That's just awful. I agree, it's a tragedy.

If ever there was a glaring example of regret, and the fruit of it. Perhaps he was seeking to change. Perhaps he had finally realized the value of his daughter. Perhaps she was his impetus to change.

Let us learn to make choices that do not bring regret.

Justifying choices to avoid regrets isn't the truth, and when the truth catches up with us, false justifications wither like a plucked weed and truth brings regret.

what a waste of human life .

If you had a child, you might have empathy for the man. When you have children, they quickly become your life. Most people would rather die or have harm come to themselves than their children.

How is it, that they can charge a 14 year old as an ADULT ? Have you ever heard of authorities charging a 50 year old as a CHILD ?

want to post that one more time, i don't think we got it the first go around

We've got a small, compact killing machine with no other purpose but to kill. I keep hearing people compare that to knives, used for legitimate cutting purposes like ropes, and baseball bats used to play baseball and cars used for transportation. Can those other things kill? You bet. Is their sole purpose to kill? No. And that's why guns are unique and singled out. The purpose of guns is to KILL PEOPLE. Guns do their job very well.

As long as hand guns and semi-automatic rifles are out there, more innocent people's lives are at risk. Including kids who did nothing wrong, like this girl. I consider armed people a threat to my freedom and liberty. I have the right to continue living WITHOUT having to arm myself and my family.

janierock

You are correct in saying guns kill. And that is why they exist in the first place. the other often overlooked truth is that there are bad people in this world. Guns keep them in check.

Good intentions, prayers, negotiations---all good in their place, but when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor we had to respond in kind: with guns.

When police apprehend someone they use guns. When a home owner has to confront a burglar/robber/rapist in the middle of the night, what is his or her best defense? A loaded gun!

I'd love to live in a world where guns aren't necessary, but that world doesn't exist.

@Cheryl: "Get rid of guns? So are we also going to get rid of the subway where the woman killed a man by pushing him onto the track? She didnt have a gun. Or what about the man who recently killed his neighbor in Florida with a hammer? Shall we get rid of hammers too?"

Subways move people around efficiently so that there is more order in their lives. Hammers built the house you are sitting in while typing on your keyboard, both legitimate uses for the things in our lives that were invented and perfected to make our lives easier. This logic is faulty and is being spread around just like the mantra "guns don't kill people..." so don't be a parrot, think for yourself. A lot of us remember the time when guns weren't so ubiquitous and indeed cops had handguns and not many others cared about it. Criminals were locked up for a long, long time for committing a crime while being in possession of a firearm.

A handgun is designed and manufactured for only one purpose and that is to kill human beings. The target shooting is just practice for that eventuality, and anyone who claims they hunt with one is a moron or a liar, probably both. If you are still just "thinking" about getting a gun, please try to look at all the real facts out there without letting your emotions influence you before you buy one. Having a loaded firearm on you is a serious undertaking, and after the macho-coolness wears off it will become a heavy burden, both physically and psychologically. You have potential death sitting there, and you are responsible for it, 24-7. If you really want to protect your home get a 12-gauge shotgun, it is the best home protection weapon there is. You can't miss.

If we don't get rid of guns, which I must say I don't care one way or another, we need to start charging the parents. The parent of this child failed as a member of society. They should be charged and punished if that was their weapon. If you can't keep your toys away from your kids when they shouldn't have them then you don't deserve to own one. It's called being a responsible adult/parent. If your child get a hold of your weapon and accidentally shoots themselves then you need to be charged with manslaughter. I say keep the guns, get rid of the dumb a$$ gun owners that can't keep their toys away from kids.

Josh,

This was the first thing I thought when I read this article - why haven't the parents been charged for leaving a gun where a 15 yr old boy can get it? I suspect there may not be a law against it in that juristiction. What the heck is wrong with these people.

"It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong."

#3.1 cheryl - Get rid of guns? So are we also going to get rid of the subway where the woman killed a man by pushing him onto the track? She didn't have a gun. Or what about the man who recently killed his neighbor in Florida with a hammer? Shall we get rid of hammers too? Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. so shall we just get rid of people instead? There is ALWAYS a human behind the trigger.

Your post is asinine. These instances did not kill multiple people.

BTW, one comment saying the same thing is enough.

To quote Theo from first comment:

"Those who suggest that legally restricting the ownership of some firearms won't work because criminals would ignore the law anyway, are actually presenting an argument for not having any laws at all."

The price of having freedom is a steep one....

That is NOT working in Chicago!!! Wake up.

"Let's just get rid of guns."

I'm on board.

Now, just how do you propose doing that? Seriously. Not being an ass, I just want to know how.

Please don't say, "Well, we can start by passing a law making them illegal."

It's illegal to come to America without going through Immigration, but we have 2 million illegal aliens here.

It's illegal for felons to own guns, but they still have them.

I don't want a "start". Tell me, exactly, how you get rid of ALL guns in America.

I'm listening. I want to hear a real plan. Make it feasible and I'm all on board.

janierock: Don't think we didn't noticed how you transitioned from "The purpose of guns is to KILL PEOPLE" to "As long as guns are out there, more innocent people's lives are at risk." Try to stick with one argument, would you? The purpose of guns is not to kill innocent people, any more than is the purpose of a knife or a subway train. They are all misused sometimes to kill innocent people. So in that respect, they are all alike; there is no justification for singling out guns.

You might be able to make the point that the purpose of guns is to kill bad people. Some would disagree with that statement. But if we accept it as true I, for one, don't consider that a bad thing. That's essentially why our police and military carry guns: To kill bad people, if necessary. Do you also consider those "armed people" a threat to your freedom and liberty? Why should private law-abiding citizens be denied the same right of self-defense?

memhian - we have 2 million illegal aliens here.

Uh, that's TWELVE million undocumented people in this country, and rising.

This is one of the results of having a gun for self-protection. Often it ends up as self-inflicted death.

Guns don't kill people PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE !!! Funny how most of Americans sleep well at night because our soliders and police officers walk around protecting us with WHAT....GUNS....SO do you guys think the criminals will give up their guns? or is that just for the people who now will not be able to protect themselves because they are the only ones with the guns.....The idea of taking the guns away is ridiculous. I have several guns and everyone in my family does NONE of us nor our children have ever committed a crime. We all hunt and shoot together and are responsible owners. BUT if anyone comes on my property to hurt any of my kids or grandkids I would and WILL send you to HELL QUICK !!! SO are you people telling me that if someone broke into your house you wouldnt want to protect yourself or your children,,,,,well good luck with that I'm keeping my guns and I WONT be giving them up.

This was the first thing I thought when I read this article - why haven't the parents been charged for leaving a gun where a 15 yr old boy can get it? I suspect there may not be a law against it in that juristiction. What the heck is wrong with these people.

It is entirely possible that the parents didn't leave a gun where a fifteen year old boy could get it. Sadly, there are neighborhoods in highly populated regions of the US where a teenager, or even a relatively young child, can actually find an abandoned handgun easily enough. When the criminal element is doing what it does and crimes involving a handgun are committed, quite frequently the criminal in question disposes of the gun ASAP so as not to be caught with it. Throwing it off a bridge is the classic method of disposition, but if such isn't available, dumpsters are popular. In genuine desperation to eliminate evidence, a weapon may be stashed wherever seems expedient - in bushes, under a porch, or pretty much anywhere the criminal can get away from it as quickly as possible so no one can associate it with them. And, depending on what kind of life the teenager lives outside of school, he may have been able to purchase or trade for the gun somewhere on the street, possibly from someone who was using that as a means of disposing of the gun, or from someone else who found it somewhere. There are many possibilities, especially in the Miami area where this happened.

I am not aware of any jurisdiction in the US where allowing a minor to readily access a loaded handgun is not a crime in one way or another. The main problem in some cases is determining who did it! Let's say, for purposes of example, that this .40 caliber pistol was stolen at some point in the past, say, maybe in the mid-1990's, as .40 was becoming popular (introduced in 1990, took off like no other cartridge in history, especially with law enforcement for whom it was designed). Someone who purchased it may have not secured it well enough from theft, or it could have been stolen from a gun dealer - they do get burglarized from time to time, despite the fact that it's a federal felony to do that. It also isn't exactly unheard of for a law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty to be relieved of his or her weapon, posthumously, before the assailant flees the scene. In any case, our example we're using here has this pistol trading hands on the streets for over fifteen years. In a scenario such as this, who would you charge? Now, say the weapon had been something older...maybe a .32 or .38 something or another. Could be a revolver or pistol, doesn't really matter. But let's say it's been around awhile...like decades. Easy enough to trace it to a manufacturer, who may or may not still be around, depending. If it's a Colt or Smith and Wesson, okay, go to them with the model and serial number. They could readily say, "Oh, yes, our records indicate that we shipped that one to "xxx"...in 1964." More likely than not, whoever 'XXX' is is long out of business after 48 years. The odds they'd even have a record of who bought it after all these years even if they were still around are mighty slim, especially given that they were not required to start logging purchasers until 1968! Now, let's say they didn't sell that gun until '68 or later and did have a record. They were only required to keep that record for 20 years, unless they went out of business first (in which case the forms are surrendered to the BATFE), but after 20 years, they could dispose of them...and probably did as they took up valuable space. Let's presume that despite that, they kept the records so the gun could be traced to the purchaser, who bought it about 45 years ago now. Wanna' bet that they're even still alive? See how convoluted this can get? And anyone reading this who thinks it's far fetch or ridiculous, bite your tongue. There are a whole lot more decades old guns floating around out there than you realize. If you ever see a real display of firearms confiscated by police, an astonishing proportion of them are little more than battered and broken relics; criminals often don't care. If it can shoot, they'll generally not have any problem using it, many times they only planned to use it just once, anyway.

A handgun is designed and manufactured for only one purpose and that is to kill human beings. The target shooting is just practice for that eventuality, and anyone who claims they hunt with one is a moron or a liar, probably both.

Some handguns are intended for that purpose. Those would generally be the type that you see in the holsters of police and military officers, to whom a sidearm is a critical piece of survival equipment. Sometimes the only way to prevent someone from killing you or leaving you for dead is to turn the tables on the person who is trying to do you in, which is only fair. If someone decides that it's time for somebody to die, why not have it be THEM!

There are a considerable number of handguns that are designed specifically for competitive target shooting, informal recreational target shooting, and for utilitarian use, which includes various forms of hunting. The design of these handguns makes them especially unsuitable for any use where your life is at stake beyond a potential meal getting away. Finely tuned, Olympic grade target pistols are especially finicky and various jams and malfunctions are quite common because of the precise manner in which they're assembled. If the worst thing that can happen is that you lose or have to forfeit a match, so what? There are definitely people who hunt with handguns, but small game is not dangerous (except maybe some snakes, but that's more personal protection than hunting per se) and those who crave the daring of sneaking up to within mere yards of large animals that get nasty when approached and outright vicious when wounded (usual result of shooting a large animal with a handgun) most often are accompanied by a guide who is carrying a high powered rifle.

I consider armed people a threat to my freedom and liberty.

Does this include soldiers and police officers? I can think of a few who absolutely hate anything to do with the US Armed Forces and quite a few more who find law enforcement officers of any type thoroughly detestable. Of course, that's usually because their freedom and liberty has been interrupted numerous times by periods of incarceration...

I have the right to continue living WITHOUT having to arm myself and my family.

Yes, and you most likely do not have any need to arm yourself or your family. Most gun violence affects - surprise, surprise! - criminals themselves! What goes around comes around. Live a clean, crime free life, don't associate with criminals, and the odds that anyone will attack you with a deadly weapon of any kind become extremely low. Not so low that you should ignore the possibility, but definitely low enough that you need not obsess about being murdered, raped, or robbed.

@ twodogsloving

@Cheryl: "Get rid of guns? So are we also going to get rid of the subway where the woman killed a man by pushing him onto the track? She didnt have a gun. Or what about the man who recently killed his neighbor in Florida with a hammer? Shall we get rid of hammers too?"

Subways move people around efficiently so that there is more order in their lives. Hammers built the house you are sitting in while typing on your keyboard, both legitimate uses for the things in our lives that were invented and perfected to make our lives easier. This logic is faulty and is being spread around just like the mantra "guns don't kill people..." so don't be a parrot, think for yourself. A lot of us remember the time when guns weren't so ubiquitous and indeed cops had handguns and not many others cared about it. Criminals were locked up for a long, long time for committing a crime while being in possession of a firearm.

A handgun is designed and manufactured for only one purpose and that is to kill human beings. The target shooting is just practice for that eventuality, and anyone who claims they hunt with one is a moron or a liar, probably both. If you are still just "thinking" about getting a gun, please try to look at all the real facts out there without letting your emotions influence you before you buy one. Having a loaded firearm on you is a serious undertaking, and after the macho-coolness wears off it will become a heavy burden, both physically and psychologically. You have potential death sitting there, and you are responsible for it, 24-7. If you really want to protect your home get a 12-gauge shotgun, it is the best home protection weapon there is. You can't miss.

#3.6

And guns are made for defending freedom.

"To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the end of a gun, which end are you on?" Robert Reedy 2008

A Japanese General is reported to have stated (circa 1940) "That to invade the USA mainland would be utterly futile as there would be a gun behind every blade of grass" an extreme example sure.

But oppression come not only from Governments but from individual criminals as well. (Google The Carr Brother, Wichita Massacre)

To think that firearms are of a single illegitimate purpose is just ridiculous. And I know several guys who hunt with handguns, as a means of making it more challenging. There are several articles on the topic, if you wish to google it. And speaking of hunting, I am not sure if you are aware (probably not) that we have a deer population problem in most of the country which cause a very damage rate to both cars and crops. How would you suggest we handle this problem? Hire government employees to shoot them, or collect fees and let hunters shoot them. I for one hunt them often, and the meat from them is healthier than beef, which is one of the reasons I kill and eat them.

A lot of us remember the time when guns weren't so ubiquitous and indeed cops had handguns and not many others cared about it.

And some of are aware of a time when a person could order a fully automatic firearm through Sears/Roebuck and have it delivered via USPS, no questions asked. Funny that the rise in the number of firearms or their ubiquitous nature coincides with the rise of the Progressive era. That is the change in attitudes in this country from the first part of the Century, to the latter and the Dependence upon Government to solve problems.

i agree. never heard of a gun going out and killing anyone, but have heard many many many many many many time of people using a gun to kill someone. leave the guns and get rid of the people.

The Past is Gone: you are welcome to start the exodus with yourself.

@ TiGor

very well said. but it does no good, they wish not to here reason and logic, as I have come to learn.

Keep up the good fight though, as will I.

The government can and already does limit what weapons people can use to defend themselves. Most people against gun regulation don't scream about not being allowed to own a switch blade or a bazooka. As for criminals getting guns...well they must be getting them from people who are not known criminals then. Maybe new tech and new regulations would help prevent some of the ways guns are getting into the hands of criminals.

You won't get your filthy hands on my Bazooka till you can pry it from my cold dead hands....likewise with my Stinger, Over the shoulder anti aircraft missile, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the constitution which say they are illegal. If the founding fathers could have equipped those Minutemen with these babies, they would have,....except there were no airplanes,then, were there ?

Unless the container is plastic.........

acid eats plastic, it doesn't eat glass

what did that not subprize guy say' they threw his comment off' everyone keeps commenting on what he said,can someone repost it

joe slaw: No. Your curiosity will have to remain unsatisfied.

So which "Gun Free" country should we emulate?

But "The pen has always been mightier than the sword"

Just like the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment is unique to American Society as well. So me the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of Speech in England. There isn't any.

So when you start giving up your freedoms where does it all end?

History shows us where it ends

We still have knives. The primary killing tools of the 1600s.

And the number one killing tool of all time is still with us. The ROCK.

Nice try .. BIG difference between a knife and rock and a semi automatic weapon. How many rocks can you throw a second?

Hmmm... a gatling rock-thrower...
(pulls out the designing paper....)

Nancy, exactly how many rounds per second can you fire from a "semi-automatic" weapon?

Here again, a rock can kill one just as dead as a nuclear warhead can. Guns are not the problem. People who are not taught the value of life are the problem. It's interesting how, when God was still a prevalent part of schooling, incidents like this were unheard of.

According to some gun nuts, the U.S. could have dropped boulders instead of the A-bomb during WWII since it would have been just effective.

I agree with people not valuing life being the problem but please don't bring God into this. Most of these wackjobs that are killing were brought up with a religious background but somewhere along the line they have snapped. Read above 1.4 not surprised above with his rant. I bet he believes in God and yet he clearly has snapped. He should not be allowed to have any guns as his rant was totally uncalled for and threatening.

It doesn't matter what year it is. The founding fathers knew that governments could be corrupted and they made sure we had a way to control ours if it ever became corrupted and no longer stood for what We The People wanted it to. Now you want to get rid of that insurance policy that the founding fathers thought was so important. Look at the government and society today, can you honestly say that you don't think there will ever come a time when we might need to use that 2nd amendment?

The minute after the government has done away with the right to bear arms and legal weapons have been confiscated the government will declare martial law. Think about what will happen when only the criminals and the corrupt government have weapons.

One only has to remember the tragedy at Waco to understand and agree.

The tragedy at Waco shows that you cannot fight the government.

The tragedy at Ruby Ridge shows that you cannot fight the government.

The tragedy called the United States Civil War shows that you cannot fight the government.

The government has better guns than you.

So, while you gun lovers sit around waiting for to fight the government, which is a very poor way to spend one's time, tens of thousands of people a year are killed, and many more than that are injured, by people using guns. Hmmmm.

Which is worse, a tyrannical government or a terrifying society where crazy people have guns?

davey

I don't know. Why don't you ask the people who lived under Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Edi Amin, Pol Pot, etc?

Oh, that's right---you can't. Their government killed them.

Actually Hitler was an dully elected official His people only turned against him after he shot himself, Stalin , Castro, & Mao were considered heroes. History is written by the victors, not by the defeated. Missed in the story - Why is the child being tried as an adult? He can't even get layed legally but they can send him to prison for the rest of his life??

Their government killed them.

Ask the kids at Newton Elementary how they feel about guns.

@Nancy, The mother of the shooter did not secure her weapons (1st mistake & last) before she tells her mentally ill son that she is going to put him in a mental hospital! That was just stupid, the NRA sell all kinds of gun safety devices and preaches gun safety all around the USA. She the human choose not to use them!

"Anything can be a weapon, if the man or woman who holds it has the nerve and will to make it so."

so true. maybe we should cut off peoples hands so they cannot hold a weapon of anykind. if someone wants to kill you, they will with gun or something else.

The Supreme Court ruled a couple of years ago that and individuals right to bear arms is not dependant on a well regulated militia. The part a lot of people fail to focus on here is the "Shall not be infringed" part.

Thomas, It is not being ignored. We have one, The department of Defense stationed at the Pentagon. It is 2012 and we have had Armed Forces such as the Army, Navy, Marines etc for many many years. The well regulated Militia clause you are referring to was written in 1700's aka American Revolution period. We have evolved and our modern military militia has a pretty nice budget, regulated by our government and tax payer funded. So rest easy and put away the musket, errr ... ak47 , bush semi etc .. OK ... thanks for you help but not needed, unless you want to enlist.

Nancy, the militia existed apart and separate from the military. The militia was for those able bodied men who fought off immediate threats within the community. With all due respect, I'd be willing to bet that you probably don't even know what "semi-automatic" even means. If you have to Google "semi-automatic" and "select-fire" to find the difference between the two, you are out of place commenting on guns at all. If you don't agree with gun ownership, then don't purchase or own one. However, your attempt to force your morals onto others is a bit alarming.

Just like our forefathers had no idea what a semi-automatic weapon was or it is unlikely they would have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did. I even had a Right Wing nut imply that our forefathers could envision how guns would advance through some psychic ability they had to see in the future.

not 5: Just as no one could have "envisioned" us in 1800s of landing on the moon in the future. Oh, wait a minute.

Actually, firearms had evolved considerably by the time the Bill of Rights was written. I'm sure the founding fathers reakized they would continue to be improved in the future.

Notfiveo-your post is not relevant. It was the Government they wanted kept in check. Oh my head.

Actually, there were plenty of writers in the 1800 that envisioned us landing on the moon. Our 1700s leaders didn't think they were making it legal for every crazy person in the US to have unlimited access to guns that can fire bullets as fast as they can pull the trigger. Nice try.

You right wingers are so damned funny. A car or a rock is equal to the killing power of a gun. If that's the case, then I'll give you a rock and you can hand in your gun. Moron.

not 5: Just as no one could have "envisioned" us in 1800s of landing on the moon in the future. Oh, wait a minute.

Is that some inane attempt at childish logic?

Eloquently spoken!

Wild Bill, I am not wrong. I never said you didn't have a right to own a rifle or a few or several if you want. Nor did I use the words passe or out of date or old timey. The nature of government may not have evolved to a great extent, as you said ( although we were a young country) However, most everything does evolve as we grow including governments, businesses , families, thinking, technology, science etc. The gun industry and culture has also evolved, some things for the better other things not . The semi automatic weapon is an evolved modern weapon designed for one purpose and one purpose only, military, and to kill as many people as possible quickly. It is not just a household rifle and they do not belong in the hands of private citizens. PERIOD!

No. I'm sure the constitution gives me that right. What IS a household rifle? One that you approve of?

Nancy, if one wanted to kill as many people as possible quickly, why wouldn't he just use a shotgun instead? A single shot rifle will kill one just as dead as a semi-automatic or full-automatic rifle. The AR-15 fires the .223 round, which is a .22 caliber bullet - the second smallest rimfire cartrige produced today. It is no more than a glorified .22 caliber rifle, with plastic parts moulded to look menacing. It is absolutely asinine that people want to ban a gun simply for the way it looks. Mentally, our society has not evolved. It has devolved. With all the chemicals that are put into our food and water, and drugs with macabre side effects that are prescribed by doctors, it is no wonder that society is so collectively mentally unstable. In the Connecticut incident, the gun was not to blame. The blame lay with the mother who not only hid her son's mental illness, but took him to the range to learn to shoot! Look at all of the recent shooting events of the last 10 years. In EVERY case, the shooters had ADD/ADHD drugs like Ritalin, Adderall, et al, in their bloodstream. Take a minute sometime, and look at the side effects of those medications (severe depression, suicidal thoughts and tendencies, extreme aggressiveness, just to name a few). If you want these incidents to stop, then STOP pumping the poison these doctors are prescribing into your kids.

The more important question is "Who are you to tell people what constitutes an 'acceptable' gun, and what does not?" Why are you more important than anyone else? Who are you to tell someone else what they need and don't need?

Nancy, what is a household rifle? Would my "household" rifle dust and do housework for me? Is it a stay-at-home type of rifle or a life-of-the party type rifle? Does it spend too much money on ammo?

Watcher @8.3

I was unaware of the drug/medication use by the shooters. Thanks for bringing it up.

nancy: We have a rule against ARMED military troops on US soil. It's another protection our forefathers built in for the safety of US citizens.

I shall keep my automatics thank you. =)

Guns have evolved, sir. If we strictly interpreted the law, then everyone would have access to rocket launcers and nuclear bombs. But we don't.

IF we made the law that everyone could have access to a 1800s gun, then I'd feel better.

Please make mine a Hotchkiss Repeating Cannon, Steve-O!

Nancy, if the government is armed with semi-automatic weapons, then how am I to defend myself against a military if I don't have the same capabilities? I feel your ignorant regarding the entire concept of why we want the same weapons as are military issued.

Well considering how criminals are picking places that are more than likely not going to have a weapon in the building to mass murder people, I would say that sounds just about right. If just one person in the theater or school or mall had had a weapon things might have turned out differently.

billy: In my state, (and three others), we already have armed citizens in most of those places you mentioned, (without ANY permits required). And 11 more are working on the same type laws.

Soon there will be 15 SAFER states.

Why not sell poison or venom in grocery stores if poison does not kill people, people kill people??? Because, it can fall in the hands of wackos like many in this country and actually kill people.

An automobile has the primary function to bring you to a destination. A gun has a primary function to kill.

I have not heard of many "voluntary manslaughter" from a driver behind a wheel but no-sense shooting? Everyday in this country. What a society. Freedom or right soaked with the blood of his own countrymen, some as young as infants....That is freedom???? I thought it exists only in liberia or Sudan.

The primary function of a handgun is protection, it is the user who decides how it is used. You could kill a lot of people by driving into a crowd. And poison is sold in grocery stores. Insecticides will kill you if you consume them, mixing ammonia and bleach is deadly.

Okay. We 'get it'. You favor the "guns don't kill people; people kill people" argument. I favor this argument: "The gods didn't write the 2nd Amendment in stone; people in a 200 yr old Continental Congress wrote the 2nd Amendment".
Emend the 2nd Amendment. Bring it into reasonable clarity for the 21st century.

.

Billy.....hon....we do sell poison in grocery stores...every, single, day.....yes, it can be used to kill people....or rats as its intended. It can't kill anyone or anything without someone giving it a little help....

You can kill a lot of people with a lot of different things that are easily available.....cars, knives, poison, home made explosives..... the key ingredient is a person who wants to do the killing...you won't solve anything until you take care of that problem first.

No @!$%#e sherlock, it was a bad decission!

However, charging the KID with manslaughter, and as an adult, isn't going to bring back the young girl who was accidentally hit. What it will do is cause further disruption to every aspect of the boy's entire life and that of his family... a life he already has to live out, knowing that his actions cost someone their life.

But, I suppose you'd like to see him in prison, despite the fact that such a thing would do absolutely nothing except introduce him to an environment and element that he would in no way benefit from being in and around... and enter him into a system that often swallows up a person's entire purpose & potential, making them a life-long dependant of that system, or other government programs aimed at those who've been in trouble with the law.

Personally, I'd rather see the young man pay off his debt to society in a far more constructive way. For that reason, if I were the girls parents, *I* would be the one asking the prosecutors and judge to come up with a better solution than charging him with manslaughter as an adult.

I feel for the girl's family, I really do. But nothing is going to bring back their loved one! NOTHING! Why ruin some other CHILD'S life as well?

People need to think with their heads and their hearts... not with their feelings of vengeance!

If you rent/lease a car and kill someone with it, it's the fault of Hertz.

Kids are smart enough to watch someone enter the combination on a lock or where they hid the key. For all you know that gun had been locked up and the kid got the key anyway. The problem is we put chemicals into our kids supposedly for their 'mental health'(ADD/ADHD drugs) and don't teach them the proper way to handle a weapon. My 9 year old who is hyper as hell but has no drugs in his system, loves guns and knives, he knows how to hold them, how to use them, and to never play with them, or use them when an adult is not with him. My kid won't be one of those that are accidentally shot because he didn't know not to play with them or what they can do. He also knows to always make sure the safety is on.

When you drug you kid up with chemicals that you don't even know any of the side effects of or what they actually do to the brain chemistry, you are at fault for what they do.

Tumbleweed - You seriously believe that if someone rented a car from Hertz and then ran someone over that Hertz wouldn't get sued? Amazing.

Charging the kid with manslaughter, and as an adult, isn't going to bring back the girl who was accidentally hit.

Why expose him to a system that often swallows up a person's entire purpose & potential, making them a life-long dependant of that system or other government programs aimed at those who've been in trouble with the law? I'm sorry, I'd rather spend our precious resources on procecuting and jailing REAL criminals... you know, the ones who actually meant to kill their victims, and who will act out in violence again and again if left to their own devices.

If were the girls parents, *I* would be the one asking the prosecutors and judge to come up with a better solution than charging him with manslaughter as an adult... something that would allow this kid to pay of his debt to society in a far more productive way.

People need to think with their heads and their hearts... not with their feelings of vengeance!

yes with the @!$%#ing lawyers we have now yes they could be sued and the person would win.

Yes, when an organization glorifies gun use and deflects blame form the MANY cases where guns, which are by design used to destroy, are used once again to KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE then yes they ARE to blame.

It particularly sounds asinine because the fertilizer used WAS A CHEMICAL THAT WAS MINED and had nothing to do with cows. You really ARE that dumb, aren't you?

@ Huh?! So its the miners fault, and the company (stockholders) they work for then. And of course the company(stockholders) that he bought the diesel fuel from. Oh, wait the Company(stockholders)who made the drums and wire, and the rental truck company, so every one of the employees he bought the bomb making components from should be charged with at the very least manslaughter. In your eyes, RIGHT?

@ Arizona & Soggy Dawg...You guys make good points but why insult all of our intelligence with this line of reasoning? Of course people don't believe backpacks, school buses or miners should be blamed....But is it unreasonable to say that some regulation is needed for the good of ALL? Why can't a gun toting member of the NRA be a liberal? I am for gun rights however I agree with many on the left that simply want some form of protection of the mentally impaired that actually makes it that much difficult for them to get thier hands on a DEADLY weapon. We can at least agree that these WEAPONS are DEADLY can't we? Every one is jumping to extreme corners when this is a real discussion that must be had. C'mon people.

With muskets, swards, rocks, bows, and sticks.

And let's not forget that they had first hand knowledge that governments aren't always for the people they govern. Let's just forget about the part where they were trying to keep your ass safe from martial law and a corrupt government.

We have the most corrupt government in the entire world.

cunical, it is far from perfect but lets not jump to extremes here. There are and have been far more corrupted governments. At least we have the illusion to change how things are run in the US.

Aside from the gun control debate I see more and more people agreeing that what is going on in the US is more than a left/right issue. Both sides abuse their power in the same way and use the other guy as a scapegoat. While this goes on there are more powers granted to governmental organizations to "oversee" things are done properly and your fundamental rights are being eroded away. Look at the powers the Patriot act gave the government to intrude upon our lives, many of which were JUST revoted!

If anyone believes it is NOT in the best interest for the NATION to keep voting democrat or republican it is their DUTY to themselves and their country to quit voting them in. If enough people "throw away" their vote these parties will either dissolve or get the message that their ideals and agendas are not in the interest of the people they SERVE.

Did you notice that Adam Lanza's mother was a stay-at-home mom, even though he was 20?

The people that subject themselves to TSA groping just like someone to play with their privates. TSA groping has not prevented one terrorist act.

The TSA isn't keeping anything safe. If someone wants to take out a plane all they have to do is shoot it down with any variety of shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles, from old school to the latest & greatest.

If you want a SAM (surface to air missile) you can choose from unguided/infrared/command line-of-sight/laser guided etc...Even the old crappy ones can engage a plane at a distance of 4 miles, so you don't need to be even near an airport.

Of course getting a hold of one of these is a bit difficult but not impossible for a crafty terrorist. LOL

How? Did he pull the trigger?

If you have to ask, you should rethink your name...

"freedom" ???????????

"you should rethink your name"???????????

This from a person that lives in a semi communist country.

Yep, blame everyone except the one responsible.