If gun control laws will work so well, let's pass laws to make meth and heroine illegal.....Oh wait....Thats not going to work......The moral of the story is: You can pass all the feel-good legislation you want to, but in the end, that's all that it is: feel-good legislation. Us law-abiding and responsible gun owners will get the shaft, and criminals will still have and be able to get guns.

Mister Y- no one is talking about outlawing all guns, just those that common sense shows have no purpose than slaughtering a large number of people.
It's not 'feel' good legislation, it's common sense restrictions. For instance, today if you are on a terror watch list you can't fly on an airplane, but you can walk in to Cabela's and buy as many guns and as much ammo as you want- how does that make at sense.

Or you walk into a pharmacy with 10 prescriptions for Percocet, not only will no responsible pharmacy fill the prescriptions they will also call the police because you be suspected of selling drugs. But that same person can walk into Walmart and buy a bushmaster and 500 rounds of ammo and no one bats an eye.

All were asking is for some common sense and some shared responsibility to see that the worst members of society don't have such an easy time getting the tools of destruction.

Along the same line of thinking, then, we must “ban”, “control”, “restrict” mentally ill people from interfacing with society.

Anyone who actually wants to own a Bushmaster or similar weapon is a walking time bomb and mentally unfit to own any firearm.

Really Nazaretti ? I own an AR15 with the intent of using it at an outdoor range for the purpose of shooting paper targets. It handles differently than a handgun and is enjoyable to shoot. How exactly does that make me a "walking time bomb"?

Chris Miller,
I support an "all of the above" approach to address these mass killings. Let's consider all factors - social, mental health, access to semi-automatic guns with no legitimate sporting purpose, other factors - and take steps where the benefits outweigh the costs.

MPH - Your "enjoyment" vs. safety of children and other innocent bystanders. Get another hobby.

Ms.Peterson
First off let me note that we are not Canada or Australia. So take them out of the equation.
Our Founding Fathers pointed to the fact that this nation would succeed only if we remained a moral and religous nation. We are no longer either. We get upset about a shooting at a school and rightly so but we not only allow abotions, now over 60 million, we will walk the person to the place where the evil deed will take place. If teachers, administrators and police personel were armed either concealed or open we could prevent a lot of the massacres we have seen in our schools. Are our schools easily accessible? Yes they are. Where does the gun of any kind fit in here? It is an inanimate object that will stay in one place forever or until some one decides to take it to the range, to protect themselves, or to carry for protection. You can holld all the conferences and all the law making you want and you will find that no change has occured except the instrument of destruction. We have lost our moral compass and we wonder why evil is among us.

Gun control or people control? Enforce the gun control laws we currently have. Guns only kill when the trigger is pulled. People control is more the issue. Families need to come back to earth and raise their children again. Teachers observations of behavior need to be addressed rather than just pushed under the table. Children need to learn from the get go to be accountable for their actions. Adults need to be held accountable as well. Mental health needs to be taken seriously and addressed and documented.
It's easy to blame guns and yes they can be very destructive but read the paper. Just this week we read of a young man nearly beaten to death in Bushkill twsp. Over what? lack of education, drugs and or alcohol, mistaken identity,if any of these kids had ,had access to a gun? Is it still the guns fault? No I think the fault lies somewhere in the timeline of their life. It is a crying shame that some young people today have lost respect for themselves and eveyone around them.

/education,mental health all play a role.guns only kill when someone pulls a trigger.

Mr. Miller, why should we ignore the experience of Canada and Australia? Their populations are more similar to ours than, say, the Swiss who another commenter on a different story held up as a good example of a population in which the men are required to get firearms training as part of their mandatory national service in the militia and traditionally keep a gun in the home. As for restrictions hurting law-abiding gun owners, by all accounts that I've read, Adam Lanza's mother was a law-abiding gun owner but it didn't stop her son from using her guns for a massacre. I'm interested in practical solutions, so other than saying people should be better people (we can all agree on that) what would you suggest to prevent these tragedies?

Chris Miller,
It sounds like you are overwhelmed with unrelated, intrusive thoughts on this subject. We do agree (I think) that costs and benefits should be taken into account before taking action.

Also, don't think it is solely a government issue. You can take action yourself. Don't patronize violent movies, don't let your children watch violent TV shows or play violent video games, challenge your friends when they promote violent means of dispute resolution, stop beating your wife, etc.

If someone has it in their mind that killing others is a good idea, there are many ways to do it. Sure, guns were used in Sandy Hook. But was a baseball bat not used as a weapon in South Bethlehem recently? What about all the stabbings we hear about? Some crazed woman ran over her husband with her car because he didn't vote for Romney and Obama won. An imbalanced person who has it in for others will find a way to harm them, guns or no guns, it's that simple.

It's estimated that there are 300,000,000 guns in the country at this time. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that Congress voted unanimously to make it illegal to own any gun at all and that they were all to be turned in. Is it reasonable to assume that criminals would turn in their guns? I don't think so. But even if they did, stabbings and bludgeonings with all manner of weapons including kitchen knives, baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, and more, would increase and the mayhem would continue unabated. It's not gun ownership that needs to be controlled, it's the people who use them to harm others that need to be controlled. Personally, I think anyone who is convicted of using a gun in a crime where another person is wounded or killed should be summarily executed. If that were done just a few times, gun violence would end. There will always be mentally ill people, and sometimes bad things happen as a result. It's an inescapable fact of life, it just has to be accepted.

It's hard, or at least harder, to murder 26 people with baseball bat, but it's easy with an AR-15 or similar WMD. A little sensible gun control does not destroy the 2nd Amendment. And, no, Obama is not going to take away everyone's guns so he can turn the country over to the UN & impose Sharia law.

Yes, Let's put EVERYTHING on the table. You put tired, disproven gun control measures (for example, the Columbine Massacre was in the middle of the last Assault Weapons ban...and the Violent Crime rates have been going UP in countries such as the UK and Australia after their complete bans..Australia had it's Childers Palace Backpackers Hostel fire where a mass murderer used fire to kill many people). We'll put on the Table better Mental health coverage and inpatient facilities for individuals like the Newtown shooter, limitations on the Media to prevent glorification of the shooters (and further copycat attacks), and finally universal Concealed Carry (with training) even into schools...which has stopped more attacks than you realize....here's a very brief summary of only a few of them:
http://www.naturalnews.com/038404_massacres_gun_owners_defense.html

I get very frustrated when people cite the Columbine tragedy as accruing during assault weapons ban. That part is true, but one of the MAJOR flaws of that legislation and our current background check legislation, is that the laws do not apply to private sales. That is how the perpetrators of Columbine were able to get their hands on an assault weapon - the ban was on manufacturers not existing guns sold by private citizens.

Our current background checks do not apply to private sales as well. That combined with the fact that data about people suffering from mental illness is woefully incomplete as we saw after the Virginia Tech shootings.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-victims-2012

The Constitution was written to "promote the general welfare" of the people. At the time, gun ownership served this purpose. It no longer does. In fact, it threatens the general welfare. It is time to repeal the second amendment.

Owning a gun should no longer be a "right" of citizenship. It should be a "privilege" of law enforcement. The government should buy back guns and let the rest rust. Perhaps the next generation will be free of the scourge of gun violence.

And for those legislators who believe that more guns, not fewer, will protect us: follow the plaint of Larry Womack and remove the metal detectors from the entrances to Congress.

The self-serving logic of people who put the pleasure of firing bullets at pieces of paper over the protection of little children violates a core principle of every religion I know.

And finally, pointing to mental health care and video game violence is a distraction. Other nations have video games and mentally ill people. But they do not have the murder rate we have. It is the proliferation of guns that makes living in America so relatively unsafe. That is the problem and that is what a solution must address. Repeal the Second Amendment.

Oh, so we're now into name calling as a form of argument? OK--YOU, sir, have the moral sensitivity and insight of a slug. You put the "freedom" to own a gun above the need to protect little babies from being murdered in their classrooms.

The Constitution did not come from God--illustrated by the fact that it has been amended more than once. But you have turned it into an idol--holding it sacred, more sacred than human life. Shame on you and your selfish priorities.

And since you've endorsed name-calling, you'll understand why I'm also calling you a coward for calling me a moron without saying who you are. It's a bit like shooting a gun into a crowd of people, isn't it?--No one knows where the attack came from. You cannot attack someone with a knife or a rock anonymously. But you can shoot someone without their knowing who did it. Congratulations, gun defender. You even believe in using the violence of language. How does it feel to be the victim of it? Are you happy I'm using my freedom of speech? Does this firing of (verbal) attacks make the world a better place? Or are you only interested in your own immature need to justify owning a device whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible?

Mr. Wilt--Do I understand you correctly to be saying that if Jews had been allowed to own guns in pre-Holocaust Nazi Germany, then the Nazis would not have been able to exterminate the Jews of Europe?

You bring Waco immediately to mind. The United States government is far more benign than the Nazi government, yet when a violently armed cult in Waco chose to defy the US government they learned quickly and tragically that the government wins. We no longer live in the 18th century when ordinary citizens had the same weapons as an army. Look at Syria and the death a government can rein on a rebellious people. Compare this to Gandhi's India. Look at how violent rebellion has hurt, not helped, Palestinian national aspirations. I am a religious person and believe that it is the moral argument that ultimately wins. The pen is mightier than the sword. "Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit," says the Eternal." The Nazis won their war against the Jews, even as they lost their other war against the Allies, because good people remained silent in the face of evil. Jews with guns? You're kidding, right? The first person they'd shoot would be their husbands. Then they'd shoot other Jews who disagreed with them over when the Sabbath officially ends or how long you have to wait after eating meat before you can eat dairy.

Rabbi Gerard - Yes, my point was that if Jews had guns, things might have gone differently for them. With respect to your other assertions:

1 - "The United States government is far more benign than the Nazi government..." - I suspect the Iraqs and Afghans might disagree. Drones?

2 - "Look at Syria and the death a government can rein on a rebellious people." - It is now believed that the "rebellious people" will prevail.

3 - "I am a religious person and believe that it is the moral argument that ultimately wins." - Perhaps. But how many have to die unnecessarily before the win?

4 - I can't respond as to how Jews interact with each other, but I have a link for you which you should find interesting: http://jpfo.org/

OMG. Thanks for that link, Mr. Wilt. I shall never have a peaceful night of sleep again.

Someone, knowing that Einstein was not an "observant" Jews, asked the physicist what in fact was it about Judaism that distinguished him from others. Einstein thought for a moment and then replied, "Jews don't hunt."

Your link demonstrates another point about Jews--there is nothing that we all agree upon. Nothing.

understanding the 2nd amendment to the constitution: http://tinyurl.com/crobvbf

The preamble, above and before any amendments (or articles), is the “mission statement” of the constitution. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the six 'purposes' for creating the constitution,
and, presumably, it's priorities. All articles to the constitution must, by definition, serve the purpose(s) of the preamble.

1. "form a more perfect Union"
2. "establish Justice"
3. "insure domestic Tranquility"
4. "provide for the common defense"
5. "promote the general Welfare"
6. "secure the Blessings of Liberty"

Any adopted article or amendment which over time no longer serves to support the six objectives of the preamble becomes unconstitutional. Had the framers of the constitution not intended for the constitution to be changed with the times, as need to support its purpose, they would have not provided the means by which to make amendments.

We at the Lehigh Valley Coffee Party have noticed that three major polls have established that there is an almost unanimous consensus for creating a really working federal background security check system, as was intended by the Brady Bill but savaged and systematically gutted by the NRA's sabotage work. The national check system is most apparent by an absence rather than a presence of safeguards against undesirables getting guns as easily as going top a gun show and picking up 15-20 weapons with potential for unbelievable tragedy in in their hands a five minute transaction.

Mr. Trotner
You might want to check Governor Corbett's get move to get tthe "straw purchasers", those who buy a gun for another person who cannot buy one. If you truly check the operation of the NICS check you will find that bad guys will be picked up by the local police in the community so it is not real easy to try to obtain a gun legally. As to someone picking up 15-20 guns at a gun show I would ask if you have pictures verifying this action. More importantly, was it illegal to purchase 15-20 guns? If someone has three cars, the car being a deadly weapon, to we take this weapon away from the individual or maybe we take all of his cars. How many of the boys and girls in you liberal democrat group have ever shot a gun.More importantly, how do the ladies in your group feel about the woman who shot a guy 5 times because a bad guy broke into her home. A gun allowed her to protect herself and her family

athyniah
With all due respect you do not know anyting pertain to guns. If you are threatened you need to make sure that the bad guy does not survive so he can kill you