Man kills mother, then 26 at Connecticut school, including 20 kids

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 18

    Maria

    What is one supposed to say to all this? Those poor people, poor children, poor families. A terrible day.

  • 7

    T-Mack

    It's a very sad day today, I have watched this since it first broke...Even now active investigation still looking for girlfriend...

  • 28

    Heda_Madness

    Anyone who continues to support America's gun policy is an idiot.

    It's simply unfathomable that this has happened. Again. Just unbelievable.

  • 16

    YuriOtani

    President Obama was actually crying during his statement, this is so horrible. Seems hard to believe one being can have done this foul deed. Add to it the traumatized children, horrible at any age but this? Am in a state of shock. Will pray for the wounded, dead, their families and all of those wonderful children.

  • 9

    Hide Suzuki

    And NRA still claim that we should have more guns to keep it safe. It would be great if they can change the existing laws/constitution before 1,000 more incidents like this happen but of course nothing will even be done.

  • -51

    volland

    Ah, the culture of america....

    Aas horrible as these regular massacres are, at least once in a while they do not butcher the rest of the planet, but one another....

  • 9

    Elbuda Mexicano

    Who will put comments here about it being easier to get hit by a car?? To get struck by lightening or having the chances of winning at Power Ball than getting hit or killed by a lunatic armed to the teeth in anytown, USA ?? May these poor dead children RIP and this bastard criminal burn in hell along with the NRA and all of their fanatics!

  • 12

    flammenwerfer

    NRA the ball is 100% in your court. Until the NRA gets behind any change, nothing will change. This will tragically happen again and again. Cant imagine losing a like a child like that.

  • 4

    duke

    my mom's hometown, visited Newtown a few times as a kid, how sad....

  • -12

    some14some

    What is one supposed to say to all this?

    pistol over patience, this is all i can say for now, very sad.

  • 39

    tkoind2

    As an American I am ashamed to see yet another example of guns being used to kill innocent people. When will my idiotic fellow Americans who insist upon keeping firearms in our society wake up to the 21st century realities and stop this madness?

    Guns kill, people with guns kill, crazy people with guns kill and too often sane people with guns kill. Your guns do not protect you. They threaten us all. Every day that they exist in our society.

    When armies were using flintlocks it made sense for people to have guns. But armies with drones and IR targeting systems cannot be resisted by simple firearms. Your dreams of defending your freedom with your home collection of guns is just that a pipedream based on too many movies too little reality.

    Today, this is the reality of guns in our society. Kids, dead two weeks before Christmas. Families destroyed. Heartbreak, suffering, trauma for the survivors for the rest of their lives. That is what guns do for us. That is what they do for America. And if it was up to me I would melt down every single gun in the country today!

  • 9

    tkoind2

    One more thing. Every time something like this happens, it is the NRA and gun nuts that have blood on their hands. The sooner the gun nuts take that responsibility and see the blood on their hands that rest of us already see, then we can hope for change. Gun advocates, this is at least in part on YOU!

  • 11

    Tamarama

    The right to bare arms is one of the crazier laws in the modern, civilized world.

    It's rediculous, completely unecessary and plays into the hands of nuts like this.

    Madness.

  • -12

    ebisen

    NRA:

    > "if only one of the killed children would have been carrying a gun, and knew how to use it, we would have had a totally different outcome today“.

  • 3

    ka_chan

    So sad. Seems most of the children killed were in the shooter's mother's kindergarten class.

  • 5

    Cat5

    The bigger tragedy is the fact that americans will smugly deny any thought or attempt to ban or reduce guns.

    Still arrogantly clinging to the primitive idea that guns don't kill people, but people do. blah blah

    America is an embarrassment to the human race

  • 6

    Star-viking

    Bloody awful. I don't know how the families of the victims are going to cope. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

  • 7

    Ah_so

    Horrific. The US's gun laws are shown to be even more obscene every time we get one of these incidents.

    The political establishment that panders to the gun lobby should hold its head in shame.

  • 0

    globalwatcher

    What am I supposed to say for this we have endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. Are we allowing ourselves to let something like this to happen every week? My heart is shattered in a million pieces. Those who were killed had many years ahead of them. They are our children. Newton, Conneticut is our community. We are all in this together. We can no longer ignore what is happening in our country.

    Gov. Hickenlooper of Colorado said today,"the time is right" for state lawmakers to consider gun control measures,that is supposed to start January, "I wanted to have at least a couple of months off after the Aurora Threater mass shooting,so that people can process and grieve to have a little space, but we can no longer wait. When you look at what happend in Aurora, a great deal of damage was from the large magazine on AR-15 (rifle). I think we need a serious discussion and say,"Where is this appropriate?"

    Tom Mauser, the father of one of the students killed more than a decade ago in the Columbine HS shooting, saying, "if you don't start now, you are not going to get anywhere."

    Nationally, gun sales this Black Friday broke all time high, overwhelming FBI background check system. The number of those checks, required for gun purchases has climbed 58% over the past 5 years. Hillary Potter-associate professor of sociology at University of Colorado, Boulder says, "People want to feel they are protected. If bad guys have guns, then I better have it too." In addition, Tim Wadsworth, CU Boulder professor says, "There is a cultural increase in the right to bear arms, there is the feeling that we cannot control bad people from getting guns, so don't restrict my rights to bear arms."

    Well, regardless, after this senseless shooting today, we will move forward to make a changre. The change will start here in Colorado leading the rest of country. The Colorado lawmakers will have no choice, this issue will be discussed and debated in January 2013 for the people.

  • 15

    smithinjapan

    "The attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School, just two weeks before Christmas, was the latest of several mass shootings in the U.S. this year..."

    And yet the gun-nutters will defend this kind of thing by saying you 'have a better chance of being hit by a car' or what not, trivializing the fact that, yet again, there has been a mass shooting (third this week?), people's lives have been taken, and the relatives and loved ones are left to greave over this meaningless loss of life and ask why.

    flammenwerfer: "NRA the ball is 100% in your court."

    And you know what they'll do? they'll use this incident as a justification for the need to relax gun laws -- that's how deluded gun-lovers are.

    These poor kids -- both those killed, those injured, and those who just saw it go down and will forever have to deal with the horror. Poor families as well. There are no words.

  • 11

    marcelito

    Too sad for words..RIP.

  • 2

    Noliving

    I'm watching ABC world news right now and they are doing an interview with the child that survived with their parent and they're smiling and talking about how happy they, the parent more specifically, that the child lived. Nothing wrong with that but isn't that a little unfair to have that type of an interview on national tv on the night of the incident, I can only imagine how the parents and families of the adults of those who did not survive must feel seeing a smiling family talk about how happy they are that their family member/child survived. I just hope/pray that the death count from this incident does not further rise.

    When armies were using flintlocks it made sense for people to have guns. But armies with drones and IR targeting systems cannot be resisted by simple firearms.

    But that is not really true though is it? I mean if it was then there would be no point in arming soldier with those guns. What is the point of having ground soldiers then? Iraq, Afghanistan (on repeating basis), Syria show that in fact you can resist with those types of firearms but you will take higher casualties than your opposing force and you can win.

    Your guns do not protect you.

    If you do a search for "armed citizen" you will see that is not a true statement.

    Side note is that on MPR had in an interesting statistic on mass shootings in the US in which four or more people have been killed. In the past 30 years there have been 61 incidents that fit that criteria in the US, of all of the shooters in those incidents all but one was a white male, that one was a female. The vast majority of the guns used in the incident had been purchased legally and also that in the vast majority of the shooters they had a mental illness.

    When you look at how mental health services/funding has been decimated in the US for the past several decades I think it is obvious that mental health services need an increase in funding. The next thing to look at is what is the success rate in people who have mental illnesses being added to the back ground check system that prevents them from buying a gun. For example the Virginia Tech shooter had a diagnosed mental illness that would have prevented him from buying a gun but he was able to because his diagnosis was not added to the federal back ground check system. In fact the counseling center for the VT shooter lost his records.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081902380.html?sid=ST2009081902390

    I think it is fair to say based off of that article the US needs to seriously look at how the Mental health service/industry is keep records and how well they are reporting those that are a threat to people to law enforcement so that they can be added to the federal list of people not allowed to own a firearm when a background check is done.

  • 9

    Maitake

    RIP to the sweet children who died needlessly. RIP to the adults as well who died while working for the benefit of children and in effort to serve and protect them. My sympathies and prayers are for parents and educators and all humans to overcome aggression and hate.

  • 1

    BertieWooster

    There is something dreadfully wrong with the U.S.A.

    Senseless unwinnable wars abroad and horrorshow incidents like this at home.

    What is it?

    The violence and killing in movies and on TV?

    And why, oh why, is it so easy for ANYONE to obtain firearms in this country?

  • 3

    SuperLib

    20 kids.....just insane. What a horrible day.

  • 9

    SuperLib

    At this point I have to believe people do things like this right before they kill themselves because of the fame, and I'm wondering if there is some guy now sitting on his couch watching all of this play out and getting the same idea.

  • 3

    smithinjapan

    BertieWooster: "The violence and killing in movies and on TV?"

    No, it's the lax gun laws, plain and simple, along with the insistence that it is a 'god-given' right to bear arms. Violence on TV is not limited to the US, and until recenly (and in many cases still) Japan produced some 90% of the most violent video games in existence.

  • 6

    Noliving

    According to NBC News the guns were legally purchased and registered to the mother of the shooter. According to the 24 year old brother of the shooter the shooter had a history of mental illness.

  • 5

    smithinjapan

    NoLiving: You make some good points about the mental health diagnoses being added to background checks, but it doesn't take away from the fact that in many cases shootings in the US (and abroad for that matter, but since we're dealing with the US) are often not committed by people with mental illness, but just people who snap and have easy access to weapons that will do massive amounts of damage to a maximum number of people. I don't see anything in the article that says the man had a history of mental illness, but clearly he had easy access to guns.

  • 6

    Thomas Anderson

    20 children... this is getting worse and worse. And the NRA will still defend guns. Unbelievable.

  • 4

    cracaphat

    Feel sad,especially as my wife just took the daughter to nursery school and she'll watch her school play. But grateful that I live in a country where there's no such B.S. as the right to bear arms.As long as that philosophy remains, so will the shootings.

  • 5

    cleo

    According to the 24 year old brother of the shooter the shooter had a history of mental illness.

    Yet his mother was legally allowed to keep firearms in the home?

    If the guns are available, then the nutters who want to do bad things will find a way to get hold of them. The only solution is to make the guns not available. Get rid of the guns, and of this stupid notion of a 'God-given right'. Yes, the weapons are all over America. Yes, it's a massive job. No, it won't be easy. The sooner you start, the sooner you'll start to see results.

  • 6

    Kabukilover

    This is the unimaginable that has become commonplace in the United States. My sympathies go with all involved. My fears go with all my fellow Americans.

  • 3

    Lizz

    I have a co-worker with a kid that has been diagnosed with Ausburgers, and it seems to go together with inappropriate aggression more than straight Autism. She says the kid gets violent when he does not get his way, and that he gets worse as he ages. I certainly hope that nothing ever sets him off in a major way. He is nice enough most of the time, and can be genuinely sweet-natured. But when he gets irritated or frustrated by something or another, look out. When the anger is intense, instead of stepping back to devise alternative strategies of solving the problem they get caught up in a blind rage, unable to see the signals indicating that it would be appropriate to stop. Said with an immense sense of sorrow for all the victims in Connecticut tonight.

  • 1

    kwatt

    This kind of tragedy would happen again and again as long as guns are there close to everyone. This might be a destiny of gun's country.

  • -2

    Noliving

    are often not committed by people with mental illness, but just people who snap and have easy access to weapons that will do massive amounts of damage to a maximum number of people. I don't see anything in the article that says the man had a history of mental illness, but clearly he had easy access to guns.

    According to the FBI and ATF over 80% of gun homicides are gang shootings that are mostly tied to turf wars, in other words drug selling locations. The first thing to do in my opinion is to end the drug war by legalizing marijuana nationally. The second thing to do is keep recreational use of heroine and cocaine illegal but you go to a policy the US had back in the 1920's and some parts of Europe have today and that is drug distribution centers for those that addicted to Heroine and Cocaine and other hard drugs. These centers will distribute those hard drugs for free to the addicts, the idea behind it is to eliminate the drug trade on those drugs while at the same time eliminate the need/greatly reduce the need for addicts to resort to violence and theft to be able to get those drugs. So far this policy appears to be pretty successful in the parts of Europe that have this policy.

    The next thing is that the US has a culture of if you feel you have been wronged/disrespected you settle things or gain respect/face with assault them. This is especially true among black american males. See page number 67 in the following link, first page is page 59 so it is the eight page.

    http://www.idvaac.org/conferences/proceedings/1995/part4.pdf

    The news that the shooter had a history of mental illness was just revealed on NBC NEWS televised broadcast. So details are still coming in about what really happened. The shooter had easy access because the guns belonged to his mom, the question is did he live with his mom. The next question is did his mom lock the guns up or not?

    If so this then begs the question should there be a law that states if your place of residence is one where a person who has a mental illness or has a criminal offense that prevents them obtaining a gun you yourself will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm until you relocate. That would be very controversial in the USA.

  • -13

    bass4funk

    Ah, the culture of america....

    Aas horrible as these regular massacres are, at least once in a while they do not butcher the rest of the planet, but one another....

    What a vile and heartless thing to say, did you feel the same about Norwegians when that idiot went on the rampage a year ago? Guns are not the problem, it's the idiot nut jobs that can get their hands on the guns. I do believe we should have a much stricter gun control in some states. CA has a strict gun law, but other states are more lax about it, that needs to change. What a senseless act, these innocent kids, practically babies. The guy killed himself, he knew he would've fried for what he did, so instead of taking responsibility, he just offed himself. Coward! But at least, he's not going to harm anymore innocent people.

    @craca

    But grateful that I live in a country where there's no such B.S. as the right to bear arms.As long as that philosophy remains, so will the shootings.

    And what country is that? EVERY country has flaws, EVERY one of them, if its NOT guns, it's something else, there is no such thing as a utopian society.

  • -1

    Noliving

    Yet his mother was legally allowed to keep firearms in the home?

    Well we don't know that the sun was living with her in the first place.

    If the guns are available, then the nutters who want to do bad things will find a way to get hold of them. The only solution is to make the guns not available. Get rid of the guns, and of this stupid notion of a 'God-given right'. Yes, the weapons are all over America. Yes, it's a massive job. No, it won't be easy. The sooner you start, the sooner you'll start to see results.

    It will only work if that includes law enforcement and the military surrendering their weapons as well. If you do that type of confiscation you can bet their will be an enormous amount, in terms of grand total, of gun owners that will open fire on anyone that tries to confiscate their firearms.

  • 0

    my2sense

    This is the last straw that broke the camel's back. Kiss the guns or bullets goodbye and after hearing Obama I can see the right to bear arms going bye bye or super strict laws---FEDERAL. Good riddance to the 18th Century. Now that is CHANGE.

  • 1

    Jimizo

    And spineless politicians will do nothing. Your tears are sincere Mr President but mean nothing. Change this ridiculous situation and leave a legacy to be proud of.

  • 3

    Matthew Simon

    Once again a terrible incident and I really feel for the families of the victims. However I have to say that responsible firearms use is not to blame here as it isn't in any of those mass shooting cases. Once again this was a case where a man got his hands on a military assault rifle when he never should have been able too. Those types of laws need to be changed. There is no logical reason why any civilian needs to have an assault rifle in America. People can blame video games and society. I would like to know how a 20 year kid got their hands on a Bushmaster Rifle (An M16 variant) and a Pistol. Condolences to those grieving.

  • 14

    zichi

    Shock, horror, anger that another mass shooting has happened and this time, 20+ very young children slaughtered and dozens of others who survived will be scared for the rest of their lives.

    Over the past decades, so many students and school children killed but nothing ever changes. American schools are not safe places. How did the killer even get into the school?

    To all those who will claim the "American right to bear arms", I say what about the rights of the hundreds of students and children killed by firearms.

    Don't they have rights too?

  • 1

    Matthew Simon

    Jeez his mom bought him the weapons.

  • -22

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    This mentally ill young man committed a horrific criminal act. The blood is entirely on this young man's hands. Making new, reactionary laws is ineffective at best. This is surely a tragedy. A horrific crime. There were mental and family issues. Law-abiding gun-owners are not to blame for the heinous act of this mentally-ill young man. That blame is squarely on the young man who also took his own life.

  • -18

    Noliving

    Seriously if this guy didnt have access to these weapons then these poor people would still be alive.

    Not necessarily the majority of those that died were in a classroom. If the attacker had a knife entered the room and then block the doorway with a desk or some other heavy object and then attack the adult teacher first well then the children would be at the mercy of the attacker. With no escape because the only way out is blocked, now it is possible that these elementary students that were killed were like 10+ years old meaning very easy for them to move the desk but I think you get the idea of how not having access to a gun does not mean these children would still be alive.

  • -2

    Onniyama

    I can see the end result in all of this. The NRA will send their people to that town and recommend that schools start arming themselves to prevent such tragedies. Very sad day for the U.S.

  • 6

    TigersTokyoDome

    The National Rifle Association preach on about the constitutional right for Americans to bear arms. In a so-called civilised society, how can you be able to walk into a store on the high street and then walk out with a rifle and ammunition and call it your "right"? The right to what? Guns and bullets are not nice at all. I spent enough time in the army to know what a high-powered rifle and ammunition can do to human tissue. Flesh and bones ripped open and not very nice. The right to defend yourself by shooting someone walking on your property? Or somebody you think is trying to rob you? How can you make such a snap decision resulting in taking someone else's life. Surely that is the job for the law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately these horrors will never stop until guns are outlawed under that pretence about some right to bear arms to defend yourself. That is just an excuse.

  • 3

    globalwatcher

    Change this ridiculous situation and leave a legacy to be proud of.

    The change is coming......just like we did for gays, marijuna, and this time for gun control.

  • -1

    Noliving

    Once again this was a case where a man got his hands on a military assault rifle when he never should have been able too. Those types of laws need to be changed. There is no logical reason why any civilian needs to have an assault rifle in America.

    Well he didn't have a military assault rifle he had an AR-15, two hand guns another unidentified gun as of yet. In order to be an assault rifle it has to be a machine gun other wise known as a fully automatic. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic meaning it only fires one round each time the trigger is squeezed. In other words you have to repeatedly squeeze the trigger in order for it to fire more than one round.

    The real issue I have with your argument is that you do realize that hunting rifles and shot guns are a lot more powerful than assault rifles so it doesn't make sense to say it is ok to own a hunting rifle and shot gun but then ban a military style semi-automatic. There is this false belief that hunting guns are less powerful than "Assault rifles" in fact it is the opposite and it makes sense why hunting firearms are more powerful when you think about it.

    There are plenty of logical reasons to own a military style semi-automatic rifle: hunting, target shooting, self defense, militia, gun collector...

  • 2

    tkoind2

    globalwatcher. Yes indeed. We will sweep away these flat earthers once and for all and pass laws that make sense for a change. Guns must go!

  • 6

    Thomas Anderson

    This mentally ill young man committed a horrific criminal act. The blood is entirely on this young man's hands. Making new, reactionary laws is ineffective at best. This is surely a tragedy. A horrific crime. There were mental and family issues. Law-abiding gun-owners are not to blame for the heinous act of this mentally-ill young man. That blame is squarely on the young man who also took his own life.

    No, alleged mental illness is not the problem. The real problem is that ANYONE, including you and me, are capable of killing. It's true. Guns just make it that much easier to kill people. Guns are a tool of violence. And we are all capable of violence.

  • 3

    BurakuminDes

    Rest in Peace to all the poor innocents. Hundreds of people's lives are destroyed now - that small town will never recover, that's for certain.

    This is a chance for the intelligent Americans to stand up and show the world that they love their kids more than guns - like those of us in Japan, Australia, Canada etc, where gun crime is very rare - and demand drastic gun control. Will it happen? Of course not. America could have been a great nation - she has turned guns on herself and is now doomed.

  • -1

    Alphaape

    @ Noliving: You bring up some excellent points on mental illness. When they started closing many of the mental hospitals back in the 80's you started to get more and more people out with no place to go. It would be interesting to see if the mother had bought her guns legally. If she had done so, then what good would be stricter gun control laws? If a person goes through all of the necessary regulations there is still the possibility of something bad happening.

    The change is coming......just like we did for gays, marijuna, and this time for gun control.

    I don't get this statement. Marijuana is still illegal by Federal law. And yet people who smoke it even in states that may be contrary to Federal law are still breaking the law. My point is, even if it is illegal, people will still find a way to have it. Ban guns, people will still get them. Right now it is illegal for a felon to have a gun, yet many of them (including people who distribute marijuana illegally) still have guns to protect them in their trade. So banning guns will not solve the issue.

  • -6

    Noliving

    I say what about the rights of the hundreds of students and children killed by firearms. Don't they have rights too?

    They do that is why homicide is illegal. If you are going to brandish a firearm in a public setting or even point it at another human being without firing you have to show that the shooter was in imminent danger of being grievously wounded or killed(the same rules obviously apply when firing a weapon at another human being) If they don't they go to jail for at least 20 years and that is for just simply pointing an unloaded gun at another human.

  • 2

    globalwatcher

    tkoind2Dec. 15, 2012 - 10:27AM JST

    globalwatcher. Yes indeed. We will sweep away these flat earthers once and for all and pass laws that make sense for a change. Guns must go!

    I always enjoy all your posts. As I stated, the change will be coming. We will ban all automatic rifles to start with. They do not belong here. This is a big agenda we will be working for, and it will be done.

  • 8

    YongYang

    And idiots will STILL say, 'We have right to bare arms!' Nonsense!

  • 1

    Noliving

    It would be interesting to see if the mother had bought her guns legally. If she had done so, then what good would be stricter gun control laws? If a person goes through all of the necessary regulations there is still the possibility of something bad happening.

    They confirmed that the mother did buy her guns legally. The questions that remain are was she a straw buyer, if she wasn't did she lock up her guns? The next question is did her son who was the shooter live with her? If the answer is that her son did live her that brings up the question:

    should there be a law that states if your place of residence is one where a person who has a mental illness or has a criminal offense that prevents them obtaining a gun you yourself will be prohibited from purchasing a firearm until you relocate.

  • 1

    globalwatcher

    Thomas AndersonDec. 15, 2012 - 10:30AM JST

    This mentally ill young man committed a horrific criminal act. The blood is entirely on this young man's hands. Making new, reactionary laws is ineffective at best. This is surely a tragedy. A horrific crime. There were mental and family issues. Law-abiding gun-owners are not to blame for the heinous act of this mentally-ill young man. That blame is squarely on the young man who also took his own life.

    No, alleged mental illness is not the problem. The real problem is that ANYONE, including you and me, are capable of killing. It's true. Guns just make it that much easier to kill people. Guns are a tool of violence. And we are all capable of violence.

    Indeed, along with the gun control debate in January, we are thinking to add a class of "Anger Control and Management" as a requirement in education.

  • 2

    Shi Yuehan

    National Anger Management Program....must get to the bottom of what is fueling this insane rage that keeps popping up in America.

  • 6

    Outta here

    This is a totally disgusting vile act by a total madman. But what is also sad is the fact that many people including posters on here cannot see the coloration between easy access to weapons and these sorts of crimes. Sadly until the US and the pro gun crowd actually wake up to the fact that as long as there are masses of weapons available to the public then these sort of incidents will continue. We will no doubt hear all sorts of excuses coming from pro gun people including the sickest of them all " if more people where armed this could have been avoided". Or guns don't kill people, people kill people..... Well guess what while technically correct,not hose guns allow people to kill more effectively and in greater numbers. Now if only the US could grow a pair and deal with its internal problems as harshly as it deals with other nations that step out of line then maybe lives could be saved.

  • 4

    smithinjapan

    bass4funk: "Aas horrible as these regular massacres are, at least once in a while they do not butcher the rest of the planet, but one another...."

    Ah, I wasn't aware the kids were also armed with Glocks and were shooting back, hence your 'each other' part in the attempt to adjustify the disgusting gun culture in the US. Not to worry, though, as sure as we read about the last shooting just a couple of days ago in the shopping mall, the next will be tomorrow or the next day. Inevitably it'll be someone you or I know, but it won't be me asking 'why' or 'how could this happen?'.

  • 0

    zichi

    With over four decades of mass slaughter of school children and students at schools and uni's why is it that a rifle carrying murder can just walk into a school and start shooting and killing?

    Uni's have many buildings so security is more difficult but a single building school like this one should be locked down from the time the children arrive until they go home. No one should be allowed to just wander in.

    Why isn't America protecting their little children from mass killers?

  • 3

    zichi

    @NolIving

    They do that is why homicide is illegal.

    I don't think all the dead children, their parents, families, school friends will care much for your statement? I was talking about the right to stay alive and be safe while at school.

  • -1

    illsayit

    what bothers me is that the killer is constantly stated as having a mental illness. Fact-his mother was a teacher that worked there and was among those killed. Is it so silly to assume that, here was a still relatively young man with a known mental issue, his mother who owned, not one but several guns, which he obviously knew about, was a teacher who helped other children....Is it so hard to draw some conclusion that this young man was seeking some attention from his mother, who he obviously was confused about her own intentions what with being a teacher and having a set of guns....? Or is it just easier to say mental illness? I agree zichi, why arent people protecting their children.

  • 1

    KariHaruka

    Devastating just devastating. I honestly cannot put into words about how emotional I was when I heard the news. My thoughts are with the families of children and teachers who were killed. I'm just totally shocked and speechless and can't comprehend what would motivate anyone to go into a elementary school to shoot 5-10 year olds.

  • 2

    freakashow

    Such a devastating tragedy for all. My heart goes out to these kids and their families. Losing a child is the absolute worst thing that can happen. Also, the kids and teachers who witnessed this will be traumatized for a very long time. My prayers go out to you as well.

    My point is, even if it is illegal, people will still find a way to have it. Ban guns, people will still get them.

    Yes, but without the means to obtain a gun, it would make it that much harder for an average Joe to get them and use them. For example, in Japan, unless you're involved with the Yakuza, or know someone in the police force, you'll find it hard to get access to one. If I got to the point where I suddenly cracked and wanted to shoot someone, then I would not even know where to start to find a gun in Japan. However, in the States, it would be much too easy with guns lying pretty much anywhere and everywhere. As NBA star Lebron James tweeted, "Land of the free, BS!"

  • 2

    Saiaku

    This is truly sad. On the topic of gun restrictions and laws however: This is just one shooting among many, and many to come unless the US starts cleaning up their weapon policies.

  • 0

    wtfjapan

    there are more guns than people in America 60million+ people own a gun, there needs to be stronger gun control in the US, but as for banning guns altogether that is just a dream. It would be impossible to get everbody to hand in all there guns, many people would just refuse even if it was law

  • -1

    technosphere

    Ah, the culture of america.... Aas horrible as these regular massacres are, at least once in a while they do not butcher the rest of the planet, but one another....

    Poor kids, rest in peace......... The USA is definitely overloaded by complete ret@rds armed by firearms. American President must clean a mess in his country instead of preaching rest of the World what-to-do or what-not-to-do...........

  • -1

    globalwatcher

    I need to tell you that most automatic rifles sold in US are coming from China and Russia. I just want to add this so that you see the problem is much bigger than you think. We need to ban all automatic rifles. Again, they do not belong here in US. We need to tell them to keep them all in China and Russia..

  • 0

    GW

    How incredibly sad.

    These shootings are happening again & again & again............. when will the majority in the US learn that their gun culture is KILLING THEM...................you only see this ongoing for the most part preventible type of shooting in the US.

    Toss in street & drug violence & its easy to see that gun laws need to tightened up severely.

    Otherwise the US saying they accept these mass shootings!

    Like a few others here hopefully this sad story will be the one that brings MUCH needed change in the US!

  • 0

    technosphere

    I need to tell you that most automatic rifles sold in US are coming from China and Russia.

    This is not a true and you know it.

  • 0

    globalwatcher

    technosphereDec. 15, 2012 - 11:47AM JST

    I need to tell you that most automatic rifles sold in US are coming from China and Russia.

    This is not a true and you know it.

    Obama has already mentionerd about this problem in the past. He has been aware of this problem.

    http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1724/How-Many-Guns-Are-There-Who-Owns-Them-IMPORTS.html

  • 1

    TheQuestion

    I hate the fact that person existed. The world is diminished by his memory, the only person that should have suffered from his existence ought to have been him and him alone.

  • 0

    JDB829

    TOO MUCH ! It is WAY past time for some type of ACTION. RESPONSIBLE GUN CONTROL. We NEED to get rid of the gun violence in this country! How many more people have to die so senselessly and needlessly? Let's use what is RIGHT with this great country of ours to do what we can about what is WRONG with it, OK? It can be done! May the Good Lord bless the victims and the families of yet another terrible American tragedy.

  • -3

    Alphaape

    This is just one shooting among many, and many to come unless the US starts cleaning up their weapon policies.

    In the USA, we do have gun control laws in place. Since the mother bought the guns legally, some have said maybe there should be a law against owning a gun if someone in the house has a mental illness. That may sound good, but why are you going to penalize the rest of the family because of one person's disability? If that were a law soon you would be seeing laws prohibiting gun ownership if anyone in the family has had a criminal record. Again, you are denying the law abiding citizens because of the actions of someone else. Seems to me some have commented on the same illogical thinking that we see here in Japan where military members have to be home by a certain time and can't drink at certain times because of the actions of someone else. A gun measure such as those proposed would see the same slippery slope develop.

    This is a tragic event, and I guess we will never know why this had to happen. Have I had members of my family killed by guns, yes I have. Do we have still have guns to protect us, yes we do. But jus tthrowing away all guns will not be the answer.

    For this shooter, and the recent cases of the shooter in OR and others, what I would really like to see is how they were defined clinically as children. Where they labeled as "troubled" and placed on some medication that was supposed to help, rather than letting them be "boys" at time and getting into some trouble as long as some discipline occured, or where they just given a pill and told to sit quietly. Not to say it's some drug fault, but I keep seeing post on people wanting to control the violence, and I agree, but how do you control it? With pills or discipline?

  • 1

    hkitagawa

    I cant believe on what happened. imagine your children or even you at a school and someone take your life with no meaning at all! my condolences to all victims.

  • -1

    Noliving

    I don't think all the dead children, their parents, families, school friends will care much for your statement? I was talking about the right to stay alive and be safe while at school.

    Does any victim of any crime much for a similar statement? The answer is no. They do have those rights while at school that is why it is illegal to assault or murder someone at school and if someone does they are prosecuted. For example do people have the right to not be raped? Answer is yes, how do you know you have that right? Because the law says it is illegal and that if it does happened they will be punished for it. If you didn't have the right to not be raped they would not arrest and punish the person for doing it.

    For example, in Japan, unless you're involved with the Yakuza, or know someone in the police force, you'll find it hard to get access to one.

    How hard is it to make contact with the Yakuza in Japan?

    I need to tell you that most automatic rifles sold in US are coming from China and Russia. I just want to add this so that you see the problem is much bigger than you think. We need to ban all automatic rifles. Again, they do not belong here in US. We need to tell them to keep them all in China and Russia..

    Again the gun the shooter used was a semi-automatic, they only fire one round each time the trigger is squeezed, even if you hold the squeeze on the trigger they only fire one round. In other words they fire the same amount of bullets each time the trigger is squeezed that a pump action, bolt action, and lever action fire when their trigger is squeezed. Fully automatics/machine guns production for the civilian market ended in May of 1986. Banning semi-automatics won't stop these types of mass shootings because you can shoot fast enough with a pump action or a bolt action or a lever action.

    For example here is an example of how fast a pump action can fire, start at the 10 minute 10 second mark:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_1-E6qFuXk

  • -1

    technosphere

    @globalwatcher

    From the source you've just provided :

    In 1996 Russia and the United States signed a trade agreement in which Russia agreed not to flood the U.S. market with the type of cheap, easily concealed guns that are attractive to criminals. By 2000 Russian firearms imports had fallen to a little over fifty thousand.

    By the way, most American spree killers used American-made firearms. Shotguns, revolvers. semi-automatic pistols etc.

  • 1

    oikawa

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

    Notice the big difference. The Chinese kids are alive. The American ones are dead.

  • 1

    globalwatcher

    technosphereDec. 15, 2012 - 12:24PM JST

    @globalwatcher

    From the source you've just provided :

    In 1996 Russia and the United States signed a trade agreement in which Russia agreed not to flood the U.S. market with the type of cheap, easily concealed guns that are attractive to criminals. By 2000 Russian firearms imports had fallen to a little over fifty thousand.

    They are not following the rules. That's what Obama has been talking about. It is getting worse. FYI.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    AlphaApe: "But jus tthrowing away all guns will not be the answer."

    It would be a darn good start, and you wouldn't see the same headlines day in and day out. Yeah, sure, you can make hte argument that if the guy had a water-noodle or a tennis racket and the intent to kill he could have done the same thing, but that's completely bogus and we all know it. Such easy access to guns ensures that we'll be reading about this kind of thing from the US endlessely. I'm sure many of these parents, if they were for guns, are seriously rethinking their beliefs at this moment over the tragic losses and the ease at which all their love ones were taken from them.

  • 0

    FPSRussia

    I've been watching this thread very closely.

    First let me say that this event is tragic and senseless. I feel sorry for all those people who have suffered through it. Now on to what seems to be the knee-jerk reaction of a debate. First off you immediately want to blame guns and the NRA. This is a mistake. You can't blame an inanimate object for poor morale fiber of a society.

    In any case like this you must see the core of such evil and not the blunt device that was used. It's not enough to say it was Colonel Mustard in the Study with the Revolver, case closed. The evil is that which cannot be seen or even more so by society what we don't want to see.

    Please keep in mind, my examples are not used to change the subject but to point out that in every heinous incident in history guns are involved, they are the instrument but the real monster is the evil inside. It is that which pulls the trigger.

    We trust law enforcement to bear arms everyday. We do so and accept this only because they appear in uniform. Why is this accepted? Cause we believe these men to be of good standing. Because we believe their spirits are good.

    With all of this said, don't blame the gun. Don't blame the NRA. Blame the individual and the individuals who waved no red flags. Blame the apathy that allows you to be caught off guard.

  • 4

    YongYang

    More people dead in the US from gun violence than US service people killed in Iraq, Afghanistan combined in the same period.

    There ain't no more Redcoats in the woods, put DOWN your weapons!

  • 4

    smithinjapan

    FPSRussia: "It is that which pulls the trigger."

    True, but given a trigger to pull, there is a much greater potential for injury and death. Or do you think this man, with the evil inside, could have done the same amount of damage with notebook?

  • 5

    YongYang

    No, you can't blame the weapon, BUT even a first grader can see it FACILITATES the violence. 1+1=2. It is THAT easy to understand.

  • 4

    zichi

    When the American forefathers wrote into the constitution the "right to bear arms" they couldn't have imagined the type of weapons which are available today, nor would they have imagined that one day there would be many mass slaughters of young children and students at the schools and universities.

    If they had known that, would they have still written it into the constitution?

    America pays a very heavy price for that right, with too young children, students and youths being slaughtered and killed from gunshot.

    Japan has very restrictive gun laws and even the amount of ammunitions which can be held at one time which is reflected by the fact there are no mass slaughters of children and young people.

    The pro gun lobby will try and use every angle to argue their case.

  • 5

    zichi

    Its just plain stupid when people say, "guns don't kill people, people kill people!"

  • 1

    oikawa

    FPS Russia

    You can't "blame" a mentally ill individual for their actions. You can't "blame" 5 year old children for their "apathy". You can blame the selfish people who allow weapons to be in the hands of people who don't need them or can't use them properly.

    Freedom is not being defended. Some companies' massive revenues are.

  • -5

    FPSRussia

    @smithinjapan So how do you solve the problem?

    Guns only in the hands of law enforcement? What happens when that very agency becomes corrupt itself? It was only yesterday that Japan's Minister of Justice was connected to Yakuza.

    Americans have the right to defend their homes and families from ALL threats.

    It is hypocritical to chastise NRA or the device you built to ensure your freedom and security. We use guns for everything.

    We do love our acronyms so lets use them. WMDs? No, How about Instruments of Death!
    YES, IoDs....Perfect!!

    Now riddle me this.......when the music is bad do you we blame the Steinway or the Pianist? Do we blame the Instrument of Death or the Composer of such a destructive sonata?

    You see what I mean? "Stupid trumpet?"

  • 3

    T-Mack

    Cant stop cyring, a fool for children, I give up my gun's if this will stop...

  • 3

    T-Mack

    CRYING

  • 2

    Matthew Simon

    Its hard for those that come from a country that doesn't allow guns to understand how many Americans feel about their right to bear arms. You are looking in from the outside and saying why. I understand this. At the same time though realize that those of us that have guns and use them responsibly do not want the government taking something away from us that we have not used irresponsibly. However I think that some assault weapons bans is a good idea as they have no place in the home or anywhere else outside of warfare.

  • 1

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    For the record, part of the US Constitution includes an amendment process which has been used many times. If the will of the people is to amend the right to bear arms, that is entirety up to the citizens of the country to decide as an internal matter. The opinions of non-citizens matter not.

    RIP victims of the heinous crime by the mentally ill young man.

  • 4

    Frungy

    ENOUGH!

    The 2nd amendment was never intended to have this sort of consequence. I think the founding fathers never foresaw this simply because they treated firearms like any other tool, like a hammer or a spade, to be used when needed for a definite purpose.

    Frankly the U.S. has gone gun-mad.

  • 1

    globalwatcher

    T-MackDec. 15, 2012 - 01:11PM JST

    Cant stop cyring, a fool for children, I give up my gun's if this will stop...

    Mack, come back here and join us to stop Automatic Rifles move. You are a native son of Colorado, very proud.

  • -1

    illsayit

    yes America does. But they also have the freedom of choice to not put their children in the schools. I was pretty sure this topic wasnt about that little debate though.

  • -2

    FPSRussia

    One final thing I'd like to add because this is an endless debate that could go on 400 posts easily.

    It's nice that some of you are voicing your opinions about Gun Control. You get a brownie point.

    I'd just like to point out one thing. Most of you are about 100,000 kids too late on the subject. You see this kind of thing happens everyday in poor minority neighborhoods. Its 1 by 1. Kids get shot EVERYDAY!!!

    But when it happens in a rich white suburb then suddenly everybody is all against it. You see what I mean? It's not the guns that kill. It's the apathy of a society towards others. We as a society could have solved this problem ages ago when little black kids in poorer income brackets were getting blown away everyday.

    The blight feeds off apathy and it spreads. Down in South Central Los Angeles they aren't very shocked. That's everyday. Kids, not gangbangers. Little ones getting caught in the crossfire.

    There are lots of policies that need to be changed to make a better society but at the core of the problem is NOT the guns themselves.

  • 0

    T-Mack

    I gave you a thumb's up, but responsible men with arm 's are far from this behavior, infact this is what we protect ourselve's from, these kind of men...

  • 4

    globalwatcher

    FPSRussiaDec. 15, 2012 - 01:27PM JST

    It's nice that some of you are voicing your opinions about Gun Control. You get a brownie point.

    A brownie point? You gave me a belly laugh. But these victims and their families are not getting any brownie tonight.

  • -1

    BertieWooster

    Smithinjapan-san,

    No, it's the lax gun laws, plain and simple, along with the insistence that it is a 'god-given' right to bear arms. Violence on TV is not limited to the US, and until recenly (and in many cases still) Japan produced some 90% of the most violent video games in existence.

    I'm sure there is truth in what you say.

    The lax gun laws are incomprehensible.

    If you need a gun to defend yourself just in order to get through a regular day, I'd say it's about time for a radical change in government.

    And why anyone in the 21st century should kill deer "for sport" I don't know.

    About violence on TV, I see what you're saying. Japanese manga certainly have plenty of sadism. At the same time, there is just SO MUCH killing in US movies.

    I don't profess to know the reason for these mass killings.

    I do find it significant that almost all of them were on psychiatric drugs at the time.

  • 0

    marcels

    Why Why and Why,these are the questions only the deceased gunman knows the answers.. Bloody waste of life. RIP to all those who had their lives suddenly extinguished, by this Madman....

  • -1

    Tahoochi

    According to ABC news, 15 mass shootings, 84 killed so far this year in the US. An unfathomable tragedy, and truly a sad state of affairs.

    FPSRussiaDec. 15, 2012 - 01:11PM JST

    when the music is bad do you we blame the Steinway or the Pianist? Do we blame the Instrument of Death or the Composer of such a destructive sonata?

    FPSRussia: ....and when someone fails at dieting, the fork is not to blame, but the weak-willed person who was dieting, right? I'm afraid your argument is old my friend. There were 600 deaths from accidental, that's right, accidental shootings in the US in 2010. Many of them involved children playing with their parents' firearms at home. So according to your reasoning, it's not the guns but those chidrens' fault? Or the parents'? But wait.... what if there weren't any guns to begin with?

    Gun advocates do have a point to an extent; 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'... so what should we do then to eliminate these kinds of tragic events? Find all 'mentaly ill' people and make sure they don't get their hands on guns? lock them away? Honestly now, does that sound realistsic? How could you even begin to 'find' such people? ....or, the other option, eradicate guns altogether, or tighten the gun laws. But then again, I can just see the NRA advising all elementary school teachers to now hide shotguns under their desks for protection.

  • 0

    Tahoochi

    Guns were invented to kill. They are absolutely useless for any other reason, and thus, should not be an excuse to exercise somebody's so-called right to bear arms. People on the receiving end of gun fire have the right to live. What about that right? We can't satisfy both sides.

  • 0

    T-Mack

    OKAY....globalwatcher...I wan't to come back to my root's in Colorado....build and grow...

  • -1

    T-Mack

    no, your not right, this is a free country, and with that free evil will, then punishment. then sorrow for both side's...then prison...if you live...

  • 0

    T-Mack

    two many people crying tonight, lost children and loved one's, i feel their sorrow,....me too!

  • -6

    sailwind

    I am full of sorrow that the youngest and most innocent of our society was taken at the hands of a sick man wielding a gun. My first thoughts were not directed at all toward banning guns after hearing of this tragedy, quite the opposite. My thoughts were of the nature of what could have been done for the protection of the children and that I truly found myself wishing that there was someone at that school was in fact a responsible legal gun owner and was either carrying or had easy access to grab a weapon and could've shot back at this sick bastard when he started his rampage to stop him from his killing of innocent children before the Police could arrive.

    I think that I can say this in good conscience, that no matter what side of the gun control debate one sides with, that in this case if there was somebody in the position to get a gun legal or not and be able to shot back at this bastard at this school before the Police arrived, that nobody, nobody would have had any issues with that whatsover.

    My thoughts and prayers to the families on this horrible tragic day.

  • 0

    T-Mack

    This is not a gun debate, or gun control...this is innocent's Lost to murder....do you understand???...RIP all children of the dead, and teacher's who stood thier ground...really pray and I will honor your post in this tread...

  • -9

    bass4funk

    @Smith

    Ah, I wasn't aware the kids were also armed with Glocks and were shooting back, hence your 'each other' part in the attempt to adjustify the disgusting gun culture in the US. Not to worry, though, as sure as we read about the last shooting just a couple of days ago in the shopping mall, the next will be tomorrow or the next day. Inevitably it'll be someone you or I know, but it won't be me asking 'why' or 'how could this happen

    As a father, my heart goes out to those kids, but I'm sorry, I think a lot of people are taking this way out of context. I own several guns. I have been using them and am the occasional hunter. Let me be clear, guns ARE NOT the problem, if I get the thumbs down so be it, but I DO believe there needs to be stricter gun control, but having the government come and trying to take away my guns a step too much! I'm licensed, I keep my guns locked, the magazines are in a seperate area and I don't worry about anyone getting there hands on them. Im not trying to justify or psycho-analyze the nut job that did this, there has to be a better way to stop these crazy nut jobs from harming people, WITHOUT stepping on the rights of people that follow the rules and are responsible gun owners.

  • -2

    cleo

    it doesn't make sense to say it is ok to own a hunting rifle and shot gun but then ban a military style semi-automatic

    I agree with you, it doesn't make sense to own any kind of firearm. Ban the lot of them.

  • 0

    zenkan

    So sad. The NRA rep interviewed on the BBC was literally squirming to provide a positive spin for the right to bear arms argument. How many more innocents...?

  • 0

    T-Mack

    I own, and I would never, but to the son of perdition who did this, suffer in the deepest darkest part of hell....for all the angel's you destroyed.

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    Matthew Simon: "Its hard for those that come from a country that doesn't allow guns to understand how many Americans feel about their right to bear arms."

    Very true, because we rely on logic, and it makes no sense whatsoever to justify having firearms based on a constitution written to create militia out of fear the British would attack again. In no way did the forefathers have this kind of slaughter in mind.

    bass4funk: "Let me be clear, guns ARE NOT the problem"

    Yes, they are. At the very least, they allow the individual to inflict mass casualties where otherwise they could not. Again, as I have asked you and others, do you honestly think the man could have done the same thing with a baseball bat or anything else?

    "...WITHOUT stepping on the rights of people that follow the rules and are responsible gun owners."

    It should not be a right, period. Perhaps a well documented, tightly registered hunting rifle to be used ONLY during hunting season, okay... but automatic weapons? You're simply asking for things like this to happen, no matter how secure you might think the guns are. I pray it doesn't, but I know we'll see another mass shooting before the holidays are upon us.

  • -5

    bass4funk

    @Tahoo

    Guns were invented to kill. They are absolutely useless for any other reason, and thus, should not be an excuse to exercise somebody's so-called right to bear arms. People on the receiving end of gun fire have the right to live. What about that right? We can't satisfy both sides.

    And also to protect as a deter to any person that would try to harm me, my family or my property. So yes, it is my absolute right to protect my family and my life. "People on the receiving end have a right to live"...depends, if they are trying to kill me, the last thing I'm worried about is their selfish right to live! If they want to live, don't rob me, hurt me or my family and think before you attack or rob someone, then you don't have to be put in that situation to possibly have their lives forfitted.

  • 0

    eatthis

    First RIP to all of those who were killed and I grieve for the family's. BUT just BECASE ONE sico goes off and kill is no reason for law abiding gun owners to give up there gun. I live in a part of the u.s. we're the closest law informant is hours away so keeping guns around is a nessacery thing. And the fact that a well armed populous keep the government honest. Plus deer meat tastes great. Those that shout the loudest for gun control live in the city's where they think there safe. An that there's a cop around every corner. And yes if there had been tighter security in that school he'd never got past the office.

  • -3

    T-Mack

    A person with evil intent did this not a dead piece of steel with a balistic projectile...a man with evil on his mind.

  • 4

    Pattie Inoue

    No words.....just too sad.....

  • -7

    FPSRussia

    BINGO!!!!!

    I think that I can say this in good conscience, that no matter what side of the gun control debate one sides with, that in this case if there was somebody in the position to get a gun legal or not and be able to shot back at this bastard at this school before the Police arrived, that nobody, nobody would have had any issues with that whatsover.

    You, my friend, are absolutely right.

    The gun is not what is to be blamed. It's the man wielding it. You see, @sailwind, who put up a very nice post, pushes you to see things if they had gone the other way. How fickle you could be.

    Had a responsible owner of a shotgun, showed up suddenly, and blew this bastard back out the front door before harming a single child, he'd be your HERO.

    Are you going to praise him or the shotgun? Is the newspaper going to post a picture of the hero or a picture of his shotgun? The instrument of death?

    The blame must go towards people, not guns. We are the masters of our own demise.

    I respect your arguments on this case. I'd even play along if that's what society wanted to do. But again, I tell you. Nothing stops people from mass killing.

    I think this thread is making good progress though. More people are starting to see the people behind guns rather than the instrument itself.

  • -12

    bass4funk

    @smith

    Yes, they are. At the very least, they allow the individual to inflict mass casualties where otherwise they could not. Again, as I have asked you and others, do you honestly think the man could have done the same thing with a baseball bat or anything else?

    Sorry, totally disagree, that is a total cop out, to say guns are responsible for this jerk to do what he did is pure Nonesense, no BS! Of course, you can do massive damage with any kind of gun, but that guy was intent on killing people and when a person wants to kill you, if they don't have a gun, they can use, for example: a Baseball bat or a knife or a chainsaw or a Hammer and if you are a skilled person, you can inflict very quickly serious damage on people wielding ANY of these tools. Then answer me this, why do prisons like Pelican Bay or Folsom have people being killed all the time and they DO NOT have any guns there, these are some of THE most violent jails and you should see the home made weapons that they make, scary! So you are making a weak argument that liberals always think, we have to ban guns and that will solve the problem, guess what it will not, the problem is much deeper than that. There are a lot of sociatel social issues that are plauging Americans, it has to do with the people, not the weapons these crazies try to ulilize.

    "...WITHOUT stepping on the rights of people that follow the rules and are responsible gun owners."

    It should not be a right, period. Perhaps a well documented, tightly registered hunting rifle to be used ONLY during hunting season, okay... but automatic weapons? You're simply asking for things like this to happen, no matter how secure you might think the guns are. I pray it doesn't, but I know we'll see another mass shooting before the holidays are upon us.

    See, that's where we differ. I think it should be a right. On the automatic weapons, I agree. But other hand guns, no way.

  • 3

    Jimizo

    It's truly depressing to read the pro-gun arguments. I'm sure we will all have the pleasure of reading them again after the next massacre. See you all here again soon, people. Stay lucky.

  • -3

    Sasoriza

    I'm not in position to judge about US internal policy , so the only thing I can say is, may all little angels who went to heaven that day forgive us, the adults, for creating this crazy, bitter world they had to live in.

  • -1

    T-Mack

    "Nothing stops people from mass killing." ....not gun control, not law's, not auto-matic .223 weapon's, not 9 mm hand gun's,not any kind of weapon formed againt's children,..... only strong moral charater...teaching's greater than one's self, people who hold life as precious, and valuable...not people who feel their life's is a little less than worth living for, and rape out at other's with violent gun rage, and extreme hatered.......I cry with the parent's of the dead...

  • 7

    TanakaTaro

    Base4funk

    if they don't have a gun, they can use, for example: a Baseball bat or a knife or a chainsaw or a Hammer and if you are a skilled person, you can inflict very quickly serious damage on people wielding ANY of these tools.

    I think you are missing the point. You can do serious damage with a baseball bat, but when was the last time you heard of someone committing mass-murder with a baseball bat? In just this case we are talking about 26 fatalities. Can you really see that happening with any of the other weapons you mentioned?

  • -1

    nandakandamanda

    In a natural, mentally-balanced drug-free society, you can be sure that ordinary human beings will have an in-built resistance to shooting another person, especially non-threatening, unarmed and defenceless kids.

    You can teach such a human being the rules for gun safety, which include never pointing a gun at another person for any reason, even if you believe the gun to be unloaded.

    This resistance threshold can be overcome, however, by a number of factors. Some people are born with no resistance to taking life and they never mature into responsible adults. We call them murderers, psychopaths. People can be trained to overcome their reluctance under certain situations, such as those in the police or the armed forces. Unstable people can cross this threshold under the influence of drugs, illegal ones or even those prescribed by a doctor. Sadly there is a conspiracy of public silence in the medical community about the influence of powerful psychotic drugs on the human mind, both going onto and after coming off (of) such drugs.

    I see four powerful groups in the US who need to come out and talk together, 1. the gun manufacturers, 2. the NRA, 3. the pharmaceuticals industry and 4. doctors/psychiatrists.

    (I would hate to think they were all on the same side, protecting their own lucrative interests.)

  • -9

    bass4funk

    It's truly depressing to read the pro-gun arguments. I'm sure we will all have the pleasure of reading them again after the next massacre. See you all here again soon, people. Stay lucky.

    I think it's depressing that people want to make this a GUN issue when it is clearly an issue about how to control sociopaths, that's the real issue here and how we can prevent them from causing mayhem in our society! Don't blame the guns, blame the degenerates can get their hands on the guns, the laws need to be rectified so that these idiots cannot get their hands on firearms.

  • 5

    smithinjapan

    bass4funk: "If they want to live, don't rob me, hurt me or my family and think before you attack or rob someone, then you don't have to be put in that situation to possibly have their lives forfitted."

    I think we all know by now that this is bogus -- all you need to do is THINK your life is in danger in some states and you're perfectly able to shoot and kill someone or some people when the person being shot is only minding his or her own business. But tell me, bass... who were these kids threatening?

    "Sorry, totally disagree, that is a total cop out, to say guns are responsible for this jerk to do what he did is pure Nonesense,"

    Sorry, my friend, but the copout is yours. I said quite clearly that this guy, armed with guns, was able to do FAR more damage than he would have otherwise.

    "no BS! Of course, you can do massive damage with any kind of gun, but that guy was intent on killing people and when a person wants to kill you, if they don't have a gun, they can use, for example: a Baseball bat or a knife or a chainsaw or a Hammer and if you are a skilled person, you can inflict very quickly serious damage on people wielding ANY of these tools. "

    You can inflict damage on people wielding these tools? EXACTLY! Interesting Freudian slip there, my friend. If they are wielding a bat or 'any' of the weapons you or I mention besides a gun it is a LOT easier to subdue them without harm -- or with less harm -- than if the person has a gun, shooting from a distance. Thanks for backing me up on that one. Even your subconscious cannot deny the truth. :)

  • 3

    smithinjapan

    bass4funk: "Don't blame the guns, blame the degenerates can get their hands on the guns"

    And again you miss the point; without guns they could not inflict near the damage they can WITH guns -- and so guns are a major part of the problem. It was a mass SHOOTING, not a mass baseball bat killing, wasn't it? And if you don't think guns are part of the problem, compare stats with ANY country that doesn't have the same right to bear arms and you'll see that the stats redefine 'fraction'. You simply cannot deny the numbers. Like I'm pretty sure I said in the shopping mall shooting murders the other day -- "We'll see his again next week" (I was off... it was less than a week!), and once again so long as people like yourself insist on applying the outdated Constitution to today's weaponry, we'll be seeing it again within the next few days, probably.

    I just feel awfully sorry for the parents and loved ones of those killed who had to find out the hard way how stupid it is to be able to own firearms. Same as I feel sorry for the people earlier this week, and the dad who shot his son in the chest by accident the other day, etc. etc. etc. It never ends so long as the gun-nutters insist on their 'rights'.

  • 2

    cleo

    And once again we seem to have Americans telling us that Americans need guns to protect themselves from crazy Americans with guns.

    So mind-numbingly, pathetically self-destructive.

    any person that would try to harm me...evil intent.... murderers, psychopaths.... under the influence of drugs....Nothing stops people from mass killing...a lot of sociatel social issues that are plauging Americans, it has to do with the people

    If you really believe the country is populated by sociopaths, why on earth don't you get out of there and move to a place where normal people live and don't need guns?

  • -9

    WilliB

    Heda Madness:

    " Anyone who continues to support America's gun policy is an idiot. It's simply unfathomable that this has happened. Again. Just unbelievable. "

    For your reference, similar tragedies have happened in Germany, Norway, and many other countries with strict gun control laws. It is is sad that some immediately want to turn this into political talking points.

  • 2

    oikawa

    bass4funk

    I think it's depressing that people want to make this a GUN issue when it is clearly an issue about how to control sociopaths, that's the real issue here and how we can prevent them from causing mayhem in our society! Don't blame the guns, blame the degenerates can get their hands on the guns, the laws need to be rectified so that these idiots cannot get their hands on firearms.

    This makes a lot of sense, but giving the crazy person who does these things the ability to make it even worse is what most people don't understand. I wouldn't blame the knife if my 5 year old daughter accidentally cut herself, but I would certainly blame the person who let her get it, possibly me. Equally I don't blame the gun, but I would do my damndest to keep the gun and knife out of reach. Do you really think your "right to bear arms" is that important, or that America is that dangerous, that it trumps the obvious danger that it will make incidents like these worse if you keep things as they are?

  • 2

    open_mind

    Not much to say. Just my condolences go out to every family effected by this horrific crime. Just keep these children in your thoughts.

  • 2

    Jimizo

    @Bass And precisely how can we prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who carry out these atrocities? Give all prospective gun-owners psycho evaluations? As long as the US upholds the right of citizens to bear arms, guns will inevitably fall into the wrong hands.

  • 0

    YongYang

    More people dead in the US from gun violence than US service people killed in Iraq, Afghanistan combined in the same period. There ain't no more Redcoats in the woods, put DOWN your weapons!

  • 2

    zichi

    when will these mass slaughters of little children stop, never because the right to have arms is greater than their right to live.

  • -1

    Flyfalcon

    Semi automatic and Automatic should be banned in States at least. That nation has become United States of massacre.. In the old days, Cow boys need the Gun because of native threat. Now that threat is no longer existed. There is no credibility that Gun will make safer. That kids were youngest victims. If the next one will become younger, only kindergarten left. It is unacceptable in civilized world.

  • -2

    Matthew Simon

    Bear in mind that the best you can expect from this is a new assault weapons ban which won't get rid of what is already out there but only further regulate new purchases. (This is actually a very good thing the further regs I mean) To those non US citizens that are talking down about Americans and their guns although you are free to voice your opinions they are irrelevant. It is up to US citizens to determine their own laws. I will continue to support my own right to have a gun should I desire too. Regardless of how many times this happens, the blame should go to the perpetrator where it belongs. Nearly everyone responsibly uses guns that have them and the needs of the many.... This incident was horrible and evil and the fact that the coward shot himself means that there really is no sense of closure to the families of the victims. I feel for them truly. I felt sick when I read the news this morning.

  • 1

    Ah_so

    This is a tragic event, and I guess we will never know why this had to happen. Have I had members of my family killed by guns, yes I have. Do we have still have guns to protect us, yes we do. But just throwing away all guns will not be the answer.

    Alphaape: So you have lost family to guns, but still think that they protect you. They did not do much to protect the little children of this school, did they?

    You think throwing away guns is not the answer, but there are plenty of countries around the world to suggest that it is the answer. Start with getting rid of the "boys toys" guns - the M16 variants, and pistols.

    By historical accident, the USA clings to some 18th century law whereas the rest of the world has moved on.

  • -2

    lucabrasi

    It is up to US citizens to determine their own laws.

    Very well said. We're all free to live in a hell of our own making.

  • 0

    alliswellinjapan

    Utter loss for words. Obama's emotional press conference in tears and anger says it all. This will inevitably mark a clear turning point towards much stricter gun control in the US. Enough is enough.

  • 3

    cleo

    We're all free to live in a hell of our own making

    Those little children died in a hell of someone else's making. They were given no choice.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    WilliB: "For your reference, similar tragedies have happened in Germany, Norway, and many other countries with strict gun control laws."

    On a weekly basis?

    Matthew Simon: "Just for your info the right to bear arms was put into the constitution because of the then recent need for the Colonial Americans to defeat their British Imperial overlords. "

    "Recent" need? Last I checked the American Revolution and writing of the Constitution weren't all that recent.

    "Had the Colonial Americans not had weapons the war would have gone very differently"

    So, hang on... you say the Constitution was written for the purpose of defeating the British 'overlords', but wasn't the Constitution written AFTER the war? You contradict yourself a good number of times here; I mean, you say the right to bear arms was put in to 'defeat' them and the war would have gone differently if the Americans didn't have said right, but it became a right AFTER the British defeat. Your points are all moot.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Matthew Simon: "To those non US citizens that are talking down about Americans and their guns although you are free to voice your opinions they are irrelevant. It is up to US citizens to determine their own laws."

    The latter part is a shame, since clearly they cannot determine laws that would actually HELP them instead of ending so many lives on a weekly basis.

    "I felt sick when I read the news this morning."

    I felt sick, too, but there was no guilt in my case, and part of the feeling of sickness was not just the fact that so many young lives (and adult lives) were snuffed out, but that Americans REFUSE to see the truth about guns and allow this to happen again, again, again, again, and again and still deny that guns are a part of the problem.

  • 2

    kaeru37

    And what country is that? EVERY country has flaws, EVERY one of them, if its NOT guns, it's something else, there is no such thing as a utopian society.

    That's right, BUT these awful events happen with regularity in America, and they have not dealt with this problem seriously enough. They don't want to ask the tough questions or listen to the tough answers. Also, the NRA should cease to exist. They are the main reason that change has not taken place. As long as an organization like the NRA continue to block bills or changes in the gun laws, these horrible events will continue to happen.

  • 4

    SuperLib

    Outta here: But what is also sad is the fact that many people including posters on here cannot see the coloration between easy access to weapons and these sorts of crimes.

    Sums it up perfectly. We have nutjobs. We have guns. We can't ban the nutjobs. What's left?

    bass4funk: Don't blame the guns, blame the degenerates can get their hands on the guns, the laws need to be rectified so that these idiots cannot get their hands on firearms.

    You don't see any link at all between having 200,000,000+ guns in the US and crazy people getting their hands on them? None at all? Imagine in my left hand are 200,000,00 guns. In my right hand are all of the crazy people. Now I'll slowly bring my hands together. Get the picture now? We even had someone here saying that people who live with mentally disturbed people shouldn't be "penalized" by denying a gun in the house. That's how much more the gun lobby places gun ownership over public safety.

    I'm sure a vast majority of gun owners are safe people to be around. But I want them to understand something. For the right for them to lock that object in their closet and take it out every once in a while, the rest of us have to deal with school shootings. That's the price we all pay for them to own that object. It's a very real cost, and you're making everyone pay it. So think about that next time you get your thrills by having a gun in your hand. I hope it's worth it.

  • -2

    Matthew Simon

    smith you made need glasses as I said: because of the then recent need

    As in The revolutionary war that had just ended a few years prior jeez you mis-quote me and then berate me for something that you mis-read.

  • 2

    Matthew Simon

    I am not feeling guilty about what happened. I DID NOT DO IT. I just feel bad for the families of the victims.

  • 1

    URO

    No words for it. My thoughts go out to the families of the victims.

    A mentally disordered person, unsupported and untreated still represent a potential hazard, with or without a gun. That said, I am against the free possession of firearms. There is also another important problem in ou society : Alcohol consumption among adolescents, drug use among teens and young-adults. This is a scourge that is growing in our world and it is not without consequences.

  • 5

    Kabukilover

    You might want to reading the following from a father whose son was murdered by a deranged student at Simon's Rock College in 1992:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/14/opinion/why-we-let-the-school-shootings-continue.html?hp

    He sees gun control as a public health issue. His despair at changing anything ought to be pondered.

    Given the number of psychos in the United States we need gun control laws that are not only strict but stringent. Semi-automatic military guns ought to be outlawed and handgun ownership should be denied except in cases of absolute necessity. It will never happen, but I think the arms industries ought to be nationalized. Gun lobbying should be banned. And the Second Amendment ought to be amended. To many people have been Second Amendmented to death.

  • 0

    technosphere

    And once again we seem to have Americans telling us that Americans need guns to protect themselves from crazy Americans with guns So mind-numbingly, pathetically self-destructive.

    The situation when a complete ret......okay, mentally-unstable person could purchase a firearm without any problems looks out rather strange for civilized society .

  • -2

    Athletes

    Very well said Cleo and Smith! I am a fan of your posts. Without your posts, JT will be so boring.

  • -4

    sailwind

    But I want them to understand something. For the right for them to lock that object in their closet and take it out every once in a while, the rest of us have to deal with school shootings.

    Superlib,

    I agree that easy access to guns does make it easier when a mental defective person snaps to carry out these type of atrocities and for the record I do support gun laws that do everything within sane laws to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands be it nutjobs or criminals.

    I though cannot in good conscience ever support any gun law ban to deny my fellow countrymen their individual right to protect themselves, and if they deem it fit to protect themselves by owning a legal fire arm that is their personal decision and it should be respected. I myself have been blessed through the years by living in areas that I always felt secure and safe enough to never need to own a gun for my personal protection or for the protection of family and loved ones. But say if I did happen to end up in a rough area, If my house was broken into year after year, if the Police in the area were pretty much useless as is often the case or if someone in my family was threatened by violence, I want that option...nay, that right that we have to own a legal firearm for my own protection, if I so deem it prudent and necessary.

  • 0

    lostrune2

    The elementary school just had a new security system installed. It automatically locks down the school doors once school starts, and anybody needs to be buzzed in to enter. Apparently though, the suspect shot his way in by shooting thru a thick glass strip nearby.

    The alert messaging system worked though. The parents were immediately notified thru their contact means, whether via phone, SMS text, email, etc. That's why the parents got there so soon after.

    And the police and rescue personnel performed admirably in taking care of the remaining children.

  • -1

    philsandoz

    "State police Lt Paul Vance said 28 people in all were killed, including the gunman, and one person was injured." Did the murderer kill himself or was he shot by the police? "The gunman was believed to suffer from a personality disorder..." Well, who'd have guessed that?

  • 0

    Iowan

    Per , agreed.

    I've fond memories of hunting with my dad, grandpa, and uncles--those are the gun rights, the gun culture I support. Guns that fit into pockets or shoot semi-automatically are items I have issue with.

    Greater funding for social service programs should be allocated.

    Sad for all affected.

  • 0

    globalwatcher

    My heart has been shattered. I have just listend a song of Michael Jackson "We are the World, We are the Children" this song made me more determined that I will work for the change in gun control. These children were too small to speak up for themselves, so we are responsible to set things right for them.

    We are the Children-We are the World.

    There comes a time when we heed a certain call When the world must come together as one There are people dying And its time to lend a hand to life The greatest gift of all

    We can't go on pretending day by day That someone, somehow will soon make a change We are all a part of Gods great big family And the truth, you know, Love is all we need

    [Chorus] We are the world, we are the children We are the ones who make a brighter day So lets start giving There's a choice we're making We're saving our own lives Its true we'll make a better day Just you and me

    Send them your heart so they'll know that someone cares And their lives will be stronger and free As God has shown us by turning stones to bread So we all must lend a helping hand

  • 0

    lostrune2

    Did the murderer kill himself or was he shot by the police?

    Killed himself.

  • 0

    lucabrasi

    @Cleo

    Those little children died in a hell of someone else's making. They were given no choice.

    That's what happens when you create a hell. What I meant was that there's no point the rest of us coming on here and pointing out what's wrong with the gun laws in the US. Only the Americans can change things. If they want to.

  • 0

    Hawkeye

    Very sad day. My J-wife and I have been following the news and shed many a tear thinking about those poor families who lost their precious loved ones. We do not understand why the authories did not remove the bodies of those killed to allow the families to identify them and know for certain that they had been killed and begin their greiving. We were also quite shocked when we watched Piers Morgan on CNN try to make a young girl who survived and was being interviewed by a CNN on site reporter with her mother talk about her ordeal, what is wrong with the media, don't they have any respect for people or is it all about ratings?

  • -3

    Noliving

    could have done the same amount of damage with notebook?

    Probably not but could he have done the same amount of damage with a super soaker flame thrower such as this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc3vcXp_7O8

    He also could have done the same amount of damage using a car, for example back in 2003 a driver killed 10 people and wounded/injured 63 others by simply just running them over in a farmers market in Santa Monica California.

    http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/george-russell-weller

    So you have to ask yourself what is to stop someone from just snapping behind the wheel and just get onto the sidewalk and just hit the throttle?

    Of course the argument with cars is that they are not designed to kill or intended to be used to kill but at the end of the day you still have thousands of people being killed each year and more importantly cars are not a necessity either. People claim you need cars in America but you don't you just take all the money spent on cars and instead put it as a tax towards public transportation.

    If I'm not mistaken you currently don't own a car correct?

    Very true, because we rely on logic, and it makes no sense whatsoever to justify having firearms based on a constitution written to create militia out of fear the British would attack again. In no way did the forefathers have this kind of slaughter in mind.

    Actually it had a lot more to do with the idea that the US government would eventually become corrupt and hostile to its own citizens like all the other nations of the world unless the citizens had a way to keep that government in check. As you know the US constitution was not created until 12 years after the articles of confederation were created and implemented. The bill of rights though were not officially adopted until 3 afters the US constitution was created. Those bill of rights are based off of the English bill of rights of 1689 it included a right to own a gun to defend yourself from your own government. So it wasn't primarily created out of fear the British would attack again.

    You could argue the forefathers did have this kind of slaughter in mind, I mean if the goal was to create a militia to send to war what other type of slaughter would they have in mind? Hundreds if not thousands died on battle fields during that time so they obviously had some type of slaughter in mind.

    tightly registered hunting rifle to be used ONLY during hunting season, okay... but automatic weapons

    Automatic weapons have been used for hunting for over a century, your going to have to be a lot more specific about what type of firearm you are talking about.

    For the right for them to lock that object in their closet and take it out every once in a while, the rest of us have to deal with school shootings. That's the price we all pay for them to own that object. It's a very real cost, and you're making everyone pay it. So think about that next time you get your thrills by having a gun in your hand. I hope it's worth it.

    To be fair superlib they pay a greater price, more people are shot and killed in gun accidents then in school shootings, a lot more.

  • 1

    Noliving

    One thing that I read is that the mother of the shooter retired in order to take care of her son who was the shooter, if that is true that his mental illness was severe enough to cause her to retire early why did she buy a gun (target shooting?) and how well did she lock up the guns and ammunition?

  • 0

    Stephen Jez

    So sad

    So, is the US ready for stricter gun control yet?

  • 5

    choiwaruoyaji

    Lax gun laws mean that even severely mentally disturbed people can get guns.

    It's that simple.

    No matter how the pro-gun lobby in America wants to paint it... the system that suits them best also means that insane people will get guns and go on the rampage.

    This will happen again and again.

    Make it easy to get guns and people with mental problems will also get them...

  • -2

    cleo

    That's what happens when you create a hell. What I meant was that there's no point the rest of us coming on here and pointing out what's wrong with the gun laws in the US. Only the Americans can change things. If they want to.

    And the really sad thing is that the people needed to make the change seem to think hell is a wonderful place to be.

    • Moderator

      "Hell" is not relevant to this discussion.

  • -1

    BertieWooster

    Guns are part of it, mind-altering psychiatric drugs are another:

    In mass shootings involving guns and mind-altering medications, politicians immediately seek to blame guns but never the medication. Nearly every mass shooting that has taken place in America over the last two decades has a link to psychiatric medication, and it appears today’s tragic event is headed in the same direction.

    http://www.infowars.com/school-shooter-adam-lanza-likely-on-meds-labeled-as-having-personality-disorder/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

  • 0

    nandakandamanda

    War is over, if you want it, war is over... NOW.

    (It seemed impossible at the time to stop the deadly inertia of the Vietnam War but some people got together and protested against it.)

    Shooting sprees are over, if you want it, sprees are over ... NOW!

  • 0

    Noliving

    So sad So, is the US ready for stricter gun control yet?

    When it comes to mental health background checks I believe the US is ready to actually start doing something about mental health in terms of properly funding mental health services as well as creating a much more effective system for getting mentally ill people into the federal NICS system to prevent them from buying guns.

    Sadly though the person who bought these firearms was the mother not the shooter.

    So this begs the question do we create a law that says if you live in a place where a mentally ill person or a person with a criminal offense that would bar them from owning firearms that you are then prohibited from buying/obtaining a firearm until you relocate to a place of residence that does house such individuals.

  • -10

    Molenir

    Reading some of the comments here, I really thing the story should be, 2 guns walked into the school and murdered 27 people. Some peoples comments are just completely over the top. I guess they've never been to Japan, where nutjobs have walked into classrooms with knives and murdered kids. Sure as heck, its not the killers fault, no its the guns. If there were no guns, no kids would have died...

    I'd like to ask, if all the teachers were armed, how many would have died then? If they were all armed, would this psycho, have had the courage to go and face them? Poorly thought out, reactionary laws are not the solution. And as gun ownership is enshrined in the constitution, it would take a constitutional amendment, to alter it. And that simply won't happen. Politicians from both parties would rightfully oppose it.

    Where guns are uncommon, criminals have them. Where nutjobs can't get them, they use other weapons such as knives, or vehicles. As the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people, using whatever weapon they can get their hands on. It was a gun in this case, it could have just as easily have been a knife, or a car etc...

  • 7

    Betraythetrust!

    @ Molenir and if a teacher flipped his/her lid and started blasting at the kids should that mean all the kids should be armed. The pro gun arguments are a joke, just like the US has become, very sad for a nation with such resources and potential.

  • -1

    bruinfan

    At the very least, it is foolish to advocated everyone being armed to reduce this crime. For every prevented death due to people being able to "shoot back", there would be many more accidental deaths, especially when things get chaotic.

  • 2

    nandakandamanda

    When we lived in Montgomery, Alabama my younger brother and I found my Dad's service revolver in the bottom drawer of a chest of drawers. My brother was six and I was seven. It was at the back under some clothes. It was heavy and cold, but strangely fascinating. I remember this quite clearly today, how I pulled the gun out and how we played with it. It must have been loaded. I do not remember whether I pulled the trigger or not, but I guess maybe not as we made it into adulthood.

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    Moliner: " I really thing the story should be, 2 guns walked into the school and murdered 27 people."

    Try a bit harder to remove those blinders. At the very least, try to understand the dead don't dance because you try to play with words.

  • 3

    smithinjapan

    mark28: "Sick Monsters will always find a way to hurt people"

    It's even easier when your government hands you a gun to do it. The stupidity of some Americans never really reaches abounds, because they have no end to said stupidity. "Well.... you could kill someone with a piece of cake so.. sooo..... sooo... so it's okay if someone murders someone else!" "It's an American right!"

    Please tell me what the families of the dead say in response to your belief that their children died for a reason. I'm interested in hearing the result.

  • 1

    Fadamor

    Speaking as a patriotic American, I say that the Constitution needs to be amended yet once again. The Founding Fathers - in their wisdom - realized that no single document could effectively govern a country and must be given a mechanism to allow changes when those changes become glaringly apparent. The first 12 changes were incorporated shortly after the original document was ratified and became collectively known as the "Bill of Rights". One of those changes was made to address incidents where the previous Government had tried to confiscate firearms from the colonists. The change justifies itself by pointing out the need for militias and the need for those militias to have their own weapons when called upon. The change, commonly labeled "The Second Amendment" actually ended up in two slightly different forms - the one passed by Congress and the one sent to the states and ultimately ratified. They are as follows:

    As passed by the Congress:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Note that the removal of a capital letter and the omission of a couple of commas can subtly change the perceived meaning of the sentence and THERE is the crux of the debate over what was actually meant by the amendment.

    Regardless, the Founding Fathers never had to consider how their amendment would affect future generations due to the advance of technology. When they wrote this amendment, "arms" were considered to be flintlock muskets and pistols. The rate of fire from such a weapon would be three or four rounds per MINUTE, at best. The Founding Fathers had no concern that a single deranged individual would kill a score or more of people, because the murderer would be overpowered before only a couple of shots had been fired. It is because of this obvious deficiency (through no fault of the Founding Fathers) that the Second Amendment no longer qualifies as a valid right of the people. It is tantamount to give the people the right to own as many buggy whips as they desire.

    So the Amendment itself needs to be amended to reflect the change in weapon technology. No one - not even the NRA - is trying to claim that civilians have a right to own firearms such as the Squad Automatic Weapon for home defense. Yet that is most definitely "arms" that could be used for defense of life and property. The NRA won't push that issue because they already know their entire existence is based on an ambiguous amendment and to try and push the issue could very well eliminate their political clout.

    Additionally, there are only a few states who still have active civilian militias. Most states operate a National Guard that fills the role that militias used to perform. Militias are obviously no longer "necessary" for the security of a free state (or all the states would still have them), so the reference in the amendment to militias is an anachronism that no longer applies.

    Change the Second Amendment, or repeal the Second Amendment then write a better one.

  • 2

    SuperLib

    sailwind: But say if I did happen to end up in a rough area, If my house was broken into year after year, if the Police in the area were pretty much useless

    People using guns to actually defend themselves is a meaningless drop in the bucket of gun statistics. It's a fact. There is exponentially more harm caused by guns than people who are "saved by them." Ban the guns and work on the problem of people breaking into a house over and over again. If we think we are smart enough to solve the problem of crazy people going on mass shootings then surely you must think we're smart enough to solve the problem of B&E.

    noliving: Actually it had a lot more to do with the idea that the US government would eventually become corrupt and hostile to its own citizens like all the other nations of the world unless the citizens had a way to keep that government in check

    Instead we have a government that's in the back pocket of the gun lobby. Try the proposed route of "strengthening gun laws." Go ahead and propose anything. See how far it gets you with the gun lobby. They'll fight you tooth and nail while telling you it's a slippery slope that will eventually lead to a ban. That's why we have the ability to buy an AK-47 at a store today if we wanted to....because if we ban that then it's just another way for the big, bad government to get their hands on your guns. It's hypocrisy. We both know the gun lobby will do anything to stop any laws that will do anything that keeps a gun off the streets so when they talk about strengthening or enforcing the current laws it's an empty argument and we both know it.

    Probably not but could he have done the same amount of damage with a super soaker flame thrower such as this:

    Stop. This argument sounds more like it's thrown out by someone who is desperate to have anything to say.

  • 0

    Fadamor

    Let's make guns illegal, this way nobody can get them!

    Like crack, heroin or pot, and oh yes, illegal guns that fill our streets right now. I live in Connecticut, about 10 miles from where this took place. Sandy Hook is a very nice place to live in, even now it still is. You can walk around at night and still live to see another day. Now go out around 15 miles, will say Bridgeport or New haven. They have some of the highest crime rates in America. You take a walk any time of day(if your White or Asian) in the trash areas of these cesspools. And you "will" be very badly hurt or dead.

    Sick Monsters will always find a way to hurt people. Taking away guns from honest law abiding people, will make then targets for ghetto trash.

    Typical racist trash-talking. Pop quiz, genius. Guns are legal right now, so how did the legal ownership of guns protect these 6 adults and 20 children? They already WERE targets and were murdered by ONE person using LEGALLY OWNED GUNS.

    Regarding illegal guns, part of the reason they're so common is because there are so many LEGAL ones here for the taking already. How many illegal weapons turn up having been stolen from a legal gun owner?

    Tell you what: I have no problem with guns being legal for defense as long as they're double-action, single-shot pistols or muskets. That's what the writers of the Second Amendment considered "arms".

  • 1

    globalwatcher

    AlphaapeDec. 15, 2012 - 12:19PM JST

    This is just one shooting among many, and many to come unless the US starts cleaning up their weapon policies.

    In the USA, we do have gun control laws in place. Since the mother bought the guns legally, some have said maybe there should be a law against owning a gun if someone in the house has a mental illness. That may sound good, but why are you going to penalize the rest of the family because of one person's disability? If that were a law soon you would be seeing laws prohibiting gun ownership if anyone in the family has had a criminal record. Again, you are denying the law abiding citizens because of the actions of someone else. Seems to me some have commented on the same illogical thinking that we see here in Japan where military members have to be home by a certain time and can't drink at certain times because of the actions of someone else. A gun measure such as those proposed would see the same slippery slope develop.

    Every citizen is obligated to do what is the best interest for safety of society. It was her social responsibility she failed to deliver. "Me", "Me" self satisfying objectives will be the last one on the list. I believe someone like her had no business to keep three weapons in her house when her son was in mental illness.These who suffer with mental illness cannot make right decisions for himself and others. It is a common sense, IMHO.

  • -8

    Noliving

    That's why we have the ability to buy an AK-47 at a store today if we wanted to....because if we ban that then it's just another way for the big, bad government to get their hands on your guns.

    What is wrong with owning a semi-automatic rifle patterned after a AK-47? I mean those rifles are less powerful than hunting rifles and shotguns. I have never understood why people think the AK-47 or the AR-15 is some uber powerful rifle compared to the hunting rifles that exist today. Besides those type of military patterned rifle make up less than 1% of all gun crime. So banning them won't make any difference gun crime in the US. So what would be the point of banning them if they don't improve your safety?

    Stop. This argument sounds more like it's thrown out by someone who is desperate to have anything to say.

    Well if you watched the youtube link you would know it is not anywhere near desperation. Tell me after watching that clip you couldn't kill dozens of people very quickly with it. Not to mention the fact that it would have a very high potential of starting fire if it was inside a building. I don't think you realize just how easy it is to create such a weapon.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc3vcXp_7O8

    Regardless, the Founding Fathers never had to consider how their amendment would affect future generations due to the advance of technology.

    Same could be said for freedom of expression/speech/press.

    When they wrote this amendment, "arms" were considered to be flintlock muskets and pistols. The rate of fire from such a weapon would be three or four rounds per MINUTE, at best.

    Yes and there is one thing that you are forgetting those same owners of flintlock muskets had to store gun powder. Meaning they had a stockpile of an explosive material. Not a small stockpile but barrels of them. What was to stop someone from putting them together and then blowing them up?

    The Founding Fathers had no concern that a single deranged individual would kill a score or more of people, because the murderer would be overpowered before only a couple of shots had been fired

    Prove that. You really think that when that person engaged at a hundred yards or further the other people would say hey lets go charge that person. How often did that happen?

    Did the founding fathers have any concern for a single deranged individual would burn a Koran that would then lead to a world wide diplomatic/national security issue for the US due to the internet and telephones? Heck look at that video on YouTube and the protests that it caused around the world. Those freedom of speech law/press/expression were before some idiot could single handily cause a world wide diplomatic incident for just posting something, they were in a time when something happens it took months before other parts of the world heard about it..

    No one - not even the NRA - is trying to claim that civilians have a right to own firearms such as the Squad Automatic Weapon for home defense.

    Do you really honestly think the 2nd amendment is about target shooting, hunting, and home defense?

    Additionally, there are only a few states who still have active civilian militias. Most states operate a National Guard that fills the role that militias used to perform. Militias are obviously no longer "necessary" for the security of a free state (or all the states would still have them), so the reference in the amendment to militias is an anachronism that no longer applies.

    2nd amendment isn't about active civilian militias it is about the civilian population being able to form a militia when the constitution is under threat, whether it be foreign threat or a domestic threat (like government corruption or the military doing a coup of the elected government) Really no longer necessary? The national guard is under the control of the department of defense or the federal government what happens if the federal government becomes corrupt and starts stripping you of your rights?

    Take a look at the link below with regards to what is happening to freedom of speech:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-four-arguments-the-western-world-uses-to-limit-free-speech/2012/10/12/e0573bd4-116d-11e2-a16b-2c110031514astory.html?wprss=rssopinions

  • 7

    Heda_Madness

    Where guns are uncommon, criminals have them. Where nutjobs can't get them, they use other weapons such as knives, or vehicles. As the saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people, using whatever weapon they can get their hands on. It was a gun in this case, it could have just as easily have been a knife, or a car etc...

    A man went in to a school in China on Friday and stabbed 22 children. Number of fatalities = 0. A man went in to a school in the US on Friday and shot 27 people. Number of fatalities = 27.

    And you use that as a defence for having guns.

  • -4

    Noliving

    They'll fight you tooth and nail while telling you it's a slippery slope that will eventually lead to a ban.

    Are they wrong? You got people who want a complete ban on hand guns, now you got people who want a complete ban on semi-automatics and hand guns. When does the banning of firearms stop? At pump action? Bolt action? Lever action? When does category of firearms that are to be banned stop?

    Do you think the banning of alcohol and the start of the drug war in the US just came about overnight or do you think it was a series of gradual increases of laws and movements to ban such activities that culminated into a prohibition? Take smoking of cigarettes, look at all the gradual increases in laws and movements in the US to ban such activities, it is not yet a prohibition but it is very obvious that is where it is heading.

    Look at the anti-abortion movement in the US, they can't get a complete ban so guess what they are doing state by state, they are passing a gradual increase in laws that make it more difficult to get an abortion or in other words to ban such activities that it will ultimately culminate into a prohibition.

    So as you can see it is very much a slippery slope because bans don't happen overnight they are a series of gradual increase in laws that culminate into a prohibition/ban.

  • -5

    Noliving

    Guns are legal right now, so how did the legal ownership of guns protect these 6 adults and 20 children?

    Well they couldn't have because a law was in place that banned guns from the school grounds. So a legal owner would not have been able to legally help in that situation.

    They already WERE targets and were murdered by ONE person using LEGALLY OWNED GUNS.

    Technically the guns were not legally owned by the shooter, the shooter stole the guns from the legal gun owner and then killed the legal gun owner.

  • -5

    Noliving

    Bushmaster semi automatic assault rifle

    It is not an assault rifle, the very definition of an assault rifle is that it is a machine gun otherwise known as a fully automatic. Semi-automatics only fire one round each time the trigger is squeezed.

    Why do you have to buy 6000 bullets in one single week ?

    Target shooting, gun tournaments, buying in bulk also makes target shoot an affordable hobby. You can easily go through 6,000 rounds in a single day at a range. Seeing as there have only been two incidents in which more than 1,000 rounds have been fired in a criminal incident how would banning people from buying 6,000 rounds in a single week prevent this crime. What limit do you propose?

    Why do you have to buy more than 1 gun in your household ?

    Oh that is easy, different guns react differently when fired and so some people like to experience different guns, it is the same reason why some people buy more than one vehicle, each vehicle drives differently and depending on your mood you might want to drive your subcompact ford fiesta and then on another day you want to drive your mazda miata. Same thing with firearms. There is nothing wrong with owning more than one gun.

    From the news reports, his mother bought the guns for him as a present or he forged his mother's signature to get guns from the internet or she bought the guns for him at a gun store.. Which is crazy !!!!A 20 year old buying guns ???????

    Do you have a link to that? I haven't read anything about that yet so I would be very interested in that article.

  • 0

    Akemi Mokoto

    This is horrible. Nothing will change because most Americans seem to think gun laws don't work. Gun Laws work if enforced correctly. Why haven't they worked in Chicago, DC, and other cities? Because city laws are next to ineffective. You notice states and [most] nations with gun bans or strong restrictions have lower homicide crime rates, including lower gun crime. Japan(ban), Chile(extreme restrictions), South Korea(ban), Ukraine(extreme restrictions, mostly bans), England(ban), Poland(restrictions and extensive and aggressive screening) etc. I could go on. Enforce the bloody laws correctly and they will work. To say they don't work because useless city laws failed to make a difference is next to irrational. No point in explaining facts to gun nuts. They'll downplay it.

    While gun bans won't completely eradicate violence, it will limit the number of things people can use. Don't give me that weak "What next, cars? Knives? rocks?". We will worry about that when such murders become just as bad as gun murders, which is highly unlikely. Though, Japan does have some strong laws on having knives and evens still, the murder rate is bloody low.

    PS: The automatic weapons ban didn't work because, as the Justice Department said, the number of crimes involving such weapons were so low that they couldn't not give an accurate estimate on how much of a difference it made. Either ban guns or restrict them heavily. But don't you dare say the laws don't work when there are countless other nations with a ban in place and it works fine. Why? THEY ENFORCE THEIR LAWS CORRECTLY! Don't know what they do? Go to Google and do some research and stop repeating what you hear radio conservatives say.

  • -7

    Little Boots

    I cannot believe some of the comments I'm reading. Why are most of you focusing on gun laws in America instead of the tragedy that has happened? A lot of you don't even live in America (or have never been there) but love to spew your anti-American rhetoric when some crime occurs in America or in Japan involving Americans.

    Do not forget what happened; 20 children will never earn their first pay check or graduate high school. Not only are numerous family members impacted by this, but a whole community. If you have been paying attention the whole country is mourning, but instead of keeping on topic you would rather debate gun laws of a country you never plan on living in or clearly can't stand. Shame on you; let's keep to what's important here.

    • Moderator

      Gun laws in the U.S. are very much on topic.

  • 0

    Fadamor

    What is wrong with owning a semi-automatic rifle patterned after a AK-47? I mean those rifles are less powerful than hunting rifles and shotguns. I have never understood why people think the AK-47 or the AR-15 is some uber powerful rifle compared to the hunting rifles that exist today.

    It's called the concept of rounds delivered per minute, but you knew that. An AK-47 in select fire mode (or your "semi-automatic" AK-47 replica) will kill many more people in a 60 seconds than your "more powerful" hunting rifle will. But you already knew that as well. You could be using a .50 cal sniper rifle with an effective range of a mile, and the AK-47 will kill more people in 60 seconds than the sniper rifle will. "Power" is only meaningful for range or against armored targets.

  • -3

    Noliving

    but you knew that. An AK-47 in select fire mode (or your "semi-automatic" AK-47 replica) will kill many more people in a 60 seconds than your "more powerful" hunting rifle will.

    Not true at all, semi-automatic hunting rifles such as a Ruger mini-14 ranch rifle can put just as many rounds down range as a semi-automatic AK-47 replica in the same amount of time. A .50 caliber semi-automatic sniper rifle can put just as many rounds down range as that semi-automatic AK-47 replica. You don't seem to realize that hunting rifles and shot guns are also semi-automatics.

    Besides pump action fire arms can fire pretty quickly themselves. For example in the Aurora shooting more than 80% of those killed and wounded were by the pump action shotgun not by the AR-15.

    To give you an idea of how fast a pump action shot gun can fire take a look at this video at the 10 minute 10 second mark.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_1-E6qFuXk

    Also the greater the power of the bullet the more it can penetrate, in other words a .50 caliber will go through more humans than a 9mm round will. It will penetrate through more walls as well. They also cause greater damage to flesh making it more likely to be a lethal shot.

    Greater range also allows you more time to get more shots before someone can get close enough to engage you.

  • 2

    Victoria Maude

    Being Canadian, I honestly can't comprehend American gun laws. The argument that if they restrict guns, the populace will be vulnerable to criminals and the like just doesn't seem to apply in other countries. In Canada, I don't know a single person who owns a gun, unless they live out in the country or use it for hunting. People just don't see it as necessary. Yes, we absolutely still have gun violence, but it's nowhere near like what it is in the States. When it does happen, it's usually restricted to crime groups (ex. hits, drug deals, etc.). Yes, absolutely still dangerous to the public, but I have never felt like I needed to have a gun to protect myself while going out anywhere.

    Japan, same story. No-one here has a gun, just the yakuza, maybe, and they're not likely to be a part of my daily life. You might have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean that you should. Something needs to change in the American way of thinking.

  • -3

    bass4funk

    @smith

    The kids were bothering no one, again, I get it, don't get me wrong. I agree with most things you say except that the problem is NOT the gun in itself.

    "Sorry, totally disagree, that is a total cop out, to say guns are responsible for this jerk to do what he did is pure Nonesense,"

    Sorry, my friend, but the copout is yours. I said quite clearly that this guy, armed with guns, was able to do FAR more damage than he would have otherwise.

    Yes, he should have never been able to get his hands on any firearms, but that has nothing to do with me or hundreds of law-abiding citizens. But I agree, they should ban the sale of at least make it harder to purchase high powered Assault riffles.

    "no BS! Of course, you can do massive damage with any kind of gun, but that guy was intent on killing people and when a person wants to kill you, if they don't have a gun, they can use, for example: a Baseball bat or a knife or a chainsaw or a Hammer and if you are a skilled person, you can inflict very quickly serious damage on people wielding ANY of these tools. "

    You can inflict damage on people wielding these tools? EXACTLY! Interesting Freudian slip there, my friend. If they are wielding a bat or 'any' of the weapons you or I mention besides a gun it is a LOT easier to subdue them without harm -- or with less harm -- than if the person has a gun, shooting from a distance. Thanks for backing me up on that one. Even your subconscious cannot deny the truth. :)

    It's not exactly a Freudian slip, as I stated earlier, if someone wants to kill you, they will find and do it by ANY means, one life or a thousand, by a knife or a gun, murder is murder, the result will still be the same, punish these people to the maximum, but that has and should NOT affect me as a law-abiding gun owner.

    And again you miss the point; without guns they could not inflict near the damage they can WITH guns -- and so guns are a major part of the problem. It was a mass SHOOTING, not a mass baseball bat killing, wasn't it?

    Yes, so make it harder to purchase AR, I am in total agreement with that. 100% As long it doesn't affect me.

    And if you don't think guns are part of the problem, compare stats with ANY country that doesn't have the same right to bear arms and you'll see that the stats redefine 'fraction'.

    Yes, I agree with one point, guns are not the problem, the problem is much deeper than that, it has a lot more to do with the culture and how many people view the purpose and roles of a gun, re-educate people. It is true that many countries have a fraction of these crimes, so you basically made my point, guns are not the real issue, but the society and its view of guns.

    You simply cannot deny the numbers. Like I'm pretty sure I said in the shopping mall shooting murders the other day -- "We'll see his again next week" (I was off... it was less than a week!), and once again so long as people like yourself insist on applying the outdated Constitution to today's weaponry, we'll be seeing it again within the next few days, probably.

    I don't think the constitution is outdated at all. My house was broken into 10 years ago and because I had a gun, I'm able to sit here and talk to you, hold my kids. It saved my life and there are others that feel the same about owning a personal firearm. When I called the police, they came about 20 min. No one was shot or killed, but the individual thought twice and fled, I have no idea what could've possibly happen if I didn't had that gun.

    I just feel awfully sorry for the parents and loved ones of those killed who had to find out the hard way how stupid it is to be able to own firearms.

    I feel equally terrible, but I would never blame the guns, blame the idiots and the psychos that get their hands on these firearms.

    Same as I feel sorry for the people earlier this week, and the dad who shot his son in the chest by accident the other day, etc. etc. etc. It never ends so long as the gun-nutters insist on their 'rights'.

    As I said, you can use ANY weapon to kill people, murder is murder, any weapon is lethal and MY heart goes out to anyone that was innocently killed by ANY weapon, gun included.

  • -3

    bass4funk

    @Oikawa

    This makes a lot of sense, but giving the crazy person who does these things the ability to make it even worse is what most people don't understand. I wouldn't blame the knife if my 5 year old daughter accidentally cut herself, but I would certainly blame the person who let her get it, possibly me. Equally I don't blame the gun, but I would do my damndest to keep the gun and knife out of reach.

    As do I. My guns are always in a very secured location as well as the ammunition.

    Do you really think your "right to bear arms" is that important, or that America is that dangerous, that it trumps the obvious danger that it will make incidents like these worse if you keep things as they are?

    Yes, it has everything to do with with the government infringing on MY rights as a law-abiding citizen, as I said earlier, I'm all for banning or at least limiting the sale of most high powered Assault riffles, but personal hand guns, I totally disagree.

    @cleo

    If you really believe the country is populated by sociopaths, why on earth don't you get out of there and move to a place where normal people live and don't need guns?

    Sorry, but that was a looney statement with all due respect. There are hundreds of people that are in financial or perplexing situations that perhaps don't have the ability to relocate and or live in an area that is a high crime area. We don't know all the variables, but to say, move to where NORMAL people live is a insulting. I'm not normal because I own a firearm? Millions of gun owners that are law-abiding around the world are NOT normal? I don't think you are grasping reality.

  • -4

    bass4funk

    Yes, we absolutely still have gun violence, but it's nowhere near like what it is in the States. When it does happen, it's usually restricted to crime groups (ex. hits, drug deals, etc.). Yes, absolutely still dangerous to the public, but I have never felt like I needed to have a gun to protect myself while going out anywhere.

    Good for you, but there are people that would beg to differ with you. Personally, I feel very safe and secure with my gun. Never had to use it, but knowing that it is there, give me, personally a piece of mind. My biggest and foremost priority is to make sure my family is safe, NO MATTER what and we live in a nice neighborhood. The last time someone was murdered in my town was 1931, so I live in a very safe area, but knowing I have that bit of protection, helps me sleep better.

    Japan, same story. No-one here has a gun, just the yakuza, maybe, and they're not likely to be a part of my daily life. You might have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean that you should. Something needs to change in the American way of thinking.

    I do agree, however, that the mindset and the country needs to be re-educated as to the use and role of a firearm.

  • -5

    sailwind

    People using guns to actually defend themselves is a meaningless drop in the bucket of gun statistics.

    Superlib,

    For your and everybody else's consideration. This also involves a gun and a 12 year old girl. This is the other side of this debate when talking about a total ban on guns, guns also protect and that is a fact and if guns were totally banned this child's fate would have been a heck of a lot different.

    An accused intruder appeared in court Friday after a 12-year-old Oklahoma girl who was home alone hid in a closet and shot him to defend herself, "He opened the screen door and started pounding on the door," she told KXII. "So, I didn't answer it. And I called my mom. She said to go get the gun and hide in the closet." Kendra thanked her mom for teaching her how to keep her calm and protect herself. Kendra said it was the first time she'd ever fired a gun. Jones is charged with a felony first-degree burglary charge. If found guilty, he could face up to 20 years in prison, officials said.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57537270-504083/okla-girl-12-shot-home-intruder-while-hiding-in-closet-police-say/

  • 0

    bruinfan

    To those who think that if everyone (students included) packed a pistol, there would be fewer deaths, need to think realistically. I am not even advocating a ban on guns here.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: "guns also protect and that is a fact and if guns were totally banned this child's fate would have been a heck of a lot different."

    SuperLib was spot on in his point that guns do FAR more harm than they do 'protect', and the lame argument that guns are for protection doesn't fly. For every one example you can give, if you can give any, that a gun protected someone we can give you several thousand where it killed. You can give an example of a 12 year old girl hiding in the closet defended herself thanks to a gun and I'll give you several examples where a paranoid parent shot their child who was hiding in the closet because said parent heard a noise and thought they needed protection.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/09/us/startled-father-fatally-shoots-his-daughter.html

    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2000-02-10/news/181318531closet-cheryl-taylor-nonlife-threatening-wound

    http://kidshootings.blogspot.jp/2012/02/2-year-old-boy-finds-gun-in-fathers.html

    Now, please don't ask me to list links to the gun massacres in the US this year alone because it would take up a few pages. But nah.... guns aren't a problem, right?

  • -3

    bass4funk

    @smith

    But nah.... guns aren't a problem, right?

    That's correct, they are not the problem. As I said, I want stricter gun control overall, but as a hunter and as a parent, I will always side on the rights of law-abiding Americans and the right to defend themselves. Also, I can't say, I'm ashamed of our gun laws as they vary from state to state, but CA, has very strict gun laws, so I'm satisfied with that, but as far as the other states are concerned, I'm not that versed on each individual state.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    bass4funk: I didn't say THE problem, I said A problem. Definitely a difference despite your attempt to paint over it.

    "I will always side on the rights of law-abiding Americans and the right to defend themselves."

    And yet again you miss the point. As I said to sailwind, show us one example of a person using a gun to defend him/herself (and don't say it wouldn't be reported -- the NRA does anything and everything to play up its stance on guns) and I'll give you a thousand examples or so of when they're used to harm (ie. not defense). Only an American would say they need guns to protect themselves from nuts with guns and then say guns aren't a problem.

  • -2

    sailwind

    As I said to sailwind, show us one example of a person using a gun to defend him/herself (and don't say it wouldn't be reported

    The landmark study was peer-reviewed, Smith.

    Americans use a gun in self defense every 13 seconds

    Americans use a gun in self defense once every 13 seconds, according to a peer-reviewed study.

    The National Self Defense Survey, as conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, indicates that Americans use guns in self defense 2,500,000 times per year, which is once every 13 seconds.
    
    In about 30% of the defensive gun uses, the would-be victim believes that the gun “almost certainly” or “probably” saved a life.
    
    In more than 1/2 of the self defense gun uses, the would-be victim was under attack by 2 or more criminals, making a firearm the only viable means of self defense for most people.
    
    The overwhelming majority of these defensive gun uses were never reported by the news media.
    
    Gun ownership protects 65 lives for every 2 lives lost, and the overwhelming majority of of those lives lost are due to criminals who ignore gun bans anyway.
    

    For those who wish to read the peer reviewed and published studies substantiating these facts, see:

    http://www.examiner.com/article/americans-use-a-gun-self-defense-every-13-seconds

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    Sail: you cannot prove anything you say. "Guns save lives"; prove that they would have been lost without them. And how might those lives have been lost? Probably by guns. On the contrary, it's quite easy to prove lives lost by guns. And who, pres tel, peer reviewed your study? The NRA?

  • -3

    sailwind

    Smith,

    The study:

    Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz

    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

    Was peer-reviewed by the late Professor Marvin Wolfgang who passed away in 1998. His obit in the New York Times had this to say:

    Professor Wolfgang, a Philadelphia resident, was acknowledged in 1994 by the British Journal of Criminology as ''the most influential criminologist in the English-speaking world.''

    And according to Wiki: On Professor Kleck :

    His research was cited in the Supreme Court's landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which struck down the D.C. handgun ban and held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

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

  • 3

    Heda_Madness

    Smith you're wasting your time trying to use logic. 27 dead because of guns but guns = safe. Ridiculous.

    My post at the top says it all. 27 innocent people are dead. Dead because guns are so accessible. Dead for the same reason that the students of Columbine are dead. For countless other mass murder incidents that have happened in the last 30 years. Dead because idiots believe they have a God given right to have a gun. But not just one gun. They want many guns. To defend themselves. And they want guns that have 15 - 20 bullets. Because that's normal.

    27 dead and people are still trying to say that America is safer with guns. Unfriggingbelievable.

  • 3

    Heda_Madness

    Was peer-reviewed by the late Professor Marvin Wolfgang who passed away in 1998

    Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    Sail: so this peer review of yours was done some 15 or more years ago? You still have yet to give a single shred of proof that guns have saved lives, and haven't said what they were saved from (guns?).

    Heda: no kidding about gun-nutters not being able to use regular logic. You gotta love the, "this is tragic, BUT..." Lead-in to the Boolean logic they adhere to.

  • 2

    Heda_Madness

    Kleck says his study did not consider the question of lives saved.

    His numbers are based on a 1981 poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates

    Well, I suppose if you're going to use a law that's 200 years old to justify having guns, it's hardly surprising that they're using the highly contested findings of a survey that is 31 years old to continue to justify.

  • -5

    sailwind

    Of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, five have happened from 2007 onward

    And the worse one happened in Norway during this time frame, a country with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. This horrible recent trend does seems to be more rooted in something far more different going on with worldwide society at large than just a knee jerk reaction to banning guns. A possible terrible horrible consequence of globalization trend?

    You still have yet to give a single shred of proof that guns have saved lives

    If you where in that school when this madman came in and started shooting kids, and if you would have had access to a gun you would have done everything to stop him to drop his weapon or would've have shot the bastard after he started his rampage. I would, you would and any other decent human being would have also Smith.

    And that has actually happened before:

    The Appalachian School of Law shooting was a school shooting that occurred on January 16, 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law, an American Bar Association accredited private law school in Grundy, Virginia, United States. Three people were killed and three others were wounded when a former student, 43-year-old Peter Odighizuwa, opened fire in the school with a handgun.

    According to Bridges: at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to retrieve their personally-owned firearms[6] placed in their glove compartments. Mikael Gross, a police officer from Grifton, North Carolina retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor. Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, North Carolina[8] retrieved his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe. Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.

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

  • 2

    Heda_Madness

    Three people were killed and three others were wounded when a former student, 43-year-old Peter Odighizuwa, opened fire in the school with a handgun.

    And this is the justification for allowing more guns. Fewer people died because others had guns.

    Alternatively you could have no guns and then no one would die. But no, let's allow three to die to justify having guns.

    It's ludicrous to keep saying that guns save lives. 27 dead. Because of guns. Your solution. Have soldiers teach kids (because I don't know teachers who want to be armed to the teeth in their classrooms). to solve a problem. Solve a gun problem with guns.

    Unbelievable.

    • Moderator

      Readers, please keep the discussion focused on Connecticut and refrain from posting details about other shootings.

  • -1

    sailwind

    Your solution. Have soldiers teach kids (because I don't know teachers who want to be armed to the teeth in their classrooms). to solve a problem. Solve a gun problem with guns.

    I've proposed no such solution or implied that any students should be armed, that is just plain silly. I have suggested that if there was a responsible law abiding legal gun owner at the school who could have acted before the police arrived that the carnage could have been lessened. Reality is that there are guns all over the United States and way to many of them end up in the hands of the wrong people who then reek unspeakable carnage, and we do "solve the problem" by countering it with guns. We arm our police with gun to counter a gun wielding criminal and that the Police officers superior firepower solves the problem by an arrest. Citizens in many States can also legally carry and since that is reality it only makes sense to consider that they are also a part of the counter equation in deterrence of crime.

    Again, I'm am not advocating that guns should not be tightly controlled or restricted and I am not advocating for people to go out and arm themselves. I'd rather no one has weapons, but I am pointing out simply this is not perfect world and there are very legitimate reasons that many people other than those in Law enforcement positions want to own and have access to personal firearm for their protection. And I respect that position.

    Until society does becomes perfect and criminals don't exist, houses aren't broken into and domestic violence never happens, the police always arrive in the nick of time and madmen don't act out their murderous fantasies, I will continue to understand that view and respect that position.

  • 3

    Madverts

    "I have suggested that if there was a responsible law abiding legal gun owner at the school who could have acted before the police arrived that the carnage could have been lessened."

    The shootings happened over the space of a few minutes, possibly less. Only a fool could argue more guns are the answer.

  • 0

    Yubaru

    Read this people;

    Morgan Freeman's brilliant take on what happened yesterday :

    "You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

    It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

    CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

    You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news."

  • 0

    2020hindsights

    Sail: you cannot prove anything you say. "Guns save lives"; prove that they would have been lost without them. And how might those lives have been lost? Probably by guns. On the contrary, it's quite easy to prove lives lost by guns. And who, pres tel, peer reviewed your study? The NRA?

    Actually, the NRA actively try to suppress studies on gun ownership and deaths because they tend to be unfavorable. So instead of an open honest debate, we get censorship.

    To quote Salon.com:

    The Centers for Disease Control funds research into the causes of death in the United States, including firearms — or at least it used to. In 1996, after various studies funded by the agency found that guns can be dangerous, the gun lobby mobilized to punish the agency. First, Republicans tried to eliminate entirely the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the bureau responsible for the research. When that failed, Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican from Arkansas, successfully pushed through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget (the amount it had spent on gun research in the previous year) and outlawed research on gun control with a provision that reads: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

    http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/

  • -3

    nandakandamanda

    The story keeps changing. Originally they said he used two handguns in the school and someone recognized him and let him in. The police found the rifle in the car. Then the story changed to how he shot everyone with the rifle and he broke a window to get in. Now they tell us he killed his mother with a shotgun and there were actually four guns, not three.

    His mother was a "Doomsday Prepper" and had turned the house into a sort of fortress. Maybe she was a nice person, and maybe her son shot her and took the keys to her car and gun locker, but she sounds like a bit of a nutter herself. Not to mention the medication that no-one is talking about, or not openly. As with the Batman shooting, has the medication side of things again been quickly and firmly squashed? (While we all squabble about guns alone because it's easier.)

  • -3

    sailwind

    The shootings happened over the space of a few minutes, possibly less. Only a fool could argue more guns are the answer.

    Who is trying to argue that more guns is the answer? That's just crazy and so far off the mark. I'll make this is clear as I can Madverts.

    Guns are already out in there in abundance in the U.S, they are legal and the Supreme court has ruled that it is constitutional. I'm not going to change those facts and nobody else is either. It will take a lot more then comments on blogs till America reaches a some sort of gun free nirvana where the Constitution has finally been amended to ban private gun ownership. And since that is todays reality and in dealing with the world as it is and not as I wish it to be. I am stating as clearly as I can given the prevelance of guns in the U.S..... that it was to damn bad that one of those guns out there in abundance wasn't near enough to this school for somebody to lay their hands to try and stop this hell on earth from happening.

  • 1

    Madverts

    "Who is trying to argue that more guns is the answer? That's just crazy and so far off the mark. I'll make this is clear as I can Madverts."

    Have I misinterpreted your suggestion "that if there was a responsible law abiding legal gun owner at the school who could have acted before the police arrived that the carnage could have been lessened"??

    The carnage would have been lessened had the sale of the rifle he used been banned. Emotions are high on this issue and I'm sorry if my comment offended you Sailwind. As a responsible gun owner myself, I get sick reading the comments of some of the nuts that come to a thread where 6 year old kids have been massacred to defend their "right" to own an assault weapon, or worse sit there and argue the toss that it's actually only a semi-automatic machine (that can be made fully automatic for the price of a Macdonalds Happy Meal and an internet connection).

    I said the other day to a poster that consistently pops up to defend his right to own arms which no civilian should have that it's getting to the point I'll have my firearms destroyed and give up having them locked up in the cabinet. Not that we have these kind of incidents particularly out here, but I'm really questioning my own need to have them around since I haven't joined the hunt for a few years and the last time it was used was to scare of some gypsies lurking around my property with intent...and I've got two big dogs that can do that task for me anyway without the need for guns.

  • 1

    Madverts

    Oh, and Sail I just think comments that suggest the carnage would have been lessened had their been someone are foolish. Another shooter in an area crowded full of kids is so ridiculous I'm surprised to see an ex-serviceman make it. Hollywood it 'aint.

  • -5

    Jasmine Grant

    Honestly, every time someone goes on a rampage with a gun, people focus on the weapon as being the problem. You can refute it all you want, guns alone do not kill people, they do not point, aim, and fire without the help of a human, either directly or remote controlled. People kill people, if not with guns, then with poison, knives, baseball bats, hammers, or their bare hands. When that idiot went around Japan randomly stabbing people, was there a call for knife control? The massacre happened because a mentally unstable individual hated his mother and wanted to destroy her and what she loved, even if he didn't have guns, as determined as he was he would have found other methods to carry out his plan, guns just happened to be quicker. It was not the case that he got his hand on a gun, and it commanded him to kill.

  • 2

    Loghorn

    I feel sorry for those 8 adults & those 20 children caught up in this nonsense crossfire, as well as those children's parents, who aren't ever going to see them grow up into teenagers/adults, who aren't going to ever see them graduate from high school &/or college, & who aren't going to grow up to get married &/or have children of their own one day in the future. They're gone from this planet forever.

    My prayers goes out to everyone involved in this horrible tragedy. This is why IMO, they should either have stricter gun laws in every state, make it impossible for anyone to grab one (like have the guns strictly locked down in a specific area tightly), or have them banned from the U.S. completely.

    And to the guy that killed himself, I say, good riddance to you, because you sure doesn't deserve to live after for what you had done. Rot in hell, scumbag.

  • 0

    HokoOnchi

    The shooter had to force his way into the school. It wasn't a wide open setup as was initially implied by the mention that the full blown security procedure at that school did not kick-in until 9:30am. He was able to overcome locked entrances.

    He is said to have had Asperger's disease to some degree. Although it lately is included in the Autism spectrum of neuropathy, it isn't the same as Autism as wel know it. One key feature of Asperger's is a tendency to become strongly focused or obsessed on one thing to the exclusion of other subjects that might draw another's attention.

    Some news reports recite that he lately had been playing highly violent FPS videogames. Others indicate that the mother recently had noted to an acquaintance that she thought she was losing him.

    This same mother is the one who bought and took great pride in her arsenal of guns and who was very demanding in teaching firearms to her two sons.

    The guns were hers, and they included the two semi-automatic pistols (Glock and Sig Sauer) and a semi-automatic rifle, the Bushmaster, and, apparently, a high tech Saiga shot-gun which was found in the car.

    Early reports noted that the two pistols were used to kill all of the victims, at the time, only one cartridge belonging to the Bushmaster had been noted at the scene. Later, reports state that the Bushmaster was used instead.

    The victims, the children, were shot repeatedly.

  • 0

    Yubaru

    The victims, the children, were shot repeatedly.

    This has been repeated ad naseum, each victim was shot between 3 and 11 times.....let's get over this gruesome fact and get on with remembering the victims and not the shooter. The shooters name will become common knowledge but who will even remember one victim outside of the families?

  • -1

    drumbrakes

    So when is the next random shooting spree?

  • 1

    Dennis Bauer

    When i read about this i was shocked, RIP little ones.

  • 0

    sailwind

    Another shooter in an area crowded full of kids is so ridiculous I'm surprised to see an ex-serviceman make it.

    madverts,

    I will grant you that my background does cloud my perspective from a typical civilian in this, as I've been trained in the use of weapons and when deadly force is authorized to protect one's life or the life of another. I ackowledge that, so understand with that caveat in mind as an ex-serviceman when I had read this:

    as youngsters cowered in their classrooms and trembled helplessly to the sound of gunfire reverberating through the building.

    I wished that I could've have been there and been able to grab a weapon, yelled get down and plug this evil bastard in center body mass. Not foolish Madverts, just a very different initial reaction then others have who haven't served or been trained and tasked with the solemn duty of protecting others from those that would seek to do them harm.

  • -6

    Jerome_from_Utah

    One of the safest places to be is a classroom or campus in Utah. We also allow "Campus Carry" which is people with valid Concealed Carry, Weapons (CCW) permits can carry on campus. The same goes for our public schools. The criminal element is very aware of this fact and apply risk analysis. By the way, both of our State Attorney Generals over the past ten years have reaffirmed this law. Gun Free Zones are a huge part of the problem and the most common factor in the mass homicides we have suffered.

  • 0

    drumbrakes

    lmao

  • -4

    Kent Mcgraw

    Guns are not the problem. Every shooting is in a "gun Free" zone. Removing guns from good citizens will only make problems, no one will be safe. The fact is that there are more deaths prevented every year by law abiding citizens that carry guns than there are people that die by sick people who shoot innocent people. The problem is that mental illness is running rampant and all the people on psychoactive drugs are the ones doing these things. Doctors prescribe these medications. Perhaps we should hold the doctors responsible for prescribing psychoactive drugs.

  • 0

    all4faj

    2 Good| Bad Noliving

    I read almost the same article that you did, but strangely the one I read did not claim that the vast amount of these crimes were carried about by the mentally disabled, just a certain %.
    For the most part these guns are bought legally, that means within the law and the majority of these people here are saying the law is flawed to the point of absurdity. ( Ridiculously incongruous or unreasonable ) I hope that it doesn't take any more of these massacres of innocents before the rights of the children outweigh the wants of the Cowboys.

  • 3

    zurcronium

    Gun free zone? Is that a zone where bullets magically stop. Any fool can murder anyone anywhere if they are given a gun. 600 people shot themselves dead by accident last year in the USA. A kid was killed while fishing when an idiot shot his gun in a park for fun. That is the reality of guns and murder. Guns equals murder. Guns in the house means family members get killed by their family. Like this tragedy started, mom was killed by her son with her guns.

    The above post by the NRA member is pure fantasy. But the NRA will say or do anything to sell more guns. And many deluded gun owners will cut and paste their lies.

    Japan has strict gun control. Japan had two gun deaths in a recent year. Two. No guns, no gun deaths. USA has no real gun control thanks to the NRA and it has 12,000 gun deaths a year. Lets do the math. 12,000 versus 2. The right to bear arms is a right to murder.

    Parents in the USA now will fear what can happen with automatic guns to their five year old kids while in school so that the NRA can sell more guns. Thanks NRA and thanks NRA members for that fear. The NRA is worse than OBL when it comes to terrorizing America.

  • 3

    Outta here

    Kent McGraw,

    Now l have heard it all.... It's not the guns it's the mental illness, its not the guns it's the drugs, its not the guns it's the doctors. Lets call a spade a spade shall we. If these mentally ill people didnt get their hands on legal weapons then there would be no massacre. You can have mentally ill people without numerous people ending up dead but you cannot have mentally ill people and guns without people winding up dead. Unless you plan on going back to the nazi idea of euthanising all sick people then it is easier to remove the other part of the equation the tool that is used to commit the crime I.e. the gun.

    I actually find your comments disturbing to say the least. But as was reported in my countries news in the wake of this attack. Why would you go to the US you are 15 times more likely to be shot than if you stayed home. Also your argument that guns make you safer is none sense it has been statistically proven that you are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in a crime if you are armed than unarmed...... But keep the pro gun spiel going. On reason why the US is a third world country compared to other nations

  • 1

    2020hindsights

    The problem is that mental illness is running rampant and all the people on psychoactive drugs are the ones doing these things. Doctors prescribe these medications. Perhaps we should hold the doctors responsible for prescribing psychoactive drugs.

    Was the shooter on psychoactive drugs? No. Irrelevant.

  • -1

    nandakandamanda

    2020hindsights, "Was the shooter on psychoactive drugs? No."

    So where is your proof that he wasn't on medication?

    (I have read suggestions in the press that he was, so how can you be so absolute?)

  • 4

    Mike Bird

    American Gun shops experienced their biggest Sales day ever yesterday - Crazy!

    There are more Gun deaths in a year in the city of New York (on it's own), than the whole of Japan, UK, Germany and France put together

  • 3

    Madverts

    Sail,

    "I will grant you that my background does cloud my perspective from a typical civilian in this, as I've been trained in the use of weapons and when deadly force is authorized to protect one's life or the life of another.

    I appreciate your training for a war-zone, and imagine that in some circumstances it would give you and those like you a heads up in a crisis many of us would fail to take advantage of, but don't forget this is a school full of 6 year old's not a battlefield. Also, this theory can be easily inverted to work the other way around when it is a trained soldier going berserk as we've also seen in the past, can it not?

    "I wished that I could've have been there and been able to grab a weapon, yelled get down and plug this evil bastard in center body mass. Not foolish Madverts, just a very different initial reaction then others have who haven't served or been trained and tasked with the solemn duty of protecting others from those that would seek to do them harm."

    I'm not doubting your bravery or your understandable wish to have been able to do something. You're just going to have to accept that to a lot of us, suggesting school teachers have arms on premises for this kind of attack sounds not only like a Chuck Norris fantasy, sadly shared by many of the dimwits that actually legally own an assault rifle, but is also preposterous when you can do something about the right to purchase such weapons.

    The second amendment wasn't written with an MP5 in mind - it is far out-dated and desperately in serious need of overhaul, not just in regards to what guns people can buy and who can buy them, but also as many are suggesting that the ones of responsibility be levelled heavily on the shoulders of those that decide to own firearms. Think of it as the German Autobahns where there are (oh yeah) no speed limits.....cause an accident however in breach of this great responsibility, expect to be in serious, serious trouble. (They also amazingly have one of the best safety records in the EU)

    And the end of the day people like Noliving (great handle for a gun nut BTW) have convinced me - as of today I'm getting rid of mine as soon as I can get to the armoury and have them legally destroyed. I always felt guilty shooting Bambi's anyway even if it is a strangely rewarding feeling to have hunted your own dinner, oh...... that and I'm scared shitless of wild boars.

    In a way I actually think this is finally the catalyst for a serious review of gun control in the US, and let's face it, it's long overdue.

  • 0

    sailwind

    but don't forget this is a school full of 6 year old's not a battlefield.

    Madverts, Thank for the serious discussion, a couple of thoughts and points.

    It is not a battlefield, it was a chosen killing zone. One that was chosen because the predator knew that his prey was going to be totally defenseless going in. The point that is made several times is that if there was a gun available at the school and somebody was able to fire back that the children still would be in danger from bullets flying. That may be a real possibility , but the presence of that weapon upon arrival instantly changes everything in the situation. The predator that is shooting his defenseless victims, he now has to shift his attention from that to the new threat, he has to adapt to the fact, he has to adjust, he has to react that he is now also a target and during that time he reacting to that...... no more children are being killed, and for every second that he can't carry out his intent it brings the police and back-up that much closer to taking him out.

    suggesting school teachers have arms on premises for this kind of attack sounds not only like a Chuck Norris fantasy,

    I'm suggesting that declaring certain areas by law as gun free zones such as schools and hospitals, malls etc is the height of stupidity. The unbalanced spree killer has enough mental capability left to understand that your going to pick the place to act out your murderous fantasy on the totally defenseless, Since 99 percent of these types are young mentally unbalanced males he sure isn't going to target the local gun convention in town might or the local Veterans of Foreign Wars annual award banquet. These folks will fight back. Gun free zones, you might as well have pinned bulls eyes to the backs of the people in these zones.

    I'm suggesting very strongly that even if teachers don't carry, or even if schools designate just a staff member to volunteer to be trained in basic holding tactics or if schools just ignore it altogether, that they advertise that they DO have undercover security on the premise ready to react and advertise it LOUDLY. Instead of yakking about a gun bans a measure like this would be immediately effective. The U.S already does this with Air Marshalls, we have no idea if the one the passengers on the plane is carrying or not but its pretty darn comforting to think that one is on our flight. It also does make the defective human being bent on killing to reconsider his choice of targets. This fool choose this school because he knew it was totally defenseless, he knew it....let that sink in for moment, really sink in. The fool in Aurora Colorado also choose the movie theater because and he knew it was also a designated gun free zone and totally defenseless.

    They target the defenseless and advocating a total ban on guns as the only measure to combat these atrocities just made for a whole lot more defenseless targets to chose from for these types. They're going to get there hands on gun no matter how many bans or laws passed, prohibition and bans don't work and anybody who advocates that doesn't have a leg to stand on if they have ever smoked a joint in the past. There is just to many guns out there all over the world and not just in the U.S. Real practical measures such as I've suggested that take into account reality has to be looked at for solutions, passing another round of "gun free" zones isn't it.

    As far a personal decision to turn in your hunting rifles, of course is your decision. You did mention that you had to warn off some gypsy intruders on your property though at one time, I'd would suggest that they knew you really meant business at that time, just something to consider as one never knows what the future may hold.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "Madverts, Thank for the serious discussion, a couple of thoughts and points."

    You're welcome of course. I welcome our seemingly permanent opposing points of view. It's also intriguing the difference in opinion largely because I'm European and you're American and it goes to show how different things and attitudes really can be on issues such as this.

    "The point that is made several times is that if there was a gun available at the school and somebody was able to fire back that the children still would be in danger from bullets flying. That may be a real possibility , but the presence of that weapon upon arrival instantly changes everything in the situation. The predator that is shooting his defenceless victims, he now has to shift his attention from that to the new threat, he has to adapt to the fact, he has to adjust, he has to react that he is now also a target and during that time he reacting to that"

    Appreciate that again as a European, we simply don't have this mindset, but I accept your point. Especially in this case where the coward didn't even challenge the police arriving, it's actually more like he rushed to blow his brains out as soon as the first officers arrived after selecting his easy target of 6 and 7 year olds. If a lawyer can't argue that as premeditated behaviour despite the guys obvious lunacy then he needs to find another line of work.

    "I'm suggesting very strongly that even if teachers don't carry, or even if schools designate just a staff member to volunteer to be trained in basic holding tactics or if schools just ignore it altogether, that they advertise that they DO have undercover security on the premise ready to react and advertise it LOUDLY. Instead of yakking about a gun bans a measure like this would be immediately effective. "

    Wouldn't you like for your kids to live in a world where people don't have to be armed to the teeth right down to primary schools or hospitals simply to put off the next nutter? I mean granted as a short-term solution I do get your point, but a brighter future and bucking this worrying trend of American spree-killers can only be gotten by attacking the cancer with aggressive treatment, even be it too little too late.

    You make some good points and I have to say you are the only person here to have done so despite all the posts since this atrocity in my opinion. Don't forget, I'm not advocating a ban on guns:

    A) I realize in the US it's like trying to ban the sunrise at dawn and B) I support people owning sensible firearms with legitimate reason, training and with an awareness of a huge penalty should they not respect the responsibility they're demanding in keeping such tools.

    "As far a personal decision to turn in your hunting rifles, of course is your decision. You did mention that you had to warn off some gypsy intruders on your property though at one time, I'd would suggest that they knew you really meant business at that time, just something to consider as one never knows what the future may hold."

    Here's a perfect example of the US/Euro divide - it was only rock-salt in their asses, yet nonetheless it got me my rights read to me with the menace of a night in the cells by a young, over-zealous copper that turned up after the pikey's incredibly complained. At that very moment I wished I lived in Texas, where I'm sure that even had I shot them all in the back whilst they were running away would have had me up for a commendation for good citizenry. Dammit I could even see my self in one of those ridiculously over-sized ten-gallon hats for a mo. Heh, and then the fat old copper with the big moustache, sadly a dying breed these days - shoed the youngster away to explain it like it is here in rural France - either do the job properly and get rid of the evidence (I know, WTF?), or always shoot below the knee in self defence and you'll walk.....

    I'm a man of my word and watched an official grinder go through both rifle barrels earlier this afternoon and feel good about it - I even waited to watch and get my certificate as I was paranoid about them getting sold on on the black-market. I know what you're getting at and the revolution might be coming and blah-blah, but I've got plenty of friends localy who are legally paranoid and armed to the teeth. Right now two Berger de Beauce with a combined weight of 100kg makes me feel secure enough to sleep at night!

  • 0

    sfjp330

    These children were so innocent Newtown. There are 300 million guns in the U.S. Blame it on the NRA and the lack of U.S. goverment's lack of progress in stricter gun law.

  • -6

    Lucinda LouWho Cattell

    Gotta love all the Anti American sentiment on here. Especially from the one's claiming to be American. Still trying to figure out when hate speech has ever actually helped fix a problem. Just sayin.

  • 0

    Lucinda LouWho Cattell

    Maitake: RIP to the sweet children who died needlessly. RIP to the adults as well who died while working for the benefit of children and in effort to serve and protect them. My sympathies and prayers are for parents and educators and all humans to overcome aggression and hate.

    Maitake, I wish there were more people like you, the world would be a much better place. As a fellow human trying to overcome aggression and hate, your prayers are greatly appreciated. :)

  • 0

    sailwind

    I know what you're getting at and the revolution might be coming and blah-blah, but I've got plenty of friends localy who are legally paranoid and armed to the teeth. Right now two Berger de Beauce with a combined weight of 100kg makes me feel secure enough to sleep at night!

    Madverts,

    Thank you for your consideration and understanding of my views from a very different viewpoint, hard topic, truly a hard topic to discuss and to try to keep civil and try to really grasp the points being made. I truly do appreciate that you also kept it civil despite how easy it could have been for both of us to just begin to denigrate the discussion into simplistic slogans that serve nobody any good at all in the long run.

    Side note: My concern was more for your safety in case of intruders coming back on your property in the future but you've obviously feel secure enough to no longer need a firearm "on station". Let's put all politics and views aside for moment and hope between us that the entire world one day does also get to that point you did and all guns are just no longer desired or needed for any reason.

  • 1

    Madverts

    "Let's put all politics and views aside for moment and hope between us that the entire world one day does also get to that point you did and all guns are just no longer desired or needed for any reason."

    I hate pessimism, but I doubt either of us will see it, or many future generations for that matter. The problem needs to be addressed from the top down, not from the bottom up as we're trying. Bottom line is that the arms industry make gazillions of dollars and can heavily influence American politics because of the way they may contribute huge financial donations, a real generalized cancer of what really can only be described as the dreaded military/industrial complex. Sure we have it here too, but it is all back room dealing and therefore less rife.

    Alas even if there was a way to get all guns of the streets, you can always rely on people to find a way to make nastiness. Just look at some dog owners, again, lethal weapons with no background check required...

    Cheers

  • 0

    nandakandamanda

    Just been reading stuff posted by the conspiracy theorists. They're having a ball with this shooting! There's so much material getting thrown up I bet this will drag on longer than 9/11 or the J F Kennedy assassination. What is wrong with people?

  • 0

    technosphere

    American Gun shops experienced their biggest Sales day ever yesterday - Crazy!

    How many agressive ret@rds also purchased firearms? Total mess......

  • 0

    HokoOnchi

    I think it is easy to conclude that if it had been impossible for the shooter's mother to have bought and owned all those guns legally, it would have been far less likely, if possible at all, for the shooter to do as he did in using those guns.

    But can we really conclude that the shooter would not have attempted some other means of mass or serial killing had there been no guns at his disposal?

    Ted Kaczynski and Tim McVeigh didn't choose to use firearms to do their maiming and killing.

    It is blatantly obvious that this incident makes the gun control issue intersect tightly with the mental disease issue that motivated the shooter and some sober-minded and un-politicized analysis of what may need to be done for long-term prevention purposes is needed urgently.

    I don't think any option should be kept off the table of deliberation, including considerations of either gun sales control or eligibility for gun ownership control, but in the US at least, the right to have firearms at home and in defense of the home is a Constitutionally protected personal liberty.

  • 0

    all4faj

    Guns may not be the whole problem here, but take them away and at least reduce the problem, Isn't saving a few 6 year olds every year worth it? or are your priorities that different ? How about staring with making an amendment to the constitution. Then you law abiding gun owners will have no choice.

  • -2

    Jasmine Grant

    Take away guns? Yeah that'll go over well with the American public. To the woman living all alone in the inner city, no you may not have a gun to ward off predators, robbers, and murderers....if someone breaks into your house, call the cops and hide in the closet and hope that the perpetrator doesn't find you before the police arrive, which in the inner city could be from 10-30minutes. To the victims of abuse and other violent crimes, go buy stunners and when the person you fear most comes at you dodge the knife or illegally owned gun he has and go at with the taser. People please, maybe if Americans lived in a crime free society, guns would be unnecessary, but we don't, so to Americans they are good things to have when used for the right reasons, and bringing up tragedies that occur much less frequently than everyday crimes is not enough to get us to completely do away with gun ownership. Tell you what, if last year when I walked into my home to find two robbers in my bedroom and I'd had a gun, they would have sat there until the cops arrived, instead of looking at me as if I were invisible and walking right by me with my belongings.

  • 0

    smithinjapan

    sailwind: "That may be a real possibility , but the presence of that weapon upon arrival instantly changes everything in the situation."

    Like it did with the Columbine massacre? Come on... you guys really have to stop using the 'guns defend' idea and realize that, hey, the reason you're proposing them for defense is because people have them for offense. Why do you fail to see the logical answer to that: take them out of the equation! Only Americans, well, not the smart ones, would say "It's not possible" or worse, "It's our right". Wasn't there ANOTHER shooting just this morning in the US? Guess who's gun was used.... a cop's.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Manager

    Cafe Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
  • SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST

    SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST
    SCALA KK、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M / Year Negotiable

More in World

View all

View all