Guns and Congress
December 20th, 2012
06:00 AM ET

Guns and Congress

By Lisa Desjardins, CNN

Follow on Twitter: @LisaDCNN

Editor's Note: Listen to the full story in our player above, and join the conversation in our comments section below.

Washington (CNN) –  The debate over how to prevent another mass shooting in America is echoing across the country, but it’s more staccato in Congress. Especially when it comes to a central issue: guns.

Many members of Congress who are known as supporting gun rights are remaining quiet for now.

[2:06] “I think we need to talk about this in another time. With a bigger focus with everything that is brought to bear on this.”

– Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX

However, those pushing for gun control are moving fast and speaking often, holding news conferences, sending press releases and in multiple cases, crafting proposed bills.

[1:09] “It’s going to ban by name at least 100 military-style semi-automatic assault weapons. And it’s going to ban big clips, drums or strips of more than ten bullets.”

– Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA

Subscribe to this podcast on iTunes or Stitcher. And listen to CNN Soundwaves on our SoundCloud page.

soundoff (760 Responses)
  1. Responible Gun Owner

    Look up "Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas 12/15/2012" or "Winnemucca, Nev 2008" or "Appalachian School of Law, 2002" or "Santee, Calif.,2001" or "Pearl High School, Miss 1997" or Edinboro, Pa 1998" just to name a few. Most of you will not take the time to look them up but in each one of these cases, a responsible gun owner or police officer, in the area as the crime is happening, took out the threat before more lives were lost. You have never heard about most of them because it was not tragic enough for the national news. The liberal media will not admit the fact that responsible people with guns save lives. We will never know how many lives were saved by the actions of the people in the above locations. Can we at least agree that if someone in the school was trained a had a gun, the possibility would exist that this tragic tragic event would not have been so tragic?

    December 21, 2012 at 11:16 am | Report abuse |
  2. Tyrone


    The “Sandy Hook” innocent will be just another American tragedy if nothing changes in America with “Gun Control”! Remember 9/11 or rather after 9/11 the white control media started a LIE! The lie was that all American came together! What a bunch of “bull! Nothing can be further from the truth! If anything American Muslim became the new American to hate and disrespect and stereotype! Yes some American hung their flags and hug their children a little and chanted “we love America”! But hate and divide was “STILL” alive and well in America! Racism was “STILL" alive and well! All Muslim were blame for the action of a few JUST LIKE BLACK ARE!!!! There was “NO” American coming together.............. That was a LIE!!

    Now the white control media is using the “Sandy Hook” tragedy to claim American coming together. When in fact coverage of the tragedy is just to see who can get higher rating! Who can cover the funerals better! Show the pictures of the dead white children and set the stage for the movies and book deals of the tragedy. Yes I said IT! This is what happen when there is a white on white crime. Adam Lanza is white and in death will become famous! Just like white John Wayne Casey who raped and murdered 33 white males. There has been two movie and a couple of books and even his paintings sold for thousand of dollars after his death. Charles Manson another white man has had movies about his evil and has been made famous! To this day the white control media wants to interview Manson in prison.

    Theodore Robert "Ted" Bundy was an white American serial killer, rapist, kidnapper, and necrophile who assaulted and murdered numerous white young women and girls during the 1970s and possibly earlier. After more than a decade of denials, he confessed shortly before his execution to 30 homicides committed in seven states between 1974 and 1978; the true total remains unknown, and could be much higher.Bundy was regarded as handsome and charismatic by his young female victims, traits he exploited in winning their trust. There been movie and numerous books! In prison many white women propose marriage and sent letters of love and naked pictures!

    The “Sandy Hook” incident will turn into another money maker for Hollywood and the white control media! Another thing that the white control media is trying to do is attack President Obama’s leadership! By stating he should do something NOW!! The first black President is charge with not doing anything about Gun Control” during his Presidency! The truth the NRA has dictated how safe or rather “UN”safe a country we all should live in! Way before President Obama ever got into politic! The right wing extremist and the majority white race wants guns of mass destruction! That the reason behind gun violent in America and the lack of strong Gun Control! MAYBE .....JUST MAYBE...there will be stronger or better “Gun Control Laws “ past because the majority of dead in the “Sandy Hook” incident were white and children. MAYBE....!!!

    December 21, 2012 at 9:33 am | Report abuse |
  3. Robert

    Sure.....take all the guns away from the people. That's what they did in Nazi Germany, and Cambodia, and a dozen other countries.. Once the citizens were completely disarmed, that's when their country stopped playing nice guy and the citizens had no way to protect themselves. It may sound paranoid, but there are people who dearly want this to happen in the US. Without shooting rampages like the one at Sandy Hook, Americans would NEVER voluntarily give up their right to keep and bear arms. And someone knows this.

    December 20, 2012 at 8:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Michael

      blah blah blah, shove those guns up your ass

      December 20, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Allen N Wollscheidt

      Robert, Michael has JUST the RIGHT idea for you ! ! !
      Japan has a score of 11 against our 12,000 ! !

      December 20, 2012 at 8:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Joe

      How come the liberal types are always obsessed with men's rectums? They can't even maintain a bare modicum of civility. Time for decent folk to dissolve the bands that bind us to the tyrannical regime in DC and the perverts who support it.

      December 20, 2012 at 9:05 pm | Report abuse |
  4. non-american

    Open your eyes people – look at the countries that have lower murder rates – and follow their lead! Whatever they do to keep that rate low, they learned what works! Don't be stupid and think nothing needs to be done – it does. All these kids and adults from more than just this latest massacre have lost their lives because of the fanatisism with guns – why? What if those were your kids?
    Wake up and learn from the rest of the world – arming everyone is not the answer. There is NO NEED WHATSOEVER for assault weapons to so readily available, same as pistols –
    If nothing is done, which probably will happen cause it seems as tho there is a very short term memory in your country when it comes to gun related crimes and massacres, mark my words – some other sicko will once again kill a bunch of your kids... why dont you work together and do something to prevent this?
    Arming everyone may be the American way, but it is the wrong solution for the problem. The entire world would agree with that.

    December 20, 2012 at 7:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bart

      There are lots of countries with less guns and more murdering than the United States. There are also lots of countries with more guns and less murdering. So your post is rather meaningless.

      December 20, 2012 at 7:59 pm | Report abuse |
  5. Gunner

    Meanwhile, Walmart is sold out of assault rifles and guns are flying off the shelves all over the US.

    December 20, 2012 at 7:06 pm | Report abuse |
  6. nietodarwin

    I've had some experience with school shootings, colleagues wounded, students killed. It's not something one easily gets over, even after years. I still don't teach with a gun in my desk, or "hidden" somewhere. I've shot lots and lots of guns, very mindful of safety, but as teacher, I wouldn't have one while teaching school. (This is because not only do I teach reading, I read. I can read statistics about places where guns are present, and where they are not. Schools need better protection but arming teachers is NOT the answer. This shooting touched some nerves, so gun law might change, but only a bit. This is the USA. This shouldn't surprise us. We are armed and arming more. Maybe people will look at more than the math. Better yet, look at the math......... Hope we can change.

    December 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bart

      Please do look at the math. Every major mass shooting in this country has occured in a gun free zone. No matter how insane these murderers are they manage to make their way to a location where they know they can carry out their plans unopposed. If you think this is just coincendence you are nuts...dozens of shootings, ALL of them in gun free zones. Elimination of these gun free zones does not mean handing teachers guns, it just means eliminating the restrictions that are currently in place that have given these murderers safe locations to carry out their murders.

      December 20, 2012 at 7:11 pm | Report abuse |
  7. True

    Its amazing that this government points the finger at these evil guns and misuse. They are directly responsible for intentionally allowing "assualt weapons" to funel into Mexico. "Fast and furious" anyone? Which in turn probably found there way back across the boarder to US streets.

    December 20, 2012 at 6:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • jesse

      I guess Liberals think it's easier and cheaper to write and pass gun laws, instead of provide Federal funding and housing for the mentally ill.

      Throw a band aid on a problem and hope it goes away long enough to finish a term and get out of office, sounds about right.

      December 20, 2012 at 6:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Fupped Duck

        Oh wait...That would be an entitlement..We can't do that we are against that. Except when we agree.

        December 20, 2012 at 7:23 pm | Report abuse |
  8. Foresee

    The murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School are tragic. I apologize; I have nothing to say that will comfort anyone. Please accept my condolences to the families that lost loved ones, the children and adults that lost their lives.

    It is in part each of our responsibility to prevent such actions from continuing to haunt every sound minded person in the world that realizes what has occurred. As a society, we must learn not to place blame where blame doesn’t belong. No one can blame the parents for taking their children to school that day. No one can blame the administration for not having security on the premises. No one can blame the car or the shoes or however the murderer arrived at the school. No one can blame the Psychological Society for not catching insanity. No one can blame an inanimate object for its actions. No one should blame anything, BUT the murderer.

    Teach children at schools not to kill!
    Bring back God’s Commandment “Thou shall not kill”.
    There will be more controversy over that statement than the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    Post it in the rooms, halls and auditoriums.
    Watch a generation grow believing it is wrong to kill and this will stop.

    I have a God given right to defend myself, I have a governmental Constitutional Right to own firearms.
    There are millions of people that will defend their rights that haven’t killed anyone.
    Don’t divide this nation, Urban – Rural, into a civil war that could be far worse than any foreign terrorist.

    Mayor Bloomberg of New York City needs to worry about those that fall or are thrown into the path of Subway Trains. Why are people able to fall onto the tracks? Why are people able to be thrown onto the tracks? Take up the tracks, they kill. This is Mayor Bloomberg’s mentality, stupid; don’t allow him to won a firearm!

    This nation had a ban on certain firearms for a decade, from 1994 to 2004, and the number of these horrible actions weren’t fazed. There have been murders from the beginning of history which only assures me there will be murders in the present and future. Just as a drug addict will change their drug of choice, so too will a murderer change their weapon of choice.

    December 20, 2012 at 6:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • nisroc00

      All due respect, most of what you said is true but coming from a person that follows a 250 old piece of paper, a person that is probably part of a US gun cult (NRA) and probably a person that uses AR-15 or automatic hand gun to so call protect himself from robbers, and so called tranny government makes the later half of what you said BS.

      Questions you can ask yourself;
      #1 Have I ever used a gun to protect myself as a civilian from robbers and tyrants? I bet 1% have.
      #2 Do I as a gun owner need a carbine, assault rifle, high powered rifle, machine gun, sub machine gun, rocket launchers and grenades when I answered no to #1?
      #3 Do I as an American trust my government? if so why do you need a gun?

      You are just another brain washed NRA cult member, if you own a hunter rifle and a shotgun you should be fine. Anything more is nothing but a look at me I have a gun show off item. why do you need a 5000 – 10000 buck rifle to hit the bulleye dead on every time you go to the range? if you hit it dead on every time you go to the range what's the point of owning that gun? George Bush was a tryant and i never heard of no guns go off and yet now he is a war criminal and you the people have done nothing. Wake up 20 kids and 6 adults lost there lives and you show more respect to your gun than to them.

      December 20, 2012 at 6:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bart

        The problem with the anti-gun nuts is that they are completely ignorant of guns. They do not know the difference between auto, semi-auto, machine gun, assault rifle, assault weapon, hunting rifle, high powered rifle, clip, magazine, M4 etc etc etc. Even though you do not know what any of these things mean you act like you know what you are talking about and pretend you have knowledge to know what should and should not be legal. Your post above is so full of misused terminology and logic based on incorrect definitions it's pathetic. The problem is that almost all anti-gun people say the exact same incorrect things. Get a clue about guns and what types of guns can do what types of things and what types of guns are already illegal before you spout off more about what people should and shouldn't have.

        December 20, 2012 at 7:04 pm | Report abuse |
        • MidWestern

          It is not only anti-gun nuts. it is the media as well. They use tems such as 'automatic rifle' or ' machine gun' to describe semi automatic weapons. Not only are the talking heads ignorant, they have no desire to learn. Their distortions and lies simply scare people and build support for their cause to diminish the hated Second Amendment. Incidentally, this amendment passed when single shot rifles posessed by the citizens were equal to the same technology and firepower posessed by the military. Just another Inconvenient Truth I suppose.

          December 20, 2012 at 7:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • Gunner

        The constitution is nothing but a 250 year old piece of paper to you? Typical liberal – it's all relative.

        December 20, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • mark

        I could say the same about your brainwashed anti-gun BS. Sure got us moving forward huh?

        December 20, 2012 at 7:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • please...

        in reply to your 3 questions...
        1- have I ever used a gun to protect myself? No, but I feel 100 times safer when I have my gun in my waist line just incase something were to happen. I would rather carry than feel helpless if that situation were to arise.
        2- assult rifles, high powered rifles, rocket launchers, and grenades!?!? Please show me where you can buy rocket launchers and grenades at your local gun store... there is none. get real please.
        3- do I trust my government? to be honest, not lately. But if I did, I would still want a gun for the sake of #1. it has nothing to do with the government.

        I am not a member of the NRA, I am a full blooded American who spent money, and was trained how to use a gun so that I could legally carry so that I may protect myself or anyone who may be in a situation that I may be able to resolve by being able to own a gun. The day may never come, but if it does I'm going to be very happy that I was not a victim.
        No criminal is going to abide by any gun laws. So if the law changes, and guns are banned, they will still have them and us being law abiding will suffer armed crimes plain and simple... I wolf will prey on a sheep no matter what the law is. so please open your eyes and see the reality of the real world....

        December 20, 2012 at 7:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hmmm, not sure I agree with your police work there

      God did not give the right to defend yourself. I beleive it was turn the other cheek.
      2ndly – my right to life comes before your right to bear arms in the constitution – whell mine is in the consitution. Your right is in the amendments.
      Your lack of being a man should not endanger us all.

      December 20, 2012 at 7:05 pm | Report abuse |
      • Foresee

        What do you know of God?

        December 20, 2012 at 7:09 pm | Report abuse |
        • Hmmm, not sure I agree with your police work there

          Are you talking to me?

          Are you talking to me?

          December 20, 2012 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Yaung

    To me those who are saying "need more guns to be safer" are as mentally sick as those who murder children in the classrooms by guns. If it is the mental health issue as they claim they should get help first, obviously they are not capable of thinking logically, they are sick.

    December 20, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Yaung

    Those who put these guns on the streets and those who use guns to kill kids in the classroom are equally guilty of these crimes.

    December 20, 2012 at 5:06 pm | Report abuse |
  11. JP

    I am a father and a gun-owner, and I want to first say that what happened in CT was a horrible, horrible thing – and I am very distraught over the loss of innocent lives that occurred there. But everyone should understand that someone that has it in there mindset to commit something like this will figure out a way to do it – regardless of whether or not guns are banned. The guy in Oklahoma City who blew up the Federal Building and took all those lives – including serveral children – did not use a gun. I also want to say that I find it very disturbing that alot of the Politicians and people who are leading the "gun ban" charge, are the same people who believe it is OK for a woman to take the life of a baby at any stage of its development – an innocent life – I find it incredible that these people would scream about all those innocent children that were killed in CT, and yet abortion – in any form – is quite accceptable to them. Unbelievable.

    December 20, 2012 at 4:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dale

      You should have stopped after your first sentence and continued thinking about your kids.

      December 20, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • JP

        Read what I wrote – I was thinking about the kids in CT – my kids are fine..........Always nice to hear back from a liberal DH...............

        December 21, 2012 at 9:32 am | Report abuse |
    • Hmmm, not sure I agree with your police work there

      But, after OKC rental truck compnaies and chemical companies had to start keeping track of purchases and report anythign suspicious.

      And, on abortion – how many kids have you adopted? There are many kids in foster and childrens homes who could use a family that you have even considered adopting?

      December 20, 2012 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
      • JP

        So I'm guessing abortion is OK with you............... liberal DH – I hope you are selected to come take my firearms – I would really like to meet you.

        December 21, 2012 at 9:34 am | Report abuse |
  12. lisa

    guns = fear and inadequacy . education and giving people a sense of belonging and self-sufficiency in the community = less crazy people, more peace.

    December 20, 2012 at 4:25 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Dave

    A lot of people in here are saying it has to do with "rights"...rights of the gun owners to have rights, while others are saying "your rights are hurting me, so take them away." Washington was very proud of itself with the "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" program, where the rights of ONE INDIVIDUAL is important enough that others have to change to accomodate them. Now there are people in here saying that "THE RIGHTS OF 90 MILLION GUN OWNERS ARE NOT IMPORTANT" enough to fix the problem so we will just force the crazies to find another method to kill people. ONE person is important...90 MILLION PEOPLE are not important. Just doesn't make sense to me, since if you remove EVERY semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, pistol, "assault style" weapon from this country, I'll be the "murder count" does not go down one iota...because you have not fixed the problem, that of a society that TEACHES children to kill, with our movies, books, and video games. There are thousands of parents right now that have Call of Duty and other games of violence already wrapped and under the tree for their young teenagers to open Christmas day. We TEACH MURDER...that will be this generations claim to fame. What a horrible legacy to leave behind.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • DW

      Second Amendment

      "The Second Amendment gives us the right to maintain a militia,"

      "We maintain a militia and we have the right to bear arms but it doesn't anywhere in the Second Amendment give the right to bear all types of arms,"

      December 20, 2012 at 4:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • jeff

        It's right next to the word musket.....oh wait.

        December 20, 2012 at 5:05 pm | Report abuse |
        • DW

          I believe this discussion is on guns and Second Amendment not every other subject someone is talking about. This is not on abortion, DUI's, and any other open discussion. We have no question many things kill too much sugar kills.

          Yes guns do kill and to say no it’s not guns but people is lying to us and the children who have die. It’s the type of guns used and whose hands we put them in. Many other things can be used to kill yes, but there sole propose alone is not to kill like a automatic gun so quickly. Seem some countries have better weapon limitations and gun control laws which are more affect than our country. Why? Are we the world leader when we can not improve on something so important. Guns ownership yes, but automatic no. Get a gun in a day no, but make it harder with effect gun control laws yes.

          In Japan, you cannot buy a handgun, much less an assault rifle. In fact, even off-duty police officers are banned from carrying guns.
          You can buy a shotgun or an air rifle, but it is not easy:
          • First, you have to take a class and a written exam.
          • Then there's a skill test at a shooting range
          • Next is a drug test
          • Then a mental evaluation.
          • Assuming you pass all those tests, you file with the police, who then run a background check.
          No wonder Japan has one of the lowest gun ownership rates in the world.

          But does it work?
          In 2008, the U.S. had 12,000 gun-related murders. Japan had 11. More than double that number were killed in the massacre in Newtown, Ct.

          United States is ranked 22 on deaths because of guns; and 22 is not to be proud of if you look who is worst and Japan is 3 from the bottom. United States is ranked 3 in population 314,964,000 and Japan is ranked 10 in population 127,547,000 compare this size to amount of deaths.

          Our founding fathers look as them having weapons equal to the government when the 2nd amendment was written. This will never be any more now or in the future. The American public never own tanks, jets, missiles and advance weapons like what government has. No way did our founding fathers ever foresee the future, but we should see the past and the reasoning then and now. So we need to change the laws in what it takes to get a gun and stop selling automatic guns which only serve one thing kill quickly.

          The Second Amendment gives us the right to maintain a militia,"

          "We maintain a militia and we have the right to bear arms but it doesn't anywhere in the Second Amendment give the right to bear all types of arms,"

          December 20, 2012 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
        • Responible Gun Owner

          Look up "Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas 12/15/2012" or "Winnemucca, Nev 2008" or "Appalachian School of Law, 2002" or "Santee, Calif.,2001" or "Pearl High School, Miss 1997" or Edinboro, Pa 1998" just to name a few. Most of you will not take the time to look them up but in each one of these cases, a responsible gun owner or police officer, in the area as the crime is happening, took out the threat before more lives were lost. You have never heard about most of them because it was not tragic enough for the national news. The liberal media will not admit the fact that responsible people with guns save lives. We will never know how many lives were saved by the actions of the people in the above locations. Can we at least agree that if someone in the school was trained a had a gun, the possibility would exist that this tragic tragic event would not have been so tragic?

          December 21, 2012 at 10:27 am | Report abuse |
    • jesse

      What's even more funny? They (Liberal/politicians) think that some how limiting magazine size will make a difference. Quote "we are going to reduce high capacity magazines) Ok so loading a gun and shooting just 8 or 10 people is acceptable, but having 15 rounds and the possibility of killing 15 people is unacceptable? Their logic is asinine.

      Do they even hear what they say?

      December 20, 2012 at 6:43 pm | Report abuse |
  14. BADGUY

    In the military, we were TAUGHT to NEVER use the M-16 in the "fully-automatic" mode! The "semi-automatic" mode allowed us to conserve ammunition and increase targeting capability..... So we could KILL MORE OF THE ENEMY! Could someone, then PLEASE, explain WHY an M-16, which can be set to EITHER to the "fully automatic" mode, is BANNED and an "M-16, in a permanent, semi-automatic mode", the AR-15, can be purchased at our local drug store? KILLING MORE OF THE ENEMY, evidently, CANNOT be the reason the M-16 is banned and the AR-15 is not.....???

    December 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      FYI...in Massachusetts you can't buy Ar-15's in the drug store, neither local stores or national chain stores. Those, along with all other guns, are sold at licensed gun shops, with the checks and regulations that come with it.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • ChrisM106

      Why are full-auto M16s "banned"? (Actually, they're just heavily regulated). Because in 1986 when they were banned, NFA owners were a tining portion of the gun-oning population. Fellow gun owners and the NRA sold them out in order to get favorable legislation passed. The gun ban line moved closer to semi-automatics. If the posts of many other firearms owners here and elsewhere are any indication, semi-auto military-style owners are about to get sold out by their fellow gun owners again. The gun ban line is drawing closer to traditional firearms and most owners are too blind to see it.

      December 20, 2012 at 5:36 pm | Report abuse |
  15. YouSirAreDumb

    what the government needs to do is stop sticking its nose in everyones business. people need to govern themselves first. america has forgotten the role of the government. The government is the system that shut down the black power movement and left us in return with groups like the bloods and crips. good job government. shut down a group with a connection and leave behind a group of anarachy. everything the government touch is made worse. they're the opposite of the midus touch. we need less government and more people regulating themselves. everyoen wants to be taken care of. i want to take care of myself.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
  16. Inciteful

    Making drugs illegal has really worked well in the U.S. Hardly anyone uses illegal drugs...right? NOT! Whenever something is made illegal, instantaneously, a black market is created and with it much more crime against people and property. So, Congress will legislate against the private ownership of guns. The black market and lots of violent crime will follow. The POTUS declares a "war on guns" and we proceed to waste tens of billions in the futile attempt to rid the U.S. of guns. Sound familiar? Politicians are cynical opportunists taking advantage of a senseless tragedy caused by a mentally deranged person. Hey, I have it! The POTUS should declare "war on mental illness." Now, that's something deserving of investment.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Hamiltons Ghost

      There already is a black market for guns. A rather large and violent one at that.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  17. Hamiltons Ghost

    All arguments based on personal or emotional grounds become obsolete in regards to the law.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
  18. sirise

    So from reading comments to multiple articles on this subject it appears the thing the anti-gun people want is a ban on what they misidentify as "assault weapons" and large capacity magazines. I personally don't own any large capacity magazines because in my opinion they are prone to jam. I do own 3 guns. The first is a compact .45cal that I use for concealed carry it holds 5 rounds in the magazine (.45=11.43mm fyi). The second is one of those scary "assault weapons" It's a Russian SKS with a bayonet and a 10 round magazine. It is chambered in 7.62mm. The 3rd is a bolt action Remington 700 PSS in .308. (.308=7.82mm fyi) Now the .45 is good for self defense, very close range. The SKS is good a little further out. The PSS on the other hand is accurate to 1000yds according to sources. Now you tell me. If I were a murderous antisocial person who avoided face to face confrontation at all cost which weapon would I choose?

    December 20, 2012 at 3:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sark

      The SKS. Just because the Remington is accurate to 1000 yards doesn't mean that YOU are.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • sirise

        But if it is the gun that is bad why should I need skill? Guns kill people remember?

        December 20, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Report abuse |
        • Sark

          People *with guns* kill people. Not having the fun makes it less likely that an attacker can kill multiple people.

          Example A: the guy in China that attacked a school with a knife last Friday. Number of deaths? Zero.

          Start thinking with your brain, not your trigger finger.

          December 20, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
  19. Responible Gun Owner

    II am a gun owner. My guns have never and hopefully will never take a human life. However, unless you can guarantee me that my home will never be broken into by someone with the intent to harm my family, my semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine will remain under my bed every night and my semi-automatic handgun will be loaded and on my hip or my vehicle at all times. I have my CCW permit and I use it. My rifle is in a lock box with finger print access so no one else can get to it. I do not agree that the right to own or possess high capacity magazines or "Assault Rifles" should ever be taken away. For my family's sake if an intruder(s) comes into my house, it is my duty that my weapon has enough ammunition at the ready to put down the threat. And the ability to attach a light to my weapon is just a bonus.

    The problem with the argument that a ban on particular weapon will stop some of these shooting is that there are already way to many guns available for a ban to do any good. I believe the stat is 8 guns per 10 people in the USA (may be incorrect don't quote me). I believe in arming law abiding citizen who are qualified and responsible enough to take on the responsibility it requires. If there had been a gun in that school and someone trained to use it, lives would have been saved. If you look at places where a person in the vicinity had a gun you will understand my point. Look up "Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas 12/15/2012" or "Winnemucca, Nev 2008" or "Appalachian School of Law, 2002" or "Santee, Calif.,2001" or "Pearl High School, Miss 1997" or Edinboro, Pa 1998" just to name a few. Most people probably had no idea these incidents happened because of low loss of life. It doesn't make the national news because it isn't tragic enough as bad as that is to say. All of these incidents could have been much worse had it not been for a responsible gun owner or police officer being at the scene at the time it occurred and reacted to save lives.

    II cannot trust that in a time need that the police will be there to protect me or my family. When seconds count, cops are 10 minutes away.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • BADGUY

      But...most guns are registered and can be required to be turned in, with the "right" penalties imposed for non compliance (For instance, 30 years in prison and a 1,000,000$ fine......MINIMUM). For those with an UN-registered and prohibited weapons......Life Sentence....... MINIMUM.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Charles

      Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine to defend your home? Are you worried that your home could be attacked by a mob, or are you just a really bad shot? It would seem like a 10 round magazine for your rifle and handgun should be sufficient.

      December 20, 2012 at 6:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • Charles

      I have a really hard time accepting that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people. In the the absolute absurd limit, every person in the country will have a gun and CCW permit and there are going to be a lot more accidental shootings, shootings in the heat of the moment, etc. in addition to some situations like Newton being cut off early if someone is able to kill the crazed shooter before he wipes out an entire classroom. The question is, how much safer will our schools be, and is it worth the price of many other deaths and further erosion of individual rights in our society. To me, it's not.

      December 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm | Report abuse |
  20. BADGUY

    If the 2nd amendment gives me the right to own "arms"....ANY "arms"...why can't I own an Automatic Weapon....or....a machine gun.....or.....and RPG......or.....a howitzer.....or.....a manned bomber with fully functional, 1000 lb bombs....or....SCREW 1000 ob bombs....I want a NUCLEAR BOMB!

    December 20, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • KevinP

      That's why.

      It's also why you can't drive an Indy car on the freeway. It's also why you can't drive liquored up.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • YouSirAreDumb

        you actually can own almost anything on that list but it requires a lot of money. you can have a tank but you cant have the ammo, unless you get the proper permits. you can own a machine gun but you need the proper permits. RPG can even be had with the proper permits. the only thing not on your list is a nuke and you coudl potentially have one if you had enough money. i'm sure there is somewhere in the governing that you could own one but youd have to have enough money to virtually buy the country in order to do so. manufacturing alone would cost you several billion. then you have to store it, get paperwork, lawyers, permits. all in all several trillion dollars later as the richest single person on the planet you could own one.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
  21. Jay

    What a wonderful business model the gun indusrty has developed. We can't take away the bad guy guns, you can't regulate us because of the 2nd amendment and we don't need a license or continuing education classes to own a dangerous weapon because we are responsible. How about supporting regulations that helps to get guns off the street thereby reducing crimminal activity. Or wait gun manufacturers wouldn't be able to sell as many guns. Let's promote (Govenor Perry & Mr Pratt) that we need more guns to protect ourselves from the 300 million guns we have already sold. "We are responsible gun owners" well the evidence proves not all of you are. The recent shootings gives us evidence that these people were not crimminals until the moment they pulled the trigger. The weapon of choice high powered assualt rifles. To compare that to cars, drugs, knives is irrelevant. What we know is that they happened with assualt rifles and we have the evidence.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      class is almost a requirement as it is. i'm surprised they havent mandated it. in order to hunt you have to take a class. to have concealed you have to take a class. most ppl who buy assault rifles partake in either or and thus HAVE TAKEN A CLASS. now if you wanna add you must take this class in order to buy. fine so be it. but if you're going to make me get a permit to buy "assault rifles" f no! why, because i know that if the government says you can get something with a permit they wont give them out. they did it with marijuana. it's legal to grow with a permit, but no one can have one.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Report abuse |
  22. Marc L from NY

    I think it is only proper for pro gun people to remain silent at this moment. It is actually rude and ignorant at this moment to even bring up the gun issue while we still mourn those lost and shift focus from the why this happened, not the how this happened.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • golanego

      Uh...actually pro-gun groups like the NRA have been silent. Its the media and Obama that is blabbing about Gun control. Why dont you take a walk in Harlem at 12:00am and scream about gun control. Doesnt NY have a gun ban.....and doesnt NY have much more murders per capita then most other states?

      December 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      i dont know of a single pro gun person that talked until people started trying to take away our rights! what happened is a tragedy, but i'll be damned if i give up my constitutional rights. the issue isnt guns, the issue is psychos breaking the law. murder is illegal, ct had an assault weapons law in place, theft is illegal, and taking that gun on those school grounds was illegal. so why are you treading on me when i didnt break the law. go after the killer or his irresponsible mother.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Meh

        I totally agree with you. Besides, it doesn't matter what laws they impose on us law abiding citizens, criminals will just blow their nose with them and get the guns on the black market. Just think about this: the first assault weapon ban was established in 1994; in 1997 the North Hollywood shootout occurred. Three years into the ban and what did the criminals used? illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines. So much for the ban, right? Well, after all, that's why they're criminals... because they brake the law.

        Yes, I'm a gun owner, a responsible one, and in my opinion, banning or putting stricter gun laws won't mean a thing to a person who wants to harm other people.

        December 20, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      Mark L from NY: "I think it is only proper for pro gun people to remain silent at this moment. It is actually rude and ignorant at this moment to even bring up the gun issue"

      I assume you call pro gun people "rude and ignorant", and should shut up at this time, so all the anit-gun people can do all the talking. I'll throw it back at you...I think YOU are being IGNORANT if you think that what you say matters to anybody buy you. WHAT gives you the right to say only what YOU SAY is important, and the right for gun owners to say anything should be removed. So now you want to take away our 1st and 2nd amendment rights, both at the same time? And you wonder why it is US that think YOU ignorant.

      December 20, 2012 at 4:04 pm | Report abuse |
  23. Joel

    This tragedy just fueled more political and personal anti-gun agendas. As if limiting round capacity and weapon type will solve anything. It's just an attempt towards trying to completely eliminate guns. Most murders occur with hand guns not assault rifles. Give an inch and they take a mile. Those that are ignorant of course all jump on this band wagon; there are bigger problems behind this tragedy than guns. Let's start looking past the political and personal agendas and analyze the other contributing factors that make people this twisted.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
  24. A. Grant Berryman

    I am from north of the border and perhaps a bit more objective. In a democracy, I believe that the needs and wants of the individual accede to society as a whole. In other words, we must be team players. All I ever hear from gun proponents is my – my – my – my rights. All rights have concomitant responsibilities and we must always be mindful of how we impact others.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • golanego

      That doesn’t make any sense. When gun proponents say my rights they are talking about everyone’s rights because the constitution (2nd Amendment) applies to everyone. I really dont the murderers out there are on the forums screaming about the right to bear arms. They dont want people to have guns because it makes it harder for them to rob, and kill.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • KevinP

      The individual rights are actually more important in a lot of ways than the collective. If they weren't then minorities of any type would never have any chance of obtaining any equality. How would gays, blacks, hispanics, or women ever get consideration of what is fair for them if we only considered the collective opinions of those who outnumber them? For the gun owners it's about their gun. For gays it's about their chance to have equality in relationship, for women it's equal pay for equal work, etc. Sub any specific individual right that a small group may be denied by the larger collective.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Eyeonus

        Hello – your rights don't trump anyone else's rights is what he's saying. And what's the endgame – everyone arms themselves to the teeth and so we're all safer? Maybe I have better weapons than you

        December 20, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Report abuse |
  25. Dave

    I misplaced this under an obscure reply, I hope CNN will allow me to recopy it here.

    "I see a lot of people in here calling for a ban on not only assualt type weapons, but also all semi-automatic weapons as well. That may, and it's a big MAY, cut down on some, but not all mass murder scenes like what we just saw in CT. However, an unforseen consequence may be MORE total gun deaths starting shortly after the ban took effect. I am a gun owner, and I own a semi-automatic pistol. I do NOT keep the gun loaded in the house because I can get to my magazine, then to my gun a few seconds later, and load the magazine into the gun in about 1 second. If you take away my magazine, and make me use a REVOLOVER which is MUCH slower to load, I, and MILLIONS like me, will start keeping LOADED guns in the house ALL THE TIME. If I can't load my gun REALLY fast the other option is to keep it loaded ALL THE TIME. I have no children in the house, but those parents with children will be taking a big risk keeping a loaded weapon in the house within childs reach, ALL THE TIME. Please do not force people to start keeping loaded guns in their house. You will of course say "but the don't have to", but in your hearts you will know that you are, and you will be indirectly responsible to some childs death...the thing you say you are trying to prevent. It won't be your finger on the trigger, but for all intents and purposes, it will be. Can you live with that childs blood on your hands?"

    December 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
  26. Stephen

    Can someone please explain this to me; The right to bear arms was originally written when people used single shot muskets that took 5 minutes to load, and were used in case of Indian or wild animal attacks. How does this apply to fully automatic weapons that fire hundreds of rounds a minute? George Washington and his buddies would be horrified to see what's become of the second amendment.

    December 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • golanego

      It was written because of the way the English ran their country and the colonies. Similar articles of the constitutaion were written for the same purpose like illegal search and seizure and not giving quarter to soliders. It was intended for citizens to protect themselves and if goverment ever becomes corrupt it is the citizens responsiblity to replace the goverment. During that time the goverment (and the enemy) had single shot. Today the goverment (and the enemy) has semi-automatic and automatic. The idea is a level playing feild for everyone that way no one person has the advantage over the public.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • golanego

        pardon my spellling

        December 20, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • KevinP

      The right to free speech was also written with a feather quill. Yet it protects not only what we say on the internet but also allows video game makers to put drug use and even rape in video games. Not sure the founding fathers intended that either. We can't freeze one aspect of the document in the 18th century and not others. Before you dog pile me for being a gun crazy, kid hating, moron see my recommendation for sane handling of who gets to have guns and how a few posts below. Thanks.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      The debate is not over "fully automatic weapons that fire hundreds of rounds a minute". It's rare that anybody in here could get a license to own a fully automatic weapon. The debate seems to be about "assualt type weapons" and "semi-automatics." Semi-automatic weapons are capable of firing one bullet for every pull of the trigger. If you could get off 100 pulls in a minute it would be pretty amazing. Not to mention that you have to reload every time your magazine runs out of bullets. In many states the max rounds allowed per magazine is 10. And don't start telling me you could modify this or that...you COULD modify a piece of plumbers pipe into an IED and throw it through a school bus window. We are talking what is legal here, because if you include all the what-ifs then this is all a big waste of time as people start talking about homemade MOAB bombs..

      December 20, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      thats why its "arms" not muskets. they knew technology would evolve whether it be single shot revolvers or star wars laser rifles. its "arms" for the reason that new times mean new types of weapons.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:23 pm | Report abuse |
  27. JJ

    What you fear is FREEDOM!

    December 20, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • nadinesh

      "It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action." – Larry Alan Burns, conservative Republican CA judge, NRA member, gun-owner

      December 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • nadinesh

      "But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure." – Larry Alan Burns, Conservative Republican CA judge, NRA member, gun-owner

      December 20, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse |
  28. KevinP

    Limit magazine capacity to either 15 or 10 and institute a license program. Forget the call-in NICS check per gun. Get a more robust background check done for the license. Require the license to buy either a gun, multiple guns, or so much as one round of ammunition. No license, no bullets or guns. Renew the license every 3 or 5 years so we get periodic review on the person. Committed a felony or domestic violence, no renewal. DUI or drug use, no renewal. Psychiatric issue, no license. At the same time, if I have my license, and I transport the gun safely, don't make me a felon for crossing the border from Vermont to upstate New York to go target shooting with my buddy.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • golanego

      This makes too much sense...it wouldnt fly. They only thing I woud argue is the mag size limit. Would you also limit the amount of mags a person could buy and own? I could have 5 10 round clips ready to go.....true it takes me 5 seconds to reload but if I am a crazy person taking on a school of 6 year olds then i dont think it really matters.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • KevinP

        For the crazy person who has decided to take out their issues on grade school kids the only answer is a police officer parked at the school from 8 till 3 every school day. That guy has already disregarded the laws of a civilized society so you're down to prevention through force for him. That force should be the cop at the school instead of in a speed zone for those hours. That piece of the puzzle could be instituted tomorrow morning.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
        • golanego

          Sounds good to me. I know I had an officer in my school growing up. I don't remember one being in Elementary school, but I do remember one in middle and high.

          December 20, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • KevinP

        I think it's a decision of what is remotely enforceable. We can say with relative ease that a maker can only make 10 or 15 round magazines going forward. We could with a bit more difficulty even run a program where people could swap their 30 rounders for the smaller ones. It would be unrealistic to think we can keep up with how many magazines an individual has at any one moment. They're consumable items that wear out.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
  29. golanego

    I GOT IT! A great idea. Let’s ban the hard core drugs like cocaine and heroin, That way people who abuse and sell drugs wont be able to.....oh wait...what’s that? There already banned? What’s that? You mean it actually makes it worse because now there is a black market and people kill each other over them. I guess banning something doesn’t work out so well does it?

    December 20, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • nadinesh

      Stinkin' thinkin' - 1. these massacres were not done "under the influence," for the most part. The recent shooter was on no medication at all. 2. The purpose of drugs is medication or inebriation; the purpose of assault weapons is to murder other human beings, and that's ALL they're for. I find this kind of limited reasoning tiring and discouring for the ability of the public to actually have a discourse on this. Argue like a grownup.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse |
      • golanego

        You say "Stinkin Thinkin" and your telling me to argue like a grownup? I didnt say anything about anyone being on drugs. I said just because you ban something doesnt prevent it from happening. In the case of illegal drugs....it makes it worse. Think like a grownup.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      you forgot to make murder illegal, theft illegal, it illegal to bring guns on school property. wait, those laws were all broken too. in fact they were all broken in a state with an assault weapons ban.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Report abuse |
  30. Gyrogearloose

    This is one of very few issues about which I agree with Feinstein.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
  31. Rob

    1st it's the 2nd ammendment then it's the 1st! Remember

    December 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • nadinesh

      "But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure." – Larry Alan Burns, conservative Republican judge, NRA member, gun-owner

      December 20, 2012 at 2:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      exactly. like i said. first they'll say "assault" then semiauto, then anygun. then they'll do what they did in the U.K. and take knives and say you dont need them food is pre cut. then the government will say your freedom of speech causes arguments no more. then they will abolish the 3rd amendment and put soldiers in peoples homes for "their protection"

      give an inch take a mile. everyone is so eager to use the 1st and yet they forget the only reason they still have it is because of the 2nd.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  32. Rob

    you guys keep arguing about something that does not exist! there are almost NO "Assualt rifles" in the hands of civilians. You are getting your panties in a bunch over look alike semi automatic rifles that are NO more or less deadly than any other semi automatic hunting rifle

    December 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sark

      False. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the M-16 and even in its semiautomatic form is considered an assault rifle.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Give Me a Break

        So by semi-automatic 22 long rifle is an assault rifle. I am so excited.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
        • golanego

          A squirrels worst nightmare

          December 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bill

        Only because a bunch of politicians decided to label it that way.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
        • Sark

          I think the reason the AR-15 is considered an assault rifle is because it's not very had to convert it to full-auto. It was, after all, designed for military use originally.

          So no, your .22 long rifle probably isn't an assault weapon. It depends on the actual model.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:57 pm | Report abuse |
        • KevinP

          Sark, to convert the AR 15 to full auto would require parts that are illegal to buy/own without the class 3 license that would let you simply buy a real machine gun in the first place. If we skip past the legality of certain items as to how their regulation affects safety, then banning anything is useless in the conversation. For those who desire illegal items, the black market does and will continue to exist. For a law abiding citizen the AR is no easier to convert than the average squirrel gun.

          December 20, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          this is exactly the case. a mossberg 500 is a legal hunting gun. put a pistol grip on it and suddenly it become an 'assault weapon". the gun has literally one different feature on it and suddenly its banned. it doesnt affect its rate of fire or accuracy or function. it just makes it more comfortable to hold but that labels it as assault. thats how meaningless the label is. same thing with an sks. it has a bayonette so its an assault weapon but its no more effective than my fathers 30-06 semi auto rifle. and thats why people say slippery slope. they will be able to say anythign is an assault weapon.

          December 20, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • golanego

        I I think any weapon is labeled an assault rifle the moment you assault someone with it. If I threw a salt shaker at you that would be assault with salt. The word "assault rifle" is a marketing term to make people believe they are buying a real machine gun or something when in reality the rifle is no more dangerous than any other gun. So what if you have a 30 round mag, I'll just purchase 3 10 round mags. What difference does it make banning large clips if all the citizens are disarmed, the person who decided not to honor the law wins. If they have a gun with a 10 round mag and you don’t have a gun….you lose no matter how big their mag is.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Report abuse |
        • nadinesh

          Grow up. People are dying out there and you reason like a cretin.

          December 20, 2012 at 2:06 pm | Report abuse |
        • LOL

          @nadinesh.....You are the one that is arguing like a cretin buddy!!! You are arguing with your emotions and not your brain!!! Use a little logic and thinking skills and maybe you can argue like a "Grown-up"! LOL

          December 20, 2012 at 2:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • BADGUY

      Sorry, but the MEANING of "assault" weapon VARIES between the people using it. ANYWAY...it's NOT really important. M-16's were used to "ASSAULT" enemy positions in the "semi-automatic" mode because it preserved ammunition and allowed "re-targeting" after every shot. The "automatic" mode, under combat situations, were often times a BIG WASTE AMMUNITION and, as a result, VERY DANGEROUS for the shooter.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Report abuse |
  33. Give Me a Break

    If we just outlawed all scientists then there would be nobody to make weapons and we can all go back to the Stone Age.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sark

      Your utter inability to use logic is astounding. It truly is.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Give Me a Break

        I think maybe you should try cleaning your bathroom with the mixture of ammonia and Clorox. 🙂

        December 20, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
        • Sark

          I might, but someone has to be left to protect the world from people like you. 🙂

          December 20, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
  34. dave0943

    Sorry for type errors, no edit button for my last post.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:44 pm | Report abuse |
  35. Fupped Duck

    OK, so now everybody at the mall has a gun, I feel safe if someone tries to do something. Hey, that guy gave my wife the look..You got something to say?.....Pow, he's dead, but another guys sees it and shoots me..Ouch..I return fire and hit some kid. His Dad then shoots another guy, who shoots another guy, and son, and so on and so on....That works.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      are you stupid? if people reacted like that the entire country would already be exterminated.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • Fupped Duck

        I'll bet there are hundreds of people out there with their finger on the trigger already. In a city with a million people carrying guns does not lead to a civilized society. Safety through fear is not the answer either. A kindergarten teacher is not QUALIFIED to handle a situation where deadly force may be required.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
        • nadinesh

          Of course! Don't try to be patient and argue; they know this perfectly. They're just stalling. They know they're in a corner.

          December 20, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          as i have suggested before.we have how many unemployed veterans? why are we not employing them as security at schools?

          December 20, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • Give Me a Break

      There are those people out there that like to hunt ducks. 🙂

      December 20, 2012 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • PeteAtomic

      That's why you arm the 6 year olds with handguns.
      The teacher gets the grenades. You forgot about that part.
      Janitors will have the heavy machine guns. I'm not sure what the administrators will get at this point.

      Forget about the madmen. If one student hits another student too hard playing dodge ball, then pow! Shoot 'em. If the kids aren't gonna stop walking on that clean floor the janitor just goes POW POW POW with .50 Cal. Same thing with the teacher. If she's had it with her class, throw the grenade.

      The NRA arguments makes perfect sense, if you think about it.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
  36. John M

    Anytime we speak of banning something, whether it is a type of weapon, a certain behavior,or a substance such as alcohol or drugs, it elicits a strong defensive response, because we want to protect our rights that we enjoy as Americans. So how can we control the ownership and use of "assault" weapons without resorting to these draconian measures? We regulate them the same as we regulate selective-fire (automatic) and suppressed weapons – reclassify them as Class III weapons. A citizen could still buy and sell the weapons and magazines, but only with a Class III license, and only from a Class III dealer. A Class III license from the ATF requires an extensive background check as well as approval from local law enforcement. Licencing for being a Class III dealer is,I think, rigorous as well. I'm fairly certain Walmart and the larger gun retailers would not want to go through the process. This action would reduce the availability, and probably increase the cost of purchase and ownership. Best of all, the regulatory mechanism is already in place, and legislative action is probably not required. I think a rational solution such as this would be more acceptable to everyone rather than bans.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • nadinesh

      And of course this is where we as a nation will have to go if we are to survive and act like a grown-up country rather than Somalia. If only more people were reasonable.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
  37. dave0943

    I'm a avid sportsman. I can't remember ever loading a rifle with more than 3 bullets, even when bear hunting. I don't own or plan to own a assault weapon. I'm not saying that it's wrong, just not my type of gun. Here's the issue, if gun owners give up this gun or that gun, the anti gun groups will never be happy. They don't want any guns in America. No matter what you do, a person that wants a gun to harm another person can get one. Taking guns away will only make people rich smuggling them. Hasn't worked with tough drug laws. You can get drugs as easy as buying a loaf of bread. I live in a rural area where polocce aren't available to quick. Who's going to protect my family during a home invasion? Me, that's who. Is making tough gun laws going to spot a person who just had a break down from harming another? Many of the people who have commited these mass shootings, never had serious crime issues on record. Right now the anti gun people are jumping on the bandwagon along with lawmakers trying to please the president. Obama has always been anti gun. His state of Illinois has some of the hardest gun laws in the country. Look at the record of shootings in that state. The laws haven't worked well for them! I don't know the answer. By jumping to fast anti gun laws, are we REALLY going to help or just make anti gun people feel good. The first thought that came to my mind after the school shooting and after the disgust was,if only somebody had a gun on them. If only one teacher had a right to carry card. We wouldn't be discussing this right now!

    December 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      exactly and heres the thing. the difference between a semi auto 30-06 and an sks is very minimal. you can attach a bayonette to a hunting rifle pretty easy. whats to stop them from banning your average hunting rifle after they ban the "assault weapons". they want no weapons in this country. take away the weapons and you take away the defense. then you can take away all the rights. without the 2nd amendment you will not retain the 1st or 3rd. its a slippery slope and it can happen quick. WAKE UP AMERICA.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • nadinesh

      "But if we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest, we may as well call the American experiment in democracy a failure." – Larry Alan Burns, conservative Republican judge, NRA member, gun-owner

      December 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Report abuse |
  38. Rob

    Every single person on this discussion who uses the words Assualt rifle in sentences Like: 'We should ban Assualt rifles" Needs to wake the F up! Assualt rifles ARE ALREADY BANNED! the only way one can own a machine gun (Cause that's what they are) is to get a federal permit and pay an expensive fee.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Give Me a Break

      Class III weapons license plus a very hefty tax stamp

      December 20, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
  39. Give Me a Break

    If you going to outlaw guns; you need to outlaw rocks too. All a gun is; is a very fast rock thrower. So make sure you get my slingshot too.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sark

      If you can't see the difference between a semiautomatic assault rifle with an extended magazine, and a slingshot, then you don't deserve the right to own either one.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Give Me a Break

        They are both deadly weapons.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
        • Sark

          Again, if you can't see the difference, you don't deserve the right to own either.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Report abuse |
      • nadinesh

        100% correct, Sark.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Give Me a Break

      Why we are at it, we may want to outlaw the chemicals that are underneath the kitchen sink for if you mix them together, you can create a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • MS

      I'll take my chances with someone throwing rocks at me then someone shooting bullets at me. This comment is like the all those who say it's not the gun, it's the person. Once again, I like my chances against someone who has a nice or a bat rather then a gun. Anyone who doesn't want change in gun laws now is choosing their own rights and freedoms over the safety of their children.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Report abuse |
      • Give Me a Break

        The seem to work for David; Goliath was armed to the max and a Little Rock killed him. 🙂

        December 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Report abuse |
        • Sark

          Sure, if you believe in fairy tales.

          December 20, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • Bill

        It's for my children that I support the right to keep and bear arms. Over the years I've watched as our freedoms have been slowly eroding in the name of "security and national defense" and a host of other BS terms. At some point we may very well need to defend ourselves as the government takes away more of our rights. It can happen.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:03 pm | Report abuse |
        • Sark

          How about supporting the freedom of speech and the right to peacefully assemble, instead? Or the right to not have your electronic communication monitored without due process? You do your children no favors by choosing your guns over more basic, and more important, rights.

          December 20, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
      • nadinesh

        How very well you said that! Thank you, MS. If it's necessary, I suppose, we will have to fight for OUR rights not to be the victims of these extremists. It's always, in every democracy, a tug-of-war between the rights of the individual and the well-being of the rest of society. If we can't strike that balance, then we're Kazakhstan.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Linds

      When rocks have claimed as many lives as guns have in the US we'll talk about outlawing them too. For now let's keep the focus on guns.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:48 pm | Report abuse |
      • jeff

        We better start with abortions first then. Far more children are being killed by planned parenthood than by guns.

        December 20, 2012 at 5:15 pm | Report abuse |
  40. Tim

    Canada has gun control. Bye!

    December 20, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • nadinesh

      Nah, Tim. Wrong. It's pretty much the same.

      December 20, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
  41. Hamiltons Ghost

    So... ok. First off, no one is going to take away your "right to keep and bear arms". That is a right given to you at birth in so far as the right to " Life, Liberty, happiness, ect. ect. ect." Life and the right to defend it is yours, what you use in order to do so is a privilege provided to you by whom ever governs your state, county, province. The 2nd amendment states neither what or how much of the aforementioned "arms" you may bare, nor does it say that the Federal gov. can or can not limit said privilege. The fact that the 2nd amendment was necessary to ensure that the people of the new republic could not be oppressed by tyrannical governments both here and from abroad mixed with the ever present fear the Brittish Crown would return to claim its colonies back makes this amendment obsolete and out of date considering that the age of colonialism is gone and I don't think the Britts are coming back.
    2nd point. I hear allot of talk about the latter half of the amendment, but none of the first half. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Were are the malitias? People are so dead set on fighting like children out of fear of being made to give up there toys, that they pay no attention to the whole statement, its only one sentence people. The right of the people to bear arms besides that of "Life, Libirty, happiness etc. etc. etc." is so that where there to come a time when such powers as I mentioned above would threaten or republic that people would not be unable to rise together as a militia inorder to defend God, state, and home. Sense this is not a concideration in most arguments it seems to me that this issue has become one of gluttonous consumer bitching. The amendment does not in any way give you the right to buy whatever and how much of whatever you want, unless you count muskets, flint lock, bayonets,a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, and a quarter of a pound of powder. ( Actual militia requirements, 1792 )
    The fact also remains of the moral obligation we have to the security of our peoples. A fire arm for hunting and self defense is not in question, merely what kind and amount. If it is proven that the limitations of such would provide even .001% chance of saving one life then to me it would be a no brainer. The child like selfishness of some gun owners is staggering. They clutch to there toys and say damn you all. It is a shame that this should even be as big an issue as it is.
    "To take and defend your rights and wants at the cost of your fellow man will most assuredly harm those you wish to protect."

    December 20, 2012 at 1:27 pm | Report abuse |
  42. Sark

    To anyone hiding behind the Second Amendment as your sole reason not to ban assault weapons:

    Where was your outrage when the First and Fourth Amendments were both being trampled upon by the Patriot Act?
    Where was your outrage when restrictive voter ID laws were being passed, disenfranchising millions of voters?
    Where was your outrage when the Occupy Wall Street movement was forcefully removed in various cities in violation of the First Amendment?

    You decry any attempt to restrict gun ownership as un-Constitutional, and fail to protect those liberties that are even more important.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Give Me a Break

      I have always had to show my ID to vote.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:32 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sark

        I'm talking about laws that made it prohibitively difficult for people to get those IDs in the first place. No one in their right mind has a problem with showing ID while voting; the problem was that certain states made it extremely difficult to get one – all in order to solve a problem that didn't actually exist.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Give Me a Break

      By the way, freedom is not taken; it is given away.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sark

        Tell that to the Congress that rammed the Patriot Act down our throats.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      i was not 18 when the patirot act passed but i did have outrage. i just didnt have the rights to defend myself. i went out to the polls and helped stop those voter id regulations frome extending in my state. I will be giving up my 2nd amendment rights over my dead body. I've been doing my civic duty. what have you been doing?

      December 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sark

        First, I served in the Coast Guard. Then, I voted against any legislator who approved of the Patriot Act. Now, I try to remind people there are more important liberties being stripped from us than our guns.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Report abuse |
        • Me

          @Sark.....That is where you are VERY wrong. The second amendment is the most important of all!!! Without that right any dictator or corrupt government can and will take over this great country!!! If that does happen I don't think anyone is going to care about their freedom of speech as much as losing their freedom in general!

          December 20, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Report abuse |
        • Sark

          If that was true, Me, then it would have been the First Amendment. Obviously the Founders didn't agree with you – and neither do I. The ability to speak one's mind about the government without fear of reprisal is far, far more important a liberty than the ability own a gun.

          December 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • SeeThruIt2

      I have only one vote in an election. If there is even one fraudulent counter-vote, I've been disenfranchised. Every honest voter should be outraged and feel disenfranchised if there is even a single case of fraudulent voting in their district or state.

      Occupy Wall Street was never denied their First Amendment Right of freedom of speech. They were forcibly removed from illegal entry in public parks and other spaces after established hours.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Sark

        Agreed – you should feel outraged at voter fraud. ALL voter fraud – including what certain states tried to do during this past election cycle.

        And you're wrong. I watched as Occupy movements were forcibly removed from their protest areas only AFTER local legislators passed laws making it illegal to be in those locations.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • nadinesh

      Ain't it the truth! Well said!

      December 20, 2012 at 2:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • jeff

      I believe occupy walstreet lost their welcome when they starting destroying public and private property.

      December 20, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
  43. Jerry King

    a ban won't accomplish the most important thing, encouraging gun safety among legal gun owners and the elimination of guns from criminals.

    1. require a license to own an assault weapon (just as we now do for a car) and have the individual prove he is capable of handlign the gun safely.

    2. require that ALL such weapons be registered

    3. hold the owners responsible for any injury caused by their weapon EVEN IF STOLEN... unles the weapon was LOCKED in a gun safe and the theft immediately reported to police.

    4. put current owners on notice that all assualt weapons will REQUIRE the presention of License and registration when asked for by a police officer .... (just as we now require for an automible)

    5. establish severe fine, and confiscation proceedure for ANY unregistered gun from an un licensed user/owner.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Give Me a Break

      Banned weapons and I will bet you a months pay that there will be so many stolen weapons that are reported immediately to the police that the police will be swamped.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      you havent read any history have you. the government often says we'll make this legal with a permit and then they dont issue permits to ANYONE. black voters, you can vote, but they made it impossible for them to pass the tests. Marijuana, you can grow it with a permit, but the government isnt giving any out. they will do the same with guns! they will say you can own one with a permit, and then no one will be able to get one!

      December 20, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • jeff

      Please give me the definition of an "assauklt-weapon". I guess I thought all weapons can be used for assault . What's an assault knife look like, or an assault bat.

      December 20, 2012 at 5:25 pm | Report abuse |
  44. eclairer

    Why do other Western nations have homicide rates 1/4 of our own?
    If "it's the person, not the weapon" shouldn't the homicide rates overall be roughly the same?
    Why do so few gun enthusiasts (as opposed to responsible gun owners) seem to care about this fact?

    December 20, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Report abuse |
    • SeeThruIt2

      There are many reasons for deaths in all parts of the world. Is an honor killing in some parts of the middle east considered or reported as murder? Are honor killings in Muslim neighborhoods in Europe reported or investigated as murders?

      The diversity of the U.S. population places disproportunate cultural pressures on people.

      And the availability of a gun is only one means to commit homicide.

      Does anyone keep statistics of how many times a gun has stopped or detered violence against a smaller or weaker victim?

      December 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • cgowens

      you're wrong actaully


      this is a link to a Harvard University study done by professionals.

      The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

      The findings of two criminologists – Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser – in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

      Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

      For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

      If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

      Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct – that "gun don't kill people, people do" – the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

      The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun – a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite – but the overall murder rate, regardless of means.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jim

        Good post but no one will respond because the proof is in the pudding.

        December 20, 2012 at 5:04 pm | Report abuse |
  45. mike

    I've suspected for years but now I'am convinced. Americans are nuts and their country is in deep poop.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Report abuse |
  46. BADGUY

    MANY gun owners make no bones about the fact they OWN a gun so they can "oppose a government tyranny". That means MANY of them are "traitors-in-waiting", just LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE to overthrow our government. SO...what do the REST of us do to OPPOSE those who are preparing to OPPOSE our government and put THEIR OWN form of government, in it's place. Well...we can ALL arm with semi-automatics. NOT a great idea. It will make the problem of the mass killing of innocents and the potential for Civil War even greater than it is now. How about this?: Set up a controlled environment where ALL CITIZENS can learn how to fire semi-automatics, automatics, machine guns, RPG's, field pieces, etc, etc, etc. The weapons would be supplied by the government but KEPT UNDER LOCK AND KEY at, what might be called, "Civilian Militia" facilities. That way our ENTIRE POPULATION will have the know how to deal with an "opposing force" whether it be from a domestic or foreign entity. THAT comes closest to the concept of a "militia" as envisioned by the 2nd amendment. In the times of a "dire emergency", that militia could be supplied with those same arms, at a moments notice. THINK how It could be used to expand our military and police force capabilities almost "overnight".

    December 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • YouSirAreDumb

      traitors in waiting is probably the worst phrase ever because as you pointed out people are waiting for tyranny, making them defenders of the constitution and the government the enemy. if they were traitors they'd already be waging a civil war. Most gun owners also acknowledge that we have the right to guns and they shouldnt be infringed upon, however we arent unreasonable with limitations. no one needs an rpg, or mines, or full auto. semi auto is enough to defend yourself in the face of tyranny. but thats the limit. you take away the semi auto and you're done in the face of tyranny. a bolt action rilfe would have ripped apart anyone in the revolutionary war. but a bolt action is almost worthless in todays terms of defense. people need to be allowed to closely match in terms of defense but we dont need to go overboard. we do not need full auto, but do not tread on me any further than that. I can be reasonable. but the arguments against are not within reason. they are emotion filled and illogical.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Report abuse |
      • BADGUY

        I was taught, in the military, to ALMOST NEVER use the M-16 in the "full automatic" mode, because the muzzle recoil drives the weapon's aim off target. SO. as far as "assaultiing" a target is concerned, THAT was the preferred weapon (an M-16, in the semi-automatic mode). From what I've read, the AR-15 is nearly identical to the M-16 in the semi-automatic mode. Therefore the AR-15 is identical to how the M-16 was used in combat. My point: putting a military capable weapon in the hands of non-military civilians,in MY BOOK, has little difference than placing a "fully automatic" weapon, a machine gun, an RPG, an anti-aircraft gun, or even a nuclear bomb in the hands of a civilian.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • BADGUY

        If someone attempts to overthrow the government, by force of arms, they are a "traitor"...by ANY definition. Probably ALL "revolutionaries", who take up arms against their government, THINK "God is on their side" and they are in the right...BUT....they're still "traitors". If you don't like "traitors-in-waiting", how about "Potential traitors-in-waiting"?

        December 20, 2012 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
  47. Disrespectful Democrats

    Senator Feinstein and the other Democrats who are pushing for gun control are just plain disrespectful. At least wait to have the conversation after the bodies are buried. Terrible!

    December 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tadpole

      I think the reasoning is that with every other incident, they have waited, and then those wishing to *just not do anything* have exploited that.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • BADGUY

      That's like saying we should have waited for the dead at Pear Harbor or 9/11 to be buried "before taking action". NO! NOW is the time for action. We've "waited" long enough!

      December 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • Me

        If you don't like the right to bare arms, please feel free to move to another country!

        December 20, 2012 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
        • me to

          ya, why wouldn't you want move to a country that doesn't need armed guards in their elementary schools churches, theaters.

          December 20, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
  48. mike

    One thing is certain, loaded firearms are not an effective treatment for psychosis ..

    December 20, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Report abuse |
  49. YouSirAreDumb

    come up with a better counter argument. ask anyone woudl you rather have 32,000 deaths or 12,000 deaths and they will say 12,000. no one wants more and there are a lot more things we need to fix first liek automobile deaths, alcohol and drug deaths, prescription deaths.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Report abuse |
  50. snowdogg

    “I think we need to talk about this in another time. With a bigger focus with everything that is brought to bear on this.”

    – Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-TX

    Translation... wait until everybody forgets and nothing will change.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Disrespectful Democrats

      Translation: Be respectful Democrats. Please.

      The shooter in Red Lake Minnesota, got his meds increased and then killed his grandfather who was a police officer and stole his guns. The shooter then shot and killed an unarmed security guard at the school before going on his rampage.

      Democrat solution: Let's ban assault weapons. Let's give more weapons to the police. Let's hire more guidance counselors and give more kids mind-altering medication.

      Another Democrat-led solution that will be expensive and not solve any real problems other than giving the government more power. Stupid.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • Livn n a nut house

        You are a NUT!

        December 20, 2012 at 1:31 pm | Report abuse |
  51. Opportunity

    Seems like a great opportunity. Since people like buying AR-15 guns and the crazies who aren't doing their jobs protecting us are going to attempt to ban them. Maybe we need to make a new gun that looks a lot like the AR-15, but is better and has a different name. Dummies.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse |
  52. Jenny Ruth Yasi

    If you can't even have a polite argument, you shouldn't have a gun.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Report abuse |
  53. UnFred

    We should ban cars. Because you know.. if one person drives drunk and kills someone we're all going to do it.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • snowdogg

      Lame and not on point.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Report abuse |
      • Logical

        Yeah, actually it is on point, More children are killed by drunk drivers every year than by firearms. Make a counter argument about that.

        December 20, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          completely on point. 32k people dead from automobiles in 2011 vs 8k from guns. thats 4x the rate. if people are this outraged about guns then why the hell arent cars being attacked. and dont give me that bogus they werent designed to kill because if they are that big of a problem without that design wait until people start using them that way. this bill will solve nothing other than take away another right we have. take away teh 2nd amendment and you will lose your 1st and 3rd.

          December 20, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tadpole

      I think in the end there isn't going to be a ban, but I would welcome the same requirements for guns that people have to operate an automobile; Training, a test, and then periodic followups to check if one is still capable of safely operating the device.

      December 20, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • dd

        I assume then that you would also be open to tougher penalties for law-breaking drivers? Maybe first speeding ticket=3 month loss of license with a $1000 reinstatement fee, second speeding ticket=1 year loss of license and a $5000 reinstatement fee. Third time, and you are out of luck. Permanent loss of license. This will save thousands more lives than banning "assault" rifles which are no more deadly than any other type of gun. Unfortunately, this whole push has little to do with saving lives, and is all about banning guns.

        December 20, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Report abuse |
        • YouSirAreDumb

          exactly it has nothing to do with saving lives. its all about emotion and the government seizing more power. if the government wanted to stop deaths there would be extremely harsh drinking and driving penalties. we would not be having the medical field pump medications into people that they know cause death. and they would stop wasting money on the 'war on drugs" and crimple the cartels. instead the government is selling guns to the cartels ... Fast and Furious case, and they are supporting prescriptions, despite massive knowledge that they cause mental and physical issues up to death. but argue 32k deaths vs 8k deaths of cars vs drivers and people say well it wasnt on purpose. idc it's 4x the rate. cars are a bigger issue than guns right now. quit acting out of emotion.

          December 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Report abuse |
        • Hmmm, not sure I agree with your police work there

          The reason we don't have stricter laws is very, very simple. You don't want to pay more in taxes.
          Therefore, we run out of room in jails, prisions and mental health facilities.

          Can you say, "Vicious cirlce?"

          I knew ya could.

          December 20, 2012 at 7:15 pm | Report abuse |
1 2