This tragedy wouldn't have happened if people weren't allowed guns. Why the hell do people need gun's anyway?
sort by best latest
I totally agree. I am a law abiding citizen and I am prepared to let loose if a monster tried to harm me or my loved ones. Laws against criminals having them don't work, best to be well trained and have one yourself. Police aren't private security.
I strongly disagree. I don't think anyone should be allowed guns. What gives anyone the right to use one? The world is full of 'monsters who rob us of our lives of peaceful existence'. Take the guns away!
The only thing stopping the United States from being run by a tyranical dictator is gun ownership. Period!!!!!
Well, peanut, honey...I know you feel strongly and I respect this. What gives anyone the right to use a gun? Do you have children? Would you not shoot someone holding a gun to your child's head?
I could ..I would and never look back an instant.
Quite frighteningly....the hard core fact of Reality is: If guns are totally banned, the only people who will have them...is CRIMINALS. Laws of any kind, do not hinder criminals......only the law abiders. It's true.
Even if you take the guns away, there are other methods of destruction that people can use to "hurt" others. Guns, ammunition, other "war" fare are too highly accessible and not regulated. It's going to take more than strict laws for peaceful living.
A thief will thieve when the door is unlocked. A mentally ill person may become a mass killer when the gun is so easily obtained. Deter the thief with a lock. Deter mass killing -deny the gun.
Thank you, chef-du-jour, for saying it in such a common sense way. If Nancy Lanza had done this, she, her son, and 26 others would be alive today.
Here's a rude awakening The shooters mother (also now deceased) was a law abiding, second amendment holder who collected guns. Obviously if her son had not had access, this probably wouldn't have happened! Now what???
Not just a law-abiding gun holder, the mother apparently enjoyed teaching her sons to shoot.
Guns will be obtained by those who want to obtain them legally or illegally in which most criminals do. Giving upstanding citizens who have to go through a lengthy background check to obtain a gun. GUNS AREN'T THE PROBLEM. Society and the criminals R
I hear you, Chef, but I agree with Jeff. Abolishing firearms only allows for a tyranical government to force its will upon a disarmed society. This is why the 2nd Ammendment exists...to safeguard the citizenry against a tyranical government not thugs
The debate has to be focused on restriction of firearms, not abolishment. Let the psychologists do their work on the whys and wherefores of mass shootings of innocent children BUT society as a whole (represented by politicians et al) has to ACT.
Private citizens with legal guns thwart over a million crimes every year, yet very seldom fire a shot.
In the US there are probably more guns than people. We have over 2500 gun laws.
I agree with some of the things you said, but if I can use one of your arguments against you...why allow anyone to have firearm training? Would it not be just as difficult for the criminal element to hit moving targets if no training was provided?
Having a bunch of untrained vigilantes is far more dangerous CJ
CJ very few criminals have any training, that is why you see so many bystanders hit.
Proper training saves lives, it is the reason that today gun accidents are at an all-time low despite the increased numbers of guns.
that is overly simplistic. Most people with guns do not have training in dealing with violent situations and it's folly to assume most people could just whip out their gun and save the day.
Gun laws don't keep them out of criminals/killers hands. It really is that simple. It's possible that if trained/armed staff were on hand, more lives might have been saved. If you are unarmed & staring down a barrel, you'll wish you had one.
What's overly simplistic is the belief that banning guns will take them out of the hands of criminals who commit the crimes like the one committed in Conn. If those who carry the guns are trained, then yes, they could have prevented a lot of deaths.
I have to agree with you everyday miracles. I say that instead of metal detectors we need mental detectors.
Criminals will not always be criminals. People do change. That is an incredibly black and white argument. I'm sorry, I don't feel the need to carry a gun for protection. I'm 40 years of age and i've never wished I had one. Why do we need guns?
Peanuts...somewhere...out there, someone is carrying a gun that keeps violence from reaching you. I guarantee that once every last gun is collected - you will know the meaning of fear and oppression. Please stop being so short-sighted. Good point EDM
Peanut, I know you feel strongly and I respect this.....but, what gives anyone the right to use a gun? Do U have children? Would you not shoot someone with a gun at your child's head? I could, I WOULD...and never look back for an instant
Really? I take a 2 day combat / defensive shootong class every 2 years with a group of over 50 other shooters.
I shoot at the local range 10 or more times a year.
He wasn't a criminal!!! Do you think for one minute his mother (law abiding gun collector) thought that he would go shoot a bunch of 5 -10 yr olds up to 10x each? Look at the rest of these horrific events and the shooters criminal records NONE
Facts: Often, people w/no criminal background go berserk & spree kill. Reality: I know of no case of a spree killer was stopped by a citizen with a gun. Chenpeng: 20 children attacked, no gun, none dead. Austrailia controlled guns, no sch. killin
Effer, No I don't have children. I wouldn't want a child of mine to live in such an evil, corrupt world. I do however, have nieces and nephews and I would HATE for them to live in a place where people are free to carry guns.
According to Buddhism the so called 'peaceful religion', those with learning difficulties or disabilities are judged as a 'wrong or incorrect livelihood', and abhored in society. It would have been difficult to kill 27 people so quickly without a gun
Tom...the right to bear arms was not to prevent a British attack...it was to prevent a tyrant from taking over America. The police state is already here...they are just trying to find a way to strip us of our guns, so they can take over.
Peanutritious The Buddha rejected the idea that people with mental or physical disabilities were "wrong." He worked with them & cared for them. (The prejudice you speak of is in society, not Buddhism.) Tom: Constitution says nada on citizens &
At the very heart of the matter is immoral, selfish, violent, and malicious people. Indeed, murderers may not have a diagnosed mental illness, but their deficiency is the absence of heart and soul. Our government is Godless and so are its operatives.
Most people who are shot are shot by someone they know - domestically. What to do about that then? Guns make it too easy to overreact and kill when angry. I don't think bans are the answer but neither is pretending guns are safe.
'The gun itself was a passive bystander' WHAT? Can't believe what i'm hearing! Noone should be allowed guns. Get real, you can't police the world. the solution, take guns away from everyone. You can't run from a gun.
Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Cth,26% Prd, 6% Heb, 2% Pag, >1/3 of 1% godless.
In Joliet, 2,888 Cth, 1,020 Bap, 617 Met and 0 Ath.
Connections for godlessness and crime,,, wrong. BTW 90% of gangs are from religious homes.
I resent this remark. We are atheists and our sons have morals, they love other people and they are taught right from wrong. Religious fairytales don't make people saints. MANY have been killed in the name of "God"