Friday's shooting tragedy at a Connecticut school has again brought the topic of gun control to the forefront.
Twenty elementary school children were among the 27 people killed when a gunman opened fire inside a kindergarten class at Sandy Hook Elementary. Adam Lanza, who killed his mother first, was identified as the shooter. He killed himself as a finale to the massacre.
Immediately the debate turned to gun control with advocates saying stricter gun controls are obviously needed. This is the fifth time this president has had to visit the families of mass shooting victims. White House press secretary Jay Carney, however, said Friday "was not the day" to discuss gun control. But the president made it clear that this does bring the topic back up. He was criticized during the elections by gun control advocates for allowing politics to temper his voice on this issue. Gun owners and strong Second Amendment supporters expect that to change now that there is no longer an election on the line.
Assemb. Michelle Schimel, D-Great Neck, a strong advocate for stricter gun control legislation said elected officials must put public safety before the interests of the strongest gun lobbyists.
Those who support gun ownership, however, say disarming those who legally seek gun ownership only leaves the criminals armed since they don't follow the law anyway. They suggest it is a cry for more gun ownership, not less, just stricter enforcement against those who possess guns illegally.
What was your gut reaction to the tragedy? Stricter gun control or time to go out and buy a gun of your own?
I have no problem with making sure people are competent in handling firearms. But banning something because some people are irresponsible seems silly to me. Especially when others having that item could prevent some of these situations....
I can certainly understand the public reaction to the Connectlcut gunman's accessibility to weapons, but, if a staffer in the school office had had access to a weapon, the gunman might have died with only 2 or even 0 casualties. I agree with Dave above--if we could get back to 2-parent households with real parenting and a strong, law-abiding father figure. It seems that the times have become increasingly complicated as the family unit has broken down. Pity that. Although the amount of female hormones in the water supply is supposedly negligible and does not threaten human health, what do those hormones do to the developing males' brains? Just wondering ... Maybe those hormones cause an increase in mental disorders. It would nice to see a study on that .....
Deploying a gun in ANY situation is NOT a decision to be taken lightly, one MUST be certain they can fire it directly at whatever is in the sight. If the criteria above doesn't suit you or the situation, its best you DON'T have one. That said, its YOUR decision granted in writing by our founding documents - make the decision for yourself and YOUR family, NOT for others.
In a nutshell NOT even close... But extra points awarded for attempted pot stirring! (Smiles)
Let’s face it, the REAL fear is that our terrorist enemies will transplant this style of attack from the MID-EAST region and African continents. Barring USA citizens rights won’t impact that one situation iota. Mental Health? That’s all covered under ACA - FREE for all, right? Or is this the new phase 2?
Just check out any prison reports you wish, IF absence of guns in the general population makes it all better - that approach means prisons are the safest places on the planet… Because NO one ever dies prematurely in prison…
And they will tell you, when seconds count - we are only MINUTES way ... 911 response "All operators are busy, please hold ..."