On the EDge: Tell me about your gun rights, it’s a bad bad day

OPINION – Go ahead, tell me again about the Second Amendment.

Tell me about all the law-abiding gun owners who are careful with the way they handle and store their weapons.

Tell me how the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure we could take up arms against tyranny.

Now, go tell the parents of at least 18 elementary school children who were gunned down this morning in Newtown, Connecticut.

Go ahead, look them in the eye and tell them that you are sorry for their loss, but, by God, they can have your gun when they pry it from your cold, dead hands. Or give me your redneck “Better tried by 12 than carried by six” rationale.

You haven’t experienced this kind of loss.

I have.

My grandfather was shot to death when a crazy renter decided it was easier to pull a trigger than write a rent check.

My cousin, who was a police officer in suburban St. Louis, Missouri, was shot and killed by a lunatic whose father was a ranking officer in the department. He killed her with his father’s gun.

Now, tell me about this need for guns. Go ahead. Justify it.

Now tell the families of the eight adults who were killed at that elementary school. Go ahead, tell them how your right to have a damned piece of metal on your hip is more important than the life of their loved one who will not be with them this Christmas morning.

I dare you.

I saw an FBI profiler on the news just a few minutes ago.

He was talking about getting at the root cause of this violence, about how he wasn’t taking a position as an NRA spokesman, but that it was the shooter, not the gun, and, besides, some guy in China stabbed some 30 kids at a school today, as if that justifies what happened here or rationalizes what happened here.

Of course, it was the shooter, but the point is he had a gun. And, whether it was purchased legally or on the black market doesn’t matter. He had a gun.

I’ve had enough of this violence. We saw it today in an elementary school. We saw it in Portland. We saw it in a Colorado movie theater, at a Colorado high school, in an Amish elementary school, and elsewhere.

So, go ahead, tell me it is your God-given right to have an arsenal in your home, that it is morally responsible to strap on a sidearm, that it’s for everybody’s protection.

Go ahead, tell me.

Tell me I’m a liberal reactionary, I’m fine with that.

Tell me I am responding out of horror and grief, I’m fine with that.

Tell me that there is, perhaps, a bit of hypocrisy here because, well, I was once into shooting sports until I realized I really don’t have the need or desire to own any weapons, and I’m fine with that, too.

But then, look me in the eye and tell me that your right to own and carry a gun is more important than the lives of 18 innocent babies slaughtered today in a Connecticut elementary school.

I don’t, right now, care about why this happened, where it happened, or who did it, because I know how this happened — another lunatic with a gun.

I don’t care that there are millions of guns in circulation in the United States that are not used in violent crime, there are enough that are and that is what really matters.

I also don’t care if this offends you because you see, I am offended by the lack of humanity we are displaying socially, by the way we allow politics — yes, there are definitive political lines drawn in this tragedy — to govern us rather than what is good and decent, by the way we can so easily ignore the pain and grief of others as long as we get what we want, whether good or bad.

The news anchor I was watching just commented about how helpless he feels, how there is simply nothing that can be done.

I refuse to believe that, too.

But, go ahead … tell that to the grieving families in Newtown.

Normally, I sign off with the phrase, “No bad days!”


It’s a bad day.

A very bad day.

Ed Kociela is an opinion columnist. The opinions stated in this article are his and not representative of St. George News.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @STGnews, @EdKociela

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2012, all rights reserved.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • CurtisLB December 14, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Taking the guns away from law-abiding citizens would not have stopped this.

    • TAJEFF December 14, 2012 at 1:11 pm

      Ryan Lanza (the shooter) was a law abiding citizen. So basically you are dead wrong my friend.

      Here is the one stat that should shut down any type of argument for guns: if you own a gun for protection and store it in your home, there is a far greater chance of that gun being used in an accident or crime than it ever being used to “protect” you.

      So actually, there shouldn’t really be any arguments left. Guns kill. Go join the military or police if you want to have one that bad. Each of us has the “right” to do that.

      • Ashram December 14, 2012 at 1:56 pm

        No, YOU are “dead wrong.”

        First off, what is the source of your statistic? Second, there are statistics that can say anything you want. Third, citing statistics is easy, arguing the philosophy behind what you are trying to refute with numbers is not.

        And now the crux of the matter.

        Why should *I* give up my guns?

        *I* did not do anything wrong.


        And, because of the presumption of innocence in American jurisprudence saying that I’m not guilty of any crime unless you can prove it so, you have no right to take away my property in what is no better than a defacto penalty and an attack on my civil rights.

        It is horrible what has happened, but I did not kill those people and those children, so leave me alone.

        For that matter, leave alone everyone who has had nothing to do with this crime.

        The responsibility of this crime belongs to the person who committed it.

        • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 10:44 am

          “Why should I give up my guns?”

          Because you love your gun more than you love your brother and sister. Because guns are false idols in this American culture. Because you should recognize that my right to own a gun is NOT as important as your (or your child’s) right to live.

          And yes, you did kill these people. We all killed these people by ignoring our responsibility to our community, to our brothers and sisters.

          • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 12:37 pm

            First off, I should not give up my guns because I did not do this. Furthermore, where do you get off making your accusations about me? Seriously, what is the matter with you? Are you trying to make me decide my family or my guns? Well, the real world does not work as a FALSE DICHOTOMY. And, on the contrary, a big reason for me having guns is to DEFEND my right to live and as well as for those who I care for. And, NO, we all did not kill these people; the responsibility lies with the person who made the choice in the first place. All we can do is help others in need, but choice, thus responsibility, is INDIVIDUAL, not collective.

          • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 3:30 pm

            Here’s a study for your perusal – http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
            Statistics are facts, the interpretation of statistics can be argued. Fact: “Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home.” Interpretation: An individual who keeps a gun in their home values that possession, to some extent, at the risk of loss of their life or the life of a loved one. Can one then argue that a non-gun owner values their life and the life of their loved one more than a gun-owner who keeps a gun in their home? Maybe.
            Ashram: Are you of Indian descent (based on your name tag)? I am a white evangelical male, for purposes of disclosure.

          • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 5:06 pm

            Here’s a study for YOUR perusal: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
            The article was reprinted with references by permission of the Northwestern University School of Law.
            And, as you say, statistics are facts, right?
            FACT: Guns are successfully used by civilians approximately 2.5 million times a year in self-defense situations, many times where a shot is not fired.
            INTERPRETATION: People are saving themselves with their own guns.
            See how that works out? You can find stats that say ANYTHING you want and, since you say stats are facts, then a stat that says law-abiding people with guns save lives and stops crime must be a fact, then, eh?
            As for race: I don’t care who or what you are and, frankly, race is irrelevant to the topic. But, just in case you’re wondering, I’m of mixed heritage.

          • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 5:38 pm

            And, back to the original topic, you have failed to answer my questions. Where do you get off making your accusation against me (“because you love your gun more than you love your brother or sister”), which happens to present a false dichotomy and is, perhaps, not much more than a veiled insult, and despicable one to boot? You obviously think of gun owners as less than human to have that kind of hate towards them.

          • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 8:13 pm

            You are citing a law review article that cites gun lobby and gun company surveys. These are not peer reviewed. Oh well, doesn’t matter (to you). Yes, I would argue that most people do not view a perfect stranger as their brother or sister, and care more about their gun and their football team then their next door neighbor. This is the culture that we have allowed to permeate, and one that we hand over to our children. So again, I do say that we are all responsible. Now, you didn’t answer whether you were Indian (the “ashram” tag).
            Fair enough on your question. So you can tell me if you love your gun more than you love me?
            I don’t think it would be technically possible for a gun owner to be less than human. I do believe we are all flawed, and that in America we have made choices as a country that have led to the occurrence in Newtown, CT. I take responsibility for that as an American (again, perhaps you are just visiting from India, in which case I say welcome).
            Also, please don’t use terms like hate or “dead wrong” – they only continue to emphasize and perpetuate the violent nature of our society, further estranging the people that would do this sort of mass murder.

          • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 8:50 pm

            Charlotte Bacon, 6
            Daniel Barden, 7
            Olivia Engel, 6
            Josephine Gay, 7
            Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
            Dylan Hockley, 6
            Madeleine Hsu, 6
            Catherine Hubbard, 6
            Chase Kowalski, 7
            Jesse Lewis, 6
            James Mattioli, 6
            Grace McDonnell, 7
            Emilie Parker, 6
            Jack Pinto, 6
            Noah Pozner, 6
            Caroline Previdi, 6
            Jessica Rekos, 6
            Avielle Richman, 6
            Benjamin Wheeler, 6
            Allison Wyatt, 6
            Rachel Davino, 29
            Dawn Hochsprung, 47
            School principal
            Nancy Lanza, 52
            Mother of gunman
            Anne Marie Murphy, 52
            Lauren Rousseau, 30
            Mary Sherlach, 56
            School psychologist
            Victoria Soto, 27

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 8:23 pm

            That’s no different to your citing of anti-gun research funded by anti-gun organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Joyce Foundation. My point still stands: you can find stats that say ANYTHING you want. As for your listing of the victims of the school shooting, what’s your point? Again, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE DEATHS, and neither is anyone else who was not there participating in the crime. While the event is tragic, we won’t allow charlatans like you to use us as scapegoats.

  • william December 14, 2012 at 1:04 pm

    “Of course, it was the shooter, but the point is he had a gun. And, whether it was purchased legally or on the black market doesn’t matter. He had a gun.”
    In March 2010, eight children were murdered in Nanping, Fujian province, by 41-year-old knifeman Zheng Minsheng. The attacker was executed a month later, hours before 33-year-old Chen Kangbing injured 16 students and a teacher at Hongfu Primary School in Leizhou, Guangdong.
    In April 29 2010, 28 school children – mostly four-year-olds – were stabbed alongside two teachers and a security guard in Taixing, Jiangsu.
    Police say nearly two dozen children injured in central China province of Henan by knife-wielding villager.
    At least 22 children and one adult have been injured in a knife attack outside a primary school in central China, police say.
    “I was once into shooting sports until I realized I really don’t have the need or desire to own any weapons, and I’m fine with that, too. (SO I WAS) another lunatic with a gun.”

    • Iwannadexyouup December 15, 2012 at 4:05 pm

      Assault rifles and sidearms with 30-round-capacity mags have nothing to do with streamlining mass murder. There’s just evil in this world, ya know? Not much you can do about it, ya know? 31 mass shootings since columbine in the US, 14 in the rest of the world COMBINED over that span. But, ya know, there’s just evil in the world (with an insanely concentrated dose in America, apparently), and easy access to an AR-15 and other military-grade firearms that can be easily purchased on craigslist IN NO WAY contributes to the killing efficiency of deranged madmen. That’s why Lanza, Holmes, klebold, et. al, gained infamy by using machetes and nunchaku to slaughter their victims…….oh wait, actually they all used semiautomatic weapons.

      • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 5:57 pm

        The point was that you had a person who made a choice to murder, regardless of the choice of weapon. What is it that you’re saying, that the murder is all right so long as it’s not been done with a gun? How sick.

        • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 8:16 pm

          Why are you suggesting that someone is saying murder is all right if it is not done with a gun? Do you understand that you lose credibility when you write something like that? Why can’t you provide us with clear, cogent counterpoints?

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 12:26 am

            Your comments clearly imply that you don’t see the problem with murdering a person with a car merely because a car wasn’t designed for it, but you see the problem when it’s done with a gun. It’s curious to me why you place greater emphasis on the instrument and not on the act of murder and the motives behind it. It is YOU who is not being clear, here.

  • anon December 14, 2012 at 1:08 pm

    so what? you’re suggesting that we just simply do away with guns altogether and live our life out of fear? im sorry but if some twisted sicko is going to decide to kill a bunch of innocent people he’ll still find a way to do it, gun or no gun.

    • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 10:48 am

      You already live your life out of fear (as evidenced by your need for a gun). Yes, people will find a way to kill other people, especially since we ignore and stigmatize mental health issues. Try caring for others. Make that the most important aspect of your life (and you will be prepared when it is your time to pass from this life).

      • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 5:11 pm

        Just because someone has a gun does not mean they are living in fear of their lives, nor does it mean that they don’t care about others. Nice try, though. But, why are you so concerned about taking guns away from people who have not done anything wrong and are no danger to you so long as you leave them alone?

        • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 9:25 pm

          Again, I never said anything about taking guns away from people. Your thought process is so ingrained with the fear that people are trying to take away your guns that when anyone suggest sane gun control you have a knee jerk reaction/assumption.

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 12:44 am

            Rubbish. You want to ban those “assault rifles” and, likely, anything that’s semi-auto. First, many laypeople, such as yourself, confuse “assault rifles” with semi-automatic rifles. There is a very specific military definition for an assault rifle, which is a rifle firing an intermediate round with select fire function allowing full automatic and/or burst fire operation. Weapons, like the M16, that are already restricted to class III license holders by the 1934 NFA and any that weren’t registered before the deadline date specified in the Hughes Amendment of the 1985 FOPA are already banned. Unless you are registered with the BATFE and own an automatic weapon that’s also been registered by the BATFE, it’s illegal to own a full automatic weapon, including an actual assault rifle. Semi-auto only variants of full-auto military assault rifles, such as an AR-15 that’s based on the M16, ARE NOT ASSAULT RIFLES AS THEY DO NOT FIT THE MILITARY DEFINITION. They are CIVILIAN rifles whose operational principles are not that much different to a semi-auto hunting rifle, such as an M1 Garand. Second, the majority of weapons in legal possession are semi-automatic. In fact, it can even be argued that “semi-automatic” even covers double-action revolvers if we strictly go by the literal definition of one shot per trigger pull with nothing else needing to be done to fire the successive shot except pull the trigger again. All semi-auto guns are legal weapons in the possession of your fellow citizens! “Gun control” is merely a euphemism for placing restrictions on people who have not done anything wrong, INCLUDING A BAN. And, mistake me if I’m wrong, but it seems like one of the items you want to ban are semi-auto firearms. That’s literally banning the majority of weapons in possession of the public at large! If something is banned, what is typically required to prevent criminalization? Ergo, you are wanting to take away guns. You are still taking away guns, even if you are only taking away some of them. The question: how is it right to do that to anyone without proving, on an individual basis, that it’s justified WITH EVIDENCE? And, at the risk of a slippery slope fallacy, though history of European gun control is testament, the bans seldom stop at one class of weapons.

  • AndreaE December 14, 2012 at 1:23 pm

    I would rather be prepared to protect my family or anyone in danger then to be helpless. These sick people that do these things will never stop and they will continue to find ways to terrorize innocent people. Such a very very bad day and may those innocent people find some kind of peace in this tragedy.

  • ken December 14, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Good lord what kind of moron on you? Can’t wait at least a day to come out spewing your bunk. Shame on STG NEWS for letting this crap posted and the blood hasn’t even dried yet!! Pathetic indeed!!

    • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 10:51 am

      Sould we wait to talk about this until it happens again? Of course there is a way to be sensitive to those in pain, but how about preventing another event?

      • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 5:22 pm

        How do you prevent another event that doesn’t involve treating innocent people as criminals? It will obviously be a surprise to you, but law-abiding gun owners ARE NORMAL PEOPLE LIKE ANYONE ELSE. For your information, we Americans enjoy the Presumption of Innocence. That is what helps to protect us from arbitrary judicial and political action from harming those who cannot be proven to have done anything wrong. What are you proposing? Another witch hunt against gun owners? Seems to me that people, such as yourself, have not learned the lessons from the Salem Witchcraft Trials and the Red Scare if your boogeyman of choice are now law abiding gun owners. But, hey, to heck with being innocent until proven guilty, Due Process of Law … we’ve got to do it for the children! However, I’m sure the people responsible for past witch hunts were thinking the same thing. And you accuse gun owners of being fearful. Then again, with attitudes like yours, perhaps innocent gun owners ought to be fearful … of people, like you, pushing for arbitrary abuse of authority to supersede the rule of law just to satisfy your prejudiced desire for safety from gun owners and, perhaps, a sense of revenge against them.

        • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 8:21 pm

          You are making less and less sense as the evening wears on. You assume that the constitution provides you the right to a gun. Does that right outweigh my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? IS there any amount of gun control that you could accept? Would it make sense to ban 100 round magazine clips? Would it make sense to ban semi-automatic assault rifles? I don’t live in fear because I have faith, not just in God, where it belongs, but also in people, where it is often misplaced, but still, for me it is better to have misplaced faith in people than fear and hatred.
          Perhaps we need to sleep on it and come back Monday (tomorrow is my Sabbath – do you have a Sabbath Ashram?).

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 12:59 am

            No, you simply refuse to understand what I am saying because you obviously have a bias against guns and gun owners. You seem to think that gun owners are a selfish lot that’s prone to being dangerous. You succumb to a stereotype of people partly because you don’t truly understand it and tend to fear it as a result. FYI, my ownership of guns do not, in any way, directly threaten you and your rights. It’s only if I decide to use them against you, but why would I do that if I have no legal and moral reason to do so? In other words, if you don’t present an immediate threat to my life, limb and/or property as well as those whom I’m responsible for, you have no rational basis to fear me because of my guns. In general, if you leave me alone or are friendly to me, why would I be a threat to you? So, what is your problem, then? As for banning 100 round MAGAZINES, not clips, I am against a ban because, again, what about people who may own these accessories but who cannot be proven a danger under due process of law? Just because someone owns a 100 round mag does not make them crazy all by itself and, if it’s a right to own one, there’s no need to explain a need; that’s a right as good as it gets with the only proviso being individual responsibility; if you fail to own up to your responsibility, you should pay for it, but only you, nobody else should be held accountable as that exceeds justice. And, if you’re curious about my religion, if any, why should I tell you? Telling personal aspects about myself is beyond the topic of debate. We are discussing a civil right, not me.

  • SMH December 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm

    Making it illegal to own guns will not stop those willing to break the law. If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. I have no desire to not be able to protect myself where I reside because some lunatic went on a rampage.

    These people will find ways to obtain guns legally or otherwise. Had certain administrators been allowed to carry and had proper training, maybe the death count would be much less.

    As a conservative, and supporter of constitutional rights, I am appalled that the liberal talking heads and typing hands will clamor for gun control when that is obviously not the solution. As a human being, I am appalled at the tragedy, and hurt for the family and friends of those involved. I can only pray that a real solution (helping those with mental health issues) can be found before these incidents become more and more commonplace.

  • Edward December 14, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    The man who killed those kids was just a law abiding citizen before he did what he did. Review your comment and do the math again.

    • Ashram December 14, 2012 at 1:59 pm

      So, because someone was a law abiding person before committing a crime, that means all other law abiding people are criminals?

      Review your logic before you speak again.

    • Cindy December 15, 2012 at 1:30 pm

      He might of been a law abiding citizen but he was nuts and whose fault is that for not letting him roam the streets? His own brother pretty much said that and he didn’t have anything to do with him for years. If somebody had done their job, he might still be alive today and so would the innocent people that he slaughtered. You can’t blame the sane people for not wanting to give up their rights because of the few nuts that are allowed to roam the streets.

      • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 5:24 pm

        While we can’t blame some people for willing to give up their rights, the problem is that these same people want to take the rights away from those who cherish them enough to hold on to them.

  • Doctor Bob December 14, 2012 at 1:34 pm

    Mindless drivel. Guns don’t kill people – people kill people. Start focusing on the PEOPLE and NOT the item they used in the commission of their crime. Cars kill more individuals…yet sane citizens don’t go around spewing that they should be banned!!

    Please educate yourself!!!

    • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 8:30 pm

      IT’s the easy access to guns that could be addressed by government Dr. Bob. No one, to my knowledge, has suggested taking guns away from everyone. Is that the mindless drivel that you perceive? What kind of Dr. are you?

  • Linda Cox December 14, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Enough already!!!!!!! If we had a law on guns it would help. The ones who sale the guns to people who shouldn’t’ have them should be punished. God bless all the families who have been affected by this horrible act of violence. Ed you told it how it is. THE TRUTH!!!!!!

    • william December 14, 2012 at 2:17 pm

      Look at Mexico and thier Gun Laws. It is MUCH strict than ours and I see a LOT of killing going on down there. So much for GUN LAWS stopping the killing.

      • Sarah December 14, 2012 at 2:29 pm

        I couldn’t agree more william, and it the cartel who own the prisons….. Hrmm

      • CaboCara December 14, 2012 at 10:28 pm

        Mr. William, the only reason you “see” things about shooting in MX is because the US travel industry does not want the $$ going to MX… All of the shootings that take place in the US are NOT talked about because in certain areas it has become common place… There are MORE deaths in CA alone in a few months than a whole year in MX… if people are stupid and are in the wrong place doing a bad thing no matter what country you are in you might get shot… these are CHILDREN and TEACHERS … you are comparing a DRUG issue to a mental health issue… this man should NEVER have had assault weapons at his fingertips… no one should, all they are made for is to kill people… just ask the parents of 20 KINDERGARTEN children… the ones that will never be able to go to MX and make a choice for themselves…

        • Brian December 15, 2012 at 2:44 am

          He didnt have assault weapons. Not even close. You obviously have no clue what your talking about. Wish I could have been there to save those kids. Shame on kill zones ( gun free zones)

          • Ed Kociela December 15, 2012 at 2:04 pm

            To set the record straight: As we pieced together yesterday, but did not have confirmed, it was, indeed, a .223 caliber assault rifle.


          • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 3:36 pm

            How many stories do we hear about vigilantes saving people? This seems to be an argument posed by gun rights advocates, but the number of dead because of hand guns far outweighs the number saved because some one happened to have a gun, used it properly, and averted a disaster. But, as Brian’s post would suggest, facts probably don’t matter when fear rules.
            Thanks for the factual update Ed.

          • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 3:49 pm

            Mr. Kociela, a semi auto rifle IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. There is a VERY specific military definition for an assault rifle, which is a rifle that can fire an intermediate cartridge (the length of the cartridge is between a pistol round and a hunting rifle round) and is select fire with full automatic and/or burst fire. A semi-automatic only fires one round per trigger pull and has no facility for select fire function beyond that, so a civilian semi auto rifle, no matter the caliber, IS NOT CLASSIFIED AS AN ASSAULT RIFLE ACCORDING TO THE MILITARY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT’S SEMI AUTO. Again, it must be capable of burst fire or full automatic and rifles you can buy legally ARE NOT CAPABLE OF THAT.

          • Iwannadexyouup December 15, 2012 at 4:19 pm

            Right, right….shootout at the “OK kiddie corral”….Because that makes sense. I’m going to outfit my 8-year-old son with a custom, transformer-themed .38 special. And Kevlar and mp5s for the entire staff. Because lack of guns is clearly the problem.

          • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm

            Hey, Matthew, I read those stories of people saving themselves with guns often enough. And, remember, if it saves just one life, right? I recall many anti-gun people using that device (if a gun law saves just one life), but it’s funny how they fail to realize how that can work both ways. Anyways, according to the Department of Justice during the Clinton Administration, guns were used roughly 1.5 million times a year in self defense situations. Criminologist estimates have the number at roughly 2 million times. Many times, a shot is not fired as the criminal backs down and retreats when faced with lethal force. As for “facts probably don’t matter when fear rules,” it’s interesting to note how the anti-gunner’s fears are driving their choices to take guns away from people who did not commit any crime.

          • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 4:39 pm

            Iwannadexyouup, nobody is talking about arming kids. But, if you were a teacher or staff member there (who I assume would all have to be adults as I don’t think children would pass muster as teachers and faculty) who ended up being a first responder, wouldn’t it make sense to have had the training, the mindset, and a weapon to at least have had a chance to effectually fight back in defense of the children, your colleagues and yourself rather than be a sitting duck, unable to do anything?
            Remember what the Dalai Lama said: “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
            But, I forgot, Connecticut was rated as no. 5 out of 50 by the Brady Campaign for having the strictest gun laws in the nation and the school was a gun free zone.

          • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 8:27 pm

            I don’t read those stories all the time (unless you are talking about comic books). No, it’s a straw man argument. No one said we wanted to take your gun away (why did you jump to that conclusion?). I did say that we live in a gun culture where the gun is God and violence permeates and is permissive (even encouraged). If more citizens stood up and said no to guns, to violence, to hate and fear, we would live in a better country. Yes, innocent people die. I would rather die with God’s grace through the hatred and fear of another then carry that hatred and fear to my death. I don’t fear death so much as a lack of hope, and this is what gun’s represent, a lack of hope.

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 1:22 am

            Comic books, Matthew? Yet another insult. You know, you could have Googled for such news stories before making your senseless accusation, but why should I bother trying to discuss anything with you, then, if you’re going to respond to me like you have? It’s clear to me that we agree to disagree.

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 1:22 am

            You have your shortsighted opinions of me and it’s rather clear I will never persuade you that I’m a sane, rational person. No, you irrationally think of me and other gun owners as crazy clingers who should be feared and abhorred, a bane to your rather fragile sense of safety. And, if you want my opinion, it’s better to fight for your life if it’s threatened rather than do nothing and let it be taken without struggle by a person who may think nothing of the act. If you could have the means to prevent your own death at the hands of another but refuse to do so, then such a death is tantamount to suicide. If you had the means to stop a murder against an innocent person but refuse to do so, then that is a horrid act of cowardice on your part. Those two reasons are why I don’t understand your line of thought. It’s not that you hate the person attacking you or an innocent person, but why is it right to let a murderer kill if you can stop the act right then and there? And, remember, I’m talking about a murder that’s in progress or you know for certain is planned. Otherwise, what’s the legal and ethical justification to act against another? Anyways, if that meant having no other choice but to commit justifiable homicide to defend your life and/or those whom you care about against an imminent threat of death or crippling injury, then I’m sure God would more than forgive you because you were compelled to stop an evil person from succeeding with an evil act at the expense of good people.

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 2:49 am

            And, finally, the problem with your assertion that you aren’t really wanting to “take guns away” is simple. WE DO NOT BELIEVE YOU. And, it isn’t so much of a straw man when one of the goals of the gun control movement is banning semi-auto firearms. Remember, the majority of guns owned by Americans are semi-auto, so you are effectually trying to take guns away from people with that. History is a great teacher and, generally, when gun control is practiced, it is approached subtly with each step seemingly reasonable until it eventually fulfills the final step of complete civilian disarmament. Well, as the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, we’re going to fight to keep gun control at bay. And there’s nothing you can do to stop us short of killing us off. And, if you do support the Unions, then support gun rights! Why? UAW workers are under contract with some gun companies, such as Colt. You don’t want to let them go out of business and put those Union members out of their jobs, do you?

          • Ed Kociela December 16, 2012 at 8:43 am

            Marsha, I assume that is your real name and Ashram is just an anagram, I am fully aware of the legal definition of an assault rifle. However, the weapon of choice in this heinous crime was a modified version of the AR-15 to fit within the bounds of the assault weapon ban. True, by definition it is not classified as an assault weapon, but it has all the characteristics, including the .223 round, which is an efficient human killer, but not of much use in hunting. Not many game species will come down with a .223 round. Splitting hairs here by definition. They are capable of firing as quickly as you can pull a trigger, which is about five rounds per second.) You mentioned that it is legal to own a high-capacity magazine, which is true, but can you honestly tell me what possible need you would have for a 100-round clip other than to engage in combat? The high-capacity clip equates to fire power, as we all realize. How much fire power do you need to shoot at a target at 50, 100 yards?

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 8:39 pm

            So, you don’t know my actual identity, thus you are assuming who I am? What if the name is an alias and I’m not a woman? Don’t make such assumptions unless your purpose is to try and insult somebody (which, if it is, I’m disappointed if that’s the best you could come up with, a man of your alleged education). As for the AR-15, what are the modifications? That it’s permanently made into a semi-auto only rifle and that attempting conversion will not be successful if you don’t know what you’re doing and is definitely illegal? If so, then what’s the problem? A semi-auto only AR-15 is not a machine gun and, operationally, is no different in principle to other gas-operated semi-auto rifles, including popular hunting rifles like the M1 Garand. Furthermore, speaking of the M1, that rifle can be chambered for .30-06 Springfield or .308 Winchester, which have substantially more muzzle energy than .223 Remington. The M1 fires a rifle cartridge whereas the AR-15 fires an intermediate cartridge. The M1 is even more powerful as a semi-auto rifle than a semi-auto only AK-47. The M1 is also semi-auto, so you can fire shots as fast as you can pull the trigger and reloading can be done quickly with C-clips. And, as all these mentioned rifles are rather large and difficult to make inconspicuous, the only time they would be used in any crime is when inconspicuousness is not a factor to the criminal. With those points in mind, why are you going after the AR-15 and, in effect, the AK-47 and disregarding other weapons that are just as capable, perhaps more lethal? Cut your crap, Mr. Kociela. Guns are not your field of expertise. Furthermore, why should I give up my rights for the actions of someone else? For that matter, why should anyone else who have not done anything wrong? And, no, I WON’T YIELD TO YOUR POSITION.

  • Pete December 14, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    Actually, taking guns away from law abiding citizens is exactly what allows this to happen in the first place. One armed citizen inside that school could have prevented a lot of deaths. The so called gun free zones simply tell a lunatic where to go to inflict the greatest amount of pain.

  • Maggie December 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    I wondered how long it would be before someone brought this up.It is always the easy way with you folks isn’t it.
    Not much being said about the young man who did the killings but let’s see how much I have right.
    I bet he came from a broken home,he was bullied or was the bully. Had multiple complaints re his behaviour in the past .Used pot or other drugs. He may have an arrest record. Adults in his life ,many of them failed him and probably were”the good folks who did not own guns”.
    Ask yourself.What have I done to help kids in trouble? Have you ever fostered or mentored a kid? Do you support family values in your community,in your own home? Do you know what movies,games your kids see or play? Do you know where they are and who they are with? Do you spend time and do things with them?Do you know what they are thinking? If they need help,anykind,do you provide it?
    Look in your own mirror first.

    He needed help and did not get it. Do you not understand that these people will get guns if they want them no matter what the laws are.However it is easier to blame it on a gun or guns.It seems to be the politically correct thing to do ,easier and the” in” thing.

    That way you do not have to face the real problems. Teenage pregnancy,unwanted children, divorce, insisting all children are equally great at everything ,rather than recognizing them for their own talents. Take the guns away and all of this will be gone,right?

    Yes the parents will blame guns and I will forgive them,ANYTHING. You not so much!

    You just keep walking the beach and stopping at the cantina ,writing BS, while the rest of us keep trying to save just one child. All the while being made fun of because we do believe in family values.

    • TF December 14, 2012 at 7:07 pm

      You’re right. Rather than looking at ourselves as the problem it’s much easier to blame something like guns. There are a lot of problems and it hurts… but the problems come from us as a society.

      On days like this it’s difficult to think of bringing pure children into such a black world but raising good people is more important than ever.

  • HomerT6 December 14, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    It is a sad day. Though there is always hope.

  • pratz December 14, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    @CurtisLB – every gun owner is law abiding until someone loses it and goes killing. Feel like shoving a rifle barrel up the NRA’s a$$.

    • Ashram December 14, 2012 at 2:02 pm

      With your kind of logic, I could argue that every driver is law abiding until they get drunk and crash into a loaded school bus. But, you don’t blame the carmaker, you don’t blame the DMV, you don’t blame the liquor, you don’t blame anyone except the person who drove drunk. So, why should that standard change with this tragedy? The blame lies solely on the person who decided to break from the ranks of the law abiding and become a criminal. The blame belongs nowhere else. It doesn’t belong to gun owners who have not done anything wrong, it doesn’t belong to the gun makers, and it certainly doesn’t belong to the NRA.

      • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 3:40 pm

        Guns are a tool. They have two uses. 1. To kill. 2. To practice killing.

        Trying to equate a car to a gun is disingenuous at best, and most likely knowing misdirection.

        The blame lies squarely on a culture that values guns over people, violence over relationship, and ignorance over education.

        • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 4:27 pm

          So, basically your position is that killing is all right so long as it isn’t done with a gun? How sick, Matthew. That’s a great way to exonerate people like Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, and the 9/11 terrorists. And, FYI, the blame lies squarely on the person who committed the crime, PERIOD. If we had it your way, you may as well pass a lifetime prison sentence on YOURSELF because, hey, you share the responsibility for being part of the culture, right?

          • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 8:39 pm

            Ashram: Why would you suggest that I think killing is all right? Do you really think that is my belief? What made you jump to that conclusion? I do view myself as part of a community. I view myself as an American, and do take responsibility for the greatness and the problems of this country. I work on making this country better everyday (how could I not unless I just assumed that it was always the other persons fault for all of our problems?). Of course the problem lies in our failure to relate to one another appropriately. The problem with guns is that their presence, in a bad situation, compounds the end results. I am not suggesting getting rid of guns (the barn door is open), though wouldn’t it be a better world if we all truly believed that we didn’t need guns to settle our differences or protect ourselves because we all valued our neighbors lives more than our own? Sure that is pie in the sky, but didn’t we land a man on the moon?

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 1:34 am

            I am thinking that you believe “killing is all right” because you are implying with your response that it’s better to kill with a car than with a gun. Why, then, are you trying to make an unrelated distinction between a gun and a car? WHAT IS YOUR POINT? What I’m trying to convey to you is that if a car is capable of being used as a weapon, then why should it matter that a car wasn’t designed to be used as one? Ergo, your point of a difference between a gun and a car has no relevance in this case. The point is that you are placing too much emphasis on objects and not enough on the person using them. Your position is misguided. If you want to prevent murders, then deal with the HUMAN problem. If you find someone who is emotionally suffering, you help them if you can with as much understanding and support you can provide and if they are receptive to it (sometimes, you may intervene while, other times, you may need to leave it alone; it’s a bit of an art of tact to figure out the times that you should and the times that you shouldn’t). If we all help each other with our psychological issues with guidance and understanding, then it wouldn’t be necessary to enact gun control because you cannot have a gun problem if the human problem that results in these suicidal mass shootings are resolved.

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 1:42 am

            As for your assertion: “the problem with guns is that their presence, in a bad situation, compounds the end results.” You are making a presumption and using that as justification for action. Sorry, but to prevent unwise use of a firearm, you have to prove an individual gun owner has a propensity to unwisely use a weapon first before you can restrict him or take his weapon away. And, note how the “individual basis” applied in my point. Because one person will be different from another, you can’t assume that what may make one person reckless will make the other behave in the same way. “One size fits all” is no solution in this case.

          • Ed Kociela December 16, 2012 at 8:48 am

            A car has a specific purpose: to transport a person or persons from Point A to Point B. A knife has a specific purpose: to serve as a cooking or harvesting tool.

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 8:00 pm

            Mr. Kociela, you do not get the point.
            Why does it matter that an item was designed for a specific task when it’s CAPABLE of being used for a terrible purpose?
            The fact that a kitchen knife, or a car, or ammonium nitrate were not intended as weapons does nothing to address their capability of being effectively used as such by a person determined to commit murder.
            More importantly, because a gun was designed as a weapon, how does that fact reduce the user’s responsibility for a malicious act? Is the act of murder suddenly more offensive to you because a weapon was used rather than an item improvised for the task?
            And, finally, why try to restrict the rights of and possibly even take away guns from people who did not commit any crime?

  • Karen December 14, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    I’m not entirely sure that gun control is the solution, but I know that if these kinds of murders don’t at least encourage you to take 5 minutes to ask yourself if there might be another side to the story, then you are thoughtless and ignorant and not to be trusted with something as dangerous as a gun.

    • Ashram December 14, 2012 at 2:06 pm

      With all due respect, Karen, you are basically asking people whether or not they have at least some responsibility for this crime. This crime is the fault of the person who committed it and no one else. THAT is why there should be no debate on the issue and for you to accuse thoughtlessness and ignorance is insulting.

  • Brett December 14, 2012 at 2:06 pm

    Such a horrible tragedy. Lunatic copy-caters with guns indeed! Makes me sick I live in a society like ours today and I have children. It’s the ultimate plea for attention. It’s the trade-off we have for having so much freedom. This stuff will never end.

    I want to throw up!

    Changing guns rights may help somewhat. It depends on the resourcefulness of the lunatic. Black marketeers, gun runners, and organized crime will supply the guns. We can’t stop drug traffic, how we gonna stop guns?

    It’s sad, but we need to turn our schools into “prisons.” We basically need airport like security (more freedom gone.) We need an armed security officer (those officers need psych evaluations and background checks and training!) We need metal detectors. I feel insane for saying this, but more copy-cater ilk of society will have their day.

    Sorry, Ed, I wish it was as simple as taking away gun rights! It’s not!

  • Robb Willie December 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    Nice tantrum Ed. Feel better? You think you’re the only one broken up about this? Fine, pass the law. Come get my guns. Oh, no guts huh? Well send the cops to do it. Good luck with that. While you and the cops hunt down millions of law abiding gun owners, all the real crime will have to be put on hold. So what then? You can go cry on your homie in the Whitehouse. I’m sure you know him personally. Have him send the troops out, get ’em firing on their own people if you can make them do it without turning those nice gummint guns on you instead. Heck, if it works, it’ll be a great way to get rid of all the pesky conservatives! (Of course you’ll lose quite a lot of hypocritical libs like Rosie O’Donnel, who make sure their body guards have guns. But that’s OK, someone has to sacrifice, huh Ed?) Fortunately, this particular ship has sailed, way back with the 2nd amendment. And, just like millions like me, you won’t get my guns because I won’t let you. No matter how much you stomp your tiny little feet. Wanna try? I dare you.

    • Zeke December 14, 2012 at 2:43 pm

      The sad part of this comment is I think we have an administration that would like to try and confiscate all the guns. Like any other dictator that wanted “total” control, 20-30 million people have to die before any dictator gains control. Just look at history, that’s how many die during a hostile takeover. Maybe the current leadership is ok with making that attempt at this time or in the near future. Stay tuned.

      • ken December 14, 2012 at 4:39 pm

        What an asinine statement. Please show any facts that the Obama Administration wants to confiscate all guns. Facts only not rhetroic. And to talk about dictators is whacked.

        • Ashram December 14, 2012 at 8:36 pm

          Let’s see. He has shown his willingness to bypass Congress by abusing his executive orders and he’s made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. That makes him out as a dictator. He’s also voiced his support for the assault weapons ban and the UN small arms treaty whose wording may allow leeway towards registration and bans. That’s another mark against him.

          • ken December 14, 2012 at 10:35 pm

            Good lord keep strecthing it. I don’t really care for Obama and didn’t vote for him but I even care less for people who have to hyerbole to make others think their point is right!

        • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 2:08 am

          Hyperbole, my rear end. Why don’t YOU keep stretching it? Everything I said is what he had done. You can even research it, that is if you’ve got the guts to face the fact that you’re wrong.

  • Gunther December 14, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    Every mass killing done with guns is a very tragic event. However, any kind of gun control or confiscation will NOT accomplish what many think that it will accomplish. Here is a brief analogy: We have this drug war that has been going on for a really, really long time. Currently Heroin and Meth is available in any city and to our children in all the schools in the nation. These drugs are killing people and ruining families all over this country.
    Now if we think banning guns is going to accomplish anything, you would be wrong. After a mass confiscation, guns would be available all over this country just like drugs and “anything” else people need and want. So gun control is not the answer. We have a problem with some folks who have a very warped sense of reality and think mass killings is the answer to their current needs and desires. That’s where the problem is right now. How do we fix these sick people? Or can we?

  • Sarah December 14, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    Michael Crichton’s line from his thriller Jurassic Park, which explains in detail how “power without discipline is making this society into wreckage” ..It’s time to step up and quit blaming weapons but instead start seeing the signs when a person is in need mentally or physically. There will ALWAYS be a weapon that is used when a person gets angry or scared, this could start changing if society would quit turning their backs on people hurting and be there to start listening. We all have failed each other by being selfish!

  • steve December 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm

    Guns have been around for hundreds of years. They have no way of getting into a person’s mind. I blame this on the video game culture. playing those horrific bloody games for hours on end. That’s the path way into ones mind. Desensitizing their minds to reality and death. Go after the gaming industry , not the guns.

    • Ashram December 14, 2012 at 3:40 pm

      Actually, I’m more inclined to believe that these shootings are happening because, perhaps, the path we are going as a people is not conducive to gainful life. For instance, our country is taxing the crap out of job makers, which tends to negatively affect employment. How crazy do you think a 20-something is going to get when he/she graduates college with a master’s degree but then finds there are no jobs and no way to even begin to pay off tens of thousands of student loan debt not to mention all the time spent to get that education? Without job opportunities waiting for these college graduates, what’s the point? People can get pretty crazy when their dreams are torn down and ripped to shreds like that.

      • ken December 14, 2012 at 4:41 pm

        LMAO! You can’t be serious your trying to equate evil with unemployment and then you want to blame the government. Good hell what are you smoking?

        • Ashram December 14, 2012 at 8:19 pm

          I’m merely offering one possible opinion on why people would go crazy. And, it would stand to follow that the cost of doing business increases without a commensurate increase in value, that cost will be reflected in business overhead, which means higher prices for goods and services and lessened job opportunities. Less jobs = greater unemployment. And, since we have a glut of college graduates burdened with debt and interest but precious few jobs to go around to help them pay it off, well, it becomes simple physics. And, since you couldn’t see that, it makes me wonder what YOU are smoking.

          • ken December 14, 2012 at 10:39 pm

            All kinds of people are crazy and evil. Rich, poor, employed,unemployed, gay ,straight, married, divorced and so on. Since I can’t see your outlandish reasoning then I am smoking something. Truly funny you are!

        • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 2:11 am

          First off, YOU were the one who tried to insult me, so don’t be surprised that I throw it back onto you when I accuse you of “smoking” it. If you can’t deal with it, then don’t dispense it. I have no problem with the fact that you don’t agree, only I would have expected a bit more civilized tone and for you to intelligently argue your position rather than attack me.

      • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 8:44 pm

        Taxes have not been lower in your life time. Next.

        By the way, the forty hour work week and weekends off is thanks to unions. As we have destroyed the union base over the past thirty years wages have stagnated. We didn’t notice because Walmart came to town and sold us all for less, but now it is catching up with us.

        • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 1:45 am

          Wow, all I did was make a, more or less, generalized opinion about taxes and how it may affect employment opportunities and you’re preaching pro Union diatribe to me? You take that rather seriously, don’t you? Well, then, I’m glad the Unions lost Michigan. How does that strike you? Oh, wait, Hostess was killed by a BCTGM strike and thousands of BCTGM and Teamsters workers are now out of a job for this holiday season. Sorry about the pun.

  • Candy December 14, 2012 at 2:49 pm

    No one is talking about taking away all guns. Gun control laws are not about that. What is being talked about is controlling how they can be used and the types of guns. No one needs a clip that holds 30 bullets. No one needs an automatic or simiautomatic weapon. Those are just made to hurt and kill a lot of living creatures, ie people. Keep ur regular rifles and hand guns. Those are for hunting and protection, but assault weapons are not a nessecity.

    • Robb Willie December 14, 2012 at 3:14 pm

      “No one is talking about taking away all the guns.” You did read Ed’s self indulgent, self righteous, tough guy rant, didn’t you? BTW…you and Ed don’t get to decide what guns I need.

      • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 9:30 pm

        Uhh, did you read the article? He never suggested taking away guns. Why do you jump to that conclusion (brainwashed by the gun lobby?)?

        • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 1:47 am

          Brainwashed by the Brady Bunch?

          “Gun control” is an infringement on a civil right, PERIOD. And, if the discussion is including a semi-auto ban, then that effectively means that the government is trying to take away the majority of guns legally in the hands of owners as the majority of guns owned are semi-auto.

    • Brian December 15, 2012 at 2:59 am

      None of these weapons are assault weapons. I think its safe to say you have no clue what an assault weapon is. And since you have no clue who are you to tell everyone else what they need?

      • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 8:49 pm


        • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 2:27 am

          “Oops” is right. You are not knowledgeable about the topic and are totally unwilling to try and attempt to understand the opposing viewpoint, much less any factual corrections to bad information.

  • HiFlyer December 14, 2012 at 2:50 pm

    People own motor vehicles. Vehicles kill. You going to take everyones vehicle away?
    People own knives. Knives kill. You going to take everyones knives away?
    Just maybe if a few of those teachers had guns there might be 30 of the 36 dead might be still alive.
    You can outlaw guns. I will still have one, two, or maybe a dozen, just like all the criminals do.
    Get real people.

    • Roy J December 14, 2012 at 6:40 pm

      Missed this opinion in reading the comments, restated it myself down below…oops. I second(ed) your opinion, High Flyer.

    • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 9:31 pm

      I take it you are not a Christian?

      • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 1:49 am

        Great, rather than discuss the topic, suggest that he’s not a Christian. Well, what if he is? Or, better yet, what if he isn’t? Yours is a rather loaded question that seems to say more about you than you happen to realize. On top of that, what in the world does religion have to do with this aside from being a deflection from discussing a topic you are not prepared to deal with?

  • Rebel Without A Cause December 14, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    The real problem is not the guns. When the authorities allow parents to do their jobs and discipline their kids when they act like assholes, you will see a drop in violence. Come on Ed, use your brain!

    • Robb Willie December 14, 2012 at 3:33 pm

      Exactly. I graduated HS in 1972. Guns were everywhere, in almost every aspect of society, and all throughout the nation. This kinda crap was unimaginable. Guns, collectively, are not the problem. Ed and his ilk need to stop acting like children and look further than guns for the root problem.

      • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 9:34 pm

        Right, guns only exacerbate the problem. The problem is our violent culture – video games, football (American style), dehumanizing porn, the depiction of guns in media (oops), gun shows where no back ground check need be performed (oops), cage fighting, domestic violence, the easy availability of guns (oops).

        • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 1:56 am

          FYI, if the seller of a gun at a gun show is an FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealer, he still has to perform the NICS background check. The issue is private sales, which can occur anywhere and not just at gun shows. In the case of private sales, the seller is not an FFL and, therefore, has no ability to use the NICS. A private seller is still obligated to make sure the buyer is not legally disqualified, though, and can be prosecuted if it can be proven that he willingly and knowingly sold a gun to someone who shouldn’t have been legally able to possess it. As for easy availability of guns, that’s freedom as good as it gets. It should be easy for law abiding people to get guns. As for domestic violence, that crap can occur with or without guns and, yes, people can still be easily killed without a gun in such an episode because, well, it’s rather easy to find something that can kill with ease in the household (knives, fire, a belt for strangulation, etc.). As for everything else, lighten up! Violence in culture is nothing new. Ever read “Beowulf” before? How about “The Odyssey?” Yeah, I’m sure Homer was real concerned about domestic violence when he slaughtered those suitors who tried to marry Penelope in the end.

  • Curtis December 14, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    “When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.”
    Trite and a cliche but true. Check on what happened to rates of murder and other violent crimes in Great Britain, Ireland and Jamaica after handguns were banned

    In the event Ed and others who would restrict access to firearms are actually interested in facts, read:
    More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott Jr.

    • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 9:35 pm

      I got one for you – The Bible.

      • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 2:08 am

        Nice little dodge there, Matthew. He cites a source with information and data to prove his point. You can’t do any better than vaguely cite the Bible? Lame.

  • Matthew Sevald December 14, 2012 at 4:49 pm

    Ed, you’re falling into the logical fallacy of appealing to emotion. You should refrain from writing until you get your emotions in check. This is a horrible situation, but knee-jerk reactions to satisfy our anger don’t accomplish anything in the long run.

  • Roy J December 14, 2012 at 5:46 pm

    Considered from a different angle, perhaps part of the reason that this happened is because nobody else at the school, in a normal frame of mind, was carrying a gun…whether you agree with the above or not, it is probably true that if every member of that school’s faculty was carrying, the shooter would not have gotten very far. Maybe he wouldn’t have even tried. Maybe that brings up other problems, though…

  • bear December 14, 2012 at 7:55 pm

    I agree with ed, it is a sad day .

  • Sylvia December 14, 2012 at 8:07 pm

    No guns for disturbed individuals, that’s a no brainer. But here’s the problem: What happens to many of us “normal” individual when we get enraged/angry about something? We get in the red, we may scream, make threats, etc., and those with little self-control come to blows. Give this person a mass-killing weapon when in this enraged mindset, and there’s your recipe for another possible mass shooting. No mass killing weapons need to be owned by the general population. Hunters don’t need them either. What kind of loser hunter needs to shoot 20 rounds of ammo at some poor defenseless deer. For the sake of those we love let’s limit the damage and get these mass killing weapons out of reach from our own moments of rage.

    • Ashram December 14, 2012 at 8:32 pm

      So, how do you make sure you keep guns out of the hands of disturbed individuals, then? I see ideas but no details in those ideas that doesn’t involve violating the rights of people who have not done anything wrong. And, your explanation about people possibly getting angry has one problem; it can be argued that ANYTHING is possible. Since it’s possible that you could go on a shooting rampage, your rights should be restricted, never mind that you didn’t do anything wrong. But, since it’s also just as possible that, in the same rage, you could drive away recklessly and cause an accident that could kill innocent people, you should have your driver license revoked and your car taken away, never mind that you didn’t do anything wrong. See where I’m getting at here? The problem with suggesting that action must be taken against others merely because it’s possible they may go off the deep end is that it may justify arbitrary police and judicial action against the innocent. THAT’S HOW THE PROVERBIAL WITCH HUNT STARTS! No! The only correct course of action is to lay responsibility for a violent crime only on those who actually committed the deed. You NEVER, EVER take action against anyone who has not done anything wrong. That means you don’t take away guns from the innocent and you don’t violate their civil rights without evidence presented through due process to prove a disqualifying condition or good probable cause to believe a crime is in progress.

      • Brian December 15, 2012 at 3:05 am

        You are making too much sense and need to refrain from further comments. 🙂

        • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 9:37 pm

          Yeah, any time someone mentions witch hunt you know they are on the right track. So remind me, why do you need a gun that fires 20 rounds a second? Or a 100 round clip? or an assault rifle?

          • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 2:15 am

            Yeah, Matthew, make a straw man and take it down to create the illusion of tackling my argument. My point was that people like you are placing blame and wanting to act against law abiding gun owners with no evidence to prove your assertion and no legal and ethical justification on an individual basis to make such actions right on your part. Nope, you want to act against them, to heck with evidence, rights and due process. That sounds very much like the proverbial witch hunt to me, a.k.a. MOB RULE against gun owners.

  • Doug C. December 14, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    You never fail to be predictable Ed. Why do you think schools have Resourse Officers? They carry guns, not to kill, but to protect. By your stupid knee-jerk logic, no one would have been killed before there were guns invented. Pathetic idiot! As for taking guns away, Obama is trying to get the UN the power through a treaty to confiscate our gun. Our forefathers wanted us to have guns, not just to protect themselves from those who would do us harm, but also to take up arms against an opressive government, if the need arose. Look around the world, it’s happening in the middle-east. Government want to outlaw guns, not to keep people safe from others, but to keep the government safe from its people. It is one of the first steps to dictatorship, confiscate the guns. Every time some tagedy like happened in Sandy Hook happens, out come the liberal cry to take away our guns.

    Larry Elder Fan Page said:

    Shooting in Connecticut. Is it just a coincidence that these shootings take place in schools and malls–where there is a no-gun policy? Why don’t these mass shootings take place in schools in Israel?

    Ed, this kind of crap you are spewing, is one reason I hate you as an editorial writer in the St. George News. They could do much better than you. I know they try to point out your accolades, I’m not impressed. You may be a good writer, but you write bad.

  • Rob Babcock December 14, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    I have 2 posts I have written on my small company’s facebook page. I will post them both. I am a citizen of this country, a parent, and prior service soldier. Take my words for what you will. Please remember shootings like this did not occur when you could buy firearms (including fully automatic machine guns) by mail or at the hardware store with nothing more than your cold hard cash.

    Please keep those affected in Connecticut in your thoughts and prayers. Hug your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and tell them you love them. This took some people with serious issues today. I know I would have gladly given my life to save those 18 children. I am sure many of you would do the same. I will not rant about laws and policies. Today and right now is not the time. Let your hearts be heavy, and your weapons at the ready.

    Apparently some people just don’t get it. Stop talking about increasing or decreasing regulation on firearms in light of today’s tragedy. Mourn the losses today. Give these people their moment and share as you can in their loss. Do not try and use it to argue your view on gun control. Today is a day for reflection. 20 children lost their lives, 26 total deceased. Their lives taken right before the
    holiday. If you were in their shoes wouldn’t you expect and desire the same respect? We all know I am all for less gun control, more gun rights. Would the story have been different had school faculty had firearms training and a weapon in the classroom? Maybe. Would the man been able to perform the act without a firearm? Sure – an individual in China at least wounded 22 people with a knife today. Stop using today to further your agenda.

    • The World Needs a Hero December 15, 2012 at 12:15 am

      Amen, I agree with everything you have said, Pray for them, and their family and friends.

    • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 9:42 pm

      Maybe it would have been different if we had different laws. It definitely would have been different if we were a Christian nation, with true Christian values. I am sure that every parent affected by this tragedy through the loss of their child would rather have their child then the right to bear arms. What is important in your life? Some stupid gun?

      • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 2:22 am

        What are your idea of Christian values, Matthew? And, another false dichotomy? “The child or the gun?” The real world obviously allows for more choices than that, so your argument is unreasonable. There is also a tinge of emotionalism that is amusingly bereft of logic. Amazing how you can’t conceive that guns, in the right hands, could have enabled resistance against the gunman. The preservation of life against tyranny in any and all forms, big and small, foreign and domestic, is what the 2nd Amendment is all about. If you can fight back with a gun, you can save lives, which happens to be the point. “Who’da thunk that?” And, it’s not about heroism or nonsense like that, but just simple human decency at work to stop evil from prevailing at that immediate moment of violence.

  • liberal woman December 14, 2012 at 11:44 pm

    Iike really? Dear god.. Every person must have an opinion. A very republican opinion. Welcome to utah ha ha

  • The World Needs a Hero December 14, 2012 at 11:46 pm

    First and foremost, A prayer for those little ones and their families on this tragic day.

    Ed, you sicken me to the depths of my soul that you would stoop so low as to use a child’s death let alone 20, to promoted your agenda. And for St. George News to let this be posted today of all days is just sad.

    Every time I see this ignorant rant come up I have to wonder, if there were no gun’s, what would the killer have done? As with most mass killings, it is determined to be a premeditated crime. Which means that with no guns, some other type of weapon would have been used? What if a bomb was used, how many would had died? 20? 50? 100’s? Just about anything can be lethal in the hands of a madman.

    As for your idiotic comment,

    “So, go ahead, tell me it is your God-given right to have an arsenal in your home, that it is morally responsible to strap on a sidearm, that it’s for everybody’s protection.”

    My gun is not for “everybody’s” protection. it is for my family, and myself, PERIOD.

    you say “Of course, it was the shooter, but the point is he had a gun. And, whether it was purchased legally or on the black market doesn’t matter. He had a gun.”

    So why should I be denied the right to protect my family and myself? Because, if the guns are available on the black market, they will still be available to those who wish to use them in such an unimaginable way? Tell me then, how do I protect my family when I have no guns and someone with a gun enters my home with my family inside? Tell me how I can protect my family, while we sit in a movie theater and some one decides to open fire on the audience? Or while I am at the Mall? In your opinion am I to just let my family and myself be slaughtered by some manic with a death wish? Tell me how you protect yourself, and your family, what would you do if your family was threatened with my some maniac with a gun, or a machete, ax, or chainsaw? I find you very irresponsible if you have no way to do so. If you are unwilling to have protection for your family, then it is you who enable those who wish to bring harm to other’s.

  • Eric December 15, 2012 at 12:49 am

    Hey Ed, maybe for your next piece you can re-write American history without guns…. Now that would be an article worth reading and also very telling of the future if things go your way.

  • Steamer December 15, 2012 at 8:16 am

    Seems to me that a suicidal, cowardly psychotic bent on killing or harming as many people as possible, will always pick those least likely to defend themselves. The choice of weapons will always be that which will do the most damage and is readily available. Guns are the obvious choice because of their manufactured efficiency. Guns are only made for killing.

    People feel the need to speak out at a time like this but reading some of the above posts is nothing less than chilling. Maybe it was just a distorted sense of humor for the posts that hinted that this is just a way for Obama to send out his minions door-to-door to collect the guns of righteous, but terrified Americans. On a day like today, I’m likely to toss mine into that collection basket.

  • Ron December 15, 2012 at 8:32 am

    Stupidity rules when it comes to discussing gun control. Nobody wants to take guns away from hunters or responsible sportsmen (and women). What we want and need are limits to the kinds of guns and ammo available and restrictions to ensure that nut-jobs don’t get easy access to them. Enacting such measures will not stop all acts of random violence, but it WILL save lives. The NRA response–arm the entire nation–is a recipe for more violence. You fanatical gun owners need to cool down and enter into a discussion with the rest of the nation in order to come up with sensible solutions, not meaningless slogans and vague threats.

    • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 7:46 pm

      What you need to understand, Ron, is that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is citizen empowerment for the purpose of self-defense against enemies of the free state; using guns for hunting and sport are merely perks that help refine your skills to apply against your enemy. According to Federal Law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311), basically ALL American citizens are members of a militia. Being “well-regulated” means being trained and well-equipped. However, training cannot be a requirement to have a right as that reduces a right to a privilege; instead, it is YOUR responsibility to get training, otherwise, you forgo training at the risk of making a mistake and assuming dire consequences that may include severe civil and criminal punishment. And, banning weapons may risk interfering with a citizen’s ability to function as a member of a “well-regulated militia” as you’re inhibiting the ability to be properly equipped under the spirit and intent of the law. As for “enacting such measures” it may or may not save lives, but just as well, if the gunman encountered armed resistance willing to defend the children, that could have also saved lives. You can’t prove your contention and the price to attempt it, the forfeiture of a significant aspect of the 2nd Amendment, is too high in the long term. As for “fanatical gun owners” needing to cool down, no sir, it’s people like YOU who need to calm down. You want to take guns away from people who didn’t do it! And, many of your kind are out there voicing death threats to gun owners! And you tell us that we need to cool down?!

      • Matthew December 15, 2012 at 9:51 pm


        A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

        This was before large standing armies and the technology that we currently have. We were a po-dunk country in its infancy. In no way was this amendment intended to infringe upon our greater right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

        Charlotte Bacon, 6
        Daniel Barden, 7
        Olivia Engel, 6
        Josephine Gay, 7
        Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
        Dylan Hockley, 6
        Madeleine Hsu, 6
        Catherine Hubbard, 6
        Chase Kowalski, 7
        Jesse Lewis, 6
        James Mattioli, 6
        Grace McDonnell, 7
        Emilie Parker, 6
        Jack Pinto, 6
        Noah Pozner, 6
        Caroline Previdi, 6
        Jessica Rekos, 6
        Avielle Richman, 6
        Benjamin Wheeler, 6
        Allison Wyatt, 6
        Rachel Davino, 29
        Dawn Hochsprung, 47
        School principal
        Nancy Lanza, 52
        Mother of gunman
        Anne Marie Murphy, 52
        Lauren Rousseau, 30
        Mary Sherlach, 56
        School psychologist
        Victoria Soto, 27

        All these people had their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness permanently obliterated because the gun manufacturers (who fund the NRA/gun lobby) prefer to make money and have written the jurisprudence on gun rights in America to the benefit of their pockets and the very definite detriment of those listed above. I don’t oppose you owning a hunting rifle. I do oppose you owning a tool that can kill 100s of people in under a minute. The Founders, rational men sensitive to the needs of a new country, would have cried if they could have seen how their words have been twisted into a dogmatic, money-making religion.

        • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 8:12 pm

          You have offered nothing of logic to refute my claims. What you have tried to do, however, is pull a cheap shot by appealing to emotion, exploiting the deaths of those people to further your agenda against people whom you obviously fear and hate but were not there and did not cause innocent bloodshed.
          To make sure it is clear to you.

          • Robb Willie December 17, 2012 at 5:54 pm


            Nicely done/Good job.


  • E December 15, 2012 at 9:03 am

    What a pile of rubbish! How does this stuff makes it to this news site? The guy lives in Mexico for chrips sakes and Newtown is as far from there as it can be. Disappointed again by SGN.

  • Markus December 15, 2012 at 10:33 am

    Ed, at least you have the guts to share your thoughts. The obese gun lovers of southern Utah will never agree with you. They love guns, maniacs. Go to Sportsman’s and look at all the fat men dragging their kids and wife along to look at guns.

    • Ashram December 15, 2012 at 8:00 pm

      If you can’t argue against them or understand them, ridicule those whom you don’t agree with. At least that avoids the challenge of having to think about the other side, huh? I can see you hate gun owners, perhaps with your hatred made easier by your dehumanizing generalization of them through your attempt at painting an unpleasant stereotype. Inhumane prejudice apparently survives, especially among those so smug by their own accomplishments that they can’t admit that they are just as susceptible as anyone else to falling into the same trap.

      • Markus December 16, 2012 at 11:54 am

        I don’t hate them. I pity them. I really feel bad for their wife and kids as they are drug along so daddy can look at more guns he can’t afford.

        • Ashram December 16, 2012 at 8:13 pm

          Again, more generalization. I pity YOU. It’s clear you have your own ideas and you paint your assertions onto others with a very WIDE brush. Only bigots do that.

  • Maryam December 15, 2012 at 10:39 am

    To American
    Condolences to YOU, all the parents, teachers and children
    I.was very saddened by this accident kills children
    I was so upset , Even I cried as I’m a teacher(in overseas)
    I’ve some suggestions about this problem:
    Unfortunately a large variety of computer games available
    to childern
    and young people, mostly homicide ,and too much
    bloodshed films,as well. on the other hand ,bannig GUNS
    to ban guns ,not a good choise, for have a gun at home
    Gives them peace of mind. Well it is better to have a gun
    with only one bullet ,guns which can’t fired multiple times.
    It turns out to be one- time shot.

  • Stephen December 15, 2012 at 11:34 am

    My sincere condolences to all those who were involved in this tragedy.

    “My cousin, who was a police officer in suburban St. Louis, Missouri, was shot and killed by a lunatic whose father was a ranking officer in the department. He killed her with his father’s gun.”

    Take the guns from the police too! Go get ’em Ed!

    I am currently in Afghanistan. We just recently had a huge explosion off base a few days. It blew up a number of vehicles and killed a few people. The mushroom clould could be seen for miles on the rainy day.

    There are aircraft flying day and night, scanning the ground, watching. And yet, where did the explosives come from to make the boom?

    Where Ed? We should ban explosives from terrorists over here. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah let’s do that!

    Oh wait, that’s dumb. Criminals and terrorist gonna criminal and terrorist.

    • Ed Kociela December 16, 2012 at 8:57 am

      Stephen, Thanks for your service. But, what does a battlefront have to do with a discussion on domestic use of weapons? And, I was never suggesting taking guns from the hands of police, just giving background that even legally purchased weapons, as in the Newtown shooting, make their way into criminal hands. Every new weapon sold, as a matter of fact, is sold legally because of background checks, witing periods, etc. that are in place in all 50 states. Somehow, an awful lot of legally purchased weapons, bought by law-abiding citizens, make their way into the hands of criminals. How does that happen? Let me stress that: Every weapon when purchased new is purchased legally. Granted, there are weapons that are stolen, but not in proportion to those used in crime. Be safe in Afghanistan, please.

  • American Citizen December 15, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Ed I will defend MY 2nd amendment right. Defend YOUR first amendment right. Without MY right YOUR right would not exist.

    Tragedy like that experienced by all yesterday hurts. We ALL feel the effects. The helplessness is the worst part.

    You will continue to exercise your rights and I will continue to exercise mine. We may not agree on hardly anything but we both can grieve together for the victims.

  • Sid December 15, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Fortunately, it only took 24 hours this time for ed’s drivel to go to the archives.

  • Dave December 15, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    So banning guns will solve the problem of people getting mass murdered? Or individuals getting killed? Tell me how well prohibition worked out? How nobody drank and there was no crime associated with alcohol. Did that work? Tell me how the war on drugs works, and how nobody does illegal drugs anymore. So because something is now banned it will simply disappear and all problems associated with it will vanish. You said it yourself, a man in china killed a bunch of people with a knife, not a gun. take a look at sats in the U.K. and tell me murder has decreased because of their gun laws. Better yet, look at crime statistics in Sweden and tell me what you see. It is one of the lowest in the world, everyone is required to know how and have the means to defend themselves with, believe it or not, a gun. So you say lets all give them up, so now the people who have them illegally can now have free range whenever they want, makes no sense to me….. You never hear it (thanks to our Liberal media) but gun carrying civilians stop crime on a daily basis and that is a fact. Imagine if that school was not a gun free zone and a teacher could have stopped that man. can you imagine that? Probably not. Do just a small amount of research and see how things work in the real world. I am sorry about your relatives but gun laws will not stop crazy people from getting guns, we might as well protect ourselves the best we can. Even if they were banned and all vanished from the hands of every killer, whats going to stop them from building a bomb or driving a car into a crowd? Seriously, think about it.

  • Ron December 16, 2012 at 8:19 am

    This discussion reminds me of the closing lines of the film Chinatown: “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.” Only here it’s “Forget it, Ed. It’s Utah.”

  • HKM December 16, 2012 at 8:10 pm

    Every decent American feels a horrible loss and this crime against humanity itself will forever be remembered as a national tragedy.
    I can NOT begin to imagine the heartache the families and friends must be experiencing but my prayers will be with them.
    That being said, you ask for an explanation.
    Should “assault type weapons” magazines or even ammunition be banned? Of course YOU say, that way this can never happen again!
    Sorry, the fact is, it WILL inevitably happen again somewhere and NONE of the ban’s above will prevent it. I feel that where you have a society with a lack of humanity this is an inevitable result, guns or no guns.
    Don’t tell me it will make it MORE difficult for it to happen, that’s already PROVEN itself to be false time and again. As Americans we must come to a realization and that is, where we become complacent, antisocial and live in a society that in general doesn’t care for our fellow humans this is an horrific example of what can and will continue to happen.
    Desperate, insane, evil people will occasionally remind us we ALL can be potential victims.
    LAWS will NEVER prevent criminals from perpetuating CRIMINAL behavior, the end.
    I don’t pretend to know all the right answer’s but as a law abiding citizen, who is 45 years old and never even had a parking ticket, I Cherish my constitutional rights. As a responsible gun owner why should I lose my right to own a semi auto, (or full auto) rifle?
    The “style, magazine capacity etc. Is really just semantics, because ANY weapon used against another human IS, after all, an ASSAULT weapon! Lock an evil criminal (who has an antique sword and the will to use it) in
    a room with unarmed citizens and you will have a assault weapon and dead citizens.
    Train and arm just ONE of those citizens and you will have a dead criminal in that same room.
    People who wait on “first responders” law enforcement or CONGRESS to protect them or their families will continue to be victims and those of us who responsibly choose to defend ourselves will inevitably have our rights violated by a fearful “guns are the problem” mob mentality.
    When drugs were outlawed, outlaws got drugs, when guns are outlawed, outlaws WILL have guns the difference is guns don’t kill NEARLY as many people as drugs do.
    As a society we MUST begin to take some PERSONAL responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors AND other citizens!! Let’s ban indifference to the needs of other humans and start CARING for others people. If every American will actually start doing THAT we will see this needless violence go away.
    In fact, if as a society we all embrace this concept and actually do it, then I’ll be more than happy to give up ANY and ALL guns I own. Until then, I will responsibly ARM myself and continue to fight for my 2nd amendment rights, now more than ever, and suggest you do the same. We ALL share a responsibility for the society we live in and the more we ignore this fact the longer we will prolong this senseless violence.

  • Bob December 16, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    You’re quote: “I also don’t care if this offends you because you see, I am offended by the lack of humanity we are displaying socially”
    Seems to say to me “you don’t CARE if this offends you”
    I say that YOU should care and just for the record, HUMANITY or LACK of it can’t be LEGISLATED!! We should all care what offends other citizens and STOP trying to legislate MORALITY!
    It’s a fine line, I agree but as a society we must care about other’s feelings AND rights
    But never attempt to legislate you’re morals on another person. Our morals may not be the same but a huge problem in our society today is that we DON’T care about each others feelings. Maybe when we DO begin to care WHO we OFFEND America will be a more HUMANE society..

  • Cory December 17, 2012 at 9:10 am

    Ed, I will not tell you about the need for guns, or bother to justify it
    I will not explain to families why a piece of metal is more important than their children. I am not going to tell you about my God-given rights, because that’s between me and my god. I won’t tell you you’re a liberal reactionary, or about your hypocrisy. I will tell you only this:

    You are a …, because you can’t face the facts of life. The world is ugly, and I will not allow you or even my government to dictate whether I can defend myself from psychos. When or if it came to that moment, I will not be thinking, “I wish I had listened to Ed the …, i’ll be thinking … I’m glad I can drop this psycho where he stands so he can not do further harm.

    Ellipses editor’s.

  • Jess December 18, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    Too bad none of those teachers had a gun.

    • Karen December 18, 2012 at 10:40 pm

      Real life isn’t a movie where the good guys with guns always win. Talk to the guy at the Tucson shooting who had a concealed weapon. He drew his gun and was seconds away from shooting the person who had actually disarmed the shooter. Or the guy at the Portland Mall shooting who drew his gun but because of so many people running around, could not fire. Or the police at the Empire State building shooting who shot 8 bystanders accidentally. Or the people in the theater in Aurora. They couldn’t even tell where the shooter was. Such naive statements are ridiculous.

      • Ashram December 19, 2012 at 10:53 pm

        The point that Jess was trying to make is that a good person with a weapon at least has a chance to fight back, and a chance to stop the violence at the risk of failure is still better than nobody being able to do anything except grab their ankles and kiss their collective butts goodbye if they can’t escape.
        Furthermore, the instances where the concealed carry permit holders did not fire when they believed they didn’t have the opportunity to shoot without risking innocent bystanders ought to prove to you that they don’t act gung ho and Rambo; they are careful in their engagements and make assessments of their situation to be sure they can make the shot without hurting innocent people, far more responsible with lethal force than the police officers in New York City that you cited; you know, the kinds of people that many liberals say should be the only ones to have guns.
        With regards to the shooting in Aurora, it’s interesting to note that, with all the theaters that the shooter could have chosen, including one just mere minutes away from where he lived, he chose the one that had a clear “no guns” policy. If that’s not coincidence, then it ought to be clear that the policy would have given him confidence to not worry about armed resistance.
        And, there have been incidences where the violence was stopped by good people with guns. Incidents at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia, Pearl High School in Mississippi, as well as New Life Church in Colorado are examples.
        Again, good people, especially those who go through the trouble to get a permit and must pass a litany of tests and checks before they are allowed to carry, ought to be trusted by society to carry, especially as their use of force is intended to preserve life in defense, not take it away in malice.

        • Karen December 20, 2012 at 6:50 am

          Did you ever see a picture of the way the Aurora shooter was dressed? He was dressed for battle, wearing a gas mask, a combat helmet, a ballistic vest and armor protecting his extremities. Good luck with a handgun against that in a dark theater. Or maybe if ten people had guns they could have had a circular firing squad.

          As for the “clear no guns policy” of that theater, that too is a myth. Only the “Gun Owners of America” website has claimed that the theater had a “clear no guns” policy.

          Just to be clear, I am not against guns. What makes more sense than more guns in theaters, is a ban on assault weapons that can kill so many people so quickly with their high-capacity magazines. We need the assault weapons ban renewed.

          • Ashram December 27, 2012 at 1:28 pm

            Again, my point which you seem to ignore is that it’s still better to be afforded the chance to be able to fight back rather than certainly have no chance at all.
            And, FYI, Cinemark has a “no guns” policy and the story about that is available at more than just a pro gun website. It is not a myth; simply put: YOU ARE WRONG. An example: http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/colorado-theater-called-gun-free-zone/
            As for you not being against guns, don’t give me that nonsense. You are against guns YOU do not like. How is an “assault rifle” and “high capacity magainzes” are, in any way, a danger to anyone if it’s in the hands of a law abiding person?
            And, how would a ban really prevent these weapons from falling into the hands of criminals? Remember, America has LOTS of guns, so good luck taking them ALL away; only the law abiding might turn theirs in, so what’s left?
            Furthermore, care to lay out clear definitions for the phrase “assault weapons?” There is a clear MILITARY definition of an “assault RIFLE,” and no rifle that’s built only as semi-automatic fits the definition; a semi-auto AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle because it is not capable of full automatic operation or burst fire operation. It may look like what the military uses, but the likeness is only cosmetic.
            And, NO, we DO NOT NEED the assault weapons ban renewed. For one thing, the first AWB did not result in any reduction in crime, and that is not an NRA talking point either; it was the conclusion of a study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice. If the law didn’t work the first time, why waste more money and time renewing a useless law?
            And, last thing, I refuse to give up my rights and property. I did not do anything wrong and I do not have to justify my need of anything to anybody, which is what’s so great about a RIGHT!

  • Corey December 21, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    I dont give a … if your whole family is … if you want to take away my guns. Here is a statistic for you … idiots, more people are killed by lightning every year, than all the people together killed in all mass shootings in 13 years, so lets ban lightning. More people die in car accidents a year than are killed by guns, lets ban cars. I would gladly let a criminal shoot you before I use my gun and rights to protect you. Lets talk about banning high capacity magazines…it makes no sense! Take away my 30 round magazines and give me 3 10 round magazines….guess what….if i so chose to, i could kill just as many people. reloading takes less than 2 seconds, so magazine size doesnt make a difference. Ban AR15s because they LOOK like military styles, call them “assault rifles” because you’re so uneducated you have no idea what an “assault rifle” is! I honestly hope that everyone that is for the ban gets mugged, beat, humiliated, and then asks why nobody protected them.

    – Editor ellipses.

  • flygirl January 4, 2013 at 6:48 pm



Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.