Jeff Danziger for December 17, 2012

I don’t want to read it too. too much potential for extreme bickering.

Good point, but I can’t resist.I openly say that I am a foreigner and genuinely admire the USA and its diverse people, so I ask without intent to offend, but:How can you justify domestic ownership of military assault rifles and dummy head bullets?

I think you’re right. I took a chance and read yours, but I think I’ll stop now.

not sure but did we have these problem 20 years ago or 40. So if we did not then it has to be someother reasons for these crimes. Could it be the computer games the crime on tv. To me I think if a few teachers had guns there would not have been so many children shot

I had a fully automatic firearm once, a gift from my Uncle Sam; I used it for the only thing for which it was ever intended. I have never owned ANY firearm since.

You mean the armor piercing rounds you cannot buy legally. As for this happening in Tennessee, this kind of stuff seems to be happening more and more in big towns.

Because most of those on the no-fly list were put there by democrats and liberals are people who spoke out against them.

And what makes you think that those who pass the test to drive can drive worth a damn.

I’m all for sensible gun control, but will the courts allow it?

Morty, the AR stands for Armalite Rifle, not Assault Rifle. The military uses Assault Rifles, and although they look similar to their civilian counterparts, they are quite different.

Do you think the AR-7 is an Assault Rifle just because of its name?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-7

That’s just silly!

Just like 20-year old kids don’t do drugs because they’re illegal? Connecticut already has a restrictive gun ban. The rifle in question was either illegal or grandfathered. In either case, it didn’t belong to the shooter. It was just one of the 43 laws he broke that day.

Do you think one more law would have kept him from killing?

Mass shootings are only a small portion of the gun violence in the US. We had about 40 deaths this year from massing shootings. We had more than 9,000 over all. Say what you like, that’s a lot compared to most countries in the world. We rank #12 behind 7 South/Central American countries, Jamaica, 2 African nations and the Philippines. The European country with the highest gun ownership is Switzerland (all able-bodied men are conscripted into the militia, and women are allowed to volunteer) – but their gun ownership is strictly regulated, and you must be fully trained. In the rest of Europe, they have very strict gun laws and very few gun deaths by comparison. In China, there was a recent school attack, but the guy had no gun, only a knife. No children died. In the US, states with strict gun laws DO have lower gun death rates according to government stats. In contrast, the states with the highest gun death rate all have lax gun laws. So, yes, gun laws DO make a difference. That is NOT enough, however. Perhaps a more important common factor in countries with low gun violence rates is that they have a small gap between rich and poor, they have good public education, they have good public health policies and good public mental health services. And they don’t view the government as the enemy. By the way, I have a crazy cousin who feels he needs his guns to protect him from the government – and he used to be a Marine.

Also, there were no automatic weapons involved.

It’s not just the “militia” part of the second amendment than gun nuts ignore, it’s the prominent words “well-regulated.”

Here is the 2nd Amendment:“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”The arms are for the militia for the security of the USA. What we have now is a perversion since the NRA is a lobbying organization for the gun manufactures.

That line of thought is much less practical than making certain guns unavailable and limiting how many can be owned by one person. The only thing any of these shooters have done to warrant being locked up is committing the shooting. These aren’t crazy people babbling to themselves or yelling at invisible people or showing any sign that they are not fit for society. Most show only minor sign like depression, being uncomfortable in public, or no sign at all. There is no way any shooter could have been identified and detained before their rampage without locking up a good 75% of our country. Teachers carrying guns? Not a good idea either. The more people firing in a situation, the more people killed. Unless that teacher is a combat veteran, I don’t know if any would be able to get a round off into the head (most of these people wear body armor of some sort) of the shooter before being killed themselves, their bullets only flying around hitting more children. Plus, if you want to make a mark and don’t have your own gun, just overpower the teacher you know has one and take it. Plus, you run back into the first issue – teaching is very stressful with low pay. Do you think there ha never been an incidence of a teacher snapping and doing something drastic? Or if one was armed and was faced with a large, aggressive student who might have a gun, the press or courts would take their side over the student’s?Since these people are not criminals before the shootings, they are unlikely to know anything about where to find a gun on the street. A knife, a baseball bat, even a homemade bomb are less reliable for killing large number of people, and a lot more effort than going into your own gun closet and grabbing three or four guns and a bag of ammunition. Bombs require time and planning, and are dangerous to make and handle, and so too time consuming for someone on an emotional high or low. Limiting what guns can be purchased and how many one can own is the best way to prevent these massacres from happening.

The cartoon makes the point that the NRA expects the issue will go away, again. Really, the NRA should help find answers, not simply obstruct..Another issue: If you kill one (Mom in this case) there is nothing to deter killing more. No greater penalty than execution, no matter how many are killed. What can be done about this?

the NRA did not contribute in any way to what one American, Adam Lanza, did by using legal weaons to murder 27 other Americans. His committing suicide proves he had no regard or gave value to human life. That value must be taught by parents beginning in the child’s early life.-Now for those politicians intending to use the massacre at Sandy Hook as a springboard to again try to VOID the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution…see an editorial at www.nationalreview.com…..and here is a short quote=-“The need for humility is especially acute in the case of gun control. The irreducible challenge the Second Amendment poses to gun restrictionists is that it does not bestow upon the people a right they previously lacked. It proscribes the government from infringing upon a right the people already have. It is not that the people are allowed to arm. It is that the government is disallowed to disarm them.”-This nation was founded after a shooting Revolutionary war!This nation has been defended and our Liberty kept safe by several shooting wars.In history, many nations of people have been conquered by first disarming the citizens…..a dangerous situation for any Freedom-loving People. -It was not the gun that murdered 27 Americans…it was the PERSON that chose to use guns to murder….an eternal error…The Bible says that no murderer will see Heaven.But the innocent children’s souls are already with Jesus in Heaven….adults go where they chose…if they put Faith in Jesus of the Bible, they also are in Heaven awaiting the Resurrection and eternal Life with God.

It stand for Armalite Rifle…the original maker of the M-16…it fires a very standard hunting round and is used for that by many of the owners.

@disgustedtaxpayer,There were many people who blamed the German citizens for doing nothing to stop the Holocaust. In some opinions their inaction allowed Hitler to start a world war and murder millions. This is not true, free choice was not an option. Today, the NRA does have free choice to work towards a solution by allowing limits on what guns can be owned and how many. Instead, they actively work to block legislation and people die because they have access to these weapons. Would the latest killer have killed 20 children with a knife or a baeball bat? No. He was able to kill everyone because he had 3 guns that were legally owned by his mother. If legislation had been in place to limit that, he may not have gone on his rampage because there was only 1 gun available and his sense of invulnerability would have been compromised. He may have jut stayed home posting one line insults on GoComics.As far as our Constitution goes; it was designed to be changed and amended as the country grew and evolved. When it was written, we were a small nation surrounded by hostile forces, and each citizen needed to be available to defend his home and his country. Guns were absolutely necessary. That is not the case today. Our founding fathers did not know the security we have today. Perhaps they would offer a new way to interpret those few words in the second amendment.The Second amendment is tricky, because it is part of the Bill of Rights, meaning it was one of the few not intended to be removed. However, all of our Constitution is meant to be re-interpreted and amended as needed. It is time to do that again.

“These” weapons are useful for hunting since they fire a very common .223 bullet. Not sure what school you are talking about but I hope you’re not using the recent CT shooting where it wasn’t used. Also, the DC snipers did use a “Bushmaster” rifle…they did not however shoot as many rounds as capable and a simple bolt action in the same caliber would have done the same job….the so called assault rifle is a made up acronym that the media and uninformed ppl use to make some firearms sound scary and does nothing to further an intelligent debate on violence in our country. Also, to your hypothetical…very nice try, but only shows that you are as bad as those you call “fear mongers” and just as anally retentive.

Whoo there, you are advocating for something outside the norm for a liberal. Better be careful, you might want to start holding other people responsible for their actions.Long drawn out appeals are the result of bleeding heart liberal policies and laws, elimination of the death sentence and the slowing of capital murder executions are a liberal mantra.There are, again, numerous studies that have shown that the threat of execution as a result of murdering someone, or any other number of crimes that may result in the death penalty, has done little to slow down murders or those other crimes.I for one would rather they sat in a very small jail cell for the rest of their miserable lives. Let them dwell on the thought of never seeing anything other then those 4 walls for the majority of the rest of their lives. It’s much cheaper over the long haul and if you put them all in the same wing of the prison and let them exercise together, maybe they would take care of each other?

Maybe not this time, NRA and congressional republicans. Maybe and hopefully not.

Of course what you offer would be cheaper, but would never happen in this country, maybe Iran, but not here.You may have not considered some other costs associated with the typical death penalty case, the multiple appeals, court time, and associated costs far outweigh the cost of housing the prisoner for their lifetime. Most capital murder cases, when the defendant pushes multiple appeals, cost well over a million dollars. Still far cheaper to keep em then to try and kill em.

The weapon used was an AR-15, a semi-automatic weapon, not an automatic. Large difference between the two.

As passed by the Congress:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.These are the two versions of the 2nd Amendment.Both state a well regulated militia is the reason for this right to not be infringed.There have been many comments from the thoughtful and poignant to snide and caustic, I have little to add. I put a longer comment under Mr.Bors’s cartoon for this date but the gist of it is this.Where are the well regulated militias?Respectfully,and sadly,C.

Not sure if you mean the National Education Association or the National Endowment for the Arts. Either way, money laundering implies the money came from an illegal source, which is utter nonsense. By your definition, the NRA does launder money for the GOP, as do the Heritage Foundation & Americans for Prosperity.

FROM THEIR COLD DEAD HEARTS! To hear it from the gun nuts in this county, enforcing gun control would be akin to stealing their blanky. Cowards they are—hiding in the blind—behind a technological evil outside comprehension or understanding.

I for one, do blame Barret.

Any of you proponents of absolute gun rights care to argue that the death toll would have been as high if the shooter only had access to a revolver & a bolt action rifle?

50 years ago when I was in high school, our gang violence found the most dangerous weapon the chain from a bike lock, or maybe a homemade “zip” gun on rare occasion.

It IS the NRA and the firearms industry that has turned the tide and made mass violence readily available, to the angry, and the insane, period. WE need sound regulation of firearms designed only to kill people, en masse.

A “Bushmaster” is a hunting rifle for people, it’s a crappy excuse for a deer rifle, or even a varmint gun. It isn’t just the caliber, but the “mentality” of the shooter.

BTW, “sniper” rifles have long been either bolt action, or more recently a few semi-auto. Weight, barrel length, and balance make accurate weapons, the “bushmaster” is none of the above.

I think Wayne LaPierre should have been working door duty at Sandy Hook that day.

Dianne Feinstein’s bill is the right idea, but the wrong solution. There is no point in outlawing guns. They are out there, there are millions, they are made of metal and will last for a thousand years if they are kept oiled. Failing that, I could find materials in my basement that would produce a workable gun, and it doesn’t take much knowledge of the subject to figure out how to do it.

Bullets, on the other hand, are time consuming to make and require specific equipment. Production of enough to do serious damage would require planning and patience that are not characteristic of those who shoot up elementary schools. And, working on such a project might attract the attention of someone sane.

Bullets can be individually stamped, and their sale can be registered, so that every bullet can be traced back to the person who purchased it. This way, a guy who wants to buy a couple boxes of bullets to go shoot deer, or the woman who wants a box to keep with the gun in her bedside drawer, won’t set off any warning bells. But the guy who is buying an arsenal will attract attention before he finds a more lethal way to do it.

This has to be the worst attempt at wagging the dog I’ve ever seen. Supporting the arts community or teaching children is not anything like supporting the right to own an assault weapon. What is wrong with you?

A last note from me. I wish the NRA nuts had to be the ones to take care of the cleanup of the school. It is not fun to mop up blood 1/2 thick from the floor. I was once a member of the NRA and enjoyed it’s literature. After it became so political, I dropped membership. This election cycle, I received 8 mailings in one week warning that certain Democratic candidates would “Take away your guns.” That does mean something in this part of the country.

In 1927, you could buy sticks of dynamite at the local hardware store.Nowadays, you need to go through an extensive permit process & background check to buy high explosives like dynamite. There are limits on how much you can purchase & you need to document what purpose the explosives are for. Why is it wrong to insist the same for guns?

Still don’t know which NEA you are referring to. If individuals making a campaign contribution is money laundering, then people who work for the defense industry engage in money laundering when they donate to a politician who votes for military contracts. Money loop closed.

Yeah, those guns were legal. What made them legal? Laws written by the Nazi Revolutionary Army. Members are mostly harmless gun nuts, but even the regional officers are active for one reason – the violent overthrow of the United States government. I saw them recruiting in the 1960s with the party line that when the Dallas ghetto exploded, as others had during that time, they would take their guns and kill every black in town, “and best of all, those commies in Washington are providing the ammo.” This referred to the “American Marksman” program of the NRA and Pentagon. The recruitment in this example was at a Boy Scout meeting.

I’m curious what your background is? You seem to have a far better grasp of the true meaning on that passage then all of the judges and justices that have reviewed it and made decisions based on the wording.Please enlighten us, what great source of knowledge do you have access to?Seriously, far better minds have struggled with the wording and meaning then you, and have arrived at a conclusion much different then yours.Your analogy is poor as well.

I haven’t read through all of the posts here, so forgive me if this has already been stated:

Actually, the SCOTUS does NOT give us the right to bear arms! It is in our Constitution! And the reason we have the right to keep and bear arms is to protect ourselves from tyrany. An armed citizenry is much more difficult, if not impossibe, to subdue and control.

Of course, being able to protect ourselves and others from thugs is a nice side benefit!

No one is trying to take your precious guns away, despite the hysteria that the NRA always creates about this myth. Go ahead, hunt and target shoot — but you don’t need a semiautomatic (or, worse, automatic) assault rifle to do that. Allowing such weapons to be purchased by almost any idiot with or lunatic is an invitation to disaster. Why not let them have rocket-propelled grenades and mortars, too?

GUNS DO KILL. Don’t believe the same old nonsense from the pro gun lobby that apparently feel that their right to own an assault weapon is more important than a six year old’s right to turn seven. We’re already hearing the old replies that we heard after Columbine, Luby’s, Va. Tech, and all the other slaughters over the last forty years or so. If the weapons were banned all those children would be alive to celebrate Christmas. If you are arguing for the right to own assault weapons it’s time to reexamine your life and your priorities. You cannot defend the indefensible so please don’t try. It’s offensive

masterskrain: I am sorry you seemed to find that person that’s in one of the two ditches on this issue.The answer is no: gun owners are not required currently to have a license to operate a gun as they do a car here. The reason why: there didn’t used to be a need. Parents, often fathers, taught their children how to safely handle firearms and how to shoot them properly. They also taught them how to handle their problems in a civil manner.Today, both of these seem to be on the decline. Now, it would be insane to sell someone a gun without a background check. It’s not much better to sell one to a person who doesn’t know how to handle it safely or use it (which is why we see the accidents we do).The other ditch in this issue, I should mention, is the “ban em all” crowd. As it is with most things on this planet the right answer is somewhere in the middle.

“The final line of defense of an evil person is a good person with a gun.”

If the first line of defense is to (try to) lock up the crazies before they get their hands on guns, and the last line of defense is (maybe) to shoot the crazies once after they’ve gotten them, isn’t there nonetheless room for a middle line of defense to not to make guns available to the crazies? What’s wrong with trigger locks? What’s wrong with locked gun cases? What’s wrong with the Mom thinking “My son’s crazy, I better not have guns around him” rather than “My son’s crazy, I better keep guns to protect myself from him”? Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but that’s the way it shook out in THIS case.

The guy who’s PLANNING to shoot another person will always have the advantage over someone who’s simply’ PREPARED to shoot another person.

You keep saying to “lock up the crazies” but are not seeing the problem: how crazy do you need to be to warrant being locked up. None of these shooters has ever been diagnosed of any serious mental illness. Your solution would lock up just about everyone between the ages of 12 and 24, because almost all kids express depression, rage, and any number of emotional issues at various times. Any poster here who thinks their government is evil and wants to take away their guns shows symptoms of paranoia. Yes, if someone is truly insane they will find a way to harm others. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is not being perpetrated by that kind of insanity. If there had only been one gun in the house and only ten bullets, the shooter may not have attempted this because it wouldn’t have been as spectacular as the previous shooting. If you have multiple guns and lots of ammo in your house, can you guarantee that everyone in your family and everyone you know is 100% stable at all times? Has nobody you’ve been in contact with ever had an “emotional breakdown”? If someone knows you have easy access to the weapons they need, how do you know nobody will enter your house as a guest, kill you while you have your back turned, and take your arsenal to commit a horrible crime? It doesn’t take a John Wayne Gacy to commit a massacre, just a few bad days in a row can push some people over the edge with no warning.

How foolish. When a private citizen prevents a mass shooting, there is no mass shooting, making it hard to prove. Nice try, though.

Onguard: I can buy a “Bushmaster” and 1,000 rounds of .223 with no problem. Not so with dynamite, as it’s strictly controlled. Thanks for pointing out the REAL tools of mass destruction are still relatively unregulated in the U.S..

You are just another case of Penis Envy!

Nice well thought out and cogent response, not that surprising. Nice ad hominem as well, you really are a mind for our time.Go back and you may notice that I never offered a defense for owning automatic or semi-automatic weapons, so try to stay on topic when replying to my spanking of you.Just because you happen to disagree with the decisions of some members of the Supreme Court, which was not the only focus on my response by the way, does not make them any less intelligent then you. Look back, you may notice that I mention judges and justices. The point being, since you could not grasp it from the initial post, is that many members of the judiciary, look that one up if it stumps you, have reviewed the language of the constitution. Many have reviewed the meaning of the wording from a strictly legal perspective, and found that banning all guns would be in direct violation of the Constitution. We are a nation of laws and the Constitution is the foundation. Changing the foundation of any system should be viewed with trepidation and carefully analyzed from a non-emotional perspective.You may now rant away . . .

Only one mass shooting since the ’50’s has happened in a place where guns weren’t banned. That alone makes it impossible for a law abiding citizen to prevent a mass shooting. However, Youtube has a great number of videos showing Concealed Carry Permit holders preventing criminals from successfully committing violent felonies. The average is somewhere around 2000 times a day in the U.S.. Which of these would have been successful mass killings? I don’t know. They were prevented, so it’s not possible to tell. Truth, not sophistry.

So that makes ot OK. I got it. There’s four schools within a three-minute walk from my house. I’ll try it and let you know how it works.

You are also overlooking the fact that Reagan started defunding all the public institutions where the loonies could be locked up, a process that has continued, so there’s no place left to put ‘em. Maybe we could find some final solution, some area where they could be concentrated for the good of public safety. Wouldn’t that be a gas?

Auto manufacturers, brewers and distillers do not make products the sole purpose of which is to kill. Logic fail.

Excuse me? In what way is my reply BS? Your response doesn’t address any part of my reply, so I can hardly determine how you reached that conclusion. Very telling that you resort to an insult rather than offer any counter at all.

“In world competition, US education does not fare as well as US security forces.”Well we only spend about $10,000 per student versus $250,000 per soldier.

didn’t the murdered principal, teachers and children have rights?

It probably helped that the shooter wasted a bunch of time doing spray painting on the walls. (Yes, that’s what the article says, folks.) Clay Duke then allowed the women in the room to leave, & started arguing with the school Board members. Someone was able to call the guard on his cell phone so he could intervene. It helped that the shooter was only armed with a pistol.

what we have here is a constitutional tension between two rights, one inalienable and given by our creator to life, liberty and happiness. The other right is a vague description that restricts the federal government from infringing on the rights of the people to own muskets.let’s see, which one superseeds the other – inalienable right by our creator, no infringement on ownership of muskets.pretty simple to work this one out, i’d say.

Excellent! A reasonably calm and thoughtful response.I am aware of many examples were laws passed have been over turned on review. The only problem is the examples you cite are laws that were overturned, not overturning of a amendment of the Constitution.Things change all the time, laws of today may be over turned tomorrow because of enlightenment or swinging of the moral compass. Again, the main difference is the you are dealing with a fundamental right that is part of the foundation of this nation.Many laws have been overturned that have attempted to ban guns, you can do a basic search and find many examples, the court decisions are numerous. In many cases the courts held that the legislative body overstepped their authority and were treading on the Constitution. At the same time there are many laws that limit the type and ownership of guns, but an outright ban is doubtful.The NRA is no more powerful then any other lobby, each attempts to influence legislation that is favorable to their constituents. If you want to demonize or eliminate one, you have to eliminate them all.The amendment is indeed an entire sentence, the first part is not ignored. The first part is a reason for the right, the second part grants the right and prevents the government from taking that right away.

“Dynamite has a unregulated substitute,”I doubt the “substitute” is any where near as powerful. The reality is that you can make your own high explosives, but it requires a lot more planning & it’s a lot harder to carry out a successful attack.An car is made to transport you from one place to another. Killing is an unintended use. Your AR-15 is made to kill. Many of the pro-gun people have already helpfully pointed out that in most cases, a semi-automatic is more deadly than a fully automatic weapon.

@midaswelbyFor all that’s made of Connecticut’s "strict “gun laws, the semi-automatic used was legal.

The people claiming that gun laws don’t work should look at this:

Tedious? I’m rather enjoying it myself.The 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in January of 1919, was the basis for the enforcement of Prohibition of alcohol manufacturer, sales, import or export, drinking alcohol was not illegal though, funny how that works.Prohibition was repealed with the passage of the 21st amendment to the Constitution in December of 1933.Again, notice the difference, it was a legislative body and the separate states that changed the constitution, not a sitting judge or group of justices.Your narrow focus on the recent decisions regarding gun laws is just that, narrow. There are years of back and forth decisions and it appears you would rather demonize certain people than accept the simple fact that gun laws can be passed in this country regarding gun ownership and type, there are many, but an overall ban has almost no chance of happening.

Well, my school had a resource officer (actual police) that was there every day. That would be one way.