Amen.

I agree with you. Thank you for posting. I really appreciate hearing from people who've actually been trained to use such weapons and hear what they think. We need to hear from more people like you rather than the 'if the school had been armed' or 'if everyone in the theater had been packing' believers. Your perspective and insights mean more to me - a pro-gun control person.

If you are suggesting we outlaw certain guns, how does that change anything? Don't forget there were two "normal" 9mm handguns in addition to the much chastised AR15. The whole pretense that if it were a different gun, it would not have happened or if the clip only held 9 rounds instead of 15, it wouldn't have happened, seems primitive. Yet all the liberals love to point their finger and say ban those AR15 rifles because they aren't needed for hunting or like you say they "mimic military weapons." Why do those points even matter; to be sure, a gun is a gun. It looks aggressive, but it is not the reason for the crime. Why attack the NRA, Republicans, or anyone who likes guns; our constitution allows for them, it's not a crime, and most gun owners are responsible owners. What this kid did just tears me up but lets keep our focus on the real issue: evil people will do evil things with our without an AR15.

dirp, seems to blame the second ammendment, not correct blame the mom for having that many around the house, people (parents ) try to justify not my kid, well if a person is or has been treated for mental problems guns owners should be held accountable , nothing will bring back those babies, but a scare tactic on the second ammendment is not the answer either assault weapons should have alot higher resrictions pistols are not assault weapons, people cannot run scared here there is a coomon ground on what is assault and how many. common sence here people not fear,

As has been reported before on this website, we are rapidly approaching a time when anyone can use a 3D printer to create any firearm they want. No way to legislate it. No way to stop it.

So then what do you do?

You must then target the real problem. Proactively identifying and treating (and, if necessary, locking up) the would-be psycho serial killer before he starts killing. Put the effort where it needs to be.

Boris (#4.2) wrote: "Why attack the NRA, Republicans or anyone who likes guns; our constitution allows for them, it's not a crime, and most gun owners are responsible owners."

The NRA and their political allies (predominantly Republicans) refuse to budge on ANY gun control legislation, no matter how sensible. The second amendment is not absolute. There are plenty of reasonable restrictions on guns that would limit the possibility for mass carnage but still permit responsible gun owners to use guns for target shooting, hunting and even personal protection. But every time a politician suggests, say, banning assault weapons or limiting the size of magazines so that they can't hold 100 rounds of ammunition, the NRA argues that this is too much - and their political allies go along and refuse to pass such laws. So yes, we can and should attack the NRA and the Republicans who toe their ideological line and refuse to allow ANY common-sense gun control legislation to pass. It's time to stand up to them; I credit NYC Mayor Bloomberg for taking a strong stance on guns, and I am hopeful that President Obama will now do the same. It's not about taking away freedom; it's about common-sense efforts to protect life.

How did the assault gun ban in the 90's work? Was there an increase in gun related violence and deaths or decrease?

take away guns,take away free speech because that leads to disagreements and fights.lock up anybody for anything.no charge no trials just life in prison.take away freedom of the press so no rouge ideas escape into public minds.microchip everyone so they can be tracked at all times.have curfew so everyone is safe,trapped in their house.have one tv channel so everyone will think and believe exactly the same.have an gov agency to take any anyone who steps out of line.thats the world i want. safe and free.

R Battle - This is exactly the mindset of the NRA that keeps us as a country from enacting reasonable gun legislation. No one is suggesting doing any of those things you mention, but as soon as someone suggests, "well gee - maybe allowing 100 round magazine clips for semi-automatic rifles would help eliminate mass killings," the Black Helicopter types come out of the woodwork and equate such reasonable proposals with tyranny - or a "slippery slope" to tyranny. It's a false equivalency. We can place some restrictions on gun ownership without going all the way to microchips implanted in people.

dirp

ALL GUNS MUST BE BANNED TO KEEP THEM FROM THE MENTALLY ILL.

All alcohol must be banned to keep it from drunk drivers.

All food must be banned to keep it from the morbidly obese.

Your screen name is appropriate. Onomatopoeia at its finest.

Casualty is missing the point. You outlaw one gun because it looks aggressive. So what, someone would use a different gun - like he did, two 9mm pistols. Where do you stop under the pretense of safety?

Or your "100 round clip" lol. But for argument, if we limit clips to 10 rounds, just take two then. Don't you see the lunacy of your common sense approach?

no one is suggesting? freedom of the press is dead.trying to lock up americans indefinately is an avenue being fought for by our gov as we speak.verizon has a neat patent on dvr devices for our future.all electric communication is being monitored and stored.drones will fly over american airspace.the right to peacefully assemble is turning into terrorist activity.your freedoms are being eroded and it doesnt matter if your dem or rep.i understand semiauto guns and large capacity clips arent really needed.but just watch out what you ask of your gov.your best intrest is the last thing they care about.

Parents of children like this look for help EVERY DAY. They are on their own, for the most part. I know too many mothers who are afraid of their own children and have NOWHERE to turn for help. Thankfully, none of them keeps a well stocked arsenal in their homes...really, I know one who locks away all sharp objects.

First, Boris, he didn't use the two 9 mm guns - except to take his own life. He knew something about the guns he had with him and chose to use the Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle to inflict maximum damage - apparently pumping up to 11 rounds into some of the children. Think about that for a second: 11 rounds fired into a 6 year old. If that weapon were still banned (as it was from 1994-2005) and he had to use a 9mm instead, then perhaps some of those who were killed after having been shot with a half dozen rounds or more would have survived. Or, as he pumped each one full of 6, 8, 10 rounds to make sure they were dead, then others could have escaped or more quickly summoned help, etc.

And as for your "lol" on limiting 100 round clips. . . I get your point that maybe then these crazies would just take ten 10-round clips to add up to the same amount of ammunition, but that bolsters my point: every extra second that a shooter spends on reloading or replacing a spent clip with a new one is a second that victims or potential victims can escape or try to overwhelm him or call for help. Passing a law prohibiting access to a 60 or 100-round magazine and instead limiting clips to, say, 10 rounds, would save lives in these mass shootings.

I don't know a lot about the technology and what is realistic. But in general, what I'm talking about is sensible gun control that can help to limit mass carnage. These types of proposals (e.g., banning assault rifles and/or limiting the amount of ammunition they can hold) will not stop every act of violence, but maybe they would help limit the body count when these crazies do decide to shoot up a place.

11 rounds sure sounds more devilish than 1 or 2.. but still the same result. Liberals always rely on extraordinary circumstances to spread the fear and bolster their point for more government. 1 Bullet was one too many.

I don't know how the make up of what gun shot who was, not sure how you do either. I don't care either. One bullet was too many regardless of what gun.

So back to my point, do we ban all guns then? Then where do you stop? The problem is not the gun, or the clip; these guns were stolen, so the point isn't even background checks, it's a matter of personal responsibility - something liberals never want to accept.

Casualty- I think what Boris might be getting at is that there's no real law that one can enact that will keep a criminal from breaking the law. What should be done is more heavily enforce the laws already on the books- while at the same time increasing awareness, recognition, and response to people who have mental illnesses. A person who is deem to have a mental illness is not allowed to have access to firearms. enforcing this law in a much more comprehensive way would go much much farther then banning guns.

now with that said, while I am a second amendment supporter, I believe that there should be some gun "reform". People look at AR-15s and other black rifles and think "oh my god that's scary" When in reality many many many people use them for hunting simply because they're reliable and have a massive amount of after market parts and accessories available. So just because its a "scary gun" doesn't mean its evil.

On further thought, another thing that would help curb gun violence (not in this specific case but over all) is firearm safety training. Teaching kids not to be afraid of firearms (most kids will be even more inquisitive if you tell them its bad) but to respect them and what they can do and what to do if they or someone they know comes across one. Take the taboo out of firearms.

Boris (post #4.15) - I see it didn't take long for you to stop with the rational discussion and start with the political name-calling. First you wrote, "Liberals always rely on extraordinary circumstances to spread the fear and bolster their point for more government."

What does banning assault rifles or large ammo magazines have to do with big government? It's about protecting people from a technology that can be dangerous when in the wrong person's hands. The size of govt has nothing to do with such bans. . . . And as for spreading fear: gun manufacturers have proven quite adept at exploiting these sorts of tragedies, convincing folks that we live in a dangerous world, so you might as well go out and buy a gun to protect yourself.

Then you wrote: "So back to my point, do we ban all guns then? Then where do you stop?"

Ah, so we're back to the slippery slope argument. By your logic - "since banning assault rifles won't solve the problem of handguns, we might as well do nothing about assault rifles" - we might as well halt our counterterrorism efforts because, well, "since realistically we're never going to stop all terrorists, we might as well not bother trying to stop ANY." Or, "since we're never going to stop drunk driving, we might as well eliminate all rules against drunk driving."

Forget the slippery slope. All I am proposing is that we outlaw certain types of guns and large magazines. In doing so, we limit the risk of widespread mass carnage. It's that simple, and I'm not at all proposing that we ban all guns (nor have I seen any proposals to do that).

Finally, you write, "The problem is not the gun, or the clip; these guns were stolen, so the point isn't even background checks, it's a matter of personal responsibility - something liberals never want to accept." I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the "personal responsibility" comment. This liberal is looking at the shooter - and his mother - as being responsible for this tragedy (frankly I blame the mother as much or more as the crazy shooter; she knew he was mentally unstable and yet she purchased these weapons, apparently taught him how to use them and clearly didn't secure them adequately). That said, pointing fingers of blame at those responsible for this tragedy doesn't do anything for those 6 and 7 year olds who were killed. (Are you suggesting that the victims' families should feel better knowing that the Lanzas were "personally responsible" for this tragedy? Me, I think right now they'd feel better if the shooter hadn't had access to a weapon of slaughter and their kids were alive.) But banning assault rifles or the large magazines that allow a nutjob to quickly shoot up a classroom. . . that will save lives. Had the Bushmaster been banned today, as it was from 1994-2005, then maybe the shooter's mom never would have had such a weapon and the shooter would have had to "make do" with a couple handguns instead - resulting in far less carnage and less loss of life.

@Boris - The difference between the shooter using an auto or semi-auto weapon or a handgun is vast. Perhaps had he used a handgun only 19 children would have been killed. Or 15, or 7, or 3 or none. Regular pistols have the capacity of only a few bullets (unless they have large cap clips) and most don't fire multiple times per second. During the time it would have taken him to reload someone might have been able to stop him. Had he been firing single shots per second (or whatever "normal" guns can fire) but multiple shots into each child and adult, by the time authorities arrived and he "offed" himself, fewer children could have been shot, too much time spent placing each shot. And had he "conserved" his shots from a handgun and only shot each person only once instead of multiple times, chances are that some of them could have survived only a single shot.

Gun debate and right to own guns will continue for years to come. I am not against gun ownership but I am totally against private citizens owning assault and semi-assault weapons. A gun for home protection need not be an assault weapon. One well placed shot would do the trick.

The essence of my argument is that if you ban one gun, they will use another. You liken that to saying we should do nothing. Perhaps you are thinking about it the wrong way. Instead of taking rights away from law abiding people, you could look towards ways of protecting kids from any deadly violence at school, not just from an AR15. You could put a cop in the schools. You could limit firearms in homes of those that are mentally ill, just like we do for felons – of course that has its own unforeseen outcomes.

As for the size of the clip, I don’t know about you, but I gain no comfort or protection from knowing 30 round clips would be unavailable to law abiding people. Most people that kill are obviously ignoring the law anyway. People will still be dying whether they load another clip or keep firing from their 30 round one.

On some level, I don’t think you have personally shot a gun because almost any semi-automatic pistol shoots as fast as you can pull the trigger. Clips change out quite fast. I appreciate what rights you think we should be entitled to but what if I suggested you shouldn’t have the right to have an abortion? More children die from abortion every year than who died on Friday but for some reason that’s acceptable. I wonder how you choose what life to stand up for - the school kid or the not yet born kid. It is an evil society we live in when you can justify one over the other.

I have read a number of things on this thread. It is amazing to think that we need more laws to keep guns out of our hands. The laws are meaningless to the criminals. Banning guns or new laws only effect the law abiding citizen. As it has been stated a number of times the guns were the property of his mother who owned them legally as stated by the press. The only thing we can assume is that she did not have them locked in a safe place as it hasn't been reported any other way.

With a number of the staments on here blaming guns think about what you are saying. Casualty, 11 round clips may have stopped him or helped save lives, think about this. There is a law that states no one is allowed to possess a weapon on school grounds. Just think if the Principle and or the School Psychologist happened to have their conceal carry permit and allowed to carry on school grounds. This could have been over before he made it to the first class room or could have been slowed down to where the police could have arrived before he was able to do damage. What if they had a school resource officer, that is a local sheriff that carries on school grounds and roams the school looking to prevent things from happening in school.

I read another post talking about all the people shot on the streets, all the innocent kids being killed by drug dealers and such. A guy on Jay Leno Friday night was saying the same thing that in chicago in one weekend 33 people were killed. Why? The people in Illinois do not have a right to protect themselves so the low life dirt bags find it easier to prey on the defensless people in their neighborhoods. Let them try that in Texas or in my neighborhood. They would find resistance pretty quick.

This guy did the same thing, went to where he would find the least resistance to do his harm. When the police came he ended it quickly.

Banning guns is not going to do a thing to stop crime. Look at DC, Illinois to name a few that have the strictest guns laws in the country. they are the most dangerous places to be. The criminals can care less what the laws are so it is better to be able to protect yourself from a criminals.

As far as assualt rifles, no one is telling you how many cookies to eat or to feed your children, you may like to eat a bunch of cookies and drink your milk with it too. I like my assult rifle, I like going out and target shooting with it. that is somthing I like to do and who are you or anyone else to tell me that I shouldn't be able to do that.

Casualty, you mention that the NRA and Republicans never give on any sensible gun regulations. What is sensible to you, who are you to say what is sensible? What might be sensible to you is not sensible to another. Just like a liberal to dislike something so it must be banned. Prayer in school until such a tragic event like this to name another.

stump2 - You wrote: "Casualty, you mention that the NRA and Republicans never give on any sensible gun regulations. What is sensible to you, who are you to say what is sensible? What might be sensible to you is not sensible to another. Just like a liberal to dislike something so it must be banned."

OK, I'll define "sensible gun regulation" as this: "any law that makes it more difficult for people to engage in mass killing while still permitting law-abiding citizens the freedom to possess and use guns." Strike the balance in a way that's more protective of people than of the freedom to possess weapons of all sorts. This may mean limiting the types of bullets that are available; banning large magazines/clips; banning assault-type semi-automatic weapons; better background checks (there are a ton of loopholes); waiting periods; etc. None of those suggestions would undermine the basic "right to bear arms" - and would have only a limited impact on the vast majority of gun owners who possess guns for hunting, target shooting, etc. - but would in some ways provide some protection from these mass killings. That is my goal: saving lives.

You also wrote, "I like my assult rifle, I like going out and target shooting with it. that is somthing I like to do and who are you or anyone else to tell me that I shouldn't be able to do that."

We live in a civilized society. Part of the social compact is the loss of some individual freedom - we often trade personal freedom for broader benefits to society at large. For example, we don't have the freedom to drink and drive because of the potential harm to others. We don't have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater because of the potential harm to others. We don't have the freedom to drive 120 MPH near an elementary school because of the potential harm to others. In many states and localities, we are no longer free to smoke cigarettes wherever we want because of the potential harm to others. We don't have the freedom to pollute the air and water because of the potential harm to others. No rights are absolute; we as a society are constantly weighing individual freedoms versus the consequence of those freedoms in their potential harm to others.

I have concluded that I would rather err on the side of limiting, to a modest degree, some of the rights related to gun ownership, than to err on the side of continuing down the NRA path of "anything goes" when it comes to guns. If a majority of Americans agree with me on what constitutes "sensible gun regulation," then yes, some of your rights may be affected. That is the price you pay for living in a civilized society.

Ban handguns and semi-automatic weapons.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• High-capacity magazines and assault weapons exist only to shoot human beings and kids in large numbers. How in the world did we get to the point where these things are easily available to anyone???

I hate the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people". So you're telling me he shot all of these little kids with his magic fingers? Huh? You're saying bullets started flying out of his magic hand, right? He pointed his index finger and Pow! They were dead, right?

Yes, people do kill people....especially when they are heavily armed and angry at the world/crazy!

So you're telling me he shot all of these little kids with his magic fingers? Huh? You're saying bullets started flying out of his magic hand, right? He pointed his index finger and Pow! They were dead, right?

Well, did the guns get walk out of the house, hop in the car, drive, park it, walk into the school and then shoot and reload themselves?

Typical cast of chararcters the liberal left and other deviants that do not know of what they speak. There is an immediate problem and that is security at our elementary schools. Every school disytrict should have armed security to help protect the most vulnerable in our society. We should be adopting the Swiss Model instead of the UK Model. if y'all think is disarming will make you safer, then I got news for you that was tried before. It was 1937 and it was called Munich.

just refer to him as the shooter murderer

I agree, I hate when they count the gunman in the number killed! I know this kid had mental problems; but, with each one of these shootings, I get angrier and angrier at the shooter....how dare they take their problems, their desire to kill themself and destroy so many, many lives.....it's just incomprehensible!

He's dead. Not much that fame will do for him now.

NexVultuosus

He's dead. Not much that fame will do for him now.

which is exactly what the lib media should be stressing instead of the constant anti gun rhetoric which will serve only to inflame others and perhaps propel the sick ones to "copy-cat".

I don't think he was seeking fame. I think he lost it. Adam is reponsible however and is burning in hell right now.

I wonder exactly why he went off?

alan: maybe because he had access to a gun.

Anyone who has a gun intends to kill.

THAT is the definition of mental illness.

Keep the guns away from the mentally ill.

Get rid of all the guns.

'Anyone who has a gun intends to kill..' ahahahha!

dirp,

It is impossible to get rid of all guns. Simply impossible. You're living in a fantasy world if you think it is.

Criminals will *always* have guns. That is the definition of a criminal.

And owning a gun is not the definition of mental illness. Plenty of right-minded people own guns and do not intend to kill with them.

Only your comment about keeping them from the mentally ill is of any value. We must focus on identifying and treating (or locking up) those with a deranged propensity for gun violence.

All of your other points are baseless and without merit.

keeping guns from the mentaly ill is also a slippery slope.what exactly defines a mental illness? fear of enclosed places? fear of heights? being prescribed an antidepressant? that could also be used to circumvent the constitution.im just saying, be careful what you want the gov to do for you.im sure there are mental illnesses that could cover just about every living creature on earth.

I live a town over from Sandy Hook and I can tell you it's a God-aweful nightmare right now. alan_static and his ilk posting jokes, and far right talking points is only making me angrier. We should stop protecting the rights of gun nuts, video game makers and Hollywood with their hyper-real military simuations only inspiring sick kids to act out. But FIRST we should ban all military-style guns. Ban the sale of them right now.

Be damned the NRA or the second ammendment.

And, alan_static, stop with the Liberal this and that. Fox News is running this story 24 seven. And you know it.

Steve-O, there is NO solid evidence that violent games or movies cause violence. The killer was a defective human being, period. And I do mean "defective" because no normal person could even consider doing what it did. Seriously, how could you possibly look into a 6 year old's eyes and then shoot them multiple times?!? You have got to be irreparably damaged to do something like that. No game or movie has ever made a person go over the edge unless they were already there. I've played Grand Theft Auto for years now, and I've NEVER thought, "Hey, I think I'll go do this for real, looks like fun!" Anyone who would think that won't need a game to compel them to violence.

@Alan - "anyone who has access to a gun intends to kill." ahahaha... (sic) Truth, guns are made to kill - whether it's an innocent child, a criminal, or a hunter illing a deer or other animal. Gus are made for nothiing else. Not made to wound, not made to threaten, not made to shoot a tin can - simply made to kill something.

Steve-0:

I've been around guns my whole life as I live in a hunting community. I am a huge video game fan, playing online every day. I grew up on movies like Rambo. I have no desire to hurt anyone. Why should I give up my rights to have a gun much less the freedom to play a game or watch a movie because you think they are wrong. Should we start burning books next? I'm not a "sick kid". I am an adult. I am responsible and was raised to respect people. The problem is our society. We have lost all accountability for our actions. Kids are not being raised on the reality that life is hard and things don't always turn out the way you want them to. You can't ban everything that might be bad for someone!

there's no rules on who can be parents. That's why we need sensible gun laws.

How many could she use at one time to defend herself? When she heard a noise she strapped them all on her at once? Or the right tool for the right job? Stupid justification!

makes sense...

Brittany, if you are using it purely for home defense I'd suggest a shotgun. They are easier to use effectively, and the intimidation factor is very effective in scaring away any would-be home invader.

Even better, several large dogs, they don't jam, they are always around, mentally ill people won't take them and use them to kill you as you sleep, they won't be taken into schools to KILL CHILDREN.

GET RID OF THE GUNS.

Dirp, in case you haven't noticed, but every single mass murder since the history of mankind has been caused by, you guessed it, man. So, obviously the solution is to get rid of people.

Do you advocate removing all alcohol, due to the number of drunk driving deaths, drunks who beat and kill their spouses and wives, and drunks who do a number of other serious crimes?

Do you advocate the removal off fertilizer, for that alone caused the second greatest mass murder in the history of the U.S. (no guns needed there). Also, don't forget, the 9/11 guys never used a single gun either in their massacre.

@dirp, how many people have been killed by large dogs. how many kids died because a dog tore them to shreads. How about you do a little more reading and less ranting.

I heard a Chicago cop talking about safety once and he said if you want to scare someone away, get yourself a big old shotgun. It'll do the job and won't inflict mass carnage.

I live in Detroit where the average police response time is 45 mins to an hour. If you cant stop your attacker you wont make it to the hospital on time....ever!

Shotguns can inflict mass carnage in areas of limited spaces such as a classroom. A pump shotgun.... As for the protection, I'd agree with the police officer.

The guns were purchased legally; they were not legal to own in Connecticut, if his mother had followed the law she would still be alive....and so would 26 innocents!

Just one addition to your comment.....the nutcase was taught by his mother how to use those guns

10.1

10.2

You both point at the mother? get real...the SON was the murder regardless of your "blame game" spin.....

You people just don't get it if someone wants to commit this kind of sick BS do you honestly think that banning guns is going to make a differance. Get real! Determined people will find a way, ever hear of explosives. You can get on the internet of go to your local public library and learn how. Give me an effin break.

GM Scooter

You completely miss the point Scooter. The mother - or any other person - has no business owning an assault-style weapon. These weapons should be banned permanently. If these weapons had never been on the market many of the dead would still be alive. They are designed for one thing only - to kill many people. No one needs them except the armed forces.

Gaithersburger: ALL GUNS have one purpose, TO KILL.

There is no other use for the WEAPONS.

They are designed to KILL, in the best way possible for the price.

The more expensive the weapon, the more efficient it is at KILLING.

GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL.

To LA Scooter - you made the sarcastic comment about how the mother would not have handed to guns over to her nutcase son (your words, not mine) and asked to be killed first along with calling people lib anti-gun nuts - I was merely commenting that his mother, who was supposedly concerned about his mental status, taught him how to use the guns - yes, HE murdered people but she sure as heck made it a lot easier for him to do it

Gaithersburger

"an assault style weapon"? ....no my friend you miss the point. or do you believe the only weapon which could inflect such damage was a off the rack knock off AK?

dirp

The more expensive the weapon, the more efficient it is at KILLING.

obviously you know absolutely nothing about firearms.

really,

around these parts training one to use a firearm was pretty standard when i grew up. and considered the right thing to do to avoid accidents. which i am sure was her thought process as well.

This type of self-centered, tortured thinking, which shuns any responsibility for preventing gun violence, is a measure of the inebriation with freedom that threatens to rot civilization from the core.

Thanks for the common sense posts Scooter Tramp.

Scooter, you can split hairs all you want but you are missing the key point in this debate. All guns that are designed for rapid fire, ie, to kill many people quickly, do not belong on the market. They should ALL be banned. That's exactly what Australia did after a mass shooting there in 1996 and they have not had any major shootings since. These mass shootings are an American phenomenon. No other country allows their citizens to own these types of rapid-fire guns. Put two and two together and figure it out for yourself. The gun situation in this country is a national disgrace.

Not necessarily Sue. What if he had decided to blow up the school?

Gaithersburgger: Haven't these guns been banned in Norway for a lot longer than in Australia? Yet it still happened there did it not?

I say we ban certain people from being parents....

Gaithersburger: "No other country allows their citizens to own these types of rapid-fire guns. Put two and two together and figure it out for yourself. The gun situation in this country is a national disgrace."

Wrong, the Swiss are a heavily armed nation (about 55 guns for every 100 people). They have no true military so the citizens are trained in and armed with military grade weapons. The disgrace in this country is the fact that we blame someone or something for every terrible thing in this country. Right here people are blaming his mother and the guns without noticing the underlying sickness that is permeating our American culture. There is something very wrong with our society and the overall mental state of our country. It comes down to how our kids are being raised here.

They are being told that everything in life is roses and candy. Every kid gets a trophy playing sports and nobody keeps score, so nobody's feelings get hurt. Don't raise your voice or, god forbid, a hand to a child who is doing wrong because he/she will be scarred for life. Don't make a child do anything he/she doesn't want to due because it will damage his/her self esteem. Suck it up! Life is tough and will kick you in the butt every now and then! I don't remember getting a trophy for stocking the shelves right at my last job and you know what, they do keep score at work! The guy with the positive points gets the raise and the promotion. That is reality and we're raising a bunch of kids who can't deal with it. They are taught if they are big enough jerks and sluts, you get famous and make lots of money. They are being taught if something goes wrong you just sue someone and get rich. They are told that everything will just happen for them and it is all great. Then when it doesn't, they look for someone to blame. Anyone. And these types of tragic occurrences are the result.

It is not going to get better until we, as a culture and society change the way we look at things and restore values. I'm not talking religion, just down to Earth, common sense values and respect that we seem to have lost.

The reason the mother of this MURDERER is being blamed is because she trained this lunatic to shoot guns, taking him to target prectice. She might as well have armed him and drove him to the school herself!

Not only did she train him, but did not get the proper help for this thing's mental condition, although finances was not an issue here, as it is for the un-wealthy to get help. She was obviously in deep denial.

Wow and that was the SPOKESMAN's fault???? Come on, if no one told him then there's no way he could tell us. He's not G*d you know.

I've been VERY impressed by the job he's doing.

Mason,

The priority is to investigate the crime.

Not to inform you.

What do you really need to know at this time? You are just being a voyeur.

VOYEUR

2: a prying observer who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous

Yes, it is about GUNS.

It is about someone KILLING his mother with a gun.

Then going to a school and breaking into it, with guns.

Then killing a school principal, with guns.

Then killing a school psychologist, with guns.

Then going to a classroom and killing teachers and children, with guns.

Then going to another classroom and killing teachers and children, with guns.

Then going to another classroom and killing teachers and children, with guns.

And, finally, killing himself, with a gun.

Its ALL ABOUT KILLING, WITH GUNS !!!

I just read the article by liza Long and youre right it is an eyeopener. However we may never know what went on in the Lanza home. And if nancy Lanza realized her childs problems she should not have had these weapons in her home especially an assault rifle. And this is about guns and mental health. This young man was deeply troubled but if he had not had access to these weapons this horrible tragedy might have been averted. Ms. Long removed all the sharp objects from her home so her son could not access them. Perhaps Ms. Lanza should have done the same with her guns. It is time for our country to have a calm rational discussion about this issue not more rhetoric and name calling. My deepest condolences to the families and friends of the innocents lost in this tragedy.

Dirp. I've never once heard you blame the shooter in all of this? Do you not hold him accountable? I mean, how did mass murders ever happen before the invention of guns? Before guns, everyone lived in peace and harmony, right?

@NStiz - I also read that article and I feel for that mother - because she has recognized and is trying to help her son. This murderer's mother knew her son was "unstable" but was in denial about the depth of his mental illness. She also refrained from getting him help - eventhough finances were not an issue, as is with many of the mentally ill. She also put a gun in his hand and taught him how to use it - an utterly appalling and totally irresponsible act. This murderer should have been put away years ago. Also, what exactly was she so afraid of in that small community with no history of violent acts, that necessitated her need for protection - from what? Her own son, perhaps? And why did he have access to these weapons? No, she is as guilty as that murdering bastard and may as well have armed him and drove him to the school herself! I hope she too is in a special Hell!

Good points LOL. Unfortunate the killer wasn't diagnosed with these tendencies if in counseling and had such easy access to his mother's guns but I'm sure she didn't think of him as a threat even if the signs were there. It just made it easier to get the weapons for him but he'd have gotten them elsewhere if not at home.

Yep, because clearly we need more assault rifles out there.

I've heard of shotguns and handguns being used effectively to protect oneself (although you are far more likely to be shot by your own gun than ever use it for defense, but that is a separate issue), but never an assault rifle.

alan: And I suggest that anyone who has one, place it under your chin, aiming for the back of your head and pull the trigger.

One less gun idiot in the world.

Oh man dirp, your parents don't own guns do they?

Exactly because these spineless gun grabbers do not under stand our hobby or how we choose to employ the firearms.

The firearms industry is the most overregulated industy in the United States and its the only industy where other nations can steal our jobs. A "assault" weapon ban will eliminate many jobs that are need to keep the economy afloat. You can use an AR15 as a hunting rifle for varmits or deer. I personally use mine for match shooting and shooting steel at my local range and am planning on trying hunting with it next year

Drip- it's time to put on your big boy pants.

alan_static and his gun nut friends are sick. This Navy veteran is disgusted.

mtucrt: so we should allow military-style guns to be sold so you can shoot steel. And if there's another mass-murder then what? Blame who? Blame you. The blood of these kids are on your hands. Jobs, give me a f*cking break. You want a job and shoot weapons join the military.

I've shot both a 12 gauge and the .223 rifle. If i was unlucky enough to be hit in a hunting accident, I'd rather chance the much smaller .223 round over a shotgun slug or "buckshot". I think the doctors would have a much more difficult time fixing me or one of my hunting buddies up with a shotgun wound.

KEEP YOUR GUNS WHERE THEY CANT BE STOLEN!

KEEP YOR GUNS LOCKED AND IN A SAFE!

KEEP YOUR GUNS SEPARATELY FROM YOUR AMMUNITION!

IF A WACKO MAY ACCESS YOUR GUNS, YOU DON'T DESERVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF POSSESSING THEM!

The blood of the children is not on my hands but is instead on the hands of those writing the propaganda that is driving a dividing spike into the country.

My honor is not in serving in the military for it is in learning how to design the devices that protect them.

Since when do I get the protection of body guards like so many of the anti gun people.

Mass murder is going to happen no matter what is legal or illegal. How many felonies is it going to take?

Steve-O-1267615: You took an oath to uphold and honor the constitution, I thank you for your service but doubt your loyalty to the people.

Steve-O, as a current Sailor, your comment disgusts me. To all the people referring to an AR-15 as an "assault" rifle with "100 round clips" you are the problem. It is a semi-automatic rifle shooting a high powered .22 caliber projectile. The vast majority of magazines have a 30 round capacity. An AR-15's rounds pass through their target, not causing nearly as much damage as a handgun or shotgun's round which travels at a slower velocity and are generally a much higher caliber creating larger wounds.

Christopher Krumm had a knife, bow and arrow when he went into his killing spree and killed 2 people and himself. If he had an assault rifle, he might had killed 20 to 30 people. Adam Lanza killed 27 people with an assault rifle. If he only had a knife, bow and arrow, he would only killed his mom and probably would gotten his ass beat by the teachers and principal at the elementary school. Limiting one type of gun is a very simple solution. Trying to treat 10 million mentally ill people where most of them do not want to be treated is incredibly expensive and not very effective. Not many mentally ill people actually go out and do this kind of thing. But many "normal" people shot and kill each other every day. UK 58 gun murders last year while the USA 8,775 gun murders. Any gun law would not be very effective because, there are already 270,000,000 guns floating out there in the US. But it would still help.

@ Kim from Utah - I agree with you. Time to re-open the state mental institutions and get these crazy bastards off the street!

Statistically speaking, the most effective deterrent to home invasion is a dog (regardless of size). It is more effective than an alarm system, a gun or physical barriers.

Gun collectors are not crazy, we just better educated in fine machining, mechanics, physics, common sense and we appreciate the art of the ingraving or the checkering. I personally own several rifles and shoot all them every other week. All of the women I have introduced to target shooting have enjoyed it and are often better shots than me.

There are several things that need to be added to my collection such as suppressors or silencers, .50 bmg barrett rifles, M1 Garands, M14's, more AR15s, bolt guns, shotguns and handguns. Its just a hobby just like your drug addiction, porn addiction or what ever else you do for your hobbies that I don't want to know about.

mtucrt: how many kids could you kill with those guns?

I'm sure mtucrt could not kill one single child with his guns.

Stevo-O-1267615- ZERO My morals and religous practices (Hardcore Catholic and proud of it.) will not let me snap and kill. You are unjustly and unrightously jumping to the conclusion that I want to harm innocents and am a criminal. My guns have only been used at rifle ranges and family property where it is safe to shoot paper circles, playing cards, plastic bottles, steel swingers and the occasional pest squirrel or rabbit.

The gun community as a whole hates how it has to go on the defensive every time we have to start defending our rights from a fearing minority who want to start a police state. Stop fearing an inanamite chunk of steel, aluminum and ploymer. Fear is the lack of knowledge. Go out and enjoy your life just like many of us in the gun community do on a regular basis.

I learned how to shoot though the Boy Scouts, the NRA, Hunters Safety and with spending quality time with my grandfathers and my father, even now I am still learning with the assistance of an USAS shooting coach to learn Olympic 3 position Rifle at my college of choice.

I understand some of you don't want anything to do with guns which is fine but don't punnish the responsible users of firearms for the actions of one disturbed person who had the cowardly idea of taking the lives of innocent children.

The problem is the pro gun and the anti gun folks need to understand each other. I propose making a mandatory gun safety class to be taught in all middle schools to early high schools and to enact laws limiting the ability of the media and special interest groups to make profit of the untimely deaths of children and adults. Maybe paint all of the guns pink.

Bans are ineffective by the numbers (fbi stats example:) and the features they entail, mandatory storage at a police station (like my college's) is a pain to both the gun owner and the police department. Limiting magazine capacity is useless because of the ability to carry more than one magazine or the use of stripper clips. Even if there is a total ban, premature deaths will not be prevented such as DUIs, murder, doctor accidents and fire. Maybe there will be more archery attacks like that recent college one.

@ Santhosha

Someone else could take his guns and do illegal activities with them. Not cool.

(Hardcore Catholic and proud of it.)

One of the Ten Commandments is *Thou shalt not kill*.

Didn't seem to phase the equally Catholic shooter in this case.

I learned how to shoot though the Boy Scouts, the NRA, Hunters Safety and with spending quality time with my grandfathers and my father, even now I am still learning with the assistance of an USAS shooting coach to learn Olympic 3 position Rifle at my college of choice.

Interesting resume.

Basically a kid w/ guns here, steeped in gun culture from the cradle, knowing naught else, presuming to come by & lecture the adults.

I understand some of you don't want anything to do with guns which is fine but don't punnish the responsible users of firearms for the actions of one disturbed person who had the cowardly idea of taking the lives of innocent children.

That bad stuff w/ guns, that only happens to other kids, b/c everyone else w/ guns is responsible.

Got it.

(BTW there's one *n* in *punish*.)

The problem is the pro gun and the anti gun folks need to understand each other.

Your guns will be pried from your cold, dead hands is about the sole extent of *understanding*.

Perhaps someday, you'll get your wish.

Unfortunatly college campus cops have a very limited idea on the differences and uses of firearms beside thier duty firearm. It took over 30 minutes for me to explain to one of my colleges cops what a match rifle was and that you could shoot it at my schools indoor rifle range.

I would rather trust a ccp holder over a cop, because the ccp holder is more likely to have practiced in the last 2 weeks thanks to budget cuts unless that cop is a member of a swat team.

AR15s can be configured to be the perfect rifle. Remove two pins and I can go from a match upper to hunting upper, to precision upper, to range upper within 30 seconds and change caliber such as .223 remington to inexpensive .22LR.

My point was some college campuses had some sort of security close by(effective or ineffective). For elementary schools the most vulnerable are the very young students. We should have the highest skilled guard(s) in a strategic position for an emergency as a 1st line of defense. Also, there should be some sort of a panic button. Calling 911 in this situation seems too time consuming. Maybe, just maybe there could have been less or even no victims. It's only a matter of time when this will happen again.

Bad Guys!! Get your NEW gun here!^^ (Just wait for the cars to leave!)

Amen IA.ScooterTramp! Great idea!

no. I won't. I'm so sick of you gun nuts. We're not going away and we're going to fight so that there won't be 20 more dead kids to morn the next time a kid decides to go crazy. Enjoy your guns now, because it's going to be over soon.

steve

no. I won't.

not very proud of your "convictions" now are ya?

put up or shut up.....

Rick,

Agreed that a shotgun (umm...of a certain type) is the best home defense. My reasoning came about after having taken a gun safety course. I had kept a 45 automatic (circa 1919...!!?? NO EXCUSE there) but realized that I could not use it. So, I got rid of it. During the course a woman asked what the best weapon would be for self-defense. The answer (denied by the instructor in future reference): a sawed-off shotgun. There were every kind of weapons on display there. The answer made sense to me because of the psychology involved. The one defending against the criminal is the one with the 'normal' mindset: they do not WANT to kill. However, the intruder (one SHOULD ASSUME) does want to kill. It is too difficult (in my thinking) in that moment to register all that one should do to get the ffoutcome that one wants. I would want them to STOP or LEAVE. That, I have realized, won't happen or they could return. So, the weapon that is most likely to stop them to get the outcome that I would want is a shotgun. The mental flurry in getting the person to leave would take up the time for a quick response (just what a criminal wants - to confuse you and get you off guard). The weapon that is most likely to acheive the best outcome is one which will stop the intruder in a 'regularly' sized room and the sooner that one fires the LESS likely one is to kill them (something that will only cause you to hesitate). However, you are probably going to stop them (at the cost of a litlle blood on your carpets).

Amen Sonny. Very true. Take away guns and we dont have any means to defend ourselves while others illegally obtain guns. Taking away guns is not the answer. in most cases, we need better monitoring of our mentally ill. just wait until the 1 in 88 of autistic children reach the age of 18. I am not saying that they will be criminals at all. what i am saying is who will take care of these children if the parents are unable? we need to have better services in place, more places for them and better monitoring. it is not guns that are at issue here. as in the article of I am Lanza's mother, there are many parents in this situation of having a very smart very bright child who is also very violent becuase of a mental illness. they have nowhere to turn but to the jails. that isn't right. something has to change.

Mean Girl wrote: "You can ban guns all you want, but that is not going to stop someone from killing. They will just find another way."

That is not necessarily true. When cops and prosecutors are trying to solve a crime, they look at two things: motive and opportunity. If someone wants to kill, they have the motive. But they also have to have the opportunity to do so. Which is where guns come in - they make it far easier to inflict mass carnage of the type we saw in Newtown or Aurora than, say, knives or other weapons. And let's be realistic: certain TYPES of guns (and magazines holding a large amount of ammunition) make it even easier to inflict mass carnage. I don't see many folks saying we should ban guns, but every time someone suggests reasonable limitations, the NRA and their political ilk act as if that were the same effect as repealing the Second Amendment. It's not. Yes, we as a society should do more to identify the mentally ill and get them help (thus working on the motive side of the equation), but we should also do more on the opportunity side, which would include better background checks (our current system is full of loopholes) to keep weapons out of the hands of crazies, and limits on the types of weapons that can be sold (maybe the # as well, so that shooters can't show up at a school with an arsenal) - so as to avoid these mass killings. For instance, if a shooter wants to kill as many people as possible, it's a lot harder for him to do so if he has to reload every so often. . . . So we as a society should work on limiting a shooter's OPPORTUNITY to engage in mass killings - by limiting the weapons (and ammunition) we allow people to purchase. . . . Sure, folks should be able to purchase guns for legitimate, non-lethal purposes including hunting, target shooting, personal protection, etc. But make it hard for them to purchase weaponry designed to kill as many people as possible and you'll limit the possibility of more Auroras and Newtowns.

AGREED!

Mean Girl:

Get real! People have to have vehicle licensing renewed every few years, if certain motor vehicle laws have been abused then the license is denied and hopefully some cop will find them, soon enough. Vehicles have a 'little' to do with vehicular homicide just as certain guns have something to do with homicide. We are not allowed to have certain types of vehicles on the road OR we have to have special licensure for them. The LEAST that this society can do to control the 'nutcases' (even with the help of mental health professionals, which they will concede is often to no avail) is to make the access to weapons CLEARLY designed for ONLY killing people unavailable except to those who are designated to have them (armed service individuals).

when was the last time there was a mass-murder with a car as a weapon? No one goes out to kill with their car. And if they did the couldn't get into a classroom and mow over 30 people.

You wanna talk parked cards? Oh, the Oklahoma City bombing? Yes, I remember. Now it's much harder to get explosives since that horrible incident. And they track people that do buy materials that can be used as a bomb. They changed the laws to make us safer. We should do the same with guns.

@Steve-O-1267615

In 2003 there was an 89 year old man who purposefully ran over and killed 10 people in a Farmer's Market in California. So that's when the last time someone committed mass murder with a car.

Because those were places in the ghetto and weren't white kids killed in a mass shooting that's why.

Because you hit it with one comment. "to murder everyday". Because it happens so often, it gets ignored. How often do you hear of fatal car accidents?

This of course makes every concealed weapons permit holder in this country an instant criminal. People who are law abiding who have gone through extensive background checks and by and large have a high degree of training and a greater sense of the responsibility they bear in carrying a firearm.

But that isn't the issue is it. This is about the irrational fear of guns. Which in all to many cases comes down to ignorance of the matter. If this were really about the children then there would have been a cry about all the children and innocents killed in drive by shootings and gang violence a long time ago. But those are just statistics.....

And just for the record I'm not a member of the NRA and certainly not a crazy... and yes I have the paperwork to prove it. :D

Some people do hunt with AR-15's along with shotguns, crossbows. I imagine people do even hunt with handguns and sticks of dynamite.

outside of protection shotguns are great for skeet, bird(fowl duck pheasant) a shotgun is worthless for most hunting. i sar this with all respect but your ignorant to the fact that you would think that shotguns is the ownly legit hunting tool.you dont use a shotgun hunting game like deer elk antelope bear or whatever.you need a good deer rifle .which the caliber of choice for many is a 223 round besides other. i say this with all respect toyou

Ummm... I believe dynamite is used for fishing only. :)

alan static:

??Sticks of dynamite??!!

it's a fact that 40 percent of gun sales go through without a background check or gun permit. That's a fact. You gun nuts keep bring up cars. Do we let 40-percent of drivers get cars with out a licence or some sort of certification? Never.

Think people.

Steve, how easy is it to by alcohol? All you have to be is 21, that's it. Nothing else to stop you. Nothing. You don't even need a license or anything, just proof you are 21. Why is the idea of wanting to own a gun suddenly make someone a nut? Maybe you are a car nut? Maybe you are an alcohol nut? Maybe you are a sex nut?

Hey, "filbert", he said"gun nut" NOT gun owner. Wow, I can see that you take things out of context or do you not distinguish between an alcoholic and one who drinks responsibly. Wait, don't answer that I already know the answer.

Rick - In CT it is illegal to hunt on public land with anything other than a shotgun. CT has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. Plenty of deer are harvested each year with shotguns, using buck shot or slugs. Just an FYI.

filbert is a great example of the big problem that we have. People like this that use no rational thought, just blurt out the lines that they have been brainwashed with. Meanwhile, 20 kids were killed and we need to try to do something about this.

Steve-O

I respect your opinion but could you please provide a link showing that 40% of gun sales go through without a check? I'd like to read it. Thanks

They need to look beyond the gun issue. How about revamping the justice system, hang the crimal lawyers and and put these crazies in a Mental Hospital wher they belong.

Ban semi-automatic weapons.