Its sad. These lines of logic are terribly faulty. Once again semi-automatic is said to equal assault. Once again the gun plays a role in the responsibility - a major part. These atrocities are committed by people, not guns. Society is broke. Address the violent video games and movies, the removal of consequences for bad behavior and the lack of acknowledging responsibility. These things seem so obvious. It makes one ask, what is the true agenda here? And, using these tragedies to further whatever that agenda is pays no homage to those lost.

Calling gun regulation an "agenda" disrespects all of the innocent people murdered, it's not an agenda and its not political, it's just common sense. On the same day as the shooting in CT a man in China stabbed 22 school children with a knife, they all lived. All of them. Sure there are other factors to address, like why our culture is so violent, why is is our mental health system so inadequate, why is the one common link that all these killers were male...but to deny the link to assault rifles is just denying the facts. We have 88 guns per 100 citizens. No other countries come close. We have the highest gun homicide rate of all industrialized countries, the non industrialized countries with higher rates of gun homicide rates are ones we do not want to be grouped with. We need limits on guns. If we limited clips to 10 rounds that would save lives, that's how Gabbi Giffords assailant was taken down, when he went to change clips. Thank you Joe for the editorial.

And how many of these senseless tragedies might not have occurred if we didn't have "Gun Free Zones", where someone intent on doing mass murder knows they won't face a gun, until it's too late. It's said, that in the majority of cases, these mass murderers plan their attack. So doesn't it make sense that if they are "planning", they would plan to do it in a place where they can inflict the most damage. Yea, "Gun Free Zones".

I say ban "Gun Free Zones" instead. Seems to me that these incidents have increased, not because of weapons, but because of the opportunity to walk onto a campus or into a mall knowing they'll be able to kill many people without facing formidable oppostion.

In the last 2 years more people have been killed in auto accidents than all of these "assault weapon" attacks in the last 10 years ,shall we then in this same spirit of moral indignation demand the immediate suspension of all private ownership of automobiles in favor of mass transit ? This would be as idiotic a proposal as what is currently being proposed on 'assault weapons'.These guns fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled and then automatically load another round into the firing chamber this is what makes them automatics .Using the same stupid logic shall we then require all cars to be manual shift again.Wake up people a"gun free zone "is a target of mass opportunity for any one hell bent on killing as many defenceless people in one spot as quickly as possible .If school teachers who have concealed carry permits were allowed to have their firearms with them they would have a chance to stop completely or at least greatly reduce the casualties involved. The heroic teachers who hid their students and then confronted the gunman would have had at least a 50/50 chance of surviving the encounter and ending the carnage instead of being dead.I am not taking anything away from what they tried to do but simply point out their chances of being successful would have been greatly improved had they been allowed to be armed.Let those who want be be armed,teachers have professional development some time could be alloted them at the range .lots cheaper and more cost effective

If the guns had not been accessible to this madman he would've found another way. There's always homemade bombs, molotov cocktails, knives, etc. If someone wants to go on a killing spree bad enough, then they will.
Banning guns will only assure that law abiding citizens don't have them. The criminals will get them from the black market and then what do the rest of us do? We need to make sure we can defend ourselves!

Dr. Boyle,

If there's a tragic accident at an intersection that has no stoplight -- and that intersection has had multiple accidents over the year -- would you call it "an agenda" if someone suggests putting a stoplight there to help prevent future deaths? After all, accidents are caused by people -- bad driving, texting while driving, etc. -- not the lack of stoplights.

I wrote that there is obviously more than assault weapons at play here. I never said "semiautomatic equals assault," as you stated I did. But facts are facts. And the fact is that the majority of recent mass shootings were done with legally purchased semiautomatic weapons. And when such weapons were banned, there were less mass shootings, and significantly less death of innocent life as a result.

Would banning semiautomatic weapons end mass shootings? Definitely not. Just as a stoplight at the hypothetical intersection would not end all accidents at that intersection, but it likely would reduce the number of accidents.

To say we should not consider a policy that would reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings is the true "faulty logic." And making that claim to protect your right to carry a military weapon of which the main purpose is to kill multiple people in a short amount of time is your agenda, as well as the NRA. And it's a very sad agenda.

Thank you, Joe.

Conrad, "These atrocities are committed by people" . . . with guns. We shouldn't make it easier for the deranged, the rage-driven monsters to take the lives of so many so quickly. There are many causes and many solutions. Start with the security in schools and public places, renew the assault weapons ban - those things can be done quicker. Focus on mental health, cultural and values issues - in that order or simultaneously. Those solutions will take longer but we have to begin.

I would argue the the government needs to stop preventing otherwise capable people from accessing the tools to protect themselves or others. In most of the cases you cite, the shooter took his own life upon facing armed resistance, or the armed resistance ended the shooting spree. The sooner that we are able to confront these criminals during a shooting, the sooner we can end it. Confrontation can only happen if an armed adult is on scene and ready to intervene. Sadly, our laws continue to prohibit this, and leave these victims defenseless.

RR: I previously made the point that the same day in China a man stabbed 22 school children, they ALL lived. Assault weapons allowed 26 (plus?) people to be murdered in a matter of minutes. Yes, crime and murder will occur, let's not put military style weapons in the hands of everyday people. Less will be killed.

Thank you Dr Boyle. You are so right on the mark. Whether that weapon was single action or semi-automatic is such poor logic. They are both deadly weapons. And in the wrong hands will wreak havoc, as so duly noted. BUT, the truth of the matter is, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. I'll put this out there, I am a licensed & trained gun owner. I carry a gun. It's a semi automatic. The advantages are for MY safety. I promise I posess no mental disorder (friends would jokingly argue) and don't really see where your point is valid.

I agree with you Conrad....wow, I guess we should ban cars and trucks because they cause fatal accidents and DUI's. guess we oughta ban commercial and private airplanes because they cause accidents resulting in the deaths of hundreds of innocent adults and children, guess we oughta ban trains since they cause accidents that results in the multiple losses of life......I'm 51 years old and have handled guns since I was 7. Never once did I ever consider killing another human or mass murder. I am a gun enthusiast and understand that it is NOT the weapon that is at fault. Tim McVeigh did not use a gun.....he killed 168 innocent people, killed 19 children under age 6, injured over 680 people, you can still buy fertilizer, you can still buy racing fuel, you can still rent box trucks, Murderers will Murder, with or without a gun, they just find another way. I am a Life time NRA member, gunsmith, shooter, concealed carry license holder and I carry my weapon nearly everwhere I go. Not to assault someone but to PROTECT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY. What would you do, Joe, if someone kicked in your front door during the night and threatened you or your wife or children, how would you protect yourself, would you be a Warrior or would you be a Victim? I choose to be a Warrior.

Even in a "gun-free" zone such as a school, why is it not possible to have a locked artillery safe where a trained member of the school's administrative staff (principal/counselor/clerk) would have necessary access should a similar threat occur. At least this would provide some form of fighting chance.

Guns are not permitted on planes, but isn't there a firearm lock box in the cockpit should a threat occur. Same theory.

Just because schools/facilities are considered gun-free zones, doesn't mean they must remain defenseless.

Lets not forget, April 19, 1995. Timothy Mcviegh killed 168 this was one year after the so called "assault waepons " ban. All of these where awful incidents, He killed more people with fertilizer and fuel than any Semi Automatic weapon.

The problem with this debate is that semiautomatic weapon proponents refuse to debate this issue with facts. Instead, they use diversion tactics like "should we ban automobiles because they cause accidents?" This country has always taken cautious steps to protect freedoms, but also looks out for the safety of its citizens. So although you are free to own an automobile, you are not free to drive a tank or go-cart on the highway, for your safety and the safety of others. Likewise, you're free to own weapons, but nuclear arms are against the law.

The "everybody should own a gun" and "guns should be allowed everywhere" argument misses the point entirely. I'm talking about semiautomatic weapons -- nowhere did I say people should or should not be allowed to possess firearms.

And the arguments that if a madmen wants to kill he'll find a way to kill anywayy miss the point as well. If Adam Lanza marched into that school armed only with revolvers, it's highly likely that more children would be alive.

You better believe it

There are over 300,000,000 guns in this country. If our already over intrusive government banned the manufacturing of every gun and ammo going forth, it wouldn't change statistics one bit. The only way to change statistics would be to search every home and seize every gun in America.

Then you would see more people die at the point of a gun than you ever have or ever will with our present rights to own and carry.

This shooter was trained by his mother through trips to the shooting range. She also left her weapons unlocked and either loaded or in close proximity to ammunition. She knew this person had mental issues and made the decision to allow him access to weapons. In my mind, she is just as guilty in these murders as her son. It is lucky for us that they are both dead, as the legal system would probably give them life in prison, costing taxpayers millions.
If someone at this 'Gun Free Zone' had been stationed there, armed and trained, to protect and defend the right to exist, there would have been far fewer killings.

Mr. B: Sorry to say, you are only partially right about the weapons used in the Virginia Tech massacre. Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun. So, he, like others, relied on automatic weapons to create carnage.

I made this comment on another blog post and it went unaddressed.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. It is unfair to put limits on the proliferation of guns since the people are to blame.

Similarly, nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. It is unfair to put limits on the proliferation of nuclear weapons since people are to blame. There's no reason why Iran or Syria should be denied nuclear technology. Its not the fault of the nukes.

This is very interesting.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-27/opinions/35486709_1_gun-violence-traffic-fatalities-firearm-deaths

One could wonder about bias, but safer operations of guns like all products could be an admirable goal. One would most likely agree that some safety improvements have been deployed.

But one would also be safe to dispute the findings showing that owners found no success in defensive use. Simply because the medical records DON'T exist for those occasions, therefore the data is essentially skewed in a MAJOR way...

Joe Dennis, thank you for opening the debate on the Lilburn-Mountain Park Patch. The day long debate on the Loganville-Grayson Patch yesterday gave me nightmares last night!

I didn't grow up in a home with guns, but I don't object to other people owning legal guns after a proper background check. All of us can agree that guns should be used and stored responsibly. The loopholes in purchases at guns shows should be closed. I can't imagine why any private citizen would have a semi-automatic weapon if he/she does not intend to use it against other human beings. Bomb making is illegal, because of the potential damage that one bomb can cause. Assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns should be illegal for exactly the same reason.

I know that guns don't kill people, and blah, blah, blah, but the safety of the majority should be paramount. The law prohibits driving under the influence. The law requires seat belts and child safety seats. The law prohibits cooking meth in your kitchen. The law prohibits child molestation and rape.

Our founding fathers believed in the right to defend one's family and property, but I think they would be baffled that these semi-automatic weapons would be defended as necessary for private citizens to own with the intent to use.

Perhaps the most idiotic statement ever made: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." You can make the same statement about shrapnel bombs, nuclear weapons, and bazookas, so you are fine with anyone having access to those - next door to you - or in your kids' classroom, right? - or are you a hypocrite?

Want to know what really happened in Australia?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html

@Joe Dennis: "The "everybody should own a gun" and "guns should be allowed everywhere" argument misses the point entirely." Could you please provide a reference for your quote. I've never seen this statement anywhere. Perhaps I missed it, but it would be a foolish statement.
"In 1994, with overwhelming bipartisan support, the federal government passed an assault weapons ban. The ban expired in 2004. During the 10 years the law was in place, there were eight mass shootings resulting in 51 deaths." There has never been an assault weapons ban in this country. The "manufacture" of NEW assault weapons was banned for 10 years, however the hundreds of thousands of assault weapons already in this country were freely bought and sold, although at a much higher price.
We have gun free zones at government offices and airports with metal detectors and armed security. Why do we not provide that same protection for our children in their schools? Do we care any less for them? I haven't observed many of these "crazies" attacking airports or government buildings. They may be crazy, but they're not stupid.
Would your proposed ban on semi-automatic weapons be as successful as, say the ban on handguns in Chicago or New York? Gun crime is rampant in both cities. For "facts" on the history of school killings http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/15/against-monsters/
Any government or business that mandates a gun free zone should be required to provide armed security.

RE: Want to know what really happened in Australia? Snopes and Slate apparently have different views:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.” ― George Washington

"they all used legally purchased semiautomatic weapons to conduct their killing sprees. In nine of the 10 cases, the semiautomatic guns were purchased by the perpetrator himself (the Westroads Mall shooter stole the gun from his stepfather)."

According to other news sources, Lanza's mother purchased the guns he used.

During a zombie apocalypse you are going to want those semiautomatic weapons.

Good column Joe, I couldn't agree more. New York City has some of the nation's toughest gun laws and lowest urban crime. I think it's time we followed Mayor Bloomberg's lead.

The following is the most sensible article I've read so far: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html

And when there is a major economic or natural disaster and the Gwinnett PD cannot respond what do I do to defend my family? Pow (wait Mr Bad Guy for me to reload my single shot musket).

A lot of misinformation and confusion in here about semi-automatic means. That's becoming the new boogyman term after assault rifle. A semi-automatic gun is one that each time you pull the trigger, one round is fired. Automatic is when you hold down the trigger and if keeps firing (think Rambo). Automatic weapons are HIGHLY regulated by the ATF (as they should be). That is not what this guy used. If you want to ban all semi-automatic guns, you are talking about the majority of guns in existence. Even grandpa's .38 special he kept in the sock drawer is semi-automatic.

Here's a great analogy (a story from one of the commenters to the article I'm going to cite): "Our house burned down years ago and after that I took a class on how to use a fire extinguisher (better late than never, right?) The fireman built a fire, gave me the extinguisher and told me to put it out. Well, naturally, I aimed at the flame. He stopped me and said, "Everyone does this. They aim at what they perceive as the problem." Then he had me aim at the wood. "To put out a fire you must go to the source...Banning guns aims at the flame. The source will still be fed violence through our media. And that unstable brain will find other ways to kill. Homemade bombs? Chemicals? Serial killers?
Let's find a way to take care of the source. The money the gov. uses to try and ban guns would do much better to build institutions that will help these people who, through no fault of their own, have mental issues."
Here's a great article by Megan McCardal (writes for a liberal magazine): http://www.caintv.com/megan-mcardle-ends-the-discuss

...an excerpt out of her article: "It would certainly be more comfortable for me to endorse doing something symbolic--bring back the "assault weapons ban"--in order to signal that I care. But I would rather do nothing than do something stupid because it makes us feel better. We shouldn't have laws on the books unless we think there's a good chance they'll work: they add regulatory complexity and sap law-enforcement resources from more needed tasks. This is not because I don't care about dead children; my heart, like yours, broke about a thousand times this weekend. But they will not breathe again because we pass a law. A law would make us feel better, because it would make us feel as if we'd "done something", as if we'd made it less likely that more children would die. But I think that would be false security. And false security is more dangerous than none."

OOps! here's that actual article in its entirety. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html

"You may not like guns and choose not to own one. That is your right. You may not believe in God. That is your choice. However, if someone breaks into your home, the first two things you're going to do are 1) Call someone with a gun and 2) Pray to God that they get there in time....."

Much to our discredit as a society we have allowed ourselves to be sold the idea that tools of death and mass destruction are status symbols and fashion accessories, and even worse, a measure of our patriotism. We have become the easy prey of slick marketers and hucksters. Killing it turns out is very good for the bottom line. Walmart. Save money. Live better. Die sooner. http://www.thenation.com/article/171808/how-walmart-helped-make-newtown-shooters-ar-15-most-popular-assault-weapon-america#

chicago is a good example of gun banning

I read up on the NY crime rate. R is correct. They added a zillion Police (with guns on their sides) as just one of many things (police with weapons present everywhere you look is a great deterrent). Changing the way they prosecute a criminal is another one. That is certainly the mayors doing. He's prioritizing the way they all should. And thanks, R, always glad to be of service. I'm trying to be nice hoping to drive the meanies away. lol

But seriously, the problem is not gun ownership, it's our society not dealing properly with the crazies that get a hold of them. Change that, and we might see way less of these types of tragic incidents. The laws make it almost impossible to involuntarily commit someone (thanks aclu). That woman had been trying to do that apparently for quite a while now. She was very afraid of him and had confided in her friends that she could not control him. She had been looking into it when all this happened.

I believe it was a mayor with an R beside his name, R. Thanks for the clarification! :)

banning guns is not the answer .that mother knew her son was crazy and yet left unsecured guns in there house her own stupidity caused all this ,those guns shoulda had gun locks in tha triggers . the schools is where oddatity and behavior problems are noticed a nation wide alert system need to be put in place following all these kids ,cuttin on themselves and wearing black /goth look ,anyone that buys a gun should be givin a full physcological exam . a sensible approach to slowing down the gun buying process needs to be looked at ,and anyone leaving guns around or having guns in a house with kids in there care that are ,crazy need to be held to higher standards

Joe: Don't give up the fight. You are right and the gun proponents are 'dead' wrong. I blog about this in the fall and got almost as many stupid comments as yourself. Rebecca is right, we are not going to change minds, but blogging about this allows the sane to see how crazy the other side really is. Stay strong.

@Karsten Torch
Because we don't have national uniform strong gun regulations, guns flow from places like to Georgia to New York and Chicago, thereby undermining their attempt to enforce their gun regulations that are much stronger than states like Georgia. That is why Mayor Bloomberg has complained about this. Also while we had a law, it also was full of loop holes like the ability to buy weapons without any checks at gun shows.

Lets play follow the money and responsibility for the massacre at Sandy Hook.
The military-style semi automatic assault weapon used to kill most of the victims in last week's Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in Connecticut was a Bushmaster XM-15 .223 caliber rifle, manufactured by Bushmaster Firearms International LLC, which is owned by the Freedom Group of Madison, N.C. Cerberus Capital Management is a the private equity firm that owns the Freedom Group -based in New York City, Cerberus is owned by billionaire financier Stephen A. Feinberg. Freedom Group is the world's largest manufacturer of commercial firearms, ammunition and accessories, owning brands that in addition to Bushmaster include Remington, DPMS/Panther Arms, Marlin, H&R, The Parker Gun, Advanced Armament Corp., Dakota Arms, Para USA, Barnes Bullets and TAPCO.
Despite the sluggish economy, the Freedom Group has been doing well, with sales up 20 percent in the third quarter of this year compared to the same period last year, according to its third-quarter financial report. Sales made to Arkansas-based Wal-Mart accounts for a substantial portion of the company's total sales at about 13 percent.
George Kollitides, the chair and interim CEO of the Freedom Group, is a major Republican donor. A former managing director for Cerberus, he contributed $10,000 to the Republican National Committee in October and $2,500 to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in May .

And you guys can call us crazy all you want. Doesn't change the facts that banning guns has never had the desired effect. Crime goes up, murders stay the same. Only difference is that now the victims are unable to defend themselves.

Show me I'm wrong. But until you show me otherwise, all you're doing is basing legislation on "feel good" ideas that aren't helping anybody.

Michelle, you have a great suggestion. As far as an agenda, yes, it is. How can I tell?...because they won't compromise nor have conversation- just wash, rinse, repeat, wash, rinse, repeat (george has posted the same paragraphs on several different blogs). A conversation or something that looks for real answers- not spout talking points of data that has been tried, and proven wrong. If someone really wants to find answers, they'll enter into a respectful conversation. I've seen a few on here willing to do that. I'd like to hear the talking point folks actually acknowlege that someone else may have a valid point. @ Count Raoul- amen- lot's of agreement with you. Keep it up. Some of us are reading your blogs but find it hard to join in before they get highjacked - lol.

GGY- interesting that you talked about it being young, while males. They always seem to fit the profile-as do serial killers. But now politicians are trying to keep our law enforcement from profiling. Political correctness at its finest.
I will find an article by Thomas Sowell for you that I read a long time ago about (true) discrimination. It's really good. I love his perspective. Have you ever read anything by him? He's a common sense economist that is highly intelligent. His writing "un-complicates" things. He makes difficult subjects easy to understand. A true gift for writing. He gets called uncle tom a lot which is too bad, because so many could learn from him. I'll find it and post it for you. I think you'd like it.

I read the Australian article. I like it, but had one thought. We have to factor in the fact that Austrailia doesn't have cities like Detroit and Chicago, or ris iddled with gangs like California. Culture does make a difference. How do they secure their borders? So many questions.

"with just one exception, every public shooting since 1950 in the US in which more than 3 people have been killed has taken place where citizens are NOT allowed to carry guns"

"Oh, and several different LE agencies are stating in the news that the AR-15 remained in the car. There were 4 pistols found in the school....."

"..how's all those gun control laws workin' for ya?......NOT!"

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/26/1-dead-13-wounded-in-christmas-eve-christmas-shootings/

@Tim,

gun control laws workin' better in:

 Armenia
 Turkey
 Denmark
 Italy
 Malta
 Pakistan
 Jordan
 Chile
 Venezuela
 Spain
 Argentina
 Belize
 Costa Rica
 Estonia
 Somalia
 Transnistria
 Russia
 Zambia
 Albania
 Ireland
 Portugal
 Slovakia
 Jamaica
 Brazil
 Barbados
 Nicaragua
 Algeria
 Belarus
 Georgia
 Iran
 Israel
 Moldova
 Ukraine
 Maldives
 Kenya
 Swaziland
 Bulgaria
 England and Wales
 Honduras
 Colombia
 El Salvador
 Hungary
 Scotland
 Sudan
 Cape Verde
 Seychelles
 Bahamas
 Dominican Republic
 Mozambique
 Morocco
 Botswana
 China
 Cuba
 Philippines
 Afghanistan
 Taiwan
 Zimbabwe
 Cambodia
 India
 Burma
 Netherlands
 Syria
 Turkmenistan
 Azerbaijan
 Egypt
 Bhutan
 Palestine
 Bolivia
 Cameroon
 Djibouti
 Congo
 Lesotho
 Ivory Coast
 Senegal
 Mongolia
 Comoros
 Vietnam
 Guinea-Bissau
 Liberia
 Mauritania
 Trinidad and Tobago
 Malaysia
 Nigeria
 Sri Lanka
 Uzbekistan
 Benin
 Brunei
 Democratic Republic of the Congo
 Tanzania
 Uganda
 Ecuador
 Kazakhstan
 Poland
 Burundi
 Laos
 Guinea
 Papua New Guinea
 Burkina Faso
 Chad
 South Korea
 Mali
 Central African Republic
 Tajikistan
 Togo
 Kyrgyzstan
 Gambia
 Madagascar
 Nepal
 Lithuania
 Malawi
 Niger
 Romania
 Haiti
 Japan
 North Korea
 Rwanda
 Sierra Leone
 Bangladesh
 Eritrea
 Fiji
 Indonesia
 Singapore
 Ethiopia
 Ghana
 Solomon Islands
 Timor-Leste
 Tunisia

@Tim also workin' better in:

 Yemen
 Switzerland
 Cyprus
 Saudi Arabia
 Iraq
 Finland
 Uruguay
 Sweden
 Norway
 France
 Canada
 Austria
 Germany
 Iceland
 Oman
 Bahrain
 Kuwait
 Macedonia
 Montenegro
 New Zealand
 Greece
 United Arab Emirates
 Northern Ireland
 Croatia
 Panama
 Lebanon
 Equatorial Guinea
 Qatar
 Latvia
 Peru
 Angola
 Bosnia and Herzegovina
 Belgium
 Paraguay
 Czech Republic
 Thailand
 Libya
 Luxembourg
 Australia
 Mexico
 Mauritius
 Guyana
 Gabon
 Slovenia
 Suriname
 Guatemala
 South Africa
 Namibia

GGY wrote:
There are many causes and many solutions. Start with the security in schools and public places, renew the assault weapons ban - those things can be done quicker. Focus on mental health, cultural and values issues - in that order or simultaneously. Those solutions will take longer but we have to begin.

She is absolutely correct. At least she offers a multitude of solutions. That's my stand as well. For all those that want to cite otgher countries, you will have to agree, we may be one of the most prosperous countires in the world, but also one with a culture completely different than these others. Not only that, our laws, our freedoms, our constitution allows for different things. Funny though, when she or I or any of these other fine people offer a real solution to start a real conversation, it falls on deaf ears and the mantras of countries and numbers start again. Wonder why that is? It doesn't fit into an agenda to keep certain parties in power. It's about power in high places, not care for the actual people being governed. GGY,you can add fixing what drives our governmetn policies to that list too. Until people stand up to status quo and don't fear repercussions, all of our good ideas will stop at the door of a place of power.

http://news.yahoo.com/group-offers-weapons-training-utah-teachers-173649952.html

Ya just gotta love liberals. It's amusing to watch their completely predictable senseless ideas that are only helpful to their pathetic agenda. I'm particularly enjoying the new york paper who published all of those permit holders. If I'm a criminal there guess where I'm NOT going to commit a crime. What's really going to be funny is when a home without a gun is burglarized because it wasn't on that list and paper gets their butts sued off. The paper is actually PROVING the point about guns for protection while trying to make a case against guns. Makes me laugh...hard.

R...good posts on this tread...liked 'em.

I'm a liberal but I don't want to ban guns. I think having SROs in schools is a good idea. I also think there are too many guns in circulation and too many gun deaths.

I agree there is too much violence in games, movies, tv, music but how do you regulate it? Doing so restricts free speech. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done but how?

I also agree that the mental health "industry" is failing but how do you fix it? How do you pay for it? How do you know which people are the ones who will become violent and protect everyone else from them proactively?

I agree with the NRA's premise that the best way to deter a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun. But part of a long term solution is to make it harder for the bad guy to get the gun. And if he has the gun make it harder for him to inflict as much carnage.

If you disagree with putting and enforcing restrictions on acquiring guns but advocate for restrictions on pop culture and the mentally ill, you're useless. And vice versa.

The NRA is useless in this case. So is Michael Moore. I'm glad they aren't our real leaders. I just hope our real leaders are real leaders.

The problems I'm seeing with this thread are there a're those that want to ban assault rifles, even though history shows that hasn't done any good. Our last ban was useless, to the point that crimes with those weapons actually DECLINED after the ban was lifted. But yeah, we should definitely pursue that idea again.

And a comprehensive list of the other countries and stating that the gun laws work better in them than here is an exercise use in futility. But maybe it should be believed just because there's so much there. Or something. You basically have two types of countries on that list. Dictatorships that use the lack of weapons to keep their people under control, or countries where the gun laws actually don't have the desired effect. Like England . Number one in violent crime. US isn't even in the top ten on that list. But you guys keep focusing on the guns, rather than the culture and lack of accountability, and some if us will continue to try to live in the real world.

"A Woman Living With Her Eyes Wide Open.....excellent post Karsten....well done!"

@Karsten

Thanks for furthering the dialog with your thoughtful response.

As we all know the effectiveness problem with weapons regulations are the loopholes. Bans won't work if gun show dealers aren't required to follow the same rules as more responsible vendors. If gun advocates aren't willing to support standards that all commercial sellers must follow then more regulations have no teeth.

And per your critique of the list of countries in which gun regulations are working better than the US, they may allow less freedom overall in some cases but you don't deny there is less gun violence.

And you have no response for those countries that provide comparable overall freedom to the US and still manage to keep gun violence low.

Again, I don't advocate for a gun ban but a real solution where all sides consider the greater good.

It is important to remember that governments have killed more of their own people than all of the non-government criminals combined. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. If that doesn't trouble you, you have way too much faith in government.

I heard something today to the tune of "enforcing" what we already have on the books. I'm all for huge penalties where it isn't enforced. Kind of like convenience stores that sell to minors; they should have huge penalties to the point of being prosecuted. Both are inconsistent across the board.

very true Tammy, well said!

chicago is is a good example of how gun banning works so well ! in the las year alone
512 deaths /murders with mostly semiautomatic weapons.

http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-reaches-500-homicides-fatal-shooting-145951769.html

But...but...but...that can't be the case! Guns are illegal there!

Oh My God!!!! You mean criminals aren't paying attention to the laws? What is this world coming to???????

Laws have never prevented a crime. They only make them punishable after being caught. People commit crimes out of need, greed, and sometimes just plain insanity. The fear of punishment only makes the criminal more cautious about how, where, and to whom they commit their crimes. Diminishing free law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves only makes them easy targets. Magazine capacity ? How many rounds is too much to survive say four or five intruders at night where some missed shots seem likely? I prefer 20 rounders but if someone wanted a hundred round magazine why not? If they are defending their lives and their childrens lives how can you say that's unlawful. This cannot be allowed, If we give an inch I'm afraid they'll take a mile.

"Laws have never prevented a crime." There's no way to prove that.

Do away with all laws and there's no crime.

A man who knows the subject well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/stanley-mcchrystal-gun-control_n_2431063.html