I sent an email to Menendez, telling him that blanket bans/restrictions on certain weapons and/or ammunition would have done NOTHING to prevent the tragedy in Newtown. I sent the same email to Runyan, too.

Really? why stop with assualt weapons...why not affordable hand-held missile launchers, how about landmines sold thru Amazon (for the convenience)...grenades for the holidays...teens going to school with glocks.

Stock piling ammo and assualt weapons is based on fear (provided by the NRA and right wing loonies) that the government (our policemen, state troopers, national guard...ie, our neighbors) are going to round us up and put us in camps.

Meanwhile we have 88 guns for every 100 citizens and gun violinece every 20 minutes...sick.

@scous - Ha, yeah because rounding up people and putting them in camps would never happen in America.

scous: "Stock piling ammo and assualt weapons is based on fear (provided by the NRA and right wing loonies)"

Really? How about the fear piled upon us by the government itself ("The terrorists are coming to get us, no one is safe") or by the media who hyper-focus on these incidents. Why does the gun purchase rate more often than not, increase after these types of events? We live in an era of hyper-paranoia with the largest promoter and interestingly ammunition purchaser being the federal government.

Strick gun control laws by definition are strick if they possess a degree effectiveness...they are not effective, certainly not with the gun shows (there's plenty in NJ), online gun stores, cross state 'trunk sales' and how easily they move into our street. It's estimated that 40% of gun purchases occur in the 'secondary' market.

In my statement I referenced Australia's adoptions on gun laws and programs, which you ignored, here it is:
In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half (I don't believe any thing like this would ever be adopted by the US)

Kids in the US are 13 times more likely to die of homicide than any other industrialized country...more Aericans die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attach and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

Where's are proportional response to these deaths....(estimated 94,600 people shot in the US this year...why are we not outraged...?)?

Is your fear of massive round-ups equal to the concern that someone in your hometown has stocked piled weapons and might, one day, take his delusional vengance to the mall where one of your loved ones might be shopping...our a friends church...

We don't have strict gun-laws (check out Australia and what they've adopted)...you have literally know restrictions on buying and stockpiling assault weapons.

God. The NRA members were surveyed and overwheliming said they were deeply religous (Christians)--the mother of the killer was an 'end of time' believer and stock piled weapons and supplies. 'Christians' that buy assault weapons that are functionally designed to kill as many people as possible (in a war scenario) are hypocrites and delusional or paranoid (or both).

There are new 'stand your ground' laws, concealed weapons laws, and unrestricted gun dealings at gun shows, fairs, and at someones home near you.

A nation with 200+M guns isn't 'Christian' by any means, and by definition is living in fear...mass killings are occuring in churches, schools, malls, movie theatres and on street corners. Do some research on gun violence and US's fetish with gun play and then do some research on the insurance companies restriction of mental health.

@scous
"you have literally know restrictions on buying and stockpiling assault weapons."

Why don't you go read the NJ gun laws.
Then come back and comment when you have a clue.

Voice of Reason,

With all due respect to your point of view, I think the "sheep, wolves and shepherds" analogy is a little too simplistic for today's world. And I don't think that it applies to this particular incident. I don't know that many people want armed "shepherds" in an elementary school. But that's just my view.

Rob, and with all due respect to your point-of-view as well, I think the immediate jump to gun control following this tragedy is just as simplistic. If you really do your homework, you will find gun control does not work. Obviously because your average violent criminal, isn't going to abide by the law. Second, you're not going to keep the crazy person from obtaining what he/she needs to commit their horrific crime. There was an assault weapons ban in effect when the Columbine shootings took place. The answer is much more complicated than gun control. No matter how you slice it, it is the person who commits these crimes. Not the gun and certainly not the responsible gun owner who is most affected by gun control legislation.

Rob, I must admit that I am having a problem re-reading your comment to my statement of yesterday. How is my comment not relevent in todays world? Why exactly do you think that it is not a good idea to have a gun or several in school? If they are in a safe place and only accessible by well trained staff. As simple as it sounds the sheep are what we care about and the shephards are the last line of defense. We drop our children off at school or the bus stop each morning with the expectation that the teachers, administrators, maintenance workers, etc will care for, and yes protect them during the school hours. I know that my suggestion is not PC by any means, and I recognize that in the horrific case of last week it might not have done one ounce of good, but it could have. Any denial of that fact is lunacy in my opinion. So while you "don't know that many people want armed shephards in an elementary school", I suggest you spend more time in the real world, and not in the world that we would all like to see.

I think you hit the nail on the head. I read quite a bit that inner city crime is rooted in socioeconomic issues where life is devalued. I don't think that applies to CT, but your point on 60+ deaths with barely a mention is a great one. I don't have answers ( I don't think anybody does), but it is shortsighted, I think, to say that tougher laws will apply to wolves, sheep, and shepherds equally when it is apparent that the only groups that would abide by these laws are the sheep and shepherds.

Bingo!!

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlj45jggj/1-detroit/

over 437 murders in the Windy City this year

Guns are nothing more than an efficient vehicle for transforming someone's deranged internal struggles into the external nightmares of others. More gun laws won't stop this. What is needed is an encompassing shift in societal responsibilities that can begin to address the fundamental aspects underlying the problems.

Gun violence is the outcome, the end game, and is precisely the wrong end of the problem from which to start. Over the previous few decades as support structures have eroded, more and more of the burdens have been placed solely on the parents. Simultaneously, we've seen the erosion of two parent households, the erosion of a manageable society in which families can afford to have a parent stay at home to care, nurture, and educate their children. We've thrown more and more on the parents yet stripped them of the time, money, and other resources to deal with these problems.

Yet, with all this, we continue to focus on the object of violence while ignoring the bigger, albeit much more complicated portion of it. It's hard to figure out which is why simplistic gun laws or restrictions won't stem the problem.

Harry, I could not agree with you more on most of your thoughts. The fact is that the guns used in the shooting were obtained illegally( they were not his and therefore stolen). If I buy a car and my son steals it, he has obtained my car illegally.
My point with the wolves etc, was that in this environment without protection from them they will run wild, as happened so tragically in CT this past week. I am not going to argue to arm the population, only to protect it until such a time when all can disarm. Until you get criminals to give up guns, it makes no sense to disarm those who have any chance of protecting the sheep.
It will never happen, but lets say that the government bans all weapons from slingshot to assault rifle tomorrow, who will be turning them in?
I am commenting on my perception of society as it exists, not on how I imagine a utopian society to be.

It was my understanding that the guns used, he stole from his mom?

Meester Taco.

Your baseball bats murders #s are wrong...(see:http://www.top10stop.com/lifestyle/top-10-most-common-murder-weapons).

Tough laws should be equated to effectiveness...which requires federal coordination and citizenry that wishes to reverse the trend of gun violence and the dynamics that encourage it.

Suicide: An estimated 41% of gun-related homicides and 94% of gun-related suicides would not occur under the same circumstances had no guns been present (Wiebe, p. 780).

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a completed or attempted suicide (11x), criminal assault or homicide (7x), or unintentional shooting death or injury (4x) than to be used in a self-defense shooting. (Kellermann, 1998, p. 263).

You get the picture (maybe not)...it's exhausting to hear people compare high capacity guns to bats, steak knives, swimming pools and cars. We have 200+ M guns in the US...it won't be long before we have another mass killing.

It's amazing how misguided apparently logical people can be on this issue. How many of the non-firearm deaths included groups of a dozen or more? How many baseball bat murders involved someone the perpetrator knew by name? You grab a bat and give me a semi-automatic weapon...who does more damage at the mall in 2 mins?

Banning assault weapons isnt the answer....it's part of the answer. Criminals will find ways to get done what they want, but allowing the legal sale of assault weapons has no place in an advanced society. The guns used last week were originally obtained legally, but we're stolen to create this conversation. The owner apparently couldn't guarantee their security, and I see no reason to trust others. It is entirely possible that Mr. Lanza could have found another way to be destructive, but he didn't need to with such amazing firepower at his disposal. I feel we should make it more difficult to ruin so many lives in a few seconds....don't you?

When you say 41% of gun related homicides would not have occured, is that information coming from the criminal who committed the crime which I suspect upon being caught they were asked. If you didn't have a gun, would you still have killed that person?

And 94% of gun related suicides would not have occured. Who are you asking to find that out?

Finally, as you mention there are 200M guns out there and banning new guns changes what exactly? Will criminals and those intent on killing just give up on locating an already existing gun or not seek other options?

political correctness will not allow this. until someone commits a crime they were just "off". Nothing more and you are not allowed to suggest anythinn more or YOU would be the problem. In hindsight though, everyone knew it was just a matter of time..... Humans simply need to stop trying to control the uncontrollable. Many need to read up on stoicism.

Mayberry: 'Camden had its 68 murder over the weekend.'

This is not true.

Spot on, HomeBrew. See also Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

I would be against that.

@ Taco - Any particular reason ?

It's just semantics. You can't make laws based on what you're proposing. What kind of handgun? How many rounds can I hold in the magazine? AR15, why not M14 or M1A? Hunting rifle? What sort of shotgun? Can it have a magazine? Etc.

A lot of people are misinformed about firearm laws, for instance, what the assault weapons ban actually did. The AWB didn't make assault weapons illegal, only a few of particular name - those companies modified them slightly and released them again. It did nothing to change the legality of fully automatic weapons - they're still legal if they were produced before the law was enacted, always were and still are. You can walk right over the boarder in to PA and actually rent fully automatic weapons to try out.

NJ's gun laws do *nothing*. They were devised by people who undoubtedly have never fired a weapon and if we're really going to make a change we need smart people to make the laws.

NJ has people to do real prison time for having a survival rifle that holds 17 rounds of 22 cal. It's intended to shoot squirrels to survive and NJ actually classifies it as an assault weapon. Again, semantics, not intelligence.

Even informed people can't figure the laws out because they're like loony tunes - that's why people are so defensive about more restrictions.

Even if you don't read anything, scroll down and look at the "legal" guns versus the "illegal" assault weapon - the marlin model 60.

http://sussexcountyjustice.com/guns.html

@Taco - I wasn't really asking the question to discuss passing laws. More of a question to see how many anti-gun people are just flat out against ownership period.

It seems they like to lump any gun owner into "crazy gun nut" group.

Thanks for the link. I knew about the Colt Match (but figured most people wouldn't know what I was talking about if I used that in the question).
Also knew there were problems pertaining to the Springfield M1A as I was given one ( legally) but declined it do to the crazy gun laws in NJ. Honestly couldn't figure out if it was legal or not to own it here. So didn't take the chance.

I'm not sure we have a different view at all. Maybe it is a matter of gradation. For instance, would you approve of tasers/stun guns in an elementary school? Surely, this is something we can agree on. I am not insisting on guns in school, only that my childrens daytime guardians be equipped with some way to protect themselves and our children/students.

Don't think that will ever happen, but the second amendments exists, it seems, so it can protect the entire Bill of Rights. Each time it's threatened, it becomes clear why it's there to begin with.

Australia successfully implented an assualt rifle buy-back program along with more comprehensive gun policies after a 1996 mass killing (35 dead). There were 18 such mass killings in the two decades prior to the buy-back program, since the program -0- mass killingse have occurred and a 40% drop in gun related homicides.

Keep your hunting rifles and your hand guns...would you agree to the above program? What is the real need, the desire, to have an assualt weapon in the hands of private citizens...stop the government ? Who, the policeman, state trooper, the national guards...? They are all our brothers and sisters from every denomination, race and socio-economic background...why would you fear them to an extent that your fine with millions and millions of assault weapons floating legally and illegal in our society?

We're not Australia. They also make it near impossible for any of their citizens to possess a gun. As I'd stated somewhere previously, the Australian Gov't now requires a reason for wishing to own a gun and neither "home protection" nor "target shooting" are acceptable answers.

I don't want to see that happen. Our Constitution was created to LIMIT government.

do you notice that, even when driving within the letter of the law, you get nervous if a police officer is behind you? Most people do and for no reason. Do you notice that you get nervous if you get a letter from the IRS? Most people do even if there is no reason. There are not many "contacts" with gov't that people like. Yes we are afraid of gov't, but don't talk about it openly. People on the right are afraid of certain rights going away, people on the left are afraid of certain gov't actions (I didn't say rights deliberately). Everyone fears gov't in their own way.

All laws have a moral component. Not everyone will live up to that side. From the most mundane to the tragic. You cannot now or ever legislate that. We have to live with that as it will not go away. No matter the law if someone does not follow the intangible moral component it won't work.

You'd be a fool to take the AR-15 to war. It just "looks" like an M-16. I'm pretty confident that you would further find that the vast majority, and I mean greater than 99%, of the owners of these type weapons you fear are of no threat to you.

I don't know about "sadly" but the reason gun/ammo purchases increase is because of the predictable knee-jerk reaction these tragic events always leave in their wake.

Liberals always misplace the blame. Tipper Gore, head of the PMRC, aligned herself with this notion that Ozzy Osbourne, Judas Priest and a few others were to blame for teen suicide in 70's & 80's.

What I find interesting is they always take an element, relevent to the issue or not, and find a way to make it responsible. Why? Because they are a part of a group that doesn't like it. And what do we know to be true about the difference between conservatives and liberals? If a conservative doesn't like something, he/she will have nothing to do with it. If a liberal doesn't like something, he/she want no one to have anything to do with it.
These are the same folks who support the folks who brought us the fight against "financial inequality." Which we all know is short for, "I want what he's got, but I don't want to work for it."

Also, Take my three and in each case, give the liberals what they want.
Now guess where we are; that much closer to everything our forefathers tried to prevent us from becoming, and that is controlled by big government.
I will never yield to big government or any one of its ideas. Because, one right taken away will ALWAYS lead to another. Always.

And now I see how YOU think; like a child.
You apparently don't know what big government means. Out of curiosity, do you believe in God?
Answer my question and go educate yourself.

Was not expecting that response.
In any event, I think you keyed in on one aspect of my post and blew it up. I don't think you have a good handle on the meaning of another aspect of my post but attempted to blow that up as well. Then you failed to respond to the rest.
No matter. I wish you peace as well.