Ex-LDS Mother Responds to the Shootings

[_dblagent007]

The thing that's so stupid is that the liberals are already calling for practically the same assault weapons ban we had in the 90s. The only problem with that is that it didn't produce results. We need to try something different such as the things you have mentioned.

[_Always Changing]

the Westboro Baptist Church is going to picket the funerals of these children??? This must be stopped by any peaceful means available. I wish I still lived in the Northeast so I could go and help form a human wall a block around these funerals to prevent these sick bastards from their evil, disgusting ways.

Me too.

[_madeleine]

At the very least, if you have a mentally unstable person living with you, get the guns out of the house.

As for the gun debate, both sides need to forgo generalizing the facts.

[_sethpayne]

At the very least, if you have a mentally unstable person living with you, get the guns out of the house.

No kidding!

As for the gun debate, both sides need to forgo generalizing the facts.

Fully agree. It's time to have a grown up discussion about the issue and that means no political posturing and especially no politicizing such a horrific tragedy. And, as you imply, no screwing with the facts.

[_MeDotOrg]

The thing that's so stupid is that the liberals are already calling for practically the same assault weapons ban we had in the 90s. The only problem with that is that it didn't produce results. We need to try something different such as the things you have mentioned.

In Australia in 1996, 35 people were killed and 21 people were wounded in the Port Arthur Massacre. The gunman had a history of mental illness and was armed with two military style semi-automatic rifles. Prime Minister John Howard instituted a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, as well as pump-action shotguns. Prohibited by law from taking property from citizens without compensation, the government purchased more than 631,000 weapons from the public.

This was followed by more than a decade free of mass shooting deaths, and accelerated decline in all firearms-related deaths.

The United States has more that 300 million guns. If there is an assault weapons ban, it could take a decade to have a significant impact. If you start exercising today, your blood pressure is not going to drop 20 points tomorrow.

As I said in another post, it used to be that the argument was that guns were for hunting or self-defense in the home. Now (in some states) semi-automatic weapons are legal in bars. (I'll have a shot of tequila and a shot of Glock please!) And the answer to more and more mass public shootings? Why more and more guns, of course. Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert said he wished the Sandy Hook School Principal had an M4 in her office.

Of course the next time this happens, it will be at a playground. Then we will need armed guards at the playground. Or the Community Center. Or the YMCA. or, or, or...

The argument is slowly changing from "Guns are a right" to "Guns are a necessity". Someone's right to bear arms shouldn't consequently mean that elementary school principals should be familiar with military assault weapons to do their job. No other stable Western Democracy would accept that as the status quo.

You're not going to put out the fire by pouring more gasoline on it. And make no mistake about it: this is a fire with a lot of fuel.

Guns are certainly not the entire problem. We need better mental health markers to identify kids with (who am I kidding? Young men) with mental problems. And even that is not the whole problem...

We live in culture where violence as entertainment is more and more common. When movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars for production and promotion, you have to be reasonably sure that the film will do well in foreign markets to recoup their costs. What translates in all cultures? Sex and violence. We're becoming a comic book movie culture. The line between movies, television, video games, computers and reality is becoming blurred. Most people can handle it. But is seems that, increasingly, some people cannot.

These problems did not occur overnight, nor will they be solved tomorrow. But I think that looking at assault weapons bans, high capacity magazine bans, smart guns, et cetera, is not unreasonable.

[_LDSToronto]

Teenager kills 9, wounds 4 in China knife attack

http://www.ktsf.com/en/teenager-kills-9 ... fe-attack/

Knife attack at Chinese school wounds 22 children

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asi ... index.html

Weapons don't kill people, PEOPLE DO...!

A person's Moral Compass can be determined by how he referrences free men the right to defend themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnM

Well, you've mastered prepositional logic, I see. But allow me to ask why you didn't conclude:

"Weapons don't kill people, Chinese do!"

H.

[_SteelHead]

From my reading of the Bible it becomes apparent: weapons don't kill people, the god of the Old Testament kills people.

[_ajax18]

In Australia in 1996, 35 people were killed and 21 people were wounded in the Port Arthur Massacre. The gunman had a history of mental illness and was armed with two military style semi-automatic rifles. Prime Minister John Howard instituted a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, as well as pump-action shotguns. Prohibited by law from taking property from citizens without compensation, the government purchased more than 631,000 weapons from the public.

When you compare gun control effectiveness, it really doesn't make sense to compare the USA to Great Britain or Australia. A better comparison for the USA would be Mexico or Colombia. With the exception of these horrific mass shootings, the places in the USA where guns are the biggest problem are lot more like Latin America than they are Europe. Colombia has extremly strict gun control laws and yet their homicide rate is 8x that of the USA.

Even so, it's a sad day when citizens lose the right to protect themselves from violent criminals and are left to rely on a government police force that really has no financial interests in stopping theft or crime but rather spends the majority of its time in revenue producing activities like catching speeders (that look like they'll pay the ticket) or looking for reasons to confiscate cash and cars through drug forfeiture laws.

[_MeDotOrg]

In Australia in 1996, 35 people were killed and 21 people were wounded in the Port Arthur Massacre. The gunman had a history of mental illness and was armed with two military style semi-automatic rifles. Prime Minister John Howard instituted a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, as well as pump-action shotguns. Prohibited by law from taking property from citizens without compensation, the government purchased more than 631,000 weapons from the public.

When you compare gun control effectiveness, it really doesn't make sense to compare the USA to Great Britain or Australia. A better comparison for the USA would be Mexico or Colombia. With the exception of these horrific mass shootings, the places in the USA where guns are the biggest problem are lot more like Latin America than they are Europe. Colombia has extremly strict gun control laws and yet their homicide rate is 8x that of the USA.

Even so, it's a sad day when citizens lose the right to protect themselves from violent criminals and are left to rely on a government police force that really has no financial interests in stopping theft or crime but rather spends the majority of its time in revenue producing activities like catching speeders (that look like they'll pay the ticket) or looking for reasons to confiscate cash and cars through drug forfeiture laws.

So we have fewer gun deaths than Latin American countries with huge narcotics economies? Aim high, America!

I don't think we need to ban guns. If people want a shotgun or rifle for hunting, and a revolver for home defense, I have no problem with that.

But if that's your decision, you should know that guns in the home are far more likely to kill someone you know than a home intruder. Sandy Hook is a case in point. And I fail to see the compelling need for someone to own semi-automatic weapons or high capacity magazines.

The thing is, I believe there is common ground. I think that most gun owners aren't against reasonable restrictions. People need to understand that those who favor unrestricted access assault weapons are in the minority in this country. They happen to have a single issue lobbying group (the N.R.A.) that is very effective.

Connecticut had the nation's 5th most restrictive gun laws, yet the .223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine purchased by Nancy Lanza was legal. I think we can be a little more restrictive than that, and still have room for legitimate self defense.

[_ajax18]

But if that's your decision, you should know that guns in the home are far more likely to kill someone you know than a home intruder.

I lost a brother to one of the firearms we owned. So yeah, stuff happens. But I believe there are worse things than death. For me it doesn't change the principle that people should have a right to defend themselves.

Connecticut had the nation's 5th most restrictive gun laws, yet the .223-caliber Bushmaster M4 carbine purchased by Nancy Lanza was legal. I think we can be a little more restrictive than that, and still have room for legitimate self defense.

I don't disagree with that. It seems like you understand the concerns of law biding people on this issue. When I watch foreign leftists like Piers Morgan, I get the impression they think it's better that a few more citizens perish from burglary and home invasion if it can help the situation of those espousing the gangster lifestyle. Perhaps that's not what he means but that's how he comes across to conservatives who simply believe they should retain the right to defend themselves.