Do you think new gun control measures are in order in the wake of the Newtown shootings?
No. Gun laws weren't the issue and won't solve the problem of mass killings in America.
102 votes (52%)
Yes. Limiting access to assault rifles and large clips would at least limit the carnage.
95 votes (48%)

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
8 comments on this item

If the original assault weapon ban and clip size would of been in effect instead of abolished in the 90's, the odds are almost 100% some of those children or teachers would be alive.

Also as it is now police men can never catch up in having adequate fire power,with the criminal weapon selection has no limit. These assault weapons give some of these sic people a Rambo like feeling. The hunter does not need a gun that shoots up to 90 shots per minute. Society is going backwords.

Disarming good people is not the answer.

I own a few guns. I may wish to acquire a couple more. Non of my guns have killed a person. If I owned a current age military style gun, it would not kill people. Only a person can kill people using a gun...or a knife or golf club or a bomb. We have a mental health problem in this country, brought on by stress, mostly confrontational, and we have failed to find solutions that would alleviate it. We have far too many violent, killing type movies coming out of Hollywood these days. They glorify killing, work on the psychic of weaken minds, encourage live enactment of scenes in real life. Yet, a President (Obama) and Congressional members (mostly inner city democrats that hate guns) that take multi millions of dollars from Hollywood with narry a boo.

We can never have a reasonable conversation to resolve the issue if the major news media types can't encourage a problem solving discussion without their continuous pre-conceived attitudes that guns are the problem. While they purport that they support open discussion, already this past Sunday, they ganged up on the NRA before any committee has been assembled. They have already tried to take the NRA positions off the table, instead criticizing the NRA for openly beginning discussions. In negotiations and problem solving, whether it is marriage, business or any other dispute, brainstorming works best when the facilitator states to the group..."no idea is a bad idea" rather than dismiss the idea before it's merits are debated.

Killings will continue as long as attitudes like snowshoe2 pervade our culture.

Or, perhaps they will continue because of the attitudes of orrcountry which pervade our culture.

I would say reducing the rights of some of the seriously mentally ill makes more sense than violating the 2nd amendment. We don't see that many street people where we live. Live in Minneapolis proper for a few years and see what's out there on the street. The signs of serious disassociative behavior and "no affect" in a kids demeanor are there very early. The mother of this kid from Connecticut was able to hide his disorder because she was wealthy. He was an accident waiting to happen, and he did. The gun did not kill the children, a psyco/sociopath did.

Words I recently read that make sense to me:

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

If ever there has been a more idiotic political slogan, I have yet to hear it. The logical fallacy here is imagining that people are killed either by people or by guns. Come again? Obviously, guns do not kill people on their own. But people do not shoot bullets into people without guns. At Sandy Hook and Aurora and Columbine, people with guns killed people. This is a fact. To pretend it away with slogans is illogical and revolting.

The question now is: Are those of us who have not yet been killed by guns going to allow these massacres to continue unimpeded? Are Americans that callous? Is life here so cheap? I have read the Second Amendment, and I find no mention there of any right to possess any gun more advanced than an 18th-century musket? Do I really have the right to bear a nuclear weapon? Or a rocket-propelled grenade? Then why in God’s name would any U.S. civilian have the right (or the need) to bear a .223-caliber assault rifle made by Bushmaster?

Snowshoe, if you have the opportunity ask an officer if you can see what's in the trunk of his/her car. You may actually be suprised. There's a good chance an AR-15, MP5 or something of the like will be in the trunk. Most of them are not without "adequate fire power". They a pretty sharp bunch. They had a couple run-ins where they didn't have the right tool for the job and have sinced learned.

I would echo that adding more laws aren't what's needed. Unfortunately, criminals will get guns. Unfortunately, people who want to kill people will find a way (Timothy McVeigh did it with fertilizer and diesel fuel, the 9/11 Terrorists did it with airplanes, Aum Shinrikyo et. al did it with Sarin gas...)

jtormoen, the argument of not possessing a weapon more advanced than an 18th-century musket is weak. The purpose of the Second Amendment is for U.S. citizens to be able to defend themselves against threats to their life and liberty, including an oppresive government. At that time those muskets were the typical firearms that everyone would have. Move up 200+ years and the notion of defending oneself with a muzzle loader now is... well, foolish. Therein lies the need for the Bushmaster. The Second Amendment doesn't describe the arms. You will not find any mention that the only right is to possess a gun no more advanced than an 18th-century musket. The authors were much smarter than that

I would say that the statement "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." is absurd but for the reason of "DUH! that's obvious." You said it yourself, "...PEOPLE with guns killed people." A gun is an inanimate object that by itself can not kill (unlike Radon gas, carbon monoxide, or nuclear radiation). PEOPLE with knives kill people. PEOPLE with cars kill people. PEOPLE with baseball bats kill people. PEOPLE with lit cigarettes kill people. Any of those objects by themselves don't kill people (well possibly with the exception of the car). They all need people in some manner. But the people don't need these particular items, they'll find a way to kill some one if they are so determined to do so (unfortunately). We need to work on the people not the objects. As has been mentioned, Adam Lanza had mental health issues (Asperger's syndrome) and wasn't given the proper care. There is an area where we need to focus. Get those people help and don't be ashamed if you or a loved one needs the help. We need to work on society to be more accepting of those with mental health issues and helping those with mental health issues. Prohibiting mentally sound, law-abiding people from possessing fire arms isn't addressing the issue.

Are those of us who have not yet been killed by guns going to allow these massacres to continue unimpeded? Are Americans that callous? Is life here so cheap? All great strawmen. Are you seriously expecting someone to answer yes to any of that? No one, by leagally possessing an assault rifle, is saying they want to allow "massacres to continue unimpeded," are "callous," or think "life here is so cheap."

So then, you do approve of allowing any citizen who currently can purchase a revolver to also have access to nuclear weaponry, or something lesser such as rocket propelled grenade launcher? I fully agree with the need to address mental health issues ... but to side only there and ignore the whole weaponry issue seems much like a Congress talking only "entitlements" and never taxation.

As to your final paragraph, not to worry. As Ebeneezer Scrooge said ...

You must be logged in to post a comment. Click here to log in.