RI Mom

Statistics are NOT on the side of gun ownership.

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides

Please cite your source!!!!!!!

This was a volatile mixture where the mother was a fanatic about guns who trained her mentally unstable son to shoot well. Add to that her inability to recognize she needed to get her kid outside help... and here we are.

I'm neither a Democrat nor a republican (ok, definitely NOT a republican), but am a firm believer that guns don't kill people, people kill people (cliche', I know)! Responsible gun ownership is not a fully loaded piece stashed in the top drawer of your dresser underneath your ol' ladies panties! I could walk into a meeting with a dozen people, and take out at least half of them with a baseball bat to the head before anyone could figure what was going on and even attempt to stop me! A gun is simply a way to do it at a little bit quicker and at distance... period! It is simply another style of weapon, the power and action of the deed is in those of who weld it! Just like any other faction of gov'mint, the problem is not more gun laws, its enforcing the ones we already have, all of which are MORE than enough!

um elliot-3020456 I hate to break this to ya BUT the mom is partially to blame here...and she paid for it with her life...

Why don't i see a good guy a good samaritan with a gun stopping a mad gunman?

Since the vast preponderance of gun crime are related to socio-economic issues gun control (particularly the more common proposals) are a very minute piece of the puzzle.

The massacres we saw at Columbine, VaTech, and the recent ones are all done by people that were on somebody's radar but those people, and the system did nothing about it. Hell, Cho was ordered to see a psychologist by a court and wasn't red flagged on the background check.

At the end of the day I think we'd do more to address gun crime if we addressed poverty, legalized marijuana, and subsidized psychological care for people with these kinds of psychological issues.

There is certainly nothing strange about me wanting the option of having a gun after being the victim of violent crime, or friends who have been victims who were literally saved by their handguns (without shooting anyone I should add).

So since Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 affirms the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination making oh roughly 85% of the existing 22,417 gun control laws or there about not applicable to felons as registrations, permits, fee's training requirements, etc, etc, etc, would all involve one of the 10 categories of people banned by law from owning much less attempting to purchase a firearm incriminating themselves, explain again what those 85% of gun control laws actually do if they dont apply to the bad guys?

If 85% of the gun control laws only apply to the law abiding, explain with any logic how gun control will actually reduce violence? Make sure that when you have that data you notify the local clergy as they will want to see that God & the Devil actually exist as hell freezes over.

The US government acknowledges in USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2011, see pg 14, chart #8 for that massive number of violent crimes committed in the US each year committed by gang members.

For several decades, studies have been conducted on crime and causalities by various bodies including major universities, criminologists and even the U.S. Department of Justice. These studies have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals. Some of
the studies have provided slightly different numbers but all of them have found that a small group of criminals commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes than their peers.(Wolfgang et al ., 1972; Petersilia et al ., 1978; Williams, 1979; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982; Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982, and Martin and Sherman,1986).

Hence add in the career criminals.

CDC -Suicidal people speak for them-selves as suicide is a felony.

Shall we review police studies in Chicago and NYC where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.

So when are you going to address those three groups responsible for over 92% of all deaths using a firearm as frankly it is rather stupid not to address the largest reason for a problem, then again, we are talking about progressives here.

Then we should review how well those laws are enforced anyway.

Like the BATF for refusing to prosecute more than 1% of the 1.83 mil felons, others, and crazies rejected by the background check since 1994.

Background Check & Firearm Transfer report 2008

Like the BATF for refusing to catch ANY of those lying on their 4473 forms (Cho, Loughner
& Holmes were crazy, they lied) or using fake identifications.

CBSNEWS 3/2001General Accounting Office study

Like the BATF for refusing to do anything about the 95% of felons who don’t even attempt
to buy from a licensed source to begin with. So if the massive majority of bad guys dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source to begin with, explain again what the law actually does to reduce violence?

DOJ Firearms use by Offenders Nov 2001

Like the BATF for refusing to allow civilians access to use the NICS background check
for private sales as only licensed dealers are allowed.

Lets not forget that our politicians play a significant role in enabling the crazies to
go free. As a result of VA Tech, Pub. L. 110-180 NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 was enacted.

The real question and failure, is what have the states actually funded or resourced to
do so?

Going to the actual NICS website, we see as of July 2012, there are only 1.7 mil records of
people who by due process have lost their 2A rights for being severely mentally ill. Yet mental health experts agree that on avg. over 23.15 mil US adults (50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners) are severely mentally ill.

So is that the 80 mil law abiding gun owners fault, BATF or the politicians, sucker question I
know!

We see from US Census, and an average of NSSF & PEW surveys, that in 2009 40% of households have a firearm. That is an increase since 1997 of 9 million households to 80 million law abiding gun owners as recognized by the BATF.

We see from FBI NICS reports since 2000 we have gone from 8 mil background checks to 16.5 mil projected for 2012, which translates per the Brady Bunch to 4.5 mil new firearms in civilians hands each year.

We see that since 1997 per FBI UCR, that violent crime has gone from 611 VCR (Violent Crime Reported) per 100k people to 403 VCR per 100k people in 2010.

That is a 38% reduction in violent crime. Did we forget to mention that the same data shows a 26% reduction in murders?

All while at the same time we see 16 more states reinstated concealed carry to 49 states total, and 35 states reinstated concealed carry in eateries that serve alcohol. 4 states and 200+ universities reinstated concealed carry. Not to mention self defense outside ones own home reinstated in 25 states with Stand your Ground, 24 Castle Doctrine (five pending change to Stand your Ground).

All without the predicted and much cried about blood baths predicted by such pundits suggests for oh what, something like the millionth time, yep. Those anti gun soothsayers really suck at predicting violence and mayhem from the law-abiding citizen, every single time. Hope they aren’t trying to make a
living as a soothsayer they are starving if they do.

So much for more guns in civilians hands equals more violence BS people like you believe.

Of course there are other countries that have recently tried gun bans, what effect did that have on their violence?

1997 Australia, Canada, England

Australia 1997 629 VCR per 100k 2007 1,024 VCR per 100k, a 32 person reduction in murders
by firearms, exactly replaced by murders with knives. Funny how that trend was
mirrored in England (ref www.aic.gov.au)

Canada 1997 980 VCR per 100k people 2010 1,282 VCR per 100k people, murder rose from
560 to 610 (Ref Statcan)

Canada $2 billion dollar plus registry, that hasn’t solved one crime, has traced 47 firearms to prove, yes they were stolen, and the long gun portion of the registry was defunded in 2012, such a common trend.

England

1898 began keeping crime data 1.0 murder rate per 100k people, no gun control
1997 1.3 murder rate per 100k people, 820 VCR per 100k people implemented strict gun control
2010 1.3 murder rate per 100k people 1,977 VCR per 100k people, murders have reduced
to 1997 levels after a 25% increase. (ref Home Office UK)

So explain again how gun control reduced violence, oh geez, it didnt, such a common trend.

So much for less guns in law abiding civilians hands equals less violence, a trend found in every single gun ban country, prove otherwise. Oh, use government data to try if you want, the above references ARE their government databases.

All these referenced govt facts, showing what a failure gun control is as it only applies to the LAW ABIDNG in the format the antis wish to push and implement today.

Unless of course you have the government data to refute all that government data, courts, rulings and agencies not controlled by the 80 mil law abiding gun owners or NRA!

So indeed, such a lie repeated as often as an anti breathes, is indeed the act of a mythomaniac, promoting a pathological lie.

Do you need more of an avalanche of facts that the antis have never refuted or proven to not exist or say what has been referenced here?

Why don't i see a good guy a good samaritan with a gun stopping a mad gunman?

because it isn't deemed newsworthy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epZod2qyyN4&feature=share

Why don't i see a good guy a good samaritan with a gun stopping a mad gunman?

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/sheriff-concealed-weapon-saves-church-from-man-armed-with-shotgun/

As a gun owner and in a family of elementary school teachers, three daughters and a wife, it's hard not to think about what happened in Sandy Hook personally. I believe guns don't kill people, it's people with guns that kill people. In this case the mother should have realized that with loaded guns and a mentally unstable child she was standing into danger. These weren't her child's guns, he could not have purchased them himself. So he killed her and took them. She should have locked them up better. It is really hard not see where she made some big mistakes with her son. In this situation how do your protect yourself and your family, and insane person with access to loaded firearms, you can't. No background check would stop this, no three day wait. Here is a woman with a survivalist mentally and she's not willing to get help for her child. She was right to be worried. And her community paid the price.

PJ-1795048

Why don't i see a good guy a good samaritan with a gun stopping a mad gunman?

Well, when these crimes happen in "Gun-Free Zones" that are supposedly safe because guns are outlawed in these areas, ( Va. Tech, Columbine, NewTown, etc. i.e. schools) there is no law-abiding responsible concealed carrying gun owner going to be present to stop a deranged criminal with malevolent intent because if they were they would be in violation of the law. That's why.

Sorry, but in the aftermath of this preventable tragic event, I am having a hard time understanding how the mother of an "unstable" son continued to entertain herself by shooting semi automatic weapons and collecting the same. To what benefit are automatic weapons in the hands of civilians?

She does hold some responsibility if she couldn't/didn't get him help while at the same time making her proud collection so easily accessible.

Who the hell needs automatic weapons??

Where in this article did it say the mom had "automatic weapons"? The Bushmaster .223 is a SEMI-automatic rifle. One shot per trigger pull.

Please read the story more carefully. There is a HUGE difference between semi and fully automatic weapons.

7.62, who knows if she is a liberal or not but, the fact is, she wasn't a teacher. Nothing like jumping to whatever conclusions fit your idea of the "facts."

Ok. So gun control laws aren't the answer. What should we do instead. I ask, "What should we do?" and the only response is, "I'll tell you what you're *not* going to do!" That is not helpful, it contributes nothing in the way of a solution. So, if the problem isn't guns, than what do you do to address the issue of people killing load of other people using guns? Seriously. I don't think the answer is to keep a loaded weapon in the classroom.

If it happens later that there are massacres using throwing knives or snow plows. Then we can address those problems as they come up.

Ok. So gun control laws aren't the answer. What should we do instead. I ask, "What should we do?" and the only response is, "I'll tell you what you're *not* going to do!" That is not helpful, it contributes nothing in the way of a solution. So, if the problem isn't guns, than what do you do to address the issue of people killing load of other people using guns? Seriously. I don't think the answer is to keep a loaded weapon in the classroom.

If it happens later that there are massacres using throwing knives or snow plows. Then we can address those problems as they come up.

I'll give you 3 to start

(1) do more to alleviate poverty in order to address the socioeconomic factors of gun violence.

(2) subsidize mental health resources for people who seem to have these traits... because it always seems that the person who commits these acts were on somebody's radar; and in this case a single mom with a child with obvious problems

(3) legalize marijuana - which would undercut the use of harder drugs, and end the gang wars surrounding the distribution and sale of the drug.

In my opinion those would do orders of magnitude more than the "common sense gun control" measures that are floated around but wouldn't prevent a single crime... registration isn't going to do anything... waiting periods, nope... assault weapons ban; merely cosmetic, not based on functionality or lethality - a feel good measure.

If we want our guns left alone, then we are going to have to lock them up when we have a crazy relative in the house. We are going to have to report the crazy relative every time they go off. We are going to have to start using common sense. We are also going to have to pay for good mental health. The birthers must get out of the way

.

Fact: In Switzerland, every able-bodied male 18 years or older is LEGALLY REQUIRED to own a FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE. And even though almost every Swiss male owns a full-auto assault rifle, Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

@ tired of hyp.....According to the news yesterday it was stated that he killed his mother and then went to the school she worked at.

7.62x39mm wrote:

".....According to the news yesterday it was stated that he killed his mother and then went to the school she worked at."

All three National broadcast news networks tonight, ABC, CBS, NBC noted that they had thus far been unable to confirm any association whatsoever of the mother of the shooter, with the elementary school where he murdered 20 children and six adults.

And so far no mainstream, responsible report has even suggested that she, or her son, were "Liberals", as you appear to have concluded.

But then I don't watch FoxNews cable (note I used the descriptors "mainstream" and "responsible").

"Live By The Sword??????????????

Die By The Sword!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

What an absolutely dumb-ass analogy! The saying cited implies that people who use violence, will have violence used against them. Where, oh where, was Nancy Lanza violent towards anyone?

Live By The Sword??????????????

Die By The Sword!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is just so much more to that statement Jesus lived by love but was taken by men with swords and crucified. Previous to this he told his disciples to sell their cloaks and byuy swords, the handgun of the day. So what do we learn from all this anti gun and pro gun rhetoric absolutely nothing. This was a tragedy like 911 was a tragedy. But we did learn from 911 and we could learn from this. I had a teacher that carried a hand gun in school and come to think of it a principle too. My father found out about it and told me if anyone started shooting in my school that I should go hide under that teachers desk. This is not the first time this kind of shooting has happened but all we do is lock the kids in better so they can't get out.

spike-322306

"Live By The Sword??????????????

Die By The Sword!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"What an absolutely dumb-ass analogy! The saying cited implies that people who use violence, will have violence used against them. Where, oh where, was Nancy Lanza violent towards anyone?"

To the contrary, 'Spike.'

'Pigotry' made a clear, intellectual point. You bring guns into your home, you make guns a significant part of your life (as was the subject of this news article, and made clear in this article, noting her "extensive collection" of guns) ... and then a priori you run the enhanced risk of dying by guns.

Let's try this: "Live by the gun, die by the gun." Is that more understandible for you? (just trying to help you out, here).

If it happens later that there are massacres using throwing knives or snow plows. Then we can address those problems as they come up.

How do we prevent new methods of violence when we can't even prevent the current acts of violence?

Automobiles kill millions of people. How have we succeeded in the prevention of those killings?

Wars kill millions of people. How have we succeeded in the prevention of those killings?

Serial killers kill many people. What have we done to successfully prevent serial killers from killing?

The fact is, this is a violent world. It has been a violent world since the beginning of mankind, and unless there is a change to our DNA, will remain violent until the end of mankind.

In the animal world, animals have been given attributes to protect themselves from predators. The gun is just another attribute invented to assist man in the protection of himself.

1. I lean more liberal than conservative by a long shot. 2. I own guns, use guns, and am legally able to carry. 3. People killed by guns in their own homes or by their own guns are either suicidal or are not practicing due diligence when it comes to safety measures for their guns. 4. I have no penis... but I have a great big pair of brass ones.

Gun safety courses are taught in every state and they are not expensive, in fact many times they are free courses. 1. Keep your gun clean. 2. Separate your ammo from your weapon. 3. Keep your weapon locked up and the safety on. 4. Never point your weapon at anyone you're not intending to shoot.

AND ALWAYS ASSUME A GUN IS LOADED AND READY UNTIL YOU PROVE OTHERWISE!!!

As for the mom's part in this? Yes she is partially responsible if she knew he had issues and she didn't have those issues treated. If you know your child has diabetes and you don't take that child to the doctor to get treatment and your child dies, it's your fault.

Well said, Upright.

@coldwind - I think that incidents such as these exemplify that while gun ownership may reduce crimes and increase protection - it just doesn't reduce the threat of terror.

So the gun control laws should tackle with the threat of terror without harming individual need to protect one's self and one's family.

Snakea, you aren't counting the 18,000 suicide deaths by firearm in your total count. That's why RI's number (which was correctly cited) is so far off yours.

Random pennsylvanian

Fact: In Switzerland, every able-bodied male 18 years or older is LEGALLY REQUIRED to own a FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE. And even though almost every Swiss male owns a full-auto assault rifle, Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

See this:

3. Lots of guns don't necessarily mean lots of shootings, as you can see in Israel and Switzerland.*

As David Lamp writes at Cato, "In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel 'have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.'"

*Correction: The info is out-of-date, if not completely wrong. Israel and Switzerland have tightened their gun laws substantially, and now pursue an entirely different approach than the United States.

More details here.

I apologize for the error.

Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States - Ezra Klien

To Robert in Oregon:

Thank you - finally someone saying what I have been trying to say throughout this tragedy. And people condemning the mother at this point should just shut the h*** up until the real facts are evident. There is way too much false info out there right now - they didnt even have the shooter's name right. Turns out the mom is not teaching - she was in financing and had come to this place to take some time off. Right now I am reeling about the number of babies that where shot and killed. The coroner said that each child was shot at least 3 times - some at close range. Did they suffer - what kind of fear could they have experienced when they knew they were going to die - this is 6 and 7 year olds. Teachers died protecting the children or more would have been killed. This was horrific and all I see is mainly men worried only about the fact that someone might take their precious guns away from them. Yep it is all the shooter's fault - the guns had no bearing in killing 27 people - like this many kids would have been killed just the same as if the perpetrator used a rope or a knife. Oh yeah I will sure buy that one. I am Canadian and I cannot believe the paranoia of the people in the US that they need to possess not one gun, or two, some 5 and 6 or more. And the second Ammendment says they are allowed to have them and use them and then use the new law Stand Your Ground when you murder someone with a gun. It wasnt my fault - I felt threatened he says. It is so sick. We dont have guns in our houses and we feel safe. In my whole lifetime I have never known anyone that had a gun much less carried them with them and then had an arsenal at home for home protection. We have 150 killings a year and yes we are a smaller country - but that is a long way from the 30,000 a year that are killed in the US. But the most asinine thing guys say is that they think putting guns in more hands in the US is the answer. That would only lead to more lives being lost. So thank you Robert from Oregon for seeing a clear picture of this and not being afraid to state it. We have strict gun laws here and not one person has a problem with them. We cant buy them at Walmart nor do we get them free if we buy a diamond ring (ad I saw awhile ago). What is so wrong with tighter regulation!!!

Robert in Oregon,

Book of Revelation, 13:10: "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints."

Nothing in it about about having swords, or guns, it is clear that is referring to people who murder.

Using your deductive reasoning: if you drive a car you deserve to be killed by a car.

@ Bob (is fascinated with tiny penises) in Oregon. Go read post #2.23...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In March of 2007, Marko Kloos summed it up pretty well.

March 23, 2007 by Marko Kloos
Why the Gun is Civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

The world has always been and will always be a dangerous place. The Coca-cola dreams of teaching the world sing/sitting around the campfire singing Kumbaya ain't never gonna happen. As soon as we can accept the realities of this life, the sooner we can work on the real problems. Call them broken or hurt, it doesn't matter. Hurt people, hurt people.

From the articles, it brought up 3 points:

1. Mom is a gun collector, love to show her children to the shooting range.

2. The murderer is an unstable child and the mom didn't want to get additional help.

3. The gun is literally within arm's reach for her unstable son, there are more than 1 type of gun.

And you wonder why it didn't happen. You don't collect gun in your home and have an unstable child to live in that house as well. Furthermore, even knowing the condition of her own child, she didn't get any more help...

7.62x39mm:

Did you seriously just say this woman didn't keep her guns locked up because (you're assuming) she is liberal? Ignoring that most actual gun enthusiasts lean towards being conservative (far more so than whatever statistic that you pulled out of your ass about teachers being liberal), this woman's politics have absolutely nothing to do with what happened. Irresponsibility and willful ignorance about her son's mental state did.

Ah, thanks for the additional insights, folks. I think I am finally beginning to understand your thinking. Okay then, let me see if I understand the argument points some of you folks are making:

You need guns, ... because other folks out there have guns.

And as the other folks out there obtain more guns, then you need more guns too, ... to protect yourselves from those additional guns.

And, the mother of the gunman would have been much safer if she had kept one of her extensive collection of guns "on her person" at all times while in her own home ( even when sitting on the toilet, because ya just never know when the threat's gonna come, right? )

And you believe that the mother would have shot her own son to death the moment she felt threatened, and before he could pull the trigger ( I mean of course she would have, wouldn't ALL mothers shoot their own children to death to save themselves. Isn't that what mothers do? )

And these adults who died in the elementary school would have been safer if they too, all of the administrators, and secretaries and teachers in the school, were armed with guns.

And of course let's not forget the school custodians. The custodians should be armed, too, right? I mean, that's just common sense.

And of course the children too would have been much, much safer if all of them were armed with guns, right?

Ok, I'm fully up to speed. So now let's all sing the elementary school pro-gun song together in unison:

"A Glock Semi-Automatic 9mm pistol in every child's backpack!" ...

"A Sig Sauer Semi-Automatic 9mm pistol in every child's lunchbox!" ...

"A Bushmaster AR-15 .223 Semi-Automatic rifle in every child's hall locker!"

Wow, you're right, folks. That's a much more catchy tune for 6-year-olds and 7-year-olds than singing "The Wheels on the Bus" and "I'm a Little Teapot." I mean really, those kids need to grow up and see the world as it us.

YES!!! That's the ticket. Now we're talkin'. Because we all know the message by now, ...

that none of us will ever truly be safe ....until EVERY man, woman and child is packing!!!

@PJ Because the liberal media would rather only highlight the bad side of gun ownership.

@RI Mom: Consider how many people are killed in car accidents each year. I guess statistics aren't on the side of car ownership either.

SHar:

We have strict gun laws here and not one person has a problem with them.

Since it's impossible and unbelievable you can speak for everyone, it makes the rest of your statement lose all credibility.

All you folks who are saying that guns aren't the problem and guns don't kill are forgetting one thing . . .

Just recently in China someone went on a rampage with a knife in a school. 22 children and an adult were injured.

In Connecticut someone went on a rampage with guns in a school. 20 children and 6 adults died.

So, tell me, what's the difference? What caused the difference in the severity of the injuries?

For those of you who can't figure it out, I'll give you a clue. It was the guns, which are much deadlier weapons. Guns are what made the difference between the victims surviving and being killed.

Fact: In Switzerland, every able-bodied male 18 years or older is LEGALLY REQUIRED to own a FULLY AUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLE. And even though almost every Swiss male owns a full-auto assault rifle, Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

You left out the part about ammunition being strictly regulated and stored in a location away from the gun in Switzerland. That has more of an impact on lower crime rates than the number of guns.

While I hate to "blame a victim" what mother who purports to be worried about her son's mental health spends "quality time" with him at a shooting range?

there's a famous painting...for some reason...makes me think of the shooter...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5uaB5MDe_8

So, according to the landscaper and friend of Nancy Lanza, she was an 'avid gun enthusiast with an extensive collection'?

Six guns - two 9mm pistols, three rifles and a shotgun - is an extensive collection ?

I know a significant number of people who have double or triple that number of firearms who don't even consider themselves any kind of collector!

I know old farmers who have at least half a dozen various guns as they'd ended up with firearms handed down to them from their fathers, grand father, great uncles, and whatever other ancestors they had. Of course, those never really get used anymore. The farmers have acquired their own collection of whatever firearms they felt more comfortable using or were more suitable.

I do have to wonder if perhaps she had more guns somewhere besides her home. By itself, it seems an odd sort of 'collection', but, perhaps it is only pieces of the said 'extensive collection' that she wanted to keep handy at home or else ones that she didn't want to have stored somewhere else.

I still say this story gets stranger all the time...

Wren:

All you folks who are saying that guns aren't the problem and guns don't kill are forgetting one thing . . .

Sometimes people are only injured from a gunshot. What do you say about those killed by a knife, a bomb, a car, an insecticide or an electric chair?

What you are forgetting is people kill people; just the instrument changes.

spike-322306 wrote:

Book of Revelation, 13:10: "He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints."

Nothing in it about about having swords, or guns, it is clear that is referring to people who murder.

Using your deductive reasoning:

"if you drive a car you deserve to be killed by a car."

No, 'Spike.' You are still missing the point. Using my "deductive reasoning" (as you put it) the argument would be ....

.... "If you drive or ride in a car, you are at enhanced risk of dying in a car accident."

PS. 'Pigotry' was paraphrasing a common English axiom; not misquoting scripture. Context matters ( but I think you already know that ). And 'Pigotry' didn't use the phrase "deserve to be killed." You've gotten a bit too far out over your skis, 'Spike.' Time to re-balance. Don't let your rhetoric get ahead of your logic, because the collision can be a bitch.

When all you gun control types can come up with a plan and policies that will remove 100% of the guns from criminals and crazy people first and prove you have gotten all of the guns from them, then all us gun right types will turn in all our guns, until then no deal.

Why isn't the focus on the real issue behind all of these types of crimes, CRAZY PEOPLE, lets get some laws passed regulating and removing them from public life, that would stop 99% of these things.

Let be honest we will be open to gun control when you all are open to crazies control, and lets add keeping criminals off the street that would help a bunch. You all have brought up murders, assaults and robberies where a gun was used but failed to address the actual problem of the criminal, caus no gun ever robbed anyone on it's own.

What kind of men are we raising here? A "almost man" of 20 years, apparently thought his way to being more manly or more whatever was to gun down, kill the most innocent and defenseless possible, babies.

So many laws and rights should be reviewed, gun purchases, ownership qualification, but more importantly, the mental health access in this country should be scrutinized.

The majority of the mass murderers are white and of the upper middle class. Shouldn't this be studied?

There are millions of people that own guns and do not even comprehend this type of violence. That being said, what is an automatic or repeater weapon for? Shooting rabbits? Deer? Bear? No, for shooting and killing people. This action is stunning and insane and should make everyone in this country physically ill and no matter what you believe about gun rights and ownership, you should stop, look at the pictures, and see what happened. We can stop the insanity without ripping the rights of those (47 million households) who believe they need their 2nd amendment fulfilled. This is not a "fast track" piece of legislation.

Oh, for heaven's sake, Debi.

Sometimes people are only injured from a gunshot. What do you say about those killed by a knife, a bomb, a car, an insecticide or an electric chair?

What you are forgetting is people kill people; just the instrument changes.

I guess you need it spelled out for you. (I thought I'd done that but you apparently still need some help.)

Cars aren't a comparable analogy for the simple fact that they were never designed as weapons. Nor were insecticides (against people) or electric chairs for that matter. (Your comparisons are all over the place and really don't make much sense.)

The point I was making is that if someone is going to go on a rampage, he or she will likely do considerably more damage with guns than with knives. Ergo, if guns aren't available to them, the effects of the rampage aren't likely to result in such lethal outcomes.

Of course you can make the comparison that someone can kill another person with a knife (or even a fork), or an insecticide, but that wasn't the point. And of course, someone bent on causing as much harm as possible to as many people as possible could use a bomb. But guess what. Bombs aren't legal. . . . which, of course, kinda proves my point.

RI MOM you are wrong with your statitics. The CDC a US government agency shows there were 11,493 gun homosides in 2010. That it still way too many. but it is a third of what you quoted.

2010 impared driving deaths 10,228

RI Mom,

Let me start by saying I am a very progressive person. Although many in my camp may be anti-gun, I see it as being hypocritical to the underlying principles we stand for. I see it as a personal right not so much unlike your rights to control your own body should you desire an abortion, or the rights of any gay individuals to love and marry who they choose. My ownership of a gun infringes on no one else's rights. I have a right to protect myself. I am fine with reasonable regulation, but instead we get into this battle of the extremists on both sides of the issue. That helps nothing.

Statistics in fact are quite favorable to legal gun ownership. There are enough guns in this country for virtually every man woman and child. Of these weapons, only one one thousandth of a percent are involved in a death, and of those deaths, 2/3rds of those are from deliberate self inflicted wounds, (suicide). Suicide is illegal, but in reality it is a personal choice and usually doesn't take another's life in the process. Of the few that do, they tend to use an automobile as the overwhelming tool of choice.

The problem should be glaringly obvious. It is mental illness. In fact that same problem leads to a lot of suicides too. Ironically too, in many of these mass shootings, suicide tends to be linked to most of them at least at some point.

This article is truly telling if you can set aside your prejudice to see it. This women had a very disturbed and unstable child by her own accounts. Yet she decided to not only make the weapons available to him but actually trained him to use them effectively.

As a mom, I suspect that you may understand how you can be somewhat blinded about your own children, but this mother obviously knew how troubled her son was and told others so. If indeed she took no real action to get him help, you have to question her parental responsibility in that regard too. I don't wish to disparage a "victim" here, but this revelation at least suggests she had a fairly high level of responsibility for the tragedy that occurred here.

Part of the problem as I see it is how we deal with mental illness. For one thing we tend to brand those who at some point in their lives suffer from it in an officially recognized way. This fact I suspect discourages some from seeking help and may have even discouraged this mother from getting help for her son. Another problem is that we don't look at it like any other health problem. Mental illness isn't like a cold, the flu, diabetes or heart disease, at least in the way we view it. Mental illness in one form or another can impact virtually anyone. It might be in the form of depression after something like a break up or a series of personal failures, it could be in the form of dementia or Alzheimer's as a product of aging, or it could be a variety of personality disorders. It can be a mind blinded by some feeling of a need for vengeance. (Ironically, we seem to sometimes treat that case as being perfectly normal!)

Most every human being at some point suffers some mild form of depression or the "blues" and very often they can grow out of this with no help. To some extent we may see mental illness as something in control of the patient. More of a personal weakness than an illness. But even stress or tiredness can cause periods where we don't think very clearly. In reality, that is a very mild form of mental illness. You might look at those cases as being an illness similar to a cold. A little self treatment and time will usually cure that illness. But some forms may be chronic or genetically linked or the result of certain behavior like alcohol or drugs. I'm not so sure that illness of the mind is all that diferent from illness of the body. Our society needs to change our viewpoints about mental illness in comparison to "body" illness. Our health care system needs to also change the way it addresses this too. Often people suffering from mental illness can not even get the help they need.

You and others can sit here and blame guns and advocate that we create all sorts of laws and crisis across the country, but it will be while ignoring the real causes of these type events. First off making laws to make something illegal will have almost no impact. And it is totally unrealistic to think we could eliminate all guns from our society. Even if you could accomplish this, you might eliminate mass shootings, but some other alternate method will likely emerge. With a bag of large zip ties and 5 or 10 gallons of gasoline, this same individual could easily have killed most everyone in the school. There would be many other ways using easily obtainable household products that could have been used in the confined enviornment to kill many people. The absence of guns would not prevent such deaths if the person is determined to do it.

Ironically, we have written laws that instead have made responsible school officials incapable of defending themselves. A trained armed school official might very well have prevented some of these deaths. The new strategy of police is to get an armed officer inside as soon as possible to stop the assailant. The only real difference between that beat officer and an armed civilian is training and the fact that it is his/her job.

A lot of gun owners aren't trained or very well trained, but a lot are too. I'm not advocating that we become an armed society, however we have gone to extremes making "gun free zones" to keep responsible gun owners from legally possessing their guns. These people were never the problem. But the criminal or the mentally ill psychotics don't follow these laws. Are they going to posthumously charge this guy with violating the school gun free zone? So much for the effectiveness of that stupid law.

We have created laws and screening measures to keep guns off of aircraft and it has done a good job at that. Yet aircraft are still under threat of determined lunatics looking to create tragedy. Sure guns were an easy method before, and we eliminated that possibility. But they quickly found alternate ways to accomplish their goals. We recently passed laws allowing pilots under regulated parameters, to carry guns on board aircraft. We allow and even demand that we have covert armed air marshals on some flights. Maybe we justified that because we knew that police authorities could not quickly get on a flying aircraft in time to prevent tragedy. Well, this school was on the ground and police didn't get there in time to prevent this.

It isn't the guns, it's the lunatics, or more appropriately, the mentally ill individuals who somehow justify a horrific act in their mind.

If we react to this tragic event by creating more gun laws, we will be making a tragic mistake because we will use that to make us feel like we appropriately responded. In fact it will be completely inappropriate and just mask the real issue that we seem to continually ignore after each of these type events.

And RI Mom, if you choose not to legally own a gun, I'm fine with that if it is your choice. I suspect you don't feel a need or feel that you couldn't be responsible with it. But please don't make that decision for me.

On the same day Friday Dec 14th 2012 front page news but nobody seemed to notice?

22 kids, 1 adult injured in knife attack outside Chinese school

Published December 14, 2012

Associated Press

So it must be the Knifes fault, should we ban knives? I have no doubt the Chineese guy with the knife would be labeled a crazy nut case with a knife by all....

Nobody knows yet if the mother in Connecticut died trying to stop her son from getting to the guns, maybe they were locked up and he overpowered her to get to them before he killed her, lets not pass judgment on her so fast.

gun's aren't the problem ...it's nuts use'n them for the wrong purpose...that's the problem...

Oh Yeah...IMO the NRA should be Screaming for better control over who should own guns. They should be the first to demand more scrutiny for gun purchases. The NRA should have been the first organization to condemn this horrific act. Guns are the problem in the wrong hands.

Yeah, Rabbit. And how much do you want to bet that most, if not all of those kids in China would have been dead if the attacker had had a gun instead of a knife?

The point is not that we can stop all the crazies from attacking, but at least we might be able to limit the damage they can do.

Why is it so hard for ya'll to grasp this simple concept?

Gee, what a surprise.

Some psycho kills a bunch of people and what do so many of you do...blame the gun. That's right geniuses. Blame the inanimate object instead of the scumbag who was using it. As if that is going to solve anything and keep bad things like this from happening.

Some of you people are so beyond reason it isn't even worth attempting to show you why you are logically wrong. You wouldn't understand it anyway so I'm not going to bother. Besides, the fact that you obviously lack basic critical thinking skills makes it a moot point anyway.

Here's the bottom line to all of you anti-gun whiners:

You don't have a RIGHT to take guns away from law abiding gun owners. You don't have a RIGHT to demand that the government attempt to take those guns away by force. You do not have a RIGHT to do everything in your power to deny the rights of fellow Americans simply because YOU don't like guns.

Instead of whining and moaning about guns...MAYBE you mentally challenged Einsteins should actually try focusing on the REAL problems for a change.

You know...the problems that cause people to actually go crazy and shoot up a school full of children??

Oh wait, what am I thinking?? That would be the SMART thing to do...and you anti-gun zombies have never proven you have any intelligence to begin with.

The liberal progressive movement is why this shooter did what he did. If he believed in God, heaven and hell he would not have done this. These kinds of things never happened when we had prayer in schools. Eternal damnation in hell is the best consequence to stop all these crazy millennial progressive half wits and their parents. Chris Mathews of MSNBC and friends are stupid immature idiots. They continue to believe in fairy tales.

If all the pro-gun owners and all the anti-gun activists had all the answers...

...we wouldn't have had this incident.

But keep arguing like you have the answer already rather than the fact that we should all start thinking bigger than that.

May this be a lesson to all those who think keeping guns at home makes them safer.

Ronnie et al;

I am not anti gun. I do believe in self defense and if a weapon is necessary, so be it.
But IT should not be a semi-automatic gun, designed for war, not for self defense. There is no reason for an individual to own such a weapon. It was not designed to kill for food, nor to kill a household intruder. The semi-automatic was designed to kill multiple people in a short amount of time (seconds). This is not a necessity to the average person warding off a common burglar. The NRA should be the main proponent for a solid thoughtful law, which would protect the innocent (isn't that what they propose?) from mentally ill and guarantee their followers rights. It's not easy or quick, but why aren't they working on such laws? And why aren't you thinking?

LN1958362

ri mom ... how many were defense shootings in these stats? have you ever had to defend you or yours with a firearm against a threat to save you or your own life? please stop posting your liberal anti lawful firearm owner dribble....we lawful and responsible firearms owners don't appreciate it.

Really? You're going to try and say the stats are way off because of all those defensive shootings? Really? I am 48 and have never had to use a gun to defend myself. Unless you are stupid enough to hang around gangs are neighborhoods that are known for this kind of stuff ( shootings), then you would have really no need to carry a weapon. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Live By The Sword??????????????

Die By The Sword!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- this comment is about Nancy Lanza only, not applicable to other gun owners who are making their comments here.

Why doesn't it apply to the other gun owners here? If the comment fits... wear it.

The violent mind set in America: Guns= patriotism. Violence=freedom &power. War=Christian values.... is clearly at work in these comments here and in this horrible incident yesterday.

Wren,

All you folks who are saying that guns aren't the problem and guns don't kill are forgetting one thing . . .

Just recently in China someone went on a rampage with a knife in a school. 22 children and an adult were injured.

In Connecticut someone went on a rampage with guns in a school. 20 children and 6 adults died.

So, tell me, what's the difference? What caused the difference in the severity of the injuries?

For those of you who can't figure it out, I'll give you a clue. It was the guns, which are much deadlier weapons. Guns are what made the difference between the victims surviving and being killed.

What about the attacker named Wu Huanming (吴环明), 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010. The difference was the determination and accuracy of the attacker. If someone wants to kill, they will find a way to do it.

@ronnie milsap

You must have skipped history class to say that. Here is a reminder, you boast Christians wouldn't do this when they SLAUGHTERED most natives when they first get here, then enslaves millions for hundreds of years to build this country. After that, they would hunt down and hang anyone they deem fit.

Wow, I guess that is better for you guys, before they can just make up excuse and only say "It's God's judgement" and be done with it. The US history is filled with violence and thousands of years of religions action speak otherwise.

Oh yes, that would be better, just bring God and be like a "lite" version of Middle East. I guess you want that.

@ShadyJ

So, between a knife and a gun, which one you want to face headon?

Let's take Aurora shooting for example, instead of guns, that murderer uses knife. Remember the soldier who shielded his girlfriend and died? Now with a knife, he can kick that sorry ass in less than 1 minute and stop him from slashing more than 1 person.

Yes, the one in China is injure, but if it the same here, that 6 teachers would wrestle that crazy ass down as well and there would be less injury.

Cuong,

Personally, I would take someone with a gun headon. I have been in both situations and have the scars and bills to prove it. Someone with a knife only has to slash wildly to inflict their damage. Someone with a firearm has to aim and fire while remaining steady, which greatly increases your odds of remaining uninjured.

You seem to have completely ignored my post about the attacker that killed 9 souls in China with nothing but a cleaver.

Ronnie,

Your post is very amusing. In one sentence you state how the belief in hell and eternal damnation will save us all and in another you mock Chris Matthews for believing in fairy tales. You shouldn't reference your own fairy tales if you're going to criticize others for believing in theirs.

@ShadyJ

And I call you a liar. A gun is more deadly and create more fear to the people. An amateur would aim at your body and shoot and most people would give in fear when they see a gun.

Again, you lied to make your point across.

As for cleaver, how often it happens? Yes, you can kill people with that, but comparing to gun is stupid. With your logic, you can kill anyone with anything, but remember guns only has one purpose in mind, that is to KILL. With other's tools, you have more than one uses.

Here is for the liar, if you see a knife and the person holding it is a child, you would scare more? and if that same child holds a gun, you would scare less?

See, the logic would show that you are a liar from the start.

Mental illness is the problem not weapons of any kind.Yes there are a lot of gun related deaths in this country as RI Mom pointed out. What she failed to point out that I found in going to the link she provided was the majority were suicide ( 68% ). That number indicate that we have a lot of people who need help and are not recieving it. A firearm may be the tool they happened to use and adds to the total number of gun deaths but if a weapon was not available then another tool would be used. guns are used (IMO no real stats ) because they are quick and these individuals want it over without suffering.

Banning firearms or ammunition will not stop these rampages. There are simply too many options available to someone who is set on doing something like this to stop it. If all guns were eliminated perhaps this boy would have used and IED and killed even more kids. Perhaps some other means but the point is he would have carried out his task regardless. If he had used a knife maybe he would not have been able to take so many lives but most likely he could have because these kids were so young they would know to run.

My heart is sick for the killing of these children but more stingent gun control won't stop these things. We must look at the root cause to solve the problems we face and when we find them act. The mother was aware of the boy's mental state and yet chose not to seek outside help. The people who own guns make up a large part of the 300 million + people in this country. The percentage of people who us them for other that the intended purpose is very low. The percentage of people who do the kind of thing like happened at this school being crazy is 100%. We need to address the real issue at hand and it is not infringing on the rights of legal law abiding people because of mental illness of so few.

Ronnie Milsap,

Do you really believe this or are you being sarcastic? Do you really think that would make a difference to this kind of person? If anything, having strong religious belief and being crazy, he would likely imagine that God told him to do it. Many a God fearing person has done just that throughout history. This guy was sick and I don't think fearing eternal damnation would have made a difference. Is that the only thing keeping you from being a mass murderer? If so, maybe your argument might have some credibility. Care to admit that?

Ask yourself why God even allows this to happen? Is it a message that we need to get our act together and put him back in school? Is he pissed at the gays? Seems like he used to intervene a lot in the old testament. So what's the deal now?

If this guy came to his senses at the last minute as he squeezed the trigger the final time and had repented, does he get a free pass?

Why does God tell some of his believers that killing non believers gets you a reward in heaven?

Was God OK with the Crusades or are all those people still burning in hell today?

If you are only "living right" because you fear being punished, are you really living right? Seems like God would know if you were just going through the motions.

I consider myself Christian because I think Jesus Christ taught us the best way to live our lives, but I don't believe in the old testament version of God. I'm not sure that I buy into a heaven and hell, but I know if I truly live my life as Jesus taught us to do, I'll be OK either way. I don't need some fear of punishment to keep me in line, I find that trying to live a life as Christ taught us in its most simplistic of rules, is pretty rewarding right here and now.

A vengeful, punishing God really seems like a contradiction. That sounds a lot more like man than God.

If parents want their children to learn about God, why would they leave that up to the schools? Which God should they teach about? I know your answer, the right one! When you went to school, most of your classmates were probably Christians and those that weren't probably just kept quiet and accepted that they were teaching something they knew to be wrong. And I suppose you probably think that was a good thing because they got to learn about the true God rather than the BS they believed in.

But regardless of God seeing less of a presence in schools, I'm pretty sure they still teach that killing other people is wrong.

And think back a little bit. When you went to school and they taught about God, did everybody you grew up with turn out to be saints too? Do you know of any who has since risked eternal damnation? If so, maybe it wasn't as effective on them as it was you. Lets be generous and say it worked on 80% back then. If you just do a little math, that 20% it didn't work on then would be a whole lot more people today. These kinds of things seem like they happen more today if you count the number of specific instances, but statistically it is still only a very, very small fraction of a percentage of people who commit these acts. Lets say you went to school in the 60's era. The population in the US is about 60% or so larger today, so all else being the same, the number of such incidents would be quite a bit larger today than it was then. And I am also willing to bet that in those days before 24 hour news, a lot of things happened outside your local region that you never even heard about. Ever come across some story of a long ago horrific incident that occurred sometime in your youth, that you never before heard of?

Check out this link which is hardly an all inclusive list. There are some pretty major ones here and the vast majority of these I've never heard of and I'm a news junkie and have been all my adult life. www.usnews.com/news/national/articles/2008/02/15/timeline-of-school-shootings

Take a gun enthusiast/ collector and a disturbed son and you get this. Twenty children, gunned down like paper targets.

What if Nancy Lanza hadn't owned any guns? What if she hadn't taken her son with her to the shooting range? What if she had gotten psychiatric help for him and put her guns safely away?

This could be any family in America. We all need to take responsibility for the unacceptable level of violence in our country and demand help for the mentally ill.

It will happen again, unless we all evaluate the risk within our own homes and act.

How I feel or how you feel about Gun Control matters. It is only how those who created this country felt and how they felt is that the Government should be accountable to the people. They knew a day would come that this Government would seek to take the rights they fought for away from the populace. It is this reason why the 2nd Amendment is placed as the 2nd most important Right in the Bill of Rights. The only other Rights they saw more important was Freedom of Religion, Speech, and Press. They knew that like all things this Government they created would grow and seek power over it's populace and the only thing that allowed the populace to remain free would be those who are armed and willing to die for freedom.

RI Mom is scared, fearful, and wants security. She is willing to have this at the expense of law abiding citizens being stripped of a fundamental right that the creators of this nation thought was almost as important as her freedom of speech. No, RI Mom I don't own a weapon but who are you to tell me that I shouldn't have one? You? A person who would strip me of being able to defend myself and my neighbors against people like yourself? I want you to know that if I do own a weapon it is because of you and what you represent.

I swore to protect the Constitution of the U.S. with about 30 other people. I did this as the first bombs fell on Iraq. There was sacrifices, long periods of time away from the people that I love, and somewhere in that time I found out who I was. I am a man sworn to protect the very thing you would want to destroy: The ability for freedom to carry on. It isn't about politics on this issue with me. I swore on that day to protect the Constitution of the U.S. even if it meant my life and I am willing to do just that till the day life expires from my body. If you are willing to try to strip American citizens from their right to carry weapons and do so by circumventing the Constitutional process then that makes you an enemy to everything that I swore to protect. I hope you reflect on just exactly what that means.

There is a Constitutional process that must be adhered to if you want to change it... Trying to circumvent the Constitution to try and force the populace to what you believe is right amounts to nothing short of tyranny and that I'm afraid is nothing short of a declaration of war. I've made the decision to die for the rights that our forefathers handed down to us. They entrusted in me to keep them safe and I will do so. It wasn't an easy decision at the time but as I have gotten older it has grown easier to accept. It's not political with me. It's a promise that I must keep.

Now there's a woman the NRA can be proud of.

Well people if the mother wasn't a teacher as was stated in the news Friday MY BAD. Working 12hr. days to pay for the liberal hand-outs makes it hard to keep up with the inept reporting.

Well said Jason Burnham- perfect post and thanks for your service.

If guns aren't the problem, but rather people using them is the problem - then why can't we say the same about marijuana? At least Marijuana doesn't kill in double digits.

This is what being a gun freak got this woman: she's dead, but infinitely more grievous is the fact that 20 children and 6 other adults are dead. THIS IS WHAT BEING A GUN FREAK MEANS! Guns server two puproses: killing and practicing killing. That's it. End of conversation. NO ONE BESIDES LAW ENFORCEMENT AND MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY HAVE ANY BUSINESS WHATSOEVER OWNING A GUN!!!!

Wizard of wisdom - your post trotting out alll the lame arguments does nothing but reafffirm the second law of the intenet i.e. A poster willl always post something that is in direct contradiction to what their name implies. Your contention that the problem isn't guns but somehow unhapppy people is hilarious. Based on your logic what we have to do is create a world in which eveyrone is happpy and well adjusted. I don't get the part that justifices your superior atttitue as it seeems you don't think at alll.

The old "Guns don't kill people, people do," argument has gotten really old and doesn't even make sense because it still states that people shouldn't be in possession of a gun. I don't have a problem with actual mentally sound people, responsibly having a gun but there is no way for strangers to judge the sanity of another person and respect a person would have for the possible devastation a firearm could do in the hands of a crazy person. If we are going to continue to let every Tom, Dick and slack-jawed Harry own a firearm we need to start severely punishing people who get theirs stolen, yes stolen (there are ways to absolutely prevent this), or who let someone borrow it for any reason. If it gets in the hands of a child it should be a capital crime. Gun "accidents" should no longer be considered accidents in any sense of the word. That man who recently "accidentally" killed his kid in the parking lot of a gun store should be going to prison for life and at the very least be banned from ever owning a firearm again. Hell if you leave a baby in the bathtub alone for a couple of minutes and he or she drowns you'll be going to jail, and you should. There are no accidents when it comes to firearms, there can't afford to be.

RI Mom

1.1

Statistics are NOT on the side of gun ownership.

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

This woman played with guns to the detriment of the innocents.

Gun"rights" are abused by gun owners. Turns out, guns DO KILL.

I guess you assume that these homicides are committed by law abiding citizens? and that certainly if guns were banned criminals would give up their guns?

Statistics ARE on the side of gun ownership.

Are you aware that there is about 60,000 cases of self-defense with guns every year (and I am being careful not to exagerate with the numbers as surveys vary beetween about 60,000 to over 2 Million per year). What do you make of all these people who were able to protect themselves, their families (including their children), and their homes with a gun?

You also mention suicide but it has nothing to do with guns, it has to do with a person who wants to kill her/himself, and will do so with or without a gun. I have a brother-in-law who committed suicide, he hanged himself, do you feel its much better then if he had used a gun?

Ask Kendra St.Clair what she thinks about guns, she was able to protect herself and her home against 2 intruders with one. Many elderly people were also able to protect themselves against intruders because they had guns, without guns they would have been defenseless, like another elderly couple, who were unarmed, and the man was killed and the woman raped.

And about the murderer's mother, sadly she didn't realise how disturbed her son was, only a mother wouldn't see the crazy eyes on that guy. I wish she had been able to see, she, and all the other victims, would still be alive today. For her defense I don't think most parents can even imagine that their own child could turn against them like this.

I can't even understand how a woman can be against guns, it is the best self-defense weapon, without it you are totally defenseless against most men. unless you are a martial art expert, but even then if the intruder/attacker has a gun you don't have a chance. I have a friend who was raped a few years ago, if she had been armed she would have been able to protect herself. Also my parents, and my sister-in-law both were victims of burglaries, luckily neither were in their homes at the time, but if they had been they would have been defenseless. Maybe you are one of the thousands of people who think it only happens to others ...

With anti-guns laws only criminals will have guns, law abiding citizens will be left defenseless.

pot's not the problem...it's the people who ain't high thats the problem...puffffff...

GovHater, #1.13- EXCELLENT!!! And "the toaster" doesn't toast the bread, People do.

The bat-weilding example also "excellently" serves to demonstrate the WRONGFUL EXPEDIENCY to the heart of the Violence in the "ONLY" expectation to be "ASSAULTIVE OVERPOWERMENT" of the Other, most directly and (focused in) to "ONLY" the Vulnerability of the other, with more than better odds that "the Other" will not be able to not only "defend" themselves, but also to not even be able to fight back, as in "to resist"; ie, "pre-meditation", as basis, exists in every "ASSAULTIVE" episode.

To what degree are we REALLY talking about "ACCESS" to afforded pre-meditation?

What do you do about the Laws? Can we begin with drawing a distinction between the need to be and possess and use "ASSAULTIVE" as opposed to "DEFENSIVE"? NAY/NRA! How about if the National Restaurant Association lobbied and pressed and to the disregard of any consequences, "TAUGHT" People that they need and must have Industial Toasters in every home in America? That they NEED that? Same difference in "Principle Theory", as basis?

The problem is pouring out of your TV set, brewing at your local movie house, Creeping into your brain through ear buds hooked to your ipad. Maybe 99.99999% of the people aren't affected by mass media whatsoever, but the a member .0000001% is who are did the killing on Friday.

Debi-1314897

The fact is, this is a violent world. It has been a violent world since the beginning of mankind, and unless there is a change to our DNA, will remain violent until the end of mankind.

Debi- I am not scoffing at you when I say this but, unless you are suggesting that the answer to the problem is in the manipulation of the human genome, then all you are saying is, humans are violent creatures, get used to it. Which again is not useful. There is a way to help this situation with the state of gun violence in this country. The problem is, instead of focusing on saving your children, you are focused on saving your guns. A thing which if you are creative may not be something you need be concerned about. You following me?

The nra and their members are hands down the biggest terrorist threat facing America and Americans today. While they have comepletely bought and bribed the republican teabag taliban party the odds of having any gun laws changed are zilch, zero, nada. So the nra sponsored terrorist carnage will go on and on and on and on and................

G-man...your an idiot!!

I have read many of the post in here today, I tip my hat to you all for not being so hateful. We need to have a talk and not start screaming. When everyone is screaming, no is lesions. I want to talk about the Question someone asked about why a good guy with a gun didn't stop this guy. We have to ask this with all the shootings lately. My biggest question about it was in AZ when Gabby G. Was shot. AZ has more hand guns then anywhere other than TX. Where were all these guns that day? Why didn't someone shot that mad man? Here is the other side of that. So many of these people where body armor. So for the most part a hand gun would not have stopped any of these. Second of all. Most people that have a gun are not Clint Eastwood. Most are not that good of a shot to pull off a Head shot to the Eye. Sure we all think we are bobby bad ass, But when the shooting starts most of us think about saving our own butts. And what happens when someone does step up and kill someone like this mad man? Then they fall under the eye of the law. Police do not like it when we take the law into our own hands. I have been there and I know. Ask George Zimmerman. I have a son that joined the Army and went to Afghanistan two times. He was driving a Striker and it was blown up by a IED. He had to watch as one of his best friends died right there and there. He always wanted to be the hero all his life. As I tried to take him out of joining the Army, one of his arguments were, wouldn't you be proud of me if I died defending my Country? I told him not in a rich mans war. I said getting yourself killed to rich people can get richer is not being a hero. But he went anyway. I guess it was like when we played army when we were kids. Now that he has gone and played GI Joe, He has come home destroyed as a man and a person. The things he went through and seen have changed him forever. He will never get those things out of his head. He is very unstable, and the first thing he did when he got home was to buy a hand gun. And he had no problem buying one. He has a short temper. He has lost one very good job because he was found out for carrying his gun to work. I fully expect to hear he shoot someone in a road rage case some day. So my point is. If the army that train people for this and failed, what do you think someone that has had no training is going handle killing someone? Look at Police man that shoot someone, It never goes away, Many of them end up shooting themselves, because they can't handle that they have killed someone. Some of might be able to handle killing someone if they were trying to hurt your wife or kids. I am just saying it isn't as easy as we might think it is to kill someone. We need to come together and find middle ground and ban the Ak 47's and other guns like them. This mess shows that this mom wasn't able to secure her weapons, and they fell into the hands of her mad man son.

..there is no law-abiding responsible concealed carrying gun owner going to be present to stop a deranged criminal with malevolent intent because if they were they would be in violation of the law.

It sounds so easy ... a guy with a concealed weapon taking out a mass murderer. But, in tense, chaotic situations, even trained police officers often fail to hit their targets or wind up hitting bystanders. You may think that even under fire, you will have the presence of mind to carefully aim and fire your weapon, but few people will manage that.

Here's another tidbit to consider. Since it is now legal to conceal-carry in National Parks and on Amtrak, has anyone noticed that it has not turned into the bloodbath that the anti-gunners said it would?

Throughout history, there has NEVER been a law that has actually stopped a criminal from committing a crime. It is called a crime AFTER the criminal breaks the law...

On that note... Something interesting happened here this morning. Let me start by giving a little background info. My kids are familiar with the very few guns I have. My kids COMPLETELY understand that they are to never go near the guns unless in my presence or instructed to do so. And none of them show any signs of mental illness. My kids are not familiar with the rhetoric from either side of the gun fence, as we have never had any discussions regarding the topic... That is, until yesterdays tragedy.

That said, one of my boys asked me a question earlier this morning. He has not heard what my stance is on guns when it comes to "people". He has only heard about target marksmanship and hunting animals for food, with gun and bow. With his innocent logic he asked the same question many in the gun community has asked... "Why are people blaming the guns for what happened, and not the person who killed these kids? The guns didn't break the law. Why don't these people see that?"

When he asked that, it made me wonder if the anti-gunners are just thinking too hard for everyone else's own good. If some one kills with a shovel, do we ban/confiscate the shovel? Just like in every other case, a MENTALLY UNSTABLE PERSON used _________— to injure/kill others.

I just think the irony lies in the fact that virtually all of these rampages have occurred in very liberal areas that generally have significant gun control laws already in place. Think about it. How many times have you heard of anything like this going on at: gun shows / gun stores / gun clubs / gun ranges / gun friendly establishments / etc.... Getting the picture?

Where the average person may be packing, the criminal element is highly lacking... That is what cleaned up the "wild West". It wasn't "wild" because everyone had guns. It was wild because of the mass quantity of criminals that flourished out there. It was a combination of the sheriffs and the homesteaders, (WHO WERE ARMED TO THE TEETH), that cleaned it up!

With the exception of the handful of those who identify themselves as "liberal" AND support the right to use a gun to defend oneself, I seriously believe that the remainder of the liberals out there are so intelligent that they are only outsmarting themselves... Their logic completely fails.

George Santayana said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Lets look at what history has to say about "gun control":

“An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” -- Col. Jeff Cooper

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed.” -- Noah Webster, 1787

“The police cannot protect the citizen at this stage of our development, and they cannot even protect themselves in many cases. It is up to the private citizen to protect himself and his family, and this is not only acceptable, but mandatory.” -- Col. Jeff Cooper

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” -- Ghandi

The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings.” -- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Shogun, August 1588

“Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater.” -- Peter Venetoklis

“Virtually never are murderers the ordinary, law-abiding people against whom gun bans are aimed. Almost without exception, murderers are extreme aberrants with lifelong histories of crime, substance abuse, psychopathology, mental retardation and/or irrational violence against those around them, as well as other hazardous behavior, e.g., automobile and gun accidents.” -- Don B. Kates, writing on statistical patterns in gun crime

“Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’” -- Mao Tse-tung, 1938, (inadvertently endorsing the Second Amendment)

“Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” -- Edward Abbey, "Abbey's Road", 1979

“... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.” -- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

“Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power.” -- Yoshimi Ishikawa, Japanese author, in the LA Times 15 Oct 1992

“When Pa was at home the gun always lay across those two wooden hooks above the door. ... The gun was always loaded, and always above the door so that Pa could get it quickly and easily, any time he needed a gun..” -- Laura Ingalls Wilder

“Here's a summary for the time or attention challenged: Never surrender freedom for laws that can't affect criminals; they disobey laws for a living.” -- Wayne LaPierre

“Free men own guns- Slaves don't.” -- Unknown

“Those who melt their guns into plows will plow for those who don't.” -- Unknown

“If One truly believes that only the government should have guns, I suggest that They put down their coloring books and pick up some history books. Obviously They have much to learn.” -- Unknown

“A gun in the hands of a free man frightens and angers the government, not because they fear the power of the gun, but, rather, the spirit of the man who holds it.” -- Unknown

“History has shown what happened when Hitler confiscated the firearms from the law abiding citizens of Germany.” -- Unknown

“An armed person is a Citizen and unarmed person is a Subject.” -- Unknown

“The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid.” -- Unknown

“The 3 boxes of freedom: the soap box, the ballot box and the ammo box.” -- Unknown

This is Adam Lanza's facebook page before it was deleted. You can see that it was a screen capture. This is not a hoax or a fraud. Thats being done by the media that uses photos that are 8 yrs old to depict a kid. As you can see this is no kid. Pay particular attention to the "Political Views" on this page. These kids and their teachers were killed by a Communist/Anarchist. Please pass this on.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/3611_423506811050933_1150852840_n.jpg

I dont really need to post this because they are not taking away guns any time soon. And so i am wondering why all you anti gun people arent worrying more about the crazies that would find any method to commit these terrible acts.

Not to be morbid but say the guy had a knife or bat.. got into the classroom and blocked the door, this crime would have still happend.. and it would have been a lot more painful. Or like another poster had mentioned earlier... which i can see most of you anti-gun nuts are skipping over any thing that disproves your points. Pipe bombs.. easily made... walk up to door.. throw in pipe bomb.. close dooer and hold it closed.. wait for explosion.. walk to next room..

With 6 easily made pipe bombs this tragedy could have been even worse.. if a crazy person has a gun and i have a gun, at least i have a chance to stop him, crazy person with a pipe bomb against me with a gun, still might blow up everything in the room.

Look at the criminals in prison.. they dont have guns but they find a way to kill each other.. they make weapons out of anything they can... people will always find a way to do thier crazy deeds.. doing a witch hunt for guns is wasting EVERYONES time and avoiding the real issues.

But hey i spent 10 years in the army fighting for your right to waste your time as you see fit.. as i said guns are not going anywhere, i own quite a few of them and never killed another american.

My God, This @sswhipe steals his mothers guns and kills with them, and people want to have restrictions on gun ownership. This story proves the old saying, make guns illegal and only the criminals will have them. It shows that even with strict gun laws, if a criminal wants them to perpertrate a crime with, he will get them, lawfully or unlawfully. Heres a suggestion, when not in use LOCK THEM UP. Especially in a household when you know that someone is mentally unstable.

@Getmadstaymad: Thanks for the info. It looks like our great and wonderful media elites are pulling a Trayvon again.

Innocent "kid"/ evil gun lovers.

NOT!!!

Robert in Oregon.....you sir are a dickhead. You are a pointy headed libtard that thinks he knows what is best for everyone....you do not....go pick flowers or something......goof!

@ Bill-2100624

Yes....guns don't kill people...people kill people...and so would a monkey if he had a FRIGGIN GUN!!!

Tell me what I'm going to do when have a need to protect myself with a FRIGGIN BANANA in my pocket!!!

Throw the peel at some scumbag and hope they slip! Unbelievable!

RI MOM, Brenda

And how many of those statistics were police shootings?? Gang related shootings?? How long will we keep ignoring inner city gang violence??

Blaming the mother is a BS side step from reality.. You are basically pointing your finger at every household that enjoys shooting and hunting.. Tragic isolated incidents are the fuel that the government uses to diminish the citizens rights through media blitzes that target people like you..

Look at all the censorship going on even in these posts!! This has become the new normal in a constitutional/civil rights grabbing society.. Never trust someone else with your liberties or your soul because the devil wears a friendly face..

@LN1958362 post #1.6, -Anna-, & Roadrunnero

RI Mom is correct, this year up thru Dec 2012, only 32 instances of defensive gun actions have been reported.

source Cato Institute Defensive Gun Use Map

@Honorable1, post#108, if the guy had a bat he couldn't have killed as quickly or efficiently as he did, the response of local males could have more easily overwhelmed him, looking at the kid I would say a healthy female might not have to hard a time defending the children, so I find your argument to be just so much hot air.

Sooner827 - "Another gun nut with 50 guns arrested in Indiana threatened to shoot up Elementary school". So Sooner827 they finally caught up with you??? And really, who's the idiot?

@ steve so only skinny kids become insane and commit mass murder? Do you even think before you respond? are you one of those people that have to be presented with EVERY single scenerio? If people want to do evil they will find a way... and you assume a woman could take him down... i read he had some sort of condition that he didnt feel pain like most people.. if that is true it also changes things.

So pay attention steve. It doesnt take that much power to hurt (even a woman) with a bat or knife. And as i posted he would have blocked the doors, so by the time these "local males" got in, it would be too late... so i find your argument to be useless and a waste of mine and everyone elses time.

Have fun in that interesting imaginary world you live in though.

I heard a good rebuttal to those advocating "gun control"

How many people were killed in the last 24 hours in car wrecks.

According to the "ban gun advocates" so AUTOS should be banned!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_in_car_accident_in_the_US

http://gawker.com/5968818/

Ah First Read, the home of people who never solve any problems. I forgot! It is much more important to push political agendas here than care about the murdered kids.

Good on you First Read!

A ban on handguns and assault rifles will not stop criminals from obtaining those guns.

Learn from history. Prohibition of alcohol failed, the drug war is a failture, would you like to add "gun prohibition" to this list? I'm positive it'd fit right in.

I hate having to hear this argument over and over again. Gun supporters repeatedly cite that banning guns will not stop criminals from obtaining those guns. You know what the problem is?? Those people aren't criminals! They're just regular citizens until they go nuts and shoot someone. And if guns were banned, they would have a much harder time getting those weapons. Guns are banned in Canada and UK and Korea and a whole bunch of other countries and we never hear of school shootings over there.

Gofishus, have you considered moving to Canada, the UK, or Korea? If not, why? Sounds like your kind of place. You could be happy there, no guns to worry about, just oppressive government regulations and 50%+ tax rates! Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows! What a life!

How STUPID are some of you people? That is NOT ADAM LANZA'S FACEBOOK PAGE. It was created yesterdamnday!!!! You do understand that they have announced that anyone promoting this is going to be visited by that gubbermint that you all seem to be so afraid of?

I weep for us, I really do. Instead of using just a little bit of common sense you allow someone with an agenda to post stupid and inaccurate information and then you BELIEVE it!!!

As for the one with the Trayvon comment. Your buddies over at Fox had to take that down. Do you know why? Because it was of someone with the SAME DAMN NAME THAT LIVED IT GEORGIA!!!!

@MtMike-571674

Read and read more, that stupid example has been mentioned so many times, it doesn't make sense.

So, car is only create for killing people only? No, they are used for transportation. Can car chase down people in the office building or house and kill them? No again. Can car be carry inside your clothes and use it to kill people? No again.

See, gun only has one purpose in mind and that is to kill people. Again, read, think and then answer your own question first.

Canada's government is oppressive?

ROTFLMAO!

Someone needs to watch the South Park movie. Just to get some common sense.

chuck-2111043

I want to talk about the Question someone asked about why a good guy with a gun didn't stop this guy.

The answer to that one is pretty simple, he committed his crimes in a gun-free zone. If some of the teachers had been armed they probably would have been able to stop him, instead of getting killed trying to disarm him while being unarmed themselves.

Derek-381097

Canada's government is oppressive?

Yes absolutely. You don't see it because you are used to it. Recently in Canada a man was arrested for holding an intruder at gun point (with a legal gun) while waiting for the police to arrive. They arrested him on the scene along with the criminal who had broken into his home. I consider that oppressive, sorry.

Well, you ABSOLULELY need to recalibrate.

I'm not saying that Canada's gun laws are correct, but sorry, it is a statement of complete hyperbole or insanity (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it is the former) to say that the Canadian government is oppressive.

When your government actually, already, past tense, in one month, kills at least 1000 people, using weapons far beyond the citizens' capabilities, regardless of what they are armed with, THEN I'll agree with you. You don't get a pass on that because you think they will, or they could, or that you swear to high heaven that it is going to happen no matter what. It is when they do that I'll agree with you. Okay, maybe, MAYBE if literally in repeat incidents we are on that path, but again it is past tense.

All the governments of the world worth hating, by the way, HAVE actually done that within the past 30 years. The United States has not. CANADA has not. The United Kingdom has not. South Korea has not. North Korea HAS. And Serbia has. You know, the actually other country that has even close to as much gun ownership in the United States.

Only vaporheads who pretend to represent the left want to take away all guns. Just like only vaporheads who pretend to be from the right actually fear that. Don't throw your lot in with the morons. The NRA has as much to do with coming up with a solution as the person who wants to (sorry, common sense says) the person who says 100 round magazines are too much to allow people to own without some additional checks.

If Canada is an oppressive country, then you might as well just start living in your nuclear bunker now. Because your just going to be that scared of life anyway.

Derek. The problem with your gun laws is that people, and especially women, are totally defenseless if someone breaks into your house or attacks you on the street. You are not even allowed to carry a stun gun or a taser (if I am not mistaken it is also illegal to carry pepper spray). Certainly if that happens you will try to call the police asap, but you will be very lucky if they get there in time to save you.

moondog99 wrote:

"Tell me what I'm going to do when have a need to protect myself with a FRIGGIN BANANA in my pocket!!!"

'Moondog', ..."there you go again", ...telling everyone about the banana in your pocket. I hope you are aware that the directions on the package - as well as the television commercials - clearly state that if that condition lasts more than 4-hours you are supposed to seek medical assistance, not go on Newsvine and comment about it.

;-)

Steve C-526943

@LN1958362 post #1.6, -Anna-, & Roadrunnero

RI Mom is correct, this year up thru Dec 2012, only 32 instances of defensive gun actions have been reported.

The numbers I mentioned are from NCVS (the National Crime Victimization Survey) and is administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

What are you talking about 'my' gun laws? I don't know. Did you assume I live in Canada?

Anyway, I agree with you that gun laws are appropriately regional for home defense. Simple example...you shoot ANY gun in NYC and you are likely to kill someone you didn't mean to. You live 5 miles from the nearest police station and in a rural area, uh, yeah, you are going to wait. Different laws for different locations. Some laws should be universal, but not all laws.

Neither does it mean that in NYC you should have no right whatsoever, by the way.

BUT that is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from calling Canada an oppressive country. If it is just an extreme way to make your point, okay, I approve. I understand sometimes you have to draw people's attention to something, and congrats, you did. But I couldn't take that statement seriously.

My point, by the way, to any side of the argument, is that one thing any government will never let you do is outgun them. If they do, then they are no government at all and you get what you have in Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is whether you own a giant rocket launcher or a one bullet only at a time sports pistol. So the debate should just really focus not on whether you should or shouldn't own guns, but given the rights we want, how do we want our laws to be designed around guns.

I don't think I'm too far off the mark by saying no laws whatsoever is the smart way to go, nor is eliminating all firearm ownership completely. Sadly, only the extremists are debating and doing it in a nonsense way.

Since when is half a dozen of something make you an avid collector of something? That's like a basic collection... Never fired an Enfield...heard they are nice...weird round though... Now they are condemning her because she was interested in protecting herself and her family... Nice. Make every woman feel guilty...she can't help her son was a nutter...

In 2010, more than 10,000 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes - one every 51 minute!!

In 2009 181 children died as a result of drunk drivers!!

Where then is the outcry to abolish alcohol?? Is this not enough deaths for you??

(that is just drunk driving. Doesn't include all the impacts on health care and social related issues)

When do we begin to take away cell phone????

I am a bit surprised that the liberal left, who are always so adimate about people's "rights" are so quick to want to remove a right put in place by our fore fathers.

Vehicle's, cell phone' and alcohol cunsumptions are not rights. Gun ownership is.

GUNS are NOT the problem. We need to figure out how and why we keep breeding and rearing animals that are capable of these cold, calculated killings. THAT is the problem and we better start taking a real look at mental health in the U.S.!!!!!!

the mom should have took her son and blown his retarded brains out and bury that evil POS back out deep in those conn woods !!!this country needs @!$%# control,not gun control

"Statistics are NOT on the side of gun ownership."

Could be, but the top killer in the US for 2010 is.... (drum roll)

You guessed it... Tobacco with an award-winning number of 443,000+

Not as much of a hue and cry to regulate/ban that stuff, eh?

Just sayin'....

6079 - What are you talking about? Tobacco's been falling further and further into prohibition for the last twenty years. Most larger American cities already have a functional indoor ban on tobacco, and some are even banning it in many outside areas. Your argument (if it can be called that) doesn't even make sense.

For you people who are accusing the mother of "shooter" of not getting help for her son, think again. News reports today state that shooter had psychiatric care from the time he was a little boy. It may or may not have worked but he did have it.

I do feel that a person who keeps guns in a household where there is a person with a major mental problem is just plain stupid. Even though the son may or may not have ever shown signs of being a danger to society, she should have never taken him shooting nor should she have kept guns. Whether she kept the guns in a gun safe or not is not known yet but even if she did the shooter probably had access whenever he wanted since the palled around together with said guns.

I realize that at this time a person is allowed to purchase and keep nearly any kind of gun but what was she thinking? Why did she feel the need for an assault rifle? A regular rifle or handgun could have easily taken care of an intruder, she didn't need the big gun. She made a big mistake in keeping guns of any type but especially an assault rifle where her nut job of a son had easy access and she and 26 innocent people have now paid the ultimate price.

"Why did she feel the need for an assault rifle? A regular rifle or handgun could have easily taken care of an intruder, she didn't need the big gun."

The Bushmaster SEMI-automatic rifle is NOT an "assault rifle"-it is as you put it a "regular rifle".

Ms. Lanza DID have two "regular" handguns.

Define "the big gun"- the Bushmaster semi-auto rifle is a .223 caliber rifle, MOST deer hunting rifles are MUCH larger calibers-such as- 30-30, 30-06,.308.300 Win. mag, .338,etc.

People DO use the exact same Bushmaster rifle for hunting,mainly feral hogs/wild boar,coyotes,praire diogs/gophers,and in some areas,even deer.

Cuong,

You're not very good at the debate thing. A gun is only more deadly at a distance. Which is why I was trained to rush a gun. There were no lies stated to get my point across as my point is common sense.

Your logic is flawed in your analysis of the situation.

As far as how often does the cleaver scenario happen, you should read up on the happenings of China.

Your opinion means nothing to me and I could care less if you believe me. Those of us that have been in that situation know that I speak the truth.

RE: #1.107

I have known since this story broke that we were being deliberately misled by the media and that this was the work of a planned operation not a "random" act of violence by a non-political kind of insanity.

This atrocity, like many of an exactly similar nature, has the signature of communist methodology written large all over it. The events we now refer to as "911" were different from this how? The idea that someone might commit the most heinous crime imaginable in order to change the political landscape even when that act is suicidal can no longer be excluded as beyond possibility. 911 proved this. That event was obviously planned, organized, financed, and made operational by a government. Only a government could have performed such a complex highly organized atrocity. Only a government, people. Think!

It has been known for decades that the communist is ON RECORD IN WRITING as advocating the commission of the most appalling sorts of atrocities in order to manipulate the populace into becoming compliant as totalitarian measures are implemented to "protect" the public. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that laws and policies can protect anyone from a random act of violent insanity. When an act this heinous is committed it is time to look at who stands to gain from it. And as I said, it is a well-known characteristic of the communist that he will commit the most outrageous atrocities in order to manipulate public opinion. In Viet Nam, in Central America, in places worldwide the communists have routinely murdered pregnant women to provoke the most public outrage possible because that is what they HAVE PROFESSED TO BELIEVE WILL SUCCEED in furthering their goals. They have WRITTEN that such atrocities are most effective when committed against their OWN SUPPORTERS because that makes it easiest to blame their opponents. THIS is how EVIL the communist IS.

I knew that this was the work of communists when I first read that the media was reporting that this Lanza character was an "avid capitalist." Such a detail is completely pointless unless it is a diversion and exactly the opposite of what is true. Why does the media want us to believe that he was "NOT" a communist? Can't you hear it? The sound of "methinks the lady doth protest too much"? "

Don't you hear the constant drumbeat? The media is pushing THIS: "He was Not a communist! He WASN'T. Whatever he was, at least HE WASN'T A COMMUNIST!" Q: Why is this idea so important to them? A: Because today's mass media is almost wholly owned and operated by communists and it is important to them that no one make this obvious--ONLY POSSIBLE connection. The atrocity was the work of communists. Bet on it. Expect to see more of this and more stringent responses by government hailed as "necessary" to prevent what no rational person could ever believe to be preventable. All of this is to make tyrannical oppressive domination and the extremities of martial law palatable to a frightened public. Is it a random coincidence that this is what happens almost immediately after the communist powers have secured another several years of administrative authority? You think?

This is all completely obvious, people. Everyone is gabbling around and past the COMPLETELY OBVIOUS RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR WHAT WAS NOT ANY KIND OF RANDOM IRRATIONAL ACT. THIS IS THE ABSOLUTELY CHARACTERISTIC ROTTEN FRUIT OF THE UTOPIAN WORKER'S PARADISAICAL VISION. Count on it.

Communist China has declared their goal to be world communism. You don't have to take my word for it. Read it on their official government website.

911 benefited who? Communist China. The crazies that did the dirty work might have been Islamic fanatics, but you can believe that they were the patsy stooges for a bigger and more determined power than ever they themselves could be. China. Which borders Afghanistan, by the way. Which has propped up and empowered the Taliban, by the way. Their fingers are in these rotten pies all the way up to their elbows. Remember the Egyptian pilot that flew a commercial airliner into the Mediterranean Sea several years ago? A proof of concept experiment. Bet on it. Planning and preparation for 911. Bet on it. Only a major government could be behind such highly organized and relentless terror. Use your heads.

You have many questions, I know. I have asked them myself. But there are rational answers and they all lead to the same conclusion. Does the perpetrator expect to be "protected" and whisked away from the scene after doing his commando stunt? Did he really kill himself. We can never know. Does someone have a much greater fear of what China will do to him if he doesn't commit suicide than if he could ever have of suicide itself? We cannot know. We have never been behind the locked doors of the men who are trained and practiced in the use of treachery such as is used by such men as these. Did the Egyptian pilot fear more what China would do to his family than what he was told to do to himself and the plane he deliberately crashed? Lanza "destroyed" his hard drive before committing this atrocity? WHAT? This smells badly of some very highly organized scheme, ladies and gentlemen, I so very much hate to tell you, but that's the only explanation that could possibly lead in the direction of a sane and rational answer to the questions that we are ALL asking, one way or another. That is the ONLY possibility that could be the truth here. Sad that so much of the public debate spins round and round the reality of political subversion and talks about the topic the media (and the political powers behind it) want you all to be talking about: Gun control. Cops in every school. Draconian intrusions of government into everything and everywhere. That's the goal. That's why it is so obvious that this was NOT a RANDOM atrocity.

This has "communism" written all over it.

Oh, and did you hear that he was an "avid capitalist"?

Yeah, right. And the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale cheap, too, if you pay cash before sunrise.

RE: 1.122

I don't believe there is anyone in Georgia or anywhere else by the name of Trayvon. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem logical to me since the name is a combination of his mother's and his father's names. It is in all probability completely unique. I believe that this story about that page having been someone else's page is the real lie.

But it doesn't really matter whether or not there is any other person named Trayvon. The truth was completely obvious. The pictures of the person flipping the bird at the camera with his pants down toward his knees and his metal-mouthed sneer was without a doubt the same person whose face appears in the recent pictures of Trayvon Martin. It was NOT the page of someone else. No one else has his face. And that picture was of his face. #1.122, YOU are the person who is spreading lies.

Much of the vengeance and irrational distortion of the events of that night are the direct consequence of some very irresponsible "researchers" who claimed that they had analyzed the cries for help and that their software "proved" to near certainty that it could not have been the voice of George Zimmerman.

I have a degree in Computational Linguistics. A Master's degree, so I know exactly what I am talking about. That claim was false. It is impossible that from that recording (or from any recording) one could with confidence exclude someone from being the source of a falsetto cry uttered in a panic by comparing it to the person's "chest" voice. At least three things are relevant: (1) the complexity of acoustic information is extreme. We receive far more information of an exact and detailed nature through our ears than we do through our eyes. That two acoustic signals produced by the same person should fail to nearly perfectly match in any number of dimensions of measurement is not surprising, and could never be surprising under the very best of circumstances. (2) The analysis of acoustic voice signals by computational means is a problem of such extreme complexity that it constitutes one of the most intractable problems known to modern science. It was far beyond irresponsible for those self-appointed "researchers" (who clearly had an agenda to push, and are beyond question not "objective" observers, but political operatives as is clearly evident if only by virtue of how nearly spontaneously fast they jumped into the question with both feet and decleared that they had "proven" something they could not possibly have "proven" in any case with twenty times as much investigation as they then had thus far had time to do) to categorically state that they had "evidence" that would stand up in court. They had nothing of the sort. Their statements were clearly lies, plain and simple. And (3) there are many acoustic phenomina that are well known to recording artists and sound engineers that I strongly doubt are much known even superficially by these self-styled "researchers" with their so-called "computer" evidence. Let someone ask them what a comb-filter is. Let someone ask them in what way do reflections of a sound off of walls, floors, ceilings and other various surfaces cause a difference in the time it takes a sound to reach a microphone (in a telephone, for example) so as to cause re-enforcement and cancellation at various frequencies according to the ratio of the frequency to the distances involved. See what their answers are and how much they really know about the science of acousics. I strongly doubt that they know very much at all. The comb filtering of a sound that has bounced off of many surfaces before reaching a microphone has caused such profound changes in the mathematical purity of the original waveforms that it is categorically impossible that these "researchers" could have excluded anything with their feeble little computer program.

I know what I am talking about. I am not promoting any agenda except a love for the truth and a passionate hatred for lies.

I mentioned that I have a Master's Degree in Computational Linguistics. That's the truth. I could spin your heads with jargon that would be as complex as Relativity or Rocket Science and be saying something completely logical and true, but you wouldn't know that unless you had studied the same things. And that's my point here. What does the average person know, what does the average judge know, what does the average jury member know about the science of computational linguistics? That's the science in which these self-styled "researchers" were dabbling, by the way. And I say they are political hacks with an agenda and an axe to grind and that their "proof" is nothing but a pack of misleading lies.

Sadly, all too many people have bought the argument that they expected most people to consider: "It couldn't be George's voice; a computer proves it." That's why they have felt themselves compelled to construct an ever more and more far-fetched explanation for the events of that tragic night as seen in light of the rest of the evidence. But a computer can't "prove" anything if you put it between an idiot and an agenda. There's nothing magical about the words "computer proved it" when it's just a bald-faced lie. But those "researchers" planted a seed. It's been a sobering second tragedy to see how far they have carried that thought into the realm of the completely absurd. Because a computer can't be wrong, can it?

We've all heard the axiom, and it doesn't take a mathematical genius to understand it: "Figures don't lie. That's true. But liars do figure."

This story cries out for cliches!

• You live by the sword...you die by the sword.
• When pigeons come home to roost....
• The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.
• As we sow, so shall we reap.
• Taste of your own medicine.
• Isn't all its cracked up to be.
• Hindsight is 20/20.

No, take them all away.....nobody needs guns. They are meant to kill.

Are you worried about being attacked by Indians? Bears? Why do you need weapons?

I am worried about felons, that's why.

It's funny, my guns haven't killed anyone yet! They are going on 15yrs old.

Should we take away your forks because you are fat?

Why do people think outlawing weapons will mean NO ONE will have them? If people who commit evil acts, even acts such as robbery, want guns, they will find a way to get them, just like people found ways to get/make alcohol during prohibition. If you take rights to guns away, then the only people that have them are the bad guys. (excluding law enforcement of course)

You can have all the guns you want. What I don't want you to have are bullets!

And to TeachingYoufor25Years how inane is your comment? Forks have so any other uses, guns have only 1. I am sick of gun freaks saying, oh should we take away all the cars because there are accidents? No because there ar many more uses for cars. Once again, guns, only 1 use, to kill stuff (unfortunately little children this time), automatic weapons: to kill even more stuff faster..

Sorry, but there's no going back on gun ownership. Even if they drove door to door to confiscate them there'd still be guns hidden away by people who refuse to be without them.

Tell your nutty friends to quit shooting everyone and we will.

Gun control does not mean taking away guns from gun owners. It merely controls who can get guns just a little bit more.

I get so tired of people claiming the 2nd amendment and screaming that gun control will take away guns. It WILL NOT. Gun control will control who can have guns. If by current laws and regulations, you should NOT have a gun, then it only makes it more difficult for you to get a gun. Sure you can get a gun illegally, but if you are allowed to own a gun, by current laws and regulations, then you should not be affected by it.

This case is a perfect example. The killer did not own a gun.... he used his mother's guns. But she should have been a responsible gun owner and kept them locked away and out of the hands of her kid, IF he really was autistic or had some kind of behaviour disorder.

And for the record - the source is HIS OWN BROTHER.

The issue is not a gun control issue alone. It's getting help to the psychologically disturbed people... why did this single parent have no other recourse except to shoulder this on her own?

Blah, blah, blah, gazillions of people use a gun in self defense every year.

I would like to know who is interviewing these people and keeping the statistics? Is there a hotline gun totters call and a website to upload video of them thwarting crime with their guns? Crickets!

You are right Mark. What options were there for this mother to get help for her son? Except for the $300-$600 per hour shrinks, the state paid for shrinks are all idiots. Could she have afforded the good ones? There is not much good help out there, and the psychiatric profession is still in the stone age. Most of them know more about motivating rats to press bars than dealing with real people.

The psychiatric profession is so pathetic that people go to their Tarot reader instead.

I own a hand gun,,yes i do. I have also never broken any laws in regards to a hand gun.Am i to be punished because of the actions of a few freaks?This is called mass punishment of the many because of the few.What happened was Horrible yes indeed it was.Please don't spin this comment into what it is not.My concern is that we are losing our freedoms and rights one by one in this country.This is an odd thought though..I carry an assault rifle to work....LOL part of the uniform.

I know lots of gun owners and lots of hunters, but I don't know one who owns an assault rifle for their "personal protection." The son probably had some serious mental issues, but Nancy Lanza was a little paranoid herself.

You gun people are NUTS!! Nobody has ever talked about taking your guns, why are so STUPID!! All people are talking about are trying to keep crazy people from buying them. Don't you IDIOTS realize that if your name is on the terrorists watch list you could still go out a buy guns. If that is not CRAZY, I don't know what is, I'm 66 and have been a gun owner since I was 10, I was reloading my own ammo at 14. Gun people get a GRIP!!

Yeah the poor woman thought she needed protection boy was she wrong

even though i own a gun i don't believe anyone needs and assualt rifle to hunt deer or rabbits.(them sure is some tough deer)On the other hand i tried hunting wild boar in Germany.With Boars you need all you can get.In the end i deceided never to hunt Boar again..that's dangerous.

A lot of information has changed here in a day but CBS 48Hours tonight has stated that Nancy Lanza was getting $200,000 a year in support. That kind of money can buy a lot of professional care, if one faces up to the need and abandons the survivalist mentality that they can do it all themself.

Here is a thought about gun control. Public school teachers should be well trained in the art of gun control. Gun control is defined as the ability to aim and fire a weapon effectively. Then these well trained teachers should be required to carry a sidearm while on the job.

JPRhedd

Are you worried about being attacked by Indians? Bears? Why do you need weapons?

NO. That is not the reason why we need guns. Guns assure the balance of power between the citizens and the government. That right is guaranteed by the constitution. As much as I worry about guns in the hands of a psychopath I truly fear what the government might do if it had control of all the weapons. Rocks are a pure substitute for guns against a fully armed military.

I wonder how long the Constitution would remain as the contract between the government and the citizens without an armed deterrent? I'm sure that the people that run for higher office would never seek complete control by force. Maybe just maybe it is because of those guns that no past politicians have been able to discard the constitution. From my view keeping our government at bay makes the problems of guns the lesser of two evils.

It is virtually impossible now to unseat an incumbent politician and if it were not for a constitutional amendment the same would occur with the presidency. Unarmed citizens would be the dream of every megalomaniac politician or cult party? I'm banking on the wisdom of the founding fathers and their dream of a balanced responsive government.

Also with an over populated world running short on food, water and natural resources an unarmed America could be a target of an overpopulated, energy depleted and starving populated country. Wars have been fought for far less reasons than this and what would they have to lose. We are just one bad world crop from anarchy. Maybe a well armed military backed by a fully armed civilian populations would be the deterrent to some desperate government. I'm sure that a country in that position could make an argument with other world governments lets say at the UN wondering why Americans should be the ones with food and fresh water while their population is starving and thirsty. I wonder when the UN will try to restrict gun ownership in this country?

Now with this said getting the guns out of the hands of criminals is essential. We should have a uniformed and complete background check for thoses applying for a gun permit.

I like it Old Man, but who's going to pay for that?

There should be an armed person in each school, ideally a security officer or a staff member if budget restricts it. Even building security has to be beefed up. I find it sad that an educational institution should plan for that but not as sad as thinking 20 angels got taken. For the future at least, something new has got to be implemented nationwide.

Out of respect for these children, something has to be done.

To those anti-gunners who always seem to be fascinated with everyone's penis size, this poem/story is for you.

WHY I CARRY A GUN

My old grandpa said to me son,' there comes a time in every mans life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps, and usually it's When he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin',
I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'. --author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Logic dictates that if Pro-gunners are as violent as Anti-gunners say the are, there wouldn't be any anti-gunners left..." -- unknown

Disarming innocent people does NOT protect innocent people...

@JPR No, we are worried about people breaking and entering and kidnapping and killing our kids. Why is that so hard to understand?

Once again, guns, only 1 use, to kill stuff (unfortunately little children this time), automatic weapons: to kill even more stuff faster..

Here are six uses that our forefathers came up with when instituting the second amendment:
1. Deterring tyrannical government
2. Repelling invasion
3. Suppressing insurrection
4. Facilitating a natural right of self defense
5. Participating in law enforcement
6. Enabling the people to organize a militia system

And although you may think that we live in a stable country and these uses don't apply to us, keep in mind that governments do change, and typically not for the better (Ex. syria, libya). Our constitution has numerous checks and balances built in so that we do not end up in a position similar to these two examples. The second amendment is one of those checks and balances that must be available if the situation ever arrises.

As to your misconception about automatic weapons, according to one researcher:

approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime. With the exception of two, which were used by law enforcement officers.

Even though you may think that every owner of an automatic weapon in the US has nothing but bad intentions this shows that not one citizen who is in legal possession of one has ever used it to commit a violent crime. Sadly the same cannot be said about two law enforcement officers

Leave our guns alone.

Yeah, because gun ownership is certainly a higher priority than the safety and lives of children. /s/

@DOCJT If someone breaks into your house, would you consider gun ownership to threaten the safety and lives of your children?

Commonsense, please change your user name to "HaveNoSense". Look up what the 2nd amendment says and look up the definition of the words used. I did so the other night.

You are the exact type of person who probably should NOT own a gun. You remind of a David Koresh. You know who that is right? That is the crazy guy that killed himself and all with those innocent folks in that compound in Waco Texas a few years ago.

@Missamy You think the person committing the crime gives a crap what the weapon he's using was "designed to do"?

Yes look up the :LEGAL definition for the words in the constitution. Militia means every able bodied man 17 to 45. Why don't you educate yourself before you start spewing nonsense.

And WE ARE well regulated. When the government tells me how much water I can use to flush my feces down the toilet it is a very clear indication of how well regulated we are. Those regulations however are NEVER to be for firearms as that shall not be infringed.

I'm surrounded by a sea of morons.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

• (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Ban handguns.

WOW! What a thoughtless and dogmatic bunch of commentary!

ONLY because anti-gun propaganda goes to ridiculous lengths of yellow journalism
is it even possible that such a headline and article exists. There is zero
relevance to that fact that Mom is a gun enthusiast and her kid is a
psychopath. I mean it is a spurious, emotionally provocative, invalidity.

Thisis a sad day in journalism, but it is an even sadder day in American history.Reading many of the unsubstantiated opinions that are pejorative,t here is a tremendous blindness and ignorance of too many folks about the nature of violence and need for self protection. Instead of anti-citizens' rights rhetoric we need concerted efforts to actually lower violence in society in effective ways that do not limit the individual and community rights to self defense. The misapprehensions in this really irresponsible and politically
correct yet disingenuous article, and the lack comprehensive understanding on the part of the authors about the etiology of violence is very concerning

Do not the thoughtful and wwise among my fellow citizens realize that when only military and police have guns we have created a police state ? HAs no one ever been the victim of violence by a
police officer? Do you think that the gun made the officer violent?

We are enculturating violence and cruelty in our society in a myriad of convergent
ways. It begins in media crapola and schools with the idea that rather than teach and encourage someone to control themselves and sublimate their baser impulses in the service ofaccomplishing a good life and achieving a measure of self respect and happiness, we encourage anarchistic hedonism and socially darwinistic materialism. It begins in elementary school where we do not teach our children to eat with knives and forks because "a knife or fork can be used as a weapon" . This is exactly the kind of stupidity that perpetuates ineffective and dangerous anti-gun laws. Laws that endanger individuals, families
and communities as well as what is left of our nation's participatory
Democracy.

In this particular situation the shooter was clearly deranged, and very likely
either self medicating or on some toxic psychotropic from which the
pharmaceutical companies reap a profit sown on the backs of brain altered kids,
too many of whom become disinhibited and begin to act out violently.

There are such dangers to giving up our right to guns. as law abiding citizens, and
doing so does not mitigate cruelty or violence in the least, it just makes it
more likely that the savagery will take another form like acid -throwing or
bombs planting in which cases the shooter would be as in the draconian gun laws
in Connecticut entirely unimpeded.

REFUSE
to name these disturbed creatures in the newspapers. That will be a huge deterrent
to mayhem massacres. Anonymity will discourage those whose aim is grandiose
sick celebrity on the bodies of innocents.

There are so MANY ways to prevent violence effectively but no brute was ever deterred
by a law. Many have been stopped by a weapon.

Violence is an interior emotional place, and no law on earth can stop it. We can stop mass producing crazies however, and that is what we need to commit to do. It is
certainly achievable.

It will mean reexamining in the light of fact-finding and not ivory tower imbued dogmtic theorems and without prejudice what factors converge to produce crime. SHOOTING AT A RANGE is not one of them. Criminal sub-culture, exposure to emotional physical and or sexual violence as a victim or eyewitness, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, severe devaluation and objectification of an an individual to the point that that person ahs psychotic breaks and mental illness of an acting out nature that is untreated, and a myriad of other factors can converge to enhance the likelhood of tragic events like these murders.

Let us be effective and not foolish.

dusty-7314465

No, take them all away.....nobody needs guns. They are meant to kill.

DOCJT

Yeah, because gun ownership is certainly a higher priority than the safety and lives of children. /s/

Say that to Kendra St.Clair, 12 year old girl who was home because of a day off from school, she was able to protect herself and her home against 2 intruders with a gun. Say that to Leda Smith, a 85 year old woman, she was able to protect herself and her home against an intruder because she had a gun. Say that to the 60,000 (I mention the lowest number possible, the results of surveys actually vary from 60,000 to 2 Million per year) who were able to protect themselves, their families, and their homes, because they had a gun.

I wish the medias would post articles about all these people more often, people only read about the tragedies, and don't have a clue about all the gun owners who saved their lives and the lives of others with a gun.

I don't know if you two are men, but personally as a woman if a man attacked me I would be defenseless.

JPRhedd

Are you worried about being attacked by Indians? Bears? Why do you need weapons?

No simply by a person who would threaten my life, or my family. Maybe you are a man and you assume that you would be able to protect yourself? Or maybe you are woman who thinks these things only happen to others? As a 5'5" woman I strongly doubt I could win a physical confrontation against a man, I would be defenseless.

Funny you would mention bears tho, recently in my area a man was attacked by a bear, and was able to shoot and kill the bear. Without a gun he would have been that bear's meal.

Anna. What you said is righteous. My question is this. what kind of guns did these people have. Did the 12 year old girl and the 85 year old woman have assault rifles, 9mm with 30 round clips? And if they had these guns in a gun safe? Because if they had them locked up in a safe manner, they couldn't have gotten to them in time to protect themselves. So if this is the case as I think it might, then those guns are a easy target for people that break in to those houses when no one is home. That is why many of these types of guns that are used in crimes like Fridays. Those were guns that were legal, But a crazy man steel got hole of them and look what happened. Most people that want gun control, want common sense control. We live in a country that as a free society must still have rules that we live by. We don't want Company's Polluting our are and drinking water, do we? No we don't. We have seen what happens when we let Walstreet run wild, We don't want that to happen again do we? Hell now. We Shouldn't want Remington to be able to keep making that un safe rifle that goes off when you take the safety off. How many people has that killed. We shouldn't want to allow that. And we shouldn't want assault rifles in the hands of everyday people. And we all should be against these clips that hold hundreds of rounds. That is a weapon of mass destruction.

This is Adam Lanza's facebook page before it was deleted. You can see that it was a screen capture. This is not a hoax or a fraud. Thats being done by the media that uses photos that are 8 yrs old to depict a kid. As you can see this is no kid. Pay particular attention to the "Political Views" on this page. These kids and their teachers were killed by a Communist/Anarchist. Please pass this on.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/3611_423506811050933_1150852840_n.jpg

Lol @ ryan 28...

"Do you need to feel like a big man? Did daddy or mommy not hug you enough? Are you lacking downstairs? Please tell us why you must cuddle these weapons so dearly that you are fine with little children being killed as long as it doesn't hurt your widdle manhood"

Projecting much? lol, if you do things because you have a tiny penis that doesnt mean everyone who does something does so because they too have a tiny penis. Don't let your lack of manhood dictate your life! And i love how idiotic you are suggesting that by supporting owning guns to defend our families.. which we DO, that we are fine with children being killed... I love that you wrote that cause it shows everyone here that you can't form rational thoughts and should and will be ignored.

I am glad you are not on our side : )

chuck-2111043

Anna. What you said is righteous.

Chuck. What I said is common sense and reality (unfortunately). They rarely talk about these people in the news. And no they used handguns, not assault rifles. In my area everyone (over 21) has the right to carry, which means that if you have a gun and do carry, this gun is always with you, in other words no one is going to steal it if they break into your house. And no, my State does not have the highest crime rate in the U.S., States with more severe gun laws are on top of the list. Have you noticed that most these mass murders happen in gun-free zones?

.

In 2010, more than 10,000 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes - one every 51 minute!!

In 2009 181 children died as a result of drunk drivers!!

Where then is the outcry to abolish alcohol?? Is this not enough deaths for you??

(that is just drunk driving. Doesn't include all the impacts on health care and social related issues)

When do we begin to take away cell phone????

I am a bit surprised that the liberal left, who are always so adimate about people's "rights" are so quick to want to remove a right put in place by our fore fathers.

Vehicle's, cell phone' and alcohol cunsumptions are not rights. Gun ownership is.

GUNS are NOT the problem. We need to figure out how and why we keep breeding and rearing animals that are capable of these cold, calculated killings. THAT is the problem and we better start taking a real look at mental health in the U.S.!!!!!!

fck gun control ,just have retard control and throw all the crazy lunatics back in the asylums! instead of letting them out on our streets

I carry a gun because there are loons like this out there and I want to be able to defend me and mine from them. Gun control is instituted by people ignorant of firearms. Gun control made certain the teachers were all unarmed like sheep...this kid knew that...you didn't see him go to the gun range and start shooting...because that'd end quickly...no he goes after the weakest and the unarmed...unarmed because people pushed for gun control. Well, this is your gun control. The blood is on your hands.

Don't look away from the mark. Not enough effort is spend in providing a second to none security for schools. Like crazies and terrorist, guns have always been out there. Can't control the crazies and terrorist, but security can be put in place that will minimize their action. Secure all schools now.

gobama:

Uh-huh.

gobama,

we're coming for those guns

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. Whatever helps you sleep at night. Gutless wonders like you don't have the balls to try. What a laugh.

Wizdumb-If you were smart as you think you are that would be known as sarcasm to the rest of us.

gobama,

Sorry, we have the right to own them and use them. Why do you hate the Constitution?

When you come for them, better bring a LOT of people with you. Of course those you bring with you will be unarmed, right?

If I send you my address, will you promise to come get mine?? You said "We". So that includes you.... Go to your disappointed mates nightstand drawer, pull out that special friend that they use when you can't get the job done and strap that badboy on so you'll have a pair and come get em. Door is open, all ya gotta do is step over the threshold........

This is Adam Lanza's facebook page before it was deleted. You can see that it was a screen capture. This is not a hoax or a fraud. Thats being done by the media that uses photos that are 8 yrs old to depict a kid. As you can see this is no kid. Pay particular attention to the "Political Views" on this page. These kids and their teachers were killed by a Communist/Anarchist. Please pass this on.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/3611_423506811050933_1150852840_n.jpg

You've posted this all over the place Getmad - what's your point? Whatever political stylings this deranged individual may have had, or thought he had, are totally irrelevant. And he certainly was nothing but an immature kid. What do you prescribe as the solution to situations like this and what relevance could a facebook page possibly have?

VeryMad Please do some reading and understand that a communism and anarchy are two different things. Not to mention I have known a communist guess what she never killed anyone. Which means that regardless of how you view politics does not make you a mass murderer.

They need panic buttons. It sounds like this attack was so sudden and so deadly that if the V. principal had been killed instead of wounded, who knows how much longer it would have taken for someone to be able to contact 911. In the Columbine case, lots of the teens had cell phones, but these little children didn't have that advantage.

Maybe schools now need armed guards, metal detectors, cement barriers, guard houses that prevent regular thru traffic, and special rooms where kids can hide. It's gotten to that point.

From what I've read, someone in the office -- maybe the principal -- managed to hit the button to turn the intercom on, so other teachers heard what was happening in the front office and knew to protect their classrooms. Or maybe it was during morning announcements anyway so it was on. And teachers had cell phones and used them, so there was no delay in police response. And the school was prepared, and had locked front doors and lockable classroom doors.

We'd like to think there's some magic shield that can make places safe. When things move this fast, sometimes there isn't one. Even military bases have had shootings like this. So turning elementary schools into mini-military bases isn't the answer.

If Nancy Lanza was at the school and had one of her guns I know she would have shot her son to stop kids from being murdered. There needs to be some force to stop a shooter in the schools.........

You do realize the mother was killed in her own home by her own son with her own gun--all the guns in the world would not have made Mrs. Lanza safer in this case.

Hey seven...BUT SHE WASN'T THERE.

How about if Nancy Lanza didn't own those guns.. maybe her sick son would not have carried this out and she might also be alive.

The "force" you speak of, should be the "enforcement" of gun laws NOW, and not necessarily make new laws.

rivers2bx

"You do realize the mother was killed in her own home by her own son with her own gun--all the guns in the world would not have made Mrs. Lanza safer in this case"

All it would have taken was a good lockbox...and the responsibility to use it.

look online for how to make explosives. look online for how to make poisons.

Yes a lock box might have prevented this but do you know if she had them in one or not. Or did the kid get the keys and get a gun, when mom found him he shot her. You will never know the truth even if it hits you in the face. You cannot see the forest for the trees. You automatically assume that you know what happened.

I DO know what happened. The mentally unstable son got hold of the weapons and killed his mother and a couple of dozen innocents before he turned the gun on himself. The mother can be blamed for either providing her son with weapons or not properly securing weapons from the son. If she was still alive she should be prosecuted for 26 counts of murder as an accessory.

It sounds like a recipe for disaster. The mother collect 200,000 in child support annually, live with an unstable son. She is also a gun collector and took her sons to shooting range. She also doesn't feel like taking her son to additional help.

Hello, Unstable person + weapon close by = something bound to happen. It doesn't take common sense to figure it out...

I Resigned,

You're not too terribly bright are you?

You DO know what happened huh? Were you there? Nope. Your ego is obviously far bigger than your IQ. You don't KNOW jack squat pal. You're just another judgmental clown whose mouth overrides his brain.

As for "properly securing" the weapons...you obviously know nothing about weapons security. It doesn't matter if they were locked up. Locks can be opened. Doesn't matter if its a key or a combination. Her son could EASILY have gotten ahold of either one.

So do yourself a favor and shut up. All you're doing is embarrassing yourself with your rampant ignorance.

I agree Ngyuyn completely. Most mothers would try to build their child's self esteem in a healthier way--not taking them to a shooting range or play with various rifles (perhaps near divorce a concern of her mental status/husband??!) and with a son that is either autistic--what an idiot and at everyone's expense. Maybe the state should make it mandatory for divorcees and children at risk (autistic) have a mental evaluation and resources provided for monitoring status. Because it sounds that she may have been this child's foundation(resource) that was cracking...parents are certainly not perfect and divorce can be extremely stressful in at times a cruel world (divorce by culture can still be viewed negatively--stigmas--I don't know how backward Conn. is, but it may well be regarding woman) but getting tough with guns or fearful with that much weaponry--is a person that should not be around children or vulnerable youths (kids with serious mental issues) --in my opinion.

rivers2bx

You do realize the mother was killed in her own home by her own son with her own gun--all the guns in the world would not have made Mrs. Lanza safer in this case.

For her defense she was a mother, which mother (or father) can imagine her own child would kill her? Sadly she is probably the only person who couldn't see how disturbed her son was. Had she been aware, and kept her guns in a safe, she and all the other victims would be alive today.

-Anna-

I read your post#1.97, your statistics are idiotic and an outright lie, there are not 60,000 instances od defensive gun use annually, the latest stats put the number at 32 for year 2012

Cato Institute Defensive Gun Use Map

Okay, Wiz, you call me judgemental but continue with juvenile name calling. As a veteran I know plenty about weapon security and stand by my statement that the mother did not properly secure her guns. The proof was given Friday morning and all your excuses just further prove the point. Without securing the keys or combination there is no securing of the weapons. She FAILED!

Steve C-526943

-Anna-

I read your post#1.97, your statistics are idiotic and an outright lie, there are not 60,000 instances od defensive gun use annually, the latest stats put the number at 32 for year 2012

Steve. The survey I mentioned (the one with the lowest numbers) is from NCVS (the National Crime Victimization Survey) and is administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

I would also like to mention that one of the States that has the lowest crime rate is Vermont (number 48 on the list), one of the States that has very few gun laws.

Chuck. Here is some information from Wikipedia:

The use of guns for defensive purposes is a highly debated topic. Numerous studies have been done that place the range as low as 65 thousand and as high as 2.5 million. Although both sides of the argument heavily cite studies, and both sides identify methodology and sample problems in the other studies, the truth is likely somewhere between the two figures. Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate at 1.5 million per year.

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually (258,460 times total over the whole period). This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this period. For violent crimes, assault, robbery, and rape, guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense. Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well known to the victim. In 28% of incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims shot at the offender. In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.

homeschooling is the answer !! just think about all the tax savings too without running those big behemith outdated waste filled school systems ,we live in the age of modern computers and technoligy,why use brick &mortor relics?

We don't know anything about this woman's ownership habits, other than that the guns were legally obtained. There are many possible scenarios for how Adam obtained all the arms-none of them are particularly pleasant.

We do know that she was a gun nut with an unstable kid that used her guns to kill 26 people.

Please forgive my long rant. But I hate when people blindly throw around mentally unstable, without even looking into the facts.It harms so many people already struggling with prejudice.

The child was exhibiting extreme anxiety, shyness. And never had any indications he was a harm to others in all the years he attended school. For a young child who was responding this way, there is no indication from anyone that there was a prediction that he had tendencies to harm others.Other than being a loner. Period.I have a sibling who was, and he turned out great.

The fact he was so frightened and anxious when people approached him, that he turned away walking in another direction or flattened himself against the wall, would obviously indicate that as a student, the last thing on his mind, was showing ANY signs of aggression towards any other person.This was noted by psychologists looking at his history at school.

Unfortunately in our country, mention mental illness, and people almost throw up their arms and slam their doors, close their windows and hide in the dark. They picture every such person suddenly capable of running around and viciously slaughtering people left and right.

People still believe mental illness is the fault of people who have it, that they must have done something to deserve it, they must be able to control it if they REALLY wanted to, and everyone who has a mental illness can turn violent at any moment because meds don't really help that much.

Forget the facts and just lock people up and throw away the key....Just look at the names we use to describe it. Loony,crazy,batty,nuts, basket case, ding bat, lunatic, kooky, cuckoo, berserk, dippy, idiotic, psycho,screwball, unhinged, wacky, nutty as a fruitcake, screw loose, daft, bonkers, unzipped, schizo and mad as a March hare.

Even though science has proved chemicals control our emotions, including how we think, feel, and store memories and even of what we smell.When there are problems with how our brains release and take up those chemicals, even by just a little, significant problems can occur.

Expecting a person to "think" their chemicals to do the right thing is absurd. You might as well expect a person to think their diabetes fit itself, or cancer, kidney disease or a heart beat to beat normally.But in our society, we some how still blame the person for the illness and live in the dark ages.The stigma of having mental illness can ruin one for life. The stigma of having a family member with one, can ruin one for life. People assume often, it runs in the family, and will stop associating with you. A good reason many will hide the problem from others and try to fix the problem themselves. Our society shuns people.

Don't believe me? Look at what has happened to others in lawsuits. Just try putting that on your medical record and getting a job anywhere. Then insurance won't cover it. So an extremely shy kid, afraid of others, is gonna have a tough time finding a job probably.Where was dad in all of this? It wasn't just the mother's role and responsibility to help the son. Did dad try to get his son any help? We may never find out now.

For the record, one in four people will experience mental illness in their lifetime.So, people may want to educate themselves. There are hundreds of different types, the vast majority of which never have anything relating to violence, harming others or aggression at all.

So although this killer had anxiety issues, he still had the ability to have other personal relationship issues just like anybody else. Like being angry his parents got a divorce when he was 16. Or afraid of facing life as a grown up.

Teenagers can end up troubled without sharing that information with their parents. We all know kids during those years aren't that big on talking about all their issues, right? And others who knew him said he was a happy person at the time. Let's wait for more facts before we good flying off the handle because the words mental illness was used while he was growing up. Though I would say anyone who kills children, already has mental issues, of a different kind. They just don't have a soul.

As far as his strange physical condition, he may have had Congenital Insensitivity to Pain. A rare condition which prevented him from being able to register pain, although he would have been able to feel touch.

Windancersong, I am glad you raised these points. You are using some common sense whereas most posters do not. They just fly off the handle and use the term "mentally ill" to damn him. Most mentally ill folks are perfectly harmless. It is unfortunate, but a news story like this will add to the prejudice of people and cause more fear of the "weird" folks. I think that there is more to this story than that he was shy or strange. His reaction was unusual. There must be a deeper reason why he did what he did.

i agree,Gun laws were not going to solve this kids problem.

A deeper reason. Like maybe having a paranoid gun nut mom who probably believed more in "tough love" than in having a real loving relationship with a son she was probably ashamed of.

Actually, records and people who knew her, mentioned she always responded whenever he needed help at school, she was very loving and a wonderful mom. Who pushed her son to excel at academics. Ironically, if this had been a man, instead of a woman, people would probably say the kid broke into his father's gun stash and then killed him. It's okay for a guy to be a gun enthusiast, but not a woman. Go figure!

A special profiler for the government who has looked at this case believes it is may be part of a disturbing trend. Of mass killers role playing fantasy revenge. Who all wear dark clothes,kill in public places and leave no escapee exits for themselves. And they are trying to up each other on number of victims killed. He is worried this latest killing has set a challenge. The question now is how do we stop the next shooter.

Windancer don't you think that a child exhibiting the kind of paranoia that would cause him to turn away from others, or press himself against walls to avoid contact needs to be taken to receive assessment and treatment? That is serious paranoia for anyone to exhibit let alone a child.

Windancersong-1494878

There is NO evidence that this person suffered from any kind of anxiety disorder. ALL "preliminary" reports indicate either autism spectrum or personality disorder... Shyness and anxiety are not the same. Nor is "socially awkward" or isolated the same as anxiety.

Your comments are written such that you are trying to present yourself either as some sort of expert or as someone "in the know," but you are neither.

upright1-You are referring to the wrong mental illness, according to the shooter's school records, those who worked with him and knew him. He did not have Paranoia-systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur.

This is not the same thing as extreme shyness or social anxiety disorder. Which he did suffer from according to records, teachers and those who knew him-sometimes known as social phobia/social anxiety disorder or inability to interact with others, have people approach one, or be watched, to withdraw from social situations. The second condition is what the shooter suffered from all through his school years, and so was a loner. And yes he needed help. Where was the father in all of this?

Philosopher-X-autism spectrum or personality disorder-

Due to the horrendous nature of this event, I have been following intently all the reports and videos since Friday. During that time, I have watched video which went into the educational background of the shooter, including his time as a young student growing up.

The following sentences are quotes from what was stated from records and those who knew first hand about his history. People are welcome to go back over videos to varify. I will add what is missing from my original comments, and delete my own commentary. So only what was presented is shown.

Adam was so frightened when people approached him in the halls, that he turned away walking in another direction or flattened himself against the wall.Pressing his black briefcase, he always carried, tightly to his chest. His records indicate that as a student in school, he had no history of any problems with students. He avoided going near others, as his extreme shyness made it impossible for his to make friends. He was a loner. There were never signs of aggression towards anyone.(you can compare to my earlier comment, for what I added)

I do note the government's expert psychologist is making the observations looking at his history records at school. So it is not my opinion.

I felt it important to let others know.Enough prejudice floats about against people struggling with mental illness.This killers background with it, wasn't violent or aggressive. It was like saying, someone has a horrible contagious disease and they are on the loose. But not telling folks, it is athlete's foot.

The point of my first post, was to show, for some people lumping mental illness with violence automatically, is inappropriate. By getting accurate information with folks about this shooter, people can get a better idea of who he was. Be closer to the truth of why he did this. Ultimately that is what people want, and deserve to know.

It is my belief that by passing along relevant correct information makes for better understanding and less confusion. At least for those interested in accurate and meaningful dialoge.

As for you, I have no need to validate my educational qualifications to you personally. As for your conclusions, there is far too little information to make a diagnosis of personality disorder or autism at this stage. Having worked over two decades in the medical field with mental health patients, I do have more than a little understanding.

Finally in posting my one comment on anxiety, shyness, you must be aware of social anxiety disorder, right, social phobia or extreme shyness-all the same thing? I thought most reasonable persons would have figured out the two were not automatically always connected and the same. in the video they werent So I didn't waste the space to clarify for those who, like yourself need everything spelled out in black and white. I have been around long enough to learn this much. A judgmental closed mind can't learn, much and makes for poor dialogue. Good day.

If I judge from the picture, this child/young man, had crazy eyes that only a mother couldn't notice.

I think a lot of the focus is simply going in the wrong direction. I've seen talk of the mother locking the guns up better... the son would have simply killed her another way and then gotten into the guns another way by either finding the key or simply busting through however the mother had the guns locked up. The problem here is mental health and a mother that simply had no way of treating her son properly. We have nothing that helps people like this deal with their issues in America. Its not guns, its not bad parenting, its not that he was a bad person.... we simply don't pay attention to people like this who need help. The US simply does not care enough about it's own people to try and prevent these types of tragedies.

I'm open to the idea that it's way too late for gun control. So what's your plan? What will reduce the incidence of these shootings (keeping in mind that there was another shooting at a hospital down south today, luckily only the shooter was killed)?

shades of port arthur. you better believe its coming here...meaning strict gun control and or bans of legal weapons which will lead to even more rampant crime especially with an open border , defenseless citizens and politicians who needs the votes to stay elected to their cush jobs.

I am a responsible gun owner.

When my father passed away, he had 10 rifles, shotguns, and a couple of hand guns. He was an avid hunter and he kept then in a metal "strong box" with a combination lock. Some of those guns were passed on to me, but since I DO NOT know how to use a gun, rifle, or shotgun... I have chosen to leave them at my mother's house in the same strong box.

I would like to learn how to use them, but until I DO learn how to.... I have no business having them around.

Houstonite It's nice no one has called your father a paranoid gun nut. Unlike Maria-335650 in post 5.6

Who called the shooter's mother that term for owning her guns. It seems being a woman and owning guns is both morally wrong and reprehensible to her. Especially if you are killed by you son with one. You would think another woman might be more understanding.

Crime rates can go up and down with or without gun controls. It is more of a socio-economic problem that it is about having a gun in your house. Even in the US where we have the right to bear arms, there are years where the crime rates are higher and there are years when they are lower.

That said, I still don't understand why you need a gun. Most of all, why more than one? Why a semi-automatic or an automatic weapon?

Perhaps if you are into hunting, you can own one. If you think you can better defend your home if you have a gun, then maybe you can get one too. But gun ownership should come with a certification process, where you will need to be trained, tested and regularly evaluated.

Lee, What will reduce it? Enforcing the laws we already have. REALLY enforcing them.

This is Adam Lanza's facebook page before it was deleted. You can see that it was a screen capture. This is not a hoax or a fraud. Thats being done by the media that uses photos that are 8 yrs old to depict a kid. As you can see this is no kid. Pay particular attention to the "Political Views" on this page. These kids and their teachers were killed by a Communist/Anarchist. Please pass this on.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/3611_423506811050933_1150852840_n.jpg

What a mean, small minded comment. I hope you're proud.

It's her fault all those people died. She had a mentally unstable son and armed him. Yay guns!!!!!!!!!!

@ehrenreich and JL, your to blame. Its simple minded people like you that blame everyone else for problems that is getting the world into more and more trouble.

Lets see, did you meet the woman, watch her load up the guns and put them on the kitchen table for JR to take to school. She taught her kids how to shoot responsibly. Which means she problably taught them how to load a magazine and put the magazine in the weapon before they fired. So your going to say that anyone taking time to try to teach their hobbies to their kids is to blame if the kid is hurt by that hobby. Or are you going to rant and rave that the guns are the ones to blame for the deaths.

BS. IF the kid wanted to kill, he would have found a way. If he was mentally imbalanced and snapped because he shot his mom is she to blame. Or is the kid. Aim the blame where it belongs.

If there were no guns around, he wouldn't have killed anyone. He tried to buy guns on his own and couldn't. I wouldn't be suprised if ew find out that mom told him "no" to using the guns on Friday, and he shot her to death over it.

No person with a mentally ill family member need guns in the house. We see the results!

"Or are you going to rant and rave that the guns are the ones to blame for the deaths."

Yes I will "rant and rave" this.

These people were killed by projectiles coming out of the mouths of things called guns. I can't draw you a picture but I'm sure you can find one on google.

"Aim the blame where it belongs."

Where does the blame belong Mr. Carter. Please enlighten me.

Might that be you?

It was Reagen who put mental health to sleep. It's kind of funny when you think about it. He had Alzheimers when he shut down the mental health system.

The good Lord must have gotten a real chuckle out of that one.

LN1958362

ALL my REPUBLICAN FRIENDS do NOT CONDONE gun owners who stubbornly refuse to fix lazy gun laws.

Nor do they understand why people own multiple military weapons....

and have unlimited access to rounds of ammunition...

or the easy way to traffic guns,

or the gun black-market,

or the insanity of massacres,

or HOW little ones who still had their baby teeth were shot till their bodies were barely identifiable.

Maybe you find these puzzlements inconsequential, but how DARE you criticize those of us who do want a firmer "control".... for OUR SAFETY.

These same folks have more common sense than you.

liberal demoncrats and aclu lawyers helped dismantle the mental healthcare system in the mid 70's instead of trying to fix it. i lived right down the street from dunning outside @!$%#cago in the early 70's and watched them release several mentally unstable people from that institutution.they used to walk down montrose and forest preserve drive in their bed linens, well before ronnie was pres.part of it was an indian burial ground, some of it is a shopping mall and wilbur wright college campus now.

RI Mom,

Gun control is one thing...stricter laws too

But SOOOO many people are saying get rid of weapons all together and that isn't going to solve the problem either.

The answer is gun control that keeps semi and automatic weapons out of the hands of regular citizens. And out of the homes of our children, where those weapons are available to use. We have an army. We do not need the private arsenals we once did, when the Constitution was written, for a citizen militia.

So, RI Mom, in your obviously well read position on gun laws, how do you think that changing the laws would have prevented this massacre from occurring? You seem to have all the answers including blaming the mother for having the guns that directly lead to the murders. "This woman played with guns to the detriment of the innocents". What an uninformed and ignorant pile of garbage.

ri mom...what? never said any of the rhetoric you imply.

how dare YOU use a tragedy to further your own liberal bias.

i don't know what folks you refer to but you could use a good dose of common sense instead of emotion when you post.

I've got solutions for returning to the 1994 gun laws.

You've got nothing but incendiary blah blah blah.

Nothing like a warm gun to give you courage.... and an automatic rifle boosts your macho image,

Irresponsible gun owners are a threat to all of us. Smart folks know that.

And that would have prevented this tragedy how, exactly? Or are you just spewing more of your empty left wing bull@!$%#. I'll wait for you to look up the answer as you are obviously clueless. Polly want a cracker?

ri mom .. you ever heard of the nfa act of 1934? you are no better than the liberal media in demonizing lawful gun ownership such as this piece written. your last sentence i can agree with...but you seem to like to bundle all firearms owners into one ''irresponsible "category. i love how the liberal media keeps using the term "automatic"weapons were used in this tragedy.just another good example of how the liberals are using a terrible crime for their agenda of the disarment of the legal responsible firearm owning population and show their hate of the second ammendment.

As posted to other articles...

This isn't about more gun laws...It is more like..."The cat is already out of the bag" Guns are already out there in bad people's hands..(ie gang banger's, drug runners/dealer's, insert bad guys here). They aren't going to magically disappear.....And the more you take away from law abiding citizens the more you advertise to the lawless new targets. I for one am not going to be made a target..(BTW I am NOT a Repub). In AK I would hate to see someone try and take the guns from the citizens around here...not only are they used for subsistence hunting (getting food that you couldn't afford in the grocery store) they are for protection from the wild furries and those that would cause you harm (not enough cops around to get to you right away in most areas) When you say you can't understand why no guns please think about those that don't live in or close to big cities. I have lived in highly populated areas and I understand both sides to that argument. But now that I live in AK I know how important guns are.

Thank you RI Mom - you are smart, accurate, humane. Thank you for your posts.

ri mom....you're breaking my heart! you are a typical liberal who can't stand it when facts are put in your FACE! snarky ass lawless no gun controls posters? go to a gun range and try and impress each other? hah...you libtards make me laugh....bwhahahahahah! oh and by the way, i'm not like you. i don't have to convince ANYONE of what my opinons are, they are just that , my opinions.i could care less what others thinks. if they like it , great , if not so what. to tell you the truth i think you need a dose of self confidence from what i can tell of you by your posts.you judge others by your emotions and not fact.funny how you have to attack me with your lies and slander when you don't even know me yet you have a holier than thou attitude. typical liberal.

singlepayerhealth,

You forgot the sarc tag on 9.13 as RI Mom has done nothing and said nothing to warrant being called smart (as she is completely uninformed), accurate (as she has done nothing but tout liberal bull@!$%# talking points) or humane (as she has jumped to several conclusions about myself and other posters as well as making personal attacks). She doesn't have a leg to stand on as, ironically, she has shot her mouth off and knocked herself off her own feet.

My girlfriend is from Newtown. She went to that school as well as the high school. She knows a few people including 2 teachers and 1 child that were killed at that school. I have been to that town many times. It is the epitome of a quintissential New England town and one in which I love to visit her family often. Don't come at me thinking you know my mind. I have shot several guns, but see no reason for myself to own one.

I am not an enthusiast, as RI Mom would inaccurately accuse me of being. I am all for strict gun laws and 100% support keeping guns out of the hands of those who would ever do others malicious harm. I simply would like sane and rational discussion as to how to make that happen without having a knee jerk, uninformed and ignorantly ranting battle with those such as RI Mom. If someone commits themselves to trying to make our communities and our country safer from this kind of horrific tragedy, they should at least do so in a constructive manner without "shooting from the hip".

"Liberal media...political agenda...political minions...foaming at the mouth...demonize...liberal demoncrats...aclu lawyers...rhetoric...liberal bias...demonizing...agenda of the disarmament...hate of the second ammendment (sic)...breaking my heart...typical liberal...snarky ass no gun controls...libtards...i could care less (sic)...need a dose of self confidence...attack me...lies and slander...holier than thou attitude...typical liberal..."

Well now that you've regurgitated every Rush, Sean and Glen buzzword, and not that well, try to complete an original thought and tell us if the events Friday in Connecticut were acceptable to you as the necessary price we pay for freedom or do you believe we can make our country safer for all of us and how?

RI mom, so I take it you carry a police officer in your back pocket everywhere you go? Now if the "army " had been at the school, would there have been any deaths? Yes, there would have. At the very least the gunman. I own guns that are all legal and legally aquired. They are also properly stored. At one point or another, I have had each of the guns his mother had in my home. Now did I try to harm anyone? No. My rifles are used for hunting to provide meat for my family. If you want to take my guns away, go for it. But in return, you get to pay for my meat since I won't be allowed to hunt for it anymore. Also, since it is deer and elk that I hunt, when you pay for my groceries, you have to make sure it is the absolute leanest and healthy---and most EXPENSIVE-- cuts of meat available.

How about if the government of the US arms its citizens like they arm our enemies? Mujaheddin-Al-Qaeda-Muslim brotherhood-Somalians and others to numerous to count. I mean with open and porous borders, don't you think we are not adequately armed? Gun control is BS.

RI Mom,

It's a nightmare becoming so common that safety experts and the federal government are issuing new warnings today. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, 37 kids were killed from TV, furniture and appliance tipovers last year alone — up a shocking 37 percent. Another 23,400 children were rushed to emergency rooms. From Rosen T.V. Reports just click older at left.

Sooooo, do we impose T.V. owenership laws too!!!

In 2010, more than 10,000 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes - one every 51 minute!!

In 2009 181 children died as a result of drunk drivers!!

Where then is the outcry to abolish alcohol?? Is this not enough deaths for you??

(that is just drunk driving. Doesn't include all the impacts on health care and social related issues)

When do we begin to take away cell phones from people not smart enought to not text and drive????

I am a bit surprised that the liberal left, who are always so adimate about people's "rights" are so quick to want to remove a right put in place by our fore fathers.

Vehicle's, televisions, cell phones and alcohol cunsumption are NOT rights. Gun ownership is.

GUNS are NOT the problem. We need to figure out how and why we keep breeding and rearing animals that are capable of these cold, calculated killings. THAT is the problem and we better start taking a real look at mental health in the U.S.!!!!!!

THAT is what us smart conservatives are thinking about!!!!!

I feel like all the people who are so pro guns should have their kids in one class. I want my children in the non-gun-nut classroom. I shouldn't have to risk my child getting slaughtered because people value their "rights" more than their children's safety. The utter callousness immediately after this tragedy is appalling.

And take one guess on which classroom that gunman will target...

It's not ironic. A lot of research has shown that your own gun is very likely to harm yourself or someone else.

A tax rebate for a gun safe??? Please tell me you are joking. I have to have my tax rates go through the roof but you rednecks want a rebate for your guns. Good lord.

JL,

Easy, son. You are being shrill on a bulletin board. How do you do that?

You like to use a lot of terms you don't understand. Do you even know what is an assault weapon?

How about a "redneck"? What is a redneck? How about a definition from you. Be specific.

Can your kids drive yet? If they can, you let them use a car? What? WHAT!?!?!?! Cars kill many more people than guns every day. How can you be so reckless?

Anything can be abused. I believe that, usually, ignorant and scared people do the abusing.

Quit being hysterical.

There used to be a law that required a Man and a Woman to have blood compatibility tests before they could get married. So their children would not be "Abnormal". The "Bad Boy" syndrome that women have that attracts them to bad guys is producing these mentally defecive offspring.

The problem started at conception. face the truth, there was something wrong with him all of his life. It is no wonder that he turned out Gay. Nowdays even same sex "pairs" can get married for political reasons like health insurance and property rights, but it is not love, it is a lust that is perverted, like a child molester.

A pair is not a couple. They cannot couple like a man and a woman can. all that a pair can do is lust after each other through a mental deviation.

If you want to see a clear example of a mental deviation just look at the way new "Gay" congresswoman, Tammy Baldwin acts, and the way she speaks. it is like she is a child and it is not normal for a woman her age to conduct herself like a 10 year old. she even talks like a kindergarden teacher in front of the media.

So there are so many different kinds of abnormalities that they will violate the rights of the normal people. Watch senator Dianne Feinstein say that the guns are the problem and try to ban guns again when the truth is that ,when "The Biden / Feinstein Columbine Massacre" happened, there was a gun ban in effect and it made no difference.

All of the incidents have one thing in common.

One armed person can do a lot of damage when everyone else is defensless.

with the Obama*, Holder "Fast and Furious" conspiracy to arm insurgent career criminals, what do you think will happen when every american is defensless and there is no defensable border?

These small shootings will not be on the news because there will be a lot of worse things taking up that time.

to do the same thing and expect different results ?

that even sounds insane.

@ Zapix

I get tired of people screaming about they have the right to tell me how to live mine. This isnt the 1700/1800's where villages would weild pitchforks and fire to oust someone who didnt believe as they did. We are being accosted in the strangest of places in the strangest of ways. There are thousands of hackers that daily try to steal from my family the meager earnings that i make via the internet. I believe that you should be sent to LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE if your email address sends me a virus! HOW DOES THAT SOUND TO YOU? Guns are created to send a projectile to its target, not to kill, just like that fork was designed to feed a much smaller version of you but you apparently abused that fork and now are a FATASS and the fork should be outlawed. You are an idiot and your arguments are childish.

Zapix

Do you want to get rid of NASA also? The US space program was created to retaliate against and destroy the USSR.

Rhetorical questions and "what ifs" to support an argument, is this how low you have to stoop?

zapix...have you ever worked on a section 8 home at 103rd and state in chicago defenseless....i didn't think so. keep your stupid comments to yourself.

Ryan

The question is not rhetorical.

Sorry KPM58, read your posts, you have used every talking point the NRA has and still 20 children are dead. What size of a body count are you waiting for? Does it have to be your kids?

Ryan

Can you say that if no guns existed then there would have been no way for those children to have been murdered? When you can, you will have a valid argument.

@Zapiz So I take it next time someone breaks into your house and tries to kill you or your kids, you have full faith that the police will respond in time?

And while it's true that police response is better, the threat of government tyranny has not gone away. Yes, it isn't the 18th century anymore, but tell that to the government who always arms itself with the latest weapons which can at any time be turned on the people.

kpm58, if no guns existed, 20 children and 8 adults could still be murdered--but the killer would have had to kill each one with another kind of weapon. He would have been overpowered by then. Even with a bow and arrow, it takes time to make the next shot. But a semi-automatic rifle? Heck, it's like a video game...

@Teaching - Clearly you're living in a fantasy world so even making a point to you is pointless. Well done on resorting to name calling btw. That all you have left? Have a nice life.

@kpm - Is NASA killing children or people in a mall? No, didn't think so. Come back when you have a valid arguement.

@LN - thanks for proving my point. So many people in Chicago with guns, and Chicago is overloaded with violent crimes. Compare the total number of violent crimes in Chicago with all their guns vs Newtown, CT. I'm looking for averages based on the population, not total numbers since total numbers would clearly put Chicago as the highest. I imagine though even based on average %, Chicago will triumph as having more violent crimes. Your neighbor has a gun so you feel insecure, so you need a gun, which makes the person across the street want a gun... And before you know it everyone has a gun because everyone is scared of everyone else. Really, this is no different from Iran and North Korea wanting nukes... So they themselves can join the big boys.

@arg - I have a katana. Doesn't need to be loaded, highly effective in close quarters. Not something one could conceal and bring into a theater or a school... And people CAN run from it. I have no doubts in my mind it is a tool for killing, despite the fact most would pretty it up as "oh, it's a decoration!" More than I can say for a Glock xx which can be concealed, brought into just about anywhere and unloaded from a nice distance killing anything that runs or doesn't run. As for the government... Yeah, go ahead, rise up against it... They have UAVs, F22s, and nukes. You might as well be an insect. This isn't Syria. Good luck with your Tom Clancy revolution.

Zapix, Get tired of it. I am tired of people like you who, in their abject fear and ignorance, try to force others to do as they want.

It is our right to own weapons and for whatever LEGAL reasons we decide to own them.

People are killed every day, intentionally and accidentally, via all kinds of ways and with all kinds of things.

Be smart, take precautions, and it will reduce these deaths but it will not eliminate them.

Zapix

Why don't you stay away until you can answer the response to your own post.

Hey-why not also include those who commit spousal abuse,or can't deal with a political outcome they don't agree with,or alcoholics,or those who use drugs-or any number of things that may trigger you to use a gun and turn it on Innocent people-or it may not.

To lump in people who have ADHD or Autism with those who are truly mentally disturbed is stupid and reckless.Why make an idiotic statement like that-when there has been no confirmation what was wrong with this man?And if he had autism or ADD,that alone would not indicate violent tendencies.

It is incredibly common. I work with mentally unstable children and the majority of parents have guns.

I have been diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, and my job requires that I carry a LOADED firearm while on the clock

So you are saying that because someone was blessed with a special needs child, or in my case 2 of them, they shouldn't be allowed to have any firearms in their home? I'm sorry you are such a single-minded dunce. My children have been trained exclusively in the safety of the firearms in my home. Just because my son has autism doesn't mean he is going to go on a mass shooting spree. My son, who cries at the "Save the Animals" commercials. Same goes for my daughter. When I sat my kids down today and told them what happened-because I know it will be discussed at school Monday and they need to hear stuff like this from me first- my "ADHD" daughter broke down in tears for those kids and adults. She then asked me how someone could do such a thing. She is 7 years old, the same age as many of the innocents we lost yesterday. Having special needs children does NOT warrant me not being able to hunt for food for my family every year. It does NOT warrant me not being able to protect my home and those I love. Every single one of the firearms in my home have been purchased legally and are stored correctly. Now if there was ever a concern over the stability of my childrens' minds, then yes, they would be removed. Just because this tragedy has happened, you do NOT need to lump every person with autism, ADHD, ADD, and such into the same mold. For your information, autism is technically called the Autism Spectrum, meaning that they are numerous varying degrees of severity. So with your statement, you are saying that a parent with an autistic child on the severe end who cannot even dress or feed themselves shouldn't be allowed the right to own a gun? Or a parent like me with a high functioning autistic child who only needs a few adjustments made to his school curriculum to be successful sholdn't be allowed either? You are a very narrowminded individual whom needs to gather more information about the disorders you speak of. You also do not apparently have what it takes to parent one of these children either. They say that God only gives these children to parents who are able to handle them and you are obviously NOT one of them. When all this came to light about the shooting, all I could do as a parent is watch and cry as my heart was breaking. I cannot imagine what the parents are feeling. I do understand the outrage some are experiencing and thus causing yet another gun debate to ensue. But honestly, taking guns out of responsible owners' hands is NOT going to solve anything.

I have autism. Are you saying I am automatically more prone to kill people.

JL:are you for real? A child with a mental disorder,autism or ADHD and guns and you blame the guns? Blame the dismantling of the mental health system where inpatient stays are now mostly at geriatric nursing homes because most mental facilities have been closed, and treatment is limited for the most part to short term ineffective care. Blame the stigma ofmental illness that prevents most from continuing medication or seeking desperately needed treatment. Blame the lack of education on mental disorders and how spot them.If this mother was guilty of anything it was not helping her son get treated-and we don't know how well he hid it, or if what she did about it. He would have found another way..removing guns from his home would not have helped. We have seen tighter and tighter gun control laws in this country and it has not worked-obviously..we need to focus on the cause-mental abberations, education and treatment BEFORE the fact..By the way, I find your comments, as someone who works with the mentally ill to be both ignorant and bordering on cruel-you of all people should be talking about the importance or TREATING a mentally unstable person instead of blaming parents...your attitude is one that belongs in the early 1900's..

I understand the failing mental health system. I understand gun control. I understand the lack of education on mental disorders. But, as a Mother, what I DON'T understand is why, why, why have guns or any other weapon so readily available to a child that you know had mental disorders?!? Ok, so, maybe this Mother ignored the mental illness, but, still, it was there & she knew it. Something in her mind surely told her that guns & teaching him to shoot was not the best idea. And, yes, before it's said, I know, just like drugs, if this young boy wanted to get his hands on guns, he would have gotten them somewhere, some way. But, as a Mother, you should be a little more aware & responsible for your children, their safety & those around them. Unless.....maybe, in my opinion, I think she had some mental issues of her own. I'm not knocking her for that. Mental illness can't be helped. But, if she herself suffered mental problems, maybe she didn't see the real dangers. Will we ever know the real cause as to why??? Thanks for letting me share my opinion. God bless & Merry Christmas!

"As some have mentioned that for her having such a mentally unstable son and knowing he was unstable keeps guns on the premises."

HUH?!?!? That sentence makes NO sense

William,

And thanks to Henry Ford we have millions of dead people due to cars.

Calm down and maybe you will be able to think....maybe.

God-

If we were all armed, I'd probably feel safer. Like the wild west... The system in place does not work. We either need to get rid of ALL the guns, or everyone needs to take up arms and start carrying.

You can argue the same about an unarmed citizen!

Realistically neither one is going to happen. I'm a gun owner myself, and I don't want to see them banned, but I hate it when other gun owners appear to be brainless parrots, spouting phrases that aren't true.

Non-gun people aren't as stupid as some gun people seem to think they are, and it can lead to a real backlash.

@damon: you can, but nobody does because it's a ridiculous argument.

People can stand there and shoot back, I'm running. I'm still curious to hear a situation, any situation where a gun carrying NRA member has stopped a mass shooting. We have more guns per capita than any place else in the world except some middle eastern country (can't remember which). Where is this "armed society is a polite society" crock of BULL going to actually bear some fruit?

You people make this outrageous claims about gun ownership, but its just baseless BS that you've made up in your head to justify. Just hope your kid isn't the next to go because you need to feel like a man stroking his AR-15 at night

Ryan

All of these mass shootings have occurred at places where it was illegal or not permitted to be carrying a firearm.

Do not blame law abiding firearm owners for not being able to protect the public when they are not legally allowed to do so.

I am sick and tired of the "stop blaming the law abiding firearm owners" schtick. Guns are too dangerous to be all over the country. For every 100 people in our society, there are 88 guns. Guess what? It's not working out. It has to change. Law abiding and not law abiding - YOU are part of the problem. It can't go on like this. In 2009 England had 51 homicides from guns. What did the U.S. have? 9,000 !!! Gee, 51 to 9,000. There do need to be FAR stricter gun laws. This country is sick and twisted. These 20 tiny children are dead because of the gun lovers. The mom loved guns. Look what it got her.

Everyone does not need to be armed , we do need armed marshals protecting schools the same as sky marshals on planes.

Ryan: The problem is that there is not enough law abiding gun carrying citizens for one to be at these mass shootings which is an extremely rare event statistically given the size of the country and over 300,000,000 people. Bullsh!t from antigun nuts isn't helping anybody.

kpm 58

"All of these mass shootings have occurred at places where it was illegal or not permitted to be carrying a firearm..."

All of these mass shootings have happened in the US, where, in the larger sense, it is generally legal and permitted to carry a firearm. Not the UK, not Canada, not Australia. Despite the statistics being stated that individual crimes may have risen in these countries with gun bans, mass crimes have not. The United States is, incredibly sadly, the standard bearer for massacres of this type, which is possibly the most ghastly fact of all. ("The second worst school shooting"? My God, we count them here.) It is a much more complex social, emotional, and intellectual issue than can be discussed in the absolute immediacy of this horrific tragedy - but it must be discussed as soon as possible with care and intelligence from all.

Hobby? Those guns are very common and for a woman to have that type of gun and all that ammo, I have to wonder what SHE was up to? I have been around guns a lot and I have seen guys target practice but for the sake of cost and convenience use a pellet gun in their basement. Why would she have all that ammo for an assult rifle? I think everyone is looking at the wrong person for mental problems. Please explain why would she do this. This was a tragedy waiting to happen. Collecting guns is one thing but buying all that ammo to go with it leaves a lot of explaining to be done.

Nice generalization but not necessarily true. In 2011, economist Richard Florida investiaged the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths.

Lanza could have done as much if not more damage with a 3 gal. container of gasoline and a road flare.

kpm58, can you please provide me a point in time where 3 gallons of gas and a road flair was used to kill ANYONE? I can find you 140 examples a mass killing using a gun, just this year (I"m defining a mass killing as 3 or more people killed by the same individual). Or is your entire argument based on "could have".

The Twin Towers, jet fuel was used to kill over 3000 people.

OKay KPM58, see you're starting to make sense, since the Twin Towers we've stepped up security at every airport in the country. Guess what? We haven't had a terrorist related fataily on board an American airliner since. Let's do that now with guns, sounds like we're finally on even ground

Ryan

Stepped up airport security, BS. That is just visual fluff.

The real deterents are armed air marshalls, locked and reinforced cabin doors and armed pilots.

Ban handguns.

Don't you understand he wasn't so crazy to use anything other than a gun. What would he used that would have made it that easy? A knife kills but not that many people that quickly He didn't even have to get close enough to worry about if they would resist as the case of a bayonet. Use tour brains people. A gun is MADE for killing. In each of these cases a GUN was used, not some other weapon. Where is your brain?

I grew up in western PA and still live there, the amish community is full of active hunters and I have seen quite a few at gun raffles, gun shows, and in gun stores as well as out hunting.....doubt they are all willing to live in sin. Might want to straighten out your facts a bit.

Many Amish people own firearms. They also are highly regarded as gunsmiths. The Amish also build quality gun cabinets. Come hunting season they are usually first in line for a license and game tags. Obviously you've seen too many Harrison Ford movies.

Had she only been allowed to carry a gun on school campus, this would have been easily avoidable. Sorry, I can't say that with a straight face.

Even if she had a rifle locked and loaded, she was a kindergarten teacher for god's sake. Have any of you actually stepped foot in a kindergarten classroom? It's controlled chaos, most are only a few years away from sleeping in a crib

Ryan,

The mother was NOT a kindergarten teacher ... that was MISinformation given out early on from who knows where ? The school district said she MAY have been a sub or teachers aide there, AT ONE TIME, but currently had NO employment or status with this school - or in the district.

Much like the first MISinformation that it was the older brother who was the killer, turned out to be totally incorrect ...

and takes 27 other people with them.