A common thread here is that many of these shootings happen in gun free zones. Apparently people who set out to murder don't respect the laws and rules. The other common thread that nobody in congress will address is that these killers are mentally ill and nobody ever makes anything of it to get them help.

Do you think that someone setting out to commit murder has any intention to follow a lesser law restricting how many rounds a gun can hold or where a gun can be carried?

I am trying to think of a time when there was a massacre at a gun show or a shooting range. It seems that the "crazys" always have enough presence of mind to find a place where they are the only ones with weapons.

When seconds count ....... the police are only minutes away.

Go play in your slop miss piggy. I refuse to surrender my 2nd Amendment right because of Adam Lanza, or Chuckie Shumer, or Diane Feinstein, or Mikey Bloomberg, or the United Nations and Colonel Clinton.

elliot...

Nail on the head, "these killers are mentally ill". Unfortunatley, our courts have determined that mentally ill individuals have the right to refuse treatment (an unintended consequence of liberal legislation following the movie One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest).

It is one thing for an individual to decide that they wish to refuse antibiotic or chemotherapy treatment, the only one hurt is themselves.

It is quite another thing for a paranoid schizophrenic to refuse to be treated, that places everyone around them at risk.

The problem is with our people something is broken. In the 40's you could buy a machine gun from Sears but you didn't see these kind of horribly things happening. This self centered monster thought his pain was more important then these small children. In our nation today it is all about me me me and people have lost grip on reality.

I wouldn't want to force anyone into treatment but if they are a danger to society and refuse treatment thats fine, they will just have to spend the rest of their life in the waiting room of a psych ward.

I think society could agree that we don't need dangerous people around us. If you are a threat to others you should be kept away from others and offered help to get well before going back into the herd.

Motz, I believe they call that grandstanding.

illiot is out, here comes the "Hogwash" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As usual it goes something like this: The second amendment does indeed give citizens the right to bear arms. That includes anything up to a nuke. When it was written there were to such weapons even imaginable and of course the supreme court would never interpret it that way in order to preserve the country. However it leaves a huge amount of ambiguity in the law. This is further complicated by the militia line written in the amendment. However a straight reading still gives citizens the right to bear arms. I think most people agree that nobody wants anyone waking around with nukes. Some people probably don't want you walking around with a letter opener. Between those two extremes you can draw a line somewhere. But where? That's the part people will not agree upon and before the second amendment can be changed there needs to be some consensus. The only other option which has been used up to now is pass laws and let the supreme court knock down the ones it doesn't like. The problem with changing the second amendment is everyone on all sides are afraid it might shift against them and since it takes a 2/3rds vote to do it, my guess is it will be a loooonnnnnnnng time before it anything happens.

Pigotry,

We live in a world of stone age emotions, medieval religions and 21st century technology. The lethal combiantion is disastrous

This, in your mind, is a lethal combination for disaster. Well, I do not understand how you come to this conclusion but I respect your perspective.

Now, let's remove some of the dangerous aspects from your combination. First of all remove the, agreed on, medieval religions, and secondly let's remove the stone age emotions (no clue how to do this one though). What is left is the 21st century technology. Hm, this has to stay since we are in the 21st century.

You think this will work? Did not think so. So, what is your point?

Note to the GOP Loonies and NRA, We don't need 15-20 Round Magazines and Assault Rifles to go deer hunting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What if you're a really bad shot?

... Patriotic #1.16 - a 'good point'

... Swan37 #1.17 - you are funny ... but making no sense.

... and Patriotic American U.S.A. #1.12

illiot is out, here comes the "Hogwash" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Well, you don't have to Throw out the piglet with the hogwash (pig's bath water). With ingenuity, we can protect both 2nd amendment right and the right to precious life (of those 20 little darlings).

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Keep dreaming of a gun free world, its just a waste of time.

Now get out of the way and let rational people discuss ways to stop insane people from doing insane things. That is a front where there is more probability for success.

So whats stopping you from becoming a mass murdering psychopath?

Nice deflection, but the GOP wants to make permanent the lower tax rates for everyone.

That's not very nice illiot !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can honestly state the only time I have ever considered becoming a mass murdering psychopath is when I tried to listen to Kanye West during the 12/12/12 concert. I believe listening to that crap could drive someone to homicide it is a good thing the batteries in the remote were up to par.

Taxpayers are going to have to suck it up and pay for armed guards at schools and public places. There are millions of guns and any nut can get one. They will never go away so times have changed to be ready for the next shooting hopefully never but inevitable.

The common thread as I see it, dirp, is murderous intent, not firearms. Did you go on a rant to outlaw anhydrous ammonia and diesel fuel after Timothy McVeigh's little mess, or perhaps you started a Kool-Aid control lobby after Jim Jones' massacre? Lizzy Borden "allegedly" took an axe, not a firearm, to her parents, where is the anti-axe crowd? Did you try to ban airplanes after 9/11/2001?I read in the newspaper yesterday morning about four people doused and set afire during a home invasion, yet I don't see where you have tried to ban assault gasoline. This crap will not stop until the punishment fits the crime, but watch what happens to the Aroura shooter. If Chuckles Manson knew he was to be executed, revived and re-executed for every victim, I bet he wouldn't be so cocky today. I cried most of the night for the victims of this crime, and my thoughts and prayers will be with them and their families for a long time. These bull@!$%#e killings have to be stopped, but not by punishing law abiding citizens for the crimes of the monsters.

illiot, stop playing in the mud with the GOPigs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

With well over 10 million guns sold this year, and the fact most of us own multiple (responsibly), gun control laws will not do much as shown in Chicago every day. Not even 24 hrs and the news channels were talking about laws already. How crazy. All I can say is I dare anyone to tell me what I can have in my house or come to my door to collect what I legally purchased. It wouldn't be a good day for you Mr. Government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Calling for gun control seems foolish. To respond to the horrific violence of madmen by disarming good people is insane. Further, the right to be armed in defense of self, family, community, and nation is a basic human right. The other thing that strikes me is that the same disgusting politicians calling for gun control are the ones who have sent (and continue to send) arms to Sunni Islamic terrorists in Libya, Syria, and Egypt who literally butcher innocent men, women, and children in the most horrific ways on a daily basis. In essence the very politicians calling for 'gun control' do not have any moral ground to stand upon. Their actions are so reprehensible in these instances mentioned that I am forced to believe that their tears are naught but those of crocodiles.

Swan37 #1.17 - you are funny ... but making no sense.

Actually I knew a guy who was pig hunting with an HK 91. At one point a group of swine runs out from behind cover at a fair distance. So he starts plugging away at them with his HK. After about the 12th shot he hits one.....yay....... So see ..... you sometimes do need a big magazine while hunting.

All gun users are simply people who like to kill.

Unless you're a vegetarian you simply pay other people to do you killing for you and besides that, I did target shooting for a long time before I actually went hunting. I decided I didn't like hunting but I still do target shooting sometimes.

Schumer would also require colleges and universities that receive federal funding to implement a mental health assessment plan to identify students who pose a safety risk to themselves or others.

I have a feeling that this little piece of legislation would run right into an illegal alien's civil rights brick wall. And what are you going to do when you identify someone as being a safety risk to themselves or others? Are you going to just kick them off the campus and wait for them to mass murder civilians? Are you going to force them into a treatment program against their will? Are you going to say that the public good trumps their free will?

Are you going to allocate billions of dollars we don't have to allow the government to pay for mental health treatment for those who are diagnosed, or are you going to force relatives to pay for it even though they don't want to? If the mental deficient is an illegal alien, are you going to deport them even though they initially qualified for deferred deportation?

How big is the maze under the rabbit hole?

Pigotry,

I am not a right winger, but I say guns are not the problem, it is the desensitized, keep up with the Jones, high stress society we have created. It is the mind set we must keep running or get run over by the herd mentality......Guns have been plentiful in America forever, but not the disrespect for life we see today. In the 1950s and sixties I was one of the most notorious teenage gang leaders in King county, which includes Seattle. We sometimes beat up rival gangs around the county, but never carried guns or preyed on innocent victims. My policy was, leave us alone, we leave you alone.

If you want to relieve stressed out people from the feeling of irrelevancy and being overwhelmed, stop stacking people a top each other like monkeys in a cage, stop the smack down Tv, movies and video games that glorify maiming, killing, and war, and stop stretching the right of 'freedom of expression' to a point it promotes disrespect and violence. And make it possible for people and families again to survive on one income where they still have the opportunity for quality family time............No, it is not the guns, it is we the people who have ceased to respect the value of life.

If you want to relieve stressed out people from the feeling of irrelevancy and being overwhelmed, stop stacking people a top each other like monkeys in a cage, stop the smack down Tv, movies and video games that glorify maiming, killing, and war, and stop stretching the right of 'freedom of expression' to a point it promotes disrespect and violence.

So by your own admission you are a violent person and beat up real life people. Yet you have a problem with us guys that simply like to play make believe games in our own homes. You can have my video controller when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

This is not a gun control issue this is a mental health issue and a capital punishment issue.

Why are we not calling for mental health reform, because it is politically incorrect to lock up and evaluate people that have mental health issues? They are disabled and we have to watch what we say and how we treat the crazies? We have to treat the criminals with dignity and respect because why?

Let's face reality, if gun control reform is enacted the only people that are not going to have a firearm are the responsible, law abiding people, gun laws only restrict LAW ABIDING citizens 2nd amendment rights.

Just like the previous posts, no one goes to gun shows, shooting ranges, Texas(?) where the perception is that everyone or most people present are going to shoot back.

Don't blame guns they are not the true issue here.

Since we cannot find common ground for gun control... Maybe it is time that our new gun laws should be that everyone 21 and older "MUST" carry a loaded hand gun capable of holding 9 shots minimum and an assault riffle or two hand guns - except while in the shower!

This covers just about every event one might be subject to gun violence...

At home, work, bank, store, mall, theatre, school, in your car, on the street...! oh wait, local government would lose out on revenue from all those gun concealment permits. Here I thought I had the answer!

After the massacre at Virginia Tech the Virginia legislature with Republican majority successfully defeated a bill introduced to make it illegal for persons under treatment for dangerous mental disorders to purchase guns in their state. This bill was vigorously opposed by the NRA and members of the mental health community as an invasion of privacy. The bill made it necessary for persons with psychotic tendencies to be identified so that their effort to purchase a weapon could be refused. It is therefore completely legal for any person known by a psychiatrist to have a psychotic mental disorder to purchase a lethal weapon in Virginia.

I suspect that other states have equally restrictive policies to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of criminally insane.

Think about this when you consider gun control, not one of the several mass murderers of the past several years had a criminal record. Limiting capacity of magazines is one thing, but eliminating or restricting gun ownership is another.

And no, the second amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting. When James Madison and colleagues got to the second amendment of the US Constitution and were contemplating how to word the guarantee of liberty, John Langdon of New Hampshire spoke up and said, " Gentleman, history has taught us a document alone cannot guarantee peace nor liberty, peace and liberty can only be guaranteed by a force equal or superior to the threat."........And now you know why the 2nd amendment is worded as it is.

If 200 kids died a day due to guns in America, would they legislate control then? What about 2,000? 200,000? 2,000,000? At what point do you acknowledge that your need for guns is outweighed by the value of the victims' lives?

Typical comments from the liberals that always know what is best for everyone else. Maybe the liberals in Congress can come up with new gun laws, in fact another massive piece of legislation that we will have to pass in order to find out what is in it. Which would no doubt solve all gun related problems in this country and prevent any future tragedies.

At what point do you acknowledge that your need for guns is outweighed by the value of the victim's lives?

Maybe at the point that you can guarantee that you can take the guns from every criminal willing to shoot and kill the victims they rob and steal from... like me, a 61 year old woman who lives alone in the woods and has had to use my gun to convince both legal citizens and illegal aliens that I will not be robbed of my property and will not cower from them just because they are bigger and stronger than I am.

When you get to that point... get back to me.

Swan,

Yes, I was raised by a divorced mother in a ghetto where the survival mind set was eat, or be eaten. Once I was married and had kids I moved to the suburbs and found out the mind set was different, it was possible live and let live. And that people would actually extend a kind deed without strings attached.

I went on to coach Little league baseball and youth basketball and football for several years, owned a successful steel fabrication business and small logging operation for many years...........I do not regret my days of hardship or life as a teenager in the ghettos, it permitted me great insight and made me the father and grand father I turned out be.........To imagine is one thing, being there is another.

I own two guns, a .44 and a 12-guage. Both in my closet, the shotgun accessible in a few seconds.

I think the 2nd amendment does indeed give us the right to bear arms.

I do not think we should overreact to punish people because others are crazy.

I have heard all of the arguments, over and over again. I have used many of them in support of gun ownership.

I am disappointed in the gun-rights advocates, who come across as self-centered, soulless, violent and filled with irrational hate against the gummint and their fellow Americans.

I will support common-sense gun control legislation if it is presented.

if a perpetrator wanted to commit a crime with a gun they would get one, legally or illegally. denying people from getting guns legally will do no good, the criminals will still get them one way or another. they are criminals and are not obeying the law....

as far as assault weapons or hi capacity magazines, a gun is a gun it really doesn't mater what it looks like and when was the last massacre with an assault weapon.. as far as hi capacity magazines, the perpetrator would just reload more often....

we all have a right to bear arms, so use it, protect yourself and family....... there are a lot of unstable evil people out there, you don't see any laws restricting unstable people, just laws protecting their rights, thats where the law makers need to look for an answer, not controlling competent people from owning firearms.

IXLR8

Taxpayers are going to have to suck it up and pay for armed guards at schools and public places.

Explain to me why a non-gun-owning taxpayer should be expected to shoulder the cost (billions, I'm sure) of putting security measures at all public (and many private like workplaces) places to prevent this? And would most gun owners be willing to pay the cost of their ownership? I doubt if they have enough money even if they would step up. And are we to live in an armed camp? What happened to freedom??

While the mental health issues are obvious and need to be addressed, the fact remains that easy access to guns make them the weapon of choice almost every time something like this happens. 'Gun Control' isn't a dirty word (except among the paranoids of the NRA leadership and the black-helicopter crowd) and needs to be seriously addressed. Will Washington have the stomach for it? Not unless there's mass outcry and reaction at the polls. Banning guns is an impossibility, but rational controls aren't. The NRA needs to quit blindly defending their 'rights' and start thinking about the rights of dead innocents. There's been too many martyrs to the second amendment....

@ Drock #1.32

Calling for gun control seems foolish. To respond to the horrific violence of madmen by disarming good people is insane. Further, the right to be armed in defense of self, family, community, and nation is a basic human right. The other thing that strikes me is that the same disgusting politicians calling for gun control are the ones who have sent (and continue to send) arms to Sunni Islamic terrorists in Libya, Syria, and Egypt who literally butcher innocent men, women, and children in the most horrific ways on a daily basis. In essence the very politicians calling for 'gun control' do not have any moral ground to stand upon. Their actions are so reprehensible in these instances mentioned that I am forced to believe that their tears are naught but those of crocodiles.

The US is set to ship 20 new F-16s to Egypt in Jan. at a cost of $213million to the US taxpayer. I haven't seen a thing on the MSM about this. Only on Fox, the Faux news networks. (I wonder what is so fake about a story like this?)

DIRP:

We need to ban you from life, your one idiot nut! No rights for you either! It's not all about you Mr Ignorant. If you want to live in a society where you think no guns will solve all your problems, THEN PLEASE move to the UK, where that is how it is, and the crime rate is MUCH higher than here. You are to stupid to live here, do yourself and others a favor, move away from the U.S. ASAP!

"@Joe: You're disgusting. That you can say this the day after the shooting..."

What? Is Joe obstructing your opportunity to make your own hay?

Pigotry:

PLEASE join Dirp in doing the U.S. a favor, move to a socialistic other country of your choice, we don't need your ignorance here either.

The question is will we ever deal with the violence and death connected to gun ownership. The answer is probably NO!

We have to face the fact that a very high number of the world's population is stupid. Even men and women considered to have high IQs and are smart as hell are quite often the dumbest anywhere in certain issues.

What happens with many smart scientists, is they fall in love with their theories because they feel they are proven and are no longer theories. Egoism is seldom controlled by inteligence, more often fed by it.

Even as we get the overwhelming number of "smart people" giving us dire warnings about many things, a small number of some that are equally seen as having massive IQs are really as dumb as rocks when it comes to anything that goes contrary to what they think they have already solved.

I call the smart dumb people Contrarians. Contrarianism is a malady in that it grows and demands affermation as important and never wrong.

I believe we will always need opposing ideas so as to see more than one side of things and have more than just knowledge, but understanding of it.

There are ways to lessen the negative effect of gun ownership but we have a bunch of MORONS invested in making and selling guns as well as those they pay to go against all and anything that is intended to mitigate the violent negative and stupid outcomes from buying into the mind set, people kill people not guns. This is a way of taking a truism that sounds right but fails to include human nature as it relates to powerful distance killing weapons.

I own guns. I know how to be safe with them, use them with maximum efficiency and all the rest I learned in military training. I am not a nut job or a felon or have ever displayed a bent towards uncalled for violence. I can own a gun and so can anyone that meets that criteria. That does not mean there will never be stupid mass killings as we are getting all too used to but it will make them very rare.

i find the postings from dirp and piggy to be fascinating. lets get rid of guns and everything will be alright.

how about we again pass a constitutional amendment outlawing alcohol? in 2010 approximately 2,000 more people were killed in alcohol related traffic accidents than were murdered by guns.

If enough people stand up and refuse to sit down, congress will listen to us. That is something I know I can count on.

The scary thing is -- I wouldn't put it past the House Republican majority to hold any gun control bill hostage unless the President gives in on other issues of importance to our country.

In that case, I say don't negotiate with terrorists... Continue to stand your ground. The majority of Americans support reasonable gun control. You do not have to trade off other important issues!

We never learn from such tragedies. Human nature has not changed since the stone age. And right-wingers will promote their usual propaganda, saying 'guns don't kill, people kill.'

Pigotry does it ever occur to you that you are part of the problem? You're the first comment and what do you do? You jump on Republicans. I bet it's just second nature to you because you spend so much time here. You don't even realize you do it anymore. And that is the one of the reasons we have such a divisive society.

How do you expect to have a rational discussion under these circumstances? The way you (and everyone like you) jump on the vilify the republican bandwagon makes it impossible for either side to trust the other to have a rational discussion.

By referring to Republicans in a derogatory manner (and you are) you are making them the 'other'. You (and others like you) are a bully. It's ok because republicans and right wingers are evil. You've been duped and it's too bad that you can't see it or figure it out for yourself. When you, and others like you, do figure it out we as a society might make that next big intellectual leap.

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

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

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

@ Chris Jennings it was actually prior to the National Firearms Act of 1934: Up until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine or even a BAR.

Where were all the spree shootings then? If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?

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

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

Pigotry:

Joe T - I am not here supporting taking away people's 2nd Amendment right, I hope to see a balance between 2nd Amendment right and people's right to life with some common-sense measures that protect both.

There got to be some middle ground.

To the right wing nuts, "Middle Ground" means "Do It My Way".

Any time any legislation is introduced anywhere designed to make it more difficult for whackjobs to obtain assult weapons, the NRA and the politicians they own in DC whip their uneducated parrots into a frenzy screaming 'they're taking away ALL our guns! ....from my cold dead hand!!"

You simply cant fix stupid, hence, American citizens will continue to be slaughtered, children among them.

When are we going to understand that it is not the guns that are the problem. The problem is us. Portable fully automatic weapons (Thompson Sub Machine Guns/ Browning Automatic Rifles) & semi automatic pistols have been around since the first world war, and initially with no government control. Semi automatic rifles have been around since WW II. Why are these things happening so many years later when gun control is even stricter. Think about it.

"Robin Steele" said in post #1.9 - Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:42 AM PST

(Excerpts):

"I say that if you liberals want to take our guns away, then perhaps you should purchase them at fair market value using funds from the kind of social programs that are a root cause for anger in this country, say welfare, medicare etc."

"So instead of you liberals blaming others for this problem, blaming guns, blaming republicans, blaming our founding fathers, why don't you start by raising your kids right and earning a living like the rest of us."

-------------------------------

'Robin,' please provide us with fact-checked substantiation for your opinions. Specifically, "Root cause for anger in this country, say welfare, medicare etc."

And, you said, "...why don't you start by raising your kids right and earning a living like the rest of us." So you believe that all liberals (people that aren't as conservative as you) don't raise their children correctly and that we don't earn a living? Show us fact-checked substantiation for this dual claim of yours, as well.

..and yes, I do think there should be a test for mental illness before being allowed to privately purchase a firearm.

I question the mental stability of those that believe that you should have a right to own a firearm because, "the government," is going to take away your guns. Or, if you want to buy, own and use a gun because you firmly believe that all non-conservatives are, "the biggest problem" in this country.

In that case, I say don't negotiate with terrorists... Continue to stand your ground.

I agree vote out any politician that wants to infringe on our 2nd amendment right!

The problem is not with American guns, but with American people. We glorify violence 24/7 even at the highest levels of society, like our politicians and presidents - and that is how it has been for centuries. We now spend more money on 'defense' (it is actually always 'offense') than the rest of the world combined, we start wars half the way across the world and continue to wage them for over a decade, we have the most violent movies and games in the world, and yet we act surprised when apparently SENSELESS violence happens in our own home. We do not even talk about non violent means of dealing with the problems like terrorism - it is always some sort of a force that has to be invoked - the more disproportionate the force, the better we like it as American people. Any nutcase can justify their violence - and we are a nation of nutcases, trying to fix every problem in the world with force, intimidation, aggression, and ultimately flat out violence. It is disgusting

A peaceful, law abiding and Christian nation where citizens respect each other, where honor and one's word are important. A nation where everyone helps and gives a helping hand to his/her own neighbor, where violence is almost nonexistent and friendship and cordiality prevails among citizens. A great nation where citizens carry firearms with the purpose to provide for the safety of their own family and others, and on occasion, put food on their table.

Do we know this fantastic utopia? Is it "Planet Conservative"? Not even close.

Ours is the most violent and angry nation, full of mental illness and stress. The crime rate one of the highest in the world, and prisons full to the max sometimes with residents who don't come close to the "human" definition. And the most unbelievable and insane events like this one, are not carried by known criminals, drug cartels or addicts, rapists or murderers but by regular individuals who lived an inconspicuous and ordinary life.

Sorry to contradict a few, but before we can fix our real National problem, this Nation is not one where every citizen should be armed with a dangerous weapon. Sure lets find a solution fast!

If you want to keep and bear arms, join the military and get sent to a war zone!

From what I understand, the older brother said that his brother was "not right". Their mother was the gun worshiper. The looney son lived with mother. Therefore, mother should not have had the guns around-- and probably in plain sight-- for the younger son to get ahold of them. Or had them under lock and key so that the "kid" couldn't have access to them.

It's good that the killed did himself in. If he had lived and gotten sent to prison, he wouldn't be very popular there. So many of the "normal" prison population detest those who harm children. This guy would have been in segregation to keep him out of harms way.

In my mind the NRA is a terrorist organization and should be treated as such. But -- the easy availability of guns is only part -- and probably the smaller part of the problem. This nation needs to face up to mental health issues and DO something about it. We continue to ignore mental illness in this nation at our own peril.

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

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

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

Take a look at this link of the children and their teacher killed in Scotland, and think of the children and teachers killed yesterday.

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

DON'T LET THE NRA BULLY US ANYMORE.

"Why are these things happening so many years later when gun control is even stricter."

Bill -- gun control laws are NOT stricter now --- not even close. We have more places to purchase guns in this nation that we have Starbucks and that doesn't count the gun shows where it's estimates that 40% of the guns are sold. I'm not at all for getting rid of guns even if we could (and we can't) but it's simply way too easy to purchase a gun. It's easier to buy a gun than it is to get get a check approved to buy soap at a Walmart. It's probably easier for a 17 year old kid to buy a gun than it is for him to buy cigarettes.

"if those teachers had guns they would have used them to save those kids, do you think they would have just laid down and died if there was a choice?"

• Hell -- lets give guns to kindergarten kids too!!That's what we need -- more guns. After all -- guns make us safe. That's why the US is the safest place in the world!!

We need to be focused on the method of killing and not guns. Our society allows so many bad things to be legal and thats what are younger generation is learning. Notice they seem to be getting younger and younger. Think about it people we allow beer now even pot is legal in some states. Cigarettes and many other things that are legal that kill people. I mean we even allow woman to choose to kill their own babies even though its biological and scietificaly proven that life begins at conception. My 12 old asked me what the differnece between and abortion and a killing by gun was. I had to tell her that an abortion was legal and muder by gun is not.

. I mean we even allow woman to choose to kill their own babies even though its biological and scietificaly proven that life begins at conception.

Lots of things are alive. That doesn't mean they're human.

Those children who were murdered by guns, they were HUMANS, not just "lives". What a false comparison and inappropriate way to further your anti-choice agenda.

And really, when was the last time somebody smoked a doobie and said, "Wow, I'm really hyped up and motivated to go shoot up a school right now"???

Maybe you need to stay out of the personal choices of people that don't effect you, and worry a bit more about the @!$%# that IS your business.

The NRA figures that guns are needed to protect us from our freely elected government.

The founding fathers apparently knew that a government democratically elected by the will of free people could never be sustained - according to the NRA philosophy

- and so they included a second ammendment to insure that whenever the will of the people went against what we wanted, we could always just shoot those freely elected public servants.

The NRA calls that protection from the tyranny of having to live in peace with our fellow man.

So...many want to stop the sale of guns..but someone explain to me what stops a criminal from getting a gun if he or she wants it ? Who is hurt by stopping the sale of guns or even the collecting of same..anyone set on killing with a gun will get one....honest law abiding citizens are the only ones hurt. Lets consider also..if we are to take all guns do we take them from police also..they too make mistakes with guns..and some of them should not have one of any kind. It would make more sense to make sure anyone caught using a gun in a crime does not walk away from it..yet ...some do...

What good is a right, i.e. the right to be armed, if it just gets a bunch of people killed?

Sounds like a stupid right.

So...many want to stop the sale of guns..but someone explain to me what stops a criminal from getting a gun if he or she wants it ? Who is hurt by stopping the sale of guns or even the collecting of same..anyone set on killing with a gun will get one....honest law abiding citizens are the only ones hurt.

I can tell you who is hurt when hand guns are easy to get.

Did you know that 80 years ago, there were no special restrictions on purchasing a machine gun? The gangs used them. Machine Gun Kelly.

In 1934, and then reaffirmed in 1968, the US govt, with the support of the NRA, passed legislation that made it more difficult to get a machine gun. Folks did not have to surrender their machine guns, if they already had one.

Over time, there came to be fewer and fewer machine guns in circulation. Violence caused by machine gun killers is pretty low now. Wouldn't it be nice if we could do the same thing for hand guns?

No tipping point reached. The hysterical, bloodthirsty, paranoid, evangelical, anti-government rednecks will make sure of it. Doesn't matter whose blood they can spill, as long as it's a living organism that they can snuff out for entertainment.

Ivan,

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

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

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

What's wrong with having some restrictrions on automatic and semi-automatic weapons that can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time?

THOSE ARE WEAPONS OF WAR.

Nobody needs those to kill a deer or a raccoon.

Man up and get a bow and arrow.

It boggles my mind that all these proportably intelligent people on this thread can't see the forest for the trees. Rapid fire, easily reloadable guns have been around and available since the beginning of the 20 century. Please someone answer the question, WHY WASN'T THIS TYPE OF ATTACK HAPPENING THEN? Why has it only been the last 10 to 15 years? We will not solve this problem until we recognize that the society we have created is the problem, not an inanimate piece of metal.

Its sad but mental people who want to lash out will lash out.

The OKC bombing is an example of mass murder

The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,^[1] and injured more than 680 people.^[2] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings.^[3][4] The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage.[

and I don't see people banning diesel fuel or fertilizer.

He stole the guns from his mom and even tried to purchase a rifle and was turned down. The legal system kept him from buying a weapon. Mother was a different story.

And yes people kill people, guns unless controlled by a computer don't shoot themselves.

If the teachers were armed less of this would have happened.

Also surprised he could even get into the building where was the security at???

Oh gee, guns are soooo bad! Well, I prefer edged weapons, but in a pinch can use a trick the Army taught me years ago. Go to the hardware store, WalMart, and any feed n seed, then it takes about an hour to assemble a device the size of a large book, that will put a piece of metal in every square inch of a football field in a fraction of a second. There are alternatives to gun ownership, problem is some of these alternatives aren't very attractive.

Donny Fields, #1.27- "The Law abiding Citizen" was punished with HER OWN GUN! Now the argument is down to "ACCESS".

I also disagree with post #1.13 (I think it was Swan?) about a straight reading of the Second Amendment. The Right of the People to keep and bear arms IS in a well formed Militia (of The State). The only "ambiguity" there is IS "purposefully obtuse" and CREATED and "of convenience". Any Law or RIGHT has to show legitimacy in REASON and be able to withstand having REASON applied to it. The Second Amendment, as being used, FAILS ON BOTH COUNTS!

Same as the filibuster FIASCO that's continuing to go on right now. FAILS ON BOTH COUNTS OF "REASON". George Washington said that the "REASON" for the filibuster was likened to putting cream into coffee. TO TEMPER IT! Cream, as the "minority" still gets its say and gets on the record. REASON applied to the filibuster FAILS because Majority (coffee) rules, not Minority (cream) rules.

Again, the argument is "ACCESS" and the answer is already there in the Second Amendment. It doesn't need to be repealed, IT NEEDS TO BE "REASONABLY" AND PROPERLY INTERPRETED. "NOT" UNREASONABLY APPLIED. period......THE END......NOT THIS TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As long as we have a paranoid faction of right wing gun nuts in America this argument will never change. These "Their coming for our guns" people are afraid of living in a society that's safe and sane because their fear of the bogey man would be laughed at and they would no longer be relevant............

When they start to yell "don't take away my 2nd amendment rights", what their really saying is "I don't give a damn about those teachers and kids that were murdered yesterday".

The posters that keep harping about their "right to bear arms" have forgotten that all of us have rights and those rights include protecting our children from all violence including gun violence.

I am a life long gun owner and support the 2nd amendment up to the point were it starts killing innocent people. I truly believe that lobbists like the NRA are responsible for yesterdays carnage because they stand in the way of real dialogue about how we can have our guns and secure them at the same time. This is the discussion we should be having not a bunch of thoughtless fools screaming "don't touch my guns"................................

It's always the same when tragedies like this visit our society; Congress does NOTHING. It's way past time that this country muster up the courage to at the very least TALK about ways to stop this reoccurring plague of violence.

I like what, "Don97524" posted up, on the NewsVine, #1.30 - Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:49 AM PST

If your purpose for owning a gun is to defend yourself against the government you should automatically fail the mental health test and be denied gun ownership.

I would also add another restriction:

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.

I support gun ownership, I own a handgun, registered, I am licensed to carry.

But there needs to be 2 things done.

Licensing for rifles

Annual follow up, renewal of registration and data base cross checks on people who own guns and have since owning broke the law, are undergoing psychological treatment, or have complaints filed against them. In addition every gun owner who is going through divorce, looses s job or leaves a school should be required to re register. The resources to accomplish this can come from making marijuana legal and moving law enforcement people from drug enforcement to gun control.

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

You can increase background checks but the truth of the matter is that there are so many more factors that kill people and children nationwide other than guns. Do you realize that malpractice kills more people than guns? Why dont you worry about the larger numbers of deaths, wouldnt that make sense? This gets ALL the press because it happens now and again and a school and children are involved but you could save more lives by becoming a member of MADD or by regulating doctors licensing.

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

The outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns is a solid claim. Look at Austrailia's recent gun ban and their crime rates. They have skyrocketed. Home invasions are rampant now and they dont even have a criminal classification for this because it NEVER used to happen. Chicago Heights is another example. Since homeowners have been allowed to own guns the crime rates is this area have plummeted. What more examples do you need? This is hardly disingenuous because every 4-6 months you have a public shooting? Focus your efforts elsewhere, youll do society more good.

Focus your efforts elsewhere, youll do society more good.

I want to talk about guns. I understand it. That is what needs to change in America. And it will. How many dead kids do you think this country will stand?

The outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns is a solid claim.

OK, let's assume it is true. Why is that worse than what we have now? Now, about 10,000 people a year are killed by guns. Are you saying that if we outlaw guns, the number of murders with guns will go up? Can you back up that claim?

If guns were an effective crime deterrent, than being the most heavily armed country in the world we should have the lowest levels of crime, but we don't do we?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/29/gun-laws-rosenthal

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/29/gun-laws-rosenthal

And I think I'll stay focused on this right now, but thanks for the advice.

Elliot: The common thread that is emerging is that minority interests are using every means, including lies, threats and bribes, to see that what the majority of Americans want is resisted. We no longer have any common goals - instead, many of us will insist on dictating policies for others, ignoring what few laws that are enacted, and insisting that our socio/cultural agendas are something other than sophomoric rants.

Maybe our Affordable Health Care Act will give parents the ability to have their child evaluated before another perfect child messes up.

Ban handguns and semi-automatic weapons.

The two that do nothing but sit at their computers, vying to see who can post first (and we all know who THEY are) are an effing joke...

There's a REASON Congress is not interested in further "gun control"....it's because their constituents will vote them out of office...

The left will never understand that they are in the VAST MINORITY when it comes to our nation's gun culture- and that includes a plurality of gun-owning DEMOCRATS as well.

Yet, while the bodies of these poor children were still warm, Schumer politicizes the tragedy...what an AZZHOLE.

Killers will kill. Criminals will get their guns, regardless of "controls".

Ironic how this tragedy happened with legally owned, STOLEN, guns- in a state with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

Tragedies such as this can happen, you can't legislate them away. In no way minimizing the tragedy, more young people are killed by drunk driving every DAY than were lost in this massacre.

Even if there were a way to keep the mentally unstable from owning guns, these guns were STOLEN, so any such laws would have had no effect.

But keep ranting, gun haters....you are, and always will be, in the small minority, so deal with it...

As long as we only focus on guns we are still going to have a bad problem. We as a society allow to many bad things. I for the life of me cant see how people can oppose guns but dont opose other methods of killing. It is unrealistic killing is killing regardless of how its done. Way more people die from drunk drivers than by peopel with guns. If we are serious we will put all of these things on the table not just one method of killing.

I don't hate guns. I've owned a gun and like to target shoot.

But, nobody NEEDS an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

Why can't we have stricter gun laws and at least ban weapons of war that should not be owned by the average citizen?

Time to speak out, America, loud and clear. Tell the NRA that you will not let it bully us anymore. WE ARE NOT THE MINORITY. WE ARE THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE SICK OF THE DEATH AND CARNAGE RESULTING FROM THE RAMPANT AND IRRESPONSIBLE SALES OF GUNS IN THIS COUNTRY.

The only reason we do not have stricter gun laws is because the NRA is filthy rich from mass gun sales. They not only line their own pockets, but the pockets of those politicians they bribe to support them.

Speak out, America. Now is the time to tell these dead children and their parents that we will not be silent and let their deaths be in vain.

Whatever your fantasies/wishes are about gun ownership and uses, Harvard Injury Control Research says this:

1. “We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.”
2. 2. “Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both

socially undesirable and illegal.”

1. 3. “Firearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.”
2. “Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.”
3. 5. “Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.”
4. “Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crime. Virtually none report being wounded by a law-abiding citizen.”
5. “Increased gun carrying reduces community feeling of safety. This paper uses data from two national random-digit-dial surveys to examine public attitudes about gun carrying. By a margin of 5 to 1, Americans feel less safe rather than more safe as more people in their community begin to carry guns. By margins of at least 9 to 1, Americans do not believe that regular citizens should be allowed to bring their guns into restaurants, college campuses, sports stadium, bars, hospitals or government buildings.”

Sorry about the formatting clumsiness - not sorry about the results of their exhaustive research.

Are you folks forgetting that a gun didnt walk into the school and kill these kids. It was a very sick PERSON. Maybe we should Ban people.

Guns don't kill people, you say?

People kill people, you say?

How about this ... PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

Everyone keeps ranting about the guns, I will repeat the question I asked above.

Rapid fire, easily reloadable guns have been around and available since the beginning of the 20 century. Please someone answer the question, WHY WASN'T THIS TYPE OF ATTACK HAPPENING THEN? Why has it only been the last 10 to 15 years? We will not solve this problem until we recognize that the society we have created is the problem, not an inanimate piece of metal.

Mr. Silverton

Ball bats, hammers, golf clubs, forks and knives kill people also, so just what is your point.

A gun all by its self has never killed anyone.

A couple yrs ago , 2 incidents took place at around the same time. Pres Obama won the nobel peace prize & a gifted child on his way home from school (right outside of the school) was filmed being beaten to death in Chicago with clubs & kicked & it made natl news . It was a day just like every other day in Chicago . They had been having a bad string of young ppl killing young ppl , mostly gang related with as many as 10 murders a night. The right wing attacked Obama saying he'd done nothing to deserve the prize. I had emailed the White House & asked that he consider donating half the prize money to social groups in Chi to give kids a safe place for recreation & maybe safe transportation for inner city kids & maybe even programs to help escape the dirt covering most of this city he called home. He claimed to remember his roots well & even kept his home there & said he felt empathy for the ppl there. I also suggested he use the other half of the money to provide programs to help children in west bank to help jewish & palestinians come together in a non threatening environment where they could look into the eyes of others that ppl say are their enemies. Obama could say to the rest of the world , i cant tell you how to live , without first showing we also need to work on our problems of living together in respect & caring. I said in the email to him , this would silence his critics on the right & maybe even save some lives & do you know what their response was? A form reply thank you & nothing else. Since then hundreds of children have been murdered in Chicago & not 1 act from Obama or his friend R. Emanuel , at least nothing of any substance. I'm sick of all politicians on both sides . Obama , you really care about young ppl dying , start where you know killing will be happening every other day , your old neighborhood & weep for their lost lives.

TALK ABOUT RACISM & INDIFFERENCE , WHERE WAS ALL THIS LIBERAL OUTRAGE WHILE HUNDREDS OF INNERCITY YOUTH WERE BEING MURDERED?

Ironically , chicago just passed a new law , imposing a 50$ additional tax on legal gun purchases , supposedly to pay for hospital bills of poor ppl that survive shootings. Isnt that a kick in the teeth , tax payers & insured workers are allready paying for those bills when theirs are padded & taxes are raised . Thank you Rahm Emanuel .The left figures , yes!!! alot of white gun toting ppl cant argue with 20 dead children , now we have a reason to build a case to take the guns from the sheeple, thats why the outrage now , STAGED OUTRAGE TO SUIT THEIR AGENDA!

this is a social issue:

- availability of mental health care for most is limited to 10 visits a year by insurance companies that own congress

- we are a warrior society which promotes violence and we can't change that due to a pesky thing called the 1st amendment

- the gun club fights all gun control in spite of some of it making sense, like stringent background checks that include mental holds etc.

- the gun control people operate from a position of ignorance... as in the case of demanding the ban of assault weapons... that's the equivalent of saying a red car ran someone down, lets ban red cars... assault weapons are a style of, still single shot at a time, rifle... it just looks scary / military... those sorts of ignorant reporting and position taking hurts their cause

- school security, in spite of a lot of these incidents, is lax nationwide'

- poisoning among other things kill many many more children / people each year... where's the urgency on those issues?

weapons blanket the world and will never ever get banned effectively... and people are very good at killing each other... it's going to take a multi dimensional push over decades... the problem being the voters and their naivete about the issue... if it does result in a war on guns ala the war on drugs... we'll be in the same place 30 years from now... nowhere

Mike-306915, #1.97- With all due Respect, you are "minimizing" the tragedy, even though I understand that you're inferring that it's not your intention to. This isn't a numbers thing, this is a multi-faceted and comprehensive dynamic that has just crossed the bounds and culminated into UNACCEPTABLE!

I'll give you this much, though; I have absolutely NO IDEA what Schumer is proposing and how it would possibly contribute to the solution, (although I don't have it in me, beyond this shock, to apply any focus to what he's proposing), BUT, I do give him an enormous amount of credit and RESPECT for speaking up and taking a stand. I'm a Grandparent. I can't even look at the other stories that have pictures of these Kids or hear what their names are and then have to imagine each and every one of their "ABSOLUTE" moment of terror and utter overpowerment and helplessness that they had to be up against. I don't know how any of those Parents are EVER going to be able to live with that HORROR, EVER!!!!! And I REALLY need to believe and SEE that there WOULD NOT be a single Politician that would try to capitalize or gain political favor or politically shy away from this subject. RIGHT NOW..........NOW IS THE TIME.........EVERY POLITICIAN STAND UP AND BE COUNTED AND SHOW ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC...YEA OR NAY/NRA?????????

NOW IS THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!! AMERICA NEEDS A "HEAD" COUNT OF OUR REPRESENTATIVES! YOU ARE EITHER PART OF THE SOLUTION OR PART OF THE PROBLEM ON THIS ONE! THERE IS NO COMPROMISE POSSIBLE ON THAT!

We, the majority of American citizens, will NOT be bullied anymore by the NRA or its fanatic gun-toting enthusiasts who refuse to even consider enforcing any laws restricting automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

The news just came out that a relative of the killer and his mother said that the mother was a "survivalist" and that was why she had so many weapons in her possession.

Her son killed those children and teachers with an assault rifle - a weapon of war.

I say ENOUGH ALREADY.

Speak up now, America, and don't let the NRA or any of the posters in this forum bully you anymore.

It is interesting to note that on 9/11/01 almost two thousand citizens lost their lives because of box cutters...not guns...box cutters. Yes that is what the terrorist used to take over the planes that were then use as aerial bombs. So where is the rhetoric calling for the stopping of all aircraft and box cutters?

The only sure thing you can take from this tragedy is that people kill people with any means at hand. Outlawing someones protection makes them a victim of an opportunistic thug or thugs. I know this is not a popular opinion here but there you have it.

Like so many things politicians rush to the microphones to make statements to make themselves look better and more electable without actually doing anything important. This feeding frenzy by the lame duck legislators is predictable and pathetic. Lets continue to support laws that add not one single benefit to our security in an effort to make us feel safer. Lets give up even more personal freedoms of the citizens to make the politicians feel like they can thump their chests and tell us what great and necessary people they are. Enough what a bunch of pathetic posers who care little for our actual safety and freedom and care more for the gravy train we have allowed them to ride on. The fiscal cliff is more a danger to our country than the current gun laws. What do you think will happen when the jobless rate increases again in January? More unrest, more tragedy, more hopelessness, more debt, and more lies from politicians.

If you can't see the actual problem you are the problem. The problem is laws no one enforces otherwise a family would not have to sue the government for wrongful death in the Fast and Furious boondoggle.

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.

"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

Mr Silverton will not bully legal gun owners

Sorry Silverton, there have aso been a heafty increase in air weapons that repolaced the automatic weapons. Air weapons are not included in gun crime statistics in the UK.

Even if you ban the air guns, then they will use knives like in China last week where 22 elementary school children were slashed.

Clearly, you do not understand these people who are doing this have either a mental problem or a developmental problem. Once they decide they to perform one of these crimes, they WILL commit the crime.

You need to read the stuff that the left wing media leaves out.

Pigotry, you and other anti-Second Amendment nuts are NOT going to take away our Constitutional RIGHT to own a gun; it's NOT going to happen! Why not invenst your time in supporting ENFORCING EXISTING gun laws and getting help for troubled INDIVIDUALS before they cause such massacres. But no, it's SO much easier to try to legislate the problem out of existence isn't it? That's just what you demlibs do, rather than find workable solutions under laws we already have.

Is it my mistake or does it seems that everyone of these criminals are on Prozac?

Sarah-3043284

If guns were an effective crime deterrent, than being the most heavily armed country in the world we should have the lowest levels of crime, but we don't do we?

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/29/gun-laws-rosenthal

http://cognoscenti.wbur.org/2012/08/29/gun-laws-rosenthal

And I think I'll stay focused on this right now, but thanks for the advice.

Mexico's murder rates and overall violence levels CRUSH the US and guess what, they completely outlaw guns. A US Marine is going to jail for a long long time for possessing a gun in Mexico. In the last four years Juarez had over 10,000 homicides in that city alone. Your stats out outmatched and do not portray legal gun ownership in the light it should be. If you want to live in a city without any guns in the general population, go live in Juarez.

I have now decided there will be only one litmus test for every single one of my future votes. I will never, ever vote for anyone who has ever supported the NRA. Ever. Period. It is THE ONLY way this will change.

Rob, I'm with you. We must end America's gun fetish one vote at a time!

Fact: More people are killed each year by vehicles than by guns. So, if you want to ban guns, you have to be in favor of banning vehicles! Fact: Taking my gun away from me won't save one single life, unless it is a life trying to take mine or someone I love. I've owned guns for over 50 years and not one of them has killed a single person. So, please explain how taking those away is going to save anyone. Fact is, you can't! If you are that concerned, then please sell your vehicles, get rid of your steak knives, razor blades, ropes and anything else that might hurt someone. If you are unwilling to do so then just admit that you are a hypocrite that just enjoys taking freedoms away from other people, that you are a democrat.

Rob and Wants to know.

Ill be sure to tell the gangbangers in both your towns that you are unprotected and unwilling to defend yourselves and your families. Maybe the NRA will help the new tenants of your homes realize they had options. Good luck

The halls of Congress will ring with the cries of anguish over the dead children. And the emotional appeals will abound with the pictures of the fallen. Don't misunderstand me. I am a grandparent of school age children. I literally vomited when the news of this tragedy broke. But I am also an avid and responsible gun owner. I have taught NRA Gun and Hunter's Safety Courses. I fully admit that guns kill people...when they are in the hands of a sick soul who sees no other out than to revenge a wrong or avenge a lost love or job or child custody battle or just because "the voices told me too".

And Congressmen will vow to put an end to this with stricter controls(we just saw this doesn't work). But no one will step forward to require that "gun show" sellers are licenced, or require them to follow the same requirements as a full blown gun store operator. No that infringes on my "rights". It's my gun, I can sell it if I want to. And that's fine between you and me, but not when I am selling many guns, not just my personal firearm, at a public gun show.

I spent 25+ years in the military. There isn't a civilian,other than a policeman, who has a need for an automatic weapon, because that's what it is, a weapon, not a personal firearm. Those Assault Rifles are not "hunting rifles", they are not accurate enough, they kill by volume of ammo expended in a general direction. No one other than law enforcement or the military should be allowed to own one.

We have allowed this 2nd Amendment thing to go too far. We have handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles to keep in our homes for self defense. The Assault Rifle is a weapon not a personal firearm. We can defend our homes without Military style weapons...ever see what a shotgun does at close range?

I truly cringe in fear and grief for the folks in that town, and particularly for those folks that lost the most precious thing of all. But do not count on me to vote against firearm ownership.

You gun morons need your own island. Take your crazy elsewhere.

also disagree with post #1.13 (I think it was Swan?) about a straight reading of the Second Amendment. The Right of the People to keep and bear arms IS in a well formed Militia (of The State).

You can disagree all you like however the supreme court has upheld in many cases the right to bear arms under the 2nd amendment. Also the amendment does not say militia "of the State". YOU added that. It talks about the security of a free state. Let's just post the whole thing and look at it instead of trying to dance around the words:

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.

Clearly the reason it was put in the constitution is so that states could raise a militia if needed. However militia is not a regular army. It's a bunch of armed citizens that someone forms into a fighting force. This is how it was back when the amendment was written.

In any case the way it is written, the first part states the reason for the second part is in effect. That's a plane English reading. However it says nothing about you having to be in a militia before the second part comes into play. A plane reading says anyone can bear arms. Now perhaps you may argue that it is outdated. States no longer raise a fighting militia from armed citizens. Fine, then go though the procedure of having it changed. Until them it stands as worded or rather it means what the supreme court says it means.

So if you want guns banned you have two choices. a) Get the constitution changed. b) get 5 supreme court justices to agree with you. Until then you're @!$%# out of luck.

You all want to know how I KNOW that guns don't kill people, people do? If you take away the people who kill people and put the guns in the hands of other people who don't, the guns don't kill anyone. If you take away the guns, however, the people who kill people will turn to swords, knives, axes, and hammers. Like they do in China. Right now. Sure, the killers in China that attack schools only kill a few students, one went as high as 9, but they honestly don't even have swords, just knives.

The point is, without guns, people still kill people.

Of course not! The newest Terrorist group, NRA, has already bought their vote in Congress, as has been proven time and again. Greed, money and power go together! We need to re-write the Constitution as it is out dated and our Founding Fathers never knew about AK-47's or rapid fire weapons. My neighbor has 30 guns and I don't think that is what the Founding Father meant!

C. Smith,

But not to the tune of 130,000 in a decade!

C. Smith,

But not to the tune of 130,000 in a decade!

Elliott: You call it grandstanding. And what I call what you're suggesting we do to stop mass shootings is sitting on your a#$, and doing nothing. BTW, where were those "civil minded responsible gun owners" when the children of Sandy Hook Elementary School needed you guys the most? Yeah, that's what I figured. You NRA gun nuts talk a good game, but none of you guys have the spine to back it up. Point is, I never hear stories of "responsible gun owners" confronting the "criminally insane" and "crazy" whack jobs w/ semi automatic weapons shooting up movie theaters, schools, and shopping malls which would of prevented the deaths of a lot of people. I never hear stories like that. Yeah, I know what you gun nuts are going to say now. But shopping malls, schools, and movie theaters don't allow people to bring in firearms. And my response to that is. That shouldn't stop a gun obsessed wanna bad a#! like yourselves from bringing firearms into those places. Because all you stupid yahoos think you're much more trained in firearms than law enforcement officers. Fact of the matter is, we need stronger gun registration legislation, universal mental health and criminal background investigations on people wanting to buy guns, and stronger gun control laws. Whether those will be effective in the long terms remains to be seen. And blowhards like Elliott can call it whatever he wants. But legislators need to do something immediately to reduce the rate and eventually STOP these shootings.

After being greeted with the faces of the 20 children killing at Sandy Hook School on the news and then about the gun owner who fired 50 rounds in a California Mall parking Lot and then the 18 year old arrested who was planning a similar massacre at his school in Oklahoma. Get the damn guns out of the hands of these nuts and shut the NRA up once and for all! This terrorist organization has done enough harm!

A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

Now think about this:

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80
million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188
Statistics courtesy of the FBI

So statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than
gun owners. Remember, Guns don't kill people, doctors do!!!

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor
than by a gun owner!!!

Conservatives who are arguing that it's not the guns that are problem. But the problem is the lack of Mental Health Services. I wonder among those conservatives, how many of them opposes Universal Health Care, Health Care Reform and Obama's Affordable Care Act? Just curious.

I am trying to think of a time when there was a massacre at a gun show or a shooting range. It seems that the "crazys" always have enough presence of mind to find a place where they are the only ones with weapons.

Fort Hood three years ago?

I hope that helps, Dadoftim.

What type of crazy person would think he could kill over 20 people at a military site?

Personally, I'm trying to think of an occurrence where a private citizen stopped one of these crazies in the midst of their killing frenzy.

When the bullet is milliseconds from your heart, your gun is seconds away, in your shoulder holster.

Newsflash NBC.....another lead article on your front page:

• Top Dem will seek new gun law in next Congress

Yep, I am betting that the Progressives will get legislation through even if it is "hook and crook" or "backroom deals".

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

Here's a link so everyone can see what kind of guns killed these precious children and their teachers. Some reports say it was the semi-automatic handguns, but last I heard, the coroner said they were all killed by the assault rifle.

Does it make any difference which gun killed them? They were all weapons of war, not guns for hunting animals, but guns for killing people.

BAN ALL AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS NOW.

Riley,

Mexico is also run by drug cartels, and has a tsunami of weapons coming over the boarder thanks to us. You're comparing apples to oranges. The drug war and its accompanying violence, has nothing to do with gun regulation in the U.S. It has to do with boarder security, Mexican corruption and ineffective prohibition laws, NOT legally purchased and owned guns in the hands of mentally ill people who go on rampage shootings in the U.S.

I support the right to keep and bear arms. I won't BS about it like other gun owners. I fully recognize that this makes the US a more, not less, dangerous place. For that reason, I believe that local governments have the mandate to regulate the possession of guns in public. I believe I have the moral right to self-determination in defense of my own home, but I don't feel that right extends to endangering my fellows.

I don't, like some, picture myself nobly defending the Constitution with my gun ownership. Who am I supposed to be keeping in check? Navy Seals? The Hostage Rescue Team? My local SWAT Team? Riiiiiight. What gives fellow gun owners this sort of paranoid self-delusion is beyond my capacity.

I also believe that the federal government has the mandate to regulate transfer of weapons, regulate safe storage of weapons in the home, and deny gun rights in special cases, such as to convicted felons or the dangerously incompetent.

Threats, intimidation and menacing, as I see done on a regular basis by gun owners on this site, is a felony, and should be grounds for denial of gun rights. For example, I see many "joke" about hunting liberals. That, friends, is felony menacing, and cause to take away your weapons. This isn't some liberal Democrat saying so, but a veteran and long-time gun owner.

In my opinion, unsecured storage of guns that gives access to children or the mentally unstable is a threat to public safety, should also be a felony, and grounds for forfeiture of gun rights. It won't stop all gun crimes, but might have stopped this one. The safety of children, in their schools, from maniacs, overrides my right to have quick access to unsecured weapons. Just keep your damn guns in a biometric safe, and the rest of us can sleep better.

The guy in Indiana made a threat to kill as many as he could at an elementary school. Nobody needs to own the 47 guns he did and the heck with the 2nd Amendment!

The guy in Indiana made a threat to kill as many as he could at an elementary school. Nobody needs to own the 47 guns he did and the heck with the 2nd Amendment!

Ido, I sure hope so! even if it is by hook and by crook!

Fort Hood three years ago?

I hope that helps, Dadoftim.

What type of crazy person would think he could kill over 20 people at a military site?

Personally, I'm trying to think of an occurrence where a private citizen stopped one of these crazies in the midst of their killing frenzy.

When the bullet is milliseconds from your heart, your gun is seconds away, in your shoulder holster.

WRONG DMAN! The base issued an order years prior that no one on base could have any rounds in their weapons except for the MPs at the front gate. Nice try pal.

Mexico is also run by drug cartels, and has a tsunami of weapons coming over the boarder thanks to us. You're comparing apples to oranges. The drug war and its accompanying violence, has nothing to do with gun regulation in the U.S. It has to do with boarder security, Mexican corruption and ineffective prohibition laws, NOT legally purchased and owned guns in the hands of mentally ill people who go on rampage shootings in the U.S.

And you honestly think the Cartels couldnt operate here with little public opposition and no guns in the hands of citizens? I worked for CPD doing narcotics interdiction when I initially got out of the military. We were outgunned, outnumbered and outmanned on OUR side of the border. What makes you think with the budget cuts and sheeple having no guns in their homes in Texas, Arizona and California that we could oppose Cartels which are cash flush and expanding their influence? We have no immigration policy that opposes them and gutted federal law enforcement. The people are often the last line of defense but in this case, not.

I enjoy the comments about "nothing will get done untill some whacko goes into the capital building and shoots"... Well i hate to tell you, i doubt there worried about that because there bodyguards have AUTOMATIC WEAPONS to protect them. lmao, dont you know that its ok for them to be protected but we cant, there lives are more important? DONT TREAD ON ME>>>COME AND TAKE THEM!!!!

dirp

perhaps a search for guns in Switzerland would be of help to you. They have more guns per capita then the US yet their crime rate is one of the lowest in the world. As well as gun related deaths which is the lowest. Yep your right guns do it not people. Get to reading and perhaps you might find some truths which youi might find hard to live with.

How about some truth? Lets all agree that we as a nation and people need the truth. And when the media does everything it can to stop us from getting the truth then we need a new media. This is Adam Lanza's facebook page before it was deleted. Look at where he tells us what his political views are.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/3611_423506811050933_1150852840_n.jpg

Stop the media from hiding the truth. Pass this on to as many as you can.

I find it interesting that the rifle which is on the top which they want band was not used in the school. SO why is it brought up??

And you honestly think the Cartels couldnt operate here with little public opposition and no guns in the hands of citizens?

First, the cartels DO operate here, even with all the armed to the teeth citizens. How's that working out for those border towns? Yeah, those cartels seem real scared. I also HONESTLY think you're still comparing apples to oranges. All those people who own guns in border towns to keep them safe, WOULD STILL OWN GUNS, because they're not the crazy ones we need to focus regulations on.

If they're not crazy and are responsible, they'd still get to purchase and use them.

all 31 of the incoming pro-gun senators refused to appear on Meet the Press -- cowards

Alcohol related deaths far exceed those of guns - and I've seen no rush to ban or outlaw it's use

Alcohol related deaths far exceed those of guns - and I've seen no rush to ban or outlaw it's use

Maybe because crazy people aren't pegging little children with beer cans in order to kill them. They're accidental deaths. And, oh, by the way, alcohol is highly regulated by the government.

@ Dem in Texas #1.123

You gun morons need your own island. Take your crazy elsewhere.

Well then, if you don't like our "crazy" why don't you and your "others" find an island and go make your own Utopia without guns. Why do I have to go anywhere? You sound like a rather selfish individual. (but then again, most Democrats are selfish. They want us, We the People(Government) to fix the problems for them)

Also, if more guns cause more crime; Why aren't there more shootings at Gun Shows? Why has no one attacked a gun store?

Why are all of these attacks at "Gun Free Zones"?

@ Sarah #1.147 et al

Let me say I agree with your assessment about "Gun Culture" in America to a certain extent. What I find ironic is Hollywood. Every movie with the plot line, "They did 'X' to this guy and he is out for justice" and what does he do, he gets a gun or several and goes and kills those responsible. Yet, in real life just about every Hollywood actor is for gun control. I think it would be hilarious if Hollywood would start doing movies based on what they preach rather than what they practice.(yes I realize the movies are meant to fulfill the audience's fantasy and escapism)

Yes, technically you would be correct, a person could still legally purchase a gun under your restrictions, but at what cost? And are we going to do like the ACA and subsidize the poor so they can own one too? Or are we going to discriminate based on wealth?

The fact is in the UK, a person can still own a gun, but for the average person it is far too expensive.(Direct from a UK citizen visiting for the Holidays)

Yes, technically you would be correct, a person could still legally purchase a gun under your restrictions, but at what cost?

And what is the cost of NOT enacting better regulations... 20 children in a single day. Thousands per year.

And are we going to do like the ACA and subsidize the poor so they can own one too? Or are we going to discriminate based on wealth?

No, since no one here is advocating for mandatory gun ownership.

The nra and their members are hands down the biggest terrorist threat facing America and Americans today. While they have comepletely bought and bribed the republican teabag taliban party the odds of having any gun laws changed are zilch, zero, nada. So the nra sponsored terrorist carnage will go on and on and on and on and................

I've got 4 guns in my house.

Not only have I never committed a crime with a handgun, I've never committed a crime.

Are you telling me that my guns - inanimate objects - are themselves capable of independent thought and action towards taking lives?

Good Lord!

They're under my bed, plotting murder!

WRONG DMAN! The base issued an order years prior that no one on base could have any rounds in their weapons except for the MPs at the front gate. Nice try pal.

Riley-1759556, you are apparently correct. But how about the following 2 incidents:

1. The 2011 shooting of Congresswoman Gabriel Gifford in a public parking lot in Tucson AZ, a state with no restrictions on carrying concealed weapons since 2010. 19 people shot in a public place, where any of the surrounding crowd could have been legally armed. This did not seem to bother Jared Loughner, did it?
2. The fatal shooting of 4 armed and armored police officers in a Lakewood, WA coffee shop in 2009. The shooter, Maurice Clemens, was undeterred by the prospect of facing 4 armed individuals, in a "shall issue" state. I guess he realized he had the element of surprise on his side. Shooters generally do.

That is just off the top of my head. I imagine that there are other incidents. Spree shooters seldom deterred by the consequences, the likelihood of arrest of return fire, and I've yet to hear of a mass shooting which was stopped by an armed, private citizen.

So it is unclear to me why advocates of untrammeled gun rights keep touting the value of having an armed population.

@ Sarah #1.152

Yes, technically you would be correct, a person could still legally purchase a gun under your restrictions, but at what cost?

And what is the cost of NOT enacting better regulations... 20 children in a single day. Thousands per year.

And are we going to do like the ACA and subsidize the poor so they can own one too? Or are we going to discriminate based on wealth?

No, since no one here is advocating for mandatory gun ownership.

Evidently you missed the point, and referencing the 42% increase in non-violent (home invasion) crime in the UK following their gun ban, let's say I wanted to get a gun for my wife to defend her self, and it costs a total of $3000 (it is more in the UK). And let's say she is partially crippled and cannot work and I only make $25K a year, so we don't have the $3k to buy a gun. What do we do, hope that the criminals in our poor neighborhood leave her alone?

It is after all my (and my hypothetical wife's) right to defend ourselves. Right now it is relatively affordable to do so. In future, under you restrictions? or do we let the poor suffer their fate?

My point is, are we going to help poor people exercise their God given right to self defense, if we make it otherwise unreasonably expensive to do so?

And I know you don't understand this, but everyday, someone defends themselves with a gun. In the last two weeks there have been 2 incidents here in which a store owner shot and killed an armed robber and a woman chased in invader out of her garage. Maybe these two would be dead now, maybe not, but we are plus 2, for sure.

Also to everyone:

I have read but have been unable to confirm that the Oregon Mall shooter was confronted by a CCP when his gun jammed, and in the face of the CCP, shot himself.

Has anyone else seen this, and can you confirm it?

Why are all of these attacks at "Gun Free Zones"?

They are not, DumbFarmBoy. I just posted two well-known spree killings above for Riley-1759556's benefit. In one case the victims were armed cops. In the other, the shooter struck in a public parking place in a state which puts no restrictions of the right to carry a concealed weapon, AZ.

In addition, here the top 10 spree killings in U.S. history (http://www.epicdisasters.com/index.php/site/comments/worst_us_spree_killings/). In each case I've made an off the cuff assessment on whether I think the shooting site (or sites) were gun free zones:

1.Blacksburg, Virginia, 2007
Seung-Hui Cho kills 32 on the campus of Virginia Tech. Commits suicide.

Obviously a gun free zone.

2.Killeen, Texas, 1991
George Jo Hennard drove his truck into Luby’s diner, then killed 23 with a pair of pistols before committing suicide.

Gun free, although I'd like to claim otherwise, Texas was a "No issue" state until 1995.

3.San Ysidro, California, 1984
James Oliver Huberty killed 21 in a local McDonald’s with a submachine gun and rifle before being killed by police.
Unknown to me. California was and remains a "may issue" state, so the only question is whether McDonalds had any posted policy regarding the carrying of weapons on the premises.

4.Edmond, Oklahoma, 1986
Patrick Sherrill, an angry postal worker, killed 14 at the post office before killing himself.
Almost definitely Gun Free - Federal facility.

5.Austin, Texas, 1966
Charles Whitman kills 14 at the University of Texas with a rifle before being killed by a police sniper.
Gun Free, school campus.

6.Fort Hood - Killeen, Texas, 2009
Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan is accused of killing 13 and wounding 30 before bring brought down by a police officer.
Guns restricted.

7.Camden, NJ, 1949
Howard Unreh, a WWII veteran, kills 13 with a captured Luger. He was arrested and committed to an asylum for the insane. He died in 2009. He is considered by some criminologists to be the first “spree” killer in modern US history.

Probably not in a gun-free zone. I don't know the gun laws in in New Jersey in 1949, but he committed his murders in multiple locations, including a barber shop, a tailor shop, a bakery and one or two in chance encounters on the street. He had no reason to believe that all these locations were gun free. Proprietors of small businesses very commonly keep weapons on the premises.

8.Littleton, Colorado, 1999
Eric Harris and Dylon Klebold shoot thirteen before killing themselves.

School shootings - Gun Free

9.Geneva County, Alabama, 2009
Michael McLendon kills ten, and then himself with a handgun and rifle.
Not a gun free zone - killings occurred in a "shall issue" state, and in multiple locations.

10.Red Lake, Minnesota, 2005
Jeff Wiese kills nine and then himself on the Red Lake reservation. Seven were killed at a school.

Half and half. He shot the first two people at his home, and the other seven at his school.

So, this statement that all spree shootings occur in gun free zones is false. Most occur in the location where the shooter's anger is centered, which is often a school, or work place, and likely to be gun free. Many if not most kill themselves at the conclusion of their killing, so it hardly seems creditable that they are deterred by the prospect of meeting armed resistance.

I would like one avid gun owner to answer this question:

What is more important:

1. Your "right to keep and bear arms"

or

2. The life of a child ?

Think about it.

@ dman

My apologizes, that quote came from another vine, in which the discussion was about the Oregon Mall, Aurora, Co (I think) and the Sandy-Hook School.

No, I agree, not all spree shooting are at "gun free" zones, but as you stated above, most are. And the ones that aren't it is done with surprise, and those with guns are attacked first. But to make the argument that CCP is ineffective because of this is false.

How many police officers are killed in the line of duty? How many soldiers? Does having a gun guarantee you will survive an attack? NO, but the odds(at least to me) are certainly better than not having one.

So it is unclear to me why advocates of untrammeled gun rights keep touting the value of having an armed population.

In the last two weeks there have been 2 incidents here, in which a store owner shot and killed an armed robber and a woman chased in invader out of her garage.

Here are some more stories: w.w.w.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21

Just because the MSM doesn't report it, doesn't mean that every day, someone isn't saved by a gun.

@ dirp #1.159

I would like one avid gun owner to answer this question:

What is more important:

1. Your "right to keep and bear arms"

or

2. The life of a child ?

Think about it.

The 2nd amendment. No brainer. Because what is the life of child to grow up in a dictatorship? without freedom?

You assume that because things are the way they are today, they will stay that way. Ask a Jew sometime about how life was in Germany circa 1930 and again in 1944. (But that can't happen here, right?) And You guys keep complaining about the "rich elite" manipulating the government. Just who is going to stand up to those "rich elite" when they finally take over?

Your choice is life at all costs, mine is freedom at all costs. I will kill or die for those freedoms I hold dear.

Because the same 224 year old parchment still applies to Movies, Television, Internet... but those things weren't invented yet, the Founding Fathers only meant printing presses, fliers and podiums. ... cell phones, you don't have the right to privacy there, the airways are public, and subject to public scrutiny....

If you ban guns, I'll just make my own, {I actually do know how to make a gun, and I have a milling machine, and buddy has a lathe}(and sell them) just like the Moonshiners did during Prohibition, that ended well didn't it. Kinds like banning drugs, the still make meth here don't they. So in the end, it will be the Gangsters/Criminals with the guns. cliche'?,.. maybe.

Maybe because crazy people aren't pegging little children with beer cans in order to kill them. They're accidental deaths. And, oh, by the way, alcohol is highly regulated by the government.

Thousands die each year at the hands of people intoxicated with Alcohol - where's the concern - the drunk behind the wheel knows he may potentially kill each time he drives - thousands do

Where's the concern and desire to stop this. No Alcohol - No drunk drivers

No, I agree, not all spree shooting are at "gun free" zones, but as you stated above, most are. And the ones that aren't it is done with surprise, and those with guns are attacked first. But to make the argument that CCP is ineffective because of this is false.

DumbFarmboy, don't you agree, spree killings always are a surprise?

If they were not, then nobody but the shooter and a SWAT team would be there. I'm looking for an incident where someone starts a spree shooting, and a citizen uses his legally concealed weapon to "neutralize" the shooter. It never seems to happen, does it?

None of the onlookers in the Lakeview, WA coffee shop drew a concealed weapon and took out Maurice Clemons while he was gunning down 4 police officers. Nobody in the crowd in Tuscon AZ, a "no restrictions" CCP state, and neutralized Jared Loughner.

In the last two weeks there have been 2 incidents here, in which a store owner shot and killed an armed robber and a woman chased in invader out of her garage.

Neither of these incidents necessarily have to do with a Concealed Carry Permit (CCP). A store owner would have the gun within easy reach behind the counter, not hidden on his person. A woman who discovers an intruder in her garage is responding to a home invasion.

Your link (w.w.w.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21) would not load whatever page is being referenced.

I can well understand how some people may feel the need to have a gun in their house. But one looks across the country, one does not see that the cities and states with the least restrictive gun laws necessarily have less crime.

Chicago certainly has a high murder rate (15.2 per 100,000 in 2010) and restrictive gun laws. But St Louis, MO is in a "shall issue" state and has a much higher rate (40.5 per 100,000 in 2010). New Orleans, which is also in a "shall issue" state is off the charts with a murder rate of 72.8.

As of 2010, here are the top 10 murder rates for cities with 250,000 or more people (in order of declining murder rates:

New Orleans, LA
St Louis, MO
Baltimore, MD*
Detroit, MI
Newark, NJ*
Oakland, CA*
Washington DC*
Kansas City, MO
Buffalo, NY*
Cincinnati OH

Those with an asterix are in states with either a "may issue" or a "no issue" law with regard to CCP. The count is split 5 to 5. If CCP were such a panacea against violent crime, wouldn't you expect the highest murder rates to occur in states with restrictive gun laws?

Another factor is the very high level of guns per person in this country. According to one site (http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2012/12/14/the-united-states-of-firearms-americas-love-of-the-gun/), there are roughly 89 guns for every hundred American citizens. This pretty much guarantees that any would be criminal, crazy person or angry lover can obtain one with minimal effort. So one has to ask oneself if the prevalence of guns is making our society more dangerous, engaging law enforcement, private citizens and criminals in a never ending arms race.

The 2nd amendment. No brainer. Because what is the life of child to grow up in a dictatorship? without freedom?

DumbFarmBoy - If guns are such a necessary guarantor of our political liberty, why is it that most of Western Europe maintains democratic institutions despite having highly restrictive gun ownership laws?

England, France, Ireland, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Denmark have had some form of democratic government since WWII. Spain and Portugal transitioned from dictatorships to democracies during the 70s without an insurrection by an armed citizenry.

How come?

I'll point out too, that the adoption of the Second Amendment occurred almost simultaneously to the first and second Militia Acts, which required a) all able-bodied male citizens to enroll in a local militia and b) that all such men equip themselves with the necessary munitions for serving in military operations, meaning a musket, a certain quantity of powder and shot, etc. The purpose of these acts was not to enable the citizens to rise up against the Federal Government, but to provide a ready military force in the event of either foreign invasion or armed insurrection.

The militia was used to this later purpose too, against the Whiskey Rebellion (1791 - 1794) which occurred in western Pennsylvania, and was quelled, almost bloodlessly by a militia army, raised on the authorization of President Washington.

My opinion, the gravest danger to our democracy is not an unarmed citizenry, but the increasing concentration of economic and political power in fewer and fewer hands, and, adoption of a professional army. If you look at the later stages of the Roman Republic, these were the factors which preceded the rise of dictators, such as Sulla and Julius Caesar, and ushered in the imperial age of the Roman Empire.

I hate to say it but if some foreign nation initiated a land invasion of the US I think that most the people on here including myself would be wishing to God that they had a Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity clip and a ton of ammo. I'd much rather have that than a stick and a rock in that scenario.

I hate to say it but if some foreign nation initiated a land invasion of the US I think that most the people on here...

Yup, and if the Martians land, I'd want an atom-blaster.

News Flash: the next world war won't be fought with side arms, at least not until after all the nuclear bombs have been dropped, and the ground between New York City and Washington D.C. looks like something manufactured by Corning.

Yeah, I'm sure the survivors will be glad to have side arms then, but not fight the Russians, the Chinese or Muslim holy warriors. It will be fight their neighbors over whatever scraps of food remain, while we all die from radiation sickness.

@ D-man

DumbFarmboy, don't you agree, spree killings always are a surprise?

Haha very funny, you got me. When I meant "surprise attack" I was giving the instances in which the first victims were given no time to respond. You give the example of the Lake view coffee shop. My guess given its location, is none of the patrons were armed. (did the store allow guns on premises?) Same for the political rally Ms Giffords was at. I don't take my guns every where. It is a hassle, because so many places ban guns on premises. (that is another discussion in its self) Remember William Kostric, the man who brought a gun to a town hall meeting? Remember how much grief he got for that? My response was focused more on the other people in the surrounding area, like the guy in the Oregon Mall, who is reported to have confronted the shooter, perhaps causing the shooter to shoot himself, instead of taking more lives.

(they don't let me post direst links yet, you will need to copy the link and delete the spaces between the w's) w w w.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

I'm looking for an incident where someone starts a spree shooting, and a citizen uses his legally concealed weapon to "neutralize" the shooter. It never seems to happen, does it?

Well the MSM doesn't seem to report it. There are many examples here: (you will need to copy the link and delete the spaces between the w's) w w w.americanrifleman.org/BlogList.aspx?cid=25&id=21

I can well understand how some people may feel the need to have a gun in their house. But one looks across the country, one does not see that the cities and states with the least restrictive gun laws necessarily have less crime.

Chicago certainly has a high murder rate (15.2 per 100,000 in 2010) and restrictive gun laws. But St Louis, MO is in a "shall issue" state and has a much higher rate (40.5 per 100,000 in 2010). New Orleans, which is also in a "shall issue" state is off the charts with a murder rate of 72.8.

As of 2010, here are the top 10 murder rates for cities with 250,000 or more people (in order of declining murder rates:

New Orleans, LA
St Louis, MO
Baltimore, MD*
Detroit, MI
Newark, NJ*
Oakland, CA*
Washington DC*
Kansas City, MO
Buffalo, NY*
Cincinnati OH

Those with an asterix are in states with either a "may issue" or a "no issue" law with regard to CCP. The count is split 5 to 5. If CCP were such a panacea against violent crime, wouldn't you expect the highest murder rates to occur in states with restrictive gun laws?

The cities you listed, and no doubt the areas in which the crime happens, are somewhat, shall we say economically challenged? The CCP is a relatively expensive process, and I am sure that many of the people in these areas have more pressing needs for their money. Also these are areas highly populated with Democrats, who predominantly have a dislike for guns, so in all honest, how many of these people would apply for a CCP? Or maybe it would be better to say it depends on the attitude of the populace? Look at the places that have adopted the attitude of self-reliance. And how does that factor in to the crime rate, not just the murder rate? (if you look at the UK, the crime rate went up, while the murder rate went down)

Another factor is the very high level of guns per person in this country. According to one site (), there are roughly 89 guns for every hundred American citizens. This pretty much guarantees that any would be criminal, crazy person or angry lover can obtain one with minimal effort. So one has to ask oneself if the prevalence of guns is making our society more dangerous, engaging law enforcement, private citizens and criminals in a never ending arms race.

I think you better recheck someone's math, a better statistic is about 5 or 6 guns per gun owner. I have 6, a couple hand guns, a shotgun for bird hunting, a .22, a high power for large game and a couple varmint rifles. And you need to consider many sportsman have a back up for each of the main guns in case it malfunctions when they are hunting. So even though there seem to be lots and lots of guns many of them are like tools in a tool box and are only used rarely. I think I saw someone post that there are only about 50 million guns owners, if this is true, then only 1 in 6 Americans have guns.

This might explain the lack of visible action in crime deterrence. Also, not all gun owners are CCP holders, I haven't seen any numbers on the total CCP in the country.

My opinion, the gravest danger to our democracy is not an unarmed citizenry, but the increasing concentration of economic and political power in fewer and fewer hands, and, adoption of a professional army. If you look at the later stages of the Roman Republic, these were the factors which preceded the rise of dictators, such as Sulla and Julius Caesar, and ushered in the imperial age of the Roman Empire.

With this we are in complete agreement. And I posted this somewhere here or on another vine, about how the Democrats and Liberals are screaming about the "Wealthy Elite" and how they manipulate the politicians. I said "Who is going to oppose them, when they take over?" One can only hope that we get a great many defectors and some "commandeered" equipment from the "professional" army. BTW, The Kansas State Constitution has this to say: "but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated"

Makes me curious how we can have Fort Riley here? (but given the complexity of the equipment we use today, I am not entirely against, or I should say I see the need, to keep a cohesive and continuous military establishment)

@Charlie-191.. #1.78

"Why are these things happening so many years later when gun control is even stricter."

Bill -- gun control laws are NOT stricter now --- not even close. We have more places to purchase guns in this nation that we have Starbucks and that doesn't count the gun shows where it's estimates that 40% of the guns are sold. I'm not at all for getting rid of guns even if we could (and we can't) but it's simply way too easy to purchase a gun. It's easier to buy a gun than it is to get get a check approved to buy soap at a Walmart. It's probably easier for a 17 year old kid to buy a gun than it is for him to buy cigarettes.

Evidently you have a reading comprehension problem, just like all the other idiot, left wing, dope smoking hippies in here.

When are we going to understand that it is not the guns that are the problem. The problem is us. Portable fully automatic weapons (Thompson Sub Machine Guns/ Browning Automatic Rifles) & semi automatic pistols have been around since the first world war, and initially with no government control. Semi automatic rifles have been around since WW II. Why are these things happening so many years later when gun control is even stricter."

The Thompson and BAR were available to the public for sale through catalogs and delivered via USPS until 1934. Any one any where in the USA could buy a full auto machine gun, if they could afford it and have it shipped right to their house. Now, do you get it? It was very easy to get a gun in 1933, you didn't even need to leave the house. And you could get the most powerful guns made.

And you could go down to your local hardware store and buy... Dynamite and the blasting caps to go with it. A whole case if you could afford it. Now do you get it?

Do you people know nothing of your history? You know, maybe instead of smoking your dope, you should spend a little time researching the history of this great nation and the things that made it great, and the ATTITUDES of the people who made it great.

If 200 kids died a day due to guns in America, would they legislate control then? What about 2,000? 200,000? 2,000,000? At what point do you acknowledge that your need for guns is outweighed by the value of the victims' lives?

It doesn't matter, we'll make more...7billion people..23 dead not a drop in the bucket..Thats their value

Personally I'd like to see 2nd amendment enthusiasts provide the solutions for the problems that their passion causes the rest of the country. Obviously that would be asking too much for the terrorists at the NRA. I personally don't want to see the government interfere with anybody's 2nd amendment rights but there's no doubt the culture that's grown up around the 2nd amendment sure isn't doing a darn thing to prevent tragedies like Newtown. All they seem to care about obstructing and making our society is a more dangerous place so more people need guns. The blood for this is one on the second amendment enthusiasts hands no less than it would be if they pulled the trigger themselves.

Collectively, what have the folks who enjoy the right to own guns, collect and sell guns done, if anything, to mitigate this kind of violence? Ever? Can anybody provide a link? Don't waste the time; the answer is absolutely nothing.

In this case YOU ARE YOUR BROTHERS KEEPER.

This is YOUR passion, it's YOUR decision to exercise this right, do you maintain that you have NO responsibility for the actions of people in YOUR community? That's complete BS. ALL GUN OWNERS are responsible. If that's how you lightly view the responsibility that accompanies the 2nd amendment rights then I have no problem with seeing the 2nd amendment repealed. Your country doesn't OWE YOU anything, it's the other way around. When YOUR passion for weapons degrades the quality of life for the rest of the country, it's time to take your toys away until you learn a little responsibility. I'm sure that's a principle that even the 6 year old children YOU allowed to die could get their head around.

I think you better recheck someone's math, a better statistic is about 5 or 6 guns per gun owner. I have 6, a couple hand guns, a shotgun for bird hunting, a .22, a high power for large game and a couple varmint rifles. And you need to consider many sportsman have a back up for each of the main guns in case it malfunctions when they are hunting.

DumbFarmBoy - You are perhaps extrapolating from you observe in your own circle of friends and acquaintances. What you're leaving out of your calculation is the large number of people, such as myself, who have no guns.

With regard to your observances about the Lakewood WA shooting and the one in Tucson AZ, which killed several people and critically injured Congresswoman Gabriel Gifford, I would say you are rationalizing away an uncomfortable fact.

We live in a society where otherwise law-abiding people drive 10, 15 or 20 miles over the speed limit, without a trace of guilt. Amongst the no doubt numerous individuals at either incident who had a CCP, what are the odds that many of them were carrying. A "gun free" notice in a coffee shop is only enforceable to the extent that the proprietor can demand that you leave. There are no legal consequences. If you have a concealed weapon on your person when you arrive at such a coffee shop, are you really going to remove the gun from your person, and place it in the glove compartment or trunk, or are you going to just go in an order your Cafe Late under the theory, that when there is no harm, there is no foul.

In a public parking lot, where there is a high degree of transient traffic, I doubt seriously that it is even possible to ban the concealed carrying of weapons. What entity would do so? One of the stores whose patrons use the parking lot?

So, I'd say it is a safe assumption that one or more uninvolved people had a gun on them, but lacked either the skill, courage, or presence of mind to use it.

There are probably at least 1/3(100000000 out of 300000000+) of Americans that have firearms. I suspect most of those have more then one. So figure around 150,000,000-200,000,000 firearms(probably much more.) So as crass as it may sound, a few mass shootings a year is a pretty good average...Any new law would have to account for those or else there wouldn't be much of a difference in firearm related deaths. So the law, in order to make any difference, would have to include those firearms being confiscated by the government..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Dman #1.171

DumbFarmBoy - You are perhaps extrapolating from you observe in your own circle of friends and acquaintances. What you're leaving out of your calculation is the large number of people, such as myself, who have no guns.

Did I, or did I not say, that (in estimation) only 1 in 6 Americans owns guns!! How did I leave that out my calculations. It was your Statistic, 89 guns per 100 citizens, that I called into question as being misleading. As it gives the impression 89% of the populace is armed, when in fact, it is closer to 17%.

With regard to your observances about the Lakewood WA shooting and the one in Tucson AZ, which killed several people and critically injured Congresswoman Gabriel Gifford, I would say you are rationalizing away an uncomfortable fact.

How is it rationalizing?

from freedictionary.com 3. To devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for (one's behavior):

from M-W.com b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives

How are any of the points I presented incorrect? Based on the information given.

We live in a society where otherwise law-abiding people drive 10, 15 or 20 miles over the speed limit, without a trace of guilt. Amongst the no doubt numerous individuals at either incident who had a CCP, what are the odds that many of them were carrying. A "gun free" notice in a coffee shop is only enforceable to the extent that the proprietor can demand that you leave. There are no legal consequences. If you have a concealed weapon on your person when you arrive at such a coffee shop, are you really going to remove the gun from your person, and place it in the glove compartment or trunk, or are you going to just go in an order your Cafe Late under the theory, that when there is no harm, there is no foul.

Now who's rationalizing? You think that just because I drive 5 mph over the posted limit(the safest speed to drive according to KHP statistics) I would violate the wishes of the proprietor of a place in which I wish to do business. Also you better do a little research before you spout off.

16 states have "Opt Out" laws, which all allow private businesses to post a specific sign (language and format vary by state) prohibiting concealed carry, violation of which, in some of these states, is grounds for revocation of the offender's concealed carry permit.

In Kansas at least, it is a $50 fine 1st, $100 2nd, and misdemeanor after that, which will result in suspension or revocation of said CCP.

In a public parking lot, where there is a high degree of transient traffic, I doubt seriously that it is even possible to ban the concealed carrying of weapons. What entity would do so? One of the stores whose patrons use the parking lot?

So, I'd say it is a safe assumption that one or more uninvolved people had a gun on them, but lacked either the skill, courage, or presence of mind to use it.

You may very well be correct, but you are making an ASSUMPTION. Can I assume you are a head up your a$$, brain dead, s**t for intelligence, dope smoking, Communist, low life, Wife Beating, Child molester? No, I can, or I should, not.

But I can deduce from your comments, that one, you have a reading comprehension problem. You don't have a real grasp of the English vocabulary. Your powers of reason and deduction are severely diminished.

@ Truthmachine

Personally I'd like to see 2nd amendment enthusiasts provide the solutions for the problems that their passion causes the rest of the country. Obviously that would be asking too much for the terrorists at the NRA. I personally don't want to see the government interfere with anybody's 2nd amendment rights but there's no doubt the culture that's grown up around the 2nd amendment sure isn't doing a darn thing to prevent tragedies like Newtown. All they seem to care about obstructing and making our society is a more dangerous place so more people need guns. The blood for this is one on the second amendment enthusiasts hands no less than it would be if they pulled the trigger themselves.

Evidently you have the same reading comprehension problem as suffered by Dman and the other idiots in the room. How many time have I or someone posted the fact that a person could in fact purchase a fully automatic firearm through the USPS prior to 1934? How many times have I posted how easy it was to go down to a local hardware store and buy Dynamite? How many times have we posted the fact that these incidents were isolated and rare prior to the 60's? How many times have we posted "The things that have changed"?

If you want to limit this stuff, (because you can not stop it) then return to basic family values. Discipline in the home and in the schools. Moral Values. Restrict violence, sex and drug abuse in the media(TV, Movies, games, internet) to those over 18 or better to those over 21. Remove the social safety nets, that promote irresponsible behavior. Reinstate responsible mental health laws. Increase punishment for sexual predators. Increase punishment for drug users, dealers and makers, where ever they are in the world.

Because something was working in the pre-sixties era.

DumbFarmBoy, it takes a very special type of person to post half an on-line definition, and then write of another's reading comprehension, or to write a sentence such as "No, I can, or I should, not." and then question another's "grasp of the English vocabulary.", and you are, evidently, that type of person, my very, very well named friend.

For the record, the full first definition of the word "rationalize" available at Meriam-Websters.com reads as follows:

transitive verb

1: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

I've highlighted in bold text the fragment you chose to quote.

Here's another full definition, from Dictionary.com:

ra·tion·al·ize

1.to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes.

"To bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable" or "To ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc) to causes that superficially seem reasonable..."

To claim that bystanders at a mass shooting were deterred from taking action with their own hand guns due to possible opt out notices on the premises, when one has no evidence of such postings is a rationalization.

To airily claim that cities in "Shall Issue" states such as Missouri, Louisiana, Ohio and Michigan have high murder rates because they are "highly populated with Democrats, who predominantly have a dislike for guns," is a pathetically weak rationalization. People confronted with the prospect of real danger, do what is necessary to protect themselves, regardless of ideology.

In Kansas at least, it is a $50 fine 1st, $100 2nd, and misdemeanor after that, which will result in suspension or revocation of said CCP.

Precisely when did the city of Tuscon become a part of Kansas? Does Arizona have such an "Opt Out" law, that apply to public parking lots?

I'm done, dumbfarmboy. I'm always ready to debate an issue with a person capable of responding rationally and politely to points made. I've no time for people who respond with insulting language, and intellectual dishonesty, or who try so very, very hard to live up [or down] to their adopted name.

You are right. But when has the lack of one specific weapon stopped a mass murderer from finding another way.

Killers are resourceful.

I don't think banning guns is the answer, and I'm a liberal. I think the real issue here is the dismal state of mental health care in this country. Hopefully, mental health is something both the liberals and conservatives can work together on, if not, we're lost.

warrior, evidently you are emboldened by the success in the war on drugs. Don't like guns? Move to Chad! You will find the kind of government you seek there.

Robin Steele:

How many children have to die before its time to get rid of guns ?

Gee I don't know, how many law abiding Americans need to be locked up and or have their property seized just as a precaution before you grow up and realize that the answer for bad things happen is not well lets just make things worse with out thinking about it.

First, Robin and Elliot, reading these forums you both seem like caustic trolls.

Second, Elliot do you really believe that if there were no guns it would be just as easy to kill large groups of people? Do you think that you could kill 26 people with a knife? Do you think acquiring the necessary materials and know how to make a bomb is as easy as using a gun? Do you think it is a coincidence that countries with more aggressive gun control laws almost always have substantially lower murder rates that the USA? Is it coincidence that people in the USA are about 45 times more likely to be murdered than people in Britain, which has aggressive gun control?

Third, Robin do you think that comparing gun control to the war on drugs is an apt analogy? Can you make a gun in your bathroom using household chemicals? Can you grow guns in your backyard? Do you become addicted to guns? Well, actually it would appear the answer to that may be yes. Guns, being sophisticated equipment, can't easily be manufactured in 3rd world nations full of people desperate for a livelihood.

I think it is clear that we would benefit from a more vigorous gun control program, but I doubt it will ever happen. The relative minority that the NRA represent are too passionate and well funded.

The gun problem in the U.S. could not be more obvious, but some continue to insist on keeping their heads firmly planted in their asses.

What couldn't be more obvious is that no gun law could have prevented this tragedy. Just more nonsense from the left that advocate for more laws that will only infringe upon those that already abide by them.

Better background checks on the mother to include members of her household, mandatory use of secure storage for her weapons....

We're going to get better regulations in place eventually. It's only a matter of time.

Joshua, you can kill many, many people with fertilizer and a few other ingredients. Or an axe if you're dealing with school children. Look it up, it's been done before both here in the U.S. and abroad. So the answer is YES, it is just as easy to kill that many people without guns. Suicidal mass murderers will always win when they are not locked up and there's nothing you can do about it. The only way to beat them is to catch them before they cause any carnage, but how do you do that without locking up innocents as well?

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America with a Map

There have been at least 62 in the last 30 years—and most of the killers got their guns legally.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

It's easier to get a gun to use than it is to make a bomb designed to kill as many as possible. It's easier to disarm a knife-wielding assailant than it is to stop a perp with a semiauto with a loaded clip.

Joshua, the same number of children (app) were killed in China by a killer with a knife. If you call me a troll, surely you don't bother to read my posts, or you are just blinded by the liberal notion that the government will fix everything with new laws. If the actual problem is not addressed, (hint, it ain't guns) it will never be fixed. Want to scuttle the whole constitution for the actions of one millionth of a percent of the population? Now that's shear stupidity.

Joshua, the same number of children (app) were killed in China by a killer with a knife.

Not true. None of the kids in China died. But all of the kids in Newtown were killed with an assault rifle - a weapon that should have remained banned if it hadn't been for the NRA.

The actual problem is obvious.

One millionth of a percent of the population? That's just talking out your ass. People like you have blood on their hands, the blood of the children of Newtown.

I hope you're happy with your damn guns.

What couldn't be more obvious is that no gun law could have prevented this tragedy.

Oh, on the contrary, pal. This couldn't be more clear. All of the children were murdered using an assault rifle which would not have even been available had the NRA not successfully lobbied to allow the ban to expire a few years ago.

Congratulations to the NRA for their landmark victory and the deaths of 20 innocent first graders. I hope you're all very pleased.

@ssholes.

I would like the NRA to come out with a training manual showing us how to conduct our daily lives with a weapon in one hand fully ready to engage in a fire exchange with somebody who already has the drop on us.

Who among us thinks that if every citizen is armed to teeth, that all crime will cease because no criminal will be able to account for the that fact when laying out his plans.

Does the "N" in NRA stand for "naive", or are the rest of us naive for believing in this hipshooting mentallity that Hollywood has carefully cultivated?

Does anyone remember the guy who rammed his car into a daycare? Any person who is motivated to commit this type of atrocity will find a way to do it. Gun laws will not fix the REAL problem.

r u serious? Cold you possibly go back to hiding in your tool box?

I am curious as to why a lot of people posting here keep saying the children were shot with an assault rifle? I have read in nearly every story posted that the "AR-15-type rifle" was found in his car. Of course, depending on what articles you are reading, the following applies: shooter had two 9mm pistols, the shooter had four 9mm pistols, the shooter was dressed all in black with a bullet proof vest and had four pistols, the killer had an Enfield rifle, a pump shotgun, and AR-15 and four pistols. So what is it, seems like the media is telling you exactly what the ultra-liberal, let the government run my life types want to hear.

Robin: Your ignorance of the facts surrounding the events in China, and the "millionth" crack lay waste to your argument. No end to these pathetic and utterly dishonest attempts to promote an agenda. Either present facts, or you are nothing short of a liar. Who cares whether you present intentionally erroneous comments? Your fellow advocates give you "likes", the rest of us wonder who you think you are fooling (other than yourself).

Trickle down.

The problem won't be solved until we understand and deal better with people who are mentally ill OR developmentally disabled. Solon, Ohio this year was a person who was developmentally disabled. The Arizona shooter was clearly mentally ill. Currently, people are bundling them together. This is an even bigger mistake and causes even more harm than good.

Both have one thing in common. Once they decide to do something, they will not stop on till they finish the job.

Tim

The shooter in Connecticut used Two Pistols and a Rifle. Sounded like he used the pistols more.

How many times have guns been banned in this country and not worked?

perhaps a look at another mass murder would also put a ban on strangulation. Like in Boston. Oh and let us not forget the use of natural gas I am sure it has caused the death of hundreds of people.

dirp:

How many children must die before you ban household cleaners? Kids are 6x more likely to die of poisoning!

Your argument is invalid.