CT school shooting

[TEX_SUP]

In addition, modern gun laws should be open to review as semi-automatic assault weapons have become readily available and are frequently misused. 

This is a very emotional time for everyone, but please check your facts before making claims.

1) semi automatic weapons have been around for over 100 years, they are not a recent invention.

2) "frequently misused" is just you saying that, it means nothing.  Automobiles are more "frequently misused" and cause more fatalities.  Should I take away your car because drunk drivers kill tens of thousands annually?

[skibike]

2) "frequently misused" is just you saying that, it means nothing.  Automobiles are more "frequently misused" and cause more fatalities.  Should I take away your car because drunk drivers kill tens of thousands annually?

Id argue that cars are a necessity to make a living unless youre living in a city with remarkable public transportation. How does not owning a semi-automatic weapon affect your means to a living?

And yes, many times things are removed due to misuse. I remember them removing OTC cold medications for infants for fear of misuse.

Gun violence in this country is outright appaling! Almost 70% of homicides are committed by guns. If 70% of lung cancer patients were smokers, would you say that smoking wasnt a factor?

So if banning these weapons, not guns, saves even 5 deaths per year, I think we owe it to all these people killed senselessly, to at least try better.

[TEX_SUP]

2) "frequently misused" is just you saying that, it means nothing.  Automobiles are more "frequently misused" and cause more fatalities.  Should I take away your car because drunk drivers kill tens of thousands annually?

Id argue that cars are a necessity to make a living unless youre living in a city with remarkable public transportation. How does not owning a semi-automatic weapon affect your means to a living?

And yes, many times things are removed due to misuse. I remember them removing OTC cold medications for infants for fear of misuse.

Gun violence in this country is outright appaling! Almost 70% of homicides are committed by guns. If 70% of lung cancer patients were smokers, would you say that smoking wasnt a factor?

So if banning these weapons, not guns, saves even 5 deaths per year, I think we owe it to all these people killed senselessly, to at least try better.

You shouldn't be so eager to give up your constitutional rights just because some deranged individual violates about 50 laws IN ADDITION to the gun law that stopped him from buying a gun.

Yes we need to try better.  The news articles say everyone knew this guy had mental issues and yet no one did anything. 

By blaming the weapon you are missing the true cause.  Especially since an old school shotgun with buckshot would have killed more people.  You can get distracted by the sexy "assault weapon" thing all you want, banning them won't decrease the killing potential of a mentally unstable individual.

Saying "gun violence" is appalling is silly.  Murder is appalling, rape is appalling, assault is appalling.  If the CRIMINAL uses a knife, a gun, a box cutter, a baseball bat, a homemade truck bomb, his fists, etc does not change the fact that is appalling. 

Focus on the CRIMINAL.  You don't stop bank robbers by outlawing get-a-way cars.

[colas]

FYI, the rest of the world is looking at the US in puzzlement. Especially why there is so much emotional impact of this shooting, which is just above the daily firearm death average of 23 in the US.

If the weapons is not the problem, I guess you will not see any problems if every citizen have the constitutional right to bear arms of their choice, including nuclear bombs. People fanatically trying to literally interpret a phrase written before technical advances seem as criminally insane as the "muslim" terrorists most of them hate.

If guns are not a problem, why banning even nail files in planes? let's everybody be armed to the teeth in airplanes!

[TEX_SUP]

FYI, the rest of the world is looking at the US in puzzlement. Especially why there is so much emotional impact of this shooting, which is just above the daily firearm death average of 23 in the US.

If the weapons is not the problem, I guess you will not see any problems if every citizen have the constitutional right to bear arms of their choice, including nuclear bombs. People fanatically trying to literally interpret a phrase written before technical advances seem as criminally insane as the "muslim" terrorists most of them hate.

If guns are not a problem, why banning even nail files in planes? let's everybody be armed to the teeth in airplanes!

Most of the world would move to the US in a heartbeat.  Freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, low taxes, low corruption, ability to beat the Germans instead of just rolling over, etc.

Some countries have extremely strict gun laws, yet deranged individuals are still able to commit mass murder (Norway 77 killed, 100+ wounded).

Focus on the CRIMINAL not the tool.

Drunk driving kills thousands annually, is alcohol to blame?

[Admin]

You shouldn't be so eager to give up your constitutional rights

Clearly there is a good deal of disagreement over what those rights are and how far they extend.

Your interpretation of our Constitution is getting in the way of our kids' ability to enjoy their unalienable rights from an older Declaration: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

[TN_SUP]

It's not the person, it's the gun, that is the means to an end. Law abiding gun owners have accidents and kill friends or family, while criminals kill intentionally. Both kill innocent people, there is no difference. Every gun owner is a potential murderer, accept it. Even VP Dick Cheney.

[TEX_SUP]

Clearly there is a good deal of disagreement over what those rights are and how far they extend.

Your interpretation of our Constitution is getting in the way of our kids' ability to enjoy their unalienable rights from an older Declaration: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

No, there isn't.  

The constitution was clearly written and has always been interpreted the same way.  In fact in recent years the Supreme Court has struck down state's attempts to restrict firearms.

The only thing that killed those kids was a deranged person who snapped.  Same as the only thing that killed those people in the Federal building in Oklahoma was Timothy McVeigh, not the truck bomb he used.  

[TEX_SUP]

It's not the person, it's the gun, that is the means to an end. Law abiding gun owners have accidents and kill friends or family, while criminals kill intentionally. Both kill innocent people, there is no difference. Every gun owner is a potential murderer, accept it. Even VP Dick Cheney.

Come back when you want to have a serious conversation.

Labeling every gun owner a murderer is stupid, and Dick Cheney is not the Vice President anymore.

[Bean]

You shouldn't be so eager to give up your constitutional rights

Clearly there is a good deal of disagreement over what those rights are and how far they extend.

Your interpretation of our Constitution is getting in the way of our kids' ability to enjoy their unalienable rights from an older Declaration: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Except, it is not "his" interpretation, but rather the latest interpretation of the Supreme Court.

[pdxmike]

It's not the person, it's the gun, that is the means to an end. Law abiding gun owners have accidents and kill friends or family, while criminals kill intentionally. Both kill innocent people, there is no difference. Every gun owner is a potential murderer, accept it. Even VP Dick Cheney.

That's a bit extreme.  By that argument, everyone who owns a match is a potential arsonist.  And the corollary would also be true--since guns are used to save lives, by stopping people from harming others, then every gun owner is also a potential life saver. 

[tulipcity paddle]

If someone drowns, should we ban water?

How bout we ban alcohol?

Cigarettes?

[Dangerous Dan]

I stand with Thomas Jefferson on this one and I send up a prayer for all of the children and families affected.

[pdxmike]

FYI, the rest of the world is looking at the US in puzzlement. Especially why there is so much emotional impact of this shooting, which is just above the daily firearm death average of 23 in the US.

If the weapons is not the problem, I guess you will not see any problems if every citizen have the constitutional right to bear arms of their choice, including nuclear bombs. People fanatically trying to literally interpret a phrase written before technical advances seem as criminally insane as the "muslim" terrorists most of them hate.

If guns are not a problem, why banning even nail files in planes? let's everybody be armed to the teeth in airplanes!

Colas--I hope you don't share the view of "the rest of the world", because the idea that the emotional impact of this wouldn't be great is crazy.  Even leaving guns, children and murder out, any single incident that has as many deaths as the entire national daily average (assuming your 23/day is right) would stand out--obviously.  I hope the huge impact this has had on the U.S. will cause the "rest of the world" to rethink their view of Americans, if that view is as you say.  

And even if it is 23/day, or whatever, that doesn't mean that all people's chances of being killed by a bullet are equal.  I'd guess that a huge percentage of shooting deaths involve gang members and/or drug dealers killing each other.  I bet the murder rate among those groups is hundreds of times greater than that of the general population.  The "rest of the world" should understand that the U.S. is not the gunslinging Wild West.  

Along with that, most people don't own guns of any kind.  Eliminate hunters owning guns for hunting, and it's far fewer yet.  The number of people who carry concealed weapons is a tiny fraction of the population.  I personally have never heard a gun fired at another person.

And yes, it is totally logical to claim that guns aren't the main problem, or that some gun rights should be maintained, without believing that everyone should have unlimited access to nuclear weapons.  Your claims about that are just silly and inflammatory.  

[Keiki O]

For those that are interested in what the founders meant when they wrote the 2nd amendment. Check out the link below.  

The context of their conversation was centered around the question of having a standing army, an on-call militia or no military what so ever.  

Obviously we've interpreted it to address an individual's rights own and carry weapons, but that wasn't what Thomas Jefferson and the gang were thinking about.

http://constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm