Obama wants gun violence measures passed in 2013

WASHINGTON (AP) - Recalling the shooting rampage that killed 20 first graders as the worst day of his presidency, President Barack Obama on Sunday pledged to put his "full weight" behind legislation aimed at preventing gun violence.
In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama voiced skepticism about the National Rifle Association's proposal to put armed guards in schools following the Dec. 14 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
Instead, the president vowed to rally the American people around an agenda to limit gun violence, adding that he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity bullet magazines. He left no doubt it will be one of his top priorities next year.
"It is not enough for us to say, 'This is too hard so we're not going to try,'" Obama said.
"I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can't have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids," he added. "And, yes, it's going to be hard."
The president added that he's ready to meet with Republicans and Democrats, anyone with a stake in the issue.
The schoolhouse shootings, coming as families prepared for the holidays, have elevated the issue of gun violence to the forefront of public attention. Six adult staff members were also killed at the elementary school. Shooter Adam Lanza committed suicide, apparently as police closed in. Earlier, he had killed his mother at the home they shared.
The tragedy immediately prompted calls for greater gun controls. But the NRA is strongly resisting those efforts, arguing instead that schools should have armed guards for protection. Some gun enthusiasts have rushed to buy semiautomatic rifles of the type used by Lanza, fearing sales may soon be restricted.
Obama seemed unimpressed by the NRA proposal. "I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools," he said. "And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem."
The president said he intends to press the issue with the public.
"The question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away," Obama said. "It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that - you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated."
Separately, a member of the president's cabinet said Sunday that rural America may be ready to join a national conversation about gun control. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the debate has to start with respect for the Second Amendment right to bear arms and a recognition that hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans.
But Vilsack said Newtown has changed the way people see the issue. "I really believe that this is a different circumstance and a different situation and I think the president believes it as well, that this is going to be sustained convention," Vilsack said on CNN.
Vilsack said he thinks it's possible for Americans to come together. "It's potentially a unifying conversation," he said. "The problem is that these conversations are always couched in the terms of dividing us. This could be a unifying conversation and Lord knows we need to be unified."
Besides passing gun violence legislation, Obama also listed deficit reduction and immigration as top priorities for 2013. A big deficit reduction deal with Republicans proved elusive this month and Obama is now hoping Senate Democratic and Republican leaders salvage a scaled back plan that avoids tax increases for virtually all Americans.
In addition, he issued a defense of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been mentioned as one of the leading candidates to replace Leon Panetta as secretary of defense.
Hagel, who opposed President George W. Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq, has been criticized in conservative circles for not being a strong enough ally of Israel. Also, many liberals and gay activists have banded against him for comments he made in 1998 about an openly gay nominee for an ambassadorship
Obama, who briefly served with Hagel in the Senate, stressed that he had yet to make a decision but called Hagel a "patriot."
Hagel "served this country with valor in Vietnam," the president said. "And (he) is somebody who's currently serving on my intelligence advisory board and doing an outstanding job."
Obama noted that Hagel had apologized for his 14-year-old remark on gays.
In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama voiced skepticism about the National Rifle Association's proposal to put armed guards in schools following the Dec. 14 tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
Instead, the president vowed to rally the American people around an agenda to limit gun violence, adding that he still supports increased background checks and bans on assault weapons and high capacity bullet magazines. He left no doubt it will be one of his top priorities next year.
"It is not enough for us to say, 'This is too hard so we're not going to try,'" Obama said.
"I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can't have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids," he added. "And, yes, it's going to be hard."
The president added that he's ready to meet with Republicans and Democrats, anyone with a stake in the issue.
The schoolhouse shootings, coming as families prepared for the holidays, have elevated the issue of gun violence to the forefront of public attention. Six adult staff members were also killed at the elementary school. Shooter Adam Lanza committed suicide, apparently as police closed in. Earlier, he had killed his mother at the home they shared.
The tragedy immediately prompted calls for greater gun controls. But the NRA is strongly resisting those efforts, arguing instead that schools should have armed guards for protection. Some gun enthusiasts have rushed to buy semiautomatic rifles of the type used by Lanza, fearing sales may soon be restricted.
Obama seemed unimpressed by the NRA proposal. "I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools," he said. "And I think the vast majority of the American people are skeptical that that somehow is going to solve our problem."
The president said he intends to press the issue with the public.
"The question then becomes whether we are actually shook up enough by what happened here that it does not just become another one of these routine episodes where it gets a lot of attention for a couple of weeks and then it drifts away," Obama said. "It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that - you know, that was the worst day of my presidency. And it's not something that I want to see repeated."
Separately, a member of the president's cabinet said Sunday that rural America may be ready to join a national conversation about gun control. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the debate has to start with respect for the Second Amendment right to bear arms and a recognition that hunting is a way of life for millions of Americans.
But Vilsack said Newtown has changed the way people see the issue. "I really believe that this is a different circumstance and a different situation and I think the president believes it as well, that this is going to be sustained convention," Vilsack said on CNN.
Vilsack said he thinks it's possible for Americans to come together. "It's potentially a unifying conversation," he said. "The problem is that these conversations are always couched in the terms of dividing us. This could be a unifying conversation and Lord knows we need to be unified."
Besides passing gun violence legislation, Obama also listed deficit reduction and immigration as top priorities for 2013. A big deficit reduction deal with Republicans proved elusive this month and Obama is now hoping Senate Democratic and Republican leaders salvage a scaled back plan that avoids tax increases for virtually all Americans.
In addition, he issued a defense of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who has been mentioned as one of the leading candidates to replace Leon Panetta as secretary of defense.
Hagel, who opposed President George W. Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq, has been criticized in conservative circles for not being a strong enough ally of Israel. Also, many liberals and gay activists have banded against him for comments he made in 1998 about an openly gay nominee for an ambassadorship
Obama, who briefly served with Hagel in the Senate, stressed that he had yet to make a decision but called Hagel a "patriot."
Hagel "served this country with valor in Vietnam," the president said. "And (he) is somebody who's currently serving on my intelligence advisory board and doing an outstanding job."
Obama noted that Hagel had apologized for his 14-year-old remark on gays.
So these people trying to introduce these laws and bans all have personal security of some sort. Would they have to abide by the same new laws? Nope. So why are they able to protect themselves better than they want me to be able to protect myself and my loved ones?
Diane Feinstein vid.. any questions...
Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=blXkl9YVoHo
Â
Â
 @vadersith Good video, it shows people exactly what she wants. On the other hand the comments below, are rather uncouth....
 @SeattleJoeÂ
some of them are a little rough around the edges...
Crazy people will find ways to kill people, especially when they are hell bent on taking people with them. Seriously their is no level of gun control that will save anyone. I have a handgun and a CWP to match it, I visit the gun range every other month I personally will defend myself and my family if someone is stupid enough to break in or threaten us. The government cannot even balance a budget right now - and there is a limit to how much I want to depend on them state and federal for protecting my family - police are not everywhere 24/7/365 and when minutes count you bet I want as much control of those few minutes for police to arrive as I can get...|... best thing states could do is when one of these lunatics snaps and goes blowing people away they do NOT let them stay living to be psychoanalyzed or interviewed in prison.. you execute the lunatics and not allow anything to ever be written about them... people like this are better forgotten and not constantly having articles written about them... as seriously most of these clowns want just that.. .'attention' Stop Giving It To Them!
This has been posted before and merits re-posting.Â
Â
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
Â
This article is an excellent explanation and well thought out response to our current dillema on why gun bans will not work, have already failed and will continue to fail. You cannot limit ammunition either, the countless reloading enthusiasts can attest to how easy it is to reload. The violence that creates this kind of response is very rare, you are more likely to win the Lotto, get struck by lightening and drowned before having a mass shooting impact you. While I may sound insensitive by saying so, I am not and I am very saddened by the tragedies, by my feelings do not change the fact that these incidences are rare especially when you consider that you are likely to die of much more mundane things than gun violence, unless of course you live a life of crime and then your odds go up considerably, as it should.
 @Susabelle The problem here is you are using logic and reason which defies the emotional reactions of many.Â
 @SeattleJoe Silly me :) I understand the uproar, I understand the feeling of hopelessness, the anger and the sorrow such things bring out. What I dont understand is the inability  to actually look at what the gun laws have and have not done. One interesting statistic is what happened when the DC gun laws were overturned in 2008.......crime and gun violence actually went down. Amazing what happens when you have the ability to defend yourself I guess. I would not consider myself a gun enthusiast, I have a few, but certainly only enough to defend my home or hunt. I also worry about the issues with mental health, I wonder how many people realize that a drug that is used to fight depression is also used to quit smoking? Many insurance policies would not authorize the drug for smoking cessation but will for depression, so I wonder what would happen to these people? I'm all for recognizing potential problems, but most people who suffer from some form of a mental illness will not ever take action like what occurred in Aurora or in Sandy Hook. Also, how many people will not seek out medical attention out of fear of loosing their gun rights? Its a huge dilemma......
 @Susabelle  @Sheila Lechner Precisely. Every time there is a law passed to allow concealed carry or allow guns in general the anti-gunners claim the streets will run with rivers of blood. Strangely that never happens. What has happened though, is the long running trend of violent crime is going down even though the number of firearms is going up considerably. So all the people that cry "more guns = more crime" just can't handle that and pick these few occasions of tragedy to push for something that is in effect not going to do anything.
 @Sheila Lechner here is a pretty good website that has all the correlating information as well as some trends for the US and other cities, gun violence has been on it's way down over the entire US for the last 20 years or so. You will also see a couple years of stagnant trend in Chicago, then a sharp spike after they passed the legislation there banning handguns. Also, you can see a sharp decline in Florida shortly after their carry laws went into effect.
Â
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Â
Â
Do you have an actual source of your DC info? When the Brady Bill wasn't extended, at least in Philly, gun violence increased and involved more assault weapons. As the PD was quoted, "well, those are the weapons we'll be seeing on the street".Â
This is an incredibly complex problem. The president's emotional reaction is because of his own daughters' age and their potential for harm or death, I know, my son of a 5 and 7 year old, has affected him deeply.
Â
The NRA's stance on this issue, is, you all know, greatly biased. Forget them! I'm all for gun rights, but not for ammunition rights. Make it VERY expensive to gain ammunition. The gun manufacturers could still make the $$$ they greedily want.
Â
We need to get to the root causes of this type of violence. AND THAT FOLKS is to crook of the problem Be it video games, lack of discipline, mental health interventions, parent education, or a gigantic tax on all ammunition, especially any magazine greater than 6 bullets. There is absolutely NO REASON for ANYONE to own an assault weapon in this country. Start there, ignore the NRA, and leave personal defense guns and legal hunting rifles available to US citizens.
@Yadayada
Dude, President Obama's children go to a private school with no less than 11 armed guards, I don't think his kids are in ANY danger of being victims of a mass school shooting. Artificially inflating the cost of ammunition is not a viable solution, it's one of those âfeel goodâ measures that only appeals the sheeple. This whole shooting incident stinks to high heaven, and according to this site below, there may be more to this shooting than meets the eye.
Â
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/27/sandy-hook-huge-hoax-and-anti-gun-psy-op/
Â
Â
Now we have an administration that is about to push unprecedented gun control legislation that is so unconstitutional it makes one head spin. And all of this several months before the UN Arms Trade Treaty is about to rear it's ugly head in March.
Â
Â
Â
 @Yadayada Agreed, I don't understand why anyone needs an assault weapon.  We have people on this board talking about tyranny and scary governments, as well as being able to continue buying assault weapons.  That doesn't sound like concerned citizens, that sounds like people ready to go to war, against their own country; and why?  This country is a pretty nice place to be a citizen, and, aside from general crime, you don't need an assault weapon to be comfortable here.
 @31F  @Yadayada Have you TRIED to understand why someone would want one? I've posted the reasons here several times, as have others. Let me see here. Light weight, reliable, low recoil, easily available parts, simple to maintain, accurate, easy to handle, refined design from decades of "field testing." Why would you NOT want one for home defense? Or target shooting? Or varmint hunting, or just because the government doesn't want you to have it?
 @RN1 "But she's hard to conceal,"
So true. I tried carrying a cop but he was heavy and didn't fit in my holster:-)
Nothing is wrong with dogs. I have a dog. But she's hard to conceal, I can't take her places where people have dog allergies, she doesn't like going to the movies, and in a serious situation a dog turns into little more than a target-indicator (the bad guys shooting your dog is a good sign that it's OK to return fire, without a human family member being the first to suck up a bullet). Dogs, like alarms, good locks, good neighbors, exterior lights, guns, etc., are all just parts of the many layers of a properly designed security system. Nothing, by itself, is going to be perfect. But the only thing that can STOP the threat, rather than just provide warning or delaying things a bit, is the gun. The rest buy you time, but that is all.
 @31F I like Glocks, too. For concealed carry, they are fine tools. For home defense, where you are not limited by concealment issues, a long-gun frequently makes more sense. Greater stopping power, greater range, more accurate, larger magazine, easier to hang a light on. The army issued you (me, too) an assault *rifle* (assault *weapon* is a term without a definition, beyond "scary-looking gun we don't like"), I bought a semi-auto rifle very similar to it because it was appropriate for home defense as well. Also got a 12 ga, but because of the recoil it's not usable by all family members. I know two people with messed up shoulders (well, three technically, my mine's just flaky, not disabled) who CAN'T use a shotgun, but an AR works very well for them.
 @Sheila Lechner Funny.... you threw in Canada. Even with Obamacare, it's not going to be affordable. Spend, Spend, Spend. So if Canadians are coming here, were are we going to go once our "National Healthcare" kicks in? Mexico? Not likely. Are there ANY programs the government successfully executes? Do you actually think Obabacare will be better than the Canadian Health care system.
Â
Why would I move to Mexico? I'm the FIRST person to tell you about immigration reform. Yet another reason I don't think Obama cares about the legal citizens of this country. Obama should man up and implement EVerify at EVERY place of employment. If you're caught hiring any illegal immigrant, you get automatic jail time and the executive level (ie President, CFO, COO). Illegals will self deport because they can't work. Now, let more people in legally, the proper way. Done.Â
Â
You truly are blind.
 @Sheila Lechner How many cities like New Orleans, LA or Detroit does Canada have? Seriously, you cannot compare the two countries, Canada does not have our problems such as immigration out of control at our southern border but if you like it so much, go ahead and move there, you will find that their national health care isnt all that great, that is why many Canadians come to the US to have procedures done because their National Health care wont cover or they would be dead before they could be treated......
 @Sheila Lechner Canada.... not yet, but who knows. Affordable healthcare? Not for me...I'll be paying for the "health" of other people. There are plenty of schools will security and armed guards... every heard of knives? Keep living in La La land... If we could accurately predict the future, this wouldn't be an issue, but since we can't, we the people need to protect our Bill Of Rights (which are in place for good reason). The country was born from Tyranny, hence, we don't want go there.
Good lord, how does one follow the other? Has Canada become tyrannical? Forcing everyone to have affordable healthcare--the nerve! Schools that don't need security systems or armed guards--fascism! Fewer than 200 gun related deaths a year in a country of 33 million--Tyranny!!
 @RN1 What if all guns are banned, then the government does become tyrannical? Personally, I'd like to protect my rights so that never happens.... Give an inch, take a mile.
the "security" that is often cited for owning a weapon.....
 @newdragon I am not anti-gun, I am pro-perspective and I enjoy making peace.  As you can see I am neither a far right, nor far left-ist.  I am not going to take one side blindly, absurdly, and irrationally.  Both sides have appealing and strong arguments.  I grew up in a house hold that forbid guns, and now I own one, but I do not use it.  I have experienced many sides and many perspectives.  In other words, I am reasonable.  My views are very much open to both sides.  I am sorry that you do not understand this concept.  It works for people to understand one another, instead of arguing... Whoa!
 @newdragon No I don't.  I have a right to buy and own a gun legally, so I did.  No searching, no inner-me BS, just made a purchase.  Clear as that...Â
 @31F  @Sheila Lechner A gun is a terrible thing to waste.
 @newdragon No...Â
 @Sheila Lechner   Nice... I don't even know why I own the gun.  I bought it years and years ago, put it in a safe, and that is it.  I Never bought bullets, and it still has all of the tags.  It has never been used.
@RN1 @31F @Yadayada What's wrong with a dog?Â
 @newdragon Sure, for most part there are different definitions, and for the sake of just Wiki'ng the definition, I will give you my opinion.  I believe an assault weapon to be one that is similar to military grade type weapons that are semi and fully automatic.  In contrast, I do not believe a handgun falls in that category.  As I said before, I am not a gun connoisseur.  Please understand that...Â
 @RN1 I bought a Glock for home defense.  I used an assault weapon in the Army, and don't think one is needed in the civilian sector.  I guess I am just not a gun connoisseur.
 @Yadayada I think I'd prefer to ignore you instead. The problem is, this is how it starts. Take a little, then when there IS another massacre, take a little more, and a little more, until it's all gone. That's the crux of the "gun control" problem.
 @Stock Woodie What about the other way around?  That is, each side tries to out do the other with a larger more powerful weapons, until things are blown out of proportion.  The crux goes both ways.
 @31F Average civilians can not get more powerful weapons. How many rocket launchers have you seen in your life (excluding any military service)?
 @YadayadaÂ
So we go to 6 shot's and someone goes off the deep end and kills another twenty.. do we then go to a single shot and so fourth and so on..until all we have left are squirt guns.. their are over 7 billion people on this planet you can't regulate good vs evil.. it's been here since the beginning of time..
@vadersith @Yadayada You're right....I mean, why did we bother establishing Homeland Security, putting air marshals on planes or sending troops to Afghanistan after 9/11 since we "can't regulate good vs evil..it's been here since the beginning of time". ??Â
 @Sheila Lechner Who tells us what good and evil are? You? I surely hope not.
 @Sheila Lechner it is about feel good legislation. The reality is, when passing laws one SHOULD be looking at making a difference, not putting a piece of tissue against a gaping wound. I will agree that violence in our cities is a sad thing, but you are very wrong if you think that gun laws that further restrict law abiding citizens rights will fix this problem.
I know, but why bother even installing them on air planes if we "can't regulate good vs evil"? What's the point, right?
 @Sheila Lechner Air Marshals are armed.
 @Yadayada So you really want people to practice less? The bad guys only need a few rounds, because their goal is to threaten and bully, and only occasionally shoot. Good guys need to practice regularly. So.... you are really supporting the bad guys, here...
And, who exactly, determines who are the "good guys" vs the "bad guys"? For all intents and purposes, before he slaughtered over two dozen kids at an elementary school, he was a "good guy"--practicing often, using the guns legally registered to his mom. Before he opened fire in a crowded theatre, he was "good guy" neuroscience student with legally registered guns.Â
 @Sheila Lechner That is correct, legally owned is legally owned and he did not legally own those guns.
 @Sheila Lechner The "good guys" are not the ones shooting innocent victims. The bad guys are committing the crime. Sort of like the guy with the printing press actually printing libelous statements is the bad guy, but the guy with the printing press that is not doing so isn't a bad guy.
Â
It is the *action* of a person that defines good or bad. And as soon as they start doing something bad, then they need to be put down with return fire. But the thing is, he could just as easily have used a fire-bomb (look up Happy Lands night club fire" and killed more. Or a propane tank bomb. Or burned poyurathane foam to release hydrogen cyanide gas. Or done any number of other things to kill people. But only a firearm in the hands of a good guy could have stopped him, unlike those other methods of killing.
 @Sheila Lechner There is a huge responsibility that goes with being a gun owner...Â
 @Sheila Lechner Are you honestly comparing borrowing a car to "borrowing" a gun? You have lost touch with reality.
He had ready access to them. Or are you going to say he "stole" them....like any teenager that borrows the car without telling mom and dad? Legally owned is legally owned.Â
 @Sheila Lechner His mother had legally registered guns... he did not. He actually tried to buy guns but didn't want to "wait" for them.
This is total rubbish.
Â
What that bug eyed lunatic did in Connecticut was already illegal. No law would have stopped him.
Â
What if he detonated two BBQ tanks full of propane instead? Then what, ban propane?
Â
Typical Obama bull manure. Do nothing but pander to the weak minded feelers. This does nothing to address any problems whatsoever. What efforts have been done to reel in some of the grossly violent movie content or video games? Nothing. And empty mush heads eat that fodder up 24/7.
Â
He has no intention of accountability to the "entertainment" industry. Just tossing that out for doggy treats. We know his true agenda as with any Marxist. Full control of all aspects of society. To ensure that, one must eventually address firearms, one brick at a time until you have it all.
Â
Hence, we have a 2nd amendment. To defend against tyranny,.
Â
Â
@pbs7mm You selectively missed the part where he shot through the school's security door. No gun = no access.Â
 @Sheila Lechner  @pbs7mm Sheila has her peace / love / everyone is good blinders on...Â
 @Stock Woodie  @Sheila Lechner  @pbs7mm I've met a few people like that. The first time the cold, hard reality that some people are just plain evil hits them in the face, their entire world-view will get utterly crushed. They are nice people. Just... not very attuned to reality.
 @Sheila Lechner  @pbs7mm No, no access with a gun. With a pipe bomb, piece of cake. With a car rammed through the door, piece of cake. And on and on...
 @Sheila Lechner You seem to think that bad people without guns will cease being bad people... sort of magical thinking that would seem to mean that the middle ages, or the Roman times, or the stone age, or any time before guns were around, would be filled with peace and gett'n along. Not so much, really. It was called "the dark ages" for a reason.
 @SeattleJoe
I was going to mention the poison too..depending on the size of the dog. if the dog is small it wouldn't take much to neutralize it..
 @Sheila Lechner Really? People with weapons aren't typically scared of a ruckus.
 @Sheila Lechner "I have a dog---who is going to break into my house? And I have a *barking* dog.....they won't even get to the front porch without a ruckus."
A gun shot makes quite a bit of noise too. Do you think someone whos willing to make that much noise is going to care if your dogs make noise? Also, some criminals have been known to poison outdoor dogs then come back later.Â
 @Sheila Lechner  @SeattleJoe Oh theres a goody. So all the people screaming that the NRA suggestion to arm teachers, which of course is what would create the situation where the good people would be stopping violence, well, need I continue?  Also, as for seeing "the good people" in the news. Ok, When KOMO and other news orgs start going around asking people, "Do you own a gun? Yes? Well lets do a story on you not going out and killing people etc."  Right,  the fact the news doesn't do boring stories about law abiding people not committing crimes is certainly a great defense of your argument.  This is starting to get fun.
 @Sheila Lechner
of course it's not in the news.. news is nothing more then a propaganda machine to set and influence the political agenda... is the Armed citizen website...
Â
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
 @Sheila Lechner I have a dog too, she a very well trained dog and will not stop a bullet aimed at me.
I have a dog---who is going to break into my house? And I have a *barking* dog.....they won't even get to the front porch without a ruckus.
@SeattleJoe I don't see "the good people" in the news. You know, supposedly stopping the mass shooters and such?? That gem is always cited, but has yet to be the case.
 @SeattleJoe  @Sheila Lechner I think this is the problem, the sensationalism has overcome common sense. There is no rationality when people start screaming about an event such as this. All they can think about is OMG, it's the guns! I dont think Sheila will ever get it unless someone actually breaks into her house and someone in her life is hurt because it took the police 5-20 minutes to respond, when she could have dropped them where they stood.
 @Sheila Lechner How many do I think he would have killed? I don't know. But I can tell how many he Could have killed with something other than guns. But I suspect that you really aren't concerned with hearing that as you are entrenched in your idea and no amount of reasoning is going to persuade you. So be it. You are afraid of firearms fine. Why do you want to punish the good people because of those very few?Â
All hypothetical. But the fact remains that he had five guns and plenty of ammo. He didn't choose the car (even though he drove one to the school). And without a gun, how many people do you think he would have killed with the examples cited here: propane tanks, car, pipe bomb? All hypothetical.
 @pbs7mm Bugged eyed lunatic, funny.  You're absolutely right, no law could have stopped him.  Hypothetically speaking, the absence of guns would have thwarted this massacre, but that will not ever be the case.  Regarding propane, we are all rational here.  We know that propane was developed for fuel.  Is it not true that guns were developed solely to shoot (injure or kill) things?  Perhaps, the first step is the foundation of the problem; the tactics.  We can then scrutinize the supplemental or strategic issues later, such as media and violence and mental health issues.  I have to admit, the NRA did try to propose a tactical solution.  Right or wrong, at least they are not talking about "what ifs", propane detonations, media violence, etc... President Obama seems to be on the right course as well, focusing on gun controls.  First you control the problem, before you eliminate the problem.Â
 @31F  @pbs7mm "Is it not true that guns were developed solely to shoot (injure or kill) things? "
The problem with this idea is its not related to the argument. Why they invented guns over 800 years ago is very different from why people use them today. Of the 100s of millions of rounds fired every year in the US alone very very few are actually used to kill or injure.Â
As to the propane thing. Being rational also means we objectively look at all angles. What we know is this crazy kid used guns to kill. He used guns because his mother had them accessible even though she was about to have him committed to a mental institution. Thats the most insane part of this story. But I digress slightly. In general, people who are hell bound to kill will find a way, whether guns or propane. I know if I were wanting to do something like this, and I find the idea revolting, I wouldn't use guns. They take too much time etc. Â We need to get to the root of the problem and another proven to be ineffective gun ban just won't help.
 @Sheila Lechner  @Stock Where do felons get their guns? Well, in places that ban guns, the criminals usually get them by stealing them from cops or the military. Or, in the case of Mexican drug cartels, they get them via US FedGov ops like Fast & Furious.
 @Sheila Lechner I guess it was huffpo. But they have now updated it to say that she had taken him to a psych but was not intending to commit him.Â
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/adam-lanza-motive_n_2329508.html
There are bunches of other sites that say he was afraid of being committed but only huffpo, as far as I saw had an update.Â
As for current gun laws filtering, strangely I agree with you there but mostly in application, as in they need to be applied. Currently our legal system doesn't enforce existing laws so I don't see where more will help. It would only serve to disarm law abiding people. I know you want that too but as someone thinking a bit more rationally than yourself, I don't.
@Stock Woodie And where do the felons get their firerarms? From black market manufacturers? Uh, no. All guns (legal or not) were legally made and, at legally sold at least once.Â
 @Stock Woodie
Woodie some people just don't get it do they...
 @Sheila Lechner The number of logic issues with this post is astounding.
 @Sheila Lechner Yeah... the law keeps felons from having firearms. Give me a break. Are you really that naive? People driving without insurance, people driving drunk, people driving with a suspended license, speeding. All these offenses have "laws" against them, but guess what, they still happen.
They went to the range and practiced together which, as it has been posted, is what "the good guys" do. If you have the article, please cite it.  Otherwise, I don't see the difference in him, his mom or what the NRA promotes as responsible gun ownership. Which would indicate that current gun laws are not filtering out people that should NOT have guns.
 @Sheila Lechner  @SeattleJoe  @31F  @pbs7mm I don't believe I read it on Komo but it was an AP article somewhere. I'll try to find it.  Regardless, she should have had them secured, not banned.
@SeattleJoe @31F @pbs7mm Where in the news did it EVER say the kid was "crazy" or that his mom was about to commit him? He had Aspberger's and his mom had legally purchased 5 guns in case of an "economic collapse". Totally legal and since they practiced regularly it would seem they would have been considered one of the "good guys" up until the elementary school slaughter.Â