If criminals followed the law, they would not be considered a criminal. Once again, what would an assault weapons ban have done to prevent this? NY has an assault weapons ban. This Bushmaster .223 in NY an AR-15, but it is not allowed to have a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, and it can only use a 10 round magazine. No matter how many laws you create, there is nothing that can stop these psychos from killing people, especially in states that have an assault weapons ban.

Nancy Lanza was armed and trained, and what good did that do? other than allow her son to kill her with her guns and take them and kill children? I don't think an arms race in assault weapons by private citizens is the solution to our problem.

If this sick, sick man had been executed for his first murder these people would all be alive today. So, now tell me how expensive the death penalty is compared to putting them in prison or how the death penalty is so wrong. Wait, explain it to these fire fighters families.

I agree 100% with Creek Dog. You'll never remove all the guns. Also, these so called assault weapons that use a 10, 30, or 40 round clip are semi-automatic. It's no different that using a 5 shot semi-automatic hunting rifle while carrying 6 or 8 clips. Still the same firepower and probably a heavier bullet and more damage. Think Life in Prison for possession of any gun used in a crime. You'll spend less on prisons than trying to find all the illegal firearms. Just a though, not a sermon.

Nax

I don't think an arms race in assault weapons by private citizens is the solution to our problem.

I agree, but now lets look at what is instead of what we would like to be. The "race" exists, and it won't be over until somebody ..... good guys or bad guys ..... wins. As soon as I see Obama without a Secret Service escort armed with automatic weapons and Governor Hickenlooper of Colorado and Mayor Hancock of Denver without armed guards, I will consider giving up my firearms.

Nax

Nancy Lanza was armed and trained, and what good did that do? other than allow her son to kill her with her guns and take them and kill children?

Fortunately most "kids" don't kill their parents, nor become mass murderers. And it is something, unless the kid has some obvious issues and violent tendencies, that is very difficult for a parent to foresee. Can you imagine living with the fear that your own child would murder you? It would be unbearable. We simply cannot think that way. Usually, being armed and trained, would probably save your life, and possibly the life of others. Like Judy, who defended herself, her sister, and her sister-in-law, with her gun, after they were brutally attacked in a parking lot at Rock Island County, Illinois. That's 3 lives saved right there because someone had a gun. And the mother in Fresno, California, who was able to stop a man from kidnapping her child, again with a gun. A kidnapping, and possible murder avoided. The medias rarely talk about these self-defense cases, but there is thousands of them every year, they only talk about the murders, so most people are under the impression that there is a lot more of them than people who were able to defend themselves.

Note: There was a page on wikipedia about a few cases of self-defense (it was called "List of defensive gun use incidents"), but some people decided it should be removed, their excuse was that it was incomplete and there was thousands of cases (while there was approximately 20 on the page). You can still see the discussion about it, and the guy asking what they wanted him to do, as it would be difficult to keep up with all these cases.

Nax, Anna is correct. The Media is basically a business out to make money. Plain and simple so they "prefer" to get your attention with a story that basically pisses you off and gets your attention.

Her are some simple statistics that the Media will avoid:

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occurred in places away from the defender's home.

And this was 1994 when the awareness was much lower. Today, the stats are much higher with economy nosediving and people losing their jobs, homes and going hungry which can mentally change a persons outlook on society today and create a very bad situation.

My first thought was just like yours. Even though this guy was not supposed to have guns, he found a way to get them. There will always be a way for unlawful individuals to get guns. It will leave the lawful folks out on a limb with no protection. It's too late to round up all the guns.

2012 statistics...

Gun defenses since January 1, 2012= 4,460,899 In writing that's Four Million, Four Hundred Sixty Thousand, Eight Hundred, Ninety Nine.

Date and Time Now: Thursday, December 27, 2012 9:51:16 AM

best wishs and a speedy recovery to all. now to the those who think we should have a ban on guns. do you think a ban will stop anyone from getting guns. mexico will have a new trade to go along with all the drugs they dump into this country. how about enforcing our laws! and ar 15 ban? i have a 30/06 deer rifle with 5 round clips from the right vantage point this packs more of a punch than an ar 15!

creek dog is rite on the $!!! i have a gun 4 self defense and anyone who dares to mess will die! teachers need weapons, firefighters need weapons, (their job's dangerous enuf already!) the ones i'm scared of is the cops w/ weapons. they are mostly bullies looking 4 a reason to kill!! if it's not by gun, it's by car in their ridiculously dangerous hi speed chases. another bunch of innocents were killed by a cop in a hi speed chase just yesterday!!!

Creek Dog,

While I agree with you that a ban on types of weapons wont solve the problem I do not agree that putting more weapons on the street will either. We MUST work to get the guns out of these criminals hands. It's the ONLY way. It won't be easy but nothing is impossible.

We have to track & register ALL gun sales (yes rifles too and even private re-sales just like a car) and put some real penalties on the sellers who sell to felons like this. Maybe charge the seller with the same crime? Make it so that you simply cannot buy any gun unless you have a current permit. You can't get the permit without a mental exam and a firearms safety test and you have to renew it every few years. If these were stolen guns then they need to be reported stolen which most times they are not or not followed up on (that needs to change too). Would it completely eliminate this? No, but it would go a heck of lot farther to curbing this mass violence than arming every citizen. Like I say not easy but not impossible.

Bottom line a gun ban wont work and neither will arming every household but these weapons need to be kept out of the hands of the insane as much as possible.

I am certainly glad some people are seeing things in a realistic way here. Banning guns does nothing. This guy shot 4 people. Sorry everyone, a bolt action rifle atop a vantage point would have done that just as easy, AND MORE DEADLY. .308, 30-06, .270, all popular rifle rounds, will cause more damage than a .223 and out to greater distances. If the media would do their job and report the guns that do good in the "good guys" hands, I think some people would be more logical in these discussions. Oh, and lets not forget, this nut used fire to burn down 7 houses. Please, EVERYONE, join me in banning fire. WE MUST, ITS OUT OF CONTROL!!

I think Little Green Puppet makes sense and I frankly don't understand why responsible gun owners don't agree! No one is tsalking seriously about banning all guns, so when you talk about that as the issue you are really avoiding the conversation. There is talk about banning specific guns and clips. Well, if you are against those bans, start being real and quit promoting over reactive rhetoric! Its as rediculous to say that all teachers should be armed as it is to say all guns should be banned. BUT regulations, such as those spelled out by LGP are sensible and not unrealistic. My husband has his concealed for which he had to take a class and pass a test. Licensing for any gun ownership is smart. Closing the "gunshow loopholes" is smart. Strict laws and reinforcement for guns found on criminals is smart. HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IS SMART! But only if both sides will work toward sensible solutions and leave their vitriolic rhetoric behind.

Obviously better mental health care is a huge part of the equation too!

Deadly NY fire ambush (sic) survivors...

Really, NBC News staff? REALLY??? "Fire" is singular. Therefore, the verb should be "ambushes". Go back to school and learn to read and write!!!

scales

Really, NBC News staff? REALLY??? "Fire" is singular. Therefore, the verb should be "ambushes". Go back to school and learn to read and write!!!

ambush is not the verb here, it is an adjective. Therefore, it would not be "ambushes", "ambush" is correct. The Fire didn't ambush the survivors, the survivors from the fire ambush were humbled. Go back to school and learn how to read and write!

Nax, Nancy Lanza may have been armed and trained but she did not but the training to use. If she would've, she would've made it that her son couldn't get the guns because she would know what could happen if he did get ahold of them. She didn't take the necessary steps to prevent this from happening.

I want to stat out by saying that I own guns. No hand guns, But rifles and shoot guns. My problem is with these assault weapons, Clips that hold more then 10 rounds. Now if your saying you are going to hunt deer with an ar-15, you can't in most states. Other then Tx where you can use anything. When Tx gets done shooting a deer, there is nothing left to eat. But they have fun. In side of a month, Ar-15's have been used in at least 4 shootings. Not one of these shooters should have had these guns, but they did. So who put these Ar-15's in the hands of mad men. Well the mother in Newtown did, we don't know where the others came from, But we will soon enough. The only way to keep these Ar-15's and others like them out of the hands of crazy people, is to stop the sales of them to start with. Now the Supreme Court has already said these Guns can be banned. Its time we ban them.

chuck-2111043

There have been a couple of million of them sold since this ban talk started several weeks ago. My problem is the millions that are already out there. I have no problem with a background check or registering a new AR-15 if I wanted one. I own a $1,000.00 900lb safe to lock it up in. Why should I not be able to own one just because the loons got a hold of one illegally? As a result, thousands of law abiding people won't be able to own one but the criminals have their choice of millions of them. They don't care about the laws because they are killers & criminals anyway.

@LittleGreenPuppet: While I agree that more weapons is likely not the answer, how do you plan to have stolen guns tracked? The problem is that criminals always find a way.

Personally, I would just like to see more accountability: both in sales and in reforming the test to certify for gun handling/ownership. I'm in California and several of my friends are gun owners (I'm a knife collector myself). Each of them have said, walking out of the test, that that was the easiest test they have ever taken. Besides their frustration with the waiting period in buying a gun, the whole process went quickly and painlessly. I'm sure they would be angry with me for saying so but I think toughening up that process nationwide would be best. It's not the answer to the issue but it may help towards an eventual resolution.

AGAIN.....what are this two adults living at home with mother ,now I understand she was old when she died ,but didn't they have a job ...? it is obvious that they couldn't stand each other , been all day just eating and .......didn't have to pay mortgage, he killed the g-ma inherited . Bad parenting mothers never teach children to be in their own it's ether in prison or at home . When they (children) get old they realise they are a waste of society they start killing innocent hard working civilized people .Do you see a pattern Adam Lanza something at the age of 20 realised he is just a waste ,grew up with that nurtured excuse by his mother that he has a problem until he showed the whole world that he is capable and use tactics for killing by using his brother's ID and use bullet proof vest and attached ammunition make sure he does kill a lot of people.I'm not saying he wasn't aqua rd red but how many mentally challenged people are working at the level of their capability .Bottom line BAD PARENTING gets us to where we are today folks.

But if these people are obtaining guns that aren't legally theirs, banning the guns won't change anything. If we crack down and make it harder to obtain these guns and make sure to educate the individuals owning such guns, I think it would help more than banning the guns. Like get rid of the rule that allows a person to buy a gun at a gunshow without a background check. Maybe force them to get a preapproval before the show. Like go to the police station, they will do the background check on you. They will give you a voucher for what types and quantity of guns and ammo. When you buy a gun at the show, the seller will take down all of your information and sign the corresponding spot on the card. Then after the show, the seller and buyer both have a timeframe when they need to report the sale to the police. Even if you do not buy anything, you must return the card to the police for their records. I know that isn't without its holes, but it is a start. Maybe make it mandatory if someone owns a rifle not intended for hunting, the police shall inspect the home once every 6 months to make sure they are in a secure location (locked) that is not accessible by kids. Or if you have a home with a child or adult with a mental condition, your house will be inspected once every 3 months to make sure the guns are not available to those with a condition. I know it seems like profiling but look at these people doing the crimes. Most of them are mentally unstable, male, access to guns they are not supposed to have. You look at those factors and you try to keep them away. Obviously these "gun free" zones and assault weapon bans are not working.

Lord people,

NO ONE IS TRYING TO TAKE AWAY ALLLLL OF YOUR GUNS!!!! There is no reason why you need semi-automatics with 30 round clips/mags. NONE! Im sure your ego can find something else to gloat over.

As for your claim Creek Dog, I am sorry to report that you are wrong. More guns = more murders http:// www. hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index. html

You don't fight fire with fire, it will just create more fire. You fight fire with water, it's the only way to put it out...

Feel free to read more... http:// www. washingtonpost.com /blogs/ wonkblog/wp/2012/ 12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

Oh puhlease...Let's stop using lame ass excuses. If a man or woman buys a gun, their names and general location should be immediately published. How many men or women do you think will like having to man up to ownership? Sorry, there is NO right to privacy when you own a lethal weapon. That's like saying a man can go into any dealer online or off, arm himself to the teeth with assault weapons and it's a big time secret?

Keep enabling little bois and girls to pull their childish Me First tantrums and see how many more innocent people end up dead. Stop with the lame ass excuses. Start there. Then, publish names of all buyers of guns online and off. If gun buyers don't like it, they know what their options are.

Right on, Creek Dog!

I'll lay my gun down when the criminals do likewise.

Until then, if anyone messes with my family or friends..............I'm pullin'the trigger.........first and fast.

Greek Dog. Why is it every time Gun Control comes up, you always go to defense weapons. Of all you # you posted, How many of those guns were AR-15's? How many were 6 shooters? How many were Shotguns? I say if you don't live on the Mexican boarder, You have no reason to own a AR-15 or anything like it.

Ewent,

You realize they just told criminals which houses to watch, so when the residents leave, they can steal their firearms, right? That all that is going to do is create MORE crime! Also, it tells criminals which houses DON'T have firearms to protect themselves.

Creek Dog,

Good to see you here!

To all who disagree with my posts,

We all have opinions just as we all have @!$%#s. I respect all of your posts as we all have our own opinions.

I will not lay down my arms. I have never ever used them in any way they were not intended to be used. Yes, they can kill a person but, only if you aim it at them first with the intent and or if I am defending myself.

There are a lot more reasons people die and or are killed each year outside a gun related incident. Listen up people;

Last year there were approximately;

1. 163,500 deaths from lung cancer (10% by secondhand smoke = 16,350 almost double the amount than in the gun category #4 below)
2. 75,000 alcohol related deaths
3. 43,000 auto deaths
4. 12,700 murders from which, 8,580 were "GUN" related

So, what do we have the most and least problems of from the above categories?! Isn't it human nature to take care of and try to fix our worst problems 1st?!

The Media makes $ off of their stories and find that they make the most $ off of gun related stories and "POOF" here we are & half of you brainwashed to continue reading these stories and commenting as if the gun deaths need attention more than # 1, 2 & 3 above.

Do you see stories of people dying of lung cancer?! No... they make no $ off that because it doesn't catch your eye... so,

Have a nice day...

Jessicale, good afternoon sunshine... ;-)

KnifeGirl,

It all about %'s. No real way to completely stop it or track stolen guns though I have heard about these GPS chips you can put into things (kinda like a gun lojac), but the idea is to reduce the chance they fall into the wrong hands. Since there are no real stats we dont know how many in illegal hands are stolen vs. sold but the point of my suggestion is to help reduce the possibility. Another idea would be for gun owners to practice better security of their weapons. Again it won't stop all gun thefts but a 1/2 ton safe or ultra secure gun storage closet would help deter theft. Anyone care to bet where Nancy Lanza kept her AR-15?

I guess this really comes down to personal responsibility. As a gun owner we have to be extra vigilant that our deadly weapon stays in our hands not a nut or a criminals. It is a responsibility of ownership. I would think that when we all put the emotion aside we can agree that responsible gun ownership is a good thing and irresponsible gun ownership, including not protecting our weapons from access by those that should not have it or selling one to someone who shouldn't have it is a bad thing. And those are the things that we can do something about.

Creek Dog,

I definitely agree with your last post! Thanks for being one of the few gun enthusiasts on these board not filled with emotion about the subject. You have to admit the emotion is running high on both sides of this debate right now and I guess with good reason since so many innocent folks have died recently in gun related incidents.

And every one of your stats point to what I have been saying about personal responsibility. Let's hope that we as a nation start looking at ourselves first.

Creek Dog....I'm just sure that you got those statistics from the NRA. However, according to the Harvard School of Public Health, whom I tend to believe FAR more than a gun-loving, no accountablility group such as the NRA, states that those figures are invalid. They also state that far more times, guns are used for intimidation rather than defense. And, it also pointed out that the majority of guns that were used in self-defense were illegally obtained. All this information can be found at this site....not that you are really interested in knowing this. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

Wow ewent forgot to take your medicine today did we. Time to back away from the computer take a few deep breaths and get you premarin refill down at the local drugstore. If it's dark where you are at it's probably because you have your head shoved to far up you butt. You my Dear are what is called an angry middle aged psycho hosebeast.

Regarding the headline "Deadly NY fire ambush survivors,

scales67

"Fire" is singular. Therefore, the verb should be "ambushes". Go back to school and learn to read and write!!!

Jackal50

ambush is not the verb here, it is an adjective. Therefore, it would not be "ambushes", "ambush" is correct. The Fire didn't ambush the survivors, the survivors from the fire ambush were humbled.

I recommend you know what you are talking about when you endeavor to correct someone else's grammar. You are correct when you say "ambush" is not a verb in the headline. You are incorrect in stating it is an adjective. The sentence would be less ambiguous had the headline read "Survivors of the deadly NY fire ambush humbled: ... ." Alas, it was not to be. In either case, "ambush" is a noun. The adjectives are "deadly", "NY", and "fire."

Kevin. You make a great point. But you are the one in a million gun owner that has a gun safe. Now your AR-15 might be locked up but you must have a little something you can get to fast. My Gun cabinet is right next to my bed, my 12G shoot gun is loaded and all I have to do is rack one in the chamber and I am ready to rock and roll. And I am all about the Castle Law. But having said that, Look at the people that are not responsible Gun owners. The Mother in Newtown. What kind of mother would teach her mentally Ill son how to shot an AR-15? How did all these other Crazy people get hold of these weapons? These are the problems we have got to deal with. Does your need to own That AR-15 over ride the need to stop this madness? That is truly the Question. Could you live with that gun and others like them. Can you live with what happened in Newtown. I can't live with that. That could me my grand kids next. Or yours.

stevefoo,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defensive_gun_use_incidents#Estimates_of_frequency

Look, I'm not here to convert anyone, I'm just telling it like it is and as I said before, good luck defending yourself with a roll of paper towels during that possible home invasion...

Also, with the worlds economy spiraling as it has been, you're going to see a lot more people desperate and go criminal. It's in human nature to survive no matter how you do it, as long as you're alive...

Creek Dog, #1- With all due respect, I believe your argument "too quickly" and "too arbitraily" firepowers itself over to "TOO BIG TO FAIL". :) (I can't remember how to make a "wink":)

Any hypothesis on how this Guy who shouldn't have had "access" to these weapons got them? (YOU NEVER GET THE ANSWER TO AN "UNASKED" QUESTION, YOU KNOW. :)

Creek Dog....Yes, people do die by means other than guns....lung cancer, heart disease caused by overeating, alcohol, car accidents, etc. The biggest difference is that for most all these other deaths, the individual that dies has put themselves in the position fully aware of what may happen, including those secondhand smoke individuals that hang around smokers. Alcohol related accidents kill many people on the roads, and that is still terrible, but over the last 30 years, the pariahs that form from DUI arrests have gone from little to no punishment back in the 70's, to now being given jail time and losing their jobs for one DUI. We would really just like some accountability for the gun-enthusiasts...and as much restriction as possible (like we have with alcohol). Even smokers now know that they can't infect me in my work place with their smoke. Times and things change....in this case, a little more intelligence by the NRA instead of taking such a hard stance would really help people to see their point. Right now, we all know that the NRA could care less about the population of this country as long as their dues and gun sales keep up.

Creek Dog...I rarely believe 100% any statistic I get from Wikipedia....and in this case, I don't believe it at all. But, like you, I am not trying to convert anyone either....I'm just asking for a little intelligent thought here. I'm not asking to remove all guns from everybody....keep your hand guns for defense, I don't care. Personally, I'd much rather have a detterent system like an alarm company, but if you feel better letting people break into your house and hoping you wake up in time to gun them down, fine. However....I've asked this question many times without a good answer from anybody. Why do you need a gun that shoots people at a rate of 200 bullets per 60 seconds? You've (the NRA) drawn the line at private citizens owning rocket launchers....all we are asking is to back the line up a little. What the heck is wrong with that? Am I missing something??

ewent how does that solve or stop loonies for getting weapons.you just want to impose your views on others.

Denver Bill, thanks for the grammar correction. I looked and they have now changed the headline to avoid confusion. It now says"Firefighters who survived deadly N.Y. ambush 'humbled'." When I read it, it said "Deadly N. Y. fire ambush survivors:" Either way, ambush shouldn't be "ambushes". That would mean the fire ambushed the survivors. Again, thanks for the correction and I will note it for later.

stevefoo,

I do not own any rifles that take magazines. I do not own assult rifles. I own bolt action rifles, pump shotguns for hunting, and pistols for "when" I'm hunting, I can defend myself against an animal if my rifle/shotgun jambs.

Why do you need a gun that shoots people at a rate of 200 bullets per 60 seconds?

I never ever endorsed this and totally disaprove except for law enforcement. I think any assault rifle should not be owned by citizens. Being a member of the NRA doesn't mean you have to agree with 100% of what they state.

As for a home invasion, I have an alarm (Slomin) and it will go off the second someone enters my home giving me time to grab a pistol and automatically calls them if I do not shut it down in 60 sec.

As for anyone who disagrees with my posts, don't read them.

chuck2111043,

Close with the name dude but I'm "Italian" not Greek. Name calling is for the immature so leave the adults to our "grown-up" conversations thank you.

a ban on semi-auto weapons, would take about 80% of all gins out of circulation, shotguns, rifles,pistols , a back door way to confiscation of firearms.

Creek Dog...that was a proverbial 'you' I was using in my statements. I have no idea what you personally own or do, but thanks for the update. I have no problem with owning a gun for defense...my objections to your statistics were that they were misleading (and from the responses you got, I believe you reeled in a few more fish). I know hundreds of people, and not one of them have ever had to use a gun for self defense. Most of those statistical number you gave use their gun to intimidate people....bar fights, road rage, drug trafficking, etc. That was all that I was trying to point out. When I give statistics, I like to make sure that what I am telling the sheep is as factual as possible. That is the biggest problem I have with Fox News. They too, throw out numbers without breaking down the true stats. I am glad to see that you do oppose the ban on assault weapons. I thought that idiot in charge of the NRA did the organization no favors with his appearance on Meet the Press.

The availability of guns is not the problem in this case nor the Sandyhook tragedy. This guy killed his grandmother, for cripe's sake, and should have never again seen the light of day once convicted. The other case had an over-protective mother that didn't realize that her son was mentally unstable. I have a number of long guns, both shotguns and rifles that are designed for the sport of hunting. Now I may not be able to fire off 36 rounds in less that a minute, but in the wrong hands, these guns could still be used inappropriately. There are underlying problems to all cases of mass murder and banning guns will not remove those underlying problems.

stevefoo, #1.38 qnd 1.39- EXCELLENT!!!

Good luck to you getting an answer to your question (myself, personally, I don't think a "reasonable" answer exists, except in "pre-dispositional" form); AND.........BRAVO!!!!! for asking.

I'd like to know why there couldn't have been some kind of moritorium or something on the sale of guns, especially gun shows, until the issue is settled?

Ya know, one more gun law wouldn't have made determined killers, who planned the whole thing out, and intended to kill (as the guy who shot the fire fighters was) not kill. But there is something that could have stopped him from killing again. He was already convicted of killing his grandmother, and yet here we are 30 some years latter, following whatever time he was in prison, having killed again. Why in hell, was this guy ever released from prison in the first place, for murdering his own family?

If they would have sentenced him to death, not commuted it, but carried out the sentence decades back; then he wouldn't have been alive today to shoot the fire fighters this time around. They let a known murderer out of jail, and this was the result... This would have got the individual who presented the real problem, off the streets for good. He was already a known murderer, he had already been convicted for the killing of his grandmother.... This one lies either with the crimminal justice system, or the department of corrections in allowing him back onto the streets...

Creek Dog, #1.42- I think you raise a GREAT! point about being a member of the NRA not necessarily meaning that you agree 100%.

I had a Political Organization come to my door with a petition and I was interested in signing the petition but after "thoroughly" questioning the petitioner, I learned that I would not only be signing for the issue that was being presented to me, but I would be signing for other issues that were "behind" the main issue. The Signature Collector didn't know how to address that with me when I told him that I agree with [this] but absolutely don't agree with [that] and didn't want my signing to be used as "a number" associated with also being against [that]! Needless to say, I DIDN"T, because I COULDN'T sign the petition for what I was against because they were also signing me up for what I wasn't against, WITH NO OPTION! or even anything in place to delineate. I checked into if it would be any different if I joined the organization and found out, NO!

What's with the Criminals argument? Did you forget that cops have guns too and are supposed to protect you and I from the Criminals? Why do you need a gun? Or do you not trust the police?

I love how everyone immideatly starts talking about guns, if we should have them or not... everyone loves to blame the inanimate objects and not PEOPLE in this PC world we live in now.

Noone mentions that this guy KILLED HIS GRANDMOTHER and is out of prison less then 20 years later.... Hello.... when did this become acceptable? What the hell do you people expect to happen when this guy gets out of prison? for him to be a model citizen?

And the idiot that shot up the school... ohhhh guns are evil.. the guy was mentally ill, arguably all these crazies are.. how about you people start concentrating on the PEOPLE behind the guns and not whatever tool they happen to use.

Taking away guns would be like trying to resuscitate a drowned victem while they are STILL under water. You're not addressing the real issue, fix the PEOPLE and you wont have to worry about guns. Fix the guns and you STILL have to worry about the psycho's

Don't blame the guns, blame the shooter and those around him that knew he was a threat and didn't act on it. More attention needs to be paid to the mentally unstable which includes more government funding, not less.

First, God was taken out of our schools, etc. Now our guns are being taken away from us, before we know it our Constitution will no longer exist. Our Gov is slowing taking everything away from us what our ancestors fought so hard for. Only "us", we the people , can keep that from happening. You better wake up and take a long hard look at the way things are today and what they were just a few years ago (living the American Dream).. and its only going to get much worse.

DarksideOfTheMoon, #1.45- What I've read about the Mother of the Conn Shooter has been very interesting, even fascinating, to me; but also "limited", I must admit. But, I've come to wonder if the reason he killed his Mother was because he knew what he was planning to do and that she'd be so devastated and hurt and never be able to live with herself knowing what he'd done or if he ended up dead but she didn't......?????? Basically, kind of like some kind of sick-twisted "mercy killing" of her. just saw your post, just sayin

I mean, there's no doubt that "Mother/Son" elements are at play here; and there.

While I hate to point out the obvious, I am going to. If I were to belong to an organization that had, as it's core belief that we needed to do nothing about the influx of physical guns to the ordinary citizenry, I would bolt faster than the bullets from an assault rifle. Yet, the members continue to support this lunacy!! This is exactly why I left the Republican party....when the heart of their beliefs became so disjointed towards the average citizen. If the NRA members that want some sort of change to occur would either quit or make their voices heard, it might affect some sort of change from that fringe group. In the meantime, you are all guilty by association....sorry, but it has to be that way.

Mystery Rhee,

He found out (guess through the grapevine) that his Mother was just about to commit him to a mental institution because she was so worried about his mental health and that he was going to inevitably hurt someone.

Stevefoo,

No need to apologize, as I mentioned before, opinions are like @!$%#s, every-body's got one. This is why I respect everyone's decision whether I like/agree with it or not.

Now, Ewent has some issues if you ask me. Yeah, she has her own opinion but it just seems like there's no thought in what she writes. It's seemingly just do without the thought which in all reality, could be dangerous at other things like driving etc...

I say keep the guns and ban the people. Guns aren't a problem, crazy fu@king people are the problem. When will you address the mental illness issues? And if you call me a Republican gun lover, you obviously are too stupid to read past posts. I'm an Independent left-leaner. But I know guns don't kill people anymore than cars do. Shall we ban cars too? Please try to think before opening that thing that shows how un-intelligent you are.

Eastside...of course god was taken out of our schools! Just like Zeus was taken out of the Greek schools once the population figured out that believing in an invisible sky being was not science, by a MYTH. And, wasn't it a great thing that the constitution has changed immesurably since it's inception or you wouldn't be able to even vote right now! Times have changed....and the really sad people in this world are those that don't change with the times. Slavery was wrong and needed to be changed, alcohol has gone back and forth as an amendment, women voting, civil rights...all changes that our forefathers could never have imagined. This is an amendment that needs to be added....shouldn't really be a big deal. Everyone should be on board with banning assault rifles!

trust2112...PLEASE don't bring up that stupid, no...really stupid, comparison between guns and cars. Cars are part of our everyday life and must be used for work, delivery of goods, etc. I suppose when we start reading about an intentional mass murder by someone using a car, we may have to reassess, but for right now, I don't think that is a problem in this country. Guns are not necessary for anything...and besides....in not one of my posts have I said that ALL guns should be banned. I simply pointed out that assault weapons are not necessary to the ordinary citizenry (still haven't gotten a good reason why either....and please don't tell me its needed for the overthrow of the government). Of course crazy people are an issue, but you are always going to have crazy people. The idea is to try to keep assault weaponry out of the hands of those people. Please try to think before opening that thing that shows how unintelligent (I fixed it for you) you are.

Honorable1, #1.50- It's a balance that needs to be struck and ISN'T/HASN'T BEEN. You can't "FIX" People, as you would, without first "fixing", by balancing, the "animate" multi-faceted interplay of and within a dynamic. The NRA CEO was very quick to point out and name some different facets, EXCEPT HIS OWN, as being part of the balance/imbalance, as the case may be, and IS, that needs to be addressed.

Just sayin'. I like your name and that you put it right out there! No offense intended, please.

Mystery Rhee - One can only speculate what might have been going through that young man's head that caused him to do what he did. I too, heard about the relocation to Washington state and that she was planning on putting him in a special school. That may have just been the straw that broke the camel's back. Your speculation about a sick, twisted mercy killing may not be that far off. However, the inablility of the mother to recognize that her son had mental issues or perhaps the refusal to accept that he had a problem, provided him the opportunity to plan his actions.

Creek Dog....that wasn't really an apology...just pointing out that you misunderstood my proverbial 'you'. However, I do need to ask. Since you stated you are a member of the NRA and are for the ban on assault weapons, how many letters or emails have you written to the organization stating your position and demanding change? Do you still plan on continuing to pay dues to these people, especially considering the amount of money that is paid to the head man? I know I would have quit the organization the minute that WL appeared on Meet the Press. And...you are right about opinions....but, I don't always agree or respect everyone's opinion....sometimes, they are just wrong! If I had an opinion that the grass was purple, it would just be wrong.

BelaAngel, either you've never been hunting, or you're a heck of a shot. Most hunters would prefer a semi automatic. The riffle in question works the same as any other rifle, and has the same diameter amo as a .22. A .22 would not be considered effective for hunting anything much larger than a squirrel.

Is there even a rifle smaller than a .22?

It seems a lot of people on these comments pages about guns don't really have an understanding of the subject. There seems to be a misconception about gun caliber, what semi-automatic means and what an AR-15 is.

stevefoo,

None. The e-mails would fall on deaf ears.

The way I see it, it's how you're raised. I was raised in the woods, guns, dirt bikes, quads, bon-fires with all the fixins', Crosswicks Creek 80 feet down a hill behind my house with a monkey swing to jump into the water off of, and all this 12 minutes from Princeton University NJ.

I have 7 brothers and sisters. 4 boys (including myself), 4 girls and glad I bought my childhood home when my parents retired back in '90'. We all grew up hunting, fishing and each played a different musical instrument... It was fun & exciting. My father taught every one of us how to handle a gun, fishing pole, remove a hook from your ear etc...

You see, there are people who grew up sitting behind computers, bookworms, geeky etc.. that I do not expect would even "know" how to turn the safety "off" not to mention, aim and fire a weapon that are so against guns that really drive me nuts...

It's what people do not understand that they fear the most. Then they stereotype me as in, I'm a member of the NRA and now that this guy went nuts and shot these two innocent firefighters, it might as well have been "Creek Dog" pulling the trigger. Stereotype man!

99% of people are also "scared" to post their real name. Chris DeAngelis (CD) AKA-Creek Dog (CD) It don't matter to me one bit. Bet you won't post your real name...

As far as dues and everything else, I do not agree with the way the NRA works 100% but, can you tell me an association that you agree with 100%?

The more I disagree, the less I really want to be a part of however, this does not change my way of living or thinking. I am still myself no matter what.

My father always said, it's not what people 'think"....

It's what you "know" that makes the difference. I've been fine, ever since...

ewent, #1.25- I think I have an idea of what you might be trying to get at. (But you tell me)

It seems to me that your post is angling at the dynamic of "the extremes" and that you find it unacceptable. That guns seem to be either kept secret or right out there "in your face", out in public, with no or "not enough" oversight and accountability. (the latter possibly being my own interjection, but then again, you tell me).

Creek Dog, # 1.54- Really? That certainly could have provided impetus, as to "anger/betrayal", but that wouldn't necessarily change what I was hypothesizing. I think a lot of answers could be found in the proper investigative study of the "Family Dynamics" of THAT situation. (AND, I'd love to see the whole 3 pages that this Guy left behind, instead of just a couple of lines from it)

Mystery Rhee,

The story comes on the same day that Fox News reported Nancy Lanza, Adam's mother, was in the process of having her son committed to a psychiatric facility when he went on the mass shooting spree, according to a lifelong family acquaintance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive_n_2332641.html

@ewent

I must say that you are very proud of the fact that the article that "outed" the gun owners. But I don't see the logic here.... You say that it isn't a right of privacy to be a gun owner? If you have noticed, none of the accused here were "legal" gun owners. So their name wouldn't be on any list that you are so proud to show that it makes you feel better knowing who has guns in your neighborhood.

If you feel so strongly about that, then why didn't you take it one step further? Let's publish a list of everyone that has ever been subscribed a drug to treat depression, ADHD, pain, etc, which in the hands of anyone but the "legal" owner would be an illegal drug... But in this case, the legal owner shouldn't have any rights either, and they should all be published in my neighborhood so that we would all know who to watch.

And if we could put the two list together and do some cross reference, we would know EXACTLY who to watch for any signs of a mental breakdown.

My guess is that you only think it is funny that all the gun owners are mad about being "outed" that it didn't really occur to you that this isn't any different. Or maybe it did occur to you and you feel that you have a right to be protected under law because you are on at least one of these medications?

But seroiusly, everyone is going to have a different opion of what is protected and what isn't by law. Who really knows? It's all about how you interpert the law. But in most all of the situations that everyone is arguing about gun control, there is actually a mentally disturbed individual behind the gun. I don't see you asking for those "potential" time bombs to be "outed".

And I don't believe that everyone that has been prescribed any of these medications to be a risk, but you never know, so we must have EVERYONE's mental and medical history published the minute they are on something that might cause an unstable situation.

Just my 2 cents! (it is far more complicated than guns, and sure some may say they wouldn't have killed anyone without guns, we will never know)

Have a good day

DarkSideOfTheMoon, #1.59- Thank you for the reply. I am a "firm" believer in there being more here and in the Conn case that can be "mined" to come up with more than just "speculation". I'm not so sure that it's helpful to judge the Mother about what she knew or didn't know or did or didn't do given that what little I had read about her seemed very telling that she was dealing with "her own issues". (and the Shooter was ostensibly an Adult and not legally under the Mother's charge, that I know of) And now this new information about a possible "geographical cure"? is interesting, too. Why Washington State? They came from "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire, etc. Why wasn't the brother in touch with the Shooter? Was he in touch with the Mother?...etc, etc, etc.........

Thank you, again, for replying.

Creek Dog, #1.62- Nice post!

iwrbb,

Good idea there. What she (ewent) doesn't really understand is when they posted all gun owners to the public, all the criminals "NOW" know who owns them (stake out the house and when no-one is home, rob the house of the guns)

"AND"

People who do not own guns and are now, sitting ducks for a home invasion etc...

As I mentioned above (pretty far) she just does things without thinking. Could be dangerous.

Mystery Rhee,

Thank you and have a nice day...

CD

Creek Dog....you are not the problem. I am not sure how you would have surmised that I even thought that, but again, you are not who I am concerned with. I'm concerned about the fact that too many irresponsible parents, like Nancy Lanza, exist in the world with absolutely no accountability for their stupidity in leaving guns where nuts like her moron son could get ahold of them. The wonderfully ironic thing about this is that she was killed with a weapon that she purchased herself....but it doesn't always happen that way. Another law I would love to see put in place would be that if anybody is killed by a weapon that was not properly locked up, the owner of the gun would go to jail. Accountability....there is nothing wrong with that concept. If I loan my car to someone that kills somebody with my car, I am ultimately responsible. I just want the same thing with guns.

LittleGreenPuppet

Creek Dog,
While I agree with you that a ban on types of weapons wont solve the problem I do not agree that putting more weapons on the street will either. We MUST work to get the guns out of these criminals hands. It's the ONLY way. It won't be easy but nothing is impossible.
We have to track & register ALL gun sales

---------

Catherine Straus

I think Little Green Puppet makes sense and I frankly don't understand why responsible gun owners don't agree!

Here is why Catherine (and LittleGreenPuppet): I do understand why you would want all gun sales to be tracked and registered, you think this way "nut jobs" wouldn't have access to them right? Sadly, you're wrong. Criminals will still find a way to get guns, either by stealing them or buying them on the black market.

Also, is is actually in contradiction with the 2nd Amendment, and what the founding fathers had in mind (have no doubt about this, it is not only about a militia, they also wanted all free men to have the right to bear arms for private defense). Why you ask? because it would make it immensely easier for a potential invader to find and disarm citizens (I know, you think it would never happen ... I think the chances of that to happen are slim, but I also think that it is unfortunately a possibility, and it has happened before, during WW2 for example, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Alaska, and people had to defend themselves). Also because, if the government ever turned into a dictatorship (which thank God it is not right now), it would also make it easier for this dictatorship to find and disarm citizens. And we know what happens to the citizens in either case.

And recently, a New York Journal published this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/25/new-york-journal-news-gun-owners-westchester-rockland-counties_n_2362530.html#postComment (the location of all licensed gun owners, putting law enforcement officials in danger, gun owners as well as it told criminals where to steal guns, and non-owners as well as it also told criminals who is probably defenseless).

Personally I think one of our problems right now, is that mental institutions have been closed, in general an adult cannot be forcefully medicated, nor put in institution (or hospital, or prison), unless they have committed a crime, so all the people who have a relevant mental illness (i.e. causing them to be violent), people who are a danger to themselves and to others, are roaming free. Of course I think that if they ever reopened mental institutions, they should be highly supervised by the government, to make sure people are not abused by some power hungry personel, as has been the case before. And obviously, people like this murderer (the one who killed firefighters) should never be let out of prison, and I don't understand why he was freed.

NOTE: Vermont is one of the States where the gun laws are the least severe, everyone can carry a gun, but Vermont is also one of the States that has one of the lowest crime rates (#48 on the list). This is something to think about.

Creek Dog, #1.67- Same to you, Thank you for the link, even though I don't know if I'll be able to get to it, but I'll try. I was rushing back there and had to leave for a bit when all I said was "Nice post!" I didn't get to add that I thought it was a nice post because I thought it conveyed that you seemed to have obviously been instilled with some "Family Values". Important, I think, because it immensely aids in the development, then maintenance, of personal responsibility.

7 Siblings! Very Tribal (as a foundation!)

Nancy Lanza knew her son was a problem when she told a baby sitter not to turn his back to him or go to bathroom because he was dangerous. Now as far as assault rifles being used for hunting,in Ct you can't have more than 4 rounds in any rifle or shotgun,regardless of capacity of magazine.My shotgun will hold 7 rounds (plug in tube prevents that.)If you get caught by game warden with out plug ,you lose gun,license,and possibly car or truck.Most firing ranges will allow semiautomatic fire with as big a clip as want. As far as that sen boxer from Cal saying she wants every bodies guns,when she can disarm the gangs roaming the streets shotguns,rifles,and shoot at the police,then I will turn in my guns(she has to do this and not send in a army battalion).She should clean up Cal before she starts on rest of country.Same thing for. the big mouth mayor NYC.

and here's another guy who got his 15 minutes by killing innocent people.. thanks for the life story of the killer msnbc. next time... leave his name out... and leave his life story out... otherwise you'll just help other crazy people realize they can be famous too.

write all you want about the victims... but stop celebratizing these f-ing morons....

I was stationed at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia when Martin Luther King was killed. My unit was the first to enter Washington, DC. I'll never forget seeing Washington burning as we crested the last hill in Virginia on our way in. Snipers were shooting at police and firefighters. We put two soldiers armed with rifles in each squad car and on each fire truck. The sniping stopped.

GM Bill! Hope your day is a good and safe one today with that shiny S&W on your side :-)

Sadie,

Ummm, we're open for suggestions....

All the anti-NRA/Gun people are all bark and no bite.

I want this, I want that, I want the other thing....Yeah, we all want something but barking it out gets you nowhere.

Where are the suggestions (bite) on how we go about what you all "want?"

Please advise...

CD

Great story to wake up to db2- I love to read posts about peoples experiences and how they shaped their thinking.

gm Creek Dog, stonepipe

Creek Dog

GM Bill! Hope your day is a good and safe one today with that shiny S&W on your side :-)

Denver pre-empted the Colorado open carry law. I tend to steer clear of "shiny." When I'm in the woods, I carry a parkerized Springfield 1911 Mil-Spec. (".45 ACP ..... because it's silly to have to shoot more than once.")

Relationship between type of gun owned and
percent committing street, drug and gun crimes.

Illegal gun:
Street crimes = 74%
Drug use = 41%
Gun crimes = 21%

No gun:
Street crimes = 24%
Drug use = 15%
Gun crimes = 1%

Legal Gun:
Street crimes = 14%
Drug use = 13%
Gun crimes = 0%

"The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gun owners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gun owners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gun owners, it appears to take place on the street.'"

"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention...

Creek Dog,

Great posts. I like your way of thinking.All the gun laws in the world, will not stop the EVIL. More gun laws will only turn more law abiding citizens into targets!

We need to bring back PUBLIC EXECUTIONS for people found guilty of committing crimes while using firearms, instead of sending them to some country club prison that in most cases is better than the home they are coming from.

"The NRA probably will want a gun or rifle on every fire truck, for every fireman. We have to do something about this NOW."

Yes! I agree with you. We must start arming public servants immediately (with proper training). School bus drivers should be allowed to carry also. That is the only way we stop this. Excellent point Sadie!

I wouldn't be up for Public Executions, just let us know that it is done. Look at when people run onto the field during sporting events, they will most likely not show the person on tv. Usually you only even know of his name if something drastic happens (tasered). I think if the news would just report that a shooting happens and not give a history lesson on the man, it would do a lot to deter this type of crime. I mean why do you and I need to know who shot the guns? All we should know is what happened and just use the term "shooter" instead of his name. If we stop giving these killers so much air time, they wouldn't be doing it for their 15 minutes of fame.

Sadie...some women in the US are treating these gun nuts like the little bois they are. If there's one thing no little boi or girl can stand, it's being outed. That's why in a lot of towns, women are using the Open Public Records Act to name names of gun owners and buyers and their general locations. And boy oh boy do the gunnies hopped up on ammon hate being outed. The NRA is going nuts over it. But, it's a real hoot...there's not one damn thing the NRA can do about it.

These loonies own lethal weapons. The public has every right to know who they are and where they live. If the NRA doesn't like it, boo hoo...The NRA thought it had Americans by the raisins. It forgot that women are far more dangerous without guns than the NRA bullies with guns.

Greek Dog and all that agree with him. You put to much faith in our elected officials. The putting people to death don't stop anything. We are talking about people here that have killed there self's for the most part. All of these guys have mental problems. That is where we need to start. We can thank Ronald Reagan for that when he closed all the State Hospitals, Cost to much money to keep these people locked up. So let them live in the streets and give the all guns. People like this do things with know what the end result will be. We would never think about spending less on Defense spending to keep these people off the streets. All the money we have to rebuild Iraq. That money should have been spent right here. Putting our people back to work, fixing our roads and brie dges. Our military is 10 times bigger then the rest of the worlds combine. We can and should cut our defense Budget by 3/4 and stop fighting everyone's wars for them. And when we stop depending on Middle East Oil, we can. Let Israel fight there own battles. Hell they keep start these fights and expect us to fight for them.

Greek, You want ways to stop this crap. We all need to stand up for what is right. When we all start doing the right things, things like will stop happening. We must stop living in fear and stand up and unite. The NRA only cares about Gun makers Profits and nothing else. This can't be only to protect the Profits of gun makers. When we start protecting Americans and not Gun makers, the problem will stop.

^^^ Real talk! Nuff Said!

Stop demonizing the NRA. That group has done more to promote firearm safety than any other.

Gotta be blunt- you need to get out of your bubble. The world isn't always a nice place. As we've seen recently, people can turn ugly when things go bad. Witness Hurricane Katrina, Sandy, the LA riots and more. Unarmed neighborhoods get plundered or worse. Think back to Hurricane Sandy. There was fights and more because gas was rationed or in short supply.

Imagine what might happen if power was out for a week or a month and food supplies getting low. To say it would get ugly would be understatement. The saddest and perhaps most ironic part is that the gushing "gun free" crowd would probably fare the worst and then wonder what the hell hit them.

Until we as a society address the core problem of crazy people every thing else is just putting a band aid on after the fact. The root cause isn't guns--its own society's unwillingness to deal with those who shouldn't be a part of it.

go back to paris

Spengler was convicted of manslaughter in 1981 after the death of his grandmother

You don't get the death penalty for manslaughter because it is not considered murder.

Read > Comprehend > Comment.

Manslaughter is one of the charges that DAs often use to get a conviction without going to trial. It doesn't mean the victim wasn't murdered, it means that the killer perhaps pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. In the case of this murderer who killed his grandmother; she was BLUDGEONED to death. Does that sound like manslaughter to you? Perhaps the DA chose to reduce the charges because it was a family member.

I don't think that adult murderers should ever get a break because the victim didn't get a second chance...

I am certain that the people of Webster, NY are sorry that POS ever got out of jail. Three more people dead, seven homes burned, two firefighters wounded... SMH...

Ban assault weapons.

When Guns are outlawed only OUT LAWS will have guns!! So only cops and the Military..Remove all of your freedoms & where do we stop-??Words? Thoughts? Clearly this man was deranged and NO fireman should ever be shot at! They are HEROES to be sure! To WANT to be a "HERO" you have to accept the tragedy that comes along with the turf..I hate all fools killion our kids at schools and shooting at motorists & fireman alike, I just don 't understand why these cowards dont attact Ploice batallions where they are armed aswell..

Really if you are that pissed at the system.? Move to a lawless nation or just shoot your self!

Unfortunately, in our LIBERAL SOCIETY, life in prison equates to only a few years. We need to bring back PUBLIC EXECUTIONS for anyone using a weapon to commit murder. Let our children grow up knowing that there are dire consequences for hanus actions. It worked in the past and it will work again, if we aren't already too far gone as a society.

USA I think it is a $$$ issue not a liberal agenda. Prisons are big revenue for private compaies that do it. Public funds don't want to spend too much though so they let them out instead. I'm not an eye for an eye per se and I don't think the public thing will deter anyone but a firing squad is.

@Just my Opinion,

He was convicted of manslaughter. Manslaughter is not murder.

Can you people please read and comprehend the story before commenting?

@Ultimately Slipping,

This has nothing to do with LIBERAL SOCIETY. Public executions never work, they've tried those in the past and it certainly didn't stop crime.

Also, what is a "hanus" action?

Capital punishment would have saved these volunteer firefighters lives. That is what and Eye For an Eye is. Don't let them live a life in prison on YOUR tax $$$$ watching TV, playing on computer, reading, using the gymn facilities, sending porn emails.

@hambone: Only reason he was convicted of manslaughter and not murder was because of a plea bargain. Just another example of a lazy prosecutor and a sleazeball defense attorney creating an epic fail in the justice system. How else can a guy kill his grandmother with a hammer and get such a light sentence? If the justice system would have done its job, Spengler would have been convicted of first degree murder and executed.

I know the circumstances of the plea bargain. And unfortunately, that is how our system works. It's not perfect by any means. Hell, it's pretty piss-poor sometimes. But if the prosecutor didn't think s/he could get a conviction, then that's what they do.

So he was convicted of manslaughter and was ineligible for capitol punishment.

That's the point. Our system is flawed, but what would you prefer? Guilty before proven innocent? No right to trial? Fascism?

I prefer the proper application of existing law based on the criminal acts committed, not expedient pleas and deals subject to flawed emotions. Webster has been victimized by the short-sighted decision made in 1980. He was a 30 year old man, not a stupid 14 or 15 yr old kid. He should have been convicted of murder...

What else is it when you use a hammer to murder your own grandmother????

ewent -

"You own a lethal weapon? You don't have the right to privacy. Our 1st Amendment rights come before your 2nd Amendment rights."

Quite a rant. By the way, there is NO amendment that takes precedence over another. Now, if you were to say something like "by law, our right to life takes precedence over your right to murder someone," then you might have an argument. Because I own a gun, I have no right to privacy? Does that go for military members, police, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and so on, and so on? Yeah...I am sure they will make it a priority within our government to publish ONLINE addresses and contact information for each and every member of all law enforcement agencies and military across the U.S.

USA. How is that a liberal Issue? Its a money issue. As always. People want bad guys locked up but don't want to pay to keep them locked up. Same thing with Crazy people, we didn't want to pay to keep them safely locked up. We need to face up to we are cheap asses because we are sick of paying for these people that are in Prison. I have no problem with the death penalty, except we have killed to many of the wrong people, or we have found to many wrongful convicted men on death row. That is the problem. We have Police and DA's that don't care if they have the wrong man or not as long as they can get a conviction. Our elected officials are corrupt. That starts at the Police, then the DA, and so on. These DA's are always look for something better. Like State DA, Governor, Senate or anything else. They would have no problem send a man to death to feather themselves. And we all know this to be the fact. So how can we back the Death penalty? Do you so called Conservative just hope we have the right guy before we kill them?

Right! He kills his mom w a hammer? He has to be criminally insane!They should have ended his life lone ago w/ a paralyzing agent running through his veins, or death by hanging!!If we had more public hangings and made ppl watch they--if JUSTIFIED & lawfully carried out, very many less people would ever think of committing a crime!!! In the 1800's you knew what would happen if you OUT LAWED upp" A SHORT DROP & A SUDDEN POP & STOP! BRING BACK PUBLIC HANGINGS! NO BAN ON FREDOM, AS NONE OF ANY OF THE REST OF US DO THESE CRAZY HORRIBLE THINGS! THISE WHICH DO, WOULD HAVE LEGALLY KILLED ALREADY AND OUR CRIME RATE WOULD GO BACK DOWN TO LESS THAN 1 PERCENT!

stonepipe...more lame ass excuses for flooding the streets with more guns, more deaths, more violence? Kids in a classroom aren't safe. Does that bother you? Kids go to school to get an education in a safe learning facility...Not one that resembles Alcatraz.

No one really blames guns. It is the easy access to guns and ammo that some have a problem with. The weapons used in the school slaughter should have been secured. The failure to properly store the weapons resulted in a mass murder. It is easy to simply point to the weapon used and that is the problem. Reality is far more complex than that.

The failure to require that "lost or stolen" weapons are reported to police is baffling to me. What is the reason to resist that unless we are simply covering for illegal transfers and sales?

ewent-The truth is there are ignorant self righteous dingbats that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

I may be one of WHAT HE SAID...yes guns are a problem(to put it lightly) I like the idea that I heard Chris Rock say in his act...make bullets cost $5000.00 each. Why not make ammo too expensive for average Joe's or Jill's..or nut jobs? Will someone here explain why this can't be at least PART of a solution?...I don't own a gun.

RIP ALL HEROES and INNOCENTS

Agreed Richard! And a convicted felon with firearms!!!? Where are the checks and balances in our system?? Some idiot has blood on their hands today because of this...those poor firemen and their families!!

He may have been convicted of manslaughter but he did MURDER his grandmother because he beat her with a hammer until she died.

His mother was stupid, so was his sister. I would live in a shelter before sharing a house with such a person.

The article does mention that.

Bollocks.

He should have been put to death. I did not believe in capital punishment before, now I do. Our society has changed. Anyone that kills someone illegally they need to be charged with murder and put to death. that is how our society is today and needs to be handled.

We need to seriously consider how we report crimes. Name the victims, name the town or city and leave it at that. No publicity or identification of the killers, particularly if they are still alive. Our need to know everything should be balanced in consideration of current reality...

Well put. Most of these mass shootings are committed by individuals who are angry and unstable. If we can keep the guns out of their hands, it would resolve 90% of what we are seeing. But the answer is not to take guns away from everyone to address the few. Both NY and Connecticut have very strict gun control laws and yet this still occurred. The answer is to get these folks out of our general population. That includes both the unstable and the criminal.

There are more certifiable insane people walking the streets than ever before and the last 40 years has seen an emphasis on the de-institutionalizationof them. That would be fine if there were adequate resources available to diagnose, treat and medicate these individuals; however, while the mental wards were being closed down, they were simply being let out on the street with no where to go for treatment. We had a mass shooting in our city by a man who quit taking his anti-depressants. He killed two policeman and multiple others in the area. He had gone to the hospital and they turned him away. Now he is in a mental ward of the corrections facility. The intent to take people out of the mental wards was good, but there are consequences when you don't offer the right solution to go with it. We are paying the cost by playing soft. Tough love is needed for our kids and for society as a whole.

Ron, bless you for your community service.

People in cars kill people. People with knives kill people. People with baseball bats kill people.

Let's face it - people kill people. And they will do so, if they want to badly enough, with whatever weapon they can find.

I guess you don't get it. They could return fire after some killing and wounding was done? Still better than not being able to protect yourself at all!! IT's kind of like saying, our soldiers shouldn't carry guns because if they are ambushed, some might be killed or wounded anyway.

No, No, Bill YOUR missing the point. I am saying that, in this particular case, having "armed" firemen, would not have saved lives. It would have certainly killed the POS who was shooting at them, and I'm OK with killing maggots with guns, but it could not have protected those killed in the ambush. Bringing Soldiers (or Law Enforcement) into the statement, is like bringing automobile deaths into the conversation with gun deaths. Its just a desperate analogy. Apples and Oranges so to speak. One was designed for transportation, the other for killing. (deer, phesant, grizzly bears and HUMANS) My two kids spent a total of four years in Iraq, I think it is foolish to relate soldiers at war, to civilians in America. There is a difference, I'm sure you DO know that.

The "assault weapon" in question functions no differently than any semi-automatic firearm that doesn't look scary to the misinformed. Semi-automatics account for the vast majority of handguns, and 40% of weapons legally used for self-defense.

Shawn,

Listen to Bill. If you need an analogy to help you understand, then here it is...

There are a lot of criminals out there that are hell bent on revenge thinking, the legal system and police, firefighters, teachers, public servants etc... are to blame for them being so Fk'd up in the first place.

50% of them want some kind of revenge as in "shooting" and killing them and will give it try...

OK....now, (All the above are armed & trained "except the perp as far as trained") the criminal thinks twice about what he wants to do because he knows all of the people he accuses of his bull @!$%# life problems are "Armed & Trained" to fight back and will most likely, back off and won't go through with their intentions.

Know why?!

Because even though they are criminals, they're "scared" to get hurt or die. Yes, they're actually "afraid". You see, criminals want no part of a fair robbery etc.. where the ground they stand on is equal and they fell they have less of an advantage.

They need to have "FULL" control or they will not stand up and fight to begin with in most cases. Get it?!

On another note, you wrote;

Both of these maggots were hell bent on killing, with these assault weapons, and willing to die doing it.

Not sure if you're on the correct story or did not read the entire column before posting. There was one killer and "two" firefighters killed dude/dudette... whatever...

Have a nice day...

Yeah the type of weapon is mostly irrelevant, he could have done this with a Henry for that matter but his access to these weapons is the point. That and the fact that he was even paroled rather than executed for killing his grandma with a hammer...

I get what Shawn is saying. If a perp gets the jump on you it really doesn't matter how well armed or trained you are. You are already in reaction mode at that point. The question is how we as a society remove the possibility of that situation as much as we can.

Creek, I referenced Newtowne in my post, that is where the "both of these maggots" came from. I have read many of your posts, and can respect your pro gun views, but I happen to disagree with many. I do not have the same "fear" you obviously do, about becoming a victim someday. Personally, I don't feel the need to have a gun. I don't hunt or sport shoot, and I don't live in fear of the hypothetical, I am lucky I guess. I enjoy my life, I enjoy my kids and grandson, I travel, I work, I just can't live in that "doomsday preppers" world. I feel sorry for those who do. I DO plan lots of things in life. I just don't plan on needing to shoot another human being. Call me a Lib, or a Pacifist, or anti-gun (which I'm not) for sporting and even self protection. Assault weapons and this paranoid rhetoric is part of the problem in my oppinion. Bad things do happen, and some can't be anticipated or unavoided. Be safe, and enjoy life. And hopefully, I pray, you'll never be in a situation where you have to kill another human being..

Shawn, Reality intrudes into the lives of many in an ugly manner. The Aurora and Phoenix shootings come to mind. Why do these "nuts" choose movie theaters, shopping malls and schools to attack instead of a gun range or police station? Could it be because they aren't as "nutty" as we wish them to be? They are fully aware that their victims are unlikely to be armed so they can kill with ease...

The Gardener

None of these people belong to the NRA & they damned sure won't pay for any insurance. I really don't think your ideas address the criminals. That's the problem, all you people just want to put this all on law abiding gun owners. This is ALL about Criminals, Killers, Mentally Ill & the likes.

OMG, Seriously????? Do you think the people who do these shootings are NRA members or would even think about buying insurance for their guns? Your strategy is the same as telling a car jacker that he should make sure he has AAA insurance policy before going out and stealing your car..for just in case he wrecks it and kills the occupants he held up while stealing it.

Pipe dream, brother. Just in case you are my brother. How I would love to blindfold and bring one of the anti-gunners to a shooting range picnic, where courtesy and the Golden Rule, rule. Their head would explode when they found out where they were.

Yep, might be hard for them to hang around some of the best people in the country. Then again they might learn something.

jrfgolf...I agree with you. I still stand by my opinion that because we live in a different society that when many laws were made we need to have a FEDERAL law that is air tight, no exceptions, you murder someone, including manslaughter, you will be put to death.

Jrfgolf. Why do you think Liberals thinks these people deserve a second chance? I truly comes down to money. We as a people are not willing to keep these people in jail. You can't put a budget on these things. We are to cheep to put air marshals on all plans. We won't put cameras on all schools buses. We put people in jail that shouldn't be there, and we don't have room for the ones that should be there. Its all about money. Its always about money. Conservatives are more to blame then anyone. Always saying we can't afford things. What we can't afford is wars. Do Conservatives ever stand up and say that. Hell no because they make money off war. Conservatives make money off GUNS also. May one answer to this mess is, Like when we get a car we have to have insurance on the car. Maybe that's one thing we can do with these Assault weapons.

Suppose you tell us why they couldn't.

The said he was released from jail in 1998 and release from parole in 2006.

Oops, true, he was released from parole in 06..

(he never should have been, too late now)

Bill, I missed the parole release date, you must have missed the word "ambush"

I'm sure glad the military doesn't have the same mentality of Shawn D. I can see it now: "Oh man we got ambushed."
"Why didn't you shoot back?"
"You didn't listen, it was an ambush. No matter what we would do, we would've taken losses so we just decided not to do anything."

Do you see how stupid you sound?

Jackal, thats just ridiculous. I'm all for having Firefighter trained and armed. They are first responders, and sworn public servants. I was making a point about how being armed, most likely would not have prevented the killings. That "ambush" can't be anticipated, only responded to. I would have liked them to be armed, and to have returned fire as well.

Jeeze Jackal, can't you see how stupid that comment was?

The point being that "SOMETIMES" (in this ambush) the good guys with guns, can NOT stop the bad guys with guns. They can certainly kill the bad guy after the carnage, but after is not always good enough. I guess you missed the point I was making, maybe it needed more clarification.

Shawn, I don't remember reading it in this story but I heard it on my local NBC station so correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't this man kill himself when he found he may be fired back on? And didn't Lanza turn the gun on himself when he heard the police show up? If these are true, the gunman seems to turn on himself in the presence of possible return fire. Would the presence of an armed fire fighting force make this guy think twice about using his gun? Neither you nor I know the answer. That is where I'm getting at. That is like school shootings, the shooter goes in with a good clue that there will be no return fire. Think of it this way, if you are playing Texas Hold 'Em and you get pocket rockets and there are two Aces shown on the flop, are you ever going to fold during that hand? Sure there is a slim chance you won't win but the odds are greatly in your favor. That is like what these people are doing, they have a four of a kind and are betting no one else even has a pair. Once armed people show up, it is kind of like the other flop card, the turn and the river all match one of the other Aces in the flop to create 4 of the 5 cards in a straight flush. The tide has turned and the odds are fairly even or even skewed against you. That is when the killer offs himself. My point is if we have the presence of armed people (no new people needed, just train and use the current public servants), the odds wouldn't be tilted so far in the shooter's favor and may act like a deterrent of this behavior.

bill 66. You do understand this guy set an ambush for these fire fighters don't you. This was not a war zone these guys live in. I suspect someone knew about this guy getting his hands on guns he shouldn't have. They could have stopped this. Same thing in Newtown, and all the others. Most likely one person in every one of these cases might have be able to stop them.

I agree marine, the firefighters "should" have the option to carry on the job. They are Civil Servants, with a sworn duty to protect the public. I would think we would offer them tax payer funded training and weapons to protect themselves, and the public. The same as our Police officers.

I did make a point that in this particular incident, an "Ambush" they probably could not have stopped the maggot from killing the firemen in his sights, but may have been able to return fire quickly, and minimized the assault.

I have never advocated taking guns away from trained Law Enforcement, or any educated, trained Civil Servant. (including firefighters) They are often the first responders to the public needs. But we don't need a bunch of heavily armed, untrained Yahoos with Neighborhhood Watch stickers on thier coats, thinking they are the protectors of society. Leave that to trained profesionals.