Gun control defined: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.

My opinion today is totally different from my opinion 20 years ago. I've never owned a gun, would never have one in my house, most especially when my children were young, and felt I couldn't be sure I could pull the trigger even if put in a situation where I needed to. I even walked in the Million Mom March in downtown Atlanta for stricter gun control. The Walton County Sheriff's Office has training for gun owners. I will be registering for that class in the New Year. I guess you could say my position has evolved. After Friday's situation, I believe I, and most other people, could use a gun if in a position where they could do so to save young lives like those lost on Friday. I believe responsible gun ownership is where we need to focus our attention. Just my opinion - albeit a new one!

Sharon, you are a responsible person. Unfortunately, we don't have responsible people owning guns. This tragedy is one example. I believe as more comes out about this young man, we are going to find out that he suffered from some type of pyschosis. Why did his mother have that many weapons in her house? Why weren't they locked up? Did she know that he was unstable?
The best teacher, unfortunately, is experience-not legislation. I always told my kids that if they touched the hot iron, they'd get burned. If they chose to go out and get into trouble, they would have to suffer the consequence. It's easy to do everything for your children, but the hardest part is to sit back and let them fall sometimes. I can make the rules. enforce them, but if they choose to disobey, that's their choice.
In society, we can only hope that people see this and go and secure their weapons and teach their children well.

Tammy, How can you say we don't have responsible people owning guns? Most of the legal gun owners in this country are in fact responsible. How do you know she didn't have them locked up? How do you know she didn't try to stop her son from taking her guns? Remember, she was also killed in the tragedy Friday. Maybe she did try to stop him and that is what caused her son to kill her. My point is don't make accusations when you don't know the whole truth. You live in the south where the ratio of gun owners to non-owners is larger than any other part of the country. So how can you say we aren't responsible? And for your question of why did she own so many firearms? The answer is simply because she has the God given right to do so. She was not a bad person. She never committed a crime preventing her from owning a firearm. There are car enthusiasts, coin collectors, and art enthusiasts. Do you ask them why they own so many cars, coins, and art? Then don't ask a gun enthusiasts why they own so many guns. Just because you are not one does not make it wrong. The wrong here is people invading other peoples rights because they are scared and don't understand. The one right in this country that doesn't exist is for one person to limit the rights of another.

Mr. Eberhart, you might be interested in this blog written by Tim. Excellent read:

http://loganville.patch.com/blog_posts/ultimately-personal-protection-is-the-individuals-responsibility#comments

Mr. Eberhart, you mustbe new here. Big misunderstanding of the point I was trying to make. I was saying that, yes, it may be a fact that there are many who own guns but are not responsible, but that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water, nor do we restrict gun ownership because there are some who are not responsible. I agree, she may have tried to keep him from stealing them. The scenario will play itself out eventually after investigation. I was just wondering if she owned them out of fear for her life because of her son. My point is to not restrict gun ownership, but to focus on mental health issues instead (it's been revealed thus far that he was mentally unstable). He was 20, with no job, so could still reasonably live at home. Had he been 24, with no job, I would hope that she was trying to make him responsible for himself. No easy answers with this one.
I am a former Instructor in a Juvenile bootcamp and we had a psychologist there. For all those that were there because of breaking the law or unruly (my job to tend to those-lol), we were able to spot those who might be mentally unstable and refer them before they hurt themselves or someone else. Who knows, with intervention, what we could have averted before a disturbed person reached adulthood? That's my focus in this, not gun control. The program I worked in got canned due to lack of funding. Too bad that people focus on the wrong things. We have gun laws in place. Focus on those who break them.

Keep it how it is.
A gun is a tool like a hammer, it has a specific job and purpose. If I am hammering a nail in to wood and I miss and hit my finger why blame it on the hammers? Tools are inanimate objects. We take little blame in our society. So instead of blaming a tool, resign it as operator error. Place blame where it needs to be the person holding the gun.

I agree with Morgan Freeman. If we didn't give these killers their 30 days of fame the next person who was feeling forgotten and lonely wouldn't take lives to make themselves famous. They would commit suicide and pass on, leaving everyone else alone. People remember the killers names and thats what they want. Press that concentrates on these stories for months breed more killers.

Nate, I believe, like you and others, that our media exasperates a lot of the issues of our time. The media used to just report, not they have become entertainment and political football commentators. Unbiases reporting is a thing of the past, I'm afraid.

. I am extremely concerned as an American citizen and veteran that the freedoms I served to protect are being eroded. The evil and tragedy that visited Connecticut should elicit our prayers and sympathy for all those involved, directly and indirectly. But the liberal Democrat motto of “Never let a good crisis go to waste” has elicited a movement to remove/restrict access to guns like never before seen. I believe “Silence Is Consent” and I cannot be silent when our freedoms are attacked.

Laws work so well in stopping drugs, theft, drunk driving, child abuse, spouse abuse, carjacking, shop lifting, murder and kidnapping. Liberals just want a “feel good law.” We have plenty of gun laws. But we also have an overabundance of people that were raised with no structure. Parents don't raise children any more. They are raised by video games, television and computers. The only good that they get is from teachers. You can’t blame this tragedy on an OBJECT! Try and repair the REAL problem, the moral decay caused by the liberal left.

Ed Thomas, you hit it on the head. I have to wonder what might have happened had the principal or someone in that office had been able to slip out and grab their weapon and stop it before it became carnage? Taking away that right or the right to bear them in public means that the bad guys get even more empowered. Gun free zones do not stop criminals. Criminals, by nature, BREAK laws. And you are correct about the root of the problem. it is happening more frequently and you haveto wonder how much a steady diet of violence being fed to impressionable minds contributes.

Why do we continue to debate this stupid question? We, as a whole, DO NOT NEED any more gun control what we need is more nut control, starting with the ones who want to give up MY right to have3 what ever gun I feel safest with. Stop telling me what's good for me, and mind your own Dam business.

Robert Smith, good luck telling that to Washington. That's where our voices need to be heard and where the real work needs to be done to protect our freedoms. You're preaching to the choir here. :)

There are countries with more guns and less gun violence. I don't know the solution, but I don't think we'll get anywhere by debating the pet solutions and whipping posts that get trotted out every time this happens.

No mention about all the magazines he had for the rifle. If they were part of his mother's collection, WHY? If not, then and he got them himself, that leads to his planning the events, including killing his mother. If not firearms, he may have used a knife, a ballbat, etc. You can't pass laws to ban things, it's been proven to NOT ever work. The crazies are with us, we try and 'weed' them and 'treat' them, but like the events of 911, 100% security is NOT possible even with a totalitarian govt, which ours is becoming. For once, enforce the laws on the books and even with that you won't have 100% security or safety.

Exactly what is "Gun Control"? In my opinion, it's a false idea that by more government intrusion on Law Abiding Citizens, our nation and the world will become safe. HORSE DUNG!

Our government chose to put guns in the hands of dangerous criminals with their Fast and Furious debacle. They created that mess, not me and millions of Law Abiding Americans. Obama should go to prison for his encroachment with the investigations of this criminal act. At this point, it doesn’t matter if it was the Bush administration and/or the Obama administration. Where is the outrage from the left about Fast and Furious? What a bunch of hypocrites. If Bush is guilty, he should go to prison. If Obama is guilty, he too should go to prison. The electorate in this country have become robots.

When the day of Marshall Law comes and the government is going door to door searching homes for everything they deem illegal, you can either surrender or fight. You can bet your life that those Search and Seize Agents will be of the United Nations and not the United States Military.

Once we lose our second amendment rights, all other constitutional freedoms are null and void.

Guns are not the issue. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. Nineteen children were killed that day by a deranged individual (with help from accomplices) using a bomb. "Bomb control legislation" or whatever you want to call all the laws on the books against explosive devices didn't stop that tragedy. Gun control laws only work on law abiding citizens, which clearly the Sandy Hook killer was not. The government can pass all the laws it wants and current and future law-abiding gun owners can comply and it still won't stop a crazy person from stealing a weapon or detonating a bomb or even flying an airplane into a building. People who have their mind set on death and devastation will find a way.

You can't blame the guns. Not their fault. It is the people who are the problem.

Thus, I support complete nuclear proliferation. Nuclear bombs won't kill people, people kill people. Also, since everyone will have nuclear weapons no country will ever use them against another country.

I don't know where I stand on this. Like Sharon's, my opinion on this has evolved over the years, in that I no longer believe that society will exist without guns, so restricting law abiding citizens from owning them seems dangerous, in and of itself.

I will say that we don't have guns in our house, because a handgun is a lot more likely to kill someone that lives in a house than someone trying to break into that house. I will also say that guns kill a lot more people, a lot more easily, and a lot faster than other weapons that crazy people might use. There is a difference between owning a gun and a knife.

Guess we have to ban vehicles too more people and kids also killed in accidents that by gunshots.like one said thugs dpnt obey laws we have and they gonna obey gun law...wtf u crazy of u think so.we all b at mercy of thugs then. Gees

Miss Reed is right on the money...where there's a will, theres a way

Y ask for comment if u reject them....truth hurts I guess

Why not amend the 1st.admendment..stop showing it 24 7 and making other crazys think they too can get spot light.

Great discussion. One can only hope the Congress and President don't try an easy fix because there is none. As a retired law enforcement agent I have never sen anything in my career that would cause me to believe that criminals would stop using guns because of any ban. A ban would only remove guns from the law abiding citizens. Banning Assault rifles and large clips are idiots folly since their are over 200 million guns in the country and perhaps 50% of you neighbors have one or more. It is even more unrealistic to assume a ban would make a difference and the 1990's ban under Clinton shows that! So what can we do??/ Face the fact that we we need to "harden" the targets. Improve physical security at schools and yes, pay for full-time police officers on duty. This would be far more effective than any ban. In the Malls there should be "armed" and trained security provided by the Malls. This is a more realistic look at the world we live in today. Gun bans are the wrong arguments!.

Police magazine did a survey asking several questions of their readers. One of the questions was how they felt about personal carry for citizens. 94% of those who responded (74% were active sworn law enforcement, 15% were retired sworn law enforcement, and 11% were not law enforcement officers) said they are FOR private citizens actively carrying a weapon.
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2012/09/police-readers-overwhelmingly-support-concealed-carry-romney-for-president.aspx
If most police officers want you to carry, doesn't that really say something?

Since most laws are prohibiive in nature, and most laws are made to prohibit law abiding citizens from doing certain things, maybe it's time to concentrate on the penalties for breaking the already existing 'gun control' laws. Wait, it seems like most perpetrators of these massacres kill themselves in the end, the death penalty is not appropriate, neither is life in prison, they are already dead. What to do, what to do???????? One thing might help, double the pay of private security police, with govt subsidies, the democraps would love that, it spends more taxpayer monies. Most of the people I have observed being interviewed by the media, who are security 'experts', point out that these incidents are actually rare when compared to how often there are no incidents. The media feasts on all this, it is commerically attractive to report and incite the public by making the news, rather than reporting it. shame on them

I'm a law abiding citizen. You can take my guns from my cold dead hands. PERIOD!

This thread has run the gamut from arm everybody including some newly minted gun recruits, to more security in the schools to the flawed theory that the perpetrator coulda/woulda used a knife or baseball bat (and done just as much damage and just as quickly?!) if he had not had easy access to the legal assault weaponry in his own home, to changing the 1st Amendment which guarantees free speech and a free press. What??!! Prop up the 2nd by tearing down the 1st? These school assaults seemed to start in 1998 (pre-Columbine in 1999), by young men. What's happening to some in our male population to perpetrate mass murder, usually in our schools? It's a mental health problem, a cultural problem, a degeneration of values problem all wrapped up and tied with the bow of easy access to automatic, assault firearms. It's a multiple cause crisis that will require a multiple solution fix. It would be impossible to stop all of these tragedies, but doing nothing is also a tragedy. You can't rationalize away the reasons and the effects. You have to face them head on with best of the best minds in this country. Drop the politics. That would be the first place to start.

We can't know the unknowable. We don't know how many tragedies, massacres, have been averted by existing gun laws. You can't say with absolute conviction that gun control laws haven't worked. The right to own guns for self protection, for sporting, should not include military, assault-style automatic firearms and multi-round clips capable of killing hundreds in a few minutes.

How will renewing the assault weapons ban affect anyone's right to carry to protect their own or their sporting enjoyment?

"The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote."

Although another a tragegy has taken place yet again if only one of the staff members of Sandy Hook Elementary had a gun for defensive purposes, I doubt that there would have been as many innocent lives taken on Friday. Our government cannot control the psychotic people that use a gun in the manner in which they were used at Sandy Hook or at any other school or movie theatre or mall. What should be allowed is the presence of guns in any public place where people in a controlled environment are trained and ready to use a firearm if needed.

Thanks Racer x.....my thoughts exactly. IN ADDITION .....as a parent of three I would feel better knowing that someone is armed if needed at a school where my children are.!

Here's the thing - why do we want to ban guns? Because people kill people with them? Anybody know what the number one weapon used in homicides is? How about the baseball bat. I'm thinking we need to start registering all the bats.....

We should really be focusing on how underpaid our teachers are. These people have a hazardous job. Bad enough, I have to worry about the psychos who may be at my job, waiting to mass murder everybody, but teachers have to worry about protecting innocent lives. For the first time ever, I'm going to agree with these pro-gun people. It's not about the guns, it's about the deranged lunatics that live amongst us.

Good Grief Y'all.... have you not read any of the above??? Did you miss all the points made on why what your saying is totally impractical? Deal with the world as it is. All guns are killing machines! Many handguns have large capacity clips and aren't assault rifles. The Ft Hood shooter used such a handgun. You can't stop crazy-- I wish you could but how do we make areas that these deranged folks find attractive safer? That should be the discussion. You will never have an effective gun ban in this country unless you modify the Constitution. We are not Australia. That will never happen.

It's a lot easier to say what should be done, what shouldn't, what any of us would do in an assault. Maybe Patch readers should take a field trip to Newtown CT and see how those people feel about the experience. They're going through it right now and probably have some serious insight. We could probably learn a lot from them. We should let them grieve awhile first.

Good Grief Y'all-- the problem as you say is complex. When I started in law enforcement kids had a sense of right and wrong. Parents actually parented. When I retired I saw 16 year old killers; many kids with no care for others. We are now beyond gun bans, clip bans.... there are so many and remember 50% of your neighbors have one or more. Unless you repeal the 4th amendment and forcibly remove weapons then the tomorrow after an assault rifle ban will look like today. 50% of your neighbors will have one or more and the people that do these things will still have them. Facing the problem is not blaming GUNS. It is looking at the causes of the disconnect in these kids.... it is hardening the potential targets. That is the point -- we are beyond gun ban talk.. it inflames legitimate owners and prevents us from having a real dialog.

When I was growing up, my dad had guns. We even went out to the rifle range a few times. We knew the guns were there, the guns were not locked up, but we never went near therm. We never even DREAMED of using them. I don't know why, but we didn't.

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 .....

A illegal hispanic male killed his 2 brothers and shot a police officer this past weekend....he got the weapon like all thugs do of the street. Guess we need to ban hispanics too huh