Newtown School Shooting: Who Are We, Really?

matt lehman December 19, 2012 at 02:55 am

First, the school shooting is tragic without any doubts. It would seem, everytime someone else does something wrong, the law abiding get punished. That message does not sit well with older folks like me nor can the younger generation learn responsibility if we continue to punish those that did no wrong. If you dont want kids killed, stop government funded abortions! Many more innocent lives are lost per day in many other ways then guns. If, all guns where outlawed, would we allow police to have guns? Yes. Why? because the criminals would still have guns. If the criminals still have guns, the law abiding citizen will illegally get a gun to protect life against the criminal guns, what have we accomplished? We have made criminals out of law abiding citizens and made most think less desirable of their government. The true gun killing number to me is, how many gun deaths from accidents? The others are all individual cases of intentional murders where a person purposely and knowingly pulled the trigger. This discussion should be focused on why these people knowingly and willingly did thes crimes, really, your own mother and very young kids. We need to know what made this person do this. If a cop snapped and unloaded on a group of people, would we disarm all police?

Heyitsme December 19, 2012 at 05:25 pm

Timothy McVeigh....168 people, including 19 children killed...not a gun used. Crazy people will do what they do regardless.

B. Martin December 21, 2012 at 02:19 pm

I am not so willing to allow weapon purchases and ownership for so many without additional checking and evaluation of people. The current background check is not sufficient. Using the term normal people is not helpful because we truly have no idea who may have issues. There are plenty of mentally stable people who kill.

B. Martin December 21, 2012 at 02:27 pm

The founding fathers were just coming off a war against government for which they needed their own weaponry. If you want argue for gun ownership to protect the citizenry's right to overthrow the government if needed, then go ahead and use this argument. To defend gun ownership for hunting, target shooting, and recreational gun use, then the argument is much different. Let's ban these activities as they are not protected activities. Gun ownership for individual protection is not sensible given the accidental deaths that do occur and the lack of any evidence that individuals have used a weapon to actually protect themselves.

B. Martin December 21, 2012 at 02:29 pm

If people will do want they do regardless of weapon, how do guns protect you? You provide more argument to ban guns, even abolish the private manufacture, then to support ownership.

Megan Kraby December 21, 2012 at 04:42 pm

My husband pointed this out last night......Redding, CT poet, diplomat, politician Joel Barlow once declared “…a tyrant disarms his subjects to degrade and oppress knowing that to be unarmed palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind.”
Military type assault weapons are already banned. Again, getting rid of the Gun Free Zone's will remove the automatic knowledge that no one in that facility, be it school, mall, movie theater or what have you, is unarmed. This does not mean arming teachers! Teachers have enough on their plates without having to worry about how to navigate a firearm. Removing the giant target on Gun Free Zones does not infringe on anyone's Constitutional rights. To address the mental health aspect, one would have to get the ACLU-inspired laws that make getting someone the mental health help they need lifted. Good luck on that one. Finally, I am wondering why there was no widespread reporting of the San Antonio off duty sergeant who was carrying a weapon this past weekend at a San Antonio movie theater when a person attempted to open fire on the movie-goers. The sergeant wounded the attacker, preventing another massacre. If that theater had been a Gun Free Zone, more people would be dead. We don't need more legislation, people who aren't law abiding do not follow "the rules". We also need people to stop characterizing gun owners as bullet-happy Yosemite Sam's with a killiing agenda. Nothing is further from the truth.

Jon Frasz December 22, 2012 at 02:49 pm

Megan, since you brought up the law officer, I wish you would sthe next one you meet if they would support having more assault weapons on the street, more high capacity clips, and only 60% of gun purchases required to pass background checks. I think you will find the overwhelming majority oppossed. Also, I never said anything about Yosemite Sam,although I did dress up like him once for halloween. My family members belong to the NRA. 74% of NRA members,who are sportsmen, also support the afformentioned limit on weapons of mass destruction. And finally I would like to say he example you cited about the police officer stopping the shooting, that is what they are trained to do. He probably did it with one or two skillfuly placed shots, not by spraying the theatre with an assault weapon. Did you know that Wayne LaPierre (lobbyist for the NRA) gets paid $1million dollars a year ,mostly from gun manufacturers, to continue to trump up fear. It is almost impossible to make a reasonable decision when it is based on fear. I think we should all pray, and meditate, and think about this relentlesly so we can come up with a civilized solution that will help our society and our children move forward in a more Loving Compassionate and Lawfull way. Bless us all. Merry Christmas, Jon

Terry Elliott December 30, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Last week, for the 2nd time in a month, someone pushed another person from a New York subway platform into the path of an oncoming train, to their deaths. Mayor Bloomberg, who wants to ban every gun he can get his hands on, says in response to a reporter's question "Why couldn't the city do more to prevent these things?" said:
"There are adequate protections now in place. But ultimately, we can't stop every person from committing an irrational act." Finally he came to the right conclusion. The head of the NRA AGREES that current background checks are insufficient. "You have only a handful of states entering information about mentally ill individuals into the national database, so that it's impossible for us to guarantee a valid background check for these lunatics." States cut their funding and need to restore it. We should examine why there's such an impulse to put more limitations on gun owners over an inanimate object. This nut in Connecticut of course wasn't a gun owner and broke several laws-- including murdering his own mother-- to get his hands on the weapons. So why take my rights away?

Jon Frasz December 30, 2012 at 04:33 pm

No one is trying to take away second ammendment rights. The first amendment says we have the right to free speech,but you can't yell fire in a theatre or express hate speech. In other words your rights are somewhat limited by other peoples rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People give up freedoms to the government everyday, by taking off their shoes at airports, and not one person has ever died as the result of a shoe bomb ! The government puts limits on food safety,auto safety, the hours a truck driver or an airplane pilot can do their job, to protect your family's safety. Nobody has sugested taking away your right to defend you home or go deer hunting. But 40% of the weapons sold are done so without back ground checks, even someone on the terror watch list can buy one. No one needs to have an assault rifle or bullet delivery system with more than ten bullets. If you're really concerned about your rights being taken awawy by the government,you should take a better look at the "patriot act", or the NDAA. I don't hear anyone talking about that. Even 74% of NRA members are good with not having assault weapons, and having everyone pass a background check. Also 100% of law enforcement. We all value ou rights, including living in a safe sane society. Happy new year, Jon

resident January 8, 2013 at 01:47 am

I don’t have any guns of any sort but please tell me I like to understand why anyone needs these powerful killing instruments. I understand hunting and target shooting which can be done with bow and arrow and air rifles!
Then there is all this talk about the constitution and rights. Seems to me before we get to read the body of the constitution there is the preamble explaining that the intent is to make things better. For that purpose and in addition the constitution has provisions to be improved as needed. This has been done many times before with the amendments. So what is all the huff about?

yomammy January 8, 2013 at 11:55 am

The huff? how about ten billion dollars of private guns you want to suddenly make illegal with a typical, lefty, knee-jerk reaction.
Of course police dont want you to have guns...because they get to keep theirs...see where this is going? give an inch....

resident January 10, 2013 at 05:13 pm

Thank you “yomammy” – For answering my question. You need the killing instruments to kill the police. How many more are out there needing to kill police?

yomammy January 10, 2013 at 05:22 pm

wow....really?
I "need" them because i like to shoot that particuliar rifle....its easy to shoot, low recoil, and just plain fun. Just to make you happy, I think i will get another one....

Megan Kraby January 10, 2013 at 05:49 pm

Jon, I never have stated there should be more assault weapons on the street. Of course police officers don't want more assault weapons on the street, because it's the CRIMINALS that steal them (hence no background check) and use them to kill people, including police officers!!! Do you really think that limiting law abiding citizens access to guns is going to stop criminals from getting them? Our own GOVERNMENT has sold weapons for money to groups that, let's say, would not have passed a background check. I don't believe that military style weapons should be sold or available to anyone, except for the military. However, the general public needs to educate themselves on the type of guns they wish to abolish. Many "assault rifles" are used for hunting - yes, the outside of them look different, and more "military style" but inside the gun is the same. Since you have brought this up more than once, I can't speak to why it is easy for your family to get permits to carry or firearms. I am going to assume that no one in your family has a criminal past, which is a big reason why they have never had a problem with either. The point is that there are hoops to jump through, hoops that mass killers don't use, so creating more hoops does nothing to help the problem at hand!! Why do only 60% of gun purchases require background checks? Where are the other 40% happening???? And please define "weapons of mass destruction"

Megan Kraby January 10, 2013 at 06:09 pm

I just want to say that the proposed legislation does not just limit the sale of military type assault rifles - it includes handguns and rifles. Read the proposed legislation and educate yourself. Don't just follow what the media tells you. Of course, the legislation protects "legitimate hunters", but who decides who is a "legitimate hunter"? The Washington DC sharpshooter was a hunter - he just hunted people. This is a slippery slope we are headed down. And trying to find a gun to buy right now is very difficult - they are all sold out and on backorder. Washington DC had one of the stricted gun control laws in the country.....they also had the worst crime rate.

Jon Frasz January 10, 2013 at 06:40 pm

Megan the 40% of weapons sold without backgtound checks are sold at gun shows and online.

Megan Kraby January 10, 2013 at 07:25 pm

Where did you get that data from?

Megan Kraby January 10, 2013 at 07:40 pm

My 'expert' that I consulted said that one must fill out a 4473 ATF form and that guns can be sold to private parties, but most gun owners won't do that unless that person has a permit to carry (hence the background check to get the permit).

Megan Kraby January 10, 2013 at 08:02 pm

If one is buying online, the gun MUST be shipped directly to a federal firearms dealer who will not give you the gun unless you've filled out the 4473 ATF. An incredibly small percentage of sales happen without a 4473 ATF and those who privately sell guns want to cover themselves legally and so they don't sell to those without a permit.

Terry Elliott January 14, 2013 at 11:46 pm

Megan is correct: every gun I buy online goes to an FFL, and I am subject to a standard background check just like at a gun store. The percentage of guns sold a gun shows has to be very small. Go to one and you'll see; mostly mom and pops selling gear and equipment and a few guns. Many of those are historical pieces for collectors.

Community Member January 15, 2013 at 05:00 am

Megan, we have opposing views on the matter but as a mother myself I felt I should share the quote below by Harvard Professor Tribe, there are risks, as I am sure you know, to having a gun in the home. As a mother, just wanting to share not debate. I also just wanted to mention that illegal guns used by criminals are derived from legal guns, so the 2nd Amendment determines the types of guns we put into the hands of criminals and it determines how easily they are able to get them.
Jan 8, 2013 Harvard Expert Forum on Gun Violence - Webcast http://theforum.sph.harvard.edu/events/gun-violence Laurence Tribe, Professor of Constituitional Law, Harvard "Most people don't know that a gun in the home, in terms of well documented data, is more likely to result in their own death then to result in their own self protection" http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/gunsafe.pdf

Community Member January 15, 2013 at 05:12 am

Guns dont kill people people kill people
Glasses dont see, eyes see is a good argument against wearing glasses Glasses are a tool which help people see just as guns are a tool that help people to injure and kill others

yomammy February 22, 2013 at 01:44 pm

Criminals LOVE new gun control laws. It just means their targets for rape, murder, robbery will be even easier targets...

Jon Frasz February 22, 2013 at 04:01 pm

I am not against self defense. The statistics prove that people with guns in their homes are much more likely to die by being shot with their own weapon,including children shooting each other with uncontrolled guns. The guy who murdered all those babies in Newtown, started out by killing the gun owner ( his Mom) with her own weapon, wich I assume she had "for protection". I think we have to remember that all "rights" have also got limitations. Our first ammendment right to free speech is limited by things like not being allowed to yell " FIRE" in a crowded theatre, and prohibiting hate speech. In a civilized society, all of our rights are somewhat limited by other peoples rights. Like the rights of those children at Sandy Hook Elementary to Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I was at the hearing at the Capital yesterday and heard, one after another, Law enforcement officers (who deal with criminals and guns every day) speak about and support the need for more gun safety laws. This includes background checks and registration. If you are not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have a problem with this. Remember the first line in the second ammendment says..." A well regulated militia".

Megan Kraby February 22, 2013 at 04:18 pm

Oh my goodness, the killer at Sandy Hook STOLE the gun!!! No amount of legislation is going to stop that!!! You live in a dream world if you think that by passing stricter laws on how people gain access to guns, that crime is going to drop. Look at Chicago....look at DC!! In this dream world, stricter gun laws prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who want to do harm. Those of us who live in reality know that the people who want to do harm don't obtain their weapons legally in the first place!! So, you would have the mother of the Sandy Hook kiiller, a woman who passed background checks and obtained her guns legally, unable to buy guns because.....why????? How would you solve this??? The problem with it is that this is not where it's going to end. Our own government traded actual military assault weapons to the Mexican drug cartels in their Operation Fast and Furious!! You think that it's going to stop at background checks and registration?? Our own President has stated that he doesn't think ANYONE should own guns!!! Continue living in your dream world and the rest of us will focus on reality. Plus, the statistics on people dying from their owns guns are skewed. They are based on where a person died in relation to where gunowners lived. They are not based on whose actual gun did the shooting. And as to your referece to the Second Amendment, DC v. Heller confirmed that it is an individual right, outside of the militia.

Megan Kraby February 22, 2013 at 05:02 pm

Community Member, we obviously do have differing views on this and that is okay. It is what makes our nation great - the abiltiy to agree to disagree. Would your solution be to ban guns altogether since you state that "illegal guns used by criminals are derived from legal guns" ? The data on owning a gun and it being "more likely" to cause death than not owning a gun is skewed. The data is derived by documenting where death by guns occurred and in what proximity those deaths were to homes where people owned guns - not whose actual gun produced the fatal shot.

Jon Frasz February 22, 2013 at 05:32 pm

Megan, It still says "well regulated". the state also has the right to legislate public safety. That kid in Newtown didn't steal that gun it was made available to him in his home ,wich was my original point , the owner (Mom) was killed by her own weapon. She took her son to the range and taught him how to use it. How about the guy who murdered the nine year old boy in Oakdale, he had a carry permit. How well did that serve civilized society?

Megan Kraby February 22, 2013 at 06:05 pm

I see, it's the age-old "blame the mother" - He didn't steal it? It was registered to him? He was the owner? If the answer to those two questions is no than he stole it. It wasn't his. So it's wrong of a parent to take their children shooting, teaching them about gun safety?
What you are saying is that you want to ban guns all together. That is the double-talk that is going on here: "I'm not against self-defense" but the mother "shouldn't" have let her son have access to the gun. "I'm not trying to take away your hunting rifle", yet you want to ban semi-automatic rifles, which are the SAME thing! What is your answer for the Oakdale shooting? He passed a background check - that's what you are advocating for, correct? If you want to abolish guns from our society, than I wish that you'd just come right out and say it, instead of making it seem as though it's for the greater good.

Megan Kraby February 22, 2013 at 06:19 pm

What about the man in Duluth that just killed his roommate with a sword....a self-proclaimed "Martial Arts Enthusiast" - where's the outrage over swords left out openly for anyone to grab? Swords sold online without background checks or registration? These weapons of mass destruction that can kill many, slowly and painfully? Where is the outrage? Where are the bans over this? Where are the congressional hearings and the calls for action? Why is this different????

Donald Lee February 22, 2013 at 07:47 pm

Historical note: As I understand it, the term "regulated" in the 18th century was used not to mean "limited" or "constrained", but rather with the sense of "trained". The "well regulated militia" phrase was intended and interpreted at the time as "an effective militia" or a "competent militia". Also, "the militia" was not a standing army in any sense. The "militia" was just the people who lived nearby. They were all presumed to have a duty to share in the local defense.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm