Honest question for those demanding immediate gun control

[Azathoth]

What regulation would have prevented this tragedy? The guns were purchased legally by the shooter's mother. The .223 rifle was apparently NOT used in the shooting; it was found in the trunk of the shooter's car. Banning "assault weapons" wouldn't have prevented this. Banning extended clips wouldn't have prevented this. Requiring psychiatric evaluations before every gun purchase would not have prevented this. So I ask the folks demanding immediate gun control and accusing every one they disagree with of having "blood on their hands," what is your solution? Because if you're not advocating something that actually addresses this tragedy, then you're just exploiting it to further a pre-existing agenda.

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. What regulation would have prevented this? Simple

ban on semiautomatic weapons and weapons with a magazine capacity of greater than five rounds. Maybe not "prevented", but incidents like this would be significantly less bad. Shrugging your shoulders and saying "oh well, shit happens" is really not an answer either.

[Azathoth]

15. So we get rid of everything except revolvers?

A powerful revolver and a few speedloaders could still do a lot of damage in a damn elementary school.

Shrugging your shoulders and saying "oh well, shit happens" is really not an answer either.

No it isn't an answer, but sometimes there are intractable problems in life that simply can not be answered. Terrorism is similar. There is only so much you can do before you just shake your head and say "if someone is determined enough, they will find a way."

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. I didn't say "get rid of everything except revolvers", no

pump action, bolt action and lever action are not semi-automatic either. And there's no reason whatever for civilians to own handguns; they're pretty specifically designed to kill people and don't have much legitimate sporting use.

[Azathoth]

23. Sorry, I assumed you were implictly including things like pump-actions

Given that a pair of pump-action shotguns can arguably do a lot more damage in a crowded space then a pair of 9mm handguns.

And there's no reason whatever for civilians to own handguns

I take it that self defense is not a valid reason?

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Nope

For self-defence in the home a shotgun is a better choice than a handgun. And concealed carry seems to be mostly about paranoia and fear rather than any rational danger.

[Azathoth]

51. "For self-defense in the home a shotgun is a better choice than a handgun."

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I disagree and that I believe a handgun to be a more practical and effective home defense tool. Do you have any evidence to refute my claim, or does the government tell me I can't have a handgun for home defense simply because it seems good to you?

In either case, banning handguns but allowing pump-actions seems kind of arbitrary to me if the goal is to prevent something like what happened today.

[Spider Jerusalem]

56. You're aware of what buckshot does, yes?

Shot spread. Simple. If you're faced with an intruder, it's dark, you can't see, you know there's danger, and you feel the need to defend yourself with deadly force? A shotgun is a better choice than a handgun. If you think a handgun is more effective for home defence then you don't actually know anything about guns.

[Azathoth]

98. I am well aware of the effects of a shotgun blast

But we're talking about imposing an enormous limit on a constitutional right. Law enforcement use handguns all the time to defend themselves while inside dwellings, and one can easily make the case that a handgun is a more practical and cost efficient means of home defense than a shotgun. So the opinion that a handgun is a valid tool for home defense is not unfounded. If you're going to use the powers of government to limit what methods will be available to me to defend myself within my own home, you're going to need more evidence than your (possibly uninformed) opinion that a shotgun is just manifestly "a better choice."

[Spider Jerusalem]

106. You know what Thomas Jefferson thought about the Constitution?

That it should be replaced every 19 years. He did the math and concluded that 19 years was the length of time a single generation constituted an electoral majority. And that expecting people to live under laws they had no part in making was tyranny. And as to "unconstitutional"; under the Constitution as written Native Americans weren't citizens, slavery was legal, and slaves counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes. Society changes. There is no longer any need for a citizen militia, which was the point of the Second Amendment in the first place; not only that, the Second Amendment was also for its time a radical statement of social equality. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 stipulated that: "the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law". "Suitable to their conditions" means "on the basis of social status"; in 17th century England, only gentlemen could wear swords. The right to bear arms without any class-based restriction is therefore a radical egalitarian statement for the 18th century. The need for such distinction has vanished along with the reasons behind the amendment.

[Azathoth]

116. Jefferson had a lot of changing and conflicting opinions

And he didn't always follow the logic of his own reasoning. For instance, he advocated a wall of separation between church and state yet famously had no problem using government funds to build churches or allowing local congregations to conduct services in government buildings. In any case, I can say with some confidence that, given his views on liberty and federalism, he would not today be a fan of a massive federal ban on firearms.

As to the imperfect nature of the Constitution, two important points suggest themselves: (1) it can and has been amended, and (2) those amendments almost always served to expand rights, not rescind them (the notable exception being the lamentable and later repealed 18th amendment.)

There is no longer any need for a citizen militia, which was the point of the Second Amendment in the first place; not only that, the Second Amendment was also for its time a radical statement of social equality.

This is somewhat contradictory. If the Second Amendment was intended, in part, to realize social equality, then the lack of a militia does not render that intent obsolete. Indeed, if we banned firearms and became a society wherein only those with sufficient money and/or political clout could obtain special dispensation from the government to own or carry one, then we would have completed the circle and brought ourselves right back to 1689.

[oldbanjo]

62. Wonder if you would say that if your neighbor

used a shotgun if someone broke in, the shot from oo buck would be inside your house. I don't have a .223 but that is the safest caliber to shoot inside your house it will not hit the neighbors house.

[Spider Jerusalem]

65. Number four birdshot is enough for home defence

no need for 00 buck in a home defence gun, honestly.

[Pacafishmate]

88. Who are you to tell someone else what they need?

[oldbanjo]

94. My neighbor is about 300 yards away,

and we live in the woods, they were cooking Meth over there one day, I called the cops, they did nothing because one of them is a cop, so now I keep an assault rifle handy, 762x39 not .223.

[oldbanjo]

55. I have my hand gun to kill anyone that breaks in this house.

I hunt with rifles and shotguns.

[Zoeisright]

92. And how many times has that happened?

You pathetic little Clint Eastwood wannabes are part of the problem.

[WooWooWoo]

16. you do realize

that you can own more than one magazine, and someone who knows how to use a handgun can do a mag change in less than 3 seconds.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Handguns should probably be banned then quite honestly

(and what part of "ban semi-automatics" could you not parse?)

[Lizzie Poppet]

20. Only if such a regulation were actually obeyed.

I very much doubt that an outright ban on semi-autos and medium- to high-capacity magazines would be anything other than totally ignored by vast numbers of people. It would, however, create a massive barrier between a large (and previously mostly pro-law-enforcement) group of people and the police. That's not good.

There's a maxim known to military officers: "never give an order you know will be disobeyed." I think something similar applies to passing laws (see: Prohibition).

Mind you, I don't advocate the "shit happens" response you mention, either. I think there are reasonable steps to be taken to reduce gun violence in the US (the vast majority of which isn't this sort of spree killing by a psychopath, but is instead between criminals, drug or gang-related, etc.). Making losing your weapon to a criminal because you couldn't be bothered to take proper security measures a serious crime would be just one example.

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. It would if there were penalties for non-compliance

although yes, the realistic assessment is that the USA is a deeply fucked up place in many many ways and the issue of gun violence is not one that will be solved by legislation, and things like this will happen again, and again, and people will say the same things about how terrible it is and how shocking and tragic and senseless and then it's back to business as usual until next time.

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. Perhaps.

But even if those penalties were truly severe, I have little doubt that literally millions of owners of banned weapons would apply the "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" maxim. Whether that's valid or reasonable or not isn't particularly relevant. The end result would be the same: massive non-compliance and a reduction in the ability of law enforcement to keep track of these weapons.

I have a feeling that we are indeed looking at another "back to the status quo" situation. There are reasonable steps to be undertaken...but the sides aren't talking to each other...just like they aren't on so many other political issues.

[bluestate10]

31. The standard magazine has been six rounds for decades.

The gunman today used standard semi-automatic guns. In order to prevent the killings, those guns must have been made unavailable to the gunman's mother.

[bluestate10]

100. If we follow your logic, all handguns would be illegal.

Sorry, that isn't going to fly. Look, I am on your side on this from a philosophical standpoint, I don't understand why anyone wants to own a fucking handgun. But people do want to own handguns. Federal background checks and gun registration along with federal laws to hold gun owners responsible for controlling their gun will allow people that want to own guns own them and give the rest of us a chance to not get slaughtered by guns.

[Spider Jerusalem]

108. All handguns probably should be illegal, honestly.

[Pacafishmate]

86. Disproportionate response.

Actually, shit does happen. We can't control every individual. It's not fair to limit millions of people because of several criminals.

[Spider Jerusalem]

96. Sure it is

we did it with the full-auto ban under the 1934 NFA.

[Pacafishmate]

97. I can't wait until that unconstitutional garbage is thrown out.

The fact that it was done, doesn't mean that it was right.

[MotherPetrie]

2. She shouldn't have been ABLE to legally purchase a death weapon

And if the goddamn fucking fear-mongering terrorist group the NRA didn't keep ignoramuses in a permanent state of whipped-up gun paranoia, she may have never bought the gun in the first place.

[Sheldon Cooper]

10. Yes!

Thank you! These horrible instruments of death are fucking LEGAL.

[RKP5637]

14. I think you hit the nail on the head ... "And if the goddamn fucking fear-mongering terrorist group

the NRA didn't keep ignoramuses in a permanent state of whipped-up gun paranoia, she may have never bought the gun in the first place." There is a constant state of paranoia over guns in this country, and it is whipped up IMO by groups like the NRA.

[Ruby the Liberal]

68. +1

[Marrah_G]

3. Assault weapons also include hands guns

[Codeine]

5. What handguns are "assault weapons"? nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

12. Any one that assaults or harms a person

I k n e w this was fucking coming.

[Marrah_G]

13. Here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Read through the whole thing. It has to do with the weapon and combinations of accessories and capacities of magazines.

My state still has the ban in effect. When I took a gun safety course last year they spent a good deal of time going over what was and was not allowed.

I should ass that even though I took the course, I don't own a gun and have never fired a gun. Someone who's home I spend a great deal of time in was getting his license and we all decided to take the course together for safety.

[bluestate10]

49. I would call any handgun that firs more than 6 rounds before re-load an assault weapon.

An "assault" weapon, by definition, is a weapon that provides an overwhelming advantage to the person holding the gun. A handgun that can spray 7-30+ bullets in a matter of seconds is a fucking assault weapon.

[Marrah_G]

69. The fed limit was 10

It's still ten here in mass and I think NY and NJ

[bluestate10]

102. It should be lowered to six, except for police owned and controlled handguns.

If I had any aim at all, I could kill 10 people with a ten round gun, with out even stopping to think or re-load.

[Azathoth]

59. Ok, so you're proposing banning all handguns? n/t

[Marrah_G]

84. It's specific handguns and combinations of accessories and magazines

But yes, I would support banning all handguns except for certain occupations. I think realistically that won't happen anytime soon, but tightening laws and regulations on them might just be possible in light of all the recent mass shootings.

I also support getting rid of gun shows and the loopholes they use.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

109. I'd be fine with banning all handguns, yes

You didn't ask me; I'm answering anyway.

[scheming daemons]

4. "The guns were purchased legally"

If we had most of Europe's gun laws... hell, if we had Canada's.... this guns would NOT have been purchased legally.

That's the point.


A single-action hunting rifle should be the *ONLY* weapon that private citizens can buy... and they should have to complete an extensive gun-safety course and pass an extensive psychiatric evaluation before being able to purchase.

And... and crime committed with that weapon should result in the GUN OWNER facing jail time, even if they weren't the perpetrator... because they failed to secure their weapon from someone else having access.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. UK gun laws:

Bolt action and lever action rifles are legal with a firearms certificate. Semiautomatics are not legal in any calibre except .22 rimfire. To obtain a firearms certificate you have to show a genuine use for a gun (not just "I need it for self-defence!&quot ; this can include membership in a shooting club, game shooting or deer stalking. You undergo a criminal background check from the police, who will visit your home to ensure that you have a locked gun cabinet meeting a specified standard and separate secure storage for the firearm and any ammunition.

[Ruby the Liberal]

72. How incredibly sane of the Brits.

[Azathoth]

18. So no weapons for self-defense at all? Just deer hunting? n/t

[oldbanjo]

78. It's not legal to defend yourself in the UK......

With a stick, a frying pan or with nothing you will go to jail.

[oneshooter]

45. "A single-action hunting rifle "????

[DainBramaged]

6. Until the 80's NO ONE needed anything more than a shotgun or .38 handgun

NO ONE I KNEW (50's-80's) INCLUDING THE POLICE OFFICES IN MY FAMILY HAD ANYTHING BUT A SNUB-Nosed .38 and a pump shotgun for home defense.



The GUN LOBBY convinced all of YOU that YOU needed MORE firepower.


Don't tell us ANYTHING. Don't ASK us anything, don't PLAY fucking head games with us.


YOU lose.

[Azathoth]

29. Sorry, I didn't realize no one owned a 9mm handgun before the 80's n/t

[DainBramaged]

36. You obviously didn't grow up before then.

If you think M1911 9mm were prevalent, you're wrong.

[TPaine7]

39. It seems that M1911 45s were around though nt

[NickB79]

41. 1911-style handguns have been prevalent for decades

Most police forces started to switch from revolvers to semi-autos in the 1970's, due to the fact that most guns they were encountering on the streets were also semi-auto handguns.

[DainBramaged]

53. Since 1911, of course they were.

I GREW UP surrounded by guns, and spent a good deal of time shooting PAL ranges until my teen age years. NO ONE carried 9MM handguns or even owned them when I was a kid. You can claim they were as prevalent as weeds, but having grown up with guns, you won't convince me.

The gun lobby poisons many minds

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. My sister in law was a cop in LA

She was issued a 9mm out of the academy in 1984.

[DainBramaged]

70. 1984

Not 1954, 1964, 1974




1984


That was my point.



I hope she is well (and retired).

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Retired

And I told you why cops did not use them earlier.

That said people did have semi autos well before that.

And the 45 is not slow...it has a ell of a knock out power.

What you saw is the end of mental programs. But we have had guns before.

Where I will agree is the prevalence f them, is the highest in American history.

[DainBramaged]

77. I think you're a post behind me......

NYC/NJ in the 50's and 60's when I was growing up didn't have the gun violence LA had. When I graduated high school in '69, I walked away from the gun world.


Forever.

[NickB79]

111. The Browning Hi-Power has been common for decades

And widely used by police, military and civilians around the world for over 50 years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Hi-Power

The Browning Hi-Power is a single-action, 9 mm semi-automatic handgun. It is based on a design by American firearms inventor John Browning, and completed by Dieudonné Saive at Fabrique Nationale (FN) of Herstal, Belgium. Browning died in 1926, several years before the design was finalized. The Hi-Power is one of the most widely used military pistols of all time,[3] having been used by the armed forces of over 50 countries.[1]

The Hi-Power name alluded to the 13-round magazine capacity; almost twice that of contemporary designs such as the Luger or Mauser 1910. The pistol is often referred to as an HP (for "Hi-Power" or "High-Power&quot [4] or as a GP (for the French term, "Grande Puissance&quot . The term P-35 is also used, based on the introduction of the pistol in 1935. It is most often called the "Hi-Power", even in Belgium. It is also known as the BAP (Browning Automatic Pistol), particularly in Irish service.

YOU may not have seen any, but that means very little.

[letemrot]

42. You're right..

It was the .45 which is a great deal more powerful.

[DainBramaged]

54. Some 45's brought home from the wars yes.

No one liked to fire them, loud and slow. Until I left home after high school, .38's were the gun of choice. I stopped bothering with all guns after that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. That be a .45

And they were around, not just the military, that was the side arm, but with civilians.

Hell, they were used in robberies a well...

The reason cops had .38 was internal police regulations. They reached for the 9mm due to things like the East LA gang wars. The police had to catch up to the bad guys, some of whom were using MAC-10

A little knowledge helps.

[DainBramaged]

73. OK, I made note of the .45's previously

and since I lived IN NJ ALL OF MY LIFE I'm speaking from my experience.


I stand by what I've written. The 80's were the decade of gun proliferation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. That explains some of it.

Camden in particular was hit hard by it.

Like south east la.

[DainBramaged]

81. My aunt (Mother's sister) lived in Camden until she died in the late 70's

I disagree, but what's my opinion worth, I ilve here.......

[oldbanjo]

83. 1935 Browning Highpower 9mm

[DainBramaged]

91. And?

[Azathoth]

115. I never claimed 9mm handguns were prevalent back then

But they did exist, and more in line with the point I was making, plenty of other handguns, including semi-autos like the .45 1911 (the first handgun I ever shot, incidentally), certainly were prevalent.

[RKP5637]

8. We were just discussing the same here at home, how would anything have prevented this short of 7x24

hr. surveillance of everyone. Gun laws can prevent a lot of stuff, but something like this IMO would be very difficult to have stopped. Maybe when the full story comes out we'll see areas wherein something might have stopped it ... maybe.
As Charles Manson once said, something like, your culture is creating monsters, and I'm (Charles Manson) one of them.

[bettyellen]

28. if there was tighter enforcement and gun owners held responsible if others get access to their guns

maybe these dumbshits who leave their guns around accessable to children and family members would think twice.
Not because they are concerned about their family or neighbors safety- it's obvious they are not... but because they would be afraid of penalties to themselves. There should be very harsh penalties for those who are reckless with their weapons. They endanger all of us.

[RKP5637]

37. That, is an EXCELLENT idea!!!

[TPaine7]

43. Exactly. Same with straw purchases. If you are a channel and you didn't take due

precautions (spelled out in law) you're responsible.

[bluestate10]

60. Owners controlling access to guns is important, after background checks and registration.

You hit the nail on the head. Once legal owners are controlling their guns, police need to clamp down on anyone that they find with a gun and no documentation on that gun.

[bettyellen]

89. that too. I think there shld be legal penalties and huge fines for those irresponsible

and I don't give a fuck if it comes out of the estate of the deceased, because that's what it takes to make people realize there will be a penalty, then that's what it takes. Their negligence is fatal.

[bluestate10]

103. I don't disagree. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Technology my friend

Believe it or not smart guns are becoming a reality. One thing I would love to see, some gun nuts will oppose it, is for every gun to become "smart." You take my gun, well unless there is serendipity from hell and our genetics are that close, enjoy the useless hammer.

In this case I think technology will help with this.

Hubby and I were talking about it. That is one way to deal with it. I will add, will reduce childhood accidents to almost none.

By the way the technology is being tested already.

[RKP5637]

87. Interesting!!! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Here, some good reading

http://sciencenetlinks.com/science-news/science-updates/smart-gun/

It might accelerate, the research that is. We are pretty early in it.

[RKP5637]

101. Thanks, as always!!!

[RKP5637]

114. I just read it, extremely interesting and this or something similar is the way to

go IMO. I do wonder about the back market. I recall well, for example, the Saturday night specials in DC when I lived there years ago. I wonder if a black market will spring up to counter efforts like this. That aside, this is certainly a good step!!!

[banned from Kos]

9. Also, how is that ban on cocaine working out? Cocaine is rare to non-existent, right?

selling a pound will get you 20 years!

[RetroLounge]

21. Cocaine has never killed 20 kids in a school all at once

But you knew that.



RL

[banned from Kos]

26. You missed the point. You can't ban something people will do anything to get.

Even risking a 20 year prison sentence.

There are 40 million people in this country who would die defending their guns.

And guns are pervasive - like cocaine.

Piss your time away. There will never be a gun ban in this country.

[RetroLounge]

32. "There are 40 million people in this country who would die defending their guns."

Lets hope they start dying soon.

RL

[RetroLounge]

113. Grow the fuck up. No one wants to take your guns away.

That's a right-wing teabagger distraction.

Your sad little john wayne fantasies are a fucking joke.

_!_

RL

[bettyellen]

33. Anyone who would die "defending their weapons" likely deserves to.

Do you actually think that kind of crazy talk helps your cause?

[banned from Kos]

46. YOU go take their guns away then. I live in Georgia.

Guns are more popular than Jeebus is here.

[bettyellen]

85. HA. No thanks.

[NoMoreWarNow]

50. guns aren't the same as a highly addictive drug like cocaine and so the analogy is dumb

But I agree there is never going to be a gun ban in the US

[banned from Kos]

61. You've never been around a gun nut who owns 10-20 guns.

remember ONE is enough to protect you.

they are fucking nuts about guns!

[NoMoreWarNow]

112. I suppose that's true

don't know if the addiction rate is the same, but I could see it being addictive.

[Comatose Sphagetti]

11. What regulation? This regulation...

Single shot weapons only, no magazines. You load it one at a time. You still have the right to bear arms but you're limited on ammo capacity.

Due to fear of sentiments like mine becoming law, firearms dealers are going to make a fortune tomorrow.

[Le Taz Hot]

24. Seven.

Buh bye.

[Azathoth]

57. Uh, eleven

We're talking primes here, right?

[Taverner]

27. A Complete Ban on Unnecessary Weapons

Grab the guns, dammit.

[Azathoth]

58. Sounds good. What is "unnecessary" and who determines that? n/t

[Turn CO Blue]

30. I'd like to see limits on ammunition

all ammunition purchases tracked
No ammunition purchases over the internet or at gun "shows
renewable gun licenses (each year at an exorbitant fee)
limits on the number of firearms per household
limits on the type of firearms (no multiple round guns or assault weapons)
no powered scopes allowed
no kevlar or flak jackets allowed
combination gun locks mandatory

and this is just for starters off the top of my head, etc. etc.

[justiceischeap]

40. Wasn't some company working on ammunition

that had tracking numbers on it? The ammunition would be assigned to who purchased it and then you could trace the ammo to owner.

Anyway, I agree limits on ammo is a good start. I think background checks are a good solution. I think if you have someone who is mentally ill living in your home, you don't get a weapon, period.

Another issue that no one seems to be bringing up in this thread is mental health care. We need to make that a priority in this country again.

[DrewFlorida]

35. Pretending there is no solution, is not a solution! you have a God damn nerve using the standard BS.

Your logic says, the solution is not obvious therefore there is no solution.
Your logic is flawed and lazy.
Your logic says, my right to have any type of gun I want when ever I want, is more important than 26 people's right to the pursuit of happiness and life itself.

[Azathoth]

38. I didn't say there was no solution

I asked the people demanding immediate action and accusing everyone else of being complicit in murder to explain exactly what action should be taken.

[mokawanis]

48. Answer your own question

What action(s) should be taken to decrease the chances of a repeat of what happened today?

[Azathoth]

52. I don't know. I'm not a professor quizzing students.

But the burden isn't on me to come up with something because I'm not the one demanding immediate action without having any idea exactly what action should be taken.

[bettyellen]

107. the requested action is complete repudiation of the NRA and embracing rational regulation of guns

but you already knew that if you read the OP.

[Azathoth]

117. Hence my original question, exactly what "rational regulation" would have prevented this? n/t

[bettyellen]

118. do you not red anything here or are you just having fun with this?

[Azathoth]

119. I've read through the entire thread

And throughout, I've seen only two actual proposals that address my question:

(1) Ban all handguns and pretty much anything else that fires bullets.
(2) Prosecute the owners of guns which are taken/stolen and used in shootings.

The first is, well, unconsitutional, and I frankly doubt the second would have prevented what happened today.

Incidently, the post I was responding to -- and which you then jumped in on -- did not propose anything. It simply attacked me for daring to ask the question.

[bluestate10]

67. The OP didn't claim there is no solution.

Some posters have given responsible replies. Policy like background checks for ALL gun purchases and registration of guns, and most important, making gun owners responsible for controlling their guns will go a long way toward preventing gun violence, and wouldn't restrict one single constitutional right.

[randome]

47. It doesn't matter if greater gun control would prevent incidents like this.

It would make them less frequent. No law is perfect.

[TheDebbieDee]

63. So there were no laws broken til that guy started shooting people!

That doesn't mean that the rest of America should just do NOTHING.

And WE SHOULD exploit this incident to further any anti-gun legislation.

[bluestate10]

82. You just touched on the problem, and it is people with your viewpoint.

You seem to care only that legislation be "anti-gun". Statements like that are going to cause gun owners to go nuts and cause nothing to happen. Instead of "anti-gun" legislation, we should focus on sensible gun legislation. Our focus should be on national background check standards for ALL gun purchased. In addition to background checks, we should have a national registration system so that a gun that is purchased in Florida can be traced if it is found in California. And, we should have a national standard that hold gun owners responsible for controlling access to their guns. No responsible gun owner wants a situation where their guns are not under their control.

[TheDebbieDee]

104. I got news for you - many gun owners are already nuts! Everytime there's a shooting,

crap-weasels go out and buy even more guns because they think Obama's coming to take their precious guns away. Well now, hopefully he will come to take their guns away.

I'm NOT the problem - it's your fellow gun nuts that want to defend the indefensible that is the problem.

A greta idea though is to tax the hell out of ammo or outright BAN the sale of ammo. Then the gun nuts could keep their widdle guns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Two points

Won't be immediate, it will come...and it will take years to bear fruit.

We might have finally hit tipping point.

[Azathoth]

105. It would be ironic if the fruit did nothing to address the precipitating event n/t

[marlakay]

76. How about lesgislation about all guns being locked up at all times

unless using them and if someone commits a crime using your gun that wasn't locked up you get in trouble also, maybe not as much but enough for people to lock them all up!

[bluestate10]

95. Making owners responsible for their guns is a cornerstone to good gun laws.

Control of the guns should be placed squarely on the shoulder of the owners.

[Azathoth]

99. I suspect this is the direction that future regulation will take

Unfortunately, I don't think it would have done much good in this case.

[rhett o rick]

90. "You're just exploiting it to further a pre-existing agenda." Are you serious?

My "pre-existing agenda" is to have our schools safe from gun crazies. What's your "pre-existing agenda"?

[Blanks]

110. A 'well regulated militia'...

Thats why 'the people' have the 'right' to keep and bear arms.

In this day and age; the police can be notified by an ankle bracelet if it is where it shouldn't be. Surely we could attach a tracking device to all 'arms' that notify law enforcement when a weapon is somewhere it isn't supposed to be.

Attaching a tracking device to 'arms' seems 'well regulated' to me.

[Flagrante]

120. It's not about regulating guns, it's about educating the youth and caring for the mentally ill -

- instead of spending our precious tax dollars lining the pockets of the chiefs of the military industrial complex. Good educations and a caring place for the mentally ill would put an end to 90% of all this senseless gun violence.

[Azathoth]

121. I agree n/t