I'm with you. Most people, if not all, have had tragedy and heartache and debt. Not to minimize his pain, but the vast majority of people cry to themselves and don't shoot other people. I'm really sick of these monsters who take their pain out on innocent people just going about their lives.

I totally agree with you and ike warren. I mean if they are upset or having troubles he should have talked with someone about it like a friend in korea or anyone that he is close too. He should have talked about it not just taking it out on the whole world. I'm really sick of these monsters who take their pain out on innocent people just going about their lives, I just wish that this could all stop.

Crazy is a relative term. We've all heard of the proverbial straw that broke the camels back. Our society has gotten to a point where a great number of us are just waiting for that last staw to be laid on our backs. Primary common thread? Money. Most of us are carrying so much debt that we will never be solvent. We've reached the point where we can no longer afford to live. So many have lost their homes and their jobs, and those that haven't are working 2 and 3 jobs, will be paying a mortgage we can only handle by stretching it out 30 years (half a lifetime), and now the price of gas takes our last dime from our pocket. Isn't greed a wonderful thing. The rich will live as kings while our society crumbles from the bottom with no direct link that might connect it to the real culprit. Take as much as you can, any way that you can in the hope that the one you screw over will break before you do. Then hope he doesn't take you out with him. Expect to see this type of thing (workplace, school and family anhialators) more and more each day. This is the world we've given our children. There will be no cure. So be as greedy and cut-throat as you can possibly be in the hopes of keeping you and your family from reaching this desperate point, and hope you're not near by when the next one breaks as surely he or she will.

With only more than a quarter BILLION guns in civilian possession in the USA the obvious answer to this problem is more guns.

I can't believe I'm the only one that sees this.

Why in the first paragragh does it mention that he lost family members and is in debt? WHAT does that have to do with anything? We all have our griefs and troubles, to some degree or another. That doesn't make us spree killers.

The Media needs to stop making the murderers into victims. They killed innocent people. Regardless of the reason behind it, this was not in self defense.

Jury, this has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. This sort of thing happened before him, and obviously will continue.

Our society of "It's not my fault" has brought some to the idea that no one matters but them. It's not their fault. It's their parents, or schools, or Corporate America or whatever.

The press released that info, not the police. Go figure?

The problem is not the GUN it is the people with the GUNS that don't when they have to use it, I think it should be like a car, people need to be tested before they can buy one, like people need to prove they can drive a car, and I'm a NRA member but believe people have to be held accountable for their actions ...

The Jury,

Did you know spamming (even related material) will get your posts deleted and you possibly banned? Enjoy your long walk off a short plank!

Jury, you need to get back on your meds, you are a nut case.

wow bls-744646 is smart, make it harder for good guys to get guns. laws dont make it any harder for crooks to get them fool. wow is all i have to say to him. lol you prolly think felons sit around applying for ccw and buy there guns at gander mountin, I know a 13 year old now i can buy lots of guns from and not one can be traced. but yah ban guns moron wow. do your self a favor and invest in a rope and rid this country of stupid cowards. ban guns lol, one more time wow

Ed McT, HOTTICKETT- I agree!!!

Folks, Every time there is a campus shooting, we hear the same old rhetoric about the whys and whatfors along with the "must have been abused as a child" etc. What is going to have to be done unfortunately is the same screening that is done in airports. It is the only way that this issue is going to be dealt with. Calling for the banning of guns or calling the shooter a monster is not going to solve anything. I'm just sayiing....

"BLS-744646

The only solution is to ban guns."

No, the solution is to ban hoodies... Wait, this isn't the right article is it? That was some Fox commentary regarding the Trayvon Martin shooting.

Well, maybe they should ban knives and other common workplace tools as well. It's only a matter of time before some psycho with a crappy life feels the need to go around chopping some random school up with an axe... You know if they're banned there's absolutely no chance of someone in that state of mind getting their hands on an axe... Yeah, let's just ban the constitution while we're at it. They are printed on paper and we all know how serious the paper cuts can be...

It's sad that this happened, but it's equally sad to see so many people that think guns kill people and not the other way around. It will be a long time before we as humans lose our uses for guns, until then, we are stuck with the possibility that this kind of thing can happen.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." ~Benjamin Franklin

The Jury,

Way to grasp at straws for a weak case, while staying on topic being discused. Idiot.

"Cub T.

Folks, Every time there is a campus shooting, we hear the same old rhetoric about the whys and whatfors along with the "must have been abused as a child" etc. What is going to have to be done unfortunately is the same screening that is done in airports. It is the only way that this issue is going to be dealt with. Calling for the banning of guns or calling the shooter a monster is not going to solve anything. I'm just sayiing...."

There honestly isn't a huge difference between being screened everywhere I go and banning guns... I would rather have the later of the 2 if given a choice. Your solution is no better...

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." ~Benjamin Franklin

kaybeetoys

the reason why there is no gun ban is because that would only leave us law abiding citizens defenseless against armed criminals. you think a gun ban would keep them from getting guns? legally yeah but you think they're getting them legally now? they will continue to obtain their guns but we won't be able to. that's no solution.

This is about people thinking they can get away with verbal and psychological abuse towards other people. As long as people think they can be abusive, then this will continue to happen. How many times has this person been discriminated against?

You screw with a persons head and in some cases this will be the result. Wake up and stop blaming the shooters and blame the country for festering this hostile enviroment. Americans have become more divisive and argumentative and polarizing.

Shootings have been on the rise for the last 30 yrs. I predict that they are going to continue and will get worse because people will not admit that being psychologically hostile to others will lead to this result.

You do NOT have the freedom to be a jerk to others. If people were less self-centered and more socialistic, then this wouldn't happen as much.

BC24,

so many people that think guns kill people and not the other way around

Hmmmm, wouldn't that be "people kill guns" then?

Otherwise, I agree totally.

This has been happening every month now, someone shooting people in Schools, Universities, Malls, Events, do I need to go on, GET RID OF THE GUNS PLAIN AND SIMPLE, but of course we have those gung ho Americans who still believe in a document that was written well over 200 years ago, and they will always bring it up when something like this happens. THE CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN, THIS IS 2012 NOT THE 1700'S, the world is so dangerous now, and it is so crazy to let people in a lot of states to carry a gun, you can go to a bar, store, walk around with a gun on you, STUPID!!!!, I'm just waiting for these gun toters to saddle up there Horses and ride off into the sunset, STUPID COWBOYS WITH THERE GUNS PLAYING JOHN WAYNE.

@bc24:

Oh yeah, forcing people to be grope raped by TSA like security guards with low pay at a college is going to cut down on shootings...

Not! That would only encourage MORE shootings.

And a screening to get inside a building will not stop a shooting that is happening outside from the streets. A screening will not stop a shooter from shooting the guard and still making their way in if they wanted to bad enough.

People with CDLs and can stealthly take out a shooter is the most likely way to stop this type of incident but then others may think this too is a bad idea and they are entitled to their opinion.

But to stop it by stopping verbal attacks against one another might be a better solution. If Americans didn't hate each other so easily, then there wouldn't be this many shootings.

Think about changing the attitudes towards more kinder and less hostile before thinking about bans and security which cost more money in the long run to implement.

Instead of yelling at that person you don't like, try just walking away or difuse your anger. Anger and lashing out is was causes an escalation in violence.

Think about it. if no one was angry with you and they never called you names or insulted you or made you feel inferior, then you wouldn't have an excuse to go off and shoot people out of frustration.

kaybeetoys is absolutely correct. The NRA is little more than a trade and lobbying association for gun manufacturers. These "stand your ground" laws, pushed by the NRA are simply legislative insanity. It seems that as far as they are concerned there is no middle ground between guns being legal and every man, woman and child in the US owning at least one gun, carrying it concealed and using it at will. Good luck with that America...

I'm not advocating banning guns here, so don't get all wrapped up in the Constitution.

What I'd like to see is a little sanity coming from the gun nuts. I'd like to open your eyes to how you have been manipulated and duped by the NRA into buying a new gun every month, a gun you don't need because guns last for decades. I'd like you to wake up to the way you've been frightened into arming yourselves to the teeth in the name of freedom.

To quote Joe Klein in the April 9 issue of Time Magazine:

And gun laws have steadily grown more insane. Right now, the National Rifle Association is on the cusp of another bloody triumph, the so-called National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act, which could force gun-control states like New York and California to respect the "right" of citizens from the fever swamps of Florida to tote their weapons around Times Square and downtown Los Angeles.

You don't have to say it over and over: We all know how harmless and reliable guns are, we all know we need an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons or we'll be murdered in our beds, we all know we need a concealed-carry permit so we can take our guns to WalMart and McDonalds for protection.

I just don't happen to see that as a desirable state of affairs.

People like me can't do much about it, can we? Change and sanity has to come from the gun lovers.

I have no blood on my hands.

And here we go with the gun argument again.... I get really tired of hearing it from both sides which rehash the exact same arguments.

For people that want to blame it on guns. You're barking up the wrong tree and wasting your time. He snapped. In order to reduce such tragedies in the future, it would be better to find out what made him snap and decide to do such things. Complaining about gun control doesn't do much to reduce these things. It's also never going to pass because the NRA has convinced many thousands of people that they need a gun or they're going to be attacked, raped, and murdered in a back alley if they're not allowed to take their gun into starbucks.

For people wanting to arm everyone at the school... stupid... Arming everyone will result in more accidental shootings... The number of dead people from such things will outweigh those lost in school shootings. How many of you that own a gun have had to use it to shoot someone that was going on a school rampage? I'm going to guess 0. How many accidental self inflicted gun shots are seen at a hospital in a month? The argument that you need a gun to protect yourself from criminals is rather stupid because odds are excellent that you've never had to use it nor will ever have to use it in a self defense situation.

The murderers, the thieves, the terrorists, etc. all want a ban on guns. That way, the law abiding citizen will get rid of their guns and defend their loved ones and their homes with a baseball bat, a golf club or maybe rocks. Now if you look at this scenario, the only ones that will carry guns is the murderers, the thieves, the terrorists, etc. and, oh yes, the police. When this happens and you are safely in your home confronted by a killer, just tell him that he better leave at once or your going to call the police and have him arrested for breaking into your house and carrying a gun. I'm sure he will apologize and hand over his gun and quietely await the arrival of law enforcement officers.

Days like these makes me seriously ponder how I feel about our 2nd amendment. I want to respect it and say 'Sure! All Americans have a right to own a weapon' And the overwhelming majority of gun owners are sane, responsible people. But then things like this happen, as well as other criminal acts. Murders, rapes, thefts, 'rampages'... And it seems like these college shootings ARE BECOMING THE NORM! Every 6-8 months its another school, another scare, or worse, more murders. Hell, my college had a gun scare and I was evacuated by a SWAT team. That shouldn't happen!

What's the solution? Ban guns? Keep the status quo? More gun control? Keep things the way they are? I just don't know anymore.

The Jury,

This doesn't have any more to do with the Florida case than any other school shooting that has taken place. No other state has "the Castle Doctrine" in their legislation anyway. I can't make any sense of you comment. What are you talking about?

You do NOT have the freedom to be a jerk to others

Actually you do. A free society cannot legislate that people be "nice" to each other. You will have Jerks no matter where you go. Even the most socialist countries have jerks. Look at France.

Bc24....Just call yourself an idiot...I haven't the time.

Bluelake and Steve K,

I believe that it is a detriment to the NRA to have a law like "Stand your ground", so your argument just doesn't make sense. However, as an honest American with a proven track record of common sense decisions, I feel I should be allowed the freedoms that come with being an American. If those freedoms make you feel insecure and angry, perhaps you should do some research into the lifestyles of the countries where these freedoms are not protected by the Constitution. And if owning a gun makes you a cowboy, does owning a knife make you and Indian, or owning a baseball bat make you a baseball player? If that's true than I'm a rootintootin cowpoke with Indian blood and I spend my days playing ball!! Makes sense to me!

No other state has "the Castle Doctrine" in their legislation anyway.

That is not correct:

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

I believe that the philosophy behind stand your ground was good. It makes no sense to allow people to carry a concealed weapon and then tell them they are not allowed to use it in self defense.

To tell a victim of crime that they are going to jail for killing someone who was going to kill them is wrong. What everyone is upset about isn't "stand your ground" it's the misapplication of that law by people who have twisted it to mean "shoot first and ask questions later."

People have a right to defend themselves and their loved ones with deadly force if need be. People do not have the right to go hunting criminals like a vigilante and then shooting them when a situation they created spirals out of control.

Kaybeetoys,

I have the same three handguns, a couple of hunting shotguns, and a nice old 3030 that I have owned for years. I don't buy a new gun each month. My handguns are registered, IAW state laws, and although I have a Permit to Carry Concealed, I don't run around all day with my weapon stuck in my waist. I am no more a "cowboy" than you are a "gun phobic". So I would like to point out something you said and respond.

"we all know we need an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons or we'll be murdered in our beds".

Every gun is a semi-automatic if you can pull the trigger and fire a round and repeat the action without having to re-cock. It is an "automatic" if you can hold the trigger down and the weapon will fire until the ammo is exhausted. Semi-automatic is not a description of a heinous mass murdering tool. My 9mm is a semi-automatic. Even my little .22 cal pistol I plink at tin cans in the back yard with my grandkids is a "semi automatic". Plink.

As for being murdered in our beds, it has happened thousands of times in this country. Given that I am not superman, I choose to be armed in my home. God help the m0r0n who breaks in, because "my dad didn't raise no fool". I protected my country with a weapon for over 20 years. I'll continue to protect my little corner of it till God hauls me away kicking and screaming.

I'm tired of hearing those who believe their rights to have guns are in jeopardy, are wrong. I don't know anyone who wants to take away their guns but I like millions of Americans believe anyone who owns a gun or is thinking of owning a gun should go through an extensive back ground check and mental evaluation. If the GOP is requiring women required to go through very invasive procedures and their rights to medical screening is being taken away then those with who want to have guns need to show they are sane and able to justify their need to bare arms. Don't forget our constitution was written over 200 years ago and the living requirements required guns. As I have said, if there are those who are paranoid with fear of being attacked then that should disqualify them from owning a gun but it should be made more difficult for Americans to own guns in today's environment. Stop using the constitution as a crutch for commonsense, this is 2012 and not 1776.

StMiller,

Not a very apt analogy. In the same respect that we do not allow criminals and insane people to own guns in American, we shouldn't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

don't you have to be part of a "well regulated Malitia" to own a gun?

Retired US Soldier

liked your post to Kaybeetoys...

next door to your house would be a great place to live !

@Steve K-3196796

This has been happening every month now, someone shooting people in Schools, Universities, Malls, Events, do I need to go on, GET RID OF THE GUNS PLAIN AND SIMPLE, but of course we have those gung ho Americans who still believe in a document that was written well over 200 years ago, and they will always bring it up when something like this happens. THE CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN, THIS IS 2012 NOT THE 1700'S, the world is so dangerous now, and it is so crazy to let people in a lot of states to carry a gun, you can go to a bar, store, walk around with a gun on you, STUPID!!!!, I'm just waiting for these gun toters to saddle up there Horses and ride off into the sunset, STUPID COWBOYS WITH THERE GUNS PLAYING JOHN WAYNE

And while we're at it, let's get rid of that annoying free speech thing, and hey, here's a thought, that pesky 4th Amendment against illegal search and seizure...that has to go to...you sir, need to go back to playing your Wii and let the grownups talk now.

Excellent point, winker.

In the same respect that we do not allow criminals and insane people to own guns in American, we shouldn't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

We don't allow criminals and insane people to own guns? What are you smoking?

When are you going to get out there and take their guns away? When are you going to prevent criminals and insane people from getting more guns and killing more people?

We are all waiting.

While I think the argument for/against the banning of guns is a not in line for this board (I know, being a bit hypocritical here), the thing that people don't do (both sides/all of us) is look at the flip side of the coin!

Let's say you ban guns here in the US ... you don't think guns won't find the hands of criminals by way of Canada or Mexico? A lot of guns used in violent crimes are unregistered. Violent crime may rise (not saying it actually would, because I DON'T KNOW and neither do you) because the criminals would now know that all law abiding citizens do not have guns ... maybe not violent crime then, but robberies and such would have a decent shot at rising. ...we cannot predict what would happen with the banning of guns, but it is at least worth thinking about both sides of that coin... and not just the "perfect scenario" that fits our agenda/wishes.

In any event, this is truly a tragic event, and my sincerest condolences go out to the victims, their friends, and families.

This sort of thing doesn't even phase me anymore in the USA. We are a paranoid, frightened people, taken advantage of at every level by anyone that can get a buck out of us. It's interesting that in Canada, where the ratio of guns to people is about the same, this doesn't happen, so it's the culture, not the guns, and I believe fear (and anger is the reaction to fear for many people) is the cultural difference. We need to change our motto:

Land of the chattel, home of the frightened.

As for gun control, that's just stupid. Go ahead, try to find all the guns. No, the best solution we have is to regulate bullets. The chemicals in gun powder degrade over time. Eventually, you have to get more, unless you can't get more.

But, again, I don't think guns are the problem. It's a culture of fear, created by the media, played upon by politicians, the gun sellers, the NRA, the private sector, and anyone else that can make your shaking hand or angry fist pull a buck or vote out of your pocket.

An insane culture produces insane people who do insane things. Keep blaming it on so-called mental illness, though. And keep saying that "you don't care why" someone does something like this. Until we learn to care "why," and until we learn to quit blaming it on The Mentally Ill, and until we do something about the person in the mirror who "doesn't care," we can expect more tragedies like this. You want to see the enemy? "The enemy is us," as the saying goes. We are a sick society. It is time to repent.

To BC-24, Yeah we should ban the constitution, it needs to be thrown away and rewritten, there is so much wrong with America that I hate it now, I was born in 62 and this country is not what it use to be, people are crazy, kids are out of control, we are allowed to invent video games that kids can play and kill people, you can record music about killing your Mother, you can go on line and learn how to build a bomb, do I need to go on. This country is full of greed, hate, rude and mean people, AND I'M 100% CORRECT. Why is there so many people that still love this country, THEY MUST BE THE RICH AND FAMOUS. I cannot wait to retire and move to the Philippines with my Filipina wife, I lived there for more than 3 years when I was in the Navy, and it's great, you can live like a king on $1000 per month and have a maid, you can feed a family of 4 at McDonalds for $6, yes 4 complete meals for $6,it costs you over $20 here in the US, you can eat Steak and Lobster for $10, you can get dental work for $20, do I need to go on. Just go on line and type in retire to the Philippines or best countries to retire to and read about it, this place sucks!!!!. Do not reply and say I'm wrong because I'm not, this is not the land of the free and home of the brave anymore, and the statue of liberty better dive into the ocean and find a new home to welcome people to, we get tickets for not wearing seatbelts, but gangbangers can walk around and almost do what they want, police rather set up stings and bust men picking up hookers rather than arrest gangsters, AGAIN DO I NEED TO GO ON.

Without gun control laws that are meaningful this is merely going to be repeated over and over again - different place - different format - different reasons - different excuses ....

We have to stop this nonsense about the right to own a gun and ensure that not every tom dock and harry who has come of age and has a pulse but no brain can get their hands on a weapon. Small wonder the 'killed by a gun' rate in countries like Japan are negligible ? Where were the legit gun owners when this guy was going around and shooting up people ? Were they able to grab one and defend themselves ? Others ?

Until common sense prevails or is imposed nothing will change. It will only get worse. So watch out for the quiet wackos lurking around you !

Winker,

I don't know where you live, but in my neighborhood, there are many criminals. And the unemployment rate is stupid! There are many thefts and break-ins. My brother-in-law was beaten bad enough to need an ambulance in the road right beside my house. Sure I would love to have the money to live in a gated community, or on an island surrounded by sharks, but I didn't win the lottery. I'm just one of the kind of poor folks just trying to get along. And I work(ed) hard for what I have. Why should I allow some lazy bully come take my stuff and beat (or kill!) me for it. I am not "paranoid, just reasonable and cautious. Don't hate me because I choose to be a survivor rather than cowering in a gated community. It's not my choice.

The Jury,

It's people like you that make this country dumber and dumber! Please do the world a favor and don't let words come out of your mouth anymore!

law abiding citizens defenseless against armed criminals

Except these events are not being conducted by "armed criminals" but by the same "law abiding" people you state needs these weapons. As soon as this happens, the status changes to "criminal". Very convienct but total BS.

Kaybeetoys,

My point exactly. Thank you. We cannot stop illegal use of weapons in this country. Therefor we must level the playing field by allowing honest citizens that right. As far as Iran, the analogy fits. We know they are criminal and nuts. Therefor, to not "disarm" them would be the same as not stopping a criminal from carrying a gun when we know that they are doing so.

I'm waiting......

@SB-632402,

Until common sense prevails or is imposed nothing will change. It will only get worse. So watch out for the quiet wackos lurking around you !

With logic like that, how will we ever make our streets safe from drunk drivers? Until they get behind the wheel and drive through an intersection and take out a carload of kids going to a football game, we don't know they are criminals. Do we outlaw alcohol? Do we outlaw cars? Your argument makes no sense. Of course there will be nut jobs that aren't identified as such until they create a crime. That's just the way it is. But you can't restrict everyone from some activity, just because there MAY be a nut hiding in your bag of peaches.

OK, apologies to those who have heard me say this before, but I needs to say it again...

Hand guns are the problem. #1 murder weapon in the US, year-after-year, far ahead of the #2 weapon used in murders.

I believe there need to be fewer hand guns. This can be accomplished, over time, by designating hand guns to be a class 3 weapon under the 1968 National Firearms Act. Same as machine guns.

Retired US Soldier, you said, "we do not allow criminals and insane people to own guns," or did I imagine that?

Now it's, "We cannot stop illegal use of weapons in this country".

Which is it? What do you really think?

Take a stand.

BTW, I didn't see anything in the article indicating that he was a legally registered owner of the gun. Anyone know?

Retired US Soldier...
I'm not against fun ownership, but I always hate that guns don't kill people argument because while technically true, it's too open to being stretched to the logical ends that I exemplify with the argument that Iran should be allowed to own nukes for that same reason. Technically nukes don't kill people either.

It's not reasonable to judge Iran as crazy because that means we here in America are the ones judging them crazy. They could just turn around and point out that we look crazy to them... Only we have used an a bomb... We have guns and use them to kill way more of our countrymen than they do... We kill way more innocent civilians around the world in one year than Iran does. We spend trillions of dollars on a war on terror while we are way more of a threat to ourselves than any terrorist is to us.

I agree that we should be allowed to own guns, but we need way more enforcement of the laws regarding who can get one and how they can get it. I.e. no gun should ever be allowed to be sold at a gun show because you simply can't get the background check that needs to be done to ensure that joe blow isn't a danger or isn't going to resell it to a criminal.

Kaybbetoys,

Well, let me rephrase. It is illegal for criminals to own or be in possession of a gun. Of course, we cannot stop them from doing so. If we could, your argument for stiff gun control "might" have some validity. However, as we can are not in total control (thank God) of every citizen in the country, we need some way of protecting our citizenry from the criminal element. The laws are not there to stop the hard core criminals in our country. They are there to provide some guidance in the government of our society, and a reasonable punishment for those who choose not to follow our rules.

Does this answer your question as to my stand? I am for the LEGAL ownership and use of guns in our country. NOT the illegal use. If I use my gun to shoot an intruder who breaks into my home and threatens my family, that is legal. If I shoot the paperboy for throwing my paper into the porch roof, that is illegal, and I should be arrested and punished IAW the law. Common sense should rule all of our decisions with regards to the laws of our country. We can't pick and choose which liberties to take away based on the actions of a few who choose to go against the laws. Otherwise we'll have to all park our cars, to make sure drunks don't kill someone while driving. Of course, they could always hot wire a car and still commit a crime. Same as a criminal can illegally obtain a gun, and a gown owner can decide to become a criminal....

StMiller,

I'm also not against "fun" ownership <grin>. But I don't agree with the position that guns need a separate rule from all other chosen weapons of destruction (cars, ball-bats, rat poison, fire) that disturbed (if crazy bothers you) people choose to use to create mayhem. We are a society governed by rules. If we choose not to abide by the rules, society provides the determined punishment. While I agree that having more guns around creates the possibility of more ahem, the same can be said about cars. More cars, more accidents; more chance for criminal activity involving cars; more damaging pollution; more etc.

Are we a perfect country? Hell no. However, we also spend tons on money helping many other countries around the world. We gave many of our children to protect other countries form the "criminal" activities of their neighbores. I have been to several of these middle eastern countries. Are that all bad? No. Are all the people in any of them deliberately attempting to eliminate the rest of the "infidels" in the world. No. But has the leadership of Iran proven that can be trusted with a nuclear weapon? No. And that isn't just our (US) opinion. It is the opinion of many of the free world countries, as well as Iran's neighbors.

As for the "gun shows". I don't know about that. I have never been to one. But I would assume that they have to abide by the same laws as everyone else in that state. If they aren't they need to be arrested and face the appropriate punishments.

Kaybeetoys 1.58

You're anti-gun rhetoric is just more of the usual inflammatory and irrational dialogue. Prohibitions simply do not work because it will only serve to disarm the law abiding rendering them defenseless before the criminal element that will not disarm.

Want an example that prohibitions don't work? How's that "war on drugs" working out?

Kaybeetoys,

I saw "wikipedia" in the link so I didn't bother with it lol.

Retired US Soldier...
It's good to know that we can come to an agreement on fun ownership.

We as a country definitely do a lot of good in the world. I was not saying that we don't. I was just pointing out that crazy is in the eyes of the beholder, so a country like Iran could easily make a case that if we can have nukes they can.

That being said... I think it's very clear that Iran doesn't agree with our position on fun ownership.

To Chuckzul-- And while we're at it, let's get rid of that annoying free speech thing, and hey, here's a thought, that pesky 4th Amendment against illegal search and seizure...that has to go to...you sir, need to go back to playing your Wii and let the grownups talk now.

What made you think I play Wii, I hate video games, I think they are one of the things that is wrong with this country, as for letting the grownups do the talking, I'm 50 years old, a 20 year Navy vet, a Father of 3 who knows what I'm talking about when it comes to this country, WHY CAN'T PEOPLE SEE THAT THE US IS NOT THE SAME GREAT COUNTRY IT USE TO BE. There are some things that need to be changed in the constitution so that it goes along with the US today, not back in the 1700's-- TODAY!!!TODAY!!!TODAY.

he was upset with several students here because of the way he was treated

Dude, your 43 years old, not 12.

StMiller,

As far as us and nukes, I agree we have a poor record, with regards to Japan. However, we did not start that with them, and we warned them before hand. They chose to continue to attack, and so stop the continued bloodshed, we (US) chose to end it. It is a black eye on our past that we deserve.

Maybe a nuke on some remote mountain top would have accomplished the same thing. I don't know, and I don't like to second guess history too often. We did try diplomacy, lost lots of our brave soldiers, and warned them.

How long do you take a beating by a bully with a ball-bat before you shoot him with the gun your carrying? Tough decision. Is he going to stop beating you before he seriously injures or kills you? Maybe. It didn't look like Japan was going to stop beating us, so we brought out the heavy weapons.

I would like to point out that we have been very cautious with them since Japan. And have lead the world in nuclear disarmament talks and actions. Do you think Iran would be this responsible with that technology? Not me.

As far as Iran goes, I look at it as a precautionary decision. If we let this madman build his weapon and he starts to use it, how many millions will die before we can stop him. That's the same reason we do not let a criminal legally own a gun. Maybe he has learned his lesson. Maybe not. If Iran minded their own business, maybe we could mind our own.

What is it with the anti-gun nutzis? What are they afraid of? If you don't like guns, so be it, just don't tell me I can't own a gun. I don't come knocking on your doors or post comments that says you must own a gun. People who think their values are better than others are worst than the crooked politicians.

I don't think it was just his personal problems that got to him, sounds like the pressures of that & being teased broke him down. But still, thousands if not millions of people are teased everyday (every age), ignore those teasing & don't let them bring you down. it's a shame that people think killing others for words that they said if right & "pay backs." Words are just that..words....he shouldn't have let what people had to say affect him, especially at his age he should have realized that. As for his personal issues, thousands of people also deal with the same things (family deaths, debt, etc.) but you don't see them shooting up places. It was his own fault more then likely that he got expelled, whats the point in killing someone over that?? Sounds to me like someone should have been seeing a therapist or going to anger management classes. Sad that people had to lose their lives because of someone's inability to handle life's struggles & incapability to ignore people who say things they don't like. Prayers to the families of those who lost their lives, & hopes for speedy recoveries to those injured. May this "man" get the punishment he deserves. (perhaps put him up against a wall and shoot him like he threatened his victims???)

Why don't we just legalize everything and have a 'free for all' !? Why bother with any controls or laws whatsoever ? Either have laws with teeth or none. Last week someone was arrested for killing a few rabbits but in Florida zimmerman is still a free man.

I own guns because I can and want to. The NRA had no input in my decisions.

First place nobody knows when any of us will snap. Some never do some do frequently in a milder way than this and some go to extremes as in this case.As far as listing the maybe motives for his action it is common to do so. Everyone in these cases wants to know why. Few times do we ever get a full understanding of the situation. The case in Chardon Ohio still has not been solves as to why this young man did what he did. Was it because of his childhood the way he was treated etc? Most of the time it is never solved eve the person who did it may not know as some of them black out before going on their rampage. Look at the soldier that supposedly killed all those people half way around the world.

On the subject of guns the saying guns do not kill people is silly. Also the reading of the second amendment is stupid. Why? Because back then keeping arms in your house was a given so there was no need to even address the fact in te constitution. Gun manufacturers got to enough representitives so they could sell more guns. But it is the law. Even if you are a raving maniac you can go buy one and wait for the day when the demons you have push you over the edge and you can go out with your new toy and destroy other peoples lives so the gun maufacturers can have another sales spurt. England bans guns. And nobody is any worse off.

@Dragonus:

Shootings have been on the rise for the last 30 yrs.

False. FBI Crime statistics have shown a steady drop in all violent crimes across the board, beginning in the early 90's. The last statistic I read showed that per capita murder rates in 2009 were the lowest they've been in 45 years-- and from what I understand, 2010 was even lower and 2011 figures (still being compiled) are also showing this continued decrease in violent crime, including shootings. And all this despite the fact that gun sales have increased during that time. What's also interesting is that since about 1985, the news coverage of violent crime has increased by over 500% (a sociology paper told me this, I can't verify it's validity by source document, but it makes sense). I was able to determine that between 1990 and 1995 the coverage of violent crime increased by 240%, so that 500% number seems to be actual. (source: media-awareness.com):

According to FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the rate for serious violent crimes dropped 6 percent and the rate of crimes against property fell 10 percent in the United States between 1990 and 1995. During that same time span, network news coverage of crime increased by 240 percent.

So bear in mind that your perception is distorted by the media-- they are influencing you for ratings and by agenda.

@Doggysaywhat

The argument that you need a gun to protect yourself from criminals is rather stupid because odds are excellent that you've never had to use it nor will ever have to use it in a self defense situation.

Your case is not supported by extant facts. Read this link:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Here are some of the pertinent sections:

300 million firearms are owned in the united states by civilians.

5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008 but only 8% involved firearms (436,000).

U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. That's more than double the amount of times that guns were used to commit crimes.

At the current homicide rate, roughly one in every 240 Americans will be murdered.

A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:

42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives

83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime

52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once

Bear in mind that the dates of this study are a little older, and violent crime has dropped significantly since then, but clearly there is a case to be made that civilian ownership of firearms has positive aspects.

@PAQ

don't you have to be part of a "well regulated Malitia" to own a gun?

A common misconception-- but the language of the 2nd amendment is such that the militia is derived from the right of the people to keep and bear arms-- in other words, the militia is a byproduct of the fact that the citizenry can own firearms. Learn more here:

http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

@Allan101

Let's say you ban guns here in the US ... you don't think guns won't find the hands of criminals by way of Canada or Mexico?

Exactly my thinking. You ban guns and the cartels automatically have another revenue stream-- one with an even greater capacity for violence than their drug trade. There is obviously a market for firearms in the US. Banning guns won't make that market disappear, it just goes underground, like every other prohibition movement in history. So, the argument to ban guns in the US is essentially an argument to enrich the cartels with a new illicit market-- they'd just import from China or South America, etc. and sell at inflated prices. So, to simplify, banning guns = richer, more dangerous cartels.

Just my two cents. FWIW I own 2 firearms, a rifle and a handgun. I am not a member of the NRA. I do not purchase a new firearm every month (that is prohibitively expensive for starters...) and I take issue with people that would call me a "gun nut" simply because I am aware of the facts and figures where gun ownership has positive benefits and own firearms myself.

Have a nice day everyone.

As far as us and nukes, I agree we have a poor record, with regards to Japan. However, we did not start that with them, and we warned them before hand. They chose to continue to attack, and so stop the continued bloodshed, we (US) chose to end it. It is a black eye on our past that we deserve.

No it is not and no we do not.

We don't allow criminals and insane people to own guns? What are you smoking?

When are you going to get out there and take their guns away? When are you going to prevent criminals and insane people from getting more guns and killing more people?

We are all waiting.

Nobody has to have been smoking anything when it comes to this!

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (not to be confused with the National Firearms Act of 1934, which taxed 'machine guns' and short barreled rifles and shotguns) expressly prohibits convicted felons, illicit drug addicts, and those adjudicated in a court of law as 'insane' from purchasing or prohibiting firearms. Breaking that law is a Federal offense and is punishable by up to ten years in a US penitentiary and a fine of tens of thousands of dollars on top of it. All states also have laws against felons possessing firearms, which a violator will usually be charged with if they have not done anything to get Uncle Sam's attention.

Firearms found in possession of these prohibited persons are confiscated as they are discovered upon searches and arrests for other offenses they may have been suspected of allegedly committing.

If a felon is caught attempting to purchase a firearm or even applying for a permit to acquire or a permit to carry a firearm, then they can very well be charged with yet another felony just for that.

Still waiting?

Paulette-605236 like or not that was his crazy motive.

England bans guns. And nobody is any worse off.

Massacre in the Lake District: TWELVE people gunned down by rampaging cabbie, 52, who then turns weapon on himself
By Liz Hazelton
2 June 2010

Britain's tough anti-gun lawsDerrick Bird's attack in Cumbria happened in spite of Britain having some of the toughest gun control laws in the world
The reaction to the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres has left Britain with an entrenched "anti-gun culture" and some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.

The ban on handguns, following the 1996 Dunblane massacre in which a former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, shot dead 16 primary school children and their teacher, has proved so tight that Britain's Olympic gun team has to train abroad for the 2012 Olympics.

In 1987 Michael Ryan murdered 16 people, including his mother, in Hungerford, prompting the 1988 ban on ownership of semi-automatic weapons.

Yes their bans have worked quite well

If this guy was "brewing" problems, someone on that campus had to have noticed. If he had the intent to kill, his entire demeanor would change. Apparently his acts were premediatated. Why wasn't security alerted? This is a private college. Who would not have noted his behavior and intervened proactively such as get him some serious counseling? Plenty of commuity resources available in Oakland to those in need. Did anyone care about referring this student upon releasing him from the school? What did they do to identify alternatives for him...academic probation, educational leave considering his circumstances? Someone had to have counseled him. If not, the Educational Institution is doing a disservice to its students. Unless the school is just a "fee for service" education provider not interested in the individual growth of its students.

I will say this...I have a lot of experience with being a student and the social dynamic in schools. While I feel that it isn't right to kill others, you have to admit it is also wrong to harass and torment any one person for any reason. These days, while it is considered totally inappropriate to tease a female or a black person, it is totally acceptable to torment an awkward individual. You see this in the schools and in the workplace...the awkward will be denied employment and harassed everywhere they go (the reasoning often given is that they are "stupid" or "weaker" and need to be culled from the herd). American society has a sickness, it has had this for a very long time now. We claim that we are a society dedicated to equal opportunity, that all men are created equal, and everyone who has the ability to accomplish something can do it, but we have this sick antiquated Social Darwinian mindset that we are charged with the duty to eliminate "the weak" because of how they look (in physique or mannerisms) and prevent them from achieving anything. This is America's terminal sickness...we try this with different groups....blacks, Hispanics, the "handicapped",....we think it is ok as long as the tormented class cannot fight back.

Hmmm... if Obama had a son, would he look like One Goh too?

U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. That's more than double the amount of times that guns were used to commit crimes.

If that were true, it would be a very good case for More Guns. But there is no evidence that it is true. It is based on a survey, not actual data. Read what it actually says and follow the footnote citation at the "Just Facts" website.

The bottom line about surveys is, people will tell the interviewer what they want to tell the interviewer and it may have no basis in truth. You should not try to make public policy based on surveys. Use data!

And you know what else about these surveys where gun supporters call people and ask them if they ever used a gun to defend themselves? Well, if they were really honest, they would also ask if a gun was ever used to threaten or victimize them. Let's get the Big Picture, eh?

I am aware of the facts and figures where gun ownership has positive benefits and own firearms myself.

Now you need to become aware of the facts where gun ownership has a detrimental effect :-) Are you aware of any data that shows hand guns to be detrimental to the people of the US, or is it all good?

Kaybeetoys,

Criminals will always have access to guns by way of Mexico just like with drugs. As I don't have an answer to getting illegal guns out of the hands of criminal. I don't think think that taking away the rights of law abiding citizens is the answer. If someone at this school was carrying a gun at the time this may have turned out very different and with the only casualty being of the shooter instead of the Innocent.

We don't allow criminals and insane people to own guns? What are you smoking?

When are you going to get out there and take their guns away? When are you going to prevent criminals and insane people from getting more guns and killing more people?

We are all waiting.

As to your claim that we allow insane people to own guns that is false. If you have ever had treatment for a mental condition you can't legally own a gun, period. But if you are mentally ill you can certainly buy a gun on the black market. The black market of guns will never go away even if the USA band guns all together, you would than only have criminals that owned guns. Lets do that right, we may as well just give all our treasured possessions to the gang down the road as that's what it would equate to, except without the violence.

Criminals will always have access to guns by way of Mexico just like with drugs.

Machine guns are designated as class 3 weapons under the 1968 National Firearms Act, which makes it more difficult for civilians to get a machine gun. And, as a result, not that many civilians have a machine gun.

The first step is to designate hand guns as a class 3 weapon. In time, this will reduce the number of hand guns, and the amount of violence associated with hand guns.

Lot of people are addicted to their hand guns. Time to go Cold Turkey!

If you have ever had treatment for a mental condition you can't legally own a gun, period.

Now, let's not get carried away here.

The law says that those who have been adjudicated as insane in a court of law are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Undergoing a treatment for a mental disorder is a far cry from being adjudicated as insane by a court.

In a nutshell, if a court of law declares someone to be insane, they're on their way to a state hospital for a good long time. Usually, they have committed a felony but instead of being incarcerated as a felon, they are institutionalized in a mental hospital instead. But, if and when they ever get out of there in 20 years or so, they'll still be barred from buying or having a gun.

If you have received treatment or compensation from the US Department of Veterans' Affairs for psychological conditions, then your name could conceivably pop up if you attempt to purchase a firearm and the dealer phones your information you wrote down on Form 4473 in to the National Instant Check System hotline. I do not personally know of this having happened, but it has been a concern that has been raised. In short, the dealer would supposedly be told he or she can not sell you a firearm. I'm not entirely certain what happens after that, but I do imagine there is likely some type of appeals process for anyone who feels they were incorrectly rejected by the NICS system.

Wet Willy

Kaybeetoys 1.58

You're anti-gun rhetoric is just more of the usual inflammatory and irrational dialogue. Prohibitions simply do not work because it will only serve to disarm the law abiding rendering them defenseless before the criminal element that will not disarm.

Want an example that prohibitions don't work? How's that "war on drugs" working out?

Where did I promote a prohibition on guns?

You think I'm irrational, when every day there is another incident of senseless gun violence in this country? If you like the status quo, admit that you like it.

Either that, or offer your solution, Wet Willy.

I'm going to get a kevlar vest, a mean dog and a big cannister of pepper spray. The rest of you can shoot it out in the streets to your heart's content. Have fun, kids.

Mike-1842539

Kaybeetoys,

I saw "wikipedia" in the link so I didn't bother with it lol.

The joke is on you Mike. It was just a link to the list of states with a 'castle doctrine' or 'stand your ground' law. Too good for wikipedia, are you?

Technically nukes don't kill people either.

I can appreciate that logic, StMiller, but don't hold your breath on logic winning the day with gun nuts. That's some potent NRA koolaid they're drinking.

Oh no, not another shooting.....the left will be on this using it as a reason to ban guns again and gut our second amendment rights. Because everyone knows it's the gun itself that shot those people not the deranged person holding the gun.

Machine guns are designated as class 3 weapons under the 1968 National Firearms Act, which makes it more difficult for civilians to get a machine gun. And, as a result, not that many civilians have a machine gun.

What the US Department of the Treasury refers to as 'machine guns' (not really machine guns, but rather any firearm that is capable of firing multiple cartridges when the trigger is depressed and held) are assessed a $200 excise tax upon registration of ownership with the US Department of Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934. The NFA constitutes 'Title II' of the portions of Title 18 of the United States Code that pertain to firearms regulation. The Gun Control Act of 1968 constitutes 'Title I'. There is no 'Title III', although if there was it would probably cover private ownership of naval vessels, nuclear devices, strategic bombers, etc.

Note that it's 'title', not 'class'.

The reason why not that many civilians have machine guns is that they cost about as much as a new car did (Thompson Submachine gun, Model of 1921, about $250 delivered. Very close to the going price of a new Model T Ford in the early 1920's) when they were available on an 'over the counter' basis, and only the premier bootlegging gangsters such as Al Capone and Dion O' Banion could afford to buy them to arm their thugs with. A decent shotgun would set you back about $25 in that same era.

The $200 transfer tax was still a nice heap of change in the mid-1930's when the National Firearms Act passed. Ironically, that was mostly due to the bank robbery gangs of the early 30's (Dillinger, 'Pretty Boy' Floyd, etc.), who generally didn't purchase but rather stole their Thompson submachine guns as well as pistols and Browning Automatic Rifles by robbing police stations and National Guard armories at gunpoint with one of those $25 shotguns I mentioned in the last paragraph.

Due to the expenses involved, there just never have been very many automatic weapons in circulation in the US that were not property of the US government. Not all states allow them, either, regardless of Federal law. The $250 Thompson that was new in the early 1920's now runs you about $25,000 if you can find a transferable one on the register that is for sale...plus the $200 tax you need to pay before you can get the tax stamp you need in order to legally purchase it.

The only people who pay that kind of money are the history buff collectors who appreciate the historical significance of the Thompson or of some of the handful of other designs out there. They become, more or less, the curator of what is essentially a museum piece, until they transfer it to someone else who is able and willing to go through the process to purchase a Title II firearm. They're not being actually used very much - too valuable - and sure as heck are not being used to commit crimes with.

The first step is to designate hand guns as a class 3 weapon.

'Class 3' is the Special Occupation Taxpayer who is licensed to transfer Title II firearms, versus a 'Class I' who is a regular Federal Firearms License holder (authorized to transfer Title I firearms, such as rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers), or a 'Class II' manufacturer-dealer of Title II firearms.

Congress didn't see fit to pass the NFA regarding standard pistols and revolvers as Title II firearms in the 1930's, although that was originally what was proposed, because it was readily recognized that there are in fact many legitimate uses for standard pistols and revolvers. The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricted the importation of certain handguns that were not considered to fit the definition of 'standard' for pistols and revolvers, mostly in terms of small size, as in too small to be legitimately useful.

Lot of people are addicted to their hand guns. Time to go Cold Turkey!

Sure...for those who shouldn't have them.

But those who use them properly do often get much enjoyment from them. Telling them to go 'Cold Turkey' would be about like telling motorcyclists, private pilots, equestrians, skateboarders, fishermen, sky divers, race car drivers, and others that what they enjoy doing is dangerous, unnecessary, undesirable, or otherwise does not meet your own personal approval...something that would be said by a person who would be widely regarded as 'a cold turkey', albeit maybe in not so many words.

@Davey

Criminals will always have access to guns by way of Mexico just like with drugs.

Machine guns are designated as class 3 weapons under the 1968 National Firearms Act, which makes it more difficult for civilians to get a machine gun. And, as a result, not that many civilians have a machine gun.

The first step is to designate hand guns as a class 3 weapon. In time, this will reduce the number of hand guns, and the amount of violence associated with hand guns.

Lot of people are addicted to their hand guns. Time to go Cold Turkey!

Spoken like a true sheep. You have a problem with reality don't you? Your logic is severly flawed. How will this exactly reduce the number of handguns? Even in your pixie dust fairy land reality, reducing hand guns will NOT reduce violence. Here's a suggestion, if you have a personal problem with hand guns and can't deal with it....go somewhere else. As mentioned above. England has a great (sarcasm) hand gun ban and it seems to work great for them. Bon Voyage.

Thank God I'm A Country Boy!

There are too many uptight people living in Urban America.

If any of you urban dwellers are ever thinking of relocating to rural America, then I should tell you how bad things are here, and how many of my neighbors are crazy people.

My advice would be for you all to stay where you are.

Bill1488 said:

Criminals will always have access to guns by way of Mexico just like with drugs.

Actually, Mexico is a perfect example of why banning guns won't work.

Mexico does not permit its citizens to have guns. There are only 6000 registered legal guns in the whole country and those are in the hands of law enforcement personnel. The average citizen can't get one.

A lot of the weapons in the hands of the cartels are coming from us. Not all of them--but a lot. USCs on the US side of the border will walk into gunshops in a border state and buy a lot of guns, say,12 Bushmaster hunting rifles at a time. They take them apart and smuggle the parts over the border, where they will then be reconstructed and end up in the hands of a cartel member who will use it to kill a innocent Mexican civilian and shoot at our border patrol, our National Guard troops, and now our WAASS-outfitted drones. As the average Mexican citizen cannot get a gun legally, they end up being killed because there is no way to resist the cartels and fight back against them.

Early in his administration President Obama tried to propose an initiative that could require a gunshop to alert ATF of a mass purchase of arms in a gunshop in the border states (who needs 12 rifles of the same kind at the same time?) The NRA shot it down because they said it was an infringement on the right of our citizens to carry guns, an the shop owners protested that if USC's saw this perceived limit on how many you can own, the shop owner would have customers going to shops that didn't report mass sales.

On a TV news story I saw, a reporter talked to one of these shop owners, asked the guy if he felt any guilt at all knowing that the 30 40 calibers he'd sold the day before would probably be used to kill a child in Mexico or one of our border patrolmen. The owner just shrugged and shook his head. nope, he was just here to make money. Wasn't his problem what people did it them after they bought it and he saw no reason why he should ask a Latino who could barely peak English why he wanted 30 guns.

As long as he had the money he could buy as many as he liked.

BTW--I have gun, my father's S&W Model 39 that he used in Nam. An inheritance. I live in a neighborhood with five gags--on white, two black, one Mexican and one Salvadoran--(the last two are basically car mod and street racing gangs.) I used to work nights at a 7-11 in my community and cps would show up n the paring lot every morning at two when the bars on either side of us let out--they could usually count on a good show watching me throw drunks out t 2AM. Despite the fact that I was threatened several times by Bloods, I have never once had to take my Dad's gun out of the house, or use it to defend myself.

The only time I've ever had to defend myself was when a guy stoned off his a$$ tried to break in one night. I sent my children upstairs, my (disabled) husband got the gun and waited in front of the kids' room, and I met the stoner on the porch with my sword. He darn near peed himself crying and begging for his life by the time the cops got there. Of course, though, when he told his buddies what happened, he couldn't admit he'd backed down to a 5 foot Asian chick with coke bottle glasses and an unsharpened practice sword, the way he described me I must have been a black-clad ninja-sword wielding howling maniac and he was lucky to get way with his life. I have never had any problems with any of the gangs after that.

http://www.remarcablearms.com/silencer.htm

This is the essense of a title 2 (aka class 3) firearm. This is what I want hand guns subject to. This is what will reduce the number of hand guns, over time, just like it has reduced the number of machine guns.

reducing hand guns will NOT reduce violence

Would reducing the number of flights between New York and Paris reduce the number of people traveling from New York to Paris? Yes, of course it would.

People like to take the easy way. That's why we have McDonalds.

Hand guns make it easy to kill, which is why they are the #1 murder weapon used in the US, so reducing their availability would certainly reduce violence. Look at this hand gun killer that we are commenting on. We neeed to make it more difficult for people like him to get hand guns

Davey- You will not be able to do that because these people don't buy there guns from a licenced dealer. Your example is absurd. So you think because you say no more gunsthat criminal will just turn in there guns. All that does is take away guns from law abiding citizens and leaves the criminals with there guns.

When hand guns are class 3 weapons, fewer people will have hand guns, meaning that there will be fewer hand guns even for the black market.

Look, in the 1920s and 1930s, the gangs used machine guns. All you have to do is look at any gangster movie starring Edward G. Robinson or Jimmy Cagney. Machine guns were a problem. So the congress passed a law making it more difficult for civilians to get machine guns.

The National Firearms Act of the 1930s listed machine guns as a class 3 weapon. Today, machine guns are not a problem.

Today, hand guns are a problem. Classifying hand guns as a class 3 weapon will reduce hand gun violence over time. We will certainly be giving our children and grand children a safer country. Just like the legislators of the 1930s gave us a safer country today, by restricting the sale of machine guns.

Show me your evidence that this would work? Like I said these guys are not buying guns from a gun store and just because you say no more guns does not mean that they will all just magically go away. I pronounce America a VIOLENCE FREE ZONE there your welcome now there be no more violence because I said so, that's how your argument looks.

The evidence is in the history books. In the 1920s and 1930s, gangs were using machine guns. Congress decided to make it more difficult for civilians to get machine guns: The National Firearms Act:

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

Today, machine guns are not used for murder in any significant number. The NFA worked!!

Let's do the same for hand guns.

You should not try to make public policy based on surveys.

Wow... Just wow... You realize that most legislation in this country is developed in response to, or informed by, survey data, right?

Also, Davey-- you ban handguns. Great. So now people just buy rifles/shotguns or semi-auto sub-machine guns (all perfectly legal) and modify them to fit in their pocket-- so called "Sawed off" weapons. The other part of your argument that you're ignoring is the fact that full auto weapons are also unbelievably expensive. In order for your class 3 restriction to work, you'd also have to jack up the price significantly-- otherwise people will still buy the handguns and just pay the $200 tax to do it. M16 rifles in full-auto configuration are between $15,000 and $20,000 dollars apiece for a civilian purchase. Without the steep increase in price, there will be no decrease in ownership, and it's hard to justify a price tag of that magnitude on a revolver or semi-auto handgun. In other words, your plan won't work.

You realize that most legislation in this country is developed in response to, or informed by, survey data, right?

I did not know that. If that is a fact, a provable fact, then please post a reference so that i can learn more about it.

Also, Davey-- you ban handguns

I did not say that. I am saynig that we classify hand guns the same that we classify machine guns. Machine guns are not banned.

So now people just buy rifles/shotguns or semi-auto sub-machine guns (all perfectly legal) and modify them to fit in their pocket

I suppose it is possible that some people will do that.

The other part of your argument that you're ignoring is the fact that full auto weapons are also unbelievably expensive.

This is a result of the scarcity of machine guns. Since it is not easy to get a machine gun, we don't need that many machine guns. Since we don't need so many machine guns, we there are not that many machine guns. Since there are not that many machine guns, the remaining available machine guns cost more.

It will be interesting to see how quickly this happens with hand guns, should hand guns be added to the list of "title II" weapons.

I think that hand guns are a problem that need to be dealt with, now (just like the congress thought that machine guns were a problem that needed to be dealt with in the 1930s). But, there are certain constraints and realities that have to be acknowledged about the hand gun situation. Specifically, there are a lot of them and some people REALLY like their hand guns. And there's that pesky 2nd amendment :-). So, you can't ban hand guns and you really can't expect to just take them away from everyone who has one today.

The machine gun experience will guide us. If you have a hand gun today, you keep it. But over time, the title II rules regarding hand gun ownership, will result in fewer hand guns. There is no magic wand to wave here. You really can't make hand guns go away tomorrow. But without disturbing too much the current owners, you can implement new rules for hand gun acquisition and therefore reduce the number of hand guns in our society, over time. It worked very, very well for machine guns. It boggles my mind to see how well the solution worked for the machine gun problem and how nicely the solution to the machine gun problem can work for the hand gun problem. In 50 years, most people will not feel the need to own a hand gun, just like today, most people do not feel the need to own a machine gun.

Don't just focus on the transfer tax. Focus on the fact that machine guns are registered with the gov't and you need gov't approval to take possession of one. That is what reduces the number of sellers and buyers of machine guns, and so it will be with hand guns. All you have to do is reab about what we did with machine guns, and you can see the road map for what we will do with hand guns, and how well it worked!! :-)

I did not know that. If that is a fact, a provable fact, then please post a reference so that i can learn more about it.

Here:

http://www.cgr.org/research_surveys.aspx

"CGR is a nonprofit organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. We bring expertise to issues spanning economics and, public finance, government management, health and human services and education. In addition we are skilled at program evaluation, strategic planning & facilitation and census data interpretation."

"For many different types of projects CGR makes use of surveys (paper, phone or internet-based), conducts data analyses, and delivers findings and recommendations to clients."

This is one of many government think tanks that provide survey data to legislators along with analysis of the data to inform their opinion on any proposed legislation. Columbia University has this to say about government think tanks:

"The term "think tanks" is an imprecise phrase used to describe a wide range of non-profit research organizations which engage in public policy analysis and research, and often advocate solutions. Some are strictly nonpartisan, researching policy issues without regard to political outcomes, while others see one of their main functions as that of providing intellectual support to politicians or parties. They are as ubiquitous in the American political scene as interest groups, media consultants, "spin doctors", and the political parties themselves."

If you want to know more, I suggest you enroll in a political science class or two...

The cost of machine guns is derived partially from the scarcity, but also from the functionality of the weapon. You also ignore the fact that there is a ban on full-auto firearms-- you cannot legally own a full-auto weapon produced after 1986. There is a ban on civilian sales of any model manufactured after that date. This is an excellent example of "give the mouse a cookie and it wants a glass of milk," the so-called "Slippery Slope." Classify full-auto weapons as restricted in the 1930's, then ban new sales outright 50 years later. Restrict handguns now, then ban them 50 years later. That's why "gun nuts" are so adamant about opposing new restrictive legislation on firearms. They see it as a slow, inexorable move to eventually repeal the 2nd amendment completely.

Well, the constitution was created more than 200 years ago. And, it is not difficult to understand that something that was created 200 years ago may need to be tweaked to fit modern circumstances. My objection to hand guns is based on the fact that they cause so much death and injury. You know, there was relatively little crime in the colonial days. There is much more crime today in the US. So, circumstances change, and the laws need to change with them.

By implication, you do not think that the amount of death and injury caused by people using hand guns to kill and injure is so great than we need to restrict their availability, yes? So, is there a threshold of death and injury caused by people with hand guns that will cause you to accept restricting the availability of hand guns?

Are you OK with the fact that the availability of machine guns is restricted? Or, do you want most people to be able to buy a machine gun?

As to the constitution, I believe that certain aspects of it may, at times, need to be altered (like the abolition of slavery), however, I feel that the 2nd Amendment has not reached a moment in history where it would require any kind of revision. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is designed to ensure the ability of the American civilian population to muster defensive militias in times of war, or to oppose a tyranny within the government. For that militia to be effective, it would need to have small arms on-par with the arms used against them, so, as a general rule, I am against any restrictions that limit the law abiding citizen from gaining access to modern weaponry (with respect to small arms-- the type one can reasonably be expected to "keep and bear" -- I do not advocate for a nuclear missile in every garage). Consider the fact that one of Japan's frequent discussions in closed war-room meetings during the first stages of their assault on America in WW2 was how they could reasonably be expected to invade the US homeland when the citizenry was essentially an army unto itself. Their concern over the matter clearly illustrates that the 2nd Amendment certainly has beneficial aspects when considering the potential for foreign invasion.

As to your second statement regarding "the threshold of death and injury" caused by handguns, I would be quick to point out (as I have earlier as well) that violent crime has been decreasing over the past 20 years across the board (this is according to the FBI's own compiled crime statistics)-- so even if there were a threshold that would cause me to turn away from my opinions about firearms ownership in America (even if just in reference to handguns) that threshold is moving in the opposite direction.

Lastly, I feel that the ban on machine guns manufactured after 1986 is unconstitutional, though I have no problem at all with the increased scrutiny when purchasing one (tax stamp & enhanced federal background check).

I have no problem at all with the increased scrutiny when purchasing one (tax stamp & enhanced federal background check).

How about applying the same level of scrutiny that we currently use for machine guns, to hand guns?

As to your second statement regarding "the threshold of death and injury" caused by handguns, I would be quick to point out (as I have earlier as well) that violent crime has been decreasing over the past 20 years across the board (this is according to the FBI's own compiled crime statistics)-- so even if there were a threshold that would cause me to turn away from my opinions about firearms ownership in America (even if just in reference to handguns) that threshold is moving in the opposite direction.

I see this, too. And that is a good thing. But hand guns are still used to murder and injure many each year, year after year. I asked you a question, so I think it is fair for me to answer the related question, how many people killed each year with hand guns would cause me to think that hand guns did not need to be restricted. I would say that when hand gun deaths fell to 2 times rifle/shotgun deaths, I would think that hand guns did not need special firearm status.

But I'm still interested to know what number of deaths, or higher, would cause you to want to give hand guns the same classification as machine guns? Forget about the trend.

I do think that the restrictions on Title II weapons (for machine guns and hand guns, should hand guns ever be classified as Title II) should be suspended if the US were ever actually in danger of being invaded. Right now, it is laughable to think that any country plans to invade the US. And in the meantime, hand guns take their toll in death and injury. Who needs to be invaded when we have shown ourselves to be perfectly capable of killing ourselves?

I take great encouragement from the fact that 80 years ago, America had the wisdom to increase the requirements for ownship of machine guns. I wonder if we have the same wisdom to increase the requirements for hand gun ownershipo.

The sort of legislation that your proposing would be deeply unpopular and would find resistance among many, many special interests-- especially the NRA. Its chances of finding the votes necessary to pass are slim to none.

As if the U.S. didn't have enough homegrown violent self-centered men with a gun fetish and hatred of women, we're now importing them from Korea.

he was upset with several students here because of the way he was treated

Dude, your 43 years old, not 12.

"violent self-centered men with a gun fetish and hatred of women"

littlechanges, are you referring to the gay community? or do you just hate men? if so, I guess you're no different from those you hate.

Wakehead...just means he had an extra 31 years to experience social discrimination/ harassment.

You guys are all full of @!$%#. The funny thing is guns are already banned at schools and that obviously hasn't worked. What happens if a teacher or student had been armed? He would have been shot dead lives would have been saved. You already banned guns in schools that didn't work, try to ban guns in the state then they come from Nevada, ban guns in the US and then they come from Mexico. Get a life, take some personal responsibility and stop cowering behind your government. The only thing i wish in this case is that i was in that classroom he walked into...the news story would have been way different. "In the name of Liberty"

That's a good point, Ryan. It IS illegal to have a gun on school premises in most places these days, isn't it? Lot of good that does.

Death penalty? Not a chance. This is Oakland CA not Austin TX.

No in Texas they would ask him if he felt threatened by the high debt and bad economy.

Send him to Tx., they know how to take care of people like him, well of course unless you want him to move in next door to you?

What is crazy is, they know he did it, he admits he did it, people seen him do it, but guess what, he gets an attorney someone to defend him and then go thru a long court case, EVEN WHEN EVERYONE KNOWS HE DID IT, HOW CAN YOU EVEN BE THE ONE TO DEFEND HIM-----THIS IS JUST ANOTHER REASON WHY AMERICA IS SCREWED UP.

So if he deserves the death penalty for killing 7, does that soldier deserve the death penalty for killing 16?!

Just sayin'.

Steve - Everyone deserves a trial and a chance to defend themselves. With so much eyewitness evidence the case against him is a given, it's not like he's going to get off. But even so, I'm not comfortable with giving up my right to a jury trial. The reason America is so "screwed up" is because more and more people like you are volunteering to give up the very freedoms our nation was founded upon.

Jasmine-1862666

So if he deserves the death penalty for killing 7, does that soldier deserve the death penalty for killing 16?!

Yes. What kind of nut killls kids? Or anyone for that matter.

Stupid or deranged people don't kill people. Stupid or deranged people with GUNS kill people.

Xina- No this country is screwed up because we are not like we use to be, this country is screwed up because of technology, this country is screwed up because the government took away discipline, this country is screwed up because of Bush and his buddies, this country is screwed up because we put our nose in everbodies business in other countries, this country is screwed up because of Video games, Facebook, U-Tube, etc, etc. Back in the day having the freedoms your talking about was OK, in this day and age people are taking advantage and something needs to be done. I wish people would reply who know what I'm talking about, I'm looking for people born 50 years ago who know what I mean, and you younger people who do think we are free, what about Red light cameras, not wearing a seatbelt or helmet, do I need to go on.

Steve K-3106796

Yeah, my grandpa said the same thing about indoor plumbing. "Once we was given the right to crap in our own house, everything went to sh!t" BTW, I'm over 60, own several computers, two tablets, an ITouch, and a smartphone. I agree we may be getting a bit over-teched (my word) but society changes with the times. Would you rather be riding a horse and hunting your own food, or riding down to the grocery store to buy your dinner.

Retired US soldier- Good one, I like it, I also did 20 years in the Navy, I'm just saying that if we use the internet, you should not be allowed to put up a web site on building bombs, a web site for the KKK, and so on.

@Steve K-3196796 and a lot of other on here.

Take a look at what's going on in Syria, Sudan, Chad, etc right now, or what has gone on in past countries were the citizens did not have the right to bear arms i.e. Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China, and the list goes on. Take a look at all the car bombings that happen on a daily basis in Iraq, Afghanistan, and multiple other countries throughout the world. These suicide bombs our killing dozens upon dozens of innocent civilians daily. Why don't they use guns? Because they are not as effective. Take the guns away and you better bet your life that you'll see more home grown suicide bombings in this country or even non-suicide attacks like Timothy McVeigh or the Unabomber. How do you stop a terrorist from blowing themselves up just prior to the TSA checkpoint, you don't. Just imagine your waiting in line at the airport just prior to being screened and boom! Or a car bomb at a tailgate. What would we do, the country would shut down I'd assume because everyone would be afraid to leave their house and the government would ban cars, wearing of sweaters, purchasing of fertilizers, house hold cleaning chemicals, etc. Same concept as banning guns, right.

Steve K-3196796,

Yeah, I wish it were that simple. To protect the liberty of all of us, we also have to protect the few that are rabid dogs and need to die!!!!! Excuse me, got a little carried away. <grin>

Anything illegal should be taken down for sure. But who would control the stupid hate sites? The Imams who believe women have no rights and should be forced to marry some dick wad that raped her, and stone them to death if they piss off their husbands. Or how about some Hindu that thinks the cow that wanders into your house and craps everywhere is a god.

I think we should ignore the ignorant, and maybe they will go away. However, as a caveat, if their beliefs start to threaten our lives and liberty, bomb the hell outa them with one of them hacker tools. I'm not that techie but I'm sure there are plenty of hackers out there that could do a job on those web sites. Just sayin......

Actually, if the students were allowed to be armed, it would have solved this problem, or at least cut down on the number of deaths. This happened in California, arguably the most restrictive gun-control state in the country, and what good did it do them? You aren't allowed to carry handguns at all there (unless you are buddies with the sherriff or have a lot of money to "grease the gears")-- and just as it happens time after time after time, the criminal didn't obey the law, but the innocent people did and got slaughtered.

If just one of the seven victims had been carrying, this may have been a no-death event. Except for maybe the disturbed shooter.

How about if the assailant was not allowed a gun. Then this would not be a shooting in school case would it?

The bad guys ALWAYS find a gun because they don't follow the law. That's what makes them the bad guys! Banning guns is like trying to ban pot. Good luck with that.

In a country where half the people are on Cymbalta, Prozac, and all the other "let's give you this and see how you react" drugs, and a whole generation of kids are coming up after their brains have been on ADHD medication during their formulative years.... I don't think everyone packing a firearm is a good idea. That's half the problem now... some people go from irritated to rage irrationally fast.... Gid rid of the guns that anyone can shoot, use existing technology to create a smart trigger that will only work for the registered owner..... and give that registered owner more of a background check..... it's harder to get a loan than a gun..... and loans don't kill people

Unless the shooter had a CCW he was not allowed to be carrying a gun.

How about if the assailant was not allowed a gun. Then this would not be a shooting in school case would it?

Really, not being allowed to have a gun would stop someone? Guess if that works, then not allowing convicted felons to have guns, will stop the drive by shootings in Detroit & L.A.

DREAM ON!

"Actually, if the students were allowed to be armed"

For sure, lets go back to 19th. century logic. Mental illness can be caused by many reasons, and it can hit anyone at any time, no one is immune. Stress induced psychotic break.. thousands of books have been written on mental illness yet it get narrowed down to a single word, crazy.

"and loans don't kill people"

The stress of not being able to pay it back does. We live in a Catch 22 society.

jawzee

Unless the shooter had a CCW he was not allowed to be carrying a gun

you can't get away with that in California...with their strict gun control laws, I'll bet gun violence there is almost non-existant

Drummerboy777,

I don't know, my mortgage is KILLING ME at 8.5%!!!!

Hillbilly, the lover of something that kills, that's just great, and do not say guns don't kill people, people kill people, YEAH WITH A GUN, WITH A GUN THAT WAS INVENTED TO KILL, DAH!!!DAH!!!!.

The assailant wasn't allowed a gun.

Steve, guns were invented to hunt with. Killer use them to kill with. I have several and none of them have ever tried to kill me. I hunt with them and use them to defend me and my family. Just think how this might have turned out had there been ANYONE there to defend themselves with their gun. This is exactly like the guy in South Carolina. He should have had a gun either. The big problem we have here in this country is the ones that think only the criminals should have guns. And they have more than anyone else here. Let's ask them again to give them up and turn them selves over to the police. They always do when YOU ask them too.....Right! The courts say over and over again....yes it's a fact. The police are not here to protect you, that's your job. Their job is to arrest the criminal AFTER they commit a crime. The federa courts have said it, the state courts have said it....so tell me what you think we can do next...put and ad in the paper and ask the criminals to STOP this??

Larry-you say Guns were invented to hunt with, that is killing or I'm I speaking to Uncle Ted, Ted Nugent that is, you say you have them also to protect your family, just how often have you had to protect your family, I'm 50 years old and have never had to protect my family with a Gun, I have never been in a situation that would require me to protect my family and I live in a not so good town right next to North Chicago, I have also lived in Cleveland, LA California, San Diego and the list goes on. If someone breaks into my house I have Two 80 pound living breathing guns, they are called Pitbulls that is my protection.

SteveK

Hillbilly, the lover of something that kills, that's just great, and do not say guns don't kill people, people kill people, YEAH WITH A GUN, WITH A GUN THAT WAS INVENTED TO KILL, DAH!!!DAH!!!!.

I have never seen a gun load itself, cock(arm) itself and then discharge itself without the help of a person. It's not the guns fault, it is the fault of the insane/deranged individual(well if a crime is involved). With your logic I quess the auto at the hands of a killer or drunk is the problem and not the individual driving.

Steve K I just knew you were going to go with the hunting is killing side of things. I'm glad you choose to buy all your meat (if you eat it) at the supermarket/market or "McDonalds". Oh crap that's right someone killed it and most likely after it was infected with steriods, hormones and what else. So glad you just want to give up all your rights. Heck as you said above The Constitution should not apply now as it was written so long ago. So there are also many people that want to ban Pitbulls as they were also bread for Killing. So go ahead and move to the Philippines where you can also buy a cheap Aids infected kidney at a cheap price(or sell one) or move to the part of the chain/island where al qaeda still runs the show. Oh yeah you can also eat all your meals at McDonalds, boy that sounds just peachy....NOT

Steve K

I just also wanted to comment a bit more on your "How the Philippines are so great post". You said how in the Philippines you can feed a family of 4 for $6 at McDonalds. Well as long as you like to processed food, it may be good for you but not me. I can feed a family of 4 for $10 right here in the US. Chicken, fresh veggis and rice or pasta. In the Philippines al quada still has a strong handle on parts of the country. But wait you are free right? Not..as they have the Human Security Act(HSA) similar to Patriot Act which allows for the wiretapping of members of judicially designated terrorist organizations or individuals and the financial investigation of individuals connected to terrorist organizations. Oh wait they have such a strong policy on drugs and crime so there must not be any..Ha Ha yeah right-not the case. The Philippines has in recent years become a regional hub for drug syndicates from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Shabu, a methamphetamine notorious throughout Southeast Asia, is manufactured in the Philippines, which has also become a major transshipment
point for drugs like heroin, cocaine and marijuana that are made abroad. Crime is also a major problem in the Philippines because of limited financial resources, inadequate salaries, corruption, low morale, limited cooperation between police and prosecutors, and other problems in law enforcement.

But wait you can live like a king for little money, you can do that in Haiti too so why not move there. Also here in the US you say the Constitution should not apply due to being written sooooo looong ago. So just give up arms, strip down so you can be anally raped by the government. Also make sure you don't speak up as you will be thrown in jail or just give up your home to the government for eminet domain. So glad you would also like to live as a "King" amonst poverty. Maybe while here in the US you can also be like the guy in CT that ran away while 2 guys raped and murdered(set on fire) his family because god forbid should you kill them to protect your family. Oh wait just call the cops you know the guys that are minutes away when seconds count.

Great another fanatic.

it was a pretty crappy plan if he failed to find and kill the woman he was actually looking for. guy is obviously a moron.

Probably with Darth Vader according to you. Yoda is just way too creepy.

Nice post, Nivaldo. It is the responsibility of each of us to change what is wrong in our society, and your post illustrates a good 'first step'.

It is good to hear on paper, but, do you think doing good deeds is going to prevent nut jobs like him from killing peope. By the way I do good deeds, I donate to charity, give money to beggers and homeless, save money for my parents retirement, and entertain my co-workers.

I'm going to start wearing a kevlar vest.

That's great, we all should do more of that. No it will not stop nut jobs like this guy, but it will make the world a better place for all of us to live, is that such a bad thing? People have been killing people from the ages, and it will never stop, I think we all know that, we just have to do the best we can.

That's why I never ride a bike; I'm afraid it will just drive me around and run over someone.

How many who post outrage are actually willing to begin a personal campaign to push for effective gun control?

I do and have. It is much more than that though, the right villifies anyone that disagrees with them to the point of personal attacks and outright lies.

When any rational discussion about gun control starts with one side saying "it will never work, there is no point in trying" then only one side is being rational.

mcb... please show me where a 12 year old legally obtained a firearm.

When you speak of "effective gun control", what do you propose?

And unless you live in a truly isolated place on this earth, California has some of the most restrictive "gun controls" in the nation.

Instead of gun control, why don't we speak of effective criminal control. Why don't we start putting the blame for these incidents where it belongs, on the INDIVIDUAL. The inanimate object, the gun, did nothing of it's own accord. It only did what the INDIVIDUAL wanted it to do.

mcb, do you truly believe that anyone capable of doing what this person did cares about gun laws? CA has very strong gun laws, and it's illegal to bring guns on campus. Did he care about those Laws? NO, of course not. So you expect someone would be worried about gun laws? Do you think that even with gun laws there would be no guns on the streets?

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

There is no way to predict who is going to go on a gun shooting rampage. However, a lot of people are proposing that everyone should be allowed to carry guns to protect themselves. That sounds dangerous to me because I think we do not always rationally think when we have a gun in our pocket. When in danger we have a fight or flight response. If you have a gun on you all the time, then you will always pick fight, when you are unarmed you will always pick flight. Having a gun on you all the time might trigger your fight response prematurely, through prejudice etc. That would lead to more killings.

Do you think that even with gun laws there would be no guns on the streets?>>>

No, nor do I want guns banned. Why do so many think that a desire to rid this country of the current 'armed to the teeth' mentality means banning all firearms?

I am not saying there should be a total gun control. But I am trying to make the point that with a gun in the pocket, people do not always make the smartest of decisions in my opinion. I am a liberal and I love guns.

I have carried a gun for my entire adult life. Fortunately, I have never had to shoot anone. Banning guns is not the answer. Idiots will always have access to weapons Banning them will only increase illegal dealing WE ban drugs , look what that has accomplished

Phenomenal, do you ever carry a gun to know that you do not act or think rationally when you have one in your pocket? I frequently carry a gun in my purse. and I find I am much more alert, and careful when I carry. Controlling the right to carry is not the answer, harsh and swift punishment for these types of crimes is. And the press and news outlets need to take a more judgemental tack on these issues. Instead of the headline of "Gunman kills seven" how about "Pathetic loser low life scum robs seven of their lives".

Our society is so messed up right now, everyday we take terrible crimes that destroy lives and families and turn them into the latest entertainment for the evening on the crime shows and news magazines. We desensitize ourselves to these things and we show the perpetrator as clever, playing cat and mouse games with authorities, and rarely show any real punisment other than the prospect of being caught and facing trial. We run endless loops of these stories on 24 hour news cycles and give people who are on the edge the idea that this might be a solution to their need to be noticed, or to get revenge. Taking my gun away from me won't fix any of this.

What is effective gun control? 12 year old purchasing a firearm? Not in this country. A 12 year old having one, sure, but they would not be able to purchase ammunition. I got my first rifle at age 10. I have never been curious about how it works, what it sounds like or what happens if I pull this curved thing here. I am in the vast majority when it comes to legal gun ownership in that I don't commit crimes with my firearms. As a matter of fact I am less likely to hurt somebody with my gun than you are with your car. We know from example (California, Great Britain are two) that stricter gun laws don't necessarily equal less violence. Media driven frenzy to rid America of guns is nonsense. Look past the headlines people before you go jumping the gun, so to speak.

Here's something to think about. Switzerland has a very high rate of gun ownership. In fact, gun ownership is very pervasive...yet crime is very low. think there is some correlation between the number of owners who carry and own weapons and the low crime rate? Read the attached article:

"When any rational discussion about gun control starts with one side saying "it will never work, there is no point in trying" then only one side is being rational."

Well william, what is rational to you? Most of your post seems rather irrational, so you're saying "it will never work, there is no point in trying" is the rational one? What you fail to understand, is that it doesn't matter the laws on the books, criminals and crazy people will still be ciminals and crazy people will still be crazy. If there were no laws, then there would be no criminals right? but we need laws in order to live together. However, there will still be people breaking the laws, hence with or with out laws there will still be criminals. Now if you can fix crazy and stop crime, and everyone just lives in some utopia, then you may have an arguement, but until that happens, you're just pissing people off.

California doesn't have "some of" the most restrictive gun laws, according to the Brady Bunch they are the #1 state for "common sense" gun restrictions.

Look where that got the victims of this tragedy.

California politicians have never seen a gun law they didn't like. They have passed ammo bans, "safe" handgun lists, assault weapon bans, waiting periods, 1 handgun per month laws, handgun registration, long-gun registration, open carry bans, corrupt "may issue" CCW system. The list goes on and on. How did any of these laws help or save any of those victims?

The hand wringers and gun grabbers will always come out and assert that we are only one more gun control law away from utopia, but fail to see the glaring truth staring back at them. Gun control laws don't work and never have.

If you really want to solve the problem, you will need to start finding solutions for poverty, mental illness, drop out rates, etc .. Hard problems requiring hard solutions. Saying it's the guns fault is the lazy and easy way out.

Permit to own a gun?

That's now what I've heard in most states.

We already do background checks and look at mental health records for those who seek o purchase arms. Most of the time, rejections by the background check are false alarms to the point where nobody bothers to do anything about it. These events are just plain rare and unlucky. But it happened in California, the state with the highest Brady rating gun control score. Surely it couldn't happen there? Just be surprised that the body count was so low!

We don't know the entire story behind why this man did what he did. What we do know is that he was under a lot of stress, had people bullying him at the school, and had family deaths that could have pushed him into a deep depression. I'm wondering if he was on some kind of medication for depression, those seem to be popular in many of the school shootings. The problems here are deep, probably deeper than we understand. In a nutshell, our mental health system here in the US is horrible. You can go from therapist to therapist until you find the one that has the knowledge to help you. Until then, when you can't get better with therapy alone after a few meetings the therapists recommend you go get some meds to deal with your problems. Our pill pushing, easy fix society is catching up to us. People can't get help, and need it desperately.

My thoughts really do go out to the families involved, including this mans. His actions have left several victims beyond the ones shot today. Very sad.

WT hey, are those even real?

All Criminals can get Guns. Let us not restrict the ability of law abiding citizens from access to Guns.

Kudos for the 2nd Amendment

wow....Mao, Stalin, Hitler, many others...all enforced gun bans/controls....how did that turn out again?

hm-2959564

Why is it that he had access to a gun?

Why are we so crazy about our right to own a gun?

Why does anybody need a gun unless they are a member of the military or the armed forces?

The answer is better gun control.

• !

#15 - Tue Apr 3, 2012 5:39 AM MDT

The answer is not more gun control you MORON! cant you connect the dots here! Thats what caused this person to have a open season on defensless humans! The you cant legislate Evil!! Some people are broken in life. and its going to happen . The answer is to arm Law abiding citizens.

Why is it that he had access to a gun?

Well there are gun stores, nothing wrong.

Why are we so crazy about our right to own a gun?

Was Goh crazy? Yes: Advocating right to own gun? No.

Why does anybody need a gun unless they are a member of the military or the armed forces?

Hunting/Sports shooting/protection

The answer is better gun control.

California has some strict gun controls on the books, and to top it off it was a gun free zone. did that stop goh from going crazy and shooting up the place? So what better gun control are you referring to?

Oh loads of reasons to own a gun without being a police officer or military personnel.

1. Protection from attack.

2. Useful multipurpose tool.

3. Store of capital.

4. Means of gathering food.

5. Historical artifacts.

6. Walking stick.

7. Door stopper.

8. Flashlight mount.

9. Bottle opener.

10. Protection from animals.

11. Political symbolism.

12. Technological achievements.

13. Valid reason why attacking you is a bad idea.

14. Troll you.

why is being a member of the military or the armed forces.... different, I'm willing to bet they're the same thing.

Why why why. These are good questions and now the answer, because because, because. what a wonderful wizard he was!

We as a nation place way to much emphesis on life, believe me it's not that important. If it was we wouldn't die.

S&W is my personal favorite but Glock manufacturers great argument enders.

Personal favorite is the H&K USP45. 12+1 really would get the job done if needed. I will also say that I hope that time never comes. People want to ban guns.."we have the police" well this person had actually walked away and made it to a market or super market. As Will said "When seconds count the police are minutes away!"

In Vermont you don't need to have a permit to carry concealed. Pretty much anyone can. How many murders were there in Vermont last year?

The problem is deeper than accessibility to firearms. I know in my town fully automatic weapons could be legal and I don't think the crime rate would go up. People are the problem. Find out why and fix it.

Oh! I love my glock but you can't argue the reliabilty of 1911's.

Well, yes and no. if you are referring to controlling the laws on guns, No does not work. if you are referring to controlling a gun, in some instances, Yes people died.

Well Trayvon.. you are starting to decay. Time to bury you.

Quit your racist anti-white rant, Jury. This is not about Zimmerman, who if you had any intelligence would know is not even white, you ignorant bigot.

That makes 4 times this for this posting...

Go back to your crack pipe, Jury

Talk about a turd that won't flush.

If you can say "I am Trayvon Martin", then you should also say I'm Shawn Tyson. Both 17 year old black males. Google his name if you don't recognize it.

mcb - define "effective" gun control. Who HAS the control here? Who do you plan to put in control to do the controlling? Who will be controlled...and how will the controlling affect our Constitutional right to bear arms as stated in the 2nd Amendment? Will MY guns be controlled? If so, who controls them? Will I be refused the right acknowledged by the 2nd Amendment? If I am required to relinquish my rights as provided for by the 2nd amendment...will I be asked at some future time to relinquish some other right?

...and in the end...will "your effective gun control" really change anything? Oh, I can answer that. No. I will just have relinquished MY rights for nothing but to give someone else MORE control over my life and my property. Sorry, can't live with that scenario. It goes against every Patriotic fiber of my being.

There are restrictions on the caliber, restrictions on barrel length, restrictions on who can own them, background checks, restrictions on import & foreign components, national registration of new firearms (being done illegally, but still being done), restrictions on ammo purchasing, heavy restrictions on automatics, what more "effective" gun control do you suggest? California has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country (capacity, stocks, full registration) and this tragedy still happened.

There are no effective gun controls. Either way criminals will get them. Want proof? Look at cocaine and other illegal drugs. They are banned but yet easily obtained.

All you do is remove guns from law biding citizens with very little options for self defense in their homes. If their homes getting invaded by criminals with weapons.... what you going to tell them? Call the police? Good luck since every city in the nation are cutting the police budgets and laying off to save money.

LOL.. You expect to see that story on MSNBC or NBC. Of course they will not admit on their own propaganda channel. Did you really expect to see the truth on any medium controlled by George Soros?

I saw that Zimmerman 911 tape story on MSNBC yesterday.

The jury and kaybee, you're idiots. No if, ands, or buts.

Does anyone remember the guy over in an Asian country, where owning guns is illegal, a couple years ago that killed several people with a knife/ sword?

Guns dont kill people. People kill people, and they are going to do it whether they wrap their hands around a gun, a knive, or a baseball bat!

I am so sick of people as stupid as you I could just puke.

Someone one day might just save your life because they are carrying a personal protestion weapon..........but then again, if they read the crap you spew on here they may just wait unitl you are dead before they start saving other people.

Thank you Geiyser! If someone, regardless of race, background, politics, religion, gender, social status, or what ever decides to kill someone they will use guns, knives, swords, nukes to pull it off. Everything I listed is symptomatic of the problem. As long as we remain focused and deal only with the symptoms the problem will hound us until we are all dead. There will be no last person standing because that problem will eat that person from the inside until they ultimately take their own life. Do not take my word for it...look back at the last 10,000 years of human history...oh that's right...history has nothing for us.

@hangem21 What is up with the Asians? This the second school shooting perpetrated by an Asian. Every other school shooting was by white kids.

Second major, then the other attempted one. But yah....I feel like a lot of the college shootings have happened from international students lately. Maybe we need better screening processes for college admittance.

Technically this is the third shooting by an Asian(there was the one in upstate new york @ an immigration office). But race has very little to do with this, as there are psychos in every race.

The problem really is the accessibility to firearms, but there's no way to eradicate all of them, so banning guns isn't the answer. Perhaps, if there was some form of centralized database, where a firearm license could get revoked or a person could be red flagged, if:

1. A person has been reported to show signs of aggressive behavior, say arrested for domestic violence.

2. Has purchased a gun shortly after a status change such as firing, or expulsion from school.

3. If one has a history of the above, be mandated to take a few psych exams, and or anger management courses.

This would weed out any potential crazies, but of course would not stop a well determined one, so there must be some form of security, maybe the state should mandate that there be at least one armed guard at every school, like they already do for cannabis dispensaries.

The attorneys would love that one. Too many variables. People need to remember that firearms are actually used infrequently. When the media hyper-reports these incidents it just appears that way.

The very frequent times they are used to protect life and property are never mentioned because they don't need to be discharged. The media will not report a citizen with a firearm stopping an armed robbery unless there is a bloody shoot-out.

The media cheery picks as per their anti-gun bias. This is not new - and the statistics bear it out. Start reading Gary Kleck and Mark Gertz's research on the matter. Sold and fact based analysis.

Nothing more to say - Guns ain't going away.