It's not the guns. It's crazy people.
Normal people do not take innocent life.

To blame the tool used is to miss the point.

People that are not mentally stable and want to kill, will.

The same day the shootings happened, 20 chilren were stabbed in a school in
China. Not ONE died. You can't tell me using an ASSAULT RIFLE, flinging out lead like in a combat zone, had nothing to do with the outcome. Crazy people want to defend the idea of having these kinds of weapons available for public consumption.

Yes, no one died in China that day however crazy people do kill with whatever weapon they can get.

In China, since you brought that up there were these:

March 2010 Attack with a knife where 8 children died?

May 2010 attack where 7 children and 2 adults were killed with a clever and 11 others were injured?

August 2010 where 3 children and 1 adult were killed by a knife and more than 20 other children and staff were injured?

Outside of China:

William Unek killed 21 people with an axe...

The Banjarsari massacre, when a 42-year-old farmer named Wirjo killed 20 people and wounded 12 others with a parang and a sickle...

Continued...

I can go on but it's pointless...we all know that there is evil in this world and crazy people who are willing to do it or unable to stop themselves from doing it.

If there was someone at the school with a gun, maybe this crazy would have been stopped.

Armed citizens have stopped this kind of maddness here in the US before.

Currently guns aren't allowed at schools, so parents can not protect their children there. That needs to change.

We put armed Marshals on planes to protect them, but not in our schools to protect our children.

Also keep in mind that these mass killing are NOT on the rise, they are on the decline.

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

Continued...

Oh, and the crazy people you refer to that came up with the idea of citizens owning and bearing military weapons are our founding fathers and yes I do support that right and that idea.

Law abiding citizens do not have easy access to weapons. It's the criminals and thiefs that can get their hands on weapons easily and no amount of gun legislation is going to change that. Part of the problem is the "gun free zones" where crazy people know people are not allowed to conceal and carry and therefore are easier targets. All the schools, some of the workplaces, and the movie theater in Colorado - where the killer chose the only theater out of seven showing the same movie at the same time - not the most populated theater and not the one closest to his house - but the only one declared a gun free zone. It doesn't mean arming teachers, it simply means lifting the restriction so that crazy people won't automatically know that there will be no lethal opposition. Just my two cents.....

The problem isn't whether we have too many guns or too little.

The trouble is adults are arguing about it, forgeting that kids need us to show them how to work out problems and they need to know we are there for them.

We need to show them by example how to work out disagreements and problems.

Ok Ken show an example of how we work things out without starting by discussing ou differences.

Working out differences and arguing are two different things.

I wasn't insinuating people here are arguing.

Just most of what I hear and read since the shooting. The intent must be a solution not just winning a debate or argument.

Megan, I could not agree more with what you have said!

Ken, FMP? If so, Hello! =)

Jon,
I actually have 4 children ages 7 and under and I will tell you that my biggest fear is that the end result of all of this will be legislation banning guns and limiting Second Amendment rights. My kids are good kids - they follow the rules and they feel bad when they break the rules. Unfortunately, my rules involve being respectful, cleaning up after yourself, and tellilng the truth and are not life or death situations. My biggest fear is that my family (and every other law abiding family) will be left unprotected - sitting ducks - because legislation, laws, statutes, common law, and codes like this only works if everyone follows them. Do you really think that the guns that killed those two kids in Minneapolis were obtained legally? Do you really think that legislation is somehow going to prevent assault weapons and other ammunition from making it's way into evil hands? What the end result will be is the criminals and those with evil intentions will possess all the weapons and the law abiding citizens will be left at their mercy. Yes, I mourn for all the these senseless deaths related to guns. It is sad. It was hard to send my kids to school yesterday and even harder to be in my son's kindergarten class this morning knowing that a class just like his was wiped out on Friday. But it doesn't happen because of the guns. It happens because of the person behind the gun, knife, baseball bat, car, pipe and whatever other weapon. And you can't legislate morality.

Jon, also keep in mind that we did have an assault weapons ban that did limit the number of rounds used in a gun...and that did not work.

And, Connecticut does have it's own assault weapons ban already...that limits the type of weapons sold there...that didn't work....

Only law abiding citizens follow laws. Criminals and crazies disregard them.

We need to get rid of the gun free zones and allow law abiding citizens the choice of how they want to protect themselves.

Now, you did make me think on the whole founding fathers thing with what they supported and I guess I need to say that I agree with some of their ideas and not with others. I agree with free speech and freedom of religion....and I also see people abuse those rights to hurt people as well, just like our right to keep and bear arms.

Jon, I can tell that you care and feel for those kids and their families. I respect you for that and the fact that you are at least trying...as many these days simply do nothing.

First, the school shooting is tragic without any doubts. It would seem, everytime someone else does something wrong, the law abiding get punished. That message does not sit well with older folks like me nor can the younger generation learn responsibility if we continue to punish those that did no wrong. If you dont want kids killed, stop government funded abortions! Many more innocent lives are lost per day in many other ways then guns. If, all guns where outlawed, would we allow police to have guns? Yes. Why? because the criminals would still have guns. If the criminals still have guns, the law abiding citizen will illegally get a gun to protect life against the criminal guns, what have we accomplished? We have made criminals out of law abiding citizens and made most think less desirable of their government. The true gun killing number to me is, how many gun deaths from accidents? The others are all individual cases of intentional murders where a person purposely and knowingly pulled the trigger. This discussion should be focused on why these people knowingly and willingly did thes crimes, really, your own mother and very young kids. We need to know what made this person do this. If a cop snapped and unloaded on a group of people, would we disarm all police?

Timothy McVeigh....168 people, including 19 children killed...not a gun used. Crazy people will do what they do regardless.

My husband pointed this out last night......Redding, CT poet, diplomat, politician Joel Barlow once declared “…a tyrant disarms his subjects to degrade and oppress knowing that to be unarmed palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind.”
Military type assault weapons are already banned. Again, getting rid of the Gun Free Zone's will remove the automatic knowledge that no one in that facility, be it school, mall, movie theater or what have you, is unarmed. This does not mean arming teachers! Teachers have enough on their plates without having to worry about how to navigate a firearm. Removing the giant target on Gun Free Zones does not infringe on anyone's Constitutional rights. To address the mental health aspect, one would have to get the ACLU-inspired laws that make getting someone the mental health help they need lifted. Good luck on that one.
Finally, I am wondering why there was no widespread reporting of the San Antonio off duty sergeant who was carrying a weapon this past weekend at a San Antonio movie theater when a person attempted to open fire on the movie-goers. The sergeant wounded the attacker, preventing another massacre. If that theater had been a Gun Free Zone, more people would be dead. We don't need more legislation, people who aren't law abiding do not follow "the rules". We also need people to stop characterizing gun owners as bullet-happy Yosemite Sam's with a killiing agenda. Nothing is further from the truth.

Megan, since you brought up the law officer, I wish you would sthe next one you meet if they would support having more assault weapons on the street, more high capacity clips, and only 60% of gun purchases required to pass background checks. I think you will find the overwhelming majority oppossed. Also, I never said anything about Yosemite Sam,although I did dress up like him once for halloween. My family members belong to the NRA. 74% of NRA members,who are sportsmen, also support the afformentioned limit on weapons of mass destruction. And finally I would like to say he example you cited about the police officer stopping the shooting, that is what they are trained to do. He probably did it with one or two skillfuly placed shots, not by spraying the theatre with an assault weapon. Did you know that Wayne LaPierre (lobbyist for the NRA) gets paid $1million dollars a year ,mostly from gun manufacturers, to continue to trump up fear. It is almost impossible to make a reasonable decision when it is based on fear. I think we should all pray, and meditate, and think about this relentlesly so we can come up with a civilized solution that will help our society and our children move forward in a more Loving Compassionate and Lawfull way. Bless us all. Merry Christmas, Jon

Last week, for the 2nd time in a month, someone pushed another person from a New York subway platform into the path of an oncoming train, to their deaths. Mayor Bloomberg, who wants to ban every gun he can get his hands on, says in response to a reporter's question "Why couldn't the city do more to prevent these things?" said:

"There are adequate protections now in place. But ultimately, we can't stop every person from committing an irrational act."

Finally he came to the right conclusion.

The head of the NRA AGREES that current background checks are insufficient. "You have only a handful of states entering information about mentally ill individuals into the national database, so that it's impossible for us to guarantee a valid background check for these lunatics." States cut their funding and need to restore it.

We should examine why there's such an impulse to put more limitations on gun owners over an inanimate object. This nut in Connecticut of course wasn't a gun owner and broke several laws-- including murdering his own mother-- to get his hands on the weapons. So why take my rights away?

No one is trying to take away second ammendment rights. The first amendment says we have the right to free speech,but you can't yell fire in a theatre or express hate speech. In other words your rights are somewhat limited by other peoples rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People give up freedoms to the government everyday, by taking off their shoes at airports, and not one person has ever died as the result of a shoe bomb ! The government puts limits on food safety,auto safety, the hours a truck driver or an airplane pilot can do their job, to protect your family's safety. Nobody has sugested taking away your right to defend you home or go deer hunting. But 40% of the weapons sold are done so without back ground checks, even someone on the terror watch list can buy one. No one needs to have an assault rifle or bullet delivery system with more than ten bullets. If you're really concerned about your rights being taken awawy by the government,you should take a better look at the "patriot act", or the NDAA. I don't hear anyone talking about that. Even 74% of NRA members are good with not having assault weapons, and having everyone pass a background check. Also 100% of law enforcement. We all value ou rights, including living in a safe sane society. Happy new year, Jon

I don’t have any guns of any sort but please tell me I like to understand why anyone needs these powerful killing instruments. I understand hunting and target shooting which can be done with bow and arrow and air rifles!
Then there is all this talk about the constitution and rights. Seems to me before we get to read the body of the constitution there is the preamble explaining that the intent is to make things better. For that purpose and in addition the constitution has provisions to be improved as needed. This has been done many times before with the amendments. So what is all the huff about?

The huff? how about ten billion dollars of private guns you want to suddenly make illegal with a typical, lefty, knee-jerk reaction.
Of course police dont want you to have guns...because they get to keep theirs...see where this is going?
give an inch....

Thank you “yomammy” – For answering my question. You need the killing instruments to kill the police. How many more are out there needing to kill police?

I just want to say that the proposed legislation does not just limit the sale of military type assault rifles - it includes handguns and rifles. Read the proposed legislation and educate yourself. Don't just follow what the media tells you. Of course, the legislation protects "legitimate hunters", but who decides who is a "legitimate hunter"? The Washington DC sharpshooter was a hunter - he just hunted people. This is a slippery slope we are headed down. And trying to find a gun to buy right now is very difficult - they are all sold out and on backorder. Washington DC had one of the stricted gun control laws in the country.....they also had the worst crime rate.

Megan the 40% of weapons sold without backgtound checks are sold at gun shows and online.

Where did you get that data from?

My 'expert' that I consulted said that one must fill out a 4473 ATF form and that guns can be sold to private parties, but most gun owners won't do that unless that person has a permit to carry (hence the background check to get the permit).

If one is buying online, the gun MUST be shipped directly to a federal firearms dealer who will not give you the gun unless you've filled out the 4473 ATF. An incredibly small percentage of sales happen without a 4473 ATF and those who privately sell guns want to cover themselves legally and so they don't sell to those without a permit.

Megan is correct: every gun I buy online goes to an FFL, and I am subject to a standard background check just like at a gun store. The percentage of guns sold a gun shows has to be very small. Go to one and you'll see; mostly mom and pops selling gear and equipment and a few guns. Many of those are historical pieces for collectors.

Criminals LOVE new gun control laws. It just means their targets for rape, murder, robbery will be even easier targets...

I am not against self defense. The statistics prove that people with guns in their homes are much more likely to die by being shot with their own weapon,including children shooting each other with uncontrolled guns. The guy who murdered all those babies in Newtown, started out by killing the gun owner ( his Mom) with her own weapon, wich I assume she had "for protection". I think we have to remember that all "rights" have also got limitations. Our first ammendment right to free speech is limited by things like not being allowed to yell " FIRE" in a crowded theatre, and prohibiting hate speech. In a civilized society, all of our rights are somewhat limited by other peoples rights. Like the rights of those children at Sandy Hook Elementary to Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I was at the hearing at the Capital yesterday and heard, one after another, Law enforcement officers (who deal with criminals and guns every day) speak about and support the need for more gun safety laws. This includes background checks and registration. If you are not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a problem with this. Remember the first line in the second ammendment says..." A well regulated militia".

Oh my goodness, the killer at Sandy Hook STOLE the gun!!! No amount of legislation is going to stop that!!! You live in a dream world if you think that by passing stricter laws on how people gain access to guns, that crime is going to drop. Look at Chicago....look at DC!! In this dream world, stricter gun laws prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who want to do harm. Those of us who live in reality know that the people who want to do harm don't obtain their weapons legally in the first place!! So, you would have the mother of the Sandy Hook kiiller, a woman who passed background checks and obtained her guns legally, unable to buy guns because.....why????? How would you solve this??? The problem with it is that this is not where it's going to end. Our own government traded actual military assault weapons to the Mexican drug cartels in their Operation Fast and Furious!! You think that it's going to stop at background checks and registration?? Our own President has stated that he doesn't think ANYONE should own guns!!! Continue living in your dream world and the rest of us will focus on reality. Plus, the statistics on people dying from their owns guns are skewed. They are based on where a person died in relation to where gunowners lived. They are not based on whose actual gun did the shooting. And as to your referece to the Second Amendment, DC v. Heller confirmed that it is an individual right, outside of the militia.

Megan, It still says "well regulated". the state also has the right to legislate public safety. That kid in Newtown didn't steal that gun it was made available to him in his home ,wich was my original point , the owner (Mom) was killed by her own weapon. She took her son to the range and taught him how to use it. How about the guy who murdered the nine year old boy in Oakdale, he had a carry permit. How well did that serve civilized society?

I see, it's the age-old "blame the mother" - He didn't steal it? It was registered to him? He was the owner? If the answer to those two questions is no than he stole it. It wasn't his. So it's wrong of a parent to take their children shooting, teaching them about gun safety?
What you are saying is that you want to ban guns all together. That is the double-talk that is going on here: "I'm not against self-defense" but the mother "shouldn't" have let her son have access to the gun. "I'm not trying to take away your hunting rifle", yet you want to ban semi-automatic rifles, which are the SAME thing! What is your answer for the Oakdale shooting? He passed a background check - that's what you are advocating for, correct? If you want to abolish guns from our society, than I wish that you'd just come right out and say it, instead of making it seem as though it's for the greater good.

What about the man in Duluth that just killed his roommate with a sword....a self-proclaimed "Martial Arts Enthusiast" - where's the outrage over swords left out openly for anyone to grab? Swords sold online without background checks or registration? These weapons of mass destruction that can kill many, slowly and painfully? Where is the outrage? Where are the bans over this? Where are the congressional hearings and the calls for action? Why is this different????