"Moms Group" I have news for you. No matter how many laws you put in to place to ban guns that you think are evil and do evil WILL NOT STOP EVIL. There will be illegal guns on the street all the time. The people who do these kinds of things do not abide by the law. They think they are above the law. So, what makes you think that a gun ban is going to solve anything?

From a recent article I read by a best selling writer:
"The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started." In the case of Sandy Hook, the Police were 2.3 Miles away (look up the police station in Newtown on your own). Once the mentally ill individual makes a decision to commit an atrocity like this, there's nothing a ban can do to stop him.

Bans haven't worked. Violent crime is up in areas where bans occur (Chicago, NY, Australia, England) vs. areas where no bans occur.

Federal laws already prohibit Interstate or International arms sales (with severe penalties for breaking them).

I won't disagree with the access to background checks for ALL sales, but would prefer to be able to call in directly with the person's Driver's License in front of me (and record the confirmation code) directly (maybe paid for by a slight increase in the excise tax on firearms...already 15%)

Ladies, if you really want your kids safe, you'll have to reconsider the trained armed guards in school proposals. No amount of gun control will ever remove the total threat that these insane mass murderers pose. No lock-out security is fool proof. Sure let’s get stronger and reasonable gun control. But if my kids were still in school, I'd look to the on site protection as the best solution.

Maybe the solution to consideration of assault weapons ban is to give all of the insane
people the address and schedule of the NRA board meetings, and maybe they would stay away from innocent people.

Look a the prisons, there is total control or least they try and yet violent attacks, rape, drugs and murder happen inside, under wishful complete control of the population, how can any laws or bans stop all criminally insane free men from such

Funny how all the sudden teachers are hero enough to carry guns, but just a year or so ago they were pariah bleeding school system dry at the taxpayers expense. Isreal has compulsory service. All citizens are taught how to handle military grade weapons. America isn't like that. America doesn't want to see their taxes increase for any reason, nevermind to pay to arm teachers or for police in the schools. It's a hallow gesture from the NRA that places the effort on the schools and taxpayers. Why bother saying anything at all? And for those saying bans on things do nothing to solve the problem, consider that same logic the next time your griping about drug addicts, gangs and drug related violence.

To Ben Miller: I'm sorry your comment got deleted. You were right to call out the person promoting their book here. When I deleted that comment, yours went with it.

I am confused, so how long was my coma, are the drug addicts and drugs and gangs gone. NRA spoke because they were blamed for violence, and if taxpayers want their children protected laws should allow for it. Also many teachers own guns and it doesn't cost anything for licensed owners to carry concealed in school, just a law change on local level and get Federal out of our lives.

It is shocking that a group of 1 million people would ask a group of over 80 million people to give up a fundamental right. Ok, since this is an ask forum: I will make this request. YOU be the responsible parent and properly teach YOUR children about firearms and thier dangers. I WILL be the responsible firearm owner and keep said firearms properly secured. By removing firearms, of any kind, from ownership opens too many opportunites for further restrictions of freedom. You have no right to ask me to surrender that freedom. I am a father, and also work in law enforcement. Everyday I enjoy working with people. While what happened was a tragedy and is horrific: it was due to a mentally ill person obtaining an inproperly secured firearm.

We ban gambling, prostitution, and drugs due to the bad deeds of some based on moral reasons, yet mostly those are considered victimless crimes. Be honest. Prohibition is subjective. You want personally responsibility. Deal with the fact that there are enough people using firearms in an irresponsible fashion as to cause more than 10,000 deaths per year in this country. That's the issue. Keep your lame attempts at politicizing the dialogue out of it, and work towards a solution that at least addresses that issue in some capacity. Stop stomping your feet crying, "they're trying to take away my toys!". That's coming from another responsible gun owner.

The 2nd amendment grants the right to bears arms...NOT AUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS!! The 2nd amendment was penned in 1791, when "arms" was just a six-shooter. It has no bearing or relevence today!!

@Ben- my comment regarding politicizing the debate was directed at Joe Sommers who is clearly doing such by stating that anyone wanting to discuss the subject and doesn't agree with him is a liberal loser. I wasn't attempting to be demeaning. I was simply showing how childish he sounded while discussing a very real and serious issue. You're comments are the exception. I'm not sure what solutions you've postulated. You're welcome to explain. Personally, I agree with you in saying that a ban wouldn't have prevented this incident, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do more to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Maybe if one of the regs on the books should be that households with mentally I'll people shouldn't have access to guns, or maybe better training and testing to make sure people even know how to use the weapons they own. All I know is that the NRA's suggestion is a cop out. I don't think more guns in inexperienced hands is the solution. you could arm the entire populace and all you'll be gauranteed is that more people will die.

@Joe- there's a massive difference between banning access to weapons and a well regulated system designed to promote the highest degree of public safety. You're correct, nothing can stop a person bent on carnage, but measures can be taken to ensure that their free access to weapons will be limited based on their mental state and history, and that those wanting to legally own firearms can do so within reason. That's obviously not occurring right now. I read your points as to what you feel is causing the rise in violence. Some of that may have merit, but mostly that's just kicking the can. If we really want to reduce gun violence, we should end the war on drugs, but that's something of a separate discussion even tho it's related.

The Bolsheviks had guns. The Maoist had guns. Pol Pot had guns. Their respective ascension to power resulted in some of the worst genocides in history. Guns are not necessary to protect civic rights or to affect and preserve positive social change. Mahatma Gandhi stood upto and overthrew one of the most powerful and heavily armed empires of the time without firing a single shot or brandishing any fire arms. Food for thought for those of you who believe only fire arms are the solution to preserving freedom.

@Ben- I think you're missing my point. I'm nit against responsible people being armed. We have a firearm in the house. My brother is a police officer. We were both boyscouts and were well acquainted with firearms at a young age. That isn't the standard. I'm not even against armed security gaurds. What I'm saying is that the NRA should have come forward with a dialogue that calls for measures that reduce gun violence, not for militarization. They should be pressuring the government to do all that they can to make sure that only responsible people have access to firearms, and that those firearms, and all transactions of firearms, are regulated and recorded. They're response was to pressure the government to militarize our schools. Personally, and as a gun owner, I'm not comfortable adding more guns to the equation when we struggle to manage the number we already have. I feel the same way about cars. Any jackass can get a liscence. It doesn't mean they can drive well or at 65mph in heavy traffic or that their mental state is conducive to operating a motor vehicle in a group setting. Anywho, I'm all for responsible gun ownership. If that means we raise our expectations about gun ownership and fewer people end up having guns due to that, well I'm not offended by that at all.

@Ben- you have your service experience which sets you apart. You aren't the average gun owner. I would like to think that we take the mental health of our vets seriously, and that you are being taken care of. I hope that is the case. All my respect to you and your service. Most people can distinguish from a mental disorder based on biology or circumstance and someone who might pose a danger. you seem reasonable, so I feel confident in the assumption that you would surrender your weapons if you felt you should. you aren't the person I'm discussing when I say it's too easy to obtain a gun. Again, thanks for your service. Truly.

@Ben- there are more people out there who think like I do than you might be aware of. I promise you that. Merry Christmas to you as well. Peace to you and yours this holiday season.

I believe the biggest issue here is mental health and this is the issue our nation should be addressing.The absence of affordable and timely mental health care is the real crime.

How do I join this group.There is no reason on God's earth for anyone other the military or police to have semi automatic guns, assault rifles, or machine guns. Hunters do not need them, gun sportsmen do not need them, and the average American wanting to protect their family or themself does not need them. A revolver is more than capable of protection. It can also be used for sport shooting, and hunters certainly do not need to shoot multiple bullets a second. People who want and have these guns have issues. Are they mental issues yes, are they serious mental issues sometimes, but either way the people who want to carry weapons or own them are just plain off. In the case of Adam Lanza he didn't own a gun. They were his mothers. He was mentally ill, she knew it.I don't know if she tried to get help for him, but I do know that the mental health laws in the country suck. She should never have had guns in the house.Obviously, there was something off with her. Mothers, Grandmothers we need to step up and get on our congressmen and demand that laws be put into effect We must demand that they stop kissing the ass of the NRA and gun lobbys. Putting armed guards in schools in insane. Do they have any idea what it will do to mental state of the poor kids seeing this everyday.This country is going to hell in a handbasket. We need to do something and we need to do it now. Let's make 2013 the year that Americans start thinking right. Let's take action now before it is too late.

What has changed, you ask? The country is awash in guns & any crackpot, psycho, or jihadi can walk into a gun show & walk out with an arsenal, no questions asked. For that you can thank the twisted, paranoid NRA that thinks the "libburls" are going to seize everyone's guns, which is nonsense. --Proud 2B a Lefty

The NRA is about protecting the GUN INDUSTRY. Wayne LaPierre is PAID to protect his guns. Plain and simple, the NRA puts guns before children. The amoun t of money the NRA has to promote its gun-toting political candidates contributes to the inability to pass rational legislation. The NRA is a fear-mongering group. It is akin to the McCarthy-era tactics. It's time they were brought to their knees.

@Joe- only a child would try to "call someone out" on an online forum, and yes I would say it to your face. Should I be concerned if I did, and if so doesn't that reinforce my opinion of your demeanor? This isn't a political issue. It's a systemic issue. My point about drugs was that prohibition hasn't worked to stop their use, yet we keep trying anyway. Why shouldn't the same logic apply to gun control? Or conversely, if prohibitions don't work, like many on these threads have been stating as a defense against gun control, then why should we continue a failed policy like the war on drugs? Either prohibitions work or they don't. My larger point was that a vast majority of gun violence is related to drug prohibition. I stand by my assertion that there are too many guns in the hands of irresponsible people. That is just an observation of the facts, not some bs liberal agenda that you're so quick to try to assault.

I do not not intend 2 B kept in line, thank you very much. Isn't it interesting that the libertarian right sees the need to keep other people in line. I do agree about drug prohibition & gun violence. Have a MK&HNY.

@Joe- I'm with Maynard, I don't need keeping in line. I also don't need a label, tho I did sense an undercurrent of humor in your last comment so no worries that I took offense. As for my identity, that's not really relevant to the debate, is it? One of the first things I learned about having an online presence was to use your real name only when absolutely necessary. Especially on politically charged ones such as the Patch. Glad to know tho that we found some common ground. Merry Christmas to you as well. May peace and prosperityfind you this holiday season.

MomsRising=ignorant idiots

Present gun controls - hunters take their beer along, and we haven't talked in years about how many people accidentally killed by hunters. Hiking clubs avoid some 'hunting' days, and in Penna, we LEGALLY have to wear at least 20% APPROVED bright clothes during hunting season. And people want to cry "Leave our rights alone"?

We are not fighting the Revolutionary War anymore. We also have very effective non-bullet defense weapons (stun guns, tear gas & pepper sprays), and these groups called "Police" Depts, & alarms!

Guns don't kill people!!! People kill people. New Jersey and New York have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation yet have more gun crimes and deaths from guns than states like Pennsylvania that let their citizens open carry and carry concealed. explain that???? Liberals use these tragedies to push their agenda. I say ban alcohol because alcohol kills more people each year than guns do. I don't drink so why not ban it???? Lets see you liberal asses defend alcohol vs guns. You are almost 100 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver rather than shot to death by a crazy oerson carrying a gun, which he probably got illegally. Laws don't stop illegal guns only good law abiding citizens from defending themselves from bad guys!!!!

Carl W With Obama in Office anything is Possible!!! Heres a question I want you to answer please--- Is a government more likely to use force when their citizens are armed or when they are unarmed??? The moment our guns are taken away whats to stop our government from abusing their power. Thats what the 2nd ammendment is form not for hunting or target shooting. The whole idea of the 2nd ammendment was to have a free standing militia that has equal stength as our government so that our government can never ever become to powerful plus to defend our country from outside invaders. Ever heat the answer why the Japanese never invaded the main land USA???? He said because they have guns and lots of them.

Taking our right to own and bear arms is fundmentally changing our country. We might as well burn the constitution and let our government deicde what rights we should have. Heres an example Do you think a criminal will break into a home that he knows the homeowner is armed or do you think he would rather break into a home where the homeowner has to wait for the police to be called and show up????

"primary source of gun violence in our country. That source is guns."...that is the most foolish statement i've heard in this debate.