ABA Journal


Constitutional Law

Gun Control Debate Gains Traction as Obama Appoints Task Force in Wake of Conn. School Slayings

Dec 19, 2012, 11:49 pm CST


Guns don't kill people...people who buy guns kill people.

By Dark Lord of the Right on 2012 12 20, 2:14 am CST

Evil people kill other people.

By Yankee on 2012 12 20, 2:16 am CST

Good people kill other people.

By Dark Lord of the Right on 2012 12 20, 2:30 am CST

@3 My mistake: James Holmes, Jared Lee Loughner and Adam Lanza were all wonderful human beings, with hearts of gold

By Yankee on 2012 12 20, 11:22 am CST

He used a bushmaster 228. Auto which would have been legal under the 1994 ban. All these lawmakers are using this shooting to put together laws and bans that wouldn't even prevent this shooting! Also, not many people even know what an assault weapon is. It has the same ability has a nice wooden hunting rifle, why should it be banned, because it's a "military-style" assault rifle? I want people to start dealing with the issues at hand, preventing mass shootings. Nothing people are discussing would have prevented the damage done or the act at all (with the exception of high capacity clips and magazines ban, which I am pro).

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 20, 2:37 pm CST

When I say "which I am pro" I mean I am pro the idea of banning high capacity clips.

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 20, 2:39 pm CST

Shortly after the shootings the President said it was time for us to take "meaningful steps" to prevent such tragedies. I foolishly allowed myself to hope that he really meant what he said. Once again he has disappointed me by choosing form over substance and appearance over effective action.

I fully expected that some left wing elements would dishonor the victims of this tragedy by using their loss to make political hay. I had hoped that the President would be above that and that he would attempt to address the mental health issues that are truly relevant. I should have known better.

By W.R.T. on 2012 12 20, 2:51 pm CST

@7 I agree that the "mental health issues" are truly relevant here, although I would include within that category not only treatment for the individual, but an easier avenue for civil commitment for the protection of the community.

Finally, I would add that all of us really need to get to know our neighbors better, and personally get involved in a prudent fashion if dictated by the cirucmstances.

By Yankee on 2012 12 20, 4:20 pm CST

Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 800. The sarin gas attack in Tokyo killed 13 people and seriously injured 50. The 911 terrorists killed quite a few thousand. The list goes on and on. They don't need guns to kill.

Gloria: Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?
Archie Bunker: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

[Archie is delivering en editorial on a local TV station]
Archie Bunker: [on TV] Good evening, everybody. This here is Archie Bunker of 704 Hauser Street, veteran of the big war, speaking on behalf of guns for everybody. Now, question: what was the first thing that the Communists done when they took over Russia? Answer: gun control. And there's a lot of people in this country want to do the same thing to us here in a kind of conspiracy, see. You take your big international bankers, they want to - whaddya call - masticate the people of this here nation like puppets on the wing, and then when they get their guns, turn us over to the Commies.

Edith Bunker: Oh, Archie, I'm glad they put you on a stool, you look taller sitting down.

By MK on 2012 12 20, 6:02 pm CST

What good is an assault weapons ban when the borders are still wide open, allowing weapons (in addition to drugs and people) to be smuggled into the US regularly?

By Esq. on 2012 12 20, 6:22 pm CST


Their not banning assault weapons. Assault weapons are used by the military. Their banning military-style assault weapons. Their just hunting rifles and normal semi-automatic rifles that look like assault weapons (real assault weapons are selective firing, civilian weapons are not).

What politicians have done is been waiting for a tragity that they can use to implement their own bans and regulations. None if the offers on the table (with the exception of hog capacity clips and magazines) would have prevented the mass shooting they claim to be trying to prevent in the future. The bushmaster 228. Auto would have been acceptable under the 1994 ban and nothing would have stopped his mother from buying it (he has the health problems, not his mother). I am not saying do nothing, I'm saying don't use the publics current emotional state as a way to put the 1994 ban (or a version of it) back in place. I am welcome to the idea of banning high capacity magazines and clips, but don't ban a firearm because it looks like a military weapon.

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 20, 6:33 pm CST

@5: More to the point, he didn't buy the guns so no gun control law changes would have kept them out of his hands.

Nothing new to see here, move along.

Just remember May 18, 1927. Andrew Kehoe. Look it up.

By TMJ on 2012 12 20, 6:55 pm CST


I was responding to a comment. No one was asking you to read it. If I am repeating myself it is for good reason. If you oppose the opinion, instead of calling me on repeating you are welcome to disagree in a respectable manner. I was explaining to Esq.'s argument is, while true in my opinion, not accurate in the assault weapons terminology.

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 20, 7:03 pm CST

Also, if you have an issue with a statement, mention your disagreement, quoting me isn't a defense.

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 20, 7:05 pm CST

Oh my gosh, haha! I didn't understand your comment! That's my bad! I didn't have any coffee today :/ haha! Woah I totally misinterpreted your comment! That's on me, my bad.

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 20, 7:08 pm CST

Perhaps they need a law telling parents of mentally addled children not to take those children to the range to train them as killing machines. That would seem to be a good start, in that (while one might THINK such a law would not be necessary) this seems to have been what the problem was in this particular case.

A 1994 style ban will not provide any meaningful short-term improvement, because it will not address the thousands upon thousands of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that have already been imported for sale or have already been sold by dealers.

The only viable short-term solutions are improvements in restrictions to keep guns away from the mentaly ill, and (as the Virginia lawmaker suggested) improvements to security at schools (and logically, all other public venues) by actually increasing the number of guns in the hands of people who appear to be reliable and law abiding.

By B. McLeod on 2012 12 20, 7:14 pm CST

What I find interesting about the "debate" instigated by this tragedy is the focus on guns, rather than focus on the difficulty of forcing mentally ill people to be treated or at least contained. Thanks to our "enlightened" legal system in regards to mentally ill adults, over the last 50 years it's become nearly impossible to do anything for people who, by definition, can't really give informed consent for anything. So instead the lucky ones become merely homeless, and the unlucky ones end up in jail or worse but only after they've harmed others or themselves.

By TMJ on 2012 12 20, 7:46 pm CST

I will add that schools should NOT be 'gun free zones' in the sense that schools should have one or several armed and trained members of the administration or faculty (or resource officers) on-site whenever school is in session.

By Yankee on 2012 12 20, 7:48 pm CST

Dismantling of mental health support was (ironicly as it turns out) a Reagan initiative, which has not really been revisited since. Somehow, we still manage to have plenty of "big government," in spite of it all.

By B. McLeod on 2012 12 20, 7:51 pm CST

I don't know if "228" was a typo, but a standard AR-15 uses a .223 caliber cartridge. This is also know as 5.56mm.

It was said that this rifle would be legal during the ban. I would have to look at it to determine whether or not that is true. The reason for that is the legality of an AR-15 has nothing at all to do with the ammunition used, but rather had to do with how many scary-looking features it had. Usually, the manufacturer simply removed the bayonet lug from the rifle. (A bayonet lug is a piece that allows a knife to be attached to the end of the barrel.) Once the bayonet lug was removed, it was no longer an "assault weapon."

I just want accurate information out there. To that end, I also want to make sure people understand that an AR-15's ammunition is not "powerful" under any sensible definition. In fact, the cartridge it uses is a baby compared to the spectrum of small-arms ammunition. The ".223" refers to the diameter of the projectile measuring .223 inches. This caliber is used for varmint hunting ( i.e. prairie dogs.)

The rifles used in world war 1 and 2 were 30 caliber weapons. This means that the diameter of the projectile measures .3 inches. This is a far more powerful and deadly round that is still used for hunting medium-sized game like deer.

Ammunition above this caliber is what I would consider "powerful." It is necessary for big game like African animals or a moose. The largest caliber you can own without special processes is 50 caliber. A 50 caliber projectile is devastating.

By AzAttorney on 2012 12 20, 10:11 pm CST

#18 -- Why not arm the rugrats, too?

By AndytheLawyer on 2012 12 20, 10:40 pm CST

Ohh, and not to be picky but there is no such thing as an assault weapon. That phrase was created specifically for that law. "Assault rifles" are a class of weapons that do not have a strict legal definition. People disagree on whether certain weapons are assault rifles or not. However, pretty much everyone agrees that a rifle is an assault rifle if it has a detachable box magazine and an "intermediate" cartridge (i.e. the .223 or the 7.62X39 AK47 round or the 5.45X39 AK74 round). A more difficult determination is involved in weapons like a H&K G3 of FN FAL. They both share many features like the ARs and AKs, but use a full-power 7.62X51 NATO round. One thing is clear though, it has nothing to do with whether it is full auto or semi-auto. In fact, armies have clashed where one side had full auto versions versus semi auto versions of the same rifle (Faulkand wars/FN FAL 7.62X51). Even more surprising to many people, the standard M16 assault rifle of the US Army is not full auto. It is a 3-round burst. However, M4s (which are basically shorter M16s) do have a full auto capability. I severely doubt anyone would say that our M16 rifle is not an assault rifle because it cannot empty a magazine with a single trigger pull.

By AzAttorney on 2012 12 20, 10:53 pm CST


I apologize for my error, but "powerful" according to those who want the ban enacted is considered, in my understanding, any caliber (opposed to just a 50 or 45). My objective was to establish a correct usage of the term assault rifle. As we know there are those that are trying to broaden the term to include not two accessories but one (you only mentioned a bayonet lug, but im quite certain orher accessories are included. Such as a flash suppressor).

To many people have approached me with the statement "you don't need an assult rifle to hunt ducks" and when I give the obvious counter argument (I've mentioned it previously) they are speechless. I do understand your wanting to make sure the information is correct. So if I do make a statement that is incorrect or can be debated please let me know! Not only do I not want to do the exact thing I accuse other of, but I am open to learn in the case that my information is invalid!

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 20, 10:55 pm CST

It isn't just the diameter and mass of the round itself, No. 20. The powder load in the cartridge and the aerodynamic design of the projectile (e.g., whether it is designed to "tumble") are also factors.

Also, you can own a whole range of pre-1898 designs in bores that exceed .50 with no "special processes" at all.

I expect consideration may eventually be given to arming the school children, if arming the teachers and administrators proves insufficient. Certainly it would not be past the physical capabilities of six-year-old and older children to safely handle small sidearms such as the Ruger MK III, and it might help them to feel more secure.

By B. McLeod on 2012 12 20, 11:06 pm CST

Haha! Your arguing with someone who, at least at first (gets annoying) but put quotes anytime I mention assault rifles (picked it up from the NRA). After a while I stopped doing it but if you were to go back you would find me doing so.

Also it was my knowledge that the term was not created for the law, but adapted from other countries. While transferring it over in the early 1990's they made sure to include certain firearm requirements that were not there when translated.

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 20, 11:28 pm CST

No apology necessary. I am just trying to get the facts out there. You are correct as well my comment was not a complete verision of the scary-looking features. I was just trying to emphasize how silly it was that grinding off a bayonet lug made it no longer an assault weapon. flash suppressor, pistol grip, collapable stock, capacity of 30 round magazine and bayonet lug are the scary things I remember, but there may have been another I am forgetting from 2004.

@ 24
Yes, black powder has all different rules. I wasn't including that.
As far as the powder load, the .223 isn't a magnum and doesn't have a disproportionate amount of powder and the 7.62X39 has a small powder charge compared to a regular/deer 30 cal (308, 30 '06, 300mag, etc.).
There are no standard specs for the actual projectile from an AR-15 other than the diameter. Bullet manufacturers make all different kinds of bullets for all different kinds of weapons for all different kinds of applications.
Military bullets are made to specific specifications (like SS109). However, there are already restrictions on civilian bullet design.
Another interesting fact people may not know. The M-16 was originally the AR-10 and had a full-size 7.62X51 cartridge. They decided to go with the smaller round so that soldiers could carry more ammo and so that the bullets wound wound rather than kill. During the Mogadishu (Blackhawk Down) incident some of the operators were staring jealously at their friends 30 cal because their ammunition was not killing their targets like the 7.62 was.

I am sure you are joking about arming children though. lol.

By AzAttorney on 2012 12 20, 11:51 pm CST


I should maje you aware that McLeod states comedy statements.

Second, as to the statement of 30 round magazines I do agree that those should be ban, however; a firearm being military-style does not make the firearm any different from a hunting rifle. As to semi-automatic, the Supreme Court already established semi-auto handguns as a right. I realize I'm just repeating myself, but it is in an attempt to get you to state your actual opinion! Comeon! Join the fun :)

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 21, 12:59 am CST


It's your position that Good people never kill other people. That would surely provoke a chuckle from the members of SEAL Team Six!

By Dark Lord of the Right on 2012 12 21, 2:21 am CST

My father was rated "sharpshooter" by the USMC with the old bolt-action Springfield, and "expert" with the 1911 Colt .45. I really don't remember how old I was when he first taught me about handling firearms, but it couldn't have been much older than the kids who were gunned down in this massacre. He started me out on .17 and BB, but the first real pistol was either the Ruger MK III or whatever its .22 LR rimfire forebear was in that day (it looked the same as today's MK III).

I've known how to shoot and be responsible with weapons from about as far back as I can remember, and a lot of my boyhood friends were the same. It is the kind of thing kids can learn if there is a need. While I would not generally advocate for requiring school kids to train at arms if we were writing on a clean slate, I am afraid we have already created an armed society to the point that school children now need these skills to be alright during the working day while their parents have to be away. So yes, in all seriousness, I am for considering the alternative of arming them.

By B. McLeod on 2012 12 21, 4:50 am CST

@28 I don't think that the members of SEAL Team Six would be amused by your moral relativism that equates what they do for our country every day, with the monstrous actions of Messrs Holmes, Loughner and Lanza.

By Yankee on 2012 12 21, 4:47 pm CST

NRA just finished their press conference! Well done in my opinion, he made a great point about how we have guarded protectors for our president, police officers, and U.S Army members, yet we cannot seem to have a guarded protector for our schools. A place where all our children go, everyday, for a majority of the day. We have to start dealing with the issue at hand, preventing mass shootings. For more detail you can look into the NRA press conference (I'm sure you'll start seeing articles in about 20 minutes on WSJ, NYT, Etc.

I do believe however that to many people are looking at headline new and holding that opinion without looking into any detail further than the already (invalid) information they have on "assault weapons."

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 21, 5:00 pm CST


I don’t think that the members of SEAL Team Six would be amused by your calling them Evil because they kill other people. How dare you call yourself a Conservative as no self-respecting Conservative would have done what you did by imputing your blanket statement that only evil people kill other people. Misanthropes such as yourself have no business calling yourselves Conservatives!

By Dark Lord of the Right on 2012 12 21, 5:18 pm CST

#4 -- Every single American who ever mass murdered other Americans was a law abiding gun owner right up to the moment he shot his first victim.

By AndytheLawyer on 2012 12 21, 5:43 pm CST

@31 "guarded protectors....yet we cannot seem to have a guarded protector for our schools."

How could we possibly achieve this when the same crowd advocating this solution wants to cut funding for everything including education and would not raise a dime in revenue. The advocated solution would not be free. This argument about "comprehensive approach to gun violence" is a strawman argument. The proximate cause for gun violence is guns with capacities to fire several rounds at short intervals. A mentally sick person with a samurai sword or with a gun that can only fire a maximum of five rounds will not be able to kill dozens of innocent citizens in a very short time.

By ReaganNYC on 2012 12 21, 6:39 pm CST


You may be suprised to hear that this specific group deals with gun control, not education. Yet they have in fact educated countless children in firearm safety,and have 12 thousand (may be more) certified firearm experts to teach all the ways to conduct yourself when using a firearm. If you would have read any of my previous comments you would know that I am pro banning large capacity magazines and clips (as that is part of the issue). Also the plan put in place is not about cost, it involves volenteers, retired police officers, firefighters, the community, etc. The only thing more rediculous then us not already having a certified carry protector is that we do not have one police officer at the buildings where all our children go for a majority of the day, everyday. The issue is of course that we "don't have" the federal funding to back such an idea. Instead we are attempting to do something that has proven ineffective in the past ("assault weapon" ban).

Semi-automatic weapons were around since the late 1880's, "assault weapons" was a term we started using in early 1990's to use in favor for the 1994 "assault weapons" ban. These weapons are not "military grade" weapons, they are civilian versions, they do not have the selective firing feature. The issue is not the firearms, the issue is our media created fear of firearms to the point of which having a certified carrier outside of a school is unspeakable. As I have mentioned in other pages, we say we want to do anything to stop such terrible acts of violence from happening in the future, yet when we a group brings the only idea that has proven to work in the past we catogrize it as a ridiculous idea.

Don't get me wrong, as I have mentioned before, we do need a ban on large capacity magazines and clips, and we do need better background checks, and we do need to fix the loophole, and we do need better mental health care, but what we do not need is a ban on "assault weapons."

We have a right! lets start using it by protecting those defenseless children we send out into the world every morning.

Also, we should be wondering why the federal government does not seem to want to put a police officer as protection in every school. But does see a need to put time and energy into a ban that has not worked in the past.

By Joshua Neuman on 2012 12 21, 7:24 pm CST

No. 34, if you are talking about a real, differentially tempered and properly honed katana, he could have accounted for about the same number of kills in about the same amount of time.

By B. McLeod on 2012 12 22, 12:24 am CST

McLeod@36 -

I have to disagree. To have the same number of kills, he needs to be well trained in addition to have a fine katana. It does take time to get close and person and kill effectively with moving targets. If the teachers saw the man with katana, they would have asked the students to run (and spread out) instead to hide. Chasing moving targets takes even more time (so he better be fit). This is not "Kill Bill" or "Samurai TV" where random victims just run toward the main character's blade to get killed.

By Bean Counter on 2012 12 22, 12:57 am CST

Perhaps in your wishful dreams. But not when the killer is dealing with one unarmed woman and twenty unarmed six-year-olds, and is between them all and the door. Two minutes, maybe, and I would rather have to clean up what he actually did than the mess this would leave behind.

By B. McLeod on 2012 12 22, 4:03 pm CST

I'm with Mr. Neumann as far as the magazines are concerned. I don't care what the gun looks like, I care about the high capacity magazines. The truth is that these things didn't happen when Mr. McLeod and I were young. The M1911 that Mr. McLeod's father qualified with had 8 rounds. The revolvers that police carried had six and the average crook had similar arms. The average hunting rifle including semi automatics had 4 or 5. A .22 rimfire with a fixed tubular magazine might hold 15. You cannot do the kind of damage Mr. Lanza did with the kind of guns people had when I was a boy. I have shotguns and I have a .22 rimfire, I have right to own such arms but no right is unlimited. My state requires a license for the guns I own and I have one. That's reasonable, the state and society have a right to ascertain that I have no criminal backgound or history of mental illness which would disqualify me from owning firearms for the protecton of society. That's one step, the other is to ban these large capacity magazines and that ban must not include any grandfather clause. If you want to own an AR 15 fine, you can have the gun and you can have a 5 round clip. You have to turn in the 20. After the Tasmanian massacre in 1996 the Australians banned these guns and magazines and they haven't had this kind of mass shooting since. We've had dozens. The Australians went further than I think they had to but we have to get rid of the high capacity magazines. We won't prevent all murders or all crimes with guns but we will reduce the body count.

By George Sly on 2012 12 22, 8:23 pm CST

There is such a sea of high-capacity magazines already among the populace, it will be difficult to impact that much, even by criminalizing their possession. Apart from that, it seems to me that outlawing them would be a reasonable approach, so long as the government provides the lower capacity magazines in trade.

Note that the NRA can be expected to object on the basis that they believe the intent of the second amendment is to enable citizens to fight a war against the government. So, it will be an interesting discussion, and Congress may not see fit to regulate anything that is already lawfully owned. The "grandfathering" approach has been a regular feature, and was a feature of the 1994 ban.

By B. McLeod on 2012 12 22, 8:47 pm CST

Mr. McLeod: The NRA has always argued they represent "law abiding" citizens. If that is so, they will obey the law, if not they are criminals and should be treated as such. The magazines should be outlawed and those who possess them in defiance of law are criminals, period. As for the NRA position that the Second Amendment exists so people can wage war against any elected government they dislike, ask the NRA's leaders to read Art. I. Section 8 and Article III Section 3. Putting that aside the organization has a demographic problem. Its members are primarily old white men. When I was a boy, the NRA did good work providing courses on firearm safety and marksmanship and promoting shooting sports such as target shooting and hunting. Those sports are now in decline and the NRA no longer represents hunters like me. As the shooting sports decline, so will the NRA's membership and power. I regret the decline of legitimate shooting sports. I've enjoyed hunting for years. Unfortunately the NRA with its rhetoric has poisoned those sports and made me and every other legitimate gun owner look like the late Mr. Lanza.

By George Sly on 2012 12 22, 10:07 pm CST

@41 Unfortunately the NRA with its rhetoric has poisoned those sports and made me and every other legitimate gun owner look like the late Mr. Lanza.

Technically, Mr. Lanza did not own the weapons that killed those children and teachers. The weapons belonged to his mother who was the first victim of the day. Does anyone keep track of the number of weapons owners who are killed by their own weapons?

By Dark Lord of the Right on 2012 12 23, 12:33 am CST

@41 You write: "As for the NRA position that the Second Amendment exists so people can wage war against any elected government they dislike . . ."

That's not the NRA's position - - - and you know it.

With that said, I will observe that a well armed citizenry does serve to deter tyranny

By Yankee on 2012 12 23, 2:05 pm CST

No Yankee, I don't. I know a great many NRA members who have stated again and again that they have the right to use their guns to oppose the government and remove politicians they don't like. It's one reason as a gun owner I would never join that group. I remember going to a range and seeing a picture of former Governor Florio used as a target becaue he pushed through a state assault weaons ban, and in rallies against the President in Virginia, photos of the President with bullseyes drawn on them. They have continually advocated violence and threats of violence. The sportsmen's organization that existed 50 years ago no longer exists.
As for your deterrent factor, against a modern army run by sufficiently ruthless tyrants not bloody likely. Revolutions succeed against such tyranny when the soldiers turn around and shoot the officers.
The nations of Western Europe are democracies as is Australia, and none of them allow the weaponry we do. Australia outlawed autoloaders and high capacity magazines after the Tasmanian massacre of 1996 and haven't had such a shooting since. The British outlawed handguns after Dumfries and have not had this type of gun violence. The Norwegian attacks last year were the first such crime in that country's history or at least in my memory. Yet we get these attacks constanly. I own guns, I believe I have a right to do so, but I don't have the right to threaten people and I don't have the right to own weapons of war. The NRA positon seems to be we have unlimited rights but no duties. I do not agree.

In any event, whether you agree with me or not, I sincerely wish you all a Happy Christmas and New Year and please remember that there are 27 families for whom that will not be true and remember them in your thoughts and prayers.

By George Sly on 2012 12 23, 4:40 pm CST

I also parted company with the NRA a long time ago. They have just seemed to get crazier and crazier as the years have gone by, opposing any restrictions on any form of firearms or ammunition as a matter of pure ideology. Several years back, they argued that regulations against cheap throw-away guns (used by criminals so they can afford to pitch the guns to avoid federal charge ehancements) were "racist." They also popularize the rants about "nourishing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants," which are thinly veiled calls for political assassinations. They encourage the fruit baskets in the "posse comitatus" and "militia" movements, and (as seen in the recent misinfomercial televised during the elections) will spew any kind of insane lies that they think will stir up the ignorant and mentally troubled to try to defend themselves against imagined government conspiracies. That television spot really showed the true face of the NRA today, and they have reached a point where one cannot have any intelligent discussion of firearms regulation without excluding the NRA completely.

By B. McLeod on 2012 12 23, 7:16 pm CST

Let's assume for a moment that the NRA is correct and that the problem is bad people, not guns.

Why does the NRA refuse to condemn selling weapons to bad people -- or, for that matter, to anyone?

By AndytheLawyer on 2012 12 26, 4:28 pm CST

McLeod @38 – you failed to take the location into account. He blasted his way in to pass the main door. I am not sure a katana can be used to bust open a door. Also, class rooms have obstacles – tables, chairs, items that can be used to slow down and delay the attack. Even hiding under a table would require the attacker to do more than pulling a trigger to have an effective kill. Better yet, a steel folding chair would make any teacher at the school “armed” against a mad man with a katana.

But I digress, he would not be able to pass a locked class door with a katana. You have your mind made up on this. If you paid any attention to the similar horrifying act committed by the Chinese man using a knife on the same date in China, the man did not kill 26 but wounded 22. While the knife used was no katana, this is as close of a comparison as it gets.

Stop watching "Kill Bill" and take a Kendo lesson instead.

By Bean Counter on 2012 12 26, 11:02 pm CST

Andy@46 - you nailed it.

I don't see why we cannot prohibit anyone with a criminal history (or medical history) to buy or own a gun. If the government has the power to jail them, why not make it a probation condition for not owning a gun (for any number of years). I have not yet heard any good answer against criminals (or psychos) owning guns.

This discussion should not be all or nothing approach.

By Bean Counter on 2012 12 26, 11:16 pm CST

I meant jail those "criminals" - should have read it again after making changes...

By Bean Counter on 2012 12 26, 11:22 pm CST

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.