In 68% of gun-related deaths, the shooter finds his weapon in the his own home, or in the home of a family member.

It is estimated that 73% of gun owners do not lock up their firearms.

I was wondering where you got those statistics? Can you prove it? and how. I keep my weapons under lockand key and I am the only one who has access.

"In 68% of gun-related deaths, the shooter finds his weapon in the his own home,..."

I would expect the number to be higher, since you're looking for strawberries in a strawberry patch.

"It is estimated that 73% of gun owners do not lock up their firearms."

Who said? And to what level of security - to foil a three year-old or to deny a determined thief?

You people talk dum.Most of these killing are from promble White kids or man .And they get there weapons from home or from a family member .Not so much a friend .Because they don't have to many friends .Promble children stay to them self .This young man should have been put away .No guns should have not been around him or anywhere that his hands could be able to get to.No it is not illegal to have guns in your house .But when you are dealing with a promble child then no you should not have weapons in your house.We are hearing this to much .I hate looking at the news because all you hear is some school or mall or movie theater but most of the time its a school.And its always some white kid or kids.What is going on in these white kids brain.Its like you no what race it was when you hear about it.Not that race matter .But you can't help to wonder like why do they keep doing this.It don't make no sense to why it is always that race and what is happen for these killer to want to kill there self and before they do take a lot of innocent people with them.

Who talks dum...promble?? It could be said that other races do their killing of innocent victims on the streets, gang style. Not due to a mental illness, but a gang or mobster mentality - they are monsters just the same, their crimes no less horrific. There are "prombles" that can be related to any race or social structure.

I will not STFU

I will continue to push the facts in your face. It'll hurt for a bit, but you WILL eventually accept it.

80% of Prison inmates were raised by SINGLE MOTHERS

That's what we would call "statistically significant."

Because she can. And why use the word 'all' when the aggregate is two - just more sensationalism.

cheetah..read the article..she owns them ALL..two hand guns and the rifle found in his car! Total of three!

Nice to have ALL of those weapons when even her own other son admits the younger son had mental problems.

Well, dontcha know, she needed them for protection from her kid being mentally ill and all.

Three guns...so what? It was her right, Mike. It is your right too Mike, you can have three guns too, if you are over 21 and of sound mind and not a felon....ewww....felons will get them anyway, they already broke at least one law, what is one more law to break.

So one 9mm is okay, but two 9mm's is self protection on steroids? Hyperbolize much?

And people complain ban guns..tell that to the average person, as you see what happen here!

Ok, she had the right to have 3 guns. Then she also had the RESPONSIBILITY to MAKE SURE those guns didn't end up in the wrong hands. I'm sorry she died, but she FAILED!

lavrn

"Ok, she had the right to have 3 guns. Then she also had the RESPONSIBILITY to MAKE SURE those guns didn't end up in the wrong hands. I'm sorry she died, but she FAILED!"

Ding sing sing..we have a winner!!

Though we don't know the story yet on how he got hold of the arms. She could of had them locked up and he found a way to get them..Guess we will know later on I am sure.

But you hit the target with the word "RESPONSIBILITY"..something that many people in today's society do not want to take. Many people take things for granted. Thus, in my opinion...the state our country and world is in today.

Z-933870...are you forgetting something? She also owned the rifle found in the shooters car.

Two 9mm's and a Bushmaster .223 caliber semi-automatic assault rifle..what was she expecting to break into her home..an ARMY?

And this is what they found at the scene, she could of had more at home..who knows!

A .223 AR is a common sporting rifle used for target shooting and competition. Some people own guns just because they are fun to shoot.

kj, looks like she passed that love of shooting on to her son.

A gun is a responsibility. Just like if you own a Pitbull. Most times there are no problems, but you had better take precautions because it is your responsibility to make sure that dog doesn't hurt anyone. It's no different with guns. Have them, enjoy them, but make sure they don't get in the wrong hands!

LA: I was not arguing that she was a responsible gun owner. She clearly wasn't.

Bushmaster .223 caliber semi-automatic assault rifle..what was she expecting to break into her home..an ARMY?

Be sure to get all of the nasty sounding adjectives in there. Do you even have a clue what differentiates a "semi-automatic assault rifle" from many common hunting rifles? Almost nothing of consequence. They take off the wooden stock and put on metal or plastic one that has a pistol grip.

Mike: It isn't your business as to her firearms. She had a son who hated her, and the family was broken apart by divorcr. What psych meds was the 20-year old taking or not taking, and why was he- dressed in all black- let into the school by the principal?

PR are you an idiot or just misinformed? AR was designed by Arma Lite (Hence AR). It is a sporting rifle, the only difference between that and a "normal" hunting rifle is that it's semi automatic. You're not a big hunter.. are you? Because the SAME round we used in WW2 in our Battle Rifles is the 30-06.. A much bigger and beefier round, is the same round we still use today for large game.

PRober, you fail to mention that the .223 or NATO 5.56 is one of the LEAST powerful rounds fired by a rifle. Almost any "HUNTING" rifle will put the .223 to shame.

Sure the .223 comes out fast but it is a very tiny bullet. It will do far less damage than any other rifle round excluding a .22. Especially when you consider that most .223 ammo is FMJ (Full Metal Jacket). Almost all other rifle rounds are soft point or hollow point and will do even more damage when they hit.

PRober.... you call someone stupid and then turn around and come up with the most ridiculous bull sh!t Ive seen in some time. Really..... ( It will shoot with little loss in velocity or impact fp's for well over a mile. It has one of the fastest muzzle velocities of any hand held weapon and causes extreme damage to whatever it hits... especially flesh/bone. It IS by sheer statistics and mechanism, the definition of an "assault rifle". No hunter needs one for anything.) First off its a 223 not 50cal and have you ever heard of newton and his laws? ONE mile really. My 223 semi auto looks nothing like the AR-15, Its a hunting rifle, i use for small game, and target practice, if used to kill someone it becomes an assault weapon just like a Bow and arrow, bat, knife, chain, bomb and anything else used to kill people.

Lee's "Ballistic Calculator", a 55-grain FMJ zeroed for a 100-yard shot (so
angled slightly upward) will drop more than 70 inches by the time it hits 550
yards, 3/4s of a second later; so if the rifle is held horizontally at a height
of 5 feet, it shouldn't be able to go much past 500 yards. All of this changes
the moment you put ANY elevation on the rifle. Oh and Remington designed the 223, the M-16 has a full auto or burst now, and the AR-15 is semi auto two different weapons.

Mike said:

What in the world does a kindergarten teacher need all those guns for? Two 9mm's even..self protection on steroids.

Cheetah is response:

Because she can. And why use the word 'all' when the aggregate is two - just more sensationalism.

The article reports:

The Associated Press, citing an unnamed official, reported that state police records show that Nancy Lanza had legally purchased five firearms, all registered in Connecticut, though the reported was not independently confirmed by NBC News. The AP later reported that authorities also recovered three other guns — a Henry repeating rifle, an Enfield rifle and a shotgun. It was not clear where those weapons were found.

Two pistols, an assault rifle, a couple of vintage rifles and a shotgun: that comes to 6 guns, only 5 of which can be accounted for, legally.

...hhhmmm.

I'd say the phrase "all those guns" was appropriate, and that, while a Cheetah may be the fast land animal afoot, its reading skills are hardly phenomenal.

As usual not a single rational comment from the gun nut crowd, hardly surprising. We are a nation populated with an enormous amount of ignorants. I see another story this morning showing 1/3 of Americans apparently believe recent extreme weather events are Biblically related. Such low level intelligence is a terrible drag on our society. It may eventually kill this radical experiment we call America.

It is completely rational to ask why this woman would own so much firepower. Totally understandable why a homeowner would one a single 9mm for protection but what was the use of the .223 Bushmaster? Of course such a weapon really has no legitimate use outside of the battlefield. So what was a kindergarten teacher doing with such a weapon? Wonder if the son pushed her to buy them? It reminds of a show I saw about a girl who lived with venomous snakes, of course one of them eventually bit her and she died. This is analogous as to why I have no such weapons in my home. Especially not with grandkids constantly in and out.

As usual not a single rational comment from the gun nut crowd

Translation , no one sees things my way so their idiots. voxrationis Your crowd reminds me of a song called rainbow stew.

Biblically related

Dear GOD, How could you let this happen in school ?

Signed Concerned Teacher

Dear Concerned Teacher

I am not allowed in school anymore.

Here is where I knew I would find the "reasonable" conversation. Already frustrated by submitting to the will of the people who want to exercise their Constitutional rights, the anti-gun lobby will now exploit this tragedy for their own gain. I am reminded of the woman who testified at a Senate hearing on gun-control after she survived the Waco restaurant shooting some years ago. Both of her parents were killed among many other. She said to the hearing that she wasn't mad at the killer. She likened that to being mad at a rabid dog. She wasn't mad at the gun companies for producing the weapons that killed her parents. She said that she was frustrated by the gun control lobby who make it difficult and marginalize people who want to carry weapons concealed or otherwise. She looked at the panel of Senators, shaking her head with incredulity.

"The second amendment," she said, "is so that people like me can protect themselves from people like you."

Now it is likely that you won't hear much talk like that coming out of woefully liberal Connecticut, especially as they are reeling in their more than understandable grief. But the gears are already in motion by the gun control lobby, as alluded to by the president in his response. That will galvanize the right in such a way that there will be nothing that the government can perform effectively. It will also serve to continue to further seperate the Northeast as an autonomous, affluent entity from the rest of the United States.

I do know this. Gun and Ammo sales will spike because of this. Knee jerk response from the left will garner knee jerk response from the right. I understand. I will be buying some ammunition this weekend myself. Never know when you will be walking near a school and need to render aid when a madman is loose.

As usual not a single rational comment from the gun nut crowd, hardly surprising. We are a nation populated with an enormous amount of ignorants. I see another story this morning showing 1/3 of Americans apparently believe recent extreme weather events are Biblically related. Such low level intelligence is a terrible drag on our society. It may eventually kill this radical experiment we call America.

It is completely rational to ask why this woman would own so much firepower. Totally understandable why a homeowner would one a single 9mm for protection but what was the use of the .223 Bushmaster? Of course such a weapon really has no legitimate use outside of the battlefield. So what was a kindergarten teacher doing with such a weapon? Wonder if the son pushed her to buy them? It reminds of a show I saw about a girl who lived with venomous snakes, of course one of them eventually bit her and she died. This is analogous as to why I have no such weapons in my home. Especially not with grandkids constantly in and out.

No side has a monopoly on rationality. Gun control "nuts" spout off random facts about a .223 round as if to make it sound like a specialized killing machine. .223 is chosen because the gun that fires it can be a few pounds lighter so that a soldier can march a few miles further. Hunting rounds are quite a bit more powerful than these military rounds.

Why would a woman chose a .223? Because it's controllable. Guns are far more effective for self protection if you can hit what you're aiming at. Why did she chose an AR-15? Who knows? Maybe she was taught to use one and chose to go with the one that was like her father's, freinds, etc.?

It is fair to wonder if her son pushed her to buy them. What does that have to do with me?

It is also no wonder that gun control laws get little traction when people like you resort to ad-hominem attacks on gun owners as knuckle dragging morons.

In the last ten years everything seems to make gun sales spike. Even when we invaded Iraq gun sales went up and you couldn't even find ammo. Of course the result of this makes guns more available to everyone.

The problem with gun control laws is that when someone decides to go out and shoot 18 kids they can't find a readily available gun.

The problem with gun control laws is that when someone decides to go out and shoot 18 kids they can't find a readily available gun.

Maybe , or maybe they will just kill in a more creative way. People killed people before guns were invented. Could this have anything at all with the country turning away from GOD since the 50s?

Last month at the Democratic convention the left actually booed GOD . Not exactly classy to say the least.

Change the mentality . Bad people will always find a way to do bad things.

Y'all ever think maybe Mom is, or rather was a competition shooter? My daughter and I have 6 guns between the two of us and each one is for a different leg of a competition, we are competition shooters, so I don't consider us having "self protection on steroids"

Also as far as her responsibility did it say anywhere that he lived at home? He was 20 after all. How do we know he didn't go to her house and grab one shoot her and then steal the rest of her guns?

Like it or not...guns do not fire themselves. Placing blame is easy to do..however..how do you know who is a problem and who,s not ? Even the media is not capable of gettin things correctly as far as information go's. I doubt that anyone will ever know what caused this guy to flip out..but he did for what ever reason. These folks died for no reason at all other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time...I feel deeply for the parents of these kids..they have all lost much....

Like it or not...guns do not fire themselves.

...and nuclear weapons do not detonate themselves. But we don't allow private citizens, or [if we can prevent it] other nations to possess nuclear weapons.

On a smaller scale the same logic applies to guns. No, they do not fire themselves. But they do enable a crazy or criminally motivated person to wreck far more destruction than he could only procure a knife or a club.

Yes, even if gun control and gun-availability were tightly controlled, some criminals would still obtain them through a variety of methods. But not as many would be able to do so. In Western Europe, we hear of mass shootings, once every year or two. In the U.S., there are several every month.

So statements like "guns do not fire themselves", carry about as much logical weight as assertions that gun ownership is a safeguard to our Democracy, which is NONE.

Small comfort to the thousands in the Sudan who have been hacked to death with machetes, that edged weapons limit potential.

@Zardoz8238 and others! Show me a way that u can keep all guns away from everyone, and that includes criminals and I will show u my support for gun control. Even if legal manufacturing companies were banned and quit making weapons world wide, criminals would make them at home. but you come up with the way and you will get all the support u need. laws are only good for law abiding citizens. Criminals will not pay attention to them. Stronger family units, and less bleeding hearts when parents try to punish their kids will eliminate a lot of this.

you are wrong.

that is what police are for.

more punishment does not create more loving human beings.

Gun ownership or not, it is a protector of our freedom. While it is also a cause for much of our pain and suffering. When the people have weapons it serves a purpose it leaves the possibility of a militia capable of arming itself without government intervention. That was the constitutional intent. You notice the constitution doesn't discuss hunting being a right, it is the public ownership of arms to form a militia.

That being said we are not taking care of our people, we are too busy policing the globe to do that. Would it not have been better if we still had institutions where people could turn when someone they loved seemed out of control? Budget cuts and sacrifices have led to the point we are at, parents who couldn't figure out what to do, people who fail to report the odd changes in behavior.

Who can we report this to, the police? They'll tell you that until the person actually causes harm there isn't anything they can do about it.

Take the guns away, and we loose a freedom and a right. If we take away all of the means people have to hurt one another we have to restrict knives and bows and arrows, knitting needles and baseball bats, cars and poisons. There are hundreds of ways people kill each other at what point do we decide the best way for people to die at the hands of another?

We need a way to remove the dangerous people from society before these events happen, just taking the guns away isn't going to do anything.

I am truly saddened by the tragedy, its hard to read the reports or listen to the news without crying. I see it as an indicator of a society that refuses to take care of its own, its not a gun issue, its a black mark on our society and culture that these event happen all too often.

As usual not a single rational comment from the gun nut crowd, hardly surprising. We are a nation populated with an enormous amount of ignorants. I see another story this morning showing 1/3 of Americans apparently believe recent extreme weather events are Biblically related. Such low level intelligence is a terrible drag on our society.

Vox, I'm an atheist (if that meets your criteria for not being "an ignorant") and I do not support gun control.... In fact, the only ignorance I'm seeing here is yours claiming that a .223 inch bullet is somehow more lethal than a far larger hunting round.

Did she purchase guns because husband had record? Did she purchase guns for her son? I would believe the latter by the facebook account he had. HAD! Not to many women purchase AR 15, kids like to mimic the hero's of wars and police officers. Some want to look intimidating as most people have vanity. In my opinion mental illness as it supposedly is called; is just the realization of ones own self-worth and the inability to handle it leading them to strike out at others. Bad attitude not mental illness, there was a lack of attitude adjustment when it was needed. The mom, friends, and society enabled him to become who he was by acceptance of abnormal behavior and ignoring anti-social behavior. This is true in many different venues.

retiredcoastguard

As usual not a single rational comment from the gun nut crowd.

Translation , no one sees things my way so their idiots. voxrationis Your crowd reminds me of a song called rainbow stew.

Thanks to all of you for proving my point. And I could give a rats behind about the technical aspects of weaponry. That doesn't make her ownership of that weapon any more logical. I heard a report this morning she was an avid shooter. In the end her ownership of these weapons brought about her own demise.

And there is a side of this argument that holds reason. It isn't on either extreme. We can't ban guns because our society is saturated with them. But more guns are hardly the solution either. It seems the Right is always wanting to go back in time. In this case back to the Wild, Wid West.

Of course there will be no further restrictions put on firearms. Might as well get used to these events. Reason will not win the day.

Thanks to all of you for proving my point. And I could give a rats behind about the technical aspects of weaponry.

Technical aspects? Even a child could tell you small bullets do less damage than big bullets. You were the one who made a claim of the gun's extreme nature:

It is completely rational to ask why this woman would own so much firepower. Totally understandable why a homeowner would one a single 9mm for protection but what was the use of the .223 Bushmaster? Of course such a weapon really has no legitimate use outside of the battlefield.

So, don't make a technical judgement if you don't care about the technical aspects. You are the one being "the ignorant" here.

In 68% of gun-related deaths, the shooter finds his weapon in his own home, or in the home of a family member.

It is estimated that 73% of gun owners do not lock up their firearms.

Last year, handguns killed:

48 people in Japan,

8 in the U.K.,

34 in Switzerland,

52 in Canada,

58 in Israel,

21 in Sweden,

42 in West Germany, and

10,728 in the USA.

(1 in 4 Canadians own guns. Many in Israel do, too.)

You are 43 times more likely to be killed with a firearm at home, by a relative or family member, than to shoot an intruder.

Unlocked munitions in the home turn angry arguments into violent deaths.

Here, at gun shows you can buy a .50 caliber assault rifle capable of shooting a 1-foot deep hole in a concrete wall from a 1/4-mile away, without any background check at all.

40% of all firearms sold in this country are sold without any background check whatsoever.

62% of gun owners say they would sell a firearm to someone telling them they would probably NOT pass a background check.

The Second Amendment was never interpreted to give individuals a right to carry arms--only this conservative Supreme Court, beholden to the Koch-sponsored political group ALEC and the NRA, has distorted its meaning. Even if it had intended an individual right, rather than the right of "a well-regulated, private militia" as stated, this is not 1791 anymore. We are now a nation of 350 million, and we no longer hunt to feed ourselves.

We need stringent gun regulations. Nobody needs an assault rifle--those should remain the province of the military alone.

We need stringent background checks. How do you tell if someone is mentally disturbed? Psychiatrists in the U.S. routinely use one test, multi-choice, to determine levels of sanity/insanity--it takes about 20 minutes to fill out, and there's a rubric to match to it so results can be determined quickly.

Law enforcement here hasn't even any means to determine if a person buys a significant amount of munitions in one place, then goes to another place and buys more. Knowledge is no infringement against your so-called right to own firearms. We have the technology to do so much more with intelligence alone!

We must increase funding in healthcare to fund mental care adequately, and remove the stigma of seeking care for mental issues, especially among young men and boys. (Reagan dismantled the mental healthcare system in the U.S. in the 1980s.)

It's just too easy to commit murder when you don't have to get blood on your hands. Studies have shown people are much more likely, for example, to give electric shocks if they think the recipient is in another room than if the person is in front of them. Punching somebody in the gut with a knife and being bloodied is sufficient to stop most. But a gun? People shoot, kill, and spend the rest of their lives broken and in mourning for the death of a loved one.

SOLUTION:

1A) Strict background checks, including the nationally accepted multi-choice psychiatric evaluation,

1B) Cooperative intel among all law enforcement agencies to detect and respond to problems before they occur,

1C) Strict regulations to gradually limit gun ownership as well as manufacture,

1D) Registration of all munitions currently owned,

1E) An immediate ban on all sales to the public of assault and automatic munitions, and

2A) Increased funding for mental health care, and

2B) A TV ad war and more to soften attitudes about people who need mental health care, especially aimed at young men and boys. Seeking help for depression and mental anxiety should be considered no differently than seeking stitches for open wound injuries and treatment for mumps, measles, and chickenpox, and

3) Violence in entertainment media must also be curtailed, especially in digital games, which were initially designed to train soldiers hand-eye coordination for shooting military targets and accustom them to killing. But TV and feature films seem bent on outstripping each other's violence with more and more, and it's not teaching our children anything good.

All of this can be achieved without taking a single gun from law-abiding folks who currently own them.

This week the Michigan Republican legislature made it legal for anyone to carry a concealed firearm in churches, schools, community parks--and they abolished the local county boards that issued gun permits for same. This is ass-backwards and the trend must be curtailed as soon as possible.

Deregulation of guns is actually killing gun owners and their families faster than it's killing the rest of us--but they haven't realized this, yet.

Is this reasonable?

Is this reasonable?

Is this copy and pasted from a gun control website? Hold on, I'll go find a prepared rebuttal on a pro gun website and paste all 10 pages into the comment area. Think about...we don't even have to think about what were saying, because someone more articulate said it for us already! Whee!!

I think, if you want to have a discussion, you should tell us what you think, not use someone elses words.

Maria-335650

you are wrong.

that is what police are for.

more punishment does not create more loving human beings.

When seconds count the police are minutes away.

(1 in 4 Canadians own guns.

90 of 100 American's own guns, and most times it's multiple guns.

Maria-335650

you are wrong.

That is what police are for.

more punishment does not creat more loving beings.

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

Did she purchase guns because husband had record? Did she purchase guns for her son? I would believe the latter by the facebook account he had.

There are a number of possibilities. They could have legitimately been hers, though when I saw the list of what was found on her son, in her car, and in her home, that list did look a bit odd to me for a woman's gun collection. Nothing wrong with it, just odd. The impression I got was that she may have purchased them on behalf of someone else, which while mostly illegal, is very commonly done.

I doubt her husband had a record given the nature of the position he holds. Even so, I'd think that he'd likely keep them with him as they are said to have divorced some years ago. She could have bought them for her son, though given what some of them were, it would be unusual for a 20 year old at this late date to want those specific models.

Nothing has been said about the possibility that she may have had a 'boyfriend' (using the term loosely, now) who is currently prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms who had been able to persuade her to purchase them and keep them at her home, but it is a possibility. If something like that was the case, I'm sure he's made himself about as scarce as possible at this point...

But, who knows? I'm sure we'll be hearing much, much more about this in the days to come.

Fort hood shooter was a psychiatrist, do you think he would have passed test? Mexico is full of guns that will become a lucrative business. I do believe now that I think of it, those Fema prisons maybe for those arrested objecting to gun confiscation. Looks like the second amendment is only holding by a slight majority, and will relinquish substantial rights now, and all in future.

Per capita the US actually does NOT have the highest gun deaths...believe it or not...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map?fb=native

also bear in mind that comparing a small country like Germany, France etc number of deaths to the entire US, is like comparing Missouri's deaths to the US, much lower population, much smaller place...Japan is the size of what? Illinois? Hawaii? You could compare say Minnesota's death rate with Germany, but not the entire US, not a fair comparison.

Also by far the highest number of gun deaths is SUICIDE...which one does not need a gun for, so I question if it is fair to even count those in gun deaths.

Baldman does have some valid facts, but the bottom line is this guy was already a criminal when he stole the weapons from his mother. The decline of a stable family is a key factor in a lot of the problems of teh country today.

No, MLH, Baldman should be celebrating feminists like me who are childfree and are not contributing to the problem.

If his mental history made him a "prohibited person" under the Gun Control Act, then his mother was storing them illegally.

If he wasn't prohibited, he was obviously unstable, and she should have had them better secured.

In either case, legally owned firearms were misused because of owner negligence, making all of us look bad.

She should have known better.

I don't think it would have mattered if the mom had guns or not. If he was bent on homicide, he'd have found a way to get guns. Period. If he was on antidepressants, which ARE the cause of homicidal tendencies in MANY under 25, THAT should be banned. In fact it WAS banned, ever so briefly. Because the pharmaceutical lobbyists were able to get the label changed to a "warning" that it might cause homicidal tendencies and DO alert your medical professional if you're feeling like you want to kill people. Because if you feel like you want to, SURE you have time to smile and stop by the local office and say, hmmm I think I need off these, not to mention the ADDICTIVE factor of anti-depressants. You CAN'T be taken off of them cold turkey. Yes they DO cause homicidal tendencies. I met the physician who has testified before Congress AND in multiple gun spree cases (She testified in the Columbine cases) about it. Curious isn't it? That ALL of the boys who've done such sprees have been on anti-depressants. I don't even have to guess about this case.

The REAL tragedy here is the lack of recognition of those on antidepressants who've killed their children (a mother in court) or murder suicide or other forms of killing, via knifings, even scissors. Guns did NOT do this crime. And until Congress acts on overhauling the WHOLE FDA system, these tragedies WILL continue on. Gun control laws will NOT stop the killings until dangerous antidepressants are STOPPED.

I'm apalled that the boy who did this was called "evil." Since when is someone with a mental illness suddenly evil? Since WHEN do we denounce before we even understand the TRUTH behind such horrific acts?

Doctor after doctor is testifying in cases like these. ALL admitting or adamant that prescription anti-depressants are a HUGE cause and factor. Time to wake up to the REAL culprit here.

http://www.newexistentialists.com/posts/05-20-11-4

http://rense.com/general95/aurora-shootings-and-ssris.html

DanHoelck-

WOW! You really must get a job as a Psychologist. I'm sure lots of folks would line up to have you work with them. You make so many assumptions with so little actually facts. Let me give you an example of another real life case

It involves another mother who also was a teacher. She worked with youth for years and had a son who developed a common mental illness in his later teen years.For three years she tried to get some mental help for him, calling around, begging facilities,hospitals, assistance centers to take him in. Insurance companies would not cover the treatment costs. Unfortunately, in the state they lived, unless a person showed they were a harm to themselves or others, they are refused admittance.

I had a chance to know both this teacher and her son. They had a wonderful relationship.He was a great guy. But then one day we got the news, he had murdered his mother during an episode hearing voices, while she was sleeping late one night. Finally, he qualified for help, but far too late for his mother.He then tried to kill himself in jail twice for killing the most wonderful mother in the world.

It's understandable that personal freedoms are in place to protect individuals from others taking away the rights of a person to have control over their persons. But there needs to be a balance struck that if someone is showing signs they are a potential threat to others, intervention is necessary. For caution is prudence, and wiser, then ignoring and waiting until something horrible has happened.

As for the reason this young man killed his mother and then went after the children she taught, we may never know or understand.It is clear, he would have killed her anyway. He was bound and determined to make others suffer as well. Be it making a bomb, or some other method, people like this 20 year who want to kill a large number, will find a way. You can't stop those who are truly determined to take out other lives, when they plan to kill themselves anyway. They have nothing to live for, and everything to die for in the end.

No one wants to take away your guns but trigger locks would have prevented this tragedy.

@RGS: Or at least slowed him down.

@Winterdancesong: You're missing the point. The mother was storing her firearms improperly, and her surviving son stated that the killer was mentally unstable.

Clearly, killers are going to kill with whatever tools are at their disposal. But if you own a firearm, you've got a responsibility to secure it.

The key facts are:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean.

Japan has the most restrictive laws on gun control, but I do not see that many other countries wanting to invade her either.

This kind of evil cannot be stopped, put a armed guard at every school, store, station, whatever, and it still will make no difference. A person intent on murder will walk up to this guard and stab him in the back while smiling. We stopped treating mental illness unless the person had money to pay, even with insurance it did not cover the cost. Even now it is after a mentally ill person hurts someone or them selves are they given any help. Actually I do not believe in a mental illness, I believe in a medical brain injury or disease. I believe in human beings becoming so insensitive to death and pain that they do not care anymore. Children playing with games that glorify the murdering of innocent people or games that spew so much gore it even makes a grown person cringe, but we allow our children spend hours upon hours playing them.

No one in China or alot of other countries are allowed to own firearms but read on. An attacker with a meat cleaver hacked seven infants and two adults to death in north-west China today despite police efforts to stem a wave of school killings that has terrified parents across the country.

A further 11 children were injured in the attack at a nursery in Hanzhong city, Shaanxi province, which took place at 8am, soon after the start of school. A resident said most of the children were aged between two and four. The alleged attacker Wu Huanmin, 38, killed himself, according to the Xinhua news agency.

Guns do not kill. People do. And the fault lies with the evil in the human race. You may not believe in God or the Christian Bible but it does give the best explanation as to why this happens, from the sin of Adam and Eve, to the sin of their son Cain who murdered his own Brother.

Guns were legal. The NRA must feel proud!

Nothing like a liberal nut job parent letting there kids get a hold of guns.

DanHoelck-@Winterdancesong: You're missing the point. The mother was storing her firearms improperly, and her surviving son stated that the killer was mentally unstable.

You have virtually no evidence from law enforcement that the guns were stored improperly. Hence you have jumped to conclusions based on nothing except her son had mental issues. As far as you know, her son could have forced her, using another weapon like a knife, to open a gun rack or locker, and then he would have the weapons.

Until the police release the details from the home investigation, nobody knows what happened at the family's home, except the mother was shot in the face. Since the neighbors living on each in the area next door were not allowed to return home through out the whole night as the investigation continued.But one described her as a very loving and caring mother. The son has been described as genius. So had the guns had been stored properly, he would have found a way to get a hold of them.

The coroner is now saying that most of the children were shot multiple times with the rifle. Just saying...

The real issue here is that this kids was mentally defective in most likely many ways. Dee Turner is a public Anti-Gun proponent. The SCOTUS argument wasn't about anything she said regarding the militia use of guns. The 2nd Amendment is about self defense in and out of the home, and the militia clause is preparatory and meant for illustration, not causative. So learn your English Dee and maybe you can understand what the Supremes said about the 2A.

It's not about the guns people, this is a cultural issue in part due to our own violent games, movies, TV shows, etc. Still, this one individual was the cause. Normal people see violent TV shows or other entertainment and do go around killing innocent people. And let's face it, it takes a seriously sick person to harm a child, in any manner whatsoever, never mind murdering so many innocent children. It's a special cause event, and the roots are always local, not global. Only contributing causes might be adding, but the primary cause is local to this sick individual and his situation.

The one entity in our society MOST responsible for the constant carnage that we Americans accept as a necessary side effect of our fascination and obsession with guns, IMHO, is the media. The mother has been described as a "survivalist" who stockpiled food and weapons and believed that the descent into chaos was only a short time away. I wonder where she could have gotten ideas like that?

Perhaps the right-wing media echo-chamber of Faux "news," those such as Glen BecKKK and Rush Limbaugh, who make millions, if not billions inciting their sad followers into such beliefs. They have turned what should have been a proud moment for this country, the election of our first non-white President, into a method for dividing the poor and middle-class of this country into two armed camps, while the corporotocracy continues to steal us blind.

The "mainstream" press is no better, and in my opinion is worse. What's the old saw about news? "If it bleeds, it leads." Do we really needl to have every parent of a murdered child interviewed on CNN to understand what anguish they must be feeling? Are we so jaded and unable to conjure up emotion without the help of our favorite pundit that CNN, Faux, and the rest need to get everyone who is suffering to do so on camera for our entertainment?

And yes, it is our ENTERTAINMENT that is being messaged. A recitation of the facts would be education, but one grieving parent after another after another? That doesn't teach us anything we really need to learn; it's nothing but a manipulation of our feelings. And the fact that these parents are willing to put their grief on the national news, rather than just punch some pundit in the face for even asking questions on camera, says more about our cult of celebrity than anything else. Get that 15 minutes of fame, at any cost.

Why do these disturbed individuals commit such heinous acts? Because they will get, finally, even though in most cases they will already be dead by the time it comes, their 15 minutes of fame. Sad people who in most cases had left plenty of signs around that they needed someone to pay attention to their pain, rather than just hanging themselves in their bedroom, know that if they can commit a more horrific act than the last mass killer; if they can get their body count higher than the other guy, that at last someone will pay attention to them and acknowledge their existence, even if in the most negative way possible.

There really are only two emotions: love and fear. All the negative feelings and their resulting actions are a manifestation of fear or pain. We need to begin demonstrating compassion for everyone BEFORE something like this occurs. It really isn't a matter of how many people own guns as it is the fear behind all that gun ownership. People buy guns mainly because they are afraid of their fellow citizens. THST is where we need to change our conversation and our dynamic. And that is why the media---all of them---are so complicit in this national tragedy.

At least someone other than me is talking about psychotropic meds for kids...SSRIs might very well NOT be in the best interest of kids, or society, or many adults. Kid's brain's aren't yet developed, yet they are given meds that remap the brain...chemical lobotomy of sorts.

These meds are involved in every wacky, nutty killing you hear, and you know what you don't hear? Is that often there are pharmacuetical settlements, with GAG orders, so they can't speak about the case as part of the settlment, so you don't hear about it, unless you really look for it.

If approximately 10% of the population is on these meds, and of that 10% have violent, delusional reations, there you have it. Maybe it's not just the guns?

Oh, I dunno. They seem to be working just fine in Mexico and Syria.......for the dictators and drug lords that is.

citzen3: Please do not fool yourself into believing the number of guns in circulation in the USA today would make any difference against our military forces.

What would bring the federal government to its knees in brief weeks, however, would be massive peaceful candlelight vigils by the majority of Americans--which would heap worldwide disgust on the government.

It wasn't Reagan who brought down East Germany's wall, you know. It was the candlelight vigils held night after night, culminating in vigils by more than 350,000 people.

No dictator in the world has been brought down by guns alone. But 11,000 a year are, in this country, and they are moms, kids, men, and family against family--and many more are gun owners and their families than not.

Only if you believe the NRA and its disciples, which I don't..... They want to argue that people need guns that can shoot hundreds of bullets per minute. What legitimate cause can the general public have for owning a weapon like that? If he had a mere handgun or 2 , he could not have pumped between 3 and 11 shots into each child without reloading. It certainly would have taken him longer to get it all done and perhaps many lives could have been saved.

diana-659660

The report I have heard is that he used two pistols to do the killing. Semi automatic weapons styled like military weapons are no more deadly than hunting rifles and in a situation like that, are less deadly than a 12 gauge shotgun with double OO buckshot. Had he been using a short barreled pump shotgun with that ammo, there would have be far more dead and injured. The "assault weapon" argument is getting really old.

Maybe as protection for the little whacko. Sounds like she should have used it.

As a former teacher, I agree that more mental health programs are needed in the schools. I taught kindergarten and I'd never have a gun in my classroom or agree to be armed in any way. Over the years I noticed that we were getting more and more disturbed students. In many cases all you had to do was "meet the parents' and you could see why these students needed help. But because of "political correctness" as well as lack of funding, teachers had to be very careful about what they said to the parents. One year I had a child who was very disturbed, I had a file on him that was a thick as the phone book! I was holding my breath and praying to God that nothing happened. I had to keep him even though I wasn't trained as a special ed teacher and I was always concerned about the safety of the other students. I cared about the child and I did everything I could for him. I believe it was the grace of God that got us through the year. We need programs for both the students and their parents.

Peace.

Thank you. Political Correctness has replaced logic.

When did all this Political Correctness stuff start anyway and why?? Just curious!

I'm trying to figure out if we're sure he lived at home, did I miss it in one of the many articles?

I find it difficult to think that a middle aged kindergarten teacher was a gun fanatic, buying FIVE assorted high power guns for her own use. It is more likely that the kid, being too young to get them himself, managed to get his mother to buy and register the guns in her name. None of these weapons seem to be what a woman would want for home protection and certainly not that many. Then the question would be WHY she would do this for an unstable kid? Why, knowing that her son had mental issues, allow ANY guns in the home at all? It is nearly impossible to put any mentally ill person in a facility for any length of time, the doctors medicate them and toss them out for their families to deal with. Perhaps the mother had trouble controlling her son and caved to his demands. By the way, did you see his eyes in that photo?

Do you mean the eyes of an honor student and friends calling him a genius? Va. shooter was also a smart student. The common factor both losers in life.

Right, if you have children in the home, you lock it up in a safe place so that when you need it in a home invasion, you don't have time to get to it!

Or, if you keep it accessible, your children steal it or play around with it and shoot themselves or others or take it to school and shoot someone they were mad at for some ridiculous reason...

Gee, makes a whole lot of sense to me to have a gun at home.

...and then there's the discussion about why people really need to have assault weapons..of course, there is absolutely NO REASON for people to have assault weapons!

Right, if you have children in the home, you lock it up in a safe place so that when you need it in a home invasion, you don't have time to get to it!

Or, if you keep it accessible, your children steal it or play around with it and shoot themselves or others or take it to school and shoot someone they were mad at for some ridiculous reason...

Or you buy a solid pistol safe that fits in your nightstand and opens with a quick keypad sequence - then you've got easy access and a secure weapon.

(And if you care to look into it, the Ruger Mini-14, a hunting rifle, is functionally identical to an AR-15, a so-called "assault rifle". The differences are almost entirely cosmetic - AR-15s just look scarier.)

There are many Bed side safes that allow quick access to firearms, And there was a reason for the 2nd, and it didn't pretain to hunting. Why do we need them? Thats not the point, the point is the Constitution says we have the right. So if we chip away at that right, whats to say other rights don't get chipped away.

Ban handguns.

It doesn't matter if we NEED them. It is our RIGHT to have them. Many people who own AR-15s own them simply because they are fun to shoot.

BTW, recently I even saw a pistol safe that opens using a biometric fingerprint scan. So your guns are secured from children and other people who shouldn't have them, but you can access them simply by pressing your fingers against a pad if you need them in a hurry.

Takenaka - Is that the only thing you can say? That is your only post on several separate articles (some not even pertaining to guns)

Ban anti-gun nuts

It doesn't matter if we NEED them. It is our RIGHT to have them.

But is your right wrong? What advantage do you get from owning a hand gun that is more important than children not being murdered by the dozens?

Ban anti-gun nuts

If one of the children killed today was your son or daughter, would you still want hand guns to be as easy to get as they are today?

This argument that "anything can be used as a weapon- so should we ban hammers?" is pure BS. Try murdering 30 people with a hammer or a knife! That Chinese psycho who sliced 33 kids a few days ago- NONE of those kids have died!

The points is- you have a chance against a deranged person with a "cold" weapon. You have no chance against a person with a firearm bent on killing you and direct line of sight.

Yes, more people die from car crashes than from crime. Does that mean we have to stop fighting crime?

That's what firearms are designed for- to kill quickly and efficiently. I my opinion (which should be the opinion of any reasonable/moral person)- a person should NOT have a RIGHT to end the life of another person that easily. Argue as much as you want- deaths from firearm violence in US is multiple times that of Canada or Europe. That's because these countries do not have an antiquated murderous amendment in their constitutions that entertains a warmonger minority at the expense of the majority's safety.

In conclusion: if his mother could not purchase the weapons- he would not have an easy access to his instruments of murder. Maybe he would try to acquire them through some other method- but I doubt he would succeed. Deranged people are not that great at executing complex planning. Mostly they just grab what's readily available and go on a spree. In all likeliness he would just stay a deranged person who hasn't killed anyone and those 20 kids would live on their lives.

Maybe he would have just stayed deranged.

You're right. Maybe that would have happened.

Or, maybe he would have built a bomb and pulled off an even deadlier attack... like the deadliest school massacre in US history:

If you ban guns, you definitely need to ban bombs. And then make sure to tell Timothy McVeigh that bombs are banned. Wouldn't want that guy to get his hands on one...

davey-526272

Ban anti-gun nuts

If one of the children killed today was your son or daughter, would you still want hand guns to be as easy to get as they are today?

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, so that means 269,999,998 (since the shooter had 2) guns killed no one yesterday. So even if it had been one of my children, I wouldn't want anyone else's rights to be infringed upon, because of someone else who ILLEGALLY had guns.

Gun ownership is not the point. Many other countries have high levels of gun ownership without the insane levels of gun violence. Our problem is that we have been brainwashed by Hollywood that violence is always the solution to a problem. In TV shows like 24, they even taught---and many citizens, including sitting Senators believed and repeated---that torture was acceptable as long as the end justified the means. Most action-adventure shows and movies depend upon violence, directed at the "bad guys," is the best, quickest, and most final solution to any problem. And that any problem, up to and includin nuclear holocaust, can be "solved" in 55 minutes with another 10 taken out for commercials.

Action-adventure movies take a couple of hours to be resolved, but in their way they are even more manipulative. The writer decides for you who is the hero, who is the villain, and then the scenario is set up to demonstrate to you, the bystander, that the ONLY acceptable solution is the death of the villain at the hero's hands. If a villain is shown being arrested and going through the criminal justice system, it usually is a precursor to the villain's untimely escape from custody or release because of a technicality, further hammering home the message that the only permanent solution is violent death.

We have become such spectators at life that we truly are unable experience real emotion in our hum-drum daily lives. We reward those who entertain us---sports "stars," music and movie "stars," etc., with millions or billions because they make us FEEL something. And if we can only feel something when witnessing another's anguish, of course we are going to remain tuned into news of a horrific tragedy. We need to take charge back of our own lives and feelings. It's difficult at first, when one has become used to Anderson Cooper or Bill O'Reilly telling us first the "news," and second, how we should experience it.

@ Florida Native: Since most "6 shooters" are double action revolvers, they ARE semi-automatic weapons.

Don't write about things you have no clue about.

Someday we might just need all those automatic weapons. Remember why the Japanese never invaded America, "Behind every blade of grass there will be a gun"

I HIGHLY DOUBT ANY REAL FL Cracker would make that post. Regulator has a good point. semi-auto's are also double actions, target pistols, plinker s, and hunting gear. Selective fully auto are military assault weapons. Frankly, a pipe bomb would have done the same thing, or worse.

Maybe we should look at our weakened treatment of the mentally ill???

We have met the enemy: IT IS US

Is this a gun issue or a mental health issue? Is it a 2nd Amendment issue or is it an issue where no one in America wants to take responsibility for their actions or inactions? IMO, it's a bit of everything. The dead mom Nancy knew she had a problem child and unsecured weapons in the house. The school (all American schools BTW) have an understanding that they are targets today by terrorists (International & Domestic) so why aren't the doors kept locked (as a school custodian I know what I am talking about) and entrance gained only through a secure method, costs are not prohibitive in securing a building with magnetic locking systems, intercoms etc. A town as wealthy as Newtown Conn. could easily have afforded a security guard. (I just heard on Diane Sawyer that the school was locked down on a regular basis and visitors need to be buzzed in, so somewhere the system failed).

What we have here is a complete system breakdown and the heart of it all stands the inability of America and Americans to be proactive and less dependent on Government. Political correctness has replaced logic in too many instances.

As a former Police Officer I can honestly say that most bad situations can be avoided by forcing oneself to thinking through how one would deal with any bad situation. Most people go through life not expecting to have to deal with a problem. Police almost never arrive in time to do more than stretch the yellow crime tape.

I believe that irresponsible gun ownership is definitely part of the problem, I am a gun owner, I do own many types of weapons, however I have them secured and don't have anyone with a mental issue in my household. Guns actually save more lives than they take (). Before I was a cop I saved a woman from being killed by her husband when I was 17 because though he had two knives, was drunk or high and was twice my age, when the woman ran into my grandmothers home to escape her demented husband and he came after him, he stopped when he saw my grandpa's Colt 45 automatic in my waistband waiting for him. He became very sober, very polite and very tame, telling me he was going back home if that was OK with me. Guns do save lives and more good people need to be a part of being proactive and taking concealed carry classes. Be proactive and have a gun and cell phone, this combination will keep most people alive.

My heart goes out to all the victims of evil people, and all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Ibn Yusef,Thank you for the intelligent and excellent comments.Saving money on security and mental healthcare has cost something much more valuable than the money,lives.Our guns are in a gun safe.

Florida, A six shooter is a semi automatic revolver. All you have to do is pull the trigger. It's called a double action

Sorry regulator didn't see your post

Guns actually save more lives than they take

Can you share your source for this statement?

I found this davey

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

I also read another article that stated that Americans own 270 million of the 875 million known firearms, basically 90 people out of 100 own a gun.

So by power of deduction you would think that yes guns save more lives than they take.

JACKSON-2576676 : The Japanese never invaded America? Gee, then what was Pearl Harbor?

Both Americas are viewed geographically as continents where the United States of America is a political entity. The Japanese never touched the continent of America.

Throughout this thread though, you have managed to use ambiguity and assertion to present your version of 'fact'.

In keeping in context with the ammendment, people should be able to own M-1's and aircraft carriers to protect from a tyranical government.

Well, my gosh, a fella could get SHOT AT in them there foreign-type countries. Naw--much better just to load your little bandy-legged self up with armaments and bluster at the bar about what a Peaceable Type you are, and hope to God no one ever knows the trembly truth.

"Stop this obsession with guns in our country. Paul Revere and other Patriots may have needed them back in the times when our constitution was written but it's almost 2013 and this old constitution shouldn't apply."

If you don't like the constitution as written, move your happy jacka$$ out. There is always Canada eh.

When our government "falls into the wrong hands", I'll be thankful for my guns and ammunition. That scenario is the whole reason for the second amendment.

"...defend the country against our enemies."

I believe they defend the Constitution against enemies - foreign and domestic.

I've got news for you. Red Dawn was not a documentary. It was the fantasy of a 12-year-old boy. The notion of people resisting a tyrannical government or a foreign invasion with their personal weapons is patently ridiculous. I'm surprised anyone is stupid enough to claim that that's a justification for private gun ownership. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

@EarlyOut - So, you think that firearms are not a match for a foreign military or tyrannical government? Ask the Syrian rebels.

@cheetah - You are correct. Our soldiers and government officials are sworn to uphold the constitution. The constitution is what makes this country worth protecting.

EarlyOut,Ask the Polish people,non jews,about that worked out for them during the Holocaust.

"... Red Dawn was not a documentary. It was the fantasy of a 12-year-old boy."

'The notion of people resisting a tyrannical government or a foreign invasion with their personal weapons is patently ridiculous.'

I guess Assad is a bad dream too?

What all of you seem to not understand, is that your level of paranoia is what makes you think you need a gun. That and the ongoing fear you seem to all enjoy living in is what justifies your need to have a gun. I cannot begin to think about living like that...life is just too short. It frankly would just never occur to me to own a gun. If I have to be afraid of my shadow, what's the point in living? What you have to understand, is that when you all live like this, and promote this, things like what happened today happen, and until we all learn to think differently, it will continue to be this way.

The notion of people resisting a tyrannical government or a foreign invasion with their personal weapons is patently ridiculous. I'm surprised anyone is stupid enough to claim that that's a justification for private gun ownership. It doesn't pass the laugh test.

The people from the various underground resistance factions in Europe from WWII aren't laughing.

@DM7741 I agree. I don't see how this "kill or be killed" way of life is a desirable way to live. We are not animals. It's not sustainable in the long run if we keep killing each other. Guns are machines that make killing large amounts of people easy and effortless. Humans need to evolve into a more peaceful society if we are to survive as a species.

Fearful people with guns. Irrational people with guns. Hateful people with guns. Mentally ill people with guns. People that get revenge with guns. People afraid of other people with guns. People fantasizing about being a hero with their gun. People with guns that want to be judge, jury and executioner.

A basic rule of law is the victim isn't impartial and shouldn't determine the punishment. That's why we have police, judges and a court system. If we abandon that system of law, anarchy will prevail.

Guns don't end violence, violence perpetuates violence.

We are in danger of descending into the rule of the gun, might makes right, kill or be killed. Not the kind of a society I want to live in.

There is definately a growing gun culture, just read these posts. Those who think we are about to be invaded, the street hoods, getting ever younger, who have guns tucked in their belts..big man on the street, tough guy.. red necks running through the woods playing militia man. Yessir, tough guys. Bar fights are turning ito shootouts instead of the old fashioned fist fight. A man shot his own son mistaking him for a robber. The Chicago streets run blood and the punks participate in the drive by shooting. Get angry with mom and dad? Shoot up their workplace. The cure for all this craziness? Why it's buy more guns,, of course!!

The 2nd Amendment was never interpreted to grant an individual right until this severely conservative Supreme Court overturned more than 200 years of jurisprudence that held it only applied to a "well-regulated militia." It was enacted in 1791, shortly after our war against an insane British monarch, George III.

It certainly was never intended--and still cannot be reasonably said to maintain-- that gun control legislation is in any respect unlawful.

Take it form a lawyer and former felony prosecutor.

Dee-wrong. The militia is defined as all able bodied men over 18. This was a time of citizen-soldiers, as standing armies were too expensive and often coinsidered a threat.

So according to Cruikshank, the individual’s right to arms is protected by the Second Amendment, but not created by it, because the right derives from natural law. The Second Amendment protects that right only against violations by the federal government (and federal entities such as the District of Columbia), but not against violations by private citizens.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2008/a-(really)-brief-history-of-the-collec.aspx?s=militia+definition&st=&ps=

Good luck with that. She's one of the dead. Did you hit the comment section after reading one paragraph?

Hey Jackhole, he actually had to kill her to get them from her. This guy killed his own mother. It would have been nice if someone else, like a law abiding citizen, could have had a gun at that school to stop him. It could have saved a few of those lives. But law abiding citizens can't carry in a school. Thank you gun control nuts. You and yours ensured there would be a full score once he arrived on campus. No one was legally allowed to have a way to stop him. Good job on disarming the population so the Mother Murdering, Insane, Psycho could have a good pool of victims to choose from. I hope you are reveling in your victory. I am sickened by how you can set something like this up and then claim no complicity. Even more audacious is how you claim that further disarmament would improve the situation. It would just create a bigger pool of victims for the next nutjob. You blame her for owning a gun he killed her to obtain? I blame you for parading a string of helpless victims out in front of him once he had the guns!!!!

What's your point? He used a bomb.

Yes, because rigging the entire school with explosives is so much better.

How is a bombing from 85 years ago even the least bit relevant to this? Why not bring up the Mountain Meadows massacre if you need irrelevance?

Disconnect much?

aloprazolamerica:

What a illogical statement. Anyone can get those bomb recipes on the net today. Jim's scenario is even more pertinent today than in post internet days. Perhaps your the one disconnected with reality?

I guess you think the states over the years, burying the need for mental health care is irrelevant??

Scar, Jim's argument is more pro gun than pro mental heath. Just how many bombings have there been since Oklahoma City as compared to random shootings? Hell, what is the bombing to shooting ratio since Bath?

Actually, IF you had your way. My theory is that bombs would have been used in these events rather than firearms. And one thing to remember, if bombs used, the perpetrator might get away.

But hey, the English have had restrictive gun laws for decades, sure kept the IRA in their place didn't it??

Scar, please. You have to have knowlege of bomb making, access to materials, a large vehicle to transport, bombing is very pre-meditated, takes extensive planning. It takes nothing to grab your mom's or neighbors guns and go on a rampage. Who knows how well Lanza had planned this attack? He's certifiable, so maybe he went off after finding the Froot Loops were gone. Kinda doubt he would have built a bomb instead.

aloprazolamerica:

"Scar, please. You have to have knowlege of bomb making, access to materials, a large vehicle to transport, "

Hmm, guess you know as much about pipe bombs as firearms. Not to much, EH??

Don't worry, ignorance on the subject, won't stifle your chances from writing the laws. At least history seems to show that trend.

Ok, great Scar. You still haven't answered what the bombing to shooting rampage ratio is. Or that the fact is that bomb making is more pre-meditated than grabbing someones gun. You'd rater concentrate on minutia rather than address the issues, which is typical of apologists. Either answer that or STFU.

You have to have knowlege of bomb making, access to materials, a large vehicle to transport, bombing is very pre-meditated, takes extensive planning.

Couldn't be further from the truth. Knowledge of bomb making is readily available all over the internet - a 12 year old could find it. The materials are available in hardware stores. Pipe bombs are about a foot long - you can transport six of them in a backpack with a Schwinn. Pre-meditated I'll give you, but you don't think this was pre-meditated?

I would love to answer:-). You extrapolate that stricter gun laws will stop this trend. I respectfully disagree.

Your choice of the English was not good for you cause ,since pipe bombs can be made like grenades. Where you got the large truck from??? And those restrictive gun laws in Northern Ireland did NOT stop any violence what so ever. Now your question is not easily answerable. For , you want restriction, in the US. Restriction does not apply to the US. So we should look elsewhere?

Hey, you, not I, brought up the English. What did the IRA & Unionists use?? How restrictive were their gun laws? VERY!

Your assuming this is not-premediated. Thats a big assumption. Especially since he left one crime scene for another.

You see, you see it as ONLY ONE issue. I see it as first a mental health issue, then a school security issue. And then, if proven, a user issue on the mother not to secure. Most assume she did not have the weapons secured, did he pick the lock? find a hidden code ? or was it left unsecured. We do not know. You act like you do, you assume.

Assume= A$$-U-ME

I do not assume.

air, no kidding. But think for a minute. What would be easier to do, bombs or a gun. That's why mass murderers prefer guns to bombs by about 1000:1 (in this country anyway).

We may never know how pre-meditated this was. But considering his mental health, this may have been triggered by nothing of significance.

aloprazolamerica: "air, no kidding. But think for a minute. What would be easier to do, bombs or a gun."

By far, BOMB. And the perp walks away to do again. And IF , he's mentally deranged , the escape might be part of the equation.

It's evil in peoples hearts that kill, not plumbing, or other tools.

Scar, you may want to review the comments. I never brought up the English.

I don't know what the answer is. I never said anything about stricter gun laws either, again, check the comments. I don't know if that would be a solution. But, we are getting more and more violent, and something, anything needs to be done.

You know, I've lived for 52 years without ever needing a gun (and I live in a big city). I have known gun nuts all of my life. I truly think the allure provides sexual satisfaction for the enthusiast. I have know more than a few people who never go anywhere without a packing, I think they are paranoid and delusional. The whole culture is skewed, it's about so much more than protection, it's about power and control. Thing is, I don't think that way, and when tragedies like today's happen, I take great comfort in knowing I'm not part of the machine that makes this possible. Yes, Lanza was ill, but if he didn't have access to guns, I wouldn't be talking about it, and 27 families wouldn't be destroyed right now.

I don't know how you gun proponents can sleep at night.

There you go again. You A$$-U-ME I do not care about this tragedy . I think, It's beyond horrific.

I can tell you that sensationalizing these events doesn't seem to be helping.

I can tell you that safety training with firearms takes a back seat in these discussions.

I can tell you every gang banger thats a felon, arrested with a firearm , doesn't get locked away for years for it. Otherwise, they would NOT be on the streets.

I can tell you mental health issues obviously go under the rug hiding, from the screaming of the anti gun community.

I can tell you, that over my 5 decades of life , I've seen the 1st, and 4th amendment decimated. Now comes the 2nd.

Soon, we will not be very much different from China. Guess , you missed your mobile texts will soon be saved for authorities.

Hummm, well there were those pesky 911 hijackers who used airplanes as bombs, while threatening the passengers with box cutters before hand. If you take away guns, people who do crimes like this will just find something else, bomb (Timothy McVeigh), box cutter, knife (killer murdered children at school in China with a knife), car (which happened a few years ago in Orange Country, CA at a daycare) to use...

a bunch of article pertaining to the daycare murders in the LA Times

articles.latimes.com/keyword/leonard-gumlia -

I hope the families of these children, and I don't know how they can, find some peace...RIP innocent victims.

Alop, I sleep very well at night because my guns are locked up except for 1 9mm that is in the drawer next to my bed. You have lived in a large city for 52 years. WHERE, intercity, suburbs, fring? I don't carry a gun even though I have a permit to do so because I don't feel like my life is at risk but I want the option available to me if I do at some time feel like I should be able to protect myself.

So it's the media's fault now? China's fault? Safety training would have stopped this? The only thing that caused it was a gun(s) in the hands of the menally ill. If there was no gun, he would have still been ill, yet there would have been no violence. Do you need to be reminded of how many times this has happened this year alone.

Stop the frickin' excuses, you and your ilk are part of the problem, I'm not. It's just that simple.

ogreugly, Center City Philadelphia. I, nor any of my non packing folks I know, has been the victim of a violent crime. I think sleeping with a gun under your pillow is absurd.

Paranoid much?

Scar, the 1st and 4th amendments decimated... a bit dramatic, no? And of course, now everyone is stamping up and down about the 2nd amendment. No one, NO ONE, not a single person of any authority, has EVER spoken of BANNING firearms. EVER.

aloprazolamerica: reality check: It was not his gun? according to state law he was too young to have one , even if sane??

Yup , need new gun laws? No, you want then ALL GONE. Your going to have the government go house to house and take them right?

After all, those "gun nuts " are all backwards, trailer park living, Republicans, right???Keep living the myth buddy. When's the next election??

I suspect we another spring If we ever see a national law abolishing the 2nd amendment.

Frequent male flyer: Probable cause , 3 decades ago....reasonable suspicion today. Patriot Act, suspension of Habeaus Corpus. If you actually review tech sites ( try cnet), you'll know soon they want all mobile providers to keep all texts for official purposes.

"No one, NO ONE, not a single person of any authority, has EVER spoken of BANNING firearms. EVER."

Quite true, the Kennedy compound in FL probably has real assault rifles.

In England, If you have the connections and are rich enough you can join a club. Hmm, thought we were escaping that in the 1700's

Then there's NYC, yea a model for the entire US.

Not banned, just very , very , close to it.

It's like , we are not going to ban this, just make it so expensive and hard to get that only the 2% , with connections, can afford it.

Yea, I'm sorry, thats not a ban.

Scar, I know it wasn't his gun, but he had access to guns. You see, I'm sure Nancy Lanza thought she was a responsible gun owner, but you gun owners have had a record of that "responsibility" backfiring on you, pun intended.

If she didn't have the guns (and she was apparently an enthusiast, because these were not for protection), maybe he would have murdered her some other way, but he probably would have never gone to the school without a proper weapon, If he did go, say with a knife, the casualties would have been far fewer.

I never said anything about politics, income or anything. Stop reading into my comments what's not written, because I never even alluded to England, gun control, Republicans or trailer parks. All of that bile came from you, not me.

I mentioned politics for I happen to be a registered DEMOCRAT. And , you must admit , the anti-gun crowd has their enemies pegged as.......

It is simply a fact. In countries that restrict ownership. Only the rich & influential get the privilege.

The Anti-gun movement would do the same here. With NYC the norm. A new form of Democracy sure to follow.

aloprazolameric: go to #120 . There's a poster that actually is thinking of working solutions. Not trashing our rights.

Actually, our schools have been shut down almost all of last week because they had 9 bomb threats in 8 days at 3 of the schools. I'm more worried about that being a reality then someone walking into one of those schools and shooting it up.

http://kdhnews.com/news/copperas-cove-isd-closes-all-campuses-wednesday/article_7495e776-4415-11e2-9cf7-0019bb30f31a.html

Not a great article but our local newspaper leaves a lot to be desired.

Obama has.

I'm just curious, Ohio - why are you a "proud gun owner"? What is it you're proud of? Is the point of pride here the fact that you've never once thought about committing a mass shooting? Or that in case of danger, a gun is your last option? What exactly is it that makes you proud to own a gun?

Again, I'm just curious.

Target shooting is one of many relaxing hobbies for me. It makes me happy to be able to go out to the range on weekends to shoot at paper targets to unwind from the hustle and bustle of the work week. It's a hobby that I gain satisfaction from. I can do all of this while having respect for both the gun itself and human/animal life. I also take pride in responsible gun ownership. That is what makes me a "proud gun owner".

Ohio--you need a better hobbie. You have a problem and do not know it.

meercat,

I'll let you believe that. I am a christian, I work hard and I love my life. Above all else, I respect my neighbors and fellow citizens. If I reached my lowest point in life, I would never, EVER think of committing the cowardly act of taking someone else's life because I did not value mine. I am deeply offended by your comment.

I'm convinced there is no such thing as a "responsible" gun owner. Nancy Lanza was one, see how well that worked for her?

I think unwinding from the hustle and bustle by target shooting is nothing more than feeding your machismo need for self control. People who don't need to create some kind of order from a violent hobby do unusual things to unwind...like exercising, fishing, photograpy, guitar...you know, non-violent activities.

Aloprazolomerica: Being as uninformed as you are on the subject , let me help you out.

In target shooting you must:

1.Control your breathing

2.Control your body

3.And concentrate on one thing.

People find that relaxing. And when they achieve a degree of expertise they feel a level of accomplishment.

Your really arguing with two different facets of firearm ownership. You envision the spray & pray equal with a target shooter. And that shows relative ignorance on the subject in general.

How is shooting a gun a violent activity? Do you even know the definition of violence? This is the typical comment from a person who has never shot a gun, never touched one or heard one. I used to be afraid of guns like you until I decided to blindly enroll in a gun course headed by a law enforcement officer who was also ex-military. It was the first time I'd ever shot a gun and it turned into something that I enjoy. People being afraid of guns is the same as some people being afraid of minorities. You are fearful of them until you relinquish your ignorance by actually learning about them. Do yourself a favor, go to a range and rent a semiauto .22 pistol. Load it and sit it on the table pointed downrange and just stare at it for 60 seconds. Let me know if it grows a pair of legs and decides to "violently" shoot you or other people around you. You will soon realize that a gun is a tool just like a hammer. A hammer is useful and nonviolent when you're hitting the "head" of a nail but it can be a murder weapon if you start beating people in the head with it. For the record, I said target shooting was one of my MANY hobbies. BTW, how do you think fish enjoy you tricking them and jabbing them with hooks? That can't be violent right? Your post shows human nature to overlook, underestimate and use prejudice toward things...especially inanimate objects.

Tell you what. We'll give you an electronic gun, one that perfectly replicates the action of a real pistol, but shoots a laser beam at a target, rather than a bullet. I'm sure we can rig it to provide some recoil, and even a loud "bang," if that's what gets you off. Would you be satifisfied with that? If not, why not?

I love how all of you gun apologists twist in the wind with all of the reasons guns are so great. Hug your guns real tightly tonight and tell them it's OK, no one will ever seperate you. Your mentality is what created this scenerio today.

Guns are not violent? Gawd, I'm about to choke on that BS argument. I also love how you have more compassion for a fish than the victims and families from todays disaster. Oh, and anything can be used as a weapon, but butterknives, cars and hammers are not intened for that use.

I will never shoot a gun, i find the desire to do so repulsive. If you like control of breathing, body and concentrating on one thing, try yoga.

And answer me, was Nancy Lanza a responsible gun owner?

Why were the guns not locked up with someone mentally ill in the house?

Ah.. no. Nancy Lanza was not a responsible gun owner, since her mentally ill son clearly had access to her weapons. But understand, 99.99% of gun owners are not like this. How can you not understand how some people like shooting? You say that you find the thought of shooting repulsive, so you will never try it. This reminds me of a small child who simply won't try broccoli because he doesn't like how it looks and smells. Murder is the definition of violence, but the act of simply firing a gun at a target is not violent at all.

The analogies of of gun apologists are rich. Now broccoli is like not wanting to be part of the gun culture. I don't need to reinforce my testoterone, thanks.

I have spent my whole life avoiding violence. Why would I understand or enjoy a violent pastime, and don't tell me the rush that a shooter feels isn't a baser for violent urges. If hitting a target is so important, trade in your guns for archery or darts. Same objective.

What, not the same pop?

What, not the same pop?

Nope, some of us are smart enough to know that crap will not work in a gun fight.

So...Guns are violent, but bows and arrows are not? They accomplish the same result of shooting a projectile towards a target, you said it yourself. The bow was the main weapon of war for centuries.

aloprazolamerica:

Hate to disappoint your pre-concieved opinion of all firearms owners. All my firearms are under lock and key. One , is easy access, via short code , only I know. But to disappoint you , my bows are not locked up. Nor my small knife/ sword collection. Obviously, no children in the home.

Do we know he didn't steal a key, or find a combination? Or are we assuming??

Assume = A$$-u-me

kj, I don't think we would have this rash of random violence if someone were to walk into a movie theater, mosque, classroom or mall with bow and arrows. How many murders were commited by archers last year?

Scar, I'm proud of you. I also think that having a fetish for deadly weapons is, I'll be kind, an instability.

Idk how he accessed the guns, but he did. Not the first time a child has accessed a parent's locked weapons, difference is this was a deranged adult child.

How many murders were commited by archers last year?

Yeah, hasn't happened since ohhhh, NOVEMBER 30th 2012 AT WYOMING COLLEGE YOU DIPSTICK.

The point is people can use a myriad of different weapons from knives to bombs.

"When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for an (armed) mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat. It has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed."

-Marko Kloos

Did you hear about the bow and arrow shooting a few weeks back? In fact, a bow is a more violent weapon than a gun. It creates more damage than a bullet, and is completely silent, even quieter than a suppressed handgun.

Also, stop calling me a gun apologist. I will not "apologize" for something I did not do or cause.

BTW, it is not a "weapon fetish". As hard as it may be for you to believe, some people really want to protect themselves instead of having their life depend on the response time of a police officer.

"Accessed a parent's locked weapons" - if this happened, then they were either not locked, or not properly locked.

aloprazolamerica: I'm a target shooter , and a target archer. Both require concentration of mind and body. I fenced in college. But hey, A$$-U-ME whatever you want.

The trouble is, opinionated reactionaries like you , will succeed. Succeed in what ? Destroying the Constitution. Don't worry, It's already half torched by the Patriot Act.

Destroying the Constitution? You know, it's a living document and can be amended for whatever the times dictate. What a tired argument.

Yes, I know bow and arrows crimes are on the increase. Soon, they will overtake guns as the chioce of murder weapon, because they are so much more effective than a 9mm or an AR-15.

You all sound like a bunch of loons. Nothing happened today, right. Love my motherf**kin' guns. Yahoo, now I think like you, happy?

I am simply responding to wild accusations by you that if I like to target shoot, there is something wrong with me.

KJ: Give up, your arguing with a person that doesn't know a average compound bow has MORE penetration power than a 30.06.

But , then again , he probably doesn't know what a 30.06 is. It's a REALLY POWERFUL GUN. Simple enough?aloprazoamerica???

With our luck, they'll have him help write new laws. If the Syrians had only bows, he'd be outraged:-)

Someone explain to me, why we are spending millions of dollars, outfitting people in the Middle East & Africa, with fully automatic military grade selective weapons for supposedly "Democracy s sake".

Yet, look for every horrible news instance, to outlaw semi-automatics in the same country that pushes worse weapons to the third world in the name of "Democracy".

But then, say that citizens right to own weapons have nothing to do with "Democracy". Something wrong with this equation???

You know scar, I've stayed on point with my topic, which is how the gun culture is peverse. You on the other hand can't hold a discussion without going on tangents. Did you have trouble coloring inside the lines?

I know you think that nothings wrong with guns because there are archery sets and pipe bombs that will become the murderers choice of weaponry in the near future. I mean, who ever got hurt by a little gun violence?

And why would I give a sh1t about how powerful a model of gun is?

You people are called gun "nuts" for a reason.

I think everyone should be required to do a tour of military duty like other countries. Maybe some of these people would understand a little more of the responsablity of using a firearm and if they were in a position of some one trying to shoot their a$$ off. They might not be so antigun.

I have lived for 52 years and have never been in a situation where a gun was ever needed. Thing is I avoid situations. Some are drawn to them.

You know, some of the people I know who are the most anti-gun are ex-military and ex-police, so what would that do? Either your drawn to the power and control (to make up for personal shortcomings) that a gun provides, or you're not.

Ever think about the sanity of an alarm system over sleeping with a gun next to your head?

Where do you live ogreugly? Must be a helluva violent area.

aloprazolamerica: Your ignorant on the subject. You admit it. Never trained with firearms etc. I'm ex-police from decades ago.

Police clean up the mess. Only on rare occasions will they be there to actually save you.

But, If you decide to depend solely on them??? That IS your choice. I simply maintain, do not make it mine.

I won't insult a unarmed debater.

aloprazolamerica, question for you. I'm in the military. I rarely am offered the opprotunity to visit a range and keep my skills sharp on government dime, so I have purchased a handgun and a rifle that are as close to my issued weapons as possible. I can't get the exact same, and I'm fine with that; the fundamentals transfer across. I'm wondering why that is condemned. If anything, it makes me safer. I am a better shot, and less likely to miss what I am shooting at, which we can all agree is a good thing. Why am I the bad guy in your eyes? Quite frankly, your horse is so darn high, we can't seem to understand you from up there.

What am I ignorant about? That there is too much gun violence in this country, and these mass shootings are increasing. I guess the level of violence is just fine with you and it's all status quo, nothing should be addressed about it because everything is groovy, as long as we have our weapons to make us measure up to being a real man.

You were a cop. Ha, that explains a lot.

Whoa aloprazolamerica!!! It's people like me, you want to be the ONLY people armed in America???

You really can't have it both ways. You want very restrictive gun laws, Or you don't.

But , after our debate, you don't like cops having guns???Or just have a low regard for the last people you arm with weapons???

So who, in your world, is armed to protect anyone?

Mark, you are paid to be a marksman, that's different than all of these gun slinging bozos who can't wait for someone to break into their house so they can blow them away. Too many Bernie Goetzes in this country (if your too young to get the reference, wiki him).

My horse is high as compared to whom? Strange, after a tragedy like today, you would think it would make our gun culture re-examine itself and want to address these issues. Yet, all it does for friends of the NRA is make them even more aggressive. When is the BS gonna stop? Leave it up to gun lovers and it will only exacerbates the situation. No one here thinks there's a problem?

I didn't say anything about cops and guns, did I? again, I don't know what your reading, but I didn't write it. It's in your head.

When I said you were a cop, that's what I was talking about. Reading into something that isn't there and trouble staying on topic. I know 3 ex-cops, and they all have a short attention span.

You were a cop. Ha, that explains a lot. lol man , lipstick that pig any way you want .

I thought it was horrible news and feel for those involved.

Let me end in saying, I support in education on firearms, I support enhancement of needed mental health initiatives. I'm not even too turned off by magazine limits. And I believe the background check and stolen weapons reporting infrastructure should be enhanced. I believe current laws should be enforced .

I really, do think the constant hunting for gun violence stories is wiping up the pre-dispositioned. News is News but...

And I really do think a right lost today , is possibly regretted later.

Off to eat some SW chile.

Aloprazoamerica: have a good night. We agree to disagree.

@aloprazolamerica

And when I retire, do I have to give my guns back in your eyes? At what point do I go from being the good little gun owner to the evil devil you envision? Cops also use handguns and AR style weapons in their everyday lives. Guess that loophole to ownership goes to them too. How about paramedics? They're often called to scenes of shootings and other violence, shouldn't they be able to defend themselves? Oh, and those people who reposess vehicles from what usually ends up being the shadier side of town, should they have to give up their right to defend their person from the gang they are trying to get the car back from? How about security guards at banks? Who in your world view should be allowed to own a gun? Carry a gun?

I don't want to ever feel the need for a firearm for defense at my home. For a good amount of gun owners though, they read about a home invasion or violent crime in their area and wonder what they can do to protect themselves. Do they exaggerate the threat? Sure. It's natural to wonder if it will happen to you, and what you can do to prevent it. For most people, waiting several minutes for the police to arrive is unacceptable, so they look for ways to take care of themselves. Being self-sufficient is lauded in today's world. If you feel that you need a weapon for self defense, I can see where that idea comes from. All the news talks about is violence and depravity constantly. I turn off the news with a worse impression of humanity than when I turned it on. It's not too much of a stretch to believe that the world is made up of violent criminals when that's all that you hear about.

The issue is that there are only ever two extremes to the problem that get seen. You have the "Yay guns, no limits on anything!" guys, and the "Guns are evil" crowd. Extremists yell the loudest, so they get the most attention. Sadly, they all come out of the woodwork when a tragedy happens, then retreat to their own little worlds when the noise dies down. Both sides just judge each other by the most extreme, rather than the middle ground where the sanity lies. It's the normal, everyday folks who make up the vast majority of the gun owning population who never cause a problem that are ignored, along with those who don't own, but don't see a problem with ownership. Yes, I believe you to be an extremist. You have lumped all the people who own guns together into one crowd, and judge every gun owner by the actions of select individuals. I support firearm ownership; I'll leave it up to you to say if I'm an extremist for the opposite camp. I don't think I can convince you, but I do believe that perhaps I can help people who aren't completely set in their ways realize that there is a wide area of grey in between the black and white that people normally see in these comments.

Ohio don't listen to the naysayer, shooting is a great hobby, my daughter and I are both competition shooters and our "hobby" has won enough money that in conjunction with accounts we set up when she was born my daughter won't have to worry about how she's going to pay for college.

Not that,it's because we don't embrace gays or muslims i suppose

Well, if I didn't already doubt the existence of god, I do now. Both are fairly tales.

Source on that please.

That's true in Libya and Syria, but the the USA traffic deaths are way higher than gun deaths.

Just a blathering idiot spouting "facts" off the top of their head. Oh, and James, you might want to get a concealed hand gun permit as 1 million other Floridians have one. You know, to protect yourself.

Time to change your screen name again, James. That one has lost all credibility now as well.

That's laughable at best. 8775 gun deaths in the USA in 2010, 1.2 million abortions in the USA in 2010.

James, BS

James learn to read..

90 out of 100 people own a gun, that's a whole lotta guns, and yet only 2 guns killed people yesterday. Power of deduction James.

Last Straw signed up today and out of three posts he has called two people idiots. You want some discussion?

I'm thinking someone voted up Last Straw by mistake. How exactly is cj a "naive idiot" LS?

Please go tell the parents of the dead children that guns are not a problem.