended and/or you don't deserve to represent us. BTW, I support the 2nd amendment and if anything was going to change I would rather see it change when some of the kneejerk reactions subside. I certainly don't want to see widespread privacy violations or discrimination in lieu of a constitutional amendment.
You are 1000% correct !!!
THAT is precisely why private ownership of automatic weapons has been prohibited by the original Gun Control Act SINCE 1934 !!!!
ALL OF THE UNINFORMED, UNDER-INFORMED, MIS-INFORMED, DOPIER-THAN-@!$%# ANTI-GUN RHETORIC ON THIS BOARD SCARES THE LIVING HELL OUT OF ME.
YOU PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTE ?!?!
NO WONDER THIS COUNTRY IS AS SCREWED UP AS IT IS.
"Seeking Sanity(?)"; I sure hope you find it!
A good reason outside of protection against the government? XD
Did you notice that Barry had his FULL COMPLIMENT of Secret Service to protect him? Bet you they had some SERIOUS firepower under those jackets..........
Why am I not allowed to protect my family?
Because the secret service go through years of rigorous tests to ensure their integrity and responsibility. You, however, go to wal-mart and wait two weeks for a license. NOT THE SAME
Cesar- Augustus
Your comment was:
Sweden also conscripts people into its military, in other words military service is mandatory at a certain age. Just have to love Freedom huh?
Please do not comment unless you know what you are talking about when you attempt to present something as a fact.
Since 1901, Military Service was mandatory in Sweden until 1 July 2010 [37] when conscription was officially suspended during peace time.[38] Until 2010, all Swedish men aged between 18 and 47 years old were eligible to serve with the armed forces over a period ranging from 80 to 450 days. The right to Conscientious Objection was legally recognised in 1920. An alternative community service for Conscientious Objectors was easily available instead of military service. The number of those seeking conscientious objector status declined as actual conscript recruitment continued to decline. In the years running up to 2010 roughly 6000 - 8000 people out of an annual cohort of 100,000 - 120,000 potential recruits actually completed military service.
Sorry about the bold-faced type; for some reason this is the way it printed. As for Sweden; when was the last time they engaged in a war? Someone previously made a comment that "real men leave Sweden". I guess that in order to be a man, you nave to love your guns and show them off to all your other "real men" friends.
GOP stays silent.
NRA stays silent.
That's because they have the blood of these dead children and teachers on their hands and they know it.
Hey, GOP, we are watching you and seeing how fast you scurry to keep our nation from going over the fiscal cliff, and how fast you stand up to the NRA that's been bankrolling your new sailboats and vacation homes for the past decades.
The citizens of America are watching what you do and how you vote, and we will remember in 2014.
So far, you aren't doing very well, in fact, you've been doing nothing but lining your own pockets.
Well well, there is certainly a proliferation of ideas on this thread and we have been all over the place with considerations, many are good helpful things we can do. I like "An Individual's" explanation of Sweden's policies. Very simple and straightforward, practical and sensible. Much caution in handling of weapons there, makes very good objective sense for those who value life. As the name explains also, "An Individual". There seems to be something we have blindly stumbled over here, pertaining to the common sense of our Bill of Rights. Without one's life, there is no country, no freedom, no thinking or breathing, no nothing. Could it be that the Forefathers were being philosophically sensible in placing the First Amendment, The Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, where it was put...before the second one, for a reason? You see, our Constitution was built like a clock, with every mechanism leading into and affecting the next.
This got messed about with and one day the second amendment finally and clearly murdered the first one and the Americans, although furious at the destructive murder of all their own innocent and lovely women and children, having forgotten about checking their logical premises which were now false, did not know what to do about it.
Let us put it this way, your life is more important than anything you can ever possess, including an inanimate object that is a murdering machine for cowards that would run away from hand to hand combat...also the old saying still goes, "he or she who lives by the sword dies by the sword". So what kind of a society do you folks want to grow, a peaceful and constructive one, or a destructive and violent chaotic one? Do you want to create a war of all against all where all are alienated from each other? Or do you want to start creating a more peaceful co-existence based on citizens with common customs in public who can trust each other based on their understanding of the true importance of practicing ethics? Did you know that the ten commandments and karmic laws such as the golden rule were ethics and customs introduced thousands of years ago by the elders as a wise recipe for building a society that assisted reasoning people to conduct business in public peacefully? That peace is a condition that is necessary for civilized societies to work, and that it took all that time to create through many struggles over the expanse of human history, that war is mass murder and murder is always a sin?
But oh God, don't take my bang bang toys away from me, say our right wing nut jobs. Really great premises your arguments rest upon. Just sell more guns, have a few more wars, brainwash a few more young lads to march off to oblivion not even knowing life, and let everyone kill each other out there, great for the upper crusties! Euthanasia always makes more money for you, and less mouths out there to feed. Cute one and a nice try, but even the fools are beginning to look at those children, know the difference between their pistol packing mama in the hills, and some rich weapon-maker's insane socio-pathological profit motive premises. It just comes down to common sense when the obvious reveals itself in broad daylight and this horrendous sight on the televisions across this country before the People was just about the worst trespass of individual's rights imaginable.
Change must happen now. The Second Amendment must be corrected, amended, adjusted to modern circumstances in order to allow the First Amendment and all that it protects, to stay alive. Now if you ask me about the next thing - Liberty?...well, if one cannot even take their child to school or go to the store in fear for their life, that pretty much means your society cannot work at all, and that certainly means there is no freedom because of the bully with the modern semi-automatic rapid fire multiple killing machine standing there angry and in black like a monster at the Second Amendment's front door, and so again, who came first? The monster in black or the little child? The life comes first or there is nothing, and there can be nothing after or beyond that initial point, always.
If guns were as regulated as cars:
1) There would be title and tags at each point of sale.
2) There would be gun education and training, a written test, and a practical test.
3) There would be health requirements, and mandatory liability insurance on each gun owned.
4) There would be mandatory regularly scheduled registration renewals and periodic inspections.
Those who argue the number of guns in circulation has nothing to do with the number of murders and suicides because "it's not guns, but people who kill people" are simply ignoring statistics previously confirmed time and again.
Last year, there were 48 gun-related deaths in Japan.
8 in the U.K.
34 in Switzerland.
52 in Canada.
58 in Israel.
21 in Sweden.
42 in W. Germany.
10, 728 in the USA. (This figure does not include the number of suicides.) Clearly the number of guns in public circulation correlates directly to the number of gun deaths. This is indisputable.
Our murders amount to 30 a day, 200 a week. Would we tolerate a jetliner going down once a week??
Here, at gun shows you can buy a .50 caliber assault rifle capable of shooting a 1-foot deep hole in a concrete wall from a 1/4-mile away, without any regulations whatsoever.
Despite all their arguments about safety and control, gun owners are a big part of the problem, because:
1) 40% of all firearms sold in this country are sold without any background check, by gun owners
2) 68% of shooters get their murder weapon from home, or from a family member's home. Adam Lanza did, too.
3) 62% of gun owners say they would sell a firearm to someone telling them they would probably NOT pass a background check.
4) It is estimated that at least half of gun owners do not lock up their guns.
5) You are 43 times more likely to die at the hand of a family member than to shoot an intruder, if you have a gun in your home.
Guns in the home turn angry arguments into violent deaths. Oddly enough for this very reason, gun owners & their families are actually suffering violent deaths in significantly greater numbers than the general public, despite the national horror of shocking mass murders and the slaughter of innocents. Gun owners commenting here who disfavor any form of common sense gun control are apparently unaware or remain in denial about the likelihood of their own violent deaths.
Moreover, the notion that any group of gun-toting citizens, no matter their organization might be capable of what?--overthrowing?-- the largest, most powerful world military force in human history, is sheerly ludicrous. All combined are less than a flea to the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Law enforcement here hasn't even any means to determine if a person buys a significant amount of munitions in one place, then goes to another place and buys more. We have the technology to do so much more with intelligence alone-- and government intelligence is no infringement against your so-called right to own firearms.
These mass murders have amped up most significantly just in the last 7 years. That's no coincidence.
The Supreme Court only held the 2nd Amendment to be a personal right in 2008. The case that turned the tide is: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The current Court's unique holding and the sharp increase in mass murders are occurring in exactly same time frame.
We must have common sense federal gun control legislation for one simple reason: whatever version of the 2nd Amendment one aspires to, it is only one part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights lists as primary the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Above all else, the right to life supersedes.
Above all else, the right to life supersedes.
Thank you Dee for the Pro Life comments. Somehow I dont think you really are though. I find it ironic the same people calling for gun control who cry for "the children" (over used statement) dont mind throwing children (babies) into a meat grinder. Women are the biggest killers in our society because of "my body-my right to choose stay out of my womb" 2000-3000 children a day are killed because someone doesnt want to be bothered by a child. Who defends the children in that instance? Our loving president and his loving party have a platform with one of its legs based on killing children. Isnt that special. Over a million children a year die in the US this way over 43 million world wide and these people have the nerve to complain about guns get real. Ill bet you have more neighbors that have killed by abortion then they have killed with a gun. Stay out of peoples gun cabinets hypocrits.
Sorry, Jim, better start stockpiling your already well-stocked arsenal.
You can keep your guns for protection, hunting, and target practice. But, your automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons are going to be illegal soon, and when someone breaks in and steals them, YOU will be held just as responsible for the crimes they commit.
You want to protect innocent babies in the womb?
I do, too. But, I also want to protect the ones that have already been born.
REINSTATE THE BANS ON AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS OF WAR.
Thanks to Dee for clarification of the numbers of murders by gun and the facts.
Jim, on the other hand is trying to confuse issues here, a common attempt to derail the topic onto another debate over the definition of a living being that is born as opposed to a glob of cells depending on the stage of gestation.
To that we say; Who are you to judge this? Have YOU ever been pregnant or given birth? Which is it, a glob of cells not yet formed, or a six or seven year old living, breathing, functioning human being with a personality, a name, all features and body fully formed and already having been raised for years in a loving family? Sheesh!
This pathetic attempt of self righteous finger pointing and being the big inquisitor rests on completely illogical grounds and no possible understanding or compassion first person. You have lost your self centered and authoritarian faux case hands down and revealed your own hypocrisy, ignorance, and lack of compassion for the born living because you cannot get outside of your bubble-headed closed minded obsession over some imagined notion about a woman's right to choose.
That issue has no place here but what does have a place here is what is being investigated as psychological motive and for all we know, after hearing of his parents conservative mindsets and his own opinions following from his own impressions, it could have very well been some such crazy hateful mixed up right wing radio yelling male chauvinistic sexist notion in this kid's head or some old grudge that led him to manifest his own autistic fury and commit this cowardly and horrific psycho-pathological act of matricide and mass murder against the innocent women and children at this school. There is no doubt, however, that if he would not have gotten into his mother's gun cabinet, and if she would not have had guns like these, this never would have happened.
They're bullsh*T cause somehow guns cause people to kill each other more then their insane family or childhood? Riiight my friend. Cause if we get rid of guns people will never kill each other ever again I mean people never murdered till guns were invented right? :O
Trent
True, people are nuts and they do nutty things so why not make it easier to facilitate their inner most wishes and let them have easy access to the semi automatic weapons with large clips? I mean they are going to act nuts no matter what we do, so why get in their way by trying to keep these weapons out of their hands? Then we can all go buy more guns to defend ourselves from them, even teach our six year olds how to shoot guns too while we are at it and all go @!$%#ing nuts together as we hide in bunkers at night.
A gun doesn't make you crazy. You're crazy with or without the weapon.
What can make you crazy can include the experiences you've grown up with, the role model's you've grown up with, and other genetic factors that can contribute to you slipping or just not seeing what a lot more people see as normal. Normality itself is all a matter of opinion so perspective has a huge part in what believe.
If you're raised in a family where your parents continually beat you till you become this closed off individual then I can see that as a problem but that isn't a firm reason, in the end it has more to do with what the person can take themselves.
There needs to be more social care for those in need of help.
Trent
I have no problem with social programs that aid people and are affordable. I am a liberal after all. I would like to see all our energies go to helping humans live better lives. I would like to see our citizens be the best educated they can and have decent jobs and live in peace. That is my wish for everyone. Instead we have guns everywhere, people who are unstable having easy access to them and fear and joblesnees is what we get. I really think it is time for a change of heart by all of us and it is time to come together as fellow Americans to defeat the fear, bigotry and bring in a new approach.
fenderbluesjr
In the same paragraph you spout your constitutional rights and then you tell me to stay out of it? Your can't pick the parts of the Constitution you want to stay true to, little man, and ignore the ones you don't. I believe the 2nd Amendment mentions something about a "well regulated militia"... I don't believe our founding fathers envisioned ordinary people walking around with assault weapons. Does the 2nd Amendment give you the right to own a scud missile, a tank, a nuclear weapon?
Please, would one of you right-wing gun nuts tell me why you find it necessary to own an assault weapon with a high capacity magazine? Owning a BIG GUN doesn't make you a big man. Quite the contrary.
Dee - Thank you for a voice of sanity but I don't expect it to change the minds of any of the crazies here who think the Government is coming to take their guns. It must be sad and depressing to exist like they do imagining that any day now, someone from the "Government" is going to come marching down the street, break in to their homes and take their guns. People who think like them are just the sort that WILL take a gun(s) and go out and kill innocent people because their delusions will some day take control.
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution –
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.
Trust verify, I'm a little confused about your point of view. I'm sympathetic to the problems that you raise of the powers of the state but I'm a little fuzzy on your prescription. But I can safely say that the 2nd Ammendment can not be part of that prescription. There is another word for taking up arms against a democratically elected governemnt. That word is treason so that really is not an option.
Don't get me wrong. I am not making an accusation here. But the powers that the Government has 'taken' have strictly speaking not been 'taken'. They have been voted by legislators in plain sight of a docile citizenry. These are democratically elected leaders who are responding to a population that appears to be willing to give its freedoms away.
Regarding the Second Ammendment, it is not an expression of the right to overturn a government. That was obviously not the intent. There are 2 clear reasons for this. First, it calls for a well regulated militia. If its purpose was to overthrow the government in the event of tyranny, who exactly would be doing the regulating? Of course it would be the democratically elected government. So it is clearly constitutional to limit the right to bear arms.
Haggisbingo...lets do both, meaning a background check that is more thorough for any gun and banning any kind of semi-automatic or assault weapon and the magazines too. YES! Violent people using rapid fire killing machines on other people equals a disaster every time and that is an indisputable fact.
As a gun owning liberal (who willingly, and happily went through a background check to purchase it), I'm all for tightening the laws, and regulations. I think we also need mandatory training before a purchase can be made, where the instructor can possibly make an early identification of someone who should not own a firearm. Good for the Democrats in Congress willing to stand up to the NRA, and all of the conspiracy nuts preventing a sane conversation on the subject.
Where are those on the right who agree with sanity? Oh, that's right, they were driven out by the gun wielding TEA Party people.
I agree Matthew -
As I gun owner myself, I'm comfortable with having my (and others') background reviewed prior to any purchases as well as either limits or high-taxes ( read barriers ) placed on military-type items (assault weapons; armor-piercing bullets; body armor ).
I think at this point, we have a number of 'jerks' who are getting their hands on guns and making those that respect handguns look like idiots. It won't solve all gun-related problems, but a bit of common-sense would go a long way in this area.
Unfortunately, I'm not opimitistic that anyone or anything can be done against the gun lobby.
Something can be done, Pablo. We need to write our representatives, and vote. The current figure for writing your representative is that your opinion is reflective of about 7 - 10,000 people (I forget the exact figure, this could be bit high) who have not contacted them.
These aren't panaceas, but they are an important piece of the puzzle.
Matthew, Houston, TX
Excellent point!
I think you have something there.
Salud
A knee jerk reaction is not the answer...
Let's craft a bill that protects the children, addresses mental illness, put restrictions on assault weapons that makes it much much much tougher to own, then debate it and pass a law that everbody's agrees with.
Then maybe we won't have some idiot blame republicans for such a senseless tragedy!!
Of course crafting a bill of this caliber will take compromise by adults and I'm not sure there are any in Washington!!
Matt, Houston TX: That is all I ask for. Make it nation wide; Federal law overrides state law.
Maxx: And pay for the help the mentally ill need.
We all have blood on our hands if no gun laws are passed. The least we can do is call/email/write/visit our representation in Congress even if that representation consists of nothing but party-over-country Republicans who "work [only] for the ones who voted for me."
No one want to pay taxes. So mental health issues are ignored.
There are not many parents who will admit that their child is in need of treatment for mental problems, so society must take charge as well as pay the bill.
by what i've heard this guy stole the weapons from his mother. there was a similar case in ga where the son broke into the dads locked gun stoage went to school and shot it up. the immediate anti-gun reaction was to convict the dad for not locking them up. they jumped to a conclusion fitting their agenda. 10+ years ago as this was talked about then after an incident like this there was a study on the issue. one of the astounding things shown was that then guns were used appropriatly 7000+ times daily to save lives and stop crimes. when contrasting , to show how ridiculas the bannig of guns is a lady called in to a radio show. she rightly pointed out should we seek to ban the instruments of deaths do we start with planes like those bringing down the towers on 911? the intended use does not matter the end results do. the mortality rate of cars is 400% more than guns. do we ban cars??get real folks the evil is carried in the heart. if you are creative enough you can make a weapon of most anything-- like strangling one with his own neck tie.
Maxx made a good point on this.
However I don't get why Pablo would include and or restrict body armor in his taxing/limiting plan. I'm not aware of anyone ever being bludgeoned to death with a bullet proof vest, but I guess anything is possible. (Sarcasm aside, I'm sure it is so people can get taken down easier, but actually that's exactly why it shouldn't be restricted as I'll go into below.)
The purpose of guns is to kill things, period. Guns are not a deterrent, they are a tool meant to kill. The reason the second amendment is in the Constitution is to arm the population to kill agents of the government should they wish to rebel. And as such to serve as a warning to those same agents that their population has the means to use force to remove them. It's a very subtle threat, and it's meant to be just that, a threat.
Our forefathers saw it a bit differently thinking the States themselves would be doing the revolting, hence the well regulated militia language. Times changed and the States themselves are now nothing more then glorified fiefs and local raised forces have given way to largely standing armies. That still doesn't mean the basic tenant, tone, and purpose of the amendment is dead, and that's exactly why it should stay put and be regulated at the State level, not nationally.
The first step in a communist takeover is gun control. Obama is on his fast track to takeover! Remember Kennesaw Georgia? More guns there reduced the violent crime rate to zero. Who is going to make a fuss in a place where everyone carries a gun? Think about it. Would you perpetrate violent crime where all who surround you are carrying a loaded gun?
Look, passing a ban on a particular type of weapon (fully auto notwithstanding) is simply not going to work .It didn't last time and it won't now. There are simply too many of them out on the streets. You cannot legislate morality and you cannot stop a determined person. Outlawing guns would eventually lead to a full blown civil war as anti gunners would demand a confiscation and most gun owners would see this as a threat to their civil and human rights. Folks, these types of things are going to happen, tragic, but true. We need to identify the underlying problem not the tools. This whole discussion of strengthening gun control laws and banning military assualt style weapons sounds good but in reality, it is an empty knee jerk reaction. Grieve and move on.
Matthew: would a person who has the intention of killing another human being be a person that
" the instructor can possibly make an early identification of someone who should not own a firearm."
Each and every gun owner would be such a person. The act of having a gun "for self defense" indicates that the gun owner is willing to use that gun to kill another person. That is not mentally stable.
This country is morally bankrupt and no amount of regulation is going to change someone that wants to kill other innocent people. Keep dividing America liberals, it's sad if someone doesn't agree with you the hatred that spills out over the keyboard is palpable. You do not have any sense of responsibility or accountable you expect government at the largess of the taxpayer to take care of you. I do not need nor want any more government regulations. I see your pal Barry O is once again taking advantage of this tragedy. Like his pal Rahm -- never let a tragedy go to waste. That is what is shameful, these people do not need this to be made into a circus just for O to force feed more regulations.
dirp,
So you're saying the only mentally stable people are ones who are ok with being a victim? Sounds like you are the mental one for thinking like that.
Arkansas Dave - you're totally insane - related to Dottie's girl????
Dotties girl - your disgusting and demented posts reach new lows every day (and most of us thought you had stooped as low as possible in the past.) Your filth and total ignorance is never shown more clearly than today. You've outdone yourself and your filth is magnified even more than in the past. You are truly nothing but gutter trash!
Mathew in Houston,
Really??? Under what qualifications? By who's authority? etc., etc.
BTW, I am not opposed to tightening laws and niether are most gun owners and you know it!!
If your purpose for owning a firearm is to defend yourself against anyone that isn't a match for your extreme political beliefs or your fundamentalist religious ideology, of which you believe these people that do not hold the same beliefs as you are supposedly the biggest problem in this country, you should automatically fail the mental health test and be denied gun ownership.
Why is it no one ever attacks a gun range? Or any other place where the people are ARMED? Could it be the criminals know we will SHOOT THEM?
Someone explain why these shooting are all happening in "Democratic majority" states? Why is it the Federal Government is asked to decide on something that should only be dealt with by "We, The People"?
Seriously, no Government should have the abiltiy to touch a single Amendment on the Constitution, they should only be changed by the majority vote of the people.
If Liberal States wish it, they can arbitrarily surrender their rights, but no actions are worth opening the door to removing ANY Amendment, simply because it allow others to the same luxury.
If the Liberals should respect that fact, since it is the GOP lead House of Reps that actually is the key. So, unless you're willing and able to give them the option to make changes, based on just their opinions, you might be giving up more than you really want.
And for those rock scientists out there, that really like the Socialist Ideal, keep it near and dear, the power may fall to individuals you oppose... image if you actually had to live under someone that decided THEIR religious beliefs should be the only thing taught in school?
ljstauth
Someone explain why these shooting are all happening in "Democratic majority" states?
I really do not understand what your point is. There are more deranged people in states where the majority vote Democrat? The places where these killings occurred were mostly schools (and the movie theatre)...Are guns allowed in schools and theatres where the majority vote Republican? I live in AZ, which is considered a Republican state, and guns are not allowed in schools or theatres, Would you really want teachers to carry guns around with them? By the time they are aware of what is going on and pulled their gun, they would already have been blown away. There is mass chaos going on during these types of attacks; I don't think a hand gun hanging off their belt would be a match against an AK-15 carrying psychopath intent upon killing everyone he can.
Jersey, I guess you don't read the news too much. There has been several school shootings stopped by someone with a gun. A gunman entered a Texas high school and a student ran out to his truck, grabbed his hunting rifle and held the man at gunpoint until police arrived. There was a shooting at a school where the assistant principal ran out to his car and got his Colt .45 and held the gunman til police arrived. There was an 8th grade school dance at a restaurant where a gunman started shooting and the owner of the restaurant grabbed his shotgun and stopped the gunman.
Maybe if the principal at Sandy Hook had access to a gun she could have stopped the shooter instead of getting herself killed.
And what the heck is an AK-15?
Imagine that .. no republican stepping up and leading. Well, we at least now know how to shut them up. What say ye, GOPTP? Or are you afraid your remarks will cause a round of 'friendly fire'?
They have spoken up lots of times before. Just none of the libs are intelligent enough to understand that laws stop nothing, as is proven by drug laws too. It will always be out there, regardless of whether it's banned or not.
Red,
Maybe they are giving some time out of respect rather than performing like dancing bears for the media and their own gain during this horrible time.
TXHorseman,
I see your point, but I think it is now that people need to act before we lapse back into indifference. It has been 13 years since Columbine; since then we have had Virginia Tech, Aurora and so on. When is a good time to seriously start looking at the issues of gun control and the need of identifying and treating those with mental issues?
As for those who believe that it is because we have taken God out of our homes, classrooms, etc...Let me just throw in here that those who commit these crimes do not have the moral compass to care that Jesus teaches love.
Between 2000 and 2009, over 298,000 people were killed by a bullet in the US. That's accidental death, homicide, and suicide. The only thing that killed more people unnaturally over the same time span was car accidents.
And there's some really telling things the GOP has done. In 1996 they barred the CDC from lobbying for or against any form of firearm legislation, the only such specific topic the CDC is not allowed to exercise their free speech for. And many in the congress have made great efforts to prevent any agency from gathering any evidence about firearm violence. That is not right. That's like prohibiting people from asking a question. Advocates of few firearms controls say that laws are ineffective. I have to wonder based on what data such an assertion can be made. Because they've done everything in their power to squelch inquiry into whether these laws are effective or not.
GOP can't understand difference between common sense gun restrictions and gun ban....until they read a book or two, the fight is futile!
Exactly right, gpotts. Their world is only black, or white, there is no grey.
Actually, in the GOP, its white, old white, or possibly can tan.
lying democrats
Not to single you out, as there are many others who make crude and inappropriate comments, but this is precisely why there is no open and constructive dialogue between the two parties that lead our government. There is just so much hatred and "if you're not with me, you are against me"mentality. Grouping people together by what party they vote for is narrow-minded and defeats any attempt at resolving anything.
anyone who thinks the GOP are real people trying to destroy your life, you are just plain STUPID. I mean flat out the dumbest people on this earth are those that say, those GOP, or those RWNJ, or those libtards....please just go line up with big ol LOCK ME UP me sign....because you are the real losers of this planet...anyone so aroused by their party affiliation needs to be taken DOWN...locked up and used as a tool for the prison guards. period.
Whether or not one likes taking a road less travelled as an individual, obviously you do not understand the importance in the saying, "there is power in numbers" and "no man (or woman) is an island". Meanwhile, the rest of us who know how it works and likes to get things done in a good constructive and expedient way, will continue to gather together to assist each other under the coalition of the big blue umbrella.
A poll about whether we need to tighten gun laws or enforce the existing gun laws better is meaningless garbage (unfortunately way too similar to the Orwellian spin used by politicians). To have a valid opinion on whether gun laws are tight enough you would need to accurately know what current gun laws cover. While only fifty-four percent may support the amorphous concept of tighter gun laws, other polls show a much higher percentage supporting specific gun regulations (e.g. back ground checks on everyone/closing the gun show loophole, banning those on the terrorist watch list from buying guns, limiting the number of rounds per gun) that they erroneously believe are already on the books.
And throw in all the variations from state to state; then from county to county within the state....the variety of restrictions are a nightmare.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you what works (or doesn't) in Chicago is right or fair for what works in Idaho....But some national laws have a place.
For example....limiting the amount of rounds a gun
How about limiting the "right to keep and bear arms" to the arms present when the 2nd Amendment was passed, specifically flint lock rifles and pistols ?
Strict construction of the Constitution according to what the writers intended at the time.
All other guns are banned.
lying democrats
Who are the Democrats that don't understand the difference between restriction and outright ban? Seems to me that you need to educate yourself a bit about what the majority of Democrats believe before you make blanket statements about half the population. Common sense. Thankfully I do not believe that the average Republican is as hateful as you are. Time to zip it.
The sooner we can rid our country of every republican the better. We need a two party system....but not them.
Unfortunately you are going to always have liberals and conservatives and those in between. Calling for the end of a party based on party affiliation is showing not much insight or foresight for that matter or you clearly are of the Jim Jones blind following persuasions (remember the koolaid).
That means 48% don't. It's not about the GOP; it's about the people they represent. Almost half of America supports their positions and votes for them. Are you suggesting we ban the party that represents half of us? Is half of America stupid because they disagree with the other half?
This argument works both ways, of course. The far-right name callers are just as bad as the far-left ones.
Is that a terrorist threat?
We don't need a two party system. We need a coalition government.
Laura,
Our country. What the hell makes this YOUR country more than anyone else??
So you only want people that agree with your thinking?? What a joke!!
You have those numbers reversed. The only red states that give more than they take are TX, AK, and NE. The blue states that give more than they take are CA, CO, MN, IL, IN, OH, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, and NH.
So now it's blue eyes that you spout your hatred towards. You obviously are so miserable; I truly feel sorry for you.
Laura:
How will we know that YOU approve of any other party than the deathocrats? Should the new party be just like the deathocrats, and if so why do we (read YOU) NEED A TWO PARTY SYSTEM?
You sound kind of CRAZY! Just sayin-----
Oh wow, I would love to see the Green Party come up a few notches, or some new creative and moderate party that wants fairness, facts, reason, and solutions for the future in a healthy way for ALL of The People of the USA. Say something like the New American Party, sounds nice, eh? Its about time the repugs sat it out on the back benches or took a vacation over to the old antiquated house of lords.
Gotcha LD, you just really blew it! No credibility after that finger pointing, mean hearted statement whatsoever for you! Whore? Is that all the better you can do here on a public thread in rebuttal? That does not pertain to any kind of politics or policies or philosophical practices that work or do not work in regards to peaceful coexistence, violence, laws, or guns whatsoever. It is simply some senseless ugly hateful put down.
In your own words, you have demonstrated loss of control, fired out the antiquated condemnation and hypocrisy of a deluded and confused partisan spewing some puritanical propagandist definition of the human body and a completely unexplained usage of a sexist misogynist term in retaliation, none of that to do with or qualified by the topic. This persecutor's term of violence and damnation now shines before us like so often before from those on the Republican side of the aisle and your proof is in your own words for all now to see.
You are the one with the bad attitude problem and this very paranoid, conceited and alienated mindset is one of many reasons why it is time for your injurious and prejudiced party to go because it no longer relates to, sympathizes with, serves or assists the broad base of working American Citizens and their families. These are real Americans who have already settled, worked, paid taxes and purchased homes, supported their communities, raised their kids, voted, participated in their society, and given so much. Instead of helping others and being a part of your community, you lord it up over others and take, entitled because you won and they lost, you have and they do not. Instead of focusing on what job you are doing, you focus on how good you look to others. You are self centered, always competing and comparing yourself to others.
From this condemnation, it appears that you only care about being better as entitled for your mammon and class position, like the sick bourgeoisie or those who think they are and their clingy wannabes. Just who do you think you are, some super human that thinks your sexual organ is better, different, or cleaner than another's or that you have a right to have sex and someone else doesn't?
Wow. Can we see the hang up along with the character armor? Hmmm. Let this be an example and psychologists, analyse that because it is part of an attitude and reaction that objectifies, enslaves, labels, attacks, and lends justification for things like gas chambers, gulags and killing innocents - and that which is here revealed on an individual level, when put into action socially by a runaway monopolized capitalist power elite en masse, as history has shown, is a blatantly fascist mindset. On both levels, individual or social, it is anti-social and hostile. It is one of several behavioral markers of what we call a sociopathic attitudinal set and part of what we should red flag when we qualify for a background check in mental health and one's capability in the purchase of weapons, licensing, and gun ownership.
Hey name caller, did you forget? "Wait a minute.. We are", how moronic of you.
I find it quite puzzling that Sen. Manchin, the pro-NRA senator, came out and voiced his support for tougher gun laws, considering the ads he ran when running for the Senate. They were despicable, so I have a hard time believing he will follow through with his promise to get tough on this very serious issue.
In this instance, I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but this isn't Wall Street reform.
This is gun control reform that involves lives, and we can't get by with half a$$ or watered down legislation. Not this time Senator.
The GOP will pretend to listen, claim their un-dying sympathy for the slain children and go back to kowtowing to the NRA.
Cowards, every single one.
Because it's sort of like asking the Pope if he's religious.
William,
In 2010, more than 10,000 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes - one every 51 minute!!
In 2009 181 children died as a result of drunk drivers!!
Where then is the outcry to abolish alcohol?? Is this not enough deaths for you??
(that is just drunk driving. Doesn't include all the impacts on health care and social related issues)
When do we begin to take away cell phone????
I am a bit surprised that the liberal left, who are always so adimate about people's "rights" are so quick to want to remove a right put in place by our fore fathers.
Vehicle's, cell phone' and alcohol cunsumptions are not rights. Gun ownership is.
GUNS are NOT the problem. We need to figure out how and why we keep breeding and rearing animals that are capable of these cold, calculated killings. THAT is the problem and we better start taking a real look at mental health in the U.S.!!!!!!
Cowards? Like the ones grandstanding here today before the bodies are cold!!!!!!!!!
It makes sense to me that those who plan to rob you of your freedoms and possessions would first want to disarm you. Once disarmed you either fall into step with whatever the current trend of thinking either the extreme left or right dictates, or you are a terrorist and eliminated. History tends to repeat itself, so take care in what you wish for.
TX, I'd be all for it. It is important to bear in mind that more people are killed by guns than by drunk driving though.
Looks like Dee Turner already provided some real facts up there. If you were reading...
If guns were as regulated as cars:
1) There would be title and tags at each point of sale.
2) There would be gun education and training, a written test, and a practical test.
3) There would be health requirements, and mandatory liability insurance on each gun owned.
4) There would be mandatory regularly scheduled registration renewals and periodic inspections.
Those who argue the number of guns in circulation has nothing to do with the number of murders and suicides because "it's not guns, but people who kill people" are simply ignoring statistics previously confirmed time and again.
Last year, there were 48 gun-related deaths in Japan.
8 in the U.K.
34 in Switzerland.
52 in Canada.
58 in Israel.
21 in Sweden.
42 in W. Germany.
10, 728 in the USA. (This figure does not include the number of suicides.) Clearly the number of guns in public circulation correlates directly to the number of gun deaths. This is indisputable.
Our murders amount to 30 a day, 200 a week. Would we tolerate a jetliner going down once a week??
Here, at gun shows you can buy a .50 caliber assault rifle capable of shooting a 1-foot deep hole in a concrete wall from a 1/4-mile away, without any regulations whatsoever.
Despite all their arguments about safety and control, gun owners are a big part of the problem, because:
1) 40% of all firearms sold in this country are sold without any background check, by gun owners
2) 68% of shooters get their murder weapon from home, or from a family member's home. Adam Lanza did, too.
3) 62% of gun owners say they would sell a firearm to someone telling them they would probably NOT pass a background check.
4) It is estimated that at least half of gun owners do not lock up their guns.
5) You are 43 times more likely to die at the hand of a family member than to shoot an intruder, if you have a gun in your home.
Guns in the home turn angry arguments into violent deaths. Oddly enough for this very reason, gun owners & their families are actually suffering violent deaths in significantly greater numbers than the general public, despite the national horror of shocking mass murders and the slaughter of innocents. Gun owners commenting here who disfavor any form of common sense gun control are apparently unaware or remain in denial about the likelihood of their own violent deaths.
Moreover, the notion that any group of gun-toting citizens, no matter their organization might be capable of what?--overthrowing?-- the largest, most powerful world military force in human history, is sheerly ludicrous. All combined are less than a flea to the U.S. military-industrial complex.
Law enforcement here hasn't even any means to determine if a person buys a significant amount of munitions in one place, then goes to another place and buys more. We have the technology to do so much more with intelligence alone-- and government intelligence is no infringement against your so-called right to own firearms.
These mass murders have amped up most significantly just in the last 7 years. That's no coincidence.
The Supreme Court only held the 2nd Amendment to be a personal right in 2008. The case that turned the tide is: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The current Court's unique holding and the sharp increase in mass murders are occurring in exactly same time frame.
We must have common sense federal gun control legislation for one simple reason: whatever version of the 2nd Amendment one aspires to, it is only one part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights lists as primary the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Above all else, the right to life supersedes.
You're insane. And what is with your stats?
As for mass murders by blacks against whites? Do you know what "mass" murder means?
There has been NO mass murder of whites by blacks.
Obvously, you are a racist who knows that: 1) most whites are murdered by WHITES (I guess that makes whites the #1 MASS murderers of whites, huh genius?) 2) most blacks are killed by blacks. 3) your 7 year increase of MASS murder of whites by blacks is a "crazy cracker" stat and wrong on many levels. Obviously you mean that black-on-white murders have increased "signicantly" (to whom)? But that is NOT true since most stats prove a DECREASE in the murder rate (especially in most black/urban areas) overall in this country. Please post the stats showing that the one exception is whites killed by blacks! Oh , I forgot....the blacks and liberals have kept the ture stats away from the public, but fine folks like you have been keeping count by trolling the internet and "favoriting" stories involving white victims.
You are a good racist (your strange and cowardly use of Michelle Obama's picture proves that- why don't you use pics of the Obama girls next time....they are black too). You only care about racial violence that involves white victims- so to you- whites are being murdered IN MASSES by those liberal blacks. I get it.
Most gun owners are not DEMS or blacks. Most gun violence is not DEMS or blacks and the Lanza family were all wealthy white Republicans (complete with stay at home - for decades mom, Nancy. Who divorced and lived off of alimony-welfare and home schooled Adam Lanza) so stop saying the opposite! Its just proves you are racist and crazy!!
Maybe you should do genuine research first- instead of cherry picking stats and then running loops with crazy "facts". Example: a 2008 affirmation of 2nd Amendment as a "personal" right (not Constitiutional), how did that lead to your invented MASS MURDER OF WHITES BY BLACKS? Give stats, then tell how. The ruling didn't affect those who owned guns or wanted to. It affirmed the right to own guns- it just said it is NOT a Constitutional right, but a personal one (with you personally responsible).
If you believe the 2008 ruling made it harder for places with strict gun laws to - or bans- to get that overturned, you really are ignorant (typical racist). In Washington DC [where guns were basically banned], the HELLER case you mentioned actually ALLOWED for the first permission of gun ownership in DC- AFTER 30 YEARS! If you weren't such a racist idiot- you'd know that. While non-residents can not bring their guns in and no one can carry a concealed weapon, DC residents can own REGISTERED guns with REGISTERED ammo in their homes (protection). I'm sure a nutcase like you now wants to claim the murder rate in DC went down due to that, but no. The violent crime rates have been going down everywhere- including other jurisdictions with strict gun restriction.
We need a $10 surcharge on ammo!!
And that would do what?
It should have been. $10 per bullet. It would make it more expensive for you gun nuts to get your bullets. It would cost you a little more to get your jollies off hearing something go "bang", "bang".
Oh, I thought you want to stop kids from getting killed.
Calling gun owners "gun nuts" is a very good way to torpedo any reasonable legislation Buckhunter1. You just caused another responsible person to pay dues for an NRA membership.
Buck, you must be a democrat. Tax tax tax. How much tax is collected in sales out of a car trunk? Thats where all of it will be sold from. Nice try tho. well, not really.
Why not legalize drugs and start taxing it too. Its out there anyway, even when there is a law on the books saying it can't be. How is that possible??????
Doesitmatter?-3928063: Show me any government, Dem or Repub, that doesn't tax.
Bullets must be bought at some point. Charge it to the supplier, who will pass the cost on to the consumer. You only stand to make a nice profit selling out of your trunk if you sell ammo stockpiled before such a surcharge goes into effect. And then you're limited by the shelf-life of the ammo and your ability to store it. I doubt the black market will be able to deliver the product for much cheaper. That is why drugs are so expensive. And black market bullets wouldn't be streaming from south of the boarder. Bullets tend to go from the US to Mexico, not the other way around. No, a bullet black market would come from Canada, assuming they didn't follow the US lock-step on the same surcharge, as they might.
I think it's a good idea. It doesn't infringe on the second amendment, reduces the capacity to commit mass murder, all while raising revenue. States tax cigarettes to death (my state makes a pack cost over twice as much), why not bullets? Heck, tax the guns too. At 30,000 killed per year, there is a cost to society and it should be paid by those owning and operating the tools that inflict that cost to society. Why should my money go to cleaning up that mess?
You would think that after the presidential election, when story after story showed how the Republicans were on the wrong side of just about every issue, that someone ( anyone ) in their party would try to lead on this issue but AGAIN, the Republicans are aligning to the side that says "no' new laws or restrictions are needed?
Really?
Even if no new laws or restrictions come into place, the Republicans will be seen as standing on the side of that didn't want to do anything after 20 elementary school kids were killed. Can you see the uproar should the Republicans vote against an Assault Weapon Ban and such a tradegdy occur again?
Geez.. just a bad play that re-enforces that the right are led by zealots.
The GOP guns rights politicians are waiting for their talking order from the NRA lobbyists. They feel it would be better to wait until the dead are buried before they start dumping on the kids.
Yea....I can just see the story now...."it was unfortunate that the kids got in the way of the bullets....Lanza was just trying shoot the air underneath them".....
Funny, Most of my family are Democrats and lifetime NRA members...LOL
And only 52% voted Mr Obama again......that leaves 48% that dont agree with you! Wouldnt you be suprized if they did ban assault weapons.....and you find out the Bushmaster .223 is classified as and is one of the most popular hunting weapons sold in the US. Seeking most people who shoot Skeet or Trap have semi-autmatic shotguns used quite often for Quail and Pheasant/Duck hunting. Where the trick is to harvest multiple birds with a single volley of rounds. Now Seeking if you live in Ooooo say Detroit ...YOU would never go out for a walk!
People should have the right to own a fairly limited amount of handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns, but not assault rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers, missiles, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
For those that think their weapons would protect them from the US government, they are just fools, if the US government wants you, they will send their police, FBI, Marshals, National Guard, Army, Special Ops and even drones after you, and you will be dead, wounded or captured alive, don't dream on it.
GOP = Guns Over People
The GOP is old and dying. They are outdated, out of touch, and out of time.
Yet you feast on their money
PurpleGuy - WHO feasts on Republican money? I make my own as do the majority of liberals. Check it out, stupid. Red states get the most government support. Try to get a clue - you just look dumb!
Nice reach. Dream on moron
Utterly false Seeking Sanity,
You are wrong sir. Blue states have accrued far more debt than red states. I am positive you spend 2 minutes actually researching this and not just sipping the koolaid a fellow liberal gave you. Among the least debt stricken are the midwest states of which nearly all voted red.
I hate you for being such an idiot. Typical liberal...believe any $hit a fellow liberal tells you without questioning it because it fits your already f*cked up mind.
Because red states don't overtax their citizens like blue states do. High property taxes, high school taxes, high state withholding taxes, high sales taxes. Don't see all of that in red states. The majority of my property taxes goes to Medicaid. Someone is receiving those benefits. The red states may get more federal support but the blue states bleed their citizens dry.
Yeah like Whitey's old tired US Constitution and all those checks and balances that stop people like Obama from doing whatever he wants. It is terrible just terrible.
You reds are liars. You do not work or pay taxes so it is up to us hard working tax paying Democrats to take care of you red welfare queens.
27 of the 32 states that take more than the give are red states.
14 of the 18 states that give more than they take are blue states.
Oh, and California is talking about possibly having a budget surplus by 2014.
Red State Socialism | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
LMAO...... not when everyone with money is living in Texas. Milkit how do you explain where I live in Detroit? Broke, going banckrupt and the city council begging for Quid por quo aka what my neighbor calls "Obama Stash" money!
There's no doubt this is a problem that goes deeper than just getting rid of guns, although I think it's appalling that people won't budge an inch or even talk about this issue---even after one horrendous event after another. Don't you people care at all?
I believe there are many factors contributing to the increase in young men so easily becoming mercilessly murderous like this. We must be willing to face, discuss and take action about them all, or we will keep going around in these ignorant circles of denial, pointing fingers at the the other guy or the other issue, because we don't want to give up our indulgences.
1. Of course, easy accessibility to murderous guns.
2. Violent media--not the occasional TV show that someone mentioned, but the SATURATION in violent media we have now. Violent movies that you can buy and watch over and over and over--that wasn't the case when I was a kid. You had to go to a theatre or wait for it to come on TV. Video games that you can play all night long, full of graphic violence and murder. The 24/7 news cycle and the internet, where kids can access all the news of the violent activities of the scum of the earth anytime, anywhere. None of this was available when I was growing up--in fact it's a fairly recent phenomenon, and we're seeing the fruit of it on young, unstable lives.
3.Dysfunctional family lives. Children need love, security and stability. They need two parents that love each other and are dedicated to the welfare of their family. This is absolutely vital to mental and emotional health. This is something that is almost a thing of the past. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think most of these murderers came from some sort of broken home. I went through my parent's divorce as a teenage, and my life was torn apart. Lots of broken trust, fear, anxiety, depression and anger. I was the only kid on my block whose parents were divorced. Now, it's every other house on any given block. Kids are messed up. Will everyone of them become murderers? No. But more and more than ever before are.
However, I fear that nothing will change. There's too much money to be made on violence and guns, too much love of the feeling of power or protection that guns give people, and too much selfishness in adults to work hard and succeed in their marriages. I fear as a result we will continue to sacrifice our children rather than yield on any of these issues.
What?
I'm in a total red state (Idaho) and pay way more in taxes (property, income and retail) than I did in Oregon, a blue state. The reality is that ALL states overtax their citizens because we whine way too much when services don't come.
Not!
Lying Dems??? How about lying Repugs, didn't we already have to bail a bunch of your too big to fail banks and wall street buddies out already with our tax monies? Is that too obvious or too invisible for you to remember? Not us, we don't suffer from demonstrated bouts of amnesia in the comments section...
You lose again name caller. 1) The Republican Congress held President Clinton hostage over the Glass Steagle repeal by threatening to close everything but defense down back in the nineties. 2) It is Congress that has the power to reinstate Glass Steagle, not the President. As you know, the House of Representatives has a Republican majority that can block Sandy Weill's recent proposal to break up big banks at this time. They will not endorse this most credible proposal to break up the bankster casinos either, as this business model continues to benefit their supporters and Country Club friends. It should be obvious to all after Abramoff and Coingate, DeLay, redistricting etc., where Republican loyalties lie.
2nd ammendment >>> right to bear arms for self protection/against tyranny blah blah blah blah....
since when did the 5 ~ 10 year olds become danger to rethughlicans?
When they went to get an education.
5 -10 years old are being educated.....and that doesn't fit the GNOP mold - an educated person....
I see the knee-jerk reactionarys are out in force. The problem is not what political party you belong to (I vote Democrat most of the time). I have several guns, both for hunting and self defense. The anti-gun people can demand a new gun control law be passed every day and it will not prevent the type of heartbreaking event that happened at Newtown. The nut jobs and guns are alread out there. You can bury your head in the sand and hope it all goes away or you can get serious about defending your loved ones wherever they are. The police show up for the body count.
louie--you don't know that gun laws wouldn't have prevented that tragedy. And even if not, maybe they would have prevented the next one, or the previous one. We're not suggesting that gun control is the only solution, and claiming we are is being intentionally obtuse. We're saying that a complete lack of gun control is certainly never going to reduce the number of shootings. Fewer guns may not eliminate gun violence, but if it eliminates 75%, 40%, hell even 25% of gun deaths--even just gun deaths of children--how can you prefer doing nothing?
No Stephen, Louie is absolutely right. You cannot stop a determined person and laws are only laws when people choose to follow them
If a determined person is determined to get a gun and it were in fact more difficult than walking into mom's private armory, then it comes down to the proposition for this determined person: am I so determined to inflict maximum mayhem that I'm going to take the extra days or weeks and increased risks of trying to get my hands on a gun capable of doing that mayhem, or am I more interested in a violent outburst now with something other than a gun. Option #2 means the offender in question is going to have to resort to some less deadly, less impersonal, less instantaneous method such as a blade or a blunt object or something, which is much easier to stop and much more difficult to use for mass murder. If they choose option #1, then eventually they may just manage to complete their rampage. Or they may get caught.
But making sure there's a gun handy for every whackjob in the country is no way to reduce gun violence.
we have very adequate gun laws now and this perp broke most of them. he stole guns and used them to kill innocent people. how can you beleive new laws would prevent something like this again. people who do these thing dont pay attention to laws. his mother knowing what he was like should have had these locked up. she broke the law by having them accessable to him. people have to take responsability for their action and not try to blame everything on the tool used. it took my wife and i 6 months to get our gun licenses, i dont think that is easy access. contrary to liberal beleif guns are not too easy to buy, everyone has to pass a check by the fbi before allowing the sale to go through (nics check) perhaps you should be less worried about someones rights when you protect sick people like this shooter. ie: sheilding mental health records from the authorities so as not to embarrass anyone. the problem is a social one not a gun one. this country is more divided now than it has ever been and this administration just keeps adding fuel to that fire. as long as that continues you will see more attrocious acts like this. this country needs to unite not divide. just my opinion
mrwood--if we had adequate gun laws this wouldn't be happening over and over and over. In the last week and a half I read stories on two young men who went out to commit mass murder, as well as two young children who happened to shoot themselves accidentally. In one week. Frankly if the only alternatives to ongoing gun violence is one of a) guns for everyone or b) guns for no one, I'm voting for b.
If nothing else, the last 15 years have shown "a well armed society is a polite society" is a load of... GOP talking points. A well-armed society is just one step closer to having every minor grievance turn into a bloodbath.
Laws have to be not only implemented but enforced. The problem these days is that our government (both democrats and republicans) like to pick and choose what laws should or shouldn't be enforced. Again, criminals do not care about the laws and will do whatever they want and they will always be able to find a way to get their hands on a weapon if that is their desire.
4 to 6 people die every weekend in Detroit with sometimes 20 people being shot. 97% of them with ilegal weapons. If I go outside my door after dark any day for 20 mins I can hear multiple gunshots. The police never get to the scene in time to even come close to getting victims to Detroit Receiving Hosp. 1 out of every 4 young men are carrying a firearm (illegally) They tried to find the weapons.....but guess what? The Det. Police were accused of profiling young black men. You don't hear that an armed citizen ended the Mall shooting in Oregon.....by pulling his weapon, when the shooter saw him he shot him self rather than engage in a gun fight. The Shooter in Ct killed himself rather than engage anyone with yep "Weapons" if he was faced with that reality earlier he might not have ended so many young people.
Here's a really simple solution to this mess. Don't try to ban the guns, there is too many of them that are not registured for this option to work. Instead BAN THE AMMUNITION. Once they have used their supply of the ammo they can't get anymore and they can't use those particular guns to shoot anyone. And make it retroactive so that anyone caught with the ammo can be charged with a felony.
I'm guessing the GOP will use the same polling organizations that told them Romney would win in a landslide to tell them most US citizens do not want any form of gun control.
It's your fault! No, it's your fault! Here please accept my opinion and statistics...oh its B.S.? Well guess what so are yours! On and on and on. Lets just say this; from the television shows that we watch, to the 24 hour news cycle that we cannot get enough of, to the video games that we enjoy, to the guns that we need so much, to a giant and overblown U.S. Military.....welcome to the U.S.A the most "aggro" country on the face of the planet.
The requirement of passing a gun safety and/or hunter safety instruction course BEFORE the purchase of a gun would be a great start for new legislation. The need to close the gun show loophole should also be covered as a key part of legislation as well as Internet purchase control.
Also, you can keep your right to bear arms if you can prove you're right in the brain to bear arms. We need to somehow tie that to a regular checkup like we do for testing eyesight to maintain the privilege of driving a car.
First lets have a brain test to see if a person who wants to be a Congress Critter is sane enough for the job. The worthless fruitcakes have yet to get us a budget or even plan of how to stop the USA from getting further into debt.
I'm quite sure the irony that Adam Lanza used his own mother's guns to perpetrate her murder and the ensuing massacre will be lost on the "I gotz two pertekt mah fambly"crowd.
Statistically, most people who are armed are killed with their own guns.
Quote your source.
it's called suicide ... a foul murder.
For Larry. That is false because that number includes suicides in which people shoot themselves with their own firearm. Be careful of the statistics. Harry Truman said, "There are two kinds of statistics, lies and damned lies."
Larry, that is a lot of nonsense unless your talking about suicides.
If America had good mental health care and assisted suicide then the number of people who shoot themselves would decrease. Some people have a death wish and the crazy ones somethings like to take other people along with them to the grave.
Adam Lanza shot himself.
Adam Lanza shot himself.......WHEN HE SAW SOMEONE WITH ARMS ADVANCING ON HIM!
Shesafatone, what is your point, exactly?
Maybe you would prefer that we ship our children off to military bases to be educated (where they'd be safe) rather than do something about our (your) bloody gun violence problem. Your "gun rights." What a joke.
As a supporter of the 2nd Amendment I'm sure your biggest pet peeve is how the government is "intruding" into your life.
The parents of these dead children don't feel that way today. You and people like you are the danger – not the government. You and people like you who put your silly, manufactured, selfish right to buy and bear any weapon you choose are the problem.
You are why this mentally ill young man was able to get access to the weapons that shredded these childrens' bodies and left them in pools of blood.
I actually wish the media was showing photographs of the classrooms here. I wish everyone could see what your selfish attitude towards your so-called Constitutional rights costs us all on Friday.
Tell me, what did you do to stop the next massacre today? Did you put in a plug your local gun "safety" class?
Diane, Dems did not fight HARD ENOUGH to keep ASSUALT WEAPONS BAN Law from Expiring, DURING THE BUSH YEARS and Republican Control of the Senate. We will have to have more CARNAGE before the Gun Lobby and Nuts see the Light.
Already, you have Bill Bennett out there saying along with other IDIOTS that we need to arm even more people.
I had no idea how fast we would be moving in this Country to Homegrown Terrorists just walking in
places, we use to think were safe to go to with our families, churches, schools, malls, movie theatres, Congress people cannot talk to their Constituents without being shot, to be like the Middle East where people strap on Bombs and BLOW UP everyone in Public Places.
Instead of Bombs we use Guns in this Country?
I might add none of these horrific acts were done by Criminals. Just ordinary citizens, whose Attorneys, if they did not killed themselves would say it is all Mental Illness. When you plan like most of these folks and have weapons that go beyond Hunting and recreational gun use, and enough Bullets and Clips that even the Military and Police would be proud of, that seems like Planning to me.
I am prepared for the usual NOTHING by Congress and the Republican State Houses.
The NRA and ALEC have a STRANGLEHOLD ON ALL OF YOU. The people will have to get enough of their
babies being shot down AND other Loved Ones to finally put pressure of you. UNTIL THEN, NOTHING will be done and we will Continue to cry and be outraged.
It's a hard fight to keep a ban when it had no affect on violent gun crimes.
Voice......But it would work better this time, right??
Talking, Do you really think that right to carry is a bad thing? As a criminal, would you rather confront someone who you know is unarmed (like in Chicago or DC, and we see how their crime rates are) or someone in a state that allows people to defend themselves??
So, why can't we have both? This is about banning semi automatic and assault rapid fire murder machines and cartridges. What the heck do we have these on the streets, in the stores, theaters, hospitals, schools and beauty salons for? Insane. You all ought to be locked up in the nut house for continuing to go so long not acknowledging the difference between this and banning all guns not to mention all the other parts of this issue being discussed right now.
Quite frankly, President Obama is correct. It is way past time we had this discussion and actually did something sane to remedy it, like Reagan did already, again. When something works, why break it?
No affect on violent gun crimes? BS. How unreasonable! No one has any proof before the fact of the horrid event, but that is no excuse for not taking precautions and you can bet that it actually helped many times. This is about prevention. If not, what is it about?
If this saves one life, it is working folks...or would you like to tell these grieving parents tonight that you would rather fail them and not give a rat's patoot about their kids if it takes away some fancy swift killing toys? Great. Lets all start building the bunkers then, and do not forget the concentration camps for those non-violent protesters, you know, those old love, peace, hippies and beads Mothers for Peace??? These days there sure aren't any Beatles songs, just bang bang shoot em up. That sure is one he!! of a cute new fad, eh??? I think the issues of today, 2012, require adequate and relevant measures. This is no longer the sixties.
Now, if you make a career out of guarding, policing, and are qualified in your working role to have said weapons professionally, then there is no problem because you have fulfilled the requirements and are on the record to utilize such weapons. If you really love this so much go join the military or the police, etc.. I am sure a good job awaits those who are needed for protecting our citizens with the proper weapons and training.
No one has to be unarmed, nothing was said about that scenario. There are licenses for self protection weapons, or are you seeing rosy visions of everyman and woman walking the street with a machine gun in your really cool sterile neo-con future like that movie where they do the sci fi thing with beams and rays, or when they fall down and there is not a drop of blood on the movie set? If so, you are a part of the problem and not anywhere near the solution, you will need your twilight zone visions, motives and head examined and a tune up in the attitude adjustment department because the universe is a living entity not a tin rocket ship and the food you eat ties you to this mother earth whether you like it or not. Have a nice day and appreciate it. :)
If we're willing to throw out the constitution, since the 2nd amendment gets in the way, we can really solve this problem.
It's not a problem with gun control, it's a problem with nut control. If we still had the mental health system we had in the 1950s, that the Democrats dismantled, calling it 'rights', then people like the shooter in Connecticut, the shooter in Texas and the shooter at Columbine would be safely locked up. Where they couldn't get to guns, knives or other troublesome tools.
But I don't expect any movement in that direction from the liberal wing.
Unfortunately, Jim, the situation is worse than this. In California, criminals are being turned loose because the state, they say, does not have the money to contain them. Local police are blaming the recent rise in crime on these folks. The jail is more like a revolving door.
Jim, you've breached the subject no one on the left is willing or is capable of approaching....that of the person that committed these heinous acts. Had he not taken justice into his own hands and done what today's society is incapable of doing, that of ending his life, our discussion today would be centered on saving this worthless life due to his "mental illness"! Have you heard anyone discussing making someone pay the ultimate price for such senseless behavior? I know I haven't, only that of attempting to limit the tool and not prosecuting the fool. But of course, that's the easy way out...we don't want to have anything to do with personal responsibility...
Gun control is slapping at the branches of a poisonous tree. It does nothing to get at the root of the problem. As long as there are extremely violent video games, movies and music which show violence as a way to solve all problems things aren't going to get better. Remember when people wanted to ban Roadrunner cartoons? Too many people see a problem and someone comes up with a purposed solution and they fall in line with that person without ever thinking out the real problem. I didn't even touch on the two family homes where both parents work and warehouse the children in daycare just so they can have the big screen T.V. and the granite countertops and stainless steel refrigerator. Who needs a $60,000 suv? No one but they want it so lets put the kids in daycare.
Finally, a reasoned response.
Is it true that in England the police can search your house anytime for weapons without a search warrant? The same also applies to Japan where it is called a safety inspection. Just let the police raid everyone's house without a warrant, shoot whomever owns a gun, and confiscate the guns. Soon there is no gun owners left but gun owning criminals with well hidden criminals.
It was your Saint Reagan who cut the funding to our mental institutions and pushed those mentally ill people out into the street. It is you republicons who have cut funding for halfway houses and therapy, while building more and more for profit prisons.
Get off it with the BS about a country you have never even lived in, I did. The Albion Isle is a beautiful place and I never had any problems there, snooping police that no one called out, or felt the need for a gun there. I walked the streets at night free of fear and knew all my neighbors and said a courteous hello to anyone passing me on the street. I also got immediate help with my health issues, free prescriptions and dental and worked at the pub as a student, able to afford anything. You wouldn't know a farthing from a pence, and are ever so full of psssnwind. Some facts...
Last year, there were 48 gun-related deaths in Japan.
8 in the U.K.
34 in Switzerland.
52 in Canada.
58 in Israel.
21 in Sweden.
42 in W. Germany.
10, 728 in the USA. (This figure does not include the number of suicides.) Clearly the number of guns in public circulation correlates directly to the number of gun deaths. This is indisputable.
Sorry anonymous, but your logic fails. How many of those gun-related deaths were due to gangs and drugs? Are you so naive that you actually believe that criminals will give up their guns because a ban was passed? Columbine happened during the Clinton ban - did it help?
Little seen fact: Americans use their guns 3.5 times as often to stop crimes as they do to commit them (source: FBI Uniform Crime Report). More than 2.1 MILLION crimes stopped last year alone, all due to gun owners using their guns legally.
In this country yes, but in Britain where it is a crime to possess a gun, there have already been numerous gun amnesties over the years where they are voluntarily turned in during an announced period of several days, free of punishment, and it has worked.
Check it out, it is the reality over there. It works and the stats prove it.
The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in 2009 compared to the United States' 3.0 (over 40 times higher) and to Germany's 0.21 (3 times higher).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
More information...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales
PS in reply to "More than 2.1 MILLION crimes stopped last year alone, all due to gun owners using their guns legally." Using their guns against others?
Logic? Your words reveal your way of thinking about the need for guns as the only solution to this problem from within your system. Stepping outside, one can see there are other solutions as well. When human resources as wealth are taken into consideration instead of making wealth, values change to humanitarian, not profit or business. Being concerned about loss of sales, reduction of a product, investment in, or fines over safety is one thing and being concerned about the lives of a town's children is another.
You will get one attitude from a gun maker and one from a parent of a slain child. Funding for mental health costs money, big pharmacy makes a fortune off of the pill popping solutions. Isn't it sad that it has to be that way? That over two million legal gun owners in the USA had to live like that - in fear, hopelessness, and held hostage to their dependency on a firearm, as if we are back in the wild west which was a totally different population and way of living and in a world today that is highly populated in small space living on roads in big cities, gated communities, suburbs?
Something is wrong with this picture if your own point of view is this stuck within your local living bubble. It should not be so hard and it should not be normal that kids cannot even play in their own schools and yards, go to a store, or safely or ride a bike or roller skate up and down their own neighborhood street without fearing being shot. It just did not exist where we lived back in the fifties and sixties, the high amount of crime, drugs, gangs like this. It was not allowed by our police, and we did not have such weapons at all like this out there back then in our growing towns. You might hear about a car club or a motorcycle gang, an occasional robbery, a date rape, and a murder was rare. Somewhere along the line this took on a new form of drug gang pressure that was different, and it grew after the seventies into something more warlike, more seriously scary.
Again, we are not talking about banning regular guns in the USA, we are talking about banning rapid and repeating semi-automatic and assault weapons which should only be used in a theater of war or by professionally licensed combat personnel or soldiers. Isn't it pathetic that all these gun owners are using their guns legally to shoot at other humans who are shooting at them or trying to do something bad in the first place?
Many things need to be addressed, from cleaning up the gangs and drugs by taking measures that are smart and distinguishing between black market and legalized profit-makers, self medicating and being dependent on prescription designer drugs and scams. Knowing the differences between drugs can lead to taking down many problems like legalizing non-addictive organic substances like marijuana, understanding positive uses of hemp and medical cancer reducing cannabis while increasing time for those who manufacture and push much more harmful addictive and addictive synthetic drugs like heroin or meth., or being aware of the paranoia of coming down from a crack high. If we have counselors and leaders who do not know, they have never had a family alcohol problem or recognize symptoms of being laced with LSD, how on earth can they lead with any knowledge, experience or wisdom? Instead of a goody two shoes, a good counselor, like a good shaman, should know what is what.
It is a sad fact today that we do need to guard our schools because a visible guard or guards is a necessary deterrent as long as we have this calliber of weapons out there. Whether or not it always works, it does give a chance of delay, distraction, and defense until help gets there. That is all the more reason why we need to get assault and semi automatic killing machines and cartridges off the streets and out of the hands of civilians by outlawing them, and we can do some of this with the buy backs and amnesties, not all, but we need to go farther than we did and get more off the streets than before instead of leaving all previously bought assault weapons out there, a known reason why the former ban was not as successful as it should have been. The no proof argument about the former ban is spurious because of the before the event factor.
We also need better data bases on purchases of weapons and ammo., and psychological reports along with more funding for better mental health care. These are all improvements that will at least curb and reduce these horrific mass murders by rapid fire multi-shot weapons and cartridges. It will not be as much of a loss as one thinks because there are many college educated people out there now unemployed who were Psychology majors and can quickly train back in to work and make a living helping in their communities. We just stopped valuing this field of legitimate work due to ignorant assumptions and human error and we can change this back.
If something was working better before, we should face it and change it back. Why not go for what we know works best? We all agree such crimes of violence and insanity are happening too often to be acceptable and can no longer be ignored because it is so bad our daily society cannot function anymore. The laws already on the books need to be more thoroughly and seriously enforced in our towns. It is embarrassing to be an American in the faces of those poor innocent victims that have been failed, anyone who does not feel that when watching the news as a bell tolls for them in a devastated community in total grief before the whole watching world needs some counseling or help because their affect, or their ability to feel emotions, is off.
This brings us to addressing the issues about these designer big pharma drugs like ritalin, xanax, prozac, etc. that do stunt normal emotions and looking into other means of psychotherapeutic methods if medication with long term adverse or deteriorating harm such as tardive dyskensia, can be avoided. Things such as nutrition, environmental, transpersonal, cognitive, depth and archetypal, behavioral , family systems approaches, etc., in sessions with a good counselor.
Wrongly held attitudes and a lack of knowledge by establishments, their leaders and their ideologically centered cultures that are outdated, like we observe with the NRA, or other insular groups whose interests are not in line with the direct human needs of their consumers (J. Habermas), must be fixed in our society by responsible adult citizens as the outcomes and realities of this problem are revealed daily. This has become a toxic problem that has been swept under the rug for far too long. Rather than being a total loss to our society, these very real and immediate human needs are opening up new opportunities for those who are capable of providing holistic and positive curative methods that work correctly to bring successful results to their clients and patients and new doors are opening with seats becoming available for better leadership. Lets get started. We all have much work to do in bringing back the goodness that is the quality of life in America we expect and know can be achieved...for ourselves and for the children.
Gun control should have happened a long time ago. Now we have psychologists on TV talking about mental illness and people (finally) talking about taking assault weapons out of the reach of the general public. It's sad that we have to wait for a disaster to realize that there is a disaster and that we need to do something about it. Could we not have acted BEFORE the disaster happened?
Sorry Charlie, but guns have been with us since way before mass shootings happened. Its not guns, although despicable garbage like Obama will try to take advantage of the loss of children for his political gain, but society that caused this. Everyone had guns back in the 50's and this didn't happen. Guns predate this, but make an easy target for liberals and Progressives who fear that their destruction of family, their destruction of community, their emphasis on self-esteem when none is deserved and on and on caused this.
We already did it, Ronald Reagan did it when he got shot in the arm. It was the ban on assault weapons, the Brady bill named for his fellow who was also shot that day and paralysed. Then it lapsed under the last administration. California senator, Diane Feinstein, wants to bring it back again after its defeat for reinstatement in 2004 with some additional new measures appropriate to these times. Many of us wish it could get passed and be enforced today so that all stores and people that sell arms would have to comply NOW. Why wait for the next disaster? Can't it be reviewed, wrapped up, and put in for Christmas by executive order? A hurricane can be termed a national American emergency, this was a human American one and a consequence of the human error of letting the ban on assault weapons lapse.
Knowing Obama and how he loves taxes he will surely stick that in there along with whatever comes down the pipe.
Purple Guy - your ignorance is overwhelming and your eagerness to show it - astounding. Please go away as you have nothing of value to contribute - as shown by your idiotic posts.
So SeekingSanity, you want to throughout both the First and Second Ammendments?
tkidz -????? Your post makes not sense. Why am I not surprised?
Seeking,
Please refresh your education on spelling and grammer. It is your ignorance that is showing.
@SeekingSanity: Your rose-colored glasses is most likely the reason you want PurpleGuy to go away. The only thing demos want more right now than taking away the nation's guns would be to somehow include a tax increase on all gun owners for added measure...and it's PurpleGuys 1st ammendment right to express his opinion. You'd think a liberal would realize that, but I'm not surprised that you don't...
Keep reading SeekingSanity's posts. You'll be thoroughly convinced he/she is ignorant, but consistent, if nothing else.
It says right there in the 2nd amendment: :well regulated". That is what we want.
SS,
Your source is your brother? You used your brother as a source to validate your comment on real hunters.
Are you kidding? You cant use your brothers opinion as if its a fact. Wow!
There is no - and I mean no - reason for anyone to possess an automatic weapon and 30+ round clips except to kill the greatest number of people in the least amount of time.
If I have to give up my semi in order to make it more difficult for the next lunatic to kill a lot of kids, I'll happily do it. Those who refuse are selfish imbeciles who should take their automatics and go live somewhere in the world where you might actually need it. My right to own these guns pales in comparison to the harm that they do to innocent people.
Giving up your guns does nothing to keep anyone safe and in fact this terrible tragedy is being used by those on the left who want to take away the Constitutional rights Americans have to bear arms, which exists solely to protect us from an overreaching Government. Your right to own guns is OUR right, not yours and didn't kill those children. This Progressive society liberals have given us killed those kids. Americans have never ever needed our Second Amendment rights more than we do now. No I don't actually own a gun. This is about rights.
I don't believe you have a semi...Automatic weapons are illegal moron. The only group possessing automatic weapons moron are gangs and Mexican cartels.
RTFS - I question if you are really a "semi" gun owner and used the wrong terms any gun owner would know.
And on top of that, I own a NFA Class III fully automatic machine gun, and have for over 27 years and have never used it to commit any crime. Aside from target shooting, I use it in WW2 reenactments, parades, and living history displays. That is my hobby. There has NEVER been a shooting at a public historical display with a machine gun. I am not a monster. I want kids to be safe. Refer to the Bath Township massacre and what a fellow named Kehoe did to kill 38 kids. We need to address the mental health issues rather than spin our political wheels over gun control. Kehoe killed 38 school children and didn't use a gun on any of them. America needs to get a handle on why people become mass murderers, not on the tool they use to do it.
Sorry Clueless. Full auto machine guns are legal to own for private citizens... you just don't hear about machine gun owners using them to commit crime. We don't. To own a NFA Class III weapon (machine gun) you need to have fingerprints sent to the local cops, state cops and the Feds. They do a backround check that typically lasts 7-9 months (some waiting period, eh?) and after paying your $200 for the tax stamp, you can collect your weapon.
Of course , by paying the tax stamp, you waive the need for a search warrant for the BATF to enter your property. They are known to like to do so int he middle of the night and you can't stop them short of selling off your weapon. Selling a weapon can NOT be done with a gun show loophole. All sales have to have the transfer tax paid and the finger prints and background check.
But I agree wth your comment about RTFS - using the words a non-gun owner would use fromt he news and not what an owner would use. He must be just trollin....
RTFS, there are many reasons to own a AR, or AK, or whatever platform you prefer. I am a competition shooter, and enjoy my AR immensly. What no one bothers to think about, is that your stupid little gun control scemes don't work. This clown violated about a dozen of them just in possessing them in the first place. If an individual doesn't care about laws against murder, aggrevated assault, etc, what makes you think he is going to give a rats @!$%# about new or greater gun laws. There are already so many gun laws on the books that even someone like me who is a law abiding gun owner, probably violates half a dozen without even knowing it. Add some more to the pot, make them totally illegal, won't change a thing. Those who obey the law will, those who don't won't. Just like it is now. Oh, and just for the record, if they are outlawed, I for one will be an outlaw. You want them, come get them.
Well said Jim Burrill , you have just proved that gun regulations work . You had to go through many steps to obtain your "machinegun " and even when you own it you are held accountable for it . These " regulations " help prevent people running out and buying a weapon on a whim . Maybe if we had similar regulations on all weapons it would help. There are really only two options Arm everybody or regulate the gun owners . Arming everybody sounds logical but if it worked why do we have so many Police Officers killed , you could argue that anybody could ambush one officer but there are many cases of multiple officers being gunned down by a single assailent .
Owning an AR or AK is called a hobby for the people I know. Anti-gun people have hobbies too, but it is to set on forums like this and complain.
This guy stole the guns from his mother. Changing the purchasing laws would have made no differance, I just wish someone at the school would have been armed to take out this trash. But as the case so many times, only the criminals had the guns, and lawabiding ones were helpless.
I agree that reponsible people should have the right to carry arms. However, legislation must be written to regulate the purchase of amunition and limit where it can be purchased.
God and guns. Need I say more?
yes you should because 1 of them is the greatest "story" ever told and the other is the greatest lie ever sold.
I am a gun owner.
However, the direction the NRA is pushing and taking us, is to be a heavily armed country. A Wild West environment where everyone is packing - out of fear of the others who are packing.
The NRA wants teachers and staff to be be armed. They want everyone to be armed.
If only those kindergartners had been packing everything would have been alright.
Long past time to do something.
This is a gross exageration Larry. The NRA has never promoted anything of the sort. The NRA has declined any comment until all the facts are in which seems the responsible thing to do.
Your a typical mis-informed American and brain washed by NRA haters. The NRA does not, I repeat, does not want everyone to be armed. They are strong supporters of a national background check on all gun purchases. Another thing which clueless liberals rant about...that automatic weapons should be banned. Well automatic weapons ARE banned in the US morons. Of course the illegal Mexican drug cartels have them in this country. So much for following the gun laws.
You can ban guns but just like drugs people will still get them! The real issue here is we are moving away from our traditional values and beliefs. It doesn't matter republican or democrat the minute we pushed God out of our schools and now out of our communities this is the end result. We have move single parent homes than ever, we don't know our neighbors, we are controlled by ipads and other electronics. No gun law would have prevented what occurred on Friday. Yes I believe we need to tighten up the laws on who owns guns obviously but if we are really speaking of the children here why don't we address a minimum mandatory sentence for those who commit sex acts against our children? I am not an obama supporter but I had to give him credit for his initial response this horrible tragedy then came last night and he took the stage to politicize the situation. If it wasn't a gun it would have been a knife or a bomb. Lets focus on the entire picture and get God back in our lives. When this tragedy occurred on Friday as a society we turned to God and expect him to be there. We can push in and out when we feel like it. Mental illness is real as evidence of the recent tragic events and we need to address that before we take a hard look at guns laws. Lets put our political agendas aside and do what it right. Many people on both sides of the aisle think they know whats right for everyone else but I challenge each of you republican and democrats a like to ask yourself would I want this for my loved one? Would I want this for my 6 year old? Do the right thing, not the right political thing and the right thing will happen. We all need to adjust our moral compass. God please this Country!
Jeffrey; the mother and son regularly attended the local catholic church your god argument is ridiculous
Dear Dumbass I am a member of the NRA. No one can be more disgusted than I am at this massacre. But based on your logic we should ban anything harmful in anyway, matches,cars,fireworks,medicines, not to mention knives forks and spoons. All have the potential for lethality. As was demonstrated on the same day in China when someone attacked 20 or so individuals with a knife or some other sharp instrument. It is obviously not the weapons alone that cause this behavior. I can only suggest that you look at the two countries, at least, that have MANDATORY, COMPULSIVE, use and possesion of fully automatic military assault weapons. REPEAT not SEMI auto or similar in appearance to military weapons but in fact fully operational. Israel and Switzerland. Neither country has the problem with homicide by gun that we do because they enforce there existing laws. I repeat the citizenry of these two countries are required to posses and have the use of fully automatic weapons. So please do not tell lies about the NRA and its members. There were actually well over 150,000,000 American gun owners who committed no crimes either with or without there weapons. The alternative as I see in places like Iran, Syria, Iraq and Egypt are far more dangerous.
Very true Mike, but good luck convincing them. Being in denial must be more appealing to them.
We need to License gun use just like we license drivers and for the same
reasons. And we need to issue a Title of Ownership to every gun in America and
then buy and sell guns just like we do automobiles, even requiring a renewable
yearly registration . Its really pretty simple and counties and states across
Amerrica already have similar systems in place.
We can weed out at least some of the mentally ill and the extreme nut cases.
The idea is to set up a licensing procedure that would require some basic skill
testing just like a drivers license does, a written test, and a gun handling
proficiency test. Today guns are sold to people who actually have no idea how to
use them and the gun industry takes no responsibility for the end result. The
Gun License could even be an added endorsement to your drivers license just like
current motorcyle endorsements. Rules for issuing Gun Lcenses could be set up,
basic requirements like age, skill testing, physical ability, etc. Learner
permits could be issued to allow young people to hunt with licensed adults
Guns are every bit as dangerous as autos, yet we let virtually anyone buy
them without ever performing even the most rudimentary check into whether they
should have that right or not. At least this way, over time, we would have every
legal gun owner and gun documented. It would help law enforcement tremendously
to know before hand what kind of firepower is at any particular address before
they get there.
We need to do what we can do.
Everyone is familiar with the driver's licensing process and I think most people
would go for this idea. Right now we have no information on anything. We don't
know how many guns are out there, who owns them, who has caches' of them, and we
are not collecting any revenue for the problems they cause! We could make this
licensing system at least self sufficient cost wise and it could result in
positive income from renewal fees etc to offset some of the costs of gun mayhem
on society.
wow how insightfull you antigunner's are. we need to test and register firearms. what good exactly would that do to avoid a future incident like this. everything that young man did was already illegal and against any and all normal people values. the real issue that needs addressed is mental illness.