As I'm sure everyone else is, I've had enough with these shootings.  Here is what I think we can do.

The following are a few points that need to be addressed to finally end this carnage that we've especially been feeling in the last half-decade. I can only hope that the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut marks the point in our country's history when we finally make the necessary changes to prevent these types of mass shootings from occurring in the future. Apart from mass-shootings, gun-related homicides of all types are also discussed. None of these points individually provide the one answer that is the solution to this incredibly complex problem. Because if it's complexity, each and every point is relevant needs to be considered and assimilated to find the most effective solution in ending these gun-related homicides.

Abandon the strict constitutionalist interpretation of 2nd amendment. First off, I have to say that I equate the traditional constitutionalists with those who interpret every word in the bible in a literal manor. I think it's ignorant and dangerous. Science, and technology change, and our understanding of the world becomes further transparent as every day passes. So I will not buy into sentiment that we should abide by a doctrine that is hundreds or thousands of years just old because at one time in our history it was effective and made sense at that particular time. Of course there are many – maybe even the majority of the ideals talked about in documents such as the Bible or the Constitution are ones that are wholesome and universally agreed upon as being good. But there's a reason that the founders made sure that the ideals in the constitution were not etched in stone, thus including in the constitution itself the process for it's amendment.

It doesn't make you un-American to want change as you see fit, especially when the times have outraced some of the doctrines ideals. Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Adams said that he believed the Constitution should essentially be re-written every 19 years, being wise enough to anticipate that our cultures and societies will be continually evolving. If a constitutionalist wants to argue that Jefferson was not a real American and not patriotic, then I'll go ahead and let them make that claim just because of it's sheer ridiculousness.

With that being said – now onto gun control as it relates to the 2nd Amendment in our Constitutions Bill of Rights. The idea that we should simply be allowed to just freely carry any weapon we choose because it's on a document that was written over 200 years ago is absurd. It may not have been as absurd 200 years ago when police force was so small and had very little mobility. When the ability of them to be anywhere in a moments notice was impossible. There were no patrol cars, let along roads to even drive them. So the little law enforcement that existed back then was certainly not expected to stop or prevent crime. And robberies were indeed common. So this at least WAS a reasonable argument for an individual to be able to freely possess a firearm.

The very first words of the 2nd amendment mentions a "well regulated militia". There was no standing army back then – the citizens were the military. To this day, that is how Switzerland works – each citizen undergoes military training at the age of 20 and received a firearm to keep at their home. They represent the military force as there is a very minimal standing army. So there is another obvious and justifiable reason for the possession of a gun. But again, this does not mirror the American military culture even remotely, as we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined to retain our standing military forces.

One debatable justification for arming citizens with firearms that James Madison argued in the Federalist Papers, deals not with the defense of our country from other nations. Rather it's to defend themselves from a government that might turn tyrannical. Even though that notion may have existed back then, I lose little sleep at night thinking that our government is in the secret process of forming a police state and will soon rule forcefully over us all and we need firearms to defend ourselves from this government takeover. I have heard extreme radio personalities actually warn us of this. But I think that is a drastic reach and a desperate argument.

What a gun physically was, what it represented, and the type of egalitarian societies and cultures in which it was used is now past history. It's relevance back then cannot be transferred without any alterations into today's society.

Yesterdays Pea Shooter vs. Today's Assault Weapons. Let's look at the firearms that were used during and after our American Revolution.

Just look at these things. Loading these rifles was like a ten stop process that involved filling it with gunpowder, packing it, loading the bullet, filling it with more gunpowder, etc. And if you were lucky, it would actually fire. And it was one bullet at a time. That is what our founding fathers considered a firearm back when the Bill Of Rights was written. It was a time consuming task just to reload and prepare another shot. Using these relics, a mass shooting would have been impossible to pull off.

In comparison, let's look at a weapon being used to kill today: the assault rifle – a weapons that can do massive damage in an incredibly fast rate. One can unload a magazine of 100 in a matter of seconds, like James Holmes did in Colorado. So the "right to bear arms" means that we have the right to be carrying around these things? Again, an "arm" to our founding fathers in the 18th century was basically a peashooter from which the potential damage inflicted by it is not even comparable to today's deadly semi-automatics. I'd also like to know to what degree of "deadliness" do we draw the line? The innovation involved in these high performance assault rifles was unknown technology to our founding fathers – and so were hand grenades, rocket launchers, nukes, etc. Do I have a right to possess these as well? Are they not "arms"?

These assault weapons should be banned again on a federal level. They are a complete overkill for self defense and are too dangerous to be kept legal just for the sake of a few gun enthusiasts and hobbyists. There actually was an assault weapon ban in this country, but was allowed to expire in 2004. Again, this is not a solution to our gun violence problem, but it will minimize the destructiveness of future mass shootings. In looking at an article in today's Chicago Tribune, it lists a total of 16 mass shootings that have occurred here since the deaths of the college students at Virginia Tech. Many of them used semi-automatic assault rifles. Would these rampages still have happened if the shooters didn't have access to semi-automatic rifles? Probably – it's possible that they would have just used a different gun that was else less deadly. But would fewer lives had been lost with the lesser-deadly firearm? Very likely.

Jovan Belcher and the "ease" of killing with a firearm. Bob Costas made the point that if Belcher didn't have a gun, then he and his girlfriend may still be alive today. Maybe or maybe not. The counterpoint to this that has been floating around does have a degree of validity – that Belcher could have killed his girlfriend regardless if he had a gun. But actually murdering with a handgun is not the same as murder using other means. Some people are not able to control heat-of-the moment warm blooded angry tendencies. And I'd rather be confronted with someone without a gun in a situation like this, vs. someone armed with one. Because it takes a very warped kind of individual to actually put a knife through someone's flesh, or see the look in their victims eyes as they are strangling them, or to be able to feel the impact of the skull of your victims head with every swing of the bat or some other blunt object. A lot of individuals who have actually killed with a gun are unable to kill in the manors I just described. With a gun – you pull a trigger. That's it. Unfortunately it's way too easy. You don't even have to make contact or be in the proximity of the victim. You don't have to even look at or physically feel what you've just done. I'm not convinced Belcher would have been able to make the kill at that moment without a firearm in his possession.

Completely lax gun control will kill more people than save. There is a strong correlation with ease of obtaining/availability of firearms to high homicide rates as evident in our country we live in. Of course there are other factors involved, but that doesn't mean we can't look at statistics and find possible correlations to the problems we have. We have some of the most loosely regulated gun laws and the highest rate of gun related homicide of any of the other 22 "developed" countries. I don't buy the "If they only had a gun, they could have protected themselves" argument as being an one that would be beneficial for our society as a whole. As if everyone should be walking around packing heat is a good idea. Of course, there have been many instances that a gun has deterred a break-in, robbery, violent crime, ect. But considering the fact that a gun is often being used by the perpetrator in the act of the violent crime, robbery, etc almost nullifies positive of a gun used to deter the act. Does not the gun used by the perpetrator instill a degree of confidence/power and give him means to attempt to commit the act? The intimidating act of looking down the barrel of a 9 millimeter being pointed at your head makes a convincing case that you should probably give the perpetrator what he wants.

I view it as a cost/benefit analysis. If guns were legal and made even easier to access in every state, we'd have a lot more people with guns. And you may have an instance here and there where an individual was able to defend him/herself because they possessed a firearm, but we'll have many more cases of homicides and suicides that will outweigh any overall societal benefits from lax/non-existent gun laws. If we lived in a society where everyone owned a gun, people who wished to kill would do so more stealthy rapidly and aggressively as they know their victim is also armed and would return fire if given the chance. In the shooting at the elementary shoot in Connecticut, even if the teacher in the classroom was armed, the shooter would have broken in and just shot her first, knowing that the teacher was the one with the firearm and the only threat to him. And going back to Jovan Belcher – there are thousands of Belcher-type situations that unfold daily in the form of heated domestic disputes. We also have heated arguments among strangers, road rage, drunken bar room fights etc. I just don't see how one could argue that in these types of confrontations, that two people with firearms, or one person armed with a firearm, is a more desirable situation than both individuals being unarmed. Bruises, black eyes and broken bones may result, but at least the option to pull out a gun and fire was not available.

Social inequality. This I think may be the largest contributing factor, and the most difficult problem to solve. There have been many serious studies that suggest that deterring violent crime have little do with a large police state or incarcerations. Instead, income inequality, community social cohesiveness, and the degree that individuals trusts another are being correlated to violent crimes. Eradicating poverty and strengthening the "social capital" community are all factors in homicide reduction. Here are a couple of very interesting studies:

High levels of homicide have been linked to "social health" of the poorer societies when there is such a large gap between them and those at the top. The level of trust people have in others has been correlated with homicides, and when the gap between us is at it's largest, the poor communities have a lower level in trust in people overall. This is from R. Merton in 1967 which the Wilkinson study used in their intro:

"What makes American culture relatively distinctive… is that it is a society which places a high premium on economic affluence and social ascent for all its members… This patterned expectation is regarded as appropriate for everyone, irrespective of his initial lot or station in life… This leads to the subsidiary theme that success or failure are results wholly of personal qualities, that he who fails has only himself to blame, for the corollary to the concept of the self-made man is the self-unmade man.

To the extent that this cultural definition is assimilated by those who have not made their mark, failure represents a double defeat: the manifest defeat of remaining far behind in the race for success and the implicit defeat of not having the capacities and moral stamina needed for success… It is in this cultural setting that, in a significant portion of cases, the threat of defeat motivates men to the use of those tactics, beyond the law or the mores, which promise `success'… The moral mandate to achieve success thus exerts pressure to succeed, by fair means and by foul means if necessary."

Both of these studies are worth skimming through and at least reading their introductions and findings. Solving these problems may prove to be the most difficult, yet may contribute the most to eliminating gun violence. I've spent countless hours with facebook postings giving my opinion on how we solve this inequality problem, which is much too vast to go into now. But if you look at "freedom-hating evil socialist" countries such as Norway, Sweden, Finland etc., you'll find that income disparity among their population is minimal. And perhaps as a result of this, they also have the lowest levels of homicide rates and violence (as well as a very well educated and healthy society, as the government pays for education and healthcare. Their citizens are also constantly ranked high in "happiness" and "quality of life" studies conducted internationally).

Specific to the Connecticut shootings. There are two ways that I envision these murders could have been prevented in the most recent shooting in Connecticut. 1) An absolute ban of all firearms. The shooter's mother (whom he got the firearms from to commit the murders), was an avid gun collector and possessed of all of her firearms legally. If they were made illegal, there is a good chance she would not have had any of the guns in her possession. Her only option would to get a gun through illegal means such as through the black market. From what we know about her thus far, she was a "law abiding citizen". Would her hobby as an enthused gun collector supersede her respect for the law?

With that being said, I'm not advocating an all-out ban of guns. I myself don't own one and have no interest in owning or even shooting one. But just because I don't like them doesn't mean I'm going to advocate for a ban of all firearms. There are too many responsible owners, (many of which are also for stronger gun control laws) who have caused absolutely no problems and have enjoyed their use as a responsible hobby. I do think that the responsible and sane individual has the right to possess a reasonable firearm for a stated and sensible purpose. But I certainly don't want to just hope or assume that the gun owner is sane and just issue them a firearm without a series of screenings. This leads me to the only other way I think this shooter could have been stopped – mental health screenings and evaluation for those showing homicidal signs.

Mental health treatment. There are skilled mental health experts who can see the signs of those who can potentially act in a destructive manor. But to be very clear – this is a tough one. Because whatever mental/behavioral problems the shooter exhibited, there's probably thousands of individuals who are diagnosed similarly, yet will never go and commit a murder. And I'm certain that there has been no constant trait associated with every mass murderer whereas a psychiatrist would see it beforehand and be certain that the individual will commit a heinous act such as a shooting of this proportion. Can they diagnose an individual with homicidal tendencies? Of course. But to call for the removal of an individual from society, how certain do you need to be that they will indeed act on these diagnosed tendencies? You better be very certain, otherwise you're robbing an individual of their freedom for nothing – preventing of an act that would have never taken place anyway. It is such a fine line these mental health experts have to walk. I'm sure we'll get more on the mental health of the Sandy Hook school shooter as the story continues to unfold.

With all of this being said, I am a big proponent of everyone getting mental health treatment if they need it. Us as a society has to do our best to treat and prevent this kind of thing happening, when everything else in this individuals life has failed. When politicians and commentators throw around the phrase "social safety net", I don't think that most people realize that paying for certain programs via our tax revenue indirectly keeps everyone in our society safer and promotes better overall wellness. Some may call this idea one spoken by an "evil socialist" (refer to my "freedom-hating evil socialist" description above). But paying for someone's mental health is far from a new or radical idea if you can get your mind to focus outside of the confines of what you know as the American culture. I find it ironic that an individual's ability to financially make ends meet for themselves and/or their family, is often linked to depression – yet the very reason he/she is depression (lack of money) prevents them from getting professional treatment. Though it is inevitable that there will be people who "slip through the cracks" of a professional diagnosis and go on to become destructive anyway, there are and will continue to be countless cases where destructive tendencies have been tamed and turned around. There is no doubt in my mind that mental health treatment has prevented countless suicides, homicides and has been extremely beneficial for our society overall. It just needs to be accessible to more people.

Cultural influence. Switzerland and Canada have almost the same amount of gun ownership per capita as the US, but has a far lower firearm homicide rate. How can gun ownership be so prevalent in those countries yet, gun homicide rates are just a fraction of that of the U.S? There is no doubt that culture is a major factor. I used the example of Switzerland earlier and what a gun means to their citizens – a weapon given to them with the honor and responsibility as a protector of their country. A gun represents to them the protection of their sovereignty and freedom on a national level, not on a personal one. Other counties with low firearm homicide such as Israel work in the same way whereas the citizens are required to train and serve militarily. Again, a firearm represents pride and a sense of nationalism and service to their country. Israel also has only 500,000 firearms (illegal and legal) in a nation of 6 million. That's one firearm for every 5 people.

On the other hand, we have almost 1 firearm for every person here in the U.S, which equates to over 300 million firearms. Guns here are glorified by our media via books, movies, toys, video games, music as taboo weapons which gives an individual immense power and control. Then they get connected to gangs, drug violence, the mafia etc. The gun is not affixed with labels such as "honor", "service" and "responsibility" like it is in other countries with much lower homicide rates. And because the intrinsic vision of what a gun represents differs between two nations such as the U.S. and Switzerland, regulation must be implemented in a different fashion. Which leads me to my next point…

Stronger gun laws/ background checks. We must take something from other countries. Obtaining a firearm should not be easy or convenient. Take a country like Brazil – the requirements to get a handgun? Just be 25 years old and register it. That's it – very lax like the majority of our states here in the U.S. And maybe that's part of the reason why Brazil and the U.S. have some of the highest gun-related homicide rates in the world. Obtaining a firearm should not be convenient. A background check, mental health screening, and training on proper usage should all be required. And if you're caught with an illegal or non-registered firearm – there should be big consequences. And the manufactures of black market guns? – you can get the death penalty in China for distributing illegal weapons. I'm not pushing for that degree of harshness, but stronger ramifications are needed to be implemented into our current gun laws.

Drug legalization. What Colorado and Washington are doing goes beyond generating a lot of money via tax revenue by eventual sales and saving money by not incarcerating marijuana smokers (though, right now it's technically still illegal on the Federal level). But another positive effect this legislation will create is an almost certain reduction in gun violence. As we all know far too well, there is a large problem with drug related shootings, especially in urban areas. When the legalization of a drugs occurs, the demand for it through the black market shrinks or disappears as it's legitimacy as an item for sale on the legal market becomes established. Therefore less black-market related violence. Evidence of this can be seen during prohibition when murder rates were very high. Once the 21st Amendment was passed repealing the 18th (ending prohibition), murder rates went down every year for ten straight years.

Firearm purchasing from civilians by our government. Chicago has experimented with this idea but the Australian government has had success with the program. In 1996 as an effort to stop mass-shooting occurrences in their country, they initiated a program that offered any citizen of Australia to sell their guns to the government for a very fair price. They had 600,000 guns turned in and melted down – this was about 20% of all the firearms in the entire nation. As a result, they had a massive reduction not only in homicides, but suicides as well.

Each and every one of the points I described are all small parts of the answer that cumulatively may foster a better society as it relates to gun-related homicide. Again, some elements may be a more influential change than others, but something needs to be done. What we're seeing in this country is unprecedented by any industrialized country in modern times. And hopefully the discussions don't fade away until the next national firearm related tragedy.

-craiglutter.com

here's a little-known story. in ancient greece, a man set fire the great library of Alexandria--one of the seven wonders of the world--destroying millions of irreplaceable manuscripts. when asked by the judges why he did it, he replied, "i wanted my name to go down in history as the man who destroyed the library." his name was struck from the record and is unknown and long forgotten. in our culture of pervasive media, where the news stations have orgasms reviewing this tragedy ad nauseum and proliferating all the gory details so pervasively that there is no way a parent could keep their child from learning of it, short of locking them in the bathroom, that fifteen minutes of fame has become an attainable goal. there are so many problems here--unchecked mental illness, a society that is unraveling--but giving these sickos a name and some fame is part of the problem. the social media network of facebook, twitter and utube provide an outlet for any idiot who faceplants himself while jumping off a roof. we remember the names of the perpetrators of profane acts of violence long after have forgotten the names of the victims. even as i write this, some insane person is cleaning his guns and planning his attack on innocents to get his name in the ledgers of gory glory.

For the well being of the students of Sandy Hook I think the school should be torn down and rebuilt on the goverments dime. They help all these other countries why not build a new school so the children aren't reminded of the horror. They can use a church or other school until it is completed.

The father of Connecticut school shooter Adam Lanza, Peter Lanza, was the tax
director for General Electric, a corporation that paid -0- taxes on 14.2 billion
dollars in profits last year. According to Fabian4Liberty, Peter Lanza was
scheduled to testify in the ongoing global LIBOR scandal. In what could only be
described an amazing coincidence, the father of Colorado Batman shooter James
Holmes, Robert Holmes, was also a LIBOR witness in his position with FICO.
According to the link at FICO, Robert Holmes was a ‘Fraud
Scientist’.

This was not a coincidence. These young men were given
psychotropic drugs. The same drugs that were given to our servicemen in
experiments in Irak and Afghanistan. Many of those servicemen killed their wives
or committed suicide. The reason behind these killings at least in Colorado and
Conn. is to shut up the very witnesses that were due to give testimony before
the Senate.

The links between the fathers of these shooters and the
financial industry are clear. That these men would have access to relevant
information to the LIBOR scandal and that in the case of Robert Holmes that he
would be instrumental in catching the fraud is clear. But we wanted to dig
deeper. We got on the phone and leveraged our contacts in the world of finance,
government, and law. It was repeatedly confirmed from our contacts in the
financial industry that both Holmes and Lanza are men that would be called in to
report information under their purview for investigations concerning credit rate
manipulation such as the LIBOR scandal. And again, contacts in the field of law
confirmed that Holmes and Lanza are men that multiple government agencies would
have questions for. These are men that are not implicated as perpetrators of the
rate manipulations, rather, they are the men who can provide the evidence that
these manipulations are taking place. Holmes is the man who literally wrote the
algorithm that detects such fraud, he is the leading expert in the world in this
subject matter, and Lanza is a man with access to revenue records that will show
just how much was gained through the manipulations of credit rates.

What
does all of this mean?

Now that we have the facts, what do we do with
them? What does all of this mean? Is it just an uncanny coincidence? Is there a
more insidious plot behind this? This is where it is up to you to draw your own
conclusions based on the facts.
Lanza and Holmes were and still are key
witnesses in the LIBOR scandal. They hold critical information that would blow
the lid off the biggest banker fraud in the history of the world.

Let me see if I understand this:

The "lone nut" gunman is dead.

But we need an army of police presence to protect the schools now from what?

Is the so called "lone nut" dead or not?

Just like all the TSA after 9/11 - NOT ONE BOMB FOUND DURING ANY SCREENING.

Just an "underwear" bomber, IE LONE NUT.

"Clarice, doesn't this random scattering of sites seem desperately random - like the elaborations of a bad liar?

1st Aurora now Sandy Hook - all from the same MOVIE: Dark Knight.

What BS

Too late for security guards now. This is probably the safest time for them to attend school now it that area. where i live we have security guards, metal detectors, and the doors are lock at an appointed time. It is sad that we have to live like this, however are kids live to see another day.

Too late for the security guards now. This is probably the safest time for the the kids to go to school now in that area. Where I live, we have security guards, metal detectors, and the doors are locked at an appointed time. It is sad we have to live like this, however our kids will get to live and see another day.

I think these kids need to get back to school and as soon as possible. They need each other more then we know. They need to get back into a rhythm and routine. The longer they stay apart the longer that evil monster wins.

I have a child close to that age (9). If I were there I would get her back the second Newtown is ready for those kids. No question about it.

Since the shooter was Jewish and most of the murdered where caucasian, shouldn't this be covered as a hate crime?

Well the security guards may be a good idea but schools are turning into prisons. I can remember when i was in high school the principal locking the doors with padlocks and chains just because the kids were skipping school.

Good job with all those cops hovering around the school...NOW. Where were they last Friday morning? Do people really think anything's going to happen there now?

Go Away NRA, Part Of The Problem. We Need Armed Police Officers In SChools. Adam Lanza'a Mom Deserved What Happen To Her. GUN Control Big Time. Everyday SOme Shooting Takes Place. Mr Obama Please Help This Country.

Security Guards Not The Answer, They Are Not Armed. Bad Idea

Only Police And Other Law Enforcement Should Have Weapons. Never Mind Shooting At A Range Is A Hobby.

This is the type of thing that needs to be done.And thats put police on school grounds.This is the ONLY thing that will detour this kind of violence.There is no guarantee,unfortunately that are kids are 100% safe.Just like for anyone.But pure common sense will tell you,just by looking back at the past,schools in our inner cities where crime is bad and were there are police present,there are no cases of mass shootings.Why?,because there are armed police present and they dont want to get shot before they do there damage.The president,who i do respect,in making is comment on "something needs to be done,reguardless of politics",hopfully means digging in government pockets,and restoring some of the funding that is always the first to go when it comes to cuts.And that is to pay for police presents at schools.Spending and wasting money on fighting the N.R.A.IS NOT THE ANSWER.Not because its a loosing battle,but because its not going to stop this kind of violence.

Change must happen! It will happen if all of us insist on it. The President will get the ball a rolling but it's us the citizens of the country that MUST make congress act. The NRA has blood on it's hands for not acting years ago. Now it's the congress who must act and if they don't the blood will be on their hands.

20ty dead children and 6 dead adults are calling on us to act NOW!

I know this a bit off subject....but I still want to know where all the ammunition came from...was it at the house already or was it purchased over a short period of time or over a long period of time? No one has that much ammo without some sort of red flag going up somewhere. Have we become so greedy that we look the other way when someone is buying up the arsenal....

All a suicidal maniac has to do is visit a gun & knife show at their local state fairgrounds in order to buy a handgun. This same maniac could visit a schoolyard the next day. I might support the Second Ammendment, but what is to defend against something like that?

Crack is illegal, and we have an epidemic brewing, pot has been illegal for years, no laws is going to keep people from getting what they want. What I do see in this tragedy, is the government and society is to blame, your almost not allowed to punish kids at home or in school, their taught through out school and in peewee sports that there is no losers, but that's not the case in the real world. We have a growing problem with adults becoming pill poppers, so the simple solution to behaviour problems is drugs, so that leads to boys becoming chickafied, not to mention the addicts that have kids, so the problem is only going to get worse.

No words can describe how I feel now, thinking about all these families, I have to girls and one is seven, second grade, what a deep pain, I cried and cried, when I knew what happend and still do when I think and listen the news, those boys and girls are angels, now they are with God... God bless the families and give them the strength they need in this difficult time...

the presidente now needs to remove all guns stores, no one should be access to this things a least they have a good training and reason for, and a place lock for childrens and teenagers, goverment should control guns now, this is not a public thing, it is a lethal weapon.

God bless all our childrens.....

Obviously, my condolences goes out to the families. But, seriously? Police guarding the school? Isn't it a little too late? Who's going to show up again? It makes the children feels safer?

That is, perhaps, what is @!$%#ed up about America. They wait until it's TOO LATE in order to do anything! Bunch of lazy @!$%#s who shows up when the @!$%#-storm is over. Bunch of @!$%#-head(s) who worry about the most idiotic things on earth like "what is the Kardashian doing?" "Oh, I need that next iPhone", blah blah blah. Funny how, the storm hits and everybody goes underwater.

Just like 9-11, oh let's cried together and fight against the terrorists AFTER the event had already happened. Just like Hurricane Katrina, oh let it does its damage and we'll fix it later. The work ethics in America is so @!$%#TY. Everyone thinks for themselves here, no one wants to work together to prevent TRAGEDIES from happening BEFORE it happens!

CIA? FBI? Bunch of idiots. Intelligence? Failed. Technology? Failed. And, to those who thinks America is still the #1 SuperPower. Puuahhhh!

Typical Americans: "I want this, I want that" "That's mine!" "He/she started it" "We'll take revenge".

Nancy Lanza is the person most responsible for this massacre. She got what she deserved--she was a right-wing survivalist and gun nut. How could she teach a mentally ill child to shoot and give him free access to guns? Those who live by the sword, die by the sword. Adam should have shot her a fifth time just to make sure.

Ban violent Video games. All they do is teach children how to kill without remorse!

Speaking of healing.. its time to move on NBC/MSNBC. The media seems to be actually enjoying this tragedy and drawing it out. The facts haven't changed but everyday the seem to drag out a new person to share their feelings, emotion and sadness. How about a little respect.?

We are not going to NOR should we ban guns;

If we would address mental illness better!

If more teachers had guns and training!

If gun locks were used!

If we had more responsible gun owners!

But for now!!!

"GOD BLESS"