Big brother is chipping away at freedom folks! Don't fall for it.

Why is there no talk about psychiatric issues or mind altering psychotrop drugs? They are invilved in 99% of mass murders. No "sane" person commits horrific mass murder. Gun control seems more like a bandaid than an actual resolution. You can limit assault weapons all you want, if somebody is determined to carry out a murder they can still obtain handguns, smaller capacity rifles, shotguns etc. Guns may be the object that physically imposed harm but you always have a mentally unstable person behind the trigger. "Gun control" is such a hot button item for politicians to take a stand about but why not begin at the root and work from there.

What happen in CT. is an unforgivable act of violence. Could tougher gun laws have helped? NO. The shooter stole the weapons from his mother, he also did not go through the front door, he broke a window to gain access into the school. We have to find a way to keep our children safe. Metal detectors as you entered the school, armed guards would not have helped. Bars on the windows on the first floor? It's not tougher gun control.

I agree with BH. In addition, look at the news out of China last week with over 20 kids injured when a man started knifing kids in school. The monster in CT could have easily driven a car through a playground or a group at a bus stop. There are so many ways to cause harm that I don't even want to think about. If someone is determined they will do what they want to do. This is a people problem and obviously not an easy one to solve or else we would not be talking about this.

I agree Bruce. Lanza was also denied purchasing a gun which again goes to show an unstable individual will obtain guns in any way they can.

We used to be divided into slave states and free states. Maybe we could divide now into gun states and no-gun states and make everybody happy.

There is no doubt that better mental health care is necessary and could possibly prevent these events. However, there is also no doubt that easy access to assault weapons makes these massacres possible. Stricter gun laws would not be an invasion of our rights but a reinforcement of our safety. There is no good earthly reason for average citizens to have access to military style assault weapons. Anyone who believes that owning such a weapon is appropriate for self defense is deluding themself. The fact is that far more people are hurt or killed because of accidents with weapons or inappropriate use of them than are through "appropriate" self-defense use.

Sorry Vera but handguns, shotguns or rifles can do just as much damage if somebody is determined. That is my point, banning assault weapons does what? Any gun can kill, it's the unstable individual pulling the trigger.

What would people/politicians be saying if 20+ were killed using handguns? Ban all handguns? Ignore the constitution. Gun control is a last ditch attempt to limit violent crimes. Early intervention and proper mental healthcare, medication etc is the more effective path.

If everything goes on the table, I'd explore really strict regulation of ammo. It's the ammunition, not the guns, that kill. In Switzerland, it was the ammo that was regulated because there were militia guns in every home. Don't know whether they're still doing that.

BH: We have a culture of violence in this society and a breakdown of the kind of community needed to foster good mental health. We need a revolution in values.

Ammunition does not kill anybody, mentally unstable individuals do. So easy to blame weapons, it's ignorant of the issues people obtain and use these guns. Lets day, for the sake of argument, guns are banned totally. Now say someone burns a school down (god forbid) and kills multiple people. What then? Ban fire? Do you see my point? Why did this man kill these innocent people? It needs to be attacked at the root. Someone determined to kill will kill in anyway they see fit.

If not now, when? If the system we have created can't protect kids, our very future, then it isn't working and it's time to change.

People would buy bazookas and poison gas if they were allowed and then someone would use it. Military-like weapons with huge ammo clips should be publicly banned for the safety of all. No one is talking banning hunting rifles or the right to buy guns, so the paranoid and delusional who keep repeating the nonsense about big brother and loss of freedom are exposed.

people who think that tighter gun control laws would have any in way prevented the tragedy in Newtown, CT from happening are talking with their heads up their respective rear ends!!!

Will could 20 people be killed by two handguns? Absolutely. So where do we go when and if it does happen?

Nancy I believe you have the right to express your non offensive statement without being accused of being non civil. -constitution

There is a CNN article that makes the point that this woman knew how to handle guns, and that she was responsible with them. Well if she was so responsible why do we have twenty dead kids? I know what the gun rights folks will say -- she is an exception. Well it takes only one exception to cause this kind of carnage. Nobody wants you to give up all your guns. We just want some sensible policies on gun control.

Will I never said assault weapon laws shouldn't be changed, you are the one who doesn't want to face facts however. The fact that 99% of mass murderers have underlying mental issues that can be diagnosed or psychotropic prescription medications in their systems. So say there are no assault weapons available. Lanza still would have had two handguns available to him (through theft) maybe he kills 5 or 10 people, not 26. Is this number acceptable to you since it wasn't an assault weapon? You want to attack the last action in a long line of actions over years. Start from the beginning and perhaps this individual never would have gotten to the point of picking up a gun.

I don't believe this is entirely to do with gun control issues. It has something to do with mental health issues. Too many people with mental illness are ignored. They know how to play the game. If you look and sound sane enough to your therapist they're happy to let you go. Plus they look at your records and find out your insurance doesn't cover anymore appts. All of a sudden You're cured!!
Drs know your playing the game but if you say your good their happy to let you go because they know your visits won't be covered anymore. I work in mental health and see this dance all the time. Sad but true.

Why do you use Avon Barksdale as your name and picture if you are for gun control. This may seem a bit petty but isn't his character a glorification of guns, murder, violence and drugs? It's been proven that movies and video games can play a role in the minds of mirderers. Just seems ironic to me.

It's a fictional television show with heavy gun/drug use, violence and murder. Is that enough? And they are an influence WHEN an individual has mental issues or is on certain psychotropic prescription drugs. Perhaps you are not seeing things clearly.

In answer to the originally stated question in the above article by Susan Manning, yes, now is the time to talk gun control and Pres. Obama is already on it. We can only pray that in this second term, with no fear of re-election issues, he can make gun legislation part of his legacy.

xx

Another thought: This CT shooter was 20, by law too young to possess a gun of his own, am I right? So, if he hadn't first killed his mother who herself had left an arsenal of family guns unsecured, what would her responsibility have been under current law? Perhaps if people knew the guns they owned but were used for harm by themselves or others; if this ownership could get them in as much trouble as someone who possessed, say, ten pounds of heroine, would this serve at least one means of gun control?

Yes it is absolutely the right time. Gun-related death rates in the United States are 8x higher than they are in countries that are “westernized”. Why does that stat not help us believe we can cut down gun deaths here? Is a terrorist attack on American children, by an American in America an acceptable price to pay for your so-called “freedom”, BH? Your so-called freedom trumps the lives of all who have been murdered? The second amendment was meant to set up a well regulated militia –which we have in this country now - but which hadn't been a freedom under British rule. What's so “well regulated” if any yahoo can get a semi automatic assault weapon? If every household had gun(s) we'd be safer, seriously? Your Medfield neighbor can pick anyone off if he or she is mad at them, like the good old days of the Wild Wild West ? Tortured thinking. This is a complex issue, no easy answers, but we have to start, in the name of each of those little angels in Newtown. Semi automatic weapons shouldn't be sold, their purpose is for killing large numbers of people, not self-defense or hunting. And we need to regulate ammunition, too. It’s time to talk about our right to be free from gun violence, to feel safer in our malls, our places of worship and in our schools.

"Assault weapon" is a made up term. Listening to people call in on the radio and reading comments tells me there are a lot of people that do not know what they are talking about. Fully automatic firearms or machine guns have all been effectively banned since 1934 through regulation and fees. The AR-15 is NOT a machine gun. "AR" does not stand for automatic rifle. You have to pull the trigger for every time it fires a single shot. It is not a big bore rifle, it is a .223. The most popular beginner gun is a .22. Yes, folks that is .003" difference. See if you can find that on a ruler. A very popular plinking .22 rifle is the Ruger 10/22 and that can use a 30 round clip. The AR platform is availble in .30-06, .308, 30-30 and all the major hunting calibers and is used ONE shot at a time just like any other hunting rifle. Yes, hunting rifles have clips too. They just look different. More people are killed/maimed from speeding than all guns combined but every car sold exceeds the national speed limit?? Why? Corvettes go 200 mph!! No NEED for that.
If you really want to saves lives direct your energy at the biggest killer.

Avon, is this study just words to you also?

Anderson, Craig A.; Shibuya, Akiko; Ihori, Nobuko; Swing, Edward L.; Bushman, Brad J.; Sakamoto, Akira; Rothstein, Hannah R.; Saleem, Muniba. Psychological Bulletin, March 2010, Vol. 136(2), 151-173
Abstract: “Meta-analytic procedures were used to test the effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, empathy/desensitization, and prosocial behavior. Unique features of this meta-analytic review include (a) more restrictive methodological quality inclusion criteria than in past meta-analyses; (b) cross-cultural comparisons; (c) longitudinal studies for all outcomes except physiological arousal;

(d) conservative statistical controls; (e) multiple moderator analyses; and (f) sensitivity analyses. Social-cognitive models and cultural differences between Japan and Western countries were used to generate theory-based predictions. Meta-analyses yielded significant effects for all 6 outcome variables. The pattern of results for different outcomes and research designs (experimental, cross-sectional, longitudinal) fit theoretical predictions well. The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior. Moderator analyses revealed significant research design effects, weak evidence of cultural differences in susceptibility and type of measurement effects, and no evidence of sex differences in susceptibility. Results of various sensitivity analyses revealed these effects to be robust, with little evidence of selection (publication) bias.”

Point is folks that all guns will never be banned, not in our lifetime so why not focus on early intervention of at risk individuals. I don't want to be too graphic or morbid but handguns can be just as effective as an AR-15 and just as deadly.

If another law or banning guns would work then great. We all know it won't. DC and Chicago have the toughest gun laws yet they have the highes rate of shootings. Lets look at the combination of things contributing to the downfall of society. Just my opionion: It starts at home. Enough with trying to be your kids friend and not a parent. Enough with the video games, communicating through facebook, text messaging internet etc. Lastly, I wish the President didn't bring politics into it during a Memorial service. Just couldn't help himself.

Spot on Amy

Amen Amy

Haha Avon when do you think people develop much of their persona and tendencies? As a child. You accuse me of having no data or expert info to back up my point, then when I show a study by respected doctors/researchers you discredit it and attempt to disrespect me. Seems to me you just want to argue anything and everything only giving your opinion, never considering anyone else's and ignoring scientific research. I forgot that your experience trumps that of everyone else's including psychologists. Well done.

Stricter gun laws like stricter drug laws, do not/will not work. Generally, people who use guns for killing others are outlaws to begin with. Murder is prohibited by law. Obviously, this excludes military and law enforcement.

Guns and bullets, like whiskey can be made in someone's basement. We will, in effect, encourage a new set criminals... maybe they will be called gun runners instead of rum runners. There will be illegal gun dealers/users alongside illegal drug dealers/users in our prisons.

I say leave it alone. We already have bans against the ownership of assault weapons in many states.

Lord help use if we have to start sending the National Guard out to go door to door confiscating weapons. Might go well up here in blue America, but in Texas... I'm not too sure.

Avon - you are great at insulting and demeaning and have a wealth of knowledge - yet never have a solution -

Actually it was written in 2010 by some leading psychologists from Stanford, Ohio State, Hokkaido University, Iowa University, Kansas State University, University of Maryland. All PHd's. All of that info is listed in the article and the top of my post. Try one more time maybe?

Amy, so let's look at what other westernized countries do, how they raise their kids,
in countries where deaths from guns are far far fewer than in the US. What is it do you think about their societies that differs so significantly from ours--no video games, no Facebook, no Internet there? Nope, they all have these. So just maybe there are other reasons gun deaths are less there. Again, no easy answers, but the accoutrements of modern society are prevalent throughout the world, yet we still have 8x more gun deaths here. Something just doesn't add up.

We cannot baby sit everyone else's guns. real security is needed in our schools, malls, theaters until the governement gets the gun problem corrected. There's no need for anything other than a revolver for home defense, and a single shot rifle for hunting.

You know gun lovers only buy high tech guns for the thrill and bragging rights of it. All guns serve no purpose except for killing something. Unfortunetly, even the most sane person can become insane and turn their legal guns into a murder spree. So, therefore there's no choice but to limit high tech weapson to the military and law enforment. Also, buying bullets and magazines online is completely stupid. There's no controlling who get's them in the end.

You want to shoot cool weapons, join the military, or play video games.

Avon-I'm talking about kids. I saw the kids at my sons Jr. high school standing around in a circle texting each other instead of talking. Everything seems desensitized.

The mental case allegedly responsible for this mayhem reportedly violated at least 42 laws currently on the books - why would anyone believe one more law would have stopped him. Even if a significantly more restrictive, or even a total ban were enacted, it would not remove all the weapons currently in circulation. There is a far greater likelihood of having a positive effect if all the attention and funds were directed at mental health issues first.
If media reports are to believed, CT currently has one of the most restrictive gun control laws on the books, and yet it was still the site of this abominable tragedy.

Arnold great points

Concerned - that is a deeper question for this topic at this time - I would say our borders have a lot to do with it but should not be political at this time

The issue isnt just guns...many issues need to be addressed to at least help curb these incidents. Mental illness is an issue...the powerful drugs being administered to children that have serious side effects need to be addressed...responsible parenting...gun shows...online sales of weapons and ammo...the list goes on and on...but if we dont start talking now then when should we? How many more coffins do we need to bury?

Ummm, criminals and insane killers don't obey gun laws. Make all the laws and bans you want, It's not going to help. All you're going to do is disarm law abiding citizens who (especially nowadays) feel an increasing need to protect themselves, and their families.

Of course the blame falls immediately to the laws surrounding the weapons used. In my opinion, the fault lies with the mother of the shooter. All the weapons were legally registered to her. It was known that the man was unstable and mentally sick yet there were unsecured weapons in the house? A single unsecured gun that is easily accessible for home defense is one thing but he was armed with a high-powered rifle and multiple pistols. These weapons should have been locked up by the mother and the shooter should not have been able to get to them...had they been stored properly. The man may have gone through with his plan with the single accessible weapon but there is no doubt in my mind that he would NOT have gotten far as he did.

Jon-In my opionion the problem is more than gun control. it's society in general. Who said anything about religion? Was it the mention of the 10 commandments?

Jon, yes it is.

Why does the 10 commandents offend you? We discussed mental health, video games, the internet, war, desentizing and walking and chewing gum at the same time.

They do not offend me at all. I like to think I am fairly accepting of other faiths. I am only questioning their application in the current issue. I believe that they are irrelevant in discussing this topic.

This rather concise summary of the assault weapons ban was written in 2009 by Jimmy Carter:

“The evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.”

http://tinyurl.com/clh2gm9

And there’s this from the NRA:

“The NRA contends that a decade of restricting semiautomatic weapons has done nothing to reduce crime -- and that removing the restrictions would do nothing to increase it.

"These guns were rarely used in crime before the ban. They were rarely used in crime during the ban. And, it's safe to say they will rarely be used in crime after the ban," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.”

http://tinyurl.com/d2numav

Personally I think its time to revisit an Ammendment written in 1789 and whose language doesnt apply to the modern world. But thats just my opinion.

the issue isn't just guns, but it is also guns. and it's important to say that because we've never had problem acknowledging that we have other problems -- dysfunctional schools, mental health issues, and kids not having direction in life. but we have a terrible problem acknowledging that guns are a part of the problem. it's no good saying guns don't kill, people kill people. yes people kill people, but people with bushmaster rifles kill lot of people, lots of very little defenseless people, in a very short period of time.

There is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon." It is a political term of art. There are military" Assault Rifles" that are automatic firearms, meaning you pull the trigger and the rifle keeps firing until you release the trigger. They look 'scary'. They are. They are also UNAVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. YOU CANNOT LEGALLY BUY ONE OF THESE ANYWHERE. These are restricted to the military and police. The "Assault Weapons" in the ban are SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles and handguns. Meaning one trigger pull for each bullet fired. One pull or trigger squeeze ='s one shot. Many manufacturers 'dress' up these semi automatic rifles and handguns up to look like the larger more powerful automatic military rifles. This dress up does not change the function of the firearm. So let's not continue using the inaccurate term 'assault weapon.' Anything can be an assault weapon; from a butterknife, to a rifle. It depends on the 'intent' behind the use. People add all kinds of cosmetic items to their cars and trucks. Does that change the function of the car? If you make your hummer look like a tank, does that make it a functioning tank? Horrific events like school massacres begin in the mind of the person. Addressing the Mental Health issue is a must! Not restricting the defining element of being free and protecting that freedom: the right to be armed. That is the reason the 2nd Amendment exists.

as to chipping away of rights, we have given up the right to walk into an airplane without being pawed by a TSA agent, have we not? i don't see too many people complaining about that. somehow we are willing to make that tradeoff because a crazed middle eastern terrorist is very scary to us. maybe a messed up young white boy is not as scary. are you willing to give up a few gun rights so that six and seven year olds have better odds of not getting killed?

3000 people were killed using a box cutter.

there is some evidence that gun ownership is lower amongst the younger generation. hopefully younger folks, folks who are infants and toddlers now will make better choices for themselves on gun policy when they grow up and are in charge. i have no hope for my generation. we are too set in our ways and too stubborn in our positions. just like young people have no issues with gay marriage, hopefully they'll have a better sense about gun control.

Interesting: mostly the NRA used to support gun control. When Black Panthers in 1967 began carrying loaded weapons in public (anyone remember Huey Newton on the steps of the CA. Capitol building, fully armed?). People felt very threatened by Black Panthers, and to disarm them, a conservative Republican then proposed a CA law prohibiting carrying loaded weapons in any CA city. Gov. Reagan agreed,saying there's “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons" and guns were a “ridiculous way to solve problems that have to be solved among people of good will”. He didn’t “know of any sportsman who leaves his home with a gun to go out into the field to hunt or for target shooting who carries that gun loaded.” Gun control “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.” Fear inspired by black people carrying any type of guns then led Congress to consider new restrictions, and a 1968 Fed. report blamed many riots on the easy availability of guns, as rioters used guns to keep police at bay, and it also said a recent spike in gun sales were “directly related to the actuality and prospect of civil disorders” and drew “the firm conclusion that effective firearms controls are an essential contribution to domestic peace and tranquility." How would any of us react if these continual mass killings in schools etc.were carried out by Black Panther types? Would you change your opinion on ammunition and gun control then?

Gun control will not be perfect. It will not help in all cases, but something needs to be done. The writers of the constitution could not have envisioned what guns are like today. At the time they wrote the constitution muskets could fire one round a short distance with limited accuracy.

There is no way that we can ban guns in this country. It would be impossible. However we could improve the background check system and outlaw assault weapons.

The constitution as originally written is a flawed document. We have changed it many times to outlaw slavery, give women the right to vote, etc. Why can't "the right to bear arms" be updated? Why is that amendment protected from change? The beauty of the constitution is that it is flexible and not written in stone.

CNN reports that a million and a half Bushmaster AR-15 semi-automatic rifles have been produced in the past 5 years. CNN also reports that these guns are available at "1700 Walmarts" across the country. Dick's Sporting Goods have pulled the weapons from the their Connecticut stores closest to Newtown. Dick's may be considering pulling the weapons from all their stores.

Can we all agree that ALL criminals either possess or can easily possess guns by many means both legal and illegal? I think the laws in place in THIS state are a very good standard. Can they be stricter? Maybe, I don’t know all of the laws but I do know that we have pretty strict laws in MA. If you have a knee jerk reaction and create stricter laws you will only be putting more of a burden on those of us that are law abiding citizens. The only affect on criminals would be that maybe there illegal gun might cost a few dollars more. I suggest that we should put the burden on the gun manufacturers. I know that serial numbers can be filed down, thus erasing the history of the ownership of the weapon but there must be a way to permanently attaching a serial number to a weapon. Maybe in such a way that to gain access to the serial number would make the gun inoperable forever. This way if a gun is used in a crime the guns’ history can be traced back directly to the last “legal” owner of the gun and then THEY would share in any and all consequences of said crime. Make people accountable and all this illegal gun trafficking would come to a screeching halt. That and ban large capacity automatic weapons, there is no place for them in a civilized society.

some more good news from wapost article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/sandy-hook-massacre-spurs-debate-on-gun-companies-laws/2012/12/18/7a71adc4-4938-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html?hpid=z2)

"Meanwhile, the private equity firm that owns the company that made the rifle used in the killings said it will sell the business, after reports that one of its investors was thinking of withdrawing its funds as a way of expressing revulsion."

How would reinstituting the so called 'assault weapon ban' prevent another tragedy? This is a combination of irresponsible legal gun ownership and mental health.

Nancy were should not killed should be held respossible, not the weapon. New (and how could they be any stricter) guns laws will fix not one thing in a (god forbid) similar case.

Also you large capacity magazine haters - there are magazines of 42 rounds for hand guns. Yes it is a MAGAZINE not a clip.

One fix would be to allow the Federal Government to establish all rules and regulations for the sale and purchase of guns and rifles. This would eliminate states from having easier laws than other states. Also any gun or rifle purchase should have a mandatory waiting period. Currently only 60% of the guns and rifles sold in the USA require a watinh period.

"Federal Government establish all rules and regulations for the sale..."wouldn't change a thing here in Massachusetts nor Connecticut. Just sayin'.

Ward it would if they put even tighter restrictions. I know the weapons used in this crime were legally purchased. But why not limit who can go to a shooting range? I mean if you need to be 21 to purchase alcohol in this country shouldnt you need to be 21 to fire a weapon which can be more dangerous?

Gretchen has it ever occured to you that others just have a different opionion?

Dave-
Shooting ranges are limited. One has to have adult (over 21) and licensed supervision. That is the law everywhere as I know it. Deep in the woods? A sand pit away from civilization? I am thinking there is no way to regulate or create a law that stops that sort of irresponsible 'shooting'.

In 2004, Cheney/Bush did not fight to get the ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons renewed. These are just 30 of the Senators and Representatives who received contributions from the NRA at that time:

DeMint, James (R-SC) House $14,850
Gerlach, Jim (R-PA) House $13,900
Beauprez, Bob (R-CO) House $13,400
Pearce, Steve (R-NM) House $12,900
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK) Senate $11,050
Nethercutt, George R Jr (R-WA) House $10,950
Foxx, Virginia (R-NC) House $10,900
Price, Tom (R-GA) House $10,900
Sessions, Pete (R-TX) House $10,900
Burr, Richard (R-NC) House $10,150
Burns, Max (R-GA) House $9,900
Coors, Peter (R-CO) Senate $9,900
Davis, Geoff (R-KY) House $9,900
Graves, Sam (R-MO) House $9,900
Harris, Katherine (R-FL) House $9,900
Kennedy, Mark (R-MN) House $9,900
Kobach, Kris (R-KS) House $9,900
Kuhl, John R Jr (R-NY) House $9,900
Martinez, Mel (R-FL) Senate $9,900
McHenry, Patrick (R-NC) House $9,900
Porter, Jon (R-NV) House $9,900
Renzi, Rick (R-AZ) House $9,900
Simmons, Rob (R-CT) House $9,900
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) Senate $9,900
Thune, John (R-SD) Senate $9,900
Westmoreland, Lynn A (R-GA) House $9,900
Wilson, Heather A (R-NM) House $9,900
Hayes, Robin (R-NC) House $8,950
Bond, Christopher "Kit" (R-MO) Senate $8,833
Bunning, Jim (R-KY) Senate $8,450

http://tinyurl.com/d6pevgq

oh, so we throw our hands up and stay passive....
I'm indicting myself. I am called to do more by these killings.

There are far more nasty rifles than the so called 'assault weapons'. They have larger more powerful rounds and high capacity magazines as well which would kill with aplomb despite their having fine finished lovely wood stocks.
I am irritated by those who call scary looking, take a beating military 'type' weapons in the same configuration as all civilian rifles. The ban is essentially one for scary looking rifles.
Suppose Nancy preferred the fine 'looking' more lethal weapons? Would we call for a ban on them?

the second amendment refers to a well regulated militia. what militia? who is regulating?

The Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic combat rifle has a 30-round magazine. The bullets used at Newtown, said Connecticut’s chief medical examiner, “are designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in” producing a “very devastating set of injuries.”

What recreational purpose or self-defense need is satisfied by the Bushmaster .223?

This is not the time for a rational discussion about gun control. Emotions are high and people are going to be reactive. Freedom has a price that seems high sometimes but it is the foundation of our country. Remember that if one of the staff was armed, the consequences of this persons in Conn. actions could have been far less. The time to discuss things is when cooler heads prevail, not in the heat of the argument.

A 12 gauge Benelli (beautifully constructed with a fine wood stock) is far more devastating regards injuries. A 30-06, a 308, an Ak47 all would cause far more devastating injuries. All weapons by design cause injuries. Some are more devastating than others. An AR uses a .223 round just slightly by .003 larger than the most common 22 round.
All weapons can be used for target recreational puposes as Nancy did.
All weapons can be used for self-defense.
When empty you can throw a gun in self-defense.
And by the way google is your friend - no 30 rounds magazine comes with a Bushmaster or any other manufacturer's flavor of an AR. The civilian model is not a COMBAT rifle.
Your self-defense needs may vary from mine, if at all. If you feel that you need something for self-defense a Bushmaster AR will do, as most 'guns' and are just fine. I prefer the 12 gauge so as to not hit someone in the next room for home self-defense.

More on self-defense. When seconds count..the police are only minutes away.

Congratulations to RI Congressman David Cicilline for the leadership he is providing in the U.S. Congress on gun control. He led gun safety efforts in Rhode Island while he was a member of the General Assembly. In 1999, he introduced legislation raising the age for possession of firearms from 15 to 18, with exceptions made for ROTC programs, hunting under the supervision of a parent or guardian, ceremonial parades, competitive target shooting and participating in state militia activities. I worked with him on generating community support, including drafting a letter that was signed by 20 school superintendents. Thanks, David, for sticking with this very controversial issue. So many parents (and school superintendents!) in Rhode Island have been grateful for your past efforts. Parents around the country will now add their praise for your work.

From 2009 to 2012 3,303 new gun retailers opened in the United States. Seems the gun industry has thrived under Obama. Source...The Wall Street Journal October 19th 2012.the title of the column is " Gun industry thriving under Obama" So can we stop pointing fingers. This isnt a Republican or Democratic issue...its a common sense issue.

More guns were sold on Black Friday 2012 than any other day in history...source..CNN 12/17/12.

Under Obama legislation has been passed that has allowed loaded weapons into National Pars and weapons on board Amtrak trains as long as they are in your luggage. Source..PBS Frontline 12/17/12.

we might see some action this time around. political action always follows when the victims are rich wall street types. i think this time the NRA will have it tough. many of these folks probably have the wherewithal to mount a well financed campaign that will present a significant challenge to the NRA, they messed with the wrong people this time.

I hope u r right Max!

Yout point is lost on me. What action? Ban mentally challened people from access to weapons. Ban 'scary' looking weapons from legal ownership?

any lawyers here? what about going down the civil rights road?

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/12/17/new-poll-shows-support-for-gun-control-at-a-five-year-high/

Gun enthusiasts want special treatment under the law and the constitution. Here’s why:

Many, many things in society are either banned or limited for the good of society. Many people would LOVE to drive over 100 mph on our highways. Laws prevent that for the good of society. I’m a salt water fisherman. I can’t keep a striped bass under a certain size for the good of society (to protect that species). Pet lovers work within limitations: The species that they can own, how many, etc. Again, for the good of society. The list of limitations on personal freedom for the good of society is endless.

You don’t hear drivers or fishermen or pet lovers or most anyone else screaming that the rules that affect them deprive them of constitutional rights do you? No. The only group that feeds us that line endlessly, via the 2nd amendment argument, are gun owners to which ANY restriction of their freedom is an unacceptable deprivation of their personal freedoms. They use this logic to demand even that anyone should be able to arm themselves to the teeth with military-style weaponry that can kill with horrible efficiency.

Gun owners demand special privileges: The privilege to indulge in their preferred behavior with NO interference from gov’t… something none of the rest of us enjoy or even ask for.

The NRA has announced that they will “hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21. Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time."

It has been reported that the NRA is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions" to prevent more violence like that which occurred in Newtown, CT.

I might guess that the NRA will offer some mild concessions concerning gun control in an effort to head off what they might fear would be even more stringent regulations that Congress might be forced to place on guns.

When you hear what they offer, you can decide if you’ll be appeased by it.

Is another modern, industrialized nation can solve their problem with gun violence, why can't we do it as well??

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history. The country of Australia took action and homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent.
How did Australia do this??

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
Our society is no longer healthy enough to allow the continuation of gun ownership as it exists today. Gun rights must yield to public safety. It is time for legislative change.

Thank you to Tim, Dennis Wilson, and David Kent for a civil, intelligent discussion. It's obvious many here have thought a great deal about the issues of gun ownership and gun violence. This kind of exchange is what I signed up for on PATCH but have waited a long time to see.

Working in a childcare setting I spent the better part of my day re-evaluating which shrubs had to be pruned to prevent intruders from having a hiding place, which locks were best for classroom doors, how to get each room the capacity to lock down all electronic doors, write instructions for staff so they could lock down the doors at remote buildings, and a host of other things. I don't work at a bank or the Pentagon. For the Almighty's sake. I work in childcare. Gun rights my (expletive that will be banned by this website) Babies and their caregivers have the right to their safety.

Tim, I hope entries like yours see the light of day on other than PATCH screens. This is a point of view that, I think, few of us have heard before.

In 2004, Cheney/Bush did not fight to get the ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons renewed. These are 30 more of the Senators and Representatives who received contributions from the NRA at that time:

Cubin, Barbara (R-WY) House $8,450
Ryun, Jim (R-KS) House $8,450
Terry, Lee (R-NE) House $8,450
Crane, Phil (R-IL) House $7,950
Kline, John (R-MN) House $7,950
Ross, Mike (D-AR) House $7,550
Davis, Lincoln (D-TN) House $7,500
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) House $7,450
Tiahrt, Todd (R-KS) House $7,450
Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) House $7,250
Ney, Bob (R-OH) House $7,000
DeLay, Tom (R-TX) House $6,950
Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX) House $6,950
Shuster, Bill (R-PA) House $6,950
Tauzin, Billy (R-LA) House $6,450
Young, Don (R-AK) House $6,200
Baca, Joe (D-CA) House $6,000
Gingrey, Phil (R-GA) House $6,000
Rogers, Mike D (R-AL) House $5,950
Wohlgemuth, Arlene (R-TX) House $5,950
Boucher, Rick (D-VA) House $5,500
Holden, Tim (D-PA) House $5,500
Marshall, Jim (D-GA) House $5,500
Matheson, Jim (D-UT) House $5,500
McCaul, Michael (R-TX) House $5,100
Boyd, Allen (D-FL) House $5,000
Istook, Ernest J (R-OK) House $5,000
Ashburn, Roy (R-CA) House $4,950
Bonilla, Henry (R-TX) House $4,950
Boren, Dan (D-OK) House $4,950

Am I crazy to believe that some (I will be Politically Correct here) "disturbed" (not whack job) is going to use tomorrows Mayan Apocalypse as an excuse to do something crazy? Has anyone else even considered that?

The NRA is generally recognized as the most powerful lobby in Washington.

For four days after the horror in Newtown, the NRA was silent. It was reported that they took down their Facebook page -- that they didn’t post a tweet.

And when the NRA finally spoke, they wanted to tell us that they represent “four million mothers and fathers and sons and daughters”. They wanted to humanize themselves. But the NRA really represents the gun manufacturers and gun sellers -- they represent the gun industry.

What do you imagine went on at NRA headquarters during those four days of silence? I imagine the NRA was swamped by their Congressional supporters saying “You have to do something -- I can’t possibly vote against a ban on assault weapons and extended clips. I’ll lose the next election”

The NRA has announced a press conference for Friday -- at a yet undisclosed place in the Washington area. Are they afraid to announce the location because they fear the thousands of protesters who will show up? Are there venues in Washington which have declined to host the NRA’s news conference for fear of the negative publicity?

(getting around the character limitations)

What do you expect the NRA to announce at their Friday news conference as they said they are "prepared to offer meaningful contributions" to prevent more violence like that which occurred in Newtown, CT?

Do you expect the NRA to say any of the following:

**The NRA supports a permanent ban on the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic weapons in the U.S.

**The NRA supports a permanent ban on the manufacture and sale of extended clips (magazines, for the gun purists).

**The NRA supports background checks for the sale of all guns at gun shows.

**The NRA will donate a million dollars a year for the buy back and destruction of semi-automatic weapons and extended clips.

Or do you expect the NRA to say, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

Someone mentioned earlier that this past Black Friday saw the highest number of gun sales in U.S. history. When those store owners were asked why there were so many sales, they told reporters. ‘People are afraid that Obama is going to restrict gun sales.”

And that was before Newtown.

Please consider that in 2011 more people were murdered by the means described in the list below than by every type of rifle (assault or not)

Knives or cutting instruments (Over five times as many people)
Blunt objects such as clubs or hammers (Over one and a half as many people)
"Personal weapons" such as feet or bare hands (Over twice as many people)

"Other weapons" (i.e. not a gun, knife, personal weapon, poison, explosive, fire, narcotic, drowning, strangulation, or asphyxiation) (Over two and a half times as many people)

Approximately 0.00000102% of the US population was killed by a rifle (assault or not) last year, about one tenth of the number of deaths from the flu.

And for the "if it saves just one life it is worth it because nobody needs an assault weapon," argument here are some other "unnecessary" things that cause death every year: (compared to rifles)

-Bicycles (over twice as many)
-Dogs (approximately one tenth as many)
-Drowning in a recreational swimming pool (over ten times as many)
-Fireworks (approximately one twentieth as many)
-Five gallon buckets (estimates range from about one thirtieth to one tenth as many)
-Recreational horseback riding (I can't find reliable estimates for an annual rate, but there are many confirmed deaths, so it is more than zero)

All of the above are figures that I have found/calculated from either the FBI, the CDC or the WHO. They are not from some BS email I got from my grandmother that she "heard about on Rush Limbaugh."

Dennis...Obama has done nothing to restrict gun sales. Zip...zero...nada..If anything he has been a friend to gun enthusiasts..more so than Bush. So any argument that he will take away guns does not hold water. Until now I hope.

no right is absolute. the first amendment for example has restrictions too. you cannot for example shout fire in a movie theater without there actually being a fire. in a similar sense, the second amendment cannot trump people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

i have been thinking about this a lot these last few days. i am no legal expert, but i feel there might be a civil rights argument here that people on my side of the debate should think about. civil rights includes the ensuring of people's physical and mental integrity, life and safety. i think there is an argument to be made that the current gun laws violate the civil rights of certain individuals, defenseless first graders for example. i am not sure if this line of legal reasoning will succeed, but it is worth a shot.

Even if this “disturbed” person was prescribed meds (who knows)? He didn't have to take it because the ACLU said he had "rights" His mother was supposedly trying to get him institutionalized, we’ll never know how long that process was taking because it was his “right” not to be institutionalized. The drooling idiots from Westboro "Baptist" church (who belong to no religion or church ) plan on protesting at these funerals because it's their "right". Where do my rights begin? Just a little common sense please? Senator Gerald Nadler said the President should exploit this to promote more gun laws. Well it looks like he did.

I suggest to any of you who want to keep the Second Amendment as justification for continuing gun violence in this country because you are a "constitutional originalist", then use the same kind of muskets that existed when the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, because that is the purest form of originalism and interpretation of that Amendment and their meaning when they wrote it. You won't do that I am sure, so you do not have ground upon which to stand that justifies not doing ANYTHING to strengthen gun and ammo laws, and help the mentally ill and their parents get better access to mental health care as well.

I don't understand this exploitation business. I think sometimes you have to shock people into action. There is no other way sometimes. When we look at sanitized images of violence on TV, maybe it doesn't spur us into action. Look, Steven Spielberg was criticized for the imagery in Shindler's list, specifically of kids hiding in a full toilet in a concentration camp, but it drove home the point about the Holocaust. Every time we say, let's calm down and talk about policy when everyone has had a chance to let their emotions subside. But the truth is we never do. Not after Columbine, not after Virginia Tech, not after Aurora, not after Wisconsin. So when? When is it the right time?

Right now is the right time Max, right now.

No matter what the interpretation of the constitution or different state laws decide, we, as a society, should DEMAND that all gun owners protect their weapons and amunition from being used by anyone other than the registered owner. That inclulded kids at home who know where the key to the gun case is; other adults; and thieves.
The latest mall shooting in ?Oregon? was carried out by someone who had stolen the weapon. Didn't the English guy who shot his wife and baby "borrow" the gun from his father-in-law? We don't need laws to accomplish this. Really good security will provide us all with some protection against unauthorized users. Maybe there could be an "ap" for owners to know if their gun safes have been opened.
It is just a drop in the bucket. It doesn't cover all situations. But if it helps prevent any future shootings, it is worth it.

With all respect to those lost on fri.....I have heard nothing but how evil and numerous "assault weapons" are in America...I was wondering.....with all the millions of gun owners owning millions of guns, firearms, rifles, assault rifles, combat rifles etc....why does this type of event on occur once in a while....according to the stats this should happen nearly everyday?....right?

With all due respect how many murders are attributed to guns everyday in this country? Dont we owe it to the smallest and most fragile members of our society to do everything we can to protect them?

you are correct, Max. Anger and emotions rarely go away on their own. Over time, they get suppressed. Two examples: we could get into a endless argument here about the Vietnam War very readily. The nation never reconciled or reached a consensus on the Vietnam War. It's still a hot button topic with many. We could also argue endlessly about the necessity of the bombing of Hiroshima, and then Nagasaki in order to "end the War." Both examples show us that we have to work through issues of violence and trauma, freedom and responsibility and public order.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, speaking on what he called "the military-industrial complex" near the end of his second term, said the United States is "hanging on a Cross of Iron." Christian or not, religious or non-religious, violence is the social problem that keeps shocking us with its return -- and will continue to do so. Until we reconcile and reach a national consensus.

Notice I didn't say "compromise." Many will have to surrender their most precious views and understanding, having made a searching inventory of their thinking. I think the USA is capable of deciding that protecting children is more important than having an arsenal of weapons in their homes.

I have seen people change. It's hard and painful work, no matter the issue. But it's happened before in this nation. There are lessons we most need to learn and they will be hard to face. But then, what are we here for???

To protect the innocent is noble...to protect at the expense of the innocent is criminal.

Does anybody actually do enough research to find how he only used 2 handguns?

there was a semi-auto rifle in the trunk of his car but he never used it.

The overwhelming lack of knowledge or research on this page is overwhelming...

right....take your 8553 and divide that by the population of the USA....and you have your answer.

YOUR WORDS!

I think the real problem in this country is deaths by automobile, which accounts for far more deaths than guns. The only solution is to either (a) ban all cars, which will never happen, or (b) immediately enact Concealed Car Carry Permit laws. If people drove into places where they knew that other people were carrying cars under their coats, they would never commit their planned violent automotive acts.

Avon how many of those deaths were rhe result of people deliberately deiving into a crowded school. That you would even make that comparison is abhorrent.

how to lose an argument....mature.....much like the anger and ignorance that actually caused this event....interesting and yet I have the issues? Look above...I never insulted anyone ....and certainly not the innocent who lost their lives....and I never refered to them as "measly"....they are children for Gods sake....have some respect.

Sorry Avon...my bad.

better (at least to my mind) Predator, to respond rather than react by slamming back. Too often on PATCH people react and over-react. Might we learn to ask someone to rethink their last post or ask them to repost and therein show more respect.

"(A)nger and ignorance" are no doubt two of the root causes of violence. How then, do we put our anger aside to respond, that is, not respond in kind? I'm still working on that one myself.
There is a movement called Non-violent communication and some of it's ideal/ideas for effective communication might come in handy here... Do we sometimes cause more confusion and venting here on PATCH than helping one another to discuss, get new information, and gain clarity? Maybe even find common ground with those with different views?

Perhaps, even better , when you argue the "side of compassion and tolerance and diversity" you actually exhibit those traits.

that always wars with a desire not to "suffer fools gladly"
it's a practice, a process

is it true that your local patch requires one to use their real name? I am able to show tolerance better when someone uses their actual name.

There are chilling reports of how a group of fourth graders in music class hid in a closet with their teacher while the gunman screamed to be let in. It has been four days now and I am still as messed up as I was on Friday. I am unable to imagine the parents' pain as they bury their little ones. Nobody should have to go through this pain. It is just so senseless.

The constitution serves us, not the other way around. When some aspect of it has outlived its usefulness, and in fact hurting us, it is time to consider making a change. Please don't lecture me that there is a process to do it. I am fully aware of it, and perhaps we should go through that process, but meanwhile we have to consider some common sense intermediate solutions. The pain is unbearable, and I am only a bystander who is a parent like the rest of you.

Thank You Mr. Obama! Although I am not a fan of yours, I applaud your actions the last 5 days. For the time being you have my complete and total support. I urge you to follow through on the promises you have made. And I truly hope no Republican stands in your way.

TBH: fingerprint technology is nowhere near an exact a science as we've always been told. In fact almost all of the tried and true methods in forensic science are not failsafe. Will post link.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/

plus PBS "Frontline" has a way to get the latest CSI info on Sandy Hook. I"m not signing up but others might want to know about it.

It's time we brought the 2nd amendment into to the 21st century, the same as we did with slavery and women voting - both of which where condoned in the original constitution and later changed. If we bow to the NRA, eventually owning an RPG or a nuclear weapon will be justifiable as a right to bear arms. Draw a line; muskets on one end, nuclear weapon on the other, with all the weapons in increasing killing power. Where would you draw the line for a home weapon?

In 2004, Cheney/Bush did not fight to get the ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons renewed. These are 30 more of the Senators and Representatives who received contributions from the NRA at that time:

Dent, Charlie (R-PA) House $4,950
Drake, Thelma (R-VA) House $4,950
Fitzpatrick, Michael G (R-PA) House $4,950
Fortenberry, Jeff (R-NE) House $4,950
Franks, Trent (R-AZ) House $4,950
Gohmert, Louis B Jr (R-TX) House $4,950
Hall, Ralph M (R-TX) House $4,950
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D-SD) House $4,950
Isett, Carl (R-TX) House $4,950
Kerr, Alice Forgy (R-KY) House $4,950
LaTourette, Steve (R-OH) House $4,950
Mack, Connie (R-FL) House $4,950
McMorris Rodgers, Cathy (R-WA) House $4,950
Michels, Tim J (R-WI) Senate $4,950
Naples, Nancy A (R-NY) House $4,950
Oller, Rico (R-CA) House $4,950
Salazar, John (D-CO) House $4,950
Sodrel, Michael E (R-IN) House $4,950
Stoll, Steve (D-MO) House $4,950
Garrett, Scott (R-NJ) House $4,750
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA) House $4,500
Bradley, Jeb (R-NH) House $4,500
Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-FL) House $4,500
Chocola, Chris (R-IN) House $4,500
King, Steven A (R-IA) House $4,500
Michaud, Mike (D-ME) House $4,500
Pickering, Charles (Chip) Jr (R-MS) House $4,500
Reid, Harry (D-NV) Senate $4,500
Sandlin, Max (D-TX) House $4,500
Gregg, Judd (R-NH) Senate $4,450

I have taken $200.00 worth off my kids layaway for Christmas so i can donate the money to the NRA so they can help my kids be safe from the dangers of criminals and the tyranny of government! The best gift a kid could get.

Max....will you feel the same the next time the government restricts or eliminates one of our freedoms...perhaps one you cherish....say speech?

Exactly....in just the same way I cannot walk down the street with a weapon a fire it as I please....now would you care to have a civil conversation....or just keep playing word games?

I don't remember being uncivil. And I don't think I was playing word games. I was suggesting a legal course of action that I believe has not yet been tried in the courts. To frame the debate as gun owners' second amendment privileges versus first graders' civil rights. I am not sure if it will actually succeed, but I think it is worth a shot for those who want tighter gun control policies.

You have answered the question then....I will feel badly for you when it's your turn....good luck.

Yesterday at around noon our President held a news conference where he discussed a task force to reevaluate guns and gun control. After Mr. Obama finished his statement he opened up the floor to questions from the gathered reporters……question after question was about the “fiscal cliff” that we are facing!! After several such questions I turned off the TV in disgust. That’s where our priorities are people, that’s where they are in a nut shell. This gun reform is going to be a long uphill battle.

Steve....don't you see that the press understands a real problem when it sees one. When Pelosi said that debt and welfare was good for the economy.....SHE WAS LYING! And, I am sorry to say, you all believed her and her boss.

Last week, on Dec. 14th, a knife wielding Chinese psychopath injured and maimed 23 kids at an elementary school in China.
Before this becomes a world wide epidemic I believe the US should take the world wide lead in banning all butter knives.

Yes...so the answer is more less than perfect laws to supplement our already seldom enforced less than perfect laws...all of which only impede the actions and freedoms of legal non-criminal gun owners. Maybe I could see your side if people convicted of murder actually spent their lives in jail....but that is sadly not the case.

Oh...can't handle the criminals....legal gun owers are an easier target...at least we don't shoot at police or children. And I agree....if we are to tackle one problem I ask that it is the obvious enforcement issue....recall the Woburn (if I recall correctly) officer gunned down buy a felon out of jail on a life sentence. Where did he get his firearm.....and would ANY law have helped there or in CT?

Steve...please stop lying.....I live in MA and have two AR-15's.....both manufactured by Bushmaster. And so you know...the possession and use of those weapons was illegal in CT for the womans son as well....but being a criminal....he did not care and shot his mom in the face....seems the laws did nothing.

"the weapons used in CT are illegal in MA so his mother would not have been able to have possession of those weapons if CT had similar laws."....Steve. Which is it? The weapons or the "clips"?BTW....i also legally possess, in MA, many of these "clips". . Please make your argument with facts and not wild speculation.

Let me guess....next it will be the illegal ammunitions fault....right? Lets all drop the PC and discuss the problem.....not a faux fix.

Fine...follow your heart...it is your right and I would never try and infringe upon it...however...your solution will not help! We just proved it! BTW....the MA standards did nothing to prevent the massacre in Mattapan or the nightly shootings in Springfield. Attacking my rights is NOT the answer....attack those who have no respect for anyone;s rights.....the criminals.

Wow...come on....ever hear of a receipt? If i bought them before the ban that means they were made before the ban...right? Is this what we are here to talk about....dates and receipts....or the fact you have no answers which will help the problem....only fake solutions which only harm the wrong party.

Is fingerprint recognition technology in guns of the kind that saves Bond's life in Skyfall very expensive?

In 2004, Cheney/Bush did not fight to get the national ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons renewed. This is the last of the 100 Senators and Representatives listed by OpenSecrets.org who received contributions from the NRA at that time:

Ryan, Tim (D-OH) House $4,046
Alexander, Rodney (R-LA) House $4,000
Buyer, Steve (R-IN) House $4,000
Carter, John (R-TX) House $4,000
Chabot, Steve (R-OH) House $4,000
Cramer, Bud (D-AL) House $4,000
Feeney, Tom (R-FL) House $4,000
Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA) House $4,000
Green, Mark (R-WI) House $4,000
Pence, Mike (R-IN) House $4,000

Dave will count up the number of Democrats. Subtract that number from the 100 Senators and Representatives who have been listed in various posts on this thread to find the number of Republican supporters of the NRA at that time. (Hint:That final number will be greater than the average life expectancy of a white, American female).

http://tinyurl.com/bndaonr

GR...my solutions protect the innocent and protect individual liberties where as others presented here only harm law abiding citizen's freedoms. Do you have a solution that impacts the criminals abilities to cause harm? If so I would love to hear it.

LLinda of all NRA contributions...88% went to Republicans this past year. But I am a Republican concerned about that and about guns. But since u mention it...I think u missed Heath Shuler D Tennesee. LOL

select quotes on the formation of masculinity in teen boys/young men and guns:

"During the twentieth century, American gun culture continued to facilitate the formation of masculine identity. Gun ownership became a rite of passage, particularly in rural areas...
"Marksmanship competitions, historical re-enactments, firearms collecting, and gun shows provided a range of activities that appealed to various social classes and subcultures as ways of fashioning masculine identity.

"The relationship between gun ownership and masculinity became a powerful political during the late twentieth century.
....the NRA and its self-consciously masculine president Charlton Heston assumed growing visibility amid an intensifying debate...

''Gun control advocates, meanwhile argue that gun ownership reinforces an obsolete and potentially dangerous male fantasy of returning/to an idealized past of hunters and cowboys. Both sides underscore the continuing association with guns and masculinity."
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0R9lLtv8i8C&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=masculinity+guns&source=bl&ots=NwhdG2dQzo&sig=NC03Z0gRIH0WWuH95COBn0TSoa8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SynSUJH4BvGM0QHkvIGICQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwBg

am so tired of this defeatist argument, counseling us that we are helpless unless we're all armed and dangerous

Solutions:
1) Stop the media from glorifying these maniacs. We not only know the names and faces of these mass murders, but what they did for fun, their hobbies, what their last meal was, etc., etc. End the incentives for people to carry out these types of crimes. If someone runs out onto the field at Fenway, they used to film this, but now pan the camera away and not give that person the publicity they desire. Same thing here. Talk all day and night about the victums and what heros the teachers that protected their kids were, but stop talking about the killer and what guns he used, etc.

2) End "Gun-Free" Zones. Almost all of these mass shootings have taken place in these gun-free zones. Why? Easy targets. These mass murders are cowards and don't like when people shoot back at them. Allow educators to conceal carry if they desire to and can do so legally (properly permitted) and supply schools with armed guards or Police Officers like Fall River has just done. Gun Free Zones just created unarmed victums. In the old days, kids used to bring their .22 rifles to school so that they could shoot after the day was over. There weren't any mass shootings (or at least not as many) back then, where there?

People that are willing to kill 6 and 7 year olds will not follow the existing laws let alone any new laws that are passed. Anyone know how many State and Federal laws the shooter broke prior to firing the very first shot? I can think of at least 5 without doing any research

40% of the worlds guns are located here in the United States.....today's Huffington Post.

Preadator, you may drone on, (pun intended), but there ample statistical evidence that you are wrong. I hope it never happens to your family that a gun is misused. It's not worth the risk of a child or grandchild.
My father taught me 60 years that you can't know that a gun you 'know' is empty, truly is. When his dementia began, I had my brothers go in and get the guns lest he us them on a family member.

GR...personal attacks are not welcome here.

Guns stop somewhere between 860,000 to 1,500,000 crimes per year. In these instances, shots are fired less than 1% of the time.

Guns in the wrong hands can be a force for evil, but in the hands of people wanting to do good prevent crimes as a deterent. Maybe I am wrong but I believe most people in this world are out to do good.

As for "The willful misreading of the Constitution", I don't know what you are reading. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty clear cut to me.

Dave -- I have sent my apologies to Heath for omitting him : )

I posted all this info about the failure to renew the the assault weapons ban in 2004 as a way to demonstrate the power of the NRA. Dick Cheney's role in the failure to renew is a huge part of the story. With you pointing out that 88% of all NRA contributions went to Republicans this past year sheds a great deal more light on the problem of the NRA.
I don't hold much hope for the NRA's news conference tomorrow. I can't imagine the NRA suddenly supporting background checks for all guns sales or a national ban on semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. I can't imagine the NRA offering up money to support a buy back program.
And certainly, more issues than guns have to be addressed.

Just saw this on CNN website:

(CNN) -- Some major websites will go dark for one minute Friday at 9:30 a.m. ET as part of a national moment of silence for the victims of last week's shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

It's unclear how widespread participation will be online, but more than 100,000 people and sites have pledged to participate on the Causes.com page for the Web Goes Silent campaign. People and companies are also spreading the word by tweeting their intention to go quiet with the hashtag #momentforSandyHook.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/tech/web/moment-of-silence-online/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

hope this is just a beginning....

It's not the constitution as a written document, but the basic spirit of constitutionalism behind it, that's sacrosanct, and to be upheld, when in conflict with the former. Thus the second amendment affording an individual right to bear arms, however relevant and crucial at the formative stage of the American Republic, appears not so indispensable today, when there's no substantive internal threat to the Republic. Instead, the same constitutional provision itself, stretched beyond limits, seems to have rather turned out to be a major threat to social peace and harmony in America. It's in this context that, whatever be the NRA protestations about self-restraint and responsible behaviour, or the clamour by the gun totting crowd about their inalienable gun owning right, the political rationality and social pragmatism demands stricter regulation of gun culture. (Copied from another source)

Just maybe everyone here should look into the ACLU's involvement in all of this. Now there is an interesting story for anyone interested in truths and not witch hunts.

Predator, Please first, tell us why you think your family is safer because you are armed? Then enlighten us on this ACLU red herring.

Because I am armed to the teeth. Here you are: http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/connecticut-mental-health-bill-defeated-months-before-deadly-school-shooting/

Now please explain to me how a gun jumps up and kills. Quid pro quo.....

The ACLU's opposition to a bill which, according to the article you provide (an article that refers once and only once to the ACLU, and then without detailing its position, nor the actual contents or phrasing of the bill), would alter the way that the State handles people who are or are believed by the State to be mentally ill and potentially dangerous, is hardly a convincing reason for indicting the ACLU as a prime player in the recent shooting tragedy. Is the State to make preemptive decisions concerning the highly complex subject of the mental health of its living citizens, but NOT be allowed to take every precaution when it comes to the regulation of availability, ownership, and use of inanimate weaponry??? And by the way, I'm for both, though I would want to be very careful when it comes to the details of any bill advocating State assessment of illness and the rights of affected individuals.

Nobody said that guns kill on their own, but guns are a big part in the killing equation...

Predator--Do me the justice of reading me through. I am for the State protecting us from both. Logically I think it should be easier for the state to regulate the relatively less-complex "gun" than any individual's necessarily more complex "mind". But I'm for communal responsibility (and thus, a governmental interest) when it comes to sick people who are dangerous and even more when it comes to their weapons of choice.

As a result of this travesty...are guns the ONLY issue that needs to be addressed?

Exactly....the sick should not have a "weapon of choice" or any weapon for that matter...enforce the laws that exist regarding guns, ensure that the sick are not a danger to anyone, and leave the law abiding gun owners and their guns alone.

Well, the N asty R epublican A ssassins have spoken this morning. They have reached new heights of depravity. The NRA makes Al Quaeda look like cub scouts.
These people have somehow slithered out of the middle agaes.They try to make it seem as if they are the sole authority on guns. All their facts are categorically wrong. Ther truth is that gun owners are most often the victinms of thier own weapons. Last year 600,000 gun-owners and/or their family members died because of deliberate shootings accidents. with their own weapons. they went on to kill or main 300, 000 more strangers.
Now they want to turn our schools into killing zones by arrming pupils and teachers. Maybe their plan to train kids 3 and up is viable, I don't know. It will come at a tragic cost. Of course the reason isn't that they want to prevent gun deaths, it is obvious that by arming school staff and students they will help the industry SELL MORE GUNS!
It is hard to imagine any human behaviour more despicable than that of the NRA.

Louis....thanks...your post is fantastic.....gun owners every where thank you for that display from the left. Keep up the good work.

Seems the easy way out to me. In order to protect one pesons rights we must restrict an others? Please keep in mind that with every law passed, EVERY LAW, individual freedom and liberty are lost to the state.

Further....if laws were enforced, punishments completed, and those who need to be kept from society kept from society....there would be many fewer criminals around to shoot their mothers in the face and steal her guns.

From the Journal of Trauma..."During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

CONCLUSIONS: Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

To Louis Aggasiz- comparing the NRA to Al Queada- really impressive logic ? Your figures on GUN deaths are wildly wrong. In 2011 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( a Federal Agency) listed 177,154 deaths from injuries in the USA. Of these 31,347 were from firearms, 41,892 from poisoning and 34,485 from motor vehicle accidents. The fact that over 30,000 people died in gun violence is awful. But in cities across the USA murder by guns is commonplace and gang violence is a tragic fact of life. Thanks Predator and David Nolta for your blogs.

Ed... ultimately, the tragedy is if you accept that gun homicides are simply a part of the American way of life and attempt to maintain this horrific status quo.

VT is rural with a peaecable, educated population which repeatedly re-elects Barry Sanders to the Senate, a socialist!!!! Folks, let's use our critical thinking skills here.

no. I think you just proved my points. Vermonters being non-violent and the complete inability of many who post here to apply critical thinking skills.
(And make the most most absurd rebuttals when challenged to think through their statements).

Huh? Talk about stereotyping. If Vermonter's are non-violent what are CT'ers? And Massers? Really? The only truth here is that guns do not kill people....only non-vermonters do.

Predator:
Guns only do three things. They kill, maim and destroy. We have to assume that for people who own and/or use them, these three things are foremost in their minds.

Ptredator--
You are wrong. Unmanned guns are a very real problem Every several thousand in the U.S are injured or harmed by accidentally dropping guns or by defective guns exploding. The least, microscopic speck of dust in a gun barrel will result in a n almost-always lethal explosion

And a human being thinking without a gun is my kind of human being!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1vlVZZ3Yjs&feature=share
protestors at NRA this morning
during this event 5 people were shot in PA
kinda shoots holes in his argument that the good guys with a gun will rid us of the bad guys with the guns

Wouldn't it be great if we lived in never never land -

Gretchen does....."Vermonter's are non-violent"....EVERY SINGLE ONE!

misinterpret, mis represent, distort, trivialize....etc.
Predator and others, you do everything but make a cogent argument.
It takes a lot to wake up the American public. But the shootings in Newtown have. Unlike Aurora and other mass shootings (gun carnage!!) this time people are newly aware of the perfidy of the NRA.

with friends like this, supporters of gun use, don't need critics like us here.
http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/7-unhinged-right-wing-responses-connecticut-massacre?page=0%2C2&akid=9843.166498.9prXYC&rd=1&src=newsletter765207&t=5&paging=off

Are you people even going to think about anything before having an opinion on it?

We had an assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004 and mass shootings, as well as mass shooting victim totals, were not decreased during that time period. Maybe we should have one, maybe we shouldn't. But the facts don't show decreased mass shootings with a ban. The Oklahoma City bombing and Columbine both happened during that time period, as a couple of examples of hundreds.

The fact is, if someone is crazy enough, they will get access to a weapon whether it's legal or not. The OKC bombing was done with fertilizer, for pete's sake.

All these calls for gun control make people feel better about themselves, but they don't actually solve the problem. If you want to talk about protecting our kids, look at the fact that Lanza shot his way into the school through a locked door. He was determined. He was going to do it no matter what stopped him, unless someone killed him first.

Predator:
There are many instances of guns going off due to heat. They should never be stored in a hot car. Military ammunition is specially treated for higher temperatures.
Guns can go off around very loud music., thunder or toher loud noises.
The toll these accidental firings take is considerable, especially in the South.

Many deaths occur from firearms discharging when those carrying them walk or drive beneath high tension lines.

meanwhile the gun deaths go on....
the State Trooper in PA, surely he had a gun.
http://boingboing.net/2012/12/21/crazed-gunman-killed-5-in-pa-w.html

Rocks can trigger accidental firing of fitrearms and ammunition. Naturally occurring radiation had caused guns to discharge. They should never be carried into caves or mines. Never store firearms or bullets in a basement. Never throw guns or ammunition into a volcano.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
there was an armed guard at Columbine high school

Armed guards in all schools would lead to more deaths. Accidental shootings and over anxious trigger happy cops/security officers would end up shooting more kids by accident. Guns & students do not mix.

The following was sent to be via email:

"Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.
In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.
Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.
Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K-12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany.
....
We would be better off debating two taboo subjects - the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness and the growing body of evidence that "gun-free" zones, which ban the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals, don't work."
.....
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#

Over the past decade, gun violence in the US has continued to rise steadily, according to the US Centers for Disease Control. In 2011, over 33,000 Americans died from gun injuries. Mass murders are, of course, thankfully rare, and, except when they occur--boggling the mind and breaking the heart of the nation--are not the primary subject--nor do they provide the bulk of the evidence--in the gun-control debate. And once again, the recommendation to turn away from the gun-control conversation in order to debate "the laws that make it difficult to control people with mental illness" sets up a false dichotomy. We should be discussing BOTH. Finally, the implication that we as a community benefit from "the carrying of firearms by law-abiding individuals" is murky to say the least. Mrs. Lanza was a "law-abiding citizen", and now she is a dead citizen. Adam Lanza was, by all accounts, a "law-abiding citizen" right up to the time when suddenly he wasn't any more.

For further reading on the cost--human and otherwise--of the US gun craze,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/guns-deaths-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2325706.html

Yes it is the time. It is he time to look at why peopl eneed an assault rifle that holds 50 rounds to protect thier family or home. I think everyone shoul dhave the right to defend thier family but not with an AR-15. I have fired them they are a ton of fun so if people wnt to shoot them there are shooting ranges that hve them and you can go do it there. This is 2012 the government isn't sending the army to attack us we do not need a ma chine gun to fight them. We need guns to protect from common crime, burglery etc. and a hand gun accomplishes that. I am aware hunting is a way of life but again do you need an assault rifle to hunt? I am NOT for banning things I am for personaly accountability but I see no need for such weapons.

Latest I've seen about Wayne LaPierre;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/23/wayne-lapierre-media-armed-guards-nra_n_2355903.html
This guy's a total nut!

Let me be clear: I don’t like Dick Cheney.

However, during an interview after the shootings in Tucson, he seemed to open the door to limiting the size of magazines that one can buy that go with semi-automatic weapons. “Maybe it's appropriate to reestablish that kind of thing,” said Cheney.

http://tinyurl.com/46uaz8k

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion in the 2008 ruling that affirmed the right to bear arms, said the government could impose restrictions, such as bans on “gun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill.” He went a bit further when he wrote gun rights are “not unlimited”. Scalia said the court was not questioning “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” He asserted that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are in “common use” and not those that are ‘dangerous and unusual”.

Future court cases will likely turn on whether Scalia’s “common use” becomes defined as common use for self-defense or common use because a particular type of gun is widely owned.

I've deleted several comments on this thread that called people names and published things unrelated to this post that were not appropriate. If people continue doing this, I will block you from posting on the site.

Mass Killings Not Always Gun-Related, Study Finds

The report showed that a gunman acting alone, as in the three recent incidents, occurs in less than half of mass killings. Notably, a third of killings didn't involve guns at all. In 15 incidents, the victims died in fire.

Over the five-year period studied, more people died from migraines and falling out of chairs than did at the hands of mass killers, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Three times as many people died from sunstroke, according to USA Today.
.....
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/mass-killing-gun-study/2012/12/19/id/468427

Morgan Freeman RE shooting in Newtown, CT on 12/14/2012.

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news & watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter & the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold & Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news & want to top it by doing something worse, & going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw & heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims & ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this & knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

(continued next post)

(continuation of Morgan Freeman quote)

."You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, & remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem"

For those of you who wish to make this a political issue, Mr. Freeman is a Democrat; no clue of his opinion of NRA, etc. Personally, I think his article is right on the money.

The fact that we ae discussing Morgan Freemans comments instead of us discussing protecting our children and realistic ways to do that shows me we as a society have lost our way. Please lets discuss way do protect our children now. not next week, not in 5 years but today. I strongly beleive again that if a shooting happens again one of the same people that are so against armed gaurds in schools will sue a school for NOT protecting thier kids and then he towns will have to hire guards to protect themselves from future lawsuits. That is usualy the only way anything gets done when it starts costing someone money in lawsuits brought by idiots. That person while the problem with society will make us fix it.

One of the favorite tactics of gun control opponents is to say: “Gun control won’t eliminate ALL mass murders”. A variation on this theme is: “Cause X is responsible for as many or more mass murders than the use of assault weapons”. Popular insertions for “Cause X” are: Mental illness, knives, fire, etc.

So, the logic goes: “Since people die from other causes, it’s not worth eliminating or reducing deaths due to assault weapons”.

Could anything be more ridiculous? Don’t address one cause of mass murders because other causes exist.

But gun control opponents say that with straight faces! And I think they really believe it!

there is the temporary or short term and there is the longterm
we are the adults, the parents and grandparents, we have a moral obligation and responsibility to respond and protect children -- now and in the future.
anyone running around saying, 'do something! do anything' (I'm not including anyone here in this), is doing a disservice to the accounting and longterm response that needs to happen.

2 firefighters killed and 2 wounded today. Does the NRA feel we need armed guards to protect first responders? More guns thats the answer!

Gotta say though, that I agree with the quote that was attributed to Morgan Freeman.
Whoever said it, it rings all too true.
Michael (aka "Michele") Kosilek murdered his wife. What was her name ?
We hear about Charles Jaynes....who was the ten year old that he and an accomplice butchered ?
All too soon the victims are brushed aside, in favor of the sensationalism surrounding the perp, giving them the fame and notoriety that they were probably looking for in the first place.

the NRA has made itself into a monster and everyone can see it who isn't so besotted with gun culture. They are losing members, for being a political arm of the gun manufacturers and sowing violence in the world.

http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-20/news/hc-national-rifle-association-20121220_1_gun-collector-gun-laws-nra

The NRA and Sen. Linsey Graham (SC-R) are saying a ban on assault weapons won't work because a ban was in effect when Columbine happened. It seems that is the only example they can cite. What they can't know is how many mass shootings did not happen because the would-be shooter could not buy, or reach into the closet and get the family's recently-purchased, semi-automatic weapon with a large capacity magazine.

This should read:

...could not buy, or reach into the closet and get the family's recently-purchased, semi-automatic weapon with a large capacity magazine while the ban was in effect.

@ LCT ~ I agree with you on your "GRETCHEN" comment above (3:31 am 12/25). She does seem to think she's the "self-appointed" moderator/arbitrator here on Patch. I also ignore her posts (skip-over) now as she seems to think she's a "Know it All" on just about everything & anyone who may disagree is wrong.

Hey Gretchen, you somehow forgot to mention. that the other groups of the same caliber have member increases through the roof! It dose not surprise me at all you would leave that importance out.

LTC, Gretchen comment is in the top 5 of best comments on this page!

Hey marry McDonald, why were my posted articles on the shooting deleted? NO FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS HERE I GUESS.

@Mark, I imagine they were blocked because they were hateful to others and are exactly what is wrong with this country on BOTH sides. Your posts are disgusting! YOU should be deleted totally!

New news on the New York murder of the fire fighters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/nyregion/gunman-who-shot-firefighters-left-chilling-note.html?hp
"Chief Pickering also said that it was likely that the gunman used a semi-automatic rifle, one of three weapons recovered from the shooting scene, to kill the firefighters. He identifed the semi-automatic as a .223 Bushmaster rifle, the same weapon used in the school massacre in Newtown, Conn. "

Another military-style weapon! These MUST be banned!

Dave Kent, the horrible firefighter murders were committed by a disturbed mentally unstable murderer who had already killed and did time. He killed with a hammer, should we ban hammers?

can we get past that argument against gun control. It's irrelevant. Stick to the subject: preventing violence to innocent children ("the child is always innocent" - Elie Wiesel). We're the adults. It's our responsibility to be reasonable.

many who post here are reacting and defensive. Not a good recipe for reasoned discussion. And anyway, by now, hopefully, we have all had time to reflect. Let's take it step by step. I think we can find areas of agreement.

To understand this, consider: Let's say that the only guns that the Connecticut shooter's mother had were conventional handguns and a hunting rifle that held 3 rounds. He would have been MUCH less lethal. Very likely, many fewer would have died in Newtown.

Banning military-style weapons will help protect our kids.

@David Kent..You're kidding me..I think the operative phrases I posted above raise red flags in my eyes. "Much less lethal" and "fewer would have died." Well first of all that's a bogus statement. Based on the fact that several of the victims had multiple rounds in them just tells me death was instantaneous. He had a pair of 9mm handguns that had the capability of doing just as much damage. It takes 2 seconds to release a handgun magazine and replace it. the difference between the .223 round and the .22 round is negligible, it's the amount of powder used to propel the projectile. The .223 round probably went clear through the victim where the .22 round might have remained in the body. The 9mm with hollow head rounds, would enter the victim and literally explodes inside them. One round or 7 rounds in the victim is irrelevant either way, the result is the same. (cont.)

No David Kent, the only thing that might have changed is the assailant might have taken a few extra minutes to do his deed before turning the gun on himself. Is the problem the weapon of the assailants choice, in this case a firearm, or is the problem the person behind the firearm? Take away the firearm, the deranged person might just go on line, learn how to make a high explosive IED made from components purchased as Home Depot, pack a car full of of the high explosives, drive it into the middle of the school and detonate it. The resulting carnage would be ten fold of what happened in Conn.

The Anti gun people have rallied around this incident to ram their cause down everyones throughs...and in a knee jerking reaction, many politicians have jump upon that bandwagon, but the reality of it all is that no one cares to address the issue that it's the psycho let out on the street that is the real problem Those psychologically deranged people are nothing but "Silent homeland Terrorist, "Sleeper Cells " if you will, just waiting for the catalyst to set them off. This politically correct world of treating everyone the same even though we all know they have problems and treating them with kid gloves in the politically correct way, is the true issue here that needs to be address just as much as gun control!!

Obama's daughters(as well as David Gregory's kids) go to a school with 11 armed guards...Good for them

@David, Do you need to make personal attacks on people because they disagree with you? In doing so you make your argument less vaild. I have been waiting for you (or others that want to ban all guns) to provide a way to protect our children. All I have heard is a rediculous argument to ban guns (david, it isn't going to happen no matter how much you attack peoples views. Before you go and attack me know this. I am FOR an asault weapon ban and I have an very personal interest in this because violence has touched my family on a level I wouldn't wish on anyone. That said the Conn shooter had 2 9mm weapons that help 15 rounds and can be reloaded in seconds. If he didn't have th AR-15 would we be discussing this? You would be saying ban al guns and do you see that that i NOT going to happen! It has been tried and never done. I have rethought arming people in schools but we need to re-evaluate school security! Please let us al know how you wil fix it beyond an unrealistic ban of all guns! And pleae provide an immediate security fix not a review of th emental health system or other things that will not happen or take decades!

just sent the link to this to a gun nut family member inviting him to view the discussion. His response: THERE IS NO DISCUSSION.

The force of some of these bullets are hard to believe. They blow a whole through a person. The impact alone kills. The First Responders will be traumatized. This is an insane situation and for the NRA to deny that we don't need an assault weapon's ban is immoral, evil, and venal. They want the money coming in. They like having power over Congress. They like bullying Congress and forcing them to vote for them. They are power mad. The only thing that stops this is ordinary people expressing such outrage and disgust--for months if not years, that's the only thing that works. And that's democracy. The people are ahead of their leaders on this as they are on gay rights.

whatever, David, know this! I don't care about acknowledging your view so you might do me a favor and address anything. I think you and I are actualy saying alot of the same things except i didn't make it personal and call anyone a nut. This is a very emotional topic and people need to relax and be realistic. Fact: we will not ban all guns, even if we ban the assault weapons the manufacturers figure out ways around it (not good) Fact: people are using this horrible tragedy to push an anti gun agenda (maybe not you) Fact: a 9mm gun with 15 cliips is as deadly as any gun out there. Fact: school shootings happen because they are soft targets that crazy people know are not protected. Fact: We need to protect them. Is arming a guard the answer (maybe not) but we need to do someting NOW... so I don't care about appeasing you so you wil discuss anything with me! You want respect from me or anyone? Then respect others and don't make it personal. This is the last I will post on this topic because people refuse to put forth a realistic fix to the problem. At least the NRA is being realistic and trying to make kids safe.

I am still looking for the racism in these comments...I could care less if they ban all guns - but they will not. Look at medical side of these lunatics and their habits as well as gun control

I agree!!! Make people accountable. If the mother locked up her guns and made it know her son needed help would we discussing this today?

mother blaming is just another way to divert attention to core issues, our love of weaponry and violence-- and war. And our need to dominate and control. I have said more than once here that SWAT teams in school, ostensibly there to educate children, will bring on a police state within a generation. Now is the time to think. Yes protect today's children, but grow our awareness of what is truly at stake here. http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/23/nra-suggests-a-police-state/

The weasel, Grover Norquist, will target and try to defeat any Republican who votes to raise taxes on anyone. He was never elected to anything yet he has wielded significant control over Republicans for years.

The NRA will target and try to defeat any Republican who votes for any increase in gun regulation. The NRA was never elected to anything yet they have wielded significant control over Republicans for years.

Republicans are afraid of both Norquist and the NRA. Republicans have, and will continue to, vote to keep their jobs instead of voting for what might be in the best interests of the nation.

In the long run, we have to get the money and lobbyists out of Congress.

Oh LCT--that's very conveniently vague. The "liberal media" clearly has room for the likes of a Rush Limbaugh, a FOXNews, and all the other drawling, underhanded pretenders to conservative spokesmanship. And Joe Lieberman is a disgrace to both parties--in fact, to all three: the Democratic, the Republican, and (his favorite), the Lieberman; what happened to him, he did to himself. And do you really feel comfortable with superficial (and again, convenient and tendentious, not to mention timeworn) stereotypes like "tree-huggers"? How would you like to be called a tree-slasher? Not so fair? But back to the topic: NOW is always the time to talk about improving gun control.

Gretchen your racism will not be tolerated... Stick to the talking points

Gretchen: Just read, online, of "peaceful" Vermonters shooting and killing on Christmas night. Must be all those secular "peaceful" dingbats living in Vermont. You know...Bernie Sanders and Company.

If the mom had the strength to do what was right and have her deeply disturbed son committed to a mental hospital the massacre would not have happened. The mom lived in fear of her monster son and she was in denial of how twisted he really was. Taking him to a shooting range and having guns around her psycho son made her an accomplice in this slaughter.

And there it is folks, because someone didn't take responsibility I should pay the price. Typical lame liberal thinking.

A couple of other examples of Republicans being ‘primaried’:

Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party darling from Delaware defeated a popular sitting Republican Congressman during the primary for the U.S. Senate. In the general election, she was defeated by a Democrat.

In Indiana, Republican Senator Dick Lugar was defeated in the GOP primary by Tea Partier Richard Mourdock. A Democrat defeated Mourdock.

Other Tea Party Republicans lost elections to Democrats in 2012: Allen West (FL); Joe Walsh (Il); Don Lungren (CA); Chip Cravaack (MN); and Frank Guinta (NH). Michele Bachman kept her Congressional seat by just 4,000 votes.

As we plunge over the fiscal cliff the Republicans will get the blame for the failure to compromise. The Tea Party has probably broken the political back of John Boehner and I believe him to be an honorable man. Add to this the Republican opposition to gun regulation for fear of a poor rating from the NRA and 2014 does not look like a recovery year for the Republicans.

Double helpings of blame will be heaped upon the Republicans as a result of these two groups that threaten and target members of Congress who might not vote their way. As a result, I expect the Democrats will increase their margin in the Seante and take control of the House during the mid-term elections.

Given the anger that the Tea Party and the NRA are generating, things look so bad for the Republican Party that even Mike Dukakis could win the White House in 2016.

I think his dad is just as responsible. He probably knew that his son had mental problems and he might have known his wife was into guns. . I know he wasn't living with them but its not like he was living in another state or country. So he could have kept an eye on his son.

I see this blog concerning a tragic event and possible responses has been -as usual- dog napped by liberals hurling nasty grams. Anything goes so long as you can score a point.
Actually liberals should be rooting for the Tea Party- they've cost the Republicans about 6 Senate seats in the last two cycles 2010 and 2012 including the Senate majority Leader (King of the Nasty Grams) Harry Reid.

Asperger's disease, if that is what the shooter had, is a neurological condition that causes behavioral issues. People with Asperger's are no more violence than the rest of the population.

Let me introduce a new topic: are we in favor of increasing funding to meet the needs of First Responders? Or will we 'cheap out' and neglect those who go into shooting scenes and suffer PTSD afterwards. This is from 9/12/12 and regards 9/11 First Responders.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/on-eve-of-911-anniversary-paul-ryans-opposition-to-first-responders-bill-revisited/

OK freedom loving 2nd amendment lovers who know that the liberal Dems are going to try and take way more away from you than this so called military assault weapons..............Here you go....... defeat this wacko Dianne Feinstein’s bill. This bill is out of control! http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

this bill is eminently sensible and offered by a Senator who has to courage to stand up to NRA bullies and their backers (gun manufacturers/gun lobby).
Anyone got any statistics on how much money gun manufacturers and sellers make in a year?? Add in gun shows and training and you're talking a substantial industry that only wants to get bigger. 20 innocent kids shot? what do they care. They have lawyers to deal with that and most of Congress in their pocket.

A man kills 20 children in Connecticut and, too much liberty is blamed by the liberals for the massacre. A President kills 176 children in Pakistan with drone attacks and liberal Time Magazine makes him person of the year.

I love the Obama administration who gave thousands of automatic weapons away to gang members and the drug cartels telling me that we should ban them. WOW HYPOCRISY AT ITS BEST!!

David, Can you not tell this is way beyond assault weapons?

After reading Senator Dianne Feinstein’s new so-called "Assault Weapons" Ban, I can only describe it as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America.

The definition of an "Assault Weapon" in this bill is so broad you can drive a truck through it!

They’re targeting EVERYTHING -- rifles, shotguns and even handguns.
Even owners of supposedly "grandfathered" firearms will be treated like common criminals.