School shooting victims were shot multiple times

We should set up a memorial for the kids thanking them for sacrificing their lives so we can have 270 million guns.

I'm from Connecticut.... It's a rich and nice neighborhood.

If you know someone that has 1 or 10 guns in their household, you should really question them and ask... Do you really need all those guns and over 500 rounds of ammunition ?

It's a REAL STATISTIC......

A person is more likely to get killed by their own guns from family member, accidents, muder-suicide and homicides !!!!!

There is no need for a discussion about firearms. Anyone who is determined to kill will kill. One police officer in Connecticut said that the shooter was "a gamer." That is a person who enjoys playing video games and probably can't tell the difference between a video game and life. In life there is no reset button. The point is anything and everything that leads to the death of innocent people cannot be banned. It is impossible.

To more clearly define the weapon in question, it was an assault rife. The same kind of rife that was used in Aurora, Colorado. (The late Mrs. Lanza was a gun nut.) At that time of the Aurora massacre I wrote that assault rifles ought to be banned just as fully automatic ("machine") guns are banned. Assault rifles cannot be used for hunting game animals nor do they qualify as competition target rifles. They were designed to kill masses of people quickly at short range. That is all they are good for. They do not belong in civilian life.

Makes me want to return to Okinawa and stay. America is a scary place to live. 20 children dead and for what?

If you want to know some more about this weapon and similar assault rifles, go to the Bushmaster website:

http://www.bushmaster.com/index.asp

It is scary.

Let me clarify that when I said the same kind of rifle was used in Aurora I was speaking generically. The assault rifle in question was a Smith & Wesson M&P15. A Bushmaster assault rifle was used in the the Washington D.C. Beltway murders that claimed ten lives about a decade ago.

Let me say something more. Look at the Bushmaster home page. It is aimed at people who want to play war but don't want to enlist and go to real wars. I truly wonder how much this kind of gun culture warps mentally unwell people into killers. Psychologists can answer that question better than I.

There is a similar otaku combat gun culture here in Japan but fortunately it is limited to models that shoot plastic pellets.

A final note. The National Rife Association (NRA), the powerful and feared gun lobby, has been conspicuously silent about Sandy Hook. Their Facebook and Twitter sites have been closed since the massacre. Anti-NRA assaults have been launched on Facebook and Twitter.

Kabukilover; good post. I will admit, I was interested in guns when I was a young boy of around 13 years old. I went to air rifle shops in the UK (we have no real gun shops) and I can safely say the people who were also there were all a bit odd. Kind of geeky guys who may or may not have been on a power trip. Was very interesting.

Anyway, this whole thing is a terrible tragedy, and a preventable one too.

Gun Control Petitions Flood White House Website In Wake Of Newtown School Shooting.......

I gave my opinion at the White House webpage too, on Gun Control.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/14/gun-control-petitions_n_2303506.html

To more clearly define the weapon in question, it was an assault rife.

No its not, in order to be an Assault Rifle it has to be a fully automatic/machine gun that is the distinguishing feature of an Assault Rifle. That is what makes an assault rifle and assault rifle. The M1 garand is not an assault rifle. You know why? Because it is semi-automatic only.

The same kind of rife that was used in Aurora, Colorado.

Ya but what your not your telling people is that more than 80% of the casualties were caused by the pump action shotgun he was using.

assault rifles ought to be banned just as fully automatic ("machine") guns are banned.

Machine guns are not banned/illegal in the USA, you legally buy them in the USA.

Assault rifles cannot be used for hunting game animals nor do they qualify as competition target rifles.

What are you talking about? Those "assault rifles" are used all the time for hunting deer. In fact they are one of the most popular guns used for hunting deer. Those assault rifles do qualify as competition target rilfes, you know how I know that? Because they are used all the time at gun tournaments. The ATF even states those rifles can be used for hunting and target shooting. The AR-15 is also increasingly become more popular in New Zealand for hunting.

Where did you get this information that these rifles can't be used for hunting or that they don't quality for competitive target shooting tournaments. Show me the link that says that.

Kabukilover; good post.

They are not good posts at all, none of his claims are true. Assault Rifles are fully automatics/machine guns. That is the defining feature of them, that is what makes them an Assault Rifle. Semi-automatics are not assault rifles. He also incorrectly stated they can't be used for hunting, they are used for hunting all the time in the US especially for deer. They are used all the time at gun tournaments in the US so they clearly qualify for competitive target shooting.

I would love for him to post a link that backs up his claims.

Perhaps you can tell us Kabukilover what the USA federal laws are for what qualifies as a hunting and or target shooting rifle.

Would you be ok if I owned a Ruger mini-14 ranch rifle?

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html

It is aimed at people who want to play war but don't want to enlist and go to real wars.

No its website is designed at people who are fans of the AR platform because of its light weight, reliability and durability, accuracy, lower recoil, and modularity because of its rail system. Would it make you feel better if they were using wood instead of black colored materials?

Do you have any actual first hand experience with these firearms?

Isolated people + lack of social responsibility + easily access to guns = American madness.

Yes, there are crazy people everywhere. But in Japan a crazy person gets a knife and stabs a couple people (with luck not fatally) before being overpowered. In the US a crazy person gets an assault rifle and this is the result. That nutcase may have pulled the trigger, but the blame is with the entire society, especially a Congress that thinks more about the NRA than about its country's children.

Very good post Noliving.

"http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html" "It is aimed at people who want to play war but don't want to enlist and go to real wars."

Owned and have many firearms(2 ARs) in the past 40 years. Never thought of playing war with my friends with real guns.

These anti gun nuts know nothing about firearms except what they make up.

Stricter gun control will not stop this. We as a society need to learn to recognize the warning signs of a disturbed personalty and get them the help needed. If the reports are correct, the man who did the shooting was not quite right and someone should have intervened long ago. I have been around firearms all my life and have never once thought about using any of them against a fellow human beings. I do not think it is American madness, but madness in general.

This is a very sad sad sad sad news :( RIP little ones and teachers

In the US a crazy person gets an assault rifle and this is the result.

Its not an assault rifle, it has to be a machine gun in order to be an assault rifle. The guns he used were not machine guns.

For ONCE, for the sake of more totally innocent lives, let's see it NOT follow this pattern:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sadly-nation-knows-exactly-how-colorado-shootings,28857/?ref=auto

But in Japan a crazy person gets a knife and stabs a couple people (with luck not fatally) before being overpowered.

So only 8 people getting killed is 'better'?

noliving: Its not an assault rifle, it has to be a machine gun in order to be an assault rifle. The guns he used were not machine guns.

I can see you've found your role as "distractor" for the gun crowd. Good on ya, hope it pays off handsomely.

Like it or not, the sort of gun we discussing it generally called an "assault rifle" in the media. Here is a sample from a Google search:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bushmaster+assault+rifle%2C+sandy+hook&hl=en-GB&gbv=2&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.1.0i10l3j0i30j0i10i30j0i5i10i30l5.2324.6399.0.11534.12.10.0.2.2.0.97.807.10.10.0...0.0...1c.1.3bcJZgYZVCc&oq=bushmaster+assault+rifle%2C+sandy+hook

The Aurora killer's "assault rifle" jammed. That is why only 12 people was killed.

However a misnomer "assault rife" might be when applied to the weapon type under discussion here in pure military terms it is, in my view, perfectly okay in civilian terms when used against soft targets like cowering school children (as opposed to well-armed soldiers).

Assault rifles or quasi-assault rifles or mock assault rifles are lousy for hunting. The law says you can use them as long as you use nothing longer than a five shot clip. But that aside, the relatively weak .223 cal. ammo is not great for deer hunting. You are best off with a more powerful load, preferably a magnum. They might work on varmints, but for my money I would use a specialized varmint rifle. As I write, I am looking Hatcher Gun Company's website on another laptop. Their AR-15 rifles are not classified with Target, Varmint, Hunting or Tactical rifles. I suppose you could use an AR-15 "assault" rifle on Nara deer.

As I understand it, civilian machine gun ownership was banned under the Firearm Owners Protect Act of 1986 that restricted sales of these weapons to the police and the military. While, generally, sales to civilians are banned there are exceptions, according to Wikipedia. According to their source, 175,000 fully automatic firearms have been licensed to private citizens by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. But beyond the exceptions we private citizens cannot buy working full automatic guns at the local gun shop.

I fail to see any practical use for the "assault rifle" (or whatever you will to call it). Yes, I suppose it could be used for target practice in like lining up bottles and jars and blowing them away. But when I think of target shooting I think of trying to hit the center of a target of concentric circles. If you want to do it in competitions you need a specialize target gun.

Anyone who says or thinks that the daily assault of violent images from films, TV shows and video games, all termed "entertainment", has absolutely no effect on its users or is somehow enlightening or beneficial to individuals or society over the long-term is living in a dangerous fantasy land. Their fear-based obsession with guns and other weapons is a serious illness, and is affecting all of us. Oh yeah, there definitely is a mental health problem in the States... it's with those who believe in the illusion that guns, guns and more guns will somehow keep them and everyone else safer. The fear feeds upon itself and ends up creating a monster that only becomes harder to control.

Ultimately, though, it's the underlying ethos of violence in America that has to be solved, guns or no guns. The US is the world's number one buyer, maker and seller of weapons, fueling violence not just at home but also worldwide. Weapons makers and the government routinely put profits over safety and peace of mind. America has a president who keeps a kill list and demands the right to assassinate anyone anywhere at his discretion, even American citizens, without any trial or presumption of innocence. Where is the humanity, the common sense, the pride, in all of that?

Look up the Connecticut gun laws. Illegal to leave your home with a revolver unless it is registered to you. (the guns belonged to shooters mother) Illegal to possess a gun on any school proberty, even for gun licensed teachers or administrators, Illegal to possess a gun as a minor.What law are you planning to pass that is aready not on the books. (no "assault rifle" involved as of recent reports, only hand guns)Almost all mass killings are at locations like schools, movie theaters, malls, etc where liscensed gun owners are not allowed to bring their weapons. Not sure that the perpetrators think about it, but I would want teachers trained and armed to protect my children.

Btw, any gun that fires more than one round without reloading is an "assault rifle" to the anti-gun lobby. Automatic weapons that fire more than one round per trigger pull have been illeagal in the USA for 70 years.

w

@noriyosan73

So what is America's problem here then, in your opinion? And what is your solution?

As far as I can tell from the news reports, none of the existing federal or state laws controlling sales of firearms and ammunition would have prevented this tragedy. And it happened in a state that is not exactly brimming with gun enthusiasts, which drives home the message to Americans that these kinds of things can and do happen anywhere.

Readers, please stay on topic. Other countries are not relevant to this discussion.

'There wouldn't have been so many killed if he hadn't used a gun' is the first thing that anti-gun people spout, but what does that even mean? As if it was 'just a knife',that would make it a better situation. ANY people killed is a bad situation. A huge part of the equation as I see it is-

People like this live in communities with the neighbors all knowing the person is dangerous and no action being taken There are people loose in society who are sick enough to want to slaughter random innocent people

Ban guns, they'll use knives...or an airplane...shall we ban umbrellas because Aum Shinri Kyo used umbrellas to poke holes in the sarin bags? The underlying problem is the shocking lack of mental health care.

chuckles

3 of you at present who won't even bother with a counter argument? Don't be lazy, now ;-P

Is having 6 people killed instead of 20 'better'? Oh I know, I know 'It wouldn't have been so bad if it hadn't been a gun'......

@Himajin

According to your logic, machine-guns and flame-throwers should be legal. Why the heck not? If they ban machine-guns, they'll use knives... or aeroplanes... or Glock 17s.

Noliving: "Ya but what your not your telling people is that more than 80% of the casualties were caused by the pump action shotgun he was using."

This is your defense of guns?

You're right, though, the same kind of damage could have been done to a 6 year old child shot 5 times point blank as, say, if the guy had a pillow to hit them with and a murderous intent.

Himajin: "There are people loose in society who are sick enough to want to slaughter random innocent people"

Do you lock up anyone with mental health problems because you never know if they'll commit mass murder? This it your suggestion as a defense of why guns should not be banned?

"shall we ban umbrellas because Aum Shinri Kyo used umbrellas to poke holes in the sarin bags?"

And how many times has that happened as opposed to the DAILY gun deaths in the US? You really don't realize how badly you defeat your own arguments, do you?

Stricter gun control will not stop this. We as a society need to learn to recognize the warning signs of a disturbed personalty and get them the help needed. If the reports are correct, the man who did the shooting was not quite right and someone should have intervened long ago. I have been around firearms all my life and have never once thought about using any of them against a fellow human beings. I do not think it is American madness, but madness in general.

My point 110%! People need stop making this a "gun" issue, good for liberals to try to intervene more in the daily lives of Americans.

bass4funk: "People need stop making this a "gun" issue"

Much as gun-nutters try and deflect, you cannot factor guns out of the equation, for the are the reason the man was able to do the damage he did. Stop saying he could have done the same with a knife or baseball bat -- he did it with no less than THREE legally owned guns, and shot the children quite a number of times, I might add.

Thanks TheInterstat for your post. No real gun shop in the UK?! I did not know but should have.

It's time to introduce some technologies to bring handguns to the 21st century. Enough is enough. I believe in gun ownership, but I also believe we can no longer remain idle in the wake of these mass killings.

Introduce RFID or biometic smart guns to control their use and ban all firearms without such technologies.

Long term-wise, introduce technologies that make guns automatically shutdown when approaching schools or malls.

, Larry Pratt,executive director of Gun Owners of America, has a novel but mistaken twist on the tragedy:

Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered. This tragedy underscores the urgency of getting rid of gun bans in school zones. The only thing accomplished by gun free zones is to insure that mass murderers can slay more before they are finally confronted by someone with a gun.

The perpetrator committed suicide - the only gun he was confronted with was his own.

Even law enforcement officials are pleased that no patron in the Aurora shootings was armed; more would likely have died in the crossfire. The claim that more guns leads to less violence is bogus on its face. There are logical conclusions to the arguments of gun freedom advocates and gun control advocates - the former is frightening, a distopia of violent cycles with no end. The latter requires gun owners to accept responsibility for their weapons. It is time to make a stand and force a choice.

@smith

Much as gun-nutters try and deflect, you cannot factor guns out of the equation, for the are the reason the man was able to do the damage he did. Stop saying he could have done the same with a knife or baseball bat -- he did it with no less than THREE legally owned guns, and shot the children quite a number of times, I might add.

I never said, I don't factor guns out of the equation, but at the same time, I stand my stance. If you want to kill someone, yes, you can find anything, even a shoe string can do the job, of course, you can inflict more damage in much less of a time with a gun, but banning or outlawing them is an entirely different matter and I oppose it and would always vote against it, if it came down to it being on the ballot.

Thanks to the NRA, kids are getting shot everyday in the USA. Access to guns means dead kids, it is that simple. In 2006 Japan had two gun deaths. 13 times less than this shooting in one day in one small town in the USA. Japan has sane gun control rules, for public safety purposes. USA has laws to promote sales of guns.

Gun supporters in the NRA in one small measure help pull the trigger on these shootings.

"Do you lock up anyone with mental health problems because you never know if they'll commit mass murder? This it your suggestion as a defense of why guns should not be banned?"

No, I'm advocating decent mental health treatment! He was diagnosed with a mental illness and was exhibiting weird behavior and what was done? Exaggerate a little while you're at it....

"shall we ban umbrellas because Aum Shinri Kyo used umbrellas to poke holes in the sarin bags?"

"And how many times has that happened as opposed to the DAILY gun deaths in the US? You really don't realize how badly you defeat your own arguments, do you?"

We're back to counting and quantifying....there was only ONE shoe bomber and now we all have to take off your shoes. When our Constitutional rights have all been whittled away, remember your position of today.

According to your logic, machine-guns and flame-throwers should be legal.

Jesus I hope your back didn't break trying to make that point....

The point is it's NOT just the guns!

In 2006 Japan had two gun deaths.

Zirconium@I follow the stats and that figure cannot possibly be correct. The figure for that year is likely to be between 20 and 30. Still we are both talking about a very low number for Japan. These days we frequently read articles of US cops using tasers on suspects at the slightest provocation. I guess being shocked into semiconsciousness is still (for most people) less lethal than getting blown away in a fusillade of police gunfire.

Zirconium seems to have cited Max Fisher's article from The Atlantic last July: A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths. The two homicides figure is simply wrong.

www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

Considering the events in Newtown, it is worth reading nonetheless.

edbardoe: Look up the Connecticut gun laws. Illegal to leave your home with a revolver unless it is registered to you. (the guns belonged to shooters mother) Illegal to possess a gun on any school proberty, even for gun licensed teachers or administrators, Illegal to possess a gun as a minor.What law are you planning to pass that is aready not on the books. (no "assault rifle" involved as of recent reports, only hand guns)Almost all mass killings are at locations like schools, movie theaters, malls, etc where liscensed gun owners are not allowed to bring their weapons.

I think what you're trying to say is that the laws are mostly window dressing and people can get access to guns when they want and they can bring them wherever they want and they can kill whomever they want.

Not sure that the perpetrators think about it, but I would want teachers trained and armed to protect my children.

Armed kindergarten teachers? If that doesn't wake you up to the threat hundreds of millions of guns pose, I don't know that will. Next you'll be telling us to arm the students in case a teacher snaps and starts shooting....right? The solution to too many guns is always more guns.

As mentioned earlier:

Connecticut actually has one of the strictest gun laws in the United States. They even have their own state registry separate from the federal govt - that's why the CT authorities were able to trace the weapons and its owners so quickly. One has to be over 21 age, carry certificates with the guns, and take gun-safety classes. They also have a ban on assault rifles, but the fact that the suspect had a semi-automatic may mean it's a very old one, before the 1993 law banning it while grandfathering the old ones bought before the law. So, the suspect's guns are all legal guns under his mother's name - she passed all the checks.

Anyways, here's a quick timeline of the events:

9:30am - Just as when the new security system automatically locked the doors, gunshots first reported.

9:38am - Gunshots stop.

9:40am - Police call for a lot more medical units.

9:50am - Place secured.

So the whole thing went down pretty quick.

It's too bad Lanza couldn't see fit to just shoot himself, instead of shooting his mother and 26 kids first.

As far as all the calls for more gun control, someone with this nutter's mindset could have killed his mother and the 26 kids with a knife just as well.

As far as all the calls for more gun control, someone with this nutter's mindset could have killed his mother and the 26 kids with a knife just as well.

Oh really? Please give us the name of an incident that took place in the US in which 26 people were killed with a knife? You can't? How about 16 then? Six might be doable, although for the life of me I have trouble coming up with any such case.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the Second Amendment. After all, the late Mrs. Lanza was a law-abiding citizen who obtained her arsenal legally.

A senseless tragedy. Also unfortunately one that is difficult to prevent. Given the current state of laws concerning the mentally disturbed, it is extremely hard to have people hospitalized until they do something violent.

Also unfortunately, short of banning all private ownership of firearms, this crime was not preventable. A thief stole legally obtained weapons and used them to commit horrid crimes. The fact is that violent crime in the US has been steadily decreasing for the past decade, even with many states loosening gun regulations. By contrast, countries like the UK have seen INcreases in crimes such as assault, robbery, and rape, in spite of being places where it is virtually impossible for private citizens to obtain firearms.

We have to be careful to assign blame properly instead of allowing our emotions to cloud our reason.

Like it or not, the sort of gun we discussing it generally called an "assault rifle" in the media. Here is a sample from a Google search

So that means it is ok to use incorrect terms? This is not anal-retentive nitpickery or pro-gun obfuscation, this is a defined fact based on the people who need to use and classify weapons for a living, ie, the military.

Why is it important? Because proper, actual, legally-defined terms are important in a discussion where rights and the law is being discussed, and emotional hyperbole and misunderstandings make bad laws.

Assault rifles or quasi-assault rifles or mock assault rifles are lousy for hunting. The law says you can use them as long as you use nothing longer than a five shot clip.

Says you that they lousy for hunting. They are not clips they are magazines. There is a difference.

But that aside, the relatively weak .223 cal. ammo is not great for deer hunting.

Says you, a lot of hunters would disagree with that.

As I understand it, civilian machine gun ownership was banned under the Firearm Owners Protect Act of 1986 that restricted sales of these weapons to the police and the military. While, generally, sales to civilians are banned there are exceptions, according to Wikipedia. According to their source, 175,000 fully automatic firearms have been licensed to private citizens by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. But beyond the exceptions we private citizens cannot buy working full automatic guns at the local gun shop.

Oh boy....Machine gun ownership was not banned, what was banned was the further production of machine guns for the civilian market. Actually yes you can buy working fully automatic guns at the local gun shops just that most of them don't have them because almost all of them are already in private hands and a lot of them won't sell them to gun shops you also have to fill out more paper work and then wait for the sheriff to sign off on it. They are just rare.

If you do a Google search you can find places that are selling machine guns legally in the USA.

I fail to see any practical use for the "assault rifle" (or whatever you will to call it). Yes, I suppose it could be used for target practice in like lining up bottles and jars and blowing them away. But when I think of target shooting I think of trying to hit the center of a target of concentric circles. If you want to do it in competitions you need a specialize target gun.

So in other words you don't have anything to back up your claims that the law says you can't legally use them for hunting and at target shooting competitions.

That is what target shooting is, that is what they are trying to do with all guns at those targets. That is why people enjoy it because it is a challenge with all guns, especially speed shooting competitions. Go to a gun range buddy or a target shooting competition you will see people with all types of firearms trying to hit the center of the target.

What are you talking about with regards to a specialized target gun? Why do you have to make assumptions?

This is your defense of guns?

Smith go back and read it, that isn't my point.

You're right, though, the same kind of damage could have been done to a 6 year old child shot 5 times point blank as, say, if the guy had a pillow to hit them with and a murderous intent.

Or run over with a car, home made flamethrowers, knives, chainsaws, axes, rocks, letting gas from a gas stove build up in a house and then blown up and yes that actually did happen a couple of months ago in the US.

If you take a pillow and fill it with rocks or some other heavy/dense material and beat them with it ya you could kill a person quite effectively if you aimed for their head.

Do you lock up anyone with mental health problems because you never know if they'll commit mass murder? This it your suggestion as a defense of why guns should not be banned?

No the answer is that you look at which mental health problems have tendency to cause people to violent attack people or themselves and you put them into a mental health institution. The mental health issues that don't cause them to attack people or themselves and for the most part can take care of themselves you don't put them into a mental health institution or lock them up, but that doesn't mean you give them access to firearms either.

Stop saying he could have done the same with a knife or baseball bat

It is a possibility, if he went into the room and locked the door and then barricaded that door the only person to stop him would be a teacher that at most has a scissors or a chair to throw. If the person aims for the head or the neck either the front where the windpipe is or the spine in the back you can kill very quickly. If you have a knife you also can aim for the jugular vein. Of course in order for this to work though you would need to have that door be locked and barricaded.

he did it with no less than THREE legally owned guns,

Technically the guns did not legally belong to him they belonged to his mother whom neighbors have described as a gun enthusiast.. So the guns he used were illegally in his possession so illegally owned guns.

Kabukilover,

Also just to remind you this is what the 2nd amendment was about:

In US vs. Miller, those firearms must serve a "militia purpose".

The second amendment criteria for what guns are acceptable is if they serve a militia purpose not hunting or target shooting.

Here read this article, dailykos is a liberal website if you don't know:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/22/1112659/-Firearms-101-the-Assault-Rifle-Capabilities-and-the-Militia-Concept

My fist comment on this madness would be to those that feel the need to defend their "right" to own semi-automatic weapons after such an incident;

Have you no humanity? Can't even twenty dead 6 year olds break down your numb barrier of stupidity?

Bollocks to your "right" to own such weapons. Before long you people will ultimately make me a "ban all firearms" type, simply because none of you clearly have the sense to own a pea-shooter, let alone even a shotgun for hunting for food - as is the tradition I still support where I live.

"As far as all the calls for more gun control, someone with this nutter's mindset could have killed his mother and the 26 kids with a knife just as well."

Good point serrano - a nut in China wounded 22 kids the other day in an attempted massacre without thankfully managing to kill one single child. Big difference there neh Einstein?

Killing with a gun is cowardly and far easier for a freak with superior firepower compared to a knife. Getting up close and personal with a blade, even with the will, can never feasibly achieve the same bodycount as a man armed with an assault rifle.

Who needs an argument against this "defence"?

I fail to see any practical use for the "assault rifle" (or whatever you will to call it).

Just call it what it is and that is Semi-Automatic rifle, if you want to use a different term call it a military style semi-automatic rifle.

Practical use: Militia, Target Shooting, Hunting, Self defense.

How is a semi-automatic rifle not practical for target shooting, hunting or self defense?

Like it or not, the sort of gun we discussing it generally called an "assault rifle" in the media. Here is a sample from a Google search

I'm coming back to this because this just keeps bugging me. If the media incorrectly calls or describes something that means it is acceptable to use that term for it? That can't possibly be your defense for why it is acceptable for you to keep using that term. Do you let the media define or label everything for you? Lets say the media calls plastic bottle glass bottles, would you say it is then acceptable to call plastic bottles glass bottles because the media says so?

Lets say the media starting calling sub-compact cars a mid sized sedan is that ok?

Here is the perfect example: Tomato. Tomato is a fruit not a vegetable and yet the media keeps calling it a vegetable. Are you going to tell me that a Tomato is vegetable because the media refers to it as a vegetable?

"But see here is the deal, even if you ban semi-automatics you will still have these types of massacres with pump action, bolt action, and lever action guns. "

Oh, like I said people like yourself who come to a tragedy to defend your "right" to own such weapons are fast on the track to making people like me totally anti-gun, something I have never been. I'm not alone on taking this stance so maybe, just maybe, you might want to think about that if you are so desperate to retain your paranoid arsenal at home.

Mate, I'm into motorsport,,participant and fan - yet even though deaths are rare these days - certainly compared to say the F1 of the 1970's - even though deaths are fairly understandable in view of the nature of this sport, I'd never be out expressing my opinion like you do on each and everyone of these incidents should there be a driver killed due to whatever reason when some people call for a ban, and that's a sport with willing participants.

With a fresh pile of dead six years olds, plus a few adults, I'd say just keeping your mouth shut as a matter of common decency on your "rights" to own firearms at such a time wouldn't go amiss. But hey, that's just me.

Vast Right-Wing Conspirator: A senseless tragedy. Also unfortunately one that is difficult to prevent. Given the current state of laws concerning the mentally disturbed, it is extremely hard to have people hospitalized until they do something violent.

Easy access to guns + mentally unstable people = this outcome. You're trying to solve a puzzle with half the pieces.

Also unfortunately, short of banning all private ownership of firearms, this crime was not preventable. A thief stole legally obtained weapons and used them to commit horrid crimes.

Once again, the access issue. Despite your clever vocabulary it was a simple situation where the kid got the gun from his Mom because there was a gun in the house. This isn't some case of a guy breaking into a gun shop in the middle of the night. It's a case of a guy walking to another room in his house.

Madverts: With a fresh pile of dead six years olds, plus a few adults, I'd say just keeping your mouth shut as a matter of common decency on your "rights" to own firearms at such a time wouldn't go amiss. But hey, that's just me.

Yep. And they should understand that some of their absurd arguments come off as even more absurd when we are looking at dead bodies. Honestly.....a super soaker? A knife killer? Armed kindergarten teachers? This is there response to 20 murdered children?

Oh, like I said people like yourself who come to a tragedy to defend your "right" to own such weapons are fast on the track to making people like me totally anti-gun, something I have never been. I'm not alone on taking this stance so maybe, just maybe, you might want to think about that if you are so desperate to retain your paranoid arsenal at home.

Because you know I'm correct, banning semi-automatics is not going to stop these things. Just look at how fast you can fire pump action, bolt action, lever actions firearms. The only thing that would would work is creating a stronger more efficient background check system and then adding that if you live in a residence that someone who is not allowed to own a gun due to mental illness or criminal offenses that you are not allowed to own a firearm until you move to a different residence. Right now the US system is horrible at adding people with mental illnesses to background check system. The aurora shooter was known to mental health professionals, the Virginia Tech shooter was declared a danger to himself and others yet the facility failed to notify law enforcement, this was before he even bought his guns. Heck the facility even lost his records. The columbine shooters even had run ins with law enforcement when they were caught exploding pipe bombs. Columbine shootings happened even when the AWB was in place for several years. Do you really think it is a gun type issue or do you think it is background check issue along with a cultural issue?

Do you think I care if your not alone? People have been totally anti-gun since guns were first created.

I'd never be out expressing my opinion like you do on each and everyone of these incidents should there be a driver killed due to whatever reason when some people call for a ban, and that's a sport with willing participants.

Would you allow the ban if they started calling for the ban? Would you never ever try to get the ban removed in the future?

I'd say just keeping your mouth shut as a matter of common decency on your "rights" to own firearms at such a time wouldn't go amiss. But hey, that's just me.

But see that is just it right, it always bans. So we ban Semi-automatic firearms because everyone stayed quiet. Then after there is another massacre with a pump action firearm, ban is called for immediately for pump action firearms and law is passed because everyone stayed quiet. Then after that another massacre happens using a lever action firearm. Ban is called for and ban is passed for all lever action firearms. Then after that a massacre happens using a bolt action firearm. Ban is called for and ban is passed.

So when do I get to open my mouth and say no we shouldn't ban them or to remove the ban? When do I get to say those things? If its common decency for me keep my mouth shut then isn't it also common decency for those trying to ban guns immediately after an incident to keep their mouth shut. That begs the question when do we get to talk about gun control and my answer to that is after the investigation is complete and the facts surrounding the incident such as motive, where the weapons were acquired and was this a person that fell through the background check system, how long did they have the weapons, did they make anyone aware of their plans, what was the response of police and tactics of police, what was the response and tactic of the victim, was the victim(s) even aware, etc. But instead of waiting for those facts to come out the answer is to just start banning semi-automatics.

Take for example Columbine shooting, police were on the school grounds for 38 minutes before they entered the school. Well lets see here when you give two shooters 38 minutes for unopposed movement along with no opposition to them going around shooting people and planting pipe bombs you know that might have a pretty big impact for why the shooting was as deadly as it was.

Take for example Virginia Tech, the guy chained the exits shut so that they couldn't escape, that might have a bigger impact on why shooting was as deadly as it was.

You remember the school shooting a few years back in Germany and how the lawmakers wanted to ban paint ball and laser tag because they thought it helped the shooters. If paintball and laser tag shooters stayed quiet out of common decency guess what would be banned right now in Germany? What do you think it was that prevented those things from being banned?

Honestly.....a super soaker?

You forgot the key word flamethrower.

Tell me based off of this video that this isn't lethal and couldn't kill a lot of people very quickly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqxQMF-hjhE

How about this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuD_XNSsJ4w

How about this video:

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

Go ahead mock them but they are very real and very easy to create and very lethal.

Armed kindergarten teachers

Well Israel and Thailand have armed teachers....

Question when a shooting takes place and when you call the police do you call for unarmed police or armed police?

Noliving: The only thing that would would work is creating a stronger more efficient background check system and then adding that if you live in a residence that someone who is not allowed to own a gun due to mental illness or criminal offenses that you are not allowed to own a firearm until you move to a different residence. Right now the US system is horrible at adding people with mental illnesses to background check system. The aurora shooter was known to mental health professionals, the Virginia Tech shooter was declared a danger to himself and others yet the facility failed to notify law enforcement, this was before he even bought his guns. Heck the facility even lost his records. The columbine shooters even had run ins with law enforcement when they were caught exploding pipe bombs. Columbine shootings happened even when the AWB was in place for several years. Do you really think it is a gun type issue or do you think it is background check issue along with a cultural issue?

But isn't all of that meaningless when the gun crowd insists on having gun shows where sales are legal without background checks? And isn't it meaningless again when someone can just buy a gun from a private party? And isn't it meaningless yet again when you realize that with hundreds of millions of guns someone can simply go to a friends house and get one?

And may I ask how you propose predicting mental illness in people who haven't sought treatment or shown any outward signs of violence? It would seem that your plan would require nothing less than a major revolution in the field of mental care.

Because you know I'm correct, banning semi-automatics is not going to stop these things. Just look at how fast you can fire pump action, bolt action, lever actions firearms.

You're operating from the point of view that some guns will be legal in some way and telling us it's an impossible situation to get around. Except that we can ban all guns.

Tell me based off of this video that this isn't lethal and couldn't kill a lot of people very quickly:

Tell me that 99% of the people looking to cause mass harm wouldn't choose a gun first, and tell me they wouldn't choose it because it's quick, cheap, easy to get, and lethal. Then tell me that the other methods you describe are just as bad.

But isn't all of that meaningless when the gun crowd insists on having gun shows where sales are legal without background checks? And isn't it meaningless again when someone can just buy a gun from a private party? And isn't it meaningless yet again when you realize that with hundreds of millions of guns someone can simply go to a friends house and get one?

What are you talking about? Gun shows don't provide any type of legal loophole where you don't have to do a background check. All guns bought at a gun show from a FFL require background checks.

The only gun sales in the US that don't have background checks are private sales. Private sellers have a tendency to go to gun shows and try and walk around advertising their guns for sales. Private sellers can sell anywhere at anytime. That is what I'm talking about in terms of a stronger more efficient background check system.

No its meaningless not even when they can go to a friends house and get one. The truth of the matter is that most don't go to a friends house to get one to begin with. Almost all of these mass shooting sprees were caused by people who actually bought them from a FFL but were not picked up during the NICS, mainly because they had not been added to the system after they had been identified as a threat to other by the mental health services.

And may I ask how you propose predicting mental illness in people who haven't sought treatment or shown any outward signs of violence?

That is the risk, just like how do you predict who will commit a crime when they have no crime record. You are not going to get all of them. It is the same cars and selling knives.

You're operating from the point of view that some guns will be legal in some way and telling us it's an impossible situation to get around. Except that we can ban all guns.

Do you think the nation is willing to repeal the 2nd amendment and do a repeated random house by house search of every single house and building to confiscate them?

Tell me that 99% of the people looking to cause mass harm wouldn't choose a gun first, and tell me they wouldn't choose it because it's quick, cheap, easy to get, and lethal. Then tell me that the other methods you describe are just as bad.

Probably would choose the gun first. Ah guns are not cheap, not compared to a super soaker filled with gasoline and a lighter at the end.

The super-soaker flame thrower is pretty much just as bad as the gun one.

In the end its not about what they would they choose first its about is it effective, is it readily available and quick to make. If their first choice is taken away but there is a second and third choice that they know is available are basically just as effective and available they will just choose those choices.

NoLiving: A variant of the Super Soaker was recently used in an attempted convenience store robbery. In this case, the weapon was a garden sprayer filled with a flammable fluid against a change cage. Does this mean there will be a seven day waiting period for purchases from Lowe's Hardware?

The second biggest problem, behind the criminal, may be the "No Guns Zone". This is a proven victim impairment practice that makes things easy for crazed maniacs. Our Utah schools are a lot safer now that people with concealed carry permits (CCW) are now legal on campus. Utah CCW permits are recognized in 38 states, so far. The only state that actually forbids them is Illinois which should make Chicago a safe place; or is it?

We should set up a memorial for the kids thanking them for sacrificing their lives so we can have 270 million guns

There is a memorial already; for all victims who have been lost in school crimes. It's a huge wall.

Noliving: What are you talking about? Gun shows don't provide any type of legal loophole where you don't have to do a background check. All guns bought at a gun show from a FFL require background checks.

We both know there is a loophole where private sellers can sell their guns at gun shows and there is no background check. Where I live there are no background checks and there is a gun show next weekend and I'm betting I can get a gun in my hands in a matter of minutes. Or I can simply browse through the local paper and buy directly from someone. Are you willing to close down those avenues?

It is the same cars and selling knives.

We'll just agree to disagree on this one because I'm not going to debate this with you.

Do you think the nation is willing to repeal the 2nd amendment and do a repeated random house by house search of every single house and building to confiscate them?

No house to house search needed. Shut down the gun shops and make sales illegal and let time take care of the rest. It will be a long and difficult process but over time people's perception about guns will change. We will have generation after generation of children growing up with each being less gun friendly than the last. Or we can live with 30,000+ deaths a year by guns perpetually.

Probably would choose the gun first.

And why is that?

If their first choice is taken away but there is a second and third choice that they know is available are basically just as effective and available they will just choose those choices.

Are you saying that if there were no guns we'd see roughly the same number of mass killing each year?

Superlib.

You can't ban all guns. AFAIK, that only works in places like North Korea. Countries like Australia, Switzerland, and Canada all prove that gun ownership is possible while maintaining a decent level of social safety.

The US has a unique culture and mystique around firearms, and I can't begin to say that I understand or sympathize with it. Given that there are nearly as many guns as people, perhaps the answer lies in what takes place around the guns rather than the guns themselves. Simple steps like licensing, safety training, and mandatory insurance would be a start. Much like owning an automobile.

We both know there is a loophole where private sellers can sell their guns at gun shows and there is no background check.

I know that, that is exactly what I said in my post. See right here:

The only gun sales in the US that don't have background checks are private sales. Private sellers have a tendency to go to gun shows and try and walk around advertising their guns for sales. Private sellers can sell anywhere at anytime.

Private sellers don't have to do background checks but a gun show though doesn't provide any type of legal loophole where you don't have to do a background check. Private sellers can sell their guns at any place and at any time.

Or I can simply browse through the local paper and buy directly from someone. Are you willing to close down those avenues?

I'm absolutely for requiring private sellers to do background checks.

We'll just agree to disagree on this one because I'm not going to debate this with you.

I think you misunderstood. How do you prevent a person who is mentally ill who has no documented mental illness from getting a drivers license to buy car and from selling them knives. How do you prevent someone with no criminal record who plans on committing a crime from getting a drivers license or a knife?

You can't it is just a risk that exists.

No house to house search needed. Shut down the gun shops and make sales illegal and let time take care of the rest. It will be a long and difficult process but over time people's perception about guns will change. We will have generation after generation of children growing up with each being less gun friendly than the last. Or we can live with 30,000+ deaths a year by guns perpetually.

How do you plan on getting the guns then? Until you confiscate them the the 300+ million firearms will still be out on the streets.

And why is that?

Because you are brought up in a society that if you want kill someone you should choose a firearm.

Are you saying that if there were no guns we'd see roughly the same number of mass killing each year?

If they, the people wanting to commit these things, were aware of other alternatives that were available absolutely.

Take for example George Russel Weller, he didn't do it on purpose but you can easily see how someone wanting to do it on purpose could inflict that type of killing and injuries.

Home made flamethrowers could absolutely cause that type of death and destruction.

"the 20-year-old gunman, described as brilliant... probably a genius"

Like Einstein, right, Madverts?

You can't ban all guns. AFAIK, that only works in places like North Korea.

Not really! Singapore, Myanmar, China and Vietanam too. Someone who carry the fire arm in public place will be sent to the jail straight away. In Singapore and China, it can be serverly punished with death penalty. Those nation concern more about public safety over individual freedom. People died with food poison more than violent crimes in that nations.