Robot is a good name for you.Brainwashed like you studied at some hamas summer school.Didn´t you read the article? Or maybe you write you response first and then read the article. Stop mucking up Newsvine!!

Here's a link so everyone can see what kind of guns killed these children. These were assault weapons, not guns for hunting animals, but guns for shooting people. Some say the semi-automatic handguns killed the victims, but last I read, the coroner said they were all killed by the assault rifle. Does it make any difference which weapon of war killed them?

Today is a day to mourn for these precious children and their teachers and today is the day to speak up, Americans, and tell the NRA that we will not let them or their supporters bully us anymore.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/15/inside-sandy-hook-elementary-school/1772307/

BAN ALL AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Looks like we have another idiot advertising for a site that sells cheap, Chinese knock-offs that are overpriced...stay away, far far away.

Sally, suspend Wynona!

despite a backdrop of violence committed with illegal weapons, there are hardly any random killings at all.

What the hell kind of double speak/propaganda is that??? Violence committed with illegal weapons is basically random killings! What an idiot. And sorry, but if Israelis want to live under a repressive regime that doesn't allow Israelis to purchase or carry guns, that's fine. That won't work for a country born into freedom, like the USA. We value freedom, period. Also, if they are fine with having the government and soldiers peering into their purses and bags everywhere they go all day long, again, that's their choice. But not here, in a democracy, would that ever work or be accepted. Basically, Israelis are kept from having guns yet somehow there is still gun violence, as the author admitted right off the bat. No thanks.

Israel has armed guards on their schools. That is because many societies hate the Jewish People. They are called TERRORIST. Anyone causing mass destruction in the United States whether attempted or accomplished should be classified as a TERRORIST.

Yeah; a lot of societies hate America, too, and commit terrorism against us. But we don't force children to go to school with soldiers sticking high powered rifles in their faces in a democracy on the small chance of a terrorist attack.

Hey Robot, regarding your assertion that because the prime minister was assassinated by a gun, that Israel is a violent place, I'd remind you that the US has a had the same thing happen (Type JFK Assassination on YouTube and watch it yourself).

This article is correct. There is terrorism related to the geopolitical situation in Israel (although driving a car is many times more dangerous by the way). However, despite a massive percentage of people who use guns when they are soldiers, there is less of a problem here of people grabbing their mother's machine gun and mass killing people.

Robot, you may like maligning Israel, but your country just had twenty kids killed by a man who took his mother's machine gun.

Disparaging life in Israel will not prevent the next occurrence.

Bye bye.

This article missed one of the more important facts of gun ownership here. Before anyone is allowed to purchase a gun, they check on any history of mental illness. For example, those who were denied military service on account of mental or psychological defect, the so-called "Profile 21" individuals, cannot ever purchase a legal handgun. Any nutbag in the US can find a weapon of any description and despite the fact that we are usually at war with our neighbors, it is safer here than it is anywhere in the US.

From Hinckley, to Conn; all these shootings were committed by insane young adults;nuts and guns do not mix, all these craze's, should have been in mental institutions, instead of walking around in public, let us start holding the parents criminally responsible for not getting involved and getting their nut offspring committed to a mental institution.

Um, was that an ISRAELI? (And by that I mean a fellow Jew?) My memory was it was an Arab.

The deal is, when you live with the treat of all the BOMBS, guns seem like a fairly small danger.

But please note that the Israeli people have given up a consierable amount of personal freedom in order to be secure. We think it is intrusive here to go thru an AIRPORT?

Wait until it is like that to go to the Grocery store. Much less to visit your kid's school.

It is notable tho, that the Israelis have recognized that YOUNG men are most likely to do something like this, and attempt to restrict their easy access to firearms. As a member of the generation who got 18 year olds the right to vote in this country, there are STILL things they are not mature enough to do, as evidenced by the number of stupid decisions some of them make.

One of the prime reasons of strict gun control in Israel is to keep guns out of the hands of Palestinians.

OK, Cuba is a communist country, where most people are poor, crowded in small apartments, hungry, oppressed and only some government friendly farmers are allowed to own a limited number of hunting rifles or shotguns; people do have machetes and knives at home, but you never heard of any Cuban going crazy on a killing spree neither with firearms or blades.

Here we have so much more, but some people seem so unhappy, it is a paradox that baffles me.

and we assasinated several of our Presidents...last attempt was pretty serious...Reagan. Turns out it was more serious than we knew at the time he'd lost a lot of blood had a collapsed lung etc.

THink Tim McVeigh Oklahoma City bombings killed hundreds...

Just blowing up your "they even kill their Presidents" meme. So do we. That was a right wing fanatic. They have them too. A right wing fanatic killed their President

the violence they have is at their borders and brought into their country because of the dispute with the Palestinians. Yes they have a hand it that (not the topic) but if you read the article you'd see that FEW ISRAELI CIVILLIANS OWN GUNS lots of hoops to jump through. Mental and physical exams yearly, criminal checks...and you can only own ONE handgun. NO semiautomatic weapons.

mo maid a right wing fanatic, just like we have here, shot their President...not a Palestinian. he was too far to the left (peace loving for his liking).

Israeli's were horrified in a particular way just like we were when we found out a domestic terrorist bombed OK City

Israeli citizens can, however, go to the local police station and check out an Uzi with ammo - they just can't buy one.

Sorry, "truth" no one can go into a police station and "check out an Uzi." The police use Glocks or Sig Sauers and former commandoes might use their Desert Eagles. The special police and counter-terror units have special guns. The micro Uzi is used by transportation security guards as it is teeny and tiny and light. Jeez, you are clueless.

Great story about gun policy in Israel except for a glaring omission: Israel has a fairly low murder rate despite all of the military weaponry always in plain sight because murders of Palestinians are excluded from the statistics. We could do the same thing here and greatly reduce our murder rate too if we were to exclude the murders of African Americans or Latinos, but doing so wouldn't be truthful and wouldn't be worth reporting as some kind of conduct example that any other nation should aspire toward either.

I have seen many gun advocates point toward Israel as an example of a nation where military weaponry is in common use without the same level of carnage that we experience, and the problem is that Israel's murder statistics are both exclusionary and heavily doctored, and hence false.

All these stats comparing the USA to other countrys but nowhere do I see stats about the population of these countrys most have 20 or 30 million people,not 350 million Just face the facts we have many more crazy people here.then look at china 1.3 billion people and we only get a very small peek into there troubles but like a few have posted 20 or more kids cut in a school over there no deaths in the last one but there was in other attacks there.If china had the news system we have there would have to be a show each day called who got knifed today

Laurali - you're speaking beyond your knowledge. Handguns are semi-automatic. The ones that aren't are called "revolvers".

The license process, which must be completed every year, includes mental and physical health checkups as well as a firing-range exercise. Most importantly, it is a crime with harsh penalty to carry a weapon in Israel without a license.

I don't see anything wrong with this personally. Too many morons and crazies with guns in our country. The type of gun control we need is the kind that keeps them out of the hands of these people. The Constitution doesn't exist so crazy people and illiterate hicks can have as many guns as they want.

Almost 30+years ago Kennesaw, GA( Gun Town USA), enacted a town ordnance requiring every household to own and maintain a gun. There were restrictions; for mental conditions, criminal background, physical disabilities, etc...

There have been only a hand-full of gun related deaths during the last 30+years within the town limits. Several were in a school zone, where State & Federal Laws over-rode the Town ordnance...

The immediate effect of this ordnance was their decreasing rates of crimes. This town within the metropolitan Atlanta, GA has enjoyed an INCREASING population (600%) and has been voted one of the 'Best small towns in the USA,, by Home & Gardens...

Now show where restricting LEGAL gun ownership has resulted in DECREASING crime rates or gun violence...

Japan where guns are almost impossible to have by common citizens, they have a suicide rate 2x the USA... see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/04/japan-suicide-rate-still-_n_831430.html

BTY - The USA suicide rate using guns is over 45+daily and INCREASING...

The UK and Australia have experienced INCREASING VIOLENT crime rates after their guns were removed from the common citizen... see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

Duh, its illegal to own a assault rifle but citizens are commonly seen carrying M16s? One of the big things is the ignorance of newspaper reporters who don't know a M16 from a T-55.

AltoM1

you sound like one of the people who convicted Zimmerman without a trail, The gun used if it was a rifle was NOT and I say NOT a machine gun but a rifle there is a great deal of difference. If you hold yourself in such high esteem that your above the law perhaps your are no better then the person whom perpetrated the assault. Just using word to kill rather then a rifle. There is a law of trail without a court in case we forget. or in your case have forgotten.

ALTO are you always so IGNORANT to the facts. SHE DID NOT HAVE A MACHINE GUN.

it was a LOOK A LIKE rifle. You know when you dress up a Barbie and now she is the summer time barbie in a bikini, or dishwasher barbie in jeans and an apron. Just throwing things out there that you can DRESS UP.

You can make a regular bonneville look like a SSE but that does NOT make it one.

You can dress up a .22 rifle to look like a M-16 does NOT make it one. When you people get your heads out of your butts then we can have a good conversation about this.

An assault weapon is arifle that has a SWITCH to change it to FULLY AUTOMATIC, or specifically designed for military use and is NOT available to the public.

A semi-automatic rifle is just that. it can NOT be made to fire continous with just 1 pull of the trigger, it will only fire 1 round per pull of the trigger. My .22 squirrel rifle can do that also, yet it is NOT an assault rifle.

Armed guards would be a good idea for now. In China, they had a knife attack at a school a few years back, then they have many other copycat attacks followed. In fact the same day as this shooting, China had another knife attack in an elementary school. The government should make attacks on school a terrorist crime and execute quickly who ever does it.

Who are they? One person did that, not they. Maybe they could just kill them without a trial by jury. Typical Obama voter.

Such measures mean that, despite a backdrop of violence committed with illegal weapons, there are hardly any random killings at all. It is impossible for a 20-year-old to buy and own a gun openly.

"Hardly any random killings at all", eh? Are we to assume that there is no mental illness in this [cough] Utopian society outlined above, that no one is ever "killed at random" with any other type of weapon? In Israel? Are you [redacted] insane?!

Soooo, odds are slim that a 20-year old couldn't buy a gun openly in Israel. The 20-year old in CT didn't "buy a gun" openly, either. He stole guns. Criminals will do that.

Le sigh... hysterical, quivering media sticks its foot in its mouth again, grabbing at the most far-reaching comparisons possible with only one true intention: To capitalize on the Newtown tragedy. It is becoming increasingly sickening.

Great post BB. I thought the exact same thing as I read this. Propaganda by a ninth grader.

Actually, Belle, you could have had concrete stats just by asking Google--Israel's rate of violent death is half our's, and their rate of murder by firearms is 0.83/100K people compared to 9.2/100K for the U.S. Beyond that, I agree with everything you had to say. I've made the point repeatedly that we have adequate gun laws, laws will only be followed by the law-abiding, criminals and crazies will always find a way to obtain weapons, and increasing gun laws in response to incidents such as this will deter nothing and is simply a feel-good, knee-jerk response from people seeking a simple solution to a complex problem. The anti-NRA crowd blames them for everything while ignoring the fact that the NRA (of which I am not a member) is simply championing second amendment rights. So long as "assault weapons" (an extremely nebulous term, BTW) are legal to own, the NRA will argue in favor of them just as they do handguns and sporting arms. IF "assault weapons" are declared illegal to purchase, that will only limit the numbers to those already purchased--a huge number--and I wish anyone good luck in making owners give up those already in their possession. Israel's advantage is that they restricted gun ownership from the get-go; we have a long history of private gun ownership with millions already in circulation. Israel also has a fraction of our landmass and population, and providing comprehensive security is far easier for them. We have a multi-factorial culture of violence in this country--until we can address that, any other steps taken will just be doomed to failure. Finally, as horrific as the massacres in Columbine, Phoenix and Newtown are, they pale in comparison to the Oklahoma City bombing--and Timothy McVeigh didn't need a gun at all.

Agdoc, if I thought this article warranted that much time, perhaps I would have researched stats. It really wasn't; I just had a moment of being fed up to the eyeballs by some of the coverage of this tragedy I've seen. Shameless milking of a tragedy in way too many cases, and too many utterly naive people who do not realize the difference between a Sig 556 and a military-issue M16 being sucked into the vortex.

I found your clear and thoughtful response worthy of a response, however, so I'm back one last time. :)

We aren't Israel; to compare the two is akin to comparing apples to bananas. I am thankful for, and very proud of that fact, by the way. We don't need to become Israel, or any other place where there is constant internal conflict and a government doing what they feel is "best" for the population at large. Now I'm out. ;)

The worst school massacre in the U.S. was in 1927, and the killer used a gun only to kill himself, after and while he killed his wife, 38 school kids, 6 other adults, and wounded at least 58 people.

Reopen the mental hospitals. Get help for families who are struggling with their mentally ill children.

If Israel's gun violence/deaths are half of ours, what the hell is the government doing peering into their personal belongings all day long everywhere they go? how frightening. That's how it was in the Soviet Union. That's not something to emulate; it's something to run away from and reject outright!

TheonlyBuster--my home town, a city of only 20K people, installed buzzers on all the front doors of the schools, and all schools now are locked down, and you have to be AMITTED personally into the front door.

And the city amazingly has now scheduled a cop to be on duty inside each school, the SAME school (so the kids are familiar with him/her) all day.

Ironically, several years ago, the old HS, which is now the Junior high, and has multiple buildings, installed locks on every classroom which have to be opened with a key on BOTH sides, and a system of alarms that tell the teacher to lock the door, remove the key, and get the kids out of "eye shot" of the door.

I don't think anyone realized how prescient that was.

Elkmeadow-- If you are referring to the Bath School massacre in Michigan, Andrew Kehoe drove to the school after the dynamite he had packed into the basement exploded and then blew himself up in his car which he had filled with dynamite and lots of scrap metal, presumably hoping to injure the people rushing to the school. There was no gun involved.

murder by firearms is 0.83/100K people compared to 9.2/100K for the U.S.

Just wanted to clear this up. The US rate is 3.2 per 100,000. Not good, but better than 12 years ago when it was 6.6.

Yes, and although Israel must deal with Hamas, et al., they don't have all the street gangs you find in the U.S. conducting indiscriminate killings. I'm guessing if you took away all the gang killings in major cities in the U.S. our murder by firearms rate would drop considerably. And, which cities have the highest murder rates? Those with the strongest gun control laws. The criminals still have guns while the law abiding citizens are not allowed to protect themselves. So, how about we clean up the issues that make gang membership so inviting, like restoring family and moral values and teaching children the importance of each and every life along with coping skills so they don't feel the need to settle every argument with a gun. Let's also assist those needing mental health treatment in getting it. We spend trillions of dollars helping other countries that don't even like us but neglect our own citizens right here at home. It is shameful that we take care of others before we take care of our own. Do these things, then maybe we can restore some normalcy to this country. More gun control laws are not going to solve the problem. It's like putting a band-aid on a bleeding artery. The way to fix this is to be proactive not reactive (which is all politicians and gun control advocates seem to know).

Most of those who say there should be no restrictions on guns say if we just kept guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill there'd be far less acts like these. Then clearly they do believe in restrictions, just not any that affects them. If the constitution has enough flexibility to accept ex cons and mentally ill can be denied the right to bear arms then we all are willing to accept some restrictions. It is illegal to own machine guns, tanks and surface to air misslies there's no reason we can't restrict guns that are designed solely to kill people and clips with massive capacity.

skibum When he put they he was talking about the people in china where there was an attack on the school. He said they had an attacker with a knife. then they have a lot of copycats do you understand the term they now.

They the people of CHINA.

Yes and No, they gave us a somewhat better TSA than we had after several hijackings.

Not really. We tried to mimic Israel is establishing our TSA and even got advice from them, but the differences are huge. The Israelis profile extensively and do it very, very well; our P.C. nitwits refuse to let us profile, we suck at it when we try, so we spend our time patting down grandmothers, strip searching old men and harassing five year olds whose names magically appear on a no-fly list. Our domestic security services are the joke of the first world--virtually ever plot we've foiled was due to extensive intelligence work, was discovered in advance, and the perpetrators were taken into custody only AFTER they arrived here. Meanwhile, we see countless stories of people who successfully smuggle weapons of all sorts through our "security" checkpoints. Our borders are a porous mess, our ports open conduits to smuggling everything from drugs to people, and TSA is the force everybody loves to hate.

Agdoc, in your foiling the plots list, you forgot to mention the ineptness of the would-be terrorists, one of whose legacy is that we all have to take our shoes off when going through security.

If we were to implement profiling to try to stop mass shootings, it would never, ever work. Why not? Because we are too politically correct to ever go after the people who are committing most mass shootings. White males. There would be a huge bleeding hearted outcry if we tried to profile that demographic.

Better TSA than not being able to fly. Clearly after 9-11 serious action had to be taken. What we need is to get over our fear someone will think we're profiling and actually profile. To pull a 90 year old granny out of line to search her depends and ignore the 3 young men of middle eastern decent standing behind her is insane.

Good post!...good facts. Thanks for that. You are right on. :)

Third world countries have all kind of @!$%# going on therefore, don't compare them to the USA. You also forget to mention that El Salvador is in the middle of a civil war. It is not just how tough the law is but rather how many guns are available. The UK 58 gun murders and the USA 8,775. That said it all.

Switzerland and Serbia both engage in conscription for military service, Serbia only very recently stopping the practice. January of 11' I believe.

In my opinion it is the compulsory service that gives these governments the opportunity to identify the rare individuals that do not possess the mental capacity to handle firearms and deadly weapons. If mandatory service were to be initiated in the United States not only would it benefit the Military and related services by leveling the playing field and giving those entities access to the best and brightest the testing and evaluation will also expose a good deal of the mentally ill.

Certainly it is a given that virtually nothing can protect the public from a committed individual working alone from perpetrating whatever horror they are hell bent on executing. be it a shooting, bombing, poisoning, etc.

In my belief... it would be a proactive opportunity to engage this seemingly "American" problem.

Good to point out that these shootings took place in "No Weapons" (by law abiding citizens) permitted. Such areas are, in my mind, marked more like "Target Rich Environment Behind this Door".

While I don't think more weapons are the answer, the question of whether or not someone will be able to provide a defense equal to the attack has got to play a deterring part at some point. Unless someone simply has a death wish, most turn out to turn away and run away at the first sign of a strenuous defense. Case in point, and this is a true case: 3 armed men (2 with assault rifles if memory serves me correctly) jump out of a car in a residential area and run into an open garage where the home owner just happened to be, and just happened to have a handgun handy. Sound of shots fired within the residence and the next scene on the security camera? 3 would-be home invaders scrambling to get the hell out of the neighborhood. 3 on 1 with guns at the ready, sent packing by one prepared home owner.

You forgot that those countries also have adopted many of the commons sense gun laws. Look, there aren't many other people besides extreme leftists that want to take our guns away, and everyone can ignore them like everyone ignores the extreme right. What is so bad about wanting to keep guns away from people with histories of mental illness, limiting clip capacity, regulating ammunition types, and other proposed common sense gun laws? When NRA members voted on it, 70% of them were in favor of the common sense gun laws. Rush Limbaugh wants you to believe democrats want to take your guns away, but nobody in government has ever proposed that. The laws that are being mulled over, just make guns harder to obtain for unstable individuals and eliminate some unnecessary elements that are quite effective when used against crowds of people. If you are a law-abiding citizen who loves to hunt, shoot targets, or carry personal protection, you'll notice little to no difference with any of the proposed law changes.

Idahogal--good post, nice to see someone else who is willing to Google to quote facts instead of shooting from the lip. Actually, the murder by gunfire rate for the U.S. is more like 9.2/100K, but otherwise your post is right on target. Riverboy--just a couple of points to ponder. First, limiting clip capacity is pointless. Like the guns themselves, criminals and crazies will always find a way to get what they need. Laws are followed by the law-abiding--everyone else could care less and will do exactly what they want. What "law" is going to prevent the mentally unstable from gaining a weapon? Second, Lanza didn't "obtain" anything--he stole the weapons he used from the legal purchaser--his mother--before murdering her and starting his rampage. We already have reasonable laws which reasonable people follow. This is a multi-factorial problem that requires more than the insultingly oversimplified "solution" of passing more laws.

Idaho Gal--I have long been an advocate of building a fence on our southern border, and adequately manning it with every bell and whistle science can come up with as well as adequate manpower.

Fast and furious is a scandal NOW because US guns were shipped to MEXICO. But does ANYONE really think that if we dry up the money by legalizing drugs in this country, Mexico will not find another "export" that people here will buy on the black market?

You can kill people equally well with an illegal, cheaply made gun smuggled in to the US across our border.

those two countries have much stricter gun control laws. You SEEM to draw a logical conclussion...look they have guns but no less random shootings so it MUST NOT BE THE GUNS but it isnt'.

Gun control is just stricter background checks, not letting ill people or their housmates have guns in the house, and kinds of weapons (not semiautomatic) and clips you can buy. SO in your example countries people have guns at half the rate as the US. Well, ALL those people jumped through hoops to get their gun that we don't have country wide here. So each person and each gun is less likely to randomly shoot people.

I have to tell you, I don't know anyone with any brains who wants to ban guns outright. I'm a lefty and I don't. I even see the allure of hunting. But hunters I know say they don't need a 30 round clip or an semiautomatic weapon. We had those banned for ten years and it seems to have worked. Why not do it again?

Also maybe guns aren't something that should be collected. See, we have to balance people's first amendment rights with everyones right to enjoy LIFE liberty and pursuit of happiness. I have a right not to shot dead by the the person who had an automatic weapon so didn't stop to reload while he mowed everyone down...no time for the guard or people to take him down.

Yes mental health screening...note they do it in ISrael...is wise. Really best thing is to look at WHAT those two example countries Serbia and the Swiss do ...what are their gun control methods?

then we can emulate them and get our rate low also

oops second amendment rights not first

Amen, Brother!

Kind of depends on what you are hunting and how - I have a beautiful Winchester Model 70 that would be great for Rocky Mountain hunting, but I don't want to drag it through rain and mud. But here in West Virginia, I have a couple of SKS semi-automatic rifles, one with nylon stock and one with original. Either one can go into the woods, get rained on, still work and probably won't look any worse than they did to start out. No, you don't need an M16 or AK47 to deer hunt,and I don't want to be in the woods with a fool that has one of them with a banana clip, but they do have their uses.

What use does an AK47 have other than shredding the intended target, human or otherwise? Just curious.

THANK YOU Clearshot for a rational comment from a professional. Thank you. Assault weapons have no other use than killing many people very fast. For the military and SWAT teams these kinds of weapons are appropriate and necessary. As for hunting, hunters used to manage just fine with more traditional rifles but apparently they can't handle hunting anymore without semi-automatic rifles. That's sad. Oh, and then there are the assault weapon owners who have commented that these guns are "fun". Gee we wouldn't want to give up "fun" in order to save innocent lives.

Anyone that hunts with an AK is a douche. Anyone who uses that argument to own one is a doubledouche!.

You fail to realize that the Federal and State governments promoted the use of these type weapons with their DCM trainings and competitions. When I was a teenager I could shoot the competitions and purchase a M-1 Garand from the government, at a discount price. (Ammo for the shoots was also provided free) As I progressed though the years I eventually moved to an AR-15 (semi-auto M-16), and then to a M1-A1 (semi-auto M-14) Thought the Garand only held five rounds, the other two generally had magazines that would hold 20 to 30 rounds. This was all supported by the government to maintain a well regulated militia. (BTW, this was during the Clinton assault weapons ban years, which was a joke)

Okay, jarhead (and I don't mean disrespect), without comparing relative sizes of our genitalia, there are alternate reasons for owning an "assault rifle"--which, BTW, is a very nebulous term. They're fun to shoot, they're excellent for home security--especially when every gang banger out there owns a Tech-9 or something similar--and properly equipped they ARE good hunting weapons. I'm sure you know that 7.62 is the same as .30 caliber, a very popular sporting load. Even the 5.56 is the same as .223, a very popular load for varmints, small game and even deer. Returning now to "assault weapons", the usual distinguishing characteristic mentioned is that they are clip fed and can continue to shoot long beyond what is expected of the usual sporting rifle. Actually, many sporting rifles, from .22 caliber up, and shotguns as well are clip fed and can be fitted with extended clips or even barrel magazines. Do they automatically become "assault weapons"? Would you criticize someone who chose to own one? In addition, several classic collectible weapons used in past wars are clip fed, including the Garand--would you call those "assault weapons" for which no one has a legitimate use or has a right to own? Blanket statements like your's are inaccurate, misleading and silly.

Oh, and as for "any pistol will stop an intruder", is that why the police all carry .22's? Oh, wait....

Clearshot--AMEN, my dad was a vet of WWII, and used to laugh at war movies where the guy pulls the trigger on his 'machine gun' and fires continuously for who knows how long, and then changes clips. My dad said you cold empty a clip in about 3 seconds like that, and that your aim would be problematic.

He died fairly recently, and I INHERITTED his guns, which inclued 3 "long guns" (One is a pellet gun that looks like a rifle) and several hand guns, all but one of which is a 'unique' antique (one is a deringer with 3 barrels, one is a pearl handled pistol with a 7 bullet clip that holds 22 SHORTS! but ONE of them is a pure defensive handgun. And from the time I was about 6, I knew how to strip and clean his guns, how to be careful with them, how and when to shoot them, and how to be responsible with them.

And he did NOT leave them to my BROTHER, for good reason.

AGDOC--amen on any pistol being able to stop anyone. During the initial 'cold war' years, living in the shadow of Whiteman AFB in central MO, a friend of my parents was a pilot of a B52, all set to go 'bomb the Ruskies' in the event of a nuclear attack.

Several times a month, they would have drills where they would take off heading for the north, and only be called off at the Canadian border--and on one of those 'drills' he thought it was so real that he detoured by his home and got his OWN pistol to take with him because it was bigger than his military issue hand gun. JUST in case he had to bail out in Russia!

And yeah, there was a REASON why Dirty Harry carried that gun!

thanks for common sense post from someone with an informed point of view about guns

we can look at other countries like Serbia and the Swiss with "high" (like half) gun ownership rates but low random violence and see what THEY do to control irresponsible misuse of the guns they have.

Clearshot,

Good points & sound reasoning. However, there are legitimate reasons for having a 30 round mag or two handy.

I too, am retired military, and a very good shot. I also hunt ( for the meat, not to kill things for fun.).

When I lived in Florida, it was out in the boondocks. There were several times when packs of a dozen or more feral hogs would invade my property (once while my 8 yr. old niece was playing outside.) and started destroying everything. And before someone says something stupid like "Just shoot one, and the rest will run away!", they've never had to deal with these things! These packs will attack anything that threatens them like 100 lb wolves, only with 6-8" tusk added to boot! I covered her while she ran inside, and kept firing from my back porch defensive position, until the rest finally got the message and left.

Believe me, I'm glad that I had my 30 rd mags and a good semi-automatic rifle!

Rual country homes, with nearby large population centers, are also prime targets for home-invasion/theft-type bad guys. Any Police/Emergency response is at least 15-30 minutes away at best. Plenty of time to get away if needed, and hours of time to do what you want if you can just subdue the residents first. That was also attempted, twice, unsuccessfully, while I lived there.

Point is, that just because most people do live in places and situations where high-cap mags and an AR-15 style rifle isn't needed ( BTW, for all you un-educated people out there reading this, the AR-whatever-number designation does NOT stand for Assault Rifle! It means that the Straight-Line-Recoil-From-Barrel-To-Shoulder-With-A-Pistol-Grip concept/design is based on an improved Rifle design, originated by the ArmaLite company, way back in the late 1950's. Hence, ArmaLite-Rifle, type-whatever. AR-xx is a lot easier to use than calling it a SLRFBTSWAPG-xx.), and where a pistol will do just fine for defense, such an approach to gun-control as to totally outlaw what non-gun owners call High-Capacity Magazines and AR-style, semi-automatic rifles, does not serve the needs and best interest of everybody in this nation.

What areas of legal improvement that needs to be done in the situation, addresses an increasing incidence of the same mechanical fault developing with all weapons nowadays.

That would be the problem caused by the loose Nut behind the gun.

clearshot As a former Marine myself I do know just as you should that a semi automatic rifle can be dressed up to look like an M-16 it does NOT make anymore powerful or that it can shoot like a machine gun.

As long as you can only shoot 1 round with each pull of the trigger then it is a legal gun to own for hunting or target shooting. Sure you may NOT need that much fire power to bring down a deer, you can NOT use a rifle in the lower part of MI for deer hunting anyway.

How much worse would of the damage been if Adam Lanza used a shotgun to kill those kids. Sure there was some that had 11 bullet holes that was overkill, but 1 shotgun blast with a slug would do MUCH more damage to a frail body like those kids.

Your country just had a man take his mother's machine gun and kill 20 children and six adults.

Shut your keyboard about Israel!

the writer of the article has access to the statistic, our anecdotal knnowledge of gun deaths in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is likely in that.

If you read the article you would see that settlers can get guns more easily for traveling between Israel proper and their settlement. So looks like more are armed

Look, I hate that there are settlers. I hate that the Right Wing ISraeli Gov settles them (though they have so many kids I kinda wonder if it's because there is no where to put them!) but they are a small percentage of the total population of Israel

who apparently mostly do not own guns

When they say Random gun violence they probably mean not one that is part of a war or non peace. Even tho the PLO is not at war with ISrael people leave the West Bank and attack settlements enough that they are hyper reactive (amongst other worse things that I can only guess at). The settlers existence in disputed terriotry IS a provocation.

It's reasonable not to count deaths on either side of that struggle as "random" shootings when comparig it to the situation in other countries like the US. They are political killings different from the random shootings we are talking about.

Not just. maybe killing is killing but it is not comparable because you have to compare apples to apples etc

when you have a point and exaggerate in an inflammatory way you loose your point...readers can't trust you can be logical

example "as it seems their MINORITIES are open season for shootings"

hardly, overall IN THAT COUNTRY.

I know Israeli Arabs. They'd disagree with you. Some discrimiation but not legislated. They do not feel their lives are in danger

IF you live in Gaza where Hamas rules, something else

One thing about statistic. You always have to know who's statistics they are. People drive me nuts quoting statistics all the time. Numbers are always skewed to meet purposes

ALTO QUIT LYING to people. Adam did NOT use a machine gun.

It may look like 1. I know you do dress ups with your barbies so you should know what a dressed up gun is. Not a real machine gun as they are BANNED from the everyday civilian for every day use.

your comment is false.

Alto your statements are FALSE. Adam Lanza did NOT get a MACHINE GUN from his MOM.

You need to know the difference between the 2 a semi automatic can ONLY fire 1 round with each pull of the trigger. A machine gun can shoot HUNDREDS of rounds with just 1 pull and hold of the trigger.

Adam had a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle. YOu can buy a .22 rifle from your local sport center and they most likely will be a semi-automatic rifle. Get educated on them before spewing LIES.

You do mean Indians, right? The West wasn't all that wild.

A lot of people were robbed and killed in the Wild West, including whites, Asians, blacks, Native Americans, and men and women who for any reason and no reasons were killed by gun-toting selfish men who thought that having or hiring a loaded rifle made them the equal of God.

Dawn--and many MORE DID survive the 'wild west' because of hand guns!

Sicktired--I guess you forgot the part where the entire middle east used to brag about the only GOOD Jew being a DEAD Jew?

You do know that one reason the 'Palastinians' were so poor was because they had no EDUCATION, and had been living scratch existences for MILLENIA? And that the only reason the Palestinians were 'kicked out' was they continued to kill Jews, and that the 'bombs' are ONLY in response to rockets being shot into Israel? That the Militants in the PLO hide behind civilians in hospitals, schools, etc. to make sure that innocents die?

And at what point to the ARAB nations own some of the responsibility for the Palestinians starving? At what point to the Palestinians, who live in blighted camps, STOP breeding like rabbits?

There are abuses on both sides, but ONLY one side insists that ALL of the other side must die.

There are abuses on both sides, but ONLY one side insists that ALL of the other side must die.

Lets rephrase that:

There may be abuses on both sides, but only Palestinians have legitimate reason to do so because they are fighting occupiers.

Lan

Imagine that: Jews occupying Jewdea.

A jew building a house just outside Jewrusalem is More scary than an army of "All the otherside must die" Lan-approved terrorists.

wow.

Kleb,

Jewrusalem; now that is funny.

Even funnier; Pal Aviv.

Pal Aviv:

"Built by Arabs from the sand up since time immemorial"

Who then protects them from the "security guards"?

you have a serious problem related to a false ideology that says everything good rests upon average citizens owning machine guns.

why doesn't every citizen carry grenades too?

how about placing grenades in baskets on street corners to give them out for free?

how about shoulder fired missiles. for everyone over 12 years old.

perhaps everyone should be holding a gun, ready to fire, at all times.

that way, for sure, King George cannot take away your medicare.

I agree with all of your comment. To take this a little further, we keep hearing from "responsible gun owners" about how they would never be involved in a tragedy of this sort but then that requires that they secure their guns in locked cabinets with ammunition in a seperate place..... so how then does this justify the "gun groupies" excuse of "self defense"? What you "responsible gun owners" ask the mythical "home invader" to wait while you unlock your gun cabinet and load your weapon?!? The whole self-defense paranoia is a feeble excuse and is illogical. Use the same money to buy a good home security system and let the trained and experienced police do their job!

Angelosdaughter--sorry, but this guy BROKE into the building. SEVERAL teachers/adminstrators threw themselves in front of the children in a vain attempt to protect them, and they AND the kids died. NOW let's just imagine that ONE of those adults had a pistol? And knew how to use it?

I believe concealed carry is permitted (if not required) by teachers in Israel. Texas just passed a law permitting it. Would most U.S. parents be OK with armed teachers? I'm not sure about that.

That may be true, deweydan, but the 'bad apples' who commit these crimes kill people. One has just killed 20 children and 7 adults, which will have a huge impact. I don't think we need to ban all guns (although not for anything would I have a loaded firearm in the house). I do believe they should be made harder to purchase and psych tests on prospective buyers might weed out people who shouldn't have them. Granted, in this case, it wouldn't have helped because this kid didn't buy the guns. Making gun safety classes a prerequisite to purchasing a firearm, might make purchasers more mindful mindful of how they store their firearms. Banning firearms such as assault weapons (what private citizen needs a firearm that can kill so many?) from sale is another good measure. I think those things might at least mitigate some of the danger. If even one shooting such as this is headed off, it would be worth it. Those who are responsible and legal purchasers shouldn't feel threatened by these measures. No one needs assault weapons outside of the military.

What is the point of taking the guns away from law abiding citizens? Everybody says AR's have no reason to be in the hands of the public, but the point they seem to miss is that these sick people still commited these type of crimes when the previous ban was in effect. Anyone remember Columbine? The 2 nut jobs that carried out that attack did so in the heart of Clintons' ban in '99. So again I ask what is the point in making it illegal for those of us that follow the law? The 2nd Amendment states:

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

One of the reasons or founding fathers added this to the bill of rights was so the citizens could help defend the country from threats both foregin and domestic. Anyone remember the revolutionary war? I'm pretty sure the war to gain our independence involved the general public. If this right is taken away from us, we are all dependent on the government, which will not always be able to protect everyone of us, all of the time.

I am an American living in Australia, I don't know about Canada or the UK, but here in Australia, you can still own a gun, the difference is they just regulate it. To have a gun in the house, which are limited to shotguns and rifles, a person must have a safe installed that cannot be removed from the floor and the guns must always be stored in it. A person may own a pistol but it has to be kept at the gun club the person belongs too. After the massacre in Tasmania, assault weapons became illegal and the guns laws have become much more strict and from what I see nobody seems to mind that much. I personally don't ever feel in danger and I live in what Australia considers a high crime city. Last night on the news it was big news that a convenience store was broken into after hours and all that was stolen was cigarettes. I honestly feel there is a gross misunderstanding by Americans of other countries that regulate firearms. For some reason it seems Americans think that if you regulate the firearms, it's just going to be a huge free for all and the criminals are going rule the streets.

Hairscape--amazing how easy it is to defend your country from out side invaders when you have an OCEAN all around you, huh?

PS--Australia has a huge problem with illegal immigrants coming there from Indonesia, and since they are mostly Muslims, I wonder if you will feel the same in 20 year?

All of you whose excuse for having guns in the house for protection, please see post by mountlady above. She makes a tremendous amount of sense. If the guns are secured as they should be, they won't be much protection.

the chief...100% agree. don't make israel a part of our solution is right on.

Rameshm2

You wouldn't want a school guard get in your way now would you?

Amen. There are so many lost souls who would be better in a structured setting, and the public would be protected from their outbursts.

angelosdaughter

"There are so many lost souls who would be better in a structured setting, and the public would be protected from their outbursts."

.. do you mean like Cages ?

No, supervised places where they can be monitored. When you look at photos of Adam Lanza and Holmes the Aurora shooter, you can tell they are not living in the same world we are. Some time ago one of our Presidents (I'm not going to make this political) decided that people like this should be in the streets. We are now seeing the effects of that policy. Not everyone is able to live in society, we can't understand their minds, and we have no way of knowing what they might do. Adam Lanza had problems from the articles I've read, fitting in. It was he, not because of bullying from others, that wanted to avoid people. His mother tried to care for him, and keep him with her. But there must have been something that made her caution a caregiver not to turn her back on the boy. The frightening thing is that he was highly functioning, and even went so far in his planning as to destroy his computer, making it even more difficult to understand what motivated him. Maybe some people are just born insane or bad. They need to be kept out of the general population.

Hopefully these tragedies will alert all parents and teachers of the need keep weapons away from unstable youths, even if there is no evidence of violent behavior. An unbiased mental health professional must be consulted. Healthcare in this country is a mess but there is always a way to get help, just ask! And be persistent. Nancy Lanza will always be remembered as the paranoid mother living in one of the safest neighborhoods in America who was MOST responsible for the worst massacres of innocents in the USA, don't let that be you or someone you know!

Yes, well, this is a high price to pay to keep mass casualty causing weapons available so someone can have fun with them. No private person needs to own such a destructive firearm

Blowing up stuff with C4 explosives and Rocket Propelled Grenade launchers is also a lot of fun if only we could keep them out of the hand of INSANE people and only do it in the back 40 acres of our private ranches here in Texas and Oklahoma... But the lives of little children is more important!

no realy , its not about hunting or having fun , its about protecting our rights from the government. guns are for exactly this reason. for preventing the government for trumping the bill of rights all for "our own good" . Every time you guys say its about hunting and we should just give in and let take away are rights are just proof we need our guns more than ever. and more guns. big guns. bullet proof vests, tear gas. whatever they got we need. not the US army, but the guard, and the police, homeland security.