[ponymom64]

People with guns kill people. End of story.

20 kindergarteners were killed today by a shooter with a semi automatic weapon, if he hadn't had that weapon, I'm certain that fewer innocent children would have been killed

[MyGiantPony]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are
neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things
worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to
encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with
greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare
Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

[supershorty628]

Again, where does the Second Amendment say "the right to have a gun to hunt"? That's not what it's about.

I never said that it was, I just used the hunting community of the area I live in as an example of something giving me perspective. I don't know anyone who would try to go hunting with a handgun so I hope my post didn't imply that that's what I thought.

[Vert]

I don't know where to start quoting because I agree with so many of you. Thanks to Unprovoked92 for making a newcomer feel welcome . . . I really appreciate it.

I don't consider myself a radical but grew up in a household with firearms at the ready. Not because there was any immediate threat but because the smart thing to do is 'expect the best but be prepared for the worst'. At at very young age, I knew guns were dangerous and it was never acceptable to aim a gun at someone unless you intended to kill them.

I hate what happened in CT today. I'm not in favor of Joe Blow being able to waltz into any sporting goods store and purchase a weapon of his choice. Background checks are prudent but also keep in mind that criminals who intend to cause harm will find any method of doing so and a firearm may not be necessary. I just don't want my right to protect myself limited because of what some sicko might decide to do.

[Vert]

I don't know where to start quoting because I agree with so many of you. Thanks to Unprovoked92 for making a newcomer feel welcome . . . I really appreciate it.

I don't consider myself a radical but grew up in a household with firearms at the ready. Not because there was any immediate threat but because the smart thing to do is 'expect the best but be prepared for the worst'. At at very young age, I knew guns were dangerous and it was never acceptable to aim a gun at someone unless you intended to kill them.

I hate what happened in CT today. I'm not in favor of Joe Blow being able to waltz into any sporting goods store and purchase a weapon of his choice. Background checks are prudent but also keep in mind that criminals who intend to cause harm will find any method of doing so and a firearm may not be necessary. I just don't want my right to protect myself limited because of what some sicko might decide to do.

[MyGiantPony]

I never said that it was, I just used the hunting community of the area I live in as an example of something giving me perspective. I don't know anyone who would try to go hunting with a handgun so I hope my post didn't imply that that's what I thought.

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

[supershorty628]

Sorry for the misunderstanding!

Not a problem, sorry I didn't word my first post better!

[TheJenners]

Let's make guns illegal and get them off the street. Since that works so well with heroin and cocaine. Just sayin. :-)

A gun is an inanimate object. A gun doesn't aim itself and pull its own trigger, and a gun doesn't get affected by mental issues or an emotional state. People will still kill people, with or without guns.

[Pocket Pony]

This is a tough issue, to be sure. I agree about the history of the 2nd Amendment - the US was a very different country back then. Having said that, though, I am a gun owner. If there were a gathering up of guns owned by private citizens, I would do my damndest to not turn mine in. And, I can't say that I wouldn't go to the black market to get one. Taking guns from those who own them responsibly and who aren't kookoo doesn't do anything from keeping the bad guys from having them.

Yes, it is too easy to shoot and kill people with guns. Yes, in some states it is too easy to get guns altogether. I do think there should be some sort of mental health evaluation before getting a permit or buying a gun; but then again, those who want to perpetrate this type of crime will do so with an illegally-obtained gun just as well as with a legally-obtained one.

In CA we have laws about how many rounds a magazine can hold (10) - in other states you can get guns with high-round magazines (20 plus). But again, this guy had multiple guns, so would such a law have helped? So you have one gun with 20-30 rounds, or three guns with 10 rounds...the guy is still armed to do some serious damage.

Again, I have no idea what the answer is. As long as there are guns and the bad guys have theirs, I want to be able to have mine.

I think the bottom line is that it is a sad state of affairs when someone has the rage and the desire to murder and is willing to go through with it without remorse.

[ponymom64]

Sorry, but you can't kill 27 people in 10 minutes with any other weapon. Semi automatic guns should be illegal, extended clips should be illegal, body armour should be illegal, effing crazy people buying guns should be illegal. But they're not. So 20 babies are dead tonight. Could have been my child, could have been yours, in any case it is horrible and senseless and needs to stop. How many more innocent people need to lose their lives?

[Vert]

I think we all agree that what happened today shouldn't happen again. How do yo propose to stop it? Should the focus be on the weapon itself or the person wielding it?

[suzier444]

I think we all agree that what happened today shouldn't happen again. How do yo propose to stop it? Should the focus be on the weapon itself or the person wielding it?

Both, because it's the combination of the two that is the problem. The person causes the tragedy, but the weapon determines the scope of that tragedy. So, IMO, both factors warrant discussion.

[Horsegal984]

It appears that all the guns actually belonged to his mother and were legally purchased. Just to add more perspective to the gun control debate. He basically acquired them illegally.

[ponymom64]

There is no need for anyone to own any type of semi automatic weapon. If you're a hunter, where's the sport in killing a deer like that? Why shouldn't there be restrictions on how many rounds you can buy? Why should you be able to buy extended clips? Why isn't the purchase of body armour an instant visit by the police? Just because these things are available, it doesn't mean people should have access to them

[TheJenners]

So if he had a couple revolvers, things would have been different?

[Melelio]

It's not really about guns in this instance (that made you post this)....how about the man in China who killed 22 with a knife?

If someone is feeling violent, there are many other means available to them to do damage.

This issue truly is about the broken society we've created with our gluttony and lack of respect for other human beings not matter WHAT they believe/espouse/ etc., etc. When someone reaches bottom, whether you judge them "mentally unbalanced" (what IS balanced, anyhow?) things snap, and things happen.

Why do people reach bottom? Look around your country.

[ponymom64]

You can't unload 100 rounds quickly with a couple of revolvers. With a couple of revolvers, it's likely he could have been subdued by the staff at the school and the police could have gotten there in time to save most of the children

[Pocket Pony]

So if he had a couple revolvers, things would have been different?

Agreed. You can do a lot of damage in 10 minutes, regardless of what kind of gun you have. Mr. PoPo and I shoot in a competitive league and some of our "heats" require that we shoot 12 rounds in 30 seconds, which includes a reload. So theoretically a shooter could unload 240 rounds in 10 minutes, which is equal to what they are estimating he unloaded (100 rounds) with his semi-auto.

[lolalola]

So those who defend the second amendment agree to serve in state militias? That's how I read it.

[MyGiantPony]

So those who defend the second amendment agree to serve in state militias? That's how I read it.

Well, the Founding Fathers felt that all able bodied men should be required to own guns and be prepared to defend against invasion until the "regulars" could arrive.

I wouldn't have a problem standing against a foreign invader if the occasion arose.