Quantcast

27 People Dead, Mostly Kids, at Connecticut School Shooting: Is It Time to Talk About Gun Control?

News 2012/12/14 18:39:42
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Some are calling it one of the worst shootings at an elementary school in America. At least 27 people were shot and killed -- about 18 of them children -- at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut Friday morning.

Groups of students were being escorted away from the school by their teachers, while crying and holding hands with one another. Some witnesses say they heard up to 100 shots. Do you think the horrible mass shooting which, this time, impacted children will spur a national debate about gun control?

ABCNEWS.GO.COM reports:
More than two dozen people, mostly elementary school children, were shot and killed at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school this morning, federal and state sources tell ABC News. One gunman is dead and second is apparently at large.

Read More: http://abcnews.go.com/US/27-people-dead-children-c...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Thomas 2013/10/09 01:09:22 (edited)
    Yes
    Thomas
    they are people murdered everyday so it's like saying we should never talk about it yes we need to ban fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire guns becasue nobody needs those gun. I would figure if u want a gun, buy a shotgun. They're quite powerful. Or, if you want to hunt, use a rifle that u have to cock something back each time u fire a bullet to reload. And also make the capacity of the magazine 10. Why do u need an automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire weapon. What? Are u going to shoot a whole bunch of people? If ur hunting, u probably have enough time to reload. Also, we need an extensive background check and we need people that show symptoms of a mental illness to get help and be required to see a psychiatrist and get medicated properly.
  • ☆stillthe12c☆ 2013/01/14 07:30:51
    No
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    Unless we are talking about making it easier to get them and not just semi-auto but full auto. Some SAM's and anti- Tank weapons would be nice as well.
  • S. Gompers 2012/12/30 17:17:36
    No
    S. Gompers
    +1
    It is time to talk about criminal and mental control.
  • mk, Smartass Oracle 2012/12/30 16:47:33
  • Thor American EXPAT n New G... 2012/12/30 00:06:32
  • ☆Hitler was a community org... 2012/12/29 14:19:27
    No
    ☆Hitler was a community organiz☆
    +4
    There are four times more guns in the United States than there are cars, anti-gun people find this a shocking number and insist that these numbers need to be lowered; only certain guns should be legal, guns need to be registered, gun owners licensed, and gun crime needs more severe punishment than other crimes. For the most part, these people do not use firearms, they don’t know anything about using them, and they are frightened by them.

    The fact is that there is much more harm done by cars than there is by guns. There are more than 52 times more automobile accidents than gun incidents in the United States. These result in 41 times more injuries by car than by gun, and cars kill more than 150% more people than guns
  • rightside ☆Hitler... 2012/12/29 22:29:41
    rightside
    +2
    More harm done by alcoholics, doctors, sex addicts, serial killers, and liberals.
  • ☆Hitler... rightside 2012/12/29 22:34:28
    ☆Hitler was a community organiz☆
    +1
    I know right...hey girl...you guys got snow or what?
  • rightside ☆Hitler... 2012/12/29 22:43:16
    rightside
    We have about an inch on the ground and its been snowing for about an hour now. Not expecting much accumulation, but who knows.
    How about you Darlin'?
    May God grant you and your a wonderful blessed New Year!!!!
  • ☆Hitler... rightside 2012/12/29 22:50:51 (edited)
    ☆Hitler was a community organiz☆
    +1
    same here...snow off and on...really haven't had any significant snow since 1990?

    and its looking like a wonderful new year..inspite of the Obomination,...thank you and same to your family
  • Allie May rightside 2013/01/05 15:30:36
    Allie May
    More harm done by alcoholics, doctors, sex addicts, serial killers, and conservatives.
    (haha!)
  • rightside Allie May 2013/01/05 15:46:36
    rightside
    +1
    Oh, I'm laughing so hard. NOT
    But have a nice day anyway
  • kumar992 2012/12/26 16:52:42
    Yes
    kumar992
    Yes!

    The fact that public shootings are happening more often and are becoming more deadly should bring up the topic of gun control. It shouldn't have been so easy for a kid who was only 20 years old to arm himself with these type of heavy duty weapons and slaughter 18 helpless kids and 9 innocent people.

    I do agree with the right to bear arms, we do have a right to protect our families and our homes, yet is there truly a need for these type of weapons? he was able to shoot hundreds of rounds, the children he did massacre had at least 3 bullets in them and up to 11 bullets in some.

    Now, taking just these few of the many facts and analyzing them, now think about how these weapons were put into the hands of an average civilian, also think about how it came into her sons hands and caused so much damage. She bought the guns and took her son to the shooting range in an attempt to show him that with the use and ownership of guns comes great responsibility. They were acquired to do some good and show her son some discipline, and what was meant to do good ended up causing so much damage.

    God rest their souls, the 27 dead are not the only victims in this tragedy; what about the people that survived? You have elementary school kids going back to school where just one week ago they...

    Yes!

    The fact that public shootings are happening more often and are becoming more deadly should bring up the topic of gun control. It shouldn't have been so easy for a kid who was only 20 years old to arm himself with these type of heavy duty weapons and slaughter 18 helpless kids and 9 innocent people.

    I do agree with the right to bear arms, we do have a right to protect our families and our homes, yet is there truly a need for these type of weapons? he was able to shoot hundreds of rounds, the children he did massacre had at least 3 bullets in them and up to 11 bullets in some.

    Now, taking just these few of the many facts and analyzing them, now think about how these weapons were put into the hands of an average civilian, also think about how it came into her sons hands and caused so much damage. She bought the guns and took her son to the shooting range in an attempt to show him that with the use and ownership of guns comes great responsibility. They were acquired to do some good and show her son some discipline, and what was meant to do good ended up causing so much damage.

    God rest their souls, the 27 dead are not the only victims in this tragedy; what about the people that survived? You have elementary school kids going back to school where just one week ago they could have been executed by a violent gunman who broke into their school. How about the families of the murdered? In all of the public shootings that are happening in our country and especially this one, the ones who lost their lives are not the only tragedy, so are the living!

    15 of the 25 worst mass shootings occurred in the United States of America, since 1982 there have been at least 61 mass shootings involving firearms in the USA-in 49 of the 61 shootings, the firearms acquired legally. I'm not saying nobody should be allowed firearms, we have to control what is going into the hands of "just anybody". Putting more guns in peoples hands and on the streets is certainly not the solution. I can finally say after all of these events especially after the one in Newton, enough is enough, we have an epidemic on our hands, we needs to squash it before it becomes worse and an expected story on the news/social norm, which seems to be the the destination on the path its on.
    (more)
  • Thor Am... kumar992 2012/12/30 00:35:00
    Thor American EXPAT n New Guinea
    YOU SAID; [I do agree with the right to bear arms, we do have a right to protect our families and our homes, yet is there truly a need for these type of weapons?]

    May I remind you of the reason for the second ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not for deer hunting or even to keep Joe Dirtbag from entering my home and violating my family.

    It was bread on Lexington Green and Concord on April 19 1775.
    The weapons used were Musketts. The CITIZENS were armed as well as the GOVERNMENT troops sent to crush them.
    We are not talking about fighter jets and tanks nor artillery so don't even go down that path.

    However we are talking about making the government think twice about abusing their power. We ARE talking about troops and police having to face a very, and in some cases an equally well armed assembly of CITIZENS whom they have been abusing. Who are willing to stand their ground and defend their rights, families, property, and LIBERTY.

    THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE SECOND AMMENDMENT.

    Need I remind you that in all the mass shootings to date. Who carried out the FIRST slaughter of American Civilians?

    It was the Government itself at Kent State.
    Since then we have seen several incidences of the government overstepping its bounds at the expense of the RIGHTS of the American people.

    In cle...
    YOU SAID; [I do agree with the right to bear arms, we do have a right to protect our families and our homes, yet is there truly a need for these type of weapons?]

    May I remind you of the reason for the second ammendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is not for deer hunting or even to keep Joe Dirtbag from entering my home and violating my family.

    It was bread on Lexington Green and Concord on April 19 1775.
    The weapons used were Musketts. The CITIZENS were armed as well as the GOVERNMENT troops sent to crush them.
    We are not talking about fighter jets and tanks nor artillery so don't even go down that path.

    However we are talking about making the government think twice about abusing their power. We ARE talking about troops and police having to face a very, and in some cases an equally well armed assembly of CITIZENS whom they have been abusing. Who are willing to stand their ground and defend their rights, families, property, and LIBERTY.

    THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE SECOND AMMENDMENT.

    Need I remind you that in all the mass shootings to date. Who carried out the FIRST slaughter of American Civilians?

    It was the Government itself at Kent State.
    Since then we have seen several incidences of the government overstepping its bounds at the expense of the RIGHTS of the American people.

    In clear violation of the law the FEDERAL government will not hesitate to violate YOUR civil rights as an American. They prove it every single day. How much more will thay do when the LAST line of defense is taken from their intended victim.
    (more)
  • phil.ol... kumar992 2013/01/03 19:18:06
    phil.olding.3
    The media has the wrong definition of "assault weapon". An "assault weapon" is any weapon that can assault people. Coincidentally, this is the same definition as that of "arms", as protected by the bill of rights.

    The only way to make our country a safe, gun-free utopia, is to succeed in removing all weapons that can be used to assault people from our country. In America, this is not possible, for many reasons. Criminals won't follow laws. I sure as hell won't let you take my rights, given to me by God, and guaranteed me by the bill of rights, without fighting you till your death for them.

    No gun control can remove guns from the streets of the US without the US paying fair market value for those guns. That's how our country works.

    No words on paper (laws) will keep criminals from committing crimes. Laws can only be enforced after they are broken. Police officers are only for enforcing laws after they have been broken, not for your safety. You are NOT guaranteed the right to be protected from being murdered by mad men. YOU are the only person who can provide your own security.

    The only legitimate use of an "ARM", as protected by THE BILL OF RIGHTS, is KILLING PEOPLE. This is not my opinion - THIS IS FACT.

    Hunting is a LOOPHOLE in the second amendment. Killing people is a RIGHT, and is a PROVISION in the second amendment! Again - not my opinion, FACT!
  • Grammar Freak 2012/12/25 20:44:23
    Yes
    Grammar Freak
    +1
    Sure! Talk about it! Talk all you want. This is absolutely the very best time to talk about it... both the potential benefits & the potential problems.
    The thing is, we have gun control. The question is: if we want more controls, what kind do we want? Banning various guns doesn't work... & only affects new sales from the time of so-called "ban."

    If we were to talk about serious actions, we need to, 1) be realistic & practical, not extremist & unconstitutional & 2) start close to home with our local license/permit issuing authorities.

    Mandatory courses on responsible firearm ownership & gun safety.
    Analysis of who is receiving licenses/permits by issuing agencies.

    But, come on... we have plenty of federal laws. We need to pay closer attention to how they're being enforced. Each issuing agency looks at things differently & makes its decisions differently. One county might be incredibly strict while another will give just about anyone a license/permit. We've got to ensure that known loose cannons aren't getting licenses/permits.

    Some things seem like they're common sense to many of us, because we come families who hunt & have always had guns around. But those very basic things many of us grew up with are necessary to explain to full grown adults in a very serious man...

    &
    Sure! Talk about it! Talk all you want. This is absolutely the very best time to talk about it... both the potential benefits & the potential problems.
    The thing is, we have gun control. The question is: if we want more controls, what kind do we want? Banning various guns doesn't work... & only affects new sales from the time of so-called "ban."

    If we were to talk about serious actions, we need to, 1) be realistic & practical, not extremist & unconstitutional & 2) start close to home with our local license/permit issuing authorities.

    Mandatory courses on responsible firearm ownership & gun safety.
    Analysis of who is receiving licenses/permits by issuing agencies.

    But, come on... we have plenty of federal laws. We need to pay closer attention to how they're being enforced. Each issuing agency looks at things differently & makes its decisions differently. One county might be incredibly strict while another will give just about anyone a license/permit. We've got to ensure that known loose cannons aren't getting licenses/permits.

    Some things seem like they're common sense to many of us, because we come families who hunt & have always had guns around. But those very basic things many of us grew up with are necessary to explain to full grown adults in a very serious manner so that they understand them... often the way your dad or uncle explained them to you when you were 8 or 10 or whenever. There are things that even those of us who grew up with firearms might learn from a good NRA safety course that focuses on responsible gun ownership.

    This nation needs a lot of things: an entirely new round of Senators, Representatives, SCOTUS & President, for starters. But we do not need to ban more guns, in my opinion.
    (more)
  • phil.ol... Grammar... 2013/01/03 19:39:03
    phil.olding.3
    An outright ban of guns, and succeeding in taking them all, is the only thing that can make the US a gun-free utopia. That's not possible, and that's not allowed under the bill of rights to the US constitution.

    Mandating courses on responsible firearm ownership and gun safety, and issuing permits to own guns? That'd be OK, if and only if that training was free. Mandating guns be registered by serial number? Hell no. There's only one reason for that: taking them later. That plan has been enacted all over the world.

    Don't say we don't have money to pay to provide free training. That's absurd. We're involved in TONS of wars, and we could easily fund free training for people to be responsible gun owners.

    Charging people for gun training guarantees they won't get it, because it is too expensive. So, instead of good people with guns, you'll have poor people with guns that are good at using them, or people who can afford to live, and have guns, but are total idiots running around with them.

    We have the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That right wouldn't be infringed if we had a free training course first. That right WOULD be infringed if you made us pay more money to exercise our rights.

    The right to hunt is through a loophole in the second amendment. The right to kill people is a provision. That's not my opinion - that's fact.
  • Grammar... phil.ol... 2013/01/03 21:00:27
    Grammar Freak
    The NRA has some of the best training & informational courses around. They are usually very well presented & they take the subject very seriously. I suggest allowing them to give the courses... & if they choose to charge, so be it.

    Right now we have poor people, wealthy people & all the in-betweens with guns. Some are good with them, some are not. There is no balance. There are those who had their guns given to them by their grandfathers or girlfriends & those who went & bought them on their own.

    I think that there are things that some families pass down through generations that are not taught to those who just decide to go buy their own first firearm. They don't have a clue how to clean them, just for example. They also don't have a clue how to properly secure them when they're not in use.

    If we want the citizenry to be allowed to maintain our arms & our protections to bear our arms, then we also have to compromise. I understand the fear about registering guns. But where is the compromise on The People's side then? It is The People who are killing each other, not the government, after all, right? So we have two "sides" in the political arena. We have to find a middle ground. That means that both "sides" have to give something. Where do we, The People give then? I hate ...



    &
    The NRA has some of the best training & informational courses around. They are usually very well presented & they take the subject very seriously. I suggest allowing them to give the courses... & if they choose to charge, so be it.

    Right now we have poor people, wealthy people & all the in-betweens with guns. Some are good with them, some are not. There is no balance. There are those who had their guns given to them by their grandfathers or girlfriends & those who went & bought them on their own.

    I think that there are things that some families pass down through generations that are not taught to those who just decide to go buy their own first firearm. They don't have a clue how to clean them, just for example. They also don't have a clue how to properly secure them when they're not in use.

    If we want the citizenry to be allowed to maintain our arms & our protections to bear our arms, then we also have to compromise. I understand the fear about registering guns. But where is the compromise on The People's side then? It is The People who are killing each other, not the government, after all, right? So we have two "sides" in the political arena. We have to find a middle ground. That means that both "sides" have to give something. Where do we, The People give then? I hate the idea of more communities having to endure what Newtown has had to endure.

    The thing is, our population is not going down. As our population increases, so do our risks because more people will have firearms. Not all of them should. That's just logic. But more will. So how do we go about starting the ball rolling?

    If this is not a viable solution in your opinion, then put one on the table & let's discuss it.
    (more)
  • phil.ol... Grammar... 2013/01/04 23:34:34
    phil.olding.3
    Viable solution: Make sure we enforce our current laws. Make sure criminals stay in jail for their full terms, or longer. Make sure prohibited people can't own guns, and don't own guns, by making sure they don't have access to them.

    Viable solution: Put armed security everywhere that "gun free zones" exist. Make people understand that the government has NO DUTY to protect them outside of these zones. Make people understand that police can only enforce laws after they are broken, and that the time it takes a policeman to respond to a crime could be far more time than it takes for people to die. Make people responsible for their own protection, and make people understand that the world can be a terrible place, or a great place, depending on how good the people are.

    Viable solution: Mandate training, but have the government pay for it. Mandate tests, that are easy. That way, there will be no idiots with guns running around - only terrible people with guns, or irresponsible people with guns. They won't be truly stupid if they've been educated and choose not to follow the rules.
  • Grammar... phil.ol... 2013/01/05 00:08:17
  • phil.ol... Grammar... 2013/01/05 01:43:40
    phil.olding.3
    Well, everyone is saying we can do something. Putting words on paper does nothing. Teaching people does something. Taking people's rights away using words on paper does nothing. Allowing people their rights does something.

    So yes, doing nothing is an option.

    Oh, and if you think putting cops in schools is a bad idea, you're wrong. Kids are not afraid of uniformed cops with guns, nor are they going to be subject to "big brother" any more than they currently are.

    The NRA does not deserve to profit off of a tragedy any more than politicians do. Plenty of people can learn to teach, and teach people, how to responsibly use a gun, with or without NRA help.
  • Grammar... phil.ol... 2013/01/05 12:17:44
    Grammar Freak
    I do not believe that anyone should profit off any tragedy... though someone usually does.
    However, I do believe that in the US, the best, most qualified organization to provide the type of courses we've been discussing is the NRA. It is the one organization that is 100% about firearms. They take the issue incredibly seriously. If you've never been to an NRA gun safety/training course, you might try it... just out of curiosity... to see for yourself. In most areas/cases, they're very well run. Why on Earth would you discount or dismiss them? That simply makes no sense.
    I certainly do not believe the government is qualified. They screw up just about every single thing that they touch. I would hope that we limit government involvement as much as possible... though it is impossible to exclude it entirely.

    Regarding the issue of uniformed officers in schools, what role(s) will they play, exactly? Police go into schools now to conduct DARE program events & others (which I absolutely abhor). There are schools in America where there are uniformed security officers. It would be worth a study of those schools to see how students react, any increases/decreases in various activities, etc. Remember that there were armed officers at Columbine & that didn't do much to prevent the mas...

    &&
    I do not believe that anyone should profit off any tragedy... though someone usually does.
    However, I do believe that in the US, the best, most qualified organization to provide the type of courses we've been discussing is the NRA. It is the one organization that is 100% about firearms. They take the issue incredibly seriously. If you've never been to an NRA gun safety/training course, you might try it... just out of curiosity... to see for yourself. In most areas/cases, they're very well run. Why on Earth would you discount or dismiss them? That simply makes no sense.
    I certainly do not believe the government is qualified. They screw up just about every single thing that they touch. I would hope that we limit government involvement as much as possible... though it is impossible to exclude it entirely.

    Regarding the issue of uniformed officers in schools, what role(s) will they play, exactly? Police go into schools now to conduct DARE program events & others (which I absolutely abhor). There are schools in America where there are uniformed security officers. It would be worth a study of those schools to see how students react, any increases/decreases in various activities, etc. Remember that there were armed officers at Columbine & that didn't do much to prevent the mass shooting there.

    I must say that being hyper/over-excited about the situation reduces rationality & prevents one from being logical... as well as causing one to look irrational & illogical to others. It's important to remain calm about such issues. When one wishes to garner the respect of "the opposition," or anyone else, for that matter, it is vital not to appear extremist.
    (more)
  • phil.ol... Grammar... 2013/01/06 06:56:00
    phil.olding.3
    The NRA is not the be all, end all, firearms experts. I frequently point out things the NRA teaches people in their firearms training that could get you killed in combat because they slow you down.

    Fact is, it's easy to be responsible with a gun, and a lot of people can teach that. Saying that the government can't teach such a simple subject is just wrong - gun safety is EASY.

    I was a kid with officers in schools. They didn't really do anything. You're not supposed to disobey the rules anyway - so whether it was a teacher or a cop talking to you was pretty irrelevant.

    I think you find that security guards help keep kids in line - one more watchful eye so kids don't act up in their presence.

    Also, its tough to remain calm when people are talking about taking away the god-given rights, guaranteed you by the bill of rights, that you went to fight 3 different wars for - like it's no big deal. Like you shouldn't want your rights, because your rights are evil.

    I'm not ok with that. Yes, I'm angry that people want my rights. It is unacceptable that they think it's ok to take them, or that the bill of rights doesn't apply right where it says it does.
  • Grammar... phil.ol... 2013/01/06 13:52:12
    Grammar Freak
    1) There are LOADS of people on "the left" who own guns & do not want them (or yours) taken away. The idea that everyone one one "side" or the other wants storm troopers to invade your house, turn it upside down looking for firearms & confiscate everything you've got, your grandfather's got, etc., is simply ludicrous. This is the USA we're talking about here. Our history, our heritage, our culture is one that has always & will always include guns. People just want the mass killings to stop. Calm, rational dialogue is the only way to get to some sort of agreement. Hyper, extremist thinking & yelling isn't going to get anyone anywhere. People stop listening when the opposition's voice goes up & the rhetoric gets ridiculous.
    2) The average person is not interested in being "in combat." We are talking about gun safety & responsibility. What you & I might see as common sense & easy, others have absolutely no clue about & need to be told... sometimes as if they're small children being taught by their dad, grandfather or favorite uncle... with small words & short sentences. Remember, this is America we're talking about... full of people from innumerable backgrounds.
    Of course the NRA isn't the end-all be-all of firearms organizations. However, it is well respected for its courses &...&&

    1) There are LOADS of people on "the left" who own guns & do not want them (or yours) taken away. The idea that everyone one one "side" or the other wants storm troopers to invade your house, turn it upside down looking for firearms & confiscate everything you've got, your grandfather's got, etc., is simply ludicrous. This is the USA we're talking about here. Our history, our heritage, our culture is one that has always & will always include guns. People just want the mass killings to stop. Calm, rational dialogue is the only way to get to some sort of agreement. Hyper, extremist thinking & yelling isn't going to get anyone anywhere. People stop listening when the opposition's voice goes up & the rhetoric gets ridiculous.
    2) The average person is not interested in being "in combat." We are talking about gun safety & responsibility. What you & I might see as common sense & easy, others have absolutely no clue about & need to be told... sometimes as if they're small children being taught by their dad, grandfather or favorite uncle... with small words & short sentences. Remember, this is America we're talking about... full of people from innumerable backgrounds.
    Of course the NRA isn't the end-all be-all of firearms organizations. However, it is well respected for its courses & dedication to the 2nd Amendment. If someone wants to take a combat training course, they need to find organizations that will help them out with that. But we're talking about ordinary joes who want to hunt, protect their homes/businesses, shoot at the rifle range, pop gophers & jack rabbits, teach their kids, participate in shooting sports, etc. Perhaps it should be left up to the states/municipalities to decide who gives the courses. Maybe some of these guys/women coming home from military service can teach them. Perhaps some can form a company that specializes in that... which would garner a great deal of respect from the public. I happen to be a big believer in limiting government's roll in such things as much as possible. It's one thing for government to mandate an action as a requirement to keep one's constitutional protections intact, it's another that they also provide the service. For example, the NRA tends to take such issues incredibly seriously, while a hell of a lot of government personnel tend to take most issues very lightly & slack off on whatever job they do. The government does not impress me in a positive way very often at all.
    3) Who's going to pay for all these officers mandated in schools?
    Why didn't the officers in Columbine prevent that mass killing?
    (more)
  • phil.ol... Grammar... 2013/01/07 02:36:14
    phil.olding.3
    Saying we can't afford officers in schools is absurd. Considering the current laws being considered, which dictate that someone will have to be able to pay for gun bans, and all of the officers required to process HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of pieces of paper? Well, we can pay all of our policemen and policewomen to process stupid forms, that won't help at all, or we can pay them to get out in the streets, and try to keep things like the Sandy Hook shooting (done with a stolen, otherwise legal pre-ban gun) from happening again.
  • Grammar... phil.ol... 2013/01/07 03:35:04
    Grammar Freak
    Where did I say that we can't afford officers?
    I asked who's going to pay for them. Are you suggesting that said officers are paid by the federal government or local government? Some municipalities & districts do have much larger budgets than others. Remember that many US communities are, at this moment, far over-stretched in their budgets & are going bankrupt. Many blame employment costs now. How is this going to affect them? So, who's responsible for the increase in employment budgets & all that they entail (benefits, etc.)? If it's the federal budget, there will be an increase in federal taxes somewhere. Where? On gun purchases? In our income tax?


    You want to equate paying armed officers in every school in America to filing paperwork for a new law? The personnel who would do said filing are already in place & are already being paid.
    This type of comparison is silly & irrational.

    What is wrong with having those who want firearms to pay the expense of mandatory education? What's wrong with building it into the cost of legally owning a firearm in the US? I don't see your logic.

    The kid "stole" his mother's guns because they weren't properly secured (locked up). That's where education might have come in handy... see the point?

    No one wants to ban all guns on the federal ...

    &&&&&
    Where did I say that we can't afford officers?
    I asked who's going to pay for them. Are you suggesting that said officers are paid by the federal government or local government? Some municipalities & districts do have much larger budgets than others. Remember that many US communities are, at this moment, far over-stretched in their budgets & are going bankrupt. Many blame employment costs now. How is this going to affect them? So, who's responsible for the increase in employment budgets & all that they entail (benefits, etc.)? If it's the federal budget, there will be an increase in federal taxes somewhere. Where? On gun purchases? In our income tax?


    You want to equate paying armed officers in every school in America to filing paperwork for a new law? The personnel who would do said filing are already in place & are already being paid.
    This type of comparison is silly & irrational.

    What is wrong with having those who want firearms to pay the expense of mandatory education? What's wrong with building it into the cost of legally owning a firearm in the US? I don't see your logic.

    The kid "stole" his mother's guns because they weren't properly secured (locked up). That's where education might have come in handy... see the point?

    No one wants to ban all guns on the federal level... at least no one worth listening to. It won't happen in America unless a truly tyrannical government is in place... I don't see that happening any time soon.

    Municipalities can pass whatever ordinances their community feels are best for them. In the US, there have been communities since pioneer times that ban various firearms within city limits. That's their business. As long as the ordinances passed are with community agreement & do not supersede federal law, it's fine in the USA. That's the beauty of democracy & our system. If localities don't want it, they can vote against it & kick out those members of local government who implement the laws they don't like & hire someone they do... just like we should be doing on the state & federal level.
    (more)
  • phil.ol... Grammar... 2013/01/08 08:41:53
    phil.olding.3
    "No one wants to ban all guns on the federal level... at least no one worth listening to."

    Diane Feinstein has wanted to ban all guns on the federal level for more than 17 years. She's a united states senator, and she just got reelected.

    Yes - no one worth listening to, as she's a total idiot - but people will listen to her outright LIES anyway, and believe them!

    The "assault weapons ban" that only bans their sale will probably cost billions of dollars, and won't prevent ANY crime from taking place! That same money could be spent putting armed security guards in schools!
  • Grammar... phil.ol... 2013/01/08 20:29:42
    Grammar Freak
    But you just proved my point for me.
    She's trying for 17 years & can't get any closer than first passing the assault weapon ban & then having Bush's Administration & Congress de-ban assault rifles.
    Hrmmmm...
    I must also say that reviewing her record I see her only action that might be construed as an attempt to "ban all guns on the federal level" is the fact that she voted "no" on Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill, which, argued by its proponents, prohibited gun control to the US by means of the UN. Otherwise, I just don't see her saying or doing anything that might be construed as legitimately trying to "ban all guns on the federal level."
    It seems to me that she believes the eventual solution is to ensure that guns are only in the hands of responsible citizens and out of the hands of children and criminals. She simply fights for extreme measures in order to obtain baby steps... that's how government works. (You have to start at a high price if you know that your customer is going to barter you down.)
    Our constitution simply does not allow 1) all of our guns to be taken away or 2) other nations to dictate law in the US. As long as we still have a constitution, we've got protections... but we, The People, definitely have to keep our...&


    But you just proved my point for me.
    She's trying for 17 years & can't get any closer than first passing the assault weapon ban & then having Bush's Administration & Congress de-ban assault rifles.
    Hrmmmm...
    I must also say that reviewing her record I see her only action that might be construed as an attempt to "ban all guns on the federal level" is the fact that she voted "no" on Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill, which, argued by its proponents, prohibited gun control to the US by means of the UN. Otherwise, I just don't see her saying or doing anything that might be construed as legitimately trying to "ban all guns on the federal level."
    It seems to me that she believes the eventual solution is to ensure that guns are only in the hands of responsible citizens and out of the hands of children and criminals. She simply fights for extreme measures in order to obtain baby steps... that's how government works. (You have to start at a high price if you know that your customer is going to barter you down.)
    Our constitution simply does not allow 1) all of our guns to be taken away or 2) other nations to dictate law in the US. As long as we still have a constitution, we've got protections... but we, The People, definitely have to keep our eyes on the ball & stop our in-fighting with each other... which is just a rouse to keep our attention diverted.
    Besides... all any so-called "ban" does is stop illegal sales from the point the "ban" goes into effect onward. It does absolutely nothing about those weapons already in the hands of The People.

    I wouldn't panic until there is cause to. I think that we have to be diligent at all times. But I do not believe that we need to lose our head(s) over the issue.
    (more)
  • phil.ol... Grammar... 2013/01/09 23:05:31 (edited)
  • Grammar... phil.ol... 2013/01/10 10:25:15
    Grammar Freak
    ...& isn't that the point?
    There was a ban on the sale.
    There would not be any way to get the US to ban any guns.
    There isn't now.
    Notice that the license to have a machine gun is $700 + whatever other fees are involved? You have to have a dealer's license to get machine guns cheaper than the market price, which is roughly $15k or more. We often pay far more to license a care every year. I would suggest that if having a machine gun is worth the cost to you, then so be it. But I would also submit that I do not believe that just anyone is able ...& I mean physically & mentally capable... to own or use a machine gun, so keeping them out of the hands of the random redneck is a damned good idea.

    Finestein is 79 years old. How much longer do you think she's going to be in the Senate? If you don't like her ideas, call & write your senators & tell them that.

    This is America we're talking about. If we don't like how our political leaders behave, we can fire them &/or work against them.
  • phil.ol... Grammar... 2013/01/05 01:44:37
    phil.olding.3
    Also, "Grammar-Freak" using the word spelled "equipt" is pretty funny.
  • Grammar... phil.ol... 2013/01/05 12:21:12
    Grammar Freak
    Yeah, glad I could provide a little amusement for you.
    ...as if I might ever presume that I don't make mistakes.
  • phil.ol... Grammar... 2013/01/06 06:50:49
    phil.olding.3
    Well, there is an "edit" button.
  • Grammar... phil.ol... 2013/01/06 14:00:51
    Grammar Freak
    "Equipt" does not show up as an error on spellcheck, because it is a word (or accepted abbreviation) so I missed it.

    I edit mistakes that I find, but I am not going to edit a mistake that someone else pointed out. I am not ashamed or embarrassed that I make mistakes. I happen to be a horrible speller. But I enjoy grammar very much. It makes me crazy that so many of my fellow countrymen/women don't know the difference between your/you're or there/their/they're, etc. It makes my head hurt that even when using short-forms, people can't see that U R means something & yr means something else. I find today's youth lacking in common sense about their own language, lazy about communication & incredibly under-educated in the public school system. That is embarrassing & shameful... especially living overseas & knowing that the rest of the world is able to see & laugh at the ignorance of so many Americans. (Frankly, if one wants to be a really good teacher/manipulator in the public school system, I think it would be best to teach kids the way the Soviets did... "If you want to be truly patriotic, you will learn to read & write well so that you can communicate well & not embarrass your nation later." I don't think that was bad brainwashing/propaganda on their part & it's something we migh...
    "Equipt" does not show up as an error on spellcheck, because it is a word (or accepted abbreviation) so I missed it.

    I edit mistakes that I find, but I am not going to edit a mistake that someone else pointed out. I am not ashamed or embarrassed that I make mistakes. I happen to be a horrible speller. But I enjoy grammar very much. It makes me crazy that so many of my fellow countrymen/women don't know the difference between your/you're or there/their/they're, etc. It makes my head hurt that even when using short-forms, people can't see that U R means something & yr means something else. I find today's youth lacking in common sense about their own language, lazy about communication & incredibly under-educated in the public school system. That is embarrassing & shameful... especially living overseas & knowing that the rest of the world is able to see & laugh at the ignorance of so many Americans. (Frankly, if one wants to be a really good teacher/manipulator in the public school system, I think it would be best to teach kids the way the Soviets did... "If you want to be truly patriotic, you will learn to read & write well so that you can communicate well & not embarrass your nation later." I don't think that was bad brainwashing/propaganda on their part & it's something we might actually benefit from.)
    But I would never, in a bazillion years, think or say that I don't make mistakes. I do. I'm human. Mistakes are a part of being human.
    (more)
  • phil.ol... Grammar... 2013/01/07 02:37:04
    phil.olding.3
    I found laughing at your mistake to need all of one line. You found it to need a huge paragraph. Good job.
  • Grammar... phil.ol... 2013/01/07 03:36:06
    Grammar Freak
    Thanks.
    Just discussing the topic you brought up.
  • Libertarian Right 2012/12/24 01:49:00
    No
    Libertarian Right
    Unless your a "progressive" then it is ALWAYS time.
  • ProVega 2012/12/22 03:42:12
    Yes
    ProVega
    When the second amendment was ratified in 1791 the following was true about guns. These are the kind of arms they were talking about. Not the crowd killers the NRA is protecting today. The arms have changed their regulation must change.

    Guns in 1791 WOULD
    ...be made by a gunsmith.
    ...have rudimentary rifling.
    ...be single-shot weapons.
    ...be loaded through the muzzle.
    ...fire by means of a flintlock.

    Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT
    ...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
    ...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
    ...be breach loaded. (Popularized in 1810)
    ...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
    ...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
    ...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
  • phil.ol... ProVega 2013/01/03 19:21:05
    phil.olding.3
    In 1791, muskets were assault weapons. They were used to murder hundreds of thousands of people by corrupt people and governments. They were the only assault weapons available to people, and were the most deadly things available to people by a LONG SHOT.

    Muskets WERE crowd killers! Are you completely retarded?

    ARMS are for KILLING PEOPLE! All other uses are not only secondary, they are illegitimate! Hunting is a LOOPHOLE in the 2nd amendment - killing people is a RIGHT!
  • Diane 2012/12/20 07:41:08
    Yes
    Diane
    +1
    This is the tipping point. Gun control legislation will be enacted.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 86 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/29 00:39:08

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals