Archive for Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Letter: Near insanity

December 18, 2012


To the editor:

The headline in the Dec. 15 Journal-World concerning the killings in Newton, Conn., was ironically telling: “Little anyone can do.” Certainly, nothing more could have been done that day at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but much can be done to distinguish such violence.

Intelligent and protective gun control legislation must be enacted to begin the process of societal change. America can no longer be the wild, wild west. We must join the civilized world and severely restrict gun ownership. If we can change attitudes about drunken driving and smoking in public places we can make responsible decisions about the proliferation of machines designed for the sole purpose of killing people. We have reached a stage of near insanity with our tolerance of easy access to absurd, senseless, and obscene weaponry.


Mike Gerhardt 5 years, 3 months ago

Mr. Parr, I seriously doubt you even own firearms.

pinecreek 5 years, 3 months ago

What the heck does the writer owning firearms have to do with it? Would that make him more qualified to contribue observations regarding mental health and high-capacity weapons? Don't think so.

Liberty275 5 years, 3 months ago

That would be OK, except they care less about the dead humans and more about their leftist desire to circumvent the constitution and make gun ownership illegal or at least make them look less scary.

repaste 5 years, 3 months ago

I own and use guns, some of them older than you. I also don't think military weapons should be owned by the general population. Automatic weapons make mass murder easy.

hipper_than_hip 5 years, 3 months ago

When is the last time an automatic weapon was used in the US to commit mass murder?

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

Didn't we use Gatling guns on native Americans? There's my guess.

Alyosha 5 years, 3 months ago

Leftist desire — you mean like the leftist desire that created the Constitution in the first place?

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

Lefrist desire... created the constitution.

Tell me what you know about 2/3rds of a man.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Parr if that is how you feel about guns and the 2nd amendment then just amend it otherwise guns are legal.

voevoda 5 years, 3 months ago

Nobody is talking about making guns illegal, fred_mertz. The author of the letter is calling on us, as a country, to be sure to observe the "well regulated militia" and the "security of a free state" provisions of the Second Amendment. Those are core features of the Second Amendment, fred_mertz, as legal as the rest. They need to be enforced. When unbalanced and violent persons can get access to weapons of mass destruction and cause such carnage, then they are certainly not part of a *well-regulated militia" and the "security of a free state" is certainly in jeopardy.

Lisa Medsker 5 years, 3 months ago

You know, you MIGHT make someone's head explode with all that "sense-makey" stuff...

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 2 months ago

The 2nd Amendment is not about the state's right, but the people's right to defend themselves from a tyrannical state militia (if need be). Take away the state's automatic rifles, then maybe I'll consider giving up my semi-automatic rifle...

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Maybe celebrities and other high profile people should help change society by setting an example and no longer employing armed body guards. I mean if I don't need a gun to be safe then they don't either.

beatrice 5 years, 3 months ago

Since when do you live your life based on the examples set by celebrities?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

b, I don't but many do and it would set a good example for someone to walk the talk.

beatrice 5 years, 3 months ago

Well, since I don't know which celebrities have armed body guards and which do not, I don't see it mattering one way or the other.

I live my life without a gun to be safe. It has worked out well so far. However, I don't mind that those who are intended to protect us, like the police and the military, do carry. I don't see that as being hypocritical.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 2 months ago

It's not being's being an un-American sheeple. Protect me nanny state! Please...

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

So you are your own military ... got it.

please, indeed.

Water 5 years, 3 months ago

Some years ago the Center for Disease Control (CDC) included deaths by firearms in their mortality statistics. The NRA was offended and thru "do process of law" bullied the Government and CDC to stop including those statistics. I always wished they could have included those people maimed by firearms. It skews the suicide statistics too. Where can we find the total number people killed by firearms each year to even have a discussion on gun control? Anyone know?

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 2 months ago

The total number of people that I personally know of that were killed by self inflicted shotgun wounds over the decades is four or five, and one more if you count my father's first cousin. Does that help?

My friend that shot himself in the chest lived because he used a target bullet, and not a hollow point. So, he became the only person I ever heard of who took a bullet right through his chest and lived.

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 2 months ago

I had to be vague about the exact number and say "four or five," because I never met one of them.

Water 5 years, 2 months ago

Experiencing someone elses' suicide is awkward and difficult. The closer you are to them the harder it is to handle. i.e. Their poor mental health led to their death and that drags down your mental health. I too have known four people who committed suicide. One by asphyxiation with car exhaust, two by hanging and one by slitting her wrists and taking an overdose of drugs. All were between 9 and 15 years old. I believe those who are so mentally ill they are contemplating suicide, are too tired to put forth much effort. They take the path of least resistance to death. If they live with a firearm, their mind draws a straight line to it and they use it. Wouldn't it be nice to see if gun owners are linked to injury or deaths more often than non-gun owners. Or perhaps other relational statistics. Then maybe it would be easier to get health insurance companies to pay for mental health care. Or maybe, legislation to require a mental health screening prior to ownership of a firearm with regular screenings. Statistics would help guide and back our decisions.

MattressMan 5 years, 3 months ago

I think we should ban people, afterall without people to pick up that inanimate object (gun) it would be perfectly safe.

dinoman 5 years, 3 months ago

Well I too neither support nor am I against guns...I do believe in the right to bear arms... but when a right violates anothers rights it is against the law....My old school teacher used to say that I have every right to swing my arm in a crowd but and only but if I hit another then I loose that right..because now I have commited a crime. I guess what im saying is making more laws isnt going to help because the laws we have are not being enforced. Even so if they were enforced would they have stopped this crime.. duno..Yes the incedent was unfortunate... Yes this crime should not have happened. Yes maybe better gun control would have stopped it... but look at the other side.. was he legal to carry a gun ..duno what did his family do to stop it if they new about it... Unfortunatly we live in a society that is bounding out of control and I for one am sure that no single person has all the right ideas to solve this issue...At what point in time do we quit playing the blame game and just say he was a bad apple, he was the one that walked into the school,,, he was the one that pulled the trigger... only he and only he should be responsible for his actions. And I for one am glad in certain respects that he killed himself.

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 5 years, 3 months ago

The Bushmaster rifle used in this horrific crime was NOT fully automatic. A true assault weapon is. The media wrongly say a semi automatic firearm is an assault weapon. I think this crime was beyond terrible, I pray for the victims families. The mother he killed, should have had all of her weapons locked up in a safe where her son could not have access to them. I could go on about "gun free" zones at schools but that would take a lot of time. In Israel they have a gun free sign in front of their schools. Next to it is a sign that says school officials are armed and will protect the children. How many school shootings have you heard of in Israel?

voevoda 5 years, 3 months ago

In Israel, teachers formerly served in the army--men and women both--and they are members of the army reserves. That is, they are part of a "well regulated militia." They are trained to carry and use firearms in ways that do not put people at needless risk. They do this in Israel because there have been acts of violence, including at schools, by people who are motivated by politics and see acts of terrorism against non-combattants as a means of advancing their agenda. The line between sanity and insanity is hardly firm and clear. I'm all in favor of medical treatment for persons who are mentally unbalanced and have a propensity to violence, but the first step towards a cure is to make sure that they don't have access to weapons of mass destruction.

tomatogrower 5 years, 3 months ago

Let's adopt Israel's gun laws. Oops, they consider gun ownership a privilege, not a right.

Cait McKnelly 5 years, 3 months ago

I don't get it. Certain other Constitutional rights are abridged in the interests of public safety. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. What makes this so different? The NRA and the choke hold they have on politicians?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

cait are you serious? Do you know how many there are pertaining to gun ownership? Do you know what a person must do to carry concealed? I don't think you do or you wouldn't suggest that the the second amendment isn't abridged.

And please, a person can yell fire in a crowded theatre if there is a fire. You just can't do things that harm or have the potential to harm people. Similarly, there are rules where you can discharge a gun. So you've got your wish, gun rights are limited.

voevoda 5 years, 3 months ago

Obviously, not limited enough, fred_mertz.

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

That doesn't really make sense.

The 1st amendment right to speech isn't limited to speech on your own property, as far as I know.

It's a pretty clear example of how our rights aren't absolute, but tempered by various other considerations.

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

Not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater isn't just because you don't own it - it's against the law if it's not true.

So, the government can make laws that restrict freedom of speech in certain cases, like inciting to riot, etc.

You're also right that private property owners can restrict that as well.

beatrice 5 years, 3 months ago

You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater even if you own the place.

parrothead8 5 years, 2 months ago

Yes. Explain why your reasoning for not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater depended on your ownership status of said theater.

MarcoPogo 5 years, 3 months ago

Wrong. The "fire" example is a safety issue, not property rights.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

Not so, Liberty_One. You don't have the right to act irresponsibly and cause grievous harm to people no matter whether it is on public property or private property. So even if the owner of the theater told you that you could say anything you want, if you yelled "fire" gratuitously and caused people to be trampled to death as a result, you'd be criminally liable.

And more examples of the proper limitation of free speech even if the property owner would allow it: You are not permitted to view child pornography, even in the privacy of your own home. You are not permitted to defame someone, even if you are on private property when you speak. You are not permitted to view a pirated video, even if you do so on private property. You are not permitted to convey government secrets, even if you are on private property when you do. You are not permitted to conspire to commit a crime, even if you do so on private property.

Private property, much as you revere it, Liberty_One, does not grant absolute rights of free speech. Nor should it grant absolute rights to gun ownership.

ScottyMac 5 years, 2 months ago

And Liberty_One once again demonstrates his ignorance of American history.

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

That's funny. We did a production of "Ghetto" in theatre while I was an undergrad. At one point of the show, some jews were lined up to be executed and the Nazi officer yelled "fire". He wasn't carted off to jail, as he used the word in a way not intended to hurt other people.

Guns can be used the same.

" The NRA and the choke hold they have on politicians?"

They pay money for constitutional lawyers to defend the second amendment and most of the right and some of the left hold the 2nd as dear as any part of the constitution. Pro-2nd amendment politicians also get campaign money from them.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 5 years, 3 months ago

A well-egulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the "second amendment to the U.S. Constitution that all the gun nuts and the NRA is using to allow any miscreant idiot to wage mahyhem on the citizens of this country..

"A well regulated militia"..... This was added to the Constitution at a time just after the American Revolution at a time when the possibility of invasion of the country by foreign nations, particularly Great Britian was a real threat. It was also a time when it was necessary to own firearms to shoot game for your very survival in a wilderness where you were trying to establish a new nation.

"A well regulated militia"...This was written at a time when assualt weapons and high tech webponry did not exist. Firearms of the time could b arely get off one shot at a time before pausing to reload your weapon.

"A well regulated militia" of a free state. How do we even begin to think we are free when maniacs, idiots, and NRA loons are loose in the land advocating for the free distribution of weapon s of mass murder that did not even exist or were to be imagined by the framers of the U.S. Constitution??

"A well regulated militia....U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force (airplanes did not even exist for several hunderd years yet) (The Coast Guard is part of the Treasury Department)

THESE are the preswent day representations of the "wel- regulated militia" envisioned by the fframers of the Constitution at the formation of our nation

NOT enablment of fools, idiots, nuts, and wackos who think they have the right to own a collection of weapons of mass destruction to make public mahem to assuage their own mentally ill conditions.

The Second AMendment says "A well-regulated militia"


Peacemaker452 5 years, 3 months ago

You are absolutely correct.

Since “well regulated” means “well practiced” we need to ensure that everyone legally qualified who desires to own and practice with the most effective firearms for defense that are available has the opportunity.

Thanks for your support.

parrothead8 5 years, 2 months ago

"Well regulated" doesn't mean "well practiced."

Those who "desire to own and practice with the most effective firearms for defense" should join our country's well regulated militia to do it.

Peacemaker452 5 years, 2 months ago

Before you make silly statements about what “well regulated” means maybe you should do a little research.

While you are at it, why don’t you do some research and then you can discover that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not connected to militia service.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Yeoman, great but the SCOTUS disagrees with you. And, can the government restrict your right to free speech if you communicate via TV, movies, Internet, telephone, etc since none of these existed when the 1st amendment was drafted? You are limited to verbal speech and the printing press right?

jafs 5 years, 3 months ago

There's got to be some common sense here.

What kind of weapons do you really need for self-defense?

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

jafs what is the problem you're trying to solve? Do you want to stop gun violence then limiting the type of gun someone can own wont do that. It will only limit what I can own.

So why limit what I can own?

beatrice 5 years, 3 months ago

Incorrect. The shooter in Tucson was stopped only when he ran out of bullets in his extended clip and tried to reload. Had he not had an extended clip, it would have possibly stopped him from shooting as many people. That is why we want to limit what you can own. (Again, how far do we take that argument about what people want. I want machine guns - why can't I have them? I want a bazooka, why can't I have one? Sorry, but you can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you get what you need.)

Liberty275 5 years, 2 months ago

Tell you what, next summer go just outside of the city limits, and they will sell you bazookas all day long. The may be cheesy and not as grand as the one you want which you can't afford anyway, but they will fire a few hundred yards and go BOOM!.

jafs 5 years, 2 months ago

I understand both sides of this one to some extent.

But, it's clear that more powerful weapons that kill more easily are more dangerous in the hands of unstable people, like this kid.

I'd like to reduce or eliminate these kinds of tragedies, and I think that a multifaceted approach is best for that. It would include some sort of gun control, increased intervention by mental health professionals, closing the loopholes in gun sales (at shows, for example), etc.

If this guy had to beat those kids to death with his bare hands, this wouldn't have happened.

And, although making things illegal doesn't mean you can't get them, it certainly makes it harder and more expensive to do so.

Finally, his mother was clearly irresponsible - she knew he had mental health issues, and left the guns around where he could easily get them. Good judgement on the part of individuals is also part of the solution, in my view.

And, my question still stands - what's reasonable for people to have for self-defense and what do they really need? Do you need a bazooka? I'm sure it varies from person to person, and place to place somewhat, of course.

voevoda 5 years, 2 months ago

Sure you can keep a nuclear weapon from killing innocent people, Liberty_One. There are two ways: 1) Don't set it off. 2) Declare everyone who would be harmed by it to be guilty.

So do you see the implications of your logic, Liberty_One? It applies to all weapons, not just nuclear weapons. Weapons aren't dangerous if they aren't used, but they are designed to be used, so "don't set it off" doesn't work as justification for permitting them. As for not killing innocent people, well, there is nothing about any weapon that keeps it from killing innocent people except the integrity of its operator. I'm sure that Adam Lanza and every mass murderer believed that the people they killed were not innocent and they somehow deserved it. According to "Stand your ground" laws, as long as the shooter "felt" threatened somehow, he is entitled to use deadly force. Most of us and all the victims would disagree with the shooter's assessment of who is innocent.

So by your own logic, Liberty_One, persons who cannot be trusted to abstain from killing innocent people ought not to be allowed to own weapons. That is a position I absolutely agree with.

tomatogrower 5 years, 3 months ago

Oooo. Those little first graders were really a threat.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago

Tomato that is reprehensible to invoke those poor innocent children just to be funny or witty or whatever it was you were trying to do. Shame.

beatrice 5 years, 3 months ago

No, it is a reaction out of repulsion about this desire to own weapons for protection and sport that were used for killing innocents. The guns were purchased for "self-protection" -- who did they protect?

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 2 months ago

I think you're misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment. It's about the right of the people to defend themselves from the state.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 2 months ago

FYI: Mentally ill citizens are not allowed to possess firearms--it's the law. "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

See page one on the following link:

Fred Whitehead Jr. 5 years, 3 months ago

"CLEARLY STATED" bad....sorry, folks. It is an incendary topic.

tolawdjk 5 years, 3 months ago

I think serious thought should be looked at going after high capacity magazines.

I don't think guns should be banned. Banning them wouldn't have stopped Sandy Hook.

I do think that in addition to locked security doors, metal detectors, buzz in proceedures, etc, schools need to seriously think about the added presence of trained and armed security. Teachers and administrators should not have to bear the burden of teaching and carrying a weapon. And I am not stupid enough to think that if there was armed security at the school that school killings would drop to zero, however 20 may have dropped to 5, or 10, or zero if there had been a security asset at the school whose sole job was to watch and be aware.

It maybe something that could be set up as a non-profit. Concealed carry holders that go through additional training and background checks and volunteer their time and service to a school district to stand guard during the school day. Not uniformed to be a visual or potentially troubling presence at a school, just one more volunteer dad/aunt/grandpa helping the school stay safe so the school can do its job of teaching children.

tolawdjk 5 years, 3 months ago

You are delusional if you think making guns illegal will make them disappear. Name one thing illegal that doesn't exist due to its illegality?

Ron Holzwarth 5 years, 2 months ago

"Name one thing illegal that doesn't exist due to its illegality"

Public prayer in public schools.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 3 months ago

It is my belief that this should not be an argument about who has the right to own guns and under what conditions. It should be about why a man would want to kill small children.

jhawkinsf 5 years, 3 months ago

In a country with well over 300 million people, there will always be some small element of that population with issues we will never understand. Whether that's anger management issues, personal crisis, mental health, whatever. If you're calling for understanding, then you're calling for something that will never be achieved.

Once that is understood, we can then move on to the issue of guns. With our current laws, and with the current restrictions that are out there, and given what I stated above, the restrictions we have are insufficient to keep guns out of the hands of people that kill their girlfriend and then themselves, or kill 20 children.

We have several options, some onerous, some less onerous. We can lock up every single person who might go through a personal crisis or might develop a mental health disorder. Of course, then we won't have enough guards to keep the inmates under control. Or we can control access to guns to a far greater degree than we do now. That might seem onerous to those who see any infringement of their Second Amendment rights, but the question is this, which is more onerous, you being forced to give up some access to guns, or 20 dead children?

jhawkinsf 5 years, 3 months ago

P.S. - Just getting reports of a murder-suicide in Colorado that killed four. Will it turn out to be a mentally ill person? A personal crisis brought on by divorce? A custody dispute? A drug deal gone bad? I have no idea. But the common denominator with the tragedy in Conn. is guns.

tomatogrower 5 years, 3 months ago

True, but why is it happening more often? Maybe we need to get to the bottom of that.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 2 months ago

Mass shootings are not growing in frequency, experts say.

Most victims of gun violence know the person who fired the fatal bullet, experts say. Mass shootings, like in an Aurora movie theater, Portland mall and Conn. elementary school, are not becoming more common. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Saturday, December 15, 2012, 3:00 PM

tomatogrower 5 years, 3 months ago

It should be about who can own guns and who can't. Any family who keeps guns in there house with a child who has problems is irresponsible. Many nutcases are loners, but there are usually some people who notice that someone is stockpiling guns, and maybe they should have to go through a mental evaluation. I wouldn't mind going through an evaluation to buy a gun. Why are you afraid to?

beatrice 5 years, 3 months ago

The killer didn't own the guns, yet they were available. The question is, should they be?

Water 5 years, 2 months ago

Won't make any difference in a few years. Soon, 3D printers will be cheap enough and plentiful enough we will all be able to make our own....See link.

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

Wow. I'd never thought of 3-D printers in this light before. Scary.

Alyosha 5 years, 3 months ago

It's time for a constitutional amendment securing and reiterating the personal right to own defensive and sporting-related guns, and at the same time banning armaments that have no place in a peaceful civic society.

The reality of life in the United States has made the Constitution's Second Amendment in need of revision, just as the reality of slavery and the Civil War made the Constitution's protection of slavery unworkable and out of date resulting in the Thirteenth Amendment.

It's sad beyond words that a slaughter of innocents was required to open Americans' eyes and minds to the need to comprehensively deal with civic safety, including mental health and armaments control. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as the general welfare, require we do more to make our communities safe, not armed camps.

Alyosha 5 years, 3 months ago

You misread what I said. As I stated above, the right to personally own guns should be reiterated, along with a new amendment giving the people the power to secure their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in communities free of war armaments.

Just as the Constitutional protection of slavery became unsupportable and was changed by amendment, so must we amend the Constitution to allow for the regulation of guns that are obviously dangerous and fatal to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The innocents slaughtered last week no longer have any rights to secure, so it's up to us to secure the right of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness for future generations by amending the Constitution.

Alyosha 5 years, 3 months ago

Laughably wrong. Nowhere do I say that.

You'd be a better arguer if you didn't substitute your own fantasies for what people actually say.

gl0ck0wn3r 5 years, 2 months ago

Shall we revisit the 1A while we are at it? Surely even a loose historical interpretation would suggest that more people are killed because of the 1A than the 2A. Further, I doubt the founding fathers had any idea that citizens would have high speed, high capacity unregulated printing devices so readily available. No doubt we could place some serious new limits on the 1A for our own safety.

Brock Masters 5 years, 3 months ago


I have no problem with a debate on amending the 2nd amendment. The challenge to do what you want is how do you define it? People are not using military weapons now. They are hunting and sport guns.

Take a stab at defining it and you'll see how impossible it is.

pinecreek 5 years, 3 months ago

Adding or changing gun laws at this point is truly 'closing the barn door after the horse is out.'
While I personally think that it's probably too late to make any significant change in the situation when 300 million guns are in circulation, anything is better than the current situation. That recipe is clearly not working, the evidence lies in cemeteries all over America.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 2 months ago

FYI: Connecticut has very strong gun laws in place right now...they do have a ban on "assault weapons". In addition, Adam Lanza was under 21 years of age and therefore it was illegal for him to own a handgun. All of these laws did not stop the mentally ill person from killing innocents. More laws will not help. We need to address the issue of mental health. All of the recent mass murders have several things in common, one of which is they were all had mental health issues.

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 2 months ago

FYI: Connecticut has very strong gun laws in place right now...they do have a ban on "assault weapons". In addition, Adam Lanza was under 21 years of age and therefore it was illegal for him to own a handgun. All of these laws did not stop the mentally ill person from killing innocents. More laws will not help. We need to address the issue of mental health. All of the recent mass murders have several things in common, one of which is the perpetrators all had mental health issues.

Armstrong 5 years, 3 months ago

Yes this is pointing out the obvious but a gun is an inanimate object. Any gun is only as good or bad the the person using it. Swift and certain accountability goes a long way.

beatrice 5 years, 3 months ago

Speaking of swift and certain accountability -- would you please explain why you have a picture of our president, who happens to be African American, wearing a pimp hat? Please be swift and account for your certain actions.

Armstrong 5 years, 2 months ago

Yes, it's a well kept secret but I don't like Obama. I think he would sell out the country in a heartbeat.

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

And you don't see anything racially inappropriate with your depiction of our African-American president in a pimp hate?

In other words, is this really necessary to get across your point? It seems to say more about you and your views of African Americans than it does your opinion of President Obama.

parrothead8 5 years, 2 months ago

He's had four years, which is longer than a heartbeat, so you seem to be growing more and more wrong by the day.

gccs14r 5 years, 3 months ago

Single-payer health insurance that includes mental health treatment would go a long way toward preventing violent tragedies.

bevy 5 years, 3 months ago

I am a gun owner, and a mother of school-age children. I am not opposed to limits on magazines or on ownership of semi-auto rifles whose only design purpose is for killing people. These are not used for hunting! Any hunter who needs 100 rounds to bag his or her kill has no business shooting a firearm. Those hiding behind the history of the 2nd amendment should remember that we can no longer defend ourselves against our government regardless of how many AR-15s we own. They have bigger and better weapons, and we have changed our laws many times to protect ourselves without losing basic freedoms. All that being said, the simple fact is, this kid could have done the same or worse damage with 59 cents worth of chemicals, a length of PVC and some instructions from the internet. Don't believe me? Ask the folks in Columbine and Oklahoma City.

My only prayer is that we will expend at least as much time and energy - well, 1000 times more is my hope - on addressing the serious lack of mental health services in this country. These cuts were done in the name of "humanity" and cost savings, but have resulted in an explosion of homelessness among the mentally ill and the filling of our jails with people whose only "crime" is being too unbalanced to care for themselves. Read the blog titled "I am Adam Lanza's Mother" and see what it is like for parents and families of the mentally ill in this day and age. Services are scarce and if you are uninsured, they are basically unobtainable. Some people cannot live safely in society. There should be safe, humane places for those people to live out their lives, where they can get the care they need and be safe from harming themselves or others.

I also think the relaxation of standards in entertainment carries a lot of the blame. When children are continually exposed to violence through TV, movies, and first-person shooter video games, they come to see it as a normal expression of anger, frustration, etc. I'm not saying we need to go back to the days when Lucy and Desi had twin beds. But the proliferation of blood, gore and extreme violence that passes for entertainment carries a lot of the weight here.

The simple fact is, you can't defend against crazy. An armed security guard at this school building would likely have been the shooter's first victim. But we can do more to de-stigmatize mental illness, provide services to those who need them, and limit access to weapons whose only purpose is the killing of human beings. We are America. We can do this!

beatrice 5 years, 3 months ago

So who here is against "banning" the magazines that hold 100 rounds? If so, why? What purpose do they serve toward the goal of "self-protection"? I'm not talking about banning guns, but the amount of ammo that can be loaded at one time. Is that too large an infringement on the Second Amendment? I obviously don't believe so.

Brock Masters 5 years, 2 months ago

Okay ban 100 rd mags, keep the max limited to 30. Fair compromise?

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

It is a start. Also, for hand guns, clips (if I'm using the term correctly) should be limited to 9 rounds.

And money spent on mental health concerns!

Crazy_Larry 5 years, 2 months ago

Agreed. Those 100 round magazines are too dang heavy...

Peacemaker452 5 years, 2 months ago

Anything other than “shall not be infringed” is, by definition, too large of an infringement.

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

And pm452 brings us right back to bazookas. Taking my bazooka is an infringement.

Water 5 years, 2 months ago

Due to the dearth of statistics regarding death by firearms, it is difficult to say whether or not mass murders, suicide, accidental death or homicide by firearm is increasing or decreasing. Gun control legislation won't mean jack in a few years anyways. We will all be able to make our own firearms with a 3D printer. See link...

Richard Heckler 5 years, 2 months ago

Every country on earth has some people who are unbalanced.

Only in America can they get access to adult weapons..... military assault weapons

If guns made people safe, America would be the safest country on earth.

lunacydetector 5 years, 2 months ago

Bath Township, Michigan, Bath School, 1927: Killed - 38 elementary children, 2 teachers, 4 adults. 58 injured.

85 years ago. The press reported on it for about 1 week.

bevy 5 years, 2 months ago

My God. That is an awful story that I've never heard before.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.