There does seem to be a lot of support for something to be done.

nothing wrong with guns in a frame on the wall.
or safely in a locker in a shooting range

and nothing wrong with using a bow and arrow for hunting

but 100% no guns on the street, will alleviate the guns being an object of terror from places outside the home (-the school, the movie theatre, the mall, etc.

and have zero tolerance. NO excuses

the problem would end shortly after the reframing begins

As with the war on terror, special times mean special rules. I stand 100% for them.

My 1st amendment right to life, to liberty, to pursuit of happiness, to assemble peacefully is broken by the gun.

time for a change and as the nra could not would not didn't...time to call for a freeze of all assets the nra has...

time to treat it like grownups and not some little kids playing cowboys and indians

We could have metal detectors at every doorway and on all street corners and make stop and frisk legal so no one would be able to get away with carrying a gun anywhere... That'll do it for sure...


There has to be some reasonable way to stop the mentally impaired from acquiring guns and going on these rampages. Reagon was the one that started closing all mental institutions in Cal. and then carried it on to a national level when he became president.. The proliferation of guns in this country is only a part of the problem and there is no real practical way short of complete fascism along the lines of national marshal law.

It is no different overall than the war on drugs or prohibition, it is not in any way practical. Guns need to be locked up and totally inaccessible to anyone who has any sort of indication of mental instability period..

But it's on days like this, I still need the gun lobby to step back, and shut the fuck up for a bit.

I recognize that we still have a huge problem in this country with the refusal to address mental illness. If you think taking people's guns will be a fight, how about trying to tell them they need serious mental help.

be an indicator that he might need some counseling.

It was pointed out a decade ago that the tenor of on-line groups is dictated by those at the extreme. They're loud and shout people down. They impose purity tests. Ultimately they "weed out" those that aren't extreme enough, or the less extreme just fall silent in many discussions.

Confronted with absolutist positions that are clear and easy to enunciate in a sound-bite or two, those with more nuanced, complicated, contingent positions are left back-footed.

Then, unwilling to be put on the outside of the group, the more moderate simply hang back. To oppose the extreme is to risk being seen as an outsider. Labelled a "freeper" or "Agent Mike" or some such insult.

n/t

I can only speak for myself but I don't see the need for civilians to have firearms. I am not against the use of guns for hunting, but I really would like to see the work of our police force made much easier by disarming civilians.

For all the horror of this week, law enforcement are the ones who deal with this risk every single day. They are the ones who must deal with an armed civilian population with any number of situations like this one waiting to happen. I don't think that civilians should be armed as if they were military or police.

I am against taking life. Animal life, human life, any kind of life. Maybe I have a right to do it but I choose to lay down that right. I choose not to take life and I choose not to put myself in a position where there is even a possibility of doing that- and I hope others will voluntarily choose the same.

But I think there's a huge difference between these two statements:

"The answer to the gun problem is more guns!"

"It's not such a good idea to create areas where people know for certain there won't be anyone else with a gun but them"

I also think the "Ban everything" peoples hearts are in the right place, the "no new laws" peoples hearts are in the right place too. We see the situation differently. Some want to retain the ability to stop such an event and others want to try to deny the perp the means to do it.

It all comes down to the question of whether you believe it's possible to deny all bad actors the ability to do damage in a free society.

Perhaps a federal law mandating mental health parity for health insurance could be a start, and eventually we might be able to transition to some sort of universal mental health care program, one that will be able to efficiently be tied to the firearms background check for those who may present a danger so that they can be stopped from buying guns before they hurt themselves or others.

Don't get me wrong. I feel that if someone needs a gun for protection, they should have one. Personally, I don't feel that way. Guns aren't one of my hot-button issues. But, there is just too much crazy shit going on right now. I think it's a combo of too many guns, a violent society, and lack of mental health initiatives. I've got no problem with hunters, as long as they do it legally and eat what they kill. (Poachers I lump in with used car salesmen and Fox News commentators as scum of the Earth.) You wanna go kill a deer? Fine. Bag a whole bunch of 'em. You wanna kill a human? Get help, quickly!

I think guns should be licensed and assault weapons should be restricted to collectors who agree to very strict oversight.

Gun shows should be banned, as should stockpiling military weapons. If you have one AK-47, you are a collector, if you have 10, you are a dangerous gun-nut.

Bullets should have a very large tax.