YES!!!

Guns for self defense is overrated...Two well armed cops were killed in a parking lot in Tucson recently...We hear other horror stories about guns at home doing more harm than good...Criminals won't bother with you if you have a concealed weapon on you...Huh?..How could the idiot know you have a weapon if it is concealed?..This is all a farce in favor of the gun makers and their stockholders...Forget about children dying because of our "rights".

Wil, I personally know of a gun owner carrying conceal that had been accosted by a robber outside of a CVS that when accosted, he pulled his concealed weapon and then held the would be robber in custody until police arrived and formally arrested the fool. What about the recent incident of the kid at the Weis Markets last year that attempted to rob the guy as he was loading groceries into the passenger side of his pick-up truck. Kid takes a shot at him when the guy refuses to throw his license over the hood of the truck to the kid, guy falls on the ground and then pull his own gun out shots kid in the ankle and police arrive later to arrest kid. Guns for defense is anything but overrated, you just have been lied to for so long that you have no concept of the truth or fail to believe it. Fact of the matter is guns do help people to protect themselves and the incidence of attacks in “Gun Free Zones” is much higher because criminals know that the chances of people defending themselves there is much lower.

Bytra...Yes, I heard stories like yours, but I can tell stories of a different sort too...What's the use...This back and forth comments are getting us nowhere...All we can do right now is sit back and hope, just hope, no more gun incidents happen, especially to our precious kids....We have seen this movie before, you know, Columbine, Aurora, Virginia Tech, many others, all for our rights to bear arms.

Wil, I can only say I wish for the same thing, for the senseless gun violence to stop. But I’m also a realist and know that it never will because no matter what restrictions our government places on guns (assault rifle ban during Columbine, Ct. currently has a gun ban on assault weapons which didn’t stop the Sandy Hook tragedy) those that want guns bad enough will still get them as we saw with the Norway tragedy where there are some of the strictest gun laws in the world in place and if they don’t use guns, then will use the internet to build their own bombs such as Timothy McVeigh or make a chemical weapon such as the Sarin gas used in the Japanese subway attack back in 1995. Banning guns is not the resolution to the problem. There’s a laundry list of things that should be addressed such as identifying the mentally ill and forcing them into treatment and monitoring them once they are released back into society, end the glorifying of violence, end the media fame for the killers, close loop holes on gun access where there may some, address the moral values that allow senseless killings with no conscious and etc., etc., etc. In the mean-time, responsible gun owners should be allowed to continue being responsible gun owners; they should not be left defenseless because society allowed certain segments of its population to run wild and uncontrolled.

Newtown, CT does have a gun free zone ordinance and yet tragedy happened. How?..With guns apparently purchased legally by a law abiding citizen...Obviously, there was crack in the statute and mayhem prevailed...What's the culprit here?..Guns!..People kill many people...with GUNS!..Were there not guns around, those beautiful children would still be alive today.

And banning guns will get rid of guns just like banning drugs gets drugs out of our schools and banning prohibition got rid of alcohol and the war on poverty eliminated the extremely poor. Wil, I only wish I was as naive as you so I could be so hopeful for such a bright future based on the promises of our corrupt politicians. Remember, politicians are nothing more than lying lawyers with promises on their lips and an elections behind them with their hand in your pocket promising you things will be better in the future and that programs you have paid into your entire life are an entitlement. I couldn't care what side of the isle they dance on, because in reality it is on our necks they dance. The politicians in this country have been great at divide and conquer with emotional issues and the dreams of our founding fathers believed, that the country should be run by the everyday average man but instead is now run by sluts who are willing to suck the teat of biggest spenders on their campaign. You have to be wealthy to get elected. The best govern’t for sale is what we have now and the current emotional issue is gun control. Your politicians are promising blue skies and safe society with the guns gone. But I'm ere to tell you that they are not addressing the issues because if they were,we would see responsible tax reform & spending constraint and do what the politicians of our country had been able to do for the first two hundred years of our country’s existence, compromise.

@Wilfredo ok lets ban drinking, cars, knives, fertilizer, air planes, box cutters and whatever else, hey if we need any of the listed items we should go to a local FED office and sign them out. Because everything I just mentioned has killed thousands of people at some time, it maybe a DUI, 9/11, every single day someone gets hit by a car somewhere, hell in Lansdale alone there has been several hit & runs over the last couple months. Let's ban cars!!! What we need to do is focus on the bigger issues. Like why is it that these white males like shooting people up and you don't see this in the black community. Ok well this is what I came up with, white mother's coddle their kids and DO NOT discipline like black mothers do/or like the child needs to be. Children need their asses kicked when their out of line. PERIOD!!!! Example: I was at a school play the other day and this little white boy was scared and did not want to sing in the concert like he was suppose because it was in front of all the parents, so he cried and got his way and sat on the side line. Now if that was a black child and his mother was there she would have embarrassed the hell out of him, yelled and made his ass sing. It's all about discipline and white people DO NOT discipline their children like they need to be. PERIOD!!!!! Then after the concert, what appeared to be his grand mother said to him "Oh you did a great job anyway" Really!?! Great Job at what CRYING!!!!

continued: I'm sorry but that's the wrong message to be sending...

Wilfred,
Federal crime statistics clearly prove 2 things:
1) those who fight back in the face of a violent crime are far less likely to suffer serious injury, rape, or death than those who passivelly comply
And
2) a handgun is the most effective means of defense in such cases (rifles and shotguns being too cumbersome to practically carry during day to day activities)

Those are irrefutable facts.
Anything to the contrary you've seen was probably from the distorted, outright lying propaganda or rabid anti-gun groups like Brady, "Cease Fire" etc. who, amongst other things, believe that a woman who passively submits to being raped, tortured, mutilated, and murdered is somehow "morally superior" to the woman who takes out her legally-carried handgun and saves herself by shooting the perp.

Wilfred,
You say "we've seen this movie before, Columbine, Aurora, etc. ..."

Did you ever notice that these things INVARIABLY happen where nobody is allowed to defend themselves?
There's a reason for that.
"Gun free" zones are a feel-good fallacy. They are "defenseless victim killing zones."

To Carl Stevenson - You said the places of massacre are places where there was no means of defense by the people around...I can just imagine the scenario where the folks indeed have weapons on them, utter chaos and more injuries and deaths...I am reminded of the time in New York (Times Square was it?) when cops drew their pistols to apprehend a "bad guy" (according to NRA honcho La Pierre)...The cops got their man, so were many others were hit by stray bullets...No, sir...Arming everyone is not the answer...No guns for everyone is, but the militia as intended by the founders.

StGabes-You are being ridiculous of comparing deaths by the items you mentioned to deaths by guns and should, therefore, be banned...Well, let's see you cut a tomato with a gun, ride to work with a gun, make your plant grow with a gun, make a toast with a gun, visit loved ones on Holidays...What I am trying to say is guns don't have much utility except for hunting...And then one does not need a bazooka to go ahuntin' do we?

Obviously, we all agree these cowardly acts are devastating and "cannot be accepted" like our President stated. But how we go about ending these on-going attacks on our people isn't as easy as banning weapons in my opinion. These "people" who commit these acts of selfishness will go to any length to become the martyr or get the attention they so desperately need. They can be sure they'll achieve these things by witnessing the media's poast portrayals of the "products of their enviroment" they so badly want to hold the title of.
I also believe the bullying issue is something that needs alot more attention than it's currently getting. Bullying can hurt a person as bad, if not worse than, an assault. Mental and physical abuse is what it is and what it should be charged as.

Why, so the amount of shootings go up just like when assault rifles were banned last time? That makes no sense what so ever. Also, its just as deadly and much easier to go into a shooting with a .22 long rifle or any type of pistol. A lot more shootings and massacres are by the use of different weapons than assault rifles. The Connecticut shooting was tragic but the kid also had two pistols and the shooting in Minnesota occured from a .22 LR, not assault rifle.

yes, there should be a ban on assault weapons. why does anyone need an assault weapon? you cannot conceal it and also why should the police be outgunned by the public. gun shows should either be banned or not able to sell assault weapons. people who want to own these weapons do so for hobby, then leave your weapon at the gun range, they think the u.n. is gonna take over- never gonna happen, they are survivalists( economic collapse, etc ) - you will be using your assault weapons against your own neighbors if that happens- did you think of that? why do people think that pistols/handguns ( max - 10 rounds ) and longguns ( rifles & shotguns ) are not enough? is not a small gun enough protection outside your home ( assuming you pass the background check & are qualified to use it ) and your longguns at your home? people want to turn our schools into armed camps and our teachers into very intelligent bodyguards. get rid of mass people killing assault weapons and the clips with over 10 rounds. why would anyone need an assault weapon?

people always bring up the 2nd amendment when arguing gun rights. i cannot imagine that the founding fathers foresaw such leathal weapons being available to the general public. they also said that the amendments could be amended knowing that our country would evolve. at the time, we had no real army to speak of so our citizens were depended upon to defend against any foriegn threats. the only way to put meat on the table in those times was to hunt game. they did not have law enforcement available everywhere like we do today. and lastly, the country we broke away from did not allow just anyone to own a firearm. these are the main reasons i believe that the 2nd amendment was written. we now have the largest army in the world, we now have grocery stores for our meat and we have adequate law enforcement across the entire country. the 2nd amendment is outdated and should be amended. i do not believe in a total ban of all firearms, no way. people should always have the right to defend themselves and the right to hunt, we just need more commonsensicle rules to gun rights and the types of guns owned by the general public.

Sure ,we can go this way, we would be right up there with famous people , like Stalin ,Hitler, Japan took away swords before guns were around to control people and people died.
If England had their way they would have taken our guns, and we would still be under English rule.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929
to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to
1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to
1945, a total of 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend
themselves were rounded up
and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952,
20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and
exterminaterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to
1981, 100,000 Mayan
Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
CRIMINALS don't care about gun laws ,they are gonn get them anyway.
I have respect for Police, but can one be their to protect your family before the criminal pulls the trigger. I'm not risk my familys life on that.
We should put away anyone who uses one illeaglly. You hear only what the media wants you too.

Unequivocally, NO!

Define 'Assault Weapons'....Until then, the answer should be "NO".

Wilfredo
Still working and supporting the Useful Idiots like Feinstein and her buddies. Keep in mind that this woman had a carry gun because there was a threat on her life. I guess that cleared up and she is back to her same old ways. By the way, nothing really changed with her bans on assualt weapns and magazines. Take a look at Chicago, home of Obama, and you will see it is now the murder capital of the United States.

Yes! and Yes again!

Don't forget, Norway has some of the world's strictest gun laws and yet a mentally ill person there was also able to commit mass murder with a rifle obtained illegally.

Plus 1 to this. These "assault rifles" only look scarier in appearance than a normal handgun. In reality, they are not very different. "Semiautomatic" does not mean they can shower bullets like a machine gun (that would be fully automatic). Just like a handgun, they fire only one bullet at a time.

And also, it should be clarified that no "assault rifle" was used in this shooting. The killer used two handguns.

What is the truth here.... first I heard that he left the rifle in the car.... and used two handguns... then I heard that he used the rifle.... WHICH IS IT. Was the rifle used or not?

The rifle was left in the car. He only used two handguns.

Just read a story that said he left a SHOTGUN in the car, but took in the Bushmaster.... Also, medical examiner said wounds were consistent with a rifle. So I think you are wrong.

Yes, sorry Crestor - I stand corrected. Here is the CNN report: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html

The Bushmaster AR-15 and similar civilian weapons that Feinstein et al are demonizing and want to ban are NOT assault rifles at all. Don’t give the gun banners any leeway on these lies and distortions. Their intent is to confuse and misinform those who don’t know any better. In other words, they're lying.

Tell people the truth … tell them that the AR-15 is not really functionally different than other rifles except that it outwardly RESEMBLES the M-16/M4 machine gun that our troops use. (For reasons of economy in manufacturing, the inherent reliability and maintainability of the underlying design, and other factors, there are a lot of common parts, but the important ones that determine function are designed to preclude illegal conversion to fully-automatic operation like the military weapons with which the gun-banners want you to confuse them.)

The guns they want to ban are NOT machine guns, as the gun grabbers and media try to convince you. They do NOT "spray bullets" as military weapons do. However their outward appearance, combined with deliberate untruths and the use of incorrect terminology, makes it easier for the deceivers to demonize these guns as they try to build support for banning them. (Which is, of course, just a step towards further bans in the future.)

EXCELLANT

Another common link was that the killers were all white men.

Hey Moe, are you suggesting we should also ban all white men?

We haven't had 10 mass murders with assault rifles. In fact, we've had NONE.

Most of the shootings haven't even been with rifles.

Mr. Cho, the VA Tech shooter used a pistol or two. Since nobody there was allowed to be armed, he walked around for some time, calmly shooting defenseless people as they cowered under desks, reloading as necessary to continue. He managed to kill 32 people because none of his victims had the means to stop him.

The Portland Mall shooter used and AR-15, which is not an assault rifle, as I explained in an earlier comment.
What the left-wind media aren't telling you, though the local media in Oregon covered it, is that a person with a concealed carry license confronted the shooter with his legally carried pistol after he'd shot his first 2 (and only) victims and the shooter's next shot was used to take his own live, stopping the carnage.

"Gun bans" and "gun-free zones" are fatally-flawed fallacies. They simply don't work. Criminals and psychos don't care about or observe laws (against robbery, rape, murder, let alone a mere gun law violation). "Gun-free zones" aren't working out so well either. Virtually all of the mass shootings have occurred in these mythical "safe" zones, which are actually target rich free-fire zones where the body count can be racked up with no real fear of meeting resistance. Feel-good security theater won't stop the shooters. The only thing that will is a quick, armed response.

maybe if they only got 5 minutes of fame things wouldn't be so bad. But they pretty much 24/7 for two or three weeks, or until something else happens. The good news for law abiding gun owners is that if nothing gets passed in the next two or three weeks, we are pretty much in the clear. I mean who remembers things longer then that anymore?

Kony 2012 right?

absolutely agree with you

There's a good idea . Let us all put our fingers in our ears and start singing happy tunes. That would make the bad men with guns go away.

Granting the (almost invariably dead) shooter all of the perverse "recognition" does seem to motivate copy-cats and "I can kill more wannabes." These people seem to want to "go out in a blaze of glory" as they see it in their sick minds.
Obviously, such tragic events can't and shouldn't be kept secret. However, if the media reported the facts, but not days and days of 24 hour coverage of the shooter's name and life story, perhaps some of the attraction would fade for at least some of the nuts?
My biggest complaint with the media is their outrageously biased coverage, which is full of falsehoods about the nature of the weapons and their posture towards infringing the rights of the millions of lawful gun owners.
They always exaggerate the nature of the guns, in an obviously deliberate effort to demonize them as "military" weapons and to confuse the ill-informed public into thinking that they are "machine guns".
If our troops went to battle with AR-15s, any third wold crap hole could kick our butts and our casualties would be enormous. AR-15s are NOT assault rifles.

well said! so many ignorant feel good people out there. aka "misinformed liberels"

While I agree that the media attention on the life and times of the killers is over done, it has clearly exposed mental illness, rage, and the horror that is inflicted on the innocent public with guns of war being on the streets of our country. - I guess if the media didn't provide attention to killings the NRA and those who want to pretend nothing needs done to address a very serious problem, by miss interpreting the Second Amendment.

And do you really believe banning them would make them any harder to get? Just like banning illegal drugs means we can't get heroin, meth, and cocaine, right? Wrong, just means you have another prohibition that creates a new black market where more violence will occur. talk about making things worse. The ban on assault weapons didn't stop Columbine!!!

You have been misinformed by the leftist tyrant wannabes and their sycophant media.
I hate to keep repeating myself, but the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle.
It is not a "military grade" weapon.
It is NOT a "machine gun."
it simply LOOKS like its military cousin the M-16/M4. It does NOT function like one. It does NOT "spray" bullets. It functions just like your grandpa's hunting rifle. One trigger pull, one shot fired, just like every other civilian rifle. AND, the .223/5.56mm round it fires is considerably less powerful than those used by the vast majority of hunting rifles. So much so, that it is illegal for hunting anything bigger than groundhogs and coyotes in many states, because it's not powerful enough to reliably do the job on anything bigger like deer and up.
It was banned from 1994-2004 because Diane Feinstein looked through a gun catalog and though it "looked scary" ... because it resembles the M-16/M4 that our troops use. (Again, it does NOT function the same. and as I said before, we'd get our butts kicked by the puniest third world country if we sent our troops in with AR-15s.) Don't let the leftist politicians and media deceive you. The nutcase kid in CT could have killed just as many with any of dozens of garden variety models of .22 - it wasn't the weapon, it was a psycho and the fact that nobody was there to stop him that caused the tragedy.

No evidence of what voter fraud????? ahhhhh Look at this past election genius, there was fraud out the ass!!!!

@ Bytra & Carl- it seems like you're allowing your own bias on this subject to create an emotional response that had nothing to do with what i posted. if you re read what i wrote, you'll take note that i never mentioned banning anything. i said the average citizen shouldn't have easy access to military grade weapons, and that we had a problem with gun violence in this country. i said that there needed to be a debate regarding that issue. the only thing i actually suggested as a partial solution was ending the war on drugs. i would in hindsight i would include addressing the pathetic mental health system we have in this country. i also pointed out that straw purchases, loose regulations and a lack of training were issues. your need to politicize everyone's responses that you feel don't jive with your opinions doesn't really assist in that debate. try toning down the hostility. it doesn't make you seem like a responsible gun-owner at all.

@St Gabes- I'll clarify my point on using voter fraud as a comparison. indeed, there is no real evidence of widespread voter fraud to warrant the voter ID measure. even the state admitted that. the voter fraud i heard about in this election cycle seemed to be emanate from primarily republican-minded entities. the point being, that republicans (generally speaking) were all up in arms about voter fraud, even tho little evidence exists of it and even tho in-person voter ID wouldn't stop the kind of voter fraud that did exist, they still sought to convolute the voting process without any concern about limiting voters rights or the possibility of disenfranchising voters, but 10,000+ gun related deaths a year is just collateral damage towards making sure a tyrannical government never attempts to infringe on our ability to stockpile whatever weapons we feel we may need to defend ourselves against said government. it's bs logic.

Amend, like most idiotic liberal agitators, rather then debate, you go straight for insults and pointless conclusions. Responding to you any further would be pointless because you are not here for a debate or to review facts and evidence, you only want to see you way and insult all other that have a view or postion contrary to your own. Love the tolerance man, love the tolerance.

@Amend - What are you talking about voter fraud was running wild in this election, except for the states where you had to show ID.... Ohio and PA were the worse.
Yeah your boy Obama was the one talking about a private army being as equipped as the real army.... So don't sit there and think I'm crazy do a lil research on the commie in chief.....
I suggest you start listening or watching something other then the bias liberal media... You don't have any idea what's going on...

Amend, what branch of the military did you serve in? I had to carry an assault weapon in the Army, so know that gun was much different from the civilian version. While they look the same as military, the semi-auto rifle Bushmaster sold to civilians is functionally equivalent to many semi-auto hunting rifles. The scary factor is cosmetic; real military-issued weapons are automatic.

Tell me Patti, what is the difference if I have ten magazines that hold ten bullets each or one magazine that holds one hundred bullets? Not much, a magazine in a gun can be swapped out in less than two seconds if you are proficient with your weapon.

What makes a police officer (who is just an ordinary citizen with a chunk of metal and a fancy set of clothes) so much more superior to an ordinary citizen that they can be trusted with these and I can't? What about ex military, or ex police? are they allowed to have them, or only active duty? What about security guards at nuclear power plants? They are not police officers or military, should they be allowed to have them? I mean they don't even have the piece of metal that police officers have, they just get the fancy clothes.

PS the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, it is about protecting ourselves and our rights from a tyrannical government.

unless they want to make deer jerky with one shot. no one needs these guns.

Patti,

Please read my other comments on the fallacy of "military grade assault weapons" that's being hyped by the gun banners so I don't have to repeat it again.

I am licensed and carry a pistol all the time (except in the few places where it's prohibited by law, and I try very hard to avoid them, so I don't have to give up my rights).

If I am attacked by a "flash mob," or jsut several armed thugs, not an outrageously uncommon occurrence these days, if you watch and read the news, I might well need more than 10 bullets. To solve this problem, I carry 2 spare magazines, and can reload in a couple of seconds. That's 1 in the chamber, plus three magazines of 13 each for my preferred carry weapon.

The police follow this same practice, to assure that they can adequately protect themselves. Some of their weapons hold as many as 21 rounds per magazine, depending on the caliber.

Why are they more "entitled" to survive a violent attack than me?

FYI, I am a veteran and a former police officer, not some macho kid trying to impress himself or anyone else. I'm just an old fart with a disability, a wife, 3 kids, and 10 grandkids who'd like to survive to die of old age. Would you deny me that?

Joan,
The .223/5.56mm round that the AR-15 fires is less powerful than grandpa's deer rifle.
You "deer jerky with one shot" comment shows that you've been deceived by the factually-challenged anti-gun groups' propaganda.
That round is illegal for hunting anything bigger than groundhogs and coyotes in many states because it's not powerful enough to reliably dispatch larger animals.
Yes, you can kill a person with it, but you can kill a person with a .22 short or a pellet gun, too.
This is the slippery slope goal of the gun banners.
Demonize something that "looks scary.
When banning that doesn't solve the crime problem (because the problem is the criminal, not the gun), say, well we have to ban x, y, z.
Repeat as necessary until you have a totally disarmed population of serfs who can be controlled, then exterminated.

@Joan You won't be saying that when obama's private army start roaming the streets.

@StGabes- you lost all credibility with that comment. really...a private army? what is up with some of you people? geez!

Columbine happened during the middle of the last assault weapon ban. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Proof that the ban failed.
Norway, a country with some of the strictest gun laws in the world did not prevent a mentally ill from obtaining semi-automatic rifle as well as making his own explosives and rendering a mass murder. Wake up, guns never were such a big problem in this country until the last twenty years. It the way society has dealt with mentally unstable people that has changed as well as the moral fabric of the country going down the crapper.

So much evidence... you make me laugh Don. Since the ban ENDED in 2004, crime rates, murder rates, and gun homicides have fallen every year... SINCE THE BAN ENDED. You liberals are such parrot cheese heads.

Don,

It is NOT BS ... the federal government's OWN REPORTS from their own data show that the 1994-2004 "assault weapons" ban showed NO effect on crime.
What documentation are you talking about? Must be something from the anti-gun fanatics at the Brady group ... they constantly put out a raft of falsehoods and distortions to deceive people into supporting their campaign to destroy our rights.
(I put assault weapons" in quotes above because the guns they banned were NOT assault weapons.)

Had the CT shooter not access to the semi-auto rifle, he also had a semi-auto duck gun in the car. That shotgun would have been devastating at close range, and is what many professionals would rather use in close quarters. Had the semi-auto rifles been banned, nothing would change. A anger-filled, mentally-ill genius bent on mass murder will find a way.

BytraWatches says that, "guns never were such a big problem in this country until the last twenty years." A little reading of our country's history would beg to differ as you will find that going back just to the 1800's you will find that the Old West leaders were very much in favor of gun control. Many of what were known as cow towns wanted guns banned all together with the city limits. A Texas cattle raising association had even banned six-shooters being able to be worn on a cowboy's belt in 1882. The reason...In almost every section of the West murders were on the rise with the principles gun owners (the cowmen) being the shooters.

The Old West leaders also dealt with the realities of the combination of carrying guns and the use of alcohol. Yet today we have the NRA pushing for this dangerous combination in one of the worst possible places...college campuses. Of course the realities of carrying around a concealed gun and the ability to combine that with those persons to engage in the use of alcohol in any restaurant etc. is also ignored.

The fact is that the Second Amendment does not provide us unlimited ability to do as we please and the NRA intentionally miss represents the Second Amendment by cherry picking it and ignoring very important parts.

What they learned and knew in the 1800's Old West is that easy access to guns invites trouble, which is why they were in favor of gun control...It's a public safety issue.

Or better yet, why don't we allow teachers and other school district employees be properly trained and allowed to carry concealed weapons on school grounds. Currently everyone is banned from protecting themselves on school property even if they have a valid concealed weapons permit creating an open target for these lunatics where they know no one can fight back.

I agree wholeheartedly with LMTnative.
I posted this on my blog the day before yesterday:

Credit, of course, to the brave teachers who died trying to defend their charges.

It's a crime that the teachers and administrators, like all others nation-wide, were, and are, prohibited from being able to actually defend our children.

Just as TSA is feel-good security theater and the Israelis actually know how to screen threats, in Israel teachers and parent volunteers are trained and armed so that they can actually prevent/stop such acts of mass murder. Here we have large, well advertised zones rich in easy targets that are prohibited by law from being defended in a timely and effective manner.

Here, there will be a call (it started minutes after the crime was first reported) for more onerous gun controls (victim disarmament) that will do nothing to stop this sort of crime and will, in fact, make the problem worse.

Teachers already must pass stringent background checks before they are given access to our children. We should make training and ready access to defensive weapons in the school a job requirement and part of their certification.

Before someone says, "Guns in the schools, are you crazy?", consider a few facts:
1) As just stated, teachers are already checked and presumed to be trustworthy.
2) The ONLY thing that will prevent these attacks, or at least minimize the body count, is an immediate response that terminates the threat (plainly put, kill the perp ASAP)
3). Federal government statistics prove that law-abiding people who carry a gun are more than 5.5 times LESS likely than the police to shoot an innocent bystander, despite the fact that "civilians" justifiably kill many more criminals each year than do the police, as they defend themselves or others when faced with violent crimes.
4).Guns themselves, when responsibly handled by properly trained people, NEVER harm innocents.
5) As these mass shootings show, signs and laws don't stop criminals and psychos, who don't care about the signs, don't obey laws, and usually plan on dying, either at their own hand or through "suicide by cop." Less children and teachers would die if they got their (death) wish as promptly as possible at the hand of a properly equipped teacher.
6) Every moment of delay in neutralizing the threat equals more dead innocents.

Stop the insanity. Allow teachers to defend themselves and their charges and require that they be trained and equipped to do so.

@Carl- i thought teachers were lazy, good-for-nothing public servants not worthy of a quality pension, and who greedily sucked off the public teet? now you want them to be school security too. yeah, add that to the list of requirements for the job and see how many and what kind of applicants apply. militarizing our schools is a terrible idea. is that how we want our children to grow up, in constant fear?

Joe - Fully automatic weapons are already banned.

Actually LMT you are 100% incorrect. Fully Automatic is not banned. You need ATF aproval and a 200$ tax stamp. Please dont spout off laws you dont know, it makes you sound like the media...

Joe is technically correct. But, to LMTnative's defense, fully automatic weapons have been so tightly regulated since 1934 that they have effectively been banned from common use.
Their manufacture and sale to other than military and law enforcement have been banned since 1968. Those in private collections prior to then were "grandfathered and may be transferred, but only to someone approved by the ATF. This requires not just the payment of a transfer tax, but an EXTENSIVE background check with fingerprints, photos, sign off by a local police chief or sheriff, and a munch of other hoops to jump through. If one can even persuade the local official to sign off and you are squeaky clean to something lie of beyond top secret level cleanliness, it can take 6-12 months.
Additionally, such transferable full-auto weapons are scarce as hen's teeth and if you could find someone willing to part with one, it would cost you thousands of dollars.
So, for all practical purposes, they are not available to criminals and psychos, even though they are not "technically" banned.

Dave, your points are well made, except if you read about the last killer, he was trained with Mommy's guns. She was a prepper and had trained her son in the safe use of her guns. My only problem here with this situation is the stigmatism associated with mental illness in our society which may be the reason she had not had him in treatment already for his problem and as a responsible gun owner she should never have allowed him access to her guns. So, he was proficient with the weapons he possessed at the time of the murders. In this case ten round magazine or thirty / fifty round magazine would not make much of a difference.

As for the need for high quantity magazines, it depends on the reason you are going to the gun range / what you are hunting for. I know in my early days of target practice with the 10/22 long rifle, if I wasn’t too concerned with ultra-accuracy, sending a bunch of rounds down range was just plain fun. Sorry, but it was, and I can’t express why it is, I can only suggest you try it some time. As most gun owners will tell you, shooting is enjoyable for multiple reasons.

I now prefer single accurately aimed shots since I am usually trying to keep the groundhogs out of my garden. But the larger magazine is never far off for the situation when it’s not just mom or dad ground hog, but the whole bloody family coming out of the woods making their way for the row of lettuce. At that point I will gratefully replace the ten round magazine with the fifty round magazine and fire away until they are all dead or have retreat back to the woods until the next confrontation on who will get the privilege of eating the lettuce.

And trust me, I am not for easy access to guns, but I do believe we have some very good laws in place to control access to them. Are there some loop holes? Maybe, I am familiar with the gun laws of PA and they seem very reasonable for control. I am sure there are states with loopholes that need to be closed and I have nothing wrong with that. I don’t even have a problem with cool-down waiting periods. But outright bans go against common sense on resolving this problem of mass murder by the mentally ill. Why not address how we deal with mental illness in this country rather than fulfill one party’s agenda of beginning the process of banning guns.

Where will the line finally end? Seems history tells us that every time guns start getting banned, it usually stops with a tyrannical government. The argument of well your small weapon is not going to stand up against the US military and all their might if it came to fighting a tyrannical government, no not just my gun but all those that would want to fight a tyrannical government would make the resistant militia as our founding fathers envisioned the 2nd amendment for, and the argument about small arms against the mighty military not going to be effective is discredited when we watch the mighty military attempting to plan their escape from Afghanistan because a resistance of Taliban fighters with small arms and homemade explosives are winning a battle on their home ground, the second time since the seventies they won a battle against a major world power.

You don't need a car that can drive faster then 65 MPH we should ban cars that go faster then 65 MPH. If you are a single person with no kids you also shouldn't be allowed to have a high capacity vehicle, it should be limited to just two seats. I just don't see the advantage of having one of those high speed, high capacity death machines. You know that there are some cars that can do 0-65 in three or four seconds in the hands of a proficient driver?!? Now I mean if you are not a proficient driver you might not be able to do that, you might skip a gear, stall out, drive it off the road. It would give the person in front of you time to react. I mean how will that ban effect someone who is going to follow the speed limit anyway?

I am not advocating banning vehicles, just advocating responsible vehicle ownership and making sure that those who own guns are properly trained (by an instructor not mommy and daddy) and are safely secured with an immobilizing boot when not in use.

just my opinion of course...

Bytra,

I did see that she had trained him on the use of weapons so it stands to reason that his level of proficiency was at least good. I double checked after I posted and stand corrected.

I have in fact fired .22 rifles with 30 round magazines when I was younger. While at the time it was "fun" I think that may be part of the problem. I was not mature enough at the time to understand fun vs function.

Dave, why should fun be restricted because of function? The function of a "assault rifle" can easily be replaced by a home made bomb as Timothy McVeigh demonstrated or homemade Sarin gas as Shoko Asahara demonstrated with the subway attack in Japan.

Rich, most gun owners are responsible and secure their weapons when not in use. With 80 million legal gun owners, if this wasn't the case, there would be one hell of a lot more problems in this country.

I'd like to make the acquaintance of Rich Cranium and BytraWatches ... Seems like we are on the same page. Not sure how, though, since they're using screen names.

Finally someone who remembers history. We are to learn from history , Gun control is not the answer . There is a problem with people who have no respect for life.
I cried the whole day for the children killed ,Wish one of the teachers had a gun to stop him earlier. Guns will be in the hands of criminals whether they are banned or not.

Switzerland does not have an army, every man is in the militia and receives a gun and training. So it is not like America, also Switzerland has the highest murder rate by guns in Europe.
You did not mention Afghanistan in your list of heavily armed countries. They have a lot of guns and yet they have been occupied by the British, Russia and now the USA and NATO. How does Afghanistan fit into that argument that heavily armed countries are safer and protected from invasion?
Also regulating gun could be a money maker for America. Treat guns like vehicles, inspections, insurance and qualifications for a license would be creating jobs and collecting revenue.
Guns may be a hobby and passion for hunters, the scared and those that have to compensate for some missing. The solution to arm everyone does not make any sense, this latest killers mom was armed. You cannot arm children, the uneducated, people that have been drinking, it is ridiculous to bring guns into schools, clubs, parks and bars.
This must be the time for America to grow up and realize that this does not have to be this way.

Larry, first let’s address your comments on Afghanistan. While the well-armed civilian population may not have been able to prevent an invasion by a superior force, it did enable them to repel that superior force every time including us now with our almighty military. Makes a wonderful argument for the intentions of the second amendment since it would be similar small arms fighting against our military if our government was to turn tyrannical.
Now let’s address all the places you talk about such as schools. But why restrict it to schools, let’s include theaters, malls and other places too. Most of these places are the preferred place for the mass killer since he has a high concentration of people to go after. They are also places where there are gun restrictions in place. But now let’s examine what happened this month in the Oregon mall shooting incident. Shooter was confronted by a conceal carry gun owner and the kill stops killing the masses and commits suicide. Happy ending to a sad story if you ask me, saves the tax payers a lot of money prosecuting and incarcerating him. Now what about San Antonio, TX on Dec 16th. Guy enters a restaurant and attempts to kill people because he was upset that his girlfriend broke up with him. He starts out in a Chinese restaurant and then chases the masses in a movie theater. Low and behold a conceal carry gun owner happens to be present and shots him. Mass murder stopped in its tracks.

Joe fan, The intent of the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor was to cripple our fleets in an effort to keep us out of the war. They did not want the U.S. to be able to help England and France. The Japanese had no interest in invading the U.S. because they didn't have a big enough military for the size of our country. Your claim that the reason the Japanese didn't invade the U.S. because of armed citizens is just plain bogus propaganda that is being spread around the internet.

Sorry Joe, but I support the (Entire) Second Amendment have taken gun safety courses, have gone target shooting, and do not personally own a gun and guess what... even though I don't own a gun, I am an American Citizen and serve no one.

Ha ha... send any European country the citizens of Detroit, and see what happens to their murder rate.

Then Larry you're gonna be a victim, it's only a matter of time..... there's a college you're allowed to carry on now the law just past maybe 2 years ago(Sorry I don't remember the name of the school)However females were pushing for the right to carry because of being raped, guess what soon as the law passed the rapes had stopped...

And also you need to remember most other Countries may have lower murders by guns because and only because there communities are much closer then we are here. The only time we come together is in the event of a major tragedy. Most people aren't even friends with there neighbors in this Country. A closer society will in FACT have a lower murder rate. Most Americans don't care all they care about is themselves, or the size of there cars, houses, boats, ect.

Wrong.

The part of the 2nd Amendment that says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a prefatory clause of the Amendment. The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is the legal language of the amendment.

Don't believe me? In "Heller vs. the District of Columbia" SCOTUS ruled that: the prefatory clause of the Amendment announces a purpose, but does not limit nor expand the scope of the operative clause.

The ruling also states that all weapons that are "in common use at the time" are protected by this language. With there being millions of AR style rifles in distribution at this time, I think it is safe to assume that they are in common use.

This ruling was in 2008, so there goes the "they couldn't have known what guns would be around" argument. Oh and this ruling was later affirmed and incorporated to the states in McDonald vs. Chicago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

eat crow

Larry, before the sixties we didn't have problems with guns like we have today. in the sixties we used to institutionalize the mentally ill if they were shown to be a threat to themselves or society. The last ten mass murders by gun were all intelligent mentally ill people. They could of used the internet to obtain the information to make a bomb or Sarin gas. Why are we not institutionalizing these people like we used to? No we drug them up and then set them free in society without monitoring them. Can you take a guess what possible could be done as a first step to controling the problem. What about hollywood sensationalizing violence and the media giving these mass murders such fame. Maybe if the media only stated a person create the crime and not give the mass murderer a platform for fame, there would be no motive to create such crime since they would not be recognized for it.

Do we really want to live in an America without guns? Sure the homicide rate is high but that is America. Would we rather live in a country that does not have shootings in schools, malls, colleges and offices. Well go off and live in Europe then. This is America, we like our guns and if that means that the angry, the crazy, the mean can get themselves a machine gun and shoot up a storm then o be it.

Hey Moe, I tell you what, we don't have the bombings like Europe has!!! To date, besides Timothy McVeigh, what bombings has there been since the sixties with the Puerto Rican seperation movement in NYC? But Europe, they might not have guns, but they sure do seem to have their bombings now, don't they. Go ahead and move there, and take your sarcstic views with you since you are not willing to add to a mature, open dialog about the direction the country should go in.

Larry,

There are mass shootings in other countries, too. We are not unique, nor in excess of what has happened in other parts of the world. We get the media hype here on things that happen here, but we are not the exception.
A school shooting in the UK killed 16, students, I believe. The Brits forced everyone to turn in their guns for destruction. Violent crime, including gun crime skyrocketed.
Why? Because criminals like unarmed victims. Prison surveys here show that convicted felons feared an encounter with an armed victim far more than they feared the police.
And, what about the 170 million murdered by their own governments in the both century, after they allowed themselves to be disarmed?
They ALL thought “It can’t happen here” – until they were disarmed and it started, then it was too late. Don't make the same mistake. Don't EVER let your government disarm you.

Require a criminal background check for every gun sold in America.
Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that enable mass killing.
Make gun trafficking a federal crime, with stiff penalties for those who arm criminals.
Make gun makers liable for their products when used for a crime.
Require gun owners to have training and to pass a test on safety, intelligence and health.
Require gun owners to take out insurance on their guns and to have them pass an inspection.
There are responsibilities associated with gun ownership, no good citizen should object to reasonable requirements.

What would happen if you armed a classroom full of children? Or a sports arena? Nightclub? Or went into a zoo and armed the chimpanzees. Well that is what we have in this country. There are the not so bright or mature, the fanatical the drunks and the drugged and those that are one chromosome short of an ape. And what they have in common is that they can all get guns.
Of course shootings are going to happen that is what guns are for. And maybe that is what the amendment lawyers intended.

@ Moe: "Make gun makers liable for their products when used for a crime."

OK, so when some 80-year old drives his car into a crowded sidewalk and fatally injures people, their families should sue one of the Big Three in Detroit? Same logic...

Moe, Criminal back ground check already required.
Define an assault weapon since every weapon can be used for assault, including swords, pens, and forks.
High capacity magazines can easily be replaced with low capacity magazines, a proficient gun owner can quickly swap out the low capacity magazines so quick it wouldn’t make a difference.
Gun Trafficking is already a crime, too bad our own government doesn’t obey the law with their Fast & Furious problem.
Maybe we should make automakers liable for every accident that their cars are involved in regardless of owner complicity in the accident makes as much sense as holding gun manufacturers responsible for every crime with a gun.
Just about every gun owner I know has taken a safety course on guns and short of the mentally challenged why should the mental intelligence even be considered a requirement with gun ownership?
Mental health evaluation has potential, but only if there is due process to contest any findings since some liberal minded doctor could declare that anybody wanting to buy a gun is nuts.

Requiring gun owners to take insurance out for their gun for anything other than to cover loss from thief is a ridiculous requirement since responsible gun owners will keep their guns secure and use them cautiously. Do you happen to work for an insurance company by any chance???
For what purpose is there to have gun inspections? Any sane gun owner is going to inspect their weapon prior to loading it as it is just like a smart motorcycle rider inspects his bike before riding. A government entity will most likely be considerably much less knowledgeable on the weapon than the owner of the gun.
And you are correct, responsible gun owners don’t object to reasonable requirements for gun ownership, but you seem to want to require unreasonable owner requirements and additional unnecessary costs on the owners.

What percentage of these mass murderers are white American men? Think about it.

We already have a gun law its called the second amendment. I think what Easton should do is obey it.

Moe,

Violent crime in the US has dropped since its peak in the late 60s, particularly since the advent of "shall issue" concealed carry laws. States that have allowed their citizens to carry for protection have seen particularly step drops in crime.
Chicago and DC, with the strictest gun laws (outright bans until SCOTUS overturned them) are the murder capitals of the US.
All of the unbiased data shows that gun control doesn't work, but putting self-defense capabilities in the hands of the law-abiding does.

Andy ... Easton can't do jack. Firearms regulation is preempted by state law. Counties, cities, townships, etc. are prohibited from enacting any regulations. that is necessary to have uniform laws, rather than a patchwork that changes every time you turn around.

If you don't know or like guns take a course, there are a lot of free courses as of lately. Please do yourself a favor, use your brain, stop letting emotions do your thinking. People have gotten away from reason and started using raw emotion that's one reason our Country is in such turmoil....

Yeah those Japanese Admirls were too smart to attack America (Besides Pearl Harbor) they were planning to wait a while and let the Yankees get all armed up and start killing each other.

My question would be more, should we ban assault weapons to "regular joes" ?? Assault weapons are necessary for defense, and military, but who actually needs an assault weapon in their living room?... This guy took his mom's weapons who was paranoiac and he was going psycho. Anyone could get their hands on those kind of guns and THAT is dangerous. But we shouldn't ban them for military, only to civilians

Oh my god Ron I just read about all these countries in Europe with gun controls. They are totally missing out on mass killings. Do we want to live like a bunch of Greeks or Irish? Hell no. And we are not even the most violent country, not even close to Jamaica or Honuras or South Africa. We are the only western country in the top ten so take that Europe with your gun controls. Why doesn't England have a second amendment? Because they are just loyal subjects living in fear of the monarchy. If the people had assault weapons they could overthrow the Windsors become citizens with a bill of rights.

Moe, not very bright are ya - Europe still has mass killings bro! It's apparent you can't read... Check out Switzerland the side with the guns and see how low crime is in general...

So are you OK with our high murder rate? No other western country has so many killings. Do we throw our hands up and say 'wachta going' do? This is America we kill people.
Can nothing be done to stop the killing? Lennon was killed, Reagen was shot, children, athletes, police, students nobody is safe.
You are a gun lover but you must see the news, doesn't it make you think?

Canada seems to be doing good, js

@cheese it does make ya think, but people aren't thinking.... People are reacting on emotion and not thinking with reason.

Does'nt any one read ? Try your History books ,gun control has been tried by many, Stalin, Hitler , read how many inocent people ,men ,women, children have been murdered after they put in gun control.

As long as they can take their guns with them. Does the 2nd amendment still apply for Americans overseas?

This same scum that can smuggle in billions in drugs will have no problem getting guns in Europe.

Well shows what you know, gun owners are already responsible and liable for their guns. What you seem to be advocating is that gun owners need to be responsible for everyone else's guns.

If my gun is used in a crime and I did not report it stolen to the police I am liable from what happens with that firearm. Even if I report it stolen there is still a chance that I am on the hook for what happened, because anyone could use a gun in a crime and then report it stolen to try to avoid penalty. I have to prove that the gun was taken without my permission and hope to god nothing happens using the gun that was stolen.

Shooting is a hobby of mine, shooting AR-15 rifles, and WASR rifles is part of that hobby. My firearms have never been used in a hostile manner. (well except those paper targets and soda bottles, but they had it coming) So my hobby is invalid because someone that I bear no relation with did something wrong?
Lets say that you like to go golfing, should all golf clubs be regulated and "assault clubs" be banned, if someone uses a 9 iron to bludgeon someone to death? I mean you have no legitimate reason to go golfing, why do you hate kids!?!

Bhima, if you read through the postings, I have showed respect to all except Moe who has assumed the agitator role. If you would care to debate the issue of gun ownership, then maybe you could respect the fact that your opinion seems offensive to me since I have not been aggressive other than to vehemently stand behind my position that gun ownership is not the problem. With over 80 million gun owners in this country, gun ownership if as you stated was a culture of violence and oppression, then there would be a lot more death in this country than just the 12k as stated by some. Responsible gun owners advocate controls to access to guns and their safe handling and to group stolen weapons which are responsible for over 95% of gun crime in with responsible gun owners is irresponsible on your part and ignores the facts against your statements. To tax us for purchase of guns more than we already are makes as much sense as taxing an individual for having their car stolen and buying another one to replace it or worse yet taxing the victim of a carjacking for having their car stolen. To hold such victims legally responsible for any crime committed with their cars is as ridiculous as holding a victim of a stolen gun properly secured for any crimes committed with that stolen gun.

The only thing that is oppressive is our Government.... But it's ok for these hollywood fags to go around and say "I get to kill all them white folks"(Jamie Fox) You don't hear anyone calling on them to stop making those kind of films... Nothing on tv is worth watching these days it is all filled with violence and killing, pure evil!!!! But nobody bats an eyelash their way... Instead it's lets take their guns....

Then move somewhere else, where things might be better and you can be the ONLY one making your laws and rules....by yourself.

But what do we do about all the killings?

@Cheese we need to get to the root of the problem, and GUNS IS NOT THE PROBLEM. It is these kids with NO respect for life.... I would start at the parent level, Ask yourself this, why is it you don't see this in the black community?

How insulting. All the gun owners i know including myself would have done everything posable to save those children. And we would have had the means to do it.

It's not guns that kill people... It's white American men with guns that kill people. To the extent of 12,000 every year.
Sure there would be homicides and even a country like England with it's zero tolerance for amatuer gun slingers has 36 gun killings a year. But what if we gave it a go and banned gun just to see if it made a difference. Imagine having a murder rate of 150 a year not 12,000. It worked in Australia wht not here?

I would never put guns ahead of children. But if I was there and armed I would have stopped him with my life if need be, to save as many children as posible.
With your thinking he was just gonna keep shooting. An armed law abiding person might have saved some of those kids.

Really! You would rather have everyone just sit back and do nothing and let your grandson deal with the shooter. Wow.

Sorry i made you cry. I pray i wont be at the next one and your right i probally wont be after all we have a better chance at being hit by lightning than being shot in a mass shooting even though the media misleads by saying these shootings are commonplace. What makes you think everyone with a gun is crazed or that i am a vigilante. I have never pulled a gun on anyone ever and pray i never have to but i would do everything possable to protect my family and myself. How do we stop the killing well we have to stop allowing our children to become desencitized to violence from video games and other media outlets. We need to enforce the many laws we already have and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and ex fellons and we need to keep violent people that hurt and kill people in jail and not out on the streets. Cheese i thank you for your concern about our country and our citizens and i respect your oppinions i just disagree. I wish you well.

Ron, do you have kids? Do they play video games? Is there any mental illness in your family? Ever know of anyone convicted of a felony? And, one more time, do you have kids?

The weapons they want to ban are NOT military weapons. Please see my other posts for more info ... I'm getting tired of repeating it all.
But I DO appreciate the fact that you are willing to ask the question, apparently without having already done the knee jerk like so many sincere, but ill-informed people have.

Actually, there aren't many differences between the civilian and military weapons other than their fully automatic or "fun" switch. And, although I'm sure killing squirrels and other "varmints" make for a tasty dinner, what is the point? There is NO need for a semi-automatic weapon if you are a good hunter.

Wil, I refer you to the following report from Interpol, report on attacks in Europe and the trend. The report takes a detailed review of different terror groups, Islamist, right wing, left wing, anarchist, loner single issue attackers. The one common link in most European attacks where guns are so restricted is the use of explosives; a problem almost non-existent in this country. Is this what you want to see in this country? Follow the link to the report and read for yourself. https://www.europol.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/te-sat2011.pdf

I am not going tp pretend that just because we conceal cary that terrorist don't use explosives here, but one has to speculate why the bombings are so low here compared to other countries. I know police are good, but not that good. Take away the guns and bombings start and we still have gun violence, do you think the government will give us back our guns?

No bodies keeping you here, move, GOOD-BYE!!!!

Bytra...I think the situation in Europe and elsewhere is different from the United States...We are at peace...By the way, I appreciate your high caliber style arguments...Thank you.

Wil, first you are welcome. We are here to debate not insult, correct? Seems like both sides have enough folks that can poorly represent the points that could be made.

Now to address your comment. We are at peace, but then again so is Europe. So I don't understand how you intend to contradict my point with the Interpol report which is solely focused on European attacks.

I was curious about your statement about machine guns in Switzerland, Fred, so I quickly googled it...Well, if I read it right, it said that the country does not have a standing army, hence the citizen milita is required to protect their own security...No argument there...This sounds like what the founding fathers had in mind about right to bear arms (muskets)...On the outlying causes of mayhem like movies, video games, absent families, mental illness...We know these exist...but the bottom line is still the easy access to guns.

Oh... so the founding fathers meant only muskets... and that should still mean we only get muskets, right? Did they use the word "Musket" in the amendment? No, you idiot. They understood the populous should have weapons that would allow them to stand up to the tyranny of an armed government, so the citizens need weapons in line with what the military has.

So Willy, as usual you skip the key question. Easy access to guns? So why is it that Switzerland has such a low murder rate? Fewer black and hispanic drug dealers maybe?

Crestor seems to be so blinded by his racist thoughts that he fails to have learned that the majority of all mass murders are done by white angry and paranoid males.

In the 21st Century we need weapons to fight the government??? Give me a break from the paranoia! "Citizens need weapons in line with what the military has." LOL!!!! Hey everyone we all need to get out there and buy tanks and the latest and greatest in boomers. Hey, maybe we can did our ponds deep enough to put battle ships in them too! Geez Crestor, do you touch base with reality much? LOL!!!!!!!

Sorry, Earnest, but that is the intent of the 2nd Amendment. So citizens can protect themselves from their government.

You're the moron Willy.... Typical liberal. You on welfare or SS disabiltiy? Sorry, but it's true... minorities do most of the killing, and they usually kill another minority. Usually over selling drugs. Oh ya, and drugs are banned.

You are a typical liberal moron who can't see the truth in anything. Just looking for more handouts for yourself.

As someone who has bought a gun at a gun show I can assure you that you still go through exactly the same background check system when you buy a gun at a store. Internet purchases require shipment to someone with a Federal Firearms License, and then going through the same process as an in store purchase. The only thing that I am not sure about is state-to-state transfers, and that is simply because that has never been a concern for me, but I would have to imagine that the process is largely the same.

While I think that it is by and large un-necessary for people to get "certified" in the safety procedures of each type gun, and would not have made any difference in this situation, it is defiantly a good idea for people who will buy or use a firearm to know how to safely use them. I know whenever I take someone shooting for their first time with one of my guns I always have a sit-down safety lesson with them for each gun they will use first.

Also this is not always the case, but when I took my PA hunter safety course years ago the instructors DID do an in depth safety procedure for several different types of common firearms. Maybe everyone should just take the hunter safety course.

that is a good start. I also think people who own guns should be required to carry specific liability insurance to cover any harm caused by the guns, and any gun not reported as stolen but turns up in a crime should be a felony charged to the owner. Make gun owners be uber responsible for their guns. Start with personal responsibility and put some teeth in these regulations.

You still haven't explained why you need a rifle like that.

There is a huge difference between a want and a need. The definition of Selfish would describe those who demand their personal wants over a collective need that would add to the safety and security of the citizens of our country.

In knowing one's constitutional rights one would also fully understand that it does not provide or guarantee unfettered individual liberty and that reasonable limits can be imposed. Example: We have freedom of speech however, it is illegal to yell fire in public places such as a theater etc.

The constitutional vision of the Preamble of the Constitution clearly balances the blessings of liberty with domestic tranquility and it is the domestic tranquility that has increasingly been violated and threatened by the NRA and gun lobbyists who spend a great deal of money and time promoting a false interpretation of our Constitution and the Second Amendment. There answer to everything is nothing less than a return to the old Wild West where everyone carried a gun and ignoring the history of how that didn't work then and will not ever work if our country is to be safe and secure for all citizens.

Yeah Devon he has explained why he needs it....

Lets stop the attacks on contraception and the morning after pills and stop the pregnancies before they occur so we don't have to abort unwanted pregnancies-no woman should have to carry a pregnancy to term if she is raped and no woman should be asked to justify ending a pregnancy if her life is at risk. Just like no one has the right to take away your gun, women have inalienable rights too, and her body is her body to do with as she wants.

I read your petition. You are a fool. You are calling for illegal violations of Constitutional rights, and must have gotten your facts from "somewhere on the internet". I know there will be fools like you that will sign it, but not many. Luckily, your kind don't usually have much clout. Enjoy your continued anonymity.

Repeal the 2nd amendment? Are you serious? I think you should probably leave NOW!!! you new york pansy ass, sucking on bloomburgs ass....

I don't know what you mean by "AR-type rifles", but if that includes semi-automatic guns or large magazines, they may be legal now but not forever. Until then, enjoy!

And please keep them in a secure gun safe to keep them from getting into the wrong hands.

I hear ya bud. Why do we keep blaming the object?! Gun control DOES.NOT.WORK! These people calling for it have never heard of Dr. John Lott, Dr. Susanna Gratia-Hupp...they refuse to pay attention to the facts that fewer guns do nothing to solve the problem of killings. Keep fighting the god fight my friend.

Glad to hear your guns are protected in your house - good move!

Was your weapon legal during the period when the "assault weapon" (I don't like the term, either!) ban was in force a few years ago?

Your enjoyment doesn't count for much in the big scheme of things. Time to get a different hobby.

Micky , well put, maybe Nazaretti should give up her vehicals ,because their are more deaths by auto than fiearms.Then Kitchen knives ,kids baseball bat, knitting needles. OK hammers , screwdrivers ect.

Nancy Lanza was a rare exception. Far more people are murdered with knives each year, per FBI stats.

Banning violent video games is a no brainer. I made commentary prior that these mass shootings didn't occur a generation ago. Just occured to me ....Assault weapons were available years back. Violent video games were not . To think there is no connection we are kidding ourselves. If we ban assault weapons and not violent videos the Kooks will get a single shot rifle and go human hunting anyway. It took the police 20 minutes to respond to the Newton , Ct. incident. How many people could Lanza have killed with a single shot rifle in that time span ???? Answer..Just as many !!!
Banning assault weapons or any gun prohibition will not work .

Would love to see less violent video games and parents with the backbone to tell their kids "NO! We are not buying games that glorify violence and desensitize children to violence!"

Knives have legitimate civilian uses, but semi-automatic weapons do not.

Says who? Many people who use them for hunting would disagree. Perhaps you are a vegaterian, which is great, but not everyone is. Perhaps you like stamp collecting, but others like hunting and target shooting.

You need a semi-automatic to hunt and target shoot? How many shots do you need? Weird.

Nazaretti, was it not you who stated on 11:48 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012 “I don't know what you mean by "AR-type rifles", but if that includes semi-automatic guns or large magazines, they may be legal now but not forever. Until then, enjoy! “? Well then, by definition just about every gun is a semi-automatic weapon except single load black power guns like the musket that our forefathers used. I know you first response will be “but the goal is only semi-automatic military type rifles.”, but when that ban fails the next ban will be all rifles and when that ban fails then it will be semi-automatic pistols and then when that ban fails then it is the ban on semi-automatic revolvers and then the only thing left is the single load black powder rifles, thus full filling your statement which I am sure will make you and all anti-gun screaming idiots happy. But ban the guns and nothing will get accomplished, that much I can promise. When all guns are banned and we still have gun violence, will you anti-gun people finally relent and say we were wrong, I doubt it very much. Will you klet us have our guns back? That is doubtful also, besides at that point our government will then have already been given the power to become tyrannical since there will be nothing to stop it at that point. Think I am crazy? Then why not look at history and tell me history doesn’t have this bad habit of repeating itself.

That is what we really need, Peace on earth goodwill toward men,
We should bring back GOD into our schools, and hearts, stop the bullying in the schools ,teach are children love ,not hatred, .
I'm not sure what ,but something is missing in our sociity ,we need old fashion values back ,

Get a grip on yourself Wilfredo. Despite your concerns, this country in this century has never been more safe and secure.

Just look at average life expectancy. If Social Security were originally being designed today, the first payment would be at around age 83. Payout being based on expected lifespan.

The age of bHo, may change my optimistic attitude, but not today. Not on the celebration of Christ's birth.

Merry Chistmas to you and your's.

Yes, enforcement of existing gun laws needs to be much, much tighter.
We should also rethink how we diagnose and treat people going through mental illnesses.
The media need to consider their saturation with "ultra violence", as well.

Actually Bill we have some pretty strict drunk driving laws on the books. It's pretty costly if you're caught. Not so with guns, Pa. has among the least restrictive laws in the country.

God bless you Mr Bill B. Drunk drivers kill more, but the press focuses only on the guns.

Cars don't kill, only those driven by drunks do.

The 2nd Amendment needs a rewrite...I would add to arms "pistols only" for individuals outside militia (I would repeal the Amendment altogether if I could)...That should take care of the arguments on weapons of mass destruction everyone is talking about.

Alcohol is physically addicting for many people, while gun ownership is not. Drunk driving and other alcohol-related problems are huge issues, but of a totally different nature than gun violence.

The fact that there are many different social problems should not stop us from working on any single one of them.

The fact that a problem is difficult should not stop us from working on it.

@William G Salcedo Sr Fine you want to ban guns then lets also ban cigarettes, alcohol, pain medication, sharp knives, bats, chains, chemicals, etc becauce all these things will kill you or others. If guns are gone then the criminals will use knives, then once knives are gone they will use pipes, bats, etc. Then after they are banned the might use cars to run people down or chains or acid to throw on people. Outlawing guns is not going to solve the problem because bad guys will still have them and even if you can get rid of all guns bad guys will use other weapons. A bat is the number one weapon of choice for bad guys and that comes from the FBI. Maybe we should tell the kids they cannot play baseball anymore because some scumbag uses a bat in a crime. New York and New Jersey have the strict gun laws in the Nation but have higher crime rates than states that have very lose gun laws like Pennsylvania. I am just thankful you will never be in congress. Want to know which weapon I could kill more people with at close range IE less than 10 meters. Hint its not a rifle. So banning assault like weapons will not solve anything. I say assault like weapons because the .223 Bushmaster is not a assualt weapon because its not fully automatic. The shooter in the Sandy hook massacre had two handguns that were able to hold 13 rounds in each. I can fire off 13 rounds in less than 10 seconds and reload another clip in another 2 seconds. A.45 handgun is more deadly than a .223 bushmaster

Joseph, you need to pull a few zeroes out of the DUI number. Every statistic I've seen puts the figure around 10,000 to 11,000.

Er, yeh, more like 10,000, right in line with murders due to gun violence. 31% of all traffic deaths. Let's get our numbers right.

This claim of how "good law abiding citizens would be punished" because they could no longer buy guns that are made for the purpose of war to kill as many people as possible and rip them to shreds is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard. Further, to go on as some do as how this would only "hurt law abiding citizens" is equally ridiculous. A little more paper work, a few more days wait to get the gun you want to purchase. Geesh! What a horrible imposition! Seems to me that those of you who are making these ridiculous whiny arguments should visit with the families of the innocent that have been murdered and explain to them how difficult your life will be because guns made for war are no longer available for purchase and how you may have to wait a few days to purchase your guns, while background checks are run. Those making these arguments need a serious reality check. What's more important after all, a human beings life or a little extra paper work and waiting time?

Ok so if guns were banned they would of just used something else, like a knife!!! You really should use your head and think. If people wanna kill they are going to no matter what is banned....

Just think for a second...If your are assaulted with a knife, wouldn't you be able to defend yourself a lot better?..This rationale is so moronic to me...Studies after studies have shown that having a gun at home does more harm than good.

If someone used a double sided 12 inch knife to attack someone the victim would not be able to defend themselves. They would die a slower and more painful death than getting shot with a .45 cal handgun. Another thing most knife attacks happen from behind and are very fast. The weapon that is used most in domestic fights is a knife not a gun. Maybe we should ban all knives except butter knives according to your rationale. Cars are the deadliest weapon created ever. More deaths worldwide and in the US have been attributed to cars than guns and knives put together. You only want to ban guns because you don't own one. I'll agree to ban guns if we also get to ban alcohol, cigarettes, cars, pain medications, bats, and other toxic chemicals. I don't have a need for anyone of those things just like you don't have a need for guns.

To bill burr...Maybe you missed that article on the Chinese who attacked a dozen or so children at a school with a knife...No kid died...The Newtown, CT kids (20 of them) didn't have a chance...My point here is the capacity of the knife v. gun to create havoc...You want to ban knives?..Let's see you cut a tomato with a multiclipped assault weapon, hey make that a peashooter...Ban cars?..Let's see you get your groceries with a .45...Among the articles you mentioned to be banned, those are all useful items (you have the option of not using them) but guns, to me are not as important in our daily lives, except for the selfish reason of the pleasure of hunting/shooting range activities (I must repeat, useless in self defense...I have seen well-armed cops die from gunfights)...Well, that selfishness has caused many innocents dying from them...Yes, sir, I have survived all this time without the services of a gun...If I had one all those years, I don't know what could have happened to me or my family, like those I read in the paper yesterday of murder suicides, not to mention news articles on horrible accidents involving children playing with them...GUNS DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD...Have a good day.

@Wil, You still can't argue against the fact that first, all the mass shootings that have taken place since 1950 have taken place in gun free zones meaning that the killers are smart enough to know that at a gun free zone they will not be opposed. Conclusion to be drawn here is that although guns will always be around even if they are banned to the masses that own them responsibly and the mass killers will now have one large gun free zone to work in unopposed. Second, all these mass killer have been psychotic on top of being intelligent and they can use the internet to learn how to make their own bomb such as Timothy McVeigh or worse yet Sarin gas as was done in the Japan subway attack by Shoko Asahara in 1995. Finally here in America we don’t have bomb attacks like the rest of the world does and if these crazy but intelligent killers can’t get hold of a gun, they will start making bombs and using them since their goal is to make the front page of the papers to outdo the last mass murderer. The last thing I want to see is America have masses dying from bombs.

Let’s address the real problems not the political agenda. Mental illness, glorifying violence, a society that lost its moral values and finally making heroes out of these killers by giving them so much press.

Hi, bytra...Tackling all the problems you suggested need fixing: movies, video games, moralities...we still have one huge remaining thorn in the process: GUNS...People with less discriminating understanding of what they are exposed to usually act them out in real life with guns...Violent movies, video games, poor upbringing (including the church) all end up with the common denominator of a powerful killing object...Somebody suggested banning knives, cars, bats because these also are killing machines...My take on this idea, however, is that these articles have utilitarian values compared to guns...I have enumerated my dislikes for this item in previous comments...I remain unconvinced on the opposing views...On gun-free zones, I wish there are no guns available for bad guys as well as for the good guys, then this won't be any problem.

Wil, unfortunately, there have been guns long before our country was ever established and only recently has guns become a problem. So, to ignore the issue of gun free zones being primary targets of mass murderers and calling for gun elimination stands in the face of reason. Great example would be the theater shooter in Colorado. This guy had nine theaters to choose from for his act but he choose the one theater furthest from him since it was the only gun free zone theater near his home. Would he have reconsidered his act should all of the theaters allowed guns? I doubt it, but taking into account the statistics of gun ownership in Co., chances are there would have been ten to twenty people with guns in a theater with three hundred people that could have stopped him before he killed as many people as he did. And since guns have only become such a problem in our country recently (last twenty years or so) we must look at society and what has changed there rather than look at guns and say that is our problem.

to be continued...

Continued...
And I must ask you, what does the farmer do if his guns are taken away? Farmers use guns more than anybody in our society does for utility work. What for you ask? Groundhogs for sure, they walk their fields all summer long with semi-automatic rifles plucking away at the groundhogs that dig holes in their fields which holes can create severe damage to the farmer’s harvesting equipment. Besides groundhogs, the farmers must protect his herds from the coyotes. For the last three consecutive years, the farm behind my property has suffered packs of over thirty coyotes broking into the cow barn and killing a cow before the farmer and his family can get out there with their semi-automatic rifles and kill as many of the coyotes as they can before they run off across the fields into the adjoining woods. Are we to deny these hard working people their right to protect their flocks and their fields from critters that run wild?

Banning guns is not the solution to the problem people. I say again, let’s address the real problems, not the political agenda.

Lets see you survive a break in where a armed drug addict is looking for things to steal to get his fix on and you wake up and try to stop him. The only thing he is thinking about is getting more drugs. You will be dead. Need proof look up the stories about the little old ladies who were killed buy gun toting drug addicts. Your insane if you think banning something works. Hows it working for drugs??? If we ban guns the bad guys will still have them because they will be able to make money off them just like drugs. Have a nice dice go back to yuor dream world and your John Lennon songs!!!!

Why don't you go back 2 years to 2010 where in China a knife yielding man killed 20 children and wounded more than 50 people. I can play that game too. So your point is BS because knives are just as dangerous especially in the hands of people who know how to use them. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/china-school-attack_n_2298430.html

Lets hear more of your dribble.

How do people get heroin or cocaine??? Hasn't that stuff been made illegal for almost 80 years??? What about pot???? How did the ban on alcohol work during the 1930's???? When you ban something bad guys see a opportunity to make money and the blood shed becomes an eppidemic. Prohibtion was the bloodiest time in America in the last 150 years. The ban on drugs has caused violence to increase. What do you think the ban on guns will do????? Why is that states that allow their private citizens to carry concealed weapon have lower crime rates than states that restrict the 2nd ammendment. Which state has higher crime New Jersey or Pennsylvaina???? You are living in your own little dream world. I have my Concealed weapons permit, I feel and know that I am safe walking down the street whether its 12 pm or 12 am!!! I served 5 years in the Marines and I will never ever give up my gun. People like you simply want to tell everyone what to do but did not earn the right to do anything.

To bytra...No one is taking away the farmers' or hunters' guns away (I just hope they never use machine guns to impale the animals, because that's overkill)...Owning guns in metro areas where there are to no pesky animals to kill your herds is impractical...In New York City, gun control is very strict and there crime rate is no worse than some rural areas...In that Colorado theatre, in one of my comments, I surmised the danger of more people shooting the perpetrator with their own guns, reminding folks what happened in Rockefeller Center when cops tried to subdue a crook, but then hit several bystanders instead...Not a good idea at all.

To bill burr, what we are comparing here is the capacity to kill...You want to go back 2 years?..Well, how about we go back to Columbine, VTech, Arizona, Binghamton, Aurora and now Newtown!...How many people were killed during these assaults, not with a knives but with guns...Want more dribble (drivel, you mean), how about those poor firemen who were ambushed in New York while responding to an arson set by the killer who said he wanted to kill more with his gun (not with his knives)...When was the last time you defended yourself against your hypothetical "imaginary" drug dealer? (Facts only, please)...I can concoct some scenarios here where gun-toting honchos get ambushed..In fact this actually happened to a gun-loving family in Chicago whose members got ambushed in the side walk.

THIS JUST IN: My wife just came home from lunch with her friend and started telling me about her friend's sister's ghastly demise...Her sister died of a gunshot wound coming from a nearby gun IN A PURSE which accidentally discharged...What did I say?..Guns are more trouble than they are worth.

To WIl, the problem is you say now nobody is taking away farmers or hunters guns now but when the first gun ban doesn’t work, then the next ban will be promoted. And then the next and the next one after that because banning guns is not the answer to the problem, it is only the first step for a tyrannical government to enslave its people. Don’t think our government is becoming more tyrannical every day? What about all the laws that are now being passed that exclude the ruling elites? Not enough for you to say the government is becoming tyrannical? What about the senate passing into law warrantless wiretapping (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/28/congress-approves-warrantless-wiretapping-program/). What about the arrest and indefinite detention of citizens without access to lawyers with the NDAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012).
to be continued...

Continued
As for the NYC cops in Rockefeller Center, just another classic example of police not receiving proper training and being well practice in the use of their weapon. Let us n ot forget, Oregon mall shooter stopped by confrontation by a conceal carry holder who did not shoot because his training told him that the area behind the killer was not cleared of innocent bystanders. But the fact that the killer committed suicide rather than confront a conceal carry holder tells you everything you need to know, while he was unrestricted, he was killing, confronted but less than equal power (hand gun vs. his rifle) he gave up quickly and committed suicide.

Bytra...It is a well known fact that the reason the NRA is vehemently opposed to gun control is because of the reason you just indicated, that if the assault rifle is banned, then the whole kaboodle is up shit creek (the peashooters to nuclear arsenals)...I do hope that this could happen but it is just a pipe dream of mine...Consequently, we should expect more mass killings, if not domestic violence, the gun culture in America!..The NRA and its supporters are happy with that...It's money in the bank.

Once you have your gun-related death rate down to less than 5% of the US rate, you can start looking at other risk factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

@Nazaretti, Nazaretti, your own chart shows that deaths by gun in homicides (the main problem we should be focused on here) is only 3.7 % of all homicides. Almost twice as many will commit suicide by gun than are murdered by guns and those committing suicide will do it either with a gun or some other way so the gun is not the key to the problem there considering of all suicides, only 6.1% are by gun. So 3.7% of homicides are by gun which says guns are not the primary weapon of choice for murder meaning maybe we need to either ban the primary weapon of choice for homicide or since we are trying to discuss how to lower murder rates by guns, evaluate how is killing by guns. Well the primary focus was on mass murders and they are done by intelligent nut cases. Why not get the nut cases mental health??? What murder from illegal guns? All should be able to agree that this is statistically an area where a real gun problem arises. Do you really think banning guns will lower this statistic? If you do, I want to meet your dealer since he is selling you some stuff that is poison for sure and he could be selling that stuff to the local school kids which we really need to address. No Nazaretti, banning guns will resolve nothing for the responsible gun owners other than make them victims of their own government.

BytraWatches,
You are misreading the chart. This chart shows the annual US homicide rate is about 4 per 100,000. A few minutes of internet searching, shows that the annual US "homicide by gun" rate is about 3 per 100,000.

I agree that our mental health system needs a thorough rethink.

I have never proposed banning all guns. Practically nobody advocates this, so your (and other gun advocates') repeated assertion of this is a propaganda "straw man", apparently an excuse to avoid addressing the "assault weapon" issue.

Nazaretti, both you and Wil talk out of both sides of your mouth, saying what lies you have to tell to fit the response you want. One post you say no, we don't want all the guns and the next it is all guns should go. so I said it once and I will say it again, was it not you who stated on 11:48 am on Sunday, December 23, 2012 “I don't know what you mean by "AR-type rifles", but if that includes semi-automatic guns or large magazines, they may be legal now but not forever. Until then, enjoy! “? Well then, by definition just about every gun is a semi-automatic weapon except single load black power guns like the musket that our forefathers used. Yep post different things too many times and you will be caught up in your own lies!!!

So it is not the gun, the gun is not the problem? So it is the person holding the gun, right? Maybe There are lots of guns in Canada and Switzerland and the killing rate is not as high. So let's only allow Canadians and the Swiss to have guns. We need to get them out of the hands of the angry white americans.

Did he use an assault weapon to save his life? Practically no one is proposing to ban all guns.

Or you, for not watching where you step?

Hysterical Nazaretti.

Euge...We know the answer. When people walk their dogs past my house I watch to see if the owner picks up the dog poo . If they dont I yell some choice obcenities at them for not being a responsible dog owner. people need to be held accountable for their actions.

You seem to have difficulty staying on topic; a touch of ADHD perhaps? Alcohol, cigarettes, pain medication and knives are different issues - interesting in their own right, but unrelated to assault weapons.

Let's ban assault weapons. Let's also look very closely at our mental health system and at violence in the media, to see if there are opportunities to reduce our homicide rate.

@Nazaretti All you have are insults. I think the reason you have a problems with guns is that you aren't allowed to own one maybe because you're mentally insane or a felon which one??? You keep talking about guns when there are other things that cause more deaths each year. Why is that??? I bet because you're probably the type of person who starts drinking at 8 am and thinks they should be able to smoke where ever whenever. People like you disgust me!!!

Gun control does work evidenced by the arrest of the NY straw purchaser, and people in Phoenixville are arrested every year for attempting to buy guns they are not legally entitled to own. The CT women was murdered before her guns were stolen, so not fair to blame her. Vastly more people are killed by knifes than rifles of all types, and no amount of spin will ever bring those folks back. A very small percentage of murders are committed with the fake 'assault' rifles sold in the civilian market, so spin away.

Joe, if controls don't work (NRA likes it that way...It does not like any type of control whatsoever so their big business of gun making thrives) then let us not own guns at all...No guns for us, no guns for goons...Leave the guns to the militia, hunters and sportsmen, minus assault weapons...If we continue our misguided ways, we'll just learn to live with daily gun violence.

@ Wilfredo Hey hows the ban on drugs working out???? Do you really think criminals won't get guns if you make them illegal???? Thats funny because machine guns have been illegal for years on end but yet the bad guys seem to still get them year after year. Some people like you base life on theories which will never work in the real world. If you make guns illegal bad guys will make more money selling illegal guns from mexico and other countries just like drugs. Only the bad guys will have guns which will lead to more crime!!! Need proof look at prohibition during the 1920-30's Alcohol was made illegal and yet there was still plenty of it if not more and the bad guys made lots of money and killed at will.

Wil, your stats of lower death rates by gun in other countries holds no water since you ignore the fact that other countries have death by bombings which is something our country doesn’t have. People will continue to kill; their choice of weapon is just a matter of convenience. But they still have gun violence even in the countries where they are supposedly banned. New York City’s statistics on crime say nothing since Chicago has a much stricter gun control laws and yet they are the murder capital of the country. Even Jessie Jacksons admits in the interview I provided the link to that guns are not the problem, its our society. Let me repeat that since I know you ignored it the first time I said it. Even Jackson admits guns are not the problem; the people in our society are the problem. Of course people die every day due to violent acts, but again you only point to guns when in reality, a person is much more likely to die from something other than a gun. Our main stream media wants to brainwash you into thinking guns are the problem (and they did one heck of a job with you) but the reality is they don’t publish reports of the times conceal carry saved the day and it happens more than you know or will admit.
To be continued…

Continued
I offered you a challenge and you failed to meet it. You have no plan, like every gun fearing idiot, on how to remove the guns from the criminal element in society. You believe gun control will magically remove them from society where in fact it will only create a bigger black market that will be responsible for more innocent deaths. You live in a Utopian dream world and have no concept of reality. Continue to ignore facts and push to take peoples guns away and make life more dangerous for everybody else. It’s a fact and should it ever happen, your arrogance will save your conscious of the guilt for the deaths that your actions will be responsible for.

Thats because in other countries lots of crime goes unreported. Have you ever been outside the US??? I feel alot safer in the US than in any other country. We also have the most immigrants, different cultures, and weakest criminal justice system. Want to lower the crime rate in the US make the punishment fit the crime. No more suspended sentences, no more early probation, etc. Reform the prison system so that criminals aren't watching tv and getting 3 square meals a day and lifting weights. Its funny how you interpret statistics. You like to use them when favorable to your view point but when they don't support your views your quick to dismiss them. Theres a reason you spend your life on the computer!!!!

To bill burr - Yeah, been to the North of the Border Canada...You know how it is up there...Much less gun death than here because of good gun laws...Canadians are good sportsmen (gun owners)...They even refer to their Mounties "Fathers with guns"...That's how gentle they are...As for immigrants, we are all immigrants if you know your history much (heck, the white folks shot dead the Indians to settle here)...People come to the U.S. because of its greatness (getting ruined by the gun culture)...You don't like facts/statistics...I did not make those up...You can disagree with them...It's a free country after all...Yeah, I spend some time on the computer on my retirement for enjoyment with social media...If that bothers you, it's your problem...Go ahead enjoy your guns...I just hope, with your cohorts invoking the 2nd Amendment rights, no more mass massacres endure, not our beautiful little ones especially

We are not ALL immigrants. At this point many of us are children, grandchildren and great grandchildren of immigrants. (and proud of it).
Many things are ruining this countries greatness, like it's shift to the left. But this countries "gun culture" is very low on the list of things ruining this country.

Hey Willy, lets ship Canada a bunch of Hispanic gangs and see how their murder rate goes up. Cananda also has strict immigration laws and hasn't been invaded by Mexico. Maybe that's why their murder rate is low?

To Rosemary B - If only the government has the guts to stand up to the powerful NRA and gun lobby, our gun laws should be good enough to decrease senseless deaths by guns (no matter what capacity they have)...How many more innocent children (and adults) have to perish in this manner because of the misinterpreted 2nd Amendment.

And I wish that treatment for mental health problems was more readily available. That would enrich and improve far more lives here in America then gun control.

How is mental health care not available? Do you think the mentally deranged are having trouble finding a doctor in the phone book?

@wilfredo Like I said you use the statistics that help your view point & the statistics that don't support your view point you discredit & throw out. Like the statistic that in 2010 massacres by knives in China killed 20 children & injured 50 more. No guns were used just knives. Guns are banned in China but that doesn't slow down or stop the nuts from committing school massacres. Banning guns will not stop the violence nor will it stop school massacres. Theres a reason nuts attack schools especially elementary schools. One they are gun free zones which makes easy targets and two their victims are mostly women and children from 6 to 8 years old. Nuts pick easy targets as do bad guys. Get that thru your head. Banning guns will not stop school massacres only make them easier for the bad guys to commit. A person can fire over 40 rounds in one minute from one hand gun. A person can shoot roughly 16 shot gun shells filled with buck shot in one minute. The assault like weapon that was used aka the bushmaster .223 can fire probably 60 rounds in a minute. Assualt weapons have been banned you are talking about assault like weapons which means they look like assault weapons. A true assault weapon is fully automatic and can fire double what semi automatic look alikes can. Bad guys use what ever they can to commit their crimes get that thru your head. Timothy McVee killed people with cow shit, drunks kill more people than guns do each year. Go take a yoga class & put the computer down

Bombing deaths are related in this case since take away the guns and they will be replaced as a weapon of convenience by those crazies that kill with guns. What you say as far as people killing more with guns is just not supported by facts. Sorry, but you are not entitled to your own facts, period. Look it up on Wikipedia. It is no harder to buy a gun in NYC than Chicago, check the streets, they are there. And when guns are not available on the streets but people want them, they go outside to get them and then bring them in. Fact brother, ignore it if you want. Suicide by any nature doesn't depend on choice of method, if determined, a person will kill themselves regardless of method which means suicide by guns has no bearing in gun control. Conceal carry stories are found only in local media, MSM will not publish because it goes against their cause to ban guns. Just like we all know about the pickup shopper in Weis Market defending himself after some punk kid tried to shot in a robbery attempt because the local papers such as the Pocono Record carried the story, MSM never would pick this type of story up, but the stories are out there across the country and that doesn't cover the stories of people like my friend.
To be continued…

Continued
He was accosted outside of CVS in Wind Gap by a wanna-be robber who ended up running since my friend pulled his concealed weapon and defended himself and he never bothered to report the incident to the police since the police would do nothing anyway in this case. How many people are in such a scenario and never will report it since that don’t want the media attention since the media will make them out to be the villain with a gun. NRA brainwashing barely touches on the MSM brainwashing since the NRA is only one against the masses of the MSM. Your “plan” of leaving the guns with the hunters / farmers and trusting the government to implement such a plan does not address at all my challenge of removing the guns from the criminal element. As I stated in my original challenge, government has yet to be able to remove guns from the criminal element. So why should we ban guns from the responsible owners when there is no plan at all to remove the guns the guns from the criminal element. I am supposed to wait for a cop to help me when I can help myself, is that it? Hello, the average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes, the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second. So yes, until you can meet the challenge and not live in your Utopian world, are as defined.

I have an idea! lets just redo our entire constitution and completely take away all of our freedoms and liberty. You, sir are intitled to your opinion. The problem with what you said and I quote "lets redo the second amendment". I Really honestly do not believe that this would be that easy, or someone would have done it already. The government has cut health spending over and over for mental health. Maybe should re-do the one that governs freedom of speech so that we all can keep our opinions to ourselves. Again the constitution is not something to RE-DO.

Actually Tracy, it is. The 13th amendment freed slaves, the 15th gave slaves the right to vote, the 19th gave women the right to vote. We have, many times in our past revised the constitution when we saw fit to.

Politicians amend laws constantly...What's stopping them to re-do the 2nd Amendment...We know all too well that when the Founding Fathers said "arms", they did not have any clue to what this could become...What's wrong with modifying that contentious terminology with "no assault weapons allowed"...As for abortions, the last time I looked, it is legal in Roe v Wade...Well let's re-do that too if it bothers you.

Willyl Salsa... again... with your profound stupidity. The founding fathers added the 2nd amendment to guard against a tyrannical government.. and allowed the people to obtain and keep the sidearm equal to what the army could have. In this case WE HAVE ALREADY given up something, as we can't have weapons with select fire, like the government can.... chop chop chop me up some salsa.... quite wasting your time posting, you're clueless.

I must have sent my reply to another location, but thanks for this enlightenment, Nazaretti...I am not a legal expert but can't we just have the words "No assault weapons" on the 2nd Amendment to be added by the proper authorities, either by Congress or the Supreme Court?..This could easily fix the contentious arguments on this topic.

Willy Salsa... this speaks volumes about you. You have no idea what it takes to amend or delete or add an amendment... "Can't congress just add this". You are a true libtard, with no idea how this country works. What do you think this is, Mexico?

Here's a lil reading for you, have you heard about this?

http://godfatherpolitics.com/8703/death-penalty-would-have-saved-lives-of-ny-firemen/

This man used a gun to kill the firemen.

Willy Salsa... since the Newtown shooting, 1000, including little ones, have died from drunk driving. Wanna ban drinking?

Before you call me a simpleton, I suggest you look yourself in the mirror...It was there on Fox News and all other newscasts that a lady bought the weapon(s) for him LEGALLY, Mr. Smart ass!..Moral: No more guns.

Maybe you should retire from the computer too, He still obtained them illegally...
And correction my friend you may be an immigrant since you're old, but I was born here.... Don't get all that cowboy and Indian shit twisted, this land was definitely large enough for all of them, the Indians weren't all innocent..... And it wouldn't surprise me any that the schools have been lying about that, they rewrite history on a daily basis... Remember this, since it's on the internet it must be true!!!(Sarcasm)

Obviously, you have a lot of catching up on history...Have you ever heard of the early settlers, bringing diseases with them, killing the Native Americans with them, then either shooting them or making them work as slaves...You claim you were born here...Again, brush up on your heritage...The only original "Americans" are the Indians...The rest are immigrants or their descendants...But before we digress, this argument is about guns...You said you piece and I said mine.

Willy Salsa... of course you support illegals... and all the crime they bring. Just look at Allentown... destroyed by legal and illegal immigrant crime. In fact, you can show a direct correlation between minorities and murder, far stronger than the correlation between guns and murder. Is this a good reason to ban minorities? Oh... most minorities are law abiding? Sure... so are most gun owners. But this makes little difference to you and your simpleton logic.

"Well regulated" is an interesting part of that quote. If I move in next to you, buy a tank and point it at your house, would you complain? I'm guessing you would, there are rational, logical, sensible limits and restrictions. I think we can all agree on that.

"The criminals will ignore it"... So if I understand your argument, we should never pass any laws since lawbreakers won't abide by them? The criminally insane should have easier access to both healthcare and guns?

Our right to bear arms is protected by the constitution. Our right to Mental Health care is not. Most of these mass murders are committed by people in need of medical help. If your goal here is to save people you are better off helping them live healthy lives and having healthy relationships then you are restricting everyone's guns.

Actually mental health is protected by doctor patient privilege. You're suggesting impinging on a person's right to privacy, is that a right you personally are willing to give up? Your medical records being public knowledge? It's funny the extent we'll go to protect our own rights to guns while suggesting others give up their rights. Interesting.

Saving people isn't my goal, my goal is that anyone who wants to possess a weapon capable of killing be subjected to a test and mental health exam to demonstrate they are capable of using it without malice. Why that is such a problem for gun owners is still lost on me.

I don't want people's right to privacy infringed upon at all. I just think that if treatment for mental health issues was more mainstream and more readily available that would improve people's lives and save far more people than gun control would.

I just don't see the point of eliminating the tool to kill with from a whole society if you do not do something to try and eliminate the sick desire to kill that a few in society have.

Actually gun "control" doesn't mean gun "banning". I wish I could have this conversation in which that was understood, there is a difference. Just like DUI laws don't ban cars. I still get to drive, just not drunk, oh, and I have to take a test (written and physical) to prove I have the skills and know how.

There is already gun control. Their are 300 major state and federal laws. How many more do we need?

The "law abiding" mother (who was a 'prepper') of a son with many challenges legally purchased all the guns her son used to murder her, young tots, and school personal. She also as a "law abiding" citizen taught her son how to use those guns, even though he had so many challenges. Both clearly had access to mental healthcare. - The only thing missing that would have prevented so many deaths is the elimination of rapid fire weapons made for war, with the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible by ripping them to shreds.

Maybe you should have a face to face meeting with the parents of those babies that were not even recognizable after being sprayed with bullets how hurtful it would be for the law abiding to not be able to buy the type of war guns that didn't give their children a chance of surviving.

We have guns laws, except that they are not getting implemented vigorously...It's a huge mistake to let the ban on assault weapons expire years ago.

Willy Salad.... you have no idea what you are talking about. Tell me one gun law we have that is not enforced.

There are well over 300 gun laws on the books. I'm thinking guns are controlled enough already!

I the shooter needs to be helped not eliminated.

One more time, slowly...It is easier to get rid of the metallic, inanimate object than to get rid of the living, breathing flesh and blood human being (You ma'am don't need any help)...Nobody is suggesting people to be eliminated, just the stupid guns.

Or better yet... stupid people... better start hiding....

Yes, that's probably the best thing I've heard this whole damn argument......

Rosemary,
What would you eliminate from the school curriculum to make way for gun lessons?

I agree with you that we need to take a serious look at improving access to mental health care. I would also love to see the entertainment industry self-regulate the content of violence in the media.

I would make it part of physical education. Isn't Rifle shooting considered a sport in the Olympics?

Rosemary B, back some time ago my high school had a mandatory class called safety education, which covered a broad spectrum of things from driver safety to designing your family basement as a boom shelter, just in case PA was nuked. Included in that course was a section on "hunters safety" where we all learned how to be safe hunters and not accidentally shoot our fellow hunters. Of course I grew up in an area of PA where hunting was very popular, so it made sense. However, I disagree with your idea of teaching the proper use and safety of firearms because of the 2nd amendment unless it was purely an elective as I would only give permission for my children to take a course such as that if they intended to hunt... not for sport, but for the intention of food.

Then again you have to consider the fact that in this day and age the wisdom of having fire arms and ammunition in a building full of raging hormones and kids who have know idea why they do what they do. Ask a teenager why they did something and 9 times out of 10 they will say "I don't know."

Seems to me that if parents their children to learn the proper use and safety of firearms, then they should do that on their own. Why should the tax payers cover the cost of that kind of a course offering when it has nothing to do with the ability to get into college, technical school, or find a job.

We teach sex ed in schools and it has nothing to do with the ability to get into college, technical school, or find a job. I'm just thinking it might cut down on accidental shootings and give people respect for the weapon. That it is not a toy. Also, I believe schools should spend more time teaching about the Bill of Rights and I think this goes hand in hand with that belief.

@Nazaretti why would it matter the Government School system is a joke anyway, that's the only downfall that wonderful program would have a bunch of libs teaching it, so we know that would never happen.....

I totally agree. This is the root of the problem that has to be fixed. The massacres are a tragic symptom might then be averted.

And if there were multiple intruders, she would have been in serious trouble. If anti-gunners had their way this story could have had an entirely different outcome.

Rosemary B - when you decide to take up the sport of shooting either for fun or self defense, be sure to learn all of the law applicable in your state of residence. Many ranges offer gun rentals so you can find the one that is right for you. Training is also available at these ranges by NRA certified instructors. There are many web sites by and for women shooters. If you want any advice, let me know. I have nearly 47 years of safe gun handling experience (since I was 5 years old). Women I work with that have an interest in learning frequently come to me. Good luck and be safe.

Thank you for the education. I will keep your words in mind when I get myself a gun for personal protection.

Let us not forget that the most common rounds used in these so called "powerful assault weapons", the AR-15 and AK-47, are not really powerful at all. The .223 and 7.62 x 39 rounds used in those guns aren't nearly as powerful or fast at the muzzle or at distance than any of the popular calibers used to hunt big game here in Pennsylvania.

In battle, these rounds are more likely to cause injury thereby demoralizing troops and tying up resoursces as injured soldiers need to be tended to. Naturally, in the hands of maniacal criminals these rounds will kill especially when that criminal is unoppossed and has time on his side. That is true of any caliber down to the lowly .22 Long Rifle. And as history points out, maniacal murderers and other criminals can slaughter hundreds, thousands or milliions of innocents without ever pulling a trigger. The common factor in most murders of any kind is that the victims are helpless and penned into "gun free zones".

ha ha ha Rich... what a gun expert you are... the 9mm is more accurate than the .45. What a laugher.... "accurately shoot 9 rounds or less accurately shoot 7" BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH.

In 1989, the State of California banned rifles with military model designations, and declared an intent to allow firearms for sporting use only. California Penal Code paragraph 12275.5, 12276. Such models as are semiautomatic rifles pass the Miller test because they are appropriate for militia use, even though the Armed Forces only use fully automatic machineguns.The use of these rifles in the federal Civilian Marksmanship Program demonstrates their suitability for militia purposes.

Tanks, rockets, and nuclear weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects only arms which one may "keep" and "bear." "The term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense... The term 'arms' would not have included cannons nor other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens." State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980). Semiautomatic firearms have been held as constitutionally guaranteed "arms" under state provisions which were derived from the Second Amendment.

I'm sorry to hear about the lil 1, but ignorance and the lack of common sense is the number 1 killer....

melissa - I'm sorry to hear about what happened to the child. This was totally preventable.

While I respect your choice not to own a firearm, a little bit of common sense and a whole lot of knowledge prevents any type of accident from ever happening. I have had access to firearms since the day I was born, but I was taught at an early age (5) to respect the power of the gun and how to handle them safely. My son, now 18, has learned the same lesson and I have complete trust in him.

Penalizing law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals does not solve problems or reduce crime. Do you believe there would be a different body count if a shooter in a "gun free" zone had three 10 round magazines instead of one 30 round magazine? Do you know that all handgun sales must go through a FFL dealer even at gun shows and that any gun purchase online or across state lines must go through the same process including a background check on the purchaser? Only the sale of long guns can be done face to face; for example, when I sold my old hunting shotgun to someone else to give to his son for hunting. Stop listening to the liberal media's lies and misinformation.

While I do not believe that schools will make teacher gun carrying a requirement, where it is permissible for teacher to do so, accuracy ought to be tested and a standard set. Poor accuracy, especially in a small space like a classroom, could result in shooting the innocent. I also think the carrying teacher should be tested under some stress since accurate shooting at a person firing at you is not as easily achieved as on the target range. I think you have to have been shot at to understand the how it affects you. There is something about the sound breaking snap of bullets going by you that gets a bit unnerving. Even trained police have been known to hit bystanders in gunfights. So let's protect the children really. Teacher with a gun must qualify. Teacher without a gun ought to get raise.

These weapons, no matter what you call them, assault weapon, assault rifle, scary looking black thing, are hardly much deadlier. More powerful calibers are are in the hands of millions of gun owners and are used to hunt big game across North America. It is quite clear what you know about guns is what you have learned from the anti-gun crowd, the media and entertainment.

A far greater massacre happens every day in this country. It is called abortion.

But Moe, abortion is legal...If you are concerned about Roe v Wade, you should start a campaign to repeal it...The rifles sportsmen use are powerful enough to impale a huge animal, a grizzly, moose, wolf?..No need for the scary black thingies (I dread to stay in front of one of those...I have more chances of surviving with a pistol hitting me).

@Wil - Here is something for you to think about in your paranoid little world!!!

Doctors

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is
700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
per year are
120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician
is
0.171

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
Health and Human Services.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now think about this:
Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.
is
80,000,000.

(Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths
per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths
per gun owner
is
.0000188

Statistics courtesy of FBI

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So, statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,
BUT
Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
This means you are over 9,000 times more likely to be killed by a doctor as by a gun owner !!!

To bytra...Bad doctors get sued and deservedly so (one reason medical cost is up)...Accidental gun deaths are preventable (utter carelessness apply)...One accidental death is one too many!..Yes, doctors are optional...You don't have to have one...Also, pay for your own catastrophic illness if you wish to forgo medical insurance (which is also very expensive)...This is Democracy in action...No doctror, no gun...Take your pick...I'll have the doctor anytime...I am not paranoid enough to own a gun...You are...Can't sue the gun manufacturer either, you see...It's a rotten law...And please review your numbers because they differ immensely from mine (I have those posted here somewhere).

@Wil - What country are you living in? The old USA before the progressives started pushing their agenda? Doctors optional? I don't think so. Try refusing medical care for your kid and see what happens these days. And medical insurance optional? Again I don't think so. Remember, under Obamacare, you have to have insurance or you get "fined". Democracy, I don't think so for the last time. This used to be a republic, but not it is a communistic state with a dictator using decrees under the guise of EO. And your stats, provided to you by left wing media which will manipulate anything to attain their agenda.

Wilfredo,I strongly object to your characterization of people who are pro second amendment as paranoid. They are smart responsible people who don't think the wisest thing is to leave the protection of their property and families solely up to the government agencies. They are also people who know their history and are willing to accept the reality that their government might not always be acting in the citizens best interest.

And no one is forcing you too own a gun. But to take that right away from others who see it as a smart responsible thing to do because some people are afraid is ridicules. And suing a gun manufacturer because someone killed innocent children with their gun is also ridicules. If I use my Ford to run over a bunch of kids at a bus stop you can't go and sue Ford!

Very good, Rosemary B.

Little may Wilfredo realize, but lawful gun owners come in many varieties. Male and female, young and old. Former and current military and law enforcement. Doctors. Lawyers. Engineers. EMts and fireman. Just every day people acting in a responsible manner and exercising a right.

A few weeks ago I was leaving the parking lot a CHOP. An older gentleman driving a Porsche was exiting along with me. On that back was a NRA decal. Might this guy have been a doctor at a children's hospital? I'll never know, but he must have been doing something right to be driving a car that probably cost more than my first house.

To Moe and the Porsche-driving MD...Don't get me wrong...Not all NRA guys are gun-crazy...Many of them want sensible gun control.

@ Wil, I initially did not buy my guns out of fear, but rather for enjoyment of the sport of target practice. Now a days with the crazies I no longer go to any public place without my gun since our country has such policies toward mental illness that they prefer a person walk around mentally ill than to institutionalize them even if they demonstrate they potentially can be a danger to themselves or society. Liberals such as yourself have allowed this to happen.
Addressing your comment directly about no one is taking your guns away, you contradict yourself in the next sentence since you want the rapid firing guns removed. I know you are not talking about fully automatic weapons since they have been out lawed for many years and no crimes have been committed by them that I am aware of in twenty years or better. So what you are saying is you want everything but muskets removed from society and in the words of this patriot, go to he11. The second amendment is there for a reason and it is not to protect us from foreign invaders sir.

To be continued...

Continued...
Once again as is typical of liberal misdirection, you attempt to mix apples and oranges in your logic. All product failure examples you noted are due to manufactures failure to produce a quality product. When in reality gun manufactures products are working without defect. The difference sit which you misdirect so you can avoid acknowledging is the difference between ford manufacturing a car with defective brake and that defective vehicle killing someone because the operator cannot control the vehicle vs. ford producing a perfectly good working car but the driver is under the influence and kills someone because the driver is intoxicated with drugs or alcohol or both which then frees the manufacturer from liability.

Go ahead Wil, misdirect and create false arguments, but I am here to expose your falsehoods and the true intentions of gun control.

Rosemary B...You recent being labeled paranoid, and yet you are so unapologetic when you characterized people who voted for Obama weak-minded (retarded?, stupid?..How exactly do you define what you said?)...I see adouble standard here.

bytra...You do know that gun makers are immune from lawsuits...I wonder how those "accident" happened...Some screw loose perhaps or some other defects in the product we are not aware of?..No product is perfect, I think.

And how do the liberals get the blame for the mentally ill walking among us?..Haven't they been with us since Adam and at a time when either party is in control, or is just a convenient accusation of the Democrats for what is remiss in our country...Weren't these poor souls around during the Bushes' time too?..Did the conservatives institutionalize them then?

Finally, your guns...I say again, no one is taking them away from you...My only concern, as well as the gun control concerns are those machine guns (whatever you call them) which are easily available to the public...Can't we all agree that this is a critical part of the gun violence debate?..True or false?

Seriously, Wilfredo, I never (nor would I ever) once called Obama voters stupid or retarded. They are my fellow citizens, though I feel they are grossly misguided. Do not put words in my mouth. It is very rude. It is you who keep insisting that I did!

The way this works is I get to tell you what I meant by my words. You don't get to tell me what I meant. I said exactly what I meant . I said weak minded (not stupid or retarded) And by weak minded I meant easily influenced by the media (which was a question you were asking about in that exchange), which I feel they were and still are.

To Rosemary B...As you blatantly labeled us Obama voters weak-minded, I feel I must send it back to you and those who did not vote for him...Fair is fair.

As for your being paranoic, LaPierre came out to say "jack-booted government thugs are coming for your right to bear arms" or something to that effect...Millions of his followers agreed...This fear is embedded in the NRA's message...This is not a characterization of your group...It's a fact!..The government is there to secure the nation and its people and not for any of us to take it down, just like those crazies in Idaho or somewhere who are planning to do so...NRA and company keep saying gun controls of any sort do not work...Well, they will work if we give it a chance...The president hasn't even come out to state the programs and the NRA is already there for combat...Did I mention many members now are getting on board with the president...That's smart-mindedness...Wake up, people...NO JACK-BOOTED GOVT THUG IS TAKING YOUR PISTOLS AWAY, JUST YOUR HIGH CAPACITY, RAPID FIRING CONTRAPTION...Have no fear.

Melissa, you act as if this is the first violent video game ever made. Like the NRA is blazing some new trail in violent games for our kids. Have you been to a Game Stop lately? Do you know or parent any teenage boys? The effort it takes to keep these violent games out of our house is enormous when all I hear is "but every body else plays them!". We are a gun owning and 2nd amendment supporting family, but I don't think violent video games help in raising compassionate kids. They do what they were made for the US Military to do. Desensitize people to violence. But that is not the NRA's fault. They are just giving society what it seems to want and buys up. Just like the tragedy in Newtown was not the NRA's fault. It was the fault of the person who pulled the trigger. I don't think the NRA should have made this APP or should be promoting it, but to show such outrage at this APP but not at the violent gaming industry is very hypocritical.

Ed Rendell: 'Good Thing About Newtown Is It Was So Horrific'

Liberals are twisted people.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/11/Ed-Rendell-The-good-thing-about-Newtown-is-it-was-so-horrific-it-galvanized-our-side

Well done Moe. Fast Eddie and bHo should be ashamed to be using the tragedy in CT to promote their radical socialist agenda. Like Rham famously said, don't let a good crisis go to waste.

Melissa, pull yourself together. Biden just met with the makers of violent video games and unbelievably found them not to be a factor in this country's culture of violence. You can't have it both ways.

I say ban violent video games. They screw with the minds of young people. Guns don't kill people, screwed up sick whack jobs do.

Bring back insane asylums. Lots of jobs and tragically disturbed people off the streets.

Yikes!!!This can't be good for their agenda.

STOP THE VIOLENCE AGAINST PAPER!

The author of the article and those that repeat have demonstrated their ignorance once again.

The targets are not "coffins". They are silhouettes in the approximate form of a bad guy. Commonly used by law enforcement and the military for training and any gun owner that trains for self defense.

Teaching young children safe firearms handling is a priority among all responsible firearm owning parents. Teaching them early to respect the power of the gun, how to handle them safely and that they are not toys eliminates curiousity and prevents accidents. I learned myself at 5 year of age and I taught my son when he was that old. I have home movies from 1966 of myself playing with the toy guns my parents bought me for Christmas.

A game that simulates shooting at paper targets is nothing like the bloody, graphic and realistic video games and other "entertainment" the NRA spoke out against.

Whoop de do. when i was a kid we played army and cops and robbers all the time we used realistic looking cap guns. then we went inside and watched elmer fudd try to blow bugs bunnys head off. None of us grew up to be mass murderers. I think 99.9 percent of people know the difference between real and make believe.

Yep, I played cops and robbers and army too and watched those terribly violent Three Stooges in addition to being able to shoot real .22 caliber rifles. I'm not a mass murderer either. In fact, I hold a critical position at a job that keeps PA's largest city running day to day.

C'mon, man...You know very well what I mean...I just come up with strange terminologies often which are technically incorrect but serves the message of what I am trying to deliver (High capacity magazines is what I was looking for)...Believe it or not, I am on top of this disgusting topic of gun violence...I still can't see why so many of the gun lovers are against these sensible gun safety programs being suggested by our leaders...So, sir, why don't you join the rest of us and other NRA members who like what's being proposed?..Don't be obstinate.

Now I heard everything.

If the goal is "if it would prevent even one death it is something we should try it" then there are much bigger fish to fry that would be much more effective at preventing death. That is why the comparisons are made.

I don't believe that any children of any President are "fair game" as used by the NRA. This country always protects our President their families as well as others who are in positions of high leadership in the United States. We do this because they receive regular death threats. To compare the protection of any of our Presidents children to everyone else's children is ridiculous.

Also, Sidley Friends School is a Private school and not subject to the same regulations as public schools by the individual States.

As the President stated, he has recommended that Congress make it easier for schools to have armed guards if their communities choose to do so.

Your first mistake was reading "Think Progress"

And which of his currently proposed changes would have prevented this from happening?

"Assault weapon" don't exist, that term is a media invention. The last ban on modern sporting rifles was enforced, and I have guns purchased during that period to prove it. Also, are you suggesting that someone who has decided to commit suicide won't do it if a firearm is not available? Overdose instead, for example? I have no problem with background checks to weed out real and potential mentally-ill, and hope they are successful, since most massacres involved those folks. Inspected, insured is silly, and they are taxed when purchased.

He is "responsible" just because the media said so?

Maybe the words from a LEGAL immigrant will help clear the fog in your head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYYgLzF6zU

Cheese and Rice Melissa, I guess you would feel so much better when this man waves a machete over his dauther's head, right? I guess the concept that the act of violence by this man is the problem, not what he has in his hand, but you liberal thinkers don't really think do you.

And there is nothing wrong with background checks, they are done in this state when one goes to purchase a gun through a reputable dealer. But I guess if one was to ask you if one more gun law that isn't going to be enforced is going to stop the next Sandy Hook would be too much, right? There are many good gun laws on the books, but our government ignores them, just look at Fast and Furious. Oh, that doesn't count, I guess. But more gun laws will make everything ok because the good citizens will now be unarmed and the criminals will still have their weapons. What's that, it's ok to take the guns away from the responsible citizens yu say because now you will feel better regardless of the fact that the government up to now doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. I am so happy to hear you will feel bettter. Its a real pity they don't have a satire font.

You think an alleged, ridiculously irresponsible act represents a 'responsible gun-owner? That very act is irresponsible. Try again.

Studies show guns in homes can do more harm than good...Surviving a knife wound is more likely than bullets from an assault weapon...Nobody is taking your precious guns away, so live with them at your own risk.

Seems a little silly if you ask me to have a background check when the gun goes from father to son. But what the heck, why not drag the whole family into the police station and get them all fingerprinted like a bunch of criminals.

So now what is the plan to remove guns from criminal hands again???

Don't forget the most critical one: Registration...This will make it easier to trace guns used illegaly...I did not know that the gun lobby, through Congress of course, lifted funding for the CDC to keep records of gun violence.

BytraWatches, according to the plan's author, Senator Feinstein, by taking guns from law-abiding, it will eliminate the pool that thugs steal from. In a few thousand years, criminals will have exhausted their supply. That's the actual plan!

John Q., you are almost right. But the sad truth is taking what the media calls "assault weapons" away is only the first step to going after all guns. Why do you think people like Wilfredo want gun registration so bad? They want to know where the legal guns are so they can come and take them at a later time. Let's face it, they are going for the guns now that look like military weapons even though they are no different than any other hunting rifle and these guns are used in less than three percent of the crimes. So when this gun band fails to lower crimes, then they will go for the next ban and then the next ban until they have all the legally owned guns and the criminals will still have their guns. For that reason alone, I will never register my guns.

WILFREDO G. SALCEDO, Sr. - Registration is the first step towards confiscation.

Yes, registration is the first step toward confiscation. I've been registering my cars for 40 years, and I am sure they will show up any day now to confiscate my car!

Taking guns from responsible owners is just the paranoic mantra of LaPierre and the NRA...NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY IS EVER GOING TO GET YOUR GUNS (IF YOU BEHAVE)...Please stop twisting my point on this, Bytra...You keep missing the point, intentionally, to justify your wish to keep your precious cargo...One more time: KEEP YOUR GUN!..REGISTERED!..If you behave and don't lose it, heck, have fun with it...See, if you lost it (shit happens), then it will be easier to track if it was used during a criminal activity later on...This is why all guns must be registered not because the government wants it back later for no reason...Have you ever had your property or machete taken away from you recently?..Our government is not that crazy to do such things...The people are watching.

@Wil - say what you want, but the left has zero, I repeat zero credibility. Remember Obama saying "I will not be taking your guns!!!" and now he wants to use executive orders if laws can't be passed to take guns. So don't tell me what will or what won't happen from the left side because nothing they say can be believed. There are several blogs on left wing web sites that detail the process to be used to get ALL firearms out of the hands of gun owners. You say paranoid, I say well informed. As many a successful military general will tell you, the key to winning a battle is knowing your enemy. I know the left and their lies. I can send you a link to YouTube videos showing you Obama telling his lies one after another only to be shown they were lies as time progresses and he acts against what he says. And remember, Reid, Obama and all the other elites will not be surrendering their arms; they just want the peasants to surrender theirs. They send their kids to schools with armed guards but want our kids defenseless in their peasant schools. Did you ever ask yourself why under the Obama dictatorship our military is now doing military drills over our country’s cities? This is something that has never been done in the history of our country. The military has built cities for training purposes, why are they not using them now? A person has every reason to be paranoid when the government becomes more tyrannical every year and then demands that guns be taken.

@ Wil - And one final thought for you on your gun registration. With any governmental registration there is ALWAYS fees that have to be paid. and in the wise words of Thomas Jefferson "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

On your last commentary, I regret to say that is all speculation, imaginary occurrences...TOTAL PARANOIA!..This has what the NRA had wrought into this debate: "JACK-BOOTED THUGS ARE AFTER YOUR GUNS"...Mercy!

You may not know this but the Constitution declares that presidents and their families must have security guards at all times...I believe other government officials get some, too.

And as for fees, what a small gesture to pay for everyone's safety...Besides, don't we get charged fees for services that we use anyway?

Sounds like a typical thing liberals would do. Pity, because the liberals will just blame the guns for the crimes when they should have taken the guns from these people.

"I'm not taking your guns away...how silly...I'm just telling what guns you can have. Such a big difference."

Only hicks, inbreeders, and fascists need private and legal guns. For the zombie apocalypse, of course.

Once again proving James Carville right: "Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east, and Alabama in between."

Are we talking about the same James Carville that just got dumped by CNN??? Nice quote Nazaretti, choosing a real loser to be quoted.

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