Follow Christiane on social media:

On Twitter + Facebook + Instagram Amanpour producers on Twitter

What time is Amanpour on CNN?

Check showtimes to see when Amanpour is on CNN where you are. Or watch online.

Check showtimes to see when Amanpour is on CNN where you are. Or watch online.

Getting a gun in Japan

December 18th, 2012
11:40 AM ET

In Japan, you cannot buy a handgun, much less an assault rifle. In fact, even off-duty police officers are banned from carrying guns.

You can buy a shotgun or an air rifle, but it is not easy:

  • First, you have to take a class and a written exam.
  • Then there's a skill test at a shooting range
  • Next is a drug test
  • Then a mental evaluation.
  • Assuming you pass all those tests, you file with the police, who then run a background check.

No wonder Japan has one of the lowest gun ownership rates in the world.

But does it work?

In 2008, the U.S. had 12,000 gun-related murders. Japan had 11. More than double that number were killed in the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

Filed under:  Gun Control • Latest Episode
soundoff (660 Responses)
  1. terryjr91

    Looks simple enough to me.

    December 18, 2012 at 12:14 pm | Reply
    • jaime4186

      I agree.

      December 19, 2012 at 4:30 am | Reply
      • Andrew


        December 19, 2012 at 10:28 am |
      • Mike

        Just so all the gun nuts understand... The 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to bear arms unless they are part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The gun nuts ignore that part of the 2nd Amendment. I bet 90% of the gun nuts don't even know the wording of the 2nd Amendment or where it comes from.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:28 am |
      • jweeder123

        Mike apparently can't read the 2nd ammendment either. It says that because a well regulated militia is necessary, the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. It doesn't say I need to be a member of said militia. I would note that the US Supreme Court agrees with me.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:37 am |
      • Fnordz

        Sorry, Mike. You lose.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:56 am |
      • Brandon

        Sorry Mike, not according to District of Columbia v. Heller.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm |
      • Sagebrush Shorty

        Perhaps Mike should read the amendment again. Or else have Pelosi explain it to him.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:05 pm |
      • tacc2


        The Supreme Court of The United States of America disagrees with you. They have found the second amendment right to be an individual right not requiring membership in a militia. The people who wrote the second amendment also disagree with you. Please read what they had to say about it in their writings.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
      • Shane


        You just got lawyered!!

        December 19, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
      • Dude

        Mike: Just so all the gun-banning idiots understand, the word "MILITIA" means all citizens who are able to fight. Also, the phrase "WELL-REGULATED" means trained and ready.

        It does not say you have to be a member. It says that a militia is NECESSARY.

        All citizens who are able to fight need to be trained and ready to do so, and the government can not make any laws restricting that IN ANY WAY.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
      • No BS

        Mike, have you read this?
        In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
        So what was that about gun nuts????? Yeah did not think so, go back to your hole and stay there.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
      • JW

        The 2nd Amendment makes zero reference to bullets/ammunition. Ban bullets/ammo then the "gun nuts" can not scream about the 2nd Amendment.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm |
      • Dude

        JW: "Well-Regulated" means ready to fight. If you have no bullets, you aren't ready. The 2nd amendment says the government can NOT do that.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
      • JW

        In the DC vs Heller case that keeps getting referenced Scalia conjured a rule that said DC could not ban handguns b/c "handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." They said government could not ban handguns, but it can ban other weapons...

        But go back before Scalia and before the NRA started their lobbying (1970's) – the Supreme Court, and lower courts also, said the 2nd amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms – but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon. Chief Justice Warren Burger mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as "a fraud."

        The more you know....

        December 19, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
      • Daniel

        I agree, if little boys can't part with their guns then control the ammo.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
      • Will

        But Mike's comment raises some pertinent questions. What is a militia for? Is it necessary now that the USA has the most powerful army and weaponry in the world? Is it also necessary now that every state has its own National Guard? Does it make sense to have a citizen army made up of self-appointed soldiers who may or may not have a sound mind and who often buy into the NRA's delusional anti-government rhetoric that is so reminiscent of Timothy McVeigh's lunacy?

        December 19, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
      • JW

        Dude: Go back to muzzle loading. Sorry but ammo isn't protected by the 2nd Amendment. Doesn't matter how you try to spin it, it just isn't protected. You are more than welcome to go back to packing...

        December 19, 2012 at 12:38 pm |
      • Daniel

        "Well regulated" means a governmental department that oversees and regulates the formation of militias.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
      • Carl

        It also says the right shall not be "infringed", which is much broader than only saying that pistol frames can't be banned directly.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm |
      • Al

        First off, what part of "....shall not be infringed" are the opponents of guns not getting?? These last five words are the biggest point of argument for gun advocates. Actually, I'm a gun owner AND I'm all for control, but tearing the guns out of American hands isn't the answer. All of us could write doctorate-level dissertations on mental illness, screening processes, what to do about already-owned guns. The answer is this.....nothing will happen. The politicians will talk up a storm about it, the news agencies will report it, the people will exchange ideologies about it and in the end, it will fade away as it always does. This is not the first time this argument has come up and it won't be the last.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
      • Dude

        Daniel: The historical context is different than what you would mean if you said the phrase currently. Law ALWAYS looks at the precedent. The precedent is READINESS to use the arms. It does not mean interference.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
      • jonathan

        As authenticated by Thomas Jefferson "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."

        I pray for the day that the Supreme Court overturns its decision.

        The second amendment was written over 200 years ago with the purpose of defending our freedom. If our founding fathers thought that everyone should have right to bear arms they would have simply written "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and leave it at that. but they didn't, they purposely including the first part, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

        One day.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:56 pm |
      • Mike

        Yeah you guys are all right, geez i am stupid.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
      • yup

        ok ban guns but what about the mental illness that cause him to do this, i guess we need to lock them all up to. i guess that will go for the depressed as well. Do not for get all the stabbings we have in this country. i guess everyone will get sporks when they eat out..just in case. Oh yeah mexico has a zero gun tolerance. How did that work for them?

        December 19, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
      • Johnny


        They said that about healthcare reform too, that it would never happen. But it did. This argument may have been brought up in the past and fizzled out, and it may do so again, but it's one step closer.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
      • was blind, but now I see

        That's ok, Mike. You'll grow out of it.

        "If you're 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart.
        If you're 40 and not a conservative, you have no brain."
        -W. Churchill

        December 19, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
      • John

        So what if the 2nd amendment says something... it was written by men. Men could also write something different NOW and regulate the use of guns more effectively. Stop talking about these amendments as of they had been brought from space or sent by gods or something..

        December 19, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
      • Steve

        In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government

        Get the facts straight!

        December 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm |
      • Steve

        Jweeder123 what ever your name better read the 2nd amendment as the following appears "shall not be infringed". You people are a trip. Get the fact before you speak or just keep quite.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
      • kinggargantuan

        all of you should take a closer look at the Bill of Rights.

        Even WITHOUT the Second Amendment, the rights of gun owners are protected by the Fourth and Ninth Amendments.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
      • Jiji

        Sorry to disappoint you weapon savvys, but the minutemen are the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. Do you have what it takes to be a minuteman?

        December 19, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
      • keith

        lol @ Mike. He was so sure too. Too funny.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
      • The New Mike

        Just so the gun nuts know... no matter what, you will have restrictions put on the guns that are available today. I own several firearms. So don't call me a liberal leftist though I am far from the right. The types of "modern sporting rifles" that are avaialble today are sickening. If you can't see that then there is something wrong with you. High capacity clips, tactical foregrips, etc etc... gone... good. you want to shoot an AR? Do your country a favor, join the army, the national gaurd whatever. Do the country some good. If you need to protect your home with something more than a shotgun then you're either a drug dealer or paranoid. Either way you should not own any weapon.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
      • Dude

        Jiji: Thanks for the backup. Minutemen were supposed to be "ready on a minute's notice." No need to run down to the guberment controlled ammo depot to get your bullets – just get your gun and be ready to fight!

        December 19, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
      • John

        Mike, if you want to insult people and their intelligence it's best to know what you're talking about. If you don't, and insist on demonstrating your ignorance anyway, it tends to make you appear to be very foolish.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
      • Dude

        lol @ "New Mike"

        Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
      • The New Mike

        @ DUDE, one of my favorite quotes. Fox Mulder I believe.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:10 pm |
      • Schaweet

        For all the people referencing DC vs Heller, you need to read the post by JW. He/She is exactly right. Scalia said specifically Handguns. Maybe you all should actually read the opinions of the court for the cases your reference. JW is also spot on on the pre Reagan era rullings of the court. That said, there is information to suggest the founding fathers meant militia to mean all people. The Senate however removed language that made that clear and instead made it fairly ambiguous.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
      • Barney

        For Mike and his "gun nut" comment. you need to read ~explisive~ because it does give the right for citizens to bear arms without being part of any military organization. Supreme Court case Columbia vs. Heller 554 US 570 ( 2008). Look it up and quit spewing garbage....

        December 19, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
      • sxwalsh55

        Actually, Mike does have a point. “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.” For a long time the supreme court agreed with Mike, but that interpretation has changed over the years, in large part due to special interests and lobbies. And even that didn't happen until the 80's. This out of control gun culture is actually a new thing, and it's starting to look more and more like the experiment has failed.

        Read more:

        December 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
      • Stevelb1

        The problem is, the SCOTUS has had activist right wing majority for a long time. Anyone with any common sense would realize they were talking about guns as part of state militias as that's how the US military used to work back then. It was always a conglomeration of State Militias. That's how we fought the British in the Revolutionary war. They were the defacto military of the time instead of a full time Federal army. Also, the founding fathers could NEVER have envisioned the advances in firearm technology to come less than 100 year of creating the 2nd amendments. Considering the single shot muzzle loaded gun was the standard for over 300 years prior. If you were good you could load 3 shots in a minute and maybe hit the broad side of a barn from 50 yards. The killing efficiency of the modern firearm could never have been a consideration.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:53 pm |
      • Mak

        I can’t believe lot of people in America still live in Dark-age . 2nd Amend was written over 100 years ago when there was no 911. And lets get beck to this story. Amanpour did not clarify that out of 11k people got killed by gun violence were school kids or Gang Bangers. She should make this clear 1st
        I think if you are living in populated city you do not need gun in USA and if you think you need one for safety then you are caverd.

        December 21, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
    • Guillermo

      [vimeo 37791403 w=500 h=281]

      December 19, 2012 at 9:18 am | Reply
      • WIthoutQuestion

        I have a question for those opposed to any additional legislation that might restrict access to specific gun types. If we agree that the supreme court's ruling in 2010 re-enforced the idea that individuals should have the right to 'bear arms' but in the same ruling allowed for regulation of the sale of arms to the public, what type of 'arms' do you believe the public should have access to? Should this access be totally unrestricted or should there be a limit on what type of arms anyone from the general population should be able to attain. Not many would propose that anyone should be able to purchase a bazooka or surface to air missile, but these are arms that can be wielded by an individual. I know this seems like a sarcastic comment, but the point is that once we agree that some type of regulation on the sale of weaponry to the public is not only in accordance with the latest ruling by the supreme court on the second amendment, but a real discussion as to what type of laws and regulation may be needed to protect the general public from members of its own population can begin in earnest.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
      • Greg

        You ask a good question. I see too many people make emotional comments when it comes to guns. I personally, do not want the local police department to have a stronger fire power then the general population they have been hired or elected to protect. That being said, if the Assualt rifles come out of the public hands they need to come out of the police hands. People sometimes rationalize that normal citizens don't need that type of power. so if the people no longer have it, why should the police force need it?

        Also, so much of the debate comes from the type of weapons used and it becomes difficult to define the difference between a .22 rifle that can hold a hgh capacity magazine versus a much more powerful rifle that hold a high capacity magazine. Banning both is what the government would say needs to happen but they are not the same type of tool.

        So then the ballasitcs test comes to be. Any rifle round can be lethal. But some guns are used for hunting and some for target practice, yet the power of each bullet can be different. So how do you restrict one caliber over another.

        Sadly i still feel that our problemm lies in the pyche of man and not the tool in their hand. Stricter gun laws would not have changed this recent tragedy. Both the school shooting and the mall shooting occurred from mentally derranged individuals who acquired their guns illegally. If the school shooter was the son of a law enforcement official he would have still killed that parent in their sleep and used their "Service Weapon". Restricted guns, not the answer...I just wish those children could come back.

        December 19, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
      • Non "Gun Nut" defensive firearm owning citizen

        To Greg, Why would you not want law enforcement to have stronger firepower then the average citizen or criminal? Assuming that the firearms most criminals possess were stolen from citizens that had legally purchased them. How are they supposed to protect you if they are outgunned?

        December 19, 2012 at 11:33 pm |
      • Scubus

        Non "Gun Nut" defensive firearm owning citizen, I thought disarming law abiding citizens was going to solve all that? You mean criminals will still have guns?

        I am not interested in having a police force that is armed far beyond the citizens. The police are the good guys by and large but there are some bad apples, and more importantly, there is no guarantee they will always be the good guys.

        December 20, 2012 at 12:58 pm |
    • south border

      How they are educated and what they think es another story, they do not have a fire guns history but it does have history for another type of weapons and different behavior. In other Countries they have very tough laws and the number of victims is very very high. Education and peace behavior would make a difference, as long USA is getting in war after war many without any proper reason the people will believe that the way to express themselves is with guns. You prohibited gun sales then the people will buy anyway, and if you think the punishment for people who buy anyway, then better start building hundreds of new prisons, and still not space will be available

      December 19, 2012 at 9:24 am | Reply
      • me

        is this argument based on a speculation or a fact????
        – other countries have tough laws but the number of victim is high because they use other means for hurting people????
        – the us goes to war after war without proper reasons?????
        – and the consequence of the former proposition is: people express themselves with guns????
        show me the monkey!

        December 19, 2012 at 11:05 am |
      • WDS

        Actually, in other countries with tough gun laws the numbers of victims are LOW compared to the US. Look it up.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:36 am |
      • StriderV

        Actually check Switzerland. It has the 4th highest gun ownership rate (US is #1), and it has one of the lowest intentional homicide rates (0.7 per 100,000) . Gun ownership is only marginally connected to homicide rates, at best.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
      • Kyle K

        Trying to compare Swizerland to the US is apples an oranges. You have to keep in mind that all males in Swizerland is either active military or reserve, and they are issued guns by the government. Have all the citizens in the United States been trained to the level of the military and examed to the level of enlisted soldiers? Not by a long shot.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
      • okkebas

        @strider V, actually homicide rates in Switserland are much higher than in other european countries. Which is weird since Switserland is not as densely populated as most other countries and has a relative high economi standing. Besides, gun control laws In Switserland are much tougher than in the USA. Yes, it's allowed to buy guns, however, it's very difficult to get a permit to carry a gun (once you get it it's only valid for 5 years and only for the gun you applied it for). Even transporting guns has strict rules, e.g. only direct transport from home to shooting range. Gun cannot be loaded, etc. I think using Switserland is a case against gun control is not the smartest thing to do.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:34 pm |
      • aceryder

        Okkebas what do you think he transportation laws for firearms in this country are?

        December 19, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
      • Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

        @ WDS
        GUN violence is down, but violence is not. Blunt force and bladed attacks skyrocket. Do a little better search next time.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
    • massis

      You CANNOT argue with the numbers!

      December 19, 2012 at 10:44 am | Reply
      • Mohsen

        Yes, of course you can argue with numbers, culture, economics and all kind of other stuff are involved in any meaningful interpretation of statistics. In Sweden and Switzerland you can own a gun or even in Israel, how many get killed there?
        All being said I believe that in an advanced civil society you should not need gun for your protection, or the society you are living in is not really civilized.

        December 19, 2012 at 10:58 am |
      • chris

        You can own an automatic weapon?

        December 19, 2012 at 12:13 pm |
      • Kyle K

        Just stop ignorantly throwing up countires whose entire entire eligible male population are reservists or active military with military training and government weapons.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
      • kohl

        their societies are much different. they are civilized, polite, and respectful of one another. go to east l.a., brooklyn, etc. nothing but a bunch of animals. they'd take advantage in 2 seconds and are why we cant have nice things

        December 19, 2012 at 1:31 pm |
      • John

        So Kyle, are you in favor of mandatory military service for all Americans? I certainly am! It seems that perhaps that is the solution to our problem.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
      • Seansa

        OK. Let's use Jamaica as the only example of gun control then. They have extremely restrictive firearms laws, yet they typically have the highest murder rate in the world. Can't argue with numbers!!

        In Jamaica, civilians are not allowed to possess automatic firearms32

        In 2005, Jamaica had 1,674 murders for a murder rate of 58 per 100,000 people.[4] That year, Jamaica had the highest murder rate in the world.[2

        December 19, 2012 at 2:49 pm |
      • Non "Gun Nut" defensive firearm owning citizen

        To kohl, I never realized, Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, Dom DeLuise, Tony Danza, Neil Diamond & Richard Dryefuss, to name a few animals. Just to name a few decent people from Brooklyn. To answer your next question, no I am not from either LA or Brooklyn. Am just a person that does not like such generalizing derogatory statements. There are good people from everywhere, making such generalized statements is next to racism.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:46 pm |
      • John

        Well these numbers are quite deceptive, they only account for gun violence. What about knives? The hate and social ills are still there, it is just they don't have a gun, so they use a knife. Personally, it is clear that banning guns only made violent crimes take another face. But how do you easily stop a man with a violent knife? A gun.

        December 24, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • DC


      December 19, 2012 at 10:56 am | Reply
    • David

      At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers.

      December 19, 2012 at 10:59 am | Reply
      • Stu

        Eight sounds better than 26

        December 19, 2012 at 11:07 am |
      • David

        8 better than 26? How illogical.

        I could say the same thing. 22 is better than 44 isn't it. Look up the Bath House school massacre. No guns and 3 bombs, including a 4th on himself.

        So is it logical for me to say, it's better 22 kids got riddled with bullets than 44 getting blown to bits?

        I don't agree with that mentality.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:13 am |
      • Ricky Bobby

        If only the teachers had been armed with kitchen knives. Shake and bake!

        December 19, 2012 at 11:15 am |
      • anon

        Stu: NOT if one of your children were among the eight. Then it wouldn't matter if it were 8, or 800.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:19 am |
      • TC

        And no child died. What does that tell you?

        December 19, 2012 at 11:35 am |
      • iWillNotLose

        well, idk about you but 8 does sound better than 26 to me too. yes, 26 sounds better than 44.

        but 11 sounds WAY better than 12,000.

        i'd rather deal with a knife wielding nut than a gun wielding nut anyday.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
      • TELL

        What was supposed to be another day of learning at an elementary school in central China instead turned to one of terror, as a man slashed 22 children and one adult with a knife.
        The injuries were gruesome, and reportedly include cut-off fingers and ears, but this story had a different outcome from the massacre 8,000 miles away in Newtown, Conn. Everyone survived.

        I don't know where you got that 8 children were killed. That is not accurate

        December 19, 2012 at 12:35 pm |
      • okkebas

        I don't really understand your argument. Are you saying it's a good thing crazy people have easy access to guns otherwise they will use bombs? Nobody is denying that people can also be killed without guns, it just makes it much easier with a gun. How many attacks did you see using knives in the US lately? Bombs are only used by terrorists (so far), not by crazy people who want to commit suicide and take as many people as possible with them (and get a lot of media attention at the same time). Every way to limit the possibility to kill other people is a win-win situation

        December 19, 2012 at 12:46 pm |
      • okkebas

        so you need a story from 2001 ( 11 and a half years ago) to show that massacres using knives also happen?
        I'm sure it would be much easier to find massacres using guns in the US just the last year.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:53 pm |
      • robert

        for gods sake, why do you Americans even bother debating this, nothing will ever change. This is just another fad for you. Just because in 1772 when America was at war defending them selves everywhere it went does not mean its relevant now, its not like you hang people anymore, have slaves or drive carriages to work. Its called "to EVOLVE' unfortunately none of you can. I hope you all blow yourselves up.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
      • Shockwave

        David: Are you seriously saying that 8 or 26 doesn't matter? What the hell...YES OF COURSE IT MATTERS! With that logic who cares if it's 3 or 3,000,000. Let's just give everyone including the children miniguns and rocket launchers, because apparently it doesn't matter to some if it's just a small group or two entire classrooms worth of children. Don't even try and use that "Well what if it's your kid" tactic on me, how STUPID. One family in the massacre lost one child while the sister of that child survived. How about you go up to that family and tell them that it doesn't matter that they only lost one child because the second wouldn't of mattered either! HOW DUMB can you be? Don't even answer that, don't even speak, you and your ilk are what is wrong with the world today. What a dumb warped sense of reality. Please exchange every "dumb" to a proper profanity, because dumb doesn't even begin to describe you. I literally felt brain cells die when I read that idiotic comment of yours, you should be in jail!

        December 19, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
    • jtb

      Your right to possess a weapon has severely interfered with these children's right to life, liberty and their pursuit of happiness...

      December 19, 2012 at 11:19 am | Reply
      • Mecha

        Tell that to the people in the Clackamas mall shooting that were not SHOT because someone else exercising his 2nd Amendment right stopped the shooter. Thanks to Nick Meli, many people in Oregon will get to celebrate Christmas with their families.. CNN won't report that because it goes against their liberal agenda.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:45 am |
      • Scott

        Since when did liberals start caring about a child's "right to life"? You murder millions of children in the name of convenience.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:56 am |
      • Keiljt01

        With over 300 million guns in America, this pshyco could have gotten his hands on a gun on any street corner he wanted. People sell guns illegally on craigslist.... I mean, they are everywhere. Banning guns will not prevent mass killings. The government would literally have to round up every gun, which would be impossible since over 50% are unregistered. Plus we all know how that turned out for Australia, crime there has sky rocketed since they banned guns.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:14 pm |
      • gb

        Crime has "skyrocketed" in Australia? No, it has not. For a detailed analysis of these kinds of claims about Australia, see the fact-check site Snopes:
        The bottom line: In the long term, since we banned automatic weapons in 1996 and melted them down, gun-related crimes are down.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:36 pm |
      • Soup23

        Mecha, explain how a security guard (Nick Meli) saved the day by pointing his handgun but not firing? "He told The Oregonian early Monday outside his two-story home in Clackamas that he trained his weapon on Roberts.
        But he said he didn’t shoot."
        As for CCN and their liberal biases, what other MAJOR news outlet has reported this? ABC? NBC? FOX? The only articles I could find were for local Oregon news and wiki! It's not reported because he didn't do anything.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
      • BigD

        Now you Lefturds care about kids. Aren't you about aborting them?

        December 19, 2012 at 2:11 pm |
      • Dear All

        Please list the number of mothers and babies you have saved and taken into your home because the mother didn't want to keep the child. Also, please list the number of children you have adopted and taken into your home because their parents abondoned them while high on drugs. Otherwise, drop you rhetoric. We're talking about kids lives put at risk by weapons that are unecessarily in the hands of people that don't need them.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
      • okkebas

        @Mecha, kind of a stretch. So the crazed gunman who is shooting wildly sees a guy (CCW holder) with a gun pointing at him so he got scared to get shot, just to retreat and kill himself? Sounds pretty weird right?

        The CCW holder was there but not able to stop anything. Actually he made the right decision by not shooting and running the risk of hurting/killing an innocent bystander.

        FYI, you forgot to mention the crazed gunman was wearing a bullet proof vest making it a lot more difficult to stop him. The reason not more people were injured was that his gun was not working properly.

        December 19, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
    • YesItIs

      Agreed. It is simple.

      December 19, 2012 at 11:20 am | Reply
    • Mike

      Just so all the gun nuts understand... the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals the right to bear arms unless they are part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. The gun nuts ignore that part of the 2nd Amendment.

      December 19, 2012 at 11:25 am | Reply
      • Also Mike

        That would make the 2nd admendment the ONLY admendment that does not apply to individuals and only applies to a group which makes it unlikely that it was not intended to apply to individuals. Also the Supreme Court must be full of "Gun Nuts" because they ruled it does apply to individuals so I guess you fall into the category of people that are demonstratebly WRONG.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:47 am |
      • kacey

        You are an idiot who obviously does not know how to read.
        1) The 2a does not say we must belong to a militia.
        George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
        2) The supreme court has already ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:59 am |
      • wouldbekane

        Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia vs. Heller that "well-regulated" means to be "trained" rather than part of some government recognized militia. Before saying we "gun nuts" ignore the wording, perhaps you should read the interpretations of the amendment... we have, and need to maintain, the right to arm ourselves.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
      • Thomas

        Actually, in 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms, reinforcing their decision from 2008. I'm not a gun nut, but I can actually read and comprehend what is written. It did not say there could be no limits on gun ownership, but that States and the Federal government could not outright ban individual ownership of guns. Nor did it say that individuals must belong to a militia.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:02 pm |
      • Judge D

        As originally passed by the Congress: 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.
        As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: 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.

        That is not how it is written right now.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
      • Keiljt01

        I interpret the second amendment to mean that we the people have a right to bear arms to protect us from government persecution. Likewise, if the government gets big fancy guns... should we not also have the ability to purchase big fancy guns to protect ourselves?

        In addition to banning guns it looks like we should also ban cars and trucks. Has nobody noticed that between 30,000 and 50,000 people die yearly in America due to car wrecks? It is insane.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
      • coolhead

        kacey, that Washington quote is bogus. You should check your sources. Unfortunately a lot of gun advocates put out misquotes to try and win their argument. If you want to debate a point please use truths.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
      • NB

        Dear Mike, why do you keep repeating the same nonsense? I suggest you read the Supreme Court decisions in DC v Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010).

        December 19, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
      • BigD


        December 19, 2012 at 2:12 pm |
    • TonyZ

      So, we are now going to compare an ISLAND with a country that has 1) One of the highest immigration rates in the world, 2) One fo the highest ILELGAL immigration rates in the world, 3) Has a very violence prone country (Mexico) to the South, 4) Has streets overrun with gangs and criminals from multiple ethnic backgrounds in the world.

      What a stupid comparison. If you really want to learn then compare to Colombia which as one of the most restrictive gun laws inSouth America. Yet, there were 12,539 firearm related homicides in Colombia in 2010. Why? Because only criminals own guns in Colombia. It is utterly idiotic to remove guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens. The case in CT was an exception and not the rules. Hundreds of lives are saved evry day when law-abiding citizens use guns to protect themselves and their loved-ones and friends. We need to concentrate on the mental-health aspects of the CT shooter and why his mother was stupid enough to train him in guns and give him access to guns when she knew he was a social socio-path and had other mental heatlh related issues.

      December 19, 2012 at 11:35 am | Reply
      • TC

        So, your argument is that Americans are inherently gun crazy, and unable to think logically, while folks in other nations have no such trouble? Doesn't say much for us, does it?

        December 19, 2012 at 11:38 am |
      • Sam

        The guns in Columbia, Mexico, the Middle East and Africa all come from America!!! Not only is America allowing it's own civilians to be killed it is contributing to instability all over the world providing drug cartels, mafias, gangs, militias & corrupt governments with firearms. There is a sign on the border of Mexico facing the USA that says 'NO MORE WEAPONS'.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:52 am |
      • Lea T

        The mass murders in this country were not committed by immigrants (legal or illegal), or by gang members. Most, including the last horrific one were committed by educated white males using legally bought weapons. So how does your argument make sense?

        "Hundreds of lives are saved evry day when law-abiding citizens use guns to protect themselves and their loved-ones and friends." is that an opinion? Where is your proof of that statement?

        December 19, 2012 at 11:53 am |
      • Shane


        "The guns in Columbia, Mexico, the Middle East and Africa all come from America!!!" This statement is laughable because the the Middle East and Africa definitely don't get their guns from us. Where did you come up with this? Please cite where you got that bogus information.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:09 pm |
      • Mecha

        you are wrong. hundreds of lives are not saved in the US everyday. the US Census Bureau states that last year alone there were over 1,000,000 instances where a gun was used in self-defense across the country. And over 400,000 people who used the gun believed that the gun saved their lives.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
      • Steven

        December 19, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
      • The Mayor of Medinah

        Lea.... the shooter in the mall stole the gun from someone who purchased it legally. Adam stole the gun from his mother and then shot her with it. The Psychopath in Arizona who shot Gabby Gilford's did purchase the gun but Arizona does not have any gun laws only age restrictions. The Columbine shooter forcibly stole the weapons from one of their grandfathers. So there is nothing legal or lawful about any of this, and for Arizona and the other states that have extremely lax gun laws they need to get with a program that protects it citizens from the mentally ill and still takes care of law abiding mentally sane citizens.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:08 pm |
      • alma

        OK TonyZ..... lets see.... The mother is mentally healthy. She buys the guns…. If there were restrictions because mentally ill, where would the government see that on the mother? Even with those restrictions, the mother bought the weapons not the son. Now, if that was a handgun that helps you protect yourself, maybe the death toll would had been lesser, however, would we be okay with 10 instead of 26? Of course not.
        My opinion is that rifles with that capacity shouldn’t be on the streets period. And schools need to have better security. I have seen in other states and countries where you can not enter the school. There is a security guard at the entrance, and a metal detector so they can get the place more secured. Would that take the problem away, probably not, but it would be not as bad as it is right now.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:11 pm |
      • alma

        Mecha. self defense you mean, Tryvon and Zimmerman case? Tryvon felt stalked, and defended himself, with bare hands, but Z had a gun, and defeded himself from Trayvons defense..... exactly! it doesnt make sense. We have those cases every single day, when you feel in danger because someone looked at you, if i had a gun, i would have used it a thousand times because feeling insecured. Again, IT IS OUT OF CONTROL!!! someone needs to do something to keep it under control.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:19 pm |

        and because of everything you said is the reason why GUN LAWS need to be looked at.. who can get it.. why should you have it... which ones can be given... guns should be given to people that are fully trainied and qualified, not everyone that meets the minimun requierment.. I'm sure must people agree on that, I don't get why everyone gets all bent out of shape when they talk about a reform

        December 19, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
      • Big Al

        Yup, gotta protect me 'gainst them niggras and messicuns.

        December 20, 2012 at 8:35 pm |
    • Steven

      Wholeheartedly agree

      December 19, 2012 at 11:35 am | Reply
    • Failwhale

      @Mike you obviously can't read or understand either. Educate yourself before you go off spewing your hate about "gun nuts".

      In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

      December 19, 2012 at 11:43 am | Reply
      • Big Al

        And they were wrong. That decision went against many decades of precedent and introduced a new reading of the amendment unsupported by any previous high court decision. One among a number of cases (Citizens United being another) where a majority of the current Supreme Court saw fit to follow an extremist ideology rather than the law and previous precedent.

        December 20, 2012 at 8:38 pm |
    • cineski

      Mike: You, me, every able bodied citizen of the US of A is considered the militia to provide safety to those who need it. So in essence, every able bodied person in this country should be proficient with guns and own them. Of course the liberal marxist communists of this country have done everything in their power to paint guns as bad over the past several decades. How? You get rid of gun safety for children in schools. You plaster the media with bad things about guns. You make guns appear uncool (see Eric Holder's comments in 1995). You create gun free zones. All of these actions from the anti-gunners, time and time again, have harmed law abiding citizens and have made it appear guns are the problems. Well, it BECOMES a problem at that point because you create a country that is armed but disarmed. You allow criminals (who don't abide by laws) easy access to doing harm because you DISALLOW law abiding citizens the means to actually protect themselves. However, all this can be undone: You allow a gun owning public to actually carry them where they need (states with lax gun laws have lower gun crime rates than states that don't allow in point Chicago). You make gun safety a mandatory class in our schools just like drivers ed. You stop the social engineering war on guns and start a war to teach children responsibility. Basically, you do everything opposite of what our government has done over the last 40 years and things would be much better off in our country.

      December 19, 2012 at 11:45 am | Reply
      • DANNA

        Your point of view is obsolete your out to lunch about 100 years!

        December 19, 2012 at 12:08 pm |
    • Todd

      Sounds good, but what about murder rate in relation to % of population. Again guns are only a means to kill, is it about lowering murder rates or getting rid of guns? A lot of ways to kill, guns are a tool and many tools exist. Will just eliminating the use of one tool just increase the use of another?

      December 19, 2012 at 12:06 pm | Reply
      • Keiljt01

        It sure will! What about that guy in China who just killed 22 school kids last week with standard knife. We better ban kitchen knives too. Just to be safe. And rocks... people used to kill people with those too.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:23 pm |
      • Alesha456

        Read the story about those 22 kids again. NONE of them were killed, just injured. Guns are a lot more powerful than a knife.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
    • Jewelsy

      I do not agree. This statement seems to be written so as to be taken out of context. What are the stats for all violent crimes compared to the US? Violent acts happen regardless of having access to guns or not.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Reply
    • niv

      Good info but, How can you teach an American this?

      December 19, 2012 at 12:19 pm | Reply
    • evan

      so youre saying its better to get killed with a knife then a gun?

      December 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Reply
    • Dude

      This story is so increadibly lopsided.

      Here's what happened in England when they banned all guns, and then only criminals had them:

      December 19, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Reply
    • Jeremy

      Here we go again. Some will chime in with "then only the criminals will have guns" other with "2nd amendment" then some are "get rid of all"...The CT shootings were very bad. His mother should have had the guns stored in a more secure fashion. If I run over twenty people with my big honking pickup...should pickups be banned? Or what about fire? Lets ban kills women and children too...

      December 19, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Reply
    • 2little2late

      The liberals in this country will never allow gun control to happen. It takes away peoples "rights"

      December 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Reply
      • Nuggs

        I thought the liberals were for gun control, not against it. It 's funny how "liberal" is used as a term for a group of people you may not agree with. When in fact, they are calling you the exact same thing for disagreeing with them.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
    • Dbo

      These facts have led many people to conclude that America's high rate of gun ownership must be at least partially responsible for the nation's high rates of violence, or at least its high homicide rate, says Kleck, adding that this belief in a causal effect of gun levels on violent crime rates has, in turn, led many to conclude that limiting the availability of guns would substantially reduce violent crime, especially the murder rate.
      "What's not so widely known, though, is that large numbers of crime victims in America also use guns in the course of crimes (but) in self-defense," says Kleck.
      Based on 16 national surveys of samples of the U.S. population, he continues, the evidence indicates that guns are used by victims in self-protection more often than crimes are committed by offenders using guns. Victims used guns defensively two to two-and-a-half million times in 1993, for example, compared to about 850,000 crimes in which offenders possessed guns.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Reply
    • JonfromLI

      That may be the case, but they don't play violent video games......scratch that.
      They don't watch violent movies......wrong
      They don't listen to hard rock music........not that either
      Well it's obvious that throughout their history they've had a peaceful, civilized culture.....yeah right.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Reply
    • mike jones

      Um, how many died by samurai sword? People kill not guns, if no guns are available, the will use knives, rocks, swords, sticks and even poison!!

      December 19, 2012 at 12:57 pm | Reply
      • pbernasc

        oh so .. yo want them to have guns to make it easier for them to kill that's thoughtful thinking

        December 19, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Johnny

      Banning bullets will just lead to black market for bullets. Also bullets can be made yourself, my cousin makes all his own bullets at home

      December 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Reply
    • reaperfearer

      Time to amend the amendment. It's that simple. Get ready for regulation. Whether you are for or against it, we have to at least try it and see if it works.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:02 pm | Reply
      • Dude

        reaperfearer said "Time to amend the amendment. It's that simple. Get ready for regulation. Whether you are for or against it, we have to at least try it and see if it works."

        It HAS been tried. England banned guns, and their gun crime rate sky rocketed. The only ones with guns were the criminals!

        WE should NOT try the same thing here!

        December 19, 2012 at 9:29 pm |
    • What

      Similarly tough gun laws also looked simple to Mexico. Have they succeeded? Gun homcides in Mexico 2011: 11,309

      December 19, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Reply
    • Sean

      The problem is we have way too many rights in this country and people are not willing to give up these rights.
      I'd rather give up some of these rights for the safety of everyone.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Reply
      • BigD

        You are truly Lefturded

        December 19, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
      • Seansa

        Please stop using my name. You make the rest of us Seans look bad. Seriously..are you this st0opid?

        December 19, 2012 at 3:01 pm |
      • Just A Dude

        This is very disturbing.

        Maybe we should change the first amendment so you have freedom of speech, but no more than 10 words at a time.

        December 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
    • skp

      Lets not forget that when the 2nd amendment was written there were no firearms that had anywhere near the capacity of today's weapons. When things change the rules sometimes have to change to

      December 19, 2012 at 1:56 pm | Reply
    • Kevin

      I find it funny that people seem to forget that the Government CAN infringe upon your rights. If they can determine that your rights endanger someone else, then they can outlaw it.
      Freedom of Speech. You actually DO NOT have complete freedom of speech in this country. You can not go into a crowded place and yell "Fire".
      Free of Religion: You can't force people to drink the Koolaid...
      Freedom of Assembly: You can not assemble in just anywhere. Zoning Laws, Fire Codes, etc...

      So, it would not be hard for the government to come in and limit the type of Guns that are legal under the definition of "Arms" in the BoR based on public safety. They would have a long list of recent shootings to back up their position on this arguement...

      December 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Reply
    • guesswhat

      Since when a piece of paper (2nd amendment) has become more imortant than lives of little children or anybody for that matter. It was written bloody 200 years ago. Its time to AMEND the second amendment. Enough of these gun loving fools hiding behind the second amendment. And why in the world would somebody need an assault rifles to protect yourself or your family. And all those morons who are comparing cars deaths to guns, cars is to drive and accident happens. Nobody goes out thinking 'oh I m gonna kill 10 people with my car today'.Guns are to kill people, plane and simple.Nobody accidently kills 4-5-10-20 people with a gun.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Reply
      • your father

        you sir are stupid. many would say a gun is a tool and the person holding it determines what the tool is for.

        December 19, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
    • Marty P

      No debate at all, but a choice..Be ruled by fear and own a gun. Be ruled by Love and you have true human evolution... Guns are fear based while Love is protection...

      December 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Reply
    • lee

      Politicians prefer unarmed peasants

      December 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Reply
    • pyrboy

      Get your head out of the sand, many countries have tough gun laws and the perps use poison, bombs, knives. Read worldwide mass murders not all with guns. Enough laws, treat the sick, and parents should parent

      December 19, 2012 at 2:31 pm | Reply
    • RMK_18

      How come no one compares the US gun laws with the very strict gun laws of Mexico? I'm sure the Mexican gun violence rate is also very low compared to the US, right?

      December 19, 2012 at 2:46 pm | Reply
    • Jeff

      Agree 100%

      December 19, 2012 at 3:02 pm | Reply
    • Seansa

      Simple as in disingenuous and misleading by cherry picking data? Yep..simple.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Reply
    • Deep Thought

      Simple... except you forget the larger difference. Respect.

      It's also what keeps their crime rate leagues below the USA's.

      If there was a smidgeon of respect, temperance, and productive driving goal within the States, gun policies wouldn't be an issue. After all, it is not the means that is the issue, but the motive. After all, explosives, poison, vehicular slaughter... these are the next steps, and do you REALLY wish to see that?

      December 19, 2012 at 6:21 pm | Reply
    • Kirk Turner

      Yes, on the surface it looks that simple, but it isn't. After their Tsunami how much looting did they have? How much looting was there in New Orleans after hurricaine Katrina? It's a cultural difference. Our societies are very different; it is unfair to make the comparision. Fix our societal issues and you will fix the killing problem.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:49 am | Reply
    • Julie

      Reading all these replies, posts, comments, attacks on each other, I gather just one point: not being a citizen of the US, it does not really matter to me, one way or the other. What I mean, whether I would be able to buy a gun or not.
      The problem in the US is that you now live in the 21st century and not in the "wild west days" of yore, where I understand defending yourself was necessary, as there were wild "indians" running around with spears. Now you live in a civilized society (....not...) where that should not be necessary, looking at the gun death in your country? The number of innocent children killed, by chance, accident or purpose should be unacceptable to anyone, even the NRA.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:54 am | Reply
    • Jazzforever

      I wonder how many baseball bat killings they have every year?

      December 20, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Reply
    • Mak

      I can’t believe lot of people in America still live in Dark-age . 2nd Amend was written over 100 years ago when there was no 911. And lets get beck to this story. Amanpour did not clarify that out of 11k people got killed by gun violence were school kids or Gang Bangers. She should make this clear 1st
      I think if you are living in populated city you do not need gun in USA and if you think you need one for safety then you are caverd.

      December 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm | Reply
  2. ForFreedomOfChoice

    Completely different places and cultures, what works in one place might not work in another. People in America choose have the ability to choose if a weapon works for them or not, government cannot be trusted enough to make these sort of decisions.

    December 18, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Reply
    • keurig

      Yes, In the United States we have the choice to purchase guns and by making that choice we accept the cost of 12,000 gun related deaths per year. From my point of view that cost is too high. You say the "government cannot be trusted enough to make these sort of decisions." I say individuals cannot be trusted to make sound decisions regarding gun use.

      December 18, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Reply
      • Russ

        Then we need to deal with the people.....

        December 18, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
      • susubesarbundar

        very well said, best comment in 1 month i read.....

        December 19, 2012 at 12:04 am |
      • VJ

        And Who should deal with those People? is it the gov that cant be trusted

        December 19, 2012 at 1:46 am |
      • Marry

        Very well said! Very well...

        December 19, 2012 at 6:58 am |
      • mart

        sounds like Americans cant be trusted to vote because you keep electing untrustworthy border line dictators and tyrannts into government positions.

        December 19, 2012 at 8:13 am |
      • NJ

        FINALLY...someone with the balls to tell it like it is. Yes, Americans want their guns. The effect of this? Thousands of people being murdered every year. Firearm enthusiasts refuse to accept this as fact. They say "guns don't kill people, people kill people". That's true but own up to the fact that guns make it a lot easier to do instead of crying "2nd Amendment" every time someone provides a valid, FACTUAL argument. Seriously!!

        December 19, 2012 at 10:29 am |
      • Edward

        30,000-40,000 vehicle related deaths every year... something seriously needs to be done about this! Maybe replace the freeways and interstates with a government run rail system? background check before you can get a driver's license? create a system where the vehicle won't start if there is a cell phone in the car?

        December 19, 2012 at 10:50 am |
      • Michael Hunt, Esq.

        Fortunately you alone do not get to make the choice for everyone else.

        December 19, 2012 at 10:51 am |
      • Chris

        So basically 12,000 is enough for you to remove the rights of everyone else in the country. Let me put this in perspective. I live in a small Texas town of about 20,000. I think that when you consider the size of the population and that it's not's not a big deal. That's right. I said it. 12,000 people dying each year from guns...IS NOT a big deal.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:02 am |
      • js

        32,310 people died in 2011 in automobile accidents. We should ban all automobiles.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:05 am |
      • Lavanhill

        I love how we use the numbers to justified our agenda the numbers said 12k death from guns in the USA and now everyone wants to take guns away, but if we look at other this that kill people in america in large numbers and no one is going after the companies that make them, this is from the CDC website: The unprecedented rise in overdose deaths in the US parallels a 300% increase since 1999 in the sale of these strong painkillers.4 These drugs were involved in 14,800 overdose deaths in 2008, more than cocaine and heroin combined.4 and the drug companies keep making the drugs no one is trying to ban the drugs.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:15 am |
      • B

        Were cars put here with the intention of murder? If someone is run over or hit by a car or drunk driver, it is classified as manslaughter, not murder or homicide. 32,000 accidents, versus 12,000 murders with weapons designed to kill will never be a fair comparison. How ignorant and foolish can you be. Your logic pretty much says we need to ban everything that causes death, which is not what anyone is saying. We're saying ban objects that are designed for death, there's a huge distinction and get that through your head. And someone with a kitchen knife? Fine, I sure as hell would prefer my odds in a fight against someone with a knife and myself being unarmed versus someone with a rifle or handgun or shotgun. At least you have a fighting chance in the situation to do something about it.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:21 am |
      • Michot

        Here's the problem with your 'logic'. 32,367 Automobile related deaths aren't homicides. Drug overdoses, cigarettes, alcohol are killing the users. Yes, there is second hand smoke, which has been addressed for years and there are alcohol related deaths that kill innocents in accidents. The issue is that with a gun, a person has the intent to kill other.

        Also, with most of the other comparisons, diesel fuel, fertilizer, box cutters, etc. there are positive uses for them. If we tried to spin what IS a weapon into what COULD BE a weapon, you could refer to any inanimate object. When they design guns, they design them to kill.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:33 am |
      • Mark

        It's 12,000 gun related murders. Gun related deaths are more like 31,000 annually when you factor in suicides, accidents etc. And by the way, guns are to cars as apples are to oranges. What a stupid, NRA brainwashed knee-jerk response that is. "they should outlaw cars!" Grow up.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:36 am |
      • Frank

        Ban guns? How about we ban murder; problem solved.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:42 am |
      • Keiljt01

        Keurig, if 12,000 deaths is too high. Then why are we not focusing on banning cars and trucks? Those claim between 30,000 and 50,000 US lives PER year. That number seems a lot worse to me. Especially considering if guns were gone, which they will never be considering there are more guns in the USA than there are people..... people would just use bow and arrows, rocks, knives, spear guns... or bombs like the Oklahoma city bomber who took claimed hundreds of casualties. Killing others is stupid, but when people have the will to do it, they do it by any means possible. Maybe we should implement extreme psychological testing of students as they grow through school to keep a sharp eye on certain individuals.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:27 pm |
      • The Mayor of Medinah

        Well lets call a spade a spade then if we are going to get serious about senseless killing
        In 2010, 211 children were killed in drunk driving crashes. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver.
        Adults drank too much and got behind the wheel about 112 million times in 2010 – that is almost 300,000 incidents of drinking and driving each day.
        Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes.
        Drunk driving costs the United States $132 billion a year.

        If all 17 million people who admitted to driving drunk in 2010 had their own state, it would be the fifth largest in the U.S.

        Car crashes are the leading cause of death for teens, and about one-third of those are alcohol related.

        Teen alcohol use kills about 6000 people each year, more than all illegal drugs combined.

        50 to 75 percent of convicted drunk drivers continue to drive on a suspended license.

        On average, one in three people will be involved in a drunk driving crash in their lifetime.

        In 2011, 9,878 people died in drunk driving crashes – one every 53 minutes

        Almost every 90 seconds, a person is injured in a drunk driving crash.

        An average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before first arrest.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm |
      • Biff

        You make it sound like it's 12000 innocent babies. Majority of these murders is criminals involved anyway.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:51 pm |
      • BigD

        Your response is exactly the difference between a Lefturd & a Conservative. Lefturds believe trust the Government. Conservatives believe in the people. That's why Lefturds are pathetic.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
    • Luke

      People should decide whether or not a lethal weapon "works" for them? What do you mean by "works" for them? I don't understand why anyone who's not in the military, police or those who need to hunt for food should have an assault rifle, let alone a gun of any kind. The statistics of gun-related deaths between 1st world countries with and without gun laws speak for themselves.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:53 am | Reply
      • Ed


        It is extremely difficult to buy an 'Assault Rifle'. That term is erroneously and negligently tossed around by the media. If we want to talk about 'Military Style semi-automatic rilfes' then we have a discussion but 'Assault Rifles' aren't part of the problem.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:24 pm |
      • BigD

        Typical Lefturded comment. Thanks for coming out

        December 19, 2012 at 2:24 pm |
    • pcfresh

      I am so tired of hearing these dumb arguments like "weapons don´t kill people, people kill people" or "only the bad guys will have weapons."
      Fact is only armed people kill people!
      It is one thing to go mad with a baseball bat , a complete different one to go mad with an AK47 !
      if every one is armed , you simply exponentially multiply the risk of creating more armed bad guys, it is just simple arithmetic!
      what´s next ? we should all be armed to defend ourselves against other people who might go crazy one day because they just lost their dog or had a bad grade at school?
      Are we so paranoid?
      Let´s arm all kids at school , all teachers so that they can defend themselves against each other! that sounds so logical to the gun lobby! and let´s enjoy the next headline Freshmen bob gets kicked out of school soccer team, shoots 20 teammates to then get shot by another pupil armed with an M16....what a world!

      December 19, 2012 at 4:26 am | Reply
      • Marry

        They talk now a lot about "mental health"…. The motivations many people have to own guns are already prove that they have severe personality, character, and mental problems just listening to their arguments...

        December 19, 2012 at 7:06 am |
      • BB

        Except that, in China, madmen have managed to kill in large numbers with things as primitive as knives, cleavers, and boxcutters. 21 KILLED in 2010-11 alone (90 injured), Google "School attacks in China (2010–2012)" in wiki pedia. Evil intent is not constrained by the tool.

        December 19, 2012 at 10:29 am |
      • SK

        I totally agree with you.

        December 19, 2012 at 10:34 am |
      • Artifex

        @BB – " Evil intent is not constrained by the tool."
        No, but as Aurora, Virginia Tech, NewTown, Columbine, all show, evil intent can certainly be MAGNIFIED by it. I'll take the Chinese total of 21 killed in an entire year that you cite over the 26 killed in just the one incident any day.

        December 19, 2012 at 10:43 am |
      • That Other Guy

        I think it's an absolute distortion to believe that only armed people kill people. Categorically, that is false. Making claims like "people don't kill people, guns kill people" is a nice one liner you can feed to ignorant mouth-breathers, but the truth is that those who seek out to do harm to others will find a way, regardless of what laws you have on the books or what safeguards you have in place. A gun, like a hammer, is a tool (and I said this yesterday elsewhere). You can use a hammer to build a house and provide shelter and safety for someone. You can use the same hammer to cave in the skull of a random passer-by on the street. Do we then ban hammers, because there's one person out of untold millions who own one, and used it for something destructive?

        Granted, guns are more of their own category, but the premise is the same.

        An example of armed school officials would be the Pearl High School shooting in Mississippi in 1997. 2 died, 7 injured. That toll would have absolutely climbed even higher if not for the assistant principle having a firearm locked inside of his personal vehicle. The armed assistant principle saved lives by intervening and preventing the rampage from going on even further. This example would seem to deflate your assertion that having armed school officials would increase fatalities.

        No one wants things like this to occur, including and especially those who are for the rights of gun owners. Coming across as overly emotional, or irrational, and making increasing erratic claims about something you are clearly not seeing with an open mind doesn't serve your cause.

        December 19, 2012 at 10:44 am |
      • hebdo27

        It is so over crowded in China that if you swing a chair the wrong way, you're bound to kill a few innocent bystanders... hence high death number due to hand weapon attacks.

        December 19, 2012 at 10:45 am |
      • cwrighta70

        That Other Guy – You simply cannot compare a hammer with a gun. I will concede that, if a person wants to inflict harm on someone, finding an alternate weapon is relatively easy. However, you're talking about hand-to-hand combat compared to standing at a distance with a gun. With a gun, you simply point and shoot until the magazine is empty, then you reload and keep going.

        Also, I feel as if you talk of the Pearl High assistant principal as if that kind of reaction is commonplace. The fact is that, in those kinds of situations, rarely anyone steps forward with a gun to stop the shooter. Increasing the number of carrying civilians is incredibly dangerous. Imagine another mall or theater incident, but this time with multiple carrying bystanders. How easy would it be for someone to be mistaken for the criminal? An innocent person runs around the corner carrying a gun, and another civilian shoots them thinking they've just saved the day! There are just WAY too many things to go wrong when we increase the number of guns in a situation like this. How about the effect on law enforcement? How much harder will it be for them to do their job when they arrive if they have to sift through all the people with guns to figure out who the real bad guy is??

        America is at a stand-off with itself. Time to put down the guns and make some GOOD choices for once.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:13 am |
      • Barney

        Hey,..pcfresh,...ever heard of martial arts? I could rest my case here in your ignorance of the world but just consider specialized training, hand to hand,...would ten unsuspecting people killed by one highly trained martial artist be acceptable losses to you? How about a well planned drive through a playground or public park with a car? you cannot stop someone with intent to hurt others in their own personal pain. It's not the gun, it's the person with the gun and usually these people couldn't get a gun on their own. they steal them from irresponsible gun owners. I am in favor of clips being limited to 10 rounds as there is no need for more than that on the range, hunting or self defense.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
    • johncosar

      It's not a stupid decision or choice it's just money and its power and how sick the American society is.

      December 19, 2012 at 8:38 am | Reply
    • Letsbuildanewcountry

      Great offer for all those who do not trust the Government !!!
      Please move to the great country of Somalia where there is no functioning government, betcha you would like it there wink wink !!! Also even better if you want to sail there the Pirates are waiting to welcome you....

      December 19, 2012 at 10:38 am | Reply
    • this is why we can't have nice things

      Why are you white folks so paranoid about things?!

      December 19, 2012 at 10:58 am | Reply
  3. PC

    I agree with ForFreedomOfchoice, however, assault rifles and other semi to fully automatic weapons should not be in civilian hands. A civilian does not need a semi-automatic weapon for self defense - unless you are defending yourself against Zombies of course.

    December 18, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Reply
    • Aven

      PC, do you realize semi-automatic means that, when the trigger is pulled the weapon cycles one time, fires one bullet?

      December 18, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Reply
      • Artifex

        Yes, and automatically loads the next round in the chamber so that instead of a fire rate measured in milliseconds of a fully automatic weapon it is measured in thousands of a second. This argument about 'semi' versus 'fully' automatic is ridiculous.

        December 19, 2012 at 10:46 am |
    • Russ

      PC...I know people that should not be allowed to hold a knife but there's no ban on that.

      December 18, 2012 at 4:57 pm | Reply
      • Pontes


        comparing Assault Rifles with kitchen knifes is completely ridicules it seems that you have no knowledge about how bullets work the notion that someone how you could run after ALL 77 teenagers in the Norway Massacre and stab them (ALL) is completely ridicules
        In the future , If you are comparing items make sure they resemble just as you wouldn't compare Bicycles with Bugatti's is not wise to Compare kitchen knifes with fully automated assault rifles

        December 19, 2012 at 6:17 am |
      • Artifex

        OK Russ, would you rather confront an deranged person with a knife or a deranged person with an assault weapon and hundreds of rounds at his disposal?

        Me, I'll take the knife. There's a reason why knives are not regulated like guns that you don't have to twist your 'logic' into a pretzel to see.

        December 19, 2012 at 10:50 am |
      • Russ

        My point is a killer is going to kill, regardless of the method. 22 students in China stabbed, slashed and less than 10 minutes. And I am comparing the same items...murdered students. It makes no difference how they were killed. I've had a loaded gun in my night stand for a number of years. It hasn't gone off once without a finger on the trigger. Deal with the people, make them responsible for their actions. Look up FBI crime stats. Guns are not the top weapon reported used in the nations homicides.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:29 am |
      • RickInPA

        and I'll bet that a knife is not at the top of the FBI list of weapons used to mow down 10s of 100s of people at malls, schools, theaters, and public forums.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:18 pm |
      • Keiljt01

        I know people who are allowed to hold rocks too. Those can cause major damage. Lets ban them.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:29 pm |
    • Luke

      I'm sorry but you cannot kill zombies with guns. Except, perhaps, with a shotgun blast to the head.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:40 am | Reply
      • Jack

        How could you possibly know that?

        December 19, 2012 at 2:54 am |
      • SJL

        Where are you getting your information on a fictional topic anyways? Every zombie flick ever only requires you to hit the brain to take a zombie down, you don't have to blow its head off. (this has nothing to do with the article, I do apologize)

        December 19, 2012 at 11:15 am |
    • Andy in Oz

      Not sure that an automatic or semi automatic firearm will work against the zombies, if that is what fate has in store we are all screwed.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:20 am | Reply
      • SloppyMagic

        its the bullets.....gotta be silver bullets right?

        December 19, 2012 at 7:53 am |
  4. Oxford

    I want to share an amazing short film called "A Perfect Day" about a potential mass shooter on the morning of, and an unsuspecting stranger who opens the shooter's eyes to the implications of what he's about to do. Powerful stuff!


    December 18, 2012 at 1:09 pm | Reply
  5. THoffman

    I'd like to see guns of every kind banned in the US. Is it really worth if for one person let alone a child die for a hobby

    December 18, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Reply
    • Vinny

      Absolutely clueless.

      December 18, 2012 at 6:28 pm | Reply
      • Patrick

        Funny, I was thinking the same thing . . .

        December 18, 2012 at 10:48 pm |
    • Jack

      Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, has one of the strictest gun control laws in the world. A former U.S. Marine and veteran of both the Iraq war and Afghanistan war is currently in prison there for trying to take his grandfathers 410 gauge single barrel shotgun through Mexico on a trip to some country south of Mexico. He asked the customs people on the American side of the border and they told him it was ok just check with the Mexican authorities when hbe crossed the bridge. He declared it to the Mexican customs officials and was immediately arrested and has been held in prison ever since, about 5 monbths now.You cannot legally own a gun in Mexico, yet they have one of the highest gun related murder rates in the world. You see, strict gun laws prevent honest people from owning a gun but the dishonest criminal types do not obey the law, who would have guesswed that, and they do own guns and the law abiding citizens are unarmed and defenseless. When every second counts the police are minutes away. The national average for 911 call response is 13 minutes. That is 2 or 3 minutes in podunk Indiana and 45 minutes in larger cities like those unarmed cities like NYC, DC and Chicago that has very strictg gun control laws and very high gun related murder rates. Our elewcted officials know that gun control laws don't keep you safe, they aren't intended to keep you safe, they are intended to control. The police cannot and will not protect you, ask them, they will only arrest the person who does you bodily harm or takes your life after the fact.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:12 am | Reply
      • PJT

        Wow, all those strict gun laws in Mexico and criminals still get hold of them easily? I wonder where they could possibly be importing them from....

        December 19, 2012 at 6:43 am |
      • Chuck

        Mexico gets their guns from the US Government...

        December 19, 2012 at 8:17 am |
      • Adriana

        Well that's correct. The criminals (Drug lords, dealers, etc.) get guns.
        Not the psychos. Yes, in Mexico there is way too much violence about the "drug war".
        But there are no such thing as massacres of 6 year old kids like in the US.
        Don't get confused with the real criminals and mental psychos.
        Now these days the psychos starts a shooting because their girlfriend cheated on them, they did not get admitted in a school and stuff like that.
        Don't mix two different criminal topics.

        December 19, 2012 at 9:20 am |
      • Jsun

        Cute Story. Prove it?

        December 19, 2012 at 11:24 am |
      • D Hayden

        I agree with you 100% everyone is quick to give up their freedoms for the perception of being safe. My opinion I would much rather keep my freedom of decision to employ whatever means of defence I choose. When I lived in Massuchusetts, the gun laws in that state did NOT stop gun related violence or make me feel safe.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:38 am |
      • Joe


        Wow, all those strict gun laws in Mexico and criminals still get hold of them easily? I wonder where they could possibly be importing them from....

        According the REAL numbers from the GAO ( ) the number of US guns recovered from crime scenes in Mexico in 2008 is 12% of the total. According to this report, of over 30,000 guns seized by Mexican authorites in 2008, only 7200 were submitted to ATF and of those just under 3600 were traced to the US. Thus, only HALF of submitted guns came from US, and they only submitted 1/4 of what they seized (knowing the other 75% most likely didn't come from the US. Thus, only 12% of guns recovered in Mexico in 2008 were shown to come from the US. Most came from other central American countries (like Guatemala and Nicaragua – left over from wars in the 80s, and deserting army and police officers joining the cartels). Another link:

        December 19, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
      • JustMe

        @ Chuck – "Mexico gets their guns from the US Government..." where did you get your facts, I mean speculation, from? '05 mexican gov starts project to produce "their" own rifles. '08 mexican gov comes out with the fx-05 rifle, the same design from the hk g36 model. now before that, what do you think they used? sling shots, maybe the M16? no, they used the #1 selling rifle in the world. when I say #1, I mean by sheer volume throughout military history. that is right, it is the kalashnikov ak 47 rifle. where do you get your facts from? CNN? 87% of mexico's rifle from the US? your not to smart to belive that and if you don't like what the US provides, then move to canada or even mexico. let me know how that turns out?

        December 19, 2012 at 7:28 pm |
    • David

      I agree, we need to ban vehicles. While we at it - JV Hockey and Skateboarding.

      December 19, 2012 at 9:17 am | Reply
      • JMK

        Comments like these are not worthy of a response - but since there are so many of these idiotic statements being made, I'll give you one. GUNS HAVE ONE PURPOSE - TO KILL. Cars are intended to transport. Kitchen knives are intent to slice foods. Baseball bats are intended to hit baseballs. There are distinctions, and they are obvious to any REASONABLE-minded person. NOBODY in this country, other than military and law enforcement (and arguably those who actually hunt for food) NEEDS a gun. Everyone else who has them, simply WANT them. There is a distinction between a NEED and WANT to any REASONABLE-minded person. Having said that, I am not advocating the elimination of all guns since I realize the logistical impossibility of that task. However, NOTHING in the text of 2nd Amendment gives civilians the RIGHT to own a gun without regulations in place to do so. To the contrary, the 2nd Amendment expressly states that ones right shall be "well regulated." ANYONE who argues that someone applying to own a gun must go through several steps (including taking an exam on safety, a MENTAL HEALTH evaluation, extensive background check etc.) is NOT being reasonable. Its time for gun "enthusiasts" to start acting like adults. If 20 CHILDREN being slaughtered will not change minds in this country, sadly, nothing will.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:33 am |
  6. ronnie

    We already have a law agaisnt murder...and it seems people some people murder anyways.... So because people kill people with guns we should make them harder to own or band them? So why are we no banding cars or prescription drugs... prescription drugs kill about 290 people daily in usa......what about GMO foods and livestook humans eat that eat the GMO foods? How many people die from cancer and heart disease because of GMO foods.......wake up...I don't need a gun to kill...also a law will not stop anyone from haviing a gun if they want one.... People can make their own guns... Maybe we should band corn ethanol in our fuel because Every year 15 million children die of hunger...or maybe we should band having children unless on has a masters degree....why whywhy

    December 18, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Reply
    • aus

      yes they should be made harder to own, in australia we need a licence to own one, i know only 3 people who own guns. there are not as many murders committed with cars or prescription drugs. If people can make their own guns then why do you care if they are banned...

      December 18, 2012 at 6:33 pm | Reply
      • Jack

        The crime rate in Australia has soared since all the guns were confiscated. Why didn't you mention that? The people living in the rural areas are at the mercy of the criminals who did not turn in their guns. They are unarmed and the police are miles away. In a place where there are no guns a man with a gun can do as he pleases. There will always be those who have guns just like the Mexican drug cartels that Obama and Holder sold guns to.

        December 19, 2012 at 3:28 am |
      • Lee

        Jack is not being honest. Since passing the strictest gun control laws in its history in 1996, there have been no more mass killings in Australia–not one. Further, all gun related crime has decreased significantly for the past 18 years. To be fair in some countries the passage of gun control has not been as successful as Australia has been. That is not a good enough reason to conclude that gun control will not work in America, however.

        Turn off Fox and read empirical studies on this issue.

        December 20, 2012 at 3:36 am |
    • Matt

      "So because people kill people with guns we should make them harder to own or ban them" YES!!!!!!!! Your other examples are so irrelevant it is difficult to even reply with logic. The PURPOSE of a gun is to kill. Car, medicines, fuel when use improperly can cause death, when a gun is used properly it causes death.....that is the difference This was a great article, but some of these comments are very disappointing. Tell me why someone needs to own the weapons that killed those 20 kids. Why?

      December 18, 2012 at 6:59 pm | Reply
      • jlv

        To stop the guy that killed those kids!!!

        December 19, 2012 at 11:32 am |
    • band

      I played in a "band" once

      December 19, 2012 at 6:18 am | Reply
    • chiwheels

      That's a similar argument to

      "Well we won't bother to vaccinate children against polio because they could always be the victim of tuberculosis instead".

      Gun homicides in the US is a massive problem and the answer is clear as demonstrated in the gun laws of Europe. Whether the US has gone past the point of no return I don't know – I hope not.

      December 19, 2012 at 7:28 am | Reply
    • tarncheel311

      No one gets cancer or heart disease from GMO do realize you're comparing shooting people to feeding people...?

      December 19, 2012 at 10:58 am | Reply
    • Tim

      A better comparison would be:Would you be willing to give an Atomic bomb for every country in the world, including the rogue states?

      December 19, 2012 at 11:08 am | Reply
  7. susan

    I am disgusted after hearing the guy tell Peirs Morgan that guns are fun. What a idiot, he should have asked how he'd feel if it was one of his children or a member of a family. Guns should be totally destroyed by every human being other than the police, army and etc. I live in Canada, we don't have any guns in our house for protection, alarm system yes. I couldn't imagine even having a gun in our house it would scare the heck of every one. Come now you Amercians get together on this huge major issue. If the people that want to have guns it's time you hand them in destroy them. The goverment should have every gun in the USA handed in and destroyed, I don't care about the Rich, you are the same as us. No guns in Canada and life is great. If you are caught with are in serious trouble. What is wrong with our system??? I can't even watch TV becaus of the shootings, it is so heart breaking...

    December 18, 2012 at 4:30 pm | Reply
    • Danny

      I also come from a country with gun control. Because we have been conditioned that guns are bad, we wont even go near it even if they are available. It will take at least 2 generations of americans to get to where we are.

      December 18, 2012 at 10:00 pm | Reply
      • gunga dinn

        two generations? more like two CENTURYS

        December 19, 2012 at 3:44 am |
      • Ken

        That makes me wonder what else you've been "conditioned" to believe.

        December 19, 2012 at 5:25 am |
      • chris

        World without Gun is an imagination in which America can't comprehend.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
    • Canadian

      Well Susan, I live in Canada too. I DO own guns, more than one. And nobody that knows about it is afraid of that. Personally I think Canada's gun laws are ridiculous. No, fully automatic rifles aren't necessary, but to just jump on the bandwagon and say guns are bad because some nob job that was clearly insane went on a spree is just plain illogical and ignorant.

      December 19, 2012 at 10:06 am | Reply
      • chris

        ridiculous in what sense? not enough gun murders for you to comprehend?

        December 19, 2012 at 12:16 pm |
    • liqwidzero

      Actually, guns are fun. Go and shoot off a few rounds at a designated gun range. It's a really good stress relief.

      December 19, 2012 at 10:57 am | Reply
      • liqwidzero

        Don't mistake that for "Oh, shoot in the sky and be stupidly unsafe."

        Safety is always the #1 priority in all cases. Follow the rules at a range. Keep at attention at all times. And always keep the barrel pointed away from anyone or anything that you could be posing a danger to.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:00 am |
  8. Vinny

    Clueless sheep people. Intellectually lazy emotional over reaction.

    True goal of the radical anti gun movement-

    "Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
    Sara Brady
    Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
    The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.

    Don't let the leftists fool ya.

    December 18, 2012 at 6:34 pm | Reply
    • Jarno

      If you believe that that quote is genuine, then your view of reality is severely distorted. Even IF Sarah Brady, and all gun control supporters were secretly working some sort of socialist agenda, do you really think they would be so stupid as to utter such a line, straight from the ultra-conservative's wet dreams, and worthy of a B-movie script?

      There is no shred of evidence that this claimed statement was ever made, and every indication that it's a complete fabrication. And a very poor one at that, it is THAT obvious.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:23 am | Reply
      • Ron

        There's even a web site dealing with the various versions of this fabricated quote–

        December 19, 2012 at 11:42 am |
  9. Maria

    Clearly the controls currently in place are not sufficient to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of nuts and cowards. I'd like to think that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. How can we make it just a little more difficult for the others to obtain them? It wouldn't prevent every crime but one child's life seems ample justification.

    December 18, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Reply
  10. JeffinIL

    China has no gun violence. We should become communist like them.

    December 18, 2012 at 6:35 pm | Reply
    • Tobias

      Just want to point out that China has a problem that disturbed people go to childrens daycare centers and kill kids with a knife. It has been reported from time to time here in Sweden about it. But the Chinese try not to mention it too often. Whenever there is an evil will there is a way....

      December 19, 2012 at 4:01 am | Reply
      • Tim

        Who to said that if he went into the school with a assault gun instead of a knife, there wouldn't have more dead children. Yes, if you want to commit evil, you will. But don't make it easier for them.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:13 am |
  11. Mark

    Way to cherry pick the data. Can we please have the data for Mexico, which bans handgun ownership?

    December 18, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Reply
    • James

      gun ownership is banned in Mexico, true. but do you know how many gangs and people get to own them? because they smuggle them from our great country you idiot. gun violence in Mexico is a direct result of our system here.

      December 18, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Reply
      • Jack

        James, that has to be the most ignorant statement made here. The mexican gangs have more money than the US government. They can and do buy from international arms dealers. Do you think they get their RPGs from the US? These gangs have a variety of weapons that can't be attained in this cou ntry plus they have the Mexican military that they can get weapons from. Do you care whether you have any credibility or not? Most people with chafracter will not make rash ridiculous statements trying to make some point. I think you are probably a young person that doesn't have any idea about most things you post about.

        December 19, 2012 at 3:52 am |
      • Dennis White

        James, your the idiot. Gun violence in Mexico is NOT a direct result of the U.S. system. There is much, much more to the problem of guns in Mexico. You poor miss-guided billy goat.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:07 am |
      • Sam

        That is true James, 87% of guns confiscated in Mexico are from the USA. They come in through Texas & Arizona. Jack doesn't know Jack.
        And I am from Australia Jack, can you tell me where you heard crime rates have gone up here since the buyback scheme? I need some evidence because that is a load of crap.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
      • Lola

        Agreed. Do you know people that our government sending troops to Afghanistan and they have to fight "bad people" who carries the better weapon than us made in USA. How stupid is that!!! As long as money speaks we have to witness such tragedies as one in Conn. And we called oureselves civilized country??? How ironic!!!! We are not better than ancient Romans and we called them barbarians!!!!!

        December 19, 2012 at 12:11 pm |
    • nwesterink

      To all the people here, in favor of guns and gun use in the US.
      Why, do you need a semi-automatic weapon, if you can come up with a possible viable reason, let me hear it. Furthermore why do families in the US have more than 6-8 shotguns, huntingrifles etc at all. If you really want to "protect" yourself from burgelars in rural areas etc, 1 handgun is more than enough.

      The process of banning all guns, right at this moment is way to rigorous and won't work. But the abolishment of certain rifles and shotguns and the addition of rules and regulations is more than a right step in the direction.

      If read most of the comments here and what strikes me most is that some people have no trust in their governments officials, like policeofficers. These people go out on the street everyday risking their live so you and your children can live a safer life. I certainly hope this never happens to anyone, but what if its a friend of family member next?

      Two days ago a former classmate of mine was shot and killed in an incident which could have been resolved if there wasn't a gun in play.

      December 19, 2012 at 4:13 am | Reply
    • Jon R

      It is clear to everyone that the rule of law in Mexico is broken and in the hands of drug cartels. It's not just gun laws that are ignored, but also murder in general beheading – hard to do with a gun – is a common revenge tactic, are you suggesting that laws against it are pointless because it happens in Mexico?

      It's convenient to pick on a country where the rule of law is absent to serve your purpose. There are plenty of countries which have strict gun laws, where the population respect the laws and have almost no gun related murders (in comparison). If you do not believe in the rule of law and you don't respect your government's enforcement of it, it does not matter what the law is.

      December 19, 2012 at 5:36 am | Reply
  12. paul martin

    Yes...exceot with the yakusa that is !

    December 18, 2012 at 9:57 pm | Reply
  13. Daniel

    One must look at the overall murder rate [per 100,000 people] rather than the means used to determine if there's a vast difference in murders, and then you look at the various things that can affect this.

    This article is misleading.

    December 18, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Reply
    • Pontes


      12.000 people dead (every year) is catastrophic what ever way you look at it
      considering (10 years of U.S wars) in 2 country's caused 4000 American soldiers deaths

      December 19, 2012 at 6:31 am | Reply
      • Daniel

        Of course. Anything that reduces murders that has been proven to work is a sensible approach.

        However, the US has about 5 murders per 100,000 people yearly from all causes. There are countries of all levels of firearm legislation that are higher and lower regarding this figure; "odd" countries like Switzerland where genuine Assault Rifle ownership is commonplace having less murders than the US per 100,000 at 1, whereas others with low firearm ownership and greater restrictions such as South Africa are at 30 per 100,000. Obviously, something else is at work that affects the actual rate of murders than simply firearms (if they do affect it at all).

        I'm impartial and of no "side".

        December 19, 2012 at 7:29 am |
  14. 云飞


    December 18, 2012 at 11:07 pm | Reply
    • dougaussie

      translation: you smell old sushi

      December 19, 2012 at 2:23 am | Reply
    • Jack

      I don't know what you posted but it looks impressive. I'll bet some of the shallow minds who post here expect you had words of wisdom about gun control.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:45 am | Reply
    • ccw holder

      from google translate and the help of a chinese friend:
      without humanity, no guns can kill. Not that the gun ban can not help. But small to large homes to school education to a physical and mental ideologically sound people. I hope society all departments to do their work the results of due diligence.

      he is agreeing that guns are not the problem.

      December 19, 2012 at 11:45 am | Reply
  15. Clinton

    We see some people try to use twisted-logic to justify the owning of guns, this only shows they don't even have a basic common sense. Nothing in this world is perfect, we may never eliminate a problem completely by banning this or that but it sure will lower the chance of letting it happen. Like seat-belt and helmet, people will still get killed during an accident but it sure has lowered the death rate, saved a lot of lives. According to their argument if it cannot work 100% then it is useless, what a bunch simple-mind persons!

    December 18, 2012 at 11:56 pm | Reply
    • saoirse

      It doesn't mean they lack common sense. You have to realize that people manipulate statistics to make their argument look better than someone elses, and when those statistics don't prove their point they reduce themselves to ad hom attacks.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:11 am | Reply
  16. susubesarbundar

    very well said keurig

    December 19, 2012 at 12:05 am | Reply
  17. Chikusho

    They sure do as long as you`re not part of organized crime. I was living in Akihabara when a Yakuza member gunned down man in the middle of the day in Ameyoko in Ueno. So even if there are strict gun laws there will always be someone who will be able to obtain one. Making more stricter laws is not the solution, the American social system is the problem.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:33 am | Reply
    • Clinton

      It is true strict gun control law cannot stop all crimes but many killings (like the last one) are spontaneous, carried out by people who just happened to lose control at that moment. If guns are not that easily available he cannot carry out so many killings in a short time, so it still helps. If we can eliminate 20% of the total number of killings in a year, it is already a good result, and I think it is not unachievable.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:58 am | Reply
  18. Aom

    Don't believe it. I live in a Gun restricted country. Many countries cover up the amount of violence that goes on their country and report fictious stats so it does not hurt the tourist trade. One only needs to follow the local news i.e. TV Papers to get the "real" stats. Or better yet talk to the police throughtout the country.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:42 am | Reply
  19. Name*Heather

    I wonder what kind of mental exams you need to take to slaughter whales.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:43 am | Reply
    • Christian

      I wonder what kind of mentality you need to sit in front of a TV watching reality TV shows.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:54 am | Reply
  20. PJ

    Americans loves death.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:23 am | Reply
  21. Alexander

    I think all of the peoples who try to protect possibility have guns will change their opinion in case if the gun violence to touch their own children (God guard them). Very easy to decide any case to be not involved into the.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:30 am | Reply
  22. benzone

    Hm, what about death by shuriken? Bet they didn't count those.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:02 am | Reply
  23. nonredneck

    I wonder how many of the 12,000 US murders are gang or crime related? Seems to me that CNN is fudging the numbers a bit.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:49 am | Reply
    • LhandRbrain

      What are you talking about? All 12,000 murders were crime related! THEY WERE MURDERS!!!

      December 19, 2012 at 3:32 am | Reply
      • bingo

        now that's hilarious.

        December 19, 2012 at 4:52 am |
    • Pontes

      2700 people lost there lives in 911 the all world was completely outraged
      are you saying because 12.000 people might be gang related it should be ignored ?
      12.000 Dead is (CATASTROPHIC) what ever way you look at it

      December 19, 2012 at 6:25 am | Reply
      • 75Ranger

        So airplanes should be banned too then??

        December 19, 2012 at 10:49 am |
      • Passingby...

        Man hundred of thousands have died in Iraq/Afghanistan. US Military says they were all terrorists.

        World is becoming a f***d-up place

        December 19, 2012 at 11:53 am |
  24. Jetranger

    GUNS : In the Event of a Home Invasion, / Robbery, which is happening more frequently these days, I prefer to have the Ability to DEFEND myself against the INTRUDERS/ Robbers – who may bring Harm to me, and their most likely going to have Guns / Weapons !

    I would much rather be able to use my TAURUS 608 .357 Magnum / 8 Shot , or my .12 Gauge to Defend myself, against those who invaded my home to Rob me, bring harm to me.

    To those of you who think Gun Ownership is badd, in the Event of a Home Invasion / Robbery – just try whipping out the "WINE & CHEESE" , or the "COOKIES & MILK" to defend yourself – see where that gets ya ~ !!!

    December 19, 2012 at 2:53 am | Reply
    • jim

      Do you have kids? Do they have access to your loaded "TAURUS 608 .357 Magnum / 8 Shot , or your .12 Gauge" shot gun that you would necessarily need to have under your pillow so that you could outdraw "those who invaded my home to Rob me, bring harm to me." When you're not home, do you unload your weapons and store them in a gun safe like responsible gun owners claim?

      December 19, 2012 at 10:46 am | Reply
    • scootr71

      Amen! For those with families: what will you choose to do when an uninvited person enters your house with the intention of stealing and or harming those you love. Bat, Kitchen knife? Hide? If you choose to defend yourself and or family you might find the closest WEAPON available. People choose different weapons for self defense. Please don't take that choice away. We are losing enough choices as it is.

      December 19, 2012 at 10:49 am | Reply
  25. Geen

    Trigger Happy RED NECKS!!

    December 19, 2012 at 3:09 am | Reply
  26. Geen

    Oh, I meant DUMB Trigger Happy RED NECKS!!

    December 19, 2012 at 3:10 am | Reply
    • Seansa

      Redneck is one word genius.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Reply
  27. Matt2

    In 2010 1,210 children died as result of drunk drivers. Let's ban alcohol!!! I'm a beer lover, but guns serve a better purpose than beer.

    December 19, 2012 at 4:04 am | Reply
    • ReasonableGuy

      There are laws that sanction serving intoxicated patrons so what is wrong with gun laws that aim at preventing guns getting into the hands of high risk individuals or households?

      December 19, 2012 at 4:08 am | Reply
      • Matt2

        There are laws in place.

        December 19, 2012 at 4:10 am |
  28. Matt2

    Do the laws for alcohol stop people from driving drunk? No, so let's make it next to impossible for you to have a beer or glass of wine to save the 10,000 people who die in alcohol related crashes every year.

    December 19, 2012 at 4:13 am | Reply
    • Jon R

      I see these kinds of responses all the time. You are justifying the murder of children because drink driving laws are not strict enough? Its pathetic. Why not address both issues and save 22,000 lives? These 2 stats are not related to one another in any way ans can be dealt with independently.

      December 19, 2012 at 5:17 am | Reply
      • Matt2

        No. I am trying to point out peoples hypocrisy. Most the proponents of a firearms ban say we need to do it to save lives. But ask them to save (more) lives by banning alcohol and they will say no because it impacts them personally. Everyone wants to save lives as long as it doesn't effect something they want to do.

        December 19, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
  29. karl

    America is a violent country that is why they are still trying to find the reason why people die from guns. If s mentally ill person does not have gun can he kills 20 people in a second?
    Think about it.
    You should be ashamed pros gun americans

    December 19, 2012 at 5:04 am | Reply
    • dude

      If you're able kill twenty people in a second, you're not using a gun. More like an explosive.

      December 19, 2012 at 7:31 am | Reply
    • stedyek

      @Karl...very typical ignorant comments from a gun hater. States some facts!

      December 19, 2012 at 11:02 am | Reply
  30. karl

    One things is for sure:
    You can have 1000 rifles or guns in your room, but a heart attack, cancer, diabetes will come and take your life. These guns will not protect you. You can have bombs in your room but an earthquake, tornado, hurricane ect.... will come and take your life. So what is the purpose of having a guns? do you think you are safe?

    Pro guns american think about it and change before it is too late for you.
    Shame on you

    December 19, 2012 at 5:07 am | Reply
    • Matt2

      So why do cops carry guns if it is not going to help them? If a mad man comes into my room with a gun, I sure wish I had one to protect myself instead of hoping he has a heart attack.

      December 19, 2012 at 5:13 am | Reply
  31. OtherDave

    Would the west have been so wild if no one had guns?

    December 19, 2012 at 5:29 am | Reply
  32. Lior

    Thank providence that the people who have been stabbed to death were not shot. That way they would not only be dead, but they would have been victims of gun crime.
    The focus on gun crime by the media is pretty ridiculous.

    December 19, 2012 at 5:30 am | Reply
  33. Matt2

    Any guess why CNN chose the 2008 murder by firearm statistics to quote here? Because 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 numbers are considerably lower. Anything to push their agenda. Also I think she meant gun related deaths, not murders. US statistics state a little over 9,000 murders by firearm. I'm sure it was an "innocent" mistake. Look for yourself at

    December 19, 2012 at 6:09 am | Reply
    • Pontes


      9000 murders by firearms (Every year) still looks (Catastrophic) for a country which lost 4000 american soldiers in (10 years of U.S wars ) attempting to stabilize far safer Arab country's
      Some say Americans are Safer in Kabul & Baghdad rather than being at home duo to there catastrophic gun crime

      December 19, 2012 at 6:56 am | Reply
      • Paul L.

        So you are saying that in order to lower the murder rate the American public should be like the US Army and carry around 9mm pistols and/or M4/16 fully automatic weapons. Clearly it works as you have so clearly stated! I'm with you. 😉

        December 19, 2012 at 12:17 pm |
      • Kevin

        Irrelevant comparison. Soldiers are much better at using firearms, and use very different firearms, than your average citizen, and are in much greater danger. The numbers are not comparable.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • jimmy

      Yes Matt, 9,000 murders is MUCH better. Much better than 11.

      December 19, 2012 at 9:11 am | Reply
      • Matt2

        So you don't care that CNN is blatantly misstating facts? I didn't say 9,000 is better than 11,000. I'm just asking why CNN chose to go with statistics from almost 5 years ago when there are statistics for more current years. People talk about FoxNews pushing an agenda, CNN is just as bad.....

        December 19, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
  34. The Dude

    I wonder why USA always talks about regulations as a nation, the problem is not in the country, but in a few selected states.

    The problematic states are mostly in the eastern parts such as DC and NY, those states also have a pretty low legal ownership of guns while some states in the north western parts of USA have a lot of guns but few gun related murders. Which points at the main problem not being lack of gun regulations, but probably more cultural things as gang violence etc.

    Don't live in USA personally, but I would not like the fact of someone adding regulations that affects Sweden in order to try to fix a problem in Portugal.

    December 19, 2012 at 6:54 am | Reply
    • Pontes

      The Dude
      you are raising ridicules and Irrelevant points
      12000 Americans are shot dead every year and this issue has to be addressed (REGARDLESS)

      December 19, 2012 at 7:00 am | Reply
      • The Dude

        You don't understand what I mean, if we move the example to Europe the UK have a lot of gun related murders while Sweden don't.

        Should we put in regulations that prevent swedish hunters from having guns because europeans gets killed by guns in the UK?

        December 19, 2012 at 9:15 am |
      • tony p

        UK does not have much different gun murder rate per 100k than other European countries.

        Sweden pretty much only allows bolt action rifles (for hunting), that have to be locked up in a metal safe
        and a government person will come and make visits so you can show this safe and its hunting riffle locked up.

        And I'm pretty sure Sweden will now look in to eliminate the gun club handguns clause too.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
  35. DJones

    I'm just trying to get my head around America and guns. I am an Australian and we are possibly one of the safest countries in the world. We have the highest living standards in the developed world and 5 of the world's top 10 cities to live in including Melbourne, the best city in the world. (UN Index)

    After the 1996 massacre in the state of Tasmania where a mentally deranged gunman took 35 lives, we banned all assault weapons. 700,000 guns were bought back by our Federal Government and destroyed. No BS 2nd amendment, No NRA, No Christian Coalition, No Gun lobby, none of that. Why can't you Americans think like us and make life less violent for your own citizens? Come on mate, you don't need a Bushmaster to kill deer? Your guns are not a need, its an obsession.

    December 19, 2012 at 7:35 am | Reply
    • 75Ranger your line of thinking is that the good AND the bad guys will hand in their guns? Right....get your head out of the sand. The good law abiding americans are not the ones commiting the crimes. Its the one's that wouldnt hand in their guns if the government were to seize them that are the ones commiting crimes. Furthermore, Australia still has gun related deaths every do you protect yourself if an armed gunman comes into your house? Because when he shoots your family because you couldn't protect'll take the opposite side.

      December 19, 2012 at 10:54 am | Reply
      • Kevin

        Never come to Australia. Your kind isn't welcome here. We only want decent human beings. Stay in the South and get fat and die fast.

        December 19, 2012 at 11:38 am |
    • Kevin

      Australia's knee-jerk reaction to everything is an embarrassment. Your government coddles you.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Reply
  36. joe

    Other than the occasional liquor store clerk (world's most dangerous job) that foils a robbery, how many civilians stop a crime by using their own weapon? I don't have an exact number, but I'm sure it's extremely rare and would not stand up as an argument for owning a high capacity or military style weapon. Changes need to be made and now. I'm not saying ban all weapons for civilians, just the high capacity weapons.

    December 19, 2012 at 8:34 am | Reply
    • Kevin

      What you're "sure" of, based on your intuition (worthless) and lack of evidence, is irrelevant. Actual gun violence is a minority compared to the number of times a civilian with a firearm has used it (rarely firing) to prevent a crime. This is to say nothing of all the crimes that may not be committed at all for fear that the victim is armed.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:24 pm | Reply
  37. Bevan

    Americans who feel the 'need' to own a gun dont realise the psychological price they pay for creating a world where they feel vulnerable without there guns. Because owning guns creates this, not the other way around.

    A point of contrast: I grew up and spend most of my adult life in Cape Town, South Africa, which in 2010 had the dubious honour of being the second most deadly city in the world, behind only Caracas if I recall. Yet I have only ever heard of one person (a friend I went to school withs father, who was a target shooter) who owned a gun. It simply doesnt occur to us, and we'd think very askance of anyone wanting to own gun. It's not so much the paranoia that of Americans that fascinates me, its more the mentality of actually enjoying guns that I find perverse.

    December 19, 2012 at 8:43 am | Reply
  38. Prefect

    I think americans should be allowed by the US government to carry explosives as well as guns. I mean, if carrying assault rifles is okay, then why not grenades and Semtex sticks? I can defend myself with an assault rifle, but I can defend myself so much better with a nice little bit of dynamite! Bring it on!

    December 19, 2012 at 8:47 am | Reply
  39. CN

    Leave the law enforcement to police. In this day and age, there is no need for vigilante justice. America is quick to try banning violent video games and tv/movies, but heaven forbid, don't try to ban the guns! Also, for a country that like to thump and quote the bible at every nation around the world, you sure don't have an issue killing people – criminal or not.

    December 19, 2012 at 8:55 am | Reply
  40. jimmy

    The attack in China just the day before is a perfect example: 20 school kids attacked by a man with a knife. All went to hospital with wounds. All survived! It's a lot more work killing that many people with a knife. They can run away, defend themselves even without a weapon, it's tiring work just to grab hold of that many people and do the stabbing. But with a gun, sooooo simple.

    December 19, 2012 at 9:09 am | Reply
    • 75Ranger

      Well if the idiot knew how to use a knife he could have killed all 20....but he didn't sooo....your arguement is invalid. Because I know lots of knife experts who can kill with a knife very easily.

      December 19, 2012 at 10:59 am | Reply
      • Penta Lift

        And how many people do you think a gun expert could kill?

        December 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm |
  41. Guillermo

    is it coming?
    [vimeo 37791403 w=500 h=281]

    December 19, 2012 at 9:18 am | Reply
  42. dicy

    uptil I looked at the bank draft which was of $5027, I be certain mother in law could trully bringing home money part-time on their apple labtop.. there friend brother has been doing this for only twenty three months and as of now took care of the morgage on their appartment and purchased Audi Quattro. I went here,

    December 19, 2012 at 9:52 am | Reply
  43. Flying Monkeys

    Repeal the Second Amendment!

    December 19, 2012 at 10:01 am | Reply
    • Paul R.

      Why not repeal the First? How about the Thirteenth? Pick and choose, really?

      December 19, 2012 at 10:26 am | Reply
  44. Jim in Charlotte

    Looks like this would have worked about a 100 years ago in the US. Now a majority of current gun owners would not pass the exams or even bother to take them. We are in too deep now. There are already over 300 million firearms in the hands of US citizens.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:21 am | Reply
  45. Paul R.

    This article, if it had sought to be balanced, could have easily asked if Mexico's total ban works. Oops.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:25 am | Reply
  46. belcher

    How can anyone argue with theses facts. As a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit I think it's time to make drastic changes in our gun laws. I'm all for giving up any right to carry or own a gun.
    Sure only criminals will have guns but there would fewer on the streets.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:31 am | Reply
    • Joe

      So you would gladly give up the means to defend yourself and your family knowing that criminals will still have guns?

      In a perfect world where even the criminals turned in their guns I would too (except for hunting and sporting guns, which to many include those evil assault weapons). But unless the government can guaranty the security and safety of me and my family I'd just as soon have the means to do it myself. I live in a rural area where police response is typically 10-20 minutes (per my sheriff deputy friend). All my police friends say 'When seconds count the police are only minutes away'. I'll keep mine as long as I can thank you very much.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Reply
  47. timman

    how many murders by other means?

    December 19, 2012 at 10:31 am | Reply
    • Dude

      300 to 1, far worse than any other nation.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:15 pm | Reply
  48. Deeds

    Im curious what the same gun law policy comparison would look like comparing the US with Mexico. I believe they (Mexico) have some pretty restirictive gun laws for Mexican civilians. What exactly is Mexico's Gun law policy and how so the statistics stack up?

    December 19, 2012 at 10:32 am | Reply
  49. Adam

    Seriously the U.S is like a small child. Grow up kids, much of the first world already has. You don't need guns, deal with it.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:33 am | Reply
    • Dude

      You don't NEED freedom either, but you get it anyway in this country.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Reply
      • DJones

        What a load of BS is that? Your freedom is the freedom to shoot and kill. That is barbaric freedom. We have much more freedom here in Australia including the Freedom to live and elect politicians who are not slaves of a gun lobby. Freedom is in the US? My foot!!

        December 19, 2012 at 6:09 pm |
  50. MB

    This is a common sense argument. Not a political one. Less guns, less people get shot and killed. It is not fair to say that we need more people with guns to protect ourselves from others who decide to start shooting randomly in a mall or school. The guns should not be there in the first place. Let everyone start carrying Tasers. That's a protection device. Guns are for killing people and again – do the math – less guns equals less dead people, less murdered children...PERIOD.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:39 am | Reply
    • Dude

      Banning guns does not reduce the number of criminals in possession of them.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Reply
  51. ThomasMcCracken

    Things were a little different in 1791.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:40 am | Reply
    • Samuel

      Secondment Amendment look it up and get lost

      December 19, 2012 at 11:57 am | Reply
  52. bill

    ..and in Switzerland, they issue guns to everyone and have the lowest gun crime rate in the world. So which one is better...and which one restricts freedoms more? It's not ALL about gun crime. Most of it is about "being able to defend yourself against the possibility of a tyrannical government OR to prevent a tyrannical government from gaining power."

    December 19, 2012 at 10:48 am | Reply
    • MB

      I agree with you Bill.

      In Isreal the teachers are armed, too. And look what happened in Germany in the 1930's. A certain individual came to power and confiscated all guns from its population. The same trends are starting to appear here...

      December 19, 2012 at 10:58 am | Reply
  53. Al Smith

    Yea, Ban guns all together. We all know how well that worked with Alcohol. Blaming the deaths in America on guns is like blaming the drink driving ticket on the car you drive or the bar for selling you the booze. It's like blaming your pencil on your mispelled words. People in this country need to start taking responsibility for their own actions and quit letting the government make new laws to protect us from ourselves. Before you know it we're going to end up in a society like George Orwell's book 1984.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:52 am | Reply
  54. Savemillions

    Outlaw abortions, then maybe I'll give up my guns

    December 19, 2012 at 10:52 am | Reply
  55. Michael Williams

    Why not band video games that shows a armed man with a M16 or a AK47 shooting every thing in sight as he rounds a corner in a building. These hand held devises are given to every 10 year old that puts it down on his or her Christmas list. These things condition a young persons mind so that a few years later he is ready for the big time. I also believe Hollywood has a lot to do with it. If we get back to the root of the problem an quit blaming guns we wood be better off and yes arm teachers.
    Archie Bunker once said , to stop high Jacking ,"arm all the passengers."

    December 19, 2012 at 10:52 am | Reply
  56. Vin

    Comparing gun related murders between a country with legal guns and a country that has a history of weapons being illegal for hundreds of years is not a very realistic comparison. Of course there will be less gun involvement in a country where they were never legal and not widespread because of this. However that does not mean making guns illegal in a country saturated with them will magically make them disappear.

    If you actually want to learn something a better comparison would be to calculate murder rate per 1000 or 10,000 people.

    Then actually figure out what sociological differences exist that could contribute to any difference found.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:54 am | Reply
  57. jkl

    The war on drugs if a failure so why not a war on guns too

    December 19, 2012 at 11:00 am | Reply
  58. tn

    Stupid comparison. The United States is much more diverse in its population and geographically larger in size. Try living out in Alaska, Texas, the plains, or any small town rural area where police are literally miles away.

    Police cannot be relied upon to protect us at all times. Majority of the time they are there to clean up the mess after you've been victimized. Women and children are beaten, raped, and murdered everyday in this country and I can guarantee you changing gun laws will not fix that

    December 19, 2012 at 11:00 am | Reply
  59. Art

    Would the mental evaluation ever fly in the US or would it be considered discrimination?

    December 19, 2012 at 11:02 am | Reply
  60. Kelly

    It always amuses me that when shootings like this happen people talk about stricter gun laws, like some criminal is all of a sudden going to start following the laws "OMG What have I been thinking?!?!?!?!?"

    I'd like to see that 12,000 broken down into two catagories 1. legal gun owners who commited the crime and 2. illegal gun owners...

    December 19, 2012 at 11:02 am | Reply
  61. bill

    ..and leaving our borders open with illegal immigrants coming across will continue the trend of illegal weapons coming in. Banning guns won't stop the criminals from getting them.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:03 am | Reply
  62. Justme

    Frankly, I would rather die from a gunshot than to be bludgeoned by a bat or stabbed to death with a knife. Just sayin.....

    December 19, 2012 at 11:07 am | Reply
  63. jonathangroover

    Reblogged this on You can take everything I have.. and commented:
    I think gun control works...

    December 19, 2012 at 11:07 am | Reply
  64. Lagos

    Good god, is this what passes for a "report" nowaday? How about information on overall homicide rates?

    December 19, 2012 at 11:10 am | Reply
  65. JTORO

    So let me get this straight- Because we have 12,000 gun related deaths each year, this means that the costs of allowing gun ownership are too high and we should ban them? Ok, then to be fair, we also have to ban Alcohol because there are 15,000 alcohol related deaths each year. Who is willing to go there? Thats what I thought.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:11 am | Reply
  66. Diraphe

    How about a comparison to Mexico's strict gun laws next?

    December 19, 2012 at 11:12 am | Reply
    • TstTst

      How about a report on how easily people buy guns here and transport them to Mexico?

      December 21, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Reply
  67. NB

    What happened in Newtown is a tragedy of epic proportions, to be sure. My heart goes out to the victims and everyone involved. But let's have a little perspective - 12,000 killed by guns in 2008 vs 37,000 killed in car crashes that same year. Where is the public outcry to ban automobiles which are a far greater threat to public health and safety than guns? Let's not overlook that the vast majority of those killed by guns involved criminals killing criminals. Remove the criminal on criminal element, and the number of innocent people killed by guns is quite low, a small fraction of the number who die in car crashes annually. Gun control may be part of the solution, but mass murder/suicide incidents are a social problem that goes far beyond firearms.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:12 am | Reply
    • satoridream

      I'm just amazed at all the people the making rediculous straw man arguements that if you ban guns what about cars etc.. that kill people every year.... I even talked tto someone saying that millions of people in third world poor countries die each year should we stop eating food... Do any of you idiots comprehentd that analogys like these are not even close to being equivalent or logical. We are talking about deaths by a device that is designed to kill many people quickly and effeciently....All these other comparisons are just fricken stupid....It is no wonder we have so many issues with guns...most of the retards that are pro gun to hte point of no regulations at all don't even comprehend simple logical comparisons. BTW I think you should be able to own a gun to protect yourself and home but Assault Rifles and large clip magazines have no place in our society.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Reply
  68. FreeTheRepublic

    And if they outlaw the ownership of guns, then the honest will return theirs (no doubt without being compensated a single penny) and the dishonest criminals will be left with the only guns in the nation. This is hardly a resolution, but a means to be sure the innocent will never be able to protect themselves. It is our RIGHT to own a gun, but stricter laws should certainly be put in place on who can obtain one and what kinds.

    I am NOT willing to give up my gun. As an American, this is my right and i fully intend to stand up for that right. You cannot simply ask millions of people to turn in their guns and expect to rid of the problem.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:14 am | Reply
    • Mike

      The 2nd Amendment doesn't give individuals a right to bear arms unless they are part of a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Somehow the gun nuts ignore that part.

      December 19, 2012 at 11:21 am | Reply
      • bill


        December 19, 2012 at 11:52 am |
      • NB

        Dear Mike, why do you keep repeating the same nonsense? I suggest you read the Supreme Court decisions in DC vs Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010).

        December 19, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
  69. Jim

    Sounds really reductive to me. What other factors are involved? If we look at Tonnies concepts of Gemeinshaft and Gesellschaft, it may be that they are more communally oriented than the United States. Also, what kind of difficulties are associated with each of those tasks listed? Is there a fee keeping certain economic classes from attaining the requirements?

    December 19, 2012 at 11:14 am | Reply
  70. Diraphe

    Ban video games; ban violent movies and television; ban rap; ban guns; lock up anyone you think is odd.


    December 19, 2012 at 11:15 am | Reply
  71. Kelly

    Well said NB

    December 19, 2012 at 11:15 am | Reply
  72. michael

    Here's the problem with gun violence statistics – the fact fewer guns leads to fewer gun-related deaths is obvious but misses the point. The issue is *viololence*. Before guns does anyone think people were not killed?

    The question needs to be looked at in a wholistic fashion. In countires with more/less guns per capita what do ALL of the violence-related statistics look like? Are there more rapes, robberies, home invasions, etc?

    Another point – I simply cannot see how we get rid of all guns already out there. Even if we did, we cannot prevent drigs from crossing the border. What makes anyone think we will be able to prevent criminals from importing guns?

    Guns are illegal in Mexico. Anyone here clamoring to go there in order to be safe from gun violence? Yes, they get most from the US, but don't fool youselfs into thinking they wouldn't simply get them from South America. AK's are cheap and fairly easy to acquire anywhere in the world...and they are not made in the USA.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:15 am | Reply
  73. Thomas Markum

    In 2011, the US had 32,367 Automobile related deaths, and over 2 million die worldwide each year due to alcohol. So lets put a ban on alcohol and automobiles. Sounds reasonable. Why not also ban diesel fuel and fertilizer(Timothy Mcveigh), and Boxcutters(Sept 11,2001) too…

    December 19, 2012 at 11:18 am | Reply
    • jusayin

      I agree. Also diabetes, aids, and cancer cause a lot of deaths every year, let's ban those too!

      December 19, 2012 at 1:01 pm | Reply
  74. allah

    make sure alcohol is a tested drug!!!

    December 19, 2012 at 11:20 am | Reply
  75. Bob

    Ah the liberal media – so selective in their numbers when pushing their ideology. Notice none of them are talking about Switzerland. Switzerland has no standing army, instead they have a citizen militia. They EXPECT every male citizen to undergo military training between the ages of 20 and 30. They ISSUE an assault rifle and a pistol to each of those trained citizens. Yes the Swiss gov't actually put guns in the hands of their citizens – imagine that. Most Swiss homes where a male ages 20 to 30 lives has both a pistol and an assault rifle. They train those individuals and expect them to maintain proficiency with those firearms. And the entire country has fewer gun-related murders than our nation's capital by itself. How does the liberal media explain that? Could it actually be that responsible gun ownership isn't the problem and it's a far more complex issue? Could it be a bigger societal issue? No, the liberals are once again manipulating the truth. The truth is they don't want you to have a gun. They think it's okay for their bodyguards to carry guns and it's okay for their buildings to have armed guards to protect them, but they don't think you have a right to defend yourself. A man in China attacked a school with a knife recently. The worst school massacre in US history happened in 1927 in Bath Township, Mich. The killer used bombs to kill 45 people including 38 children. Over 1,200 children are killed each year in the US by drunk drivers. We have huge societal issues in the US right now and taking guns out of the hands of responsible gun owners won't solve them.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:21 am | Reply
  76. Scrappyike

    Of course gun related crime is down but that does not mean killings using other types of weapons did not take place. What are the statistics on that? Duh

    December 19, 2012 at 11:21 am | Reply
  77. Nick

    How many times in a week do you hear on radio while driving to work about someone shot to death with a gun? How many times is that an act of violence as opposed to shooting in defense? Its very clear guns kill more people in acts of violence then it saves people.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:28 am | Reply
    • bill

      Are you really going on your perception of violent acts as facts? The truth is there are over 800,000 violent crimes stopped every year due to law-abiding citizens carrying guns. Look it up.

      December 19, 2012 at 11:57 am | Reply
      • Nick

        I do agree with you, but do we really need an automatic weapon to protect ourselves.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:15 pm |
      • bill

        Yes Nick. We do. A semi auto pistol isn't going to help me protect my self or my rights against a tyrannical government.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:39 pm |
      • donniebb23

        @Bill – can you show support for that number? It seems kind of outrageous to me.

        December 19, 2012 at 12:40 pm |
  78. Gosokuryu

    Yes the shooting was a massive tragedy and i grieved and even cried for them. but the simple fact is, people have been killing people since before recorded history. They will continue to kill long into the future. it's a fact of life (and death) I would much rather take my chances as a legally armed citizen. At least that way i have the option of defending myself. Talking and begging with a gun to your head really doesn't do that much good. However meeting fire with fire, i stand a better chance and so will my kids. Lets spend our time and money on something that might actually make a difference. identifying mental issues. Giveing parents the help they need to controll an out of controll child. Holding parents responsibl for the actions of their child because they failed to propelry secure guns knowing their child was derainged or mental. Don't attack/blame an inanimate object for something a living breating person chose to do. New stations (both fox and cnn) are quick to post about all the bad things that guns can do. But i never seen anything posted about the countless times a gun has saved a family or a co-worker. Pick up some gun magazines sometime. several of them post articles about average joes saving thier family/loved one or a co-worker by meeting fire with fire. if you are so proud to be an anit-gun person, post it in your front yard that your house is anti gun. i'll post in my yard that inruders will be shot on sight with no warning. See whos house someone will choose to invade. I'll sit back and enjoy my cold beverage as i watch you fill out your police report.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:28 am | Reply
    • John314

      Very well said. I live in St. Louis where the murder rate is and has been in the top 3 in the country for far too long. I hate the fact that people are spoiling one of the most liberating laws in this country. What sickens me the most is the lack of the appreciation of life and respect for family. People dont care about all of the other lives that are changed when one is killed, they dont care about your wife, daughter, son, mother, father, etc. On the other hand I do. So in todays world I do what is necessary to protect myself so that I will be here for my wife and daughter. I own 2 guns one for the house and one for me. Believe me, I hope i never have to use either of them but I WILL! I just cannot see myself there in front of my family gun to our heads and being helpless F*** that. Im gonna be sitting there right next to you Gosokuryu with a cold one reflecting on what just happened wondering why this dead guy in my living room chose my house to come into as they carry his A** out

      December 19, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Reply
  79. Daniel

    Take a look at chicago. It has very high crime rates despite the fact they have some of the strictest gun laws in the USA. Their crime rate is 4x the rate of new york, and 2x the rate of los angeles. Banning guns is not the answer. We need to look deeper into mental issues and the ways that are open for people to get their hands on guns.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:30 am | Reply
  80. Al

    How about showing how difficult it is for citizens to obtain firearms in Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Brazil, and about 50 other countries where homicide by gun are many folds higher than the US? You don't get to pick and choose a country for the convenient of your argument, you need to look at all different countries. Don't tell me you need to look at a country "similar" to the US because that is intellectually lazy. If you are blaming guns for higher rate of homicides and think stricter gun control will lead to less homicide, then you need to look at multiple countries on the merit of stricter gun control and the results. That is the only honest statistical and scientific way to compare, not some hack 1-country comparison. Ridiculous!

    December 19, 2012 at 11:32 am | Reply
    • Nick

      Yeah, you put out an intellectually active argument about broader consideration. You vision is being obstructed by your love for guns. We are becoming one of those countries you mentioned in your post. Just because you are not happy with yourself or someone you draw a gun and shoot that person. How many times in your lifetime do you think you will be in a extremely desperate situation and you will have to shoot a person in defense. Its like winning a lottery! you know the odds.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:04 pm | Reply
  81. keith

    We could learn from them wouldn't you say ?? I'm not up on there schooling but don't there kids spend like 6 days a week and 10 hour days in school ? not a bad idea

    December 19, 2012 at 11:32 am | Reply
  82. Turbulence

    Right, so if making guns illegal helps – we should also make heroin, crack and cocaine illegal as well.

    God you guys are so smart!

    December 19, 2012 at 11:34 am | Reply
  83. Jsun

    I love how people still try to refute the facts in this article, and facts regarding gun murders in other nations like England with OPINIONS. I'm sorry, opinion does not trump the facts, no matter how hard you choose to ignore them.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:37 am | Reply
  84. Ed

    The fact that more people die every year from traffic accidents than guns is a weak argument. People use cars everyday and it is a necessity. Guns as used for hunting is for entertainment. Guns actually used for protection is rare. Guns are ubiquitous in America, but the fact that you rarely see them carried around in public even where it is legal just shows how unnecessary they are for everyday life, unlike cars. Assault weapons are absolutely unnecessary in modern civilized society.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:42 am | Reply
    • bill

      you don't see them because most are concealed.

      December 19, 2012 at 11:59 am | Reply
  85. basadeed

    How many kids were killed by abortion last year? Where is the outrage about that?

    December 19, 2012 at 11:42 am | Reply
    • PaulaMcGregor

      Zero kids were killed by abortion. Some fetuses were but no kids.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Reply
  86. Stephen

    These stats are more showing of the differences in cultures, not the differences in gun laws. You take that same program and put it in any other country and it is going to have different results. There are also plenty of examples of countries with high gun control and that has more gun related deaths than the United States. Connecticut is also one of the most gun regulated states in the United States.

    That being said, taking classes, mental evaluations, and criminal background checks are not bad ideas. But I do believe background checks are already done.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:44 am | Reply
  87. keith

    Maybe American parents need to show there kids just a little more Love instead of letting there brains stew in front of the TV or the WEB... If I spent my childhood in a small room staring at a Monitor of sorts 27/7 I'd go nuts also. Kinda like the animals at the Zoo that walk the same path all day in there cages..

    December 19, 2012 at 11:44 am | Reply
  88. SoSad

    I don't think they like to hear that other countries are better. Period.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:47 am | Reply
  89. Turbulence

    Thanks basadeed for saying that. So true

    December 19, 2012 at 11:49 am | Reply
  90. That one scientist guy

    I would love to see what these numbers look like per capita intead of the skewed numbers that they are now...

    December 19, 2012 at 11:50 am | Reply
  91. Shekhar

    Here is an answer to guns don't kil....argument as proposed by author Mayank Chhaya. "Empty hands don't fire bullets."

    December 19, 2012 at 11:53 am | Reply
  92. Right...

    True, but they have always hunted with throwing stars...

    December 19, 2012 at 11:54 am | Reply
  93. Ken

    I am neither for or against owing personal weapons. However, upon thinking about it from all sides, I have something to ask of you. Say you want to die and you know your neighbor has a gun, and you do also, would you attack him to have him kill you? Say you do not want to die and you have a gun to rob a store, but you know the store owner has a weapon, do you rob that store or move on to the one down the block that you know does not have a weapon? Unstable people will find a way for their actions. If a gun is handy, they will use it. If not, they will use a knife, automobile, fertilizer concoction to make a bomb and really maximize their destruction or another item that is handy to them. There is not any way to know that Joe Blow walking down the street is stable and just out for a walk or on a mission of destruction until that action happens. The how it happens is not important to the situation, just the intent and follow through. If you were confronted by a rapist with a knife, would pulling a gun out of your purse help you? Maybe or maybe not, but pepper spray would. But if you were close to a mass murderer that had just opened fire on a group of people on the street, and you had a weapon and a clear shot to stop him and possibly save tens of lives, would that be of help? Each situation is different. I can not see any reason that common person(s) would need a fully automatic weapon. I also do not agree with untrained individuals owing a weapon just for protection. Part of procurement should be full training of the destructive power of the weapon, and how to fire, load and store such weapon so others could not get to it. Without that, an untrained person could cause more harm than the protection he provided to himself and others. Banning of all weapons is not the answer, but allowing fully automatic weapons is not either. Just thinking on the criminal side of this argument, if I were a criminal, I would choose to attack, steal, etc. the place/person that was unarmed instead of the one that I thought was armed. After all, as a criminal, I would not wish to die, but live to rob again another day. But if I were mentally unbalanced, I really would not care whom I attacked. Having a weapon of any kind would not deter me from accomplishing what my mind told me to do at the time. This is not about the right to bear arms, survive an armed attack, ban all weapons, or any other true issue that will help in this matter. This is about human nature and the ability to know what or how someone is going to do a very grave deed or if they are going to do it. Since I do not own a weapon, banning them would not hurt me except for the fact that my protection due to the fact that I may be carrying one may deter someone from doing me harm would go away. I would not like that. But in the same instance, banning fully automatic weapons should happen at the earliest time as possible. Semi automatic weapons I am not so sure. Thoughts?

    December 19, 2012 at 11:55 am | Reply
    • Joe

      Ken, contrary to what you see on CNN whenever they talk about guns (some guys shooting a machine gun), fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1934. It is possible to get one if you pay a $200 tax, do the paperwork (with extensive background check), and fork over $20K+ for one of the few legally transferrable guns (made before 1984).

      Semi-automatic firearms have been around (and readily available) since the early 20th century. Even though they were available (Browning HiPower 9mm with 13 round magazine, and M1 Carbine, .30 semi-auto military rifle with 30 round magazine) in the 1950s (without any real restrictions – not even a questionaire to buy one), why didn't we see all this violence then? Could it possibly be just a LITTLE more complicated than 'guns'?

      December 19, 2012 at 3:19 pm | Reply
  94. SoSad

    The reality is that there are already too many guns in your country, too many people with mental health issues, too many illegal drugs, too many people who are pro-rights even at the expense of their children. Look at the responses in these forums. People care more about keeping their rights to own guns and have already made up their minds that decreasing the number isn't going to change anything. Statistics from other countries don't matter to them. Their culture of violence is different, which is very true. I think the price of freedom to bear any type of weapon you want for self defense, as the gun lobbyists call it – comes at a very high price. But you have chosen to allow it and continue to see it as acceptable.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:55 am | Reply
  95. Mark

    Timothy McVeigh didn't need a gun.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:55 am | Reply
  96. EVN

    The simple numbers tell the story, and all the rest is denial coupled with flawed reasoning for allowing the population in general to hang on to their guns until someone pries them from their dead hands. The automobile death comparisons and the "other lethal instruments" arguments are particularly foolish. I've yet to hear of anyone using a car to kill multiple innocent people, and as for knives and other potentially lethal weapons, come on people – you cannot with a straight face honestly ignore the ease with which guns make killing in general easy, and mass killings a whole lot easier than trying to accomplish the same with a knife. But logic and facts never seem to bother those intent on justifying their right to own a gun, and at the same time minimizing the fact that 12,000 people a year are killed by guns in the U.S.

    And let's get real when it comes to the "protection against as tyranical government" argument. To begin with, those weapons you guys hold so dear are no match for the weopons available to the "tyranincal government". But more importantly, I highly doubt more than a few would even try to respond to a "tyranical government" by challenging it through force. Sure there are some, but for the most part those people are part of the lunatic fringe and in the U.S. are largely confined to white racist extremists. And therein lies another problem – those most likely to use guns to oppose that mythical "tyrannical govenmernt" in the U.S. are among the people that most of us think should not have easy access to guns in the first place.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:55 am | Reply
  97. Truth

    The sad truth is humanity just loves violence. Kids get off on violent games... people love action movies with shoot outs and violence. And for some odd reason... guns just look so cool don't they?

    December 19, 2012 at 11:56 am | Reply
  98. Mark

    Ted Kaczynski didn't even own a gun.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:56 am | Reply
    • PaulaMcGregor

      Right, you don't NEED a gun to kill people. There are other ways...but Ted didn't kill 12000 people a year.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:19 pm | Reply
  99. Spencer

    Bomb and knife attacks cannot be compared to guns. It takes knowledge and expertise to build a bomb and use it successfully – most people cannot do it easily. It is hard to kill large numbers with a knife because once one person is stabbed everyone else runs and scatters making it hard for the attacker to strike again. It is also much more survivable and can be defended against. It takes also takes more courage and conviction to blow oneself up with a bomb or stab someone from close up than to shoot them down from a distance like a coward.

    December 19, 2012 at 11:57 am | Reply
    • bill

      you can learn to build a bomb from youtube if you wanted

      December 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Reply
    • Mark

      A hunk of dry ice in a 3 inch PVC pipe sealed in with rubber cement will take an arm off. Metal pipe and gun powder can kill a few people. Fertilizer known as Amonium Nitrate is highly explosive and available at local retailers available in "ice packs" as it reacts with salt in an endothermic reaction. Just drain the ice pack into a pipe, add some aluminum and boom. Hillbillies are not experts and they do can and do accomplish this for fun. As far as "survivability" and "Courage" needed to execute crimes with other weapons, pish posh. These people are mentally ill. They were going to kill someone. Guns made it more expedient. Let's address the issue (mental illness) and not the unfortunate indicator (mass murder). Let's talk about why these people were not detected or treated until they were beyond help. What if he would have driven a car through the school wall and killed a few kids? Are we going to outlaw Honda Civics? What if he just walked down the hall and tossed crudely made pipe bombs into each classroom and killed a few kids? Are we going to outlaw plumbing supplies and fertilizer? I agree that guns are the most expedient way to accomplish these atrocities, but it's not WHY they occur.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Reply
  100. SoSad

    Here's another thing to consider. The general public have a hard enough time these days stopping to help someone on the street who is in need. A woman getting abused... a man just hit by a car and lying in the middle of the road... someone getting beat up on a bus... a group of punks taking out their frustrations on a guy in the park.... What do most people do? Look... and walk on by. If the passerbys had a gun on them, what do you think they would do? Would they take it out and shoot the people? Is that right? Or what if they actually were faced with a gunman at a mall... how many, even with a gun, would actually pull it out and start blasting away? It's one thing to say you would, but totally another thing to actually do it.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:02 pm | Reply
    • Mark

      I would and actually have...twice and would again. I was at a gas station in a particularly rough area of my town. A man approached and as he got closer to me, he pulled a knife. He was going to rob me. But as he got closer, I simply showed him my revolver and he stopped dead in his tracks and ran away. Another time, I stopped a man from beating on his wife in a mall parking lot by brandishing my revolver and calling the cops. I didn't have to USE my weapon in either circustance, but it proved to be an adequate crime...imagine that.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Reply
  101. johnbrownraider

    Kind of hard to compare an tiny country surrounded by water to a huge nation with water ports, and land entrances on 2 sides. I don't see this compares a better comparison would be Mexico or Estonia.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:03 pm | Reply
    • The Author


      December 19, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Reply
  102. Scott

    Good 'ol liberals. Never miss an chance to exploit a tragedy for political gain.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:05 pm | Reply
    • Truth

      Good'ol rednecks.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Reply
      • Seansa

        Funny how bigoted liberals are!

        December 19, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
    • Ramana7


      What political gain would there be? What drives people to want to limit or get rid of guns is for peace and to avoid such tremendous tragedy. That's not about political gain, but just moved by the tragedy and injustice of these kinds of crimes.

      You may not agree, but stereo-typing "liberals" according to your own bent is just childish.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:54 pm | Reply
  103. evan

    why dont we compare the murder rate between the two countries. All i am getting from this article is its better to get murdered than get murdered with a gun... what an incredibly biased bs article

    December 19, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Reply
  104. John P

    Let me first say that I don't own a gun, of any kind. With that being said, that is probably the worse comparison known to man. It doesn't show if it works or not. If they don't have guns, they have other weapons. Show some real relevant statistic like deaths by guns/knives/machetes. Flawed logic.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:11 pm | Reply
  105. SoSad

    I think everyone just needs to cut through the fluff and get to the point. American culture is what it is. The good and the bad. You can't compare any other country to it and it to any other country. Like one politician said, there are already too many guns available in the country, it would be impossible to change that. Plus there are too many of its people that don't trust or support their own government. Guns and violence are ingrained in the history and people died to fight for their rights and freedoms – you think anyone is going to want to give any of that up? Not a chance. So I'm not sure what anyone is expecting to happen. You can debate it all to death (which it has been already). I enjoyed reading opinions expressed on these forums the past week, but now it's all starting to repeat itself and it's getting tiresome. I really hope your leaders come up with something special and I pray this type of thing doesn't happen again...although with the current state of affairs, we all know it will 😦

    December 19, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Reply
    • John P

      People are just trying to find an "easy" way out of it, but they don't understand that there isn't one.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:18 pm | Reply
  106. leon

    Basically the US is an uncivilized nation of ignorants rukled by an elite of criminals descendents of criminals and rejects from around the wold, failures, desperados and of those whom the a tions opf the criminals has made them
    leave their own country.They all live in the illusion of living in a good country.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Reply
    • Mark

      We're uncivilized? If you're going to lob insults at an entire nation, please use correct punctuation and spell check. Otherwise, you just like foolish.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Reply
  107. Juan

    I remember when I was serving in the USMC, Marines living in the barracks on base were not allowed to carry their own firearms on base or store them in their own rooms. They had to be checked into the armory. I do not know what married officers and enlisted Marines living in family housing were allowed to do with firearms.

    We went to the armory once a month as a unit to clean our assigned weapons and we fired our M-16 rifles or M-9 service pistols under strict control and monitoring at least once a year for mandatory qualification.

    Here's my point: If U.S. Marines, who receive specialized training on handling firearms, were not allowed to carry firearms where ever they wanted to, then why should the average civilian who is no where near as specially trained should be? be allowed own and carrt these weapons wherever they wish?

    December 19, 2012 at 12:17 pm | Reply
  108. Coflyboy

    The problem does not simply lie with our 2nd amendment or a mental case. Turn on the TV on a Saturday morning and you will see that kids are being taught at a young age that it is OK to shoot anything in sight. Power Rangers, Transformers, etc, all are continuously shooting in a quest for power. This violence replaces what was deemed as 'violent' when they took the Roadrunner and Tom & Jerry off the air. Then, we have parents who allow their 7 year old kids to watch this crap.
    This moral education continues throughout our teenage and adult years. Every movie, TV show is rife with gun violence. Our minds begin to learn that this violent behavior is normal and expected. It is not just the kooks, it is a consequence of our acceptance towards violence being the norm.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Reply
    • jusayin


      December 19, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Reply
  109. itdontmatter

    Sounds like a a great process. I think of what I had to go thru to try to adopt an dog from a shelter, it was more intense than what you have to do for a gun. The process for when I went to become a Big Brother was in-depth also. Background, criminal, credit(i think), contacted references and even random neighbors who I didn't include on my references. Sounds fair to me.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Reply
  110. Landru

    The truth is that both sides of this argument are valid. I firmly believe in freedom and the right to bear arms. That will not waver. However, the other side of the discussion is not without merit. There are justifiable reasons to put some kind of regulations in place too reduce the possibility of some nut job perpetrating a crime against humanity. There are justifiable reasons for the people of the world to be totally shaken by this event. Knee jerk reactions are not baseless. History though, confirms the need for the right to keep and bear a weapon. Freedom and libert cannot be maintained if the people cannot protect themselves from tyranny. To quote Ben Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
    I read these articles to ban guns and figures from counries with bans in place and I understand why people want it. In the long run though we cannot give up our freedom. We just have to fight harder to for another answer.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:20 pm | Reply
  111. Robert

    Irrelevant question...Ever since Hiroshima the US has restricted the country from having guns or military....Its not their law its us telling them what to do.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Reply
    • Truth

      HIll Billy Robert

      December 19, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Reply
  112. Landru

    The truth is that both sides of this argument are valid. I firmly believe in freedom and the right to bear arms. That will not waver. However, the other side of the discussion is not without merit. There are justifiable reasons to put some kind of regulations in place too reduce the possibility of some nut job perpetrating a crime against humanity. There are justifiable reasons for the people of the world to be totally shaken by this event. Knee jerk reactions are not baseless. History though, confirms the need for the right to keep and bear a weapon. Freedom and libert cannot be maintained if the people cannot protect themselves from tyranny. To quote Ben Franklin "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"
    I read these articles to ban guns and figures from counries with bans in place and I understand why people want it. In the long run though we cannot give up our freedom. We just have to fight harder to for another answer.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:21 pm | Reply
  113. Nick

    Their gun killing rates are low, but look at their homicide rates.. What they use to kill consist of knives and weapons of that nature..

    December 19, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Reply
  114. john

    We need guns in USA because of violent blacks who commit most of the crime; notice I said most.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Reply
  115. Liz

    Just a Thought –

    If you are registering yourself for a gun, you have to go through many exams such as a mental evaluation. If you have multiple people in the home, shouldn't everyone in the home get a mental evaluation as well? You're not the only one who will have access to it.

    Again – just a thought.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Reply
  116. Brian

    11! So this just proves gun control does not work. Not to mention they don't even address the real question, does removing guns reduce the murder rate? (For those with poor vision, the stat is for "GUN RELATED murders") I assume if the over all murder rate went down they'd be all over that.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:25 pm | Reply
  117. pc

    Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the shrill ignorance of “gun control” advocates?

    The key fallacy of so-called gun-control laws is that such laws do not in fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens, while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

    If gun-control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun-control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

    Places and times with the strongest gun-control laws have often been places and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but just one among many.

    The rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand-gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

    The few counter-examples offered by gun-control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun-control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

    But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries — and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun-control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of that time.

    In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun-murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

    Neither guns nor gun control were the reason for the difference in murder rates. People were the difference.

    Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun-control laws on both sides of the Atlantic have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

    In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

    In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s — after decades of ever tightening gun-ownership restrictions — there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

    Gun-control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun-control laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. All of these countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

    You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

    Guns are not the problem. People are the problem — including people who are determined to push gun-control laws, either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm | Reply
  118. derek

    But how many murders were by samurai sword?

    December 19, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Reply
    • Truth

      Wow.. very clever. Are you a redneck?

      December 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm | Reply
  119. Irish

    Ahh yes the old Gun Control arguement.

    Guns dont just jump up out of the box and shoot people its a fact. Guns dont all of a sudden decide they want to fire at people or animals or anything. Guns take a human element to work. They need to be loaded, aimed, and fired by a human. Guns are not bad, people are.

    OMG guns were designed to kill, really, i think we all know that. Criminals and mentally ill people are the ones who run into crowds of people and fire weapons at people and cops. Those of us who have grown up with guns, have a great understanding of guns and DO NOT FEAR guns, are not the ones running around shooting public crowds or even individual people. We take our guns to areas they are allowed, they are called shooting ranges, and we fire our weapons for enjoyment and practice.

    Distracted driving, aka using a cell phone in a car including texting while driving, has been proven to be worse than drunk driving.

    Texting and driving is something that we all should be focusing on. I say that about 95% of people lobbying for gun control regularly participate in texting and driving while 99% of legal lawbiding gun owners do not participate in criminal activitives using firearms. yes i made this stat up but im sure i am pretty spot on though

    Emotions should not get in the way of politics. This talk should not happen while we are stealing dealing in the aftermath of what happened in Newtown. Moarning and healing should take place first then if gun control wants to be brought up then please do so. But once the next media explosion of a topic comes along those cattle will be on to the next thing thats popular and gun control will not happen.

    Also to those that toss the word assualt weapon around, please google the term assualt weapon because you all are misinformed on what an assualt rifle is. An assualt rifle is a rifle that can be switched from automatic firing to burst firing to semi auto firing. Those weapons are already illegal in the USA.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:30 pm | Reply
    • Steven

      Here here!!

      December 19, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Reply
    • Rob

      Texting & Driving is illegal in California.


      December 19, 2012 at 3:21 pm | Reply
  120. Dillon

    How about murders with the use of other weapons or common objects? How many of those deaths in the United States are due to gang violence and civil altercations? Of the numbers not related to gang violence, etc. how many are from cases involving mental illness? Break down the figures into categories and show the real facts. Its like saying 12,000 people were killed by cars. How many were used in murders or how many were due to car accidents and of those numbers how many were due to driving under the influence? Lets also note these figures are from 2008, almost five years ago, when violent crimes were probably on the rise.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:34 pm | Reply
  121. stulle

    It's not there gun laws it's there culture, they aslo don't have looting during natural disasters.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Reply
  122. Mike

    The 12000 vs 11 murder statistic is meaningless without the guns owned vs guns owned statistics to go with them. It's also meaningless to just compare the number of murders committed with firearms without comparing the total number of murders per-capita.

    Guns are not the issue. A society that has no way to suitably care for and help the mentally ill, and that so easily falls to violence, is the problem.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:36 pm | Reply

    Murder is a way to express feelings. Don't take that away from people. Everyone should be able to kill with the most efficient weapons. 2ND AMENDMENT!!! IF WE ALL HAD GUNS THEN IT'S EVEN FOR EVERYONE.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:38 pm | Reply
    • JonfromLI


      December 19, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Reply
  124. Nick

    I think the point is being missed. As a gun owner and hunter, I believe in the right to own a gun. However, I think the distinction lies in what type of weapon – handguns and assault rifles are designed to kill people, hence their use by every military in the world. The significant majority of publicized, senseless crimes involve these classifications of weapons including the murders at Columbine HS, Thurston HS, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech etc etc indicate that our current gun control measures have failed to prevent these incidents. With 40% of gun purchases made without a background check last year and with the US having the highest homicide rate in the first world per capita, something needs to change. Any measure of control of guns is seen as an attack on our liberty and freedom, however, the second amendment was passed at a time when we needed an armed population to prevent our government from being taken over by a foreign nation. Laws are essentially regulation upon perceived freedoms to provide safety, rules, and organization in a society. At some point we need to realize that handguns and assault rifles should not be made available to any citizen, that this is no longer the wild west. At a macro level, political scientists have a term for nations that engage is massive nuclear armament – Mutual Assured Destruction; you can make the correlation that a heavily armed society can follow a similar path, while not destruction, an unnecessarily high homicide rate. As a citizen, I would feel more safe knowing their are less guns around me everyday than strangers ready to 'protect' themselves with guns.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Reply
  125. steve

    The US is going down the tubes and all these people care about is guns.
    No wonder it will soon be a third world country.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:41 pm | Reply
    • Steven

      Hahaha... Do you know the definition of a 'third world country'?? Idiots.

      December 19, 2012 at 12:45 pm | Reply
      • haha

        The first worlkd was the developed western world, with freedom, rights and prosperity. The second world was the communist bloc. The third world was the weak, undeveloped world that niether The West nor the East were really interested in.

        When China stops funding American dedevelopment, then you will be third world and the new dark age of a world without supoerpowers will be obvious.

        January 3, 2013 at 10:14 pm |
  126. Ryan

    So there are 314,968,621 people in the U.S. according to ( Lets say those 12,000 people that were murdered by a NUT with a gun in 2008 were all done by a singular individual. That means 12,000 NUTS. So that would be 0.003810% of our population that. So the other 99.99619% of the law abiding population should be banned from having a gun because of a percentage isn't even 1 basis point? Come on... how about banning cigarettes that are costing second hand smoke deaths of around 43,000 a year.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Reply
  127. Coflyboy

    Look at the bright side: keeping America violent and gun-crazed helps with over-population.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:47 pm | Reply
  128. fras6

    OK gun nuts. Lets take your position to the ultimate dream – school teachers are armed; librarians armed; hospital emergency staff armed; sports teams armed; hell we may as well give kids guns too...!!
    Welcome to a new America – welcome to the Wild West show!!! What a joke. Thank God I Iive in Canada.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:48 pm | Reply
    • Coflyboy

      ...and before you know it, the country will be renamed to OK Corral

      December 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Reply
    • Joe

      OK, show me the proof. Where has that happened? I'm not suggesting everyone be armed, but that's just nonsense.

      Florida (stats on their state website) has issued over 2 million CCW permits in the last 25 years. Of those, 168 people have been arrested for gun crimes – in 25 years! – about 7 a year. Given there are about 2 million adults in Chicago, do you think Chicago has 7 gun crimes a year? They have at least 7 a day, maybe 7 per hour on weekends. So, if the average person in Chicago were as law-abiding and safe as the average Florida CCW holder, Chicago would be a much better and safer place. CCW holders are not the problem (they are, as a whole, probably about 1000 times more law-abiding and safe than the people of Chicago). The problem is criminals, who will always have guns, and the occasional nut who will probably find a way to kill people anyway, and will probably even find a gun when they are banned.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:37 pm | Reply
  129. caseyj1107

    There is no doubt that Guns are weapons and I would love to never have to worry about someone attacking me or anyone near me with a gun for the rest of my life. The sad truth is that there are millions of guns in the US right now. I own a pistol and have a ccw permit that i use for protection against that kind of scenario. If the goverment bans the sell of guns today How many millions of guns are going to be floating around for years and years to come. If they could come up with a plan that would convince me of their abilty to remove all the guns that are out there in a timely manner then i would gladly vote for that. Until they do come up with that sort of plan i don't plan to rely on others to protect me 24/7 when only the criminals have guns.

    Never less it is a horrible tragedy that has happened in conn. and my heart goes out to everyone affected by it.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Reply
  130. The Mayor of Medinah

    Alcohol abuse kills some 75,000 Americans each year and shortens the lives of these people by an average of 30 years, a U.S.
    Excessive alcohol consumption is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States after tobacco use and poor eating and exercise habits.
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which published the study, estimated that 34,833 people in 2001 died from cirrhosis of the liver, cancer and other diseases linked to drinking too much beer, wine and spirits.
    Another 40,933 died from car crashes and other mishaps caused by excessive alcohol use.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Reply
    • jusayin

      Hey, you're making sense and stating the truth and because of that, no one cares! *sarcasm*

      December 19, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Reply
  131. The Mayor of Medinah

    Nearly three out of four prescription drug overdoses are caused by prescription painkillers—also called opioid pain relievers. The unprecedented rise in overdose deaths in the US parallels a 300% increase since 1999 in the sale of these strong painkillers.4 These drugs were involved in 14,800 overdose deaths in 2008, more than cocaine and heroin combined

    More than 12 million people reported using prescription painkillers nonmedically in 2010, that is, using them without a prescription or for the feeling they cause.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:51 pm | Reply
    • Ryan

      America – Home of the Free (well.... except this really long list of things you can't have or do)

      December 19, 2012 at 12:58 pm | Reply
  132. Erik

    What a well-written piece of articulate information. CNN needs new "journalists."

    Gun laws only hurt those who are willing to follow them.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Reply
  133. Matt

    We ban illegal drugs, but bad people still get their hands on them. If we ban guns, bad people will still get their hands on them and the good guys won't be able to defend themselves. If guns are banned here, the drug cartels will just add guns to the items they smuggle over the border. I will not be brainwashed by these twisted statistics that CNN is posting.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Reply
    • Ryan

      Well said!

      December 19, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Reply
    • PaulC

      That fuzzy logic is getting old.
      Using this logic we should have no laws because people will break them anyway.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm | Reply
      • Matt

        Do you think we should ban guns? If so, do you think criminals would still get their hands on them?

        December 19, 2012 at 1:05 pm |
  134. Qballelder

    Guns are made to KILL things – nothing else. No matter what your rationalization, that is the intended outcome for the user/owner.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Reply
  135. Sy2502

    Say liberals, how has the war on drugs worked for you? How about learning a lesson from your own book?

    December 19, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Reply
    • Coflyboy

      Most liberals do not support this "War on drugs", since it is expensive and counter-productive. BTW, the War on Drugs was started by Richard "Watergate" Nixon, a Republican. Understand the facts before your writing proves your ignorance.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:06 pm | Reply
  136. ratio

    This is an odd set of numbers to throw out as reasoning to practically remove guns. 12000/304500000 vs 11/127700000 is hardly a significant difference. Car accidents caused over twice the number of deaths in the U.S. and i'm sure we can find a country with little to no car related deaths. Would this mean we should ban cars? In fact given the number and variety of weapons sold, 12000 in such a large population is really very small. I don't own guns and likely never will but if all it takes is one deranged person to take away peoples rights to something, we might want to get ready for a ban of anything sharp. I read an article a few months back which showed a bigger difference in side effects of those smoking marijuana and why it should never be legalized (still non-significant however) but many of the same people try to get rid of guns now were stating that we should ignore those numbers. Apples and Oranges yes, but my point is that it's a band wagon. Yesterday kids are killed and guns are bad, tomorrow a guy with a gun stops a terrorist attack and guns are good.

    December 19, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Reply
    • Ryan

      well said, its a hot topic, the government throws some paperwork around, and in a month we will be talking about something else

      December 19, 2012 at 1:03 pm | Reply
      • Coflyboy

        Yep. see ya at the next shooting!
        Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. –Albert Einstein

        December 19, 2012 at 1:09 pm |
  137. 96706

    But they use very sharp knives!!

    December 19, 2012 at 1:07 pm | Reply
  138. FreddieMac

    I would welcome banning all guns, IF the government could guarantee that ALL guns would be gone from this country and that they could guarantee our safety. They can't, so I won't. I will keep my guns so I can protect myself and my family from harm.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Reply
    • jharry3

      If guns are banned then the bad guys will carry swords. I don't know about you but that would mean the young and strong would rule. With hand guns we are all equal. "God made man. Samuel Colt made them equal".

      December 20, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Reply
  139. The Mayor of Medinah

    Almost every day you hear of an off duty cop or security guard stopping a crime

    December 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Reply
  140. Mr_Toad

    SCENARIO: Since each victim had three to seven .223 rifle wounds, Mr. Lanza was forced to reload his LEGALLY acquired 30 cartridge magazine at least THREE times to murder all 26 people.
    QUESTION: How many school children would NOT have been murdered if Mr. Lanza had been forced to reload at least TWELVE TIMES, if his legally acquired magazines were restricted to 10 cartridges each.
    FACT: The NRA will refuse to answer this question.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Reply
    • pointless1

      If one trained office worker was able to carry a weapon at work, Mr. Lanza might not have been able to cause the damage he did. There are many people, from many walks of life that are capable of handling themselves and a weapon.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Reply
  141. enough

    Enough is enough. I am willing to give up my Second Amendment rights to save a child's life.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:11 pm | Reply
    • TJ

      The 2nd Amendment was written in a time where the world looked very different, and they didn't have (semi-)automatic firearms back then. The 2nd Amendment was never intended to create a self-proclaimed, unpredictable and dangerous civilian guerilla, which is exactly what the US has become today. Millions of people walking around like ticking bombs...

      December 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Reply
    • Seansa

      Give me a break. You never exercised that right in the first place did ya?

      December 19, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Reply
  142. Bornaghenhard

    I guess the part about having a strong moral ethic has nothing to do with it also...

    December 19, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Reply
  143. Jay

    Shouldn't we focus more on why these people are killing in the first place. Guns or no guns, if the impulse to kill people is gone then no one gets hurt.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Reply
  144. jusayin

    guns don't kill people, neither do nukes, drones, atomic bombs, chemical weapons. In fact I'd rather someone come at me with a drone filled with chemical weaponheads than someone with a gun, because it's the same thing.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Reply
  145. hanks

    Obama will move to get the assault weapons out of circulation, the NRA will retaliate and an offshoot NRA militia will commence strikes against law enforcement, that will snowball, because they will convince all the poor uneducated people that their very liberty and freedoms are at stake, and then you will witness the uprising. Within 2 years, full blown civil war, no longer about guns, but inequality. This will be the catalyst and the beginning of the fall of the USA, the land of the Free...

    December 19, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Reply
    • Ray

      I can hardly wait.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Reply
    • The Mayor of Medinah

      If you look up the biggest political contributors / lobbyists the NRA is no where near the top... so why all of the fear?

      December 19, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Reply
    • tom

      The west coast will fall to the rebel NRA militia first, DC and New York will stay under govt control, but there will be widespread death and destruction across the mid west as the government tries to retake seized instalations and cities. A militia of 4 million moving eastwards, US air force jets bombing rebel held cities, sounds like science fiction doesnt it, but an interesting assumption and not entirely impossible

      December 19, 2012 at 1:23 pm | Reply
  146. The Mayor of Medinah

    Assault rifles are not available to the general public, only semi automatic guns that look like assault rifles. A true assault rifle able to fire fully automatic. So this is how the media portrays the boogieman and get the public to believe something other than the truth. We need to be very careful about factual journalism and watch out for propaganda, propaganda = politics facts = truth and the news media knows that many of us believe what is shoved down out pie holes.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:17 pm | Reply
    • Mr_Toad

      That is total B___T and you know it!

      I own a coupla dozen firearms, and have purchased lots of copies of gun drool over those Barrett .50 calibers..


      Don't believe me? Go to YouTube and watch some videos by Mr. Nutnfancy. Even HE calls them assault rifles.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:20 pm | Reply
    • Mr_Toad

      PS. I own a DPMS AR-15 in .308...and yes, it is an ASSAULT don't throw out that NRA BS around here.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:21 pm | Reply
    • Mr_Toad

      So,Mr. 'bout YOU answering my little question below:

      SCENARIO: Since each victim had three to seven .223 rifle wounds, Mr. Lanza was forced to reload his LEGALLY acquired 30 cartridge magazine at least THREE times to murder all 26 people.

      QUESTION: How many school children would NOT have been murdered if Mr. Lanza had been forced to reload at least TWELVE TIMES, if his legally acquired magazines were restricted to 10 cartridges each.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:26 pm | Reply
  147. What

    Do Mexico's tough gun laws work?

    December 19, 2012 at 1:18 pm | Reply
  148. Lisa k.

    That and the people are scared to go to their prisons, or get the sentence handed down. The cost of their actions is to high!

    December 19, 2012 at 1:22 pm | Reply
  149. Mr_Toad

    So,Mr. 'bout YOU answering my little question below:

    SCENARIO: Since each victim had three to seven .223 rifle wounds, Mr. Lanza was forced to reload his LEGALLY acquired 30 cartridge magazine at least THREE times to murder all 26 people.

    QUESTION: How many school children would NOT have been murdered if Mr. Lanza had been forced to reload at least TWELVE TIMES, if his legally acquired magazines were restricted to 10 cartridges each.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Reply
  150. magnum12

    The article says that in 2008, the U.S. had 12,000 gun-related murders. There were also 18000 drunk driving deaths and 275000 injured. Many of them children. Do people morn less when loved ones are killed by drunk drivers than by guns? Then why doesn't it get the same outrage from the media as what happenned in Connecticut?

    December 19, 2012 at 1:25 pm | Reply
    • Mr_Toad

      Actually...they do.

      MADD is an organization that is responsible for a lot of the tough drunk driving laws we have....with folks' licenses taken away, sent to jail, sent to prison, etc.

      So are you ready for the same laws to apply to irresponsible gun ownership?

      December 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Reply
      • the Mayor of Medinah

        Yet you only need to be 21 to by booze, so the laws are made for law breakers, do we limit on how much booze we can buy? Should we only make pint bottles of hard liquor available? should we limit how much booze one can buy at one time or during the course of a year? I agree stiffer laws need to be in place for people that break the laws. But one does not need to be punished before the law is broken or only when we feel that it is convenient? So as Americans we need to be careful what we ask for because they will start to think for us. so I believe that in New York I can only buy a soda of a specific size but I can still buy as much booze as possible. If I am correct I don't believe that many over weight kids or people are responsible for over weight driving accidents but I am sure there are many cases of drunks driving in New York and killing many people.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
  151. widow

    great job comparing an island nation that never had a high gun volume to the US where there are 300 million guns in circulation. They fish and rape the oceans.. They don't hunt. if they do they go out of the country. You cannot compare a land where guns hardly ever existed to the US where there are 300 million guns and a country in Mexico who will send many more through cartels to the US even if you made guns 100% illegal. go look at Germany where they have super strict gun laws as well and they have 3 of the top 5 mass shootings in the world. Why not FOCUS on Mental health and get the people who cannot control there emotions and teach them how to control there emotions.. And NOT by doping them up with tranquilizers so they become zombies then don't take there medication and "Snap" and go kill someone or themselves. We have got to get mental health under control. The illgal gun laws in Chicago produce 7-20 people shot every night. With a mayor in Rahm Emanuel who was Obama's chief of staff wanting to close more than half the cities mental health facilities.. How stupid are our leader.. They too go to the tangible object which is guns.. because they can change that easily compared to restructuring the mental health system and figuring out more proven diagnostic methods. basically no one goes to get an mri when they have a mental health issue.. yet if you have a pain in your side and it might be a kidney stone they send you for a cat scan.. Well what is the difference.. a pain in your side or a depression or mental illness that is effecting your entire way of life? Why is this sooo difficult for people to understand? why is it soo difficult to put 90% of the focus on mental health and 10% on gun control? they do the opposite today.. The core root of the problem isn't gun control it is mental health. These guns were stolen.. same with the oaklahoma shootings.. they stole them from one of the guys grandpa who had them locked in an electronic safe where they cut the wires and stole the guns. You think all the thugs on the south and west sides of chicago got there hand guns legally which produce anywhere from 7-20 people shot every single night. We have to start today with implimenting a mental health program for children and parents at age 3.. Help the bums on the stereet by giving them work.. whether it be on farms or something in the city. Not just feed them and give them shelter at night and then let them roam the city begging for money to support there alcohol or drug habit. We need to show them they can come back and contribute to society. Like they did in the 60's and 70's where they had over an 85% rehab rate on a farm outside chicago. Then they cut the funding and it disappeared. leaving them hopeless once again. When you take people and show them they can contribute and help and life is not over for them You make a difference.. They change. We need to stop ignoring mental health in this country. It is destroying what so many have worked for.. Which is peace and happiness for ALL.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:28 pm | Reply
    • the Mayor of Medinah

      Widow.... Well said you seem like you a a very smart person who looks at the facts and the big picture, it is nice to hear a voice of reason. Unfortunately this country is full of Lemmings, followers and not leaders, mimics and not thinkers. And way to many of us many to point the finger at something other than the real truth.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Reply
      • Mr_Toad

        Hey, Mayor!

        I see you still haven't answered my question, below.

        Or is it because you are just another ignorant NRA mouthpiece. (And yes, my .308 DPMS AR-15 is an ASSAULT RIFLE, so cut the semantic bull___.)

        SCENARIO: Since each victim had three to seven .223 rifle wounds, Mr. Lanza was forced to reload his LEGALLY acquired 30 cartridge magazine at least THREE times to murder all 26 people.

        QUESTION: How many school children would NOT have been murdered if Mr. Lanza had been forced to reload at least TWELVE TIMES, if his legally acquired magazines were restricted to 10 cartridges each.

        December 19, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
      • the Mayor of Medinah

        Mr. Toad, I am not a NRA member never have been never will be, so maybe you are the ignorant one who just makes blind accusations or assumptions without knowing the facts, a Lemming.

        Most nations do not use the term “assault weapon” to classify civilian weaponry. In the United States, the term was rarely used before gun control political efforts emerged in the 1980s. In 1989, California became the first U.S. state to identify and outlaw assault weapons.
        Also in 1989, the U.S. prohibited several types of semi-automatic rifles from being imported. Those rifles were among the weapons that would eventually be banned by the AWB in 1994. Many of them were a version of the Russian military’s AK-47. Several thousand of those semi-automatic rifles, which were manufactured in China, had been purchased by American gun owners.
        The term “assault weapon” was a spin-off of the U.S. military’s definition of assault rifles. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes.
        Fully-automatic weapons have been prohibited in the U.S. since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Fully-automatic firearms can spray fire with a single pull of the trigger, while semi-automatic guns fire one shot with each pull of the trigger.

        December 19, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
  152. Dude

    Seems to me they fail to mention in this article the vast difference in population size, nor do they mention the numbers of other crimes committed where other lethal force was used. Pretty one sided article.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Reply
    • Stevelb1

      They have like 100 million people we have like 300 million. By your logic, we should only have 33 gun murders a year in the US.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Reply
  153. Joe

    Why is it that anyone owning a firearm is referred to as a "gun nut" by a group of individuals who wouldn't know the difference between a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol?

    Do you critics honestly believe that imposing even tougher gun restrictions will deture criminals from obtaining firearms or mentally ill people from killing others?

    If you critics want a discussion about handgun violence in America you can start by stop with the name-calling.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Reply
  154. brian

    I got my calculator out and did the math. 11 is less than 12,000

    December 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Reply
  155. Steve

    How did these assult weapons ever become legal in the first place? Then, our young kids are playing these vidio games all about killing and shooting instead of going to Sunday school and confirmation. They have taken God out of our schools, government and the public eye. What does this country expect? Years ago they took the Roadrunner cartoon off the air because it was too violent yet today killing, beatings and rape are on our everyday TV shows.
    Our counrty seems to care more about a gay person getting rights than our own children and security.
    These shooting are going to continue in the counrty because that's the way we've made it. No morals left.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:29 pm | Reply
  156. kacklelackle

    Take a look at the murder rates around the world. Many countries with stringent gun laws have high murder rates. If you fail to account for societal beliefs, effectiveness of the legal systems, and economic levels, then you make a pointless and valuless argument. The other issue, is that many low gun rate countries have never had a lot of guns to begin with, so it was easy to limit posession of them. We currently have 300 million or so floating around- millions of which are unregistered and unlocatable.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Reply
  157. Steven


    December 19, 2012 at 1:33 pm | Reply
    • Steven

      How s it my test gets through but my rationalization does not? Censored??

      December 19, 2012 at 1:34 pm | Reply
  158. Mike

    And of those 12,000 murders, how many were committed by law-abiding gun owners?? I would guess most were by law breakers that do not purchase guns legally. If you are going to report on a story, report the WHOLE story, not just the side of the story you want to hear! How to you intend to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the majority of whom committed those 12,000 murders!!?? Criminals don't buy guns legally. Guns don't kill people, people kill people!

    December 19, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Reply
  159. Eric V

    Why are you liberals so dumb? Why do you continue to support the erosion of this country? You support the murder of unborn children, you support using "gentle tactics" when dealing with terrorists, you support 2 men getting married and raising children???

    As long as you have McDonalds and Starbucks and reality TV, you are content to think that you are safe in your little world where everything is rainbows and unicorns and no one really gets hurt. You badmouth and shun everything that came before you to allow you to sleep soundly in your beds. Guns built this country, guns protect our homes, our workplaces, and deter those who would do you harm. Is it going to take another 911 to wake you up again?????

    News flash - there is EVIL in this world - real people who want to hurt and maim and disfigure you and me. The police and military are not here to protect you the individual. The only one who can respond immediately to a sick, twisted psycho who is hell bent on hurting the innocent is an ARMED citizen who can react RIGHT NOW.

    I have a concealed pistol permit and I carry every day to protect YOU thankless sheep. I own semi auto rifles to act as one more stop gap against the possible evils in this world. We dont have enough military to stop a full on invasion of this country. We don't have enough police to protect everyone in case of massive rioting and looting. And we certainly cannot lay down our rifles and hope that the US government will never turn oppressive. You all make me sick to my stomach when you spit on our freedoms. Enjoy that $5 latte.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:38 pm | Reply
    • Mr_Toad

      Okay Eric, I will try my little question on you.....BTW, i have a CCW and own two dozen firearms, so cut the liberal crap.

      SCENARIO: Since each victim had three to seven .223 rifle wounds, Mr. Lanza was forced to reload his LEGALLY acquired 30 cartridge magazine at least THREE times to murder all 26 people.

      QUESTION: How many school children would NOT have been murdered if Mr. Lanza had been forced to reload at least TWELVE TIMES, if his legally acquired magazines were restricted to 10 cartridges each.

      December 19, 2012 at 1:40 pm | Reply
    • CommonSense

      Umm you don't protect me. The US military protects me as well does the Police and Fire departments. You don't do anything but provide an external worry factor that you won't go nuts or get angry enough to shoot me or get your guns stolen by someone else and used against me. I don't need your type of protection. Tell me, do you have a gun out on your desk right now so that if someone busted into your room you could turn around and shoot them? Right I'm sure everyone does...

      December 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Reply
  160. me

    ok so lets get rid of the 300 million+ guns we know we have- the other million+ that we dont know that are out there-stop selling any more guns in the future-not a problem-usa will live in peace and harmony

    December 19, 2012 at 1:41 pm | Reply
  161. michael

    the big problem that i have is the lack of personal responsibility. its ridiculous. Someone steals someone's gun, shoots up a place and then blows his brains out. People are hurt, no one is punished. How about, if you own a gun, you are responsible for it. If someone steals your gun and uses it, your liable. Lock it into a safe. Buy a trigger lock. remove the firing pin when it isn't used. how about we use new technology to make it so that guns can only be fired if a special key is inserted into the back of a gun? it can be a microchip. it CAN BE ANYTHING! People go buy a gun for fun, shoot it at the range a bit, and then put it in the basement and forget about it. The laziness should not be tolerated! Every single gun owner buys it for protection or sport, but they are owning a tool of death. They don't give it the proper respect it deserves. Make people liable!

    December 19, 2012 at 1:42 pm | Reply
    • TonyH110

      YOU are responsible – if your gun does get stolen you'd better report it to the police ASAP – if not you become an accomplis to any crime the thief commits with the gun. Even after reporting the police can charge negligence – even if not then a civil suite could empty your bank account. In this case if the mother had lived she'd be in jail now on VERY serious charges – her neglect is as haneous as the crime her son commited

      December 19, 2012 at 1:53 pm | Reply
  162. TonyH110

    Coming from a country – the UK (that completely banned guns then still had Dunblane) – I must admit that the background check is a little simple – they check you for any felons only its done in 15-20mins. So I'm all for a more intensive check on medical too – I have a CCW license – dont mind that extending as a full license to cover any weapon you wish to pocess. Dont mind either an annual check on my health and compulsory lecture attending on gun safety etc. Now how do we get the criminals and nutjobs on board. NRA members and gun owners in general are ready for some comprimise but we're drowned out by the media and anti-gun lobby whose mantra is purely 'ban guns' – small wonder we're reluctant participants

    December 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm | Reply
  163. Rich

    We are about 200 years too late to ban guns. It would take 200 years more just to get rid of the ones that are here now before we would see any benefit.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:54 pm | Reply
  164. A

    That is exactly how it should be! Plus there should be an expiration date at which point the whole process is repeated again. The costs of the application process should be paid by the individual who wants the gun.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Reply
  165. jbone

    Who said anything about banning guns? The question is do we need clips that hold 40 rounds, or AR-15s in the hands of anyone who wants them? I am all for a person owning a hand gun for protection, or a shotgun for hunting but what is the purpose of these other things? And this car analogy has got to stop! we realize that driving 100 mph would result in a lot more people dead so we regulate it by having speed limits. I realize that bad people are going to do bad things but with this rational we should not have any laws because people are going to break them anyway. I think there are major issues in the mental health arena that need to be dealt with as well as some issues with guns. Both need to be looked at.

    December 19, 2012 at 1:58 pm | Reply
    • the Mayor of Medinah

      jbone..... ok we have speed limits, almost all cars go faster than 25, 35, 45, 55, 65 75, or 80 in fact my car is governed to limit out at 151 mph. Do I drive at 151 no I never would I would never be that irresponsible, driving at 151 is insane I would not endanger myself or others doing so, why because I am a sane law abiding citizen who knows that if I drive at 151 mph and get caught there will be sever consequences for my actions.

      Yet we have these wonderful T.V. programs like Worlds Dumbest and worlds wildest Police chases that show us every day that their are many many people who are completely irresponsible in their own actions that put the rest of us who would never intentional harm another soul for any reason what so ever, but these other fools do not have the mental capacity to think in that manor.

      If you owned a fire arm would you shot your mother in the face four times while she slept? If you owned a firearm would you shout 26 other 3 to 11 times? I am hoping that that thought would not even cross your mind and why it is because you are of sound mind and body. Adam was not, Adam did not receive the proper care for his illness, someone dropped the ball with him and now we all have to pay the price. It is high time we stop turning a blind eye to this epidemic of mental illness.

      Unfortunately this country is full of Lemmings, followers and not leaders, mimics and not thinkers. And way to many of us many to point the finger at something other than the real truth.

      Responsible sane people do responsible sane things. How many of you text and drive?

      December 19, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Reply
  166. Foresee

    Citizens of Honduras and non-citizens who are legal residents of the country may own handguns, shotguns, or rifles under the types and calibers permitted by law. They told by the government what type of firearms are allowed!

    As of 2012, Honduras holds the highest homicide rate in the world and San Pedro Sula holds the country's highest homicide rate with 137.5 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. Between 2005 and mid 2010, 79.38 percent of deaths were committed by firearm in the country.

    The homicide rate in the USA is 5.22 per 100,000 inhabitants. Still way to high!

    December 19, 2012 at 2:01 pm | Reply
  167. Alesha456

    The thing I find funny about you pro gun people who say that its not the fault of the gun, its the person, is then what does that say about American people? Lets assume it's not the fault of the gun....then that tells me that you Americans are a more violent nation, full of agressive, psycho, cold, heartless, mentally disturbed people. Why are your gun related deaths so much higher than countries with gun control if its not the fault of the gun, or the lack of gun laws? And to those who say 'take away the gun, and you'll just get killed with a knife instead'. This is ridiculous. With any other weapon, at least I have a chance to defend myself. But when someone can stand hundreds of feet away and kill me, its hopeless.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:02 pm | Reply
    • the Mayor of Medinah

      Alesha456 So when a drunk plows into a mini van and kills an entire family I guess I it Jim Beam's fault and not the drunks who pounded a quart of wiskey and decided to go to the store to get some more. In America we blame the product and not the person is that how you think?

      December 19, 2012 at 2:27 pm | Reply
  168. AL in West Palm Beach

    I have a solution....the law says a WELL REGULATED... so I will not advocate banning anything HAND GUNS, but I will advocate this:

    1. Full and complete background check on you (the buyer) and anyone who resides in your place. Since you might bring a friend into your home, if your friend will spend more than 15 days in your home...bring him / her in for fingerprints.

    2. Full and complete psychological evaluation for you (the buyer) and anyone residing in your home, exceptiong for children under 12 years old. However, if you (the buyer) have plans to take your under 12 year old to learn to shoot, that exception doesn't apply. If anyone in the home fails said evaluation the gun permit request will be denied.

    two birds one stone: 1 guns out of criminals (planning on buying it legally) 2 nut jobs who don't buy it but leave in the home can't get it.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:04 pm | Reply
    • Jason

      I agree with almost all of what you said. However I will say that the 2 Am. does not stipulate the the right to keep and bear arms be "well regulated". That phrase is speaking to a "well regulated milita being necessary".

      Other than that I am an owner of a shotgun for home protection and plan to get a handgun for the same purpose. I am not a "gun nut" as many dim witted people on here want to term anyone who owns a gun. I am all for the tighter regulations of those out to purchase a gun. I believe in very strict and thorough background checks that DQ the purchaser for things like a past domestic violence arrests, DUIs (cause if you can't make the right decision with alcohol and a car what makes you think you'll be better with a gun) and mental issues. I would even say that ammunition should be very heavily regulated. I believe that you should not be allowed to have more than 50-100 rounds kept in the home in a biometric safe. if you want more to train with purcchase it and use it at the gun range. If you live in a rural area where you should on your own property as training then you need to register and be vetted by the local law enforcement agency AND you need to store it is a locked biometric safe. I think you should also have a wait period for ammunition purchases as well as a wait period for all gun purchases not just handguns. Additionally, the process of having a permit to have a firearm should be repeated periodically.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Reply
  169. R

    Mike I could not agree more. People misinterpret things according to their advantage. That is exactly what is happening with the gun nuts,, as you said

    December 19, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Reply
  170. Bob

    The only way tough gun laws could ever prevent killings is if we abolished not only the 2nd Amendment but also the Fourth. Because all guns would need to be confiscated in violation of the Fourth;s protection against warrantless searches. Otheriwise only criminals would have guns.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Reply
    • Ved

      Nonsense. A law banning ownership of firearms is all that's needed. People would be given a grace period to turn in their illegal weapons. If they don't turn it in and are caught with it, it then becomes a criminal offence, punishable by fines or imprisonment if demonstrated to be wilful. This will not completely get rid of guns, but it will make it less easy to obtain them. Certainly this Adam Lanza kid would not have been able to have just picked up assault guns from his mother's dining room table. Professional criminals would find a way around it, yes, but professional criminals mostly steal things, not go crazy and massacre a bunch of kids. The only criminals around here are NRA supporters.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Reply
  171. F.L.May Sr

    A well Regulated Militia, A well Regulated Militia, A well Regulated Militia. That says it all. How many gun owners belong to A well REGULATED Militia. Anybody can go out and buy a gun. Years ago I walked into a store and bought a shotgun and a box of shells. Paid for it and walked out. I could have loaded that gun and walked back into the store and robbed it. That should never be. Our gun rules are just useless. Gun security is so lax that it is a laugh. As a starter BAN the Sale of ammunition.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:09 pm | Reply
    • Foresee

      Then ban your right to freedom of speech!

      December 19, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Reply
  172. chena

    ..the 'well-regulated militia' refered to in the 2nd Amendment refers to the common man, the Freeman, the John Q Public, who was NOT part of the standing Army.....ntil he was called up or volunteered to become part of the standing Army. Even then, they typically did not stand side by side in battle...the 'regular army' took one part of the battlefield and the 'militia' would usually be on another part of the battlefield....the militia had the right to come and go as they wished, but while they were there, they were under the command and orders of the commanding officer of the local regular Army. The militia came, and left, with their own weapons, ammo, supplies, and skills....Thus, the "well regulated militia" were freemen who possessed their own weapons, and they were considered VITAL to the future and the defense of the fledgling Republic known as the United States of America....

    December 19, 2012 at 2:10 pm | Reply
  173. Amol

    12000!!!! hmmmm.. Do we need Bin Laden? We are loaded with guns and drugs.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Reply
  174. venom

    The only reason why this works is because if you don't follow their rules they cut your head off.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:13 pm | Reply
  175. Pico

    In 1995, a Sarin gas attack on a Tokyo subway killed 13 and injured over 1,000 (50 seriously). Bad people will always find a way to do harm. By the way, the U.S. has never experianced a major chemical weapons incident.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Reply
    • Ved

      Had to dig back nearly 2 decades ago to find something huh? And 11 people were killed. Sorry, but stuff like this happens in the U.S. every year. Sounds like your facts are working against your argument.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:23 pm | Reply
  176. Jim McDonald

    Great Idea! Start with getting obama to get back the 2000+ weapons he sold to Mexican criminals...

    December 19, 2012 at 2:16 pm | Reply
  177. Bocephus Moonshine

    Do any of you remember what it was like to be six years old? I do. I remember losing my first tooth on my sixth birthday, and it is depressing the hell out of me right now that anyone could make a case that his right to own an assault rifle is more important than a six-year-old's right to live. It's even more depressing that someone could make the case that his right to own an assault rifle is more important than the lives of 20 first graders. Excuse me if I don't give a damn about the technical issues.

    Before you make a case against gun regulation, I challenge you to look back at your life, and contemplate how different it would have been if it had ended at the age of six.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Reply
  178. Bill

    Agree with the the proponents of the second amendment – your right to bear arms should not be infringed. In its purest form however, the tenet affords you a single shot musket. Everyone wins. You get your guns, and an end to mass shootings.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Reply
    • Dick

      Show me in the 2nd amendment where it says "muskets".

      December 19, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Reply
    • Foresee

      No one has elected you to represent anything!
      NO, you are wrong and lie!

      December 19, 2012 at 2:20 pm | Reply
  179. cs

    Gun ownership not allowed if you can't pass mental test or if mentally ill person lives in same household. This will be more effective that stricter gun laws, which did not work in Norway where WORST MASS SHOOTING IN HISTORY OCCURED. 77 DEAD.

    More background checks, more mental tests.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:17 pm | Reply
  180. Kevin

    I find it funny that people seem to forget that the Government CAN infringe upon your rights. If they can determine that your rights endanger someone else, then they can outlaw it.
    Freedom of Speech. You actually DO NOT have complete freedom of speech in this country. You can not go into a crowded place and yell "Fire".
    Free of Religion: You can't force people to drink the Koolaid...
    Freedom of Assembly: You can not assemble in just anywhere. Zoning Laws, Fire Codes, etc...

    So, it would not be hard for the government to come in and limit the type of Guns that are legal under the definition of "Arms" in the BoR based on public safety. They would have a long list of recent shootings to back up their position on this arguement...

    December 19, 2012 at 2:18 pm | Reply
  181. Q

    How many mass shootings occurred when the Bill of Rights was written?

    December 19, 2012 at 2:22 pm | Reply
    • the Mayor of Medinah

      The Boston Massacre

      December 19, 2012 at 3:49 pm | Reply
      • Alex Wolf

        You're comparing a drunk crowd attacking armed soldiers to kindergarten kids being gunned down in their classroom.

        December 19, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
      • The mayor of medinah

        A massacre is a massacre it is sadder if it involves young people who have their whole life ahear of them.

        And there was also Kent State

        December 19, 2012 at 5:43 pm |
  182. RotinomEtis

    How do we reconcile the simplicity of this with countries like Switzerland, Norway and Iceland who all have ownership rates above 1 in 3 yet have gun homicide rates that are a fraction of ours. In fact, if you look at the data, almost all of the top 15 countries in per capita ownership have murder rates that are insignificant compaired to ours. It is easy to blame the tool a person uses to cause destruction. It is harder to accept that there may be a defect in our nature as a society, because that foces us to acknowledge that we are flawed.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:24 pm | Reply
  183. R.L.

    Let's look at if this has happened in China, shall we?

    December 19, 2012 at 2:26 pm | Reply
  184. getagrip

    Think more gun regulations will work? How's that going with Mexico, where scores of people are executed, kidnapped, raped and hung from bridges for all to see.
    Perhaps one of them would be alive today if they could defend themselves properly?

    December 19, 2012 at 2:29 pm | Reply
  185. John Pendleton

    In the right to bear arms debate, pro-gun Americans point to Switzerland, where almost every adult male is legally required to possess a gun. One of the few nations with a higher per capita rate of gun ownership than the United States, Switzerland has virtually no gun crime. Therefore, argue the pro-gunners, America doesn't need gun control.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Reply
  186. Loren

    I think that it would be a good idea to ban certain weapons, but that horse is already out of the barn. With the millions of guns already out in the wild, all of these articles talking about how other nations handle guns are pointless, it is too late to restrict gun ownership in the United States. The real conversation needs to be about the divisiveness in our society where we are no longer listening to one another, merely talking at each other. If the President wants to start real gun reform, then it might help that he start listening to what the Republicans want for fiscal reform and show that he is willing to listen. Otherwise, he is just flapping his gums once again.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:32 pm | Reply
  187. KeLev

    The ones who refer to the Second Amendment and the right to carry guns should carry weapons of 1791 edition, not AK or M, because if the Founding Fathers new about the XX th sentry arms, they would amend the Second

    December 19, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Reply
  188. miamishield

    This is a pointless argument no matter what the evidence shows. There will never be a gun ban in the US, not now, not ever. Even if some nut killed 100 kids, there would still be no gun ban. 2 weeks from now the recent shooting will be forgotten by the majority in this country. It's rinse and repeat on the gun argument the next time it happens. There are simply too many guns out there, too many people obsessed by them and the politicians are powerless to do anything about it even if they wanted to.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Reply
  189. tim teboww

    considering the amount of road rage i see on the streets and highways i can't imagine what would happen if everyone starts owning guns. lol!

    December 19, 2012 at 2:34 pm | Reply
  190. Robert

    Amend the 2nd to add that the right to bear arms is limited to the weapons available at the time of writing the ammendment. That way if you want to be prepared to fire 35 rounds you will have to haul around 35 muskets and manually load them one at a a human a fighting chance to get out of the way.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  191. littleBearFN

    I would like to see a study when the Clinton assault weapons ban was in affect Vs when it expired under GWB...

    December 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  192. Robert

    Too many American men have small penises so you will never have the kind of gun control this country needs.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  193. Rudy

    OK CNN you are Officially stupid... Lets use our Brains now... Ok so they had only 11 deaths by guns BUT What is their death rate by things OTHER than Guns.

    F*** your anti-gun liberal PROPAGANDA

    December 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  194. lawdog1521

    Gee, if the US was the size of Florida and a couple hundred miles offshore from it's nearest neighboring country, it may have a real chance at banning something too.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Reply
  195. American Living in Canada

    The fact that there are so many murders in the USA is a matter of concern. Yes, a lot of people are killed by guns every day. Yes, people will still be killed if there are no more guns. I see the arguments with statistics here (some true, some not, most skewed and involve a false attribution) that associate high rates of gun ownership with a high murder rates and the counter-argument that there is no correlation. You people can argue with statistics all day long. Resorting to personal insults is nothing but regression. Those of you who ashamed.

    More weapons don't make for a safer environment. I won't use any analogies or ask any rhetorical questions because it's been done. The high rate of murders in the USA is indicative of a social problems that are engrained in society on a much deeper level than that of arguments for or against gun legislation. It is evident that you have much bigger problems to worry about. I hear it is hard to read a textbook or shake someone's hand in a peaceful manner when you have a bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm | Reply
  196. BaddaBing

    Pu$$ies own guns. NRA is nothing but a gang of w1mps.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:48 pm | Reply
    • Seansa

      Does it hurt when you think?

      December 19, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Reply
    • Adam

      Cops, Soldiers... the pu$$ies of the world.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Reply
  197. VGP

    I think mental evaluation is a very critical step in possessing a gun. these seem to be sane rules which helps save lives from monsters like Adam Lanza.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:50 pm | Reply
  198. Seansa

    Ask Jamaica how that is working out for them.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:51 pm | Reply
  199. Don

    Why is it that people with guns are "gun nuts" and why doesn't anyone ever mention target shooting (pistol and rife) as a sport, which has been an Olympic event for over 100 years. I'm a responsible gun owner that TARGET practices weekly and enjoys it. I think laws should regulate who can own a gun but not laws that tell us which ones we can own. This country was based on FREEDOM and that freedom is slowly and methodically being taken away from us.
    Note: I happen to like 20 once sodas.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Reply
  200. tom witmann

    The article forget to show that the nearly total absennce of gun murders is not due that the total murder rate per 1000 inhanitants is also about 19 times lower tan in the US, so that the NRA argument that an individual who has no gun kills othewise is not true. at least significately


    December 19, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Reply
    • the Mayor of Medinah

      Tom Witmann, I hope you don't drink, smoke or take prescription medication or any in on your family as well because if you do then you to sir are a contributor to murder in your line of thinking.

      December 19, 2012 at 4:00 pm | Reply
  201. brjsphila

    put the guns down and fight hand to hand a good old fashion fair one. guns are for cowards who cant or do not know how to fight.........NRA a bunch of p$%^Ys

    December 19, 2012 at 2:52 pm | Reply
  202. Teddy3indc

    I hate the direction our country is going.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:53 pm | Reply
    • Ramana7

      In a democracy someone will always hate the direction the majority is going.

      And in life someone will always hate the direction life is going. Just don't start wanting to kill people. That's the key.

      December 19, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Reply
  203. Lerxt

    I'm sure that this comment will get lost in the shuffle, but how about the realization that the 2nd ammendment is obsolete in this day and age. A well regulated militia ready to defend the State shouldn't equate to every person having the right to carry a concealed weapon or military grade weaponry to defend themselves against their fellow countrymen.

    Prohibition was repealled.

    Slavery was abolished.

    Women were given the vote.

    Times have changed America – give up your guns.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:56 pm | Reply
  204. Mack

    Why are gun nuts so afraid of a mandatory class and a written exam, mandatory skill test at a shooting range, mandatory drug test, and mandatory mental evaluation? They claim because it infringes on their rights to own a gun which is a load of crap because they get the gun when they pass all the steps. But the reality is that they know they aren't sane enough to pass all the steps. They want it to be as easy as possible so all their wackjob friends can get a stockpile of firearms just like them.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:57 pm | Reply
  205. Chris

    While you all are arguing about the second amendment wording, people are being killed (children) at alarming rate in your country. From a Canadian looking in, your country has too many gun loving rednecks that should not control the politics and media. The rest of the world it watching and let me tell you it is embarrassing.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Reply
    • J

      You're absolutely right...In Canada, they never have senseless violence to be ashamed of.....ahem (Vancouver riots) ahem....

      December 19, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Reply
    • American Living in Canada

      Chris you're right. "J" you totally missed the mark in your response.

      Chris, I agree 100%. I am getting tired of defending Americans in Canada and around the world when I travel. Americans, you used to set a good example for everyone around the world. The rest of the world is watching. Act accordingly.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Reply
      • J

        Well Sir stop defending. There is no reason to defend the people of the country to anyone. Every country has its flaws and is wonders. For a pompous Canadian or any person of another nationality to chastise the law abiding citizens because of a sick person's actions is ludicrous. I have travelled very extensively around the world and most people do not judge me for being an American. And if they did they it is their problem not mine. As an example I was riding a train in France when a German woman tried to tell me about the warmongering of America. I simply laughed and replied with one word "Hitler". Her chastising went no further. In short no country is perfect nor is any society a utopia. I replied to Chris with Vancouver because he came of as casting the first stone when his own country has its own problems with mindless violence. I may have missed the mark to you but I hit what I was aiming at.

        December 19, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
      • American Living in Canada


        Let's review what you've said...

        1) " For a pompous Canadian or any person of another nationality to chastise the law abiding citizens because of a sick person's actions is ludicrous"

        and then, " As an example I was riding a train in France when a German woman tried to tell me about the warmongering of America. I simply laughed and replied with one word "Hitler"

        2) You are really comparing Vancouver hockey riots with the pre-meditated, cold-blooded murder of defenceless children? I am not going to critically evaluate your mindless comparison. I will save that work for you.

        Stop aiming, you just shot yourself in the foot while putting it in your mouth.

        December 24, 2012 at 10:17 am |
  206. Steve

    I agree with everyone. Obviously if you have an opinion on one side or the other, you are an idiot, ignorant, have a low sperm count, and need to live in another country. We all should just express your opinion, and accept that others do not agree with you. Stats are used by shepherds to control and manipulate the flock. For every stat that meets with your opinion, we can find another that meets with the opposite opinion. At the end of the day, removing the trigger (gun) is not always the answer – sometimes you need to remove the finger (criminal). Good luck with your debate, because it is not going to end any time soon.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Reply
  207. Robert

    Here's an idea...ban the bullets. Do not allow gun shops or internet re-sellers to sell any ammunition, the guns yes, the bullets no. Then set up ammo stores under highly resitricted conditions – limits on the number of rounds you can buy, national tracking system, background check etc. And yes I know that people can pack their own shells but if you can't come to an agreement on who should own guns and how many, start limiting the number of bullets they can possess. Want more bullets? Return the empty shells of the ones you bought last time.

    December 19, 2012 at 2:59 pm | Reply
  208. davidlhu

    Three things: 1. Strict background and mental health check 2. Put any automatic fire arms that are capable shooting continuously more than x bullets (6?) per load in the "assault fire arm" category and completely ban it from general public. 3. Arm the security force and personnel in the facilities where vulnerable dense population present such schools etc. In the reality it might be really hard, if all possible, to eliminate the possibility that the fire arms fall into the wrong hands, but with less offending firepower and proper counter-attack power, the Sandy Hook type of tragedies might have been less catastrophic.

    December 19, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Reply
  209. Jorge A

    I don´t understand why gun lovers keep insisting in their rights to have high power rifles and how the twist words on their own benefit. For me is simple I haven´t heard any assult or murdered been prevented by a normal citizen carrying a gun and come out as the hero, that just happen in the movies people!!!! when it really comes down to the moment I bet most of the pro gun nuts will actually sh.....their pants first before doing something. I also think it´s a ridiculous way for men specially to feel more "Macho" and more powerful, it´s like showing of you have big "cojones" and no one should mess with is the more cowardless way to show frustration as these young trouble guys did, it amaze me how this skinny guy Adam was able to hold the gun and have the stamina to go in this crazy rampage...I can only say that Guns have the ability to turn cowards into brave people.

    December 19, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Reply
    • J

      there you go Jorge. Maybe if you went through life with your eyes open to the other side of issues you already have a granite opinion on you will be a more informed person.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Reply
      • Jorge A

        I´m not saying you should not have a weapon to protect yourself and your love ones, it´s your right actually and good luck the young lady had 21 minutes to think about what to do while talking to the operator. On the other hand how come the cops never came during those 21 minutes?, really strange story in my opinion.
        My point is why people should have high power rifles? I think a simple glock could do the work if you´re only looking for protection, as something to pounder J it took only 45 seconds for the killer to shoot more than 20 people with the high power rifle...I honestly think the outcome would have been different if he had use the other guns first but hey theres no If´s in this world.

        December 19, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
      • J

        Well on the front of certain kinds of rifles having no other purpose but to seemingly proactively kill people–we agree. HOwever i differ in that at least some high powered rifles are useful -the hunting time. the type with 10 or less bullet magazine. the 30 round war machine that the sick adam lanza used should be banned-in my opinion. i have a gun but am not gun nut. its a tool to defend my family. im not sitting here reading a gun magazine while polishing my guns watching a show about guns. I support tighter controls...much tighter, but i don't support a ban.

        December 19, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
  210. Chris

    Great reporting, Pick a country where owing a weapon has been banned for the citizenary since fuedal times. Way to sway what message you want out there. Fair and Balanced Jounalism at its best.

    December 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Reply
  211. Settle Down

    When the 2nd amendment was written, a well trained militiaman could fire and reload his firearm in about 20 seconds. The AR used in Conn. can fire 45 rounds a minute. Our forefathers would have considered them weapons of mass destruction, not firearms. And WOMD are banned from personal ownership.

    December 19, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Reply
    • J

      Well considering WMD wasn't even a term during the time of the founding fathers Im sure they would not have banned those weapons under a WMD label. Furthermore, just because the founding fathers did not have semi auto and automatic weapons during their time does not mean that semi autos should be categorically banned. The founding fathers most certainly could not have conceived of an internet much less internet discussion boards, but that doesn't mean that these forms of free speech should not be protected.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:22 pm | Reply
    • Joe

      Unfortunately the criminal who is attacking you probably isn't going to have a gun that takes that long to reload.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Reply
      • Settle Down

        Unless you are being attacked by an army, a simple handgun is all the protection one should need. Assault rifles are for killing dozens of people before someone can counterattack.

        December 19, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
  212. dan

    If we are going to speak about other countries lets talk about Switzerland. They have a low gun crime rate and most citizens own firearms. The population is educated about the tools they use. Knee jerk politics always creates flawed regulation. Our politicians are great at writing well named, poorly written laws that tap into the emotions and feel good nature of politics. To see some of this, take into consideration the No Child Left Behind Law. No one could possibly ever voted against that. Don't let our leaders exploit this terrible event to promote a personal agenda. Bans: no. Regulation and Education: yes.

    December 19, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Reply
  213. Michelle

    I think the more appropriate statistic here would be number of gun related deaths per capita. (For instance, if one country has 10,000 citizens and 40 gun related deaths, that is a 0.4% rate. If a different country has 1000 citizens and only 20 gun related deaths, the raw numbers look better. However, when you boil it down, the smaller country has a worse gun related death rate at 2%). It is sad to see how many reporters jump on a mass hysteria band wagon and don't critically analyze their facts!

    December 19, 2012 at 3:06 pm | Reply
  214. Kevin

    American citizens are given the right to own guns to protect themselves from the government. We may need to run our own "militia" eventually. What are you going to do if it comes to the citizens vs the govt and they all have high power weapons?

    December 19, 2012 at 3:08 pm | Reply
    • KeLev

      Kev, do not kill – re-elect the gov-t.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:11 pm | Reply
    • dusty

      if you are buying guns based on the fact that you might need to fight back against a tyranny of a govt someday you might as well be buying snake oil.

      they have more guns, tanks, helicopters, fighter jets, missiles and personnel than you do and i hate to break it to you but "a well regulated militia" has no power against a first world modern military or gov't, especially on home turf where all their equipment is stored.

      the second amendment was written when there was little technology and what technology they did have was pretty much transparent, citizens actually had a fighting chance. you may think by owning some guns that you would have a chance but in reality you would have none. this isn't 1791, and never will be again.

      December 19, 2012 at 3:25 pm | Reply
      • Dude

        Tell that to the Syrian rebels who are winnging against their regime's superior weapons, or any of the other regimes who have fallen recently. Tell that to the Iraqis who are keeping OUR forces at bay with their supposedly inferior weapons.

        December 19, 2012 at 9:56 pm |
  215. Don Dixon

    It is very apparent that many people have lived some sort of charmed life and have never been the victim of crime,Good for you. You don't have a clue just how lucky you are. I'll try to make this short. 1 You cannot pass law that will extinguish evil. 2 evil follows no law. 3 the removal of defense makes us all defenseless. 4 You and all those you love could be dead and gutted by the time a 911 response is answered. 5 making gun's illegal would simply force their manufacturing underground,and doing so would only assure that the baddest of the bad would have them. 6 open your mind to the idea that there is no danger in a good citizen with a gun,only the sick and depraved are your concern. 7 the sick and depraved are exactly the reason you need a self defense weapon, your choice,gun,ball bat what ever.suit yourself.Don't count on the police to protect you every moment of every day.That would be most foolish.

    December 19, 2012 at 3:15 pm | Reply
    • Dude

      Police and laws do not prevent crime. At best, they enable revenge.

      December 19, 2012 at 10:02 pm | Reply
  216. JoePub

    Great, Joe Biden will handling this gun fiasco. It's good to know that we have the apple dumpling gang heading things up.

    December 19, 2012 at 3:20 pm | Reply
  217. Veteran

    Lefties, go ahead and ban the guns... take them all away, but start with the inner city gangs first. If you can take 100% of their guns from them, I'll give you mine. I dont have guns to protect myself from those gangs however. I have them because I enjoy the sport of shooting, the sport of hunting, and a family tradition of father/son time at the local range. I also enjoy securing my firearms in a combination safe when I return home. THATS RIGHT.. I lock mine up! Bad choice Conn. mother with problematic son.
    Lets not focus so much on banning guns that kill, or forks that make people fat... lets fix the problem with violent humans. In the 50's you'd get your rear-end tanned by your dad for calling your teacher a name. Now days kids are killing without regret on simple video games. Hmm... there's the start to a good up bringing.

    December 19, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Reply
  218. davidlhu

    Can't stop this imaging in my head – if the teachers/principle/personnel at Sandy Hook who used their flesh body to shield the kids had a gun or any counter attack tool they would have had any hesitation to kill that evil before the rampage continued.

    December 19, 2012 at 3:30 pm | Reply
  219. Chris

    First of all, it's misleading to compare a tiny island nation with a nation the size of the United States. Second of all... after Pearl Harbor they shouldn't be able to have guns, bombs, or airplanes until at least 2 generations of ancestors have completely passed away. That country needed to be locked down. Can anyone disagree with that?

    December 19, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Reply
    • Ashrakay

      @ Chris, There are 150 million people in J.apan compared to America's 300mil. All are contained on an island the size of California. 10% of the population lives in Tokyo. It's a fallacy to think that size has anything to do with violence.

      "Pearl Harbor they shouldn't be able to have guns, bombs, or airplanes until at least 2 generations of ancestors have completely passed away. That country needed to be locked down. Can anyone disagree with that?"
      This is complete uneducated absurdity. Get a passport and travel. Some people don't have guns, or bombs, not because they "can't" have them, but because they understand the wisdom of not owning them. I know that in America, people only do what they're commanded to do by law, but it doesn't mean it works like that in every country. As my father-in-law said to me before I moved here, "We pay a lot in taxes, but you can relax knowing those taxes are going to education and roads, not guns and tanks." A note here, he is extremely conservative and considered "right-wing."

      Lastly, I'd trust a gun in the hands of a J.apanese person (people who have a strong middle-class income, a sense of honor, healthcare, and a good education) over an American's hands any day. Just look at the aftermath of the tsunami and compare it to the aftermath of Katrina. That's really all you need to know about the difference between J.apan and America.

      December 19, 2012 at 4:27 pm | Reply
  220. Ashrakay

    I'm a US ex-patriot who has been living in Tokyo for the past 6 years. When my friends and family come to visit, they're shocked out how safe it is here. There is a level of reprogramming that they have to do to be accustomed to being in a safe environment where people don't want to hurt you or steal from you.

    My father was a Marine and I grew up with guns. He promoted gun safety religiously and we practice at the shooting range weekly. When I became an adult, I got my concealed weapons permit and started my personal collection of guns. I say this because now that I live in a gun-free culture, I'd never go back. The thought of bringing my 2 daughters back to America fills me with fear and apprehension. The thought of my family and other loved ones being in a gun culture is shocking to me.

    I think a fair question to ask is, who deserves a gun in America—not who has the right to own a gun? Really, who has earned that right to carry the power to kill groups of people in minutes? Is it policemen? Have they all earned that right? Clearly not. Perhaps there should be a test to see if they behave honorably with a taser for 5 years first.

    When I look back at America, the country I was raised to love and think that it was the greatest country in the world, I can't help but see the childish selfish behavior of individuals. People who act like children, ARE children. Why would we be so cavalier about putting guns in the hands of children? This question confuses and saddens me.

    December 19, 2012 at 3:54 pm | Reply
  221. Sonny James

    They will have to pry it from my cold dead hands. We need the right to bear arms to keep government in check.

    December 19, 2012 at 4:05 pm | Reply
    • Ashrakay

      No doubt they will, after some 20 yo nut puts a bullet in your head.

      December 19, 2012 at 4:28 pm | Reply
  222. Parker

    For those of you that want stricter gun laws... Argue for what you believe in, but don't infringe on my rights. I'm willing to entertain Assault Weapons bans, High-Capacity Magazine Bans, more strict background check procedures for gun ownership, talk about the relationship between mental health issues in relation to mass shootings... I agree that something needs to be done to discourage these kind of horrific scenes. They truly are horrible, and that they happen here in the US hurts worse. What i won't agree on is that you should limit my ability to own a hand-gun for sport. I was a USMC qualified pistol expert, a USMC qualified rifle expert. I'm a good shot, i enjoy going to the range, and i take pride in my abilities. I own a rifle for fun(Would like to think ill be able to go hunting one of these days), and a handgun for self-defense and sport. Just be aware that there are people out there that enjoy gun ownership immensely. I think its one of the last things that make this country different, and make it great. 310,000,000 guns in this country, so think how crazy you would have to be to invade the U.S. Talking about 2nd Amendment, if our military were ever defeated or spread too thin, think of that HUGE FRICKEN MILITIA that we could muster with those guns. Those 310,000,000 guns, along with our brave men and women in the services, MAKES THIS COUNTRY UNBEATABLE.....

    December 19, 2012 at 4:17 pm | Reply
    • Ashrakay

      I guess, if you consider Vietnam and Afghanistan as not being beaten.

      December 19, 2012 at 4:37 pm | Reply
      • Parker

        Were still a world power, quite unchanged in our daily lives when compared to them, so i definitely wouldnt count them as defeats. And as for Afghanistan? The war was against Terrorism, not the country...

        December 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
      • Ashrakay

        @Parker, Then by your argument, America's longest war against an idea, is still not won, dispute the overwhelming superiority of weapons. And if we're talking war of ideas, what about the war on drugs? What about the war against communism? Seems like America has capitulated to both ideas. Drugs are being legalized all over America, and trade with China is commonplace.

        There is no doubt that America is a world power. So are China and a dozen other countries. What the last 10 years have taught us is that America appears superior, as long as it stays out of war. Iraq was a nightmare. Afghanistan is ongoing and will result in troops exiting before stability is reached. Imagine the US going to war in Iran and N. Korea. This is old Art of War stuff which you should be familiar with. Anytime you flex your muscles, you expose your weaknesses. As I mentioned previously, my father was a marine, so I understand the blind compulsion to feelings of superiority that you have. Don't expect the rest of the world to be as blind as you though. From the outside, it's much easier to see the cracks in the empire.

        December 19, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
  223. MPH

    I'm an American who has been fortunate to have lived all over the world and met many great people from every corner of the earth and every walk of life. After reading comments from many Americans after Friday's tragedy, in particular those who adamantly and unequivocally stand by the their right to bears arms, I can truly say I have never been more ashamed of my country than I am today.

    December 19, 2012 at 5:22 pm | Reply
  224. Omar

    I am a California gun owner and I used to be irritated at the gun laws over here. I used to complain about being restricted to a 10 round magazine. I find it very shameful, however, that many gun rights advocates still take an extreme stance and won't consider any type of gun control. The fact is that the children and teachers in Sandy Hook Elementary would have had a better chance if the killer did not have high capacity magazines. No matter how you look at it, it is very hard to justify the need to have military assault rifles that can kill dozens of people in seconds. You don't need 10 rounds to hunt deer. The founding fathers could never have imagined AR15's with 30 round magazines so please stop using the second ammendment excuse. The right to bear arms is an integral part of this country's heritage and this will never be taken away. We should, however, have reasonable limitations on the type of firearms people can have. We won't allow civilians to have bazookas or rocket launchers right? Why should civilians have military assault rifles? If you want to handle military weapons then join the military. Go Army!

    December 19, 2012 at 5:35 pm | Reply
  225. GrandOldPatsy

    This b1tc4 is a complete troll.

    December 19, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Reply
  226. mlg4035

    "We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.

    Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns - rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols - with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons." - Former Chief Justice, Warren Burger

    December 19, 2012 at 5:58 pm | Reply
    • mlg4035

      Key phrase: "A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago."

      So, all you militiaman-wannabes are full of hot air: Your argument is farcical!

      December 19, 2012 at 6:01 pm | Reply
  227. George

    >>•First, you have to take a class and a written exam.

    Then, most of Americans will fail the test.

    December 19, 2012 at 6:04 pm | Reply
    • HailSatans

      And it will include you as well, my dear friend. "most of Americans" is incorrect usage.

      December 19, 2012 at 6:19 pm | Reply
      • George

        Sorry, I should say, "all Americas fail the exam."

        December 21, 2012 at 2:16 pm |
  228. showtime007

    For all you second amendment crazies out there. When written, the second amendment only applied to white citizens. I bet if we went back and asked our founding fathers if slaves, immigrants and felons should be armed (they weren't considered citizens and therefore not protected), they'd sing a different tune. Guns are for morons and bullies. The only real reason anyone in america should have a gun is for home protection, and the only reason guns are needed for home protection is that its so easy for criminals to get one of their own.

    December 19, 2012 at 6:49 pm | Reply
    • Dude

      It's good to know that you agree that average citizens have a need to defend themselves.

      December 19, 2012 at 10:11 pm | Reply
  229. 6079winstonsmith

    If a "law" against guns were to be passed, would there be any exemptions to this "Law"?

    Would there be members of "society" that would STILL be allowed to carry (and use) guns in order to protect themselves and others from the criminal elements that inevitably ignore such "Laws"...?

    Who would these elite members of society be?

    Can I be one...? Where do I enlist into this privileged – above "The Law" – section of our community?

    Or should I rely on a stranger with a badge, a "legal" gun, and an order to follow?

    If a law is passed, will the right to bear arms be apportioned and therefore monopolized by the power of state?

    If the state should be allowed to continue the use of harmful weaponry – as a "legitimized" form of "defense" – against it's oppressive forces – within "The Law"... Why can't I?

    Oh!... I see, there is a difference between mere legislation and actual law.

    December 19, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Reply
  230. Jr

    Yes ban firearms, 'cause we all now that prior to the invention of firearms, not a single innocent life was ever lost. Australia has banned/restricted firearms and seen an increase in violent crimes, home invasions and murder is up by 19%. Why? Because criminal are more brazzen and bold, knowing their victims are not armed. A firearm is an inanimate object, a tool. By itself it can do nothing. It requires a choice to be made by an operator to use that tool or not use it. Our efforts should be focused on people not lifeless objects. We are so quick to blame a gun, when there is a shooting. We don't blame a knife when there is a stabbibg. We don't blame the car when there is a fatal accident. We don't blame food for every person that dies of obesity. Think logically and see where the TRUE danger is.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:16 pm | Reply
    • tim teboww

      using JR's logic we should abolish all rules concerning drugs or driving a car, etc. since we can just focus on the individual to make sure they do the right thing.

      December 20, 2012 at 10:47 am | Reply
    • don'ttrustgunnuts

      Jr, how many guns are too many for you? We have 5% of the world'd population and 50% of the guns. This isn't about rights. This is about paranoia and the anti government loonie tunes who have bought into the lies of professional liar Wayne La Piierre and his NRA robots who have no common sense whatsoever. There are responsible gun owners who think semi automatic weapons have no place outside the military....and then there are the gun nuts.

      December 20, 2012 at 3:03 pm | Reply
    • Real Australian

      Check your fugues, homicide is down by 27%from 1996 to 2010 in Australia. There has also NEVER been another mass shooting in Australia since the gun ban following the Port Arthur massacre.

      But the real point is that our thoughts and prayers should be with the families of the horrible tragedy.

      December 20, 2012 at 5:07 pm | Reply
    • Big Al

      "Our efforts should be focused on people not lifeless objects." I couldn't agree more. So, why are you so against reasonable regulation of the "lifeless objects" that are most dangerous to people? Why in the world do so many Americans seem to value pieces of metal, and their "right" to own any piece of metal they choose, no matter how deadly, above human life?

      December 20, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Reply
  231. Without Surcease

    It is obvious that less guns means less opportunities for nut cases to carry out mass murder. I blame the NRA and the members of Congress who support the NRA and the gun lobby. They must also take the blame for what happened at Newtown. I would like to see all the gun enthusiasts assembled and then one of their kind opens fire on them all. They wouldn’t get any sympathy from me or most Americans as they would simply be getting back what they have given. To the NRA RIP.

    December 19, 2012 at 10:43 pm | Reply
  232. hana

    Ban all types of semi-automatic weapons, pistols or rifles.
    These types of guns are mainly used in shooting rampage.
    Revolvers for self-protection and rifles and shotguns for sporting and hunting. isn't that enough

    December 20, 2012 at 1:33 am | Reply
  233. Ramana7

    The 2nd amendment is due for review again before too long. It's been altered by previous decisions which benefited the gun Lobby, but that doesn't mean it will stand another test by the Supreme Court.

    It is a fact that for a long time, the 2nd amendment meant only the militia or police and not every day citizens. It was a supreme court decision (interpretation) that opened it up to all.

    But let's just have some of that rare common sense. If driving a car is a privilege, how much more should owning a gun be? Which is really more essential for survival today? For most of us by far, it's the car. A car is a privilege and a need. Is a gun ever a need? Perhaps if you have to hunt to survive, yes. And if anyone really needs to hunt to survive, they're living in a place where there's not many people and they're not likely to hurt anybody.

    So we need to look hard at the second amendment, what context it was written in, who it really meant when it was first drafted, what has happened with case-law, and how it applies today. It's become something people are now hiding behind. It may not be serving our society well as it is currently interpreted.

    Certainly, even if you have a right to bear arms, even under that interpretation, it's by no means a foregone conclusion as to which guns. Certainly the guns you have a right to need not be assault rifles.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:17 am | Reply
  234. Ramana7

    If the second amendment really means all the pro-guns people think it does, okay, then let's amend the 2nd amendment. Problem solved.

    December 20, 2012 at 10:23 am | Reply
  235. Greg

    More proof that GINS ARE THE PROBLEM, and along with that, the NRA.

    December 20, 2012 at 12:01 pm | Reply
  236. jharry3

    History is full of examples of citizens being disarmed and then weeks, months or even years later a despotic government takes over and murders everyone they see as a threat to its existance. Its much rarer to find examples of armed peoples being murdered in mass by the government though it does happen when the disparity of weapons is so huge that fighint back is impossible. Take when Clinton burned down the Branch Davidian buildings. The Davidians had small arms and Clinton sent in full battle tanks and elite troops to kill everyone. They all died, including around 20 children – so by that score and using the current logic, it should be reason to disarm the government since it cannot be trusted with weapons.

    December 20, 2012 at 1:10 pm | Reply
  237. NL

    Following some coverage of the recent tragedy it is clear that you have some tough choices to make going forward. To be safe in an armed society you need to out-gun all threats. In an unarmed society you don't need a gun to be safe since your "opponent" normally doesn't have one either.

    Could a few brave and fearless (but unarmed) teachers take down an assailant that didn't have massive firepower or moved more children to safety? Possibly. Could armed teachers have saved more children's lives by returning fire? Possibly. We'll never know.

    The world is not black or white, I hope that however you deal with this prevents something like this from happening again.

    Adults are one thing, we can make choices, children can't. Our duty is to keep them safe.

    My thoughts are with the families struck by this terrible act.

    December 20, 2012 at 3:01 pm | Reply
  238. hector

    If guns are taken away from citizens, they will be entirely in the hands of the politicians… law abiding citizens must carry firearms to protect good people, criminals, loons and crazy should not be allowed.

    December 20, 2012 at 5:13 pm | Reply
  239. Big Al

    The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect assault rifles.The government has the right to pass laws that require certain actions for gun ownership and reasonably regulate the availability of certain types of firearms, and has done so many times. All these people yelling about the 2nd Amendment to protect their right to own what are little more than killing machines don't know what they're talking about. The 2nd Amendment may give citizens the right to own a gun, but it does not give them the right to own ANY gun.

    December 20, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Reply
    • haha

      "Arms" means whatever "Arms" were deemed necessary for "Defense". The only timely Federal Restrictions were on Caliber to conserve Lead. If the threat increases, so do the ascribed Arms, right up to and including attack helicopters, if you can afford them. And those with the money will, while all you poor suckers live disarmed and disenfranchised, at the mercy of street gangs and cartels, cowering in your projects, locked in overnight and waiting by day in welfare lines. "The New America" will make China look Free by comparison.

      January 4, 2013 at 2:14 am | Reply
  240. Big Al

    You don't like the politicians you have? Vote in different ones. A whole lot easier, and less messy, than going on a shooting spree.

    December 20, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Reply
  241. Common Sense

    The way Switzerland handles it's gun laws, making "The People" be the militia and army is the exactly what the 2nd Amendment meant for. Check out Switzerland's gun laws... It's awesome!

    December 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm | Reply
  242. Cake

    Switzerland has many very good gun laws that are the same as what people are taught in the US. "Never keep a gun loaded" is a law in Switzerland, but in the US it is a GUIDELINE. I support that there be increased registration and education. Hell, I am even for a three-year military service/training for everyone following high-school with some free college to follow it up as a reward. It would do the nation some good.

    the problem here isn't guns. It is the people.

    December 22, 2012 at 8:16 am | Reply
  243. John

    There is an epidemic of mass murders in China. It's impossible to get a firearm of any type there. They have been using knives, swords and other more primitive weapons. Would you rather be shot or stabbed or beaten to death? I would rather be shot while shooting back trying to defend myself, my family, you or any innocent person. Guns and ammo will never go away so quit trying to disarm every lawful person. Just disarm yourself and hope you are never attacked by a criminal with a gun, knife, fork, baseball bat, car or anything else that can be used as a weapon. Anything else will be a practice in futility.

    December 28, 2012 at 5:03 pm | Reply
  244. lost

    the bill of rights isn't to protect people from other people....its to protect the people from their government. To make sure that we werent trading one tyrant for another and so that in years to come it would never come to that again. You trade your rights for security and what do you get. You are a slave but they say you're safe so thats okay right? Your government doesn't have the right to restrict your rights. Restricting your right to own a firearm no matter the type is in direct violation of your other civil rights. Now I just put my perspective out there not for a fight and not to step on peoples toes. definitely not my intent . @john: your point is sound. It's not just guns that kill people. The right person can beat someone to death with their fists. Guns just make it easier. But so do other weapons. That person doesn't need a gun to do the damage.

    December 31, 2012 at 9:48 pm | Reply
  245. Messias

    Gun nuts..... Gotta love all you people's attemts to portray the law abiding masses as 'Nuts' just because they like to own a THING. There is nothing nuts about not letting someone like you folks strip others of their rights based on lies and fearmongering. Why don't you do something meaningful and combat the criminals that choose to use guns improperly instead of blaming things? It is the criminals doing the shootings not the rest of the citizens.

    January 1, 2013 at 12:39 pm | Reply
  246. metastases foie

    We're a bunch of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your website provided us with useful information to work on. You've done a formidable process and our entire community might be thankful to you.

    January 2, 2013 at 1:03 am | Reply
  247. haha

    The fact of the matter is that all of your rights will be revoked and you will be rounded up in to camps and exterminated. This was inevitable, the moment you forgot where your rights really came from.

    January 3, 2013 at 10:10 pm | Reply
  248. johnh

    WOW!! The politicians will win, with so many US citizens voting to be coddled with Welfare and food stamps what chance for this great country in the hands of liberal Socialists????

    January 9, 2013 at 11:55 am | Reply
  249. Horacio D

    Can the Second Amendment be repealed by a referendum during a national election?

    January 10, 2013 at 2:00 pm | Reply
  250. Cheap Neopoints

    Usually I do not learn article on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to take a look at and do it! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thanks, very great article.

    January 20, 2013 at 10:17 pm | Reply
  251. taxi east los angeles (800) 876-6767

    Very nice post. I simply stumbled upon your weblog and wanted to say that I have really loved browsing your blog posts. After all I'll be subscribing for your feed and I'm hoping you write once more soon!

    March 24, 2013 at 4:30 am | Reply
  252. xit khoang

    naturally like your web site but you need to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I in finding it very bothersome to tell the truth nevertheless I'll definitely come again again.

    April 28, 2013 at 8:06 am | Reply
  253. xit khoang

    You can certainly see your enthusiasm within the paintings you write. The world hopes for even more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.

    May 3, 2013 at 12:07 am | Reply
  254. vWlgz1qck0F

    367884 624698hello very good internet site i will definaely come back and see once again. 548232

    August 5, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Reply
  255. Roman Polanski IMDB

    250810 862426Merely wanna input on few general issues, The web site layout is perfect, the articles is truly great : D. 959285

    August 6, 2013 at 3:33 am | Reply






    HOW TO FASTES GROW, IDEA!!!!!!!!!!!.














    August 18, 2013 at 11:03 am | Reply


    August 18, 2013 at 11:19 am | Reply
  258. DFGSDFG















    1.000.000 Million of Cases TO MENTAL TORTURES HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO CNN?.









    August 23, 2013 at 7:37 pm | Reply









    August 23, 2013 at 8:08 pm | Reply
  260. GSDFGSDFWW5342345











































    September 20, 2013 at 9:17 pm | Reply
  261. Alex

    Selling Gun is just a business in the US. Who care about who is killed when it comes to money in this country?

    April 28, 2014 at 7:32 am | Reply
  262. Tyler

    Mexico bans all civilians from owning a gun, how did that work look at all the gangs and drug dealers they have, oh yes letting the government ban guns will fix everything. how stupid can people be.

    September 18, 2014 at 1:53 pm | Reply
  263. coach keychain keyring

    Hi, i feel that i saw you visited my weblog thus i got here to go back|return} the prefer?I'm trying to to find issues to enhance my site!I suppose its good enough to use a few of your concepts!! coach keychain keyring

    August 16, 2017 at 1:37 pm | Reply
  264. EverettLoago

    Yes, really. I agree with told all above.

    October 15, 2018 at 5:57 am | Reply
  265. Johns

    And the population of entire nation is less than los Angeles.

    May 27, 2019 at 11:37 pm | Reply
  266. LawyersBestFriend

    F... the 2. Amendment. Numbers don't lie.

    May 28, 2019 at 12:33 am | Reply
  267. VVAvtokcat

    РАЗМЕСТИТЬ БАННЕР за "копейки"(цена совсем смешная, символическая) на транспортной баннерной доске(только сайты транспортной и около-транспортной тематики, никаких гербалайфов, адалтов, варезов и т.п. шлака)!

    У Вас в собственности или управлении сайт на тему авто-мото-транспортна(например: автосалон, автообзоры, сто, автомагазин, грузоперевозки, такси...)
    Вы имеете возможность повешать свой баннер, тем самым получить ссылку с тематической площадки...

    Что ВАЖНО отметить – купить место под баннер можно довольно недорого(почти даром), при этом заплатив 1 раз – Вы получаете "ПОЖИЗНЕННОЕ" размещение.
    Подробней можно ознакомиться непосредственно в разделе правил на баннерной доске
    Кроме того, профиль Вашей организации на доске баннеров – станет дополнительным плюсом в продвижении сайта вашей компнии, если умело использовать его.
    Цена – Вам понравится! #БАННЕРНАЯ РЕКЛАМА – разместите свой баннер на авто-транспортной баннерной доске...] – разместите свой баннер на авто-транспортной баннерной доске ...] – разместите свой баннер на авто-транспортной баннерной доске...]

    July 23, 2019 at 9:32 pm | Reply
  268. Elmo Mittchell

    Thank youThanks , I haveI've recentlyjust been searching forlooking for informationinfo approximatelyabout this topicsubject for a whileagesa long time and yours is the bestgreatest I haveI've found outcame upondiscovered so fartill now. HoweverBut, what about theconcerning thein regards to the conclusionbottom line? Are you surepositivecertain about theconcerning thein regards to the sourcesupply?

    August 5, 2019 at 1:18 pm | Reply
  269. sponsoki

    I have really learned some new things through your blog post. Also a thing to I have noticed is that normally, FSBO sellers can reject an individual. Remember, they’d prefer to never use your expert services. But if you maintain a steady, professional romance, offering help and remaining in contact for about four to five weeks, you will usually have the capacity to win a meeting. From there, a listing follows. Thanks

    August 26, 2019 at 3:34 am | Reply

    Dear Sir

    My name is Mr Alda D. Johnson and I am 52 years old, have been in the internet marketing industry for over a decade now, and know how to get visitors to a website and make money online with minimal work
    I found you on web and I in point of fact liked your work. I message you upon your retrieve form to look if you infatuation incite later than any web work.

    We Work The Hugh Social Media Facebook Visitor Run 24/7-365 Day System, All Behind The Screat Working

    Just for see how this work here:

    I remember how hard it was to start a business online – but in time I found out, – BUT IT TOOK ME YEARS....

    With HARD daily work and online search!

    Thanks for your time and I hope this will help you.

    Best Regards

    September 26, 2019 at 4:54 pm | Reply

Leave a Reply to Mike


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.