Shared publicly  - 
This week’s KAL’s cartoon:
David James's profile photoRick Harris's profile photoRadhe Shyam's profile photoRosa Law's profile photo
Cue the metric fuckton of people reciting "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" like a mantra.
Sad really, being how the UK has a higher violent crime rate than the US.  Maybe a publication from Japan would have more ground to stand on.
It's right that people pull the trigger, but is there a need for "normal" people having a semi-automatic gun, which fires one shot per second?
whats wrong with law abiding citizens having dangerous toys like CARS, BARBECUES, LAWNMOWERS, CHAINSAWS and guns ?
+Felix Matthews Yes, only the government should have the best and biggest guns in order to maintain order and control the populace.  Big Brother will protect and guide us and show us the way.  
The "M" goes with "16" ("AR" goes with "15").
That nickpick aside, Yes, +Christian Theilmann people do kill people. Guns are merely a tool (all too often misused, of course).
Violence against other people happens not because of tools, but because people don't control their impulses. Sure, accidents do happen (usually the result of inadequate care), but the problem we're all talking about (and frequently trying to duck talking about) is violence against people by people.
Remember, the hijackers of those planes on 2001.09.11 didn't require guns—the only tool they really needed to misuse was fear. Too many of us have been afraid ever since.
+Drew Northup That's a tired old argument. By that logic it should be ok for everyone to own missile launchers and flame throwers.

Yes, people would still find a way to kill people without guns, but there would be a much lower body count if they're using a knife or a tire iron. There is no good reason for civilians to own military assault weapons and high capacity magazines.
+Bill Saunders This argument falls apart as soon as you realize that any action against the government will be deemed terrorism and lands you a first class ticket to gitmo, indefinitely, without a trial, without ever seeing a judge. 
+Drew Northup By that logic, everything should be legal. Marijuana doesn't get people high, people get people high. Financing terrorism doesn't get people killed, terrorists get people killed. Nuclear bombs in private ownership don't kill a large amount of people, people kill a large amount of people.
Yes, guns are tools, their main purpose is killing people. While I agree that a gun alone doesn't make somebody a killer, making it easy for him to get one without too many problems significantly lowers the threshold. It happens way too often that people lose control of their lives and simply want to end it, but are narcissistic enough to go the going-out-with-a-bang route. These people can do that because of lax gun control, and thats a policy failure that needs to be fixed. I'm not even against guns per se, Germany has 82 million inhabitants and 40 million guns in private ownership and I'm absolutely okay with that - because to get a gun you need to go through a lengthy process of training and evaluation. Whats more, I don't see any purpose in privately owned assault rifles. They are too big for personal defence, require a decent amount of training to be used effectively and are generally weapons of war - and war is in fact a state thing, not a private endeavour. 
+Felix Matthews just because you can't fathom a reason to own something doesn't mean that everyone else's liberty should be stripped from them.  In the United States, we believe people have natural born rights.  These aren't rights given to us by a government or king, but rights we are born with.  Any time you take someone's right away you had better have a good reason to take it.  You, on the other hand, are asking if there's a good reason NOT to take it.
Banning guns may not prevent massacres but it would be hard to argue that it would increase them. A person capable of firing rounds into a crowd may not be necessarily capable of hacking people to pieces with a chainsaw. Also with respect to what reasonable law abiding people should be able to own, again some kind of constraints and regulations have to exist, what is reasonable for an average citizen to have easy legal access to, grenade launchers? tanks? It's really a stretch to put an assault rifle in the same category as a lawn mover or a car. 
You are blocked for false advertising/ naming. You were warned.
Banning guns would only move the weapon sanctioning from a well established legal organisation to violent mafia/gangs. It could in fact increase the numbers
+Christian Theilmann That is ludicrous.  When does it end sir?  We do not need cars with more than 1 hp, we can only eat certain foods, we cannot do or eat anything the government deems dangerous to our health as it will increase burdens on the government provided healthcare?  And by the way, I am opposed to the Patriot Act and the NDAA, this is indeed examples of more government control and dictates that infringe upon the individual liberty of all.  

Ideas are more powerful than guns.  We would not allow our enemies to have guns, why would we allow them to have ideas?
Drew, your comparison to the events of 9/11 are interesting.  In the wake of that tragedy, we banned pocket knives from aircraft.  Ultimately, we even banned bottled water and toothpaste.  No one argued that water doesn't kill people on planes.  Or if they did argue, not very many people listened.  Why was there an overreaction to that event, and a very different reaction to all the other mass killings in the USA?
The government does not have the right or mandate to remove my ability to defend myself, my family, friends or property.  

The Newtown shooter had 10 uninterrupted minutes to wreak havoc and murder anyone in his path without any risk to himself because these schools are "gun free zones".  He could have had a single shot rifle, or bolt action rifle and still killed just as many people as he was unopposed.  The only obstacle he had was the clock, and the second he heard sirens, he killed himself.  Maybe he would have killed himself sooner if someone was shooting back at him from the onset.  

This is Nanny State nonsense to tell me I cannot own and operate firearms responsibly.  This is the desire of those unwilling to defend themselves (and loved ones against injury, assault, robbery and murder) to impose their fears upon me and demand that I subvert my will and security to others.   

I want everyone to take 10 minutes to sit and do nothing but try to imagine trying to stay alive for 10 minutes against someone armed with any kind of weapon at their workplace.  Eternity.
Let's not talk about if Americans have the right to own guns but rather, assuming they do, if they would be willing to give up that right for the possibility that things would be better. Even if you have the right to have one you can still choose not to.
Why people from foreign countries waste their breath arguing for gun control in the US is puzzling. If you are not an American citizen, or better yet a voter, your opinion in the matter is less than insignificant. It is of absolutely no consequence. Might as well pay attention to some of your own country's issues while you're at it...
Wish I could +1 +Matthew Gaston twice or more! Everybody talks about 'rights', nobody wants a conversation about responsibilities, like what the US 'owes' to it's children, in particular innocent 5 and 6 year old boys and girls. The US can't control insanity, but it can control guns.
+Allan Brimer End of the world?  America to blame for it?  Wow, more commentary devoid of all rational thought.
People shut up about banning guns. You take guns out and now we gonna have idiots making home made bombs. Or waking in to a place with a sword thinking he is a ninja and killing. So no matter what happens, again guns do kill people but it's Because an idiot old the trigger. 
+Matthew Gaston Things would not be better if I am not permitted to defend myself, family, friends, property.  
+Robert Baker There are approximately 10,000 to 30,000 gun laws in the United States between local, county, state and federal laws.  As info.  The spread in numbers I provided are due to different opinions on surveys and statutes, however, even the lowest is more than most countries.  I know foreign medias like to project some kind of Wild West picture, but the reality is far different.
I thought this was satirical until the press conference.
Those of you who cannot comprehend the right to defend one's self will probably never get it (unless faced with a life altering even such as being mugged and beaten) so there is no point in trying to explain it further. Hopefully you will never get into a situation like the victims in this instance where a gun in the right hands could have made all the difference, but there was no one around able to help...
I support the second amendment, and I bet all you knobs out there think I eat kittens and punch puppies along with slaughtering babies. Idiots. 
So +Manuel Rodriguez your solution to this issue is just to tell everyone to 'shut up' huh? Nice. I agree that we will always have idiots and nut jobs that will kill but this very OLD argument that it's not the gun that is at fault is sad and sorry. Just like the whole "cars kill people so lets ban cars" crap. Listen - answer this - what are guns MADE and USED for? The only correct answer is to kill. That is the primary purpose of a gun. People die in cars, yes but most are via accidental. So subtract accidental car deaths and gun deaths and then tell which kill more.

The frustrating part, Manuel, is that the gun community give the impression that they (you?) are much more concerned about their gun(s) and their 2000 rounds of ammo and their ability to walk into a bar or school with a gun on their hip (for what reason? Only to intimidate is what I can see). They don't seem to care about looking for realistic solutions to protect the rights of owners to own a gun but to limit the possibility of crap like last Friday from happening. 

Why are gun advocates afraid of limiting semi-automatics? Do you really need that to hunt? Do you really need that to protect yourself from a burglar? Come on. Be realistic.

Why do gun advocates seem to value their shiny metal guns over the lives of someone else?

Why do gun advocates make up ridiculous analogies to support their cause? 

Why can the rest of the world figure out how to protect themselves without having a rash of senseless killings like the US?

So, I am sorry Manuel, but, no, I am not going to 'shut up'. You can hide behind your gun(s) and your flag waving about the 2nd amendment but I am going to focus my energies on trying to allow reasonable owners to a reasonable form of self defense or sport shooting while still weighing the impact on 6 year olds last week.
it's an old tradition that began with us founding our country with our ability to arm common citizens when the british invaded, while also supporting hunting and self-defense.
I agree with Steve.  If our government wants to do something about this then they should work harder at treatment and control of mentally unstable people.  The problem never has been the tools, it's the people using them!
Man I wished we lived in a PERFECT world and EVERY gun could be magically taken away; military, good people and the bad people, but we don't so might as well arm everyone so we are all equal and have a fighting chance.
Go look at how many people were murdered last year without a gun.
It is more than double what people did with guns.
If laws can make all 300 millions guns disappeared, I'm all for it. otherwise, I rather keep my rights. I'm not for guns, I'm for my rights.
Don't ban guns, ban bullets...
c'mon guys allow water pistols and the like that's ok. In the UK we have Laser Quest instead of hunting!
I'll see your 'bullshit' and raise you a 'minuteman'.  But then, most people don't even know who the minutemen were, based on their understanding of the 2nd amendment.
Thats sick. Liberals protesting the NRA for wanting to protect children.You liberals would rather see more children die. 
And now the NRA is pushing for more of a Police State - they want an armed police officer in every school??   I guess they intend to pay for this as well.
+Jesus De Ibanez The 2nd amendment is there to provide a militia against our own government if it gets out of hand.  In that way, yeah, I guess you could say it's there to protect our property, but perhaps not in the way you think.
+Frank DeMarco Letting the teacher carry a weapon is FREE!  Just the fact every teacher COULD be carrying would be a deterrent all on it's own.
you realize gun violence has actually bee going down right? if pro gun people were as violent as the anti gun people say we are there wouldn't be any of you talking. Yes what happened was a tragedy, but is is a very rare event. we have shootings in the US, but in the rest of the world they have bombings. keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens doesn't prevent crime!
Putting a ban on anything doesn't stop criminals or terrorist from getting them or even making them it just stops law abiding citizens from there own passions. It's kinda like limiting car to only being able to do 55 and accelerate to 55 in 20 seconds. Cars kill more people than guns. Do something about the guy passing you at 80 on the interstate that has a speed limit of 55.
WOW!  I did not know everyone in the NRA was like that. This has really opened my eyes.
Very rare as in three mass shootings in about 2 years? And even more threats?
I feel the government believes the general population can no longer take care of themselves. So for the past twenty years they have grown bigger and bigger. Edging themselves into our daily lives. Our personal lives. Telling us we dont know how to be healthy. So they make regulations on how our food can be processed. Which oils the food can be cooked in. The size of our drinks. The tabacco we inhail. The seatbelts that are gonna save lives. Its all these tiny little things that end up growing bigger and bigger. The gun issue is a non-issue. We cant dis-invent them. They would have to go door to door with search warrants to try and get them all. And they wouldnt get them all. And complete anarchy would follow. Over half the population relys on the government one way or another. They have become bigger than needed. To involved in our daily lives. We have to make darn sure, that the people are still in control of the government. For all those that dont care for the freedoms of this beautiful country. Maybe its time for you to move on... I hear canada is beautiful!
While I lean left on political and social issues, I do not when it comes to gun control. This is one thing I'm totally disagreeing with, especially this comic. Yes, the NRA is a huge lobbying power and I hate lobbyists, I'm not backing the NRA here. But I totally disagree with this. The NRA is such an easy scapegoat. It's like when parents blame violent video games for all the ills of modern society. The problem is the HORRENDOUS state of mental health care in this country. So you ban assault weapons and high capacity clips, and he goes in there with a shotgun. Do you think he would do any less damage? Do we ban shotguns now? Come on, mainstream America. Northern Europe is the only area in the world with an admirable mental health system. It's time to talk about the horrible state of mental health care in this country.
+David Breece The problem with your argument is that nobody owns military grade weapons with high capacity magazines. Even in locations where it would be legal, you're talking about a minimum of $10,000 a weapon and eight months worth of paperwork. 

The issue is that the media and the gun-grabbing movement people would really, really like for you to believe that people are running around with death machines gunning down people with 100 round box magazines on a fully automatic M249 SAW light machine gun, and they portray it that while while they're talking about something that is absolutely nothing of the sort.

Keep in mind here that I am an owner of an AR-15. I know the laws that go around them because I had to learn them. All of them. There are more than you could imagine.

The gun they're showing you on the news is an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Semi-automatic does not mean that it unloads a payload of death in seconds, it means that every time you pull the trigger (no matter how long you hold it down) you get one bullet down the barrel. It functions in exactly the same manner as a .22LR.

Furthermore you're limited in the attachments that you're able to put on the weapon itself. This varies from state to state, but generally you're not allowed to use a folding stock, have a barrel shorter than 16" or use a suppressor.

More to the point, you're generally limited to how many rounds you can have in the magazine. Where I live it's 10 rounds, and if you use a magazine capable of holding more it has to be riveted to prevent the inclusion of more than 10. Any more than 10 rounds in the magazine and it's 10 years in prison.

Also (at least where I live) we're limited to a "fixed magazine". This means that the magazine does not eject from the weapon at the push of a button, it requires a tool to eject the magazine.

These guns are essentially the equivalent of a modern musket. They're single shot rifles with low capacity magazines that are difficult to reload. They are not assault weapons no matter how badly the gun control people want you to believe that they are.

If people out there are indeed getting gunned down by assault weapons (and I'm not saying it doesn't happen) then they're not legal weapons in the first place, and no amount of gun control is going to prevent it from happening. Gun control effect is limited to regular law-abiding citizens, plain and simple.
+David Greifzu Look outside your own border. The entire world has lower gun density than the united states and most of the entire world has heavy restrictions on guns. The left in america is too far right to get elected just about anywhere else, outside of places like Iran. Are you sure you're not misinformed on this?
Humans have been killing other humans before they invented guns.
I would like to take this time to Thank the n.r.a. for setting up a budget to do something now to protect our schools and children while all of you ignorant liberals want to talk about methods that don't work and are proven to not work. At least they're doing something. And if you think all guns used in crime are legally obtained then your just narrow minded and sheltered. A felon who is not able to easily obtain a gun legally has not problem having one. 
+Nathan Cox I'm pro gun rights but I believe we do, I think it needs to stay that way. it is something special and unique 
Let the Americans have their guns, hopefully they'll all kill each other and the rest of the world will rejoice.
Any argument American's have to prevent gun control policy is based on ignorance... but quite frankly I don't care. Go ahead, approach the issue by giving people more guns and see how that works out for your country. 
+Joe O'Bremski  I agree that your idea would save the NRA some time and money, but wouldn't that be the only difference?
I've talked to some local teachers about this and they cringed at the idea.  Most seem stretched financially and time-wise already.  What you refer to as FREE, is only FREE for us.  The teachers would still need to come up with money for guns, ammo, training (hopefully), and the time to implement all of this.

Issue was also raised about liability.  Who or what insurance company pays for accidents, students getting hold of teacher's gun, shooting a suspected attacker (if it turns out he was not),  etc.

On top of these issues are the rights of teachers.  Would you fire, threaten, or force teachers to carry a gun?  My experience suggests that teachers want to teach and help students and NOT job-split as an armed guard.

Hope some safe and sane solution arises.
Makes me sick to see America turn into Nazi Germany
Veg Nik
Protect people, not guns!
Okay, I am mourning like everyone about the recent shootings. I think it is horrible, but shooting other people is not what most people use their guns for. Like all companies the NRA wants profit, so they will advertise to people. I am sick and tired of people seeing a gun and being afraid someones going to shoot them with it.  I am not a "redneck" I just think people should stop pointing the finger at the gun companies and thinking about lestening our rights.  We need to focus on limiting who can get a gun and where they can bring them, and security.  Most people don't want to kill other people, those that do shouldn't be aloud to have guns.
+Lance Kozad there is an m15 carbine if I'm not mistaken, though looking at the rest of the comic I wouldn't assume they know that
+Frank DeMarco I don't think that anyone should be required to own a gun, just as I don't feel that anyone (sans those who have proven they will use them for violence) should be prohibited from owning one.
+Bill Saunders So what do you purpose?  Arming teachers?  Armed security guards in schools?  Armed passers-by?  Who is it you're fighting anyway?  The common criminal would be subdued with a single-shot rifle.  The entire might of the US military cannot be subdued by an AR-15, or even a relatively large group of AR-15s.  You couldn't outlast them with ammunition in a firefight anyway.
+Bill Saunders Oh, and the shooter's mother WAS very well armed.  She's now dead and buried along with 20 beautiful kids.  Get real.
+Alex Woodpecker most of the mentally ill are taken care of, though the government doesn't do anything private organizations do a great job. The US government does a shit job of everything. we in the US don't really trust them, having guns is a symbol of our rights, and the fact that the people rule, or at least we should.
more people die in car crashes and drug abuse than in gun related homicide. not gun related homicide is a lot higher than gun homicide. all according to the fbi
People with guns have more tendency to kill than people without guns.
If it isn't a gun it is something else, that very same day that shooting happened a mad man in China stabbed 22 children half of them dying from their wounds. Evil will always find a way. There are laws out lawing coke, meth, heroine, magically people still manage to get their hands on it in mass numbers. The only difference though is that if you do the same thing with guns, now the law abiding citizens who are RESPONSIBLE fire arm owners, now either have to rely on a 911 call hoping the police get to your house to save you or you family in time from a criminal with a gun in about 5 to 10 minutes, when the gun the criminal has can end your life in a millisecond. So far from all of this I have seen all the die hard liberals saying we need to ban guns, and all the die hard conservatives say we need to ban violent video games. The ignorance amazes me so one side of the isle wants to attack the second amendment and the other side of the isle wants to attack the first amendment but no one wants to take responsibility for why we have SICK INDIVIDUALS, so many times is a persons mental instability ignored. So many times parents are completely absent in their childs crucial developmental stages of their lives when they are emotionally, socially, and physically growing, they just think the media, children's shows, and the school and video games can be the baby sitter. Blaming a gun is about is senseless as blaming a car or a power tool. Take responsibility for yourselves stop trying to find a scapegoat.
+Nathan Cox Agree completely!  It gets difficult posting about this stuff without including a staement of perosnal thoughts each time.  For the record, I like the freedom to own use a gun.  That said, if no one can figure any better way to protect the innocent, my rights take 2nd place.

The 2nd amendment has been contorted too much from its historical creation to be of any use in modern times (with modern weapons and militia equivalents). Just my opinion.

I'd still like to see this resolved more calmly instead of people talking as if all gun owners want to see people killed and all non gun people want to eliminate guns.

Thanks for your feedback!
Kelly Schrock
I didn't really expect you to accept my view that guns have no place in the hands of the public, if you can't see why, there's really no hope you ever will.
My point was that even in the uk we have some way to go to get rid of their presence
+Sean Donaldson If you believe that most of the mentally ill in the US are being properly taken care of then you have no idea what is happening in the world around you. Getting the health care to even diagnose the problem is still impossible for many Americans, and even of those with health care many can't afford medication anyways.

Mental illness is a major problem for the US, and has been for a long time. Aside from the difficulties of getting proper treatment and diagnoses, the US has placed a stigma on many of the illnesses that really need treatment (e.g., pedophilia) so that the afflicted feel that they can't reach out for help because if they do they'll be marked by society as evil and wrong.
+David Morrison I'm all for peace and love but if a countries democratically elected leaders think more guns is the answer to gun violence then I'm afraid the next logical step is using those guns.
"Cue the metric fuckton of people reciting "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" like a mantra."

Guns don't shoot themselves, I don't care how crazy they are.
My daughter was at Walgreen's last night as two men robbed it and pointed a gun at the clerk. This is why I will start carrying in the future!
Our police do the best they can but at best are minuets away. Bad guys will always have guns!!
To have a truly meaningful discussion about a contentious subject we MUST remove the emotion.  Let's find a compromise that is not a knee-jerk reaction to a true American tragedy.
If "assault weapon" must be outlawed because of the number of people being killed by them, how much more should alcoholic drinks be outlawed. But I believe the right of the people who enjoy alcoholic drinks responsibly should not be overruled simply because of a few criminals who drink and drive and kill others.  Similarly, the rights of people who responsibly enjoy "assault weapons" and the recreational use of them should not be overruled simply because a few criminals use them to commit crimes.  It's not a matter of does a person NEED an "assault weapon", just like it's not a matter of does a person NEED alcoholic drinks.  It is AMERICA for goodness sake, let people be free to do what they want to do as long as they individually do not prevent the rights of others.
+Nathan Cox I have to respectfully disagree, where I live this is a non-issue. We have local organizations that do a wonderful job at helping people in need. 
Lol! There are lines out the front door at gun shops and in one week it is hard to find parts and ammo. Gun sales are through the roof right now. This cartoon is exactly the opposite of what is happening right now.
With all due respect That is exactly why I live in the Freedom of the united States and not in your country Alex.  Just a note: the second person shot at the school in Connecticut was the school psychologist!  If blame is t be assessed let it fall to his parents.  Who keeps guns in the home and teaches their mentally challenged son to shoot them?
+Bill Saunders The key problem with your argument is that all those things, cars that are too fast, fast food that clogs up peoples veins etc., primarily have adverse effects on whoever is using them. If a guy eats 2 Whoppers for breakfast and washes them down with a combination of coca cola and whiskey, then its his own fault if he ends up as the michelin man with an alcohol habit. Guns on the other hand are designed to kill or hurt people who are on the wrong side of the muzzle, and thats why they need to be controlled. 
I think the right for a child to live and to go to school without getting a hollow point blasted through its head is a little more important than the right to obtain weapons without any sort of meaningful checks. And as I said, I'm not entirely against guns, I'm against getting them too easily. 

And just to put this out there: The time it takes for a would-be victim to unholster his gun, turn off the safety, aim it and pull the trigger is significantly longer than the time it takes for an attacker to jam a knife in the victims windpipe. If anything, reaching for a gun aggravates an attacker even further.
There was a time when political cartoons attacked politicians. Now they attack the private American people. This is shameful. 
how about we all just shut up, we are not going to give up our guns, you are not going to agree with us ether. none of us are getting anywhere, we need to just let the states decide this, so all the antigun people can live in there nanny states and us pro gun people can be left alone. Anyone not in the US it is none of your fucking business GTFO. lets just agree to disagree.  
+Sean Donaldson Another totally ignorant rant. Sean, maybe you need to look in the mirror and realize that stupid posts like yours do nothing in addressing the problem. Go back to your NRA/Redneck handbook on how to respond to tragedy and let the adults TRY and handle this.
The amount of guns there are in mexico is due solely to the number of guns that are coming from the states. I guess to them it's none of their fucking business. A no gun state next to a yes gun state isn't going to work either. Can you please see how small your mind is and agree that it's possible having less guns is a good idea? Since there aren't nearly as many shootings anywhere else, for a start.
Ahhhmm....guns.. dont kill people...people kill people. If you are beyond the obviousness of this, other arguments beckon. If you (liberals in general) can understand, and admit this fact, maybe there is a discussion to be had. Until then, molōn labé.
just because the number of "shootings" is lower doesn't mean the murder rate is
+Sean Donaldson If you can't handle people arguing about US gun policy without living in the US, you may want to uncircle The Economist. It's a british magazine for an international audience that likes to debate about things, if you take this personally and throw a hissy fit every time somebody criticizes something in your country, then you're at the wrong place.
Guns take away the need of people to deal wjith the problem they have. Killing the problem is faster.

+joe humphrey That's all you have to offer? Okay. Let's go with that Joe. So...are we are the point now that you can say that people can't handle the availability and type of guns we have? I mean - obviously not, right?, as an obvious right winger (since you are calling out political 'types') what are you willing to do about it? Cover your eyes and ears and hope it goes away? Or do you even care? Maybe it's just a case of you saying "As long as I have all my guns with no restrictions, I don't care what happens." If so, just say that. If not, then what suggestions do you have to prevent future events like last Friday? I am interested.
I don't see it like the government should have to forcibly take away everyone's guns. I feel like a sane society people would willingly throw them away. But even if us "leftists" got our way I imagine it would go more like the government would buy guns to melt them down.
The only people who knock guns are the ones that don't know them. Guns made you free and have kept you safe even if you haven't seen them
Why not talk about the state of mental health in this country
+allen howard Wow. I to assume from your post you feel there is no issue with guns, gun availability  gun ownership, gun laws or anything else gun related in the USA? I would say that man in the school last Friday knew very well how to use a gun. No problem there huh?
I have yet to see a gun/weapon that self activates it's potential to kill. It takes a person with either evil or good intent to tell the weapon what it will do at any given moment. When you liberals can assure me that all the evil weapon owners will cede ownership of their weapons to some government then I will not have the need to keep my weapon, which I use to kill evil people who mean to kill me or my family. That is the sole purpose for which I keep my weapon and about 1000 rounds so that all bad guys will have a fair opportunity to be killed if they attempt to harm me or mine.
They say: "Guns dont kill people, people kill people". But obviously people kill people with guns. So dont give guns to people. 
Listen to +Denis Mattingly and what he is saying. "Evil people", how the fuck do I know I'm not what you perceive to be an "evil" person. Christ do you also believe in daemons? Leprechauns? These are who a large portion of your 'never gonna give up mah guns' people are.
lol thats funny, because the artist isn't
This is a moderated forum. Posts that are deemed inappropriate or offensive will be removed. 
+Denis Mattingly Are you seriously that paranoid? Do you really feel like you need 1000 rounds of ammo to protect yourself? Seriously? It's type like you that worry me sir. The day you wake up and decide who is 'evil' then you have all the justification in your head to use those 1000 rounds don't you? More 'sane' people would say "20 rounds or so" is more than enough to protect my family. If I am 'attacked' and fire my gun 20 times to protect my family, I'll get more." Trust me when I say - people like you are the reason we have the discussion on gun control.
Actually, according to the NRA. Guns don't kill people, video games do.
Gun sales have shot through the roof, ammunition is few and far between nationwide, and all so called "assault rifles" are off store shelves and hiding inside gun safes. You all keep debating gun control, all you're doing is making firearm companies see the biggest amount of sales in months.
Here is a simplistic view of why we have mass murders. An animated gun acting as a preacher. Not only is it insulting to Christians it avoids the real root cause of the problem which is mental illness and the numerous privacy laws that prevent professionals from notifying the authorities of a danger to our communities.
+Felix Matthews Do you have a problem with President Teddy Roosevelt's hunting rifles that were semi auto? They function the same as the ones today. They just look different. Also many people use AR-15s to hunt with.
I have been around guns for 49 years and still have guns of my own,and I have never had the thought of killing people with them.
+Vandré Brunazo  +Allan Brimer  +Dennis Dussin  Yes, and according to the NRA we should have armed people in every school. I guess they forgot about the mass shooting before Sandy Hook in a mall- So I guess we should arm everyone who goes shopping... Oh yeah and then there was the one at the movie theater- better be packing heat if you want to see The Hobbit. And political events, and military bases (fort hood where everyone is armed), and houses of religion...
A serious debate is needed and the NRA just gave up their seat at the table. Good riddance. 
I think I would be simpler still and say that though we may put into effect numerous gun control laws, those driven to commit such actions (mass murder) will find a way to get ahold of whatever they want/need. People with those mental conditions are usually pretty extreme.
+David Breece a "military assault weapon" would be fully automatic, a fully automatic m16 or m4, like the military uses, would cost around 20,000 dollars
Guns dont kill, people who sell guns to insane people kill.

+joshua wilson So you support laws closing the gun show loophole and requiring background checks on second hand sales?
Guns don't kill people, the bullets inside do.
People don't get that banning something will not prevent people from having it, like drugs. You can't legally have it but millions of people do
The bullets do not. The forces and corresponding physics behind their impact does.  
+Philip MacRuari really? UK has a high murder rate and Canada has a very high gun ownership. Mass shootings are only a small percent
Full Auto have had insane background checks. Why people freak out and assume that people who commit crimes with didnt just buy them illegally anyway.... Lets not quote basic freedoms but if we cant defend ourselves by any means then how can one assume that some else will....
Loopholes are just freedoms that haven't been taken away yet.
There are more homicides by baseball bat than guns. We should ban those too. 
Exactly. If people want something badly enough, they will find a way to get
it. so sick of this sudden push for gun control....we cant control the actions of one random psychopath, whether he has guns or about pushing for more studies in mental health? oh, cause the news channels make a SHIT TON of money off of tragedies like this...doesn't sound right to me...
Interesting comments. Coming from a country that has banned guns and to get. One you have to have a good reason to have one (self defence is NOT a good reason). Violent crime dropped, people didn't switch to chainsaws or other things like someone suggested.

We still have problems with guns, but at least someone with one in a populated area stands out, because they aren't common, all these NRA style arguments for people having guns were had here in Australia in 1996, after Port Arthur - over time they all proved wrong. 
ter nea
Guns... the answer the all the Worlds problems.  Why not sell every citizen a tactical nuke?   Only people kill people?
+Mark Knights I agree. but there are far too many redneck retards in this country that would start a riot and kill humdreds more before giving up their precious guns...
I find it interesting that the United States government loves to give guns to almost any rebel force outside the country by the truck load, but insists on wanting to disarm their own people.
God bless America!, and not gun bless America.
I will never give up my second amendment rights. 
+Jason Parks uh... also hunting, also recreational shooting, also defense of one's self...

Saying that guns are made only for killing is like saying that knives are made only for kill. It's just not true, and you know it. It's an attempt to distort the facts and appeal to emotion to strengthen the effect of an otherwise weak argument.
+Joel Hegeman But you can play Baseball with a bat. Guns are made only for killing people.

There must be a deep unconscious need to defend the right to own a people killing device for a lot of these people.
People are against gun control as far as it takes to their children funeral.
Who is trying to restrict Obama's ability to drone bomb Pakistani children?  Far more Pakistani kids have been killed by Obama than all the school shootings in America combined.  Yet you leftists want to harp on gun control to prevent a highly rare occurrence in America that is all based in mental illness, which we have a terrible track record on.  Have you people ever heard of Fascism?  It's pretty handy, you can make people not only fear inanimate objects to the point of abandoning their own freedoms and leaving themselves defenseless, but you can also convince the people that anyone outside your own country is less human.  This is how we get to a place in history where you fucking nuts will cheer a guy on for suggesting gun control to prevent the deaths of 20 children while he simultaneously kills some 170+ brown children in another country with drone bombs and you don't give a shit.  
+Jason Parks See my above post. I have no interest in protecting my death machine. I do have a vested interest in protecting a large investment made in a recreational hobby.
Didn't you guys used to cover economics? You might want to stick to that, just sayin'. 
+Allan Brimer did you just wake up? Families have needed a gun and/or other weapon to protect themselves for centuries and especially since the beginning of America. Time to wake up from your Utopia. 

De ,14,2012
2 men 1 in China and 1 in the US entered elementary schools with weapons and attempted to murder students the man in the US was armed with guns and shot 20 children none survived. the man in China was armed with a knife and stabbed 22 children they all survived. it's a favorite argument of those who oppose gun control" guns don't kill people ,people kill people"
Not to belittle your concern with drones or excuse Obama's policies but he didn't invent them.  It's just business as usual, that's all.  And just so there's no misunderstanding business as usual is sociopathic.
I wish people would realize that Guns aren't the problem... it's the Culture.
People that think criminals and mental patients will obey gun laws are a special kind of stupid. Lets outlaw forks so no one can get fat?
+Gary Robinson sorry but your an idiot. Tell that to the many women who have defended themselves from murderers and rapists inside their homes. 
+Scott Holmes Yes, you are correct, but you would imagine that someone who campaigned on hope and change would not be a foreign policy twin of his tyrannical predecessor.
+Kristopher B but if there had been someone at either one of those schools with a gun... then there could have been 42 untouched children.

Bad people will make a way... I would rather 100 people with guns and only 1 of them be bad than I would 99 good people defenseless with the 1 bad guy having a machete.
+Philip MacRuari Fully automatics have been essentially illegal for the general populous to purchase since 1986. A new "assault weapons ban" isn't going to affect that, because they're already banned.

The term "assault weapons" has been manipulated. Initially, people used it to refer to fully auto weapons (M-16, PKM, AK-47, etc.). Then, politicians warped it to include semi-automatic weapons that could hold over 10 rounds, and had scary looking features that don't actually affect the weapon's deadliness (i.e. barrel shroud and adjustable length stock).

+Alex Woodpecker Why do people still want guns when we have a police force? Because nationwide there are approximately 800k police officers. According to a study several years ago in Atlanta, the average response time (time until at least one officer arrives) for police to a high priority 911 call was 11 minutes. The lowest response time in the 7 cities they looked at was just under 9 minutes in Nashville. That doesn't seem like a long time, right? But, as someone else said, imagine that some criminal (and criminals don't care about laws, so they will have a gun) is shooting up your workplace, and you need to sit there for 10 minutes until even one cop arrives.
Ok, whatever... So I want to know who's gonna draw the cartoon that shows big pharma turning people into suicidal murders??? ALL SSRI or equivalent drug commercials, after the rainbows and butterflies, are REQUIRED by law to inform you that those "wonder drugs" have the potential to make you suicidal a murderer or both...
Gun don't kill people. People kill people!!!
+Kristopher B your argument holds no water. Just because this one guy didn't succeed in slashing everyone's throat doesn't mean a knife in another's hands wouldn't have been more deadly. Maybe he had a dull knife, what if he would have had a sword? FAIL 
If only the government and criminals have the right to modern firearms ordinary citizens will soon lose all their rights.

"Democracy is two wolves and a well armed lamb voting on what to have for lunch" 

Did everyone forget how the citizens of this country earned our freedom with firearms?
Is it right to own a semi auto weapon.. Well it depends on your view of right and wrong.. Is it right to own every apple product or latest android. Do we really need it.. The act of want is in effect.. And ass long as people want and there is supply.. Theni say fair game. I own a fair size of guns.I used them for hunting purposes only. Not even for the local range. Ive been asked if I really need all my guns. I say I want them therefore I keep them... Ignorant America will listen to whats in the news and never notice the full picture... Society made us like that. Popular culture made us like that.. Our kidsare being brain washed to think this is a perfect world and its here for them to do as they please. Not true. The world ifs the truth and its a harsh bitch.. 
Maybe his goal was to wound.  Obviously if it was to kill someone would be dead.  It doesn't matter, the idea that regulating the ability for law abiding firearm purchasers to do so, is going to somehow curve criminal use of those guns it plain stupidity.  If that worked there would be no illicit drugs on the street right now.
Certain types of guns on the regular and black market; are the problem.  Accessibility with little or no screening.   15 mag clip? Why?  A 5 mag clip won't do the job?  If you want the 15 mag, the AR-15, Mac10, Mac11....then there's a problem.  Perhaps with a 5 mag, he would have killed less kids and could have been stopped on the reload.  Perhaps.....
He had pistols, not an AR anything, so the fact that you are even mentioning assault weapons bans and sporting rifles is also stupid.
Read the news today I take it jeremy,yeah a armed officer in schools would be nice,but are police forces are already streched thin.and as for teachers being trained with guns thats just nuts.even police dont have 100 percent accuracy with guns there has been instinces where cops have accidentally shot innocent bystanders,so I don't think that would be a good idea,not to mention teachers should be more focused on educating are youth.
There are several weapons trainers who have offered to teach training courses to teachers and college age students for free. They'd of course still have to pay for their firearm and licensing fees (CCW fee if they go that route) but the training has been offered by several trainers.
Yeah what happens when the teacher misses and hits a student
+Kristopher B In Israel teachers volunteer for classes and carry at school.  There isn't any government policy arming teachers, but there is none preventing it, and because they have a permanent, never ending threat in Palestinian terrorism, a lot of them choose to.  Now here we have to worry about the extremely rare mentally ill person, there they have to worry about the highly abundant radical zealot.  It works for them.  

Let's look at your logic there, 
,"but are police forces are already streched thin.and as for teachers being trained with guns thats just nuts.even police dont have 100 percent accuracy with guns there has been instinces where cops have accidentally shot innocent bystanders"
So if even police miss then maybe no one should have a gun, then when a criminal or crazy person starts shooting up a place we can all throw good intentions at him. 

Don't let yourself be worked into fear or high levels of emotion  making you abandon your freedoms, it's a common tactic among fascists and the only way to combat it is reason.
Woo sa
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.
never give up your rights for another's assurance of your safety. protect yourselves and your rights.
First off... i own no guns (except paintball). That said, what's the statistics of those who own fire arms and those that commit murder? 1 out of 10? 1 out of 1000? Is it one in 100000?

This reaction due to the events in Sandy Hook Elementary in CT (I live in CT, about 20 minutes from Sandy Hook) is complete overload. It was done by a single individual who had mental health issues. Why are we not over reactive about the state of mental health instead of weapons? Perhaps because yelling at "guns" is easier than the ambiguous mental health industry?

Sandy Hook was a tragedy, to be sure, but this bitching over guns clearly demonstraits that humanity has no clue how to react to such event. We flap our lips, blame anyone who may find weapons interesting... regardless of whether they're law abiding or not... and, in the end, we loose more of our freedoms and forget about the events in general.

Let the dead rest in peace, and the living victims mourn unmolested, and lets all move on.
+Bryan Miller odds are bigger than 1 of 100000, that a gun owner commits murder, especially legally owned guns.

Good post
The guns are not going away period. My fear is that when they are taken away, the crazies will move on to vests strapped with ball bearings. Can get a lot more people that way, at a stadium or mall etc
Ron Valle
I've been in law enforcement for over 10 years now and has been involved in many gun related homicides and crimes. The city that I work in, most homicides that involve with guns are generally happen in the lower income area where crime is a lot higher and neighborhoods are riddled with gangs. Most of the law enforcement community do not agree on banning of guns. And if you know your guns any shotgun or hunting rifle are a lot more powerful than the "assault rifles" that the gun ban advocated define. And most gun homicides are committed by exfelons who generally obtain the gun illegally in the first place. So disarming the people when most gun crimes are committed by criminals. Now you have this anomaly where you have this citizen who was mentally disturbed committed this massacre. Which all of sudden the media focuses all their attention on. The irony whenever their is a gang style shooting with multiple victims in an lower class area, it never gets any attention compared to if it happened in a area where they are better economically. The media has always tried to use the emotions of people in incidents like these just to try to get better ratings. And it's funny how that all of a sudden we have a push for more gun legislation right after this incidents when we have had gun deaths involving children way before that. 
And keep in mind, the largest massacre of children were the (home-schooled)  children that were killed in Waco, Texas...murdered by the FBI and ATF. Twenty one children under the age of 16 (twelve of the children younger than 5 years old)....76 people total were shot or burned alive when pyrotechnic rounds were fired into the compound and bunker bombs were set off above the bunker where most of the women and children were. These are the facts about the deaths of these children whether you might think David Koresh was crazy or not.
The reason for the government to go after guns and not the making a data base for people with mental illnesses is because were broke and and its cheaper to enact a ban on guns because it make the government look like they are doing there jobs. Not so! With all things set aside we need to have better mental health reform's not try to cut out out of the budget. I forgot how do we expect to pay for it? Were broke! Its pretty bad when the only mental faculties are the jails.
Just because its funny doesn't mean its not propaganda. 
if there`s no gun, there is no trigger to pull.
Okay +Zsolt Kiss who's going to volunteer to ask the criminals for their guns?
+David Breece your statement exposes the fact you have no idea what the 2nd amendment is for.
This is funny...but lets have a second chance to look at the picture one more time. Is this how the world looks like? I doubt.
+Jeremy Forsythe If you're referring to Connecticut, he had a Bushmaster and two pistols.  It was the shotgun he left in the car.
It's a strange old world. Who has the "right"to kill? Never seen a gun in my life never want to see one, might use it.
like the peace of guns
+David Jenson The victims were riddled with .223 caliber bullets.  He used one of his hand guns to off himself.  A shotgun was left in the car.
+Bill Saunders he had access to an arsenal of weapons. 10 minutes to kill as many innocent children as possible.
Now take away his access to any sort of firearm and I can guarantee you those children would be unwrapping presents on Christmas day!
Why do you need access to military hardware?
No one and I mean no one needs to own an assault rifle.
All you Americans go bleating on about your rights to own a gun for protection.
There isn't a cold war anymore - you aren't going to get invaded by the Russians or aliens or zombies. You stopped playing cowboys and Indians decades ago.
Face facts!
You all say you need a gun for protection but how many times has anyone had to use it for that purpose compared to the number of homicides with a gun.

Reality check is in order. 
Robert and Matthew you can take your chances hugging it out while eating granola. I will take my chances with lead and iron to defend and protect my family, friends and the general puplic against whomever would try and infringe on our rights or freedoms.
Nice to see that not everyone is that easily swayed by the hype
If someone wants to kill people they will. Taking guns away will not stop mass killings. Just look up Bath Massacre 1927. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't make it harder to get guns, just don't take them away completely. I still believe that we have the right to defend our families. I for one want to be able to defend against someone coming into my home.
+Cédric Coulombe What's wrong is only one of the items from that list was created with the intention to kill another human being... obviously...
Someone want to tell me why every time it is brought up that the killer killed someone to get the guns, was already prohibited from owning firearms, and then illegally took them into a school it gets ignored?

Connecticut already has all the lovely restrictions that groups like the Brady Campaign, the President, and Senator McCarthy wish to put into place nationally, and yet it did nothing. This is a lovely thing that keeps getting ignored time and time again, when will those in favor of "gun control" actually address what I have said? 
this image seems so incredibly daft and stupid but when we consider it carefully there is ample evidence of outright aggression.  this type of psychological manipulation is an act of war against the American people.
+Bill Saunders You're hyperbolating. The issue of liberty is not nearly so much in question. We're discussing gun control, not the total loss of civil liberties
One shot per second is not all that fast. I can empty my Glock 17 with a 30 round mag in 2.5 seconds using a timer. 
But put your faith in the U.S govt- the largest arms dealer on the planet. The U.S govt that couldn't manage a few thousand guns that some ended up in cartel hands. The U.S govt that created the little gem called TSA after 911. 
+James Marshall
First they came for the guns.
Then they placed cameras on every corner.
Third they regulated what pictures you could have on the Internet.
Soon after they began questioning and arresting people for what they say.

Sounds quite Orwellian, yes? Almost mythological, like a story told to scare young libertarians?

That is no story, that is Britain. Where you are questioned by the police for pictures on the Internet, it is insinuated that you have murderous intent with speech, and where nearly every movement outside of your home is tracked.

All in the name of the public good and safety. 
+Dane Foxworthy you need to check your the UK .25 people per 100,000 were killed by fire arms...thats one person for every 400,000... in the US its 10.5 per 100,000 which is 45 people for every 400,000... thats a huge difference but dont let facts get in the way of you silly post
+Mark Davis If it weren't so easy to dismiss, we would. Maybe if the source didn't have them they wouldn't have been a target. They apparently didn't help that man defend himself... but they DID help the shooter slaughter innocent people...
+Michael Kempkes You will if it is the law. The Constitution gets re-interpreted as time progresses and even Amendments can be passed. If you still will not give up your right in this country, then you'll have to move to another (insane) country.
Well, knives are used to kill quite a lot a people everyday in a global perspective. Perhaps G8 or G20 should include in their agenda to ban knives.

As for ropes...they are also penitential murder weapons...let's see... 
I agree that guns could be better controlled
If we think that guns are the problem its a mistake..i could cause havoc with a ligther or matches..can we ban those...or maybe a machette..or a chainsaw..or better yet a bomb..easy to make ..look it up on the internet.
Talking about guns gets us away from what we should be lookint at..why would a seemengly normal person go crazy like that..theres got to be a reason..doesnt make sense
+James Marshall
The only thing that allowed that killer to murder innocents was leaving them unprotected.

There were glass doors, most likely a fence, and then what? Unarmed adults with nothing even resembling hand to hand training? Even the best martial artist would tell you that your best bet is to get away, or de-escalate the situation. When one being is dead set on killing another, the only method available to prevent that killing is to stop the killer before they can kill, or before they can kill again. The best way to do that is to provide some Form of defense, in this case either a armed officer or two, armed administrators or teachers, or a combination of the two. Not even turning a school into a fortress would prevent it comepltetly.

Or eliminating firearms, as the multitude of killings that are perpetuated every year without them has proven. 
If we ban guns we have to ban every gun including police and be sure they wont be used again..its impossible..we would be defenceless anyway sense
I do not own a gun and I do not believe that we should not have the right to bare arms. People should be able to buy guns, I would never allow one in my home. That is the beauty of the USA. The young man was very disturbed and should have been under mental health care. That is the shame of this that this young man did not receive mental help care when it is so clear that he needed help, shame on the family and they had the money to give him the  help, he needed now 26 families are in a living hell just as he was!
+Gerald Bell Utterly preposterous assertion. You assume that a civilized society is completely devoid of violence, and thus has no need for guns; however, our society is not. You propose that guns are the cause, not the effect. I assert differently; if you can manage to get rid of the violence, THEN I'll entertain your silly 'no guns for anyone' premise. Remember: guns, and gun demand, are a response to human violent tendencies (hence an effect, not a cause). You can not cancel out a cause by restricting it's effect--every cause has an effect, it can not be otherwise. Your argument is like saying you can throw a lawn dart into the air over a crowd of people but it's not allowed to fall back down to earth. If the cause remains, the effect WILL remain. Period.
If theres no guns people will use something else thats what they did before guns were invented 
It's very dangerous to use a gun. if somebody wants to shot pratice, then the area should be limited.
there is nothing without life.
Ameritards - Now on McDonalds get a free AK 47 with every Happy Meal
As a Glaswegian, a Scot, a Brit and a member of the human race, I do find this"cartoon" to be racist. As such am unsurprised by some of the comments. Have to say though that I was touched by the story of the young teacher who gave her life to protect the children in her class,just as I was horrified by the news of this massacre when it surfaced. Deeply saddened by the loss of those young lives,but hopefully the debate this has opened may bring some solution to the problem that 'appears' to relate to US gun laws. I personally am glad and comforted by the UK's strick gun control. Yes we are still able to kill each other,but hopefully not in such a grand scale. Lastly as a Brit I would like to apologize for what I feel is a racist themed "cartoon"
+Sal Gallo Yup, take away guns, people will be running around with crossbows, take away cross bows they use knives, take away knives (forget having steak anymore) and they resort to clubs.
The kid had somekind of rage...prolly had to do with his mom...theres nothing worst than a bad relationship with ur mom for a guy..can make a guy go crazy
Not people, crazy people and impressive vocabulary. Matches your understanding of guns.

Firstly, and foremostly (I have declared that a new word. Deal with it.), if you are not going to put up an actual argument to support your beliefs, do not even THINK of saying guns are bad. Otherwise you are just being annoying and taking up space in this conversation.

Guns are not what is wrong with America. People who use guns inappropriately are the problem with America. Sadly, gun "control" laws will not stop people from getting guns. The man in Connecticut had been turned down by a gun salesman because of his record. The man running the shop followed all of the laws put in place to "control" guns, and he STILL got all of the firearms he needed to kill those 20 innocent children and the 6 faithful Americans. He got then illegally, proving that gun control laws do not help America. In fact, the HINDER US! They stop law-abiding American citizens from being able to defend themselves against people like this man in Connecticut. If just one of those men or women in that school had been armed, they could have shot the man in the arm or somewhere to disable him until the police arrived. If one of those teachers had been armed, less than half of those children would have died, and maybe not even one of the adults would have been shot to death.

Even if the American government does somehow manage to get rid of all of the guns in this country, violence would not go down in the least. In Japan (I believe this is the country... I am not entirely sure), there are no guns, but STILL people kill other innocent people in Japan with knives and other weapons.

If you arm the American people, criminals will be too afraid to attack other citizens. Thus, the crime rate would go down significantly. There are far more law-abiding people in America than there are criminals. All we have to do is train these people to not depend on the government to protect them. The should learn to be INDEPENDENT, and be able to defend themselves from threats like the murderer in Connecticut.

Do not try to say that my opinions and beliefs are not valid, simply because I am a mere 15-year-old. My opinions matter and count just as much as any other man or woman in the world! Just because we are all simple citizens does not mean that people in the government are any higher, or wiser than us. In fact, I will argue that just about every politician is corrupt, and evil on some level. ESPECIALLY the president.

That will be all, thank you.
+Mark Davis This isn't Britain, this is America. We have different rules, different regulations, different laws, different values, and different needs. Don't take me for a fool, use a relevant argument instead of blanketing your fears due to what another nation's people experienced.

That's a major problem with Americans anyway, we get sidetracked too easily. What's relevant is what happens/happened HERE. This country was born with rights that other don't have. However, something needs to be done to prevent abuse of those rights by those who would carry out nefarious acts.

Guilty criminals who get released do it all the time. Men who beat their wives half to death later have the charges dropped IF he's even arrested or detained, later they find and shoot her. His defense is always something absurd that essentially says he's not personally responsible for his actions. But weak legislation allowed him to commit the crime in the first place.

This is an example of the actual argument. I can't take a bottle of lotion on a plane but you can carry a loaded firearm unbeknownst to me? Why is it reasonable for you to fear I'll blow us all up mid flight, but unreasonable for me to fear you'll hug the trigger until you empty that AK 47 into me because your girlfriend happened to pass into my visual range? A semi-automatic pistol, medium caliber, with regular psychiatric evaluations, and significant training is one thing. A military grade, full auto, high caliber, tool for killing efficiently, just because you want it without the proper checks and balances is another. You don't actually need it, and you don't want possessing one to become inconvenient. Not having lotion to treat skin chapped by dry aircraft air is inconvenient but you don't care how many people suffer through that. But maybe my position is entirely too obvious to be considered a sensible argument. I mean, this IS America...and Americans sure DON'T like to make a lot of sense...
It's sad but true that America needs to tighten it's gun laws. The reason in my opinion is that there can never be a really effective way of keeping guns out of the hands of nutters. When people point out that people kill rather than guns well... Guns MAKE it easier for nutters to kill and injure. If I had a gun probably no one would die because of it but given to superbitch across the road I'd die.
If history has taught us anything its that u can kill anybody...sometimes its difficult but not impossible..guns or any weapon has nothing to do with it..come on people get real if u want to help
Very true Sal,but I have never heard of never heard of one-man knive massacres.Automatics kill big time! 
I cant be bothered with stats on either side of the argument, as thats really all it is. The second amendment, thou shalt not infringe. Its a done deal, no matter what arguments the pro control advocates use.

So heres the deal, take your best shot. Find 38 states that will support the repeal, otherwise stick with the house and senate to get a watered down version of the AWB that will pass into obscurity in eight to twelve years. Or conversely try to get the full works from a legislature that cant even come together on the fiscal cliff.

So take your best shot
+John Mcmanus
No maybe not
but i heard of a person getting stabbed 117 times
I can light a match kill more people than with a gun..guns have become a scapegoat for inaction
If they banned guns we normal people would not only lose a hobby but our means of defense! The crazy people would only find another way to harm innocent people.
+Felix Matthews yes it is. Those semiautomatic guns are extremely effective at allowing people to defend themselves easily.
300,000,000 guns. How will they ever be controlled?
Baseball bats killed more people than guns last year in the US...
Do people realize how dangerous this talk is? They always come for the guns last, because tyranny isn't exactly comfortable with opposition. Wake up.
Pay attention !  Guns don't kill people.- Sick mind people are making all problems.- Education is the solution not only in U S, around the world my dear politicians !!!
+mangai apacifica Guns actually DO kill people. That's their only purpose. 
Sick minded person with a gun has a much easier time killing lots of people than the same guy with the knife or a baseball bat. 
With regards to recent events. The sad truth is that those whom I care not to mention may be shedding tears before the cameras, but truly they are ecstatic about the opportunity to forward their agenda. Would the so called "patriot act" have been so swiftly signed into law had it not been for the events of September 11?
Josh B
The only effective way to stop a psycho with a gun.

Is a sane man who also has a gun.
Bey Zam
nice cartoon...means a lot...
Here's some firearm homicide rates from various nations. Data is in deaths per 100,000 population per year:

More than 1 death per 100,000 per year:

Nicaragua: 7.14
Zimbabwe: 4.75
USA: 3.7 (highest in developed world)
Costa Rica: 3.32
Uruguay: 3.24

Less than 1 death per 100,000 per year:

Israel: 0.94 (second highest in developed world)
Italy: 0.36 (typical European)
United Kingdom: 0.04

American citizens, please notice the company you are keeping - all developing world nations in the retard league of public safety. Also notice that you'd be over 90 times less likely to be shot living in the UK than you are at home.

If you read this and still think the USA's high gun availability is healthy, you are an IDIOT.
+James Marshall
You entertain me, you really do.

To think that these cries that came very quickly after such a situation, mirroring the situation perfectly to that in Britain and you're calling my argument illegitimate? You're arguing entirely from an emotional point of view. Last Friday over 90 million legal gun owners did nothing illegal. You are projecting your own insecurities upon us.

Secondly, the argument "military " falls short on the fact that, in order for a firearm to be suitable for civilian use, it must be first suitable for military use. As set down by the US Supreme Court. Second, if you had bothered to read any of the responses in this thread as opposed to immediately using an emotional argument and imparting actions and beliefs upon 90 million Americans, you would already know that there is already a huge restriction, close to ban, on "fully automatic high caliber tools for killing efficiently, " look up the Hughes Amendment and the National Firearms Act if 1934. In addition, the last legal full auto firearm used in a crime was a firearm owned and used by... A police officer in a multiple murder of his family. The majority of firearms utilized by the military are of a lower caliber than those commonly used by civilians, and are often times based on designs from the civilian world.

You are speaking from a position of ignorance and emotion, once you escape both of those and learn about the subject before you begin to condemn law-abiding citizens.

Your argument was nothing more than grasps at straw men and based in emotional and logical fallacies. I don't have to make you a fool, you do a good enough job of doing that yourself.

I consider the actions and the creation of the TSA to be emotionally based and silly, the actions taken by those who wish to expand their power utilizing fear and terror - that same fear and terror they claim to be protecting against.

And now you are attempting to use fear and terror in order to expand the power of those who claim to represent you. Instead of standing up and going, "No. I won't let you strip those rights from me."

49 states in the union already permit concealed carry, your argument that someone will see you looking at their girlfriend wrong? Silly, illogical, and proven wrong by the past 40 years of legal concealed carry in the United States, where your fear has never once surfaced.

You say that we should be harsher on criminals? I agree. But what that has anything to do with the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners is beyond me - unless you're implying that by simply owning something you're guilty of a crime. In which case, turn yourself in for Internet piracy right now!

Your fears are unfounded, your arguments entertaining, and your conclusions flawed. In the face of the facts, they fall apart. In the face of logic, your emotions are laid bare for all to see. 
Very little talk of more help for mental health issues. Nice insults slung both ways. Gc
This law is absurd, I think civilians should not be able to obtain military defense weapons nor high capacity gun magazines.
+Krzysiek Derkowski it's already been proven nitwit. Why don't morons like you google stuff, before posting stupid stuff.

Washington D.C., and Chicago have the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Shocker, they have the highest gun crime rates. 
+James Rowland no you are the idiot. The problem is no one here in America is accountable for anything. We don't want little Johnny to get upset if we tell him no.

Kids over the last 15 years have been subjected to depiction's of violence in TV, movies, and video games. Then subjected to no discipline at home or school. And then we wonder why we have people shooting people. 
+Jeff Marty So Jeff, is the rate of gun homicide in Nicaragua down to all the violent media their privileged and under-disciplined kids have over there? Or, as I suspect, are you pulling this excuse out of your arse?

The data clearly shows that, in civilised societies, civilians DO NOT NEED firearms and are (much) better off without them. If civilians need firearms for defence in your country, it is not civilized.
Well I can tell you are a brit. I don't knows shit about Nicaragua, and quite frankly I don't care. I don't meddle in other countries business, as you do.

Let me explain basic history to you. We have the right to keep and bear arms. Thomas Jefferson, said that it had better not be touched, or there would be war.
Why did he feel so strongly about it? Because he knew what happened, under King George III without that right.

You are a subject, I am a citizen because of my right to keep and bear arms. It gives us the right to overthrow the government if need be. I don't expect a loyal subject of the British empire to understand. After all you never fought for your freedom, and most likely never will.

Lastly, I propose we should ban arms. It's a simple medical procedure. We cut both arms off at the shoulder. That way, no one will be able to harm anyone even with a knife, or sword. However, maybe we should start with you and a lobotomy? Piss off wanker. 
You people sre just out of ur minds
Well then you deserve neither freedom or security.

Sent from my iPad
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
-Ben Franklin
Everyone go ahead and keep your guns. We should exterminate everyone that has or is suspected of having mental illness.
I have read some bollox about this over the last week. Its not about banning guns. Nor about taking away your rights to defend yourself. Its about common sense.
Why does anyone need a gun that can fire 15 or twenty or thirty rounds without having to re load.
I use guns for sport. One round at a time. If i have to reload after 5 rounds so what.
That maniac last week stole the guns from his mother. Then killed her.
If she didnt have the guns in the house he may have killed her anyway. But he could not then go on to slaughter infants in a school.
I heard a report thst she knew her son eas violent. Perhsps she had the guns for self defence. That worked out well.
I have no problem with gun ownership. Its the number of guns. The type of guns and the way they are stored in the home which would concern me.
But maybe the nra bloke was right. Maybe having some one with a fully automatic at that school could have stopped it sooner. Who knows, maybe they could hsve stopped it without any innocent kids being killed in the crossfire. But somehow i doubt it. 
Question for Americans on google plus. Why are you oh so crazy about this issue. Your attitude to guns and gun controls are so much more different to everyone else in the western world. Apart from the important point that it is killing your young people, it is ruining your country's reputation in the world. Please come back to be a nice sensible gentle peaceful country.

Try this on for size.

Imagin you were in Sandy Hook Elementary School. You hear shots fired and the gun man exits the office into the hall you are in and is moving toward the classrooms. What do you wish you had in your hands? And what would you do with it?
Air planes don't kill, box cutters do
+Thomas Crimmel what country in the world has nt had a bit of violence especially when establishing freedom from a colonial power ?. How effective are guns in self defence especially with people who are not highly trained and experienced ? Get over yourselves your being brain washed by the NRA. Yes of course it's not really our business but those best favour a friend can do is tell a colleague he is being a muppet at times and US society is being really crazy about this. Regulate the guns it's that simple. 
Dummys that never owned a gun like me should know there is no such thing as an assault weapon, it is automatic or semi automatic. Pull trigger multiple shots, pull trigger 1 shot. Changing/twisting the meaning of words to a dumbed down populace is integral to leftist doctrine
The onlu thing needed to appease the liberals SHOULD BE that all gun owners should pass a safety/security/accuracy/capabilities test... Then they COULDN'T pass this crap that POLICE have some kind of MAGICAL gun powers/skills.. Fact is they don't... Unfortunately most of the public doesnt get the training they need to prove it... Most cops suck at shooting 
+Sean Montague its because it a right we hold important to be able to protect ourselves with equal force of the agressor, foreign or domestic. But that is not to say i am 100% against gun laws. I am against the memality that guns are to blame. People who miss use guns are to blame.
+Bill Saunders Columbine had an armed officer on duty at the time of the shooting.  He was in the cafeteria, and before he got to the other end of the school, the shooters killed 12 students, a teacher, shot 21 other people and then killed themselves.  Didn't help.  Virginia Tech had 34 armed officers on duty at the time of their shooting that left 32 dead and 17 wounded.

While it's POSSIBLE that armed officers could stop or slow a shooting, it's a GIVEN that without guns, people don't get shot.
a 6 shooter would not do i need something that goes BOOM!
Exactly guns don't kill people people do. That's the whole point. Some people are psychopaths, some have addictions or mental illness and some have a really bad aim. People are flawed, so they should not casually be allowed a gun. Having a gun should be a privilege not a right in developed countries, earned and maintained by regulations. To drive you need a drivers license. 
william fair an assault weapon IS a classification of weapon, it is a selective fire rifle which uses a changable magazine that fires a cartridge for use at intermediate ranges, which is not so powerful that it cannot be controllably fired on fully automatic.  
I agree that some form of gun control may be helpful, but how about addressing the REAL issue, and that is that all of these folks who do these things are in need of mental health assistance, and the fact that that help is so very difficult to get, without having committed a crime to begin with, borders on criminal negligence itself!
I just think the hard headed realistic thing to do is control the guns much more tightly. Ok I would have to concede our society where i live has got far too soft on crime and we need to harden up a bit. 
The only thing about gun control is that the criminals are probably not going to obey the law, looks how well the criminalization of Meth and Heroin worked!
+Greg Burke I don't be talking to the mujaheddin often Greg there isn't many jihadist warriors living around where I m living. Fair play to the old lad with the gun, but realistically in a surprise situation, by the time you get big bertha out of the cabinet loaded, and fired in your bedroom slippers and pyjamas late at night the bad guy has already probably blown your head off. If it were more difficult for the bad guy to get a gun however, you may just be able to sleep more soundly. 
People even if you were to ban guns the ppl that shld not have them will still get them and then if guns are banned we wld have no way to protect ourselves from the ones getting then illegally. Looks at drugs they are essentially banned/illegal but you can still find some if you need them. That wld be the same for guns if you ban them. Then like I said normal citizens couldn't defend against. We wld all be bringing knives to gun fights and we all know how that would turn out. The problem is not guns ita the hands they go into and they arr not properly taught, educated, or locked up. Everyone wants to jump to banning guns. Guns are not the problem. 
I agree with the above comments that an AR15 is NOT an assault weapon! It's a single-shot SEMI automatic. That means one shot per pull of the trigger, just like most handguns. The shooter in CT could have done just as much damage with a pair of automatic handguns (which nobody is crying about banning), maybe even killed more people, since he could have shot twice as fast with one in each hand. Just to come back to my point, true assault weapons ARE banned already. There are class III items, like suppressors available, but those require much more paperwork, fees, and effort to obtain. No fully automatics are available to the public for purchase, and the items to convert semi autos to full autos are highly regulated and/or illegal. The AR15 just gets to be the scapegoat this time for simply LOOKING like a fully auto military M4, when in practice all it really shares are looks and ammo (5.56mm, which isn't really even a large caliber).
+Fernando Herrero Salas A- I cannot say your name B- You most likely want guns ban so you can cross boarder. C- you won't speak our language when you get here. D- you probably do not pay taxes. E is for you need to be English to even speak about this matter.  and last but not least us ENGLISH AMERICANS SAY    MERRY CHRISTMAS ON JESUS'S BIRTHDAY WITHOUT TAKING OFFENSE 
+Mri Pirim people without guns are more likely to be killed by people with guns. Does anyone really think that banning guns is going to stop criminals from buying guns? They are criminals. Yes, in the case of the school shootings it may have stopped it. A mother smart enough to keep guns away from a mentally unstable person would have also stopped it. Stop trying to make a law for everything that can possibly go wrong. You think our country is too violent? LEAVE. no one is asking you to stay. 
C Ely
Nice cartoon Kal! Regarding the questions and related arguments that have to be addressed in this nation. Is there a fix-all, mend all answer? Most likely not. Yes, people are understandable mad about the violence that has taken place in our schools... and we should be. I'm sure that there will be changes in US firearms related laws in the near future due this end. Will these changes end violence... I wish! Lets be reasonable, firearms are not the only part to the puzzle of violence. After all, when you really look at the problem, it's the violent behavior that causes the problem, right?  If we are going to make a reasonable effort at finding a solution, lets at least try to keep an open mind, avoid agendas, and look at the entire issue for all the "solutions."  
It was probably the school shooting, but still, taking guns out of the hands of every one, will only lead to criminals being the only ones  caring  them.
Historically, American culture and its mindset was born out of the its over 100 years old history, which was, filled up with pioneers from Europe. They were brave people, hoping to found a home for their families, but consisted of gold diggers, Jews Exodus, and puritans running away from the overwhelming Church influence in their former homes, which were in the hands of man of cloth, meddling in every day life of people, Europe, U,K etc:, basically an invasion of Native Americans' Land, which they took it, by means of firearms, in battles fought with brave natives, who were defending their land and it was a brave act by those natives, in History, Col: (or) Maj: Custer, who fell in action with these battles, was glorified,  native Americans,Red Indians. only had bows and arrows. Furthermore in the wild west, most of the disputes were solved by these gun holders. The bigger the better attitude, inventing Gatling's foremost machine gun and later generation of machine guns. Gun is the base of American constitution, having faced civil war, liberation war with Britain, it is very natural that they are carrying guns even now. No point in arguing about it. It is their constitutional right. In regard to gun itself, gun is an inanimate object, like a car, it should be handled carefully, they should have a gun school for everyone in USA, how to wisely use the gun. Gun is not the culprit. The owner is,or was. So I wanted to put in my thought it is traditional for Americans to carry a gun to protect their families and their possessions in case of unjust bully like attitude and behavior from third party. This is only my personal view. Leave it or take it.
Oh good. This has probably been laying in a drawer marked "Populist Templates" for the past ten years, and finally some children were murdered, so they can use it. Well done.
They will never take firearms out of the hands of U.S. citizens. There will either be a United States with a legally armed populace or there will be no United States. Repealing the Second Amendment will prompt a second Civil War and a restructuring of the current government into a Socialist Dictatorship. It's ripe for this.
If the Government tries to take our arms I know i would rise in rebellion and there would be plenty of others.  There would be enough bloodshed for sure.  So keep things peaceful and DONT TOUCH OUR GUNS
I'm just trying to say i don't want violence but going against my rights will not end well.  If blood does not need to be shed i'll do my best to keep that up but when it comes to a right that ensures my self defense...
if my guns are taken away what going to protect me or my children or my grandchildren or my great grandchildren when A. a intruder with bad intentions breaks in B. Our government goes wacko?  Every good is going to have its bad.  Banning guns has its bads and allowing guns have its bads.
no one because no one was armed EXCEPT the attacker.  Think had one of the teachers had a gun it would have been a case of calling the police telling them what you look like where you are and that your armed hang up and either ambush the shooter as he comes around a corner or waiting behind your desk and shooting him when he enters the classroom.  While the police deal sounds nice i dont really think that would be a good idea.
at first you asked WHO now your asking WHO IN THE LAW i am not sure what you are asking by who in the law
What right for the children? a right for life? 
You can't walk away you didn't answer a question concerning your question
n Hutton you are not making any sense. 2nd Amendment states the right to bear arms. Then that law is further clarified for minors and the States further elaborate Deadly Force use laws. However, there have been situations where minors used firearms to defend themselves.
its funny cuz the cartoon thinks its clever just like it thinks guns can kill.  
+Jon Belanger I recommend retired police officers, in plain clothes, armed.  We protect banks, hospitals, many businesses, and other locations with valuable commodities.  I find is shameful that "we" protect materials and money with armed guards, but not our most valuable assets for the future.
You guys need to read your Constitution and Bill of Rights there is a reason is the second right behind freedom of speech G it must have been important for it to be the second amendment
The second amendment exists in case politicians forget the others and theres a need to defend them
+jimmy little Submit your plan for disarming millions of people, and tell me how you plan to prevent any bloodshed there.

I need support for the Columbine assertion, first I am learning of it.  VT is a huge campus and I am sure the police did the best they could.  

I never made the assertion that onsite armed security would prevent these acts, I only assert that it may help mitigate more carnage.
Funny thing about this is that we wouldn't have laws about free gun ownership in the US if it wasn't for the British
+Michael Brokate Actually, no.  2nd amendment says nothing about keeping elected politicians in check.  It simply states you have a right to own a gun.  And that well regulated militia is needed for security of free state.  No more no less.  If you use your right to own a weapon against your own country (i.e. politicians that in your opinion forgot this or that), you will find yourself serving a very long prison term for terrorism and/or treason (if you manage to survive, the good folks from SWAT team will have orders to neutralize threat from you one way or the other, not to capture you alive).  The 2nd amendment is based off an earlier English bill, but unfortunately in American version it is missing the part that would allow state to put in place a lot of reasonable restrictions.
+Aleksandar Milivojević ...needed for the security of a free state.  Who's going to take away the freedom? The foreign army the american military didn't take on?  And you make it sound like i'm going to flip if this or that happens.   If they pass a law that threatens my futures i have a need to protect them.
+Michael Brokate Actually, yes.  The external threat.  Note the time the amendment was written.  The republic was young, and it's very survival was at stake.  The part about militia is separate from the part about the right to own a weapon.  The supreme court ruled that way some time ago (i.e. right to own a weapon is not tied to membership in the militia).  Organizations like US Army, National Guard, Marine Corps, etc fulfill the "organized militia" part.  It doesn't refer to individuals.  It also says you can own a weapon using the word "bear".  Which is a bit hard to interpret does it mean simply owning or does it also means prancing around with it.  It doesn't say anything about using it for any purpose at all.
I really wish I understood the banning of high cap magazine argument. What determines high capacity and do people not realize how little time it takes to drop a mag and load another? I'll keep my firearms thank you.
If you think taking guns out of the law bidding citizens is going too stop people from killing one another is totally ridiculous and ignorant if some one wants too kill the are a lot more options than a gun.
+Aleksandar Milivojević You're right that it does not "say so in the Constitution".  However, there are a myriad of essays, debates, court rulings on the issue, enough to fill Obama's future library alone, as to the purpose and context of the amendment.  

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
+Michael Brokate Yes, indeed.  Who were part of an organized militia.  Initially organized by each of the colonies, as well as "regular" army that was established later on.
+kryzsiek derkowski the Oklahoma city bomber managed to kill 163 people with out a gun. Bad people simply can do bad things. This nation was founded on freedom to bear arms.
A few things I will make clear before I start. I do not think that every type of weaponry should be made available to the public. Grenades, explosives, and the like that can destroy buildings should not be accessible to the public. Things of this nature should only be available to the military and in some cases law enforcement. This discussion is covering semi-automatic weapons only, whether it is a handgun or rifle.
In a country that has freedom and liberty as part of its foundation it must be able to accept the consequences of such freedoms. The following is an example of message I am trying to convey.

There is a substance in this country that is legal and regulated. It causes more than 75,000 deaths a year (that is over twice the amount of gun deaths last year), except for some medical applications this substance has no benefit to society at all. I am talking about alcohol. Most people probably would call themselves “responsible drinkers”. They drink at home or in small amounts at social functions. Even though small amounts of this drug can impair a person’s judgment and motor control they feel they have taken the proper precautions to protect themselves and others by “drinking responsibly”. With 75,000 deaths a year we can see that while some “drink responsibly” there are others that do not. Here is the point. In a free country we must accept the fact that some people will be irresponsible with their choice to drink alcohol. Even with all the laws and regulations in place that restrict where and to whom alcohol served/sold 75,000 people still die. If you want to keep the freedom to purchase and consume alcohol you must accept the consequences of that freedom.

The same is true with firearms. There are numerous laws and regulations that restrict who can purchase a firearm and most of the people who have firearms are “responsible gun owners”. As with alcohol there are some who will choose to be irresponsible with their freedom and inflict harm on others. Now there is a difference that I would like to point out and that is intent. The drunk driver did not intend to kill family in the mini-van, the alcoholic did not intend to beat his wife to death, but an evil person who kills someone with a gun did intend to kill. The intent is different, but it is still a consequence of freedom.

Now that I have put forth why I am against more regulation, I would take a moment and put forth a possible deterrent to future school shootings. Most people probably will not like this, but here goes. If government must get involved, here is the role I think it should play. States could increase the amount of police officers so that there could be officers on the school grounds at all times. Another possibility is that certain teachers/faculty would receive(from the state) firearm training and obtain concealed carry permits. They would be able to respond to the threat and not just be a human shield to the children. This may sound outrageous to some, but schools are a “soft” target. Evil people attack these places because they know no one will be able to defend themselves.
well, it is a personal view, not an actual thing. Just stating the
situation,or, shall we say, controversy over this gun control,NRA
would not stand for it either, ban the guns and the repercussions from
it from citizens of USA would be tantamount. So, bearing that in mind,
just giving an input, that, guns do not kill people, it is the handler
of the gun that pull the trigger. That is the point I am trying to
Until such time as the ability exists to "magically" confiscate all firearms currently in existence in the United States (and probably the rest of North America at least) without having to go door to door to do it, guns cannot be banned in their entirety.

Even attempting to ban the newest definition of "assault weapon" (which has come to mean a semi-automatic rifle that looks like a military weapon, or otherwise scary) would not work. If people want to ban the sale again, it will again be useless. If people want to ban them entirely (including confiscation), it will not work.

For one, because police wouldn't know who is going to resist the seizure, they'd have to send a task force to each and every house to take the banned weapons. The first thing criminals will do when they see the task force coming door to door to take weapons is hide/bury/move them until the task force has gone through their home. After that, they'd be free to move the weapons back home. If not that, criminals intent on causing death and destruction would set traps for the police (as has already happened in Ogden, UT fairly recently - causing Officer Jared Francom's death).

Even if they didn't, there would be plenty of criminals willing to sell the guns that they either hid, or bring in from other countries.

In addition, the very act alone would reek of unlawful search and seizure. If the policy were voluntary, no criminals guns would be turned in, so only law-abiding citizens would be turning in their guns.
+Felix Matthews , yeah who needs semi automatic weapons. Back to the single shot rifles and revolver's. While we're at it ban cars that go faster then 70, street bikes, dirt bikes, jets, high speed internet, and everything else cool....#communist
There is as much external threat to the USA as there was a threat to the world yesterday with they Mayan prediction. No country has had freedom without a fight. Yes brave Europeans emigrated there, brave Europeans stayed here and faced the music here. To me it seems Americans are more influenced by ideas than hard headed statistical facts. The figures from across the developed world really are as clear as the nose on your face, the issue is so important to use old fashioned concepts and notions to base your decisions on is mistaken in my opinion. 
Who invades 2 countries to get cheap oil won't be stopped by 27 deaths of your own aye? Stop crying America. The pollution you guys cause and the absolute resistance to do anything about it will result in many more deaths. So don't change attitude because there is blood spelled in your backyard once in a while.

Keep buying big SUV's. Bye the next iPad to upgrade your screen resolution. And bye a bigger weapon to "protect it all". Keep the money rolling, you have made the choice. So live with the consequences.
The idea of keeping guns unregulated because the criminals will get them anyway doesn't stand up to analysis either. The atrocities in schools, shopping malls and cinemas are not usually carried out by career criminals they seem to carried out by unhinged rogue individuals. We have banned guns for the most part and criminals do shoot people but for the vast vast majority of the time criminals shoot other criminals. Yes the criminals still get guns but the drug dealers, racketeers and hoodlums are not the profile of the person shooting up schools. 
wake the f.. up amerika , make owning guns by civilians illegal , why do u need guns , so you can protect your self against Canada or Mexico ? you have an army for that ....
So the keep guns lot want to baricade the schools with guards . That`s OK , but if you keep the rest of gun nuts armed , the result is a increase in the gun population.  Sorry gun nuts it does not add up.
This world is in just as dangerous if not more so now as it was when or forefathers put the "Right 
This is why we got problems in this world everyone has their own agenda
Its the kids folks not the weapons we have to figure out a way of not making them nuts
Oops! Not through yet! This world is just as bad or worse as when our forefathers put the "Right To Bear Arms" in the Constitution. Do you really trust the United States of America's government to protect you & your family from the evils going on right in your hometown? Do you actually think that doing away with the 2nd Amendment will in anyway keep the terrorist & the psychos or the wrong people from getting weapons or from killing innocent & law abiding people? If someone wants to kill someone they can do it with a rock! Don't let the people who live every day of their life with body guards to protect them & their families every move take your only protection away!!!!! 
For those that want quote ben franklin no security no freedom because we must have security to enjoy our liberties. Ask any one in the middle east where is no liberty or security. The r killed by their own gov. For use of liberties. Free speach free worship or the freedom to own guns.
+Sal Gallo until that happens sal it easier to figure out a way to make it much more difficult to get guns. On a lighter note what do you call an Irish guy shot by accident in a skirmish . Rick O Shea
Good point but remember it takes time to call 911 and dispatch the law rolls 10-20 min. And lots of time for anyone to reek havoic. Guns in school handeled by trained presonal would stop before it got out of control
Rremoving money from political representatives will always be the answer to correct laws against the citizens!
I'll let someone else explain the assault weapons ban:

There are already over 20k firearm laws on the books.

Even the Brady Campaign, which is typically anti-gun, estimates that there are 108k instances of defensive gun use each year.

Are these mass shootings events tragic? Yes, terribly so. Are they also fairly rare? Yes, thankfully so. Are there also dozens of other things that cause more deaths each year? Yes, definitely so.
+Sean Montague
Sean its useless everyone has their own agenda..
Not too many people care about our social models
We are creating monsters
Everybody wants to talk about guns for me its a no brainer weapons have nothing to do with this phenomen...and its not exclusive to america thats clear if it was u might have an argument but its not
I dont know what makes people keep talking about guns or america..we c it happening everywhere
Theres a common denomainator we just have to find it..thats my view
+Sean Donaldson Bombings may destroy property as well as human lives, but does the fact that atrocious acts are committed outside your country make gun restrictions any less important? If anyone commits an act of homicide, it is a terrible act, no matter which method is employed (be it a gun, a knife, a bomb) and even more so if multiple lives are ended. One who wishes homicide to continue chooses not to take away the means by which it is committed; in turn, those who campaign for ownership of the means are, logically, allowing for the continuation of pain and death. And I'm not saying that you are lobbying for mass murder, Sean, but are you not lobbying for the means with which one commits it?
+Eamon Campbell-June That is an outrageous comment.  Please submit your plan for removing guns from the populace without causing widespread gun violence and death?

Using your "logic", I could accuse you of causing widespread bloodshed for the removing guns from society, which will, without any doubt, cause widespread violence and murder.

Are you lobbying for murder caused by removing guns from society?
Are guns the cause of a shooting at some school/public place or is it our society? Weapons, in my opinion should be illegal, anyhow, if weapons are always made responsible for any killing, isn't that somehow irrational? Weapons have and will always be around, but the roots of these modern day killings are not based on the possibility of using a gun, though this enhances these killings, but on what goes on in our heads, what happened to society? We glorify killing while being in combat on the one hand and on the other we are shocked by what can happen in our self proclaimed safe-zone.

Now removing guns from society, to me, seems fair. I doubt that it would cause a widespread bloodshed, how do you reason such a thought? 
+Moritz Gese Because I will not give up my prima facie right of self defense with the realistic understanding that it is impossible to remove violence from society or from the nature of man.  

You do not have the right to remove my fundamental and derivative right of self defense.
Forget the NRA, the government, or Society in general. We as Humans are just another animal on this earth.Just like other animals there are anomalies, flaws in genetics. These are what cause all animals to do things they would not normally do. Like I said before take away all weapons if you want, it wont stop people from having these defects that cause them to want to kill innocents. 
Nothing ever said about the mother not locking those guns
this is their right to bear arms. constitutional.
+Christian Theilmann Drunk Drivers kill people. Should we blame the CAR? We should ban cars. Why do we need cars that go over 30 miles per hour? Put in legislation to ban cars that go over 30 MPH. There were 10,800 deaths by drunk drivers. there were 11,000 murders by firearms. Do you blame the car or the driver? Do you blame the shooter or the gun? Maybe its time for you to be less narrow minded.
I especially enjoyed the stereotype of the "hillbilly" in the front row. Rural Americans are the most honest, hardworking, friendly people I have encountered across four continents and 10+ countries. I suppose that right now those values aren't in vogue. Yes, that is a picture of a Labrador bred to retrieve ducks for hunters. It's ok to laugh at yourself once in awhile so I really see this cartoon in good humor.

You can count on someone else to defend you, I prefer to keep myself and my family safe while honoring the traditions that built the greatest nation on the planet. Enjoy your freedoms and leave me to mine please.
Add a comment...