Here's a woman protecting her family with her personal firearm. This woman protecting her children is one of the nutcases that should have their "toy" taken away according to Janesvillean. One of hundreds of self defense firearm stories not covered on national news. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/wom...

MooShoo- I never said anything about doing without a car, but I can do fine with one that can go no faster than 60mph AND I don't drink alcohol or use drugs.....Again, why can just about anyone regardless of their history get possession of one that can go well over 100mph?

MooShoo I doubt you were ever a Marine just by how you speak and what comes out when you do . Semper Fi .

MooShoo can make ad hominem attacks and call me a "nut" but can't address the issue.

Stay classless moo, you're a perfect fit for your party.

Mooshoo dont get the fact that both cars and guns are Inanimate Objects . Navy Seals didnt get Bin Laden guns Did lolololo Said No One Ever ! go ahead Mooshoo fear guns thats your right and many have died defending it , my right is to own them as long as i obey the laws , thats what you have when you live in a free society .

Once again I must ask why the clamor for "gun control" when we allow reckless homicidal killers to possess something that weighs 4000 pounds or more and can go well over 100mph.

California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/5079151...

moo I haven't heard one person deny the tragedy that happened. Regardless, that is not proof or facts to support your rhetoric. Having an honest debate, one looking for a real solution, requires at least facing real information and real consequences. Adding more rhetoric does nothing for the situation.

An honest debate would look at all the information, tragedies and current laws. Evaluations of the failed laws and the sadistic circumstances of the terrible events are needed. So are lasting real solutions. Pretending another knee jerk reaction, like creating another law, without fully looking at ALL information is surely going to fail; like it has before. Also pretending any law will prevent evil people from perpetrating evil is in itself insane.

Stay classless moo, a perfect fit for your party.

"More semi-auto assault rifles, more funerals. Lots more semi-auto assualt rifles, lots more funerals."
-
Any proof to back this WILD claim?

But they are illegal in Chicago, regardless of where they were purchased. The law was created "thinking" making it illegal would stop it, yet as always only law abiding citizens follow the law; criminals do as they want. Refusing to profile, capture, and prosecute criminals will not fix the problem. Just like adding more laws, that only law abiding people will follow, will not solve the problem. Hint...murder has been illegal for centuries already.

moo how have those gun lawzz worked in Chicago?

The wet dreams of the anti gun, anti constitution, anti freedom left wing psychotic wannabe gun banners will be stopped soon.

There will not be a ban, there will not be a buyback. Unfortunately for the left wing fantasy world gun banners, there will have to be a reality based fix for these mentally ill murderers who are allowed to walk into schools and other places and commit mass murders.

Being forced to accept reality will be difficult and impossible for some of the left wing, simple minded wannabe gun banners, but we will still make headway and solve this problem of allowing mass murderers to waltz into gun free zones and commit their heinous acts.

More faves from the Bowlgal archives:

"Unions have brought down eduction levels of our children"

Of course that only works if you can spell education. Let's not get started on the repeated use of "markist".

Polls often just prove how big of idiots the masses truly are! Th same morons who answer these questions often can't even tell you what country we gained our independence from.

Taking it to the bank at a Gallup.....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158519/romney...

Gallup poll: 64% of Americans believe having at least one school official armed at each school would be somewhat effective or very effective.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159422/stop-s...

Bowlgal said, "Poobah, the other gun operations were very controlled and tracked."

Bowlgal, Operation Wide Receiver was initiated and carried out entirely under the George W. Bush administration and lost track of hundreds of weapons that included AR-15 and semi-automatic AK-pattern rifles. Saying that Operation Wide Receiver was "very controlled and tracked," is either absolute ignorance of the operation or lying and I seriously doubt that you are lying.

"The first known ATF "gunwalking" operation to Mexican drug cartels, named Operation Wide Receiver, began in early 2006 and ran into late 2007. [...] As the later DOJ OIG Report documented, under Wide Receiver coordination of ATF Tucson with the ATF Mexico City Office (MCO) and with Mexican law enforcement had been haphazard. Discussions of getting tracking devices from Raytheon were not followed up. ATF field agents and the cooperating gun dealer had been told by ATF supervisors that the guns were being interdicted before they could reach Mexico, but only 64 of the 474 guns had actually been seized. The kingpin sought by walking the guns, Israel Egurrola-Leon, turned out to be the target of a larger drug case Operation Iron River run by OCDETF." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalk... ]

And I noticed you completely ignored commenting on the Reagan policy of providing cash and guns to Saddam Hussein and the Mujahedin. Any comment on those policies?

Bowlgal, what was it about Clinton and Gore that you liked and made you want to vote for them? As for the Dems dividing this country, both parties are responsible.

Poobah, the other gun operations were very controlled and tracked. They were all finished before fast and furious.
Which was just ship out weapons willy nilly and never accounted for. Until they show up at a crime scene.
Don't even get started on Bengazi, and Carney (idiot) claimed to never know about the jailed soldier sitting in Mexico While the family was told by the administration "sorry, nothing we can do".
Thank GOD for Fox news for putting pressure on for his release.

Then came the markist unions carrying around their communist fist symbols. Such disregard for people and property. Boycotting and death threats and personal assaults.
This isn't the Democrat party of humanity. This is a light weight markist version of big government tax and spend policies. Warfare and disgrace.
Obama won re-election because he is an history figure. His party is still not getting support in any poll you look at.
No, I don't know that I'd ever vote Democrat again after educating myself these past 4 years.

Poobah, yes I did say that.

concernedwi, my voting record - not that it's any of your business. For Pres: Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama, Romney.

I was never really into politics and didn't keep an eye on it the way you live and breathe it and make it your everyday religion.
Until I saw the way Obama and Pelosi and Reid did business with ObamaCare. Then there were lots of little things going on I didn't hear on MSNBC. I started watching FOX - doing a lot of channel switching.
Wow - Reagan was right - there is so much liberals don't know that they think they do.
Obama is a wolf in sheeps clothing. He has divided this country in ways I never thought possible.

BunBun... nailed it!

Your right on BunBun.
The average do gooder lefty has never been outside their bubble. Guns are just FLYING off the shelf right now, as is ammo. Talk to any gun person, or gun shop the past few days, and you will see this. The mere TALK of legislation will put more weapons and ammunition into circulation then the actual ban will ever prevent. By the time a bill is drafted, and congress ultimately does NOTHING with it (my God, congress can't even pass a bill that Bob Dole endorses as his dying wish!!) the mere talk of the ban will have armed the average gun enthusiast to the freaking gills!

BunBUn -- In general you are correct most will keep their weapons. The question will be what will happen should someone break into yuor home or business etc.. and you use that weapon to defend yourself. All that the law will do is to make criminals out of normally law abiding citizens, and in fact, only those that are forced to defend themselves using the illegal weapon. So what will have been accomplished... You will deny the public a findamental -- constitutional right, you will make crimnals out of ordinary people protecting themselves, you will deny people the ability to purchase a particular product to protect themselves.

So I really wouldnt say it accomplishes nothing -- is actually destroys our individual freedoms.

This thread is resembling a hamster wheel....

pass whatever law you want. I don't think all the folks who have been lining up for the past several days buying ARs have shelled out $800 to $1200 just for the privelige of turning them in. Pay no attention to the fact that Brownells just sold 3 years worth of inventory of AR magazines.
As for the "no one is going to confiscate your gun" crowd. Please explain the purpose of a ban if we are going to leave thousands of scary looking rifles in circulation? Any ban will have the same effect of the last one...none whatsoever

"Perhaps if the gun lobby hadn't neutered the ATF years ago, influencing Congress to create unnecessary obstacles to the process of installing leadership at the agency, we probably wouldn't see bungled operations under numerous administrations."
.
Yes, the ATF did OUTSTANDING work in the past! Storming a church compound, getting a few agents killed, getting the FBI involved, and them having 70 some people, including many little children burned to death. Of course it was all for show to ascertain a cult leader who left the compound every day. No need to do the sensible thing, and arrest him when he leaves. Instead lets make a show out of it, and surround the place with tanks, and well; I guess it is justified to murder US citizens and children, as long as you can fall back on the "they were just religious nut jobs".

Bowlgal, every time you post, it becomes more and more clear that you never voted Democrat as you like to profess that you did in the past.

Shopierehuh, The 2nd amendment is not absolute, none of the amendments are (see yelling fire in a crowded building and the 1st amendment). We all ready limit the type of firearms you can buy, we regulate gun sellers, and felons are not allowed to possess or buy a gun. We compromise and re-evaluate amendments all of the time. The Patriot Act had exceptions to the 1st. There are several exceptions to the 4th (see warrantless search for more).

Ezoner said, "Poo -- in your words -- The only gun that Obama wants you to look at -- is the one pointed at you."

Ezoner, those are not my words. Worse yet, you knew they were not my words when you created them.

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” - Friedrich Nietzsche

it is really sad to see this whole debate turn into a ridiculous gun discussion and not focus back on what emerged after this tragedy last week... finally, the talk of dealing with the mentally ill. It is nice to see I can count on the usual gang that miss the point time and time again.

Poo -- in your words -- The only gun that Obama wants you to look at -- is the one pointed at you.

What the left wants to do is to re-write the constitution. They want to remove the ability of the American people to defend themselves. ANY laws restriting access to ANY firearms, will only affect those that abide by the countries laws. It will no affect criminals and murderers. It does not make access to the weapons more difficult for the criminals. They criminals and murderers do not purchase guns legally -- they do not wan the gun to be traceable to them.

Obama and the left will only reduce the ability or the general population to protect themselves.

Bowlgal said, "Pres Obama puts weapons in the hands of Syrian Islamists and Mexican drug cartels, but you or I are not allowed to even look at a gun. They are used by secret service to protect him and his family. But says Americans are not to do the same."

Bowlgal, I doubt you can cite a law that says you are not allowed to look at a gun. I also doubt you can cite a statement made by President Obama that he wants to prohibit Americans from protecting themselves and their families.

And by the way, it was George W. Bush's administration that initiated the operations [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gun... ] that knowingly put guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. And, it was Ronald Reagan's administration that put guns and cash into the hands of Saddam Hussein and the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. Take a look; print it; frame it; hang it over your desk to frequently remind you of the Republican policies of arming "terrorists."

"15 months after the massacre in Du'jail for which Saddam was eventually hanged in 2006, Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East, Donald Rumsfeld is in Iraq is shaking Saddam Hussein's hand and pledging our support." [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r42oejmpk... ]

Pres Obama puts weapons in the hands of Syrian Islamists and Mexican drug cartels, but you or I are not allowed to even look at a gun. They are used by secret service to protect him and his family. But says Americans are not to do the same.

This man does not respect our Constitution nor does he or has he ever repected individual freedom.

RAF=rhetoric against facts

Perhaps if the gun lobby hadn't neutered the ATF years ago, influencing Congress to create unnecessary obstacles to the process of installing leadership at the agency, we probably wouldn't see bungled operations under numerous administrations. We'd probably also see better enforcement of existing gun law which many gun rights advocates call for. That's ironic considering the lead organization of the gun lobby, the NRA, has led the charge to disable the ATF.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigat...

RetiredAirForce said, "Your twisting to this aspect, past administration, that has no relevance to this administration's current actions compared to this administration's past actions..."

No relevance?

"In early 2011, the project [Project Gunrunner] became controversial when it was revealed that Operation Wide Receiver (2006-2007) and Operation Fast and Furious (2009-2010) had allowed guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug cartels." [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gun... ]

Who ignored it?

Your twisting to this aspect, past administration, that has no relevance to this administration's current actions compared to this administration's past actions is but another of your deflection tactics to displace the topic from yours and this admin's own lack of conviction(s).

RetiredAirForce said, "Hardly surprising the twisting fringe left willfully ignore the fast and furious scandal, headed by members of this administration PURPOSELY placed weapons, to include ASSAULT, directly in the hands of criminals."

The extremist right fringe wilfully ignores the fact that the George W. Bush administration's Project Gunrunner, the predecessor to Fast and Furious, first placed guns in the hands of these targeted criminal groups.

Hardly surprising the twisting fringe left willfully ignore the fast and furious scandal, headed by members of this administration PURPOSELY placed weapons, to include ASSAULT, directly in the hands of criminals. While the same fringe left want and support this administration to keep law abiding citizens from exercising their rights to purchase weapons.

The fact the fringe side of the left has no problems with criminals having guns (supplied by this admin) but do have an issue with law abiding citizens having weapons shows their lacking of any conviction. Just more of the same from the do as I say not as I do crowd.

RetiredAirForce said, "The current administration PROVIDED weapons to criminals while the same administration is now wanting to limit weapons to law abiding citizens."

The extremist right fringe is upset that the administration has facilitated the provision of guns that are used in murders while arguing against more laws that would not allow gun shows to facilitate the provision of guns that are used in murders. This is as hypocritical as their complaint about the administration.

Twisting.....again

RetiredAirForce said, "Expecting the emotional driven twist-and-spin party to grasp the irony was never expected....thanks for meeting my very small expectation."

Which is it, "never expected" or a "very small expectation?"

Look at the results of a gun free country...this is what the current left fringe want here, just like Chicago.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

I see the local fringe brigade has vastly ignored the relevance of the story. The current administration PROVIDED weapons to criminals while the same administration is now wanting to limit weapons to law abiding citizens. Expecting the emotional driven twist-and-spin party to grasp the irony was never expected....thanks for meeting my very small expectation.

RetiredAirForce said, "Sadly the same administration that facilitated getting a Mexican beauty queen killed are now claiming they want to fix violence in this nation."

Isn't it interesting how people.that never blame the guns, and argue that new laws to further restrict gun ownership would nit help, now want to blame the people who provide the guns? This is equivalent to saying that whoever provides a weapon used in a murder is culpable for that murder and would include former owners and/or manufacturers.

The extremist right fringe has a new spin and twist on that familiar old mantra. "Guns don't kill people; the providers of guns kill people."

Sadly the same administration that facilitated getting a Mexican beauty queen killed are now claiming they want to fix violence in this nation.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/1...

fear and rhetoric:
My last comment to janesvilliean was not a joke. The fact is people are arming to the gills right now. You can read reports on-line, if you don't know the average person who IS part of the US gun culture. Gun sales are through the roof right now. AR15's are sold out everywhere. Countless other riffles are sold out or back ordered. To say that is NOT a gun culture, after happening just days after a tragedy, is nuts. People in this country LOVE guns. Sure their is a huge portion of society who wants nothing to do with them, but guns really are part of the culture. Lot of guys I know who are big gun people, almost relish in the idea of someone trying to take them away, just so they can use them. Lot of gun owners are perfectly law abiding,and arm them-self to the tooth, just hoping someone will come mess with them. Call it whatever you want, I have personally seen this over and over.

funny janesvilliean:
I talked to a friend in CT yesterday(who lives many miles from Newtown) who is a police officer. He told me that he and his family went to buy some guns after the comments they heard from Obama. Said the parking lot was so packed, that he had to park way out in the grass. Took 2 hours just to get serviced once he got in there. The reality is many LAW ABIDING citizens, as well as the nut jobs are arming to the tooth RIGHT NOW. Once any bill is drafted in congress, it will be thee biggest stock piling of weapons you have ever seen. And considering congress NEVER gets anything accomplished, I would not be getting your hopes to high. A funny post you made nonetheless, I must say.

How exactly do liberals rationalize making another law will stop criminals from committing murder which is already illegal?

Oh, get used to it, nutcases. We're taking your toys away. The price of your hobby should not be the lives of school children.

""saying "it worked in country X, so it would consequently work in America" is nothing short of laughable""
Could not disagree more. If things ork its generally for a reason. Making laws more strict and penalties more severe will yeild results Kiowa. The "gun culture" is NOT part of the fabric of this country, there is far more to this nation than a so-called culture of firearms. There is a certain segment of society that will have ou believe that they are threatened 24-7 and need a pistol/rifle/sub machine gun in their pants to defend themselves from terrorists that are everywhere. Paranoid gun stuffers are not a part of the fabric of this nation. I grew up in an inner city neighborhood and have been around gun violence and never owned a gun. Shocking that I never needed one isnt it? Especially when so many white people in suburbia are constantly under threat of life isnt it?
I can make a LOOOONG list of what the "fabric" of this nation is, that list does NOT include guns. The second amendment is CONSTANTLY misinterpreted by those that worship at that altar.
What is laughable is the thought that changes in laws that allow over 40% of the gun sales in this nation to go unregulated wouldn't help. THAT is laughable. The way to fix problems is to not change anthing, that is an incredible solution that kills thousands of innocent Americans every single year. Maybe the answer is as the gun nuts proclaim, just arm everone!! Thats a solution, a "laughable" one.

pharm- So, what is your point?...I'm honestly asking.

"High school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi
Another case, from 1997, in which the shooting was apparently already over: After killing two and wounding seven inside Pearl High School, the 16-year-old perpetrator left the building and went outside near the parking lot. The assistant principal—who was also a member of the Army Reserve—ran out to his own vehicle, grabbed a handgun he kept there, and then approached the shooter, subduing him at gunpoint until authorities arrived."
Posted by concernedwi at 2:51 today.

"Measures such as banning assault weapons, restricting gun show and Internet sales, limiting magazine size and ammunition purchases, and requiring more reliable background checks are fully consistent with the Second Amendment..." -from article

NO, they are not consistent with the 2nd Amendment and NO they are not going to happen, Mikey. You lefties might as well wake right on up from that wet dream right now.

I thought it was a vast overstatement when I heard someone say that liberalism was a mental illness and I rather discounted it.
I'm really beginning the see the truth of it in these posts.
Some people just seem to not have the ability to think....AT ALL.......It is really shocking.

Look at the link from raystone......And he had to go get it from HIS CAR.

In Pearl, Mississippi, assistant principal Joel Myrick stopped triple murderer Luke Woodham using a handgun retrieved from his car.
http://archive.boulderweekly.com/042607/...

There are 2.1 to 2.5 million civilian defensive gun uses in the U.S. each year.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGe...

I agree with n00b: the average person has NO IDEA what in a situation like this would be. Just look at the many different reactions you had in this situation. The secretary (the lady who was on 60 minutes) hid under a desk,then moved to the supply closet, and was so terrified she did not come out of the closet till HOURS after it was all over. Others (the principal) ran to help, others ran from the building. One can never say how they will react. Anyone can SAY "I'd run to help, or run out and shoot the guy". The REALITY is that you have no idea how you'd react, unless you have truly been in a combat type situation like that in the past.
.
To say arming any of these people would have prevented it, is so beyond speculation. You don't know how people would react, and like n00b said, these things happen so fast, and human instincts become so sparatic, that one could NEVER predict what the out come would be (and I am one who loves to predict out comes). A couple of the teachers who did try and stop this, are woman that should be held up in THEE highest honor. The woman (Vicky Soto) who hid kids in the closet, and told the gunmen most her kids were in gym, and put herself in front of the kids pleading him not to shoot, and in doing so lost her life, but saved those of many others. In some cultures (like Japan) this woman would be held in the absolute highest honor of warrior strength that society recognizes. To do what she and some of the others did, really should be recognized by us as true heroism. To speculate if they had a gun would it have prevented the whole thing, is just a moot discussion. The reality is they saved many kids lives, and what they did in giving their life should be honored in the absolute highest of regard of strength, character, and courage.

ANY comparison to our situation, and to that of what another country has done is so moot, it's not even worthy of discussion. As noted before, the USA is a total GUN CULTURE. What other counties have done has ZERO reflection on what would work here. We live in a society where personal gun ownership is deeply part of the fabric of who many of us are. The USA all ready has approx 300 million guns in circulation. That is nearly one per every single citizen. That number is so far beyond other countries, that saying "it worked in country X, so it would consequently work in America" is nothing short of laughable.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/1...

More people are killed in Chicago every month than were killed in the school. How come this tradgedy is not addressed by the prez as this is his home town? Both are unacceptable. How would laws keep the guns out of criminal and mentally unstable persons hands? It appears this mother was seeking to have her son put in a mental health facility. Did not sit well with this shooter.

So at the time liberals want to have a national debate over gun control, firearms that the ATF purposely let get into the hands of drug cartels are still being recovered at murder crime scenes. 40,000 Mexicans dead in the past few years, who's to blame?

"The “Fast and Furious” operation was launched in 2009 to catch trafficking kingpins, but agents lost track of about 1,400 of the more than 2,000 weapons involved."

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/1...

The bullets used at Newtown, observed Connecticut’s chief medical examiner, “are designed in such a fashion the energy is deposited in the tissue so the bullet stays in” producing a “very devastating set of injuries.”

a statement that does not tell the entire story. 5.56 bullets in the 55 grain range are designed to work under high velocity with a specific rate of twist to a barrels rifling to create a projectile that is marginaly stable in flight but becomes unstable on impact. This is because military ammunition is restricted by the Hauge convention to be full metal jacketed only. The ammount of damage caused by a .223/5.56 is no greater than a .30 caliber hunting rifle with hunting ammunition (soft of hollow point). At ranges of under 50 yards, the most devastating cartridge is a 12 gauge shotgun firing 00 buck. Since each shotgun round fires 9 .32 caliber balls for each pull of the trigger the case can be made that a pump shotgun holding five shells (45 .32 cal projectiles) can put out a volume of fire greater than a semi auto rifle with a 30 round magazine.

And Truth, I asked you a few questions about your level of training compared to n00b. I don't think you missed them, I think you're avoiding answering them because you have none.

Truth, I posted a lot of facts. So 1 school is a fair evaluation of effectiveness? Really? In what scientific study ever has 1 been a good test group? You are posting feelings, not facts. Feelings like, "99% chance" that's your feeling, not a fact.

concernedwi- "feelings" do not override facts.....And there is at least one public school in texas that is doing quite well with armed staff.

"The selected quotes from the previously cited Time article would suggest support for replacing our volunteer armed forces with a conscripted militia"
-
The fringe spin machine is at it again, unable to debate so deflect and twist.

From the same Time article cited previously by another poster:

"Unlike some other heavily armed nations, Switzerland’s gun ownership is deeply rooted in a sense of patriotic duty and national identity. Weapons are kept at home because of the long-held belief that enemies could invade tiny Switzerland quickly, so every soldier had to be able to fight his way to his regiment’s assembly point."

[ http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swi... ]

The selected quotes from the previously cited Time article would suggest support for replacing our volunteer armed forces with a conscripted militia of adult males as found in Switzerland. It would surely mean significant cuts in our military budget, which are sorely needed, an end to us sticking our noses into every country's affairs, along with many fewer career military personnel to support on the public dole.

"The [SWISS] law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned. Semi automatics, which have caused havoc in the U.S., can be legally purchased."

"One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons – and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality – is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson."

"Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of Criminology and Public Policy of the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings."

"If people have a responsible, disciplined, and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME."

"That sense of social and civic responsibility is one of the reasons the Swiss have never allowed their guns to come under fire."

http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swi...

Truth1, how much experience do you have taking someones life? How much training do you have in shoot don't shoot scenarios? How many hours of live fire exercises have you been apart of? How many times has your life been in jeopardy because of someone with a gun pointed at you? Instead of arguing with n00b, listen to someone with training and experience. He isn't basing his comments on what he assumes could happen. He is basing it on his life experience and training. It's a complete sign of disrespect for everything he has done for this country to say that you know better than he does.

As for arming teachers, they do not have the training or mentality it takes to take down an active shooter, they are nurturers. Police officers are different and spend hours training for the possibility. Now lets take into account that in 2010 there were 98,817 public schools in the US (National Center for Education Stats). Since 1980 297 people have been killed in school shootings (slate.com). What is my point? Well I am pro gun, I own several myself. However, because I have a child they are locked up. Children are curious and interested in guns but they don't understand the danger. They see movies and TV shows and they want to play with them. According to The Survivors Club, in 2008 there were 680 accidental gun deaths and more than 15,500 injuries in the US. The possible threat of a active shooter in a school is way less than that of an accidental discharge. To keep the kids safe in a classroom, the gun would have to be locked away, which would render it useless in a school shooting situation. This doesn't even take into account the fact that most if not all schools have students with behavior disorders that would increase the danger of having a firearm in the classroom. Arming our teachers would create more bad than good in the form of accidents.

raystone, here's a little more history on laws restricting and banning guns (with no resulting mass exterminations) and a correction to your comments about Switzerland.

1934: The National Firearms Act of 1934 is signed into law.

1938: The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 is signed into law.

1968: The Gun Control Act of 1968 is signed into law.

1990: The Crime Control Act of 1990 is signed into law.

1994: The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is signed into law.

1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 is signed into law.

No mass exterminations yet. Not even of those classes of persons which some of the above laws permanently ban from owning guns.

As to your comment that, "SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!" This is not accurate. Switzerland's main defense force is a militia of adult males that are conscripted (only 5% of their defense force are professional soldiers). Adult males that join the militia undergo military training and as part of their training they are issued a gun which is kept at their home as a member of the militia. Switzerland does not issue every household a gun.

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Ezoner said of the United States Supreme Court ruling, "But that interpretation is incorrect."

It's the only interpretation that counts.

"There are NO limits stated and therefore none were intended or they would have included them."
-
The Constitution does not specify any limits to the first amendment either, Ezoner, so please explain why there limits concerning freedom of speech?

Panama Red: This is Ezoners comment that I referred to, (quote) "Lets face the real truth -- the left wants to completely disarm the public, then when they have implemented their policies and have created a permanent underclass, they can control them. That is the agenda."(end quote)
And this is your response that I reacted to (quote)" Ezoner, you sound like a scared, highly emotional person given to spells of paranoia."(end quote)
Your response at 11:46 misses the point, perhaps as a diversion.
An analogy for me is in the mid seventies when I pointed out that the goal of the left leaning liberals was socialism I was labled a nut and an "emotional person given to spells of paranoia". Today the liberal left proudly calls themselves socialist.

Sorry Panama -- The arms are so I am NOT a victim. I am prepared. Its not paranoia -- its is preparedness and taking responsibility.

Poo -- I had meant to also say rulings and had forgotten to type that. But that interpretation is incorrect. There are NO limits stated and therefore none were intended or they would have included them.

Ezoner said, "We all have teh right to own a gun. I believe -- regardless of reports, tabels, charts, graphs etc... that the right is limitless."

It's quite telling that you only mention "reports, tabels, charts, graphs etc." and not United States Supreme Court rulings, particularly after you have been provided with a Supreme Court ruling that clearly states the right to bear arms is not limitless.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." United States Supreme Court ruling in D.C. v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the Court [ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07p... ]

truth1 said, "It goes over and over in my head how possibly none of those kids would have been shot if there had been a gun in a drawer and instead of running at, those women could have gotten the gun and walked up behind and shot him."

I see that, after an opportunity for reflection, you've changed the probability of that happening from "99%" yesterday to "possibly" today. Good move. Next step is to rationalize your thinking with the data that show that an armed person is over 4 times as likely to be shot and killed as an unarmed person in an assault. Maybe let those numbers go over and over in your head. There's nothing wrong with taking small steps to reach a rational conclusion; but thinking out loud on the way there often results in haphazard statements.

"Your defense confirms Ezoners comment."
-
You mean the fact Ezoner, and the “gun rights at all costs advocates” feel like they are all victims, Third_Eye? What a sorry bunch. If an individual is insecure and suffers from low self esteem, then I suppose it helps to have guns “at the ready” to ward off all the evil doers out there in the world. The feeling of being “totally at the mercy” of others must be an indication of how little self worth they possess. I sure don’t need “reports, tablels (sic), charts, graphs” to realize how silly it is to think that carrying a loaded weapon somehow makes me responsible or better prepared. If someone believes NOT having a gun at the ready is irresponsible, then they are the one who is confused.

It goes over and over in my head how possibly none of those kids would have been shot if there had been a gun in a drawer and instead of running at, those women could have gotten the gun and walked up behind and shot him.

n00b-I'm not advocating arming everyone in the school nor the direct confontation of a shooter, but what if it had taken much longer for police to show up? .....He could have killed dozens more.......One person with access to a gun could have the possibility to back-shoot the killer and immediately stop the killing....much better than trying to run up behind them and they see/hear you before you get there and shoot you.
It doesn't take much forethought to know people don't have eyes in the back of their head and to peer around a doorway for the opportunity of a backshot.
That is where having one gun presents a great opportunity vs. no opportunity at all.

n00b- Only an incompetent, totally reasonless person would try to "talk down" a person who blasted thier way into a building with people in it...There is simply no help for people who lack sense to that degree and I would hope there is no one that empty-headed in our schools.

Truth1,
Not to try and detract from the brave acts of these two administration officials as anything but selfless and heroic I fail to see how their “running towards” the shooter has anything to do with my comments about regular people being able to see through the fog of battle and make an appropriate decision as to how best mitigate the situation.
I am sure the administrators were engaging the situation in a manner typical of a normal school disturbance where students were fighting or an adult having an altercation with a teacher or staff member and the typical reaction would be to rush in and take control of the situation and exert your authority and instill order because that is what you do when you are the authority figure at that school and that would be your instinctive reaction any aggressor in your building.
Most situations involving confrontation are not life threating and worst case there could be a physical confrontation and someone would end up with a fat lip or black eye or broken ribs and in these instances a number of bodies rushing the aggressor and physically subduing them is how these things are handled.
However an aggressor armed with deadly weapons and actively dispensing rounds is not what the majority of people would be prepared to think through and in the fog of war you fall back to instinctive reaction.
In this case the administrative officials were indeed heroic and selfless in their actions but rushing the perpetrator did nothing to subdue him or save anyone, possibly if one of them had been armed they could have dispensed lethal force and saved lives but in reality they would have most likely have handled the situation first trying to talk him down or reason with him before applying deadly force.
I do agree many bad things have been averted by persons carrying concealed weapons but more often than not the defending shooter has been an off duty officer or someone who has had some training in emergency situations not your typical person off the street. I am sure with nearly 90 shooting each day in the US there are many cases where a normal guy/gal has saved innocents by returning fire I will not argue that but I will argue that by simply arming school staff we are going to prevent future instances of this type. Your normal person would not be ready to shoot first and ask questions later and that would be the appropriate action in these situations.

raystone- Please don't create a crisis with facts, their minds are already made up.

This is what works...In Israel, four years ago, when a Muslim terrorist armed with an Ak-47 entered the Mercaz HaRav religious school and began murdering students, he was shot by Yitzhak Dadon, a part-time student. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,...

We all have teh right to own a gun. I believe -- regardless of reports, tabels, charts, graphs etc... that the right is limitless.

That being said -- we SHOULD train school administrators, we SHOULD arm them as well. The training should be extended well beyond targets at a range and should include simulated emergency situations.

Panama -- As for me being being Paranoid.... No -- I am prepared. There is a very distinct difference. Its being responsible vs irresponsible. Its an expectation that I will need to independently protect my self and possibly others, or being totally at the mercy of others.

With the far lefts entitlement mentality -- its easy to see how they can be confused...They want to control and tell others what they cannot do --

PanamaRed Dec 18, 2012 at 3:35 p.m.
Your defense confirms Ezoners comment.

Perhaps the overriding issue is why did this mother who was financially "rich" not pursue extensive psych help for him?..she certainly could have afforded anything that was necessary...Instead, it appears she isolated him and provided impetus for his use of guns...And why did he shoot her in the head four times? ...FOUR...What was he so angry about?
See "Munchhausen Syndrome"
Her supporters outright lied when they said she would have pursued any psych help necessary..it certainly appears she did nothing of the sort.
These are my speculations.

"The loud and obnoxious the comments from the gun nuts only strenghten the resolve of reasonable people who will insist on tougher gun laws."
.
I hardly consider myself on the far right, but as I noted the 'feel good' left will actually put WAY WAY more assault type riffles into circulation. That is an absolute FACT. You can look at retail sites all over the country right now. AR15 are sold out EVERYWHERE. You are talking THOUSANDS of applications have all ready been put in to get the permit, waiting period and all that jazz. The mere suggestion of banning them has made the sales explode. You can call the people buying them up, deranged, paranoids, or whatever, but the reality is there are being gobbled up faster then Christmas fruit cakes right now. If any serious legislation is put forward, you will see an unholy wave of gun buying. Once the ban is implemented you will have this HUGE black market of weapon sales, which of course all ready exists now for criminals, it will just be that much bigger. So the true reality is that gun legislation will actually do the exact OPPOSITE of it's intent, and put many MORE assault riffles into society. I won't be one crying if they pass the liberals bill. I don't think the guns are needed in society myself, but I know how the real world works, and that a congressional bill will be as big of a joke as the last assault riffle ban was (under Clinton). It will accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Two very differing thoughts from others on this topic.

Founding Father - "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington First President of the United States"

Pro Gun Control - "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed." Sara Brady Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3."

"only strenghten the resolve of reasonable people who will insist on tougher gun laws"
-
Yet so far there are very FEW reasonable people offering a sensible solution to correct the root cause. The majority are only looking to remove something from all citizens that these maladjusted people might use when they want to cause mayhem.

lovemycountry, perhaps you should call 911 and tell them you want your assault rifle to assault someone or something but regardless how much you scream at it you can't figure out how to make it work. I'm sure the police will take an immediate interest in working with you.

You know, funny thing my "assault rifle" won't assault. I keep yelling at it to assault but it just sits there, lifeless, not doing anything. The harder I scream at it to do its job, the more it just sits there. Must
be broke. Is there a plug in I need? Does it require something to work? I don't know, it must be broke........

poobah- Do you have to continue being utterly pointless?

Speaking of pontificating, truth1, you still have not cited a source for your claim that, "If both those women would have had guns and were able to use them reasonably well, there is about a 99% chance that no one but the shooter would have died."

Others have provided citations to various resources (studies, Supreme Court rulings, etc.) that support the comments they have made. You have offered nothing but dogmatic pronouncements, declarations and denouncements which, judging from your inability to cite supporting resources, are based on nothing more than conjecture.

Liberals: Parrot, Plagiarize, and Pontificate.
I am not usually a partisan person but that seems to be the situation.

...and talk about "John Wayne types"....those women RAN AT the shooter.....And then there is the possibility of shooting them in the back which is not "cowardly" in situations like this...That opportunity could easily be presented in shootings like that.

n00b- That is all fine but you are apparently discounting the innumerable occasions where armed citizens have indeed kept their faculties about them and neutralized criminals.
Therefore I deem your post fatally flawed.

Today's twenty year olds are punk-n-pusses. I was twenty in 1975 and we did not go into schools or theaters and shoot people.

n00b:
You are right on. Even having a security guard would do little good. Most 'mall cop' type security guards would be totally unprepared, and shot dead in the blink of an eye. Unless you have real military experience, and combat training, your not going to be some six gun shooting hero in something like this. The real problem starts LONG before these things take place. There are COUNTLESS ticking time bomb individuals out in our society today. The only real way to prevent tragedy's like this is to find these time bombs before they go off.

Is anyone going to mention the OBVIOUS (to me anyway) in the Mother here? She has a child with known mental problems. Pulls the kid from high school to avoid the screening, so to not have to go through all the psychiatric evaluation that would follow. Start to home school the kid, and takes her known mentally unstable child to target practice, as a means of 'bonding'. All the while arming the house to the tooth. Can someone please explain to me how this is normal, and or good parenting?

First let me state I am a lifelong weapon owner of over a dozen rifles and pistols of various types, I do not own any “assault weapons” But I own and regularly shoot a few hundred rounds a year from my various weapons. The following comments are not made with any pride but from the voice of unfortunate experience dictated by circumstances of the time.
I am also among a small group of people who in my course of military service have taken lives of adversaries in a face to face confrontation on a number of occasions. Not your typical shoot a burst or 3 down the street or into the house across the street but in actual face to face confrontation where you are staring into the eyes of your opponent. That being said I am always amazed at the rhetoric of many who think the problem in this school would have been averted or somehow made less costly in human life by arming teachers, janitors, principals or some other civilian.
These situations evolve over a very short period of time and the average Jane or Joe on the street would be so terrified at the sights and sounds before them that the likelihood of them being an effective alternative force is very slim.
Military training is meant to remove all of that overhead thought and trains you to act using instinct and survivalist mentality. That takes the military weeks and months of training and constant pressure from trainers to teach you to deal the pressure and brutality of what you are being required to do.
Sending someone through a 3 hour or 3 day training course in firearms safety is in no way going to prepare a normal person for the reality of sighting center mass and squeezing that round off.
Yes I know we are filled with wanta be John Wayne types who just know they would be brave and do it without batting an eye but trust me it is not that simple. I do wish there had been one of these brave souls there to end this quickly but I am afraid this is only a fantasy lived out by armchair quarterbacks not people who have actually had to live through a live fire free for all. I have watched fully trained commandos wither and freeze when presented by a small woman holding a automatic weapon firing at the man next to him because they did not have the instinct drilled deep enough and they “thought’ instead of acting and it cost their best buddy his left leg or his eyesight or worse his life.
Arming everyday civilians is not the answer to this problem, I have no trouble with concealed carry but thinking this is the answer is just foolish and simply adds a false sense of security to an already bad situation.

I don't think the left has really ever got this issue. The mere TALK of a ban has made AR15 sales EXPLODE the past 3 days. Check out any on-line, Gander Mountain type site. They literally all sold out when Obama opened his mouth about gun control. There mere TALK of a ban is seriously going to put more of these into circulation then ever. Once congress finally does ban them... And we all know it takes MONTHS, if not years, for congress to pass, and implement ANYTHING today. By then, every nut job out there will have their hands on one. While every profiteer will have a stock pile of them, to sell on the black market. That is the REALITY of the situation.

janesvillean- That is also heartless complete garbage.....Musing about a "movie" in the face of that tragedy...Shame on you.

"Lets face the real truth -- the left wants to completely disarm the public, then when they have implemented their policies and have created a permanent underclass, they can control them. That is the agenda."
-
Ezoner, you sound like a scared, highly emotional person given to spells of paranoia. The only agenda that the "left" and other reasonable U.S. citizens want includes intelligent gun control. That means, guns manufactured to slaughter people shouldn't be sold to just anyone, if at all. I shouldn't have to wonder every time I go out in public that a fearful, highly emotional person like yourself perceives there is danger where none exists and decides they need a gun to fix things. Believing that you can reduce gun violence by continuing to put more guns on the streets is absurd. Take a deep breath - your security blanket is secure.

janesvillean- REALLY???...The uncertain chance that one would get hit by a bullet vs. the certain death of 26 or more people...Are you SERIOUS???

Some people, if they were to be an able-bodied survivor of a multi-car pileup, would evidently want to read "studies" about car wrecks and tie themselves in knots of pontification instead of pulling people out of burning cars.
Amazing, simply amazing.

There would be something really awesome if you were a kindergartner killed in the crossfire between a teacher and a gunman.
.
Oh, you'd still be dead. But it would have been really awesome! Michael Bay should direct the movie!

Ezoner- Yes, that must be about all there is to it...Others seem to never want to address the REAL issues, actualities and solutions, they just sidestep and dance, cite this "study" and that one..They absolutely refuse to actually THINK in order to come to a conclusion...The conclusion that if those two women had guns, 20 children and 6 adults would most likely still be alive.
Some people just REFUSE to look at the REAL world.

Truth is, the person with the gun was the coward while the two women who attempted to disarm him were hero's.

Another headline "Armed Janitor Drops Mop for 9mm to stop Intruder".

Lets face the real truth -- the left wants to completely disarm the public, then when they have implemented their policies and have created a permanent underclass, they can control them. That is the agenda. They will spout altruistic means etc... but the real purpose is power and control over their subjects. Whichs EXACTLY why the constitution and the right to bear arms was written. It does not provide limits and provides for protection against -- ultimately our own government -- to ensure our freedom as a people.

The fact that the these weapons are also available to protect us against people that willingful cause harm to our property and persons was not the original intent, but ceratin is a positive by-product. Again -- where in the constitution am I limited ?? I am not. I will gladly take up that case with the courts, especially should someone break into my house and I must protect myself and certainly my family from harm. As others have stated, concealed carry by the school officials, very likely would have -- at a minimum minimized the damage caused, and may have been a deterrent. You would certainly be crazy -- to walk into an armed school and attack. The chance of you having much -- if any success as this individual did would be extremely reduced.

The title very well could have been "Heroic Principle Shoots Intruder Dead Before any Children were Harmed".

truth1 said, "Did those two women not "selflessly undertake" when they ran at the shooter trying to stop him WITHOUT a gun that your "study" says police are supposed to have?"

Yes, if, in fact, two women ran at the shooter trying to stop him without a gun in an attempt to protect their students, they were acting in a selfless manner. And what, exactly, is the relevancy of that to the issue we're discussing?

In response to the part of your comment where you said, 'WITHOUT a gun that your "study" says police are supposed to have,' I did not find any place in the study I cited that said police are supposed to have guns. If that isn't something you just pulled out of thin air like you did your 99% statistic, please provide the quote.

Firearms training is the answer to unintended shootings, that absolutely CANNOT be emphasized enough.

Again, if someone breaks into your house, you can confront them with a "study", I'm going to confront them with a semi-automatic gun with lots of ammunition.

greatplain- I'm discussing a particular situation in a particular school where two unarmed women RAN AT someone with a gun and didn't have one themselves...They, 4 other adults, and 20 children paid for that.

truth1: A person is more apt to shoot their spouse on purpose in the study or accidentally hurt a family member than have someone break in.

This is a good piece.

The title of this article is so ironic. Those women who confronted the shooter certainly were "helpless"(as per the title) without a gun. 20 children and 6 adults paid the price for that.

poobah- Did those two women not "selflessly undertake" when they ran at the shooter trying to stop him WITHOUT a gun that your "study" says police are supposed to have?
You are tying yourself in knots with your own words and semantics.

truth1 said, "You also haven't answered as to why police carry guns if it is more dangerous to have one."

truth1, it's amazing you would ask me a question whose answer validates the study you dismiss. Many armed police officers are shot and killed in the line of duty. They understand the conclusions of the study I cited and the risks associated with being armed in a confrontation with another armed person. It is a risk they understand and selflessly accept to undertake. Why you can't understand the increased risk that police officers understand, I can't answer.

If someone breaks into my home, I'll confront them with a semi-automatic gun, you can confront them with a "study" if someone breaks into yours.

You also haven't answered as to why police carry guns if it is more dangerous to have one.

truth1, I'm sure you have vetted the study from which you got the 99% figure to make sure it wasn't one of those studies that tries to fool the simple-minded. Link please?

poobah- Again, too many "studies" are intended to fool the simple-minded......Two armed people in intimate, everyday familiarity with their surroundings/the building, against one who hadn't been there for years...The odds are overwhelmingly against the intruder...Don't need "studies" to see those odds.
This is the REAL world.

I really do hate to say this but "studies" like that are intended to fool the simple-minded.

truth1 said, "That "study" you cite is of no relevance whatsoever...It was confined to Philadelphia where big-city concentrated crime is the overriding factor."

You apparently didn't read the study itself which I provided a link for. Pay attention to the commentary on adjustments for confounding factors.

And by the way, would you please cite the study in which you based your comment that, "If both those women would have had guns and were able to use them reasonably well, there is about a 99% chance that no one but the shooter would have died." I would like reading how the 99% determination was reached.

The real world reality is that if those two women would have confronted the shooter with guns(they may have even been presented with the opportunity to shoot him in the back)there is a 99% chance no one but him would have died.

Ezoner said, "You can spout any case you want. Its all just an opinion and when you read the constitution -- if you read it, there was no limitation, period."

I quoted the opinion of the United States Supreme Court. You can scoff at the opinions of the Court, but should you choose to ignore their opinions and instead act based on your interpretation of the Second Amendment you do so at great risk to your personal freedom and liberty.

That "study" you cite is of no relevance whatsoever...It was confined to Philadelphia where big-city concentrated crime is the overriding factor...You cannot have gang members and their "protection guns" as part of a "study" that is supposed to apply to the country as a whole.
Simply garbage.

westorbust....his mother is the culprit here, IMO. Who in their right mind would have guns around the house accessible to a family member who was not mentally all there? Everyone said he wasn't a normal kid. Surely she knew he had some mental issues. She sounds as wacky as he was. If your spouse was an alcoholic would you have booze in the house? If your daughter was trying to lose weight would you have dishes of candy everywhere?

poobah- Then why do police carry guns?

truth1 said, "Two women RAN AT the shooter in an effort to stop him when they were immediately shot and killed..If both those women would have had guns and were able to use them reasonably well, there is about a 99% chance that no one but the shooter would have died."

Simply not true.

"People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found. [...] Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher." [ http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17... ]

Here's the study that the New Scientist article cited. [ http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf... ]

Poo - You can spout any case you want. Its all just an opinion and when you read the constitution -- if you read it, there was no limitation, period. If I wanted an automatic weapon -- or a bazooka, according to the wording in the constitution as originally written, I have that right. The constitution was written as well to protect ourselves -- citizens from a government that may oppose citizens. It was written so that the people have the power, not the government and certainly not the central government. It envisioned states rights and individual rights. Not the federal government. Do not fool yourself, removing this fundamental right, strips all Amaeicans of their right to protect themselves from others.

Ezoner said, "The fundamental right to bear arms is limitless. It does not say that I can only own a gun of this type nor that type."

Not according to several court opinions including the following majority opinion written by conservative (and staunch arms rights proponent) Justice Scalia in D.C v. Heller.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [...] For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [...] Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [...] It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right." [ http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07p... ]

Two women RAN AT the shooter in an effort to stop him when they were immediately shot and killed..If both those women would have had guns and were able to use them reasonably well, there is about a 99% chance that no one but the shooter would have died.
Ignorant people can use "gun control" semantics all day long to twist and spin but those are the FACTS...This is the REAL world, not some impossible fantasy.

Well Degryse, better to be thought of having a small heart than proving you have a small brain. What does the Civil War have to do with gun laws in 2012? Nothing!
-
The constitution makes no such claim that the right to bear arms is limitless. For example, the right of free speech is not limitless.

Really Retiredairforce? The Washington Examiner? Why don't you just post links to the various conservative think tanks, or better yet, the failed Republican platform for your sources. I would think that gun enthusiasts would be thrilled with lax firearms laws. Gun manufacturers love these political firestorms that happen after tragic events like this because their sales go through the roof, fanned by the NRA's near constant barrage of false information scaring all their supporters that Obama and the Dems are going to take their guns away. Walking through the Walmart last night I saw that every single assault type weapon was now gone from their little rotating display cases.
There isn't any law that was broken that would have prevented this maniac from doing what he did. The guns were purchased legally by his mother. His mother was an avid firearms enthusiast, and took her sons to the range to learn how to use them. These are two things that any responsible gun owner would praise. Lanza attempted to purchase is own rifle, and because of the waiting period, didn't, but he had access to other firearms. The waiting period worked. If someone is determined enough to cause mayhem and murder, there is nothing that will stop them, besides their own minds.

There are clear limits to Constitutional rights, and that includes the 2nd amendment, much to the libertarian's chagrin. What's even more sad is the attitude that what happened the other day, to many people, is just an unfortunate consequence to the 2nd amendment. Had the shooter been of Middle Eastern descent, you'd have 24-7 coverage by conservatives, Faux News (and your W. Examiner) of terrorists and terrorist cells and a near constant battering ram of political diatribes blaming everyone but themselves.

An enforced death penalty is needed, one that takes only a week to determine, not years of free room and board.

The fundamental right to bear arms is limitless. It does not say that I can only own a gun of this type nor that type. It does not restrict the type of weapon, nor should it. It is a fundamental right in the constitution of the US. It is not in conflict with the other fundamental constitution rights, it is in support of the constitution.

We cannot solve these tradgedies by removing the right to bear arms. We solve these tradgedies, by removing the chemical remedies we use to treat people and identification of those that have a propensity to exact violent acts.

"Despite his calls for greater gun control, including a new assault weapons ban that extends to handguns, President Obama's administration has turned away from enforcing gun laws, cutting weapons prosecutions some 40 percent since a high of about 11,000 under former President Bush.

"If you are not going to enforce the laws on the books, then don't start talking about a whole new wave of new laws," said a gun rights advocate."

http://washingtonexaminer.com/gun-prosec...

"Here, the status quo is currently so unbalanced that proposed adjustments don’t even come close to crossing constitutional lines. Measures such as banning assault weapons, restricting gun show and Internet sales, limiting magazine size and ammunition purchases, and requiring more reliable background checks are fully consistent with the Second Amendment, which is not the right to keep a military arsenal."

Thank you.