Interesting Statistic - Soldiers and Policemen have the highest incidence of Gun Suicides. We have lost more American Soldiers to Suicide than to enemy attacks. There is a evisceral and inescapable psychological response to living with the reality of death and having the weaponry close at hand. When those weapons are killing machines to be used against other Human Beings the effect is exacerbated. Ask any Shrink.

Mr. Bays, do you know if there are any statistics about previous wars? Given that every American war has been fought with guns, has the rate of soldier suicide increased, decreased, or remained the same?

A similar trend line would be interesting just using guns-in-the-home. In the 1960s a little over 50% of American homes had guns, but now the number is a little less than one third of homes. What has been the rate of suicide with guns since 1960?

If the numbers roughly follow each other, the availability of guns could be argued. If the rate of suicide has increased, then it should be argued that Americans have changed--and guns are only a tool.

Suicide rate for 1950 21.2 per 100,000 for males and 5.6 per 100,000 for females. Suicide rate for males in 2005 (latest I could find) were 17.7 per 100,000 and 4.5 per 100,000 for females. So the suicide rate is going down as gun ownership is going down.

I should have said "civilian" suicide rate. I don't have figures for the military.

... what could also have changed is the degree to which suicides of former active-duty service members is even tracked, much as less the degree to which such statistics are made public. If anyone has a link from e.g. a university research study, that would be helpful.

Gregg, this is a bigger picture than just Homicides. The United States is responsible for over 80 percent of all the gun deaths than the 23 richest countries combined. African Americans make up nearly 13% of the U.S. population, but in 2009 suffered almost 24% of all firearm deaths – and over 54% of all firearm homicides. Among all fatal injuries, only motor vehicle accidents have a stronger effect. It is estimated, in a study prepared in a paper by Jean Lemaire, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, that the elimination of all firearm deaths in the US would increase the male life expectancy more than the total eradication of all colon and prostate cancers. Firearm homicide may play a role, alongside many other factors (such as socioeconomic status, unequal access to health care, and a primary health care system that largely ignores disease prevention) in explaining the life expectancy gap between whites and African-Americans. Adjusting for age, African-American males are almost 7 times more likely to die by firearm homicide than white males, a ratio that has changed little in the past 20 years (Levine et al, 2001).

The only U.S. Supreme Court ruling that actually focused on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Miller (1939), found that there is no individual right to bear arms independent of national self-defense concerns. The Supreme Court has spoken only once, it has spoken in favor of the civilian militia interpretation, and it has not spoken since. If the Court has held a different view, it has certainly had ample opportunity to rule on the matter since then. When you consider the key question and the facts here, to what degree do other considerations matter; such as the motives of the Founding Fathers and the dangers posed by contemporary firearms, make all firearms relevant to the issue at hand.

Wikipedia stats? OK???...Genius

ecnalubma, are you sure you've reviewed the cases? Are you confident the Heller opinion didn't discuss the 2nd amendment? You seem over-confident the 2nd amendment is the only amendment protected individual rights regarding the means to defend our life and liberty. Perhaps you should re-read the 9th and 14th amendments and acquaint yourself with their purpose and history, as well as the meaning of "natural" rights.

You should be comforted in that I believe you are in the majority opinion, but those opinions are fragile and irrational. I'm amazed how you can read and repeat the DOJ's report on the lopsided victimization of blacks relative to whites and yet miss the message born within that document and those statistics.

The more powerful message in those statistics, and others like them, is the importance of education, two parent households, and emancipation from government dependency.

Cellphones will not stop your being assaulted or raped, or your loved ones around you. Certainly, there are things you can do to lower your chances of victimization, and carrying a weapon is one of them, but according to DOJ and FBI statistics people are more at risk of violence and death from their own family members and close acquaintances than from random acts, and much less so from lunatics in public settings.

With roughly 5% of the population with carry permits, you have better odds of their intervening on your behalf than the police.

ecnalubma-- the 2nd Amendment has been the center of attention of two recent Supreme Court cases (Heller vs. Wash D.C., and McDonald v. Chicago). Prior to these two cases, you are right, the 2nd Amendment hadn't reared its head in the Supreme Court in eons. And there should be another major court case soon...

Can you imagine unwillingly forfeiting your natural right to bear arms just because you choose to use natural medicine instead of OxyContin?

Nearly 1,000,000 Americans lost their 2nd Amendment rights on the 10 year anniversary of 9/11!!!! And the NRA doesn't even lift a single finger.

120,000 law abiding Michigan citizens can no longer legally purchase firearms or ammunition because of the legal medical path they take, and Representatives like Candice Miller don't want to stick up for us, but they will say something after two dozen school children are brutally murdered by an assault rifle. Thanks, Candice. Thanks a lot!!!!

Tom & Mark:
Your comments, for the most part are well thought out. In my many years I have seen firsthand the poor results of the unintended use of guns. The right to bear arms is not protected by the constitutional as a right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, and you can be sued for libel. Every right is subject to limitation when it begins to threaten others, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that even though there is an individual right to gun ownership, the government can put reasonable restrictions on that right. If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far. If that were true, then how come it seldom happens? The truth is that in a chaotic situation, even highly trained police officers often wound kill bystanders. The idea that some accountant who spent a few hours at the range would suddenly turn into Jason Bourne and take out the killer without doing more harm than good has no basis in reality. I’d stand side by side with you to protect your right to have a gun, but this would go with limits. I see no need for large capacity weapons or assault/tactical weapons. I own my share of guns, which do not meet this description. Thanks for joining the discussion, maybe something will come of it that we call all embrace!

ecnalubma wrote, "If only everybody around was armed, an ordinary civilian could take out a mass killer before he got too far. If that were true, then how come it seldom happens?"

First, according to statistics, only 5% of the population has a permit to carry (where possible). Simply having a permit suggests they are likely to be law-abiding folks and not carry in theaters, temples, or schools.

Second, when a gunman's rampage is cut short by an armed citizen, it doesn't make the news, but the mall shooting in Portland was abbreviated by an armed civilian, as was the Theater shooting in San Antonio a few weeks ago, the shooting at the Appalachian School of Law, the Santee School shooting, the Pearl High shooting, and more locally, a crazy knife-wielding guy at the Holiday market last year that attempted two assaults in the parking lot before being stopped by an armed citizen and held until police arrived. You don't know about these because mass media has little interest promoting the fact the the best person to stop these events is someone *already there* with a gun.

Third, your accountant/Bourne strawman argument may appeal to folks that know little about guns and even less about FBI statistics, but crimes are more-often halted by an armed citizen without even a shot being fired.

Tom: Your last comment is for another topic. Specifically “Guns” and “Gun Control” are being discussed here. Not when, and if, a citizen halts a criminal in the act. Sure, if a burglar is breaking into my home from the back door, and I enter the front door, surely he is most often going to retreat whether I’m armed or not, but this is far different from the subject being discussed here. If this is going to be a productive discussion, then staying on point is important, I’m also guilty of moving off topic, so I’ll be more careful. Why do you keep going back to the 5% statistic? I agree with your comment about law abiding citizens, but permits to carry are not required at your home or, in most cases, at your business if you’re the owner. BTW, a 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 study team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.( Journal reference: American Journal of Public Health, DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099)

The Appalachian School of Law shooting was not stopped by "armed civilians". First of all, it was not stopped. The shooting was over and the shooter was apprehended by two students who also happened to be POLICE officers. The theater shooting in San Antonio was stopped by an off duty sheriff's deputy. IN the Santee School shooting , the shooter was found in the bathroom with his gun in his mouth by the police (not sure how you want to claim that one for the "armed civilians"), and finally in the Pearl High School, the assistant principal used his gun to DETAIN the shooter AFTER the shooting was over. So, you have not provided one example of an armed civilian PREVENTING a shooting. You have provided one single example of a guy stopping another guy that had a knife. In a nation of 300 million with thousands being shot to death every year, that is pretty weak evidence.

Yes but when used, the assault weapons can wipe out a room full of people in just seconds and they seem to be getting more popular. Statistics will change, you'll see.

What does morality have to do with being a Christian OR atheist or anything else? You are no better or worse because you stick 'christian' in front of your name. That surely doesn't make you more 'moral'. 'Good Christian" can be a stomach turner.

Please start this process. Many of us will be willing to help you.

The problem with the mental health argument in this case is that in at least two of the recent shootings (Sandy Hook and the theater), both men were known to have some mental issues. The theater shooter was in therapy. It didn't do any good. The one in Connecticut had wealthy parents and probably plenty of access to mental health care. Throwing more money into mental health care would not have helped these two or solved the problem. Do we need to make sure people who need mental health care get it? Sure, but it wouldn't really apply to these two recent mass shootings.
Before you go thinking I'm all against guns, that is not the case. I do think some of the far leaning pro gun people are going a little overboard (I've seen posts comparing Hitler to Obama). No one is taking all of your guns away. There is a huge push for the government to take some kind of action after the recent mass shootings over the last year (wasn't there another in Colorado and one in a mall in Oregon recently?). Obama isn't all to blame. This is something that a large population is pushing for.
Personally, I think if we did allow certain individuals in schools to train and carry a gun it would help. If that principal at Sandy Hook had a gun she could have stopped him. Even if a couple of people were trained and licensed to carry it would be better than waiting on the police to get there.
I know there will be plenty who disagree with me. I'm just merely stating how I FEEL. Thanks

When will you all be joining the well regulated militia (you know, the first part of the sentence in the second amendment) that gives you the right to bear arms...

Thanks for the chuckle Wiley Coyote

Michelle, do you know any teachers who carry guns? Did you know that in Michigan, teacher may carry guns into schools under open carry laws now? Ever see a teacher carrying a gun? Ask yourself why not? Maybe teachers do not WANT to carry guns? Are you going to force them to? How would the principal, an untrained civilian, have been able to stop a trained shooter with body armor and semi-automatic weapons anyway? People watch too many movies. Most of these attacks are over in minutes. She wouldn't have gotten the gun out of her desk before it was all over. Let's say for argument's sake that arming teachers would work. What about all the other places where kids congregate? Are we going to arm daycare workers? Children's hospital nurses? Arcade owners? Chucky Cheese waiters? Playground monitors?

The Republicans did stick together. They lost. They can't seem to understand that fact.

Brad, I haven't read any suggestions that teachers would be /forced/ to carry arms into class rooms.

Instead, the question is, "What if a teacher possessing a permit wished to carry in the school?" If you child was in a classroom when a lunatic barged in, would you rather the teacher had something to protect your child with other than their body?

For it to be a solution, teachers would have to be forced to carry guns. Again, according to the current open carry laws in Michigan, teacher are allowed to carry guns into schools NOW as long as they are openly carrying. The law that was overturned by Governor Snyder only addressed concealed weapons. However, most teachers would not carry - either openly or concealed - even if they had the right to do so because they are teachers and not police officers. Therefore, this is no solution.

Michelle, good points! Brad, that's the same lame argument you posted on annarbor.com weeks ago. Heard it, rejected it.

The only thing that scares me is that in some cases evidence comes out and proves some innocent (potentially a big thing in rape cases). Yikes! Now, if you know for sure they did those things, then I agree. Or, how about an eye for an eye. Whatever they have done do to them.

American homicide deaths have been dropping since the crack-down on the crack cocaine epidemic. It is no coincidence that homicides rates have been falling since more violent offenders have been sentenced to longer jail terms with a coincident rise in carry permits.

The problem with gun violence is more demographic and social than it is anything having to do with guns. The still outstanding homicide rates are in urban areas. In Michigan, the highest rates of homicides are in Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, and Pontiac--not Bloomfield Hills, Rochester, or Troy.

Gun-control is an irrational and emotional reaction to a problem politicians, and most Americans, really don't want to do anything about. Instead, as before in the 1960s and 1860s reconstruction, too many Americans believe gun-control will bring peace to inner-cities and blighted neighborhoods, because education and two-parent households can't be legislated or imposed by executive order.

Not purposely is the point and why your argument is invalid. If a car functions properly, it does not kill. If a gun functions properly it does kill.

Brad - as a career police office and competitive shooter, my gun has functioned properly literally tens of thousands of times and not once has any bullet fired from my gun killed anyone or anything.

That is not the point. Guns are designed to kill and have no other purpose than that. A car is designed to get me to work. Pharmaceuticals are designed to make us well. Hospitals are designed to make us healthier. True, guns can be used to punch holes through paper, but we have better tools to do that. You were a police officer and had a legitimate reason to own a gun. You were properly trained to use it. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the wannabes who think they are John Wayne.

Brad, cars are effective weapons when the driver intends to use them as such. Though we can't drive a hand gun to work, DOJ and FBI statistics show hundreds of thousands of violent crimes are thwarted each year by a gun-wielding victim that never needs to fire a shot.

Brad, why do people need a legitimate reason to own a gun? Do you think such a proof of need is necessary to enjoy any other of our rights? Should permission from the government be granted or a permit issued before you to post on the Patch, complain to your senator, go to church, or gather with others of like mind as yours?

In Woolard v Sheridan, a Maryland District Court Judge wrote, "A citizen may not be required to offer a `good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”

Thomas you ask "Should permission from the government be granted or a permit issued before you to post on the Patch, complain to your senator, go to church, or gather with others of like mind as yours? " In Brad's defense, those things do not KILL people. I know I know...Guns don't kill people, people kill people. They are not taking ALL guns away. They are just trying to limit how many more innocent lives are lost. It's not that you may not have valid points elsewhere but using the above argument is silly because going to church, posting on the Patch, etc. do not kill people. Its not apples to apples.

Michelle, I can certainly use that argument and it's only silly if you lack imagination or reference. People are scared of Muslims because off what they may do. A riot incited by a speech, a verdict, or a movie can kill many more people than lost their lives at in Newtown, Aurora, and Oak Creek combined.

"Brad, why do people need a legitimate reason to own a gun?"

Why do I need a legitimate reason to own hand grenades?

Thomas,
You are missing the point. The argument goes that if I can use my car as a weapon, then do we want to outlaw cars? However, if we could theoretically get rid of all cars tomorrow, what would happen? Our society and economy would collapse because cars are necessary to meet the human need of transportation. If we could get rid of all guns what would happen? Nothing. The country would not change one bit. The only need for guns is because of other guns.

If a car functions properly, but the driver is drunk (or otherwise impaired), it can and does kill... in fact, properly-functioning cars in the hands of ill-equipped (drunk, new, old) drivers kill FAR MORE people than guns ever did, that's an easy fact to prove. Oh, and like Harley, Im not a LEO but my guns have never hurt any person.
Ever. Pharmaceuticals impair many people, as well as inhibit progress. First-hand seen doctors put family members on meds that took them out of functionality, and they only got better once we STOPPED the drugs. Another fact: more people GET sick and die in hospitals than any other place. That is one reason they try to get you out of there asap, to prevent contracting other illnesses. Look up C. diff, kills 14,000 ppl/yr, occurs in hospitals/nursing homes thru fecal material. Nice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clostridium_difficile

So your arguments are all proven FALSE, cars kill, drugs kill, and hospitals kill, all more than guns. Next.

michelle, "I know I know...Guns don't kill people, people kill people." And yet you still wish to blame the objects. Using this logic, they should ban bars and/or alcohol, because if you go in and drink, 99% then have to drive home. Since MORE people are killed by DDs than by all guns, this should make more sense to you. But history shows prohibition doesn't work, and that will hold true with guns as well. Laws will only prevent HONEST citizens from getting them legally, not criminals. The law WORKED in Newtown, preventing him from buying a rifle, but did not work in preventing the crime. Kneejerk is no way to legislate a country.

How Bill? At Sandy Hook, the young man came from an extremely wealth family. I'm sure they could afford mental health care. There were plenty of signs he had issues. His parents failed everyone by allowing him to have access to the guns in the first place. Lack of mental health care was not the issue in this case. He could afford all the care in the world. Same thing with the theater shooter. He WAS in therapy. She wasn't allowed to tell the authorities about him because of doctor patient privledge but the signs were there too.
Yes, we need better mental health for many poor people. The homeless could really use it. My guess is that those are not the people you want to help. You want to blame mental illness and say they needed help but even with government mental health funds, this would not have helped in at least those two cases. The therapist on Colorado should have been able to alert authorities. The kid in Connecticut's mother should not have allowed him near guns. Each case is different. There are no real answers and nothing to please everyone. However, there is a huge call to take action and people are trying to do what they feel is best. I don't agree with everything either but I know that people are crying something has to be done and that forces the hands of our elected officials to take some kind of action.

That is kind of a duh. I have used guns and never shot anyone or anything. They are not taking all guns away from people. I just think it is a band aid on a much bigger issue. It wasn't a criminal that shot up Sandy Hook or the theater. They were mentally unstable (but without a criminal record). They both had access to mental health help. So throwing money there doesn't help either. I think they are trying different things to see if it helps. I don't know if the proposed changes would have done a lot in either of these cases. Maybe a smaller clip would have helped somewhat but not stopped them entirely.

But people with guns kill many, many more people than they would if they didn't have guns, and they often use guns designed to kill as many people as possible. People get angry and upset everywhere in the world. But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan, and the reason is that people in those places who have these impulses don't have an easy way to access lethal weapons, let alone assault weapons, and unlimited ammunition. But if you want to kill large numbers of people and you happen to be an American, you'll find it easy to do.

Ecnalubma, "But there aren't mass shootings every few weeks in England or Costa Rica or Japan," Do your homework. Citizens of those countries have horrendous rates of lethal stabbings and people being beaten to death. Look at England's crime rates.

Dexter Mom,

England has a murder rate of 1.2 per 100,000 and the US rate is 4.8 - exactly four times higher. Japan is 0.4% - the US rate is 12 times higher.

Michelle, which argument are we debating? Sandhook, Aurora, and others like them contribute trivially to the nation's homicide rate. This past year alone there were 379 homicides in Detroit alone, which is the equivalent of 14 Sandyhooks in one year.

If the issue is national homicide rates, all discussions should start with the stipulation that all parties agree the rates have been falling nationwide for nearly 20 years. Then before acting, we should perhaps ask ourselves what reason there may be for that. After that discussion, we should discuss if we should do more of what already may be working rather than something we know isn't.

ecnalubma, in the 1950s over half of American households had guns and the rates weren't as high as they are today. The availability of guns in the 50s, 40s, or even the 30s and 20s didn't provoke people to use them whenever they got angry--prohibition excluded.

More interesting statistics from the early-to-mid 20th century are America's demographics, the lower number of children born out of wedlock and the lower percentage of single mothers.

Guns are a convenient boogeyman for those without the intellectual honesty or constitution to talk about social decay in our cities. There has been far greater poverty before in American, but only in the late 20th and early 21st century is it used as an excuse for crime.

For all our contemporaneous claims of superiority over previous generations and antiquated social values, we must ask ourselves if we're so much better why is our behavior is so much worse?

Actually Thomas that is what sparked the debate is trivial as it may seem to you...

Oops, I meant to also add though that the next post (the one not directed to me) was very intersting. I think that is where people need to look. WHY have things changed so much over the generations? Why is there less of a regard for life? Those are some interesting points. I think when we can get to the root of our issues then we can actually solve them. Absent parents (whether they are married or single) that pay no attention to their children or expect the schools to raise them. So many do not have the same morals and values. They think violence is COOL. Where did all of this come from (people like to pick on video games, you suggest out of wedlock mothers and loss of values)? I see the YOLO everywhere and my son just showed me the music video for it. It made me sick. That is what the kids are watching? That is what they think is cool? Sickening. I don't think I'm a stick in the mud but young people (I'm only 36 myself) are really getting out of control. I can only do so much to shield my child. The stuff is everywhere you look.

Tom:
I think you miss something in your facts about the history of weapons ownership. I give you that your information is probably correct, but I didn’t study any sources. My argument stems around limiting magazine size and assault weapons. Case in point, a lot of argument has fueled the conspiracy argument around the JFK assassination. Part of the argument involves the fact that only a handful of people believe that Oswald could fire the number of rounds in the given time of his assault. I have had in my possession a 6.5 Carcano, and no matter how much I tried and practiced I had a hard time firing the gun in a sustained sequence equal to what is alleged on Nov 22, 1963. My point is that I believe that your statistics do not account for these types of weapons, and that maybe more individuals owned guns then, but they did not own large magazine, semi-automatic, assault weapons. I believe that back in the ‘50s it was one shot for each manual loading of the chamber, not one round for each squeeze of the trigger. I have no argument about your comments about our social environment, but this is probably left for another thread.

Michelle, you have landed on a very important spot. Society has changed for all of those reasons and why aren't people up in arms about that? I am glad I did not live any later because we are producing more and more people who never will be taught how to be decent. Our "entertainment" involves watching violence and wanton sex. They call it "adult" entertainment. Haven't kids always wanted to be like adults?
Batant disregard for human life is the norm and parents look the other way.

Ambulance, it only took 3 shots to assassinate the President. NONE of the proposed laws would have prevented that incident.
Dexter Mom, exactly right. If you disarm legal citizens, the strong arm thugs take over like rats. Check "violent crimes" in countries without arms, not just "gun murders". Home invasions skyrocketed after the arms grab... is that what ppl want?
michelle, agree on games/videos/music/etc... our kids are fed and surrounded by pure GARBAGE 24/7. I twist YOLO on my kids as NOT a reason to go crazy, but the fact there are no 'do overs', so make your choices wisely. Tough days.

Very well thought out on both sides of the issue. Definitely adds value to the discussion.

The "high capacity" magazine argument is a non-issue. Anyone with a modicum of practice can accurately shoot 60 rounds almost as fast with 6-ten round magazines, 4-fifteen round magazines, or 3-twenty round magazines. The time to change magazines can be little more than one second. Even reloading a 6-shot revolver can be done in little more than two seconds. I'm perfectly comfortable with the 7-round magazine in my defensive pistol, but limiting capacity of magazines that will be made or sold in the future solves absolutely nothing.

If it solves nothing, it also hurts nothing, right?

Greg, when the 2nd amendment was written they may not have imagined 17-round magazines (I'm sure for a gun-owner like you "clipse" was a slip-up) for a hand gun, but nor did they imagine the internet when the wrote the 1st amendment.

In the words of one writer (sorry I don't have the citation), if freedom of speech can grow and extend with advances in technology, then so should the 2nd (and presumably the 4th).

There are lots of things the framers may not have imagined (like posterity's timidity and dependency), but the did have cannons of all types. And while it may be construed that I've a natural right to defend life and liberty, and a 2nd amendment right the same and for the states to maintain militias, I should not be at a disadvantage against multiple assailants because the president believes 10-rounds in a magazine is all that is necessary or all that are deserved, to protect my wife and children, or a store owner from a riot, or a mother against the police, or a guy in the woods against the sheriff, or a peculiar commune against the FBI.

The great misunderstanding of individual rights, and the right to keep and bear arms, is that the right doesn't come from the government. The right comes with life. It is a natural right.

For all the framers effort to design a government of limited powers, what they didn't imagine was a citizenry so dependent on the government they would throw-away such dearly bought freedoms.

Thomas - well said, particularly your last paragraph!

I see a lot of people complaining about the armed officers at Obama's children's schools. Obviously ALL of our president's children have had special protection. The president and his family are more of a target than most of our little ones.
I would not be opposed to an armed guard but who is going to pay for them? I have people crying left and right about the taxes that pay now (when they already were down from the housing crash). Trying to get the to cough up more for another salary would kill them. We are already cutting teachers, closing schools, eliminating programs. To add an armed guard sounds like a nice fix but you will have the group of parents who worry about them, or the "feelings" it gives their students. Poor Johnny is afraid to go to school because the big man with a gun. Or what if some students were to attack and try to steal the gun? You will always have someone with an argument.
I am not Snyder's biggest fan but after the shootings in Conn I was FOR the proposal to allow certain people to carry guns in places like schools (with proper background checks and training). I thought, well if Sandy Hooks principal had a gun (or someone on the premises) then they could have stopped him before the police arrived.
As for mental health, Adam's family was knowledgable he had issues and were wealthy enough to afford care for him. The theater shooter was seeing a therapist. It didn't do any good.

Go Anne. I agree.

No, Ann, it is not only your opinion, I have the exact same opinion!

Hmm, Brad J's. comment only seem sot show in my email and not here. Oh well. In response. I am not saying a teacher HAS to be armed or forced to carry. I am just saying if someone is comfortable with it, goes through a more arduous process of training and licensing I would think it could help protect schools. Besides MY comment was in relation to the one above it about how Obama's children have armed people guarding them at school. I know that most cities are complaining about lack of funing so to pay for armed guards is probably out. If certain school officials are good with carrying and using weapons I would consider it. If the principal at S.H. had one then she could have stopped the shooter in her school. If not, her (maybe she doesn't like guns), then maybe a teacher or something. Sort of like what they do with the planes with air marshalls. If someone is willing to pull double duty. We have teachers who are coaches. Maybe we would have some teachers ok with also protecting students. I wasn't saying everyone should just that we should consider looking at it. It would have saved lives.
The guy had guns his mother obtained legally. He didn't buy them off the streets. He had access to mental health (they could afford it at least). I'm just trying to think of what could work.

Possibly the armed guard at a gate house at a school entrance need not be as costly as might be thought. Draw from the pool of trusted retired police officiers or security guards who would be willing to work part-time and already have the built in sense of protecting and serving the public. I think their years of experience dealing with all sorts of perps and developed instincts would be an advantage. Do this only for the elementary schools, kids will see him/her as a grandpa (or grandma) figure.

There are so many venues that are already supervised by a guard...office buildings, research centers, gated communities; surely we can at least consider protecting our most precious resource, our defenseless young children.

Anne,
Are there adult foster care homes that would take in the mentally or emotionally ill? I've heard there are little to no state-run mental institutions anymore but are there other avenues for family members that can't cope or don't have the expertise?

I feel like the mother of the Sandy Hook perp was out-of-her league and in-denial about son's condition. You don't isolate someone like that for five years and be their only contact and think that's a good thing. An adult foster home where there is supervision (e.g., are they taking their meds?), routine, a sense of purpose, belonging and normalcy instilled would have been preferable.

And, yes, michelle, family being able to afford care or family proximity does not prevent these episodes...I'm thinking of the Reagan and Gabby Giffords attempted assasinations. If the theater shooter was indeed seeing a therapist and had made threats, I would have any privacy laws that prevented said therapist from reporting him to the authorities changed.

I concur with your opinions Ann. Well said...

He hasn't stopped the wars and he hasn't closed Guantanamo. Empty election rhetoric from his fist campaign.

michelle,
How about the armed guard cost come out of the gun manufacturers's profits? They're already contributing to the NRA lobby, how about a corporate tax for the privilege of selling their wares unregulated that could be applied to keeping our children safe.

michelle, it's because he deleted it after posting. And you are over-thinking what could have prevented SH... fact is, no matter what, you cannot prevent everything, and the police will arrive to a scene AFTER the incident (re: not preventing). I have no doubts, with her passion, the SH principal would have stopped him if she had a weapon besides her hands. Brave woman, God bless, we need more like her!

Agree with your sensible comments.

You need to prosecute the 'straw buyers', not the dealers who are legally selling to 'checked' buyers. What they do with them is not controllable by dealers. Convicted 'straw buyers' (easy paper trail) should receive mandatory life. This would make them think 3 times.

Oh what's 2-5 more rounds? That is getting arbitrary. :-) Sorry.

Will 10-shot magazines really make a difference? How many more seconds does it take to fire 30 rounds if you have to swap mags twice? I tried it with empty mags and it was 5 seconds.

In Aurora, there were 27 shots in 30 seconds. 5 seconds would have meant what - four less shots? Four less people dead? Let's turn the question around - if you can swap out your magazines quickly, then what need does anyone have for high-capacity magazines?

Brad, the Aurora shooter didn't stop shooting because he was out of ammo, did he? You're focused on the 30 seconds when you should be focused on the 27 shots and as far as I know, nothing made him stop shooting. He left unharmed and politely surrendered to police outside when they caught up to him.

For everyone interested about how gun control may effect multiple-victim public shootings like Sandyhook and Aurora, I recommend reading "Multiple Victim Public Shootings" by two economists from Yale and University of Chicago.

"...our results find that the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce the number of shootings and have an even greater effect on their severity."

http://www.thevrwc.org/JohnLott.pdf

Who knows? Five seconds would have given someone else the chance to escape? My point was if that reloading would have saved one life and not having large capacity magazine would not present a burden to hunters and sportsmen, then why not outlaw large capacity magazines?

Brad, one more time - the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting and sportsmen. It's about defense of and by "the people". From what I have read of history, virtually every "free" people that have fallen to governmental atrocities got there slowly, often starting with governmental regulation of weapons and evolving into outright confiscation. From what I have read, those who have ended up on the wrong end of a tyrannical government have thought it would never happen to them.

Your large capacity magazines would not help you fight the US Army.

We should hope it would never be necessary to oppose the US army, but you're thinking only about the present, and not the purpose of or need of the 2nd amendment when it was ratified or its possible necessity in the future.

Regardless, it has sometimes been necessary for citizens to defend themselves from police, sheriffs, and the FBI.

Maryanne Godboldo was found not-guilty of shooting at police when they came to remover her daughter from her home.

Randy Weaver was found not-guilty, posthumously, for his stand-off with sheriffs at Ruby Ridge.

And who are any of us to handicap any law-abiding citizen, or Korean shop keeper, in the amount of ammunition that may be necessary to defend their lives and property from rioters.

No Brad, your math is wrong. "four less shots? Four less people dead?" would mean every bullet killed someone. FAR from accurate. Out of supposed 100s of shots fired, only 12 people died. So four less shots means nothing statistically. Also, not everyone died/injured from gunshots, but also from chaos and trauma in the exit stampede.

"there were 27 shots in 30 seconds." is not a fact, but a guesstimate from patrons in a state of shock and panic. Also, some people died from the regular-old shotgun and Glock handgun he also carried, therefore diluting the death toll by the "assault" rifle.

"if that reloading would have saved one life...then why not outlaw large capacity magazines" Please show me ANY other laws enacted to save one life?

Then we should ban eggs, since 1,100 people die annually from salmonella. Same logic.

The Tucson shooter was stopped as he was changing his magazine.

The 27 shots in 30 seconds was from the 911 tape. And no, the egg argument is not the same logic.

Guns are not violent. Guns do not kill people. People do not shoot people. People with guns shoot people. When was the last time you heard of a drive-by knifing?

Enter Eric Holder...

In many towns, you were required to check your guns with the sheriff if you wanted to enter the town.

Brad, other than Wyatt Earp in Tombstone AZ, do you have other examples?

Dodge City, for one:
http://buffleheadcabin.com/post/2778934233/front-street-dodge-city-kansas-1878-the-sign

Wichita, Deadwood.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/23/1112703/-De-mythologizing-the-Wild-West-gun-laws-were-actually-stricter-then-than-now

Congratulations. Can you find evidence of those restrictions being challenged in court and found constitutional? I'm pretty sure the McDonald and Heller cases are contemporary examples demonstrating that though these restrictions may have occurred, they would be found unconstitutional.

That was not the question that I was answering. The Duke asked about the history of the western frontier.

Brad, Thanks for the great information. It baffles me why folks want to keep re-inventing the wheel when all one has to do is research history.

"How many more children and innocent people need to die before we take action? "
42 kids (2x as many as SH) were killed by skateboards in 2011... should we ban them? Hundreds of kids killed on bikes every year... should we ban them? If you want to save kids, there are many other 'objects' that harm them, albeit not so dramatically.

True, but without infringing on the law abiding folk's individual rights.

Lots of interesting points brought up. A analogy may be made between pre 9-11 airport environment and now. What's in place is inconvenient, invasive of one's privacy and arguably against some constitutional right ("unreasonable search"?) but we put up with it because of the threat of terrorism. So by the same token, I'm willing for my mental health records to be checked and reported, if it will prevent little kids in body bags.

Our rights are what we as a society decide are our rights. Slavery was once considered a "right". We have decided that no one has a "right" to own a fully automatic machine gun or hand grenades. We can as easily decided that no one has the right to own a semi-automatic rifle or even handguns.

Brad, if you believe "Our rights are what we as a society decide are our rights," then the intention and contents of the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution escape you. As much as that saddens me your comments provide empirical evidence why it's so hard to debate public policy, and why so little is expected from our elected officials but favors.

Apparently Article 5 has escaped YOU. You know, the part that allows for the Constitution to be amended. If it were not so, we would have no Second Amendment to discuss. We would also still have slavery and women would not be allowed to vote. Therefore, you have the "right" to bear arms because of the second amendment, (actually the incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment IMHO) however, it is not a god given right. The Second Amendment could be repealed - just as the 18th was. If it was, then you would no longer have that right. That is why it is so hard to discuss public policy - ignorance of the very things that people like to shout the loudest about.

Rights are inherent, not "granted" by government or society. Governments and societies are often slow to recognize many rights, but are just as often to quickly infringe on them. Our Constitution didn't "grant" rights, it only recognized and enumerated SOME of them, while keeping open the probability that we have other rights that they hadn't enumerated.

Yes, there are some inherent rights or Human Rights that should not be denied by any government. Gun ownership is not one of them. Not even close.

You're right Tamara,, Let's take OUR America BACK!~ Let's take it back to the best of times when we could own ANY gun we wanted,,, back to when my wife would have been a possession WITHOUT the right to vote or speak her mind (ended in 1920),, back to the time when blacks had to stay out of my restaurant, ride on the back of the bus (ended 1965 +/-).

The point being that society EVOLVES,, let's be honest,, nobody "needs" an assault weapon. There are hundreds of guns of all shapes and sizes available for protection and sporting. The NRA has evolved from a true sportsmen's group into the mouthpiece of the gun manufacturers and they're using YOU as a pawn in their game. The NRA has been quite successful at filling your heads with FEAR of losing your gun rights and you've all lined up to buy guns and ammo much to the benefit of the manufacturers. Mission Accomplished!

The 2nd amendment grants every citizen the "right to bear arms". It says NOTHING about felons or the mentally ill not being able to own them,, those laws EVOLVED over time to reflect COMMON SENSE needs to keep society safe from those that would do us harm. As stated earlier,,, NOBODY NEEDS an assault weapon. There are more of "us" than "them" when it comes to this issue and I pray these weapons are soon banned. You can blame the "Dems", but rest assured that Republican lawmakers are seeing the light as well and they too will vote to end this madness.

Ron, as I recall, the Second Amendment wasn't drafted to protect sportsmen or hunters, or even so much for personal defense, but rather to provide an armed populace to help keep "a free state" - meaning protection against enemies foreign and domestic, including an out of control government. The Second Amendment reference to “the people” is referring to the same “people” as in the rest of the Constitution, including “the people” in the First Amendment, not just those who are in a recognized militia.
By the way, the militia are “the people”, or all men (to be politically correct, all men and women) who are capable of bearing arms.

You forgot the "well regulated" militia. So, in other words - the National Guard.

Brad, the National Guard is a part of the government. The militia are “the people”, or all men who are capable of bearing arms, not just those in the uniform of a government supported formalized organization.

Would you agree that the Minutemen were an example of the "militia" that the Constitution is referring to? If "militia" means "the people" then why would the 2nd Amendment not say "The people" being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Why "well regulated"? How can "all men" be "well regulated"? Regulated by whom?

Paste in your browser and read last sentence.

http://newtownbee.com/News/2012-12-27__14-58-27/Police%20Union%20Seeks%20Funding%20For%20Trauma%20Treatment

And if you don't like being shot?

Brilliant retort Brad

WOW! now it is a Republican/Tea Party against the Democrats. Sad!

Funny, I had the same reaction to your post as soon as I read that you are referring to our Commander and Chief (who was democratically elected by the majority of US citizens in a fair and free election) as "osama".

Tamara, in your above statement are you refering to Osama bin Laden? What rights did he take away from us?

Jamie, many people each year, some estimate that the number is in the thousands, are SAVED because they possessed a firearm to defend themselves, often without firing a shot. So, if my possession of a defensive weapon saves just one life...

Right Harley...some censuses of a more commercial nature have indicated well over 2 million cases where a firearm was used to save lives or deter a violent crime. The media, of course, very rarely reports these incidents.

OH MY!

Yeah, they get them illegally by stealing them from you. What would our society be without any doctors? A whole lot unhealthier. What would our society be without cars? The way it is now, it would collapse.
Now, what would our society be without guns? A whole lot safer.

Do you ever wonder where those illegal guns come from?

Sorry, Brad. Even if all guns in the U.S. disappeared tonight, by tomorrow there would be hundreds of guns in the hands of criminals, thousands by the end of the week, tens of thousands by the end of the month. Utopia looks good on paper, but the human element always manages to screw it up. Until there is a universal and foolproof cure for bad people, I plan on owning and being proficient with tools to exercise my right to protect my family and myself from the wolves.

It was a theoretical question. I am asking about the inherent value of guns. The only value of guns is to stop other people with guns. I am arguing about the argument, which I find stupid, that because "x" also kills people, we should outlaw that. Machine guns are designed to kill people. They have no other purpose. I can argue that I enjoy owning machine guns and that I feel that I need them to defend myself against "tyranny". However, we outlaw those because it would be stupid to let people have them. We DID have machine guns in private hands and criminals had them as well. We outlawed them and now neither law-abiding citizens nor criminals have them now. There are not "thousands" by the end of the week. Your argument is that because we have done nothing to control guns and keep them out of the hands of the wrong people, we should just throw our hands up in the air and say we can't do anything. Lock yourself in and prepare to shoot anyone who comes through the door?

"Now, what would our society be without guns? A whole lot safer. " Not necessarily true Brad. Look at Britain, they collected up guns, and IMMEDIATELY "strong arm" violent crime and home invasions skyrocketed. This means, without guns, the criminals would simple break in your home and beat you senseless and take what they want. We are a more violent society (like it or not) than Britain, so imagine what would happen in the suburbs of Detroit if guns disappear. If you think peace and harmony would ensue, you'd be fatally wrong. It'd be ugly. The Koreans in LA wouldn't have stood a chance against the rioters without their arms. LA cops ran to gun shops to get their rifles... but what if the gun shops didn't have them, as you propose? What then?

Name calling and ad hominen attacks show that you have no valid arguments left. No, I am not a member of the communist party if it is of any business of yours. Now a question for you: are you plotting the violent overthrow of the United States government?

You sure are full of self-righteousness. Have you actually seen the weapons Lanza used? Are there actual pictures somewhere? Because lacking actual pictures, it's entirely possible the police in podunk Newtown mis-identified the weapons used. And it's possible that they wouldn't want to admit this mistake, because it would make them look foolish. It would also remove some wind from the sails of the pied-piper gungrabbers, whom you are obviously following like a good little child.

You are sure about what you think, because of stuff you read on the internet. That is a recipe for failure.

Well, here's the rumor mill on Sandy Hook and the non-sense being spread by the "Truthers"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp

Col. Duke,,, it is obvious that you (and those that think like you) only believe that which you already believe to be true and the rest is considered utter nonsense. Thus the source and content of any information contradictory to what you already believe is rendered irrelevant before you even read it. Facts have no place in your world and are easily substituted with conjecture and dripping with innuendo intended to support anything BUT factual information. You live to deny the obvious.

And I would agree with you on one item in particular,,, reading anything on the internet from folks like yourself and attempting to take is serious is definitely a "recipe for disaster".