Best
352 Comments
Post
  • #9
    !
    Should this tragedy or any other lead to stricter gun control? N O !!!!!
    We have thousands and thousands of laws....If they worked?????

    Laws to not work because criminals never obey laws!!!!
  • #20
    !
    Simplistic logic...first we re-write the laws....if that doesn't work.....we hire more police...if that doesn't work, we throw the book at anyone with an unlicensed firearm...and we continue that way until we find the combination necessary to bring sanity to our society and the peace to our children of Sandy Hook.
  • #26
    !
    @Shinimegami
    Laws are not written for criminals. The laws are for keeping the generally law abiding public under control. That is their primary purpose, to stop having them is not an option.
  • #34
    !
    @Shinimegami The point of law is to create a level playing field for everyone and avoid arbitrary enforcement.
  • #35
    !
    @alexpinca At some point in time you're going to have to accept that the law can't prevent every tragedy and that knee-jerk reactions are stupid.
  • R Load more replies

  • #3
    !
    Gun control won't work as well as some people think. That's just how it is, you make legal guns harder to get.... people buy illegal weapons....or make their own.

    So one of the many problems with strict gun control is criminals will always find guns. So maybe we start talking about that giant black market for illegal weapons, rather than preventing law abiding citizens from buying firearms. Because if we could eliminate, or at least put a dent in that market....that would probably significantly reduce the incidence of violent crime with firearms. Most of these criminals aren't buying registered weapons, they're getting them illegally. We focus on that, maybe we actually stop the bad guy from getting a gun.
  • #122
    !
    I don't know much about the perpetrators who killed these cops, but I have not seen whether or not their guns were legally purchased. Clearly a war on illegal guns could possibly stop some shootings, but even good guys can become bad guys.
  • #124
    !
    Yes and here is how to do it - if somebody breaks a gun law (there are plenty of them to go around) then that person goes to jail for the FULL amount of time the law requires. Period. No parole, no work release, you do the time.

    And while you are at it, go back to making chain gangs active again. IL and many other states say they can't afford to take care of our highways, put these people to work EARNING the food we are paying for and the bed they sleep in.

    Prison needs to be about punishment and paying society back for breaking our laws. It's NOT supposed to be time in a health club for a vacation.
  • #147
    !
    @Crashd1 Nope, I don't like that term. Every time we launch a war on an abstract noun.... we always fail miserably.

    War on Terror
    War on Drugs
    War on Poverty

    I like the sound of cracking down on the gun black market. I didn't say it would stop all shootings, but it would put a significant dent in them. Most of those shootings in the urban cities, those could be drastically reduced. Those kill thousands of people a year. If the criminals have no guns to kill with, or they have to buy one legally.... that's a deterrent.

    You're right good guys can become bad guys, but those instances are unpredictable sometimes. Just because someone is mentally unstable, or just an angry person. You don't expect them to go out and shoot other people. Some people don't even show it, like your office co-workers that are holding in emotions that have been building up for years. It's much harder to stop a good guy from becoming a bad guy, so we should start with something simpler. Stopping the bad guys from getting guns.
  • #151
    !
    @rudebuthonest Laws are plenty harsh now. Criminals don't seem to care about the laws because they don't think they'll be caught, and the mass shooters don't care because usually they kill themselves anyway. Harsher laws probably won't stop more shootings, but they'll definitely punish the criminals who break gun laws.

    I like the chain gang idea, to much liter on the highway. Our tax dollars pay for their upkeep, might as well get some labor. But hours on a chain gang should be voluntary and count towards something, like time served. 100 hours on a gang, 10 days off. Because I understand it's prison, but involuntary, unpaid, menial labor is slavery.

    Prison should in some cases be about punishment. But sometimes it needs to be rehabilitation. There's no point in sending back out into the world if they'll just do it again. They need to become law abiding, productive members of society. If they're just punished, but not changed. All the prison system did was create a hardened criminal. Murder, Rape, and Tax evasion you should serve your full sentence, for punishment. But other criminals can be rehabilitated.
  • #161
    !
    Much like alcohol... you know when I was a teenager, it was harder for me to get alcohol, than it was any other drug on the market?
  • R Load more replies

  • #14
    !
    Fact is gun murder is half the levels of 20 years ago.

    Despite this 1/3 of Americans think it is up.

    1/3 (actually 30% and falling) of Americans want more gun control and 2/3 want less or the same (Gallup May 2013)

    Pew Research found it is precisely the 1/3 of Americans who have a completely false idea of gun murder and gun crime statistics that are the ones who want more gun control!

    Also over 20 jurisdictional studies have shown than over 90% of US murders are criminals killing criminals. If you are not a criminal, gang member or drug dealer, your chance of being murdered in heavily armed US is LESS than Canada or the European mean.
  • #16
    !
    You would have to extract Canadian and European gang killings from their mean in order for that statistic to be meaningful. Other than that, I agree with you.
  • #184
    !
    @Rascal85

    You far far more likely to be murdered in the US, than in Canada, the UK, Europe or Australia.

    The facts prove this ^^^ to be correct !
  • #220
    !
    If you dont mind me saying, you seem overly concerned with statistics. I had a quick look on the internet and found one report(huffington post) stating that in the 10 months following the Newtown shooting ( which were carried out with legaly held guns) there was 9, 900 gun related deaths. The author of that report went on to say even that was a gross underestimation as many suicides were not recorded. Anyway lets take the 9, 900. If, as you state 90% were criminal on criminal, that leaves 990 "innocent" deaths. Does that justify doing nothing about gun control? I think not. Theres no such thing as an acceptable figure. One death, and I include the criminals, is too much.
  • #283
    !
    That's very true. Subtract the inner-city drug-dealing gun homicides, and we'd be down to about 2,201 gun homicides per year, which includes justifiable homicides. And THAT would get us down from 83rd in the world in gun homicides (4.4 per 100,000) to 4th in the world in FEWEST IN THE WORLD in gun homicides, right behind Japan, Iceland and Norway, with a 0.68 gun homicides per 100,000- and that's only 0.08 of 1 % higher than those countries! It's the Blue inner cities that are the real problem, but from the news media's constant harping on the few isolated incidents, rather than the daily ones in places like Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Washington D.C., Miami, etc. you'd think these highly-publicized shootings are the only ones taking place.
  • #284
    !
    @dolywern2 Only in the inner cities is that true. Else where in the USA, the gun homicide rate is LOWER than in Europe, except in Iceland or Norway, and only by 0.08 of 1%. Unfortunately, European tourists are drawn to the large population centers as tourists rather than the rest of the USA. The Democratically-controlled HUGE 'Blue' cities of the USA are the main problem. Without their daily drug-gang gun battles, our gun homicide rate would be 0.68 per 100,000 LOWER than everyone in the world except Japan, Iceland and Norway, and like I said, by only 0.08 of 1%. Europe doesn't have the kind of drug-dealing gang problems we have in the USA- OUR FAULT, because of our ineffective stupid laws on drugs and prostitution.
  • R Load more replies

  • #49
    !
    I agree anybody who shoot anybody cop or civilian at point blank range execution style where there are plenty of eye witnesses...should be caught before they can shoot themselves...and then thrown into a shark tank.
  • R Load more replies

  • #65
    !
    Here is a legislative exercise. Write a 'stricter' gun law that would prevent this, and be prepared to defend it with facts and logic. You too David Letterman.
  • #84
    !
    @Cincinnatus We already have background checks, Buy a gun and do the paper work, There is a Local police and FBI check done on the buyer. Maybe somebody isn't doing their job or there isn't anything to see to alert them that this person can't buy a gun. I'm not sure what the answer is but there is already laws we don't need new ones.
  • #85
    !
    In this state, we have background checks, even at gun shows all purchases are called into the ATF with
    Name
    Address
    City
    State
    Zip
    Social Security Number
    Drivers license number
    phone number
    email address
    Stated reason for purchase
    Questionnaire about citizenship, mental health and so on.
    The VA is already taking care of the mental health issue,
    And Obama has the spying on you issue covered.

    What more do you want? I'll see if I can get it added.
    Maybe it's just YOUR state that is backwards.
  • #90
    !
    Adopt the gun policies of any civilized country: Sweden, Great Britain, Japan, South Korea, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, etc. Their annual shootings are a fraction of a percent of ours.
  • R Load more replies

  • #25
    !
    Really dumb question Politix. More gun control will not prevent planned attacks. Soldiers and police in areas with total gun control have always been vulnerable; a little more here won't do anything. There should be a review of police procedures and possible additional training.
  • #87
    !
    In light of how cops treat the elderly, dogs, children and other people with shoot to kill first, never apologize later.....karma's a beeeeeatch ain't?

    I still contend, disarm the cops. Only stun guns or tranq guns.
  • #267
    !
    @Knightkore
    Even many British Bobbies are carrying guns, now.
    Do you really think that if the cops stop carrying guns the bad guys will follow suit?
  • R Load more replies

  • #36
    !
    Why have you not asked this question when the police execute its own citizens?The killings that are written of as tragic mistakes on their part.
  • #6
    !
    Far more research has to be done concerning the mental illness aspect of this shooting and all the others before we start pointing fingers at this cause or that. Once this is accomplished, if it ever is, we have to investigate the role that the mental health field has played in the growing number of death pacts the shooters are making and how medications or misdiagnoses may be setting them off.

    Personally, I believe that the combination of the increase in mental illness and the proliferation of guns are both responsible for the increase in mass shootings. We also have to include the publicizing of these shootings that might be being used by the shooters as templates for their crimes.

    Everyone likes to have an easy answer for difficult problems, but these problems are called difficult for a reason and there is no easy solution for any of them. The term synergism seems to be, at least to me, of ultimate importance if we want to gain a logical perspective on the issue. In other words, no human event in our reality can be viewed as if it exists in a vacuum and the connections these events may have can sometimes seem infinite. But they're not and we can't take years to solve this problem and allow paralysis by analysis to set in.
  • #13
    !
    "for the increase in mass shootings. "

    Mass shootings are down per capital. Down in number of incidents and down in number of fatalities. News reporting is up.

    Your entire theory is pretty bogus when you consider that gun murder in the US has crashed to half the levels of 20 years ago -- and murder of children has to fallen by even more.
  • #24
    !
    @Rascal85 And your theory is off if you consider whether mass shootings are up. Having lived in an area that "boasts" some of the most violent cities in the country, it used to be that a vast majority of the shootings were random and committed by career criminals with single victims, and a lot of them. Not the proliferation of mass murders by mentally deranged people. And do not believe government statistics. The same level of "civil servants" who give us our unemployment and inflation statistics are responsible for accurately recording crime stats. Trust me, I've been around for a long time and if events of the magnitude of recent mass shootings had occurred in the 50s and 60s CBS, NBC and ABC would have been all over them with real reporters, not the amateurs that report the news today.
  • #64
    !
    @Ryunkin
    Don't you feel uncormfortable with the idea that you may meet a mentally disturbed person with an M16 in a Walmart store because his mother has one in the cuboard ?
  • #190
    !
    @C_Lassico Nope. Never shop at Walmart. I don't like their coziness with China, which just happens to be America's most dangerous enemy.
  • #269
    !
    @Ryunkin
    Haha, that's funny! I still don't agree with you but I Iike your sense of humor.
    On China though, I beg to differ. Rival maybe, but enemy, no. They are too dependant on exports to America to become enemies. Sure, they will try to protect their interests in the Pacific, but that's a matter of proper diplomacy.
  • R Load more replies

  • #238
    !
    the gun did not kill the peace officers, a couple of idiot, mental cases did. stop blaming inanimate objects for the failure of the mental health system.
  • #223
    !
    Most cops favor open carry. It seems They're a lot less concerned with law abiding citizens carrying guns and they don't believe the criminals and maniacs will obey the laws anyway...Go figure!
  • #47
    !
    Good Question, every time there is a shooting thel liberal media goes nuts with idiotic polls and articles
  • #99
    !
    @Cincinnatus No, not right. I support the Second Amendment 100%, but I support the whole document not just the bits parts of it that I like and ignore the rest. The second amendment doesn't just read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "Well regulated" are the key words here, we can pass all the bandaid laws we want on gun control, it isn't going to stop gun violence. The gun grabbers can whine and squeal all they want, they aren't never going to get rid of the guns. Unfortunately, the violent acts like what happened at Sand Hook and the recent collage shootings, are going to happen no matter what gun laws exist or if guns are totally outlawed because the real issues aren't being addressed. We can't just ask "should more gun control laws be implemented" every time some horrible violent act is committed. The whole damn country gets all lathered up when something like Seattle Pacific University shooting happens, both sides come out swinging and a bunch of name calling and sniveling happens but nothing actually gets done except both sides get more entrenched and pissed off at each other. Got news for everyone, neither side can win this battle even though both sides have legitimate complaints. Not all of our forefathers seen eye to eye on everything, in fact a lot could stand each other, but they sat down, talked to each other and did what they had to do to get our constitution written and ratified. There is common ground to be had by both sides of the debate if they all could just stop with the ridiculous whining BS and want everything their own way.
  • #163
    !
    @Cincinnatus maybe I misunderstood your post. I have always stood in the same spot on this topic, I really can't see a positive to either side on this issue. Honestly, there is no way I can support either side on this issue. I am a gun owner, I firmly believe in the second amendment, I have purchase all but two of my guns in the state of California and never had a problem getting or purchasing a gun here. Just people legally owning a gun isn't going to stop gun violence, limiting the number of rounds a magazine can hold isn't going to change anything, it was a big waste of time and taxpayers money passing such a feel good law, but at the same time I don't see a need for high capacity magazines either just like I don't know way anyone would need 10 AR-15's next their bed but people do. I don't support banning or outlawing all guns like the gun grabbers want to do either but I do understand what motivates their movement, you would have to be a fool to not see it. I hike up between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe quite a bit and it's all on state land. Last year my wife, son and I hiked to a crashed B-17 out in the middle of nowhere, as we parked at the trail head and got ready to go I had a California Fish and Game warden pull up and asked what we where up to, I told him we where hiking back to the B-17, he told us to be careful and said there has been a mountain lion stalking hikers and recommended not going unless we had a gun. I said I did and showed him my registration, he didn't even ask to see the weapon. My point is, California has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, but it really isn't quite as bad as what everyone is making it out to be, there is common ground here, both sides just need to work a little harder to get there. I think gun owners need to be responsible adults, and walking into a Starbucks with an AK-47 and a hand gun strapped to their belt is an incredibly ignorant thing to do if you want to protect your rights. Everybody can talk big all they want about "well if I was there and I had my gun with me he would be one dead SOB" Yeah right, they would be dead, or hiding in panic or shooting a bunch of innocent people caught in the cross fire.
  • R Load more replies

  • #272
    !
    THIS far right anti government state of mind has been around for along time but...has been WHIPPED UP 3X GREATER BY THE TEA PARTY FOX NEWS & TALK RADIO all because Obama the blk president is in office. IT'S 2 easy to get guns & these nuts made it clear this is just THE START!!
  • #266
    !
    Gun control is:
    Breathe, Relax, Aim, Sight, Squeeze (BRASS).

    Unless we can guarantee that every firearm is permanently removed from the face of the earth, more laws are useless. And even if we could, people would always find other weapons with which to kill our fellow humans. Cave men killed with clubs, rocks, bare hands.
    The hundreds of laws we have now have not eliminated homicide and a thousand more will still fail miserably. The answer lies in overhauling our mental health system and the laws governing it. And even at that, radicals like these two will still exist and still sometimes manage to kill.
  • #254
    !
    My prayers for the family's of the victims. No, of course not. Pointless. 20,000 + laws didn't stop this killing spree. How does a law on a piece of paper stop antone from killing others and then themselves? Ridiculous question.
  • #245
    !
    Should more obesity lead to spoon control?

    Objects don't harm people. People using objects do.

    The problem is the people and not the object.
  • R Load more comments...
Post