One network showed video of a reporter interviewing a third grader outside her school after the shooting. Interviewing a 3rd grader after something like this is just wrong.

Enough. Pluck the Second Amendment

As crappy as it is to say it, we were really, really lucky with the Clackamas shooting. The fact that only 3 people died seems almost miraculous compared to today's tragedy.

allan L.... Guns do NOT kill people... PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Guns don't kill people, but people with guns are committing murder in large numbers, every single day.

We need to stop this. Your right to an assault rifle is not greater than a child's right to her life.

Time to get real about serious fire arm restrictions and mental health screening.

This sucks. Now we're going to have this huge debate. The gun nuts will insist that we need even more guns. All those teachers should be armed! I surely don't want to live in this world.

The gun grabbers will say we need an assault weapons ban, even though reports say this was committed by 9mm handguns.

Neither will solve any problems.

Don't blame video games.

Don't blame guns.

Blame really crummy parenting, broken homes, lack of our ability to effectively treat people with mental health issues.

Invest in this, invest in education. We need fewer broken homes, less poverty, more happy people.

Bill Braskey: that's a load of nonsense, and you very well know it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

This.

The Leftists seems more concerned about guns than the murderous thugs, and family members that claim a bad child hood, Twinkies, and a job they did not like or did not have, maybe they ran out of Marijuana. The thug murders are cowards. Going after unarmed folks is alot easier than confronting the cops.

But, we all know this already.

One byproduct of Republican obstruction is successful implantation of the mind set that ...
a) all solutions must be simple; and
b) if a simple solution doesn't immediately resolve the problem being confronted, it's not worth trying.

Maybe we should have a law against killing people?

Oh?

You will never rid America of guns. They are as much a part of our character and history as the automobile. I consider myself a liberal, but I also consider private gun ownership to be a "right", not for hunting, but for protecting ourselves against tyranny, and in that regard whatever the police are allowed to carry so should citizens. Let's also remember the worst school massacre in US history involved explosives, not firearms:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

In the meantime I would buy stock in Sturm-Ruger because the paranoid rednecks are going to be buying guns by the long-ton.

Allan L: please explain how a gun on its own accord can kill someone without human intervention. Will said gun in a locked safe kill someone? Will a gun setting on a table kill someone without human interaction? etc....The 2nd amendment will stay forever.

So I suppose now the extreme gun lobby will say that the third graders should take hand guns to school to protect themselves!
Too many people have too many guns. We must start someplace and restricting assault rifles, and these multi clip hand guns that are for nothing more than killing human beings seems to me like a good beginning.
Will all of these weapons go away? Of course not, but a ban on these types of non hunting guns will at least impair the ability of these nut bars to buy them from so called licensed dealers. A ban on these weapons may even help in the smuggling of them into Mexico and Canada.
How many innocents must die or be maimed for life before this stops!?
Enact an assault weapon and hand gun ban NOW!

And one more thing....
It is no more tragic that 28 people or 75 people or hundreds die, than when 3 lives are taken.

Assault weapons are already banned in CT, except if you already owned any of the banned weapons prior to the law passing in 1993.

http://ctcarry.com/FAQ/Index/Assault%20Weapon%20Ban

I don't own any weapons, so don't really have a dog in the fight to preserve gun rights, or to ban ownership.

It's already against the law to kill someone.

That did not stop the shooter.

Ownership and sale of many weapons are restricted and/or banned, yet that did not stop the shooter.

What's next? mass poisoning? Ninja stars? driving an vehicle into a crowd?

As Jack said in a previous thread, we've got to stop the wall-to-wall coverage on the T and in the newspapers. We've got to stop glorifying these incidents.

Words cannot express my sorrow for the victims, and I wish there were truly a way to help the troubled in this world.

And also today, a knife-wielding man in Beijing slashed 22 people at an elementary school in China.

http://www.courant.com/sns-rt-us-china-stabbingsbre8bd065-20121213,0,5592318.story

I'm sure that the Chinese people would love to go ahead and repeal the 2nd Amendment from their Bill of Rights too. Oh wait, they don't have a Bill of Rights.

Do we need knife control laws too?

Homicidal people are going to commit homicidal acts, regardless of whatever laws you pass to feel better. Homicide trumps class-C felony anyway, and criminals don't give a damn about whatever laws you pass, because they are criminals.

The shooter (Ryan Lanza) was 24 years old. He may have also killed his father and mother, who have been found dead. His Facebook page indicates a "like" for the Guns and Roses tour "The World Ends in 2012."

"And also today, a knife-wielding man in Beijing slashed 22 people at an elementary school in China."

That particular crazy person was in Zhenping, Henan, about 600 miles south and west of Beijing.

please explain how a gun on its own accord can kill someone

One could as easily ask how an unarmed person could kill two and a half dozen people in a few minutes' time. But those are stupid questions, not relevant to the situation or worthy of attention.

But those are stupid questions, not relevant to the situation or worthy of attention.

Typical liberal response when asked to answer tough questions. Bravo Allan L. bravo !!!

I don't own weapons. I don't want to own weapons. I have no need or desire to own any weapons.
Yes, there are crazy people everywhere. That is why weapons capable of killing dozens of people fast and easily must be curtailed.
It won't stop everyone, but it might stop some people. Banning assault type weapons, getting a permit, requiring education and testing all will curtail the easy availability of the weapons.
For example, why and how was a convicted felon in possession of a weapon that was then used by his 11 year old son in an attempted robbery? Where were the child welfare folks? Where was the parole officer? All gone because there is no money for such things any more.
As a society we are not keeping track of those among us who need more management. This will cost us all more money. I am willing to pay.
It is time to have a meaningful conversation as a nation about controlling the availability of weapons in this country, and shouting the platitudes such as "2nd amendment rights" and "guns don't kill people, people kill people" do not help to start the conversation or solve this huge problem.

I agree with the comments that this will just ignite the tired old gun control argument.

Unless there is some plan to make guns mysteriously disappear, there will be guns. A commonly available BB gun that can be purchased at your local WalMart (even by kids) can be harmful and in some cases deadly. A .22 gun - again, commonly available, can kill just as well as any other gun. Maybe not as quickly, maybe not as accurately, but it can kill.

We need to get to the heart of the issue - that there are people in our country and a part of our society that need help. We can't sit by and say it's someone else's problem - becuase when that shooting victim is our neighbor, friend, family member - that becomes our problem, and when the victim is deceased it's too late to address the problem. We can't say "let churches do it" because they just don't have the manpower, the facilities, to be the end solution. The private sector is not going to step up and provide help. This is a societal problem and it is a public safety problem - it IS a government problem.

The solution, however, is harder to gauge. Banning guns clearly doesn't stop criminals from owning guns. Murder laws don't stop murders. We need to figure out what is making people snap. Maybe it's having a heart. Being less critical. Giving people second chances. Being compassionate. Putting aside arguments. Our country has gotten so polarized and everyone has to be right, and everyone else wrong. There's no temperance for anyone else or any other opinion. Nobody wants to compromise. Ordinary people get stuck in the middle...it's no wonder people have lost all hope, that their brain snaps and they resort to going down - and forcing others to share in their misery. It's not right and it's not fair...but as we have all read with the Clackamas Town Center shooter - he clearly had a messed up childhood. Little or none of that was his fault, some of which was circumstantial (the death of his mother at an early age) and others not as much (mother not knowing who the father was...aunt/uncle being more interested in marijuana than responsibly raising a child.)

It's time we stop blaming others...it's time everyone becomes part of the solution. From Joe Citizen, all the way up. No one should have to reach the point of snapping and having a mental breakdown. But when someone else...it needs to be caught early so they can be identified, and given help in a safe and secure location - where they will get help, and no one will be victimized.

If your gun is locked away in a safe and the ammunition is also locked away then why would need to have the gun or the ammo at all?
If you aren't planning on killing someone or something why do you have such weapons?
Just asking? I would like to know.

Hunting has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms. "Arms", as protected in the Constitution, are not hunting arms, they are weapons whose purpose is to protect oneself against, and thus kill, other people.

The chances of a Constitutional Amendment coming to pass restricting firearm ownership is exactly zero, and no amount of teeth gnashing is going to change that.

Male in his early teens = mental ilness. And to burnish my liberal credentials I will remind everyone who gutted out mental health system: Ronald Reagan. He was also the one who set the tone that led us down this path to where civil commitments are now much more difficult to get.

So if you want to take away peoples rights lets take them away from the people with mental defects.

Too sick to my stomach to digest any of the arguments above. Hit me in a few days.

I'd still like to hear why limiting or revoking my rights as a law abiding citizen is a good solution for curing the grievously mentally ill.

I have a feeling I'm not going to get an answer to that one from the "repeal the 2nd Amendment now!" crowd.

Portland Native. Because it my right, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S.Constitution. That's why.

Really, HMLA? What militia are you with?

I'm reiterating a few comments:

- Assault weapons are banned in CT, and their 10+rnd magazines.
- Concealed carry is basically banned
- Schools are gun-free zones by Fed law
- Murder is illegal

What other laws do you want to pass? Upon additional education, most will realize that human nature is very difficult to modify, even with legislation. The laws and even war against drugs has only exacerbated the problems.

Is typing another piece of paper into the law books going to help? I doubt it. So lets talk about practical measures.

Two points:

1. In all recent shootings, I have not seen any reporting on pharmaceutical drug history of the shooter

2. Can we arm & train teachers a la Israel?

In the same way cars and drivers are tested, registered and licensed and required to have insurance, there is an attempt to protect the majority of society against the reckless endangerment of others.
This does not prevent all accidents, but it does enable the rest of us to feel some sense of security that the other folks of the road have at least some knowledge, ability and responsibility for driving a vehicle.
Why cannot the same rules and regulations be applied to gun ownership?
How would similar rules for guns impinge on a person's rights to own a gun? Registration and regulation might just keep weapons out of the hands of those who should not have the privilege of gun ownership.
And why is owning a gun a right? If it is the right of everyone to own a gun, then the don't mentally unstable and convicted felons have just as much "right" as anyone else?

portland native: I have a CCW permit and carry at all times away from my home. At home my weapons are locked in a gunsafe that is easily accesible by myself or my wife. If anyone was to threaten my safety and/or my family's safety while we are out and about or if someone breaks into our home and threatens to harm us... I or my wife will not hesitate to shoot to kill. Does that answer your question?

If you aren't planning on killing someone or something why do you have such weapons?
Just asking? I would like to know.

I'm happy to inform you that rifles are excellent self-defense weapons. So Portland Native, I hope you can recognize that the short-lived (1960s-2004) war on guns is over. You are wasting your breath just as much as those on the right talk about abortion. Come up with a constructive suggestion if you actually care about this topic.

The idea that an act of congress, or some attorney remedying a missing section in the Criminal Code, will help eliminate mass killings seems indicative of the society that is producing sociopaths at a record clip.

Congress can't save you. Only a clear mind and the goodwill in another man's heart will keep him from killing you. We should try to promote more good will and less division. Taking care of our mentally ill would be a good start.

I was thinking the EXACT same thing as the very first post on here by mike....

Facetious argument Roger, or does your opinion supercede that of the U.S. Supreme Court?

Well stated, will.

To answer some questions by those so eager to trade their liberties for increased "safety":

"Why cannot the same rules (as for cars) be applied to gun ownership?"

Because the Constitution does give anyone a right to own and drive a car, but it does grant such rights for guns.

"why is owning a gun a right"

Because our Constitution says so. In the Bill of Rights.

The "Not a Member of the Militia" argument has been discredited by constitutional historians, and more importantly, the Supreme Court. The "Militia" was all able bodied male citizens.

If you want to restrict gun ownership, there is only one way: change the Constitution.

In the same way cars and drivers are tested, registered and licensed and required to have insurance, there is an attempt to protect the majority of society against the reckless endangerment of others.

Cars are registered and licensed to raise revenue, as those mandates do little to prevent injuries and accidents. Insurance does help, though this suggestion really isn't limited to guns.

This does not prevent all accidents, but it does enable the rest of us to feel some sense of security that the other folks of the road have at least some knowledge, ability and responsibility for driving a vehicle.

I'm glad you recognize this is only a feeling, what really keeps you safe is the physical safety protections of your vehicle.

Why cannot the same rules and regulations be applied to gun ownership?
How would similar rules for guns impinge on a person's rights to own a gun? Registration and regulation might just keep weapons out of the hands of those who should not have the privilege of gun ownership.

People don't want higher taxes, and it would *infringe* on the rights of gun owners just as taxes and registration of type writers or computers today would on the 1st amd. Check out all those laws that were already broken, think more would help?

And why is owning a gun a right? If it is the right of everyone to own a gun, then the don't mentally unstable and convicted felons have just as much "right" as anyone else?

Owning a gun is a right because everyone has the right to self-defense. Check out the Heller decision. Felons regularly have their rights curtailed/revoked.

Bill-guns don't kill people, it's the bullets. We should wait from commenting too much until we hear from the well regulated militia this young man was a part of, so they can explain how their regulation went so badly awry.

I guess you are correct pistolero.
There is no use in trying to have any meaningful discourse with people like you!
I am sorry, because unless and until all of us are willing to try and ameliorate this horrible current situation no progress will be made.
The crazies among us will continue to kill people, and women will die from having unwanted children.
Good luck to you.

Wow there are some damn obnoxiously childish folks on this thread.

As usual the gun lovers can't seem to get their heads around international stats (having lots of guns around= lots of random senseless death. No guns= No Gun deaths. This is not at all complicated).

Not one of those 22 poor kids knifed in China is dead btw. Think about it.

If you love guns then you should pony up for huge health care system with extensive mental health outreach. You know, more nanny state stuff that makes sure our society is healthy enough to handle the responsibilities that go with guns. (Jake makes a great point btw).

Most of the world has chosen a more affordable and sensible approach: limit the guns--at the very least the most deadly ones. The NRA and idiots like those in this thread prevent such sensible discussions. It is not a small stretch to connect the NRA with the deaths of these children. If those kids were born in nearly any other developed country they would still be alive. So, F U.

But our country has chosen to enshrine guns as a sacred right, this is a path that means more innocents will be sacrificed pointlessly. Sad and stupid is what it is. So instead we will have metal detectors and shitty dead end job rent-a-cops everywhere and all the other trappings of an increased surveillance society.

Next up printed guns that evade metal detectors. Great.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57558213-76/the-undetectable-firearms-act-and-3d-printed-guns-faq/

Oh and BTW, there haven't been "militias" in this country for 200 years!

I was trying to have a conversation with you Portland Native, as I am also native to stumptown.

Shadrach, we don't need a surveillance society; we need responsible adults, community, and taking action to improve our world.

It may seem shocking to Portland Liberals, but please equate in your minds abortion rights with gun rights, and stop wasting your time.

There is a large mental health problem, probably because 50+ years ago they died on the streets, but now things are different because we are more compassionate, and that's a good thing overall, but there are always those who slip thru the cracks.

Fourth generation Portland here. Shadrach, why is it that when people who rationally discuss this topic from either side, but have an opinion differing from yours, you call them, "damn obnoxiously childish folks?" I have to say from my experience, this type of name calling is pretty common among the commenters here, on the online "O" and elsewhere as a reaction to conservative opinions and arguments. Again, from my experience.

What will YOU do when the looters are at your threshold ?
Call the police?
Yeah - that WON'T happen in Portland - in America, will it?

Our government will protect us -

I hear you Gibby.

The recycled pro/con gun control arguments strike me as entirely tonedeaf.

I don't own a weapon myself, but I understand why some other people reasonably need one. Over my life, I've met a few folks with gun obsessions that kinda creeped me out, but none of them ever did anything like this. (Maybe because most of the 'gun nuts' I have come across had already managed to navigate their way through post-adolescence).

Banning guns would lead to more harm than good, but the status quo isn't cutting it.

Perhaps msmith. But just the same, I'll keep my Sig P239 close at hand.

Portland Native wrote: There is no use in trying to have any meaningful discourse with people like you!

You seem to believe that no other opinion but your own is correct.

Typical liberal response when asked to answer tough questions. Bravo Allan L. bravo !!!

Thank you, Bill B. I do my best, though I frankly find such effusive encomiums embarrassing.

"It is no more tragic that 28 people or 75 people or hundreds die, than when 3 lives are taken."

I agree with you that no individual needs an assault weapon (which reportedly was not used in this incident). I do not agree with you that the deaths of 18 grade-school-age children is not more heartbreaking than others. In the picture my mind sees, it just is.

I largely support the 2nd amendment as applied.

I would not want to try to explain to those children or any others why.

There are bigger things to be fathomed and explained, though they probably cannot be.

This is wholly tragic. Now they're reporting the gunman was a 20 year old with problems and it appears to be a question of mental health.

I understand that people respond to things differently and arguing about guns is one way to do it. Though I have thoughts about gun control I can't talk about that in any rational way now. I keep imagining my two sons when they were 5 and 6 and thinking about how sweet they were and how safe they were in school. And then I'm overcome with grief for those parents, grandparents and siblings CT and what they've been through and for those who'll never see they're little ones again. No answers, here ... just hold your kids close and tell them how important and loved they are.

My God. Of course guns are part of the problem. Mental illness is part of the human condition. It has always been with us and always will be. We can improve how we treat it but we don't need such easy access to guns - especially handguns and semi-automatic guns - so that when somebody snaps, he can do so much damage.

Wish more people cared as much about the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th & 10th Amendments; all of which are being violated daily without notice.

When considering the DC handgun ban, one of the Supreme Court Justices pointed out that a handgun was the only way you could defend yourself and dial 911 at the same time. Hard to do that with a rifle or shotgun.

As usual the gun rights lobby is filling this thread with the argument that since you can't stop something like this with 100% certainty we shouldn't do anything.

One nut tried to hid a bomb in this shoes and 10 years later will still take off our shoes every time we get on a plane, but to even consider that there are tangible things we can do to decrease gun violence is somehow beyond the pale?

Last night in their lame duck session Michigan's Republicans passed a bill to allow concealed weapons at more places, including sports stadiums, gee can't imagine any problems with that. Seriously in Michigan where people riot after winning they think I is a good idea to have a stadium full of drunk sports fans carrying heat?

PDX lifer,

5th generation pdxer here (although at the moment living abroad--however I still own my house in pdx and pay my taxes). What exactly is your idea of rational?

I already mentioned mine. Look at the evidence (in this case I mentioned international stats) and make a decision. If evidence changes, adjust your opinion accordingly. I don't know what your particular conservative views, but I don't much respect naive political tropes that parade themselves as wisdom, or idiotic arguments about "people kill people"..DUH but guns makes it easy.
(guessing from your chosen monicker I would point out that I never really engage in discussions about abortion because I find it isn't really a discussion that can be based on facts because of the moral values involved. If one truly believes life is at conception then you are stuck with being against it... I strongly disagree but I fully respect the moral reasoning. The right for guns, however, has nothing to do with god or life, they are a chosen political philosophy, and I strongly believe that facts and history should matter in determining whether a political philosophy is correct or not).

And there are some damn childish folks on this thread.

Pistolero you make some fair points, I don't agree with the politics but I really agree with your abortion rights analogy. I am generally pro-gun control, but I recognize that for the foreseeable future it's over. Senseless deaths are going to happen. Hopefully we can ban the worst and expand the health care system to at least catch disillusioned kids before they crack.

What we have today is broken. In my opinion banning guns is cheaper and lets people be freer.

(Curious it is, yes, that commenters here with double intials, BB and JJ, sound exactly ditto LarsLarson.)

It seems there is some regular percentage in the DNA lottery who get born bent, or something. At least susceptible to believing, and behaving, in stupid talk where they hear it. As long as that percentage is part of us, is there any difference whether we customarily restrict guns or stupidly set out hundreds of millions of guns wherever, whenever, however we can get a fair price for firepower, and think nothing of it?

Anyway, discussion of the tragedy has generated one bright idea from the crowd which can end the triggerlust finally and completely. See, the problem is, and broadcasting it on the radio LarsLarson says, the schools are to blame for failure to incarcerate their children inmates in protective custody with high-security lockdown facilities and procedures, and these predictable and expected tantrums would never happen again once we allow corporal punishment and disciplinary beatings of the children, and then school students and staff, and campus-contract weapon wardens, all to carry locked and loaded 'protection' (prevention?) at the ready every minute everywhere they go. See? simple.

No rational discussion on this topic today.
Just knee jerk reactions that in the end won't make anyone safer and will diminish civil rights a bit more.
I see lots of talk here about how no one "needs" this mythical "assault rifle" ignoring that the murders in Connecticut were apparently committed with handguns.
Also ignoring the fact this isn't about need at all.

What I haven't yet heard anyone ask is what in heaven's name makes a young man want to kill a large room full of 5-year olds, regardless of the method he chooses?

I consider myself pro 2nd amendment, but I'd say it's time for something to be done. The one caveat though - new legislation would have to be more effective than the current laws against murdering people. Any thoughts?

The traditional post-tragedy contention that "None of this would have happened" if only some NRA member was there to gun down the perp us nothing more than fantasy.

The best real-world example of how this would play out comes from the Gabrielle Giffords shooting last year.

A guy named Joe Zamudio came running out of a drug store across the street from the shooting. He pulled his gun and got ready to blow away ... the guy who had just wrestled the gun from Jared Laughner. Thankfully, he didn't.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_17109372

"Any thoughts?" From Erik and
"Enough. Pluck the Second Amendment" From Allan L.

So, I would be interested in hearing the thoughts around plucking the 2nd. I assume that he also means that once the 2nd is plucked on paper that there would be some enforcement. How in reality? Reality is defined as 200-300 million handguns already in country. And the means to make your own ammo.

Again, how to implement?

Latest reports say the shooter was 20 year old Adam Lanza, who may have carried his older brother's ID. He may have been "on the spectrum" and/or suffered from mental illness.

The shooter killed his mother, twenty children, and 5-6 teachers and administrators. There may be other victims.

He may have used a semi-automatic rifle before arriving at the school, but relied on semi-automatic pistols to do much of his killing.

Does it really matter how he obtained them? Would he have been deterred if the weapons he used had been unlawfully obtained?

If he had chosen instead to use a sword, a bomb, or a motor vehicle, the tragedy could not have been avoided. Would you endorse outlawing swords, bombs, and motor vehicles?

Madmen will find a way. The number of rounds in the magazine doesn't matter. The length of the barrel doesn't matter. The mechanism of action, appearance, or country of origin doesn't matter.

A single armed security guard with tactical training and balls of steel could have prevented this tragedy, or at least mitigated the outcome. Everything else is politics.

Gun rights need to be protected, by making everyone who wants one pay for and pass an MMPI, with no gun ownership allowed under the age of 25, when most cases of psychotic mental illness have become obvious to the experienced eye. And a very accurate database where the public can register concerns about a person's behavior, trip a wire if that person is registered in the database as a gun owner, and result in a visit from a police officer. Also, guns should be designed to have no more than 10 bullets fired in rapid succession. 10 bullets in rapid succession, gun knows they are probably in the hands of a lunatic, and an "off" switch is triggered. Off switch stays off 2 minutes, lets a few more people get out of the building.

Yeah, yeah, go whine about more taxes, more fees, more bureaucracy, yada yada, full employment for psychiatrists. I'm sick of all those arguments. Tell us, you arguing up there about your rights not to pay- how about you redirect your emotions about your right not to pay and help all the Californians seething right now about revelations that a PRISON PSYCHIATRIST is making 800k, because in his words, he "works a lot".

Who Ok'd paying psychiatrists to take care of inmates, ever? No uninsured person is this whole freaking country has access to a psychiatrist, but convicts do? Who's running this show? Go get your camo fatigues in a twist about that, instead of screaming about having to face shelling out some more dough to keep yourself and your loved ones safe.

And Jack, we are not a screwed up country. We have a great country here. Our homicide rate is 2-4 times higher than most of Europe, partly because of guns, partly because of more gang activity, but frankly, there are other trade-offs that make life here much more fulfilling and interesting than in Europe. Try to find wi-if in Paris, eg. Stupid example, I know. If you want to avoid being shot, live in the country, and avoid crowds. Then you will be killed by your increased time driving on the roads to get your necessities.

Harry, it was more of an exclamation than an exhortation. "Pluck" is a surrogate for a rhyming word, if you get my drift.

Yes Mister Tee, I endorse outlawing bombs. And using swords or motor vehicles to kill people too. You really are making a very weird argument here.

"balls of steel" Yeah. that's what I want to rely on to save my kids from some armed nutjub. A $10 an hour rent-a-cop with no health care but with "balls of steel". If I may say so, FU.

For those of you who care about facts (which frankly I doubt if you read the thread this long) check out this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

Gaye Harrios - you want to make killing people MORE against the law? You think this person would have followed your fantasy rules about guns when he didn't follow harshest laws against murder?? Explain that logic...

Shadrach - The point he's making is that it's already illegal to have bombs. And using swords or motor vehicles to kill people too.

For most of my life, the 2nd Amendment has been understood to permit substantial regulation of firearms because of the predicate language about a "well-regulated militia" which, if it is to be given any meaning, has to qualify and provide context for the "right to bear arms". The current Supreme Court has stripped the 2nd Amendment of its traditional, limited meaning and, in effect, rewritten it to invalidate much gun control law as a result. I recognize this is now the law. I deplore it. I hope it doesn't take more instances of this kind of outrage and human sacrifice to awaken people to the fact that this newly established constraint on gun control is bad.

Gaye If Europe is so peaceful, how do you explain Cumbria, Hungerford, Dunblane, and Norway? Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people (and wounded 800) with half a dozen 55 drums, a few bags of fertilizer, and diesel fuel. Murderers will always find the means to murder. @Allan L - Nearly the exact thing could be said about abortion.

Allan L. - Read the Heller decision. Gun ownership was and is such a self-evident truth it was really only until the 60s when statist liberals began to infringe upon that right did any litigation become necessary.

Allan L. - That is an argument that some anti-abortion folks use about the US Supreme Court simply making it up. Do you really want to play that card?

Eric wrote: One nut tried to hid a bomb in this shoes and 10 years later will still take off our shoes every time we get on a plane, but to even consider that there are tangible things we can do to decrease gun violence is somehow beyond the pale?

I agree, we should refuse to take off our shoes at the airport. It is stupid and hasn't stopped anything.

Thanks Pistelero. I am very embarrassed (It's very late in my timezone). My apologies, Mr. Tee.

thor - apples and oranges. Roe v. Wade may have weaknesses but there is no language written out of the Constitution by that decision.

Is there an answer to senseless killings like the one in Conn. today?, No, but there are some actions that could be taken in our society that could reduce these horrendous events. One would be to carefully screen all school children as they reach a specified age, perhaps 13 or so for signs of problems that are causing them to experience a loss of self-worth, self-doubt or self-confidence. I realize that most teens have this problem to some degree, but obvious they all don't turn out to be dangerous to society. This might tend to infringe on what has become "our individual rights", but there are too many parents who can't or won't or don't even know how to parent and these would be the ones most likely to spawn a potential "monster" that might perform such an act either as a teen or young adult. There certainly are signs that some of the "experts" (you know the ones that are brought to the TV stations to analyze why the perpetrator did it, after the fact) could discover through an evaluation. Somewhat farfetched, but at least it might offer a little insight into some of the young minds that seem to be the ones who develop into these kids who kill. You might say that this is profiling and you would be right, but it would a possible life-saving form of it.
This is from a retired guy who thought that "The Myth of Mental Illness" by Thomas Szasz, was an excellent book on the subject, at least in the '40s when I read it.
Bill Andresevic

allan l. - we simply disagree.

My apologies upfront.

Shadrach, "For those of you who care about facts (which frankly I doubt if you read the thread this long) check out this article..."

Do you see the hypocrisy here. I'm serious. This is what I'm referring to when I remark on your condescending comments to those or us who disagree with you. Apparently you are reading this far, but the rest of us idiots are the only ones not interested in the facts. Do you get it?

We are a very screwed up country. This thread is a great illustration of that point. Nothing will be done. More will die.

Jack Bog - It isn't limited to this country, sadly it is the whole world.

Agreed Jack. Very sad.

No, in many places there is much less gun violence.

And in many places, people admit that their country has serious problems.

Not America. A bloody freakin' mess, is what it is.

I heard on FOX that if we only count white people we have a lower rate of gun violence than Belgium.

That's just like FOX isn't it. To only count white people. Like it's not OUR problem it's THEIR problem.

Well, Jack, I (and I would hope most) see this blog as a very necessary medium in which to exchange ideas in a manner that is not inhibited by the dictums political correctness. Try having these conversations at your neighborhood night out. The fact that people of differing and opposing views can interact, and maybe even communicate, here is huge. I don't think persuasion is necessary, but all dialogue should be appreciated.

You're right. More will die. That is a unfortunate fact of life.

we simply disagree.

That's what happens when one party is impervious to facts and reason.

No PDX lifer, I don't understand. You have called me out on a poor joke, and a self depreciating one at that. In my opinion most of us that continue on a thread are those who have already commented and are hoping for either vindication (from supporters or vanquished opponents--which rarely ever happens but we hope), or someone to continue arguing with so we can hear ourselves. (this may just be me).

People looking for facts on the story don't read 80 plus comments. I made a poor joke that referenced this. My apologies. But really the joke's already on me tonight as I missed Mr. Tee's nuance.

I mean no disrespect and have nearly always continued every good faith disagreement and try to bring facts as best I can. (I will admit I must pull away from the climate change denialists that sling arguments that are simply wrong or folks that make blatantly disingenuous claims). I don't mean to have a condescending tone, but I work hard to educate myself--and have changed my opinions as I have learned new things about how the world works. But the truth is I frankly fancy myself as someone who "does not suffer fools", so my tone probably reflects that. Also this is a comment section of a local blog--so cut me some slack.

I'm here for fun and because I love my hometown. I'm also not the best writer, but what do you do.

That is a unfortunate fact of life.

The official gun nut motto.

Wait. Also 27 innocent people died today for no f--ing reason. NONE. 18 kids. That might contribute to my "condescending tone" "conservatives" whose radical politics do the opposite of conserving that disagree with me on gun control should really respect that and bide their time for a day when the emotion is not raw (you know after we have all forgotten about the current dead).

While FOX news is per se "racist" for pointing that out, it does bring up a forgotten point. The U.S. is home to a demographic exponentially more likely to be killed or kill someone else with a firearm; young black males. I guess the other way you could see that is violence using firearms becomes a problem on the forefront when it happens in rural Connecticut at a school as opposed to Kansas City or Detroit.

Well, Jack. Kick me off if you will. But I own a soldering gun, and that's about it. I used to own a BB gun, but that's long, long gone. This is what I'm talking about. Just because I don't think a repeal of the 2nd amendment will cure mental health does not mean I am a gun nut. I've never even hunted. I'm a fisherman. And I'm sure if I was mentally unstable enough I could fillet someone.

allan l. wrote:That's what happens when one party is impervious to facts and reason.

If we disagree that is because I am stupid. That is just so reasonable.

No Jack, I think they have pretty much hijacked "Molon Labe" for that purpose.

What strikes me is 20 years ago, you could buy all the AR15's you wanted. Assault weapons aren't new, they've been around and available to the public for a long time. With 30 round magazines. Cheap. Heck, 20 years ago you could legally buy automatic weapons for a price many more people could afford.

But 20 years ago we didn't have these types of killings. Have we really gone over the slope that far? What can we do (and no, banning the tools won't do it).

Sad times for our country indeed....

Jack Bog wrote: No, in many places there is much less gun violence.

But there are other kinds of violence in those places. There are also needless deaths because of greed, hatred, neglect, and other terrible things.

"we simply disagree."

That's what happens when one party is impervious to facts and reason.

If you look at countries where one party has a dictate on "facts," "reason" as well as "truth," Allan, I don't think you'll like them.

Beyond that, and everything else, who couldn't cry today?

Sally, I don't think small children have to be sacrificed so that we can be "free". Sorry.

sally wrote: If you look at countries where one party has a dictate on "facts," "reason" as well as "truth," Allan, I don't think you'll like them.

Perhaps he would.

Did I just see "RACISM" mentioned in this thread and FOX news . So, now...... I have suggested TWINKIES, poor childhood, lousy personal relationships, and the use and acceptance of drugs in the US . Drugs of all types kill, but no... many feel they ought to be able to use drugs as they please . Thugs and their supporters always have exvuses, not taking responsibility for what they do. Not surprising at all . Wait till the evidence to
come out and investigation with facts , whoops where have I heard that ?

Just make guns a lot harder and more expensive to get, and a mental health requirement and an age requirement of 25. Yes, there will still be maniacs with knives and bombs, but the maniacs with guns will have a serious crimp in their style. Also, regarding the robbery situation. All guns should have an owner activated code on them. Easy, you can't use stolen guns.

What really bothers me about this discussion is how limiting gun rights to the sane -and the law-abiding ADULTS among is, is seen as somehow an attack on the constitution. Look, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a protected right, but people still have to make some money if they want a sports car. They still have to pay the DMV a big fee to take a driver's test. Noone screams unconstitutional about that. But oh my God, mention protecting, say, all the human potential in the African American community in Chicago from being washed down the drain due to practically daily stray bullets on the way to school, and bingo, you are infringing on the rights of all those 17 year olds wielding them. How can you possibly sustain your arguments in the face of this carnage?

I don't suppose a moment of silence or perhaps suggesting holding someone you love close in appreciation of life would work in this group.

Horrible, just horrible.
But its interesting how the media works our minds.

It's also horrible that 40,000 people died of starvation today.

Not one line in one 'newspaper'.

What really bothers me about this discussion is how limiting gun rights to the sane -and the law-abiding ADULTS among is, is seen as somehow an attack on the constitution.

Just like making someone show an ID before voting. Or requiring a minor to get parental notification before having an abortion. Or ....

Hey al m - shhhhh!

Steve, your suggestion is valid. But it can be made without indictment:

"I propose a moment of silence or perhaps suggesting holding someone you love close in appreciation of life."

We are a very screwed up country. This thread is a great illustration of that point.
Posted by Jack Bog | December 14, 2012 4:36 PM

The oregonlive.com threads are even more so.
Not for me.

I miss the good ole days when we were discussing TriMet, Mystery Trains & planner crap.

My minds made up. Please don't confuse me with facts.

Maybe the Mayans were right.

Man. This is just some serious sadness. I feel like I'm not old enough to deal with it or something. Like it's far to big for me.

A note from the Winterhawks game tonight. Security folks at the entrances with metal detecting wands. Said they didn't care about my Altoids tin but were screening for guns.

The maniacs with guns aren't going away unless you can sprinkle some majic pixie dust to dissolve the 280 million firearms already in the United States.

And if you think the maniacs only buy guns at gunstores, you haven't followed the Clackamas or Newton stories very closely.

I'm not a gun owner, but believe that the root problem is "rage" and unfortunately it seems to be predominantly in young males. I would agree with the comment from Bill Andresevic that labeling socio-pathic behavior in with other "mental illness" is somewhat deceptive. The society promotes having a great life, the American Dream, having a cool girlfriend/boyfriend, looking great, having "stuff" and when a young man's life doesn't measure up and he blames everyone and everything else for his failure to have all the stuff the media says he should, well, all that's left I guess is 15 minutes of fame for some of them, guns or no guns. We'll probably have to start accepting more police and military presence in our schools and our large arenas where lots of people gather. This is very scary of course but so is getting killed by an unhappy 20 year old taking revenge.

I can't help but feel like we've utterly failed as a society, that this world we're living in is completely broken and that we need to do something to fix it, and fast. But I don't know how. I don't know what the answer to the gun control debate is, or how make mental health services more accessible to those most in need. But in times of despair, I always turn to Mr. Rogers for comfort, and I've been watching a lot of his clips on Youtube today. His message may sound naive these days, but it still resonates with me. Maybe liking people for who they are won't save them, or being kind to each other won't stop such atrocities from happening again, but it certainly can't make things worse. And in the absence of knowing what else do to, I'm going to simply be kinder, because I can do that.

I echo your comments, Neighbor. Thanks.

Yes, thank you.

All you gun ban/restrict advocates consider this, at one time you could buy, through mail order, machine guns. Actual real shoot as long as you hold down the trigger machine guns.
Were there mass killings then ?
No, there were some gangsters who used them in crimes but not the ordinary honest citizen.
Some of you here are old enough to remember a rifle or shotgun in the pickup trucks in the high school parking lot. Did the students use them to murder each other ?
No, they went hunting after school.
So what has changed ?
What is different than those times past ?
Consider and address that and you will be solving this problem.
If you think banning or further restricting firearms will "solve" this then you have not been paying attention to what evil people will do when they don't have a rifle.
If you need a reference I direct your attention to Iraq, and Afghanistan. And Syria. And Libya. And....
But you get the point, I hope.
Evil people WILL kill.

I'm looking forward to applying the gun nut "There's already 300 million guns so nothing can be done!" argument to the next immigration debate. Your implicit support murder and blanket amnesty is greatly appreciated.

What Neighbor said. I shared it on my facebook page with a picture of Mr. Rogers.

I echo your comments, Neighbor. Thanks

One of the best comments I've read on this topic. Thanks again, Neighbor.

I believe that the powers that be in America today call us all "collateral damage" .... this line item is found within Risk Management and effects the bottom line of Capitalism... between Micro Soft Boy and Virgin Man; as heard on Charlie Rose: "biggest fear is overpopulation" Collateral Damage mind set.

Thank you, Neighbor.
I wish you lived next door to me.

tankfixer, I'm picking on your comment. Saying every human(soul) is "Evil" when it is human(being) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya -- if I get your point you hoped -- is saying totally stupid talk.
'Stupid' meaning 'in a stupor,' 'stupified,' 'numb skull.'

Seems to me that America's 20-year-olds (plural) who are slaughtering children exploded in bloody bits splattered wide across Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Bahrain, Sudan, and Iran and Lebanon and Gaza, and Kuwait and more, further ringing the Caspian Sea basin, (but can you find even two of these countries in your own self-googled mental map of the known world?) -- [ notice that every sovereign populace in the list is selected and defined to be 'Evil mortal-Enemy competitor' by edict and decree of the Saudi Arabia Royal King(doom), sons of Ibn Saud only, holding mighty power to easily demolish USA by refusing to sell (caveat vendor) to the USA 'no-clues no-soul so-nervous' customer buying (caveat emptor) any more Saudi oil ] -- where brain-poisoned 20-yr-old Americans are exterminating children, the child-generation genocide! in 'Royal-competitor' lands, with remote joystick triggers in Nevada of empty-soul drones blasting away,

Information Clearinghouse.INFO - single source for the following:

US and UK troops accused of killing ... civilians, "children with potential hostile intent"

U.S.'Drone strike killed my grandmother outside our house'

Schizophrenics, Psychopaths Holding America Hostage, By Dr Brian Moench

A Capitalist System Gone Awry~ Wars to Feed The Blood-thirsty, By Rev. Richard Skaff

Billionaires Warn Higher Taxes Could Prevent Them From Buying Politicians, By Andy Borowitz

US Agrees To Replenish Israeli Bullets/Bombs That Killed Palestinians, By Stephen Manual

7 Shocking Ways the Military Wastes Our Money, By Laura Gottesdiener

I Am A Soldier. I Am Dirt. I Kill Dulce et Decorum - And May You Get the Chance, By Fred Reed

US soldier ignored 'We are children!' shouts, Afghan witnesses say:

Road Map Drawn Up by Syrian Traitors to Serve Imperialists, Gulf Monarchies, By Noureddine Merdaci

U.S. recognition of Syrian rebels draws protests:

European Court of Human Rights Finds US/CIA Guilty of Torture, By Amrit Singh

Why We Torture, By Gareth Peirce

US-Backed Syrian Opposition Demands Support for Al Qaeda, By Tony Cartalucci

US Intelligence Analysts: American Power is in Terminal Decline, By Dave Lindorff

Spy Agency Conducts Surveillance on All US Citizens, By RT

Hacking the Human Brain: The Next Domain of Warfare, By Chloe Diggins and Clint Arizmendi

... who? dunnit. Where is the Evil. In the target? or in the shooter?

USA military-industry neural-complex stupifying, over 60 years, has made younger generations of Americans ignorant to answering such questions as yours -- "So what has changed ?" "What is different than those times past ?" -- about (ancestors) living in the world where, and when, adolescent rifle-rampage attention-tantrums didn't happen, although there were adolescents, and rifles, and adolescents with rifles; however, verily 20-year-old's knew better.
What is changed is TV broadcasting began 60 years ago.
What is different from all times in history is TV broadcasting began 60 years ago.

Ninety percent of Americans get ninety percent of the information entering their living brains from TV broadcasting ... and we/they believe MOST of it is 'real' or 'true' or 'accurate' or 'veritable.' However but it's not ('real'). It is curated. The information is 'arranged' before it's broadcast to enculturate ... a mass audience in a false 'American culture;' (notice TV was and is less worshipped in lands of older and veritable culture). Notice your guts wrench a visceral ache for seeing the real photo (above) since an arbitor arranged you never saw that on TV, out of the spotlight. Notice schoolchildren on-scene being directed to block their eyesight of truly real gun carnage ... lest a traumatized neural-complex develops in young brains a lifelong abhorrence against gun violence which can never be overruled by TV 'entertainment' Gun Fun.

Just saying, these neurotic breakdown (mentally ill) episodes didn't happen in history until after TV started ... showing the idea.
See this, read the beginning same as this time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

I've heard that it is too simplistic to focus on one single 'cause' (TV) for (almost) all problems of American society breaking down. (Although locales without so much TV don't have as much breaking down.) I've also heard countless tellings of lives changed, immensely or drastically, after and because something was seen on TV. (A guy bet and lost the farm on a stock tip he saw on TV.)

Gun rampages by immature minds seeking mass attention as began in the American 'culture' the same time TV began, is not enough evidence to prove the presence of TV caused attention-fiends. But try this:
Go in your personal life a year without seeing any TV, movies, or video game-violence, and the normal time you spend seeing such stuff (4.5 hrs daily, American), use the time instead to read and write stuff, or do stuff. Or whatever individual expression is worth living for a year of your life. And after a year see if you think different. or if you make different types of friendships.

TV broadcasting spreads its totalitarian (authoritarian) power by one-way enforcement -- TV talks, you don't reply or talk back. Without amplified 'public address,' during all human history hearing a person speaking necessarily meant you could speak too and be heard back. In today's world, the internet's two-way (million-way?) communication intercourse, competing against TV&Hollywood packages for your life's Time, causes high-tension in the culture fabric stretched between information listeners (takers) and information composers (makers).

The entire phony myth of American destiny, in 'dream' or 'power' or 'superiority,' made up and maintained in arranged and staged visuals and scripted speech designing Military Industry, since WW II ended and TV began, into saturation -- people taking it and its 'message' for granted -- comes undone, its mythic spell is dispelled and banished by internet interactivity among everyone on the planet, TV is out-scoped -- the internet audience is making real local and personal feedback input.
It is the massive shift in society and social ways and means, unprecedented in human history, and the difficulty of an individual to understand the scale and scope of so much, strong currents, tall crests, wicked undertows, in which bloodlusts and crazed violence and vainglory gunnery episodes are symptoms at the surface.
Breaking away from addictive entrancement and mental illness in TV's version of reality, is the main way to mental health.

The violence is so misbegotten. I just don't know. I just don't know.
I do know not to ignore it. So far that's all I can make of it.

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

John 1:5

The gun discussion is a real waste of time and it divides people who might otherwise be friends. We all know where we stand on it and venting doesn't change anyone's opinion.

Everyone rants on this BLOG, but there doesn't seem to be anyone suggesting possible solutions. It is so easy to criticize and condemn or argue for your point of view, but exceedingly difficult to come up with some positive ideas, solutions for our societies long-term problems. Of course we are all the little guys, without much say, but have the freedom to criticize anything and everything, but that is about the extent of it.

I believe that one of best and immediate solutions in our society is to set aside such issues as abortion, gun control, immigration and religion and move on to things that are really vital and important to the improvement of our society and deal with them first. These I believe are things that are tied together and need to be changed and/or improved together without the partisan attitude that is prevalent in our administrative and legislative branches in both the state and federal level. Our representatives in all of these bodies need to be put on notice that We the People need to heard. Bound together are the following: unemployment, taxes, government spending, entitlements, in other words, the economy.

The first thing that needs to be addressed is the tax system. It needs to be simplified, yet fair to all and provide lower income folks an opportunity to contribute to society by paying taxes at a very reasonable rate, while wealthy people need to pay proportionately higher according to their wealth. Loopholes and avoidance schemes, even the legal ones, need to be modified to make it fair for all. Without this as a starting point, all else is doomed.

In addition, industry needs to be required to set the percentages that CEOs and other executives can make in salary and benefits with regard to what their lowest employee makes. This might also help the unions to function as a protective organization rather than a militant group that has a tendency to disrupt our society through massive dissension which is generally very negative and disruptive. I am somewhat, but not totally sympathetic to unions after growing up in Pittsburgh, Pa. in the 30s and 40s in a union family, but I think that unions, particularly the public ones, have had a tendency to abuse their power, causing the rest of us to suffer.

I know all of us want a better life for ourselves and our children and many are willing to do something about it. If we could determine a way to act together, in perhaps a grass roots manner, without politicians or big business or moneyed people, we might be able to establish some harmonious force to change some of the things that $$ prevents our "representatives" from doing. A common goal, people volunteering their time and effort towards it, would be a start. No lobbyists or self-seeking opportunists, but just common folk. Everyone here seem intelligent and more than willing to change things, but no one seems to know how.

I would guess that there are hundreds of groups like this around the US that have the same thoughts, how to connect them is the challenge. I believe that it could be done through a website.

Who is this guy who is proposing all these ideas? Does he know what he is talking about?
No, but I do know that I would like to see our society develop and be a good place to live for my children and grand children. My background is already suspect; Marine grunt in the Korean War, commissioned 2dLt there, Marine pilot, CIA, Air America, CIA, US Air Force Reserve, Rescue pilot, EMS Life Flight pilot and failed businessman (printing franchise), retiree, volunteered for about 20 years in: Big Brother, Court Appointed Referee for children's services division, SMART, Elders in Action, CASA and Meals on Wheels. After many years traveling and living in foreign countries, there is nowhere that compares to the US. Even so, it could be better and our politicians aren't making it so.

Ditto to everything Bill said.

Wish we heard that kind of plain talk from a Member of Congress.