To Irespond..Just those used in war?? The bolt action rifle used by most hunters and target shooters was designed by Paul Mauser...to be used in war. The 2nd Amendment was around a long, long,long time before the NRA..which by the way was founded to promote gun safety and target shooting...Keep in mind that YOUR police officers, FBI, and sheriff deputies are ALL trained by certified NRA instructors. Talking about violent movies, let's move on to gangster rap.."gonna K/i/ll my 'ho." and that cop..he gonna d'I/e. Why not prohibit any media that has to be bleeped. OH, darn, that nasty ole 1st Amendment gets in the way doesn't it..that is the cry when it is attempted,eh. See, even the words that advocate violence and destruction is still protected..it's just the rapper relating HIS life experiences. chit.

many people own guns, weapons which will not simply disappear with the wave of a legislative wand.

So they need to realize that there needs to be other ways to harness the mentally ill who have access to the guns in their parent's homes.

Start with outlawing high-capacity magazines and assault weapons!!

The military 9mm handgun uses a 15 round clip. Do you know what they do when the clip is empty, they take a second to reload. Banning high capacity magazines does nothing. And what exactly is an assault weapon? And banning them will effectively do what? The Brady Bill banned assault weapons and everybody agrees that didn't work.

Any laws passed regarding guns will only be obeyed by those who obey the law.The criminal element could care less what laws are passed.The black market will prosper.

A gun that you can't get to if you need it is as good as NO GUN AT ALL. What are you gonna do? tell the attacker, "I have a gun over there in that safe gimme a minute to get it and defend myself?"

If I had any money (which I don't), I think I would invest it in tin and aluminum, as this site is evidence that there is a huge market for hats made out of both of those metals.

This is why we have the 2nd Amendment. "This year will go down in History. For the first time, a civlized Nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler 1935 Need I say more. MY GUNS, MY RIGHTS, MY FREEDOM.

Yeah.... we don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem... Look at your posts then ask whats wrong... Then go look in a mirror... We ALL have contributed to this madness...

We are reaping what we have sown, enjoy..

I wonder how many Al Queda and others around the world right now are sitting back and thinking "hell, we don't have to do ANYTHING more to America, ever again. They're diligently destroying themselves under the guise of "freedom"."

Hey champ,

You're clueless man not to mention as low as this kid was the other day...

Stereotyping anyone who owns a gun. Your answer is to murder them all.... Line 'em up and shoot them all... Yeah, Oxymoronic of you ask me. Great theory behind a solution to gun control.

So,....have a nice day ;-)

when the founders wrote the constitution the people had the same weapons as the government. The founders who were being taxed without representation had to fight the government. They wrote that your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. They were providing a check and balance to keep the another government from forcing its will on the people. Making it possible for the people to resist the government when it became abusive as it had back in the 1700's.

No where in the article about gun data does it say anything about how many times a year guns are used for legal self defense.

MILLIONS of times, people! Look it up!

Another incomplete piece of crap "news" and "reporting" by nbc.

Other countries with large numbers of guns owed by citizens do not have anywhere near the level of gun crime as the US does.(70 mass murders at schools since 1995 in the US, 1 in Canada.)

WHY?

The weak social safety net makes the level of despairation much higher in the US. There is comparitively no mental health care for those who need it. I have spoken to many PhD Pyschologists about it, and the concensus is that up to 10% of the population should be hospitalized for psychological disorders.

Single payer healthcare (paying your healthcare premiums and deductibles at tax time instead of to an insurance company) would go a long way toward alleviating the problem, but it's not enough. Unemployment and welfare benefits are currently not up to the challenge of providing the opportunity to transition between jobs without despiration entering the equation. Other countries with a strong social safety nets do not have these problems on the scale America does.

If taking all guns away is off the table, the root causes of gun crime must be addressed.

Income inequality breeds crime, and mental health issues go untreated. Fix it.

@txrosi: You should check out some of the quick access safes on the market. The better ones use biometrics to give instant access via a spring loaded door. All you have to do is touch it. You can mount it under a nightstand, coffee table, etc.

I own several guns, including handguns, hunting rifles, and "battle" rifles. But I keep mine locked up. I wouldn't want somebody to steal them, or the wrong person to gain access to them. My wife has access, but I wouldn't give access to my kid. (Or a 20 year offspring that licks the paint off the walls if that were the case)

The great news is that one of the family members of the young victims in Newtown said that he and other families have spoken about leading the charge on new gun laws in America.

Now is the time to speak up, America.

Don't let the NRA or its supporters bully us anymore.

Join the voices across the nation that are demanding reinstatement of the ban on automatic and semi-automatic weapons of war that lapsed during the Bush Administration. We used to have these bans and now instead of any gun control, we have guns out of control.

To those who are against it, nobody is trying to take your away your guns for protection, hunting, or target shooting. But, NOBODY needs a weapon that kills twenty-six children and their teachers in TWO MINUTES. (A witness at Sandy Hook said the killer got off over 100 shots in that time. Those children were each shot between 3-11 times.)

Speak up, America! Email the White House, your Governor, Senators, Congressmen, and Mayors today. We may not be able to stop the murder of every innocent person in our nation, but we can make sure that we have done everything humanly possible to protect children and adults killed by military assault weapons ever again.

And if NRA worshippers want to stockpile their already well-stocked arsenals, let them do so. Just tell them to make sure that nobody steals their weapons and commits a violent crime with them, because they will be held responsible for those deaths as well.

Why do people really need rapid fire weapons with clips that hold so many rounds? Wouldn't it be a thoughtful gesture to make a concession on this issue, even if it's just symbolic. Putting flowers on a loved ones grave is just symbolic, but it makes people feel better. Are people really that heartless- or is truly just about needing to feel in control - as if to say "no one can tell me what I can and can't do."

It's like a friend of mine who has been hording incandescent light bulbs. I asked him, "do you really prefer those bulbs to florescent bulbs, or are you just objecting to being told what you can and can't do?" He laughed and said the latter was true. It's funny and ironic, because he really is letting someone else control his behavior. He's not choosing based on his own preference; he's just choosing the opposite of of what someone else would prefer. I wonder if the same is true for many of those who object to an assault weapon's ban.

@John: It is very unfortunate that there are real reasons why people would need rapid fire weapons. Global resource crash. That is off topic though.

Some of the people who posts on this and other gun articles remind me of that woman on the Simpsons who screams "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children" over every issue.

As Yomite Sam would say, "Gun control freaks is sooooo stupid".

Really, he could have walked in that school with basic hand guns and killed 22. All you people whining over high capacity crappp is really dumb. School class rooms usually have 1 door in most cases and the moment he fired once, the chaos and fear was to his advantage. It's like shooting fish in a barrel the moment he stepped through the door.

Absolutely NONE of the gun control nuts ideas would have helped that situation.

The PEOPLEvsOBAMA

The founding fathers didn't think that cowardly politicians would allow 13 million illegals and their bandito babies to steal America away from the people that made it.

They also did not think that some Americans would pervert the 2end Amendment to their own distorted interpretation.

Many gun advocates point to the 2ned where it says the government cant take away the people's guns.. They totally gloss over the rest of the wording. the 2ned also mentions a WELL REGULATED militia.

Well regulated dose not just mean regulations for the people in the militia, it means regulations for how guns are used, and it lets the government make laws that restrict those weapons within reason.

And Jay, you are so right.

EVERY GUN AND EVERY GUN OWNER SHOULD BE REGISTERED.

Why in the world is the NRA against that?

If cars have to be registered, for crying out loud, why don't weapons have to be registered?

Close the gun show loophole immediately and require EVERY GUN to be registered.

DON'T LET THE NRA BULLY US ANYMORE.

ED you loosely make your own point but I question your numbers. Can you source the "10% of the population should be hospitalized for psychological disorders"? I doubt those numbers. However, you make the true point clear: "if taking all guns away is off the table, the root cuases of gun crime must be addressed". Exactly. That's what amazes me about all the window lickers screaming about guns and magazines or the ridiculous attempt to refer to an AK47 with the letters WMD in front. Weapons of mass destruction...seriously?

Don't address the issue at the root (mental health), let's throw out the weapons!! Similar attempts were made in the 1920's. Do a google search for prohibition, that didn't work either, it simply drove it underground and depending upon what research you use, could be considered one of the leading causes of the growth of organized crime in this country. So go ahead, ban weapons and the only thing you're accomplishing is a new era of prohibition.

Guns and mental illness have been a part of this country for at least a century. Why NOW are there so many mass murders....because our culture has become so saturated with violent moves, TV shows, video games, rap music. Didn't have those influences way back when...... Today there is no respect for the sancity of life right from conception....don't want a baby, kill it! Don't like coworkers....kill 'em. Need to feel the power?.....make a classroom or school with defenseless children and students your own video game shoot 'em up gallery. Tom Cruise, Stallone, 007. Bourne etc. etc. etc. etc. settle things with guns blazing, and they are "heroes" ...That's what is fed to kids, and that's what pukes up. isn't that glamourous??? And if you're not happy or satisfied with how your life is going, it's not YOUR fault to make the effort to improve it, it's everyone else's. The libs keep worrying about going back to the old ways? If ONLY....

These morons who think you can go after the second amendment rights enshrined under the Constitution have another thing coming...any politician that does has violated their oath to protect it.

Also, one person in the 150 million gun owners violates the law and they want to put restrictions on everyone? That's like catching someone doing 45 in a 30mph zone and then changing the speed limit to 15mph in hopes to reduce speeding...

We are conflicted. We insist on people being able to buy guns with limiting regulations, no machine guns, grenades and explosives, no national registry, no background checks at gun shows and private sales. But all that is irrelevant in Newtown. There a woman raises a mentally challenged kid, teaches him to operate weapons, does not lock them up, and now we have a tragedy again. Gabby Gifford's mentally ill assailant and murderer of 7 people bought his gun legally. The guy at the Sikh Mosque, legal gun ownership. The original Postal worker murderer, legal gun ownership. Columbine murders, took the Dad's legal weapons. They had the keys to his cabinet. We are conflicted because we don't want to restrict the mentally ill. We mainstream them in schools and follow on in society wanting to include them, not highlight their problem for others to focus on them. It's a nasty combination, mentally unstable people and easy access to guns. Armoring the schools, hospitals , playgrounds, theaters, Civic centers is impractical. Choices are: make it harder for legal and compliant people to have guns, or start identifying and perhaps institutionalising mentally unstable people, spend incredible amounts of money re-enforcing facilities and hiring more guards (recall life with the TSA as your constant companion), or get used to more tragedies, or a combination of these things. There will be a huge cost to this: taxes, loss of freedom, gubmint employees with even more power lording it over the rest of society, criminals will still have guns and their victims will not, and there will still be tragedies as "somehow" the whackos will still get their hands on the tremendous supply of guns already in closets across America. This is unbelievably horrible ! So many children and wonderful teachers killed by a disturbed person whose family member ( the responsible adult) thought it would be great to show them how to use guns and have access to guns. Back in the day they would teach them how to work on cars, or tool leather, or carve wood or build furniture. Now it's teach the mentally unstable to operate guns.

Start with outlawing high-capacity magazines and assault weapons!!

Yeah, the Clinton assault weapons banned worked so well it prevented the Columbine HS massacre in 1999!

Did someone on this thread just advocate killing all 15 million NRA members well I guess I will need my firearms for self defense so much for their liberal arguments.

@DietrichtheKaiser

If it happens with a few gun owners it can happen with all of them. You may think your a safe gun owner and you may be, but how do the rest of us know that?

It is always the few that spoil it for everyone else. It happens in lots of other places in society other then with guns.

No one in government has to violate the 2ned to make new laws. The 2end contains a regulation clause that is well spelled out. The government can regulate, the 2end protects that right of the government.

Ok, let me start by saying that those who blame the NRA simply do that because they have nothing better to do. They have no argument, they have no factual data to stand on, and half the time simply don't know what they are talking about. They simply spew something out there that they heard before getting any facts.

Second, those who shout "ban x" (x being assault weapons, high capasity magazines, ect.), let's get a few definitions in place so we know what we are talking about.

assault rifle

noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Light and portable, yet able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 ft (300–500 m), assault rifles have become the standard infantry weapon of modern armies. Their ease of handling makes them ideal for mobile assault troops crowded into personnel carriers or helicopters, as well as for guerrilla fighters engaged in jungle or urban warfare. Widely used assault rifles are the U.S. M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3.

There's your assault rifle as defined by Merriam-Webster (Webster's Dictionary). Notice that in the second line "capacity to switch between Semiautomatic and Fully Automatic fire." The current version of the AR-15 (AR standing for ArmaLite Rifle, not Assault Rifle as some would slant it. ArmaLite was the original design model which was originally put into production as the AR-10 by Fairchild Aircraft Co. for use by infantry during WWII), popularly known as a bushmaster rifle, do not come with automatic fire select. If I'm remembering correctly, no "military modeled" rifle on the current legal market comes with automatic fire select. So much for that "ban".

Unfortunately, no one seems to have a definition for "High Capacity Magazine", so what constitutes that? Is it 10 shots? 20? Anything over 20? Drum feed? Would my 5 round magazine in my 30/06 qualify? My 9 shot magazine for my pistol?

The problem with you "ban" proponents is you simply cannot come to a decission on what constitutes what. When you can come to a consensus on what it is you are shouting for, then come back and start shouting please. Otherwise, you are wasting posting space that could be used to discuss the problems with.

On another note, @IRespond #1.1: My pistol is a standard Colt .45 cal. M1911 pistol, which can be purchased legally at the average gun store (well, maybe not the average one unless you are buying a second hand one...if you buy a newer one, it's an M1911-2011). This was the same weapon I carried as a side arm in Operation Desert Shield/Operation Desert Storm. While the 9MM was in use by the United States Army, I did not like the Barrett as much as I liked the Colt and actually requested it. If my enemy is close enough (>50 meters), I don't want to just wound them. The intention of a side arm in war is for close combat, your rifle is for distance. Not the point. Let me get back on point here. This would make my pistol a military grade weapon. Should we ban that? My 30/06 is basically the same model as a Remmington 700 with only some small differences. This model Remmington is used by the military as the M24 Sniper System. While I do not have the same tactical scope, it is still (in essence) the same weapon. I use it to hunt deer, but since it is a military grade weapon should we ban it too?

No matter how it is looked at, every weapon was designed for the military. If it weren't for wars, we would not have had to advance in weaponary and would still be using rock and slig to hunt with. This is not the only advancement we get from war, there have also been advancements in science and medicine, technology and communications, ect. I understand your feeling of "let's get rid of the 'Bushmaster .223 cal.'", but gang bangers use AK-47 (how many songs do we have to hear that glorified in?).

The problem is not about the weapon. Until we can stop blaming the weapon and start blaming the people, we won't get anywhere. All of the people in the mass murdering of the last few years were criminals. Until we can come to that, then we will get nowhere. FACT: The man who committed the most recent mass murder was a criminal, you can sort the facts any way you like, but criminal nonetheless. He was mentally unstable, we have laws which prevent weapons in mentally unstable people from having guns (making his mother an accessory to the crime). The second (and I cannot stress this enough), the second he put the weapon to his mother's head and squeezed the trigger four times, he became a murderer. After this he stole those weapons and committed more murders. This makes him a thief and a murderer. THIS MAN WAS A CRIMINAL! Stop blaming legal weapons owners and the NRA (ACLU member, not pro NRA...they just had nothing to do with this) for the acts of a criminal!!

@JD -1203795

It was a legal gun owners guns that where used to kill 20 7 year olds. That is a good case for placing blame on legal gun owners and suspecting them of being the source of future mass murder weapons.

As relavant today as the day it was written? Really?

On December 15, 1791 when the second amendment was ratified state of the art technology for guns were:

• made by a gunsmith
• single shot weapons with rudimentary rifling
• loaded through the muzzle
• fired by means of a flintlock igniting black powder

Unless you make your own clothes and ride a horse to your blacksmith job or are a historical reenactment enthusiast I don't see how this is relevant in society today....

If the second amendment is supposed to be relevant for anything other than an antiquated historical place-marker then it needs some updating to reflect the reality of the world we live in.

If the 2nd Amendment was only meant to protect the right to bear arms of the day's technology - flintlock, etc. - then the 1st Amendment (freedom of speech, freedom of the press) was meant only for those printing their newspapers on 1776 style printing presses and, therefore, broadcast news, cable news, talk radio, film movies, television entertainment, rap music, pornography, etc., shouldn't be protected anymore. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the technology. Also, affordable and accessible health care that liberals claim is a right (eventhough it's not mentioned at all in the Constitution) would be limited to amputations using whiskey as a anaesthetic and bloodletting as Xrays, organ transplants, open heart surgery, etc. were never imagined by the Founding Fathers!!!

The idea of the Constitution only applying to the technology at the time it was written is BS. The principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can be applied to today's and tomorrow's technologies and are as relevant today as they were 220 yrs ago (except to today's liberals who want to pick and choose which amendments we should adhere to, of course)!

I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican (definitely NOT a Republican), but am a firm believer that guns don't kill people, people kill people (cliche', I know)! Responsible gun ownership is not a fully loaded piece stashed in the top drawer of your dresser underneath your ol' ladies panties! I could walk into a meeting with a dozen people, and take out at least half of them with a baseball bat to the head before anyone could figure what was going on and even attempt to stop me! A gun is simply a way to do it at a little bit quicker and at distance... period! It is simply another style of weapon, the power and action of the deed is in those of who weld it! Just like any other faction of gov'mint, the problem is not more gun laws, its enforcing the ones we already have, all of which are MORE than enough!

"EVERY GUN AND EVERY GUN OWNER SHOULD BE REGISTERED.

Why in the world is the NRA against that?

If cars have to be registered, for crying out loud, why don't weapons have to be registered?

Close the gun show loophole immediately and require EVERY GUN to be registered."

Gun ownership is a RIGHT driving a car is a privelege.

In EVERY country that enacted gun registration-if it was not overturned-it led to gun confiscation-THAT is why the NRA opposes gun registration-Even the BRADY ACT makes it ILLEGAL for the government to compile,or maintain lists of gun owners.

The only gun show loophole is in the tiny little minds of the people who spread such nonsense-like mayor for life Bloomberg.

How do you plan to register the guns the CRMINALS have? The gang bangers?

All the bullsh*t you suggest does NOTHING to take guns away from criminals,and all of you that know nothing about guns just make the problem worse-all your screaming for bans on "clips" and "automatic weapons" is insanity-

Anyone can MAKE a magazine-it is NOT a "clip"-it's a magazine-in their garage or basement in about 15 minutes,all a magazine is made from is some sheet metal and a spring-you going to ban sheet metal,pliers hammers,and springs too?

"Automatic weapons" are ALREADY BANNED-except for sales to a very few collectors,who have to go through an extensive background check,and pay a $200.00 tax for each firearm they own.

why should regular people own high-powered assault weapons??

Let's start with the purpose of the Second Amendment. It's to fight against a tyrannical government. Now, keeping that in mind (I know, you're a little slow, so bare with me while I take baby steps so your fragile mind can absorb this), the Military and Police forces across the country are base-lined as government forces (macro/micro respectively) that have automatic weapons in their possession. So essentially, 1) you believe individuals in the military and on a police force, are not regular people and 2) don't understand the reason for citizens to be able to defend themselves in case of such an instance.

Now, I am not saying, that this "tin-foil hat" theory will ever occur. However, the amendment was created in the belief that it could very well happen (IE Syria, where a government is toppling its citizenry (terrorist group, whichever you want to call it). I'm not out to defend Automatic/Semi-automatic weapons, because quite honestly I don't see a need for one personally. But there is a premise as to why.

Hagg,

You got your point across so STFU already man. WTF...

You guys stereotype everyone that owns a gun. I'm packin' right now. Does that mean I'm going to go shoot someone?! WTF man, you guys don't even know where to start.

OK, Ban all guns. Problem solved right?! Yeah, right....

Freakin' A-hole Champ up there's solution to gun control is to line up all the gun owners & NRA members and "MURDER" them all. FK'n "great" solution to gun control. Clueless man....

Silverton,

"DON'T LET THE NRA BULLY US ANYMORE!" WTF is that?! Like the NRA tied your hands behind your back and forced it upon you.

Clueless man....absolutely clueless.

@irespond

"

All NRA members should be shot!!!!I thank you, that's one of my own !!"

"nra should be shot"

"murder every NRA member"

Perhaps they'll use an oven.

YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE...THANKS!!!!"

Liberal's words, not mine... thanks!!!!

Follow the string that you are responding to.

Gun control advocates are circling like vultures over the the tragedy in CT to advance their political agenda. The lot of them are disgusting and perverted. It is almost like they are happy it happened.

Get a backbone and pass laws now before the next kindergarten massacre: BAN high-capacity magazines and assault weapons NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

When you let the NRA decide these things you're letting the biggest MORONS decide our fate!

You know, trolling and spamming these boards with krap like that isn't going to make ANYONE here more inclined to see things your way. It's probably pointless, but I just thought I'd TRY to remind you of that.

Now, time for your mental enema.

Nobody is saying that you need to give up every single weapon, just those that are used in war. The second amendment is not a propaganda machine for the NRA.

The second step would be to stop people like Tarantino from making movies with extreme violence, rape and pillage on them.

That alone can help lots.

In two sentences you just advocated the restriction of both the 2nd Amendment and the 1st Amendment. Why dont you just support striking down the 4th Amendment then the police, national guard or army can come into your home at will, keep you from protesting their occupation and keep you from defending yourself and your family. Welcome to Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc.

Youre a real piece of work pal. So unAmerican you make Anwar Awalaki look like Mickey Mouse.

Don't look away from the mark. Not enough effort is spend in providing a second to none security for schools. Like crazies and terrorist, guns have always been out there. Can't control the crazies and terrorist, but security can be put in place that will minimize their action. Secure all schools now.

@freedom

"There is a solution to reducing - not eliminating - the gun massacres in this country. That solution is to require anyone who buys a gun to also buy a gun lock or a gun safe to secure the weapon. And then require that they use the lock or safe by holding them responsible for any murders committed by someone else using their guns.

Now some owners will complain that they don't want to use a key or combination to use their guns. Those are the very people who should not be allowed to own guns"

Maybe they were locked in a California approved gun cabinet or trigger lock. We don't have that information. A locked cabinet or trigger lock can be easily opened by a sociopath with a screwdriver or the key.

If the mother were alive I'd bet she'd be answering a lot of questions.

Sociopaths are the problem. They will get guns if they want guns regardless of a sheet of paper with a law on it.

QE37 @ post #1.57, some quick facts for you on the Second Ammendment.

"Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest."

- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775

That quote is from the Department of Justice, under a .PDF file for knowing your rights under the Bill of Rights. There is your founding fathers intentions for the Second Ammendment. It guarentees me the right that I cannot be conquered in my own home. Be it by invation from another country or home invation. The complex sentence is also divided. I don't know if you understand that when you divide a complex sentence it creates two clauses. But let's see how the Justice Department views it.

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

Your side seems to be the States rights side of the argument. Deciding to install the "Well Regulated" part to all of the Amendment. I tend to view these things as two seperate issues which come under the total clause The Right for person(s) to keep and bear arms as necessary. Be it for militia purposes, or hunting purposes, or home defense purposes. It gives you the right to do what you need to do. One last quote.

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of thecitizens to keep and bear arms.... [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

Hubert H. Humphrey

Well said sir. This was from a former Democratic Vice President and proponat of civil rights. The reality is, while our government is not quite so oppressive to be tyrannical at this time...everything in life is subject to change.

With all this talk about banning military style weaponry I will point out that any device capable of firing a projectile is potentially deadly. The only difference, perhaps, is that military weapons are designed to be more expedient in the process. However, weapons purchased from your local gun store are all potentially deadly so banning some styles may only popularize other available options for those bent on destruction. Even a lowly .22 rifle can have a high capacity magazine and be altered into a full-auto format and can still prove highly destructive in a crowded area. The point of saying all this is that any gun is deadly, but only potentially deadly: What counts is who's behind the trigger and if they have a deadly intent then the end result is not going to be good.

Like the article says, there's millions of guns in America. There are always going to be guns around so we must learn to live with this reality and the reality that some people just do bad things with them. We're a society that has to learn to protect itself... from itself. There's no going back and no amount of gun bans will solve the issue.

@Pig

"why should regular people own high-powered assault weapons??"

When you finish researching and educating yourself on what you are talking about, you'll find out how just wrong you are.

Parroting the media and liberal propaganda anti-gun lies over and over doesn't make the propaganda true.

........ Hilarious that you believe it though. Polly want a cracker?

@Terry

Gun control advocates are circling like vultures over the the tragedy in CT to advance their political agenda

Doesn't have much to do with a political agenda. The only people making it a political agenda are people like you.

The lot of them are disgusting and perverted.

I'm an advocate for gun ownership and rights and I find it appalling that this tragedy occurred. However, I also believe in our nation as a whole and how it was founded. Unlike many individuals whom want to see the values crushed and trampled on. And to me, that is disgusting and perverted in itself.

"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

Creek dog, Well put. Most Liberals don't realize the basic function of each & every firearm. I live in a very rural area where I pack to protect myself from predators {wolf, bear, cougars}, in the cities, others pack for the same reason but different predators. As far as the AR-15's, they are used for hunting. Great coyote firearm or for other varmits. Blaming the NRA for gun deaths in this country is just ridiculous. The NRA helps protect our 2nd Amendment rights & teaches us to be safe & responsible gun owners.

@champagnesabre

You just made the best case in the world for keeping guns out of everyone's hands. ANYONE can have a psychotic break. How do we know that a legal gun owner who had no problems before is not going to start unloading on people at random? Why should the general population have to live guessing where the next shooting is going to happen?

Your gun's will not be taken away, Im sure of that. I think anyone owning a gun though will be losing a lot of privacy in the future. Your going to see gun owners personal lives in public databases soon enough and thats the least that will happen.

Champ,

You may want to post differently since it appears you wrote it which I fed on.

Hagg,

Funny how you put a badass avatar pic up there and write/act like a ten yr old. Your quote "Gun Nuts" is correct. The mentally "ill" gun owners. Not all gun owners...

Slipped, tripped and busted your lip...

@peoplevsobama

Basic shooting skills should be taught to the children of REAL Americans.

So tell us, what makes you a "Real American"and the rest of us "Not Real Americans." If not being an ignorant knuckle dragging idiot who fails to see there are serious issues here that need to be dealt with then I guess I'm just not a "Real American." Knee jerk reactions from jerks like you help nothing.

This country needs to get it's sh!t together and start finding as solution to this. Spewing bumper sticker slogans help nothing and frankly, it's annoying.

Grow up and stop drinking the bagger tea.

The government has very little respect for our constitutional rights as it is. Our right to be armed is codified in the constitution. Any change should require a constitutional amendment. As far as I'm concerned the terrorists that attacked us on 911 have already won. Our constitutional rights were eroded more as a kneejerk reaction to that event than at any other time and those violations have not been reversed like transgressions of the past.

ozmosis

They can also be used for hunting children. You have to expect calls for restrictions when the source of death for those children was ultimately a legal gun owner.

When I hear entertainers, politicians and John Q. Public exclaim...."The United States of America.....the greatest country in the world" I cringe. According to above statistics, 54 people a day commit suicide with guns more than crimes committed with firearms. And when I read articles about how difficult it is to get psychiatric care for those desperately in need in the USA and compare that with a lot of other countries where that help is far more accessible I say on what basis is the USA the "best country in the world". Being "best" isn't just patriotic bravado...its making a committment to exhort the population and lead by example into becoming the kind of country where such statements do not need to be made rather it be quietly accepted that one lives in a prized society.

NRA Gun Shows have no federal background checks, this is Nuts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Captive Audience

The government has very little respect for our constitutional rights as it is. Our right to be armed is codified in the constitution. Any change should require a constitutional amendment. As far as I'm concerned the terrorists that attacked us on 911 have already won. Our constitutional rights were eroded more as a kneejerk reaction to that event than at any other time and those violations have not been reversed like transgressions of the past.

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

No, it would not require a constitutional change. the 2end amendment contains a provision for the government to regulate. That is why the founding fathers put this into the 2ned: " a well REGULATED militia" This wording was not put into the 2end simply to regulate the people in the militia, it was meant to regulate the guns as well.

The last thing the forefathers ever intended was for people to construe any part of the constitution as a blank check to do anything in any one area. There are checks and balances all over the constitution preventing 1 group from forcing any one right granted in the constitution on other groups.

There are protections in place to keep your 2end from infringing on my 14th ( right to life ).

champagnesabre stated:

"Liberal's words, not mine... thanks!!!!

Follow the string that you are responding to."

Exactly. You notice how people tend to NOT read the whole post, then spew their half baked opinion on what the post was trying to covey from the start? And they wonder what's wrong with this country? Sounds more like part of the problem, not the solution.

For those who argue that the founding fathers never intended for our right to bear arms to mean assault weapons - were you there? do you think they had any concept of the advancement of weaponry?

The founding fathers intended for us to be able to protect ourselves against tyranny. THAT is why the amendment is relatively vague. IF law enforcement, etc. that answer to the "state" have a certain type of weapon, the citizenry shall have the right to be able to defend themselves in a similar manner if deemed tyrannical. A militia as stated in the amendment is not the national guard or the army - it is citizen soldiers. The founding fathers knew that there was a possibility of power corrupting and wanted to ensure that we never lost the ability to fight back. What do you suppose would have happened if every farmer in the colonies did not possess a firearm - do you think that we would have stood a chance against the tyranny of King George?

Learn the facts and stop spouting talking points of the MSM - It is essentially illegal to buy an automatic weapon in this country - it has been so since the 1930s. Only those with a federal Class III license may do so - those are not easy to get. Also, for those who want to eliminate high capacity magazine - have you ever seen how quickly you can reload a weapon with a new magazine? These killers would be armed with enough magazines to cause the death and destruction they intend. The Newtown killer had several magazines - not just one. He was prepared. So whether you limit the size or not, they would still cause death and destruction.

The REAL question is why his is happening so frequently now and not 40 years ago. Semi automatic weapons are not new. Gun laws are more restrictive. Mental illness has always been around. Why now? What has changed in our society? IF you want to end this type of violence...answer that question.

Wow...kill all NRA members? Gun owners are "gun nuts?"...There are a few people on hear that are as crazy Adam Lanza

Armed Security guards, Put Senior Citizens with Pistol permits to work, could save life's !!!!!!!!!!!!

To all regardless of your belief's,

There are millions upon millions of Americans and they "all" have different opinions.

That said, there are millions that "do" believe the world is going to end on Dec. 21st. I believe that by that day, between now and then (This Friday) we're going to see some Fk'd up @!$%# happen.

You have the Doomsday Preppers (Packin' the most heat) possibly freak out and go nuts. The people you read about committing suicide and this fk'd up kid the other day (mentally ill) probably believe this too and may be part of the reason behind what's going and what has happened.

Buckle up people, I don't think we've seen it all yet and that's why I carry, to protect myself, my family and anyone around me that's lucky enough that I'm present if some nut goes crazy and starts indiscriminately shooting.

Good luck and have a good day,

CD

to those suggesting we register gun owners and publish the list publicly (you know, like sex offenders), remember than guns are valuable, and very desirable by criminals. You you just set up a shopping list and target list for criminals. I suspect that's what you really wanted. You were just couching it in a reasonable sounding lie

QE137,

It was a thief who stole those weapons and a mother who left those weapons unsecure that lead to this tragedy. Again, stop trying to blame the weapon and start blaming those responsible for the act.

My rifle has never gone out and shot a deer without me. These weapons did not go out and kill 20 7 year olds without someone!

Magnum Serpentine

"Before Supreme Court Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts, the Supreme Court always said the Second Amendment ONLY concerns State Militia or what is now known as National Guard. And states have a Right to arm National Guard. Even the Founding Fathers said the 2d Amendment only concerns State Militias. Not the common people."

WRONG!!! You may want to read up on SCOTUS cases and decisions related to the 2nd amendment...

The Constitution and Bill of Rights repeatedly refer to the "rights" of the people and to the "powers" of government. The Supreme Court has recognized that the phrase "the people," which is used in numerous parts of the Constitution, including the Preamble, the Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to people as individuals. In each case, rights belonging to "the people" are without question the rights of individuals.

Dozens of essays have been written by the nation`s foremost authorities on the Constitution, supporting the traditional understanding of the right to arms as an individual right, protected by the Second Amendment.

2. Isn`t the "well regulated militia" the National Guard?
Gun control supporters insist that "the right of the people" really means the "right of the state" to maintain the "militia," and that this "militia" is the National Guard. This is not only inconsistent with the statements of America`s Founders and the concept of individual rights, it also wrongly defines the term "militia."

Centuries before the Second Amendment was drafted, European political writers used the term "well regulated militia" to refer to all the people, armed with their own firearms or swords, bows or spears, led by officers they chose.

However, in 1990, the Supreme Court held that the federal government possesses complete power over the National Guard. The Guard is the third part of the United States Army, along with the regular Army and Army Reserve. The Framers` independent "well regulated militia" remains as they intended, America`s armed citizenry.

The Court ruled that “[T]he operative clause [of the Second Amendment] codifies a ‘right of the people.” And went on to explain: “In all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. . . .’”

Before the Heller decision, the most thorough examination of the Second Amendment and related issues ever undertaken by a court is the 2001 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in U.S. v. Emerson. In Emerson, the Appeals court devoted dozens of pages of its decision to studying the Second Amendment’s history and text. It began by examining the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Miller (1939), which individual rights opponents claim supports the notion of the Second Amendment protecting only a “collective right” of a state to maintain a militia. The Fifth Circuit disagreed. “We conclude that Miller does not support the collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment.”

All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.”
And in 2005, as a result of lawsuits aiming to destroy America’s firearms industry, Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to end this threat to the Second Amendment. The act begins with findings that go to the heart of the matter: "Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."

http://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/the-second-amendment.aspx

SCOTUS cases related to 2nd amendment...

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

The idea of the Constitution only applying to the technology at the time it was written is BS. The principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can be applied to today's and tomorrow's technologies and are as relevant today as they were 220 yrs ago

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.

The Constitution and subsequent amendments could only apply to the technology of their time of being drafted. Everything is subject to scrutiny and evaluation over time to determine whether it's still relevant. Not doing so guarantees civil obsolescence as time propels society past it's previous position in history.

At the time when it was ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment was intended to have at least two security purposes other than a well-regulated militia: (1) a practical purpose, to protect people from thieves, bandits, Native Americans, and slave uprisings; and (2) a political purpose, to remind the rest of the world that the United States is well-armed

At that time all white able-bodied free males were required by law to belong to a militia by the statutory law of their colony.

Relevant much...

Though if you truly believe we still need to live and die by these antiquated amendments, then apply the "well regulated" part of the amendment to much needed definitions and soon to come regulations surrounding present firearm technology.

The 21st is the day before the 22end. The world could end at any time for any number of different reasons. From a super volcano under Yellowstone, to a super virus that kills 7 billion people, to a 3 mile wide asteroid slamming into the earth and blocking the sun.

As one vary great Information society song proclaims... "Tomorrow will happen" and it shall. The universe did not pick 1 day for people to die, it can happen any time now, on the 21st or any time after.

For anyone posting threats on here that mention killing, shooting or murdering someone that is either for or against guns, you are making a terrorist threat. They are now looking into postings that contain threats. No proper sane gun owner will make threats.

I am for the gun laws to be left as they are. People that do not know guns have been mislead and think that AK47's and AR15's sold to the public are assault weapons. The guns sold in the United States are just plain semi-automatic rifles with decoration. They are not assault rifles, but styled to look like one. Real "assault" rifles are fully automatic. There are very few people in the entire United States that own an actual "assault" rifle. To legally own one requires a special license from the Federal government and the government is then allowed to go to the houses of those few people any time 24/7 to make sure the "assault" weapon is being stored correctly and that the owner is in compliance. Just for the record, any tool used for attack or death is classified as the "assault" weapon, whether it is a knife, fork, arrow, pistol or rifle.

A lot of people are talking about how they had single shot guns back in the past. Well, in the past, there were not hoards of drug abusing gangs that were heavily armed like there are now. If a couple of drugged up gang-bangers get real high and break into your house and come after you, a single bullet may not stop them due to the drugs. If drug crazed idiots get into your home, you have seconds to respond while the police may take several minutes to arrive. You may have to use 10-15 shots just to stop a couple of drug crazed and armed idiots. The Constitution was not planned where psychiatrists figured 10% of the population would have mental health problems and drug induced problems.

I rarely touched a gun until I had an idiot taking pot shots at me back in the 1980's. A sheriff told me to start carrying a pistol back then. I have carried ever since. I have never had to pull or use the gun, thank goodness. However, I do take training classes and shooting classes very often. They finally got the idiot that had been shooting at me without any gun response by me. Since then, there have been instances where I "could" have used the gun, but I am not a hero and there was time to call the police and let them get there to solve the problems. I do live in a high crime rate area and it is not unusual to hear gunshots several times a week.

I am a 5'3" older female. I was raised around guns and have a great respect for them. I keep guns handy because I know the evil in this civilized country and I refuse to become a casualty. I prefer to die comfortably of old age in my own bed at home. I refuse to be found raped and on a sidewalk or out in a pasture somewhere.

The problem is there are people that have mental issues or let their guns be available to ones that should not have access to them. If they do anything in the government, they should 1) make sure the people that need treatment for mental problems are getting that treatment and 2) add those people that are not fit to own a gun to the list FBI list that is checked with every gun purchase. Gun owners should be responsible for their guns and not let anyone that would not qualify for a gun be able to access their guns.

It is not right to punish gun owners like myself that enjoys target shooting with pistols, semi-automatic rifles or shotguns because of the mentally ill. It is not right to punish the gun manufacturers over a tragedy where a single mother had let her guns be so they could be accessed by her mentally ill son. Since the mother owned the guns, she was the one responsible due to the sons mental illness.

Please leave the laws alone. Get the mentally ill onto the no-purchase gun list. Stop the threats of killing or shooting other people. Be responsible. I know Republicans, Liberals, Democrats & Tea Party members that are responsible gun owning people and enjoy the sport. If I am not wearing/using the gun or am away from it, I lock the trigger and put them into the gun safe.

My gun has been there to protect me if and when I get into a situation that might require it. My little 5'3" female body is no match for a large guy or several guys at once. I have been around a lot of violence in my life. But I am going to live to a ripe old age. I hope everyone has a long and happy life. This is my opinion. Thank you.

FINALLY!!! Some FACTS about guns from MSN! Wow!

@Hagg, I'll have a 'sword fight' with you any day! You really need to think deeper than the daily events in this world! The Second amendment, multi round magazines for that matter, have uses other than taking life. Both protect our freedom and VERY POSSIBLE, the tyranny of government. If you don't think it can happen you better re-study history!

LONG LIVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

Agree with you Creek Dog. I wondered if the "impending" end of the world would push already crazies over the edge.

Haggis, you are nuts, thats the nicest way I can put it. The NRA is responsible for all the gun violence in America? Typical uniformed, gun control response. By the way I own several hadguns, rifles and shotguns. By the way I am not an NRA member

JD -1203795

QE137,

It was a thief who stole those weapons and a mother who left those weapons unsecure that lead to this tragedy. Again, stop trying to blame the weapon and start blaming those responsible for the act.

My rifle has never gone out and shot a deer without me. These weapons did not go out and kill 20 7 year olds without someone!

If a legal gun owner in this case did not secure her weapons, then how am I to know that you or any other gun owner are any better? Do I take you on faith? No, I want better regulation of you based on the sample of others like you who seem to have problems securing their weapons.

No one should have to take a gun owners word for their own handling and safety of their weapon. It is time for gun owners to repeatedly prove to the communities they live in that they are safe. It is time for random inspections and a requirement for liability insurance on ea weapon a gun owner possesses.

No more guessing about the next legal gun owner that supplies the weapons for mass murder. When I say supplies, i am including those who had a weapon stolen.

In the state of TN all guns purchased from a dealer, pawn shop or at a gun show the buyer has to go through the whole process of paying 10.00 for a backround check and must come back clean before you can purchase a gun period. Depending on backlog it can come back as quick as 15 minutes but can take as long as a few hours just depends. I dont know what states are different than that but thats a fact jack so i dont know what loophole you liberals are refering too??

bdjbforfun

FINALLY!!! Some FACTS about guns from MSN! Wow!

@Hagg, I'll have a 'sword fight' with you any day! You really need to think deeper than the daily events in this world! The Second amendment, multi round magazines for that matter, have uses other than taking life. Both protect our freedom and VERY POSSIBLE, the tyranny of government. If you don't think it can happen you better re-study history!

LONG LIVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!

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

Long live the 14th Amendment that gives us all right to life.. As long as your 2end dose not violate my 14th, we are good.

Holy crap! MSNBC putting out an article that actually states something that states the truth when it comes to firearms? I almost fell over! Facts are stubborn things, aren't they? More gun owners than ever, repeat...EVER! and the murder rate has DROPPED in HALF since 1993. Suck on that fat one all you anti's.

The 2nd amendment was given to us from our forefathers that had more balls and brains than any of the current clowns in DC could ever hope to have. Punishing legal, law abiding citizens is never going to stop some crazy or criminal from breaking the law. They don't care. You can't legislate against it. Tragedy is a fact of life. What's scary to me..is reading the comments from some lunatics that want to rewrite the constitution! That person and thought process is a greater threat than the occasional nut job.

As the article states there are about 310 million guns in America which is about 10 million more than motor vehicles in the United States (estimated 300 million motor vehicles). Next time you drive to work just look at those driving around you - that is how many guns are in the United States.

So out of 310 million guns in 2011 there were about 11,000 homicides by guns or about 1 homicide per about 28,000 guns but with 300 million motor vehicles there are 10.8 millions deaths (2009 - last year of detailed data) or about 1 death per 27 motor vehicles.

What many liberals lose sight of is the extreme majority of gun owners are very responsible with their weapons and what we are talking about is, literally, just a small handful over the course of several years. These events are tragic but let's not confuse and muddy the waters. We had ONE individual who is (for lack of better term) "crazy". We don't talk about taking away cars because one person went "crazy" and drove their car through a parade killing dozens. We don't talk about taking away machetes when a person kills multiple people in that method either. We don't talk about taking away the ability to buy fertilizer because it was used in a few instances to make bombs.

We need to separate the crime from the method used in the crime. We have nearly 60 million gun owners of which 99.9% are law-abiding responsible individuals. We don't need gun control. We need to focus on how to identify the 1, 2, or 3 individuals a year that are "crazy" and determine how to keep those from using any type of weapon, fertilizer, or vehicle in an unsafe manner.

Gun control is a "feel good" demand that will do no good anyway. Gun control is a copout. Gun control is an excuse. But gun control is not the cause and gun control is not the solution. Lets focus on the REAL problem and a REAL solution.

The shootings that took place at Sandy Hook are nothing less than evil and those that think it's just fine for anyone to purchase as many and any type of weapon of mass destruction need a mental evaluation themselves.

First off I grew up in SW PA where hunting is a huge thing; the vast majority of guys I knew in that area hunt for food to supplement their tables; I've eaten rabbit, dear, squirrel, and wild turkey.

Ok, that being said, I also have a sibling who is mentally unstable. My parents when through absolute hell trying to provide adequate care for him; and the social stigma from the community was horrendous. Our family really could have used some kindness and support instead of gossip, being ostracized, and BLAMING my parents for a DISEASE. My brother never hurt anyone!!! Thank God my parents had the financial resources to get my brother the help he so desperately needed to get his condition regulated. Most of you are CLUELESS to how things go when you have a mentally ill person... first they have to accept that they need help (incredibly difficult to have someone committed to a mental health facility when they don't want the help); once they get psychiatric care it's hard to keep them on the meds... they start to feel better, think they don't need the meds and the side effects are very difficult (how many of YOU stay on meds from your Dr. if you don't like the side effects?).

Next thing that I want to say: My husband and his daughter are both teachers. This w/e my lovely step daughter came over to visit and in the course of the visit we got to talking about Sandy Hook. He boyfriend, who is an avid gun collector thought the best thing he could do on Friday was go and buy a couple MORE assault weapons. What a great guy... NOT. What an insensitive ass... I hope she dumps him, but doubt she will. I love having to worry about if he goes off his rocker if they ever break up. I'm more afraid she'll marry him.

I have a grandchild that's in 1st grade... I can't even tell you how much I cried this w/e thinking of those poor terrified children at that school.... thinking of the brave teachers who did everything in their power to protect those kids.... maybe now we can actually show a tiny bit of respect for teachers in this country instead of blaming everything on them.

I'd love to know how many of these attacks are due to trauma's and psychological damage from harassment and bullying. When did people stop teaching their children to treat others as they want treated anyway? When did our society become so incredibly selfish that what WE want is all that matters and fu@k everyone else? Why do we care so little about other's safety as long as WE get what WE want NOW.

Screw all you obsessive assault gun, weapon's of mass destruction advocates... you all need mental evaluations... you're so much sicker and much more dangerous than my brother ever was.

Regulate and mandatory registrations (just like a car, renewed each year), mandatory licensing, mandatory insurance; prior to this you should have to take professional training (think of all the jobs created!), AND pass a written and proficiency exam. God forbid, if anyone is hurt with YOUR weapon, YOU better be able to come up with a reasonable explanation how that incident happened with the use of YOUR gun or your a$$ goes to jail or you get one hefty fine... or all your guns are taken away permanently with no chance of you EVER being able to obtain a gun legally again.

Haggisbingo, so glad to hear a voice of reason.. if i wasn't married I'd propose. ;)

Peoplevsobama... you're a loose cannon and need to seek help immediately.

ProBusiness

Cars are contentiously made safer. Cars are used in the peaceful transport of people more often then guns are pulled to DO ANYTHING. So quoting a statistic of deaths that is higher for a device that is used far more then an other device is almost pointless.

How do I know that any gun owner is safe? Must I take your word for it? Will I have only to hope that you will never flip out and kill me or my kid? Nope, Im sorry, I should not be taking your word for it.

Cars require inspections. Gun safety facilities and gun owners should require the same.

So the libs want to ban guns, or certain types of guns, so they claim - great. So tell me all about the ban on drugs how's that working?

QE137:

You state "If a legal gun owner in this case did not secure her weapons, then how am I to know that you or any other gun owner are any better? Do I take you on faith? No, I want better regulation of you based on the sample of others like you who seem to have problems securing their weapons.".

What a completely illogical and irresponsible comment. So you are saying a person should not be allowed to buy something because you are not certain they will secure it properly?

So we should not sell gasoline because somebody might leave their garage door open and it can possibly be stolen and used to start a forest fire?

Or we should not sell cars because you are not sure if someone will leave it unlocked and it could be stolen and used in a bank robbery?

Or we should not allow elevators to be installed in malls because they might not be installed correctly and collapse causing severe injury or death?

I have heard some foolish and illogical arguments from the liberals in the past but this one takes the cake. We should NOT sell something to 60 million users because YOU are not certain they will secure their purchase. Do you REALLY want to go there? Do you REALLY want THAT to be the argument you propose to the Supreme Court? Do you REALLY want to be laughed at so hard after saying such a ridiculous argument? THAT is the best you can come up with? THAT is your argument? How embarrassing...

@mjs-2426124

"As relavant today as the day it was written? Really?

• "made by a gunsmith
• single shot weapons with rudimentary rifling
• loaded through the muzzle
• fired by means of a flintlock igniting black powder

If the second amendment is supposed to be relevant for anything other than an antiquated historical place-marker then it needs some updating to reflect the reality of the world we live in."

When you, your wife or daughter is being raped and beaten in an alley and are being strangled with your panty hose, you have the right to pour powder down the barrel.

The rest of us reserve the right draw our semi-auto pistol from our cleavage or pocketbook and end the attack.

Keep your powder dry!

@ProBusiness

Taken from the top. You'll love this..

So we should not sell gasoline because somebody might leave their garage door open and it can possibly be stolen and used to start a forest fire?

Don't know about where you live, but my locality and state both have regulations concerning the storage of gas. ( it is regulated )

Or we should not sell cars because you are not sure if someone will leave it unlocked and it could be stolen and used in a bank robbery?

Cars are highly regulated and they have easy to spot identifying markings that limit the potential that a person will get away with simply successfully using it to do crime. ( it is highly regulated and inspected )

Or we should not allow elevators to be installed in malls because they might not be installed correctly and collapse causing severe injury or death?

Elevators are inspected regularly for safety and installation. They have systems designed to prevent accidental death. ( they are regulated and inspected )

I don't want your guns to go away. I want you and your guns regulated and inspected. The 2end gives the government the power to make those laws and I fully think that is what will be happening.

QE137: What you FAIL to recognize is in this country you have rights. Only when you abuse those rights or break laws are those rights at risk. In the United States we don't take rights away because of what you MIGHT do.

That is like saying you MIGHT yell "fire" in a movie theater so we should take away your right BEFORE you do that. If THAT is the type of country you want to live in then have at it. You are welcome to move to Iran, Venezuela, or Korea. But here in the United States we have freedoms and we don't take away those freedoms because someone MIGHT do something. And in the United States you are innocent until proven guilty.

I happen to LIKE the United States and want to live in the United States where as long as you conform to society and follow the laws you are a free person. In the Declaration of Independence it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".

If you believe that people who follow the laws and conform to society are still NOT free then you are welcome to leave and live in a country where that philosophy is true - there are plenty of those in the world. But no thank you from me - I live in a country where a person is endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights and I am not willing to give up my rights because you have a worry I cannot secure my weapons.

If you want to live in a country where guns are outlawed you are welcome to go - heck, I'll even pay for your one-way ticket.

QE137: Lord have mercy - you are not even able to recognize it is sarcasm? The points I made were NOT whether they are regulated (of COURSE they are!!) but your logic says we should not sell because someone MIGHT not store gas or cars correctly. And since that MIGHT happen we should not allow the purchase. Do you STILL not recognize how foolish of a comment that is? You STILL want to stand by the irrational argument that since a few people might not store THEIR guns correctly we should not allow ANYBODY to buy guns? Are you STILL going to try and defend such a ridiculous comment?

Why aren't there more sensible suggestions on how to deal with the problem other than more gun control? Anyone who studies history knows banning something doesn't work.

1) More resources into mental health care, attempt to proactively identify problems before they occur.

2) Armed security at "all" schools, including arming select staff members after training and qualifying much like law enforcement or military

More gun control will not solve the problem, you can't outlaw crazy, sick and just plain evil

Qe137....so you want mandatory in home inspections of gun owners and how they store their firearms? That would be the beginning of the "slippery slope." Would law enforcement have to obtain a warrant.? Or could they just show up unannounced and demmand to see things?

haggisbingo-2225582 Comment collapsed by the community

Start with outlawing high-capacity magazines and assault weapons!!

ROTFLMAO! And are you going to volunteer to go door to door collecting them?? Good luck with that!

Hey genius, why don't you come up with a solution based in reality instead of throwing out ridiculous "solutions" that even the mentally ill could see would create MANY more problems than it solved. That idea is so far out there I'm beginning to suspect you have an ulterior motive for turning the discussion away from mental illness.

From what I'm getting from everyone in the comment section is that NOTHING can be done. We got people blaming all this on mental health...yet millions of Americans have mental health issues and treatment can't "cure" their sickness. It only neutralizes SOME of the behavior. Not all (trust me I work with mental disorderly children). So its a waste of time. Then we've got people saying ban guns, but there's too many guns already distributed to do that, thus we'd be setting ourselves up as victims of guns already distributed. Then we got people saying make guns more accessible, but the outcome would be the same if we decided to ban guns; we still would be setting ourselves up because this could increase the number of shootings. Then we got people blaming things on violent media and how this should be taken away. However, that infringes on the amendment of "freedom of speech". Then we got people saying change the amendment because its outdated, but too many people are comfortable with their rights. Then we got people saying the government or the NRA is the issue, yet many of them are involved in our protection.

Now, we have so many unemployed veterans out there that could work as security guards and police officers! Why hasn't anyone employed them for such jobs? You go into a movie theater, which is a public place and you don't see a security guard in site, not one with a gun either. You go to the mall that security guard is also barely security.

The 1st and 2nd amendment has been abused in this country, and although it was meant for our liberty and protection, it has been taken out of context from our former fathers who wrote very vague statements in the constitution. There needs to be reformation.

The only thing that can be done is to hire more authorities for protection. Put these veteran men/women to work. Stop thinking about how much money you are going to save by leaving public places vulnerable. Added, There needs to be stronger regulations on all things that kill; guns, cars, drugs, alcohol, obesity, abortion, etc. These things should all be considered when thinking about the rights of citizens. Having regulations can help us track the usage of dangerous things, without infringing on the freedoms that US citizens have. Parents should be watchful of what their children play, watch, and search on the internet. There needs to be some U.N.I.T.Y amongst us, stop being so socially outcast that you consume your time on social networking; its not healthy. Get involved with your community, you don't necessarily have to be in a religion, but anything that will help you get in tune with your compassionate side. There should be conflict resolution classes like we had when I was in school, showing more appropriate ways to handle conflict in our environment. All places, including schools should have installed metal detectors and security alarms. Schools should be built with as less glass as possible. There should be bar handles for every door and window just in case of anything.

But of course, with all these new advancements, it will cost...that means more taxes on our part....money is the major issue in almost every factor mentioned above....

So honestly this is why the government has been avoiding this issue. No matter what they say or do, someone will be against it. So might as well do NOTHING! If anybody can think of a way that doesn't interfere with our rights, but also doesn't turn the whole world into killing machines, please tell us! :(

@ProBusiness

We have a number of examples of things that people can do in the US that we simply do not take their word for it and we regulate.

You may not have done anything wrong personally, but other people who have legal guns and who have failed to secure them or done wrong with them have shown the public interest lays in inspection and regulation of those that carry. It is to bad you fight that, because one day that process will likely save your life.

May I add. You have no right at all to tell me to leave the country. I am American's, I have fought to secure it and I am highly concerned for my fellow Americans. I am not driven by a one minded need to serve myself.

ProBusiness

QE137: Lord have mercy - you are not even able to recognize it is sarcasm? The points I made were NOT whether they are regulated (of COURSE they are!!) but your logic says we should not sell because someone MIGHT not store gas or cars correctly. And since that MIGHT happen we should not allow the purchase. Do you STILL not recognize how foolish of a comment that is? You STILL want to stand by the irrational argument that since a few people might not store THEIR guns correctly we should not allow ANYBODY to buy guns? Are you STILL going to try and defend such a ridiculous comment?

What comment did I make in any post where I said people should not be able to buy guns? I Said they need inspection and far more regulation. I want people owning guns to be on the hot seat every minute of every day that those weapons are in their possession. To not require the utmost in inspection and regulation on guns is, in it's self insane.

Stand before those 20 children's families and explain to them how nothing should be done. It will start with the gun owners and follow all the way to metal health and beyond.

You do understand that it would be unrealistic to expect no action on guns at this point, right?

...and the second amendment is also just as nebulous as the day it was written.

The founders had black powder muskets that took several seconds even for the most experienced marksman to master and before rifled barrels the accuracy was limited to shorter distances. They never envisioned extremely accurate weapons with the kind of firepower we have now in semi-automatic and automatic versions and clips to hold as many rounds as one could carry.

They also never could have anticipated the effects of technology on most other aspects of our lives, and in those areas we have had to keep updating the laws to consider challenges that never existed then and people readily accept that in regards to communications, copyrights, computers, harassment, larceny, etc...

Most people can agree on what they consider the extreme limits on the personal right to weapons. We don't want everyone having access to nuclear weapons or even much tighter restrictions like not allowing tanks or rocket propelled devices. A few people have no problem with fully automatic weapons, but overwhelmingly most see limiting and regulating them as reasonable and necessary. It's just a matter of where the lines are drawn.

All most of us want is to go back to the assault weapons ban that Congress let expire. Gun violence since then has increased the fatalities per each mass killing event. The majority of us who do want controls only want to limit the firepower potential and don't want to take any guns that are not identified as attack weapons away from responsible and sane citizens.

Do sportsmen and people for self defense really need extremely fast semi-automatic weapons and does anyone need a clip holding more than a dozen rounds to hunt or defend themselves? I can only wonder what kind of big game people are hunting in rural America or what neighborhoods they live in to justify assault weapons with very large capacity clips that can be swapped rapidly.

I want people owning guns to be on the hot seat every minute of every day that those weapons are in their possession, To not require the utmost in inspection and regulation on guns is, in it's self insane.

Wow, now thats insane.

@WSU Coug

Afraid that if you carry a gun that you might be held to a standard? Weapons are not toys, they do not make you a man and you are not a movie cop who's good guy gun only kills the bad guy.

Don't want to be held to a standard for guns? Don't have guns.

"

On December 15, 1791 when the second amendment was ratified state of the art technology for guns were:

• made by a gunsmith
• single shot weapons with rudimentary rifling
• loaded through the muzzle
• fired by means of a flintlock igniting black powder

Unless you make your own clothes and ride a horse to your blacksmith job or are a historical reenactment enthusiast I don't see how this is relevant in society today...."

The weapons criminals and a tyrannical government had December 15, 1791:

were:

• made by a gunsmith
• single shot weapons with rudimentary rifling
• loaded through the muzzle
• fired by means of a flintlock igniting black powder

Unless you don't want to fight fire with fire, then your point is perfectly clear.......................as mud.

rob11966,

It was the unanimous opinion of the 11 PhD clinical Psychologists that I used to play poker with, that 10% of the population should be hospitalized for mental illness. The question came up walking to a fast food lunch in a moderately busy city. There were obvious cases on the street so I asked them. That was 25 yrs ago and there are fewer resources now and a larger population.

Qe137...remember the old saying about assuming? I don't carry a gun. I do own guns, they are stored in a locked metal cabinet, ammo is stored in a seperate locked metal cabinet. Thats what responsible gun owners do. Do you own any guns?

As far as my manhood at 6-5 285 I'm pretty confident in it. Maybe you should think of some feasible solutions.

If we rounded up ALL gang members, locked them up INDEFINENTLY with no charges, trial, and no legal representation under the NDAA as gang members are TERRORISTS our nations homicide rate would drop in a very big way. Should the foresaid ever occured there would be a big drop in firearm ownership as members of our nation would feel a LOT SAFER. There will be a lot of us that keep our weapons as we know our nation is NOT TO BIG TO FALL. There are a lot of us that are prior service members that believe in keeping our arms in case we need to defend our great nation. While we are fighting the pacifists will be hiding hoping we will suceed.

Numb3rTech, You said it all perfectly. You have a right to protect yourself in an increasingly violent society. The police can only do so much,and you may be the only one that can at that moment. No question,what happened in Newton CT. was beyond terrible. And beyond human comprehension. This broke our hearts and stirred a lot of emotional responses in the media and the public. But the real responsibility is squarely on the mom who knew her son was a violent,mentally ill kid and let her guns be accessible to him. The key word here is, Responsibility. They can make all the gun laws they want and then only the sick,violent and the lawless will have them. And we will all be sitting ducks. Everyone knows,9 out of 10 criminals prefer unarmed victims. If some murdering nutcase breaks into my home or shoots up a place that I happen to be in,I will not be forced under a table waiting to die.

It's not worth arguing with some people ProBusiness.

People think assault weapons, assault rifles, and automatic weapons are one in the same. They don't realize something like the M1 Garand is considered an assault weapon (used in WWI), and is still an excellent hunting rifle.

People don't realize the reason why the Japanese didn't invade the continental US in WWII is they believed "behind every blade of grass was a rifle." A Japanese Admiral stated that. And it was that fear that every citizen had a weapon that kept them at bay, else, historical analysts have stated they would have made it to the Mississippi before we could've countered, as the majority of our forces were in Europe, and we were crippled in the Pacific at Pearl Harbor.

People don't realize that tighter gun controls does NOTHING to stop the criminals from getting guns. I love how every anti-gun nut loves to use the "gun show" loophole, but that's actually a small percentage of illegal gun transactions, miniscule even. Guns are bought and sold on the street illegally day in and day out.

I've yet to see any anti-gun person come up with a reasonable NEW way to restrict guns without infringing on rights. A registry does nothing but tell a tyrranical government who has weapons, and how quick they can confiscate them. When you've been thrown off your land due to imminent domain, then tell me I'm paranoid about government doing whatever whenever they want. Not to mention, again, only the law-abiding, legal gun owners will participate. What about the criminals? As someone mentioned, even the Brady Law is against a central registry for firearms.

I asked in another comment list for someone to give me a single good idea for restricting guns from the criminal element, and I was ATTACKED for it by anti-gun liberals. None of them could actually come up with something, so they attacked with insults.

I still would like to see someone come up with a way to keep guns away from the criminal element WITHOUT infringing my rights.

QE

No one know if she had secured her weapons or not. He could have incapacitated his mother, or took advantage of her being in another room, and perhaps stolen the key to the lock, smashed the cabinet, or whatever, took the guns, killed her and then went on his rampage. To say the mother did not secure the weapons is pure speculation and conjecture.

these are my toughts on gun control...sort of just a rant at the gov't , liberal media & the NRA really...I see both sides of the issue have valid cases and I'm no expert...I don't own a gun , I haven't shot a gun since I was in the service(marksman ribbon too) and ironically I discharged the same day John Lennon was murdered after 7 years of active duty , 4 of them overseas...as far as the NRA , they are nothing but a junk mail pain in the ass to me , why they send me mailers to join them is beyond me ? is it because I belong to a veterans org. and they think I'm sympathetic to their lobby ?...they are very wrong I don't even open them any longer and just round file them in to the weekly trash ..I'm not going enrich an anal orifice org or any other lobby even the tree huggers since they're all full of feces and are trying to seperate you from your hard earned cash for what NOTHING they only just want your $$$$$$ to maintain a rich guy lifestyle for their board members....the only orgs I care about is the veterans orgs since as vets we have to stick together after we have served an agenda or we are quickly shoved off and forgotten by a congress and excutive branch who ironically has very few vets in office but alot of chickenhawks and I'm sure a month from now the chickens will have back burned this tragic event in Newtown for some other crisis of their own making due to monumental ineptitude and the fact they're ostriches with their heads buried in the sand or between their legs & afraid to face up too the real challenges & hard decisions of governing other than state dinners , photo ops and empty meaningless speeches at celebutard rah rah for my party functions...just.elected useless liberal and right wing numbnuts...they're all the same no different..I can even have a go at the media...they behave like sharks in a chum slick that has a dead cow floating in it..they gave out so much misinformation during this tragedy it is really a travesty ....are their any more professional journalist that don't seem to be writing for a high school newspaper anymore ?....just really amateurish and nothing professional about these hacks .....far to many stupid no common scense questions from them at the press conferences...sort of an indictment of the liberal college education they recieve...pretty bad if you ask me....can also go after Hollywood , run by a bunch of liberal hypocrites of the 1st order , but yet they put out for the most part CRAP....violence and more biff bang boom and then moan right wingers are the violent ones ? what a load of rubbish they are just as guilty of it themselves , friggen hypocrites , if not more so of encouraging these sort of things with the bovine manure they produce for the sake of the art of the motion picture and TV...plus they are now rehashing stuff from the past because the current screen/story writers haven't a single bit of creative imagination in their pea brains...they must be encouraged to plagarise and not think for them selves in their educations or some thing ?,for which they spent alot of money on for what amounts to a non-education and a piece of paper diploma...thats it enuff for now before I pop a gasket...LOL

The ban on so-called "assault weapons/rifles" did nothing. Why? Because it removed none from circulation and manufacturers continued to sell the weapons after making cosmetic changes to them in order to bypass the law (which stupidly defined the weapons by features that had little to do with their capacity as firearms). But mostly it did nothing because "assault weapons" (and long guns in general) do not figure greatly in firearms crime. Yes, they show up at high-visibility crimes like mass shootings, but overall they are actually little used by the criminal element (probably largely because they are "long guns" and hard to conceal). Any potential future ban would be likewise irrelevant to crime prevention. I have yet to see a suggestion for gun control from the left that would be, for the simple reason that criminals don't obey the law. Anyone who thinks words on paper can prevent crimes is living in a fantasy land. All of the recent mass shootings demonstrate this - consider the number of laws that were broken in each event and ask yourself, "Why didn't the law prevent these events from happening?" The answer is "Because the law can't prevent crimes, it can only set punishments for people who commit the proscribed acts."

vie05ua

People don't realize that tighter gun controls does NOTHING to stop the criminals from getting guns. I love how every anti-gun nut loves to use the "gun show" loophole, but that's actually a small percentage of illegal gun transactions, miniscule even. Guns are bought and sold on the street illegally day in and day out.

What horsecrap! Do you have some statistics to back up your claim that "that's actually a small percentage of illegal gun transactions, miniscule even"? Of course not, there are no statistics. I have been to plenty of gun shows at the local NG Armory, NO ONE checks ID...NO ONE conducts a background check. Prove me wrong!!!

The recent Clackamas mall shooter in Oregon was stopped short by an armed citizen (). Did anyone know that? Of course not. It would be wrong to show the other side of the story.

Real easy. NO semi-automatic weapons- NONE. One does not need a semi-automatic weapon for self-defense or hunting.if you can't protect yourself in 6 shots ( a revolver), or kill a deer with a single shot ( bolt action rifle), or shoot a duck on the fly in one to three shots ( double barrel shotgun, or pump shotgun), one should not own a firearm.

PERIOD

ngiotta

The recent Clackamas mall shooter in Oregon was stopped short by an armed citizen (). Did anyone know that? Of course not. It would be wrong to show the other side of the story.

I live here in Oregon, provide a link.

And there, my idiotic liberal friends, is why gun control hasn't, doesn't, and will not work. My God you idiots must enjoy playing the "blame game", as that you are completely faultless! Now going all the way back to Reagan to place blame on someone? Liberals are the reason this country is falling to pieces. To the average American liberal, SOMEONE must shoulder the blame besides those affiliated with their political party; reid, pelosi, the almighty bho and his wife, matthews, maddow, schultz, the list could go on, and on. Summary: liberals are idiots. Have a great day you silly, deluded liberals!

Making something illegal has never stopped a criminal from committing a crime.

NPCD,

Dude, it's so scrambled that I can't figure it out.

So, the NRA is the bad guy du jour. Just how many weapons do they manufacture? Is anyone in this thread old enough to remember Oliver North? He did sell weapons to the bad guy of his day Iran. God! Stay in school & read some history! Sturm-Ruger is a corporation with shareholders & a bottom line. They are not going to let a few spineless jellyfish (maybe not so few - maybe the backbone of this land) change that bottom line. two points that are as sure as gravity.

First & Foremost - any legislation that comes down the pike will be crafted by the same corrupt gov't. that has been staring over the fiscal cliff since the 'super-committee' led by Max Baucus FAILED to come up with a solution after the senate FAILED to come up with a solution (again - read a book). My weapons & 2nd Amendment are safe & sound & protected by a soft-in-the-middle, spread-bottom senate-whore.

Second - every soldier & veteran took an oath to protect & defend the constitution. We that wear the scars WILL do what we said we would do. Without that constitution, we are nothing but gun toting terrorists that rebelled against our established gov't. Inalienable (as in 'inalienable rights') means given to me by my creator, NOT by some whiney-a$$ flower child that will pi$$ & moan until he gets someone to do his dirty business, or some bought & paid for congressional prostitute.

haggis-bingo - is that your head or did someone crap on your shoulders?

We'll never end slavery, its allowed in the Constitution.

We'll never be able to allow women to vote, that's un-Constitutional.

We'll never be able to break the speed of sound, its too hard.

We'll never get to the moon.

These and other "impossible" things have all been done.

Simply because something is difficult and may not be perfect is not a reason to not do something, its an excuse. There is NO reason to have guns in this country, NONE. Only killers want to own guns. We do not need to give KILLERS GUNS.

One death from a gun is too many. Now is the time for change.

Ol_doc, you know anything about blackmarket firearms, sale and trade and how it's a huge market just like the drug trade? If so, common sense will tell you where the majority of illegal firearm sales go on. And yes, I'm looping otherwise inelligible buyers going to a gun show to do so.

And that's the best argument you have? It won't let me post links, but do a search for "effects of gun shows on gun related deaths" in google. First link in google. Also, the federal DoJ has done multiple surveys on where inmates obtained firearms. I believe the results was less than 1% for gun shows. Most common? Friend or family, and the next most common, fence or black market.

Not to mention, the majority of gun show dealers are FFL dealers, which even with gun shows, still have to perform the background checks. Think last I hear it was in the neighborhood of 75% of all dealers at a gunshow are FFL dealers. Most of the rest are collectible dealers.

@QE137

You may not have done anything wrong personally, but other people who have legal guns and who have failed to secure them or done wrong with them have shown the public interest lays in inspection and regulation of those that carry. It is to bad you fight that, because one day that process will likely save your life.

Likely save your life????? LIKELY????? Are you @!$%#ing joking????? You actually believe that with out more "inspection and regulation" we're all "likely" to be killed by a gun? That actually makes sense to you or did you just speak without thinking first?

No one wants to post on my comment on 1.156, so I guess that what I have suggested would be a sane logical idea. the REAL hunters would never carry a semi-automatic rifle for two reasons.

1. It's unsporting to have more than one shot to hunt an unarmed animal.

2. Semi-autos aren't very accurate because of recoil. It is EXTREMELY difficult to line up a second shot because of recoil. That's why REAL hunters do not use semi-automatic weapons for hunting.

Semi and full automatic weapons are meant to do one thing- spew out bullets as fast as possible. Any arguments on that ? I didn't think so.

to nbc: When did you start advocating for continuing violence simply because a task was hard ?

If this country followed the logic of this article's author, there would be no one living west of the Appalachians, no transcontinental railroad, no Hoover Dam, slavery would still exist, for that matter, the country itself would not exist.

Instead of listing out the problems with gun control, why not offer alternative solutions for a change ?

You gloss over the 2nd Amendment, but fail to deal with the reality that it is not the 2nd Amendment itself, but the poor interpretation done by the current Supreme Court members. If laws are not enacted eliminating guns, they will continue to be manufactured and imported.

LOL@ "Long live the Second Amendment. As relevant today as the day it was written."

Great Sarcasm!

I just got me a new a new muzzle loader 1500 and a hand full of pebbles.

haha

Man that thing is out of date. We have GOT to update that thing

dirp, that's the most moronic statement I've heard in my life. Only killers want guns... I suppose if you call someone who enjoys target shooting, or killing over populated nuisance hogs a killer, so be it. Or, the fact that I enjoy putting fresh meat on the table from hunting, then I guess I'm a killer. Just it someone uses an AR-15 over a browning 30-.06 A-bolt doesn't mean they're a killer. Personally, I'd rather someone have the AR-15 over the browning. I know i've shot for over 450 yards accurately with mine.

Where does it state in the constitution where we can or can't have slavery? I see where it was abolished in the 13th amendment, but no where does it say it's legal.

Women the right to vote? Again, I see an amendment granting women's suffrage. Prior to that, the wording "men" applied to single white males. The 15th and 19th amendments expounded on that and now "men" is all citizens. Sexist language from male chauvanists!

Never break the speed of sound? Who said that? As well as never get to the moon? Now you're just grasping at straws.

Ed Saunders

No one wants to post on my comment on 1.156, so I guess that what I have suggested would be a sane logical idea. the REAL hunters would never carry a semi-automatic rifle for two reasons.

1. It's unsporting to have more than one shot to hunt an unarmed animal.

2. Semi-autos aren't very accurate because of recoil. It is EXTREMELY difficult to line up a second shot because of recoil. That's why REAL hunters do not use semi-automatic weapons for hunting.

Maybe no one responded because your post wasn't worth the bother. Semi-autos will NEVER be banned so suggesting it is little more than moronic.

As for your ridiculous points-

1- Many of us don't hunt for "sport". We hunt to put food in our freezers

2- LOL! A semi-auto recoils LESS than any other gun because the action absorbs some of the recoil.

You clearly don't know jack @!$%# about guns or the people who use them making your opinions and points utterly invalid.

We Americans have been glorifying violence for hundreds of years. Look at our foreign policies, look at our wars, look at our entertainment. We are by far the most violent nation on the face of the earth. We currently spend more money on 'defense' (it is actually always offense) than the rest of the world combined. We invade countries half the way across the globe and wage wars there for over a decade. It is not American guns that is the problem - it is the American people. How many thousands of little kids were killed in the Iraq war? Did any of you cry for them?

Ed Saunders, I'll comment on your post. I consider myself a real hunter and I have had (not currently, as I sold some guns when I moved), both semi-autos, black powder muzzleloaders, and bolt/lever action rifles. I can think of MANY times where a semi-auto is VERY much needed. Ever lived in a state with a hog problem? Or wild dogs? (Coyotes are pretty timid so don't usually attack hunters unless they're starving.)

I have, and a hog will rip you apart and leave you to bleed out before it will. Two shots from a 30-.06 into a 300lb boar and it still charged and got a lucky shot to it's head with my .44 LC I keep as a companion gun. Pinned in a tree while stalk hunting by a pack of wild dogs and they didn't leave till I shot 7 of them, all the while I'm running to the tree, I'm still turning and popping at them.

Hogs and dogs are only two situations a semi is not only useful, but nearly necessary.

Oh and yeah, your comment on recoil is what probably turned everyone off. It's apparently you know jack about guns. Yeah I'm more accurate with my bolt action, but I can put two shots in the kill zone a lot faster than I can even line up my second with my bolt action.

So backcountry- you must not be much of a hunter if you need a semi-auto to put meat in your freezer. How many shots does it take you to bring down a deer? 30? 20? 10?

I started hunting with my grandfather when I was 12 years old. He told me if you need more than ONE shot to bring down a deer you had no business being out in the woods hunting. We hunted with 30-06 coverted Springfield rifle ( bolt action) and 30-30 Winchester Lever action rifle. No need for a semi-auto !!

You're right about the recoiless military rifles not having any "kick" but it's my experience that semi-auto "Sporting" rifles kick like hell and are extremely hard to line up a second shot.

@vie05ua

People don't realize the reason why the Japanese didn't invade the continental US in WWII is they believed "behind every blade of grass was a rifle." A Japanese Admiral stated that. And it was that fear that every citizen had a weapon that kept them at bay, else, historical analysts have stated they would have made it to the Mississippi before we could've countered, as the majority of our forces were in Europe, and we were crippled in the Pacific at Pearl Harbor.

From wikipedia:

You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

• It has been declared this attribution is "unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.", according to Brooks Jackson in "Misquoting Yamamoto" at Factcheck.org (11 May 2009)

That aside I'm skeptical of the efficacy of tighter gun controls due to how many there already are in this country and the difficulty in collecting them if they were made illegal retroactively (not that I'm suggesting that.)

Of particular note was this from the article:

The rate of firearms-related murders in 2011 was 3.2 per 100,000 people – a sharp decline from 1993 when the rate of firearms-related murders was 6.6 per 100,000 people.

The number of firearms-related murder victims dropped from more than 17,000 in 1993 to 9,903 in 2011.

It's hard to argue that gun violence in this country is increasing with statistics like that. They've dropped by nearly half in the last 18 years.

What we have had more of in recent years is an increase in high-profile shootings though. That probably has more to do with how the 24/7 media saturation about the people that commit these atrocious acts than anything else. The media is giving them exactly what they want: to be remembered.

And I'll say it one more time- If you need more than one shot to bring down an animal, you either don't belong out in the woods hunting, or you need a larger bore rifle. Hunting bears with a .22 aint a good idea and hunting wild boar with a 30.06 is insane !!

Ed Saunders

So backcountry- you must not be much of a hunter if you need a semi-auto to put meat in your freezer. How many shots does it take you to bring down a deer? 30? 20? 10?

Actually for 3/4 of the deer I harvest every year I use a muzzle loading rifle. Easier to get multiple tags and a longer season.

I started hunting with my grandfather when I was 12 years old. He told me if you need more than ONE shot to bring down a deer you had no business being out in the woods hunting

And how many tags was your grandfather trying to fill? A quick second shot can mean a second deer in the right situation. A quick second, third, forth, fifth (and so on) shot can go along way towards protecting your livestock from predators also not to mention protecting you from some vicious critter that doesn't go down with one shot. There are legitimate reasons to own a gun that don't involve hunting or personal protection from criminals.

You're right about the recoiless military rifles not having any "kick" but it's my experience that semi-auto "Sporting" rifles kick like hell and are exremely hard to line up a second shot.

And which of those is the "problem"???? Military or non has NOTHING to do with recoil, it's ALL about caliber. An FAL (.308) recoils a hell of a lot more than a Remington 750 chambered in .223

Ok, come back when you've actually had to deal with something other than what you're actually hunting. Dogs are common place when deer hunting. I've never had to put more than 1 shot into a deer, and never had one run more than 5-10 yards after the shot.

You shoot a boar that's charging you, tell me how easy it is, and if he goes down with the first shot. And what was your springfield converted from? If you would hunt hogs with anything less than a .30 cal, you go right ahead. my preference is actually my friends modified H&K USC shooting .45 ACP. Not as much range, but hogs are rarely farther out than 50-75 yards before they start coming at you. Quick, low recoil for fast targeting and target switching.

You go ahead and have fun in some of the back woods I hunt in with your little springfield. They're a good gun, but you'll come out a dead man in the areas I hunt; hogs, dogs, or maybe a cat or two will have fun.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• Secede already and take your guns with you, gun nuts!!
• 
  
• Obama will take the rest of us (maybe some kicking and screaming) into the civilized world!

backcountry, we might as well quit. There's going to be no convincing that guy. I'm guessing he and his grandfather hunted on some managed wildlife area where predators are kept at bay. Not to mention, don't think he's seen anything other than a deer. Wonder how he'd react if he got a bad shot off on a bull moose, lol...

If you can't make the kill shot, it's better to not shoot at all. The second shot is a waste of ammunition.

Quotes from my Grandfather.

1.2 MILLION children MURDERED every year in the US................ before they are even born

This petition: wh dot gov/RsHZ on the White House website, urging a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, was started on Saturday evening by an acquaintance of mine from Chicago. It is on pace to receive the 25,000 signatures required for a White House response by this afternoon. It's only a small thing, but the man who moves a mountain begins by moving small stones.

"One death from a gun is too many. Now is the time for change."

With that mindset, you should NEVER check into a hospital............. people DIE there............

The liberal media has always been reluctant to report the many times owning or carrying a gun has SAVED lives... this is because wacko killers are more profitable to them... and a much better way to rile up all you liberal whiners!

I am a gun owner and proud of it! My two recent additions were a XDm compact .45 and a Mossberg 500, 12 gauge shotgun. Both are great for target shooting, hunting, skeet, and especially home defense.

My wife and I frequently take gun safety and self defense classes... and have made a lot of great people along the way..... some are even liberals! lol... not all of you are that bad it seems!

I agree that gun laws have not and do not work. These types of events seem to be propelled by an individuals need for notorious recognition. The media and graphic movies/video games are as much a culprit in this as are the guns used to carry out the crime.That is what this was A CRIME. Strange that the media names Colorado, VA Tech, but fails to mention Fort Hood? Answers anyone?

@vie05ua:

The Constitution recognized the institution of slavery and therefore, by implication, did not prohibit it. This is not even controversial, man.

Art. I §2, clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

How about prohibiting Congress from banning the slave trade? Art. I §9, clause 1:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Not convinced yet?

Art. IV §2, clause 3: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

anti gun people.... you are getting played by Congress yet again... if you call for an assault weapons and large magazine ban.... again.... they will throw you that bone to get you off their back

- assault weapons APPEAR military cosmetically.... there is nothing different between a assault style rifle and other style rifles....just appearance... plenty other capable rifles and handguns and rifles made before a ban will be out there

- banning large magazines will not have a significant difference in capabilities for the shooter.... this idiot would have still pulled off this crime with the two handguns he had and a bunch of 10 round magazines... he just would have had to reload a few more times at 2.5 seconds each

- when these were banned between 1994 and 2004, the FBI and DOJ came to the conclusions that a) gun violence didn't go down significantly and b) assault weapons and large magazines were used a small fraction of the time in gun violence

- the military features of automatic fire, armor penetrating ammunition, and explosives are already heavily regulated

- since 2004 when the ban expired and today, while assault style weapons have become commonplace, the gun death rate in the US has been cut in HALF

when anti gun people squawk 'ban assault weapons'... Congress laughs at your naivete .... they know they can do that and get you off the real work they have to do:

- making insurance companies provide real mental healthcare instead of cutting it off at $200 per year

- creating a national, coordinated, comprehensive background check that includes psychological records

- toughening and standardizing school security

- working with the entertainment industry to reduce the warriorization of young people

if anti gun people just think with the 'assault weapons' catchphrase, and you get a completely ineffective ban... again... then next year a 21 year old kid, that couldn't get mental healthcare, and ducked the background check system because it didn't pick up his medical records, will just stack twenty 10 round magazines with the same pistols and shotgun this kid had, walk into a school, and kill 50

and it will be on YOU anti gun people... because when you had the political clout to do something.... instead of really learning about the issues involved, you took the completely noneffective ban instead of forcing your Congress to take real action on issues that actually matter

when you guys say 'assault weapons ban' .... you don't know what you are talking about

ozmosis:
This is why we have the 2nd Amendment. "This year will go down in History. For the first time, a civlized Nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler 1935 Need I say more.

Google that little quote of yours and you'll find it was never spoken nor written by Hitler.

It's simply an often told lie by the right wing whackjobs.

Good job Tyler

Edited to take it easy on the banned guy.

Old Hamlet Man: Your argument is old and tired. The fact that laws can be broken or circumvented is no reason to throw up your hands and stop trying. We can make criminals less lethal. All of human legal history is based on this premise, so I think if you're going to say that laws can't have an impact, the burden of proof will be on you.

I predict that there will be a limit on magazine size, and that there will be changes in mental health policy, background checks, and requirements for safe gun storage. And you know what? We will never know if they save a single life. But we must start moving that mountain.

Ed Saunders

If you can't make the kill shot, it's better to not shoot at all. The second shot is a waste of ammunition.

Quotes from my Grandfather.

Well your grandfather obviously had VERY limited experience as a hunter making his opinion as worthless as yours.

RonB from Pittsburgh

...so I think if you're going to say that laws can't have an impact, the burden of proof will be on you.

It's not that laws can't have an impact, the issue is whether you can justify imposing a law upon hundreds of thousands of people in order to make a minimal impact on crime. Historically, in this country, the answer to that question has ALWAYS been NO.

Not one single (realistic) suggestion on this page would have prevented this tragedy so what exact would be the purpose of these suggestions other than to give the sheeple a false sense of security?

Gun discussions REALLY brings out the redneckness in their owners. Some of the "statistics" and justifications mentioned above are pure deep-woods kinda stuff. Especially the one comparing guns and cars. Man it's scary.

Something about this subject brings out some kind of pride (or passion or something) that consumes cognitive abilities. "Let's arm the teachers". "Mass Murderers only pick areas where guns are not allowed". "Government is trying to control EVERYTHING in our lives". The bottom line is that nothing will change because there are just way too many rednecks in this country.

RonB from Pittsburgh

...so I think if you're going to say that laws can't have an impact, the burden of proof will be on you.

the age of the argument is immaterial and the burden of proof is upon the people who want change... you need to substantiate to 147 Million gun owners that an assault weapons ban will be worth the cost to them...

throughout history we don't change social policy in an attempt to save one life... we do it for the net effect to our country

during the assault weapons ban Columbine happened....

since assault weapons and large magazines became legal again firearm murders are down by half...

if you join with gun owners, who want gun violence to be zero by the way, we will do a LOT on those other issues....

if you say, screw you guys, we are going to take what you have.... you won't get political consensus... you might get the same old BS ban that has been proven not to work.... if you believe this wouldn't have happened without a AR looking rifle and 30 round magazines... you are very uninformed to put it mildly

and the social factors that allow someone to get it in his head he is going to kill kids are going to go unfixed and it will happen again.... soon

Do you ever wonder why conservatives question the equity in reporting of the news? Here are samples regarding how the media reported on politicizing of tragedies. When Republicans criticized the false reports from the Obama Administration about the events leading up to the loss of lives at our Consulate in Libya:

• Mitt Romney's Disgraceful Politicizing of Libya Tragedy, US News & World Report (9/12/2012)
• Biden and a top Obama campaign strategist called the Republican criticism an attempt to play politics with a tragic issue. CNN (10/17/2012)
• Romney’s disgraceful words after Libya attack kills U.S. ambassador, Republican wrong to politicize tragedy - New York Daily News (10/12/2012)

When Democrats use the tragedy surrounding the murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School to advance their desire to push gun control:

• Lawmakers seem prepared to tackle gun control: 'This one feels different' – CNN (12/18/2012)
• As Newtown burials begin, Washington feels the heat to act firmly on gun control - New York Daily News (12/17/2012)

Before you decide whether you support various Democrats use of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, ask yourself if the legislation would have done anything to prevent that tragedy or is it simply an effort to enhance the politician's image. This killer's weapons consisted of two handguns and a rifle. There were no large magazines that held 30+ bullets, no assault weapons, etc.

@stonepipe2, you are absolutely right! Like all tragedies and this is a tragedy will wane from the minds of the apathetic American people as we have many problems as a country that will continue to rear its ugly head. The lobbyist dependent politicians know that if they take any action against the constitution they have written their death sentences career wise.

Sorry haggis, while I admire your passion the apathy will win out again. If our government would do what's right we wouldn't need guns.

Every boat owner I know claims to be the best skipper around – much better than everyone else on the river that day. Similar thing with my gun friends. Each claim to be more careful than anyone else with safe carry, operation, and storage of their weaponry.

They just can’t bring themselves to admit that there will be that one day when they forget to lock the safe. Or they think there’s a prowler when it’s just their kid coming in late. Or someone looks particularly intimidating and they decide to take action. Or an argument over a traffic accident spirals out of control.

Our police and military forces are on call for a predetermined period of time. They are to be 100% on task for that period of time. When their time is over, someone else takes over. A gun hobbyist cannot be continuously at top performance for 24/7/365. There’s going to be that lapse where attention falls, bad decisions made; add some fire power and… disaster. This is the transition from respectable gun owner to criminal.

That's why we, as a civilized society, must control these weapons.

A few basic facts:

1. Gun death statistics are held by the CDC and FBI. In those "deaths by gun" statistics you can't find the following: # of suicides, # of murders, # of deaths by police fire, # of deaths by accident, # of deaths by self defense. They are all "deaths by guns". Kind of hard to understand the issue if you can't figure out the aspects of the issue isn't it?

2. The media loves to call gun owners zelots and the act of ownership to be offputting. I can't tell you how many times over the weekend I heard someone on cable "news" saying- "Why does anyone need one of those?" and "Why did she have so many?" With that logic, and based on the number of deaths via other means, I guess we should be asking, "With all of the deaths via cars, why should cars be able to go so fast? Why does anyone NEED 2 cars? " Maybe we should be asking, "With so many alcohol related deaths, why do people have to have alcohol? Why does anyone NEED two types of whiskey?" You see gun ownership, driving a car, and the use of alcohol are all regulated heavily- You need to be of an age, get appropriate checks done, and in many cases have a state issued license to own a gun- you need to be of an age, get appropriate checks done, and have a state license to operate a car- and you need to be of legal age and abide by state laws to have/drink alcohol.

I know that guns are designed to kill things whereas cars and alcohol only provide opportunities to kill people, however it leads to a better dialog. If you don't want violence in society then why do you promote violence in society through music, movies, games, tv, etc.? Shouldn't all forms of voilent content then be banned? I'd say no, I'd rather that we work within the confines of reasonable behavior and personal responsibility. Just more food for thought.

@Bill-2910238

This killer's weapons consisted of two handguns and a rifle. There were no large magazines that held 30+ bullets, no assault weapons, etc.

Actually, from what I understand, the rifle was a Bushmaster AR-15 which is most definitely considered an assault rifle. Haven't heard what sort of magazines he was using but I would agree that no legislation being put forward would have prevented this from happening in any way, shape or form.

itburns - no one is saying we don't need gun control at all. The sheer amount of gun control laws on books is staggering, some aren't even enforced. Required background checks have caught and stopped several people from buying guns, but the fact is, with the blackmarket, stealing guns, or getting them from friends/family, it's impossible to stop them all.

Our police force is supposed to be at 100% of their game when they're on call. They aren't and it's impossible. Everyone has off days, sees something different, or interprets something wrong, or just "misses". The bystanders killed by cops in that shoot out in... NYC (forget where it was, someone feel free to correct me). Over half the bullets hit innocent bystanders? Sorry but I've qualified expert pistol and rifle, most of the cops I know barely qualify with a pistol.

I think we can lose all the rhetoric here. Video games, music and movies do not cause violence. No one can say why someone snapped except the person who did. So any bible thumpers in the crowd can just drop that.

To the gun lovers, allowing more people to have guns likely will never solve any problems. Most people would be non-participatory except for gun lovers. It's a small segment of society and it won't do much for us. Your argument is moot.

To the gun haters, banning guns will never prevent anything from happening. People who are hell bent on killing someone will use anything they can. A very important note here... GUN LAWS DON'T AFFECT THOSE WHO DON'T FOLLOW LAWS. Would someone that is looking to kill someone fall into that demographic... absolutely. Your argument is moot.

To everyone else.. Quit looking for meaning where there is none. People will often snap and do terrible things. No amount of nanny government or citizen paranoia will ever change that. Just be thankful that you aren't in the crossfire and give your family a huge hug.

For the most important point, this is an incredibly sad FLUKE situation. It doesn't happen on every street corner so quit worrying so much. It's a damn shame the guy that shot all those kids didn't survive so that he could be bored out by Bubba for the next 60 years. That said, no one knows why he did what he did.

@vieo5ua - You've also never been in a life or death shoot out where you had to make a split decision fuelled by adrenaline. Cops do have to qualify with their weapons. They don't just hand out guns to cops willy nilly. I know my brother (who is a cop) had to qualify with an assault weapon at 400 yards with iron sites. There are also tons of other things they need to do. You don't know what your talking about. Put a sock in it.

Backcountry164

Actually, from what I understand, the rifle was a Bushmaster AR-15 which is most definitely considered an assault rifle. Haven't heard what sort of magazines he was using but I would agree that no legislation being put forward would have prevented this from happening in any way, shape or form.

----

A Bushmaster has no selective fire mechanism. It's a rifle that's made to kill coyotes, not made with the intent to shoot enemy combatants. If you are discussing a Colt AR-15, many of those are made with selective fire installed for military purposes and would be classified as an assault rifle.

A semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle. Most indicators of what is classified as an assault rifle will indicate it is either fully automatic or burst fire capable.

@nolan, lack of reading comprehension? I said they barely qualified, as in still qualified. I don't think any cop should be issued a firearm on the force unless they qualify marksman or better. And for those of you who don't know, most (but not all) forces (military, police, or private security) have 3-4 qualification rankings: qualified (means they get to wear the pistol/rifle badge), marksman (have the additional ribbon below), sharpshooter, and expert.

And yeah, nolan, I have no idea what I'm talking about, considering you don't know a thing about me; my profession, past professions, service records, experience, etc... Dude seriously, don't tell someone they don't know what they're talking about unless you know you can back it up. As in this case, you don't know what you're talking about, so put a sock in it. And just FYI, National Guard Rifle past past 3 years scores: 37, 39, 38, 34. Past qualification had a jammed middle finger and couldn't grip correctly. 9mm scores the same. Oh and yeah, all open sights.

@repojam - the select fire colt "AR-15" are actually M-16. Colt has never made a select fire rifle with the actual designation of AR-15. You are confusing the M-16 and AR-15, easy to do since the M-16 is based off the AR-15 platform with a select fire system in place. The M-16 is sold to military and police forces only.

The Bushmaster AR-15 is a .223 (not a true AR-15) that comes with a 30 round magazine.

vie05ua

@repojam - the select fire colt "AR-15" are actually M-16. Colt has never made a select fire rifle with the actual designation of AR-15. You are confusing the M-16 and AR-15, easy to do since the M-16 is based off the AR-15 platform with a select fire system in place. The M-16 is sold to military and police forces only.

----

Colt made the 601 and 602 (XM16) AR-15s which were used until the 90s. They weren't considered M-16s until the 603 (XM16E1) and the more popular 604 models (M-16, think Vietnam era with the melting barrel) models. Many of them were even stamped stating they were AR-15's and property of the US government.

I was trying to keep the discussion easy to follow for those who think an AR-15 is actually an assault rifle rather than having to break down the various evolution the AR-15 took many years ago. An AR-15 Bushmaster isn't an assault rifle, but an M-16 is.

@nolan, BUT we do agree on something, pretty much everything before what you directed at me I agree with. Video games, music, tv, they desensitize us, but don't cause it.

@obamawhistles - I think its a situation and person that defines that actually. In the middle of no where with low collateral damage, a lot will point and shoot. In a high collateral damage area, I think a lot will, not necessarily take time with the shots, but will definitly try to hit a kill zone with more accuracy.

The Korean and Vietnam vets I work with have always considered them M-16s. I was trying to keep people less confused or thinking one was tagged with an AR-15 and had select fire on it. The select fire (XM16E1, M16A1, M16A2, M16A4) and the full auto (M16A3) have never held the AR-15 tag. Saying some AR-15s were made with select fire will confuse people, rather than just telling them "AR-15 is the semi-auto only and the M16 is the full auto".

The M16A3 is the melting barrel I think you're talking about. That and the M60. I know many heavy gunners complaining about having either one and wanted the M1 back rather than carrying multiple barrels and the asbestos glove. Not many I know have complained about any M16 melting, just the crap accuracy of them when trying to get a sniper.

"Gun control offers no cure-all in America..."

But it is a good start down the road to sanity and, ultimately, safety and security of all citizens.

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
Lao-tzu, "The Way of Lao-tzu."
Chinese philosopher (604 BC - 531 BC)

If Nancy Lanza had not been allowed to buy a weapon capable of firing hundreds of rounds, and killing 26 people, each with multiple shots, in the 10 minutes it took for police to respond; if Nancy Lanza had been cited several times before for failing to properly secure that weapon when not in use; I promise you, there would be children alive today who aren't.

In fact, if the principal and school psychologist had been able to wait to lunge at him until he had to reload a revolver or a standard 9mm (which I believe is what happened in the case of the Giffords shooting in Arizona, where people -- but not 26 people by any means -- died), it may be that a dozen or more of those children would still be alive.

Does this mean we can just dispense with that "Well-Regulated Militia" nonsense?

Should I change my screen name to something like "Rod Steel", have a glamour shot for an avatar?

The President must have whistled, huh?

Who gets the award for the most expansive use of the terms "liberal" and "idiots" in a single paragraph? Do they still spell it "morans"?

Is "Steve" a Constitutional scholar, member of the Supreme Court, or just spinning?

@obama_whistles - You're probably right. What's the alternative, sit there and get shot? When your adrenaline is pumping like that and it's between life and death I'd say the only person who can make that call is the cop.

@vieo - I only read one of your comments. The TV stuff was aimed at some crazy lady who commented a ways up. Gun lovers and gun nuts stuff was at everyone. The only part specifically aimed at you was the part with the @. As for the police, I know they have a ton of training. I've known a lot of cops and one thing I know them not to be is under qualified. Of course, they exist but aren't the norm. The reason I said put a sock in it is because you're speaking about police training and not a cop. They are continuously hounded to train by their departments. Maybe it's not the same everywhere but that's what I have seen. Also, to the desensitization effect of games and tv, I wouldn't agree that they even desensitize. If someone makes a choice to do something, it's their choice. They take all the responsibility. No blaming tv or media.

I guess am indifferent on the gun issue because I was raised around guns and still to this day own 21 of them 6 being handguns. However I am not so naive as to believe that handguns were made for anything but killing people plan and simple. Maybe I am the only single American that is still in the middle on this issue. But I am compelled to believe that yes we need much stricter gun regulation. And qutie frankly a ban of all handgus. As some one earlier used the example of Swiss I will counter that with Japan in a population of over 120 million in 2011 they had only 70 gun related deaths 40 which were ruled homicide, 20 were ruled suicide the other 10 were considered undetermined.

I note that the gun users, including vie05ua, don't like my logic.

Well try this: guns are designed for one purpose, to KILL.

The users of guns are, by definition, killers.

The reason for buying a guns it to be able to kill, if given the opportunity.

If you don't want to be known as a potential killer, get rid of your guns.

BTW: knowingly having an intention to kill is probably indicative of mental illness.

If mental health illness would prevent gun ownership the problem of gun violence would be eliminated.

dirp

I note that the gun users

Thank you for not using the usual "nuts" etc.

Well try this: guns are designed for one purpose, to KILL

Not debating that... just remember that the next someone suggest that someone shoot to wound

The users of guns are, by definition, killers.

NEGATIVE.. not a killer until one actually does the deed. Then it is a matter of justified or not. Lets be honest here... IF someone is threatening to kill you or yours and you choose to kill by whatever means that makes you killer as well.. or are you going to sit there and let it happen so the cops can write up a report over your dead body?

The reason for buying a guns it to be able to kill, if given the opportunity.

To defend oneself, to hunt, to target practice.. each of us finds our own way to relax, blow steam, have fun.

If you don't want to be known as a potential killer, get rid of your guns.

Get rid of your vehicle first.. they have MORE potential than a firearm currently.

BTW: knowingly having an intention to kill is probably indicative of mental illness.

put your psych license back in your crackerjack box with the decoder ring. Or are you stating that a soldier is mentally ill? It is human nature to want to kill. FACT.

If mental health illness would prevent gun ownership the problem of gun violence would be eliminated.

LOL.. so someone robbing a bank with a gun to obtain food money is mentally ill? Define mental illness please... road rage? you are depressed because your significant other broke up with you? You need a beer to relax at night?

Now if you are referring to mental illness to the degree that it should be treated with medication then by law it is illegal currently to possess a firearm while under the influence, of any substance/medication... I think tobacco is exempted as is coffee.

Dirp for the most part i can see where you are coming from however alot of the guns i have date back 3 generation in my family. Admittily I really on take them out of the safe to clean them 4 times a year. I personly believe that people who relile on guns tend to be cowards afriad of a litte blood on their hands. Which brings me to the point the if all people went back to using swords or something. you would probably see a decline in seneslees death. but good luck convincing that to the big gun/truck/corvette tiny sclong crowd.

@dirp

I note that the gun users, including vie05ua, don't like my logic.

Logic! LOL!

Repojam

A semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle. Most indicators of what is classified as an assault rifle will indicate it is either fully automatic or burst fire capable.

I'm familiar with the rifle. I also realize that it would most certainly be classified as an "assault weapon" in any legislation to come, whether it technically is one or not, considering it has been in the past.

gun control laws = increased taxes on registered gun owners, but probably won't change anything else!

Why do liberals always think regulations will stop criminals and wackos from doing what they want?

I think the answer to that question may be more complicated in today's world! And I have no confidence, whatsoever, that Obama has the answer!

Hmmmm.....189 up arrows out of 228 comments. 189 to 39 non arrows. 2nd Amendment Wins!!!!!

Too many voters embrace feel-good propaganda that they want to hear instead of learning the basic facts about issues they care about. They should do a better job of calling out dishonest politicians -- and shunning media outlets that stoke political food fights.

http://money.msn.com/investing/11-things-wrong-with-congress

FAILED SOCIETY:

a. Education:

McCullough: Well we need to revamp, seriously revamp, the teaching of the teachers. I don't feel that any professional teacher should major in education. They should major in a subject, know something. The best teachers are those who have a gift and the energy and enthusiasm to convey their love for science or history or Shakespeare or whatever it is. "Show them what you love" is the old adage. And we've all had them, where they can change your life. They can electrify the morning when you come into the classroom.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57547353/david-mcculloughs-heroes-of-history/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

b. Population, Environment, Resources:

1. John B. Calhoun, National Institute of Mental Health(NIMH), Rat Population Study.

2. Hamurabi, Computer Simulation, aka The Sumer Game.

c. Social Conditioning:

1. Punish Successful Individual Choices to take from the Successful with Legalized Theft to give to those that made Failed Individual Choices (known Historically Documented previous Failures).

2. Yes, we MUST listen to those Movie Stars that are protecting their livelyhood by stating it is NOT the graphic violence depicted in Movies. See correlation to Motion Picture Ratings as strictly enforced by Nation's Governments versus Nations with lax or no enforcement like US as Walmart regulating Walmart.

3. Rewarding Violence in Games with more points. See the Pavlov's Dog Study, Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) like Walmart telling Walmart what Walmart can and cannot do.

4. Usually it is those that were/are participants in War(s) that are the strongest opponents to Wars and Violence, as they have thru Firsthand Experience witnessed that the violence, deaths, killings, pain, suffering, etc. are not just one sided. The Cries of participants not listened to by Future Generations, WWI "The War to End All Wars"; World War II "Never Again"; etc.. WWII when the majority were participants in some manner versus the current only 1% of US Citizens Serving in the US Military while 92% of US Citizens have never suffered the consequences of War(s).

5. US as a No Fault Society. And everyone wins a prize as paid for by whoever happens to be demonized that week, month or year; "There is no such thing as a Free Lunch" (someone paid for that "Free" some how).

6. "Level the Playing Field" as for immediate results (for Political gain), usually means bringing everyone down to the lowest common denominator, not the harder bringing everyone UP to become their best. As critized by Kurt Vonnegut's 1961 Book, Harrison Bergeron.

d. Morals, Ethics, Norms, Mores, etc.:

US has zero. "Just don't get caught and that's all good".

e. US Politics (All Parties, All Issues):

All Politicians for Sale as,

The Price Tag Of Politics

As Bob Schieffer explains, Politicians generally listen to the ones who gave them the money to get where they are today and in the end, once they reach Washington their positions are set in stone, thanks to lobbyists and special interest groups.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6228712n&tag=related;photovideo

f. US Justice System

For Sale in relation to the US Laws created by the US Politicians aka Lawmakers of e. above.

g. Popularity not Substance, (Lame) Excuses not Results, Emotions not Logic, Opinions not Facts, etc..

h. The "Majority" that is believed and listened to. Hint: You listen to and copy Success NOT failure(s):

49. Illinois
> State debt per capita: $4,424 (13th highest)
> Pct. without health insurance: 13.8% (23rd lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 13.1% (25th lowest)
> Unemployment: 10% (10th highest)

Illinois has fallen from 43rd last year to the overall second-worst run state in the country. The state performs poorly in most categories, but is worst when it comes to its credit rating. Illinois has a credit rating of A+, the second worst given to any state, behind only California. The state has been on credit watch since 2008 because of budget shortfalls and legal challenges against then-governor Rod Blagojevich.

50. California
> State debt per capita: $3,660 (21st highest)
> Pct. without health insurance: 18.5% (8th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 14.5% (tied for 21st highest)
> Unemployment: 11.9% (2nd highest)

California has moved down one slot on from last year to earn the title of the worst-run state in the country. In the fiscal year 2009, the state spent $430 billion, roughly 14% of all the money spent by states in that year. Compared to its revenue, the state spent too much — California had the 10th lowest revenue per person, and spent the 15th most per person. California is the only state in the country to be rated A-, the lowest rating ever given to a state by S&P. Despite the huge amount the state spends each year, conditions remain poor. California has the second-lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma in the country, the second-highest foreclosure rate and is tied for the second highest unemployment rate in the U.S.

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/01/9118480-the-best-and-worst-run-states-in-the-us

stonepipe2 - Hmmmm.....189 up arrows out of 228 comments. 189 to 39 non arrows. 2nd Amendment Wins!!!!!

Now change that to the relationship (numbers in Millions) pertaining to the Entire US Population.

As just how many in Millions are still Uneducated about the US Supreme Court Ruling (Current or Recent Events) pertaining to the Second Amendment and the Unconstitutional D.C. Anti Gun Laws as Individual Gun Ownership as a separate entity from the "Militias". As the US Supreme Court also considered the Historical perspective being the "Minutemen" were individuals as farmers, shopkeeps, merchants, fur traders, hunters, etc. that fought the British Regulars after the British Generals Cornwallis and Clinton confiscated all of the Colonists Militia Armories (Firearms) before the start of the American Revolution and the Unarmed "Well Organized Militias" fleeing with the Founding Fathers. The Individuals as "Minutemen" holding off the British Military until the Founding Fathers would stop bickering (how it would be funded) and finally create the First ContinentalArmy (Uniforms, Napoleonic Conventional Warfare).

So yes, the Founding Fathers knew the two separate entities of the Individuals as "Minutemen" (First Successful use of US Military Asymmetric Warfare, No Uniforms, Insurgency) and the "Well Organized Militias" (Predecessors to State's National Guard, Conventional Warfare, Uniforms).

What I almost laugh at is that in most of the current rewritten Politically Correct US History Books, "US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan during WWII". With most Teachers having a degree in Education and a certificate (basic multiple guess test) to teach History, not knowing who, what, why, how, where, how many, etc.. examples: How the targets were selected, why the nuclear bombs were dropped (state reason, projected casualties (millions both sides) during the invasion of Japan (many Islands), there are two different types of nuclear bombs as atomic and thermo nuclear, no mention of the more devastating US use of white phosphorus cluster bombs to create firestorms the size of entire cities plus suburbs, etc..

By the way Historically, as Chancellor Hitler knew a very vocal minority portaying themselves as the Majority can and will always get their way, as to how his well organized Brown Shirts got Hitler into power (and lots of emotive popular opinons).

As far as Uneducated popular emotive opinions, as do not consider the consequences, just fling manure all over Newsvine's "Get Smarter Here":

ewent - So...clamp down on gun owners....publish the name and general location of all gun buyers and gun owners on the internet and on a local town registry. We need to know who may be a potential threat.

How about this we publish everyone's names, addresses, etc. that do not own a firearm as to who are the "easy pickings" (aka sheep) for the criminals .

And:

mike-464493 - ...and the second amendment is also just as nebulous as the day it was written.

Do keep up with the Adult Conversation, go research the recent US Supreme Court Ruling pertaining to the Second Amendment and the Unconstitutional D.C. Anti Gun Laws.

And:

Neko Samurai - Which brings me to the point the if all people went back to using swords or something. you would probably see a decline in seneslees death. but good luck convincing that to the big gun/truck/corvette tiny sclong crowd.

Sure worked great for the British (anti gun) versus the Canadians (gun ownership). Also instead of pulling numbers out of your arse about gun related homicides at Japan, go watch NHK (Japanese TV for the actual numbers).

Typical Guijinn post, Neko Samurai, don't even know the actual Japanese (Samurai) Culture.

Which brings up something else, how many can one person club to death:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=clubbing+seals&qs=n&form=QBIR

Or Kick to death (increased sales of steel toe "safety" boots):

A Clockwork Orange

THERE NEEDS TO BE A LAW REQUIRING MANDATORY CLASSES AND LICENSES FOR ANYONE TO BECOME A PARENT OR CREATING CHILDREN.

I just read through the mass killings of the last 20 yrs and there's one recurring factor contributing to the mental state of the shooter that has not been mentioned. BULLYING.

Regulate firearms the same way automobiles are regulated. There is nothing unlawful about regulating cars and there is nothing unlawful about regulating firearms the same way.

miklkit

Regulate firearms the same way automobiles are regulated. There is nothing unlawful about regulating cars and there is nothing unlawful about regulating firearms the same way.

Driving is a privilege and not guaranteed. Firearms are a Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. Both have been argued before the courts and defined.

RWSB Wait a miniute are you sujesting that we strart teaching kids how to hanld guns in what high, middle, elementry school. That is absolutly rediculous and I have been a gun owner (21 right now) but that accerion is a load of cow dung and you know it.

David I am acually quite familiar with the samurai culcure in Japan. One place i would love to go and live and emerss myself in the culture someday. However my point remains the same people have always killed people through out the history of cilvilation. So oblivlily that is not going to change. But to make weapons that can make where anyone with a cocky attitude, or the kid in the corner might wind up killing you just seem a little absurd to me personally.

David I went back and lucked and I am truley sorry about the numbers. I left a zero off of all 3 my numers concerning Japan.

Neko Samurai

RWSB Wait a miniute are you sujesting that we strart teaching kids how to hanld guns in what high, middle, elementry school. That is absolutly rediculous and I have been a gun owner (21 right now) but that accerion is a load of cow dung and you know it.

You think even high school is too young? And you're only 21 yourself? When did you start shooting? When I was in high school I'd always have my shotgun in my car during pheasant season so we could head out right after school. Now that wouldn't even be legal. In many parts of the country it is not at all uncommon to teach gun safety at a young age; 11, 12 are not at all uncommon and studies show this can prevent many accidental shootings. Kids who have had firearms safety training understand that a real gun is NOT a toy.

@Obama Whistles Idiots Follow

Do you really think Mexicans, who produce the most gang members in America, will follow that law?

So one moron gets banned and then some other moron with a similar screen name shows up spouting the exact same garbage. Gee, what a coincidence.

champagnesabre

perhaps gun control is in the right place

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html

wonder why MSN did not report on this one??

"One in four guns are sold at gun shows or by private individuals without any background check."

Do you have a credible source for this statement? You do realize a gun show sale versus a private individual sale is not a mutually inclusive thing?

"Can we at least make this a federal law so a felon from Chicago no longer simply has to drive 15 miles to Indiana where they can buy all the guns and ammo they can carry?"

That`s already done, Federal Law dictates that people with State/Federal felony convictions lose their 2nd Amendment rights.

What else do you desire?

Perhaps enforcing existing Law would achieve the results you desire.

Just a thought, thanks.

I have held a conceal/carry permit for many years and do carry. In my state we have to have a 8 hour training course and pass a federal background check to obtain a licence. Doesn't Chicago already outlaw handguns? Hows that working out? I do think that people that have to take any type of anti-depressants should be denied the right to purchase a handgun. We really need to look more at the mental health aspect instead of punishing us who are responsible, law abiding gun owners.

I do not think that a mental "fitness" test in addition to the handgun training course is out of order. A drug test wouldn't be a bad idea, either ... I am subject to random drug testing to hold a commercial driver's licence (CDL). It is easy to answer a question on an application, but back it up as the criminal background check confirms other details of concealed carry application. In my state, the renewal is done yearly.

Ca we talk about jail for anyone who makes a violent threat against another, in the media or anywhere else?

Before Supreme Court Chief Judicial Activist John Roberts, the Supreme Court always said the Second Amendment ONLY concerns State Militia or what is now known as National Guard. And states have a Right to arm National Guard. Even the Founding Fathers said the 2d Amendment only concerns State Militias. Not the common people.

John Roberts in one of thousands of poor decisions suddenly throws 220 years of Supreme Court law out the window and declares that the meaning is ordinary citizens, when infact the Second Amendment starts out talking about State National Guards.

Shameful!!! Where is congress? Why haven't they impeached Roberts yet?

And thats my opinion

"Do you have a credible source for this statement? You do realize a gun show sale versus a private individual sale is not a mutually inclusive thing?"

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Indiana

"Doesn't Chicago already outlaw handguns? Hows that working out?"

Look at a map. It's a 20 minute drive from south Chicago to Hammond, Indiana- the place where the movie A Christmas Story was based on. They can attend a gun show there and buy enough weaponry to arm a small nation and be home in plenty of time for supper.

"That`s already done, Federal Law dictates that people with State/Federal felony convictions lose their 2nd Amendment rights"

And how, exactly, does that work without a background check?

"instead of punishing us who are responsible, law abiding gun owners."

Who has said anything about punishing law abiding gun owners?

"I do think that people that have to take any type of anti-depressants should be denied the right to purchase a handgun."

Do you understand that by your logic it would be still be permitted for a depressed person who is NOT taking anything to treat their depression to buy a gun? Plus the person that someone who is depressed is far and away most likely to harm is themselves.

In this instance, I try and think what law could have been in place to prevent the recent event. I can only go by what I know at the moment and I know details are still coming out. But in this case a mentally unstable person that didn't own the guns had access to the guns. I don't know if they were unsecured or if he cut the locks or whatever. So a law banning the purchase of firearms by mental people wouldn't do anything. Would a law banning having firearms in the same home as a mental person help? If so, what mental disorders are disqualifying?

The think is that it's impossible to stop someone bent on committing suicide and wanting to take out as many people as they can along the way. They are no different than a suicide bomber. There is no law or punishment that can prevent this because they will be taking their own life anyways. There's no deterrent.

I believe some states if not all already have laws requiring gun locks on guns. Maybe a stronger law maybe requiring gunsafes that are harder to get around than a lock. Many gun owners already have a safe and those that don't won't like being forced to purchase one but I think it's better than having to give up the guns you own.

I still don't know how it can be enforced without inspectors serching the home of ever gunowner. On top of not knowing who owns guns since there isn't a registry, they wouldn't know which homes to inspect. They would have to bust another amendment illegally searching everyones homes and people aren't going to go for that. I know I wouldn't.

Personally, I think laws are sufficient now. Gunowners just need to be more prudent in securing their guns from unauthorized use.

Nothing could have really prevented this from happening. The only thing that could have stopped it would have been someone with another gun. The police are effective but in this case they got there 26 people too late. You can put an officer in every school in the country. The reality comes in the cost. How much are the peope willing to pay to slightly reduce a risk?

As a gun owner and concealed carry permit holder here in NH i have no problems with some tighter restrictions. But they have to be reasonable. I have been reading these statements from folks since Saturday and I am tiring of the same old speaches. I have no issue with back ground checks, waiting periods (though NH doesn't have one) or forcing gun shows to be required to back ground checks. I believe that all phsychiatric patients should have themselves put in our felony system so their name will flag in a background check. I recognize that there are doctor patient privilidge issues with this but I think there has to be some way to pull this off. You look at every mass shooting that has taken place in this country in the last 10 years. Each suspect has shown some mental defficiencies.

Now on to video games and televisiong/movies. If you cannot distiguish the difference from TV or video games and reality you have your own issues. They are entertainment and nothing more. If there was more education in schools about firearms and their use there would be less chance of children getting hurt. I believe all students should be required to take a class in regard to firearms. They don't have to shoot them they just have to understand them. You can't just tell your kids don't touch. They need a reason not to touch. They need to understand the dangers of using a gun. They need to understand that this isn't the movies and that their friend Joey isn't going to get up Like Arnold and Sylvester do in the movies.

Guns don't kill ignorance does.

Start programs; in every city to train and give carrie permits to responsible people. After the initial boot camp training, they could attend classes, every two weeks, or once a week for a couple of hours. This way the criminal or crazy people, would not know who might have a gun to protect others, while waiting for law enforcement to arrive. If a city of ten thousand were to have say five hundred people who have been trained, and would have a weapon on them, to stop someone from killing others, it could help to reduce this kind of crimes. A well thought out plan to be prepared for this would be better than no plan. There are many law abiding people and even ex military who could be trusted to carry a weapon to keep the cities a little safer. We are living in perilous times, and these kinds of crimes are on the rise. I do not think it is wrong to have a plan in place to deal with this situation.

You do realize that you can't buy handguns out of state legally right? So you propose to make it...what? More illegal? Sure there are some loopholes in gun laws that need to be fixed but let's not fool ourselves. If all the laws that are in place now were followed there would still be gun violence. Even if we took away guns, there would still be gun violence. Probably more crime would follow as it has in the countries and states that have outlawed gun ownership. We don't live in a police state. There are not armed government soldiers on every street corner in every city and town in this country and personally, I wouldn't want that...ever. Let's face it we can do everything right and bad things will still happen. What I think most people who insist on more gun control don't realize is that gun control only really affects those that don't break the law. People who own guns and follow the law aren't people that kill other people. In a country of over 300 million we had less than 10k deaths from guns last year. About a third of what was killed on our nation's highways. That number is dropping. So, before we go and try to rewrite every gun law that is on the books let's examine what is been going right and tweak the system to get those numbers down even more.

Immediate action!! ok...i wonder how many people would support Obama if he declared a national state of emergency.A National state of emergency would give Obama the dictorial power he needs to use Federal troops and National Guards to do a nationwide shakedown for guns and whatever else he wants.He could also suspend future legislation and elections until the emergency is over.In other words,MARTIAL LAW.This scenario could happen if congress was foolish enough to obtain a magority vote approve it.So if you find this a little hard to swallow then it's time to settle down and be reasonable.

Magnum,

The Supreme Court did not rule as you suggest until 1939 in the Case of United States v. Miller. Prior Supreme Court rulings for the most part only stated that the Bill of Rights only prohibited action by the federal government and not the state governments. The point of these cases was to declare that state regulation of firearms was not unconstitutional. However, as stated in District of Columbia v. Heller, there is a long history of legal opinion dating back to the passage of the 2nd amendment contending that the amendment protect an individual right to bear arms separate from membership in a militia.

Congress hasn't impeached the Chief Justice yet because he has not commited any "high crime or misdemeanor" that would entitle Congress to take such action.

We really need to look more at the mental health aspect instead of punishing us who are responsible, law abiding gun owners.

How does regulation and use of firearms punish anyone?

As for mental health, go ahead: Contact your Congressman and urge him or her to support a greater investment in mental health services. Why, I bet you'd even pay more in taxes for this.

Psychiatrists struggle to treat garden-variety depression. People like Adam Lanza often resist treatment and are treatment-resistant in the bargain. I'm all for improving access to mental health services, but you're dreaming if you think this will reduce rampage shootings without a corresponding commitment to firearms regulation.

Magnum Serpentine,

Your "opinion" is based on your ignorance. The "Militia" as defined in the U.S Constitution, is the "People"; the same "People" as referred to in the 1st and all the other Amendments which were specifically adopted during the Constitutional Convention to define the rights of individual citizens. The "Militia" as defined in U.S. law (see Sec. 313, Title 32, U.S. Code) is made up of both the National Guard and the "unorganized militia" which is composed of citizens who are not members of the armed forces; i.e., private citizens who may be called forth in time of emergency to support or replace National Guard units. These citizen soldiers are commonly referred to as "State Defense Forces" and recently have been employed to assist Guard units in disaster relief and border patrol. The current citizen militia is a direct descendant of the original citizen soldiers established by our Founding Fathers. The Supreme Court didn't get it wrong in its recent opinions ruling that the 2nd Amendment protects individual citizen's right to own firearms. The Citizen Militia are soldiers, and as such are entitled to own state of the art military small arms to carry out their mission to protect life and property. They are not armed to overthrow the government, but to support it.

Drunks are another issue. People who have drinking problems always like to make it appear otherwise. Then, they fly into a drunken rage, grab a handgun and start shooting at their wife and kids. This has happened more often and is completely ignored.

Gun control may or may not work, but it's time for parents to parent they kids and make it easier to see mental health issues. Give the parent back the right to say NO and the schools the right to discipline without the fear of getting sued. The maybe will place the fear back into our youth about do the wrong thing and maybe the parent or school will catch a few more of those with mental illness.

Ban handguns and semi-automatic weapons.

Ok, so I am an old guy. I grew up in a home with guns. My father's Shot Gun was "secured" in the corner of his closet. I knew it was there, I knew not to touch it. Guess what? I didn't touch it! My father taught me to hunt, helped me buy my first 20g. shot gun, which I kept in MY closet. It was stored there and if I had brought it out except to go hunting, he would have taken it away and kicked my butt. I learned proper safety, handling and respect for weapons. The only time I ever shot a weapon at another human being was in war and our government taught me that. I totally agree that we need parental involvement and parental education of children. Not just safe handling of firearms, but the understanding of "Right & Wrong." Parents need to be their child's first teacher.

NRA-GOP will fund toy guns as donations for X-Mass !!!!!!!!!!!

Ban takenaka!!!

@champagnesabre.....Here's to ya......You go girl, tellit like it is. Antigun bed wetting panty waist liberal communist wannabees are crying for more big brotherism and denouncing violence, then all in the same sentence and breath, threatening and wishing death upon perfectly legal, law abiding citizens. And they wonder what we are all so paranoid about. Well let me tell YOU something you bunch of commie MFers, WE are ready to square off and draw a line in the sand anytime you bastards are ready to set foot across it. GOT THAT!

Notice how the author didn't include the readily available FBI statistics on crimes thwarted by legal law abiding Americans to the tune of over 2 million instances a yr? I AM ONE OF THOSE STATISTICS!!!! That's right you communist MFers, and you cannot deny it, all you CAN do is ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist you bunch of one world government global elitists worshipping COMMUNIST MF-ERS!!!!

One in four guns are sold at gun shows or by private individuals without any background check.

Not in any gun show I've ever been to! Display tables are almost always bought by dealers; a private individual spending the money and time to sit there all weekend attempting to sell personally owned firearms is extremely difficult. I see this far more often at flea markets, but the rusty, antiquated relics of firearms on the table sit there with many other things, wear far too high a price tag, and sit in that vendor's display table for years one end. You can take a gun in and try to sell it to a dealer, but most people take them back home with them after every dealer who's seen it lowballed them. If you expect to sell a gun you take to a gun show as a member of the general public, you'd better have something very special with you and you'd better not be expecting a fair deal for it. It's it's ordinary and you want what it's worth, you'll be taking it back home with you.

Virtually all gun show sales that I have seen over the years have been made by the dealers who rent the tables.

Can we at least make this a federal law so a felon from Chicago no longer simply has to drive 15 miles to Indiana where they can buy all the guns and ammo they can carry?

It IS A FEDERAL LAW!

Convicted felons have been barred from purchasing or possessing firearms since the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was passed. A handgun can only be sold to an individual by a licensed dealer in that individual's home state since the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed, which also ended mail order sales of firearms. This means that ANYONE living in Illinois cannot take delivery of a handgun purchased in Indiana. You can buy a pistol or revolver out of state, but you cannot take it with you. The dealer you purchased it from would have to ship it to a licensed dealer in your state, and you would have to acquire it from him. Naturally, most dealers command a fee for handling such 'transfers'.

Can we talk about requiring training and certification to obtain a license?

Most states require varying degrees of training and certification before they issue a license to an individual who has applied for one. Additionally, training and/or a requalification course is often required to renew the license or permit.

Goddess-of-Happiness

"Start by restricting sales and manufacture of AR15 type weapons and ammunition. A baby step toward stopping mass slaughter."

That was ALREADY TRIED-1994-2004-it had ZERO effect on gun crimes.

It's NOT a gun control issue-it IS a mental health issue,and a criminal control issue.

Hey Patriotic American,

I'm not a member of the NRA, but every gun saftey class I ever took was conducted by them. Cop gun trainers are NRA certified too. Love them or love to hate them, they are all over safety.

A "gun nut" is someone who keeps unsecured firearms in their house with their mentally unstable teen. That's certainly not what the NRA teaches people is safe keeping.

The laws need to be consistent across all fifty states, so that there is no opportunity or motivation to purchase a weapon more easily in one state and bring it to another where it wouldn't have been available. Yes, interstate transport is illegal now, but it's virtually unenforceable.

Those laws also need to place reasonable restrictions requiring gun owners to be responsible, not just trusting them to be. Mrs. Lanza was a law abiding gun owner, but she didn't secure her weapons despite knowing her son was mentally unstable, and those weapons included multiple high capacity magazines, which used to be illegal, allowing him to kill dozens of people in only a few moments time. Requiring secure storage of weapons and banning those magazines (again) would surely have made a difference.

It is perfectly rational to expect that reasonable firearms regulations could have prevented this.

The laws need to be consistent across all fifty states, so that there is no opportunity or motivation to purchase a weapon more easily in one state and bring it to another where it wouldn't have been available

The Federal laws are consistent across all fifty states. The state laws are not as inconsistent as you think, either. If you were to examine them all, you would find that probably 80% of the details in state laws are effectively the same across the board. The notable differences that make each state somewhat unique in its firearms laws tend to be regional - the states with tight laws tend to be clustered together, such as in New England, and the states with looser laws are large, not so heavily populated states, mostly out west. Most people are not in a position where they can drive an hour or two to get to a state where they can purchase something not available in their own state. More often than not, you'll have to drive a whole lot farther than that!

Those laws also need to place reasonable restrictions requiring gun owners to be responsible,

In most states, a gun owner is liable for negligence or recklessness that allows their guns to fall into the wrong hands. Like many things, enforcement is somewhat discretionary, so charges are filed when the police feel that it's appropriate and may not be in circumstances where they feel the gun owner was as much a victim as anyone, such as an elderly widow robbed of her late husband's .32 revolver that was stored with cash and jewelry during a strong-arm home invasion by masked punks.

not just trusting

Firearms owners are not trusted to safeguard their firearms, they are expected to, and the laws reflect that. If you did not take reasonable precautions to prevent the loss or theft of a gun, most states have laws providing penalties for that. In other words, if you left a viable firearm in plain sight in an open house that many loose acquaintances passed through at will or left one sitting on the seat of a car where anyone could reach it through the rolled down window or unlocked door to grab it, you're in trouble if your loss becomes known. The reason I say that is because people who leave guns around like that are generally criminals (usually druggies) who aren't supposed to have a gun at all and they didn't legally acquire it. If it disappears, they're not going to call the cops about it! As for everyone else, if your doors and windows (home or vehicle) were locked, the gun wasn't where anyone would easily find it, and especially if force was required to break in and the place was ransacked before the crook found it, the owner is a victim and not a criminal. If there is a minor in the house, extra precautions are expected under the law, but if those are defeated (lock cut, safe broken into, etc.) it is assumed that a reasonable person would have expected those measures to be adequate.

high capacity magazines, which used to be illegal,

They were restricted for ten years. They were legal before then, and they were legal after then. A tremendous number are in circulation. During the ban, magazines dated after 1994 were prohibited, but ones made during the previous 30 years were okay. Very many more have been made since 2004 than had been prior to 1994 as the popularity of the AR type rifle skyrocketed. This happened largely because all American veterans in the last 50 years have a familiarity with the design; rifles adopted by the US military establishment have always been exceedingly popular with the general public, many of whom are veterans.

allowing him to kill dozens of people in only a few moments time.

Unfortunately, the way he went about it, he could have done it with almost any firearm that wasn't a black powder muzzleloader. Those kids in that classroom were seated such that a bullet would almost certainly pass through not just one student but the student seated behind them, and the one behind them, and so on. If they were seated on the floor with their legs folded Indian-style like Kindergarted students always seem to be, they didn't have a chance no matter what kind of gun was used.

Requiring secure storage of weapons

Secure storage is a very good thing, even if for no other reason that guns are expensive and hold their value well, making them desirable things to steal. But 'secure' is relative. It keeps the honest people honest and it may deter the common cat burglar, but it's not impenetrable. What keeps small children out might very well be defeated by a young adult who was said to have been either a genius or near genius and very familiar with the security arrangement and having the time, opportunity, and ability to acquire needed tools, find the key, or figure out the combination, from getting in.

It is perfectly rational to expect that reasonable firearms regulations could have prevented this.

Some of the garden variety killings, the kind you don't hear about unless they're local and maybe not even then, would likely be prevented. This case was so extreme and the details that have been released so far would indicate that it's likely Adam Lanza was going to find a way to do this one way or another, more a question of 'when' or 'where' than 'if'.

Hartvig Lein

Can we discuss limiting the size of magazines (clips)? Can we talk about requiring training and certification to obtain a license? Is it possible to do these things in an adult way with the "you'll pry my gun from my cold, dead hands" crowd?

Sure we can discuss those things. The question is whether or not the anti-gun folks would accept the reality that NONE of those things would have done jack squat to prevent this tragedy. What's the point in having a discussion if one side won't listen to reason and is only interested in some "feel good" law that isn't going to solve anything?

@tim-2799493

Requiring secure storage of weapons and banning those magazines (again) would surely have made a difference.

Sure it would have. The difference being we'd be able to charge a dead woman with a crime and the killer would have spent an additional 12 seconds changing magazines. The question is whether or not that "difference" is enough to justify imposing new rules on hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens.

Making people feel good is not a reason to pass useless laws.

Right now emotions are running high which tends to obscure rational thought. Despite this tragedy, the reality is that murder rates in general and murders by firearm have been on the decline for a while (several years) now. As any criminologist will attest to, tragedies such at this one are indeed rare and one would statistically have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening than being caught up in one of these mass shootings.

Some reasons for the declining murder rate are actually the proliferation of firearms and increased concealed carry rates, something that seems to contradict current events, but only because emotions are running high right now.

There are those that have their anti-gun agenda and rush to politicize tragedies such at this one. They know they must act fast while emotions trump reality and common sense.

This post is sure to antagonize the anti-gunners because it injects a dose of reality and reason.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution has ZERO to do with militia & is 100% about PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of firearms.

Check it out for yourself.....

What is the purpose of an Amendment? An Amendment changes something that was previously agreed upon or proposed.

Why would the Constitution require the 2nd Amendment for the militia? It doesn't, the body of the Constitution gives the power to Congress to arm, train & raise the militia. The 2nd Amendment does not add or change anything regarding that power.

Why does the 2nd Amendment mention the militia? The amendment ACKNOWLEDGES the powers granted to the Congress in the body of the Constitution, " A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." Then makes the statement, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

There is NO VALID argument for the 2nd Amendment to have been ratified if it was only regarding the militia.

Firearms owners are not trusted to safeguard their firearms, they are expected to, and the laws reflect that. If you did not take reasonable precautions to prevent the loss or theft of a gun, most states have laws providing penalties for that......

What a complete rationalization....

Gun owners aren't trusted, they're expected...but they're not REQUIRED to keep their weapons safe.

State regulations are consistent....except wherever they aren't...which is all over the country.

Lanza would have found a way to kill....well, he almost didn't. He tried to buy a gun and failed, and if his mother had been required to secure her weapons, being a good, law-abiding gun owner, you say we would have expected her to do so - and yet you rationalize it wouldn't have worked anyway.

It's nothing but a long-winded list of excuses for the killer and what he did, and why we shouldn't even try to stop something that has happened a dozen or more times this year along. And it keeps escalating.

A total denial of reality to the point of psychosis.

Enough is enough.

@tim-2799493

Gun owners aren't trusted, they're expected...but they're not REQUIRED to keep their weapons safe.

Yeah, don't you just hate it when freedom is used as an "excuse"? /sarcasm

6 adults and 20 little children in Newtown Connecticut will no longer be able to enjoy their freedom.

A stupid gun owner who did not prevent her guns from being used by her killer son took their freedom.

I keep reading so many commits on how all of the gun problems would be solved if we just had better mental heath screening/ don't let the crazies have guns if you will. My question is how to you sovle the utter lack of mental healt facilities in this country?

but they're not REQUIRED to keep their weapons safe.

If you can be charged with a crime for not doing something, I'd say that means you're required to do it. And so would most people. People are expected to do what is required, according to the law. Otherwise, we wouldn't keep going to all the time and trouble to create and enforce laws, would we?

State regulations are consistent....except wherever they aren't...which is all over the country.

The 'except wherever they aren't' part being the maybe 20% of the areas where they differ, you mean? Not very familiar with law, are you? I suggest you go bone up on them, and you'll see they are much more alike than they are different.

Lanza would have found a way to kill....well, he almost didn't. He tried to buy a gun and failed,

You think he'd just give up when his first attempt didn't pan out for him? If he was that lacking in motivation, why did he even just go out and do this instead of just staying home and playing all those video games the authorities are now saying he seemed addicted to? It is entirely possible that being denied a sale might have angered the young Lanza enough that he redoubled his efforts.

if his mother had been required to secure her weapons, being a good, law-abiding gun owner, you say we would have expected her to do so - and yet you rationalize it wouldn't have worked anyway.

So far, at least one authority who was interviewed over the weekend said that Ms. Lanza had taken some unspecified measures to secure her firearms, which ostensibly were defeated by a 20 year old man who was taking college courses at age 16 and wasn't exactly regarded as being stupid. In most instances, the law recognizes that people reasonably expect things like locks to not be broken, despite the fact that they can all be with some concerted effort on the part of a criminal.

It's nothing but a long-winded list of excuses for the killer

In your mind, which would seem to be rather weak, I might add. If you think that my contradicting people's factual errors and sharing what the laws actually are as good opportunities to do so crop up is excuses for the killer, I feel sorry for you. Really.

and why we shouldn't even try to stop something that has happened a dozen or more times this year along

We've been doing things to try to stop things like this from happening for almost 80 years, buddy!

A total denial of reality

I've got a feeling you don't know very much about reality given the problem you have handling the truth when it's presented.

Your existence in this world must be very interesting.

People are expected to do what is required, according to the law.

Connecticut state law does not require secure storage of weapons except in the case where access by a minor was a risk. Adam was not a minor.

The 'except wherever they aren't' part being the maybe 20% of the areas where they differ, you mean?

State laws vary widely from state to state in their content and scope. Even so, 20% is a huge difference.

We've been doing things to try to stop things like this from happening for almost 80 years, buddy!

Bull. On the contrary, the NRA has spent tens of millions of dollars pushing very hard for the exact opposite - making sure there are no restrictions whatsoever on access to firearms, even by the mentally unstable, blocking laws that would require lost or stolen guns to be reported to authorities, blocking laws to require all guns be securely stored, and on and on.

Your comments not only do not reflect reality, you make excuses for why nothing can be done to fix a problem that has been fixed in every other industrialized country in the world for decades. The bottom line is that, to the NRA and it's pathological followers the status quo is just fine, and the deaths of thousands of children every year is nothing but collateral damage.

Shame on you.

Yeah, but the liberals seem to be unable or unwilling to discuss this issue in any manner that doesnt involve gun control. The better solution would be to strengthen mental health care or mental health care as it relates to gun laws already in place (see Virginia Tech shooter who was ordered to go to a mental evaluation and simply never went, and nothing happened to prevent him from purchasing guns).

But nope, don't do anything but ban assault weapons because that bayonet lug sure takes a lot of peoples lives every year.

Problem is, we had the very same "Common Sense" laws for 10 years. They expired, and crime went down. Did crime go down because they expired? Doubt it, it just shows 0 correlation for the "First Step". Its really a second step backwards.

Start by restricting sales and manufacture of AR15 type weapons and ammunition. A baby step toward stopping mass slaughter.

What have all of these mass-murder incidents have in common?

1. An individual with documented or latent to documented mental issues. Untreated or refusing a course of treatment that automatically triggers (sorry) the suspension of their 2nd Amendment rights. It`s Federal Law, look it up.

2.Said individuals currently not recieving effective treatment because of political policy beginning back 30-40 years implementing a non-institutionalized, pro-chemically induced "hands off" solution.

2. A "Gun-Free" zone. I`ll type that again. "A GUN-FREE ZONE". If that is not a monument to man`s stupidity in the 24th and a half century (Duck Dodgers) I cannot provide a better example. Ever try armed robbery as a life style lately? By shooting your way in and out? C`mon...

3. Hi-capacity semi-automatic weapons. Protected under the Constitution and currently residing quietly as inanimate objects in several million closets, safes, and vehicles.

Here, if you don`t believe me do your part;

"http://guns-kill.mujglock.com/"

Thanks.

How are the 21,000 laws on the books now working out for you. Think 21,001 wll make a difference. Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens so another law will have NO effect on criminals..that is why they are called criminals..they don't obey laws.

Goddess, there is no functional difference between a civilian AR/Hunting rifle and a semi auto pistol and my Yugo SKS (actual military rifle)..they all fire with a single trigger pull and on average carry the same amount of rounds...you can ban "evil looking" weapons all you want but the truth of the fact is I can do more harm with a simple hand gun than an 5.56/.223 weapon...

I am surprised to see this article on the MSN homepage.

What this article and most of the discussions tend to miss though doesnt surprise me. I am sure that more people know the name Dylan Klebold better than they know the names of their elected representatives in government. We never used to see the kind of crimes like this more recent one and Columbine before we had 24 hour news. The news is giving these lunatics an unbelievable infamy. Even banning all guns wont stop this type of crime. The type of turd that will do this is going to find another way to find their 15 min of fame and adulation in the media. Most likely it will involve automobiles and homemade explosives.

All another gun control law will do is put a band-aide on a gaping wound and go towards widening the division this country is already suffering from.

Yawn

This will eventually be seen as a a perfect indication of the gun rights paranoia/ insanity we are oppressed by today. Think about the mind set that generates such legislation.

It's impossible to know for certain how many guns are in private hands because there is no central firearms registry. The 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act forbids the federal government from establishing any "system of registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearms transactions or distribution." And the 1993 Brady Act prohibits the establishment of any electronic registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions.

You want to start somewhere. Start by repealing this legislation and creating a central registry.

Why do some people hate a "FREE America?"

Rockyroad-531554

Why do some people hate a "FREE America?"

Ask one of the dead kids or their families.

Personally I don't hate a free America at all , but I do hate an irresponsible one.

culheath: So your answer is to destroy the freedoms of an entire country due to the unlawful act on one person??

Why punish an entire country?

One person every day. 30 gun murders a day. More deaths than murders. Ban them.

"You want to start somewhere. Start by repealing this legislation and creating a central registry"

Two big problems with creating a national registry for either guns or their owners. First, how do you get the criminal element to comply with this. Seems a registry is only going to punish the law abiding? Second, is this a grandfathered registry or are you saying ALL current gun owners must register as well. If the latter, good luck with that. I highly doubt that current gun owner will subscribe to this. I know I wouldn't. And Takenaka, please tell me how many people were saved by using a handgun in self defense.........that's what I thought. Nothing but crickets from you as usual.

GOP & NRA call gun control silly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

takenaka,

You do realize, don't you, that criminals break laws. It's sort of their "job" really. The 30 gun murders a day are conducted by criminals. You do get that, don't you?

So how is banning guns going to make criminals stop being criminals? Unless you have some magic way of making the 300 million guns in America suddenly vanish, your ban wont affect those who would do harm. Ignoring you ban would just be one more law that they break.

So does that mean you don't start somewhere - one step at a time. Nope, don't do anything because we can't solve the problem with one new law.

We've started somewhere, and have taken many steps since the National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted.

Basically everything you can do wrong with a firearm is a direct violation of one or more (usually more) federal, state, and local laws.

I'll tell you why banning specific weapons DOES NOTHING USEFUL:

1. Virtually every killing committed with a firearm of one type could have been done exactly the same way or emulated with slight modification by any other type of firearm. Most handgun killings could have been done just as easily with a shotgun or rifle, or else if the murderer just slightly shifted tactics by shooting from a farther distance, or concealing a longer gun under a long coat (rain coat, trench coat, over coat, etc.) or concealing it in some sort of package. Lee Harvey Oswald wrapped his Italian Carcano rifle up and told people it was curtain rods and guitar cases and golf club caddies are old underworld favorites. Vehicles also do a fair job of concealing rifles and shotguns, even in urban areas.

2. The old saying in the special warfare community about 'the will to win trumps the skill to win' applies to weapons, too. If someone is determined to do something atrocious, having to do some extra work or use something unexpected isn't likely to stop them. If people are trapped in a confined area by a killer who has positioned himself in the doorway, he can kill everyone in the room with a break-barrel single shot .410 shotgun and a waist pouch full of shells, which come 25 to the box. He can reload faster than anyone is likely to be able to rush him if he's hyped up on adrenaline (or rage, which motivates many of these people) and he keeps shooting whoever gets closest to him. Most people in the room, of course, will be trying to hide or get as far away from him as possible. The brave few who try to meet him at the door aren't likely to live long. While pistols and autoloading rifles and shotguns are crime favorites, they are by no means necessities and the criminal element will readily adapt to their unavailability, just as they always have managed to do.

3. Rapidly discharging many bullets into the air makes a lot of noise and is quite terrifying to victims, but the faster they're fired, the less likely they are to hit someone unless the killer is shooting into a densely packed room where he just can't miss hitting at least one person with each bullet. If his ammunition is limited, he is much more likely to take aim and make each shot count instead of idly wasting them by letting them fly wild and into the walls and ceiling. Additionally, one unseen 'benefit' for the public in the case of autoloading (semi-automatic) firearms is that they are inherently less reliable than traditional repeaters and more prone to parts breakage, misfires, and jams. When these guns fail to fire, they also take more time to rectify than other types do. A revolver generally doesn't jam; if it doesn't fire, simply pull the trigger again. With a pistol, one needs to reseat the magazine and rack the slide at the least, and there could be a bigger problem tying the gun up. Autoloaders are sensitive to inconsistencies in the ammunition that would not affect revolvers and repeating rifles and shotguns (i.e: lever, turnbolt, pump types). Autoloaders that are not clean and properly maintained are prone to break down, as many of our young soldiers in Viet Nam learned the hard way with their new M16 rifles. The commercial AR-15 type rifles and carbines are rather finicky and many of the lesser esteemed (lower cost) clones from various manufacturers have a tendency for malfunctions. On top of that, there are MANY aftermarket manufacturers of parts for AR-15 type rifles, and many of those parts are JUNK. This is doubly true for magazines! Buying a used AR-15 rifle is a gamble because AR-15 parts of dubious quality are plentiful and these rifles are so easy to tinker with. Bad parts will screw an AR-15 up fast...and it could be one that someone bent on mass killing has acquired. A jam in the middle of his shooting spree could be the Godsend that helps people survive. A killer with an assault rifle is also much more likely to make himself conspicuous where everyone can see him, including approaching lawmen with drawn guns. A killer who has a normal hunting rifle or shotgun is more likely to find a concealed place in which to 'station' himself so he has some time to reload between strings of five or six aimed shots...with a firearm that is very unlikely to suffer mechanical issues.

Just some things to think about. Forcing bad guys to put more thought and planning to their crimes and to make them pick out higher quality firearms to commit them with might not be such a good unintended consequence.

Rockyroad-531554

culheath: So your answer is to destroy the freedoms of an entire country due to the unlawful act on one person??

Why punish an entire country?

Why do you see a registry of firearms as a punishment? Is that how you see registering your car or getting a drivers license? Explain to me why it's a bad idea to register guns.

chuckzul

"You want to start somewhere. Start by repealing this legislation and creating a central registry"

Two big problems with creating a national registry for either guns or their owners. First, how do you get the criminal element to comply with this. Seems a registry is only going to punish the law abiding? Second, is this a grandfathered registry or are you saying ALL current gun owners must register as well. If the latter, good luck with that. I highly doubt that current gun owner will subscribe to this. I know I wouldn't.

Obviously criminals wouldn't register their guns...but the legislation to register could make those guns not registered subject to confiscation until they are registered.

@takenana

"One person every day. 30 gun murders a day. More deaths than murders. Ban them."

According to Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, 2100 gun related crimes are stopped everyday by gun owners.

We're keeping ours.

ElkMeadow: If I had any money (which I don't), I think I would invest it in tin and aluminum, as this site is evidence that there is a huge market for hats made out of both of those metals."

You might be on to something there. The human body is an electrical/chemical organism. How many electronic signals is it being bombarded with every day as a result of the increase of electronic devices over the past 50 years.

rightwingscrewball

phuck off culhealth, your one liners are nothing more than pathetic liberal diatribe.

uh huh... and you seem intent on living up to your handle. so it goes.

oh and it's heath not health

According to Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, 2100 gun related crimes are stopped everyday by gun owners.

According to Dr. David Hemenway, Ph. D. professor of public health at Harvard, and author of "Private Guns, Public Health", estimations of crimes prevented by gun ownership are highly exaggerated and households with guns are far more likely to be victims than those without guns. Kleck's work was based in part on Hemenway, who criticized the validity of Kleck's data saying that defensive use of guns was far less than that which was reported by Kleck.

does anyone get that the one thing in common with these shooters is that they are cowards? the ONLY new law should be the removal of "gun free zones". let the teachers that want to carry and make it mandatory for there to be at LEAST one person on school grounds with a firearm. new signs saying "these premises protected with firearms". does anyone think these COWARDS will chance getting killed before they can wreak havoc? if you do then you are missing the first thing about these cases that are ALL alike, "GUN FREE" zones,this tells them that it is a safe place for them to go and commit the murder before they kill themselves.the people calling for registration really get me...thats EXACTLY what hitler did before he started stormtrooping peoples homes and taking their guns(can't take them if you don't know where they are) is this REALLY what you people want to do? do you think "it can't happen here-or now?" please don't put future generations at risk(or even this one) the ONLY legislation that will work will be to remove the assinine signs that tell these COWARDS that this is a SAFE place to do these kinds of crimes.

Guess we'll have to forget about the officers out there that have been CONVICTED of criminal acts.

it might just take 53% of the country longer to figure out what sacrifice and bravery really mean.

Sez the keyboard warrior who hasn't figured out that the 53% might know something that he doesn't.

Obtain WHAT license

The license to own a gun, obviously.

@trust_verify

Obtain WHAT license: Concealed carry already requires training/certification. Hunting license often requires hunter safety courses.

Not where I live on either count. My state (SD) has the highest rate of CCW permit holders in the country but one of the lowest rates of gun violence proving it's not the guns that are the real problem.

My state (SD) has the highest rate of CCW permit holders in the country but one of the lowest rates of gun violence proving it's not the guns that are the real problem.

South Dakota? Seriously? South Dakota is 46th in both total population and population density, proving nothing about gun violence whatsoever.

You folks are lucky you can even find each other, much less shoot anybody. ;-)

tim-279949

Obtain WHAT license

The license to own a gun, obviously.

Again WHAT license? The 2nd amendment is a RIGHT. Just like VOTING. It is unconstitutional to require a FEE, TAX or value exchange to exercise a Right. One can be required to purchase a HUNTING license or a fishing license but not the right to exercise a RIGHT.

Do you mean a Concealed Carry PERMIT by chance? That is a REASONABLE law. MOST states have laws to the effect that one must demonstrate, through a certification course or military service, their ability to know the laws and handle a firearm. They also may require a fee for a background check.

The only "licenses" I am aware of are for FFL of varying levels and certain tax stamps to own certain specified firearms.

The only "licenses" I am aware of are for FFL of varying levels and certain tax stamps to own certain specified firearms.

This is probably because you're not aware of the laws in every state, which vary from state to state. The law should be consistent in every state, and should include licensing. From the Massachusetts State Department of Fish and Games website:

Massachusetts residents 15 years and older who wish to possess, carry, transport firearms, ammunition and feeding devices are required to have a firearms license. There are several types of firearms licenses and they are issued by your local police department.

The right to own a firearm is not the same as the right to vote. Firearms are potentially lethal weapons and anyone wishing to own one should be expected to demonstrate competence to do so safely, which is also part of the laws of the State of Massachusetts.

I never said anything about a fee.

I've said it before, I'll repeat it hear.

NO GUNS = NO GUN SHOT WOUNDS.

Real simple.

@tim-2799493

South Dakota? Seriously? South Dakota is 46th in both total population and population density, proving nothing about gun violence whatsoever.

Yes seriously. Do you not understand what "per capita" means? Because per capita we have one of the lowest rates of gun violence and one of the highest rates of gun ownership. And if you're naive enough to believe it's all rolling hills and grassland spend a few days on the res and the similiarity of lifestyle to that of the inner city will astound you.

dirp

I've said it before, I'll repeat it hear.

NO GUNS = NO GUN SHOT WOUNDS.

Real simple.

Not to mention real(ly) stupid.

This is for TrustVerify: Many states require licenses for even hunting rifles and shotguns. In Massachusetts one must posses a valid F.I.D. or Firearms Identification, to own basic hunting guns. You must have a pistol permit to even buy or posses a gun, and obviously a CCW to carry concealed. A good many states have similar laws.

Backcountry, go ahead, eliminate those gun shot wounds. They will simply be replaced by stab wounds, tire marks, or rope burns around the neck. Humans can be nasty, vicious animals, and once one makes up its mind to kill simply taking away one tool will not stop it nor even really slow it.

@M.R. Chase

Backcountry, go ahead, eliminate those gun shot wounds.

You've either misread my posts or confused me with someone else. I own lots of guns and want to keep them all.

M.R. Chase

Thank you. I thought only IL was that anal about REGISTRATION.