Comments (23) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   Eryx said, 6 months ago

   Then insist on sensible gun laws, updated national databases, waiting periods, firearm safety certification, closing the gun show loophole, banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds,…
2. 

   Wraithkin said, 6 months ago

   Don’t forget to add, “infringe on our second amendment rights,” Eryx. Restricting firearm ownership does not prohibit criminals from obtaining them. Criminals, by their very nature, do not follow the law. They don’t care about gun control laws. With as porous of a border as we have right now to the south, there is ready access to all kinds of firearms.
   
   And not to diminish the tragedy of the lost life in CT, but we also should keep this in perspective. In 2007, the amount of homicides accounted for .5% (one half a percent) of all deaths in this country. Something like 14k out of 2.4 million. And out of those homicides, how many were firearm-related? And out of all the firearms in the nation, how many were used in a manner like in CT? So, you see that while this is a tragedy and mourning appropriate, and one of those stages of grief is anger, make sure we keep a cool head and keep things in perspective.
   
   The issue is not the legal ownership of the firearms. The issue is not the firearms themselves. Turning firearm owners into criminals overnight will only have the same effect as Prohibition had, and look at how well that worked out. If you want to find a better way to stop things like this happening, provide security at the schools. Lock the doors. Keep idiots like this coming in. Arm the teachers. Don’t punish law-abiding citizens and diminish their ability to defend themselves, prevent the lawbreakers from having the capacity to harm others.
   
   VA Tech, Columbine, and now CT… all these could have been restricted or mitigated if even ONE person had a firearm.
   
   Look at the statistics supporting CCW laws. Even neighboring counties, where one has CCW and the other does not, violent crime in the non-CCW county is consistently higher than in the pro-CCW county. So this is empirical evidence that supports my theory of an armed populace is safer than a disarmed populace.
   
   Plain and simple, you will never be able to keep everyone safe at all times of the day, everywhere. If you believe that, I have a ocean-front property I can sell you dirt cheap in Nevada. We can try our best, and we should, to keep the public safe. But limiting LEGAL gun ownership is not the solution. You will never be completely safe from the crazies. Just be happy this nutjob didn’t follow in Timothy McVeigh’s footsteps.
3. 

   ODon said, 6 months ago

   They also delay for fog which I think we can count on rolling in soon from stage right.
4. 

   Dredpiraterobt$ said, 6 months ago

   Man this is a bad year for things named Sandy!
5. 

   narrowminded said, 6 months ago

   @Eryx

   You’re a moron.
6. 

   Dredpiraterobt$ said, 6 months ago

   @Wraithkin

   “. Criminals, by their very nature, do not follow the law.”
   .
   “Turning firearm owners into criminals overnight …”
   .
   Which is it? You want to have it both ways. You want the words to mean what you want them to mean and not have any consistency throughout!
   .
   That is why you argument is garbage! Garbage in, Garbage processing, Garbage out.
   .
   Nothing personal, but you just don’t know how to think in a straight line!
   .
   Keep things in perspective? Tell me what you think about Benghazi. Then we’ll try to calibrate your “perspective”. How’s that? Sound fair to you? No? I didn’t think it would. It involves honest straight line reasoning.
   .
   Too many guns? crazy people getting guns? Here’s a solution, let’s give out more guns!
   .
   Too much debt, people who can’t afford debt getting debt, here’s the solution, lets give out MORE home loans!
   .
   Too much government deficit? Lower taxes the reason for the government deficit? Here’s the solution! Let’s cut taxes even some more!
   .
   Timothy Mc Veigh? You’re opinion is that we shouldn’t bother doing anything because it could have been worse? Forget that it goes against all of the drek you dredged up about CCW, if he had a Ryder Truck how could anyone use their CW ness?
   .
   The big difference being that the ruck bomb takes a lot of planning and doing. Grabbing a gun and going takes impulse. Motive , Means, Opportunity. Which one can you remove? ONLY Means!
7. 

   dtroutma said, 6 months ago

   All these tragedies, Wraithkin, could have been prevented if in each case, one individual, did NOT have a firearm. Also, large magazines should NOT be legal, nor should bullet proof vests.

   
   Dynamite and high explosives, even ammonium nitrate, is now more regulated than firearms, designed to have even less “civilian” application than either dynamite or ammonium nitrate. It has to change, period.
8. 

   Ms. Ima said, 6 months ago

   Disasters bring sane people together to pray.
   Everyone else finds faule.
9. 

   Baleine said, 6 months ago

   @Eryx

   New laws? why not? Simple answers to complex problems that won’t stop the next one have always been the way to go. Why change that now.
10. 

    Baleine said, 6 months ago

    @dtroutma

    You don’t go on the internet much do you? Ever hear of a zip gun.
11. 

    sw10mm said, 6 months ago

    @Eryx

    Which of the at least 41 broken laws prevented this? Quit knee jerking and get an education.
12. 

    sw10mm said, 6 months ago

    @dtroutma

    Tell your story to the chinese guy that injured 22 with a knife.
13. 

    dannysixpack said, 6 months ago

    @dtroutman
    
    or pseudofed, or milk.
14. 

    dannysixpack said, 6 months ago

    @sw10mm
    
    yes injured, not exterminated with multiple gunshot wounds each in less than 1 minute. why do you try to minimize what happened in sandy hook? have you no shame?
15. 

    dannysixpack said, 6 months ago

    @wraithkin
    
    by all means, then let’s arm every elementary schoolchild with an ak15. makes sense, no?
16. Load the rest of the comments (8).