The laws of the US aren't the reason this person did what he did. I'd like to bring your attention to (as far as I can tell) the greatest tragedy to ever hit a school (other than Justin Beiber's music teacher tell him to "stick with it")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

385 deaths, mostly from explosives and 783 injured. In Russia. They have gun control laws too. Crazy people are going to kill, dude. The fact of the matter is the CULTURE of mental health needs to change in the US and make professionals more accessible and discussing your emotions, good or bad, more acceptable in this country.

Also, as a gun owner (I legally own 6 firearms) I can assure you that the process to obtain firearms in the US (specifically in my state, Illinois) is quite extensive, but not perfect. This person had a significant history of mental illness and today's events are merely summation of what was probably weeks or months of preparation.

How do you know that? Unless you have a source you're blatantly speculating.

CT doesn't have "strict" gun control, you can walk in a store and buy a rifle/shotgun without a permit or waiting period. Maybe stricter compared to the rest of the country but definitely not strict. And if in doubt, hop next door to Rhode Island and grab one without a permit or Id. Plus, how did New Jersey get in the picture?

Ya that dude broke the law and should be arrested. Oh wait.

From NYTimes, "The gunman, who was believed to be in his 20s". Is there an update to this I don't know about.

let's make tf2 jokes about 20 kids getting killed

Also duder, Beslan was a fucking terrorist attack by Chechen rebels. That's like saying that the guys behind 9/11 didn't have guns, ergo gun control won't help prevent unnecessary deaths!

The bad guys will always have guns. Jus' saying. No matter how many laws we put, or how tight the gun control is, bad guys will always have guns. Also going to throw out there that explosives are easy to make, and you can't control the making of those. Most of these shootings end with the person killing themselves anyway, I'm surprised we haven't seen someone strap themselves with explosives, toss a few into classrooms then kill themselves like that. Should we do nothing about it? Absolutely not. We should always strive to make our schools safer places. I just don't think gun control laws will do anything except prevent normal people from having guns.

Connecticut and New Jersey both banned Assault rifles and follow the same 3-day waiting period (which allows time for a background check and "cool-down" period) as almost every US state.

You can not just walk into a legitimate store in the United States and purchase a gun on the spot. This person took the time and effort to source (or apparently steal) firearms illegally.

I used the gun-free zone as a method to illustrate how the gun control laws failed the victims.

The shooter was 20 years old, you have to be 21 years old to legally purchase and possess any of the firearms the shooter used.

Are you aware of the fact that a very substantial portion of gun related deaths aren't premeditated and can be considered spur of the moment based on arguments or disputes? (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain).

This is such a bullshit argument, guns make it so much easier for people to kill each other. All you need is a twitch of a finger and a disturbed person to lose control of his/her emotions.

This is such a terrible argument, I am always surprised at how often people say/write it. I understand what you are trying to say about mental health with the rest of your post but that statement is false.

Twenty kids were shot to death by this guy. The gun lead to their deaths. Let that sink in. Do you really think this deranged guy could have done as much damage without a gun? Guns always escalate violence, and you can't say the same for lack of guns.

I'd say you're cherry picking an example to make a case for gun ownership not being the "real" problem and instead people being it but you seem to have done that well enough yourself. Yes, Western society can be condemned for using fear to promote consumerism, but as waffleb said there really is nothing to lose by making guns scarcer. When is the last time a child was harmed in the cross-fire of a gang knife fight?

If you'll recall James Eagen Holmes amassed a small armory in under a month before he decided to go to town in Aurora. Yet somehow a law that stipulates that you can only buy one gun a month is contested in this nation. I guess the right to amass firearms is just as sacred as "bearing arms."

you can argue about gun laws all you want but it wont change the fact that they will always be easy to obtain illegally, as sad as that may seem it is 100% true. no it's not too late to have stricter laws as to acquiring firearms. but they're mass produced across the globe every single day, they will always be in circulation. they have been for a very long time now. if someone really wants to get one, they will find a way. some people just want attention, they want to be remembered for something devastating, some people just snap and thats it. maybe he had a terrible upbringing or came from a broken home, you can argue mental issues all you want as well.

tragedies such as this will never stop, poverty, struggle, bad areas, shitty parents, gun control, drugs, you can argue any of these issues as far as what may cause people to commit these acts but it doesn't mean its going to stop.

To make sure we only sell guns to people who've demonstrated an understanding of the tremendous responsibility that comes with gun ownership. When it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun permit, something is definitely wrong.

It's not the weapon, but the person behind it.

No, it's kind of the weapon too. Cars don't cause people to drive drunk, but it's sure as hell a lot fucking tougher to get a DUI without one.

I really think the mental healthcare situation in this country is worse than most every other developed nation. A lot of developed countries have accessible programs and their cultures are very accepting of treatment or counselling as a normal thing. Here it is cheaper to buy a gun than it is to get mental health care, and it's very taboo to seek counselling or a mental health professional....besides being incredibly expensive. Of course our entire healthcare situation is fucked on all sides..

I live in portland so we just had one fucked up incident, but this is beyond words... I'm a father of a 2 year old with a nephew around the same age as the kids that were killed in this...and I just can't imagine what those parents are going through. It's an unimaginable tragedy...

this particular incident may or may not have been avoided with gun control laws being tighter. most likely not, but it's pointless to speculate.

however, whether or not it's logical to begin gun control conversations only after tragic events like this (it's not), I think it's still good to have those conversations in the first place.

if anything, gun control is more relevant to issues of like gang violence or inner city homicides, but no one ever wants to talk about that. incidents like this, when a bunch of little kids get killed at once, evoke such a huge emotional response that it makes sense to have the debate now, even though tbh stuff like this is one of the most unavoidable aspects of gun violence.

if anything though, aside from the possibility of more gun control -> less access to weapons -> no shooting, there's the more realistic possibility of more gun control -> less gun-obsessed culture over time -> less seeking out of firearms -> less gun violence

that logic...

The point is that you don't need your six fucking guns or any at all. I just don't understand America's obsession with guns. Just this year, a trick-or-treater in a skunk costume was shot by a man because he thought it was a real skunk. Make it as hard as possible for stupid people to obtain a gun. If it wasn't so easy for Joe Schmo to get a hold of a gun of course the shootings would happen less often.

Agreed with #47. Did you see the link I posted? An insane individual perpetrated a similar act of violence. But because of how incredibly tight gun control laws are in China the best he could procure was a knife. 22 Elementary school children with stab wounds > 18+ dead children with gunshot wounds.

Dear Americans, why is owning and playing with lethal weaponry such a popular pastime of yours? I really don't get it.

amen!!!

I don't think banning guns would fix anything; there's always a way to get a gun, and most often these people did not get the guns through normal methods. The problem is caused by several factors, all of which really need attention.

These people are psycho. There's no way to completely protect people against this, but... there are many ways to help. If this can't be fixed, and they are violent and insane, then they should not be in the public.

Wouldn't it be effective to have armed security at these public institutions, especially schools? I don't mean have a small army, but enough to stop one guy. Protect the children.

please note that my opinion is meaningless to all of you and to please not be offended by it.

Not that sick, though. Guns are an impersonal weapon, and a very non-intimate way to commit acts of violence. It is much harder to attack someone with a knife than it is to shoot someone with a gun. Without guns, the attacker would need a whole new level of psychosis to attempt the same thing.

Not that I'm saying you're wrong though. The only reason China and Japan have such extreme control over firearms is because the government actively purged the country of any firearm they did not control. That would require a level of governmental authority that half the U.S. would balk at.

It may not have been easy to get the guns, but it wasn't that hard either. Legally, yes, it can be difficult to obtain a gun. But each new gun issued isn't any harder to steal, borrow, or give away than, I dunno, a book or something. And without access to guns, the attack would most likely have not happened at all. Or, if it had, it would be more likely to end up as the China school crisis did, with no fatalities.

Your post is a textbook example of the biased towards "fairness" mentality. In a week, no one will remember this tragedy; if any, this is the only time we'll get a chance to have a serious conversation about the direction gun ownership laws in this country will take. One can discuss and debate the issues all they'd like without getting anything done (as is often the case) and "agreeing to disagree".

The logical, rational thing to do is to identify what went wrong and take corrective action. For instance, in this case, the shooter stole his guns from his mother. In the spirit of getting things done, focus on getting legislation that puts the pressure on gun owners to make sure their weapons are safe, such as forcing guns to be locked when not in physical proximity of the permit holder, preventing others from handling their weapons etc. Enforce these with harsh financial penalties or the threat of revoking permit (such as points on a driver's license). There will not be a grand, over-arching conclusion to this saga, the best that can be done is to take small steps forward

It's very tempting to pin the blame on abstract issues such as "gun-obsessed culture" to console ourselves with inaction. The simple fact is that the ease of procuring guns (and ammo), the complete lack of weapons training, no enforcement of gun-ownership responsibility and the sheer number of guns out there are explanation enough.

Every time a massacre happens

But honestly, what do you guys want? Where do you draw the line? Guns definitely kill people, and are made explicitly to harm things (but hobbies have grown out of it). A kitchen knife will never banned even though you can kill someone with it. Cars are amazing for killing people outside, but sucks for people in buildings. Archery is generally less lethal than guns, but they serve the exact same purpose as guns do. Would you ban archery too? Also, materials for explosives also exist. It takes a lot more effort and intelligence to pull off though.

It's not as easy to draw lines, and definitely hard to find an all encompassing solution. Unless you're behind your computer looking out. We can do without guns, but we could have done without alcohol too. That shit turned out nice.

I live less than 20 minutes from the school. Seeing on the news in class wasn't too comforting.

With a ban on guns you're allowing another criminal trade. There was an argument for the legalization of marijuana for the same reason. If we legalize it there will be less crime but if you outlaw guns there will be an even bigger illegal gun trade.

No, I think that line is pretty easy to draw. Guns are made for the express and solitary purpose of killing. Not only that but they make killing ridiculously easy and impersonal and make it so almost ANY person can take dozens of lives in a matter of minutes. Kitchen knives, cars, etc. are not made for killing and have actual legitimate uses. Guns don't. There is no reason why civilians should legally be able to access something like that. I have no interest in being "protected" by gun-toting self-proclaimed vigilantes either--they are just as apt (if not more so) to make a mistake or have an emotional or otherwise inappropriate response to a situation as anyone else is, and the results of such a mistake could easily cause deaths. Plus it's incredibly easy for those guns to fall into the wrong hands (e.g. someone's kid, getting stolen, etc.) or for an accident to happen. It's just not necessary at all.

What about throwing knives and archery? I mean there are plenty of gun exhibitions, which are the main uses. Obviously, you want to draw the line once it passes a certain lethality point, but those weapons are lethal too. The just have a much greater skill curve, so to speak. A baseball bat is a purely for an exhibition of the sport, but can definitely be used to harm people (and it's been done before). It probably doesn't pass the lethality threshold. I just want to know what's your lethality threshold that guns pass and other mediums don't. Also, does it have to do with the curve to learn how to use weapon (or make explosives, etc). Because there are plenty of swords and what not that people are allowed to buy and own despite having very small utility, and I haven't heard you address that.

this is the issue here guys

one time I was hiking in Montana with my girlfriend and her dad and he shot a bear and saved our lives

You're comparing something created solely for the purpose of killing to something that is virtually harmless.