I wouldn't mind owning one of those crappy Reising machine guns that failed so miserably during WWI. Just because of the name. The only thing that keeps me from pursuing it is I figure the lousy weapon caused the death of a few good men. Because of that I can't see owning one.

---

Automatic weapons are already against the law to own. Automatic means it keeps shooting when you hold the trigger. SEMI automatic is where a bullet fires every time you pull the trigger.

Anyway, i don't understand the whole "anti gun" crowd. All you have to do is look at all the countries that have outlawed gun ownership and you see that it does NOT work. The ONLY people then that don't own guns are the law abiding citizens. How does going after good people and taking away their freedoms lower violent crime? Answer:It doesn't. In fact, it causes violent crime to skyrocket. Criminals LOVE unarmed victims.
Truth is, there are bad people in the world. Always have been, always will be. The punk that killed these kids, even the death penalty wouldn't have stopped him. He killed himself, so death was not a deterrent.
My answer? Put at least one armed guard in every school. Then, if some animal comes in, you have someone there to stop them before they can do damage.
Outlawing guns won't stop crime.
It's a "feel good" thing that makes people feel like they are doing something, while in truth they are doing less then nothing. You have to go after the real problem, and it starts in each and every home.
I have owned a gun since i was 16. I'm 55 now. Know how many crimes i have committed? NONE. But if someone breaks into my home, they will be walking into trouble for THEM.
Should i be punished for the actions of a few?
Arn't there already enough laws that say you can't walk into a school and shoot people? Or drive by shoot? Yet these and many other crimes are committed every day in America.
You have to go after the criminals and make punishment bad enough that it will stop at least the sane bad guys.

---

Yeah, but you boys don't ever want your taxes raised. I suppose we can safeguard our kids in the fairytale world of trickle down economics, but in the real world all that shit costs big money - and nobody wants to open their wallets. Hell we can't even educate our children yet alone protect them with public school funding.

---

Again.. why not just terminate any person found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing a crime involving a gun?

Anyone thinking of using a gun in a crime moving forward would have to consider their fate prior to do so.

Why try to pry the guns from those that lawfully use them? Just start eliminating those that don't.

Sounds cold.. but so are these seemingly endless acts of violence.

---

Again, arm people in the schools. Train them how to react in this kind of situation. Arming good people will greatly lower any damage a bad guy can accomplish.
Making schools "gun free zones" is stupid. That ONLY keeps the good guys from being able to protect the kids.
After all, how have the "drug free school zones" worked out. (They haven't)
You have to target the REAL problem.
Heck, should we take away all cars because some choose to drink and drive? Of course not. Target the bad people.
The anti gun crowd (like Obama) are using this to have a "reason" to disarm law abiding citizens. That's what our "government" wants.
All dictators.....look at where they start. Disarm the people. That's always first on the list.
Make people dependant on government for as much as possible, and you control them like puppets.

And the fact that the anti gun crowd would lower themselves to use this tradgedy to further their political desires is unthinkable in my view.

---

For the same reason I'm mindboggled when self-proclaimed conservatives say they're pro-death penalty. There's hardly any greater form of government control and power than having the authority to terminate the life of one of its own citizens in the name of justice. Being "tough on crime" or using the whole "eye for an eye" mindset as a twisted form of justice is no excuse for willingly taking the life of someone you already have complete control over (them being in prison in all) and saying that they need to die. It's not murder but it's not a lot better. Don't get me wrong, it would have a positive impact on gun-related violence, but not a dramatic impact. Plenty of gang members and rednecks that don't give a crap or think that their guns and buddies will protect them when the Feds come a knockin'.

For a person generally pro-gun that has no desire to live in a household with a gun (primarily due to past suicidal tendancies), there's no way I would feel comfortable in a school where anybody but a resident police officer was armed. And even then I'd feel slightly uncomfortable. I had plenty of amazing teachers, but I had enough teachers with questionable mental faculties and questionable ethics to where I would see the gun as a reason to be afraid of the teacher, not to feel safe.

In a perfect world where teachers can be regularly trained in proper use and maintenance of firearms and are held to standards above and beyond those applied to police officers, maybe. In a world like this where teachers are already overworked and we have trained police officers using their gun and badge as an excuse to abuse their power, no. Asking for way too much trouble and we're going to be creating more incidents than we're going to be avoiding.

When you are talkig about someone that is 100% proven guilty of a crime like this, should they NOT have their life taken away?
I'm a conservative......yet if someone breaks into my home, and threatens me or my wife, am i supposed to just let them do whatever they want? Should i NOT shoot them if they try to attack because i'm a conservative?
Believe me, even the thought of having to kill someone makes me sick. But if it's me or him, guess who it will be?
Conservatives go off to war to protect our country. Should they not do that either? After all, it may mean killing someone.

---

Porforis, then we put trained armed guards in each school.
That would greatly lower any possible violent crime.
Yes, it would cost. But if saving kids means taking away some music or sports activity to pay for it, which is more important?
It could be done, and it would work.

---

I think all that is being asked for by concerened citizens is that automatic weapons are eliminated, yet right away all the freaks come out with their rhetoric about doing away with the 2nd ammendment. It's this over-reaction and refusal for a discussion that irritates me, and it is the same thing with the need to raise our current taxes.

---