Back in May 2000, another grassroot organization called the Million Mom March went to Washington, DC to petition for stricter gun laws. The most impressive part of this march was that it was organized primarily by word of mouth. After the march, it became a chapter-based organization that still operates under the same name.

Thank goodness for social media now that allows for the majority of Americans to speak out and let their voices be heard. It is encouraging to see that the families of the slain children and teachers in Newtown are leading the charge along with Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly.

We may not be able to stop all gun violence, but by addressing gun control laws, mental illness, violence in video games/movies, and family dysfunction, we can start moving in the right direction.

It is emotionally galvanizing when 20 children are killed in a few minutes. Tragically, many more children than that are killed by handguns, is scemes to happen every week that some toddler gets their hands on daddy's unlocked and loaded gun, and kills either themselves or one of their friends.

There's an even bigger picture issue to address. Every year the number of Americans murdered is more than were killed in combat in the revolutionary war. How can we minimize the motivations for someone to commit murder?

There are a number of separate categories to look into: Mental health, Gangs, income inequality. There is despiration as a motivator in those categories.

Realistically, the 2nd ammendment will not be changed, so let's look into what we can change to reduce the motivation for these crimes.

I also think that drugs contribute to the amount of shooting deaths in this country. Majority of the crime is because of protecting turf and illegal drugs. It is time we address this issue that contributes to the violence in our country. Decriminalize drugs and you would defuse much of the power of the gangs. I live near Stockton California, and the shootings have gone out of control there.

Amanda you are right that it is time to have a conversation. Our children be they in school or the mall or a movie theater are at risk of violence. Not just gun violence but threats to their safety.

I don't believe altering our current system or the weapons people choose or the magazines that hold munitions is going to address the violent threat against our children. The despicable will find another way to place our children in peril.

In our district we have a school district police force. An officer is present in most schools, particularly secondary schools. In recent weeks the middle school my sons attend and the High School my daughter attends have been on lock down. Both instances were because armed bank robbers chose targets near these schools near dismissal time. The middle school was on lock down because of the treat of the robbers near by and the thieves route to escape included the exterior of the campus whereas, the High School was on lock down because the armed thieves chose to include the school as part of a get away process.

With the High School event my daughter called me from her Chem lab as she was sitting under the lab table not knowing what was going on beyond the generic explanation of a gunman. Yea the kids got the wrong information. I was able to do a very quick news search and let her know that no one, at that point, was threatening any student and that she should stay calm and follow the emergency procedure. I was also able to assure here that the police, both district and county, were searching for the armed robbers. As this was an end of the day process most of the energy from law enforcement was focused on dismissing the students in a safe manner. They were focusing on loading buses, clearing the student and teacher parking lots and making sure that the thieves had no access to students. I stayed on the phone with my daughter for the entire lock down. I offered to come pick her up from school but then realized if a whole bunch of us arrived to pick up what would normally be bus riders it would inhibit the situation. When she got home we hugged big.

With the elementary school I saw the news and then called one son and did not get an answer, not surprising his phone was in his locker. I was able to reach the other son who reluctantly answered his phone. I asked if he was OK and he was. He explained the school rules about being on the phone in class and I suggested if it was a problem I would address it with the Principal. I asked him to find his brother after school and I would pick them up in carpool and we would get their bikes later. (it is not out of the ordinary for me to be in car pool, sort of a toss of the coin thing.

The reason I bring this up is because the threat is not always directed at harming the children. I was also rather comforted by the fact that there was an armed presence to protect the children.

If someone wants to impose their threat on children they will try regardless of the tools. If Lanza had no access to guns he could have done the same or further damage with explosives. He could have laid in wait and stolen and murdered children one at a time.

When it comes to having the conversation it should encompass keeping our children safe. Not just from guns but from criminal and depraved minds who would use them individually and collectively.

The politicizing of this sad event has become nauseating ! What will they do next ? Will they go the graveyards of these children and stand on their graves with cameras rolling to further their cause ?

Let them rest in peace, and allow their families to heal. No action should be taken based solely on the emotion of this event. Obama should quit pushing his gun-control agenda for political purposes.

A gun in the household of someone who is mentally ill is like a pet in a household of someone who is critically allergic to animals. You have to make a choice, do you keep the pet or do you allow the person who has the allergy to stay. Do you keep the gun, or do you allow the mentally unstable person to stay.

If you keep the gun, YOU, as a gun owner, should be civilly and criminally responsible for anything that happens with that gun.

Doctors and mental health people MUST be able to inform the police and the people a mentally ill person lives with that it is not safe to have weapons around the person.

The issue has generally not been the mental health of the people who own guns (although IMHO, they're nuts too) it has been the access the mentally ill have to guns owned by others.

Most of the mass killers were NOT gun buyers themselves.

Close this gaping hole, then move onto the next issue.

BAN private ownership of automatic weapons and large ammunition clips. Allow registered gun clubs to own these weapons so they are available to people who want to "play", target shoot, etc on site. Preserve the 2nd amendment right to own guns with rigorous registration and heavy penalties for violations. it is not hard if the Congress could grow a pair and take on the NRA

LMAO @ 55plus. The only way to privately own an automatic weapon is to have a class 3 dealers license or be a criminal. Sounds like you think anyone that owns an "assault" type weapon owns a fully automatic weapon. That's what most uninformed people believe. Just because it looks like a military weapon doesn't mean it functions the same.

Amanda. You make a great point. Public enemy # one is the NRA and all the other lobby's for the Gun makers. When we out law Lobbying with is Bribery, witch use to be against the law. When we get that stopped and only when we get it stopped, will we get our Representative government to represent WE THE PEOPLE again. Right now our Congress sells out to the highest bidder. That is the first thing we have to put a stop to. Now let the NRA spend all they want to place adds to scar there people into buying more guns so there Masters can make more money no matter who might get killed, Kids included. But the will of the People must Trump all that. Stop the NRA from Greasing the hands on Congress to do what the NRA tells them to do. If We can stop the lobby's all together, once and for all, we can get Congress to do there job again. This will cure so many problems in this country. Think of all that money wasted that could be going to something we really need. Just think of all the money that was spent in the last Election. Billions upon Billions of dollars. That money could have been used to pay the Debt down. All that Bribe money should go to something better. That is the first step. And I mean all lobby's Unions too. That will stop the Tea party also. No more outside money coming into the State Elections. The Koch Brothers will be stopped in there tracts, from buying congresspeople around this Country to Promote there Profits and same for any Big Business. Drug makers, and anyone else that Bribes Congress to do there will instead of our will.

Chuck:

I wouldn't say the NRA is public enemy number one. They are, at their core, a business organization and the primary and only function of a business/organization is to make money and preserve their own interest.

The company I work for has a division that is going after a contract I'm not entirely certain I agree with, ethically and morally, from both personal beliefs and religious convictions. However, my opinion isn't going to make a difference in whether that division is going to continue heading in that direction--executives make that decision in the best interests of the company's profit margin. My only consolation is that I will not have a hand in anything that division does and will not be compelled to contribute to it in any way because I don't have the clearance necessary to work on that contract.

Public enemy number one is not the NRA, therefore; they are like Inspector Javert, single-mindedly focused on one thing to he exclusion of all else. Public enemy number one is our own inability to think,to reason, to look at the issue objectively and pass resolutions that make sense to everyone, our inability to compromise. That is the enemy.

Dirp...wow talk about trampling over ones civil rights to medical privacy. Not all mentally ill people are violent. Exactly what specific mental illnesses need to be reported to the police? As it is I believe that if a mental health professional hears a threat from a patient directed at themselves or others, they are required to act upon that information in the best interest of the patient safety.

55plus40...If you really think that the issue is to grow a pair and take on the NRA I think you are a bit short sighted. A measure to take guns from law abiding citizens in every voting district in this country could absolutely change the political landscape for years to come. There just aren't that many progressives in place in all those pockets of Americana.

Jim

President Obama is not "pushing his gun control agenda" as you say.

Do you not watch or listen to any news other than Fox?

The majority of American citizens have asked the President to do something about gun control since the massacre in Newton and he is responding to their request.

Thank goodness the NRA and its fanatic supporters cannot bully America anymore.

silverstone...I would love to see where he has measured that a "majority"of American Citizens have asked him to do something about gun control. I am one American that has not asked this President to do a thing. I believe that my state can deal with this issue and the Federal Government has very little latitude left to deal with gun control. The last survey I read, today, was that 50%/43% of the American people feel our gun regulations are fine just as they are. 25/38% wish to see tighter controls. So my guess is the President is tipping his hand as to who he feels counts in this country to the point that those 25/38% area majority of his supporter and the rest of us constitute the enemy within.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/14/16505583-gallup-american-support-for-tougher-gun-laws-spikes?lite

Some of us are ready for a President that will consider all Americans not just the ones he needs to pay back for political favor.

I truly feel for the bereaved and afflicted in Sandy Hook. But, a "serious conversation on gun laws"?? Is the fact that America is about to hurl itself into another Civil War over the "Right to Bear Arms" serious enough for you? God help us...

If you want proof of American gun owner paranoia: www.businessinsider.com/americans-applied-to-buy-more-than-55-million-guns-in-the-last-two-months-2013-1

Americans Applied To Buy More Than 5.5 Million Guns In The Last Two Months

"Enough to outfit the entire Chinese and Indian armies."

Who funds the NRA? www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/nra-reaps-profits-from-th_b_1698652.html

NRA Reaps Profits From the Internet Ammo Sales It Made Possible

Today the NRA receives millions of dollars from online sales of ammunition, high-capacity ammunition magazines, and other accessories through the Round-Up Program, created by top NRA benefactor Larry Potterfield. Potterfield is founder and head of MidwayUSA, which claims to stock "[j]ust about everything for shooting, reloading, gunsmithing and hunting," including ammunition and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The Round-Up Program encourages buyers to "round-up" their purchase to the nearest dollar with the difference going to the NRA.

re posting this

Benjamin Franklin: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

James Madison: The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Hello @tired, feisty, haggis, pigotry, RI Mom ,Why is Homeland Security purchasing 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition including hollow point ammo. What do they need hollow point ammunition? Their charter isn’t to police our country.

Department of Homeland Security Purchases 1.2 Billion Rounds, Looking to Buy 200 Million More

9/20/12 | by S.H. Blannelberry

Despite purchasing approximately 1.2 billion rounds over the past six months, the Department of Homeland Security is looking to acquire another 200 million rounds for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.

According to solicitations posted on the federal business opportunities network website, the government is looking to buy 200 million rounds of .223 over the next several years, in addition to 176,000 rounds of .308 caliber, 168 grain hollow-point boat-tail (HPBT) and 25,000 rounds of blank .308.

News of this information has some within the blogosphere predicting that the government is preparing for a sustained period of civic unrest, an “all-out American Spring” as Israeli National News described it.

The U.S. government clearly sees the writing on the wall. What lays ahead for America is a day of unbearable reckoning. The debt bubble which will soon burst and the resultant financial collapse will wipe out savings accounts, pensions, investment funds and equities of the working class, all across the nation. Imagine bank accounts being reset to zero, “bank holidays” enforced at gunpoint. That will unleash a wave of violent protests, social chaos and even talk of revolution. The government will almost certainly respond with a declaration of Martial Law, the rolling out of highway checkpoints, and before long, the use of live ammo on unruly protesters. The desperation is evident in the Trillion Dollar Coin test balloon that was just released.

The Social Security Administration has also recently purchased a large quantity of hollow point bullets, potentially signaling that authorities fear welfare riots could occur if benefit payments cannot be made. The NOAA also recently purchased 46,000 rounds of hollow point ammunition.

This latest ammo order comes on the heels of one placed for 450 million rounds of .40 caliber hollow point ammo back in march (ATK, a supplier of aerospace and defense products, was awarded that contract) and a solicitation for 750 million rounds of ammo, including .357 magnum rounds, made in April.

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” ~ Barack Obama, 2008 campaign

Why, why does Homeland Security need 1.5 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition?

First they want the rifles then the handguns!

Sheeple, sheeple, sheeple!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_ODW4JG9y8&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wc8HGPfF8ow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=urrRcgB581w

Hello folks, what kind of gun was used in the Sandy Hook shootings?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju_NllT1iDo

Hello folks,

Here’s the dirty little secret – for all their hysterical anti-gun rhetoric, the gun grabbers really don’t care about saving lives – what they care about is power. They use tragedies like Sandy Hook to pursue their real goal, which is to disarm American citizens. They attempt to disguise their real intents, and in some cases even give lip service to the second amendment. One especially comedic example is that of John Kerry, who during his unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign went on a photo-op “hunting” trip, complete with camos in order to show he supports “hunters”. Understand – and this is a crucial point – the second amendment isn’t about “hunting.” It never has been. The fact is that the right to bear arms was put into place by the founders as a means of protecting the citizens from tyranny. That is why would-be governmental gun grabbers hate that pesky second amendment. An armed populace is the one thing standing between them and what they want – an omnipotent central government accountable to no one and free to impose its will on a defenseless public. Sound harsh? Consider the gun policies of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung and think again…

Reading the founders’ own writings about the right to bear arms makes it quite clear what their intent was when adding the second amendment. Chuck Baldwin wrote a recent column that addresses this issue and I will repeat here two quotes he used from Thomas Jefferson and George Washington:
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence… From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable… The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes.” – George Washington

That's an unhealthy dose of paranoia to be carrying around with you.

You do realize that they practice shooting, and there are a lot of them. 1 officer will use 100s of rounds on a range day, to stay proficient

Hey Ed, rebut my 1.20 post! I'm just looking for the truth!

Truth is hard to come by. JFK. Warren comission coverup.

I wonder how many regular Americans know that Kennedy removed US nuclear missiles from Turkey in exchange for the USSR removing them from Cuba?

Honest John,

Thanks for posting about the NRA profiting from internet sales. Many are sold online with no background checks.

Why do you suppose the NRA opposes universal background checks?

Only someone with a criminal background should be worried about that.

Hello Ed, that's what I thought, can't do it can you?

Gun violence is a very complication issue that is not going to be solved by one "quick fix".

Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and criminals is just ONE part of it. Strengthening the laws revolving around liability will help. In other words, make gun owners responsible for their guns. Make sure that gun owners have the appropriate knowledge on how to handle the weapon and have ways to secure the weapon before allowing purchase. If a weapon is stolen, an owner must report within 24 hours or the owner is liable and WILL receive jail time if that weapon is used in a crime. If the weapon is involved in an accident, the owner is liable with jail time. Responsible gun owners should have no problem with being responsible for their guns!

Do not allow the delivery of guns/ammo from internet or mail orders. They must be picked up at a gun store or law enforcement agency to assure proper background checks.

Make it illegal to transfer guns by sale or gift without background checks.

Strengthen the laws surrounding the use and/or possession of guns by criminals or those deemed to be ineligible for gun ownership. ANYONE committing a crime (outside of citations for thing such as traffic tickets) should be ineligible for gun ownership. For those committing misunderstood, it could be a temporary ban. Any guns owned by such people and/or used in a crime should be destroyed.

Make it easier for the mentally ill to get help and for those deemed dangerous due to mental illness committed for care.

Make a push to keep children and younger teens away from interactive "killing" video games. Make parents responsible for that.

These are just ideas ... let's open a RESPECTFUL conversation. I'll respond to RESPECTFUL answers, even if they disagree with me ... or to other ideas.

All very good ideas, Beth.

The gun owners in my family and neighborhood agree with you as do most responsible gun owners.

Fortunately, the NRA and its fanatic supporters do not have the power to bully us anymore.

Trust Verify,

I'll take you up on your paranoid, obsessive rant. In fact, I can't believe there's still one delusional nut out there still hanging on to the nonsense about the order for ammunition for Homeland Security. Just go to Snopes.com or any other reputable fact checker and click on any of the subjects you raise including Hitler, and you will find every one of your fantasies are just that. And you have the gall to claim you're after the truth. Do not come back here until you do as I say, and then tell us EXACTLY what you find; verbatum, not your interpretation of what they say. You are delusional and need some serious help.

From January 1 1949 until now, just over 1 million Americans have been murdered.

Yes I counted at the bureau of statistics site.

Let that sink in. A Million Murdered.

Something has to change.

silverton-2953905

Honest John,

Thanks for posting about the NRA profiting from internet sales. Many are sold online with no background checks.

Actually I have never seen one sold online without an FFL transfer, every online store requires a firearm be shipped to a FFL local to the buyer and the FFL holder must do a background check before the buyer can receive the firearm. The same goes for the auction sites.

The only time a background check is not required is in a personal face to face sale. It is illegal to do a personal sale across state lines.

The media is also "fabricating" stuff, there was a gun show here this weekend, I have been to dozens of shows at this location, yes there are people doing private sales in the arena but they are very few. The media was claiming people were selling guns out of their trunks which I have never seen and is against the auditorium rules, it never happened.

While I agree that all sales should require a background check it is very hard to do anything meaningful with all this false hysteria.

Sorry for your tragedy....nothing to talk about. Have a nice day.

Ed - Great post. That's like only 15,000 per year or 300 per state per year. Considering all the illegals, gangbangers, and mafia people that kill people....why heck, that's like 15 per year and those are probably guys cheating with someone else's wife. Compared to your numbers, this gun crisis is not as bad as the flu that's currently going around.

@antistupidity The article about the NRA profiting was from the sale of ammunition, not guns.

Hello dksouthern, never heard of you before. Must have hit a nerve as I see they are bringing out the internet shills. Back to topic:

The death of innocents is always tragic. To feel empathy for those who lost their lives and their grieving loved ones is a normal, healthy reaction. To feel any less would be less than human. Unfortunately, a far less noble part of humanity – the “never let a good crisis go to waste” mindset of those who see human suffering as a means to an agenda – always display their ugly faces at such times. So it is with the recent Sandy Hook shootings.
Predictably, before the mourning families could even make funeral arrangements, the usual suspects were already inundating the airwaves with a cacophony of anti-gun gibberish. People such as Michael Bloomberg were already demanding “immediate action.” Naturally by “immediate action,” Bloomberg and others of his ilk mean to strip gun owners of their right to bear arms.

The gullible that rely on emotion rather than logic are easy prey for such opportunists as Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, Eric Holder and of course Barack Obama. Governmental anti-gun types are shameless in their efforts to exploit a tide of mindless emotionalism by advocating what they euphemistically refer to as “sensible gun laws”. While they bend over backwards attempting to sell their notions as “sensible,” there is nothing sensible about it. To these control freaks, the only solution to gun shootings is to disarm the law abiding. Take for example Obama’s flippant response to the NRA’s idea of posting armed guards in schools:

“I am not going to prejudge the recommendations that are given to me. I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools. And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem.” (emphasis added)

Such vapid “reasoning” and presumptuousness are unfortunately typical of this administration… Apparently it hasn’t dawned upon Obama et al, that high profile school shootings such as the recent Sandy Hook incident, occurred in “gun-free” zones. Ever since the passage of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, students and faculty alike have become sitting ducks. By 1995, the law was found to be unconstitutional by the USSC, but in 1996 Bill Clinton, with assistance from his anti-gun zealot attorney general Janet Reno, found a “creative” means of simply bypassing the constitution and keeping this horrendous law in effect. Based on the exponential increase in school shootings (can you say Columbine, Virginia Tech and yes, Sandy Hook) it is more than safe to say that this “gun free zone” idea has been an abject failure – and has actually led to an increase in school shootings. Armed guards – or better yet – faculty members who have concealed weapon permits would provide a far more effective deterrent to lunatic Columbine wannabes, than leaving our children and teachers defenseless against such attacks.

How about rephrasing “more guns in schools” to “more guns in the right hands” Mr. Obama? That would be a “sensible” gun policy.

When I hear people talk about “gun violence,” I wonder what has happened to language. A gun is an inanimate object. An inanimate object cannot cause violence. Humans cause violence. The relevant question is: why do humans cause violence? This obvious question seldom gets asked. Instead, inanimate objects are blamed for the actions of humans.

I think the reason people talk about 'gun violence', is that a gun makes it easy to kill, if that is your will.

A knife, hammer, or bare hands, are far more difficult to kill with than a gun. (lessons from basic)

Thanks John, just read the article, I have bought a couple of parts from Midway, they were the only one who had what i was looking for but did not participate in the round up program. I am not an NRA member nor do I agree with their politics, but almost all merchants in the firearms business support the NRA so even as someone who shoots for fun(I find both challenging and cathartic) there is no getting around them. Buying ammo in bulk over the internet is the only way I can make it semi affordable, there just is nowhere locally to buy this way. I usually buy 500 rounds at a time and split it with two other friends.

Perspective:

Since 1949, 150,000 more Americans have been murdered than have died in combat in all the wars America has been involved in.

TrustVerify said:

Why, why does Homeland Security need 1.5 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition?

Because the various divisions of Homeland Security need them.

Would you deny the Coast Guard bullets to fire back at drug-smuggling boats? deny the Secret Service agents bullets to protect the President and various other dignitaries and government figures? Deny border police the ability to fire back at cartel members and drug smugglers and illegal border-jumpers?

Mental health is a very large part of it. Whatever your definition of mentally unhealthy is, the majority of these shootings are being committed by these mentally unbalanced individuals.

I'm the mother of an autistic child. Hes very bright and high functioning, does not need to be institutionalized, yet I know that he's not capable of understanding his actions and the potential is there for the same situation as Nancy Lanza. Because he presents a potential danger to others, should my right to own an assault-type firearm be curtailed in the interests of public safety?

My answer to that is 'yes'.

There is very little that the government can do to take people's guns away--the Constitution is pretty definite on that point. When I became a US Citizen I swore to uphold the Constitution, and I will do so whether I personally agree with it or not--but I do advocate for a common-sense law that will prevent people from being able to own a high-capacity assault-type firearm if they have a mentally deficient individual living with them, and mandate stiffer penalties for those who might lie about this point on their applications to obtain one of these types of firearms.

Amanda,

Thank you for your post and hope you will keep posting it for others to read.

You are to be commended for your patriotism to your country, your loyalty to the Constitution, and your love for your child and his welfare.

Amanda, thumbs up, good to see common sense for a change and not the divisive vitriol we usually see. Hopefully this group can bring people to the table and we can have common sense lead the way. Mental health is such a big part of this and neither side seems to want to address the issue.

Amanda I agree with most of what you are saying, but I do not feel that it should ban you from owning any firearms. But it should as with all gun owners ensure that they are kept secured and locked where they cannot be obtained by anyone that may want to use them for illegal purposes. Mental health is one of the biggest issues, in my opinion, with these shootings but so is responsible gun ownership by those that are legally able to obtain firearms.

Amanda, I understand your situation and as the mother of a child who can't grasp the concept of his own actions and I commend you for your pov although I don't agree that you loose your personal right because a mentally ill child is present in your home. You are certainly well within your right not to own a firearm regardless of the soundness of your reasoning. But that is your choice,not one that can or should be imposed on others in your same situation.

I agree with you and anti-stupidity...Mental health should be a part of the discussion. The frightening thing about that part of the discussion is determining who is and who is not mentally ill. What constitutes mental illness: Schizophrenia is pretty easy to determine but what about depression that can be fleeting but profound? Asperger's is being eliminated from the DSM-5 so would Lanza even blip a map (by those standards) to not have weapons? It seems the medical community is taking the who "spectrum"away from autism so at what point of dysfunction or savant does society dictate that those families cannot own guns? Are we going to take away the ability for families with children who are mentally retarded to own guns?

Where is the line and who is going to make the determination?

John:

I agree it should not mean a ban on me owning any firearms. I do own one, the S&W 39 that my Dad carried in Vietnam.

But it SHOULD mean a ban on high-capacity assault-type firearms.

Last year there was a case of a 15 year old girl who was snatched off a train platform in CA by a neo-Nazi skinhead who had a 20 year RAP sheet. He kept her captive for a day, raped her multiple times, then finally dumped her out of the car. She went to the hospital and the rape kit turned up his DNA, matched from a rape case 12 years previous when he raped a prostitute and refused to testify.

This girl didn't want to testify either. She was a minority, she was in foster care, had no family, was afraid the guy's skinhead buddies would find her after the trial and kill her. She tried to run away a couple of times, refused to show up in court.

Despite a CA law that says a rape victim cannot be compelled by the courts to testify against their attacker, the courts decided to place this 16 year old rape victim in juvenile detention to make sure she showed up, denying her lawyer's plea that they comply with the 'no compelled testimony'law and repeated requests for her to be placed in witness protection.

The State contended that they did not have the budget to place her in witness protection, and that public safety trumped her right to not testify--if she did not testify there was a chance this suspect serial rapist would escape a conviction yet again.

If the government can decide that public safety trumped individual rights in this case they can also decide that public safety trumps personal rights in the matter of high-capacity assault-type weapons as well.

txmom32

What constitutes mental illness:

what about depression that can be fleeting but profound?

Where is the line and who is going to make the determination?

This all has to be part of the discussion, it will be difficult and I doubt the answer will be flawless. I think the standards need to be determined by a board of unbiased medical professionals.

I think there was a lot more going on with Lanza than aspergers.

If there are issues in the household then responsible storage needs to be brought into the picture, this shouldn't preclude someone from being able to defend themselves, but would require increased vigilance and enhanced storage regulations.

Antistupidity...I think there are a great many gun owner, particularly with children in the house, who take every precaution in storing their fire arms. Many of us take addition steps in storing ammunition. In our home the only weapon that is not locked in some fashion is the target bow and the blunt target arrows. Obviously, this is not fool proof as Lanza's mother was said to have been very cautious with her guns and attitude toward their use. I think an important perspective would be what broke down in her home that afforded access to the guns.

Will follow this later, have to take the brothers to bb practice.

txmom32

I only think storage should be brought into the picture if there are extenuating circumstances. 1 should be available for home defense but in the custody of a responsible adult. I grew up in another country and when we went to the range I cleaned all the guns, I knew every one of them inside out and had shot every one of them by the time I was 10 or 11, including a 9mm a .45acp, .308 (so called)assault rifle and a 12ga shotgun. When my parents went out I was left a .45 or 9mm in a place I could get it if needed, there was no curiosity factor. I knew exactly how powerful they were and what they could do, I never so much as touched one, but it was available. I still always have one available. Hiding it and the don't you ever touch it approach just raises a child's curiosity, making them familiar will greatly reduce accidents in my experience. All my friends had guns accessible in their homes and all had shot and handled them, there was never any "curiosity" and accidents due to curiosity were unheard of. I know I will draw a lot of flack for this comment but it is the way it was.

A case for 30 round clips

Need to get some terminology straight. An assault weapon has a select fire button Fully Auto, something in between and semi automatic. Semi automatic means you need to pull the trigger to fire each round. Fully Auto means you only need to pull and hold and it will shoot tell it runs out. These are like lightweight machine guns. Machine guns were designed to kill people. They are not offered for sale to the publick with out a very expense permit and backgrounder check

The semi autos were designed to help hunters shoot quicker. They also are good in self defense. As you can defend your self against several attackers at one time. All guns have one weak point and that is how many rounds it can hold. The more rounds the better it is at self defense. There is not one semi auto gun or rifle that advertise that this one is a gun good you can use to kill many people at random. The ad will stress self defense and one of the features is or could be a 30 round clip.

You may look at our society today and say that this feature is out dated, we have moved out of the wild West days. This is true as long as everything stays the same. Change something that disrupts the food supply or any other event that stresses us humans and we tend not to be so human. We have a need for self preservation. This need lead to the invention of hand guns for self defense and has lead to ways to make features for this device that would lessen its weak point. Just try defending your self and family with a single shot gun when 5 others are braking in. You will loose

The first semi-automatics were developed for military purposes (Mannlicher 1885, 2 yrs after the first Maxim single barrel machine gun). Not for sport hunters.

semi-automatics were developed for military purposes this is true

but the ones that used them knew they would be good for hunting. I think all guns, rifles , and canons were all developed for the military. then the manufactures found out there was a demand for civilian use. that brings use to today. Where most weapons had there start in the military and have been adapted for non military use

Antistupidity....I'm not saying that laws should be reflective of the efforts in our home. Like you I grew up shooting, we knew where the pistol was and would never think to "play" with it touch it unless there was a need. We knew where the hunting guns were also and because we grew up with the understanding to assume all weapons are loaded and never considered touching those either.

Things in our home are a bit different. Our kids shoot and hunt (both boys got their first deer this season), our daughter goes to the range with us and shoots, although she prefers her fathers pistol to mine. We have considered purchasing a hand gun for her that she can take with her when she gets an apartment. (several years down the line but always thinking ahead. The boys couldn't care less about the hand guns they want their own 30/30's. We considered that for Christmas this past season but, we knew they would only have one hunt left for the year and it didn't seem like a good idea to have them use a gun that they were unfamiliar with for that hunt. Because, they have friends in and out of the house we keep the guns where they cannot get to them. My husband and I can if we have a need. We could offer that option to our daughter but really would prefer she become more confident. My point being that there is much to owning a gun beyond loading and firing as you said. The families that I know who keep firearms are all very proactive in safety. The people we have to worry about are those who have never taken a gun safety course or how keep firearms with criminal intent.

It seems that far right folk only see the NRA as a lobby organization and not as the all encompassing organization that it truly is, which in itself is a shame. The NRA offer a variety of opportunities from gun safety to competitive shooting, they offer training programs for kids, women and law enforcement they offer gun smithing classes. We haven't sent our kids through the program but they get the same opportunity at summer camp. Even families who do not own fire arms could benefit from these safety programs for their kids. Let's face it kids are curious and where we would all like to tell our kids if you see a gun at someones home stay away. If someone pulls out a gun in their home leave. Sadly, curiosity gets the most of kids who have never been exposed to shooting in a supervised setting and this is when things go wrong and kids get hurt or die.

As for who determines the state of someones mental health. I think in extreme cases of mental incompetence, like schizophrenia, it would be rather easy to say if they are refusing treatment they don't get a fire arm. But in cases like depression, that is sort of an individual issue because it can be treated fairly reasonably but it can also be a state for a small span of time. So the guidelines for determining mental capacity to own a fire arm would seriously need to be least restrictive and carefully examined. What if there is an adult with diminished mental capacity who is living with their family is the family then to be restricted from owning fire arms? It seems that our Government gets a whole lot wrong that it would be a concern to give them the authority to take away one person's right because of an association with another in the home.

I am not saying to take someones rights away because they live with someone with diminished capacity, but maybe make a safe a requirement with all recreational guns locked away, and the custody of a defense gun or guns be the responsibility of someone else in the household at all times. I don't think anyone should lose the ability to defend themselves because they care for a handicapped person. Caring for a handicapped person brings a whole new set of responsibilities that the everyday person does not have to deal with and this would be one more. Had Lanza's mother kept all the guns in a safe that he did not have the combo to, and had she kept out one handgun and slept with it under her pillow this would have never happened. I am not sure how to work this out and enforce it, that would be the job of health care professionals and safety experts, not politicians.

Yes, there is always a way to get around a law or restriction but that doesn't mean the law or restriction shouldn't be put in place.

We're not going to get rid of a law that states you cannot dump toxic waste into a river or lake even though somebody can find a way to do it undetected. Nor are we going to get rid of stop signs and highway speed limits because "only the criminals" will exceed the limit or run stop signs.

Most of these mass murders are done with easily obtainable, legally bought high capacity weapons and ammo. Restricing the manufacture and sale of these high capacity weapons and ammunition is the best approach in my view.

LeftLeaningLisa Common sense, this is how we can get somewhere productive, have to agree with all you say.

And while assault looking rifles and high capacity clips could have made a difference, it wouldn't have prevented the issue. Heavy duty background checks and psychological checks wouldn't have prevented this issue, since it was the shooter's mother who purchased the guns

Perhaps other residents of the home should be taken into account during background checks, perhaps storage stipulations should be put in place in certain circumstances.

LeftLeaningLisa:

While I don't know of anything that would have flat-out prevented it altogether, I do want to submit two ideas;

1) Not allowed to own a high-capacity assault-type firearm of you have a mentally-deficient individual living with you.

It would not have prevented it--Adam Lanza would still have been able to pick up the smaller-caliber handguns his mother had and shoot children with them--but he might not have been able to shoot and kill so many in such a short time.

2) Stiffer penalties, including jail time, for anyone who lies on their application to purchase/own an assault-type firearm.

If there were a question 'do you have a mentally deficient individual living with you' Nancy Lanza would have had to answer yes. She has reportedly tried to seek outside help for her son's mental illness, that is recorded fact, and had a question like this been on her application, she would most likely have answered 'yes' if she knew that if he was caught lying she would go to jail and her son would have to go into the government's mental health care system. And that assault-type weapon would never have been available for Adam Lanza to use.

I am sure that had Nancy Lanza lived, she would have been held legally responsible for allowing her son access to the firearms which he used to kill her, the children, and ultimately himself. She also reportedly took him to a range and taught him how to point, aim and shoot. I'm pretty sure that had she not done that, the death toll would not have been nearly as high as it was.

Lisa - Your post is kind of all over the place. Crazy people...arms availability...our warrior culture. Where do you really stand?

What no one on either side of this conversation is willing to acknowledge when they equate cars and knives to guns is the force multiplication factor of firearms. I am a fat, out of shape, older woman. If it was my will to cause maximum destruction in a minimum time frame, what do you think I would chose?

Your counter argument...that if guns are made unavailable I will choose knives or cars, doesn't really hold up, does it? Most posters, here, would be far more willing to step in front of a fat broad with a knife than a fat broad with an assault rifle.

Bubblegum- your car would actually be the best choice for this scenario and if you were really in the mood you would fill it with fertilizer and Diesel and drive into a building and detonate it, or just park it out front as in the case of Oklahoma City.

Ed, Your last statement does not make sense ... there is no "motivation" for an insane act of an individual.

Of course there is, but not a single one. Some mentally ill persons are much quicker to use violence when motivated by anger, hate, fear, that a normal person may experience but not act upon. It could be that they are suicidal and want to go out with a bang. This is the hardest type murder to prevent. Universal healthcare would help these individuals. Medication can provide a buffer or release valve before the person explodes into violence. With the system we have now, nobody wants to pay for someone to have a prolonged stay in a mental care facility. In the last 30-40 years the mentally ill without insurance have been either put in jail for crimes related to their illness, or dumped on the streets.

TAJ,

The manufacturers of guns and Ammo make huge profits from situations like this. The NRA works for them, pushing sales every time. Sad but true.

So you are saying we should ban planes that carry more than 10 people ????

And so does the Anti-Gun Lobby...

First, the vast majority of those people being killed with a gun are gang bangers and others who are already involved in a criminal lifestyle. Here in Chicago, no one is panicking about the multiple murders each day because they involved thugs and gangsters killing each other. And oh yes, we have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation here.

So please, enough with the blaming of the lawful gun owners. And your musket comment is just as stupid as saying the 1st amendment does not apply to the internet, radio, television, etc.

As for the reaction of everyone running out buying up guns - its simple - just like when everyone went out and bought up all the remaining Twinkies.... when you are unsure if you can obtain something legally in the future, the common mindset is to go get it now while you can.

A tragedy was caused by an insane kid who even his own mother could not get committed when she knew he was out of control. Stop trying to blame everyone else for what he did. Initially they said he didn't even use that Bushmaster but whatever, a shotgun, a car, a bomb, a gas can and a match - they all would have caused the same effect.

Jay in Florida or Chicago,

Take the profit motive away from the gangs, and they fade away. End the prohibition on drugs. Tax them and sell for less, and the gangs shrivel and find it hard to recruit. Just like the end of prohibition of alcohol.

Ed -

I'm all for that. My neighborhood is controlled by the Gangster Disciples and I get to see plenty of obvious drug transactions that the cops just don't deal with. Sometimes in the summer they get out of control and we'll have marked cars park across from whatever corner they are occupying - but the last two years that doesn't even make them stop/move. Talking to the cops, they see all the small dealing as more of annoyance/quality of life issue but in reality, that's how they fund their operations. And then once every 6 weeks or so someone will get shot, stabbed, or shot at over some BS dispute and then the police are around more for 2-3 days until things go back to 'normal'.

It really annoys me that it is practically impossible for me to legally own a weapon to defend myself, but 15 y/o thugs are armed and more than happy to pop anyone who crosses them.

MNJL. Great post. I to am a Gun owner, But would never join a Club like the NRA, but I hold nothing against you for being a member. I would ask you what do think we can do. There has been talk about closing the gun show loop whole. Stop the sales of over sized Clips, limit them to 6. Are these things you could live with. Better back ground checks. I personally don't see the Need for a AR 15. But if you feel the need, Then keep it to 6 shots, Is that something you would get behind? And after Newtown, we have to look not only the Person buying a Gun, But see it they have mental ill people living with them. You must be upset with this kids mother having a Ar 15 in the home and then showing this mental Ill kid how to use it. Who is the Crazy one her. I would love to see where you stand. Thanks you

Chuck,your first point, gun show loopholes. I think they should be closed. Most sales inside the show are FFL holders, they do background checks. The private sales inside the show should somehow also do the checks. One other problem is the data base that supplies information for the background checks must be much larger, mental health as an example. All states must supply the info. to the data base. The problem with "trunk" sales, those private citizens selling out of thier cars must stop unless checks and balances can be applied. I am not sure how to accomplish that however, but it must be worked on.

I like my "high capacity magizines", having said that, they do in fact have a mechanical function to them. They do in fact change the ability of the firearm to fire more rounds without changing mags. I would love to sit with actual people that want to help our very real problem and talk about everything. Would I support limits to capacity,,, well I hate to say this but,,, but I would for shure not take that off the table.

I mentioned background checks, I would support any, yes any, checks and balances that would keep firearms out of the hands of "bad guys" meaning those with mental issues or those with thoughts of doing bad things, crooks and robbers.

In the case of the Newtown shooting there is a blazing red problem in Adams ability to get the guns from his mother. That problem would take a common sense dialog to figure out how to either enforce it or eliminate it.

And for my AR, where I live we have a terrible Coyote problem the AR is a great varment gun.

Thanks for your comments.

Chuck -

So now we are talking about reduction of magazines to SIX shots? I won't argue for getting rid of 100, 50, maybe even 30 but now 6 is the magic number? Oh heck no. Most standard handgun magazines are between 10-18 rounds unless it is a compact version specifically made to conceal carry. Home defense with 6 shots is laughable. Unless you can guarantee that all the criminals will turn their guns in, don't expect me to abide by such nonsense.

Solid background checks make sense along with including certain mental illnesses into the list of reasons for denial. The gunshow "loophole" has little to deal with gunshows where the dealers still have to do the check and all to do with private sales between unlicensed inviduals. Maybe force dealers to run the check for the seller? There should be some way of making it doable.

As for "assault weapons" - I don't really care since I don't own one or plan to but the frustrating part is that these guns are functionally the same as every other semi-auto sporting rifle.. they just look more menacing. Kind of like banning cars with spoilers on the back because we don't want fast cars on the street. I think it is crazy to ban something because it looks scary. I also think it is a slippery slope.

And totally agree that Lanza's mother was off her rocker for allowing her son anywhere near her weapons. He had to business learning how to use them and if she really insisted on having guns in the house, they should have been hidden and secured from her son. Even the NRA you dislike so much preaches proper/safe handling, storage, etc.

Jay, good post. The comment about the "scary" black rifle was very correct. It is nothing but a semi auto rifle dressed in a scary costume, well some people think it is scary.

thanks for some more common sense.

Correct. The drug everything and everone in sight for every minor malady has to stop. Also, The only people affected by guns laws are the sane cause its only the insane and evil that uses them. People cant think past that logic.

Ah, but who voted in the politicians who decided to make lobbyists a factor in our country's direction?

We the people need to remind our politicians that they work for us. We don't exist solely to reelect them. we need to remind them, each one, no matter the party or affiliation, that we put them where they are today and we can take them back out on the next election.

Chuck,

Reasonable conversation huh?

If the 2nd Amendment was written today...under the current administration, Democracy would no longer exist. It's fast becoming extinct as it stands..... Where are the dope-smoking hippies of the 60s who fought so hard to denounce a corrupt government? Oh I forgot---they now ARE our corrupt government!

For crying out loud, please educate yourself. These "assault weapons" function NOTHING like our military's assault rifles. There's a HUGE difference between pulling a trigger and "spraying" bullets and pulling a trigger for every shot, just like a revolver. Functionally, they are miles apart - cosmetically they look similiar.. much like a transvestite...

Weapons have been evolving since the first stick was sharpened. The same folks that wrote the Bill of Rights watched as their firearms evolved. To think that they never imagined weapon technology would change is foolish at best. And lets not forget private citizens could own cannons back in the day.

We have 1.4 MILLION gang members in the US who account for the vast majority of our gun deaths - how many do they have in Japan? Lots of Ganster Disciples and Latin Kings fighting for turf in Japan? No - but what do they have? Oh yes, they are #6 in the world for suicides (US is #34). Feel free to go live in Japan, but I suspect it is not the Utopia you think it is.

The men that crafted our constitution knew exactly what they thought our new country needed. It had nothing to do with the type of arms available at the time(if it did they would have said we all have the right to have a sword). It had everything to do with making sure our new country had a form of protection against the tyrannical type of government we had just fought a war with. I have a feeling if they were writing our constitution today they would feel that the second amendment was so important it might have been the first amendment. The fact that some of our elected officials are trying to make an end run around our constitutional rights should scare the @!$%# out of the people a lot more than some nut case with a gun. People need to get their heads out of their asses and wake up!

Because too many people are coming to the table with preconceived views, or talking points given by the political flavor-of-the-month, and they aren't open-minded and willing to listen.

If you come to the table with a blank whiteboard then everyone can write something on it and intelligent rational discussion can start.

If you come to the table with a blank whiteboard then everyone can write something on it and intelligent rational discussion can start.

I have no views on that.

The problem with anti-psychotic medications is when the patient stops taking them. That's when problems can arise, not when they faithfully take them.

A figure of 27% of the population being on anti psychotics is rediculous. The number is 3.1 million or about 1% of the population. (According to the NYT 25/09/1012).

So a hand gun will kill ya slower? I mean really ...you believe that? Its all about what to do about mentally ill people and nothing else.

THug Law enforcement and the left killed them folks in waco and they were able to spin the news that somehow those that died were a threat to society. In the middle of nowhere.... .... Thats how tyranny in the world gets started in all these countries. FIrst you off a threat or two then you find another. If you don't put an end to it right away they will take all rights of americans. Healthcare, smoking, the speedlimit, bank forclosing on houses under ponzi schemes, etc etc... It just gets bigger.