Press "Enter" to skip to content

When are we going to have a meaningful conversation about Gun Control?

ht newton bee school shooting nt 121214 wblog LIVE UPDATES: Newtown, CT School Shooting

One gunman opened fire on an elementary school in suburban Connecticut this morning, killing 27 people — most of them elementary school children.  SWAT teams are on campus as frantic parents rush to pick up their children or collect the bodies of their dead children.  As I write this, SWAT teams have entered a wooded area behind the school seeking a second gunman.  Why this, why now are the two biggest questions on everyone’s mind.

Last week, a fatal shooting of two people in a suburban Portland, OR mall by a masked shooter.  Senseless.

NBC’s Bob Costas was heavily criticized for making an anti-gun statement following the murder-suicide of a Kansas City Chief’s player and his girlfriend, the mother of his infant daughter.

And earlier this week, new Irvine Finance Commissioner Allan Barlett posted this on his Facebook page  “Congrats Illinois. Your state legislators tried to take your 2nd Amendment rights away, but luckily the federal appeals court has integrity.”

The premise behind the second amendment is for a well-ordered militia to be able to possess firearms in the event there is a need by citizens to take control of the government by violent means.  The Supreme Court recently ruled the 2nd amendment can be interpreted as establishing a legal foundation for individual gun ownership.  I’m sure every one of the shooters in these three recently high profile cases legally obtained their firearm as is their right under the second amendment.  And they completely followed the law, up until the time they decided to shoot and kill someone.  Do we really believe average citizens with firearms have a chance against our own military in a violent revolt.  Do people really believe we’ll be the subject of a violent revolt in this country requiring average citizens to take up arms?

Where were the legion of gun owners who maintain more guns lead to greater safety.  Did anyone have a gun to return fire here?  I see nothing about a single shot being fired by a civilian gun owner to prevent violence from happening.  Can we finally do away with this argument?

Time Magazine has some chilling information about gun ownership in this country:

There are 88.8 firearms per 100 people in the U.S. In second place is Yemen, with 54.8, then Switzerland with 45.7 and Finland with 45.3. No other country has a rate above 40. The U.S. handgun-ownership rate is 70% higher than that of the country with the next highest rate.

The effect of the increasing ease with which Americans can buy ever more deadly weapons is also obvious. Over the past few decades, crime has been declining, except in one category. In the decade since 2000, violent-crime rates have fallen by 20%, aggravated assault by 21%, motor-vehicle theft by 44.5% and nonfirearm homicides by 22%. But the number of firearm homicides is essentially unchanged. What can explain this anomaly except easier access to guns?

Just like there are different types of licenses required to drive different types of vehicles, isn’t it time we develop a system of licensing different types of firearms.  Is you really really want that assault rifle, which really only has a purposes of killing people, the license should be expensive and the background checks extensive.  It won’t prevent you from buying said weapon, but if you really want it, you’re going to pay for it.  And how about levying a high tax on ammunition for assault weapons?




  1. Mike Mike December 14, 2012

    Bob Costas got it right. It is high time Americans wake up and get behind serious gun control. The 2nd amendment argument is seriously misguided and the spirit of the amendment has been cometely lost.
    I pray for the latest victims of the 2nd amendment.
    If you read this Mr.Costas please don’t stop trying to change gun culture in America.


  2. Robert Lauten Robert Lauten December 14, 2012

    The vital guestion:

    What corrupted the soul of the teenager to the degree that he murdered his father in his home then drove to the Kindergarten School to murder his mother and then some 20 Kindergarteners? Was it Satan worship? Was it ethical nihilism? I find it hard to believe that the teenager could have murdered his parents and Kindergarteners absent a monster mentor. I don’t believe he became this evil independently.

  3. cook cook December 14, 2012

    What a waste of life.

    Why did this coward pick a grade school instead of a gun range?

    Could it be that people at a gun range can protect themselves while people (children) in schools are required to be defenseless?

    How many young lives would have been saved if the principal or vice principal were required to bear arms for the protection of their schools, like cops.

  4. junior junior December 14, 2012

    When are we going to have a meaningful conversation about enforcing current gun laws?

    Michael Bloomberg said politicians should make it clear they intend to enforce current laws.

    “The Supreme Court said, yes we have a Second Amendment, you have a right to bear guns. But reasonable restrictions are constitutional. And I think the Congress passed reasonable restrictions. But to not enforce them is just ridiculous.”

  5. OC Observer OC Observer December 16, 2012

    You’re not. Why don’t you quit asking?

  6. Jeff Gallagher Jeff Gallagher December 16, 2012

    While you can complain about gun control, remember that Connecticut has some of the most stringent gun laws on the books. That is why you did not see a legion of gun toting CCW teachers defending their kids. Since so-called gun control is reactive and not proactive, perhaps we are looking at this from the wrong angle.

    The folks that commit such heinous crimes in our schools all have one other thing in common: severe mental illness. That is what needs to be addressed. Since the depression struck (some would call it a recession, there has been an increased need in mental health services and a commensurate decrease in mental health spending.

    It’s not guns, Dan. If guns were not available, they would use knives as one person did in China (thankfully no one was killed. If knives weren’t available, they would use rocks, arrows, bombs, sponges dipped in cyanide….whatever.

    So, when are we going to have a meaningful conversation about mental health?

  7. Allan Bartlett Allan Bartlett December 16, 2012

    Most(not all) Democrats are incapable of having a meaningful conversation about guns. Just look at the knee jerk reactions already by their members of congress.

    • Jeff Gallagher Jeff Gallagher December 16, 2012

      Typical useless response by a Repulsican.

    • Dan Chmielewski Dan Chmielewski December 16, 2012

      ask the parents in Sandy Hook how kneee jerk it is

      • Jeff Gallagher Jeff Gallagher December 17, 2012

        It was kneejerk on both sides. Feinstein calls for a renewal of the assault weapons ban, the NRA says, “hands off”. Nothing gets done. We have a plethora of gun control laws on the books. It did not help in this case because guns are not the real issue, mental health is. Laws are reactionary, not proactive.

  8. dempatriot dempatriot December 18, 2012

    What needs to be examined is strong support for mental health program funding. The federal, state and local budgets always seem to target funds for mental illness care and treatment all too often and the mentally ill with violent intentions will continue to use whatever weapon is available, guns, knives, cars etc. when their impulses are out of control. Legislation is this area would likely have immediate bi-partisan support and actually be implemented where the 2nd amendment arguments will go on forever with both sides digging in their heels for a long battle.

Comments are closed.