Evening Chefaz...Excellent post. For us here in Australia after our mass shooting (35 were killed) semi automatic weapons were banned. The Government had a buy back scheme and thousands of guns were handed in and destroyed. To get a gun here is a hell of a lot tougher now and if you have a gun it has to be kept in a safe which in turn has to be bolted to the floor. The Police also come around to your house and check all is in order. If not it has to be rectified or the guns are confiscated. Since Port Arthur we have not had any more mass shootings, but that is not to say it can't happen in the future and I hope it never does. We don't have the gun mentality of the States and are some what perplexed by it, but I guess it is each to their own. Shocking tragedy at Newport and we were stunned when the dreadful news came through...Feel so much for the families. It is Christmas eve here and I have no idea how the families of the little children lost will cope. But I guess with family, friends and buckets of courage they will. On that note I wish you and everyone in the States a Happy Christmas and New Year....And all I want and the Koala that is in the gumtree out the front of my house for Christmas, is peace. Everywhere and anywhere.....

Why can't we do both?

Ban all automatic and semi-automatic military style assault weapons, but let everyone keep their other guns. Require background checks at all gun shows, and limit amount of ammunition one person can purchase at a time.

AND ...

Have a police officer in every school. Most high schools already have one on duty and nobody seems traumatized by it. Why not in lower grade schools as well? If it was a friendly police officer that also gave safety talks to the youngsters (bike safety, crossing the street, not talking to strangers, etc.), then the kids would think of that person as a positive role model, instead of an armed guard that needed to protect their lives.

freedomfrys

Is this Nazi Germany? Forcing your will on others? Also do you think that there are only 4 Million gun owners in the USA?

You have not read up on your Lib Handbook as of late have you. Or did you miss a few of their talking points?

freedomfrys speaks for 300 million americans?

Adolf Hitler was also in favor of increased restrictions on private firearms ownership.

I am also in favor of banning all assault type weapons !!

They are for and only good for the battle field period. They were designed for the sole purpose of gaining fire superiority over the enemy. Put more hot lead on them than they are putting on you. Multi - round magazines should be banned. As they have no place in the civilian world. I have no problem with people having bolt action weapons or shot guns. As each is good for hunting. Assault weapons and that type ammo are not. Ask any avid hunter. No knock down power for big game hunting. Keep those type of weapons in the military only.

bob

freedomfrys #1.8

First off... I thot who I voted for was a secret... How do you know whom I voted for? Second there are not 300 Million that are going to come raiding down on the 4 Million member's of the NRA... By the way, I am NOT a Member...

we just had an election in which you lost

As stated above You do not know who I voted for so how can you say win or lose... And speaking of that I was under the impression that reguardless who was president this was still the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, not the LIBBY STATES of AMERICA. I have just as many rights as you do and that seems to relly piss you off, doesn't it.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment and that it should not be changed. The reason guns were placed so highly in the Constitution was for individuals freedoms, that they should not be trampled upon by a tyrannical government. Guns are a necessity for hunting food and self protection. What happened in Newtown, Aurora and other places were tragedies and crimes committed by insane people.

There may come a time when the government will need to be changed out. While many people live in civilized areas, there are greater areas of the United States that are not civilized and you put your life on the gambling table by going out. There will be a need for weapons for many more years or even a lifetime or two. The semi-automatic rifles and pistols are the best for the rural areas, especially when approached by a larger group of wild animals or criminals. Sometimes, 5 or 6 shots is not enough to put down a wild boar that is attacking you. They are out there and they do travel in packs. That is where the semi-automatic with the 30 count magazine comes in real handy.

There is a need for good security at all schools and even places of business. The world is getting rougher to make a living in and people are going to get desperate. Places like Chicago and Detroit have areas that most people will not go to. There may be a lot more like that in other cities if the economy does crash. Do you want to be unprotected in that scenario? I prefer to be able to protect myself, my family, my friends and my property. The police and sheriff are great, but the response time will negate them being there in any crisis of robbery or attack. Will you allow that to happen to you?

shona1 said -

The Police also come around to your house and check all is in order. If not it has to be rectified or the guns are confiscated

I won't live like that. This is still America. For now, at least.

@Shona1 --- Appears to be more sheep residing is Australia than is the United States. Good luck with your sheep herders. Merry Christmas and Happy New Years!

If only Mrs. Nancy Lanza could giver her opinion...........

.

.

.

.

.

on locked up guns

on mental health

on semi-automatics

on bullet purchasing

.

.

.

so many IFS

.

.

If Wayne La Pierre makes sense to Mrs. Lanza

freedomfrys

Gee your such a hypocrite you say we, us gun loving Americans do not want to save the lives of innocent persons. Might ask who would do that if it where not for US. I am sure you would stand up and fight against some one with a weapon and in all provability loose just as the teacher did in Newton.SO now what?? Hey I know take away the automatic weapons from our soldiers too, they kill lots of people too.The second amendment is not for hunting BUT for protection from our government or from a government which would take away our rights as Americans. So perhaps we need to consider a wiser choice and find a real and viable way to protect our citizens. Perhaps like they do in Switzerland and teach all people to use fire arms and give them one to protect themselves.

I disagree with kaybeetoys

Nancy Lanza was not a law abiding citizen if she allowed her son access to the guns in any way without her approval. Those guns would have been locked up in a safe and the tragedy would have been averted.

This is not NRA induced fear. As citizens of the United States, we are allowed to keep weapons for many reasons. They are legitimate reasons spelled out in the Constitution.

The assault weapons you are talking about were already banned in Connecticut. Ban insanity next instead of the semi-automatic weapons you are talking about.

Also, I don't want to limit your rights, I want to protect my life and the lives of others including yours. I don't want to be a part of a workplace, movie theater, school or mall massacre shooting.

The chance an American will be murdered by a gun is .0041%, and only less than 2% of those are mass shootings. The threat is overblown. The flu kills almost 3 times as many Americans annually as gun murder.

You do want to make us safe...by limiting our rights. There is no denying that. It's a total misunderstanding of natural rights to say we are gifted or granted these rights from the govt....they aren't "Constitutional rights", they are natural rights you get from being a human, and these rights predate the existence of nation-states (or any state) in the world. The Constitution merely recognizes a few of those rights, and even they were repealed by Amendment it would be tyranny, not an end of the existence of those rights. Read the Founders directly on the subject of natural rights...they didn't mean for the Bill of Rights to be voted on...they meant to describe a few important unrepealable rights. Hamilton was against the Bill of TRights...precisely because he was afraid people in the future would mistake them for being up for repeal or vote.

Less than 2% of gun murders are mass shootings. Bathtubs kill more Americans (300 annually) than mass shootings.

40-70% of gun murders are caused by drug laws (the Drug War). The next most prevelant cause is domestic violence.

And county by county in the USA, when all of them are studied, and nation by nation when transnational studies look at all countries, gun murder rates, and murder rates generally, are not correlated to gun ownership or clip sizes or assault rifle proliferation. It is negatively correlated in fact...the nations with higher murder and suicide rates generally have lower gun ownership rates, while nations with lower murder and suicide rates have higher gun ownership rates. There simply is no causality if there isn o correlation. What is correlated to high murder and suicide rates are countries with Drug Wars...the more strict the worse it is.

If you really want to solve the gun murder issue you'll address the legalization of drugs and domestic violence against kids and women...not guns and clips. It's clear what is the major cause, and what is not. That will not fit this current crusade against guns though...

...so it a political agenda against guns? Or is it you want to stop murder, including gun murder?

I implore you to look at all the stats and studies, not cherry picking stats that fit your preconceived notions.

Start with Obama's own school (Harvard Law and Public Policy)...they have a study I link in post #2.3

It shows the top 8 gun control nations have 3 times higher murder and suicide rates than do the 8 highest gun ownership nations. That's a pretty telling fact..it means there can be no correlation between gun ownership rates and murder and suicide rates. If you read the study, and my other links in that post, you'll see the facts lead away from many false scapegoats (like mental illness, guns, clip sizes, abortion laws, single parenthood, one religion or another (or lack thereof), etc.,etc.,etc.), and lead to the Drug War and domestic violence.

We all want to stop murder, especially gun murder. We do that by expanding rights, not limiting them. End the Drug War, stop spanking childtren, and stop hitting women...those are the major solutions.

The Prohibition of alcohol started in 1920-1921, and that year crime rates increased 24%. During the 13 year War on Alcohol, the crime rate went up 78%. It was in 1933 that Prohibition was repealed, and in that one year the murder trate fell 40%. We can do that again...we can cut murder by 40-70% in one year, most of which are gun murders. But we have to legalize drugs to do it, not ban guns or clips, or add more useless regulations to either.

When the assault weapons ban was in effect they did not ban the type of gun that was used in this mass shooting. That was a legal rifle under that law. That ban didn't do anythingt o stpetetdt he decrease of gun murders or murder generally, and when it expired the murder and gun murder rate continued to fall. The ban did nothing, literally. Our murder and gun murder rates have been falling since 1980, even as guns have gotten more numerous, clips have gotten higher capacity, and permits to carry guns have gotten more widespread.

And England has a higher total crime rate and violent crime rate than America. The murder rate is not the whole story. Crime rates and violent crime trates are also higher in nations with lower gun ownership rates, when you look at all nations acorss a large study. There have been at least 15 such studies, all with the same results.

I am not an NRA member, as I do not like their racist history as a man of color. I am not in the GOA either. My stats are not their studies. These are from Universities and governments' websites. I think the liberals are wrong, the conservatives are wrong, and the NRA is wrong. The problems are the drug laws and domestic violence. But no one is talking about that because it doesn't fit into their established ideologies. People are too close minded too look at the facts.

I beg you, don't be like that. It's costing real lives.

Nancy Lanza knew she had a son with mental issues, I wonder did she have trigger locks on the weapons?Were they locked up in a gun safe? Was the ammo locked up somewhere else? Were the keys hidden to all of the locks? Did she change the hiding spot on the keys on a regular basis or did she let her son know where the keys were?

These are just things I wonder about. If we ban weapons the ones who want to get them still will be able to. If someone wants to harm someone or a group of people there are other weapons with which to accomplish it. Heck, he could have waited until the kids were on the playground and drove a car over them, then what do we do ban cars?

I really don't understand the desire of owning a assault weapon for pleasure but, I am sure there are things I collect that others don't understand why I collect them either.

How absolutely stupid these Newtown people are having a gun debate at a church so shortly after the tragedy. They are just piling on hate for each other on top of their misery.

Look at the stupid posts on this article and then put that in the grieving scenario at Newtown. This town is going to end up hating each other.

It is stupid for these people to even talk about it right now. They haven't even had all the funerals yet.

More people are killed by gun accidents, suicides and angry family members with their own guns-- as Nancy Lanza was-- than are shot in the home invasion scenario that gun nuts fantasize about.

Another misconception. Homeowners don't foresee a bad guy breaking in with a gun, they foresee a bad guy breaking in. What he has in his hands, if anything, is irrelevant.

Paws93

I am so glad that you are here to correct the world on what is right and wrong...

How dare you even PRETEND to know what is going thru the minds of the people in that town!!!!

This maybe a way for them to try and figure out why it haoppened, not HOW IT HAPPEND....

"...will be forced to bend to the over 300 million..."

That's why it's not just,'The Bill of Good Ideas.'

"I really don't understand the desire of owning a assault weapon for pleasure but, I am sure there are things I collect that others don't understand why I collect them either."

You are being too tolerant here. We do not have the right to collect anything we want to. I collect dolls you collect machine guns. Come on.

All,

Paul Harvey on Guns,

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?
CONSIDER:
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From
1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

• © 2012 Microsoft
• Terms
• Privacy
• Developers

Connecticut has some of the highest/toughest gun control laws in the Country.

Ban "anything" you want and they'll still find a way.

With some of the highest & toughest gun laws in the Country, this tragedy still happened and was not prevented.

Arm and train all teachers etc... We have to fight fire with fire. There is no other solution. It's too late. Too many guns out there already and we'll "never" get them all from the criminals...

Setting the types of weapons aside.What is the driving force that gets anyone to do a thing like this?Is mental health really the issue,when you consider the number of violent crimes committed by an equally large number of different kinds of people?Is it possible that this is evidence of our civilization becoming destabilized?Vilolence is spreading in all forms.

Lets ban assault weapons and buy back guns.

wolfhound,

Is mental health really the issue...

Ummmm, I would think "YEAH"...... Duh.... I can't even shoot a dog. This Fk'n kid shot 20 little innocent children and 6 adults. Don't think anyone in their right mind would do that....

Just sayin'...

taken,

Even most residents and cops are saying basically what I said above (#1.34) Please make a list and post how we would go about it. Also show the outcome of how we would go about it.

Easier said than done huh? Its "Sooooo" easy to simply say, "Ban Guns". There has to be some "bite" in there and less bark...

ProIndividual-3906907 1.26 I'm with you. Yours is the most sensible approach. To many typical kneejerk reactions here and not enough common sense.

The argument that if Lanza didn't have access to assault weapons, he would have used something else is something we'll never know. He's dead.

But if you can argue that point, you have to also argue this one:

It's very possible that BECAUSE he could get his hands on high-powered weapons, and he knew how many rounds they could fire without reloading, and he knew how much damage they could cause, he CHOSE to commit THIS crime BECAUSE he had the firepower to do it.

In other words, the weapon gave him the power, the power gave him the idea.

It's possible that if all he was able to access was a small handgun that could shoot only a few rounds, he may never have thought of going to an elementary school full of kids. He may have killed a few people, but not on the grand scale that he did.

It's also possible that if his mother kept her weapons locked away, and if he was unable to purchase an assault weapon because he couldn't pass a background check, that he would not have had access to any weapons. It's possible he was too lazy or not clever enough to go to the trouble of stealing weapons. It's possible that if it took any planning or effort to obtain the weapons, legally or illegally, he may still be sitting at home seething, taking out his anger in video games.

We'll never know.

All,

England has @one third the population as the US and has 'gun control', yet they have more murders per year by 'beatings, stabbings, and other means, then the US does with firearms, this to include accidental killings. This just show that if someone want you dead you are going to die...

As for the school shooting, if it had not been a shooting, just think of the things around the house he could have made a bomb with...

Numb3rTech

I disagree with kaybeetoys

Nancy Lanza was not a law abiding citizen if she allowed her son access to the guns in any way without her approval. Those guns would have been locked up in a safe and the tragedy would have been averted.

Nancy Lanza was dead. She couldn't very well give or withhold her approval, could she? It's a little late to arrest her now.

Think about how she secured her guns. Even if she had them locked up in a safe, what was to stop her son from taking the keys while she slept?

She allowed him access to the guns to practice target shooting. She encouraged his interest and ability as a shooter. She knew he was emotionally unstable. One could say she helped to create this tragedy by owning guns and training an unstable person to shoot them.

There are others all over this country who are just like her and her son. Paranoid people with an arsenal... and they are the first to die. People are going out today, on Christmas Eve, and buying up assault weapons. It is nothing short of insane.

Right now at this time, there is no real way to prevent tragedies like Newtown or Aurora from happening again. Banning any guns will not make a difference.

Banning guns will actually make the attacks over the past few months easier for the criminals. A strong deterrent from committing a violent crime is the presence of a strong resistance.

The kid in Newtown was extremely smart and totally acting insane. He had killed his mom and knew the location, layout and lack of security at the school which he made his target. It would have probably been a different target if the school had been guarded with armed security or had secure entrances in place.

The only people that could have prevented this either missed the warning signs or ignored them. That would have been his mother, his psychiatrist and any friends or people he had contact with. Of course, this could have been prevented with properly locked up weapons. The son should not have been able to get to the guns in the first place. I blame the mother for not keeping the guns stored more securely where the son had no access at all.

I am not currently in the NRA, but am considering joining after this. I do carry and have been through multiple gun classes and training. Having a weapon on me did save my life in the past, though I did not have to shoot any rounds that time. For those that are against guns, that is fine. Just do not take my guns.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment and that it should not be changed. The reason guns were placed so highly in the Constitution was for individuals freedoms, that they should not be trampled upon by a tyrannical government. Guns are a necessity for hunting food and self protection. If everyone is forced to give up their guns (no matter what kind), then they deserve the penalties of a tyrannical government telling them how to live their lives, whether to be gay or straight, what religion is right, what size of cups to drink out of, how much weight to lose, what kind of diet to eat and how to not fight the criminal element that breaks into their homes.

I will keep my guns and my freedom. I will defend myself, my family, my friends and my property. I feel safe around my home and friends. Even though some of my friends do not like guns, we are friends and I respect them by not carrying a gun into their home. But they encourage me to continue. They also feel safe with me as their friend. My guns are secured in a large safe bolted through to concrete when not in use. No children or criminals can get to my guns without blowing up my house.

Do you believe in freedom and responsibility?

If if if my Aunt had balls she'd be my uncle, but we'll never know cause she ain't tellin.

With all these children destroyed we still can't see past the fencepost...We live in a broken down society where there are more Lanza's than there are criminals..Most just want the automatic weapons banned, Ive seen the video's on them their unbelievable power..No one is asking to ban the rifles pistols and shotguns just the pulsating triggers and multy clips.Is it to much to ask, we couldn't honor the children.

• A 1997 high school shooting in Pearl, Miss., was halted by the school's vice principal after he retrieved the Colt .45 he kept in his truck.
• A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun.
• A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard.
• A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter.
• A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened.
• A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns.
• A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun.
• At the recent mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon.

Why haven't most of you heard of these? The answer is simple: Mainstream media and radicals like Bloomberg don't dare make heroes of armed citizens because it CRUSHES every weak, pathetic argument they raise.

With the amount of veterans returning home with no prospect of employment, they already have the skills of "Rules of Engagement", with urban and house-to-house combat, why not have those soldiers protect our schools. IMHO an armed gunman/woman would think twice if they knew armed former military personnel were protecting those little one's and adults who teach them.

Creek Dog

Even most residents and cops are saying basically what I said above (#1.34) Please make a list and post how we would go about it. Also show the outcome of how we would go about it.

Easier said than done huh? Its "Sooooo" easy to simply say, "Ban Guns". There has to be some "bite" in there and less bark...

I am not in favor of banning all guns, but some I have no problem with. You ban semiautomatics like you ban automatics. If you are caught with one you go to jail.. plain and simple. And can you post for us the number of mass killings committed with automatic weapons that have been banned?

Arm and train all teachers etc... We have to fight fire with fire. There is no other solution. It's too late. Too many guns out there already and we'll "never" get them all from the criminals...

As someone said earlier, what happens when a teacher snaps? Will you then arm the kids? I suspect you'll have more George Zimmerman's in your school. You don't fight fire with fire... it just creates more fire. You fight fire with water, its the only way to put it out =)...

Do I want to "take your guns away".. no. But I am for stricter, tighter regulation. For example, (I have posted before)

1. Comprehensive background checks

2. Psych Evals

3. 6 References... and no, they cant all be personal

4. List of all names living in the home where the gun will be kept

5. Annual gun and gun license registration

6. If you lapse in registration, you lose your license and guns for 60 days (and you will have to go through the process all over again)

7. If you are caught with an unregistered gun or a gun not registered to you, automatic jail time of 90 days.

8. If a crime is committed with your weapon and you have not reported it lost or stolen, that's automatic jail time of 90 days

2nd amendment states I cannot take away all your guns, but it also says I can regulate the hell out of you... =)

TimesRunningOut - Are you serious with your comment? A gun control debate in a church is a good idea for you before all the funerals are had...You think this is a good idea? This tragedy is horrible and extremely emotionally taxing.

You can not make logical decisions when you are emotionally wound up. How dare I, you ask. I say, HOW DARE YOU..!!!! You make an excuse for them to get mad and start hating each other over gun control during the grieving process? You think that anything they do is right just because they suffered a tragedy? Look at the hate and venom in these posts...Do you think they should be doing that to each other at this time? Do you think a gun control debate is figuring out "why" it happened?

It's obvious that you are not thinking at all.

shona1

Australia has had 2 mass murders since Port Arthur. The Childers Palace fire in which Robert Long started a fire which killed 15 people in a hostel and the Monash University shooting in which Yun Xiang shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five.

A common theme of most successful mass murders is there is no one firing back at the shooter. Those who are attempting to use this and other tragedies like it to steal our inalienable rights tend to ignore the fact that thwarted attacks are stopped by armed citizens. Here are a few:

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, recently: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).

As pointed out by Ann Coulter.

Paws93

The gun control debate has already happened in a church in Newtown. Please read the article. You may be talking a bit quickly about not thinking.

Banning guns will actually make the attacks over the past few months easier for the criminals.

Tha point you are missing is very important:

THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THESE DEADLY ATTACKS ARE NOT CRIMINALS.

They are people who have previously been considered law-abiding and not necessarily violent. What criminal history did the shooters in Aurora, Oregon and Newtown have?

NONE.

Ok Dirp there are a few flaws in your theories...

1. I guess we are all potntial killers. You put a 3000lb vehicle on the road and that becomes a weapon.

2. Yes all persons who obtain guns are potential killers. They are also potential saviours.

3. And to get rid of all guns is preposterous. The criminal will alwayes have a means to acquire guns.

4. Please read my comment previous. #1.45... That will explain everything

@ kaybeetoys

They were criminal in their actions. They had a past with psych issues. They took a weapon in hand with plans to commit murder. Is that not criminal?

Anyone who obtains a gun does so with the intention that, if given the opportunity, they will kill.

All persons who obtain guns are potential killers.

The only rational conclusion is to get rid of ALL guns.

Ban martial arts too, then. After all, anyone that learns martial arts does so to use them on someone else, right?

What's that you say? Martial arts are for self defense?

See how that works?

BTW, Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer to carry out his mass killing. If someone wants to kill lots of people, they will find a way.

kaybeetoys

Tha point you are missing is very important:

THE PEOPLE WHO COMMIT THESE DEADLY ATTACKS ARE NOT CRIMINALS.

I totally do not understand why we these are headlines if this is true.

They are definitely criminals according to what I have read elsewhere and by my values.

@ Shona...

It is difficult sometimes for those outside of our Republic to understand our "culture" of firearms, which dates back to the founding of our union.

A couple of quotes, here, from some of our Founding Fathers.....

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which
must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert
their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people
are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear
their private arms." TENCH COXE in "Remarks on the First Part of
the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym
"A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18,
1789.

"A free people ought...to be armed..."  GEORGE WASHINGTON, speech
of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14,
1790.


 

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while
on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader
and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as
property.  The same balance would be preserved were all the world
destitute of arms, for all would be alike;  but since some will
not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would
ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..."
THOMAS PAINE, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)


"A militia, when properly formed are in fact the people
themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
RICHARD HENRY (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, Additional Letters from
the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.




 
The last quote by Richard Henry was, in fact, just recently confirmed by the SCOTUS in a case before them.
The citizenry ARE a militia (the anti-gun movement had tried to argue that the citizens do NOT constitute a militia, and thus do not have the right to beat arms.
 
In summation, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides for the citizens to keep and bear arms as protection from a tyrannical Government.

Some say this is an "outdated" argument.

Those of us that construe the Constitution literally do not.


 

I do see more than one perspective on these questions.

If Jesus Christ was sitting here with me in my living room now, I would hope that he would not look across the coffee table at me and give long-winded rationalizations for keeping all sorts of guns in the home. "Do not be afraid. I bring joyful news."

The public issue is gun safety. The homicidal maniac is the wild card. The elements, the links in the chain of crime include motive, means, and opportunity. A reasonable plan likely to succeed will address the links in the chain.

Merry Christmas.

I hate to break the bad news to all you NRA followers. You got you way when your Rep's were in control. Now the people in control will have there way. That is the way it works in the USA. Majority rules. I would ask everyone to read the 2nd amendment for your self. Don't take some ones else's word for it. People go to Church and think the preacher is telling them what the bible said. They don't. They tell you what they want you to think. The NRA does the same thing, then tell you what you should think, Never the facts. The 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms is to insure the ability to raise a well regulated citizens army. We didn't have a standing Army, or National guard. If we had a call to arms, it was citizens Army. But those were personal weapons. Does anyone really think the framers of the 2nd amendment thought we would have the assault weapons we have out there today. We all knew they were talking about Hunting rifles and shoot guns. That is what the second amendment protects. I have these types of guns, But I would never belong to the NRA. The NRA is just like the UAW. They get there people to live in fear of loosing there guns. Well that is not what they want. We all need to stop the Assault Weapons and Clips that hold more then 10 shots. No one Deer hunts with a ak47, ar 15, You can not use a gun that holds more then 6 shots, in most states. Now I know in Tx you can use any thing to kill Bambi. Ted Nudgen uses an M1 Tank to hunt. But we all know he is Bat crap crazy. We don't need people out Gunning our police, or army. Now if you live on the Mexican boarder, they I say yes have anything you need. We need common sense here. We should all join in the conversation and come up with something we can all agree upon.

There in is part of the problem, if your numbers are correct, that means there are only 4 mill who know the proper rules of responsible gun ownership and 300 mill we need to watch out for.

Take a lesson from Australia in that it is not just simply the banning of guns that have made them safer but it is the rules of ownership that are not just written to appease but written and actually followed up to insure proper ownership, storage and handling.

I see no reason why we can not provide better security in our schools especially when it would curtail a host of not so immediately dangerous broken laws. I see no reason why a gun show has the right to sell anything outside the law. I see no reason why anyone owning an assault weapon should not then be held to more stringent sets of rules for ownership. I see no reason why anyone unfit or untrained in firearms should not have to prove competence in handling and verify proper storage. I see no reason why one person buying one gun shouldn't be questioned buying ammo fit for an army.

As with anything it is not paying attention to the details that can kill you. And when we do not question training, ability, handling, storage or mentality and just allow crazy uncle Joe access to all the ammo his heart desires for his assault rifles. That he keeps loaded and leaning on the wall next to the door, on the couch, under the bed, on a shelf, ready for anything because it's his right.

Then we have failed him and the people whose names will be tagged to the rounds fired by him or perhaps the door to door salesman or the paperboy. Who grabbed a gun when no one answered the door at crazy Uncle Joe's highly fortified and never locked, because who needs locks to keep people out when you have guns to shoot them, house.

Then we fail as an active society that thinks passing a law, instead of hands on involvement, will relieve us of responsibility when tragedy strikes. So that when those that need help, are instead ignored, we can claim they were criminal and broke the law we made as false protection for our children.

Get real, get involved, because only you know if the people around you have no place in the same room as the weapons they or you or someone else owns.

If you need an AR-15 with a 30 round clip to be sure you can hit your target if your home is being invaded, you shouldn't have a gun in your possession.

This is such a complex issue, and there is no easy answer, limiting the amount of bullets one can buy would not do anything, anyone planning anything like this would just stockpile ammo. I buy target ammo in bulk because it is cheaper that way. If you own a weapon and may use it for self defense regular practice is important for accuracy and being familiar with your weapon. If you don't practice you are more likely to injure or kill the wrong person or yourself in a high stress situation. I see people saying that a cop should have shot someone in the leg instead of the torso, these people have obviously never shot a gun, it is not nearly as easy to make that shot as people think. If you think it is that easy i suggest going to a range that rents guns and try it for yourself.

I have seen people calling for a ban on hollow points, they actually do serve a purpose and you would need to understand the ballistics. The expanding round is more damaging however it also prevents over penetration and the bullet passing though the target and injuring or killing some one a block away(9mm is famous for this), and also you do want the energy of the heavier rounds. If you are unfortunate enough to find yourself confronting an intruder and needing to defending yourself or your family because the intruder also has a gun, if you don't incapacitate the intruder with your shot immediately and he shoots you as well and you both die later in the hospital you still have lost and so has your family. What if you found yourself confronting the Miami Cannibal, the cop put six rounds in him before he went down, what if you have an intruder high on angel dust that is impervious to pain, you need everything you can get. By the same token responsibility and proper control and custody of your weapon is paramount and needs to be taught perhaps as a requirement and perhaps a refresher course every 5 years, although if you need a refresher you are not being responsible.

Assault style weapons is semantics, you can get kit cars that make a Fiero look like a Lamborghini but it is still a Fiero and it is basically the same with these weapons. The .223 is not a high powered round, it is a .22 on steroids, it was designed to wound when fired in single shots, this ties up the enemy's resources(if the enemy cares about their soldiers). Lanza shot each of his victims at least 3 times, was that because he was crazy or was it because he knew this about the .223. Note a sniper does use a high powered round because they want to kill not wound. The military uses the .308 for most snipers(also a common hunting round), the .50 cal is more for long range sniping. Unless it is capable of burst, 3 rounds on every pull of the trigger or full auto, machine gun fire, it is just a semi automatic rifle in costume.

High capacity mags, banning them would slow down some inexperienced shooter but someone who is well trained can change a magazine in under a second. Banning these would have some effect, but then you have to define what high capacity is, and there are already thousands if not millions of them out there and there is no tracking, or registration, so that would have a limited effect.

Background checks are already done and in Florida there is a 7 day cooling off period from time of purchase till time of taking custody unless you have a cwp which means you have already undergone a more extensive background check and have no history of being a "hot head". I have no problem with mandatory registration of all weapons, and would not buy or sell one without a change in registration for my own safety. Yes I think this loophole should be closed, this would also close the so called gun show loophole. Mental health records should absolutely be a part of a background check, and is of paramount importance.

So what do we do that is meaningful, will curtail these horrible incidents, and is not just a knee jerk reaction? This is not as simple as it appears on the surface. I am not a member of the NRA and disagree with them on many points.

The lack of meaningful mental health care is also primary and has to be addressed.

HURRY WAL-MART SHOPPERS!

Every parent needs to stampede over to Wal-Mart this morning. I saw a big display right in the middle of the aisle with BB guns in the shape of an assault rifle and an automatic handgun.

These are going fast, so if you want to arm your child, but he or she is not old enough to carry their own machine gun, then this gift pack is the next best thing. They can actually practice shooting their neighbors and school friends!

Hopefully, come next holiday season, we will all be wearing bullet proof vests under our Christmas sweaters.

For anyone who uses Netflix, check out the excellent streaming 2010 documentary:

"Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To see a list of 2012 Presidential and Congressional candidates who paid contributions (of $1,000 and many more way above that!) TO the NRA (rather than the other way around!) go to:

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/read-list-of-us-politicians-donating-to-national-rifle-association/310570-2.html

The NRA is a Protection Racket!

If Jesus Christ was sitting here with me in my living room now, I would hope that he would not look across the coffee table at me and give long-winded rationalizations for keeping all sorts of guns in the home. "Do not be afraid. I bring joyful news."

Mark 12:31: Love your neighbor as you love yourself

Jesus would not blame an inanimate object.

The implication is we should ban anything capable of causing mass death if implimented by the deranged.

Those on the pro-ban side of the argument are answering with an irrational knee jerk delirium which answers nothing. Their proposal has been tried and found to make no difference whatsoever. Hypocrites such as Barack Obama and David Gregory mock LaPierre's proposal while sending their kids to a school with armed guards. My guess is they think armed guards will keep their kids safe.

That is the way it works in the USA. Majority rules

No Chuck, it's not. But those on the left tend to think it is when it suits their argument.

All the households have dangerous weapons. Household kitchens are always full of dangerous knifes, and crimes are committed by nutcases using those same tools. There is no way any one can stop a nutcase, criminal or a terrorist; they are always there. Therefore, everyone is responsible for security; defend yourself. The children at all the schools need to be protected; "Shadow silently and carry a big gun", we need the eagle to land at every school. The NRA has a valid point, place armed security at the schools, they do not necessarily need to be visible, they just need to be there. The school security team needs to be highly trained and frequent exercises held, preferably during non school days.

I will not support any gun control unless you start with the military. Any type of weapon (or armor) that the military has should be available to the citizens. It helps prevent things like Tienanmen Square from happening here.

As for the assertion that Obama won the election, he didn't run on gun control. He was elected because the people thought he was better for the economy. It was not a declaration that people wanted their guns taken away and the tanks to roll in.

To kaybeetoys The solution is for Americans to wake up to that reality and choose to defend themselves and their homes with security systems and tasers instead of deadly weapons.

Yeah, we need home security systems that alert the police that our homes were just broken into, and we are probably dead because honest, law-abiding people of America have given up all there guns and self protection! HELLO!! Do you think that the criminals are just going to say "Well, you banned our assault weapons and high capacity magazines. So, we as good little Vice Lords, Latin Kings, Mexican Mafia, etc should turn ours in, too!" Sorry, that's not gonna happen!

If you were one of the teachers in that school, and legally owned a handgun, would you have used it to protect the children in your classroom? Or, would you stand there and watch the idoit (who's name I don't know, or care to know because it would immortalize him, which is what he wanted probably!) and wish the police would hurry up and get there? I, pesonally, would gladly give my life in the defense of anybody's children, or group of people in a gathering of any type, in the attempts to stop an animal on a mission to kill innocent people!

Look at the real problem that is there: Parents force-feeding kids the psych-drugs, so they don't have to deal with them! What happened to the time when a shotgun or rifle was in the back of every kids truck in the school parking lot? I mean, all the mass shootings that happened...Oh, wait! They weren't happening then! Parents made their kids behave and have respect for other people, their property, and LIFE! ANYBODYS LIFE!

Don't penalize me because some drugged up idiot does something like this! I have, what you call an assault rifle with 2-30 round magazines. Guess what! I've never pointed it at anybody for any reason! And, yes, I do use it for deer hunting, and, no, it does not totally oblitherate the deer.

If you're going to go on the banning spree, ban all cars that go over 55 MPH. Get all the cars that go faster than that, and crush them all. Who needs to go faster than 55 MPH? Ban alcohol , because of drunk drivers! Ban all unhealthy food! More people die of health related issues every year than by gun violence. Ban all tobacco products! Cancer kills more people than gun violence! After you take all my guns, then take away the guns from all police officers. Oh, lets not forget to take the guns away from President Obama's security detail. They won't need them to protect him. After all, nobody in America will have guns anymore. He'll be safe!

Well, I maybe have more imagination than some. Let me see if I understand this.

1. The government is required by the US Constitution to allow the people to keep sufficient arms in their homes, barns, haystacks, automobiles, social clubs, and grandma's underwear drawer to overthrow said government if things take a turn for the worse? (Insert personal and private definition for "turn for the worse" here.)

2. The democratic process will then rely on the common sense of the gun owners with the most firepower to provide due process under the law and to decide who comes and goes and who lives and who dies?

I know we're talking about curbing and preventing mass murders with automatic weapons, but I keep seeing in these posts, recurring references to the 2nd Amendment. I am by no means against personal gun ownership, but there is a cavalier and common theme here, the belilef that an armed populace overthrowing the government is going to be something that just happens, like everybody gets up one day and decides not to go to work, or everybody decides to stop honoring the flag.

I'm just not feeling it. That is a disturbing idea. I don't think people should be making light of it.

Peace on Earth to people of good will. You know who you are.

freedomfrys

I think we are not getting the complete story here. where is the forensic on how many shell casing were found?

Which drugs were in Adam's System? We knew all this when MJ died why not on Adam/?

Did they all come from Adam's rifle ? Like did they match his. Where was this weapon found next to him or in the trunk of his car?

Which weapon did he use on his mother? do the shell casing match? Was there blood from his mother on him?

who did the police detain at the shooting?

Who ran into the woods and was than caught by the police?

What is the connection with Adam's Father and the Father on the Theater shooting?

If any one of these do not match, then we all better hang on to our GUNS and you (_!_) that own one better buy 2.

kaybeetoys Comment collapsed by the community

More people are killed by gun accidents, suicides and angry family members with their own guns-- as Nancy Lanza was-- than are shot in the home invasion scenario that gun nuts fantasize about.

In 2010 (most recent year i could find data) 211 children were killed by drunk drivers. On average one person is killed by a drunk driver every 53 minutes here in the US. The VAST majority of these deaths would have been prevented by a simple breath analyzing device attached to the vehicles ignition system. The technology already exists and could be easily installed into every vehicle on the road.

So if this is really about saving lives why is their no outcry from the left for the MUCH simpler solution to a problem that cause FAR more innocent lives to be lost???? Why not just cut the BS? You don't give a crap about saving lives, you just don't like guns.

Some posters here should visit Newtown and talk to neighbors there. We have done that, because we know people in Newtown. This might change your views on a few things, forever.

This nation's culture is based on "Me and my rights" but when we see first hand disasters we realize that the "ME" factor might become unimportant.

MY husband is a former USAF and we do own guns. I hope you folks who are terrified to lose your gun privileges, reflect on the real problems facing our Nation. This is not about you folks, it is about our country. New years will keep coming, and if we don't do anything we'll be in a very sorry state in the future.

freedomfrys

All of these mass shootings have taken place in gun free zones. You say you want tougher gun control

to protect yourself , me and everyone else. How is taking away MY right to defend myself going to

protect me? We have armed personnel at every Border crossing, airport, Federal buildings, and even

State and local Court houses.

Can the gun grabbers get a grip here? First of all it is we that outnumber you, not the other way around. There are already enough guns for every man woman and child in this country. As reported, these incidents cause MORE people to arm themselves. Talking about banning assault weapons and high cap magazines causes even more to be sold. Have you not seen the empty shelves on the news?

When Harry Reid sponsors a bill allowing conceal carry in national parks and Obama signs it, can't you take a hint?

You think "this time will be different", but the facts speak for themselves, gun manufacturers just got a very merry Christmas thanks to your sabre rattling.

Go ahead and whine away if it makes you feel better, but it's getting rather old reading such preposterous premonitions. Not happening.

Wanting sensible gun laws

doesn't make me Anti-Gun

just like how

wanting sensible traffic laws

doesn't make me Anti-Car.

Wanting to prevent senseless murder is not the same as wanting to throw out the Second Amendment!

Kill, imprison gangs and put the crazy/lunatics in a mental institution where they are forced to take their meds.

The naivete' of the "ban guns" crowd astonishes. Pick any source of statistics, and it will show that gun control laws do nothing to stop killing. Yet, these blind crusaders persist in parroting the same foolish chant. If you lemmings want to reduce killing, pressure the justice system to get criminals off the streets...permanently! It also would help, I believe, to return to the days of teaching morality to our kids in school, to include such allegedly "religious" principles as "thou shalt not kill". At least it would do no harm, and would certainly be more effective than passing more gun control laws for tthe criminals to ignore.

Gun control is not intended to stop deaths. "Sensible gun laws" are not intended to stop deaths. The fact is that it is easier to impose martial law when the army has guns and the people do not. The talk about stopping the violence is only a pretty sound bite. The real goal is a totalitarian state. I don't know why the Democrats tend to favor this. George W Bush is precisely the sort of person that tends to fill the leadership position when that happens.

lilirocks I would be interested in your opinion regarding guns after having visited Newtown, CT.

spider-737231 I agree regarding the teaching of morality, but it should be taught more in the homes and then followed up in the school system.

Proper parenting would help more in stopping these tragedies. The psych people also need to work close with the police departments when there is a case where someone is mentally disturbed. Friends and neighbors of people need to know each other better. There is no simple answer. It is going to be something that takes a lot of work with others. Banning guns is not the answer. I have had to use a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine to stop the attack of a pack of wild hogs when I was working out in the country. These guns do have legitimate uses. I have many guns and have never pointed one at a human being. Having a concealed weapon did save my life when an attacker realized I was armed, and I never even had to pull my gun. There are many issues involved in this. I am a 5'3" female and I do believe in being armed. I have been shot at with the intent to kill at one time in the past. Having and carrying a gun is a way to protect myself, my family, my friends and my property.

Merry Christmas.. to all.....

Times-Running-Out,

Are you seriously RETARDED? You say "I thought my vote was a secret. How do you know whom I voted for?"

Well, don't you think that all your bitching and degrading remarks about "You Libbies" MIGHT just be a clue, MORON??

left out a word

Should read

If any one of these do not match, then we all better hang on to our GUNS and you (_!_) that do not own one better buy 2.

For anyone who uses Netflix, check out the excellent streaming 2010 documentary:

"Murder by Proxy: How America Went Postal"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To see a list of 2012 Presidential and Congressional candidates who paid contributions TO the NRA (rather than the other way around!) go to:

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/read-list-of-us-politicians-donating-to-national-rifle-association/310570-2.html

The NRA is a Protection Racket!

Something to seriously think about: 2.1 million times every year, Americans stop crimes using their guns (of all types) legally (source: FBI Uniform Crime Report). That's 3.5 times as often as criminals commit crimes with guns. What will happen if we ban them?

Another thing to think about: people have tried to control gun ownership since the Revolutionary War (surprising, isn't it?), but never in American history has it worked (gun-related crimes usually gets much worse because the criminals know that everyone is unarmed - source: FBI Uniform Crime Report).

Whether for or against, we need to be mindful of any knee jerk reactions. Especially early on. Everyone knows this country's history (or should) regarding its citizens rights. Not just the rights we individuals think every other citizen should or shouldn't have.

There are 'other elements' watching our tragedies unfold and they are watching just what legislative, and safety measures we choose to bring forth. Certainly to DISALLOW any one individual security measure would be imprudent at this point. Decisions need to be made by competent security professionals and experts in the field as far as the safety and security of large institutions are concerned. No One individual plan will work for every institution. To call someone "crazy" for instituting certain measures might just disallow a plan well suited for a certain particular place. All plans should be considered and would be considered by rational security experts. The 'emotions' and 'politics' need to be taken out of the process.

Another thought needs to be considered. Our schools, hospitals, universities and other large venues need to be secured from an outside intrusion by physical force. Our schools weren't designed as bunkers or jails and they certainly shouldn't look the part either. Sensible modification which would be largely unnoticeable through engineering design concepts focused on keeping people and vehicles from gaining entrance to a facility as easily as the shooter in Newtown did. Physical barriers to both foot traffic and automobile traffic need to be considered. Bullet resistant glass; deeper well protected foyers with security measures; better protected office and school room doors with breach proof doors; instantaneous notifications and VIDEO SURVEILLANCE both internally and externally monitored from within and with remote access by an appropriate police agency to name a few.

A siege mentality need not exist with proper design modifications to buildings and the proper security and safety personnel employed. As I mentioned earlier, there are 'others' watching from a distance. These people are sworn enemies of the United States with an agenda, not a kook with a gun. If terrorists see a weakness or unwillingness to protect our 'assets,' our children, grandchildren our sick or our other institutions of importance, we will bear the blame for not going the distance. Think about it.................

a Washington, D.C. area private school, has 11 armed security guards and is apparently hiring an additional police officer because Sasha and Malia Obama attend there.

Hey if its good enough for them then it should be good enough for the rest of the kids in the country right??

One of the interesting parts of all of this is the fact that most if not all of the politicians calling for more gun control laws have ARMED SECURITY themselves, and all of the security personnel carry semi-auto firearms with high cap mags or FULL AUTO ASSAULT RIFLES with armor piercing ammo, like the FN-90 or MP-7 carried by Secret Service personnel.

Tell you what when all the Liberal Democrats disarm their private security then the rest of us will take a look at it, until then NO DEAL.

How many of these liberals who want you disarmed are protected by armed body guards??? MOST OF THEM!!! hipocrits with NO answers who couldn't care less about us.

Mother Cluster Duck

I agree with you so let us compromise I am a gun owner and will back the sale and ownership of assault rifles and high volume magazine if you will support the anti abortion laws. Both kill innocent children so both should be outlawed. Ok

numb3rtech - I did read the article and I know it already happened and I called it stupid. My last post was in response to some other person who thought it was a good idea to debate it so close after a tragedy.

With emotions so high, having a gun debate is pointless and will only serve to pit neighbor against neighbor in that town.

You thought you were clever in your comment to me, but you only made yourself look silly. If you are going to get involved in others back and forths, then I suggest reading the other posts before offering such a pathetic comment.

- being a gun owner doesn't mean you are a Romney style republican... I'm centrist left

- I've had guns my whole life and I've avoided being the victim of violent crime 2 times and saved my daughter from being assaulted once without having to fire a shot

- being on the left, I strongly oppose the ongoing erosion of personal rights... 2nd amendment rights being one of them

- because we've already tried a ban... and it had zero impact... and after the ban expired gun crime is down by HALF, I do not support another ban

- assault weapons are almost never used in gun crime.. the number is about 2%... because they are large and can't be readily concealed

- a ban now is a waste.... there are millions of assault style weapons and magazines larger than 10 rounds in circulation

- 90% of the time, anti gun people do not know what they are talking about in this debate.... they aren't automatic, armor piercing ammunition is not available, 30 round magazines do not make it significantly easier than 10, and they aren't any more lethal than many other gun types out there

- people citing the Australia example are cherry picking... anyone who wants one can still get a gun there... home invasions are up 900%... violent crimes against persons are up 300%... their gun policy is clearly a failure and a continued erosion of rights

- people citing the UK are also cherry picking.... they have always had a much lower murder rate... have a national health system that doesn't ignore mental health, a national surveillance system..... and in spite of their ban London has a very high firearm assault rate... nearly as high as NYC... why do they have a lot of assaults but much lower deaths? culture

- in Canada, they have firearm controls, but its not a lot more restrictive than the US, but their murder rate is like the UKs.... why are they permissive with guns and still have a lower murder rate? maybe its because they dont allow freakin insurance companies to limit people to 10 mental health visits a year

this should be about better mental health care, school security, and real comprehensive background checks... its literally moronic to ban assault weapons and you guys sound ridiculous saying it.....

an assault weapons ban will do nothing and next year a guy will kill 50 kids with a rifle that was already in circulation or a handgun with a few more magazines.... and if you are a anti gun person it will be YOUR FAULT because you let Congress do something useless.... again

We have to be realistic.

If it was up to me, I would repeal the right to bear arms and take all weapons and shove them in a blast furnace. Ban guns, ammunition and the sale of all guns.

However that is not going to happen. With estimates as high as 500,000,000 guns in the U.S. there has to be another way.

It will be costly. Schools have to have metal detectors. Only one entrance can be used to enter a school and that has to be monitored. Windows will have to be replaced with bullet proof glass. No one will be allowed into the school after the start of school, unless they are accompanied by a guard who obligates that person to go through a metal detector. The door will be locked from inside and a video surveillance system has to be installed and receiving monitors have to be placed in the principal's office, guard office and guidance counselor's office.

Most buildings that house courts, public records, police departments already have these safe guards in place. It is time to extend these safeguards to our children.

It is impossible to diagnose, treat and control mentally ill people. Guns can easily be bought on the street or stolen. This slaughter has to be stopped today!

I am sure there are many more suggestions that can be offered but at least that is a start. All students regardless of age will have to have an entity tag that will have to go through a scanner, or a fingerprint scanner or an eyeball scanner. This massacre of people has to stop.

entity=identity. Anyone who has tried to get into a city, state of federal building, knows that he will have to go through a metal detector and that at least two armed individuals are there to insure that everyone has to comply.

Yes it will be costly but it is necessary. As many parents take their children to school or wait with them at bus stops, the care entrusted to schools should be an extension of the care that a family gives to the children at home.

However, thanks to owning a gun, I stopped the kidnapping of my son from the house and I did apprehend two burglars who had the audacity to try and rob my house during daylight hours with my family present. I also had to defend my walled house against a gang who tried to force the main door of my residence.

I would not have my son today if I did not own a gun and knew how to use it. It is not realistic to try and remove all guns. The criminals will easily obtain arms anywhere, anytime and as easily as you and I can buy groceries.

The pivot point is stopping them from using them.

There was a law that was remarkably effective. People were incarcerated for associating with known felons. As most gang members are associating with known felons, it should be investigated how these laws work and break up the gangs. For the mentally disturbed individuals who killed firefighters and children, a whole new outlook on protecting firefighters and children has to be developed.

A first step would be to enact very heavy mandatory sentences, for a first offense. Life in prison without possibility of parole. Of course in these two instances, as the mentally deranged people killed themselves, it would not be a deterrent. But ......perhaps.....the mere thought that there would be no way out for them would stop a small proportion of the non mentally ill murderers.

The persons responsible for this horrible event was his Mother, for allowing access to the firearms & the shooter for his actions. No one else gave access to the weapons, loaded the weapons or shot the weapons.

Responsible firearms owners live all across our great nation..... to restrict the law-abiding for the actions of the law-less is the very definition of wrong..........

Steve, you just contradicted yourself. You said Nancy Lanza was responsible, but she WAS a law-abiding citizen. By all accounts she was a responsible gun owner!

She did nothing illegal. Her weapons were purchased legally. For all we know, they were kept in a gun safe and her son was only able to access the bulk of them after he had killed her.

Everyone who owns a gun ought to think about that. Your gun can be stolen by a criminal or taken by a mentally unhinged/ drunk/ angry family member and used to kill you.

It's all legal, except for the murder. But that's cold comfort when you're dead, isn't it?

They were criminal in their actions. They had a past with psych issues. They took a weapon in hand with plans to commit murder. Is that not criminal?

These shooters (whose names are not important and who should not be given any publicity, in my opinion) had NO CRIMINAL HISTORY prior to their mass shootings.

Once they killed, of course they are criminals. Can you follow the simple logic that no one is a criminal BEFORE they have ever committed a crime?

We are letting virtually anyone have access to guns. Background checks don't hinder these people... they can buy guns at gun shows or from other individuals. They can steal guns from their friends and neighbors. They can take their mother's guns and murder twenty innocent six-year-olds.

And some of you want to keep it that way.

Backcountry164

kaybeetoys Comment collapsed by the community

More people are killed by gun accidents, suicides and angry family members with their own guns-- as Nancy Lanza was-- than are shot in the home invasion scenario that gun nuts fantasize about.

In 2010 (most recent year i could find data) 211 children were killed by drunk drivers. On average one person is killed by a drunk driver every 53 minutes here in the US. The VAST majority of these deaths would have been prevented by a simple breath analyzing device attached to the vehicles ignition system. The technology already exists and could be easily installed into every vehicle on the road.

So if this is really about saving lives why is their no outcry from the left for the MUCH simpler solution to a problem that cause FAR more innocent lives to be lost???? Why not just cut the BS? You don't give a crap about saving lives, you just don't like guns.

My comment was collapsed why? Because gun nuts don't want freedom of speech. They just want freedom to have their own way with their deadly toys.

Backcountry, you have changed the subject so I'll address your off-topic comment this way: I'm totally in favor of manufacturing or installing breathalyzer devices in all American vehicles. But I'm surprised you are...isn't that government intervention? more regulations? taking away your freedom?

What is the primary purpose of a car?

What is the primary purpose of a gun?

Learn logic, Americans. So many are sorely in need of it.

I'm really getting tired of friggin morons who don't know crap about what they're talking about and think with their asses and emotions instead of what little gray matter exists between their ears. ONCE AGAIN - private citizens cannot buy "assault weapons" and the AR15 type rifles as well as the AK47 type rifles that have been available in this nation for over 50 years are NOT assault rifles - they are civilianized semi-automatic style rifles that have been available in his nation for over 100 years! Only idiots, the media, and self-serving politicans call them assault rifles. The rush to ban these weapons and magazines is being played on the public by liberal elements in this nation who know the irrational emotions over Sandy Hook will start to fade in a very short time to be replaced by rational thinking, THEY DO NOT WANT THIS, for their goal is NOT to reduce crime but to disarm and violate the constitutional rights of about 180 million americans who own 300 million guns, 19 million "scary rifles" and 200 million high-capacity magazines. If you are against gun ownership - then don't buy one, but don't infringe on the rights of those that don't want to be victims of thugs, rapists, burglars, paroled cons that kill their grandmothes with hammers, and under the potential yoke of a domestic or foreign oppressor as per our Constitutional Rights and Intent of the founders of this nation and not the neo-reformers of the current era.

kaybeetoys,

Your post was collapsed because of the inaccuracy of your post, 2.1 million times every year, Americans stop crimes using their guns (of all types) legally (source: FBI Uniform Crime Report). So you see the bs you tried to feed the uninformed was seen for what it was and down voted.

kaybeetoys,

You are so right. My posts are continually collapsed too, only because the gun advocates are desperately hoping to keep quiet those voices that oppose their lust for weapons.

I don't worry about it though. I just keep posting, knowing that the majority of Americans agree with us.

Thanks, silverton. I hope you're right that the majority of Americans are fed up with this seige mentality that sends thousands out to buy more and more weapons. We become LESS safe with every gun they buy.

Will it ever end? Or will we just stand in a giant circle and shoot each other? I don't own a gun and I refuse to fall prey to the propaganda of the NRA and the right-wing conspiracy theorists. I do not want to live in a community where I must arm myself with a deadly weapon to go to the mall, to a movie, or to a restaurant. I do not want to see little children cowering in fear at the sound of a loud bang.

So shoot me now, gun nuts. Get it over with. Take your deadly toys (call them assault weapons or not, JP, it's all the same once the bullet enters your brain or your heart) and hide in your houses, guns at the ready. The 'criminals' are coming to get you.

Could smoking all that pot be making some people paranoid??? ;)

I suppose pot could be a factor in the paranoia that seems rampant among gun advocates, and I also think violent video games and movies play a big part in it as well.

Then, there is the general bravado that comes along with having big guns and lots of weaponry. Some folks enjoy showing off their arsenal thinking somehow this makes them look cool, like smoking cigarettes used to make people look cool (until society realized and the surgeon general determined it is not so cool after all).

With cigarettes, the tobacco companies helped to glamorize that habit, and it has taken millions of deaths to change that sort of thinking.

With guns, the NRA pushes their agenda, making others think they must stockpile weapons in case the big bad government or some invading foreign forces come to get them, and all the while, these gun owners don't realize the NRA doesn't give a tinker's dam about individuals' freedoms. They only worship the almighty dollar.

Amen.

I wonder why the pro-gun people never mention that part of the second amendment...

tisk tisk tisk!!

Because the militia is "regulated" by themselves Bella... That was the initial reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment...

TTerryftb, Bella Angel & Others,

If any of you ever care to do any research on paper's of our founding fathers and notes they wrote or other papers, virtually each one had penned something to the effect of: The 2nd Amendment shall in know way be mis-understood or taken to mean that each citizen should not be armed... In fact each citizen and child of enough maturity should be taught how to use a firearm, to hunt, and defend ones self with... The last couple of sentence's was not a direct quote from any one, but was penned by more then one of them... Also a well regulated 'Militia' is a army of the people not the 'Government', the National Guard works under the Dept. of the Army, or which ever guard it may be i.e. Air National... So, we the people do not have a 'People's Militia' to protect us from invading Government's or our 'Own' gone awry... The last time we did have true Militia's come together was during the 'Revolutionary War'...

That's why you do not hear Pro-Gunners or citizen's who believe in and understand the 2nd amendment mention a Militia or National Guard...

@Bella.angel

Is this better:

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of
State:

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.^[8]

Gun Toting Teabaggers...

"A well regulated militia" is only the first part of the Amendment. And if the Amendment was to somehow change what was stated within the body of the Constitution regarding the militia, then it would have done so.... but the 2nd does not.

The 2nd Amendment does not authorize Congress for any additional power over the militia. It does not give any more ability to arm, train, or call the militia. It does not restrict the Congress in any manner from using the militia. It does not alter in any manner, the way Congress handles the militia.

In fact, if the 2nd Amendment was for anything to do with the militia, it would be a complete waste of paper & ink.

It is ONLY when the 2nd is read in it's entirety....

"A well-regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now we can plainly see the reason for the Amendment..... the right of the people.

Gun control is nothing but a politician's excuse to say "they've done something." Gun control would simply lead to a greater black market of illicit weapons. Do you want the high cost of a "War on Guns?" I think not.

Concerned-999

Now why would the NRA be responsible for paying the cost of a security guard in schools?

In my home town, we have had police officers in our schools for 5 years now and no one is bit@hing that the NRA pay for them, 1000's of school districts have done the something and not said the NRA should pay.

Obama can send 20 F-16 Top of the Line Fighter Jets to Bought on OUR Dime to his buddies the Muslim brotherhood, and then turn around and send them 1.6 BILLION (Of Mine and Your Tax Money)... Why can some of the aid be sent to AMERICA?

I have enjoyed reading this thread with many varied and, for the most part, well thought out points of view, And the you have to show up with "Obama can send 20 F-16 Top of the Line Fighter Jets to Bought on OUR Dime to his buddies the Muslim brotherhood, and then turn around and send them 1.6 BILLION (Of Mine and Your Tax Money)... Why can some of the aid be sent to AMERICA?"

Please show me one source where Obama sent 20 F16s to the Muslim Brotherhoods! Total BS!

MikeO76,

Blog: Good news: US sending 20 more F-16's to Egypt

Obama approved F-16 fighter jets as gift to Egypt — RT

Obama defies congressional leaders, OKs delivery of F-16s to Egypt ...

I came up with a number of hits on this subject using this fancy new invention called Google.

MikeO76

The reason you may not know this is I could not find where any of the alphabet Stations/Sites carried it....

It's amazing what you can learn when ya do a little research ON YOUR OWN... I know that you obama play book did not send you this update so please read:

Despite instability due to the new Islamic government in Egypt, the US is sending more than 20 F-16 fighter jets to Egypt as part of a $1 billion foreign aid package.

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-fighter-jets-egypt-856/

Egypt’s increasingly unstable Muslim Brotherhood regime, voted into power on an anti-US and anti-Israel platform, is about to receive 20 F-16 fighters jets despite calls to suspend arms sales to Cairo

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/163047

The U.S. decision to send Egypt 20 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets as the new Islamic president in Cairo is making dictatorial moves will fuel growing criticism in the United States and Europe of arming regimes that shun democracy.

http://www.yalibnan.com/2012/12/12/u-s-decision-to-send-egypt-20-f-16-fuels-debate/

The Obama administration took a careful look at the political calendar before announcing that the first four F-16 fighter planes - of the 20 approved in a $1 billion US foreign aid package to Egypt - would be delivered Jan. 22.

http://www.debka.com/article/22604/Obama-to-start-sending-US-F-16-fighter-jets-to-Egypt-%E2%80%93-on-Israel%E2%80%99s-election-day

The Obama administration is going ahead with a delivery of 20 F-16 fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood-led country, even as Amnesty International is calling “dangerous” President Mohammed Morsi’s decision to grant the military the power to arrest civilians protesting against him

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/12/11/obama-regime-to-give-20-f-16-fighter-jets-as-a-gift-to-the-muslim-brotherhood-government-in-egypt/

The Obama administration is going ahead with a delivery of 20 F-16 fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood-led country, even as Amnesty International is calling “dangerous” President Mohammed Morsi’s decision to grant the military the power to arrest civilians protesting against him.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-admin-going-ahead-with-f-16-shipment-to-muslim-brotherhood-ruled-egypt/

Well MikeO76 looks like Dan1401 and Times-Running-Out just "blew" you away lol! No pun intended...

Concerned-999 You said "Since the NRA feels that placing police officers in our schools is the answer then they should cover the cost. This is just a stupid idea as the police cannot be every where at all times"

There's this thing called security guards. Maybe you have heard of them. Urban legends even tells us they drive armored cars and protect places that need to be secured. Lol! Although we use police here in Detroit to guard our schools, who said you couldn't use security companies? Your statement is an example of a one track mind high off of tunnel vision.

You also said "I do not own a gun"

We can tell lol!

Obama wants to have restrictions on the internet to keep people from the truth

Agreed, using the second amendment is just smoke and mirrors for keeping weapons unrestricted. The true motive is more about what makes the world go round, MONEY!

How do you propose to cover the cost of the ensuing war on guns? You're silly to assume that legislation will automatically clean guns off the streets. You will create nothing but a bigger Black Market of illicit weapons.

AND...

There were NO "assault weapons" involved in this tragedy.

Hey Eva , Just signed on Huh. Just get this gig or have you been trolling for a while now?

No assault weapons? it was a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. is that not 'assault' enough? are you saying assault rifles are okay to own? its okay to walk into a school with a rifle?

The civilian-model Bushmaster sporting rifle involved in this tragedy was a .223 caliber weapon. There are NO .223 caliber military weapons.

Hoplophobes go into full hand-wringing hystrionics because a civilian model rifle casts a shadow similar to a military assault rifle.

Vern-1642229

The civilian-model Bushmaster sporting rifle involved in this tragedy was a .223 caliber weapon. There are NO .223 caliber military weapons.

100% incorrect the m16 uses a .223 or 5.56 nato, same round

KJ-3023865, Vern-1642229, Antistupidity. At Common Law, an intentional act by one
person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or
offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an
apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in
either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the
same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an
additional Criminal Law category of assault
consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the
United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

weap·on

/ˈwepən/

Noun

1. A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
2. A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest: "resignation threats are a weapon in his armory".

Now boys and girls lets put those two definitions together. As we can see anything can be called an assault weapon, assault riffle, assault pistol etc... It has nothing to do with how many rounds it can fire, or how fast it can fire them. In fact it doesn't even have to be a (firearm) at all. I could hit you with a stick and it could be interpeted as an "assault weapon." First of all you're arguing irrevelent points as it is a known fact that the gunman in Newtown didn't even carry the so called "assault riffle" into the school. It was found in the car, therefore it didn't get used. He used two pistols. One was a Sig-Sauer and the other was a Glock both of which are pistols.

The definition of assault weapon really has no bearing on the term 'assault' or 'weapon'. combining the two defintions isn't accurate either. The definition of "assault weapon" apparently varies by country, but ......"In the State of Connecticut, an assault weapon is legally defined as "any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user"

Effumann

Go crawl back in your hole, he used the Bushmaster, he used one of the handguns to kill himself and it was a shotgun in the car.

KJ-3023865 is correct in his statement.

Antistupidity

You're both wrong. My name says it all......

Antiantistupidity, .223 Remington and 5.56x45 NATO are similar, but they are most definitely NOT the same.

SAAMI lists 5.56 military ammo as being not for use in .223 firearms in the technical data sheet titled “Unsafe Firearm-Ammunition Combinations.”

It is the same bullet, there is a slight difference in the shell casing, but most AR's will chamber both without any safety concerns. Ballistically they are the same.

Effumann

Nice name, so you already have your answer anytime you are wrong, you just point to yourself, you seem to be the type that will take their ball and go home if you don't get your way. So grab your ball and go home, we don't need you, the adults are having a conversation.

If he really wanted to help gun crime, he would tax guns like tobacco and tax ammunition even more. How's that for ya? All problems solved.

If he really wanted to help gun crime, he would tax guns like tobacco and tax ammunition even more. How's that for ya? All problems solved

My god you libs. How much is one to pay in tax? There are already high taxes on guns, ammo and all hunting/shooting supplies. Have you ever read anything or do you just spew out talking points of the politicians and media.

Have you ever once heard of the Pittman–Robertson Act The Pittman–Robertson Act took over a pre-existing 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. This is on top of the sales tax and anyother fees and is factored into the prices of the ggods purchased. Instead of going into the U.S. Treasury as it had done in the past, the money is kept separate and is given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the States.

Not enough taxes on whatever the libs don't like are being paid if you listen to them these days. Funny that for a fact cars kill far more than guns do yet our our liberal friends are not wanting to tax them and the ammo they use (fuel) out of existence. I would guess that if the liberals like something they are willing to put up with it regardless of the danger, but if they don't like they try to abolish the right to have it.

Does anyone except me see how hypocritical this is?

Yup. For his next trick, Barack Hussein will tax gasoline at $1,000 a gallon, to try to reduce drunk driving.

And then he's gonna ban seatbelts, to try to reduce traffic fatalities.

Dummy.

Vern-1642229

What you're talking about has nothing to do with New Town....

It's estimated to cost $32 million dollars to supply armed guards to about 130,000 schools... we can't even give kids food at all the schools in America, there are those that go hungry, so where are we going to come up with the money to hire guards, outfit them with uniforms and weapons, enroll them in health care programs and provide other benefits, and give them a decent salary?

And police? The average police officer earns twice as much as a security guard! We have a school system nationwide that is cutting back on teachers, sports, music programs and other classes. Where's the money going to come from?

Where's the money going to come from?

No the question should be where in the heck is all the money going? 75% plus of my property tax goes to the schools.(over $10,000p/y) I know that may be hard for some to understand as you actually have to work hard and own something. We can launch over a billion $ of hardware into Libya but we can't feed our school kids. But I know taking away guns will solve this, I say guns as once the claws are in they will go for everything. I would also like to know what the heck is a military style weapon, because many here are asking for "assault rifles and military style weapons". So if I put a fancy stock on a bolt action rifle then it looks like a military style gun or is it my rifles that I often shoot out past 1800 yards?

StandUpJokeOff

Obama has given the muslim brotherhood 20 f-16 Jet fighers at an est cost of 19 million each and then he is going to give them 1.2 to 1.6 BILLION dollars... (That approx 380 MILLION DOLLARS worth of OUR TAX MONEY)

Now where could the USA find 32 Million dollars to PROTECT OUR CHILDREN?

,,,, Duuuuuhhhhh ,,,, Think hard...

Why does he instist on giving or enemies OUR Money so they can train and grow and turn around and attack us, yet they scream from the WH that they don't have any money for US the PEOPLE who's money it is to begin with.

Vern-1642229

Now what kind of reporting would that be for the 'News Agencies" (and I use the word News Loosly) that want to back obama's ban on guns in the hands of the PEOPLE.

The article I read on Nick Meli was that he drew and couldn't take a shot because of someone behind the shooter. Still, it appears to be at this point that the shooter ran and then later shot himself. From past history, these lunatics don't seem to want to shoot it out with anyone, they either give up or kill themselves.

It's reaching to say the killer saw the gun and ran, but it's telling that in a mall full of shoppers he only killed three. Something was different. And, in any case, Nick Meli was certainly able to defend himself and his family, something the other mall customers couldn't do.

By the way, it was difficult to even find the story on Nick. It certainly wasn't front page. I wonder why? Looking at your, Libs.

This is the first time I have heard of Nick Meli. Hmmmmmm.........I wonder why?

He is a true American hero, although a fictional character.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

most "news" shows are just entertainment shows with their own agenda.

takenaka

Here is a news article about your 'fictional character'.

As gun control debates rage after the Newtown tragedy, new details about last week’s Oregon mall shooting are heating up the argument. It turns out the murderer was not the only one with a gun. Shopper Nick Meli was legally armed, and, while the killer’s rifle jammed, had the maniac in his sights. He did NOT pull the trigger, however, for fear of injuring a bystander behind the shooter. The killer then retreated and took his own life. So what does this prove? Did a concealed carrier end the rampage? Or show the limits of armed civilians fearful of injuring one another in emergencies?

http://now.msn.com/nick-meli-who-had-a-concealed-weapon-thought-about-shooting-oregon-mall-killer

no question this guy Nick stopped a major incident.... it's crazy that it didn't get reported at all....

Have to agree with you there Vern. I have never thought it was a good idea to leave guns, knives, drugs or anything that can possibly be lethal around hormone enraged teens or mentally disturbed young adults. The thing parents don't seem to be getting is that, even though their teen might be adult in size, there are developmental changes still occurring which do not always allow them to immediately process guilt or consequences. And I have to admit, I am one of those who believes a swift kick to the seat of the pants occasionally would be in order. It is nearly impossible to keep every possible weapon away from them, but the solution certainly needs to begin at home, and I shudder to think what we would do without those brave police officers who put their lives on the line every day.

I am proud of my kids, they respect their elders and treat everyone equally. A vast majority today are spoiled inconsiderate brats that needed a good spanking about a dozen years ago. We were raised on the Golden Rule and God help you if you embarrassed your parents by acting up. If we had a stupid parent ban we would have a 2% unemployment rate.

Ledapex62 probably buys guns online. Ban handguns.

Takenaka,

I swear, a parrot has more words in their vocabulary than you do, Please pick a new mantra to sqawk about.

Vern - The courts have ruled time after time after time that the police and government has no obligation to protect you. To accomplish this there would have to be 1 police person per citizen - not possible. It is literally your responsibility to protect yourself and your family. You do not have to believe me, ask any judge or lawyer what the case law is.

There were NO "assault weapons" used in this tragedy.

That would be like banning jelly, because you have an alergy to peanut butter.

Please give me your definition of an assault weapon.

An assault rifle was not even used in the Sandy Hook shooting. 4 handguns were found inside the school and an AR15 was found in the trunk of the car.

LostInThePineBarrens

An Assult weapon is "Anything the Libs what it to be"... LOL

An assault weapon and LOL in the same sentence.... Really

thumper-436877

Yeah really

According to CNN () "The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance."

Assault Weapons and large clips are nothing more than toys for boys who never grew up and security blankets for paranoids. The are not worth the lives of anybody, especially 6 year olds.

What'a a "large clips"?

The highest capacity clip that I know of, is 8 rounds, and it's only for .30-'06, probably the most popular hunting caliber in extistance.

Well my friend do you believe everything you hear on CNN? When this incident first occurred, the police on the scene stated that Lanza had two handguns in his possession inside the school where he was found dead, killed by one of his own guns. Later in the day, it was announced to the media that they found a Bushmaster rifle in the trunk of Lanza's car. In fact there is a video clip floating around that shows a police officer unloading said rifle which I saw at one point. The next day some unidentified individual was taped stating that Lanza had definetly used the Bushmaster in the attack. After that it suddenly became the fact that the Bushmaster was the primary weapon used as the media continued to maintain that position.

This brings up several issues. Number one, how did the rifle get back into Lanza's car if he took it into the school and why was the rifle still "loaded" when the discovered it? Did he quit shooting with it, take it back to the car, reload it, lock it up then grab two handguns a go back into the school? There is no testimony from witnesses that Lanza ever left the school once he started his killing spree. The first officers on the scene reported that he must have used bullets that were designed to expend all their energy inside a body. This is characteristic of police type handgun ammo. Had Lanza been using a .223 at close range the wound damage would have been horrific with many projectiles going completely through these kids bodies. This is not what the police described at any point. The final"official report" now is that he had four handguns but used the Bushmaster for all the shooting. Then why did he have the handgun as they would be very inferior for what he intended to do.

While this is no doubt a terrible incident and heart rendering to us all, I am beginning to wonder if we are not being sold a bill of goods by the admitedly gun hating media in this country to provoke the exact sentiment we are now seening regarding banning certain types of firearms. Oh for the record, I do not own a sem-automatic, high magazine capacity rifle nor have I any intention of obtaining one so I have no horse in this race.

You really need to get your ducks in a row before trying to take away my rights. You may be well meaning but you present the argument of a fool and I have no intention of listening to fools on this matter.

Rah13

At Common Law, an intentional act by one
person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or
offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an
apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in
either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the
same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an
additional Criminal Law category of assault
consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the
United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

weap·on

/ˈwepən/
Noun

1. A thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
2. A means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest: "resignation threats are a weapon in his armory".

Now boys and girls lets put those two definitions together. As we can see anything can be called an assault weapon, assault riffle, assault pistol etc... It has nothing to do with how many rounds it can fire, or how fast it can fire them. In fact it doesn't even have to be a (firearm) at all. I could hit you with a stick and it could be interpeted as an "assault weapon." First of all you're arguing irrevelent points as it is a known fact that the gunman in Newtown didn't even carry the so called "assault riffle" into the school. It was found in the car, therefore it didn't get used. He used two pistols. One was a Sig-Sauer and the other was a Glock both of which are pistols.

dubsak20

Ain't that the truth... I was watching MSNBC the day it happened and while it was still going on they were talking about banning guns... Obama said "let's not make this Political, and then in the next breath says how he will use all his power to ban them.

Almost forgot... Then MSNBC started talking about the NRA and why they had not said anything... I said to myslef, Now is not the time to be talking like that, but the libs were foaming at the bit for the NRA it say anything... They did what the NEWS should have done and they waited a few days before saying anything.

Just like you knee jerk Republitards can't leave the poor victims of Benghazi alone, can ya?!

CasualUSTaxpayer

WHo Lied about the Newtown Murders?

Who Lied about Benghazi, I mean Besides Obama, Clinton, Rice you know the usual crowd of liars.

P.S. A Very typical Lib response... Deflect deflect Blame someone else, deflect...

And what did FOX news and the GOP have to say about gun control, not a word. The GOP has both the NRA and Grover to thank for our problems. They sign pledges to both, but not to the USA people.

If you want to help crime, tax the living hell out of ammunition. Problem solved. Most gang members are relatively poor, so that would really take some bite out of them.

They never print stories about guns protecting lives either. Like the 12 year old girl home alone that shot an intruder that kicked in the rear door to their house. It was later revealed that the intruder was arrested before for trying to abduct a special needs child. That's just one case. Anyone have children they would like to protect?

Gang members break in and steal what they want. That would only infring upon joe average trying to protect his family.

Casual Tax Payer.... But you are hurting those who enjoy the sport of shooting. One of my favorite things to do is go to the range and shoot my legally bought, legally owned rifle. I like to challenge myself to become a better shot. It is a low stress sport and something that gets my mind of the stressful job that I have. Now... taxing the hell out of it would prevent me from being able to do this. So because there are psychos out there who want to cause harm, I am punished. I do get the emotion behind your post though and I'm not trying to discount you in any way. But, gang bangers are not always poor. The gangs have a lot of money and they will use that to buy ammunition. I work in a high school so I have quite a bit of experience with students joining gangs etc... I have had conversations with them about why they are in gangs etc... Some of what comes out of it is that the gang pays for things... Clothing, Protection (ammunition and guns etc...) The other part is, they steal a lot. A lot of the guns and ammunition they use comes from stealing.

Jeff,

My wife is/was totally against having guns in the house at first. But, we had a call in the middle of the night about a barricade situation down the street and that we should stay in our homes. All of a sudden she felt secure knowing there was one near by. Then, she started watching that show "Panic 911." There are a few instances on there where the average Joe or Jane needs to protect themselves from crazy people breaking in etc... These happen in thought to be safe neighborhoods, not the inner city environment. Now, she sees some of the importance. The truth is, there are many times when firearms are used to protect the safety of law abiding citizens (I would post links but I cant) but no one feels the need to brag about or cover those in the media. It's just when they are used for wrongdoing. Frustrating to say the least.

Now speaking of having children to protect, my daughter just woke up. I hope all (those I agree with and disagree with) have a great holiday with your families. I think in times like these, we forget that we are all part of one society and all come from different view points. We have to learn to start disliking the idea and not the person behind it. May cooler head prevail in the new year.

Casual,

Go ahead and tax ammo, hell, ban it if you think that will help. As a handloader I have thousands of rounds of ammo stockpiled and the components to make thousands more. If you want to tax/ban ammo, go for it. I won't be impacted at all.

Patrick Monihan a noted high density liberal suggested this years ago. However after careful consideration they decided that this wouldn't work, that it would just create a huge black market for cheap foreign made ammo that would be smuggled into the country and sold on the streets. We see this in areas like NYC where cigarettes are 12 -13 dollars a pack, but you buy butts if you know where to go for 8 or 9 dollars a pack.

CasualUSTaxpayer

Its obvious you know nothing about gangs. They are well funded. They rob, steal and sell drugs. All those things lead to money and opens up ways to get weapons. Example; I rob you with a knife and get $60 out of it. take the $60 and buy a cheap (throw away) pistol for $50 with the rounds. I'm still $10 ahead now, plus I got a gun. I then use this gun to rob someone else and do a couple of B&E's. While doing those I gain more income in the form of money or things I've stolen from your house. I either flip the goods for money or use the money I stole to buy drugs and then start selling. I use the same cheap pistol I brought for $50 to protect me while selling drugs. As I accquire more income I buy more powerful guns illegally and arm my boys. Now we become a force to recon with because laws were put in place to make it harder for legitimate, law abiding citizens to get or possess firearms for their own protection. Whats even worse is the gangbangers are better funded than the citizen so they are able to afford the expensive, over taxed ammunition you speak of and they have better firepower than you so you're out gunned as well. All because of the laws. Do you see how the knee jerk reaction can hurt us now? All too often we yell BAN GUNS" before we know what the reprecussions are.

Higher cost of guns and ammunition will only infring upon the poor persons right to defend himself and his family. Guns have a good side and you people seem to forget that.

Right, now it's gang attacks and American tyranny of a corrupt government. Guns are just as relevent in these times as in the 1700's and for the same reasons.

Merry Christmas all ! Be careful you will put your eye out with that thing.

Taxing guns will stop school shootings?

IMBECILE.

CasualUSTaxpayer

I am sure if you rasie the tax on something that will stop the Crooks from stealing the items right?

Now don't get your panties in a bunch-just a comparison. It is a proven fact that AIDS is transmitted from anal sex. Do you support a tax on anal lube? Again, a comparison just where and when and who decides what is right?

It is already taxed, you pay sales tax, and you pay the BATF for the background check. Any time you pay the government or a government agency it is a tax.

This is the only response I have ever literally laughed at on such a serious issue.

CasualUSTaxpayer

Its obvious you know nothing about gangs. They are well funded. They rob, steal and sell drugs. All those things lead to money and opens up ways to get weapons. Example; I rob you with a knife and get $60 out of it. take the $60 and buy a cheap (throw away) pistol for $50 with the rounds. I'm still $10 ahead now, plus I got a gun. I then use this gun to rob someone else and do a couple of B&E's. While doing those I gain more income in the form of money or things I've stolen from your house. I either flip the goods for money or use the money I stole to buy drugs and then start selling. I use the same cheap pistol I brought for $50 to protect me while selling drugs. As I accquire more income I buy more powerful guns illegally and arm my boys. Now we become a force to recon with because laws were put in place to make it harder for legitimate, law abiding citizens to get or possess firearms for their own protection. Whats even worse is the gangbangers are better funded than the citizen so they are able to afford the expensive, over taxed ammunition you speak of and they have better firepower than you so you're out gunned as well. All because of the laws. Do you see how the knee jerk reaction can hurt us now? All too often we yell BAN GUNS" before we know what the reprecussions are.

P.s. This is why your idea about taxing guns and ammunition won't work. Plus, guns and ammunition are already taxed anyway. Gas is taxed like crazy but it doesn't stop people from driving....

taxing guns like tobacco? that must be the stupidest thing i've have ever read. you raise the price of ammo, do you still think that it'll stop someone from buying to commit a crime? you tax guns, umm sure you're a little too late. i already paid my 7% on my so called "assault rifle" aka AR-15. the real problems are the people, not the guns.

i wish they would ban people on here for their stupidity.

The royal tyranny you speak of was their own government having the ability to force things down their throat without the means to say enough is enough.....clue.....we still have a government and it should be painfully obvious that they can and will be as tyrannical as you allow them to be.

Sign this petition to 'clarify' gun ownership requirements:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-28th-amendment-gun-ownership-privilege/tRJtD6L7

I hunt with a what could be classified as an "assault" rifle. Only because it mildly resembles a military rifle and is semi-automatic. Does that make me a monster? Does it make me a criminal? Does it just make me cheap? Whoever said you can't take down big game with a military cartridge is full of @!$%#. It's an elitist mentality that justifies owning a overpriced bolt action rifle that was designed in the late 1800s while being able to look down on owners of semi-automatics. A civilian copy of a military rifle is nothing like the a military rifle. Not even close. They look similar. Having served in the US ARMY I can easily make this distinction. I've taken many big game animals with civilian hunting versions of military rifles in 7.62x39 and 7.62x51. I own several high capacity magazines and they are very useful on the range. Not having to reload as often is convenient when shooting at paper targets. You could still kill 10 to 20 people with a 10 round magazine as easily as a 30 round magazine. It only takes a second to reload. Having fewer shots also forces you to concentrate harder on aiming. A shotgun is more dangerous than an semi-auto rifle and nobody is calling to have them banned. People have killed each other for centuries before guns or "assault" rifles were even invented. The thing nobody wants to admit is it's all bull@!$%# posturing that will have no effect on crime or mass shootings. It ignores the real issue of the lack of mental healthcare screening and treatment in this country. Crazy people kill people and will use anything they can get their hands on to do it. This will lead to escalation. There are better and much more effective ways for lunatics to commit mass murder.

WRONG.

The thing they have in common is the GUN FREE SCHOOL ZONE.

They don't shoot up Federal offices with armed guards,now,do they?

And if they try,they don't get far.

the other thing mass killings have in common is most killers on drugs prescribed by doctors for depression or other mental conditions

http://www.ssristories.com/

Long post....no solution.

Put armed people in the schools,get rid of the gun free school nonsense.

Short post with a solution.

Ban guns.

Banning guns ignores the real problem of a lack of mental health services in this country. Quit trying to take the easy way out and focus on the real issue. Don't be such a coward.

Coward? LOL. What a very intelligent response. Banning guns isn't the only solution but its a start that is long overdue. Can you picture George Washington with an assault rifle? How would the Founding Fathers feel about America if they could see what has become of it?

Don't "feed" takenaka, this person is clearly an idiot

"all terrorists come through Canada not Mexico"? what does that even have to do with the school shootings? Are you blaming Canada for that too?

John From The former USA

I could pick everything you said apart but considering you're at least 56 years old, it wouldn't be worth my time, as you may be one of those old farts that can't work a touchscreen phone. Therefore, old people like you are usually stuck in your old ways and still believe you live in Mayberry with Andy Griffith and Barney Fife. It also shows how uneducated and closed minded some people are. Just because (you) have never needed a firearm to protect (yourself) doesn't mean others have been as fortunate. By the way, tell Aunt Bea to save me a piece of her pie. Lol!!!!

BAN takenaka! lol!

Short post with a solution was my point in response to the previous post. Another assault weapon killed two firemen. 30 gun murders everyday. The home of the brave.

Hmm, would it be safe to say, your lack of PENIS has you frustrated?

Herron....the penis guy has a new name....down in the basement of NBC typing madly about his love of phallus.

Hassan is a terrorist, just like those in Benghazi. Why does Obama forgive/excuse these monsters, but admonish is own people for 'clinging to their guns and religion? More important, why do Americans make excuses for him?

sjacobs123... Hassan is/was a member of the armed forces. Simply because his name sounds 'foreign' does not make him a terrorist. If you want to be technical, anyone who kills multiple people is a 'terrorist' as in one who terrorizes and uses terror.

It seems that you are implying anyone with a foreign sounding name is a de facto terrorist. The surname Lanza isn't exactly Anglo-Saxon either, by the way.

Hassan was a commission officer and a muslim, both honorable. In his case, he attended a radical mosque that promoted the destruction of America. He acted on those beliefs, thus making him a terrorist.

Clearly you have no clue what a terrorist is here is a definition: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

There is no reasonable way you could interpret my comment as claiming any foreign sounding individual is a terrorist.

Well said.

dee do dah duh

I like most of what you said as you were on point but there is some flaws to what you said also. That flaw is " If you kill and are convicted, you will die within 24hrs. No appeals, no delays, just death." It is only a flaw because there are already too many documented cases where someone was imprisoned, or executed wrongfully. Remember, it's not too long ago where a White woman could accuse a Black male of raping her and he would be hanged or lynched. All too often here lately we have heard of stories where people were accquitted of a crime because DNA proved that they didn't do it. However these people have spent many years of their lives in prison for something they didn't do. I also think we are beyond capitol punishment at this point. Where I'm from people don't fear death. They embrace it. When a soceity gets to that point no fear of capitol punishment will deter the majority. We have to change soceity as a whole which is a huge undertaking and takes everybody to get involved. Remember, people always sway in the direction of the majority so if something is percieved as cool it becomes accepted. For example, look at the subject of gays and gay marriage, or young teens "saggin" their pants. If you notice, as time progresses it becomes more accepted in our soceity. The reason I spoke on all of that is, just as those things are being accepted so is violence, crime, and ways youth are being brought up. We have people in the military that are programmed to kill so that taking a life is something they are used to. (Necessary evil). Single parent homes, proverty, joblessness, unequality between the classes of people, unequality between classes of people when it comes to schooling and oppurtunities. The system as a whole is broken and truthfully has never been beneficial to the common man anyway. We also don't have a way to deal with the mentally ill in this country because of the healthcare system. Gangs are another issue that has not been effectively dealt with. Which ironically is a by product of some of the other social issues I mentioned. This country is overrun by gangs in every major city. Why is that? The point that I'm making here is, why can't we make all these things unacceptable in soceity? Insted of just living with it, why not make those things uncool?

What the guy above says makes more sense than the NBC trolls.

You have my vote.

Republics end not in battle but with cheers and shouts

Gun Toting Teabaggers...