We do not even enforce the laws we have.

http://evanston.patch.com/articles/recent-homicides-tied-to-2005-shooting-police-say
Killer let out 7 years after shooting.

Even if all guns were banned in this country, bad guys would still have them and we would be at their mercy. Blaming the guns in this is like blaming the fork and spoon for making Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell fat. Think about that.

Sure Keith, but your not wielding your spoon and making 20+ people instantly fat. It's a phrase the NRA folks love to lob about, but they are nothing alike. Children don't find a spoon in their fathers nightstand and accidentally eat all the Ice Cream. There are many fancy spoons out there, but none of them can feed someone 30 cookies in under 1 minute.

I'm an electronics engineer that works with (among other things) RFID chips. I could bypass the entire system you are talking about in about 3 seconds. Wrap aluminum foil around the gun, and no RFID signal gets through. Technology is not the answer. Changing how people think about these things is the answer. Do you think these people would do this if the media ignored this stuff?

Maybe you chuck but it would prevent others less technologically savvy. Also I'm sure there are more advanced technological solutions. Technology will eventually be part of the answer.

Of course they would Chuck. Blaming the media coverage of mass shootings for the behavior of the individuals makes as much sense as the killings themselves. Not one of these mass murderers have been shown to have done this for the sake of public notoriety.

Seung-Hui Cho might disagree Craig. He stopped at the post office between shootings to mail videos, photos, and his manifesto to NBC News. I'd say he was looking for a little notoriety.

Here we go again with this whole "these kids nowadays" crap. Stop it. Look at old cartoons where violence was commonplace. How dare you put quotation marks around mental illness. You are an ignorant jerk, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

The killer most likely had some mental issues, because normal people don't just go and kill a bunch of people. I think the media sensationalism makes these types want to outdo the previous killers, because they know it will get even more coverage.

What is wrong with you? Calling children losers! I have kids in high school and grade school and almost all of their classmates are great kids. There are a few with problems, but none of them are losers.

Don't you have some whippersnappers to yell at for walking on your lawn?

You disgust me.

I call them losers cause they rank the lowest academically in the industrialized world. When's the last time one held the door for anyone. When's the last time you saw anyone of them giving up their seat for anyone. When's the last time you heard them say good morning to a stranger. They're walking zombies living in virtual facebook worlds, wasting their lives blowing people up in video games and physically becoming deformed due to being hunched over some device while sitting or walking. That's my definition of a loser and when I observe these suburbs I'd say it's about 81.3%. By the way, I'm pretty sure I'm younger than you, whippersnapper.

"I call them losers cause they rank the lowest academically..."
"Ask your typical suburban drone if they've ever actually been told by anyone not too kill."
"...losers who grab mommy and daddy's guns too go out with a bang."
It's "because", not "cause". It's "to kill", not "too kill". It's "to go", not "too go". Maybe you should look at your own academic level before pointing out the failings of others'.

I was in Portillo's two weeks ago when a teenage boy who was waiting at the counter for his food politely greeted me. When he got his food and was turning to leave, he told me to have a nice day. I see kids holding doors open for others all the time. Kids that go to school where my daughters do are very polite.

I'm 31 years old, and even if you are younger than I am you have the mindset of an old, out of touch septuagenarian who wants to blame all of the world's problems on young people.

I love that you got 81.3%. How astute your observation skills must be to be able to pinpoint to a tenth of a percent how many kids are losers! I must say, I stand in awe of your analytical skills.

Yeah, you're a real winner.

Sorry I tend to type too fast and don't proofread. I'm a mathematician by trade so yes I'm pretty analytical and yes I'm younger than you. Most people my age and younger are losers from my observations, unlike me and the rest of the 18.7%.

I'm sorry, I was wrong. You're just a jerk who thinks he is better than everyone else. What an ass.

I didn't say everyone else, I said 81.3% of my loser generation.

How are you tracking this data? Are you accounting for individual circumstances? Kids who have been raised in violent or abusive(mentally and physically) homes?

Shouldn't I be able to base your level of education on what I've seen you type here? No excuses, right? You made six grammatical errors in thirteen sentences. That's a 50% error rate. You fail. I can now say with confidence you are one of those losers, right?

Based on your quantitative analysis I will admit that I'm a commentator loser from a grammatical perspective. You are far superior than me, Shawn.

Actually, I don't think I'm superior. Don't try to turn your way of thinking on me. I was using your way of thinking to show how absolutely stupid it is to try and label someone that way. I understand that people aren't perfect and that one thing about them doesn't define them. You don't seem to be able to get that idea.

Austin Gutwein
14 years old
Hoops of Hope
Has raised nearly 2 million dollars

Alexandra Scott
4 years old
Alex's Lemonade Stand
Has raised over 30 million dollars

Annie Wignall
11 years old
The Care Bags Foundation
Doesn't raise funds, gathers common items to help disadvanted children

Craig Kielburger
12 years old
Free The Children
Has a network of over one million children in 45 countries that do various things to help combat child poverty and exploitation

1/3 of high school seniors volunteer at least once a month. Adolescent volunteering has increased since 1991.

What say you now, Mr. Rats?

I stand my assertion that 82.3% are losers which is based off more than just one metric or variable and within this clearly defined context a specified above. I have applied unit based verification and regressive verification but no matter how much I change the input parameters I come up with the same output. I still admit your superiority when it comes to commentative grammatical skills. I also realize it's hard for people to hear that their "angels" may be anything less than.

To those you list by name above Shawn, I put them in the 18.7% category.

Even if your numbers are correct(and I doubt they are), your attitude sucks.

I have Bipolar Disorder. I have done some great things in my life, because part of my disorder gives me damn near genius creative ability with words and concepts. It has led to me performing alongside award winning musical artists, and I have been asked by countless people when if I would ever write a book or release an album.

It also has caused me to be violent, irresponsible with money(I bought a new car on whim- twice), and destructive to my own life prospects.

The only thing that saved me was that my wife would never give up on me. Part of my illness is the delusional thought that I don't have a problem, that people just don't get me.

Now I am a much better person. I have a treatment plan that includes a psychiatrist and another therapist to work on the underlying issues. If we were in school together, you would have labeled me as one of those losers, when in fact I was in need of severe help.

I have three children. My oldest is a sophmore in high school, and her issues are different than mine. She is a sweet girl who loves to help people but lacked the social skills necessary to be outgoing. She is on meds and talking to a therapist and has made so much progress. She has plenty of friends and her future is very bright.

My middle child is 10 and has been showing a lot of the same problems as me. She has issues with self control and the only good thing is that we are catching her problems much sooner than mine were caught. I have no doubt that with a treatment plan, she will be very successful at whatever she does.

My 1 year old is too young to assess. However, we will be watching him closely so that if anything does start to present, we can get him help as soon as possible.

This is why your statistics are wrong; I doubt your input parameters even come close to including any of that stuff.

In my formula when I enter your variables, metrics and story the conclusion would be that you and your children are not losers. You're a responsible citizen dealing with your issues in the appropriate and proactive manner. Unfortunately 81.3% don't and that is why we should all be concerned. My mental health issues are far too much to go into here.

My point is, had I not told you all of that information about me, how would you have known? You can't be getting the background info of this 81.3%. How would you know what to enter into your calculations?

My calculations are based on a variety of data that would have included things you described about your own personal story.

So here is Mr Rats.

On the positive side, he proposes a technological solution that has the potential to prevent events such as the horror in Newtown. Whether it is indeed feasible or if it will be accepted as not in conflict with the Second Amendment remains to be seen.

On the negative side, he quickly descends into condemning (at least in his mind), an entire generation as "losers," or at least calculates that above 81 percent are such.

Based on his personal experience, Shawn has taken the positive position not to write off the future of humanity.

I have 3 children - 24, 22, 17. The older two are elementary school teachers and, despite all the mudslinging aimed at teachers of late, they continue to teaching as a calling. My third child will be graduating from high school in the spring and will likely follow in their footsteps.

So based on my own personal research across their extended network of friends, I must agree with Shawn.

As a personal note, I am thankful that Shawn is comfortable enough to discuss bipolar disorder. There were (and are) still many who suffer from this disorder to some degree, but have not been properly diagnosed nor treated simply because of the social stigma associated with it. If people like Mr. Rats would like to learn more (and they should), they might look into the writings and music of Meg Hutchinson, someone who also suffers from bipolar disorder and has the comfort of Shawn to be able to talk about it.

Well Mr. Observer you seem like a level headed enough person. I can't really argue with you. Besides the Bears game is about to start.

I mostly agree. When children were taught to respect others, adults and children, we never had this kind of thing happening. Now that they are told/convinced that they are entitled to everything and are more important than anyone else, they react poorly when told no. Add to this the fact that all of the new electronic entertainment involves killing others to achieve what you want and you have a receipe for disaster (as we have seen many times recently). This generation has not been taught any importance/santicity of human life.
Entitlement+violence for entertainment=Disaster!

Shawn...you are 31 with kids in high school?

I was hoping someone would mention that automatic weapons are not legal and not used in these instances, either is the 100 round drum used in the theater massacre.
In this case it was a Bushmaster, a rifle, semi automatic means you have to pull the trigger every time, not like in the movies where we are entertained by fully automatic weapons.
There was a horrific stabbing in Naperville a few weeks ago. Knives are not illegal.
Mental illness is the issue here and people are ignoring that because it is easier to find misinformation and use it. The media along with this article is sickening, scare tactics is all they are

Exactly. My concern is why he CHOSE that elementary school. His mother was not there obviously. Apparently, from what the news is saying(?) he had struggled most of his life and I have to wonder if he had problems at that school when he attended there as a child...maybe a teacher/staff member was mean to him or misunderstood him or other kids bullied him. Why that elementary school with such intent? Why was he so tormented? Why did his mom have so many guns in her home with a troubled young man living there? Who was she afraid of?
Does the 'no child left behind' act fall into place here? Was he left behind, only for his mother to have to eventually homeschool him instead -which in turn causes more social problems if he is home schooled alone and not with many other siblings or friends? Kids do not do well alone. They need family, grandparents, uncles and aunts if possible, and support from the townspeople. It takes a village!
Mr. Rats you are right about the xbox's and iphones, ipods, etc! There are some kids that can be cruel and kids use technology these days to bully others, in masses with their 'friends'. Not all kids are mean, but just enough kids, even one, can ruin someone else's life easily with all this readily technology. Some kids rant online without thinking first, causing tremendous mental toil to someone else. Not only are kids doing this to each other, but also towards teachers and their parents when they get mad for whatever silly reason.

every few years?
more like every few hours! coming soon to a movie theater/ shopping mall/ grade school/ football stadium near you: a crazed maniac with a (legally purchased) semi-automatic !
wake up America! your precious Second Amendment is a Russian-roulette style death sentence for too many of your innocents! it is time to repeal, rescind, revoke this outdated amendment, which serves as nothing but an accessory to terrorism!

Do you actually believe that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will stop crazies/criminals from getting their hands on them. This has been tried with other things and then only the criminals were armed. I don't own, nor wish to own, a gun but feel others have the right if they feel the need and know how to insure it is kept safe.

Tell that to the rural household living 50 miles from the closest town, when a black bear enters their house looking for food. What would you do? I bet you'd sit there and negotiate with the bear, while offering a seat at the table and a roasting pan full of pot-roast. You're an idiot.

That data does say it all.

Thank you!

where did these facts come from?

Hard to argue the numbers.

Are those totals? I'm on your side here, but those numbers need more behind them. They should be per capita. And why is there just West Germany? Are these also from the 1980? Even per capita I would assume we are highest, but these are deliberately skewed

These are real numbers Mary but I will say that as far as Great Britain is concerned, it was actually lower before the gun control. We have a culture of violence, thuggery and incivility in this country and that's the real problem.

10,728? Hmmmm. School shootings w/ legally owned guns? Mentally disturbed young adults? Or just murder by criminals, thugs, gangbangers? You really should qualify your comments, otherwise you could appear to be spouting....

I'm not arguing the real numbers. I'm sure they are. But again. West Germany doesn't exist anymore, and we have a much larger population. Forbes also didn't say if those are gun murders, murders and suicides, accidental added as well. Those are very vague...staggering, but vague.

Per 100,00 people....
US 9.0
Japan .07
Switz 6.4
Can 4.78
Isre 1.86
swed 1.47
Ger 1.1
That is firearm deaths per 100,000 people. If you take out suicide...which we are very high, we are still the highest of the nations listed by a good bit. Keep in mind also that these stats are reported by their own countries, so you have to take them with a grain of salt. But as I've been told but a gun rights advocate so often on these boards, The Us govt makes all our numbers look better so according to him we are even worse.

There are so many variables when considering any type of statistic. Regardless of comparisons to foreign nations, we are talking about the USA. Everybody wants the glory of projecting a well thought opinion. Think about this: consider the numbers of guns/gun owners to the number of persons w/ observable mental conditions prone to violence. Let us care for the persons known to have mental issues. God is being taken out, Satan is being ushered in!

Bingo ....That does say it all. The NRA and Gun crazies can cite all the BS statistics they want but these atr the Statistics that really matter.

What do these facts tell you? There doesn't seem to be any correlation from gun 'control' to deaths. For example, Switzerland has one of the highest gun per capita ownerships in the world.

This only shopws you've never been to Israel. HArd to wlak 10 feet anywhere without seeing a true military assault weapon with people trained to use them.

Maybe thats why statistics show so few criminal gun deaths. The idiots know that there are plenty with guns ready to blow tem away if they get out of hand.

Your facts are skewed

A study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995, showed Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives. Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times.

Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated
that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so.

C0untZero - Can you cite your sources? Those numbers run counter to everything I've heard at every Sheriff's and Law Enforcement seminar I've been to.

In Switzerland, every household has a gun, by government mandate. All Swiss men are automatically members of the Swiss equivalent of the National Guard, and must be on call to defend their country whenever called. Therefore, they must have their gun(s) in their home at all times.

Well Carig I listed the source right in the post:

A study published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995,

There that is the source and it showed Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.

The study also showed that every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times.

C0untZer0...the figures you have are from 17 years ago.

C0untZer0 - Well, that explains why those numbers don't mesh with actual FBI crime statistics at all. This was a paper was a position paper and those numbers were based upon a phone survey of 5,000 people and were not based on any actual crime statistics. Very accurate and reliable numbers are available at FBI.gov so try using real numbers instead of cherry-picked articles which have been debunked. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm

You're exactly right, Forbes R. I've seen this data recently in The Atlantic ( think!) and it "says it all." If a fire arm is nearby when someone is angry, that fire arm is used to diffuse that anger. When no gun is available, the po'd guy is forced to calm down in a less destructive way.

small populations in comparison

@smallbiz, that's why I listed per capita as well.

Germany had gun restrictions before Hitler was ever elected. People also keep calling these shooters mentally touched, well, I think Hitler fits that mold too.

Stop pretending that guns are NOT a problem. Maybe not THE problem. "Crazy" people are a part of the problem, not THE problem.
Personally, I would be in favor of restricting everyone's access to guns, NOT disarming everyone. No reasonable person is suggesting that.
This is NOT 1930's Germany, not even close.

Thank you, Mary. Well said.

Our society is becoming Godless and the importance of the Nuclear Family seems to be diminishing...along with our morals and standards, which are tested over and over again due to the media, technology, and the entertainment world, etc.
Stress is a huge factor due to competition...esp. in populated or wealthy areas. We are becoming like the 'rabbits' that overpopulated in one region and began having to compete too much with each other...so they began killing each other. I'm sure some of you know what I am talking about, and have studied about that rabbit experiment from many years ago in one of your social classes in college. All of this is evident...our nation is stressed out!

You want to fight for an Assault weapons ban. I have your solution: move to another country, I'll help you pack....

There were no assault weapons used in this tragedy. Also, the state where it ocurred already has strict gun laws. What you should fight for is longer sentences for those who commit crimes using a gun. But I think you'd rather be led down the path chosen by ABC news.

What do you define as an assault weapon? The .223 Bushmaster they found him with seems to fit the basic profile. I could be wrong though, I will fully admit that, but I thought that was the gun used mainly in this shooting.

The rifle was left behind in the car, just hand guns were used. ABC news described the nut as having combat gear, not sure what that is, and used assult weapons, not true. Lastly, CT already has gun laws.

First of all, AR does not mean Assault rifle. It was the designation for the civilian version of the M16 by the company Armilite, the AR(Armilite Rifle)-15. It is a semi-auto meaning 1 trigger pull=1 shot. AR's are widely used by sport shooting enthusiasts and target/sillhouette shooters. These are competitive shooting activities that the average lib/dem has no clue about due to metro living and being concerned more about fashion and what hi-tech gadget is most hip... Time to wake up lib/dems, guns are the choice, not the cause!

Guns are the choice, but we have the ability to limit or all together take away that choice. I have seen differing reports now on the gun used, so I will hold on that. But if it was all handguns, that shifts my argument to restricting those more as well. A good shooter can still squeeze off the whole clip in well under a minute, drop that clip and go again in a very rapid pace. Especially when your victims are children.

I get what you are saying about all the other uses for guns now. I have fired in target ranges when I was younger, both my father and uncle are fans of sport shooting and hunting and own guns. I used to be. I have changed my mind. I don't feel the need to flood the market with a gun that when not being used for sport shooting requires no changes in order to kill multiple targets, and in being used for sport you are having fun and gaining skills in how to better hit a target.

I hear the argument about criminals will do it, so why take our rights as well? And I guess I get it, but criminals do a lot of things your every day citizen won't. That doesn't mean we should get to as well. We make it so easy for them to get a gun in most states just so everyone else can buy one with as little red tape as possible. It makes me sad and frustrated at the same time. Killers will find ways to kill...but why should we allow such easy access to a very deadly tool.

Policewoman, you are wrong. Every wound has been determined by the coroners to have been caused by the Bushmaster. It was initially reported that the rifle was found in the car, but that was erroneous. It was released that it was found with the body of the shooter along with the other two handguns. He also used the Bushmaster to gain entry to the school. For a supposed policewoman, you have a pretty skewed concept of what laws are for. By your logic of saying that this happened although there are already laws on the books in CT, then perhaps we should eliminate all laws because none of them are 100% effective. What do we need the Police for anyway?

Policewoman, the coroner said that the most damage was done by the rifle, in fact he said that all of the damage was done by the rifle towards the children. You can watch his press release on Fox News.

You are exactly right... But unfortunately, most of the lib/dems are knee-jerk types and unable to exercise analytical thought! Increased 'mental health' awareness is the obvious solution...

How many murders by bombs were recorded in the US this year vs guns? You can use all of those items to kill. Not many of those can kill 25 people in a matter of minutes...except maybe poison, but you need everyone to ingest it at the same time. We just recently heard of that crazed knife wielder in China....how many people did he kill? I am pretty sure all 20+ of his victims are still alive. Scared, yes and it was an awful crime that needs to be prevented as well, but he didn't kill any children because it is much harder to murder a high number with a knife. You can conceal a small knife and hurt many and maybe kill a few. You can conceal a small gun and kill a person for each bullet you have.

Mental illness is the problem, but a majority of these people are using guns as a means to an end. We need a way to solve both problems.

Bill, please leave the silly political rhetoric out it. Why do you guys always take everything as an opportunity to bash people who are liberal or democratic?

You are a lib/dem, I know this by the way you treat others when they are attempting to inform you. You condescend, belittle, and name-call. Grow up and realize, you can't be a lib/dem and not expect to be called one. You are what you are! Please call me a cons/rep, I will not be ashamed as you must be...

Well said

So what's wrong with taking away one of their favorite weapons? Your first stat also shows that we need to crack down on the already Illegal drunken driving. And part of that societal shift is also an ever changing and expanding gun culture where the younger generations are starting to see guns as a quick cure all, a status symbol, and a way to become superior. That needs to change back to when a gun was somewhat respected for what it could it do and be aware of the responsibility it holds. It is essentially the cool new "toy" that everyone can get and in many states, doesn't require much training to use and own.

OceanSailor, you have amazing insight for someone that has nothing to do with the investigation. Did you do this psychological analysis on your own? The combination of possible mental issues, or a psychotic episode, or uncontrolled anger, and the easy access to weapons that can kill dozens of people in a couple of minutes is the reality of the entire picture.

Shawn, you are right, but you are asking alot of the average Ipod lovin' US citizen!

What does that even mean? You sound like one of those guys who watches a Chevy commercial and gets a tear in your eye because you know that the number of real 'Muricans dwindles every day.

Now is that assessment of you fair? No, it's not. And I would be a jerk to think that about you without knowing anything about you. Think about it.

I couldn't agree more with you. We have to identify mentally unwell people who are capable of such acts earlier. Even as we understand the science and allocate resources to do this, there is no reason why more innocent kids and cinema goers should die. If we are living in a developed country and not Nazi Germany or rural afghanistan, why do we assault rifles? Too many lives have been lost so that a few may enjoy their gun collection. These killers are not gangsters who smuggle guns and drugs. They get their guns from shops with an ID or from their family!

That is a great story on part of this issue. A big part. We need more facilities to help parents and children like this. Parents like the CT shooter's mother need to recognize signs like this woman did. They shouldn't give their children easy access to weapons. There is a reason gun manufacturers and aftermarket companies make trigger locks and gun safes.

We could use more education on mental issues and if we change nothing as far as guns themselves go, we could use more gun education and safety education as well.

And we need to find out what is causing this crisis in our young males! Where was the father in that article, by the way? Where is Adam's father and brother? Someone said that his brother had not talked to Adam in 2 years! Their family had dissolved, hence, causing this challenged boy to become more stressed out due to lonliness, etc. Young males need excellent role models!
If husbands, fathers, brothers, etc. do not treat their wives, mothers, sisters with respect, then why would these young boys do that? The media isn't helpful either! These young boys are learning a lot of disrepect all around and it is getting harder and harder for mothers/parents to control their teenage sons.

Our pastor said today that we need alot of love to overcome all of these problems. He's right. But, love does not mean to always enable your children and let them get away with doing wrong or spoiling them to earn their love in return.

Bravo.

There is no evidence thus far of real mental illness, everyone else is presuming that there is.

You can't possibly compare Bugs Bunny with the stuff kids get pummeled on an hourly basis from multiple mediums in today's world can you Shawn?

Believe me the numbers that are losers are way more that 1%.

I don't get why you insist on calling these kids losers. They are children. Most adults I know are ashamed at a lot of the stuff they did as kids. Kids think they are indestructible geniuses who have thoughts that no one else has ever had. The social dynamic that kids are face is brutal.

Maybe you should stop being so harsh.

"kids are face"

Grammatical error Shawn, you're starting to slip.

Oh, I was bound to make a mistake sooner or later. It's a little different than mistaking "to" for "too", but I digress.

I wan't the one saying kids are uneducated losers(I'm paraphrasing).So my grammatical errors don't make me look like a foolish hypocrite.

"I wan't the one"

See what happens when you type too fast and don't proofread?

You seem to skipping over the important part of my comments. Plus, I'm not making grammatical errors, I'm making syntactical errors.

Now how about you address my statement that asks why you insist on calling these kids losers.

Gosh Shawn we've been over this already. Just read the previous comments.

"You're a responsible citizen dealing with your issues in the appropriate and proactive manner. Unfortunately 81.3% don't and that is why we should all be concerned. My mental health issues are far too much to go into here."

Do you not understand that the nature of a lot of mental illnesses don't allow the person to seek help? That when they do seek help, many are turned away because their insurance company doesn't want to cover it?

Mental health issues are physical health issues. Just like a diabetic can't stop a blood sugar spike without insulin, a mentally ill person oftentimes can't control themselves without the proper meds.

Think about this; if you had plugged me into your calculator(not being derogatory, just the best term I could think of) when I was 16, I'd fall into the loser category. I didn't even realize anything was wrong until I was 25. Even after I realized something was wrong, it took 5 more years before I started any real, meaningful treatment.

So for 25-30 years of my life, you would have labeled me a loser.

There are different levels of mental illness, we "ALL" have some form of it from time to time. Just like we all get colds from time to time. No one is crazier than me but there's no evidence that this loser had such a severe case that would even begin to explain his actions. As far as I can tell he was simply bad with some mental issues. As I said before, I'll bet he never heard the words directly told to him "don't kill other people".

I don't know about this kid's history to say anything about who he was or how much(if at all) mental health played into his actions., the same way I wouldn't label anyone else without knowing much at all about them.

I'll admit I don't know much about Adam Lanza but I'll err on the side of caution and just call him bad seeded loser. If more information comes to light about his mental status then I may revise my tune.

Bugs Bunny vs. Call of Duty...hmmm.

Psycho vs. The Dark Knight.... ( or any of those other horrific movies out there now).

Substitute drugs for guns in your paragraph and tell me how thats going.

Hold on Brian, even though I hate guns they're not just for killing. Haven't you seen any of the Olympic shooting events? People do get a thrill out of firing them at things.

Right...as I have said in other posts, they are used for other things now. But a gun's invented purpose was to kill your enemy in an easier way without getting close enough for a blade. Purpose one for a gun was to kill something and was followed by a myriad of other uses which can be as close to 1 as 1A, 1B...whatever. Just like a car's purpose one was ease of transport followed by things like racing, showing, off-roading.

@policewoman, yes, we are not doing enough on drugs and a lot of other issues our country faces. But this discussion is about guns, a legally manufactured product that would be easier to follow after it left the producing facility.

*Definition of real "assault weapons"
*A key characteristic of a true assault weapon is that it must have the capability of "full automatic fire." Similarly, the U.S. Defense Department defines real assault weapons as "selective-fire weapons"—meaning that these guns can fire either automatically or semi-automatically.

Anti-gun pundits in recent years have managed to define "assault weapons" as semi-automatic firearms which only externally resemble a military firearm. True assault weapons "were designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic fire"—something which a semi-automatic firearm does not do.

*Semi-automatic "assault rifles" are no different than many hunting rifles
"These [semi-automatic assault rifles] are little different than the semi-automatic hunting rifles that have been on the market since before World War II. The main difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is that the assault rifle looks more ‘military.’

* "The term ‘assault’ rifle is really a misnomer as a true assault rifle is a selective fire weapon capable of switching from fully automatic to semi automatic and back with the flip of a lever."

* "The charge that the assault rifle holds more rounds than a ‘legitimate’ hunting rifle shows either a lack of knowledge or a deliberate twisting of the facts, as 10, 20 and 30 round magazines for ‘legitimate’ hunting rifles have been on the market for decades without the world coming to an end."

Rox, Good job w/ the clarification. But, most people probably don't care about the realities, but more for the media bias, to create more gun regs. Keep up the good work, you definitely have it cut out for you if you want to alter the thoughts of the lib/progessive population.

i agree. If someone at the school was allowed to conceal and carry, once the shooter had killed the first adult at the school, he would have been stopped. But see its a liberal crazy world in our schools and all the liberal laws and rules are haunting them. In my state of illinois, because we are so broke, we are shutting down Mental Health facilities and these PSYCHOPATHS are free and roaming our streets but the dumb people of ILLINOIS will keep re-electing the same DEMOCRAPS OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

So instead of making it harder for them to procure a weapon that makes mass murder easier, we need to make sure there are more weapons...especially around children. Just calling something a gun free zone isn't going to keep guns away, legally or not. Criminals aren't the only ones who carry guns in to restricted areas. A man was just arrested at Downings in Libertyville carrying a gun and a loaded clip, with another gun and three more clips in his vehicle. Definitely can't have a gun in there. There have been non law enforcement posters on Patch that often talk about carrying their gun around IL.

No, a gun can't shoot itself, but a person can't throw a bullet at anyone and kill them either.

Good comment.

Damn the constitution!? The constitution one of the single greatest documents ever penned, even with it's multiple flaws.

You can't just ban guns and think the problem will stop.

You could do a search right now and learn to make a dirty bomb out of completely legal items you can find at a hardware store. He could have rented a huge truck and slammed it into building or careened around the parking lot after school.

Don't take that as me supporting guns. I support rights. Just like the Westboro Hate Church plans to picket Sandy school, and there is no legal way to stop them.

Besides, banning marijuana seemed to work just fine. No one in the US smokes it, right?

So to protect your children, my rights to own a firearm should be taken away? Not gonna happen. There aren't enough people in the U.S. who would agree to that, and--even if he wants to--our president can't change the constitution. If all guns are banned, the criminals will still have guns. Who will protect your children from those criminals?

How about we start dealing with the mentally ill people who commit these crimes. How about people start locking up their weapons like responsible gun owners should so people with mental issues don't get a hold of the guns.

A typical suburban high school loser would not have the ability, resources or acumen to make a dirty bomb, rent a truck or do anything more than shoot a gun. I'm being bombastic when I say "damn the Constitution" as I know you know and I know that banning all of something isn't practical. Just look at prohibition and drugs as you say. I'm looking for real solutions and I specified one up above concerning RFID.

Abigail, F your rights and mine if it'll prevent what happened on Friday from happening again.

Then don't just ban guns. Start ridding the country of them. Yes, criminals will always get some means of murder. But our average suburban white kid will have a much harder time getting them.

When we become the 50th concealed carry state, people will still die by gun fire. A lot of them. Carrying a gun doesn't stop people shooting each other. People will still die in the poor neighborhoods of New York, Chicago, LA, and all the other large cities. There will still be shootings. The CT shooter seems like he was prepared to lose his life already. Having a teacher with a gun might have killed him, but it happened fast and he killed the teacher in the classroom before he quickly shot all the children. By the time the next armed teacher shows up the children are still dead.

Lots of crazy talk......you can put your kids in a bubble and keep them at home with all this crazy logic.

You drive in a car? Because the odds are much greater your child will get killed that way. I don't hear you arguing for banning cars or how about alcohol?

Abigail I don't understand where we disagree.

I'm a constitutionalist, I'm a fan of the document but I'd trade away that 200+ y/o document for just one of those kids in a heartbeat. I don't want the same old constitutional legalistic arguments. I want real practical solutions NOW.

Nope I'm a Republican.

ES, The shame of your ignorance is not the lack of knowledge, but rather the inability to gain knowledge about something so much bigger than yourself. There is a huge majority of rural gun owners when compared to metro gun hating socialists, like yourself. Get informed- Tis better to be thought foolish, than to open thy mouth and remove all doubt!

Yea me too, go Bear's.

Shawn, excellent points. How many mass murderers have been raised by regular church-goers? How many mass murderers have themselves regularly attended church?

Is your question rhetorical? It's hard to tell online. Often serial killers have deep seeded religious roots.

Not that it's any of your damned business, or that I owe you any kind of explanation, but I would hate to have someone who isn't a jerk discount what I said because of something someone who is a jerk said.

I met my wife when I was 17 and she was 21. She had a child at 20. Before I knew it, I had assumed a parental role. I had no real father figure growing, my dad was there for a time but even when he was there, he was actually being a parent.

In 2004, I adopted her(even though her biological mother never lost custody) and surprisingly, my name was put on the birth certificate.

So here I am, 31, with a 15, 10, and 1 year old. Any other questions, Jack?

Good comment.

Mary, Pressure on the NRA! Let me ask, what are some everyday things that are important to you?

many innocent people paid that price.

We can site those as well if you would like, but the argument here is about guns being used in killing others. If we can reduce those then the total deaths caused will drop.

The Q
All you children's safety come first folk........where do you stand on aborion Because that right to choice is death."

No, it's not, despite what the anit abortion folks like to call it. Simply because they choose their own reality doesn't require that it be imnposed on others.

Here's something I noticed that's not surprising at all; nearly all of the hateful rhetoric has come from so called "conservatives".

While both left and right have been commenting on what they think is the cause of this, conservatives comments are almost always nasty, hateful, and divisive. Name calling and taunting is the order of the day.

Liberals, by and large, are using facts to back up their assertions. The hateful and selfish statements and actions of the right are why the word "conservative" has to be put in quotes.

Hey, Republicans, how about you show a little respect. Stop talking in generalities, the way Bill Heeter and The Q(and others) have been doing. How about you just address the individual you're talking to/about instead of starting all of your thoughtless posts with "Dumb libs/dems follow Obozo to socialist, marxist, stalinist nirvana while they suck on the gov't teat because they hate jobs and love welfare.

You sound like idiots.

They sound like idiots because, well, they are idiots. Pity they have to keep demonstrating it, but they don't know any better.

Sure we don't know any better, and you my dear know it all. Small minds making hateful rhetoric is never in the arsenal of liberal dialogue. Its a pity they share the same space as us mere mortals.

Excuse me Shawn, have you checked with everyone as to their political persuasion? I think not. It seems many people, both sides, make generalizations about each other and do not know what they are talking about!

No I haven't checked with everyone. But there are two things I would like to point out.

1. I used the words "nearly all", "almost always", and "by and large" when speaking about both sides. I know there are jerks on both sides of the aisle, but the large majority of them come from the right.

2. I listen to political talk radio from both sides. Since this horrible event has happened, progressive radio has been talking about ways to solve this issue, while conservative radio has been pointing blame and talking about how Obama's coming to take their guns. Surprisingly, Hugh Hewitt is on right now, and while I could only catch a few minutes of his show he was talking about solutions. But when Dennis Miller was on, he just smugly laugh-talked like he normally does, while underhandedly blaming Obama for everything that's ever happened to anyone, anywhere.

You might not have been hateful, but you did generalize and use crap to get your point across.

Abortion is not murder. I am not going to explain what you should have learned in science class. If you think abortion people killing their kids, you're an idiot and don't deserve my time.

The generalization is when you say "you liberals".
Again, if you think that you can make a single statement and encompass an entire group, you're an idiot and you don't deserve my time.

I can go to a gun show and get a gun without any background check; a gun that was purchased through the proper channels. If someone lives in a household with someone who has legally purchased a gun, they could use those guns to do whatever heinous act they desire. I believe(but I could be wrong) that the guy who committed this horrible act used guns that weren't his.

"Please show me where I insulted anyone or used hateful rhetoric?"
You seem to have omitted the generalities portion of my statement. I wonder why...

I love it. "When do you libs ever use the facts. You are the ones spouting generalities."

Do you not see the irony of saying that libs are the ones spouting generalities? You are doing what you are saying other people are doing while you are saying they are doing it. You are a lost cause.

Breaking news! A Republican finds some way to finagle Obama into a conversation. And it's negative!

bare arms. lol

If abortion isn't murder, then why if someone kills a pregnant woman can they be charged with 2 murders? What is in the womans womb, a baby frog? I'm unaware of a human woman giving birth to anything other than a human baby. The liberal arguement holds no water in this regard.

G.G. here wants to play a semantic game. I guess that makes it my turn.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that the woman doesn't want. For whatever reason. By the way, there aren't women carrying fetuses past the viability date and then just deciding they don't want a baby anymore. But I digress.

If someone shoots a pregnant woman and kills her and the fetus, they are killing the potential baby that the woman DID want. That's the big difference.

So you can keep playing your semantic games, but realize that there are those of us out there who can easily defeat them.

not to mention all these mentally unstable cowards pick non secure locations.

The Aurora Theater shooter picked the only theater in 25 miles radius that did not allow firearms in the building. That's no coincidence. He had 3 theaters closer to his home.

C0untZer0, again what are your sources for this information? Your numbers are so far off the mark on FBI statistics it's dumbfounding. Please don't tell me you got this from World News Daily.

Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year or 6,849 every day.120 Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed. Source = Targeting Guns, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, Aldine, 1997

Brazil homicide rate is almost three times higher than the U.S. Source = Homicide trends in the United States, U.S. data: Bureau of Justice Statistics, September, 2004. Brazil data: Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2005

Violent crime. Australia and England, Source = Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, Dutch Ministry of Justice, 2001 & The Joint Report of the European Commission and United Nations.

Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.243 Of these instances, 15.7% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. Source = Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Kleck and Gertz, Fall 1995.

Of the 2,500,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% (192,500) are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. Source = Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, U.S. Department of Justice, 1979

Merry T. Your ignorance of the Constitution probably is only rivalled by your ignorance of reality. The reason for asking you what is important to you is to try and relate the feeling gun owners have when your kind try to impose on the 2nd Am. Whether you believe in the 2nd Am. or not, you should atleast believe in the Bill of Rights. Search within yourself and find what is important to you, which Am. applies, and imagine others wanting to take that from you. With almost any level of IQ, you should be able to do this simple exercise. Good luck

Mary, Thanks for the civility. Gun ownership is a right, a priviledge, and a responsibilty of upstanding, law abiding Americans. Do some research and you will find numerous cases where lives were saved by gun owners exercising their right to protect life, limb and property. Please consider most gun owners follow the laws and have noble and just reasons for ownership.

Give some FACTS KATHY

@Kathy: that is why any restrictions would need to start with suppliers and manufacturers. There are states where you can go to the local gun show/swap meet and purchase a gun. There is a problem with all sorts of things in the country and current gun laws contribute to those problems. I don't blame the guns alone by any means. That train still needs an engineer. But it's much harder to shoot someone without a gun.

Also, on the CC states crime numbers. I encourage you to go to FBI.gov (I know only one source, but you can find more) and look up the crime and violent crime numbers from 2011. There were many Concealed Carry states with higher crime rates than Illinois (no CC). If I remember right, having cited it many times on this website, I believe there are roughly 15 or so states with more violent crime than us.

Those are not facts Q.......thats your opinion.

Well Roxanne you seem pretty ignorant for growing up around guns. Automatic weapons are already banned and have not been used in a homicide for over 50years. I assume you meant semi automatic gun and you probably don't know what that means either. As for "Assult rifles" which I guess is "Assault Rifles", all guns can be used to assault someone – even a muzzle-loading black-powder rifle.

That's right and police investigate crime, not prevent it.

Well said.

Exactly what would a metal detector have done to stop this latest attack?

We had lots of guns 50 years ago but we didn't have this kind of violence. Something else changed. What was it? Shouldn't we be working together to find out what happened to society, instead of using this atrocity to score political points and move our own agenda forward?

"Exactly what would a metal detector have done to stop this latest attack?"

Americans like the facade of security. It gives them a warm fuzzy feelimng and they spend a bunch of money for that feeling.

If you want to be serious you can follow the example of other countries. you have the metal detectors and armed guards both in front and behind the detectors armed with weapons capable of fully automatic fire.

Any idea short of that is nothing more than a hope and a prayer.

What changed was “deinstitutionalization.”
Unsurprisingly, emptying out the mental hospitals in the 60s and 70s and making it difficult to hospitalize people with serious mental illness problems meant that society as a whole became a bit more like a low-grade mental hospital.
http://www.amazon.com/My-Brother-Ron-Personal-Deinstitutionalization/dp/1477667539/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

No, they are not the problem, but they are used very often as a means to the end by the wicked, especially recently.

I'm not a religious person at all, but I do feel that as religion has ebbed here in America parents needed to take the authoritarian place once held by the fear of God. Instead many parents have tried to become their child's friend instead of a parent. As shown in the blog post that has been linked here often, many parents need to get over the fear/shame of saying something is wrong with their child. It isn't always roses.

Not all children will end up growing cold to their fellow man, but some will. We need to work better as friends, family, and neighbors in identifying these issues and doing something positive about it.

Tucson, Virginia Rech, Columbine, Sandy Hook.....there is no reason for citizens to have clips that hold 30 bullets and assault rifles. It's easy to blame people and not guns. People should not have access to these weapons and half the problem is solved. Then, we have to convince the conservatives to not cut care for the mentally ill. I'm not saying take guns away, take assault weapons and large clips away. Someone should be able to defend their home but for goodness sake it does not take an assault rifle. Period. It is time for gun control and that control can still respect the 2nd amendment. It's not an unlimited right.

RB isn't any gun an assault weapon! What is your definition of an assault rifle?

because its not on his agenda. This happens in chicago on a daily basis. NOT MY president, as I did not vote for him, needs a tragedy to promote more SOCIALISM. he is an actor. did you see his fake tears. He does not care about what has happened in Ct. Neither does that wacko Diane Feinsten. What a bunch of careless slobs we have in Congress that are using this as a springboard for their agendas. My GOD help us.

@James: Who are you to say how he felt about any of this? What a completely callous statement. I don't believe there is one person out there who shouldn't/wouldn't be saddened when you hear about children being murdered, regardless of when and how it happened. Especially when you have children of your own.

As for Chicago, it is unfortunate that murders in large cities aren't covered nationally, because a murder is a murder. Unfortunately it is such an every day occurrence that it has become old news. Since news programs are about achieving ratings they won't cover something that happens every day, they will focus on events that we will be surprised about.

Chicago's gun laws are tough, but an unenforced written law doesn't do much for deterring gun crime. Especially when you can go in an alley or cross county/state lines to purchase your gun. Having one law in a tiny section of the country isn't going to do much to quell the problem. Fireworks are mostly illegal here, but you can still cross the border to get them. People do it because they are able to do it easily. You can outlaw guns in a city, but because it is so easy to get them, that ban means nothing but ink on paper.

Whether you voted for him or not....he's your President. So narrow minded. Your attitude and similar attitude of so many others is why our country is chock full of over 300,000,000 guns that kill many innocent people. We can hope for a wake up call and that Congress tells the NRA to shut up and listen to American citizens who have had enough.

I agree completely that there are numerous other factors at hand in these situations. In many of these massacre situations, the guns were not obtained through the black market or illegal channels. Some of the shooters didn't legally own the guns themselves having stolen them from parents, but they were not what we would normally consider "the bad guys" before they went on their killing sprees.

Also, in comparing it to the failing "drug war" we are trying to compare two completely different items. One of which is a legally manufactured item that would be easily traceable as it left the factory if certain measures were implemented. Yes, they could "disappear" down the supply chain at some point but we should know who is to blame by looking back up the supply line. The other (drugs) are almost completely manufactured or gown illegally leaving very little trail to the original makers/pushers/drug lords.

.025 deaths per thousand due to guns in The UK. How many in the US? 9! NINE! That was a ridiculous statement and poor excuse for no gun control in the US. Grasping at straws!

Please explain RB how Gun crime can go up 89% in 10 years if there is a ban on gun ownership in Britain. Please explain RB.

You may have cited it before, but where did you get that number and from what year? I did see a chart from the House of Commons Library, UK, that shows that after a peak 03/04 (six years after the ban) the number of gun crimes has fallen every year to a number lower than the year the gun ban was enacted. It is a time sensitive study and the true outcome of the ban shouldn't be judged for at least a few more years, but it appears to me to be working from a gun crime standpoint.

Sure Brian, chart from the House of Commons!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

The second article is from 2001, and the first is 2009. As I wrote the numbers did spike in 03 and 04, so your 2001 article is correct in saying that. And also, according to the chart ((http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01940) click on the link for the full crime report) crime was still higher in 2009 than when the ban was enacted. But then a funny thing happened and three more years passed and crime still fell as more and more guns left the streets. So try and not source old data as your only focal point.

I don't recall ever saying either of those scenarios. You just decided that we (anti gun folks) mean to implement those things. Nothing I have said is as nonsensical as what you suggest. Looking for better ways to keep tabs on firearms that are produced and proliferated through the market isn't taking them from your home. Asking that we have more rules and regulations in place for potentially dangerous and deadly weapons isn't a far out idea. The government has been watching purchases of large quantities of home made bomb supplies in order to keep said bombs out of people hands.

Someone buys roughly 6000 rounds of ammo and a few guns in a matter of weeks and some are worried about taking away his right to do that without being flagged and questioned. At some point we should realize that there are ways to weed out some of the problems just by watching purchases of certain weapons.

NRA and their Congressman in their pocket are against: gun registration, background checks, banning assault weapons, and control whatsoever. The technology exists to mark ammunition and trackit back to the owner. What's wrong with that? Banning assault weapons too.

There already exists bans, gun control, etc. Are assault weapons a huge problem? Maybe we should ban torpedoes and missles too.

Torpedo's and missiles? Banned. You can't own one. You should be able to own or buy a semi automatic rifle when coupled with a huge clip can fire 100's of rounds very quickly. Unnecessary, unless you plan to shot up a school, shopping mall, theater etc. The second amendment needs limitations just like other amendments. People get their panties in a bunch over not being able to buy or own the same weapon we use to fight the Taliban. Finally, we're going to have a wake up call as the party of no begins to see the light. Even arch gun supporting Senators are starting to talk a little sensibility. If the NRA stopped funding these politicians things would change overnight.

Again, what law would you enact specifically to prevent this? use intellect, not emotion.

Brian: It's the mindset of people like yourself w/ little to no understanding, that make the world a dangerous place to live. There are plenty of restrictions on gun purchases. Someone like this guy in CT didn't by a couple guns and thousands of rounds. Word is he tried earlier in the week to purchase a gun and was either denied or unwilling to wait. (ie: system worked). The failure was a mother either unwilling or unable to get help for a troubled son in which was well identified by key people in that community. *** Stop the Gun Control BS *** This society of everyone is a winner, I'm owed this and that, and parents too fearful to lay a hand on their children for discipline, would explain the problems alot more than firearms ever will. Words to the wise, Save America, & God Bless

Handguns were the weapons of choice used on Friday. The shooter was denied walking out of the store with his gun purchase so he found other means to arm himself. Passing more laws would not have prevented this one. Legislation never lives up to the name placed upon it, see stimulus, healthcare affordability act, other great society laws for latest examples.

I didn't cite this case as my example of buying ammunition. Look up the CO shooter and say again that it doesn't happen. Look up Loughner in AZ and say he didn't buy his gun and carry it legally. It happens. If we stop just those two shooters from getting their guns and ammo that easily, perhaps we have 33 more people alive. Maybe the two criminals would have found other ways to kill that many people, but if we are dealing in guesswork, then we also have to assume they may not have killed anyone.

Chris, I'm gonna wait on picking out the main weapon of choice here. I have read that he only used handguns, I have read that he had three guns on him and most of the shots came from his Bushmaster.

One of the more recent ones I have found says

"'The Bushmaster was used in the school, in its entirety, and [a] handgun was used to take his own life,' Vance said" That would be from a CT state police officer.

Go ahead, pass more rules and regulations. Isn't that what you guys are good at? Your answer to all of our problems, more rules and regulations.

And what's your solution to curbing gun violence then?

Its actually quite simple. Those who use a gun to commit a crime best be prepared to spend most of the rest of their life in jail, whatever the crime may be. No parole, no half time off for good behavior. As for the tragedy on Friday, more difficult problem. Not sure.

So there must be something wrong in this country when citizens can form a "union" or group and try to help their cause by lobby? Is that something known as a union? How is this any different than the AFL-CIO? Perhaps the green energy groups who received 90 billion from Obama's pockets were just ordinary do gooders who happened upon fortune?

If people or persons where attacking freedom of speech like this.I bet there would be the same kind of outrage.Take our guns and then they take your speech.

Thou shalt not kill.... Cant say that in school - religious.

...but you can just tell people that killing is wrong on a multitude of levels.

Mr Heeter, I'm for whatever will prevent some punk loser from go into another classroom and mowing down another group of children with a gun. If that means swearing an oath to the hammer and sickle then so be it. As JFK once said about his children during the missile crisis of 63, "Better red than dead".

You don't have to be lock step on every issue to consider yourself either a liberal or a conservative. Even my favorite poster jeff is a big union supporter even though most everything else he believes in falls with the conservative guys. My dad is very liberal but we disagree completely on the gun control front. People are allowed to think different things on different issues...the only people that seem to be stuck in one set is the people in office.

Rats: Good luck in your new country.Go try it out and tell us how that works out.But hey at least you will be safe.

Not really Bill, I just want to prevent what happened on Friday from happening again to our fellow young 'Red Blooded Americans'.

So, is what you are saying that you are essentially afraid to live in this country, not because you might get randomly shot down, but because some people are worried about the massive proliferation of guns in America? And who penned the definition of the Red Blooded American that you speak of? Is it the millions of immigrants that have come here in the last 300 years? Is it Mr. and Mrs. Suburbanite on the north shore? Is it the farmers in the grain belt? Is it the descendants of slaves forced to come here? Is it only the roughly 50% of the country that identifies as Republicans?

Just because someone doesn't think the same things you do, doesn't mean that they hate the country and those living in it.

Will your law eliminate all the guns, or will some people still have them? Could those people who still have them shoot me? End of story here.

So Chris, you're idea is that people legally owning an average pistol or rifle(s) after a background check and training is not enough? It's all in with you? If someone can shoot you with a pistol that should give you the right to have an assault weapon and a 30 bullet clip? The problem with that is obvious and is finally becoming obvious to our lawmakers. Even the framers of the constitution were okay with registration of the muskets. That's how they were able to assemble a militia to fight the British. The Patriot Act took away many of our rights after 911, if it was justified then....we should justify agressive gun laws now. Over 10,000 people die from guns each year. Only Dozens die in many other civilized societies. We're no longer civilized when it comes to guns.

OK, will your law eliminate all assault weapons with 30 bullet clips, or will some people still have them? Perhaps they use them on me, or perhaps they sell them for big money to other people after your law takes effect. Either way, they can still shoot me, 30 clips or single shooter. Hasn't this already been proven in places like Chicago?

Chris, that sort of attitude is why we have 300,000,000 guns in America. Of 100 guns made, 90 of them fall into criminal hands. It's time to reel in the manufacturing, tax the heck out of hand guns and eliminate assault weapons all together. If the ban passes, No reason to break you door in, just turn the assault weapon in to the authorities. Or, are you not a law abiding citizen? If that's the case, by chance, go back to my first point.

OK using your math with 300,000,000 guns and out of 100 guns 90 fall into criminal hands. That means when you ban them, there remains 270,000,000, as criminals probably will ignore turning them in, unless you feel they have a change of heart from your legislation. The 30,000,000 law abiding citizens are now on an uneven playing field.

They will probably ignore turning them in, but over time as they get caught that number will continue to drop. It'll never go away, but as it get's harder to obtain a gun the number will fall. No one said it will change overnight. Things like this take time.

You sound like the guy who passed the first law making drugs illegal. Or maybe the first guy who passed social security when he said you only pay $0.03 for every dollar up to $3,000, thats the most anyone will ever pay. Or the first guy who passed Medicare who said in 1967 that cost projections for the year 1990 would be $12 Billion, today they are over $500 Billion. Or the first guy to pass Healthcare Affordability who said you have to pass it to know whats in it, should I go on?

You're comparing a concrete manufactured good with people forecasting financial numbers. In a world where guns never existed, would we have deaths by guns? Yes, we would have other atrocities to deal with, but we wouldn't have millions of guns circulating for random disturbed people to pick up and pull the trigger.

That probably explains why all this fuss about guns diverts attention away from the real problem. Watching Quinn's eyes dart back and forth when he speaks is almost as difficult to follow the hidden intention.

5. All of the above

Why are these mass murderers mostly young men is the question. What were their fathers like? How were they raised? Did they attend church regularly? Did they spend time with other family members, etc. Did they all have mental problems? If so, did their fathers get involved in helping them or leave it all for the mother to deal with, which usually ends up with the parents divorcing and the mother taking care of the poor boy alone...?

No.

That has nothing to do with 6 -7 year old kids.

It says that you cannot impose your beliefs on someone else.
Babies are not aborted. Unborn baby, or unborn child is an oxymoron. Something being alive that has never been born is an oxymoron.
While your beliefs deserve respect, so do the beliefs of others. Others do not have to accept your beliefs.

Those are all the right reasons to own a gun, but to compare it to something we own/cherish, a hobby or sport type item can't really work on the same level. I play hockey. My sticks and skates can be used as weapons, no doubt about it. Now let's add up the number of intentional homicides where the assailant used a hockey stick or skates, combine those two figures and find the difference between that number and the number of firearm homicides.

I haven't had something targeted that I enjoy yet and I'm sure I would feel the same as you for the most part. But it's hard to deny that guns have helped facilitate countless murders and mass murders for a long time. We track purchases of many homemade bomb supplies now, it's very hard to pick up a vat of poison to kill multiple people at once (or at least I would assume since it doesn't happen often), and a knife can be almost as deadly as a gun, except you need to be standing next to the victim(s).

At a certain point for me the bad starts to outweigh the good, even if the bad gun uses are a small percentage of the gun totals in America.

I would assume most of us get that it is your right at the moment, but personally I feel that is a right where the problems outweigh the benefits. And just assuming I am not a responsible person around guns is a completely unfounded statement. Trying to prove a point by belittling close to half the country is entirely flawed. I have hunted, shot clays, been to shooting ranges, and attended hunters safety courses. My view on guns has taken a 180 over the last few years. So don't talk about inadequacies. Just as it is your right to own a gun now, it also my right to not own one and to express my opinions on owning guns.

While on the topic of rights, when our country was founded, people had the right to own slaves if they saw fit. Just because something was or seemed to be a good idea in the 1700's doesn't mean that it is today. There are a handful of amendments added to the bill of rights and subsequently the constitution that change laws that the framers came up with. I feel that it is time to catch up with the technology that the second amendment could never have accounted for. When the Bill of Rights came in to existence, we didn't really have a standing army, we had militias. Those needed to have a guarantee that they wouldn't be disarmed so that they could defend our borders. We have a lot of armed services for that now.

Total homicide by guns in 2011:
8,583 reported to the FBI through law enforcement docs.
Total Justifiable Homicide by guns in 2011:
201 by Citizens, 390 by Police

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expanded-homicide-data

"Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and nonnegligent manslaughter."

8,583 to 591 in 2011. Yeah, the media skewed that hardcore. Even if we accept a pretty large margin of error the number is still pretty far apart.

But we aren't just talking about restricting rifles alone. That has been mentioned as a start, but there are many handguns out there being put to awful use as well. And seeing as this is a gun debate, no i didn't bring up the other murder devices. We can mention the total of 12,664 and say if no one was killed with gunfire, that number would be 4,081. Sounds like a move in the right direction to me.

Brian you are missing the whole point. The guns are out there. Banning them won’t get them off the street, EVER, it will not stop anyone from being killed. Banning them will keep them out of the hands of the lawful citizen. We need a real solution to the problem.

Even when arrested our courts let these violent criminals back on the streets to kill again.
We don’t enforce the laws we have so we write more.

Now we are closing prisons and releasing convicts.

Just the threat of banning these weapons has increased sales of them. When they are banned they will be even more available on the streets. So what are we really doing?

I'm definately not saying mine is the only answer and gun laws are the only things that need fixing. I also know that we can't flip a switch and get rid of the all the guns overnight, or even in 1 yer, or probably not even 10. Earlier in this message board people brought up England and their gun bans. Gun crime spiked to a record high roughly 5 years after the ban and it has been going down since then to a lower number than the year guns were given heavy restrictions. It has taken over ten years, but the numbers are dropping. In five more years we should get a better outlook as to whether it worked or not.

You keep talking about a real solution, then help me find some common ground. You're talking about people getting back out of jail who shouldn't, and we definitely need to fix that. But those people haven't been the ones killing our children in schools and movie theaters. I completely agree we need better way to recognize mental illness, we need better enforcement of laws to keep killers locked up, and we need to find better ways to keep highly efficient killing tools out of those people's hands. Restrictions and bans are a good place to start in my eyes.

Yes, some good natured, law abiding folks wouldn't have the same arsenal they have now. Maybe a bolt action rifle for hunting, a break action shotgun, revolvers instead of high output magazines....and over time some of the more deadly weapons wouldn't be flooding the market.

Hey jack-apple my family had to flee a certain communist island 90 miles from the USA, our possessions taken away, our family torn asunder and an aunt who burnt herself alive rather than be forced in the local re-educational camp. I've picked up a weapon and stood my post in the our military in hostile territory. I'm bombastic in my remarks in order for dummies like you to understand that what happened on Friday can't happen again. All I want is real solutions to keep these schools, children and my children from being murdered. You can take all your Constitutional legalistic poop and shove back up your A.

Great response, Gary. The only correction I would make is it wasn't Soviet Communists killing their own people, it was Bolshevik jews killing Russian Christians.

Kathy: Another jack-apple who only knows about the price of that and the cost of this through the History channel. Bet you've never grabbed a weapon and stood a post either.

Take your Constitution and shove it? Yeah, thats about the size of it as we become more like the certain communist island 90 miles from the USA. Tell me, how does one burn themself alive? I'm embarassed that I even respond to your fairy tales.

How do you burn yourself alive? You just poor some gasoline over your head and light a match. It's that simple.

I didn't say your Constitution, I said "your Constitutional legalistic poop". I've actually taken an oath to defend the Constitution in the past for all you armchair patriots and History channel watchers.

JFK is the one who said "better read than dead" about his children during the missile crisis, a veteran as well.

Lastly, what do Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and my personal favorites, the Castro boys, have anything to do with having some restrictions on assault weapons in order for some nutcase loser punk not to grab mommy's Bushwacker and murdering 6 and 7 y/o in school?

Unfortunately as each generation dies off, there are less people who truely understand and value America and it's founding. I'd say the younger generations are more interested in iphones and such, as they were never actually taught American history. The Bill of Rights is just no big deal to these people. Things like greater good out of the collective is what the've been indoctrinated to respond to.

Yea but but my point is that you don't have to go back 235 years to understand the price of freedom or the cost of repression. Most of you gun advocating/toting dummies whose families have been here for a while longer can only recite what you read in some history book in 6th grade. You dummies don't have the intellectual capacity to see farther than 1776.

Bill go back to sleep.

There are states with CC that have lower crime than Illinois (the last non, soon to be cc) There are also more than 10 states with Concealed Carry that have more crime than we do. I also will agree to the fact that there are about 100 other factors that play into crime rates in states as well, forgetting any gun issue.

There isn't a stigma about guns. It's not a stigma when people die by a bullet in their body on a daily basis. At a certain point, for a lot of people, the harmful effects of an item (guns) outweigh the positive. You don't have to agree with us. You don't have to admit that guns kill a lot of innocent people, from rampages to the stray bullet from a drive by. I will admit that guns have scared off would be criminals, and probably saved a few lives in the process. But when schools are getting shot up by people without criminal records, holding guns that were legally purchased by the shooter or a shooter's relative, that is a massive problem. Especially when enacting simple laws to trace and limit gun ownership would be a large band aid.

So do you not believe it can and has been changed via amendments? Literally you call us all out as hating the country and being uneducated for having a problem with guns? Last time I checked, we weren't propped up by only the second amendment.

I second that! Long live the Constitution and the ability to amend and repeal! Also a special shout out to it's parent, the Articles of Confederation, created and ratified by the Second Continental Congress.

The second amendment says nothing about gun ownership. This is what it says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As far as I know, arms can mean anything from spitballs to multi-warhead nuclear missiles.

As far as you know, which isn't much, banning something will somhow eradicate it. See Prohibition, the war on drugs for recent examples, on how you are wrong. The El Rukins would applaud your efforts, and be more than happy to open up a market share larger than they currently have. As with any other liberal solution, evidence of past failures is not an option, and anyone who dares to question is a neanderthal. See stimulus waste for recent examples of this.