A terrible tragedy. Now we must await the screaming of the gun control people screaming that we should not have weapons to stop this sort of thing.

That is entirely the wrong idea. Disarming the law-abiding public does NOT protect the law-abiding public.

I know that some of you out there will be thinking "Guns Kill People", which is partially true, but not wholly true, the gun must be wielded by a "murderer".

Q:So, if you take the gun off of a murderer, what do you have left?
A: A murderer

So, by that reasoning, if guns kill people and we should ban them, then forks cause obesity and we should also ban them, and cars cause people to drive drunk and we should ban them.

Now, the President wants to "politicize" this issue. God Help Us! Look at what happened when we politicized divorce and child custody/support. Learn something people.

Unfortunately, my husband and I have seen this coming. They have been looking for a reason to control us even more.

Yep, Redmist, just gotta wait for the next Significant Event of National Security, then BAM, Martial Law.

martial law? are the Chinese going to loan us enough money for that?

Q: How can a shooting happen without guns?
A: It can't.

Hard to argue with that one.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

q: how can a murder take place without a gun?
a: any number of ways

hard to argue with that one.

The distinction is the scale of the murders, with a gun it's far more likely to involve more casualties in a shorter amount of time, with lower risk of survive compared to say, a guy with a knife or sword (melee weapons). Unless the victims are trapped in a building with only one exit/entry point (like that China case where a knife-wielding lunatic went on a killing spree inside a kindergarten after overpowering a male teacher, oh wait sounds familiar). In a wide open space involving melee weapons, less people are likely to die and there's more of a chance that the victims can fight back. In a fight of fists vs guns, there's less of a chance of that happening considering that most if not all adults in the Connecticut incident died, probably while trying to save the kids or fend off the killer. He shot them 11 times each according to reports.

Well, iNouda, perhaps we should institute ammunition control then, right? Then, the shooter would not have had enough ammunition left over to shoot everyone.

What we need is increased mental health capabilities so that these kinds of lunatics can be identified and isolated before they snap.

There were clues to this guys instability long before he snapped.

wonder what they teach in schools nowadays that make people think they supposed to run around killing people...

because making heroin and cocaine illegal got them off the street?

if someone wants a gun they will get it, as cerberus said, need better mental health care

typical Americans.

yeah, probably a result of post traumatic stress from our ancestors going out into the world to save all the other countries from blowing themselves up.

lol, such a typical American response to being called typical American.

not enough alcohol in my system to troll properly. :-P

Our homicide rate is about 3 times most of Europe's and Canada's, and it's even more compared to Japan's.

Additionally, Australia had a traumatic mass-casualty shooting in the mid-1990s, revamped their gun control laws, and while they had 10 or so similar shootings in the decade leading up to that shooting that was the catalyst, they haven't had a single one since.

Besides, all Pres. Obama has suggested is closing the loophole that people can buy guns at shows without a background check (Cerberus, from your statement about mental health, surely you don't have a problem with this), and reinstituting the assault rifle ban that expired in 2004.

And before someone throws out the whole "criminals don't follow the law" argument: where do you think most of those criminals got their guns from? Mexican cartels? They probably stole them from people who legally bought them, so those guns wouldnt have been available if we Americans didn't have guns sitting around all over the place.

For the record, I'm all for what Pres. Obama is suggesting. I could care less about people having hunting rifles (which could certainly still be useful for stopping someone trying to break into your house), and I'm open to the concept of handguns for self-protection if you're willing to go through a much more rigorous licensing program than we've currently got.

for those of us not in america, what are your current licensing requirements for handguns or rifles?

obviously of age, no criminal record, etc but what else and what else might be suggested to be "much more rigorous"?

braden, it varies by state. In my state (Washington) the things that will stop you from getting a concealed carry permit (pistols) are as follows:

Under 21 years of age

Non-US citizen without a green card

Outstanding warrants

Having ever been judged "mentally defective", or incompetent to manage your own affairs

Having ever been committed to a mental hospital.

Any felony conviction

Having been an unlawful user of, or addicted to, within the last year, marijuana, stimulants, depressants or narcotics (this will most likely change, as we've just recently decriminalized pot)

Dishonorable discharge from the US armed forces

Currently under a restraining order

If you've ever renounced your US citizenship

Convictions for domestic (family) crimes involving Assault IV, coercion, stalking, reckless endangerment, 1st degree criminal trespass or violation of a no-contact or restraining order.

Those are the rules for handguns. For rifles, they're much more lax. I don't know about semi-auto rifles, but for some (like my muzzle loader, or a shotgun) there is no background check of any kind. Go to the sporting goods store, plop down a few hundred, and you've got one.

Oh, and regarding your second question of what might be suggested to be "much more rigorous", there are a myriad of possibilities, right up to and including the banning of all guns.

Much more rigorous and achieving the desired goal though? None. Unless the desired goal is a population mostly made up of defenseless law abiding citizens, and a few well armed criminals.

That's what would be left, Supertodd, legions of defenseless citizens and a few well armed criminals, plus the government who now has complete freedom to enter your home, seize your stuff and throw you out on the street without so much as a bye the way.

Trust me, you think it's bad that our government is out of control with their policies overseas? Just wait'll they disarm the American Public.

Oh come on now, Cerberus. Don't you think you're overplaying the paranoid of the govt thing just a little too much?

I mean, EVERYBODY KNOWS, tyranny could never happen here. It's impossible. Since our government is a democracy, that means it is as pure as the driven snow.

For example, the Federal Government would NEVER make it a crime to speak publically against the government...

http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp - Oh..well yeah, that. But the alien and sedition acts are practically ancient history. If you look at more modern history, you'd never find an example of Federal tyranny.. I mean, like they'd never commit genocide in order to steal land...

What? Oh, yeah.. well, the Native Americans.. I suppose you've got me there, but hey.. at least once the Federal Government signed treaties with those sovereign nations, they lived up to their promises. I mean, it's not like we shredded our treaties with them every time we discovered something valuable on their lands..

Oh.. yeah I guess we did that too.. But those people were savages, not US citizens. As a US citizen, you NEVER have to fear that the government will seize your home and give it to another private party, in order to gain more taxes from said property..

http://en.wikipedia.org/...elo_v._City_of_New_London - Oh yeah. I forgot about that one. Well so what? The government SHOULD be able to take your property on a whim. It's just stuff. Stuff doesn't matter. What matters is your freedom. And the Federal Government would NEVER round up and hold in concentration camps, over a hundred thousand US citizens just because of their race.. I mean, that's crazy Nazi stuff, and EVERYBODY KNOWS that if you start talking about what the Nazi's did, you're just grasping at straws...

http://www.historyonthenet.com/...apan_internment_camps.htm - Um.. So? Big deal! Hardly anybody is still alive from when that happened.

In MODERN America, things like indefinite detention without trial are impossible..
http://en.wikipedia.org/..._Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

And the Supreme Court would NEVER rule that the Federal Government has the power to force you to do anything they want, by fining you if you refuse to kneel, and then calling the fine a tax. (I don't really need to post a link on that one, do I?)

Does anyone hear a train coming? It sounds long.

thought that they could hold you indefinitely for contempt of court?

I love this pro-gun argument.

First off, it implies that the only thing keeping a country from turning into a tyrannical government like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union is an armed populace. This makes total sense since every place that has a lot fewer guns than the United States are dictatorships, like, well, considering we're #1 in guns per capita, that's apparently the rest of the world... Wait, I guess that doesn't make sense. (per 2007 stats)

It also completely goes against the idea of American exceptionalism entirely. All the non-U.S. people on the boards may not see why this is a big deal, but the fact that anyone would think that the only thing keeping the United States, the supposed land of the free, from turning into a fascist state are our guns, then you clearly subscribe to the idea that the United States is actually a LESSER nation than any other nation, not a greater one.

There's a very good Washington Post article that points out a few things about our gun ownership, and it states: "Americans don’t just have more guns that anyone else – 270 million privately held firearms. They also have the highest gun ownership per capita rate in the world, with an average of about nine guns for every 10 Americans. The second highest gun ownership rate in the world is Yemen; yes, Americans have nearly twice as many guns per person as do Yemenis, who live in a conflict-torn Arab nation still dealing with poverty, political unrest, a separatist Shia insurgency, an al-Qaeda branch, and the aftereffects of a 1994 civil war."

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...onstrated-in-four-charts/

While I'm not sure you'd find reliable statistical data about many nations and their homicide rates, it'd be easy to look at developed countries, whose data is surely more reliable.

Japan has very strict gun control laws and has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world (about 1 gun per 100 people, 0.3 homicides per 100,000 people)

Canada has about 30 guns per 100 people, and about 1.4 homicides per 100,000 people.

Even Switzerland and Finland, #2 and #3 among developed nations in gun ownership, sit at around 45 guns per 100 people, sit at 0.7 and 2.2, respectively.

The United States sits at 88-89 guns per 100 people, far and away #1 in this category, and our homicide rate sits at 4.4 per 100,000.

It'd be easy to look at the list and say there are a lot of countries worse than us, but I'd look at the list and say there's not a lot of reason to be proud of having a better homicide rate than Honduras or Uganda.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/...intentional_homicide_rate

Do I think there should be a prohibition on guns? Absolutely not. Being from central Illinois, I appreciate deer hunters for thinning down the population so I don't end up having a greater chance of being in a car accident. I also appreciate that certain people might have extra need for protection of themselves and their families. I also appreciate that some weapons can be seen as historical artifacts.

I do NOT see how this correlates to a need for an assault rifle. I do NOT see how this correlates to someone needing to own an arsenal of weapons.
I do NOT see how this correlates to needing magazines that hold additional ammunition beyond the standard amount (I get the whole buying ammunition in bulk to save money thing, I don't personally see the need, but I don't care enough to fight that battle)

Our culture has a VERY unhealthy view of guns. I recently saw an ad that was posted that showed an assault rifle and had the tag "Consider your Man Card reissued."

We need some greater level of control over guns in our culture. I would suggest an assault weapons ban with a buy back program (the buy back program would be offered for ANY weapon, but would be required for assault weapons). I'd ask for the licensing standards to be the same if you're buying hunting rifles, but to be far greater if you're buying any type of weapon that isn't associated with hunting, and I'd ask for all weapons to be registered, just like you have to register your vehicle. I'd also ask that the loophole be closed so that you had to have proof of a recent background check to buy a gun at a gun show as well, and that selling a gun to someone without the proper paperwork be a felony.

Anyway, I'm verbose, so perhaps no one will read this, but if this seems unreasonable, please explain to me why, and please don't use the "slippery slope" argument.

False. The argument, which the founders made, and some of us continue to make today, is that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against tyranny. Nobody is arguing that a lack of guns guarantees tyranny. Rather, when every other barrier to tyranny has failed, and the people need to protect their own liberty, they must be armed in order to do so.

I won't claim to speak for all 2nd amendment defenders, but I for one don't think it is impossible that we could see a tyrant rise to power in the US in my lifetime. I'm sure the people of 1920's Germany didn't think they would be ruled by a tyrant in less than a decade, but it happened. The only things necessary for tyranny to rise, are conditions bad enough for the people to clamor for the government to do something about it, and a lack of barriers to tyranny.

The Constitution, which originally prohibited the Federal Government from doing almost anything, now has been creatively reinterpreted to mean that the Federal Government is virtually all-powerful. Our Supreme Court has demonstrated an unwillingness to hold the Federal Government in check. What barriers are left? The stage is set, now all we need is the tyrant. And once (s)he's there, if we're disarmed, we have no way to resist. That, to me, is the most important reason to take the 2nd amendment seriously and to defend it vigorously.

As far as "American Exceptionalism" goes, what made the US exceptional was our Constitution. It guaranteed liberty, in stronger terms, than any other governing document that I know of. As we continue to shred it, we continue to become less exceptional.

tl;dr

i own 7 guns, i am responsible, i own 2 assault rifles, i have never murdered anyone, nor do i plan on it. fluff you for even suggesting you punish me and take away my rights because of a miniscule segment of the population.

you really think it would be easier to take 200million guns off the streets rather than start some mental health programs?
what are you smoking and how much for a pound

wow Guess I'm just a dumb hick now living in Southern Indiana... but when I grew up in New York I could always buy an illegal gun cheaper and easier then a legal one. I'm sure the idiots in Washington will come up with away to make the legal ones even more an inconvenience to own so Go illegal gun market!!

homicide statistic != gun crime. terrible arguement

gun buyback program? whos going to fund this? with the median price of your average rifle being $800-1000. the tax payers? so people are going to pay the govt to take their guns away?

you must be nuts Twain. but feel free to correct my grammatical errors :P

Fine Pain. Here ya go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...irearm-related_death_rate

And ford: That's part of living in a society. We all give up individual rights for the betterment of all society.

To act like I'm being unreasonable and to make it personal because I don't think you should be allowed to own two assault rifles is just childish.

thought we gave up the right to run around killing people to make society better. some people just missed the memo. the government sezs that it can protect us from them. it can't.

So, why was Australia successful in implementing gun controls, and has no mass shooting (mass shooting is defined as more than 2 deaths) incidents since 1996?

http://en.wikipedia.org/...Gun_politics_in_Australia

"Gun politics have only become a notable issue in Australia since the 1980s. Low levels of violent crime through much of the 20th century kept levels of public concern about firearms low."

from what i read, it sounded like they had a couple of incidents that the government used to spam the public into compliance about something they didn't give a dang about anyway.

Your right to bear arms was only put in your constitution because the threat of a British invasion in remote areas was quite imminent. The 2nd amendment should have been repealed a long time ago.

It's not that you shouldn't be allowed to have guns.. Owning a gun should not be a right, it should be a privilege.

I live in Canada. I don't own a gun but I've got nothing against hunters or people who own one. I keep a baseball bat by my door that will deter any potential intruders. Unless you're expecting an attack by the Taliban you don't really need an assault rifle. I could always trade my bat for a 12 gauge shotgun and would be within my rights to blow someone away who was threatening bodily harm. Again. Don't need an assault rifle.

To make one last point, I certainly don't think that gun control is the answer to this problem. I see it as PART of the answer to the problem.

We do need a greater emphasis on mental health. And even with both of those things, are there still evil people out there that will find a way to hurt people? Absolutely. I find it problematic when anyone tries to limit this to one issue. The anti-gun people (which, for the most part, I wouldn't claim myself to be, but you can judge me differently) will use this as a reason to claim that guns are evil. The pro-gun people will use the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Both views are short-sighted and based entirely on ideology instead of practicality.

So please don't take my ideas on gun control to mean that I have a totally myopic view on this issue.

Agrees with pretty much everything twain has said in this thread. I too am all for gun rights. Hell..where I live it's a needed tool or I'd lose children and pets to coyote attacks. However I find it odd we can track a jar of peanut butter from the farm to you kitchen (in case of recall) but a deadly weapon can be so easily lost through the private sales loopholes. I'd like to see guns treated more like cars ..we should be licensed to operate, register them transfer if sold. And assault weapons should be for specifically licensed owners who have special training such as military and law enforcement. I think most gun owners would be ok with this. It wouldn't stop things like this altogether, but we should at least make it harder for the bad guys to get their hands on these weapons.

RIP

you know what would make it harder for things like Newtown to happen? if the mother had seen how batfluff crazy her son was and actually locked her guns up.

i cant believe no one talks about this. My guns are constantly locked up. even my self defense weapons are in quick access safes. My hunting and target shooting guns are in a massive 700+ pound concrete reinforced safe that is bolted to the foundation of my house. I will kill you before you can even figure out how to take my guns, and there is no way my kids can get their hands on them.

You are a responsible gun owner mrford...exactly what we want all gun owners to aspire to.