America After Newtown

America After Newtown

On the weekend of the second anniversary of Newtown here in my home state of Connecticut I offer this article:

Newtown Massacre Anniversary: Since Sandy Hook, America Has Seen Dozens Of School Shootings

By Connor Adams Sheets, Intl. Business Times, Dec. 12, 2014

Two years have passed since 20-year-old Adam Lanza burst into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on Dec. 14, 2012, and killed 20 young children and 6 teachers, but school shootings persist as a tragic fact of life across the United States. In the 24 months since the Newtown massacre, at least 95 school shooting incidents have taken place in 33 states across the nation, according to a new study released this week.

"There's no other developed country that looks like this or that would tolerate this kind of violence among schoolchildren," Shannon Watts, founder of Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, told the Huffington Post. The advocacy group's report showed that gun violence has remained prevalent in schools from California to Maine. While Sandy Hook Elementary’s shooting spree is by far the deadliest incident of gun violence in the past two years, there have been 17 school shootings in the past three months alone, according to the analysis.

“Since the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 95 school shootings in America — an average of nearly one a week,” the study states, adding later, “Communities all over the country live in fear of gun violence. That’s unacceptable. We should feel secure in sending our children to school — comforted by the knowledge that they’re safe.”

“Regardless of the individuals involved in a shooting or the circumstances that gave rise to it, gunfire in our schools shatters the sense of security that these institutions are meant to foster,” the Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America study states. “Everyone should agree that even one school shooting is one too many.”

Recommend0 recommendations

Published in Senior Chatters

Comments

  1. saffy123

    Since the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 95 school shootings in America — an average of nearly one a week…….This one sentence alone should be a headline in all your National News…
    Wake Up America!!!…This is your future generation you are watching being massacred…get it sorted!!!

    1. roseinbloom

      Saffy, I like your last line. What is wrong with us? Even churches, christian ones, are having bring your guns to church days. We have turned things backwards.

    2. leafofgold

      Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora Midnight Massacre, those poor Amish girls shot in their school’ and two months ago not 10 miles from my home a Pennsylvania State Trooper was shot by a high powered rifle killing him instantly. It took State Troopers both New York and Pennsylvania, the FBI and the National Guard 48 days to apprehend him or to put it more clearly he gave himself up because it was cold outside. I continue my vendetta against the NRA as futile as it seems. It isn’t the psychological condition of our children, but the unwavering greed of the strongest lobbyist in Washington. Things were different when we were young because we did not have easy access to weapons of high caliber.
      Last week my cat who had been missing for 6 months struggled his way home after being shot through and through shattering his hind leg.
      To make matters worse there is a Gun and Ammo shop not 100 yards away from my house waving their bright yellow and red flag. I take it as a personal insult every day having to see it.
      The synthesis to this antithesis is simple Math: 1 less gun, 1 less bullet, ONE MORE LIFE. Who will be our Obie One Kanobi?

  2. Jsmile

    Some may agree or disagree here; I always wonder what type of home these young people live in. What drives them to violence. I really feel for our children and younger generation. It’s sad what they have to deal with on a daily bases, no fathers in the home, pier pressure, depression and so on. Everyone here can relate to our days as young people. We had our issues but we had adults in our lives to guide us to some degree. Mom was home when we came home from school. Most of us had a stable home life. We felt loved by both parents. While I am in no way excusing the actions of our young people I do believe this violence stems from something far deeper than just thew act itself. Perhaps if we turned off the TV, shut off the cell phone, boot the computer and had a personal conversation with our kids on a daily bases, we may just learn who they are. Just my 2cents

    1. laurie Post author

      The best thing parents can do to prevent gun violence is to keep guns out of their homes. The mother of Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, was a devoted mother who chose to stay at home to attend to her son’s every need. She was his first victim, killed with her own gun.

    2. Gael

      Easier said then done to keep the guns out of the home when it’s a home in which guns are part of daily life.

      Hunting; in many US states children are taught how to use guns at an early age so they can join in with the adults when they hunt animals.

      Look at this quote:

      Dan Baun, writer at Time.com, feels that letting kids shoot guns is actually good for them. While he thinks that giving a young child a sub-machine gun is crazy, he does feel that “there’s an added benefit to teaching children to shoot: it’s a gesture of respect for a group that doesn’t often get any.” He also adds that guns can actually teach discipline and strengthen the bond between parent and child.

      “Invite a child to learn how to shoot and the message is: I trust your ability to listen and learn. I trust your ability to concentrate. I welcome you into a dangerous adult activity because you are sensible and trustworthy. For young people accustomed to being constrained, belittled, ignored and told “no,” hearing an adult call them to their higher selves can be enormously empowering. Children come away from properly conducted shooting lessons as different people, taller in their shoes and more willing to tune into what adults say,” he said.

      1. Gael

        Banning guns in the US? Don’t hold your breath on that one. They have hard time even controlling the use and types of guns much less banning them all together.

        1. laurie Post author

          “More than half of Americans now have tougher gun laws. Forget Congress: The real action after Newtown was in 40 states, from assault weapon bans to “volunteer emergency security forces” for K-12 schools.” — Mark Follman, Mother Jones Magazine, Dec. 12, 2013

          “There’s no other developed country that looks like this or that would tolerate this kind of violence among schoolchildren,” Shannon Watts, founder of Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, told the Huffington Post.

          “These women are the NRA’s (National Rifle Association) worst nightmare. Can Moms Demand Action do to gun extremists what MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) did to drunk drivers?” — Mark Follman, Mother Jones Magazine, September/October 2014 Issue

          The gun control movement in this country is alive and well.

  3. powderpuff

    my mother always said ”if you live by the gun you will die by the gun” and I think she is right but when children start shooting classmates and teachers I think you have a big problem . start banning guns America it is so sad that you let this happen

  4. Jsmile

    I agree with Gael’s quote in her post. Guns are not the problem. People with guns are the problem. Alcohol isn’t the problem with drunk driving, people are the problem! You can ban all the guns and alcohol you wish. The evil people who choose to wreak havoc on others will find a way and tool to carry it out. If you do the research you’ll find the states and cities with the highest gun regulations also have the highest gun crime rates. We don’t need gun control in America. We need to hold people more accountable with swift sentences for the crimes. Do we ban alcohol from everyone just because the select ones choose to abuse it? Do we ban fire because some choose to burn down homes? I know it sounds dramatic but it’s a point. Do we ban cars because people use them for murder weapons? I say we stop focusing on the “object” and focus on the people abusing the object. I raised my kids around guns. I taught them how to use and respect them. They are all grown and never did I have a problem. My elders also quoted “them that live by the gun will die by it” I disagree. Who is a robber going to target first? An unarmed victim or an armed one?

      1. lo1234

        NJ is a state with one of the toughest or “highest” gun regulations to the best of my knowledge and we rank 48 out of 50 for gun crimes. So unless I’m misunderstanding your statement, Laurie, and Lord knows I maybe because it’s late and I’m tired, I have to disagree that the “highest regulations in states and cities have the highest gun crime rates.” Gun regulation works in my humble opinion.

  5. Gael

    My point is it’s niave to simply state guns should be banned in the US or that they should not be in homes. And do not underestimate the power of the NRA.

    Polls often show that more Americans favor tightening gun control laws than relaxing them, but gun rights advocates are much more likely to be single-issue voters than those on the other side of the question. As a result, the NRA can reliably deliver votes. Politicians also fear the activism of NRA members. They’re widely believed to be more likely to attend campaign events, ring doorbells, and make phone calls to help their favored candidates—or defeat their opponents—than senior citizens, members of labor unions, or public school teachers.

    For the most part, the NRA’s lobbying arm didn’t gin up the emotional fervor of firearms advocates—it resulted from it. The NRA was founded shortly after the Civil War by Union veterans who felt the Confederacy only lasted as long as it did because of the Southerners’ superior marksmanship. For nearly a century, the NRA catered to competitive shooters and merely dabbled in politics. As with so many other American cultural issues, things changed in the 1960s. Crime soared. Armed members of the Black Panthers began following police officers around American cities. Riots broke out in Newark and Detroit, and some government officials blamed easy access to guns. Assassins killed two Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King Jr. In 1968, under pressure from terrified constituents, Congress passed the first major gun control legislation since the 1930s. A backlash ensued, as American firearms enthusiasts feared the government planned to take their guns. They pushed the relatively apolitical NRA to lobby on their behalf. When the leadership balked in 1977, a group of activists staged a coup. The new leaders commissioned a poll, which found that lobbying was the members’ biggest priority. They turned the group into a political force, with the Second Amendment as their bible.

    Today, the NRA’s lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, has become expert at maintaining the siege mentality that birthed it. Former NRA leader Wayne LaPierre famously attacked gun control legislation in 1995 as giving “jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.” More recent mailings have claimed that the group is “fighting a multi-front battle with anti-gun radicals in the Obama administration” willing to use “ANY means necessary to DESTROY our freedoms.”

    The NRA also has a better ground game than many other lobbying organizations. The group relies on scores of independent gun magazines, thousands of gun shops, and gun clubs across the country to help spread its message well beyond its membership. Many small lobbying groups with enthusiastic members have exploited similar viral communications networks to splendid effect. The American Homebrewers Association, for example, with fewer than 15,000 members, has used shops, clubs, and amateur podcasters to help pass beer-friendly legislation in five different states in the last two years.

  6. Jsmile

    Knowledge is powerful. These are statistics from the FBI, Center for crime prevention. This is not my “opinion”. These are facts from a host of government agencies who record from courts, law enforcement and the FBI. While universities and special interest groups are great guideline studies I would tend to follow the sources in which said studies are pulled. Again, just my 2cents.

    Crime Prevention Research Center

    DECEMBER 1, 2013 · JOHNRLOTT
    Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans
    UPDATE: An interview that John Lott had on this post on Cam & Company is available here (SiriusXM Channel 125).

    Original post: Every place that has been banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

    For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source here see Table 1.01 and the column marked “Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population”). After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. The homicide rate only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.

    As an aside, homicides in England and Wales are not counted the same as in other countries. Their homicide numbers “exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise” (Report to Parliament). The problem isn’t just that it reduces the recorded homicide rate in England and Wales, but what would a similar reduction mean for the US.

    If taken literally, a simple comparison can be made. In 2012, the US murder rate was 4.7 per 100,000, a total of 14,827. Arrests amounted to only 7,133. Using only people who were arrested (not just convicted) would lower the US murder rate to 2.26 per 100,000. More information on the adjustment for England and Wales is available here and it suggests that while many homicides are excluded it isn’t as large as it would appear (in 1997, the downward adjustment would be about 12 percent).

    Other information for Ireland and Jamaica.

    Ireland & Jamaica 2

    Jamaica’s crime data were obtained from a variety of sources. Its murder data from 1960 to 1967 were obtained from Terry Lacey, Violence and Politics in Jamaica, 1960–70 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1977). Professor Gary Mauser obtained the data from 1970 to 2000 from a Professor A. Francis in Jamaica and the data from 2001 to 2006 from the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (http://www.statinja.com/stats.html). Jamaica’s population estimates were obtained from NationMaster.com (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ peo_pop-people-population&date=1975).

    How about for DC and Chicago (Figures taken from More Guns, Less Crime)?

    The raw data for DC over a long period of time is available here (the crime rates are available on the bottom half of the screen).

    Now Australia didn’t have a complete ban on guns, they didn’t even ban all semi-automatic guns, but a discussion on the changes in their crime rates from their gun buyback is available here (see also here).

    Much of the debate over gun control focuses on what is called “cross-sectional” data. That is crime rates are examined at one particular point of time across different places. Here are two paragraphs from John Lott’s The Bias Against Guns that explain the basic problem with cross-sectional analysis.

    First, the cross-sectional studies: Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime. Economists refer to this as an “endogeniety” problem. The adoption of the policy is a reaction to other events (that is, “endogenous”), in this case crime. To resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls.

    Unfortunately, many contemporary discussions rely on misinterpretations of cross-sectional data. The New York Times recently conducted a cross-sectional study of murder rates in states with and without the death penalty, and found that “Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average.” However, they erroneously concluded that the death penalty did not deter murder. The problem is that the states without the death penalty (Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Vermont) have long enjoyed relatively low murder rates, something that might well have more to do with other factors than the death penalty. Instead one must compare, over time, how murder rates change in the two groups – those adopting the death penalty and those that did not.

    This article is a list of the U.S. states and the District of Columbia. The population data is the official data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The murder rates and gun murder rates were calculated based on the FBI reports and the official population of each state.
    States[edit]
    State Population
    (total inhabitants)
    (2010) Population
    Density
    (inhabitants
    per square mile)
    (2010) Murders
    (total deaths)
    (2010)
    [1] Gun
    Murders
    (total deaths)
    (2010)
    Gun
    Ownership
    (%)
    (2007)
    [2] Murders
    (rate per 100,000
    inhabitants)
    (2010) Gun
    Murders
    (rate per 100,000
    inhabitants)
    (2010)
    Alabama 4,779,736 94.65 199 135 51.7% 4.2 2.8
    Alaska 710,231 1.264 31 19 57.8% 4.4 2.7
    Arizona 6,392,017 57.05 352 232 31.1% 5.5 3.6
    Arkansas 2,915,918 56.43 130 93 55.3% 4.5 3.2
    California 37,253,956 244.2 1,811 1,257 21.3% 4.9 3.4
    Colorado 5,029,196 49.33 117 65 34.7% 2.3 1.3
    Connecticut 3,574,097 741.4 131 97 16.7% 3.7 2.7
    Delaware 897,934 470.7 48 38 25.5% 5.3 4.2
    District of Columbia 601,723 10298 131 99 3.6% 21.8 16.5
    Florida 19,687,653 360.2 987 669 24.5% 5.0 3.9
    Georgia 9,920,000 172.5 527 376 40.3% 5.3 3.8
    Hawaii 1,360,301 216.8 24 7 6.7% 1.8 0.5
    Idaho 1,567,582 19.5 21 12 55.3% 1.3 0.8
    Illinois 12,830,632 231.9 453 364 20.2% 3.5 2.8
    Indiana 6,483,802 182.5 198 142 39.1% 3.1 2.2
    Iowa 3,046,355 54.81 38 21 42.9% 1.2 0.7
    Kansas 2,853,118 35.09 100 63 42.1% 3.5 2.2
    Kentucky 4,339,367 110.0 180 116 47.7% 4.5 2.7
    Louisiana 4,533,372 105.0 437 351 44.1% 9.6 7.7
    Maine 1,328,361 43.04 24 11 40.5% 1.8 0.8
    Maryland 5,773,552 606.2 424 293 21.3% 7.3 5.1
    Massachusetts 6,547,629 852.1 209 118 12.6% 3.2 1.8
    Michigan 9,883,640 174.8 558 413 38.4% 5.6 4.2
    Minnesota 5,303,925 67.14 91 53 41.7% 1.7 1.0
    Mississippi 2,967,297 63.50 165 120 55.3% 5.6 4.0
    Missouri 5,988,927 87.26 419 321 41.7% 7.0 5.4
    Montana 989,415 6.858 21 12 57.7% 2.1 1.2
    Nebraska 1,826,341 23.97 51 32 38.6% 2.8 1.8
    Nevada 2,700,551 24.80 158 84 33.8% 5.9 3.1
    New Hampshire 1,316,470 147.0 13 5 30.0% 1.0 0.4
    New Jersey 8,791,894 1189 363 246 12.3% 4.1 2.8
    New Mexico 2,059,179 17.16 118 67 34.8% 5.7 3.3
    New York 19,378,102 415.3 860 517 18% 4.4 2.7
    North Carolina 9,535,483 200.6 445 286 41.3% 4.7 3.0
    North Dakota 672,591 9.916 9 4 50.7% 1.3 0.6
    Ohio 11,536,504 282.5 460 310 32.4% 4.0 2.7
    Oklahoma 3,751,351 55.22 188 111 42.9% 5.0 3.0
    Oregon 3,831,074 40.33 78 36 39.8% 2.0 0.9
    Pennsylvania 12,702,379 285.3 646 457 34.7% 5.1 3.6
    Rhode Island 1,052,567 1006 29 16 12.8% 2.8 1.5
    South Carolina 4,625,364 157.1 280 207 42.3% 6.1 4.5
    South Dakota 814,180 10.86 14 8 56.6% 1.7 1.0
    Tennessee 6,346,105 156.6 356 219 43.9% 5.6 3.5
    Texas 25,145,561 98.07 1,246 805 35.9% 5.0 3.2
    Utah 2,763,885 34.30 52 22 43.9% 1.9 0.8
    Vermont 625,741 67.73 7 2 42.0% 1.1 0.3
    Virginia 8,001,024 207.3 369 250 35.1% 4.6 3.1
    Washington 6,724,540 102.6 151 93 33.1% 2.2 1.4
    West Virginia 1,852,994 77.06 55 27 55.4% 3.0 1.5
    Wisconsin 5,686,986 105.2 151 97 44.4% 2.7 1.7
    Wyoming 563,626 5.851 8 5 59.7% 1.4 0.9

  7. Gael

    I’m interested to see what Laurie has to say about these statistics.

    I lived in the state of NJ where a legally owned registered gun could be used on an intruder in ones home. I’m for that. But the issue of children can arise and then it gets muddier. The gun needs to be kept secured so they can’t get their hands on it, etc.

    In some states people can walk about with large guns in public. Then to me it’s like the old west and when tempers flare, lives can be extinguished instantly.

    Guns are so powerful and can be a life saving deterrant or protection, or in the wrong hands, instant death is delivered.

  8. saffy123

    The comments were closed by laurie….the blog was not about gun control….its was remembering Newtown…..and as such this is the statistic that is the very sad one….
    “Since the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 95 school shootings in America — an average of nearly one a week,” the study states, adding later, “Communities all over the country live in fear of gun violence. That’s unacceptable. We should feel secure in sending our children to school — comforted by the knowledge that they’re safe.”
    That’s what you should have noticed….not gone off about gun control!!!!….Your future generation of schoolchildren!!!

  9. lo1234

    I did not read all the comments before I posted above, so silly me, I didn’t know it was closed. However, the only way to insure the safety or our children in school from these types of mass murder is to address the issue of gun control. We can say that it’s not the gun but the person holding the gun…but how the heck does he get it in his hand, be he suffering from a mental illness or just a violent person is the problem. This leads to two other issues. One, caring for the mentally ill and two, controlling guns getting into the hands of violent people. It’s a complicated and multifaceted issue but it has to be addressed. OK, I’ll be quiet now.

    1. laurie Post author

      Lo, as I said in reply to your comment above, the quote was from Jsmile, not me, he is against gun control, I am in favor of it.

      1. Jsmile

        Laurie,
        I’m not against gun control at all. I am in favor of citizens who are responsible gun owners of not being told they cannot have them as the US
        constitution dictated. I am in favor of strict background checks. What most people fail to acknowledge is if you ban every firearm in the world thugs and people who cannot control themselves will get guns and do even more harm to an unarmed public. If you disarm every single person who “legally and rightfully” owns guns the police would STILL need to have guns to protect from the illegal owners. I will argue and back up my claim yet with more stats that it’s NOT guns who kill. It is people who have disregard for human life who are the problem. If our government would do it’s job and fulfill the laws on the books and judges would sentence these people rather than going after innocent law abiding citizens who rightfully own guns the issue of lives being saved would be greatly enhanced. Drunk drivers kill people every day and yet no one goes after distilleries and auto makers. We simply need to address the REAL problem rather than the symptom. Again, I am very pro gun control. Control irresponsible people who abuse the intended use of guns.
        As far as kids and guns, there again it falls back to control, education and proper training. All four of my kids were raised around guns. Yes I took them to gun range and taught them the good bad and ugly of the weapon.
        They grew up shooting. They respected the weapon for its use and risk. Kids are curious. Worst thing to do is “hide” something from them. It raises their curiosity level high. Train and teach them. If a young person may have mental issues then obviously that’s a address in and of itself.

  10. Gael

    Why is Saffy speaking for Laurie?

    Anyway, who knew this was a closed topic? There was no notice of it from Laurie that I see.

  11. patak

    i have read all the comments to lauries blog with interest. it is sad that in some of the comments there is a sort of defence that the USA has no more horrendous gun crime involving school children than places such as the UK. Are we not missing the point here. Where you have a society which teaches our young people to shoot guns and whose parents keep guns at home should we surprised that on occasions troubled young people chose to use them. The point here is the access those troubled young people have to firearms in their own homes. As parents we have brought up children who have had problems and have seen their angst against fellow students. We in the UK do not have a constitutional right to bear arms so when our young people who become angry or violent it rarely results in a school shootings it may result in violence but not killing. The question you in the USA have to ask yourselves is what are we doing right and what you are doing wrong. Also do you want this to carry on and see more slaughters of your children before you come to your senses. What type of society are you, one which encourages your children to use firearms or one where you encourage them to strive to better their lives. After all is that not the American way. You need to stand up and say to those people who defend the right to bear arms and those of the hunting lobby get real we live in the 21st century not the 18th and 19th centuries.

  12. Gael

    To say this discussion is not about gun control is silly. When you are faced with horrific situations concerning the misues of firearms naturally the discussion turns to how to control this from happening.

    I think it’s not just about the present laws but about a mindset in the US. Those states where kids are taught and encouraged to hunt worries me. They’re taught how to expertly handle firearms at a young age and have access to them.

    You get an immature kid who is used to shooting a gun and see what happens when their anger arises over something. We know what happens.

    But their parents want them to be able to use firearms so the kid is taught this from an early age.

    But homeowners should not be sitting ducks for those that attack them in their home either, Pat. And before you tout the UK as being a model remember that there you can use reasonable force to protect your home which could include a gun.

    “Homeowners who confront burglars were told by the Government yesterday that they were entitled to kill in self-defence – and use guns and knives – to protect their family and property.”

    1. patak

      Gael, yes you are right but how many people inthe UK have a shot gun to use in such circumstances. We have gun control in the UK and I for one am thankful. You may recall this was brought in a result of a school shooting in Dunblane. When a person defends themselves from harm they can only use reasonable force to protect their life. Just because someone is in your house stealing does not give you the absolute right to kill them. Lauries blog may have opened this discussion about gun control but one needs to think more widely and look at the availability of firearms in a troubled society both in the USA and Europe. We in the UK are the only country in the western world where are policemen do not routinely carry firearms. Our gun crime is minute, even ones where it involves self defence. You have to ask yourself where you prefer to live in a country where we can send our children school without the worry of them being killed by a troubled youth who has a gun which their parents have taught them to use.

    2. Gael

      I’m still not sure where you are reading in this blog anyone who is truly against gun controls, Pat.

      Can you copy paste that for us?

  13. Jsmile

    OK I may have either mislead or I was misunderstood. I’m not an advocate of kids having free rein of a firearm to handle whenever and however he/she wishes. That’s just plain irresponsibility of the adult in the home period. In the case of NewTown the mother knew her son had some mental issues. Therefore she or the father or whoever should have never allowed a firearm in his possession period. That includes one being in the home. Innocent people die at the hand of inexperienced and mental deranged people. People are going to do immoral acts. As I also stated earlier, it’s not the “gun” control that should be enforced. It’s “people” who should be held accountable for their actions WITH the guns. We had a crime committed in my city two weeks ago. A robber broke into a business and used a kitchen knife against the owner. Do we ban or legislate “knife” control too? On and on it goes with people using objects to do harm to others. Old saying; When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Let’s not forget 9-11. 3,000 people died in that horrific act and not one shot was fired. Gun control “sounds good”. It gives the conscious a soothing of resolve that our governments doing good for it’s people. We need ” bad people” and irresponsible people who give access to guns control! I’m finished.