A horrible happening to append to the Christmas season. When the news in the paper and the idiot goods that the merchants hope will be all purchased and put under our Christmas trees or in the bright socks hung on the mantle piece to show that Christmas and Santa Claus are real, not just in our hopes for something other than the negative news that if we want something specific we better get at it - spending and cheer to mark the time of the birth of the Christ. Well, maybe the above will fit in for some people/families. I sincerely hope so. Have a Merry Christmas and a joyous new year of hope and fulfillment.

After reading numerous comments by gun owners since this tragedy, very few expressed sorrow. Instead, they ranted about the very idea of any kind of gun control. So, being a rational person, and given the hold the NRA has on Congress and most gun owners, I will truly be shocked if anything at all changes, including the continuing massacres of innocent men, women and children.

Baloney the guns were legal and owned by the mother. Why were the guns available to someone with diminished metal facilities? Sorry for her demise and all the others too. I found it harrowing that most people put a emphasis on the lives of children, aren't all lives important reguardless of age?

Joe,
"While we try to teach our children all about our life, our children teach us what life is about." Angela Schwind

Do you have children Joe?

I am a gun owner, although I use my shotgun only to hunt game which I then eat. I do not own a handgun because they appear to me to be instruments designed solely to inflict damage on another human being. I firmly believe and would argue in favor of our right to bear arms. But there is something wrong in this country when access to lethal weapons is so easy that these senseless acts keep occurring over and over and over again. I cannot even begin to fathom the depths of grief being experienced by these poor families. We must do something to change this equation. Can we not at least acknowledge that some form of sensible gun control could help?

Governor McDonnell, if you really want to help, do something to stop the flow of guns up and down the East Coast.

These tragedies continue to happen, and all of them involve semi-automatic or automatic guns with hundreds of rounds of ammo. I fail to see why we allow such easy access to semi-automatic and automatic weapons, and why we allow gun owners to buy such large quantities of ammunition. I wonder how some of the gun lobbyists would feel if it were their child that was involved in such a horrific, senseless act of violence?

I am anti-gun, to be clear, but I agree with one professional who was interviewed this week on television. He reminded the viewers that there have been "senseless acts of violence" where multiple numbers of people were injured or killed in which the person used weapons other than guns.

Timothy McVey for example, who carried out the Colorado bombings was only one of many examples he cited. He informed us that on the same day of the Connecticut tragedy, a person in China carried out a similar tragedy killing many children with a knife. In China apparently knives are the weapon of choice for the mass killings that occur there regularly. (according to this speaker I referred to.)

What I think, now, is twofold. Guns make it easier for people to harm others in the U. S. due to their availability. And, I think, ultimately, people kill people.

This country has come to devalue life. From acts such as road rage, to shootings over a pair of shoes, we show a serious loss of compassion and lack of concern for the welfare of others.

How can we put a check on our spiritual selves?

There is no reason for civilans to own automatic weapons. Semi-automatic weapons require that you pull the trigger for every buttlet shot. The gun is a tool and unless someone pulls the trigger it does no harm. If you take away semi-automatic weapons then we have bolt action or black powder sorry Sandra but that ain't going to fly. Access to guns is incumbent upon the owner to be responsible. I do not see you calling out the parents for the 6000 deaths attributed to cell phone use while driving, how about the 1.2 million abortions, how about the 11,000 deaths attributed to drunk drivers. I could go on but it's not nessary, Too many people jumping into the deep end of the pool and hysteria does not solve the problem. Come up with a solution that does not include public gun reduction. Gun sales have increased since 2006 in Virginia and crime has gone down and these guns are probably part of the reason for the decline.

I feel a deep sorrow for the people killed and thier families. Yet children that are 8 years old and younger are killed more than once per day in the USA per the FBI 2010 statistics (398)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl02.xls

I feel deep sorrow for those children and their families also.

You guys can believe all you wish about "guns making things safer for people". By all accounts, Nancy Lanza believed as you do, and her immense stock of firearms and ammunition (gathered to keep her family "safe" in an upper income suburban community) led to her son committing horrible atrocities with the weapons meant to make her family safer. I wonder if she ever thought that her paranoia would result in one of the biggest tragedies our nation has ever seen? I don't see at all how guns can improve our quality of life. Every headline that I read where guns are involved in killing innocent people in bloody massacres makes me believe even more in gun control.

Timothy McVeigh did not use guns. The Unibomber did not use guns. Eric Rudolph did not use guns. Ted Bundy did not use guns. 9/11 Bombers did not use guns. Etc. Guns were not used in Jonestown. Guns are controlled in DC, Chicago, and Detroit.
Read this story:
http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

Assault weapons for our police and swat teams madam. More mass killings happened in the 80's then the 90's then went down from 2000 to 2010. Nancy Lanza failed to take care of her guns and ammo? I am a hundred percent sure she never thought in her life that anyone she knew could bring about such a devasting tragedy The beliefs you say I have are based on statistical facts look them up. I for one did not bring religion into the conversation. What gun control are you talking about? A longer waiting period, longer prison sentences for straw buyers? How do you penalize someone who does this then commits suicide?

Kathy, do you believe people need to own assault weapons? Id so, what would be the prpose? By the way, D.C. Does have a ban on assault weapons, but not handguns.

Twice you have failed to understand what I wrote!

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/assault-weapons/what-law-enforcement-says-about-assault-weapons

The statistics are clear, whether New York, Chicago, or recently in the District of Columbia. Where guns are banned, crime goes up; and if the bad guys know that people may have guns, crime goes down.

Those who follow international news may have seen the related stories that in China over the past several years there have been many attacks on school children and other groups of various kinds --- with knives, since guns are banned. A much more vicious and painful way to die.

Maybe we can ban knives, and box cutters, and poison, and axes, and hammers, etc. etc. and just leave handguns for the bad guys who don't obey the law anyway.

We can talk semantics if you like. I would think being shot with an assault weapon 11 times would not be a pleasant way to die, especially for a 6-year old. Don't sweat it though. In the not too distant future this will be like the Wild West - everybody armed and shootouts routine. Violence has taken over this country and those of us who denounce it are in the minority.

I am not a gun lover. My point of view, though, is that a person who desires to do harm does not need a gun. I really don't think gun control will help. No, I don't think anyone except law enforcement need an assault weapon.
My question is: how are you going to eliminate guns? The criminals already have them. Are we going to make all the law abiding citizens who have chosen to own guns (and registered them) turn them in? Then, the only guns out there will be in the hands of those who have not registered them.
I do not understand what was in the mind of the shooter, but I do think that an unstable young man is not well served by playing the violent video games out there. As far as God in the school, I believe that God is everywhere. However, I don't think that some kids have a grounded sense of right and wrong-or good and bad. In the past, churches and parents have taught these values.
This is not a political issue--it is a cultural issue. When so many kids spend all their time in front of a screen, values can get warped. I don't pretend to know what went on in Lanza's house. I imagine that his mother did the best she knew how. As I stated before, it is very difficult to get help for a troubled family member unless he has threatened or actually taken negative action. Read the link I posted above.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/12/newtown_tragedy_how_the_school_shooting_could_finally_change_how_americans.html

I read your post. Please read this. We simply must do something. I'm signing off to watch the memorial service and pray for the heroic teachers and for the babies who died so terribly.

Actually there is no semantics involved just your failure to understand what I wrote madam. I believe our police and swat members should have the assualt weapon of their choice. I want my police and swat to have overwhelming superior firepower every time they are called on to bring arms to bear. The only time a assualt weapon should be availble to the public is under close supervison of a range master at a controlled indoor shooting range. I see conflicting reports about the bushmaster 223 was it fully automatic. If not even though I agree that assualt guns should not be owned by members of the public what you are not resolving the problem with your ban. Ban them by any means but you still have a big problem.

The murder rate in Iraq is less than half that of the U.S. Most of our contemporaries in Western Europe have murder rates on the order of 1/4 that of the U.S. Countries that don't take a hard line on guns have higher murder rates than those that do. Japan has the strictist gun control laws in the world, and the lowest murder of any industrialized nation.

I agree that members of the public should not have assault weapons; that would include hunters, since if they can't shoot straight they should get some practice or get a different hobby. I also agree that part of the problem are the wimpy judges who allow violent offenders to cop a plea, and the 'defense attorneys' who are the hired help of criminals, and their un-indictable co-conspirators.

Certain cultures, i.e. the Muslims with their sharia, the Japanese with their sense of 'shame' from their familial responsibilities, etc., have less violent crime. (BTW, Mr. Rosner, Japan has a violent 'knife problem'). Meanwhile, some salient cultural facts: In the US, the family has surrendered many of its responsibilities to 'the village,' while parents don't even attend PTA meetings at the schools, and the legal industry (which includes the judges who are voted into power by the lawyers) helps every form of human scum avoid jail when they commit crimes. Criminals have no fear of the injustice system; but they do fear gun owners.

Charles and Sandra, I agree. In Japan, you serve 20 years in jail if you're caught with a weapon. Same should apply here to assault weapons and any guns found on career criminals. No one wants to punish lawful gun ownership, although I still believe it should be mandatory to complete gun range and gun safety training before a gun license is issued. Too many children have been killed because a gun was not properly stored.

On further checking, no private citizen is allowed to own a handgun in Japan. If you are found to be in possession of an unregistered firearm, the jail term usually ranges from 1 to 10 years. Before you can purchase a gun, you must pass a written test, a shooting range test, and be examined for mental illness. You must store your gun under lock and key. Your ammunition must also be locked away in a separate cabinet. You must provide police with a diagram of your home showing the storage locations. Japan has the strictest gun control in the world and,mcontrary to people who say gun control doesn't lower crime rates, it sure has in Japan.

So are you against any gun control?

Institute a assault gun buy back for 6 months. After 6 months it's a mandatory 1 year in jail. No pleas, no time off for good behavior and no immunity. Then if you still keep the assault weapon and it is used in a crime the mandatory jail sentence increases to 10 years on top of the crime penalty, no pleas, no time off for good behavior and no immunity. Make drunk diving a 6 month mandatory jail sentence. If you are over the limit your jail time starts when the sheriff books you, no pleas... you'll end drunk driving for sure. For all the comments about Japan How about Israel where everyone is armed and their crime rate is low.

http://ipad/ivn/us/ivn/#!/entry/gun-control-an-international-comparison,50ccdf47d7fc7b5670a9a0bf/1

Most of these website addressses don't work when you click on them. If you feel strongly enough read em and paraphrase for us otherwise don't bother with the postings.

The latest statistics I can find for firearm homicides by country is 2006. Australia, 30; Canada, 173; France, 35; Germany, 158; Italy, 417; Japan, 11; US, 9,146. In the US, there are 89 guns per every hundred people; Australia, 15; Canada, 31; France, 31; Germany, 30; Italy, 12; Japan, .06.

Daniel Barden, 7; Josephine Gay, 7; Madeleine Hsu, 6; Chase Kowalski, 7; James Mattioli, 6; Jack Pinto, 6; Catherine Hubbard, 6; Caroline Previdi, 6; Avielle Richman, 6; Benjamin Wheeler, 6; Allison Wyatt, 6; Grace McDonnell, 7; Emilie Parker, 6; Noah Pozner, 6; Jessica Rekos, 6; Charlotte Bacon, 6; Olivia Engel, 6; Dylan Hockley, 6; Jesse Lewis, 6; Ana Marquez-Greene, 6; Rachel D'Avino, 29; Dawn Hochsprung, 47; Anne Marie Murphy, 52; Lauren Rousseau, 30; Mary Sherlach, 56; Victoria Soto, 27. These precious lives were taken in a matter of minutes by someone armed with an assault weapon. We don't value life if we allow this carnage to continue. 10,000 people a year die in this country due to gun violence. When is enough enough?

BS Oh so now we are talking about all guns I thought it was just about assault weapons and the clips for large numbers of bullets. How many guns are there per hundred in Australia, France, Mexico...? I think you value the sound of your own voice on these sites and we have had enough. How many abortions 1.2 million, How many drunk driving deaths 10,000, how many cell phone related 33,000 deaths where your outrage against these fatalities or is it just fatalities against young children that bothers you?

The problem here is first, the fetishization of the 2nd Amendment, which was included in the Constitution at a time when the most skilled marksman could get maybe 3 shots off in a minute. It's primary purpose was to insure maintenance of the militia system in the U.S., which at the time was the primary way threats to the country were faced before institution of a standing army. The National Guard fulfills that purpose now. We need to begin changing the gun culture and recognize the founders could not possibly have imagined the types of arms that would be available...among other things. This part of the Bill of Rights is simply antiquated and it is time the courts recognized the fact that how it is being interpreted is not what the founders could possibly have had in mind.

Second, no single act is going to cure the problem, but there are several things that can be done that will have a significant effect. First, ban large magazines. Whether you call a gun semi-automatic or not, with the ability to fire repeatedly 20 or 30 times without having to reload is what makes it easy to kill so many in such a short time.

Third, institute a strict criminal background check and waiting period for all firearm purchases.

Fourth, licensing of all firearms, with proof of ability to legally purchase including successful background check and successful completion of a gun safety course.

Lastly, start taking mental health seriously in this country.

Amen!

Mr. Daniels,

The Framers of the Constitution recognized that society changes over time and therefore included Article V which governs amending the Constitution. That is the proper way to deal with those parts of the Constitution which have become "antiquated." What we don't want is unelected judges deciding for themselves which parts of the Constitution should be changed due to changed circumstances.

What you have no snappy reply about abortion, drunks or cell phone users? We are all heart sick over Newtown but your lack of reading skills indicates hysteria to me. Not once have I advocated for assault weapons or large clips of bullets for anyone outside of law enforcement but you keep throwing your gibberish out there. We are after the same things but it is sorry I am that you are on the side I am.

You know very well gun control is a totally separate issue. A person using an assault weapon can kill a lot of people in a very short time frame. I did not mention anything else. I'm offended by your continuing condescending remarks. I avm not at all hysterical, but I am sick and tired of losing 200 people a week in this country to gun violence, many of them children. Maybe if we try to at least treat each other with civility, we could begin to get somewhere.

Mr. Brewer, just saw an earlier reply of yours to Sandra. You brought up abortion, cell phones, and drunk driving to her. You also accused her of being hysterical. I see a pattern here!

If the shoe fits there are two you get one and she gets the other. I don't want to be civil to a ass that assumes to tell me what I know or don't know. There you go with the emphasis on children being murdered so I guess it is true you place a higher value on a kids life. You should get a job on one of the death panels maybe you could justify 23 thousand abortions a week versus 12 thousand gun related deaths per year.

No, I don't put a point value on life. It's just that thinking of babies being slaughtered is somehow even more horrific than the others. I don't place any more value, but I'm not ashamed to admit I cannot get those babies out of my head. As I said before, abortions are a separate issue entirely. No one chooses to be slaughtered by an intruder armed with an assault weapon. If you can't differentiate between the two, you need to educate yourself.

Mary S., the sad thing is people are buying assault weapons at a record rate. I just heard a member of Congress from Texas say guns are necessary to withstand the tyranny of government. Human lives have no value any more in this country. The evidence is clear. Did it really take Newtown to prove it? No. When 200 people die every week in gun violence in this country, and the NRA refuses to support any legislation to ban assault weapons. Sadly, they smugly ignore the carnage in Newtown, Aurora, and on and on, and encourage their members to buy even more guns and ammo. If you think Newtown is bad, we are facing more of the same and worse if nothing changes.

For goodness sakes, it's guns. It's guns. Guns kill people. Guns killed those children and those teachers. Guns killed those shoppers in Portland. Guns killed those moviegoers in Aurora. Guns killed those voters in Tucson. Guns killed those students in Blacksburg. And it will be guns when it happens again. The debate can become exceedingly complex, but it needn't be. It's guns, and it's time to get the worst of them off the streets.

Lets be honest no one wants guns in the hands of individuals who have mental health issues. Guns are only dangerous when the individual is dangerous.

Guns kill people. So do cars. Yet we heavily regulate and license vehicles with tons of rules and laws for driving - and NONE for guns.

If you want to go with the logic guns kill people, then let's put in place the same exact regs and laws we do cars:

1. License and register every gun, retroactive just like a car
2. License and registration renewals annual or every 2 years. Just like a car
3. Written and practical testing. Just like a car
4. Insurance and tax for every gun registered. Just like a car.

And, since you can't even buy Sudafed over the counter or internet:
5. Every gun purchase must be entered into a single, national database. Just like Sudafed
6. Limit purchases. Just like Sudafed
7. Eliminate internet purchases of ammo. Just like Sudafed
8. Block all purchases over the internet. Just like Sudafed

Finally,
9. ALL gun sales subject to a waiting period and background check. Thereby eliminating the gun show loophole

Gov of VA has already implemented easier access with mental health records and assistance. Even he said, in the past 2 years, use has not increased. I suspect due to the stigma of mental health and the reluctance of parents to admit. And, given unless a mental health patient is a danger to himself or others, there's nothing the law can do.

Start with real gun history - they were invented so that enemies in war didn't have to face each other no further than the length of an arm. GUNS WERE INVENTED TO KILL! whether beast in hunting or man in war! They were not invented to solely admire as a possession. But as a weapon to KILL. All of you live within the radius of the Smithsonian Museums in Washington, DC. I suggest you go to the exhibit of guns - all kinds and sorts on the third floor of the American History building. There is one gun whose ammunition is a ball of iron about the size of a billiard ball. The gun for which it was ammunition is right there with it. It was used at the time of the Cromwell's war to make all Englishment into Protestants. Nice little weapon - just right to be an ornament in someone's collection of guns today! I believe there is instruction as to load and fire the gun. Somewhere among the other guns, is a fifty calliber shell and its rifle. As gun devotees, you do know the difference between a "gun" which has no rifling down the barrel to make the firing of the rifle more accurate in reaching its target and and the modern rifle which does. Any of you hunters have probably never used the older gun, except maybe a shotgun. In any case, if you have never seen the exhibit, you will thoroughly enjoy it. It is a lesson in weaponry to KILL!

Exactly right. It is insane not to have the same rules apply to guns.

Remember, the 2nd Amendment was NOT written "to protect us from our gov't"

The second amendment was a way of ensuring that should England, Spain or France decide we were a soft target, we as citizens could mobilize an effective response quickly, by having militias available. And since the government couldn't afford to arm or equip those militias, it would be important to ensure that able-bodied potential militia members were able to keep their weapons handy, and that no state would opt out of having a cadre of potential recruits available by restricting people from owning weapons, as was common practice among the major superpowers of the era, who DID have standing armies.

It was a practical measure to ensure we all had the right to defend ourselves and our new nation against anyone who might want to grab back or assert control over any of our sovereign territory. That's why it starts with the words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

It's also important to remember that the Bill of Rights represented two key concepts essential to the building of our nation: 1) The establishment of common ground among some very disparate colonial cultures and beliefs; and 2) the assurance that our central government would protect that common ground for all citizens regardless of which state they lived in.

Therefore, military assault weapons and ammo are unnecessary for civilians. That's why we're called civilians.

Which one of your nine points would have stopped the Newtown slaughter?

Flag the response, as I will. This is a discussion forum. The first words of joe b's response is to disparage and threaten. I'd like to see a vibrant discussion of all sides, but that cannot happen when threats are issued.

I know Patch and other such forums are for civilized discussion by civilized folk. Hopefully, joe b and others like him will be permanently barred from any further Patch discussions. He'll continue his rants on the Examiner and similar as he always has, but he'll be in his own echo chamber.

Locally Involved I deleted one of your comments; it was overly personal re another reader here. Please take jabs at topics/issues, not each other.

Thank you Mary Ann Barton and I apoligize for the remark of mine that you deleted.

With all due respect, Ms. Barton, Mr. Brewer called me an "ass", "hysterical"' and threatened to shoot the women posting on this site. I consider all of those "overly personal." Yet, those comments, other the the gun comment, went unchallenged by you. Mr. Brewer cannot post anything without being derogatory, yet you cite Locally Involved for his comments? Since Mr. Brewer's gun comment was directed at me and the other women on this site, I am worried about our safety. I'm sorry you don't understand how frightening it is to be threatened like that.

Hi Cheryl, Can you forward me that comment you're talking about? I don't see it here. Thanks.

Again, I am no gun lover. However, drugs are highly regulated in the US--and, yet, dealers continue to get access and sell them. The US prohibited alcohol in the 1920's--this helped grow the mob. Mexico has restrictive gun laws--and who has the guns? The cartels.
Gun control will not prevent tragedies. If y ou make them illegal, the only people who will have them will not be law-abiding citizens.
We must change the culture.

It is truly amazing how backwards some people have gotten the laws of this land. How pompously they espouse their knowledge of the “Constitution” and yet lack even the most simple of reading comprehension skills. Or worse yet, purposely warp the meaning to fit their own agenda and to subvert the more simple minded of us into believing their lies.

The Second Amendment states “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” That’s it. The purpose of this law was to, in the absence of a standing army, assure that a sufficient amount of citizens were armed to defend the STATE (i.e. – government) from foes foreign and domestic. The modern equivalent is the police or National Guard. It is NOT about personal defense, nor does it enumerate what type of weapons or how many you can amass, and it is most definitely NOT about protection from the “Guvernmint”. That is narrow minded hysteria perpetrated by a few and was purposely not included in the law. But perhaps you believe Noah Webster when he said “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” Fine. This was written when everybody had muskets and rifles. When a group of men armed with hand weapons could take most military installations. Tell me now how you are going to fight off a column of tanks with air support with your little arsenal? Guess what? You’re not. Which renders this whole reasoning moot.

This law was put into practice as exactly as it was meant up through the War of 1812, where we got our butts kicked by Canada. That was when we went to a standing army. So this law cannot defend you from the government or improve the safety of the State. All it does is flood our streets with cheap weapons. And no matter how “law-abiding” you think you are, your guns can be stolen. They can be lost. And unscrupulous personal sales and straw purchase can be made. And then people die. For what?? I say for nothing. So little people like you can feel empowered. As if they’re doing something. Adding to their sad hero complex by thinking they are “defenders” of freedom. You know what, if you want to feel empowered, defend this country and carry a gun, join the Army or the National Guard. If you can’t even pass basic Army requirements, then you probably shouldn’t have a weapon.

There are 40 million gun owners (that we know of legally) and 300 million estimated guns (ditto). That's about 7+ guns per owner.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin,

A person's right to own a gun should not infringe upon another's right to life, liberty, and happiness. It makes no sense, as some governors have proposed, to lock down private and public places, the majority of citizens, infringe upon the greater public just to protect us from the right to own 7+ weapons. No child, family, or individual should have to live in fear just so their neighbor has the right to a gun.

Civilians should not own military grade weaponry or ammo. Gun sense. No gun will protect anyone (as T Bird pointedly stated) from the air strikes, drones, etc. our standing armies have.

The greatest strength you have is in your vote and voice to your congressman. THAT's what the founding fathers designated.

Tired of getting stripped down, groped, and scanned. Enough is enough. Time to treat the problem, not the symptom.

I honestly do not see why people continue to insist that they need automatic/semi-automatic weapons to protect themselves. From what I read, even when regular homeowners buy them, they fail to keep them secured so that others can't have access to them. Look at Nancy Lanza - she was killed by one of her own guns. I still think we need a ban on automatic/semi-automatic weapons, and large ammo magazines. In addition, we should require that people owning guns keep them secured in gun safes with fingerprint locks, so that others who shouldn't have access can't get at them. I also agree that we need to change the culture of our nation to stop guns from being the #1 choice as a conflict solution. Right now it's "Get mad? Get a gun and shoot whoever made me mad!".

Good pts Sandra. The NRA for years promoted guns make a polite society. Sure, who's gonna argue with you when you're packing, right? Also makes for a suppression of free speech, not to mention life and liberty.

Anyone hear of this story where an 11 year old was sent to school packing a gun (with ammo) to protect himself?

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/18/15997124-sixth-grader-in-utah-brings-gun-to-school-to-avoid-connecticut-style-attack-district-spokesman-says?lite

Sure you could arm the teacher, but what teacher, no matter if the 6 year old is packing, is willing to shoot a child? Sure you could arm a teacher against outside intruders, but in a time we're undefunding our schools with books and teaching tools, are we really going to spend the funds for monthly gun training? And, what kind of gun will you arm teachers with? An assault rifle to go against assault rifle since surely even a glock is no match for an intruder's assault rifle.

Visualize it - are we really accepting western style shoot outs at the mall, schools, and offices? Just who are we protecting ourselves against? Ourselves.

There is personal responsibility on the behalf of parents - not outlawing violent video games (which are disdainful), but in proper, sensible regulated gun ownership. Again, we're civilians, not a well-regulated militia. If you're afraid of assault weapons, ban them. And, jail any parent that gives a child a gun.

PS: Lawn darts (yes, anyone remember them!?) were banned because of their potential danger to children.

Guns, you can buy for your child.

Gun sense?

I have a set of yellow and red lawn darts. A silly ban it was.
Revenue enhancement is what all this registration would accomplish, nothing more.
Didn't the handguns Lanza had carry 15 rounds apiece if so he didn't need the AR15 to do his dastardly deed.? How do you decide on a line where to stop the large magazines? Is it 10 per then he would have filled extra magazines. There should be no fully automatic weapons out in the public sphere

I have read this entire thread and not once did I hear anyone mention that 2.5 million people annually defend themselves against violent crime by having a firearm. Does that mean nothing to you people? The hysteria, and thats what it is, against assault weapons is completely irrational. Even government studies have shown that rifles of any kind account for a very very small percentage of crime. Statsitics show that mass killings, ( four or more people killed) average out to 35 people per year. 550 children die in swimming pools annually, much more than with firearms.

We do need to strengthen our laws. Mandatory, (Thats MANDATORY) sentences for crimes committed with firearms. Mandatory means NO plea bargain. Liberal judges cannot be allowed send these little dears back onto the street after a short stay in the stony lonesome. Once the word is out that you go away for a long, long time gun violence will drop. It is after all the gangbangers that are driving the stats up, not law abiding citizens.

Thank you, Jim. I don't think any of us will ever recover from Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora, or any mass shootings. It's counterintuitive to argue that more guns will make things safer.

Depends what recovery means to you. JFK was shot with a mail-order rifle. Bobby Kennedy was shot with a Saturday night special. Then, still in the '60s, Dr. King, Medger Evers and Malcolm X were gunned down. If you really believe this country "recovered" from that, you are wrong. If a President can be shot down on our own streets, and nothing is done to restrict gun sales through the mail, we are lost. We don't value life. If we can now stand by after the deaths of 20 little children and their teachers and do nothing to restrict large magazines and assault weapons, we have made no progress against gun violence at all. If we give up on gun control, we'll end up like South Africa where people live in walled communities and still are not safe. I simply don't understand how anyone could object to universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons and large magazines. The 2nd Amendment was written before police forces existed for our protection, among other things. Citizens of towns had to be armed to form militias to protect themselves. That time is over.

Cheryl, I think you should rethink your priorities. What is it you want to accomplish? From what I read you would like to reduce gun violence. If that is the case why not attack the larger problem first. Lets set MANDATORY sentences for using a firearm in a crime, or having an illegal firearm. For some reason you ignore that argument. You want to ban rifles with large magazines but they account for a very small amount of crime. I think you are being short sighted. And again as the anti gun lobby agrees, 1.5 million people defend themselves from violent crime annually.

Mandatory sentences are needed. So are universal background checks. Please explain why a private citizen needs an assaukt weapon with a large magazine. Why does that the precedence over 20 little children?

As to the murders in Newtown could have bern committed if he had only a revolver...teachers died because they tried to stop him. I believe there were grave people that day who had a chance to stop him if he had a revolver.

Cheryl, could have stopped him if he had a revolver? How?

Java, every time we have an exchange of ideas you run away. Last time you wanted to know what laws were not being enforced, I showed you and you tucked tail and ran.

There is no "exchange of ideas" with you. I did not tuck tail and run. It's just pointless to try to talk to someone who blames everything on "gang bangers" and believes the 2nd Amendment entitles private citizens stockpile weapons and ammunition, no matter how much slaughter we have to endure for your "rights."

Cheryl, please read more carefully, It is Java that tucks and runs as I addressed that comment to him, not you. Java, you cut and run every time, when you surface again it is with insults and no content. It is amusing.

I have not blamed gang bangers for "everything" but that is the place to start. 500, mostly young people, dead in one year in Chicago? Thats the place to start.