For your gun haters:

[mudslinger47]

A little truth. And don't ask for links, do your own flippin home work.

Just in case you missed it: on December 27, Chicago recorded it's 500th homicide for 2012. Under the 28 year handgun ban that was overturned by the SCOTUS in 2010, Chicago saw homicide rates as high as 943 in 1991, a 41% increase from the time the handgun ban was instituted versus an 18% increase in the rest of the nation during the same time period. Chicago still has a registration database for firearms purchases, transfers (both public and private transfers), and ammunition purchases, yet has almost twice the homicide rate of Los Angeles in spite of having 1 million less residents. Washington D.C. instituted a ban on ALL "bottom loading" guns (handguns and long guns) in 1976, still in effect today, and have seen a homicide rate increase by 156% while the rest of the nation increased by 32% in that 36-year period.

The point is gun registration databases, assault weapon bans, and limiting magazine capacity are "feel good" solutions, but have no recordable affect on gun-related crimes. Like abortion, the ONLY way to reduce gun violence is through education.



To me, the point is more laws aren't the answer.

[Late_Model_Mark]

Right on Duane!



Late Model Mark
Insured By Smith & Wesson

[perfconn]

The largest mass murder of school children in US history did not involve guns.It was by dynamite.The problem is it is no longer socially acceptable to lock up crazy people.

[mudslinger47]

You see, I understand the quandry about arbitrarily locking people up because someone says their crazy, why can't the other side see the reasons for not limiting the gun owners of America? To me, thats the 64,000 dollar question.

[perfconn]

Guns are not the problem.Its the crazies who are the problem.

[mudslinger47]

I wonder how many people know that Conn. already has an assault weapons ban. As did Columbine at the time. Enforce the laws is the only fix. Well that and actually knowing what an assault weapon is, would help...

[TeamGRT12x]

I wonder how many people know that Conn. already has an assault weapons ban. As did Columbine at the time. Enforce the laws is the only fix. Well that and actually knowing what an assault weapon is, would help...

The laws in bordering states to Newtown had lax laws.

What happened at Columbine, when there were two armed guards? What about at VA Tech? How come they couldn't stop the massacres?

[mudslinger47]

The laws in bordering states to Newtown had lax laws.

What happened at Columbine, when there were two armed guards? What about at VA Tech? How come they couldn't stop the massacres?

As you know, the gals guns were bought in Conn., and were legal and were not assault rifles, the kid stole them. He tried to buy his own, but the laws stopped him from doing that, the system worked. But at that time, he steals the weapons and becomes a criminal and then does his deed and becomes a worse criminal.. The Columbine killings were curtailed by having the guards there, could have been worse. Having a guard isn't ever going to be a 100%, but maybe some kind of deterrent. Almost all your major big banks have armed guards, doesn't stop bank robbery, severely curtails it but doesn't stop it. Same deal with the guards at the schools.

[Clayton_Wetter]

The term Assualt Weapon can be twisted anyway they want it. Literally any gun can be labeled an assault weapon and once they get an assault weapon ban in place then it can be broadened every time there is another whacko going on a killing mission.

[Hollis]

It must be awful to live with such fear to have the need of a cache of weapons.

[buster83]

i consider a assault rifle to be fully automatic, with a bayonet and grenade launchers all of them out there are semi automatic,bayonet is banned along with grenade launchers. calling them assault rifles is wrong,they are automatic rifles there is a good many and different styles out there larger pistol calibers are equal or more deadly at close range.

[Clayton_Wetter]

It must be awful to live with such fear to have the need of a cache of weapons.

Or could it be wisdom? Do you believe that self defense is "a weapon"?

[racin6mod]

Or could it be wisdom? Do you believe that self defense is "a weapon"?

at a gun buy back they had 2 rocket launchers show up. who needs those? ther has to be a limit and the NRA only want more guns and no limits. A friend has 40 guns and thousands of rounds he's in his 60's and most likely couldn't get to one if he had to defend himself.

it seems to me alot of people want every right possible with no responsiblity.if the mother of this crazy kid would have had a safe to store her guns she might be alive today along with all those children. trigger locks should be sold with the gun and gun safes might help just as much as an armed guard(which has proven not to work)

[C4Vette]

at a gun buy back they had 2 rocket launchers show up. who needs those?

Those were empty training tubes that have been disabled and can be bought at some Surplus stores for probably $50. Who ever turned those in got a heck of deal and a tidy profit.

[mudslinger47]

at a gun buy back they had 2 rocket launchers show up. who needs those? ther has to be a limit and the NRA only want more guns and no limits. A friend has 40 guns and thousands of rounds he's in his 60's and most likely couldn't get to one if he had to defend himself.

it seems to me alot of people want every right possible with no responsiblity.if the mother of this crazy kid would have had a safe to store her guns she might be alive today along with all those children. trigger locks should be sold with the gun and gun safes might help just as much as an armed guard(which has proven not to work)

The reason is our government has no idea where to stop. It should be obvious to you by now with 14 trillion dollars of debt on the horizon. To my knowledge, only one school had security guards, the was Columbine and they were credited (rightly or wrongly) with limiting the number of deaths.

[t.nie]

As you know, the gals guns were bought in Conn., and were legal and were not assault rifles, the kid stole them. He tried to buy his own, but the laws stopped him from doing that, the system worked. But at that time, he steals the weapons and becomes a criminal and then does his deed and becomes a worse criminal.. The Columbine killings were curtailed by having the guards there, could have been worse. Having a guard isn't ever going to be a 100%, but maybe some kind of deterrent. Almost all your major big banks have armed guards, doesn't stop bank robbery, severely curtails it but doesn't stop it. Same deal with the guards at the schools.

You're right. The kid stole the guns from his mom, killed her with one, then slaughtered all those kids at the school. Very efficiently. He had the exact proper tool for the job: a lightweight, rapid firing semi-auto with an extremely fast reload capability (drop one clip and pop another in and be ready to start killing again in less than 2 seconds if you practice) with multiple 30 round high capacity magazines and hundreds of rounds in reserve. Plus a couple other less efficient but still deadly firearms.

I have no problem with guns. I'm a marksman with rifles and pistols. Been around them all my life. But there's no dam way in hell I want to be facing that kid with that gun with no body armor or cover. No way.

So that just begs the question, why in the world do we make weapons that are that high powered and capable of creating that much devastation that quickly available for sale to the public? I don't think it takes 120 rounds in 2 minutes to kill Bambi. I don't think we need to be able to shoot up 24 beer cans on a log in under 45 seconds.

I get sport shooters. And actually, I am fine with those guns being in the right hands in our society. But really, I think you should be free to own and fire those weapons under controlled circumstances, on ranges, in mock combat scenarios if thats your thing. But you don't need that gun in your personal collection at home. It just makes it all too easy for the wrong people to do the worst possible things with them very quickly.

Make them available at ranges. Make people who want to handle those weapons register, get trained and only be allowed to use them under controlled circumstances, and make sure they don't take them home with them. Seems sensible to me. Everybody gets something, but no one gets everything they want. Gun owners and enthusiasts can have access to whatever they want, under controlled circumstances, and the rest of society gets some peace of mind knowing those weapons aren't being left laying around where the mentally ill nephew can steal it and go on a rampage.

And it would also create jobs.

(oh, and Columbine? The armed guards curtailed the killing? Really? The fact that they were lousy bomb makers curtailed the killing. If the bomb that was planted under the bench upstairs above the common area on the first floor had gone off, instead of fizzling out, then the actual plan those two had to kill a bunch of people with the bomb and subsequent building collapse driving the majority out the two doors on the other side, (where both were laying in wait to mow the fleeing students down when they rushed away from the carnage inside) would have resulted in even greater casualties. Armed guards were just something else they had to plan for, and quite frankly, was of no concern to either. That argument never holds water. It's just another element that people who do this stuff take into consideration, it doesn't stop them.)

[Clayton_Wetter]

You're right. The kid stole the guns from his mom, killed her with one, then slaughtered all those kids at the school. Very efficiently. He had the exact proper tool for the job: a lightweight, rapid firing semi-auto with an extremely fast reload capability (drop one clip and pop another in and be ready to start killing again in less than 2 seconds if you practice) with multiple 30 round high capacity magazines and hundreds of rounds in reserve. Plus a couple other less efficient but still deadly firearms.

I have no problem with guns. I'm a marksman with rifles and pistols. Been around them all my life. But there's no dam way in hell I want to be facing that kid with that gun with no body armor or cover. No way.

So that just begs the question, why in the world do we make weapons that are that high powered and capable of creating that much devastation that quickly available for sale to the public? I don't think it takes 120 rounds in 2 minutes to kill Bambi. I don't think we need to be able to shoot up 24 beer cans on a log in under 45 seconds.

I get sport shooters. And actually, I am fine with those guns being in the right hands in our society. But really, I think you should be free to own and fire those weapons under controlled circumstances, on ranges, in mock combat scenarios if thats your thing. But you don't need that gun in your personal collection at home. It just makes it all too easy for the wrong people to do the worst possible things with them very quickly.

Make them available at ranges. Make people who want to handle those weapons register, get trained and only be allowed to use them under controlled circumstances, and make sure they don't take them home with them. Seems sensible to me. Everybody gets something, but no one gets everything they want. Gun owners and enthusiasts can have access to whatever they want, under controlled circumstances, and the rest of society gets some peace of mind knowing those weapons aren't being left laying around where the mentally ill nephew can steal it and go on a rampage.

And it would also create jobs.

(oh, and Columbine? The armed guards curtailed the killing? Really? The fact that they were lousy bomb makers curtailed the killing. If the bomb that was planted under the bench upstairs above the common area on the first floor had gone off, instead of fizzling out, then the actual plan those two had to kill a bunch of people with the bomb and subsequent building collapse driving the majority out the two doors on the other side, (where both were laying in wait to mow the fleeing students down when they rushed away from the carnage inside) would have resulted in even greater casualties. Armed guards were just something else they had to plan for, and quite frankly, was of no concern to either. That argument never holds water. It's just another element that people who do this stuff take into consideration, it doesn't stop them.)

So your okay with the government having automatic weapons and even laser weapons while you only have a one shot musket if they turn on you?

[buster83]

So your okay with the government having automatic weapons and even laser weapons while you only have a one shot musket if they turn on you?

that a boy clayton

[15D]

The laws in bordering states to Newtown had lax laws.

What happened at Columbine, when there were two armed guards? What about at VA Tech? How come they couldn't stop the massacres?

It was an armed teacher who killed Klebold and Dylan while the police stood by outside doing nothing.

[kidrock]

It was an armed teacher who killed Klebold and Dylan while the police stood by outside doing nothing.

I can not find anywhere it says a armed teacher killed them.