Can we have that conversation Bob Costas was talking about yet? How many kids have to die before we get to talk about this like rational adults?

MS: No, we can't. Too many people are too invested in our gun culture to ever talk about it rationally.

IXLR8

It is the violent video games these teenagers and young adults are playing. The kill over and over with the gore and get desensitized to murder and act it out. There is no reset button in real life.

The Video Gaming industry should be shut down if the can't police the violent games they spew out each year.

It's not video games. Nor is it television or movies. You could even lump books containing violence in there if you want to go old style. A lot of the time it's due to one's upbringing and unknown issues that people are not willing to talk about that cause them to snap.

My heart goes out to the families and friends of the children and adults that were killed. What a horrible thing to do. The brother who was taken in for questioning better have some answers for these families that have to now deal with the loss of so many people.

Is it bad that I've become so desensitized to these type of news that it doesn't stir anything in me anymore? Mass shootings seem to happen everyday in this country. When the victims are those who've yet to understand the vile nature of man well...it's just another day. Guns may not kill people and people may in fact be the ones who do.....but when you have a country that gives everyone a right to "bear arms"/kill these are the incidents you're going to have. It's usually going to be the perceived stable person that goes off too. Too bad for the dead, but this is the society we've built and fostered.

Sounds like a person who is a a gun control person,, Most people who own guns are not like the guys that do this dumb random shooting,, Just wanting to get their name in the news, The news media and the President who get on the news and put this type of stuff are just what this type of sicko's want even though they kill themselves this is what they want...Even if we had stricter laws and gun control a person will find a gun to do this type of thing .. So Gun control people do not blame a law abiding gun owner..... Thank You!!!

If I die of cancer, I sure as heck hope someone will use the occasion of my death to call for research for a cure. If I die in a plane crash, I want the discussion of what caused it and how to prevent the next one to start right away.

Now is the time to start the discussion about our gun saturation. In fact, it's a few days and a few souls too late. Besides, as we're seeing lately, if you wait until the bullets stop flying and the bodies are in the ground to start the discussion, you're going to end up doing nothing but waiting for more bodies.

To me, the answer is obvious. We want law-abiding, mentally stable individuals to be able to have guns and we don't want crooks and crackpots to have easy access to them. There is no such thing as perfection, but we can do significantly better than we're doing right now, and it does not require taking guns away from anyone except at the scene of an arrest.

Here's what we need to do:

1. Ban the manufacture or import of guns for civilian ownership for a generation. You can still buy and sell existing guns all you want. Legal gun owners will tend to take care of their guns so they will remain functional for many generations. Criminals will likely take less good care of their guns, and will tend to have them confiscated by police when they commit crimes. After a generation, the balance of gun ownership will heavily favor lawful citizens. See? I'm not calling for your guns to be taken from you, nor am I calling for you to be unable to get more of them.

2. To drive a car, or practice law, you have to take and pass a test. To own a gun, you should have to pass two -- one of them psychological. This won't catch every nutball out there, but again, we can't remain paralyzed just because we can't achieve perfection.

3. If your gun is stolen or lost and you don't report it, and it ends up being used in a crime, you get the same sentence as the criminal who used your gun.

As I see it, it's the only solution that balances the right to own a gun for legitimate purposes with the national emergency we are facing right now.

Really? Again with the video games? Shouldn't there be a lot more shooters if video games are desensitizing people?

DAN--

Law abiding gun owners until when? James Holmes was a legal gun owner. You are a legal gun owner until>>>??

The 2nd amendment is an outdated concept. The bigger and better technology becomes, the bigger the difference between the govt's weaponry and citizens. We would be absolutely crushed. All the guns would just mean we are crushed a little less.

I agree that gun control and laws in current forms won't do a thing. It's the supply that must be controlled. They are just too easily available to anyone/everyone. And yes, it is about the gun. Just look at stopping power, magazine size, and shots per second. The more times you have to reload or shoot your target means a higher probability you are stopped. This is the number one thing learned in every shooting video game. Which btw do not cause more people to be violent or else China/Korea/Japan/Europe would have way more crime. Video games are like big money sports over there.

Guns and video games dont kill people....people kill people you can blame it on guns or games but people killing other people happened before games and guns. Taking away guns only keeps the honest people from having them but the other people that want to get them will find a way to get the guns and would still use them

We can not allow this devastation to be reduced to a gun control issue. This is a public safety issue that hinges on the mental health and sense of well being of our individual fellow citizens. We have got to come to terms with the ideals of who is our neighbor and the responsibilities we bare for one another. We can no longer afford to ignore the reality that our lives are intimately connecting with each other whether we want that connection or not.

We do need a stronger . . . more visible show of police authority and protection.

Simultaneously we need education that will enhance the definitions of how we treat others and teach us the negative and positive impact that our treatment of others can have on their lives. No one is responsible for the actions of this killer or any other killer, except the killer, . . . but we must learn what we need to do to eliminate all behavior that contributes to this sever form of mental deterioration.that results in mass public murders.

More laws will not prevent the mental illness that too many of our fellow citizens are privately struggling with to find the answers to their problems alone only to end up with this public massacre as the answer to their tormented minds.

We have got to eliminate illegal drugs from every aspect of our society.

We have got to eliminate all forms of bullying --- educating everyone on all the ways a bully operates --

We have got to educate our entire population on what is child abuse . . neglect, emotional, psychological, physical, rejection, favoritism . . . all forms of abuse that damage a child's perspective and prospect on their lives.

We have got to eliminate child abuse in the home.

We have to to eliminate child abuse outside of the home.

We can not sweep another tragedy under the political carpet and make this a gun control argument that brings no solutions to the real problem.

This is a manifestation of a society in mental delusional crisis.

IXLR8

State of Unawareness, you must live in a cave or are 75 years old?? This shooter was 24 and so pissed off he killed his mother like nothing along with 18 innocent kids. I will guarantee that violent video games played a major part now that he is ID'ed at 24 years old. Let the story evolve and see.

I can tell you the same thing as you are already making a judgement call on what the cause was. You have no clue if the guy was mentally ill, on drugs, or had something happen that made him snap. And as far as my age, I'm 29 years old and a chick who plays video games while holding a full time job at a hospital. Not once has a video game ever made me want to kill or harm anyone and I've been playing since Tetris and the original Mario Bros. was first released on the Nintendo. I have several friends who play games and not a single one has ever had the urge to be violent towards anyone else. The video game arguement is invalid and only serves as the quickest excuse for people who don't get it. So how about you wait until more of the story evolves before claiming "I will guarantee that violent video games played a major part now that he is ID'ed at 24 years old." What if he had explosives instead? Would you still use the excuse of blaming video games? You get educated.

People put you political views behind you. 26 people are dead 18 of them are small children that is where our concern should be right now.STOP trying to blame everything! Look back in a land before guns or video games atrocities were carried out then as well. Do we need to ban guns no do we need better security at school yes but no one thing was the cause of this act. There isn't any evidence to say video games cause violence, and to shut down that industry or ban guns infringes upon our constitutional rights. Let's say the government were to band guns people could still get guns or they would resort to more barbaric methods.

I suspect violent video games are fueling this epidemic of murder. We've ballooning mental health issues among our youth that could be attributed to internet addiction, which I understand next year will officially be given legitimate addiction status medically. Too many boys are obsessed with it. Tougher screening on guns is not going to be enough, lock-downs on all public buildings is a band-aid fix, and living a life of fear every time we leave our homes is unacceptable. These industries that pedal violent entertainment obviously need censoring as much as guns need tighter regulation. Girls aren't killing like this? Why is that? I think it's high time we take a hard look at what's sending so many of our boys and men over the edge in society.

Morton McGonigal

Really? Again with the video games? Shouldn't there be a lot more shooters if video games are desensitizing people?

I fully agree with you. There should be more people running around with guns or sledge hammers or swords or any other weapon found in video games causing mayhem and distruction if video games cause people to hurt others because they think life is a game.

People that use this tragedy to further their agenda on their political beliefs make me sick. You are one of them Mass.

So how many more children need to be murdered before we have this discussion? This is exactly the time to speak out.

State of Awareness

There isn't one credible peace of evidence to prove that or disprove that.

State of Aware, you should be fired for playing video games all day in a hospital when your supposed to be working. I hope your not in any critcal care or even around any patients.........

Carpe Noctum

State of Awareness

There isn't one credible peace of evidence to prove that or disprove that.

I never said that it doesn't happen, but I have yet to hear reports of people who go on rampages like this who were driven by video games. I find it stupid of people to place full blame on video games when we don't even have the reasons or answers as to why the guy did it and what drove him to as his brother is currently being questioned on what happened.

peeps in Canada play the SAME video games and yet I don't see them shooting up malls, schools, and movie theatres................SMDH!!!

Seven2Seven

State of Aware, you should be fired for playing video games all day in a hospital when your supposed to be working. I hope your not in any critcal care or even around any patients.........

First of all I don't play video games at work and never said I did. That was you making a very large leap of assumption. Secondly, I play on my days off...like today. So nice way to jump to conclusions without really understanding anything. Bravo.

People that use this tragedy to further their agenda on their political beliefs make me sick. You are one of them Mass.

My only agenda is seeing less death and suffering in this world. Handguns don't solve problems, they create them.

You realize that in Japan with their especially strict gun control laws with video games and movies way more violent than ours has a grand total of 11 deaths by firearms this year.

11, think about that.

The guns were registered... to the mother of this monster. The school had buzz in locks. The gun laws on the books and any others that are going to be proposed will never stop this. We really need maniac control laws that are enforced. I don't blame TV, videogames, popular culture, or deprived childhoods for this; I blame parents and authorities who refuse to lock up the mental cases and criminals that flood society. We seem to fixate on "why" they did this versus why do we tolerate the pattern of behavior that leads to this? There seems to be no shortage of law enforcement in that area and they seem to be very well armed, I suspect they were 24 years too late to have an effect.

As AG99 put it:

Too many people are too invested in our gun culture to ever talk about it rationally.

That's absolutely right, and I would accentuate the term "invested" in every way, sense, and meaning of the word. I am SO freaking sick of hearing all the NRA sheep quoting "Guns don't kill people, people do" and preaching about their God-given 2nd Amendment right to: A) fight against the Commies when they come in troop transports to invade our shores or B) fight against the US Army, USMC, USN, and USAF when "it's time to have a revolution". Anyone who thinks either of these scenarios will come to fruition is a survivalist nutjob, and anyone who thinks a guerilla "militia" can stand up to the might of the Commander-In-Chief's military has about 1 billionth of the common sense of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians. Sorry, but we don't live in the 18th century anymore. And if you think your peashooter is going to help you survive some kind of mass cultural uprising or class/race war, better return back to your bunker and have a bottle of water and some K rations.

Look, I don't have a problem with hunters owning guns, and I think that should be protected and and homeowners who feel they need to protect their domicile need to be very carefully licensed. But clearly, most guns out there were made for the specific purpose of killing people, and all guns out there can be used for that purpose. When will we finally learn? How many senseless massacres of innocents and children, how many easy suicides and ruthless murders, how many gangbangers spraying AK-47s on innocent little girls jumping rope in the inner city, how many psychopaths with a deathwish will it take? These were little children, for God's sake -- 20 kindergarteners! And they were definitely killed by guns. Some sarcastic gun nut idiot is going to get on here and make a quip about the Chinese guy who attacked a public school with a knife, and how knives should be outlawed, I am certain of that. Well, at least with a knife, people stand a chance of incapacitating the SOB or running away before he can shoot at them.

Pretty soon, if some level of gun control doesn't happen now, we are going to look a lot like Mexico, although instead of just narcoterrorism and drug cartels, we'll just have people running the gamut of all races and ages who are running out and going nuts shooting people up. I mean this s*** is HAPPENING EVERY DAY now -- I can't look at the news or turn on the internet without hearing about out-of-control gun violence in public places killing innocents almost every day now.

What I want to know is who came up with the idea of packing a large number of people into a small area once an incident like this begins. You've got teachers herding kids into corners, into offices, and other places that will become a "fish in a barrel" situation if you're talking about a shooter who has training, firepower, and can move quickly and effectively. You've got kids going across open space, upright, as a human chain. A classic example of doing everything you should not do once an incident like this starts.

For anyone out there who thinks the schools do not need to rethink their plans for incidents like this, I have one word for you: Beslan. Once an incident like this starts inside a school, everyone in that school needs to do three things: stay low, keep your eyes up, and disperse. Any training drill must be built around these three points. I would go as far as to say that schools should have response teams, consisting of school staffers, residents living in the area surrounding the school, and students. Such teams need to be trained in firearms and room clearance. If you have neighborhood residents involved in such a program, you can immediately establish a perimeter around the school once the shooting incident starts, which is important when you start talking multiple shooters.

I can't say it enough: once a school shooting incident starts, everyone in that school needs to know how to disperse quickly. So far, we've yet to see a school shooting incident where the shooter was tactically trained and killed with purpose; today was another deranged individual killing whoever he could kill before killing himself. That day is going to come, and unless we have real training in the schools to respond to such an incident, we will see a body count ten to twenty times what we saw today.

@Here2Opine

Wrong. He could have bombed or torched the school. If any one of those teachers had been allowed to be armed, this crazy coward would have been stopped ASAP. The old adage, guns don't kill people, people kill people still applies. I arm myself because of sickos this this POS

Unfortunately, we have a huge divide in this country on the issue. I think you are completely wrong here. If teachers were allowed to have guns in school, we'd be hearing about some tragedy involving someone getting a hold of the teacher's gun. And, this maniac didn't bomb or torch the school, he used guns, as did the Oregon mall killer, the Virginia Tech killer, the Columbine killers and so on. Clearly, we don't have a bomb problem here, we have a gun problem.

The FACTS here are that this person was able to obtain several firearms at the age of 20. We don't know yet exactly how they were obtained, but, we do know for a fact that this person was clearly mentally disturbed and so I do believe that we have to make a concerted effort in this country to look very hard at how easy it is to obtain a firearm.

@rodentwarrior

I can't say it enough: once a school shooting incident starts, everyone in that school needs to know how to disperse quickly.

The reason you may feel that you aren't being listened to on this advice is that it is exactly the WRONG thing to do in these situations. Lockdown has been shown to be more effective than the panic of everyone running through the halls.

The old adage, guns don't kill people, people kill people still applies.

Bullsh*t.

If this idiot didn't have his guns there's no way he could have killed 28 people. Torched the school? Remember, in schools they have "fire drills", and unless he was able to light the entire school on fire all at once there's not a chance that 28 people would be dead. Bomb the school? With what, a Timothy McVeigh style fertilizer bomb? Maybe...but this guys chose guns, because it's much easier. Just buy a couple of Glocks over the internet -- where he doesn't have to pass a background check -- or out of the trunk of some moron's car trunk, go to the ammo store and buy a couple of hundred rounds, a bulletproof vest, and off you go.

It's time someone had the guts to stand up, tell the NRA to go @#$% themselves, and ban semi-automatic handguns. Semi-automatic handguns have one purpose, and one purpose only: to kill people. No one goes hunting with a pistol! You say you arm yourself to protect yourself from people like this. Do you really need a banana clip that holds 30 rounds to protect yourself? Are you expecting 30 intruders at once? Wouldn't an old style "six shooter" suffice? Keep your rifles and shotguns, but handguns are different, especially semi-automatic ones. Seems like lunatics like the Connecticut school shooter always use semi-automatic handguns.

There are those who'll scream about their "Second Amendment rights", but do you really think that when the Constitution was written that the Founding Fathers were thinking about assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns? Remember, in those days you had to hand reload every gun there was: they used muskets, and those didn't have 30 round clips attached to them. I think the Founding Fathers would be appalled at the way guns are used now.

I have two grandkids in kindergarten, so this hits a little close to home. And so my grandkids, and kindergarteners across the country, can be safe, it's time to ban semi-automatic handguns. Like I've already said, those kind of guns have only one purpose...and we've seen that purpose today...

And Television, Gabbo, especially animated stuff.

As I said on the many page for this story, those who are inspired to do violence based on what they do in a video game were mentally ill before they got ahold of the game in the first place, or there is a serious parenting issue at hand.

Given that it seems this man killed other members of his family, it would seem that this has less to do with video games, and more to do with rage in any light. This individual had issues, whether they were real or imagined, and he deemed fit to take them out on 26 individuals in that school 25 of which probably had nothing to do with him, especially the 20 children

rodent warrior, I work in a school. Our disaster training ( by specialists) has taught us that dispersing quickly before you know what's results in more deaths. Lockdown is the safest and most effective way to prevent more deaths. These children were moved out of their classrooms by police and swat members who are trained and know when to move them out. It used to be that, yes, get everyone out as quickly as you can, but studies have shown that is not the best way to protect the children.

I don't know...
I've served our country in uniform, served 22 years...and I support the 2nd Ammendment 100%; having served in foreign countries where gun control has allowed tyrants to subdue the population in horrific government terrorism, I know why we need the 2nd Ammendment..

But I don't know...
These shootings have got to be stopped somehow...I mean, apparently the guy went into his MOTHER's classroom and...

well, this just has to stop! Toting these guns around isn't "cool"...it is unfortunate that Hollywood glamorizes violence and assault weaponry in the manner that it does...TV glamorizes them...YouTube glamorizes them...

So...the first step is to stop manufacturing these things for civilian use...and it will take the will of those profiting off the sales of these...tools...to voluntarily recall and suspend the manufacture of them. We also have to stop IMPORTING them....

Honestly...it's got to start somewhere!

Patrick Leonard: look at my proposal up around #1.10. It sounds very similar to what you're saying.

I have yet to see a rational argument against it. It's always just "oh well, that won't stop everything," and the completely irrelevant "yeah, but what about cars?"

We'll never stop everything, but that's no reason not to do anything, and there'll be plenty of time to talk about making cars safer.

P.S. Thank you for your service (from a grown up Army brat).

Does anyone think that if we ban all guns that killings by guns or any other method will stop? Even if they are banned there will be a huge number of guns out there. People kill people...nutjobs will always find a way.

We can put armed guards and metal detectors in every courthouse and government building where these kind of senseless mass killings do not ever occur yet we are unable to protect our children in their schools where we are suppose to depend on them for the safety of our children. We need to demand a change in priorities at every level of our government, locally and nationally. This is so sad to have happened again, if we do nothing to keep someone from walking into our schools....it will happen again. Time to protect our kids by reinforcing the defenses of our schools.

This has little or nothing to do with violent video games, TV shows, guns, or mental illness funding. It has a lot to do with this:

Obama said Friday’s shooting, following the massacre at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and other murder sprees, showed the need for “meaningful action…regardless of the politics” to prevent more blood from being spilled.

Unfortunately he won't do what would prevent these shottings from happening more often, and simultaneously keep criminals from keeping guns and raising violent crime rates outside of gun crime, while still securing the individual, negative, right to own and carry fire arms.

The problem is that these nuts who do mass shotting almost always choose no-gun zones to attack, because it's not going to go over well at places where guns are allowed. How many mass shotings happen at gun ranges or police stations? It should be legal for teachers and janitors and such to carry firearms like anyone else everywhere else. We don't have an epidemic of teachers killing kids, or janitors for that matter. Create a game theory mathematical deterent by allowing them to carry...it's counter-intuitive but deductively logical. Even if they don't carry the shooters will pick softer targets....or think twice about going in these places to kill a bunch of people. This loon would have waited, perhaps, for his mother to come home to kill her instead of going where he expected to meet armed resistance.

And if guns, drugs, mental health problems, TV, music, and movies are to blame explain to me why MILLIONS of other people have those problems, or own those things, or watch those shows/movies, or listen to those songs but DON"T KILL ANYONE? Logic shows those things are not the problem, or it'd be a hugely pervasive problem.

200 million guns / 13,000 gun murders = 15,384.62 guns per murder (that's a lot of guns not killing people)

Percentage chance a gun in the USA will murder = .0065% (or 6.5 in every 1000 guns...that's 993.5 guns in every 1000 guns not murdering people)

50 million gun owners / 13,000 gun murders = 3,846.15 gun owners not murdering for every 1 gun murder (that's a lot of gun owners not murdering anyone)

Percentage chance a gun owner will murder with a gun = .026% (or 26 in every 1,000...that's 974 gun owners in every 1,000 not murdering anyone)

315,000,000 American people / 13,000 gun murders = 24,230.77 Americans per 1 gun murder victim

Math done by me via Bing search engine and the DOJ, CDC, and FBI stats. I'd also mention more lives are saved a year by guns than taken by guns:

The FBI says that 750,000 crimes are foiled per year by guns. If only 2% of those cases are cases where a single life is saved (or 1% of them saves on average 2 lives, alternatively, et cetera), then no less than 15,000 lives are SAVED by guns a year, and that is more than the 13,000 overestimate I gave for lives taken by them via murder. That means at minimum, lowball estimate, guns are a NET GAIN of life, not a net loss. I'd also point out that's a very low estimate by me to make a point. The Clinton Administration did a study that said 2 million lives a year were saved by firearms...but I even think that's too high. I'd say tens of thousands to a hundred thousand may be a fairer estimate (an amalgam of all the studies I've seen and read). But regardless, guns save more lives then they take, and that's what is important to my point here.

I grieve for the families involved...I have myself carried caskets, even of children, from gun violence. But we need to be logical and rational. Gun violence rates aren't caused by guns themselves, as evidenced by rates of gun murder being higher in England where guns are basically banned, as compared to Canada where they are not banned and are far more pervasive per capita.

Percentage chance a gun owner in Canada murders you with a gun = .0012% (1.2 in every 1,000)

Percentage chance a English gun owner murders you with a gun = .0022% (2.2 in every 1,000)

The USA gun murder rate is 10 times England's...but that's because most (almost 70%) of gun murders are commited by criminals over drug crime. The largest number after that is deomestic violence (like against women)...another pervasive problem in our culture. We need to address the way we raise our kids to view domestic abuse (through spanking and other parental abuse on kids via threats), and end the Prohibition on drugs. Between those two types of causes we eliminate 80% of gun murders in the USA. And yes, murder rates, especially by gun, fell by 40%+ after the Prohibition was lifted in 1933.

Unfortunately, we can't strip the rights of 99.974% of gun owners for what the .026% do. Some crazies will kill people, and some will kill kids. It's horrific. But aren't headed toward a police state (if we aren't already there) as it is? I mean drone surveillance, the executive order Obama just signed that expanded on the Bush PATRIOT Act so Americans can be spied upon without even being suspected of any crime or harm? When does it end? When almost 100% of gun owners aren't going to kill, you don't let the state fool you into thinking guns and gun owners are the problem!

Here2Opine wrote:

" ...If any one of those teachers had been allowed to be armed, this crazy coward would have been stopped ASAP. The old adage, guns don't kill people, people kill people still applies..."

Well, then wouldn't the children have been even safer if all of them were armed, too?

Shouldn't the gun safety mantra be "A Glock Semi-Automatic Pistol in every backpack and in every lunch box; a Bushmaster Adaptive Combat Rifle in every hall locker"?

Isn't that the argument "We will all be a lot safer when everyone is packing!"

When I read the old, tired (moot) NRA-invented soundbite comment "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" ... the obvious but conveniently ignored common denominators are:

1). guns, ...and 2). the people are dead.

Gosh, I think even my 3-year-old nephew would notice that parallel.

There is a yin to every yang. Anyone ever heard that one? Guns can solve problems, but can also cause them. Nothing can justify the taking of another human life. I know i probably would, given the right circumstances (family member in danger, etc.), but that doesnt make it right. Games have become a part of pretty much every kids life. Yea, they are violent, and, possibly, caused some people to kill. But, there is one outstanding fact that makes me disagree with the whole "ban games" thing. They are FUN. If i die, i want to die with a controller in my hand, and a chip in my mouth. I want to die with a smile on my face, as everyone does. Chances are i wont, but hey, a guy can dream, right? You only have one chance to live. Wether your christian, jewish, etc. Whatever religion you have, whatever afterlife you believe in, you only have one chance here. I always believed i would die at an early age, and the only part that made me sad, was that i wouldve wasted my life learning things in school i couldnt care less about. Im probably not going to accomplish anything spectacular. Il die with nothing to be proud of, because i always had to worry about work, school, politics( of which i couldnt care less about), and life, in general. To put it plainly, though, I agree with Massachusettes. Im a gamer. I game. I dont kill people though. Whats the point of living if you dont live to have fun? im sad about this shooting, and what i just said in this paragraph has nothing to do with it, but you really need to stop and think," What have i done in life?". Ranted about video games. Became a pascifist. Had no fun. that sums it up. We are all entitled to our own opinions. I'd love to hear yours. Thank you. My fingers hurt.....

2opine

and the last good bombing in this country was when???

i remember the BofA getting blown up in chicago by puerto rican sepratists back in the 70's. can't think of any since.

bombs are not a popular method of venting anger, due to their inherent dangers. esp to the bomber.

Ever heard the saying "guns don't kill people- people kill people?" Well it's true. In case you haven't heard, this has been happening to the youngest of school children far more frequently in China. You know what those murderers used? Axes and knives. Your argument for gun control is illogical as it's already been proven a MILLION times over that if someone wants to kill, they are going to do it- WITH OR WITHOUT GUNS!

PAUL in chicago-1569139

" ...and the last good bombing in this country was when???

i remember the BofA getting blown up in chicago by puerto rican sepratists back in the 70's. can't think of any since..."

Paul, I'm uncertin what you mean by "good bombing." And because I have family in Oklahoma City, I offer this reminder of the Murrah Federal Building bombing; 168 dead including 19 children under the age of 6-years. :-(

The individuals responsible for that bombing (McVeigh and Nichols) were motivated by extreme hatred of the Federal Government, they were armed anti-government Militia sympathizers, and they chose the date of the Murrah Building bombing as a reminder of the ATF's Waco, TX Siege of the Branch Davidian's compound, and the FBI's actions in the Ruby Ridge, Idaho incident.

The perpetrators of the horrific Oklahoma City bombing were clearly also "separatists"; they had allowed their extreme anti-government views and hatreds to 'separate' them from rational judgement, and 'separate' them from their humanity. They were also cowards; they didn't remain at the scene of their obscene act to sacrifice their own lives for their perverted "cause."

I suspect and fear that a lot of Americans are being emotionally pushed and prodded in that unfortunate direction by the plentiful, ignorant, hateful and intolerant (often bigoted and xenophobic) rhetoric which is becoming all too commonplace in our country. We see a lot of that sort of rhetoric posted in these discussion threads on Newsvine, and elsewhere on the web.

Perhaps our first response we should have -- collectively as a nation of individuals to reduce ALL acts of violence -- is to dial-down the temperature on our rhetoric, and confront hate speech wherever and whenever we hear it, and tell the speaker "That's not acceptable" ...before turning our backs on them and walking away; leaving them to be a the focal point of embarrassed humiliation for displaying their incivility.

Just my tuppence.

if none of you posting knows why our founding fathers added the 2nd amendment to the US constitution then you have no right to post your ignorant propaganda. there is only ONE reason why we have the 2nd amendment and it has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense as those 2 things were common sense and they never thought ignorant citizens would demean the need for hunting and self-defense.

we have the 2nd amendment to protect us from the government should it try to seize all power for itself. we have the second amendment so that when we want to replace our failed government, we can. our founders knew that one day the federal government would try to seize power just like all governments before it so they added the second amendment to give us the power over the federal government, the DoI also gives us the power.

there is no debate over gun control because any gun control is unconstitutional but i guess its just too hard to read any history or even read our own founding documents instead you rely on pundits and politicians to guide your every thought.

Article the fourth [Amendment II]^[3]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

must be hard to understand with all those simple english words and all.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm -read it

i also need to ask why some of you attach emotions to something that has nothing to do with you? was that your child or relative? was it a friend or co-worker? this is not a national tragedy and personally i dont care much for it. i would like the truth to be investigated and since the shooter is dead, there is nothing else to do.

no reason why obama should speak and no reason why any flags should be lowered, this is a local tragedy that needs to be dealt with locally.

Ever heard the saying "guns don't kill people- people kill people?" Well it's true.

Bullsh*t.

Refer to my post 1.35 above.

Oh sure, let's just pass another gun law. THAT WILL REALLY HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robert in Oregon...As usual, a thoughtful and well stated post. Thank you Robert in Oregon.

When terrorists kept attacking and firing on the Israeli children of schools, they armed their teachers. The attacks stopped, as they were no longer an easy target.

Yes, let's pass more laws designed to remove guns from the law abiding citizens that will follow those laws. That way, lunatics like this will have better easier targets.

I always laugh at the stupid signs I often see on businesses saying they do not allow guns in their establishment, as though that would somehow stop a criminal. "darn, another 'no guns' sign. guess I'll have to rob the place down the street instead."

"How many deaths does it take 'til we learn that too many people have died?"

Ban handguns.

Sparklystar, and whoever else doubts me, there is one glaring hole in your argument: the responders have to respond to the call, then make it inside the building to clear the rooms; a handful of minutes really is one hell of a long time when you think about it clearly. I made a clear distinction between trained killers who kill with a purpose and violent mental cases with a pile of guns. It's only a matter of time before we have another Newtown in this country, only with a trained killer or killers, and it will be another Beslan; once you factor trained killers into the equation, those responders probably will not make it into the building.

I operate by two cardinal survival rules: "it's up to you to help yourself" and "squat like a bitch, die like a bitch"; never operate on the premise that help is on the way, because that help could be stopped dead in its tracks "on the way", meaning only you can help you. Everything I saw here, with one exception violates those rules. Newtown was not brain surgery. Your options are to stay low, making yourself as small a target as possible, then move quickly to get out or to take cover and engage the attacker. Notice I did not say take cover to get shot like fish in a barrel, nor did I say sit in a line along a wall to wait for summary execution.

The only reason the body count was as low as it was is because this guy was a violent mental case who was going to take himself out once responders were in the building.

We have got to eliminate illegal drugs from every aspect of our society.

Prohibition did not work; it cost hundreds of lives and hundreds of thousands of 1920s dollars, and led to the rise of the mafia. People still drank. The War on Drugs is the same thing. It has boosted the browth of organized crime, killing thousands, costing billions and stopping little of the traffic.

Sorry State didn't want to copy your tag. I wanted to copy Fit81. So if you read this post again I apologize.

Oh sure, let's just pass another gun law. THAT WILL REALLY HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It sure as hell won't hurt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@Swagganaut

Well, you've given us quite a lot of fodder to work with, so let's move through it piece by piece, shall we?

if none of you posting knows why our founding fathers added the 2nd amendment to the US constitution then you have no right to post your ignorant propaganda.

That's interesting. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the First Ammendment? And since many Constitutional scholars disagree about the full intent of the 2nd Ammendment, I find it amazing that you seem to have it nailed down so perfectly.

there is only ONE reason why we have the 2nd amendment and it has nothing to do with hunting or self-defense as those 2 things were common sense and they never thought ignorant citizens would demean the need for hunting and self-defense.

Actually, I can think of 2 reasons, but more on that in a moment...

we have the 2nd amendment to protect us from the government should it try to seize all power for itself. we have the second amendment so that when we want to replace our failed government, we can. our founders knew that one day the federal government would try to seize power just like all governments before it so they added the second amendment to give us the power over the federal government,

That may be one reason, but you are looking at ONE ammendment in isolation and forgetting about the rest of it entirely! The way our Constitution is written defines what the Federal Goverment's powers are and how far they can go.

So, think about this for a second...

The Constitution already protects us from government taking absolute control.

If the government did decide to take that control, then they would essentially be throwing out the Constitution and if they did that, then NONE of the ammendments would have any relevance anyway.

Or, could this passage pertain to bearing arms to protect against foreign invaders? The primary reason there is so much debate of the true meaning of the 2nd Ammendment is because the reference about the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in the SAME SENTENCE as the mention of the well regulated militia. And, since you are so fond of plain English words, you must know then that these two seemingly different things (people and militia) being in the same sentence as they are might imply a relationship between them and a common purpose for them.

the DoI also gives us the power.

The Declaration of Independence does not endow its citizens with any power whatsoever. It is a document explaning the philisopical reasons for the Colonies revolt against the British Crown. There are no legal protections for US citizens in there because the United States hadn't been created yet.

there is no debate over gun control because any gun control is unconstitutional but i guess its just too hard to read any history or even read our own founding documents instead you rely on pundits and politicians to guide your every thought.

Article the fourth [Amendment II]^[3]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

must be hard to understand with all those simple english words and all.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.htm -read it

I have. And, so have many Constitutional scholars who seem to find it not so cut and dry as you do. The phrase "A well regulated Militia", for example seems to imply that the malitia CAN be controlled (regulated). I don't think you'll find any Constitutional Lawyer that believes this passage means that any gun control is unconstitutional.

i also need to ask why some of you attach emotions to something that has nothing to do with you? was that your child or relative? was it a friend or co-worker? this is not a national tragedy and personally i dont care much for it. i would like the truth to be investigated and since the shooter is dead, there is nothing else to do.

Your statements are clearly irrational if you can't see how someone might get emotional over twenty 5 and 6 year old children being shot at point blank range in a school.

You want the truth investigated and believe that since the shooter is dead that that's the end of the story? Again, you are showing that you are an irrational person because the TRUTH involves understanding HOW and WHY this happened. Although the shooter is dead, those things can still be determined.

no reason why obama should speak and no reason why any flags should be lowered, this is a local tragedy that needs to be dealt with locally.

Define "locally" please. Or, better yet, how about a multiple choice question:

With regard to mass shootings, locally means:

a) Newtown, CT

b) Oregon

c) Virginia

d) Columbine, CO

e) all of the above

f) The United States

@Entitled 2 Free Stuff

If you are truly interested in being "rational", then we have to examine your comments rationally...

Rational thought tells us that the good citizens of America must be able to keep and bear arms for a number of good reasons, which includes them having the capacity to end assaults by deranged or calculated attackers, domestic and foreign, in defense of themselves, their families, their rights, and America.

Our constitution does not give you the "right" to use a gun to defend your "rights" (i.e. if you're freedom of speech is infringed, you do not have the right to use a weapon against your oppressor). But, overall, your general sentiment is correct.

Rational thought tells us that government compelling law-abiding Americans to abandon their firearms leaves them vulnerable to all that choose to ignore the law and act to do them harm and violate their rights.

Perhaps, but being "rational" means that we understand that no one is asking anyone to "abandon" their firearms.

Rational thought tells us that government can not and will not provide satisfactory protection to the unarmed citizens of America.

Really? If that is true, then the "rational" thing to do is disband all local and state police, the FBI, CIA, NSA and all branches of the armed forces since they cannot and will not provide satisfactory protection to the unarmed citzens of the USA like myself. We would at least save trillions of dollars and find "rational" ways to spend it.

Rational thought tells us government is an ever-present necessary evil that will not disarm itself. The armed people are one of the Constitutional checks against government tyranny.

Do you have any sort of fire power that could defeat the US government? Rationally speaking, you don't and so whatever you do have is not going to protect you from the government. By the way, when was the last time you or anyone you know needed a forcefull way to defend themselves against the government?

Rational thought tells us a root cause of this shooting is the devaluation of innocent life as promoted and disseminated by a leading political ideology.

What leading political ideology are you referring to and could you please provide some sort of evidence for that political ideology promoting and disseminating the devaluation of life as to spur this attack? Rationally speaking, that statement is a complete fabrication.

Rational thought tells us gun bans and stricter gun laws trampling the rights of the hundreds of millions of good Americans and in turn perversely giving the law-ignoring potential gun and other weapon violence prone the upper hand.

Rational thought also tells us that weapons of mass destruction should not be able to be obtained by average citizens. Rational thought also tells us to be educated with facts. No one is trying to take away anyone's right to own guns. Rational thought tells us, however, that some guns and gun configurations constitute weapons of mass destruction. So, rational thought tells us that we should strive to find a balance between a firearm and a millitary-style assault weapon of mass destruction.

Rational though also tells us that people who are in a state of rage, have violent criminal histories or mental imbalance should not be using a firearm and so we have laws for things like background checks and mandatory 7 day waiting periods. However, those laws can be circumvented at a gun show, which is not rational at all.

Rational thought tells me the reactionary Americans believing themselves to be in a position of political power to impose their will upon others, and experiencing elation at the opportunity to do so, will blame the guns for gun crimes and not the cultural immorality and disrespect for others fomented by the leader of the free world and his adoring sycophants.

Ok, rational thought tells us that now you are just ranting (and forgetting to use spell-check). It also tells us that we live in a democracy, where political power is how things get done, or not done.

Finally, rational thought tells us that it's better to comment when you know what you are talking about. If you were to check actual facts, you'd find out that President Obama has, thus far, not done anything to weaken gun owners rights, despite fears that he was going to.

Christmas? It's Chanukah right now for god's sake!

Morton, stop being an a**!

Massachusettz, stop politicizing this tragedy!

Unimaginable horror and grief for the victims, their families and friends. Remember them today, tonight, tomorrow and forever in prayers or meditation. But remember them by telling your children and loved ones that you love them.

Whatever , Mort ..Children are dead & all you can do is criticize my choice of words over the holiday ? You should be ashamed ..I'm sure most people feel the same way I do . This is horrifying no matter what faith you are !

It's time for the NRA to be branded as a terriost organization. Our spineless politicians are supported by this terrorist organization.

We can put armed guards and metal detectors in every courthouse and government building where these kind of senseless mass killings do not ever occur yet we are unable to protect our children in their schools where we are suppose to depend on them for the safety of our children. We need to demand a change in priorities at every level of our government, locally and nationally. This is so sad to have happened again, if we do nothing to keep someone from walking into our schools....it will happen again. Time to protect our kids by reinforcing the defenses of our schools.

Actually my point is that the proximity of this tragedy to any holiday does make it any worse.

He is agonizing now at the gates of Hell!!!

how does this affect you personally?

How can this not affect everyone, personally???

Since the guy died at the scene, the death penalty would be pointless. Suicide killers aren't deterred by consequences.

How's that working out as a deterrent for ya?

Yes, he could have killed 27 people with a toaster.

Brilliant.

Yes Bill, In China a deranged person stabbed a group of children to death, Although McVeigh had a gun he didn't use it and he killed children. Deranged people will find a way...ALLWAYS!

Duplicate

You mean like the guy who attacked a school in China today with a knife, wounding 22 people?

All of whom, incidentally, lived through it?

DoctorL, China has stabbings frequently because guns are not easily available. Maybe the latest one was because he used a short knife? My point is, since it appears difficult for you to grasp, deranged people will kill regardless!

@Jenn41

It has nothing to do with the right to bear arms!!!

If he didn't have guns...he would have used other means...

Really? What other means would he have been able to get a hold of as easily as a gun that could have killed 26 people?

Woodysr:

Your point is absurd. It is the GUNS. Take away the GUNS and less people will die. Make their magazines smaller and less people will die. Make psychological testing mandatory and less people will die. Yes, deranged people will kill regardless of the gun laws, but keep guns away from them and LESS PEOPLE WILL DIE.

you can mix bleach and ammonia or bleach and gasoline or gasoline and ATF or any number or HOUSEHOLD items and throw it into a classroom and lock the door and everyone inside will be dead in minutes or you could do it in any store or building, its more work but the effect is devastating, even more than guns can ever do. guns are just easier to deal with, it just being lazy or efficient depending on your take.

if someone has the intent to kill or maim then it does not matter what you ban, they will find a way or get caught/die trying. as humans we often find the easiest solution but we always commit on our nefarious intents regardless of others objections.

@ SRS-798254:

I LOVE how you stated this. You are exactly right. Brainwashed NRA terrorists are incapable of logical thinking.

singlepayerhealth; you are exactly why intelligent conversation on ANY serious issue is no longer possible. YOU know everything, and anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, a 'terrorist' or incapable of logical thought. How I long for the days when Tolerant Liberal wasn't an oxymoron.

27 people and one sick animal died today. Can you give the hate and vitriol a rest? Nah...who am I kidding? God Bless you anyway.

@Swagganaut

How is an assailant supposed to throw enough of his home made chemical brew into a room and then lock the room?

This would be much more difficult than you imagine and so, the killer didn't do that, he did the easier thing, which was to use a gun.

OH CUT THE CRAP!!!!!

Screwed up people do screwed up things with or without video games. When I was a kid I watched violent movies and played violent video games. Actually, I still do. And guess what? I have never had the urge to shoot up a school. Video games are not real life. Any sane person can make that distinction.

So, by your way of thinking, could these video games put a gun in some sick person's hand and pull the trigger for them as well?

The people of North Korea could use some guns.

CBL.... They didn't give us that right, they acknowledged our right to defend ourselves. Were it not for firearms, we wouldn't be here as a country!

it was a different time and society when those rights were written i belive had they known of the invention of semi automatic guns and clips that held 30 or more bullets they would have put in some rules to keep people safer.

think about how you would feel if it was your child, think aout what it must be like for those parents to know they will never get to watch them grow up get married have kids of their own, they wont get to open the gifts they bought them for cmas. their will be no more birthdays.

it maybe your right to own a gun, but would it really hurt you to have to wait for a cooling off period, or to be required to take gun safety courses, or a mental health evaluation if it meant that just one of those kids was alive right now?

you cant blame video games, the parents or tv or the media, a normal mentally sound person doesn't go out and kill children because he saw a violent video game or show, he does it because something is fundamentally wrong with him.

Oooookay He stole the gun. He took it from a relative. A cooling off is not applicable. My handguns are in a safe. My grandchildren, great-grandchildren will be smacked for violating the rules of my home. Just for entering the room! Maybe I am a cruel Grandpa?

Hitler removed firearms from the general populace. That saved a lot of lives.

Please pay attention to a history book before you start beating your drum to gather everyone's attention to your brilliant schemes for saving America.

The issue here is people with mental health issues in the general populace without medication or doctors' oversight. More lives are saved in this country in a year by firearms than are taken by them. Every policeman has a firearm - some shouldn't and are certainly intoxicated by their status/power.

We cannot UNINVENT guns - they are here. We must change the factors in society that are encouraging this behavior. There is plenty of blame to go around (guns, video games, "large cap magazines", media, movies). However, all of those things are OK (even beneficial) in moderation. What is lacking is parental guideance and responsibility for our actions. When a kid acts out they just have ADD, or thier friends are a bad influence, or "the gun made me/them do it". Actually, at the end of the day the perpetrator made a bad/evil decision, and their parents either failed to teach them right from wrong, or ignored the signs that they couldn't think rationally on their own and belonged in a mental facility.

By the way - if you have mental issues (which the perp reportedly had) - you CANNOT LEGALLY OWN A GUN. That is current law and the system is set up to at least try to catch that possibility.

"Guns are stupid"...really? THAT'S the takeaway here? Please. A gun is an object, a tool. Like a chainsaw or dynamite, they can be used for good, or bad.

And for all of you presuming to speak for the Framers, you are missing something very special about our Constitution. Those who wrote it sincerely believed our Rights were given to us by God, not the Government. As such, their position was that these Rights were inviolate. They were willing to die for things we know will give away. How sad.

But we live in a different time. When God is de-valued by society, as in ours, it becomes easy to look at Rights as something people can give and take, according to the feelings of the moment. The framers clearly did NOT believe that. But now we've come to accept that we can only do what the Government allows us to do. This is a distinctly un-American way of thinking. In fact, were the founders alive today, I maintain they'd have far less trouble with the concept of modern weapons than they would with the fact that we've pi$$ed away what they fought so hard to give us...personal freedom.

The concept of God-Given Rights in a post-God country is viewed as a quaint notion, not unlike penny candy and kindness. The public morality of past generations is mocked and ridiculed. The trouble is, we have taken God and morality out of our culture without replacing Him with anything. We have a society with no real rules, and nothing larger than ourselves to believe in. Is it any wonder that when mere mortals try to take the place of God, things go wrong? We're not up to the task, and it shows.

As for me, I'll stick with what I know works. Best of luck to the rest of you. Founding Fathers, on behalf of a wholely unworthy nation of cowards, slackers and blame slingers, I apologize. You deserved much better than us.

William

The sum of your quotes really scares me! Please check yourself into a mental health institution for a long-term evaluation before you perpetrate such a crime.

Seriously...

what crime? that's like blaming the gps when some idiot drives off a bridge because Tom-Tom told him to.

The crime of grabbing a bunch of ammo and guns and shooting up a school. Or any other crime a similarly unhinged person might perpetrate.

He is not only acting paranoid and rude, but he is irrational and suggesting others commit suicide. He is clearly not mentally stable...

Most schools do have a single entry point with video camera but the default policy is to let anyone in when they press the door buzzer. Also, most schools cannot afford a full time security individual for the hope-to-never-occurrence, and even if they had one the guard would likely be the first one killed.

Being the son of an employee this might not have changed things.

There is nothing laws can do to stop these killings. The people who commit these crimes don't follow the laws unless you burn every single gun in the world, criminals and the psychopaths will find a way to get a gun, if not a gun, they would get a knife, a machete or another type of weapon. The human body is fragile and any weapon can either end a life or injury a person.

Most school are locked and secure but a gun man can easily bust a door or window and get into the school. It is scary but there is usually nothing one can do to stop someone who has the intent to kill. I never wanted to buy a gun until recently when I was home alone with my son because my husband was on a business trip and I heard several loud noises in my basement. I did take bat with me and investigate but I know it was a mistake, I should have just called the police and leave the house. After I left the basement, I heard the noise two more times and since I have a lock on the basement door, I just locked the basement and stayed up most of the time. I'm not sure if it was an animal who get into the basement or a person. However, I did feel very vulnerable and I know I would have felt much safer if I did have a gun with me.

Thankyou....all the laws in the world or gun controls will not stop sicko's from killing.

Might not stop them, but if it slows them down, I'll take it.

For sure - we can rely on the police to handle all the gun dirty work. Ask the woman in Milwaukee who called for the police 105 minutes before the police arrived how well they did for her...

Oh - you can't ask her - her husband killed her.

Same happened to the woman in Fox Lake, WI - the police got to the scene of her strangulation 45 seconds after she hit the panic button in the police station. They met her husband exiting the parking lot. The restraining order did not do her much good either...

If you are going to kill me - please, please shoot me - strangulation is not the way to go.

The point of a concealed carry for protection is to have it on your person - for immediate deployment. In your desk or purse is not going to do you much good - and further more it leaves it available for someone else to access it to do you/themselves/others harm. If you are going to pack, pack it on your person or leave it locked up at home.

Troy - the reaon to make assault rifles it to fight wars or arm policemen. It is illegal for private citizens to own assault rifles - has been since the 1930's. You are - I believe - talking about "assault rifles" a term invented by the anti-gun crown to loosely describe a gun that is black in color, may or may not be SEMIautomatic, and has a "pistol grip". That describes a half-dozen of my hunting tools - none of which has ever killed a human being. I do use them more often in general for hunting though - they work better/are handier/more accurate than some of the other ones. That being said, though, every gun I own was derived from a design used as a military weapon at one point or another in history. Therefore, all guns are necessary, beneficial, and have the potential to be used for great evil - as we have seen today.

The problem is with the nutjobs holding them and with our society that tolerates/rationalizes their borderline behavior right up until they do something like this. Then all the neighbors say, "he always was a little off." or "he has a history of mental issues, but doesn't like to take his medications." Parents need to accept that their children might just be the problem for their failures and start to be parents. Teach them right from wrong, respect for authority, lust for life, that a minor setback is not he end of life as they know it. Our children need to learn how to lose as well as win, answer for their actions as well as take responsibility for their misdeeds. This is a tragic situation that at least at this point sounds like it was a tragedy waiting to unfold and one or more people just covered up the family shame and/or ignored the obvious signs.

I hope I am wrong and jumping to conclusions, but it does not appear that way at this point in time.

I pray that the lost souls rest in peace and the families heal with time. What we need right now is a chance to grieve and thoughtful sensible solutions that are realistic, not a pie-in-the-sky political agenda that can't/won't work. Guns are out there - many of them - and the vast majority are in capable hands. Keep them out of incapable hands - and more importantly - help those incapable hands change their ways and thought patterns - before they find a different tool to "get the job done".

@Archie Midwest

That's great that you (and others) are responsible gun owners but can't you just concede that many are not. This kid got the guns from his mother who was able to register 5 guns under her name. Why does anyone need five guns of this nature? Doesn't that just seem a bit wrong? Those are the kinds of things that need to be addressed by your government.

This is a horrifc tragedy and to the person on here who kept asking how it "affects us personally"?? Go find yourself a heart...appalling comments from a human being.

Concerned Canadian - I don't get it... Which comment was appalling? That the vast majority of gun owners are reasonable responsible citizens? There are at least 15,000,000 gun owners in this country. One or two of these incidents happen a year on average over the last decade - even less in the last century. If one counted the rounds of ammunition spent in a year, I wonder what the average of bullets that actually strike a human are?

The VAST majority are responsible citizens.

I will concede that a few are not. NOT MANY, but a FEW. Those few do not deserve the right to own a firearm, and this individual did not have the right to own one. He tried and HE WAS REFUSED. The system worked, but he circumvented the system.

By the way - I won't tell you how many firearms I own. I can defend the number 5 pretty easily, though. A shotgun (1) is necessary to hunt birds - anything else is not legal. A high caliber rifle (2) is most effective for large game - some areas require shotguns (I will still call this number 2) for that purpose, but if so, one with a rifled barrel is the best tool for the job - this would not work for birds. With the cost of ammunition, you would want a .22 rifle (3) to practice your shooting with, since they are much cheaper to shoot. One also might want a handgun for self preservation or hunting purposes, and they even may want one for plinking (recreational shooting). A revolver (4) with a long barrel would be best for hunting, but a semi-auto (5) with a small frame and a short barrel would be best for carrying, while a semi-auto (6) with a large frame would be best for recreational shooting. Also, a .22 (7) is desireable here for cheap ammo (most bang for the buck), but a larger caliber (8, etc.) is necessary for most hunting situations and of course for self defense.

I will quit here, because that is 8 that a typical gun enthusiast might desire to own. The point is that if you are not a gun person you have no insight to say how many guns a gun enthusiast has a right to own. That is like me telling a minor league baseball player how many gloves he should own. I have not idea why a person would want a different glove to bat with than run the bases with, but I see pros change their gloves all the time while standing at first base. I have no clue why.

So we have decided 5 is completely plausible, is 10 too many? I could easily add a few to the list once we start discussing calibers, so perhaps not. How about 15? A collector would surely disagree. I know car guys that think 15 cars is way to few. They only have one butt and there certainly is only one type of road.

I firmly believe the government has as much right to tell you what car to drive, or how many shirts you can own as they do me how many guns I can own. None! The government is not in existence to determine how many of anything we can own. If I own one gun and intend to use it to kill someone who is innocent - then I own one too many. If I collect - and use none of them for malicious behavior - I should be able to own as many as I can afford/deem personally acceptable. I know a guy who owns hundreds of hats - to me that is too many, but I don't want the government tell him to stop buying them.

As far as blaming Reagan, you've got to be kidding. There has been and is now other presidents since Reagan that could of improved our mental health system. I do agree that our mental health system needs to be greatly improved. We ( the family of loved ones struggling with mental issues) need to get them help in any way we can. We can't blame the government for not helping our loved ones when our loves ones don't go and get the help they need. Yes, the resources need to be there, but we can't put the blame on lack of gun control or the government. If you see your loved one struggling then get them help, make them get help. If you think that they are capable of doing such a violent act then call the authorites, get them help. It's better to have your loved one locked in a jail cell or hospital then to have them commit such a violent act. I truely believe that Adam's mother knew that he had a very serious problem, but did she take the necessay steps to get him help.

God Bless this community. They need our love, prayers and support. God Bless this country, we are heading down a very scary path of destruction. God Bless

Those statistics are cooked up and provided by those with an anti-gun agenda. If you are going to spout statistics, quote your sources and make specific claims - numbers are more effective than "many" and "higher liklihood". Note the statistics given above - those are real numbers with real sources - some of them even anti-gun. That is the reason that the anti-gun agenda can't get through congress - these studies show time and again that homes with legally owned guns are statistically safer than those without.

Some things, such as this, have been covered so many times that to be expected to cite the sources is equivalent of citing a source that the sun will be visible from the earth tomorrow.

But I will give you one that we are both now aware of that had not come to light until after my previous post.

Of the known school related shootings today, 100% of them were committed with weapons owned for personal use, by a fellow family member (the mother) and used against innocent unrelated bystanders as well as the purchaser. The mother was not protected by these weapons. They lead to her death and that of her son and nearly thirty other people.

We know this to be true.....once again.

Wow! That's amazing research. I am sure this one incident today is a perfect cross-sample of all gun owners.

You win - your reasoning is flawless. All the rest of the research is certainly null and void.

I am glad you didn't bother to actually read any of these alleged studies you refer to - it is good enough to just listen to the news and regurgitate thier opinions.

No Archie, it is clear that you have paid no attention during the last 30 years of repeated confirmation by law enforcement that gun ownership does not equal protection and that more often it leads to domestic injury or death of the gun owner, their family members, or via theft of said weapons, innocent people (and occasionally police) elsewhere.

My example using the event of Friday is only to reiterate what any one paying attention already knows, guns do not protect you. An educated and rational person would have understood that. As it has nothing to do with "all gun owners" but only those gun ownerships involved in violent crimes, you clearly lack an understanding of statistical mathematics. That's ok though, the answers are readily available to anyone with head not in sand.

Even with my head in the sand, I have seen news reports of the Aldi's that was heald up, and the robbery was halted and perpetrator killed by a concealed carry holder when the perp. put a gun to the head of the cashier. I think the cashier was statistically and mathematically safer. I also saw the news of the family that was saved by the father who shot the intruder in their house at 3:00 am. That one incident saved 5 lives! That one single household was not just 500% safer, but actually infinitely safer! That is pretty good statistical mathematics.

Even with my head in the sand, I can tell you are dead wrong with your assumptions. Guns do protect you - by their very design they do. If they did not, the police would not bother to carry them. The soldiers in war time would not carry them. They would not be as popular as they are. Gun free zones are the things that don't protect people. Two of the staff members at Sandy Hook school tried to charge this a-hole while he was perpetrating his crimes. If they had firearms at their disposal they very likely could have halted his spree, but they couldn't because they didn't.

People like you have succeeded in creating a dangerous situation by thinking you have all the answers readily available. Actualy the answer here would have been to deal with an obvious mental issue before it escalated to this point - but the system clearly only made sure he did not buy any guns (they were illlegally taken from his mother after he was refused purchase by a concientious firearms dealer).

If you can't see that your head is buried further in the sand than mine is! I'll keep my guns, thank you - I might need them some time when you are off your meds...

Let the wounded families mourn. The rest of us should be acting and open discourse is an important part of that. That is how we begin to prevent the next tragedy.

(web site error)

As an American, we are all part of a wounded family today.

I'm not disagreeing that there are many many issues that need to be addressed in this situation. I'm just saying that there is a time and a place, and out of respect for those killed, I'd say that time is not right now.

Amen! Life has changed forever for those involved. Imagine never seeing your 5yr old ever again...Imagine Christmas morning for those families....All of the political bantering, and arguing won't bring any comfort to anyone that has been impacted, and so far hasn't been a successful deterrent.

Perhaps our focus should be devoted to comforting the devastated, inconsolable parents facing unimaginable and overwhelming loss. Those that must bury their "babies", during the Holiday season.

God is not the answer. God made this mess (with omnipotence comes responsibility for everything). But involved parents can make all the difference in the world. Video games and TV are not suitable baby sitters. Rewarding mediocraty is not healthful to mental development. Nor is punishing normal child behavior due to parental laziness and unpreparedness.

Bad parents in - bad children out.

GOD is the answer, and he gave us free will to do what is right or wrong. Start teaching right from wrong again, and that there are eternal consequences to the actions we take here in this life.

And you are correct also, that parents need to take more responsibilty in teaching these kids right from wrong, so they don't grow up to be monsters.

GOD is the answer, and he gave us free will to do what is right or wrong.

In case you were not aware of this, you can teach values without God. It's easy. Try this.

Son, injuring another human being is something we should not do. It leads to fear and pain. No one enjoys being afraid or in pain. Fear leads to withdrawal. When people withdraw we do not support each other in times fo need. Conversly, being among people in helpful ways makes us feel better about ourselves and build friendships. Etcetera. Easy and based in fact.

Rational ideas do not need God to have a foundation. God can confuse matters. God leads to irrational lines of thinking. Keep it simple keep it factual; there are civil ways for humans to live with each other in peace. Teach them.

God doesn't confuse matters...people confuse matters, that is those with some sort of mental incapacity or derangement. There are mental defects in a lot of people these days...are the parents to blame ...sure in some cases but certainly not all, I know some of the best folks in the world but the Father had to kill his son to save the Mother....mental break completely was the diagnosis.,,,it happens.

And where do these parents' moral values come from? Do we have everyone contact you (plan271A) when we need to know how to raise our children? Is morality genetic (some parts may be, but most is learned)? Some code of behavior must exist so that we humans know what is right, what is wrong, what is acceptable, what is not. I do not want the lawmakers making all those decisions, so the one place that seems natural to me are the religious teachings that have been handed down to us from centuries ago. Choose your own religion, or spirituality, but choose something tangible which we can hand down to the next generation.

If you are good enough, p271A, maybe you can endow your offspring with your wisdom. If so, great. I wil then worry about that segment of the population that doesn't have those insights or values.

Ps. 34-13 " .......keep your tongue from speaking evil
and your lips from telling lies!
14 Turn away from evil and do good.
Search for peace, and work to maintain it. "
Plan271A. I agree whole heartedly....and teach them I do.

Is. 49:7,8
" and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.
7The grass withers and the flowers fall,
because the breath of the Lord blows on them.
Surely the people are grass.
8The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God stands forever."

Most of the times parents have nothing to do with why a child kills, most of the times it can be traced back to mental illness. Since the gunman's mother is a teacher, one can assume she raised her child with values and he chose to follow this path. Sometimes there is absolutely nothing a parent can do if an offspring choses to follow the wrong path. We can only guide our children, we cannot force our will upon them or live their lives for them.

Actually - it is just possible that the parent is to blame. She reaped the first gust of the whirlwind, so she, too, is a victim. However, if she brought her attitudes home from school with her, the son never got a spanking (which he may have deserved once or twice), he never got told he lost (wouldn't want to bruise his self-esteem), and he was "redirected" instead of being told to modify his behavior. If the brother was fully aware of the mental issues, the mother surely was as well. Did she make sure he was taking his meds? Did she have him committed? Obviously he was dangerous - did she ever notify the authorities of that fact?

I would not make the blanket statement that a kindegarten teacher automatically makes it so that "one can assume she raised her child with values and he chose to follow this path."

Rationalist-5943159

And where do these parents' moral values come from? Do we have everyone contact you (plan271A) when we need to know how to raise our children? Is morality genetic (some parts may be, but most is learned)? Some code of behavior must exist so that we humans know what is right, what is wrong, what is acceptable, what is not. I do not want the lawmakers making all those decisions, so the one place that seems natural to me are the religious teachings that have been handed down to us from centuries ago. Choose your own religion, or spirituality, but choose something tangible which we can hand down to the next generation.

I'll assume you meant well in your response. Emotion does not translate well.

I 100% agree with you. These ideas do not spring into being without some assistance. Often this is in religious education as well as public or non-religious private school. Both can serve well, however, I believe that tying God into it is less suitable than simply following the path of reason layed down by our planetary forefathers over the last three thousand years. Socrates, Plato, and those who followed in their footsteps are the principal authors of the moral code of civil society upon which we base our laws. Christianity also is based on these same, non religious ideas. The Renaissance, coming out of the Dark Ages (of Christian murdering and oppression) was directly related to the willingness of people to rediscover the buried ideas of rational thought. Eventually, despite the Church's efforts, the ideas caught on and eventually the Church made some of them their own to buy back the flock.

Therefore, I simply don't see the value in teaching "you should cause no harm because God says so" or "because you'll be punished in Hell." Those threat based teachings create a disconnect between the rationale for the behavior and the person attempting to adopt the behavior. There really is no true rational learning there but only inducing a form of fear based threats to behave a certain way. The buy-in should be that the rational ideas make sense and directly benefit the self and those around you.

I would prefer that these ideas be taught in school as they used to. It was referred to as a classic education. As education has dropped significantly in value over the last couple of decades, we have every reason, especially given these tragedies to redouble our commitment to education. How to do that is an entirely separate topic but I believe we could agree that there is room in the curriculum to teach human civil relations.