CNN's Don Lemon is correct to insist on a national conversation about gun violence. Enough is enough. When 20 children are dead, it would be irresponsible and disrepectful NOT to take up the subject -- with all its politics and nuances and shades of meaning. Why, I wonder, don't we talk about the other face of Second Amendment rights? Even if you accept a constitutional "right" to bear arms -- something serious people still debate -- it should naturally follow that such a right creates important duties and obligations. Most rights granted to us in the federal Constitution are not unqualified absolute rights. There are times when these rights do not apply. The mentally ill should not have access to weapons, for example. Additionally, those of us who can claim or assert a Second Amendment "right" also have a duty to ensure that our exercise of the right does not extinguish rights that others enjoy. The conversation about gun rights ought to include a substantive piece on the duties and obligations that come with gun ownership. "Gun control" may be impractical in a nation with nearly as many weapons as there are people; but we can surely talk about "gun responsibilities."

In all the calling for stricter gun laws, like with the above, I have yet to see a suggestion for one that would have prevented this week's tragedy.

I have two ideas of my own that would have, let's see how they fly and pass common sense tests:

1) Ban sale of firearms to divorced women.

2) Ban sale of firearms to anyone a parent of a child with a mental disability.

The shooter already illegally carried two handguns (he was 20, age had to be 21), illegally killed his own mother, illegally stole her firearms, and illegally entered a school. What more illegality can we pile on? The conversation should be about attacking root causes of identifying and treating mental illness, just as we attack drunk drivers (instead of cars) for the cause of drunk driving deaths.

So please enlighten us, SPECIFICALLY what language would you put on Obama's desk to sign if you could that WOULD HAVE PREVENTED yesterday's shooting?

Not sure if this had a hand in it but how about a little less mood alterting drugs that are so popular these days for kids. A kid looks out the window at school for more than a minute next thing you know some doctor prescribes ritalin.

I've come to realize that there is no point in discussing this issue with people like 'a reader'. Their arguments are so pathetic and their word view so warped that it just isn't worth the energy.

Many of these shootings are done by a shooter who doesn't own the gun used in the crimes. Guns need to have "smart-technology" so that they can only be used by the registered owner, like James Bond's pistol.

As long as the second amendment is in place we will never as a society eliminate violent gun crimes. But there are many, many things we could be doing which we are not which would help REDUCE and or MINIMIZE the injuries and deaths associated with those crimes.

Wanna' own a gun? You must also submit to annaul mental capacity testing. If you're going to own a gun for competitive target practice/hunting, then that gun is to be kept under lock and key by a federally registered and certified gun/hunt club. You check it out for your range session or hunt and check it back in when you're done.

If we creatively legislated large, powerful engines out of automobiles 40 years ago, surely we can do better with guns. And I'm not advocating their elimination or removal. They have their place, but clearly there's not enough control.

A Writer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many of these shootings are done by a shooter who
> doesn't own the gun used in the crimes. Guns need
> to have "smart-technology" so that they can only
> be used by the registered owner, like James Bond's
> pistol.
>
> As long as the second amendment is in place we
> will never as a society eliminate violent gun
> crimes. But there are many, many things we could
> be doing which we are not which would help REDUCE
> and or MINIMIZE the injuries and deaths associated
> with those crimes.
>
> Wanna' own a gun? You must also submit to annaul
> mental capacity testing. If you're going to own a
> gun for competitive target practice/hunting, then
> that gun is to be kept under lock and key by a
> federally registered and certified gun/hunt club.
> You check it out for your range session or hunt
> and check it back in when you're done.

There are ways around this. Not to mention the anti-gun people will always lobby to make those mental health requirements ever more stringent until there is not a single person on earth who could qualify.


>
> If we creatively legislated large, powerful
> engines out of automobiles 40 years ago, surely we
> can do better with guns. And I'm not advocating
> their elimination or removal. They have their
> place, but clearly there's not enough control.


When did we do this? I owned a car with a 350 hp 4.6L V8 engine just a few years ago. And there are some cars that exceed 1000 hp or have 12 cylinders.

Are you sure we creatively legislated large powerful engines out of automobiles 40 years ago, or do you just think that is true because some engines are more fuel efficient nowadays?

"A reader," I don't think it's helpful (or feasible) to think about legislative language that could prevent specific crimes. No one can plan for every contingency. And the bit about drunk driving doesn't seem terribly relevant since we don't discuss alcohol-related problems using the language of constitutional rights. Asserting and protecting a "right" to bear arms places gun ownership in a separate category. Your point about mental illness is a good one. We should, as a society, be talking about sensible gun laws that limit the sale of firearms to those who can responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights. I don't think you could keep guns from parents with a mentally ill child, but you could certainly require that every gun owner secure their weapons to some minimum standard.

"A writer" has interesting ideas. Technology can definitely provide solutions -- and it is possible to require that weapons be fitted with safety devices. I suspect gun rights advocates would argue about compliance costs, but we ought to at least begin a dialogue.

A Writer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you're going to own a
> gun for competitive target practice/hunting, then
> that gun is to be kept under lock and key by a
> federally registered and certified gun/hunt club.
> You check it out for your range session or hunt
> and check it back in when you're done.

1) 2A does not limit gun ownership to hunting.

2) Also do that for all alcohol sales and car sales. Driver's test every year, show a card that says you passed a mental health exam with every 6-pack purchase. Alcohol kills ten times Friday's shooting every day, yet no one wants to "seriously have a national conversation" about alcohol sales.

3) Require yearly cholesterol tests, do not allow anyone to buy fatty foods without a "heart card" certifying cholesterol numbers within safe levels

2010 deaths due to drunk driving: 10,228
2010 deaths due homicides via firearms: 11,105

Deaths due to heart disease and strokes (McDonald's life tax): 2,200 deaths _per day_ (803,000 per year)

Fatty foods kill Americans over 75 times more than firearms, ATTACK FIREARMS!!11!!!

I think it would be a good start to add a funding category to Medicaid (or perhaps state grants) to create a refined system for mental illness screening and help for children, so parents can have children mentally evaluated regardless of their health insurance position. Allow the same patient protections as is allowed for any other illness until a professional can conclude an individual is not fit for firearms possession. Get that fed into firearm background checks, as Virginia has done a great deal to improve since the VT shootings.

I agree with sentiment that says piling on new laws doesn't do much... it isn't the firearms that killed, it was the crazy people with access to otherwise peaceful tools (hunting, self defense) that killed those kids. Criminals do not follow laws... again as was said, in this case it was already illegal for this person to have the handguns he did. He broke laws to steal them, so the law did jack shit.

The poster above that said no laws are going to catch every instance was spot-on... to me it is better to take the harder path of addressing the root causes of what brings an individual to shoot people. Put another way, if you outlawed every gun we'd still have crazy people that would find ways to try to make the news (plow car into crowded store, make a mob, whatever). If we instead had no more crazy people, we could have sixty guns in every house and have no homicides. Which is better if you are thinking of the problem rationally?

Morgan Freeman December 15, 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 and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and 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 and want to top it by doing something worse, and 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 and 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 and 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 and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and 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. You can help by turning off the news."

reasonable thinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> if you outlawed every
> gun we'd still have crazy people that would find
> ways to try to make the news (plow car into
> crowded store, make a mob, whatever). If we
> instead had no more crazy people, we could have
> sixty guns in every house and have no homicides.
> Which is better if you are thinking of the problem
> rationally?

+1

"Reasonable thinker," I like your policy recommendation. There's been a lot of talk today about requiring the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to screen for risks of violent behavior. Maybe state funds could be set aside if only for this limited purpose?

"Morgan Freeman," I am deeply sympathetic to your point of view. In fairness, CNN has been trying to avoid repeated mentions of the shooter's name. That's a start.

reasonable thinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The poster above that said no laws are going to
> catch every instance was spot-on... to me it is
> better to take the harder path of addressing the
> root causes of what brings an individual to shoot
> people. Put another way, if you outlawed every
> gun we'd still have crazy people that would find
> ways to try to make the news (plow car into
> crowded store, make a mob, whatever). If we
> instead had no more crazy people, we could have
> sixty guns in every house and have no homicides.
> Which is better if you are thinking of the problem
> rationally?

And thats exactly what anti gun people dont understand. Murder didnt start with the invention of firearms. People have been murdering people since the start of time and will continue to do so until the end of time. Theres just evil people in the world that will do evil things and it really is as simple as that. No amount of laws will stop these types of things considering that countless actions taken during that event are already illegal.

There are things you can do like having a more moral society that will put social pressures on people to behave, but other than that the only way to stop killings like that is to have someone else there with the ability to stop them with force.

saywat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A Writer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you're going to own a
> > gun for competitive target practice/hunting,
> then
> > that gun is to be kept under lock and key by a
> > federally registered and certified gun/hunt
> club.
> > You check it out for your range session or hunt
> > and check it back in when you're done.
>
> 1) 2A does not limit gun ownership to hunting.
>
> 2) Also do that for all alcohol sales and car
> sales. Driver's test every year, show a card that
> says you passed a mental health exam with every
> 6-pack purchase. Alcohol kills ten times Friday's
> shooting every day, yet no one wants to "seriously
> have a national conversation" about alcohol
> sales.
>
> 3) Require yearly cholesterol tests, do not allow
> anyone to buy fatty foods without a "heart card"
> certifying cholesterol numbers within safe levels
>
> 2010 deaths due to drunk driving: 10,228
> 2010 deaths due homicides via firearms: 11,105
>
> Deaths due to heart disease and strokes
> (McDonald's life tax): 2,200 deaths _per day_
> (803,000 per year)
>
> Fatty foods kill Americans over 75 times more than
> firearms, ATTACK FIREARMS!!11!!!

Jesus Christ, you people are so fucking stupid! And you actually think you are having an intelligent discussion. If you can't distinguish between someone with destructive eating habits and a spree killer usng a semi-automatic weapon, then you ought to off yourselves with your own precious guns.

Anyone who owns a firearm has to first be shot. Take the medicine before you distribute. After being wounded you may own a firearm.
I think this is a fair trade off for your precious guns.
Pro gun-Pro tough.
Any poster to this thread ever serve in combat?
Combat veterans are exempt.


"You ain't lived untill you've been shot"
A good friend 1970 RIP

Internet Rambos Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone who owns a firearm has to first be shot.

Everyone who eats beef should be stuffed in a cage and have a bolt shot through their head first. Everyone who buys a car should be run over first. Intelligent.

The funny thing is everyone takes for granted how firearms save them every day. The easiest example is deer. If you traveled down a road in November-January and didn't collide with a deer, you have a hunter to thank. In Fairfax County alone, 1,855 deer were taken out of the population last year, almost 2,000 chances you or someone you know will not have to take when driving this year.

In Fairfax County only bow hunters can harvest deer, but if all guns were banned so the "gun nuts" couldn't own them, there would be 225,000 more deer in Virginia statewide in year one of the ban. Probably an additional million in year two as the population explodes unhindered. Driving would become too dangerous to do at night anywhere in Virginia.


> If you can't distinguish between someone with destructive eating
> habits and a spree killer usng a semi-automatic weapon,

Finally we are getting somewhere... you acknowledge the problem is the "killer" that is "using" something. If the "something" is gone, you still have a killer on the loose. Therein lies the problem. Addressing mental illness sounds like a fantastic idea.

I say ban guns from video games for twenty years and we'll see how we stand with crazy young people totally desensitized from killing people because their breeder parents let them shoot people "virtually" since they were six years old.


> then you ought to off yourselves with your own precious guns.

Who is the violent one now? Maybe you should be checked out yourself, calling for deaths of people on an Internet message board... that is what terrorists from Al Queida do.

living in sunny Burke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Internet Rambos Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Anyone who owns a firearm has to first be shot.
>
> Everyone who eats beef should be stuffed in a cage
> and have a bolt shot through their head first.
> Everyone who buys a car should be run over first.
> Intelligent.
>
> The funny thing is everyone takes for granted how
> firearms save them every day. The easiest example
> is deer. If you traveled down a road in
> November-January and didn't collide with a deer,
> you have a hunter to thank. In Fairfax County
> alone, 1,855 deer were taken out of the population
> last year, almost 2,000 chances you or someone you
> know will not have to take when driving this
> year.
>
> In Fairfax County only bow hunters can harvest
> deer, but if all guns were banned so the "gun
> nuts" couldn't own them, there would be 225,000
> more deer in Virginia statewide in year one of the
> ban. Probably an additional million in year two
> as the population explodes unhindered. Driving
> would become too dangerous to do at night anywhere
> in Virginia.
>
>
> > If you can't distinguish between someone with
> destructive eating
> > habits and a spree killer usng a semi-automatic
> weapon,
>
> Finally we are getting somewhere... you
> acknowledge the problem is the "killer" that is
> "using" something. If the "something" is gone,
> you still have a killer on the loose. Therein
> lies the problem. Addressing mental illness
> sounds like a fantastic idea.
>
> I say ban guns from video games for twenty years
> and we'll see how we stand with crazy young people
> totally desensitized from killing people because
> their breeder parents let them shoot people
> "virtually" since they were six years old.
>
>
> > then you ought to off yourselves with your own
> precious guns.
>
> Who is the violent one now? Maybe you should be
> checked out yourself, calling for deaths of people
> on an Internet message board... that is what
> terrorists from Al Queida do.

The poster did not write "off yourself"
Quit trying to distort someone elses posting.
Using deer for comparison to children being killed?

The deer reference is disrespectful and dumb. The argument that we need a constitutionally entrenched right -- an irrevocable entitlement -- to bear arms in order to carry out wildlife management activities is completely absurd. Assault rifles aren't hunting tools. We spend weeks training uniformed service members to use weapons of this sort -- and we have strict rules governing their storage and use. Why shouldn't similar protections be in place nationwide, especially since these weapons frequently cross state lines?

I suspect the next Dulles gun show will be very busy,

realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I suspect the next Dulles gun show will be very
> busy,


Noway Im ever goin there without packin some heat.

Some anti-gun nut might try and shoot the place up.

scardy repub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I suspect the next Dulles gun show will be very
> > busy,
>
>
> Noway Im ever goin there without packin some
> heat.
>
> Some anti-gun nut might try and shoot the place
> up.


They will not allow loaded weapons onto the premises.
Ironic or just know the mentality of the gun fags.

#TinkerTailorSoldierSpy# Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The deer reference is disrespectful and dumb. The
> argument that we need a constitutionally
> entrenched right -- an irrevocable entitlement --
> to bear arms in order to carry out wildlife
> management activities is completely absurd.
> Assault rifles aren't hunting tools. We spend
> weeks training uniformed service members to use
> weapons of this sort -- and we have strict rules
> governing their storage and use. Why shouldn't
> similar protections be in place nationwide,
> especially since these weapons frequently cross
> state lines?

"Assault rifles aren't hunting tools."
I take exception. I know plenty of people who hunt regularly with rifles that are semi-automatic but for whatever reason fits the media's definition of "assault rifle".

you people are missing the real issue here, and its not gun control. all of these mass murderers have one thing in common. they have fucking mental problems. the real problem in this country is that there are no mental insitutions. they need to be reopened, and put these crazy fuckers in them. these killers have mental problems, and/or drugged up when they committed their killings. if this country wnats to do something to try and stop this kind of violence, reopen mental instutions. banning ANY type of guns will not solve these types of killings. that kid had mental issues that went untreated, even though his family knew he had problems. not to mention, he didnt takes his meds. these nuts need to be put in a place that they can be forced to take their meds wether they like it or not. these nuts should not take away the rights of the MILLIONS of law abiding citizens that own guns, and use them responsibl for protection, hunting, and shooting sports. obama is going to try and use these mass murders as firepower to try and ban guns and ammunition. guns have been banned in Chicago, New York, and DC, for years. How many murders were committed in those citys by firearms? Banning gun ownership does not work. criminals and people wanting to committ a murder using a firearm are going to do it, no matter what. most criminals dont buy guns from a gun shop, they buy them off the streets. and guess where those guns come from? most are stolen from homes during burglaries. if you want to stop this violence, start putting these nuts in mental institutions.

Ive also heard another idea that I thought was pretty good. we have hundreds of soldiers coming back from overseas, that have no jobs when they get out. how bout they get hired by the school systems as armed security, and they have one at every elementary, middle, and high school that have no police officer assigned to them. i think this is a great idea that this country should consider. its just a shame it has come to this in america. and for those of you who will say, thats all we need is a soldier with ptsd to guard our schools. to that i say that not all of our warriors suffer from ptsd. they could go through a process similar to what a police officer would to be hired. background checks, mental eval......just a thought.

@HL, shows how much you know. I hunt with an ar15, and in VA it is totally legal. Next deer season, I will be hunting with a totally supressed ar15, which is also legal. I love ar15 rifles, and am going to hunt with a suppressor to protect my hearing.

sorry HL. That last post was meant for TinkerTailorSoldierSpy

#TinkerTailorSoldierSpy# Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The deer reference is disrespectful and dumb. The
> argument that we need a constitutionally
> entrenched right -- an irrevocable entitlement --
> to bear arms in order to carry out wildlife
> management activities is completely absurd.
> Assault rifles aren't hunting tools. We spend
> weeks training uniformed service members to use
> weapons of this sort -- and we have strict rules
> governing their storage and use. Why shouldn't
> similar protections be in place nationwide,
> especially since these weapons frequently cross
> state lines?

We have like 10? guns at my house and all of them are stored safely, not loaded, and in a fucking gun safe. Never had to fire them, don't intend on it. The mother of the little psycho had guns and ammo lying around like they were a fucking Nintendo Wii, in the same home as a child with diagnosed mental problems. People understand gun safety, psychopaths and the gross enabling behavior are a lot harder to wrap your head around

@eyedea, where did you read that the guns where lying around the house? I havent heard that. on the other hand, even if they were, she lived alone. her son lived in new jersey, so what difference does it make if she had a few guns unlocked around the house that she lived alone in? if i lived alone, and had no children, id prob have a few guns around the house not locked up if im home. please show me where you read your comment at.

gun owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @HL, shows how much you know. I hunt with an ar15,
> and in VA it is totally legal. Next deer season, I
> will be hunting with a totally supressed ar15,
> which is also legal. I love ar15 rifles, and am
> going to hunt with a suppressor to protect my
> hearing.

Join the military and serve your country if you so in love with ar 15.
Only pussies shoot something that doesn't shoot back.

@ non gun owner, i serve my country in a different way. and by the way dipshit, i have a job that i might get shot at. so who is the pussy now. looks like you are. your the dumb fuck who runs and hides when the shit hits the fan. just another sheep waiting to be eaten by the wolf.

@gun owner/HL, the question isn't what you can or cannot do under existing law. The issue is normative -- what ought our policy to be? I don't think you should be hunting with an AR15, but if you feel entitled to do that, there ought to be strict rules governing your use of the weapon. Of course, you'll disagree and I respect that. But the status quo, to some of us, is unacceptable. As for addressing mental illness, no one I know disputes the need to act. But to leap from mental health to mass murder is problematic. I also am sympathetic to the suggestion that more gun laws won't necessarily solve the problem. No one should pretend to have answers. Let's talk about a range of options.

@u idiots: I think it would be crazy to hire veterans dealing with their own challenges to guard schools, but hiring veterans to provide security isn't a bad idea. Our vets need jobs, most of them are good people with the appropriate training. Why not create a jobs program to address two critical needs? Worth a shot.

the unemployment is the highest its ever been. obama wants to do something about it, we can help out our heroes who served their country, and give them a job to help protect our children. im not saying it would 100% keep this from happening again, but there is one thing that has been proven about these mass murderers. once confronted by an armed police officer or security officer, they give up or kill themselves. they never want to confront another armed person. an armed person at each school, might just be enough of a deterant. who knows, but something has to be done, and gun control isnt the answer. in this case, the kid didnt buy the guns through a flawed process. he murdered his mother to get them. this incident sadly enough prob couldnt have been prevented.

@ #TinkerTailorSoldierSpy, why shouldnt i be able to hunt with an ar15? i obide by all hunting laws. i use a caliber that is legal, and the commonwealth of va says its ok if you meet all the normal hunting rifle rules. caliber, muzzle energy, and several other factors. my ar15 i use is not a .223, its larger than that to meet the rules. can it hold up to 30 rounds of ammo? yes, but i dont use magazines that are that large. ive never needed more than 1 shot to harvest a deer. not alot of other hunters can say that. i have several different guns i hunt with, including a .44 magnum revolver. all of them meet or exceed what the state has made legal to hunt with. how bout this, what kind of car do you drive? what size motor is in it? lets say you drive a car or truck with 300+ hp. do you really need that much horsepower? maybe the government should regulate how much your car has. does your car need to be able to go above 70 mph? maybe that should be regulated as well. i know its comparing apples and oranges, but if your abiding by the laws, what difference does it make which gun or car i use.

@u idiots: Sadly, you're right about this incident. I don't think we could legislate effectively against this type of thing. More security might help, if only to assure parents and children that their protection isn't being taken lightly. Veterans organizations, I think, would be willing to participate in joint ventures with school districts, local governments and law enforcement.

See this:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/June/12-ag-802.html

@ gun owner: I am sympathetic. As a responsible rifle owner, what measures, in your view, could be put in place to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands? Can we do more? Should we? To answer your question, I guess my reaction to assault weapon use is deeply personal. I associate assault weapons with military work (I have served). And when I see assault weapons used against innocents here, it just seems unconscionable to me. I am open to other views, though. I don't have answers. I think well-meaning folks on both sides of the issue have interesting things to say. I just want us to talk about this.

gun owner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ non gun owner, i serve my country in a different
> way. and by the way dipshit, i have a job that i
> might get shot at. so who is the pussy now. looks
> like you are. your the dumb fuck who runs and
> hides when the shit hits the fan. just another
> sheep waiting to be eaten by the wolf.

I used a M-16 when I was serving the country a long time ago.
Never shot a deer with one. What I have seen and done will stay with me until I die. Live and let live. If a gun makes you feel like a man then I feel sorry for you.

#TinkerTailorSoldierSpy# Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The deer reference is disrespectful and dumb. The
> argument that we need a constitutionally
> entrenched right -- an irrevocable entitlement --
> to bear arms in order to carry out wildlife
> management activities is completely absurd.
> Assault rifles aren't hunting tools. We spend
> weeks training uniformed service members to use
> weapons of this sort -- and we have strict rules
> governing their storage and use. Why shouldn't
> similar protections be in place nationwide,
> especially since these weapons frequently cross
> state lines?

You clearly have no clue what your talking about and are just spewing shit from youre keyboard now. Please tell me what rules should have been in place to prevent murder?

#TinkerTailorSoldierSpy# Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @gun owner/HL, the question isn't what you can or
> cannot do under existing law. The issue is
> normative -- what ought our policy to be? I don't
> think you should be hunting with an AR15, but if
> you feel entitled to do that, there ought to be
> strict rules governing your use of the weapon. Of
> course, you'll disagree and I respect that. But
> the status quo, to some of us, is unacceptable. As
> for addressing mental illness, no one I know
> disputes the need to act. But to leap from mental
> health to mass murder is problematic. I also am
> sympathetic to the suggestion that more gun laws
> won't necessarily solve the problem. No one should
> pretend to have answers. Let's talk about a range
> of options.
>
> @u idiots: I think it would be crazy to hire
> veterans dealing with their own challenges to
> guard schools, but hiring veterans to provide
> security isn't a bad idea. Our vets need jobs,
> most of them are good people with the appropriate
> training. Why not create a jobs program to address
> two critical needs? Worth a shot.

Seriously just shut the fuck up. You keep saying strict laws should be in place like that arent or like it would make a difference.

Theres strict laws banning murder, strict laws about where guns can and cannot be, strict laws about shooting them, strict laws about shooting other people, strict laws against being a serial killer, strict laws about carrying guns into schools, its a good thing your strict law to ban an ar-15 will finally be the one that prevents it. Absolute idiot

And you, "ive had enough of your bullshit," are full of it yourself. Save your incoherent diatribes for another thread and leave the conversation to adults. People like you are the reason we have a problem with civil discourse in this country. Peace!

Is the AR-15 your penis substitute? Afraid for your masculinity?
Talk about guns on your first and last date? I bet you have all the action movies made in the last 20 years. And always wearing cargo pants.

#TinkerTailorSoldierSpy# Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And you, "ive had enough of your bullshit," are
> full of it yourself. Save your incoherent
> diatribes for another thread and leave the
> conversation to adults. People like you are the
> reason we have a problem with civil discourse in
> this country. Peace!


You arent having civil discourse your just spouting off bullshit left and right pretending to sit on some high horse like you know better than anyone.

You clearly dont understand what a rifle is.

You clearly dont understand people that kill people dont care about laws, killing is already illegal.

You seem to think that guns are given away like candy and theres no laws regulating their use like you can just walk around shooting it.

You clearly dont understand that a ban of anything just keeps law abiding people from having it.

You seem to think these instances are brand new to today, theyre not they just get more media coverage though they do happen more because of how coddled kids are they cant deal with the real world.

You clearly dont understand that while tragic stuff like this IS going to happen. Evil people will do evil things and it really is that simple. The best you can hope for is that someone is there who can stop them like the Assistant Princiapl in 1997 who stopped a school shooting with a gun he went and got out of his car.

Discussing options is fine but you should have an understanding of the issues before you do it. The issues have nothing to do with the gun or type of weapon. A hand gun is just as deadly and assault rifles are nothing more than a rifle with a scary name. But you dont understand that.

You dont understand the real issue the moral breakdown in society and just evil people. No amount of laws would have stopped what happened since countless laws were already in place out lawing the incident.

Children should not be allowed to handle or own firearms until the age of 30 unless you have served in the military or law enforcement.
If you are caught with a weapon then a mandatory prison sentence of three years.

ive had enough of your bullshit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You clearly have no clue what your talking about
> and are just spewing shit from youre keyboard now.
> Please tell me what rules should have been in
> place to prevent murder?

She can't answer a simple challenge of saying what laws would have prevented what happened outside of useless "penis substitute" remarks. Replying is giving this person attention, just like the horrible shooter wanted. Both are attention-seeking mental patients.

There is no one single answer to this mayhem. Violent video games, high capacity mags, mental health services being cut and so on.

Useless is what most gun freaks are. Maybe you might prefer
"penis extension". This week has seen plenty of "men" with guns and you identify with them?
Shame on you.

Automatic high capacity handguns and assault weapons should be controlled the same as full automatic weapons. That would be a great start.

I missed the part where he was into shooting video games. Seriously, did they say that?

BigK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Automatic high capacity handguns and assault
> weapons should be controlled the same as full
> automatic weapons. That would be a great start.

What is an "automatic high capacity handgun"? Do you have an example of what you are referring to? And what level of control do you currently believe exists for fully automatic weapons?

And how do you propose handling how most criminals get the weapons they use in crime, i.e. getting them from friends, stealing them, or straw purchases? Most criminals, as the CT shooter, don't get their guns through legal means, yet all I'm hearing is about tightening legal means. It is like trying to lower speed on a neighborhood street by installing speed bumps on the sidewalk.

saywat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And how do you propose handling how most criminals
> get the weapons they use in crime, i.e. getting
> them from friends, stealing them, or straw
> purchases? Most criminals, as the CT shooter,
> don't get their guns through legal means, yet all
> I'm hearing is about tightening legal means. It
> is like trying to lower speed on a neighborhood
> street by installing speed bumps on the sidewalk.

Straw purchases ARE legal.

We used to have a nifty law here in VA that one could not legally purchase more than one gun per month, which cut down significantly of straw purchases.

The gun lobby felt one gun per month was just too damn restrictive. It cut into the bottomline.

Now, gun shops in VA are again free to sell as many guns to straw purchasers as the can. This is primary method of criminals obtaining guns.

'Merica, fuck yeah!

Knower of Things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> saywat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > And how do you propose handling how most
> criminals
> > get the weapons they use in crime, i.e. getting
> > them from friends, stealing them, or straw
> > purchases? Most criminals, as the CT
> shooter,
> > don't get their guns through legal means, yet
> all
> > I'm hearing is about tightening legal means.
> It
> > is like trying to lower speed on a neighborhood
> > street by installing speed bumps on the
> sidewalk.
>
> Straw purchases ARE legal.
>
> We used to have a nifty law here in VA that one
> could not legally purchase more than one gun per
> month, which cut down significantly of straw
> purchases.
>
> The gun lobby felt one gun per month was just too
> damn restrictive. It cut into the bottomline.
>
> Now, gun shops in VA are again free to sell as
> many guns to straw purchasers as the can. This is
> primary method of criminals obtaining guns.
>
> 'Merica, fuck yeah!


No, straw purchases obviously are not legal.

Doesn't sound like you even know what a straw purchase is.

u idiots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the unemployment is the highest its ever been.
> obama wants to do something about it, we can help
> out our heroes who served their country, and give
> them a job to help protect our children. im not
> saying it would 100% keep this from happening
> again, but there is one thing that has been proven
> about these mass murderers. once confronted by an
> armed police officer or security officer, they
> give up or kill themselves. they never want to
> confront another armed person. an armed person at
> each school, might just be enough of a deterant.
> who knows, but something has to be done, and gun
> control isnt the answer. in this case, the kid
> didnt buy the guns through a flawed process. he
> murdered his mother to get them. this incident
> sadly enough prob couldnt have been prevented.

Creative idea, but no way. Dozens of studies detail the mental problems of many of our returning military. Here's just a summary from one:

The prevalence of reporting a mental health problem was 19.1% among service members returning from Iraq compared with 11.3% after returning from Afghanistan and 8.5% after returning from other locations (P<.001). Mental health problems reported on the postdeployment assessment were significantly associated with combat experiences, mental health care referral and utilization, and attrition from military service. Thirty-five percent of Iraq war veterans accessed mental health services in the year after returning home; 12% per year were diagnosed with a mental health problem. More than 50% of those referred for a mental health reason were documented to receive follow-up care although less than 10% of all service members who received mental health treatment were referred through the screening program.

See http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=202463

I'm not sure it'd be a good idea to put those guys and gals, armed and ready, in our schools.

saywat Wrote:

> And what level of control do you currently believe
> exists for fully automatic weapons?
>

This is not only what I believe currently exists for fully automatic it is in fact the law............


It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

"Now, gun shops in VA are again free to sell as many guns to straw purchasers as the can. This is primary method of criminals obtaining guns."

Straw purchases are most certainly not legal. Not sure where you heard that piece of propaganda.

#TinkerTailorSoldierSpy# Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CNN's Don Lemon is correct to insist on a national
> conversation about gun violence. Enough is enough.
> When 20 children are dead, it would be
> irresponsible and disrepectful NOT to take up the
> subject -- with all its politics and nuances and
> shades of meaning. Why, I wonder, don't we talk
> about the other face of Second Amendment rights?
> Even if you accept a constitutional "right" to
> bear arms -- something serious people still debate
> -- it should naturally follow that such a right
> creates important duties and obligations. Most
> rights granted to us in the federal Constitution
> are not unqualified absolute rights. There are
> times when these rights do not apply. The mentally
> ill should not have access to weapons, for
> example. Additionally, those of us who can claim
> or assert a Second Amendment "right" also have a
> duty to ensure that our exercise of the right does
> not extinguish rights that others enjoy. The
> conversation about gun rights ought to include a
> substantive piece on the duties and obligations
> that come with gun ownership. "Gun control" may be
> impractical in a nation with nearly as many
> weapons as there are people; but we can surely
> talk about "gun responsibilities."
Attachments:

Maybe we should remove the 2nd Ammendment and treat gun ownership like driving a car. A drivers license is a privlidge to have not a right. You have to earn that priviledge by proving that you capable of understanding and handling a vehicle. The same should apply to gun ownership.

Remember the Constitution was created in a time that is no where near what time is like today. A lot of it is really outdated and should be updated. i don't think our forefathers could forsee the advancement in gun technology like it is today. They had black powder muskets and pistols that they had to refill after each shot. Today's guns are not like that. If gun technology was still like this today I am pretty sure that these mass shooting incidents wouldn't be making headlines.

God Bless and RIP Sandy Hook victims.

Just want to add one more point to my first post.........

We didn't have a police force back when the 2nd Ammendment was written. Everyone had to fend for themselves. I'm sure there are other reasons for this Ammendment but again no national police force to protect the citizens. I know the police can't be everywhere all the time, it's just a point to show you that the Constitution should be updated in parts.

WOW!!!! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe we should remove the 2nd Ammendment and
> treat gun ownership like driving a car. A drivers
> license is a privlidge to have not a right. You
> have to earn that priviledge by proving that you
> capable of understanding and handling a vehicle.
> The same should apply to gun ownership.
>
> Remember the Constitution was created in a time
> that is no where near what time is like today. A
> lot of it is really outdated and should be
> updated. i don't think our forefathers could
> forsee the advancement in gun technology like it
> is today. They had black powder muskets and
> pistols that they had to refill after each shot.
> Today's guns are not like that. If gun technology
> was still like this today I am pretty sure that
> these mass shooting incidents wouldn't be making
> headlines.
>
> God Bless and RIP Sandy Hook victims.


You must not live in Northern Va if you believe this.

The Constitution say nothing about what type of arms you can bear and can always be changed.