Only gun violence? How about ALL violence? There have been several knifings in Bel Air recently. A man had his arm cut off by a Katana in Baltimore, why not that too?

Australia passed strict anti-gun laws. The result was that violent crime rose hundreds of percent because the people had no protection. If you want to stop violence, then you should be for building prisons, which are opposed for their cost, and because politicians find resistance over where to put them.

As pointed out in the coverage of Newtown, almost all the multiple killings occur where guns are already banned.

No one that I know of has EVER taken steps to reduce the violence in this nation. This nation has a deeply rooted reverence of violence and violent behavior. People, especially young one, can be influenced by a false message which is delivered to them loud and long.

Children, like the Newtown shooter, can be influenced toward violence by video, (both games and television). So when those same people who are always those lost in a world of fantasy become distraught they tend to become violent.

The issue of unintended gun violence has always been a problem. NONE of the talk or action, particularly strict WEAPONS bans have ever stopped it. Banning an inanimate object is no substitute for curing those who are insane.

Virtually all of these multiple killers were known to be mentally deviant. This nation has been reducing health care, not even maintaining it.

Boy that's really gonna help!

CP - Agreed. Mark and the libs believe that having a vigil gives them cover. It is unfortunate. The President's most vocal supporters such as JZ constantly bombard the airwaves with violence and and have disgusting references of women. Yet not vigil - and Obama takes the money and the publicicity. Sadly, Mark is also not having a vigil demanding answers from the Obama Administration about the Americans killed in Libya. I guess their families don't deserve answers. In the next few weeks, or even sooner, more than 26 people will be murdered in Chicago, headed by a Mayor who has no clue to stop the violence - yet no vigil. In many MINUTES each day are 26 babies aborted - yet no vigil.
By 2016, we will have 24 years of Presidents with questionable morals. Lies, stonewalling and disregarding of facts has been the common thread of these Presidents. Local politicians here are clued in and play the game also. Selective vigils depending on if the topic is pro "D" or pro "R" are useless and self serving.
Teach morals and vigils will not be needed.

What does the NRA have to do with this? An autistic kid snapped and killed a bunchnof kids with someone else's gun. It's a terrible tragedy but I'm curious why you're bashing the NRA an not mental health groups.

Frank, do you have a link proving thAt the NRA is demanding that mentally deranged have access to guns? Otherwise you're simply spreading lies which is dishonest and pathetic.

Since the shooter was obviously very screwed up he should have been locked away long ago. Where's the outrage of mental health groups over that?

Frank, I can't believe you're asking that. You don't think he was throwing off red flags long ago? The mental health community needs to be able to recognize these things.

My exact words were "locked away" so I'm not sure why you're putting things I didn't say in quotes, Frank. And I wasn't referring to prison so much as a mental treatment facility. I'll leave the reasons to the mental health people who should have been taking care of him. I'm not a doctor, but no one will disagree that this guy was off his rocker.

Frank, I've responded directly to your questions now respond to the one I asked: WHERE IS THE NRA DEMANDING THAT MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO FIREARMS. Either provide a link proving your point or retract your factually incorrect statement. I am an NRA member and if your statement is true I'll cancel my membership immediately. But I know as well as you do that you are clueless and just running your mouth incoherently.

Frank, that's what I thought. Your exact words were: "The only one here demanding that mentally ill people have access to guns is the NRA, not the "mental health groups"."

Thank you for admitting that you are full of it. I will be proudly maintaining my NRA membership.

Some continue to lead lives of blissful ignorance and are fine with living that way.

"CBSNews June 26, 2009, 5:19 PM The NRA is urging Congress to tighten loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a government database that provides background checks on gun buyers. The changes, which stem from the Virginia Tech shooting last spring, would ensure that more mentally ill people are barred from purchasing firearms.

In a strange partnership, the legislation is also being backed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a longtime opponent of guns and most NRA policy moves. The Brady Campaign was the original champion of the NICS database. Lobbyists for the group aim to win passage of the bill around the six-month anniversary of the shootings this month. "

Why should they say anything? The NRA has seldom done anything but help the people of this nation. The 2nd Amendment is under a Violent assault by subversive forces.

One of the programs that has been terminated, due to anti-gun hysteria, the Civilian Marksmanship Program, has been harmed due to government ceasing the sale of old semi-automatic rifles to NRA sanctioned groups as part of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The military has recently decried the lack of knowledge of firearms and poor Marksmanship of those joining the military. This cost the nations $billion (small b).

The Pentagon evaluates the efficacy of weapons that they buy. They are now having to compensate for the poor skill of soldiers. The M4 now sports a telescope, and an IR sensor which has to be "sighted in" to be effective.

During the Gulf wars, so many Iraqi soldiers were being killed by head shots that World Wide Rights organizations suspected Iraqis were being executed. So while the M4 is effective, there are still problems with poor skills of soldiers especially with regard to handguns. With a rising percentage of serving soldiers being female, they have trouble with the size of some weapons that do not fit their hands very well.

The NRA has been a valuable asset to this nation for the skills and principles it passes on. Those who are evil ignore this fact. I don't belong to the NRA. I object to an Anti-Police message their leader once mailed.

PC, simple minds look for and can only see simple solutions. The simplest solution is to blame the NRA. More than that is incomprehensible to the simple minded.

Why a march on the NRA?????

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Sad!

It seems the facts dont matter to some people. He tried to by a gun earlier in the week and was turned away because of our gun laws, so he obtained the guns he used illegally (in other words he stole them).

Changing the gun laws would not have prevented this.

And now a question: what is the other common denominator in all of these shootings that top cur that the left seems to ignore? Mental health.

Rather than trying to use this tragedy to limit the rights of all law abiding gun owners, perhaps you should be ao casting to better monitoring of people with mental illness.

Bait and switch Frank. We're talking about gun violence, not tax policy.

But since you mention it, should the department of health and humans services do this? What do we we pay those people for if not for dealing with health issues.

Why is everything about bigger government?

+1. The NRA gets the unfortunate role of politically correct scapegoat. Not the mentally deranged man who stolen he weapons.

Dennis, you are misunderstanding my position. We as a community need to duscuss "gun violence". Gun Violence is dufferent from "responsible gun ownership". This is noe semantics. But people like like are always reframing this conversation into "don't take my guns." The is irresponsibiity in your effort to constantly redirect this conversation. We need to talk about why 40% of the gun purchases in this country are bought without background checks. We need to talk about mental health services and keep guns out of the hands of people with mental issues. The cnversation is now turning to, "weel this young man had asburgers, and their is a debate as to whether this is a mental illnes." Does that argument really matter. Maybe he had a mental illness on top of that condition." It is alleged that he had behavior problems. Now id the time to talk about keeping guns locked up. And now is the time to ask why this teacher had an arsenal of automatic weapons in her house while living with a young man with all these problems. Yes we can have this conversation without talking YOUR guns away from you. This is a community safety issue. We need to find solutions.

Mark,

I agree that we need solutions, but we need to look at the facts. There are millions of legally owned guns in this country that are never used by their owners to commit a crime. In all of these mass shootings the common element is mental health.

We need to make certain that crazy people do not have access to guns. That may mean restricting their gun rights and it may mean restricting the gun rights of those people living with them.

What will do nothing to stop this violence is going after a specific group of guns like the so called "assault" wepons. But it will score political points which is why the liberals in congress will do it.

Chris I have to disagree with you. Evidence shows that in countries where semi-automatic guns have been banned their death due to gun related violence decreases. I do, however, agree that we need to keep guns away from people who have mental issue problems. If the gun used in Connecticut on Friday was a handgun I can safely say that the number of dead would be greatly less that 26!

"If the gun used in Connecticut on Friday was a handgun I can safely say that the number of dead would be greatly less that 26!

Many standard handguns come with a 14 or 15 round magazine. Two hand guns means approximately 30 rounds without reloading. Reloading only takes a few seconds. Even if you carry two revolvers, you have 12 rounds without reloading. Speed loaders can allow you to reload a revolver in seconds. I respect that you have a different opinion, but I think your opinion is based on some incorrect assumtions.

My point is that more gun control does not mean less crime. Look at Chicago, and DC. Both have some of the most strict gun laws, and some of the highest gun violence.

Dennis, you are correct only the criminals will have guns, good people will have no way to protect them selves or their families. Let someone break into these peoples homes and rape their wife and daughter what are they going to do set them down and try to talk them out of it. You better have a gun. They won't get mine.

Very well said Janis Wall.

The same way others make themselves feel safer with multiple locks on their doors, camera's outside their homes, dogs, and the false sense of security by dialing 911.

Some continue to lead lives of blissful ignorance and are fine with living that way.

"CBSNews June 26, 2009, 5:19 PM The NRA is urging Congress to tighten loopholes in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, a government database that provides background checks on gun buyers. The changes, which stem from the Virginia Tech shooting last spring, would ensure that more mentally ill people are barred from purchasing firearms.

In a strange partnership, the legislation is also being backed by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a longtime opponent of guns and most NRA policy moves. The Brady Campaign was the original champion of the NICS database. Lobbyists for the group aim to win passage of the bill around the six-month anniversary of the shootings this month. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-501563_162-3370569.html

What matters is that you are off your rocker with your ignorance Frank about what the NRA is does and supports.

@ Frank

You specifically said, and I quote, "The NRA is more responsible than any other organization in insuring that folks like Mr. Lanza have access to guns. Why shouldn't they be held accountable?"

So, by using your logic, are you suggesting that the next bank that is robbed, it is the car makers fault for providing an avenue for the burglar to leave the scene quickly? After all, if the car maker would not have made the cars be able to go so fast, the burglar would have been caught, right?

Cars are an essential part of our way of life for two main reasons. First, they make economic life fast-paced and more profitable, by allowing people to move from their homes to work; by allowing them to move to sites where they consume goods and services;an by facilitating the transport of the actual goods. Second, the manufacture of cars is a business venture that ripples back through the economy, making mining, energy and miscellaneous industries viable.

How are handguns and rifles similar? Except for the fact that they are bought and sold as goods all over the world and serve to arm human populations, I don't see much value. I mean, have you shot any predatory animals or critters lately or know anyone who has? Except for the odd deer which is a healthy alternative to commercially raised meat, have you shot up your dinner lately?

The government certainly regulates the automobile industry so that it begins to meet environmental and safety regulations.

Guns are an anachronism, practically speaking.

The right to an automobile has not been written into the Bill of Rights which the people wrote to guarantee our God given rights as the right to keep and bear is.

Dennis, I have not advocated that "we all turn in our guns." I personally do not own a gun and will never wish too. My younger brother was killed by a gun laying around someones house that was not locked up. And even with that even in our family history I still do not advocate "we all turn in our guns." But I have just as much right to my constitutional guarantees as you do, and I do not see in there anywhere that it says anyone has a right to own a semi-automatic weapon. We can do this without taking away law abiding citizens' right to own a weapon. This is a complex issue, no doubt, but we have to start somewhere. Turning this into a police state is not the solution.

Mark you are correct just look at Sweden! rolls the eyes.

While all basic firearm actions require the action to be cycled manually before the first shot, semi-automatic as well as automatic and selective fire actions are differentiated from other forms such as single-action or double-action revolvers, pump-action, bolt-action, or lever-action firearms by eliminating the need to manually cycle the weapon after each shot. For example, to fire ten rounds from a semi-automatic firearm or a selective fire weapon set to fire semi-automatically, the action would initially be cycled to load the first round and the trigger would need to be pulled ten times (once for each round fired). For the other forms, the weapon's mechanism would require cycling manually prior to firing the next round. An automatic or a selective fire weapon set to fire automatically would be able to fire continuously as long as the trigger is held until the magazine or feed device runs out of ammunition.

Everyone talks about "semi-automatic" guns. Most guns now days are "semi-automatic". Who wants to shoot and then have to re-load before you shoot again? My 22 is "semi-automatic" but it is NOT automatic (see definition above).

Agree 100% SG from PH

SG, I have to disagree with you. Do you really want to raise you children and all of the children of this country in what sounds like a prison to me? More police is mot the answer. There are how many thousands of children in Baltimore County verses how many police officers? What you are suggesting is an influx of more government money, which we do not currently have. I for one cannot pay any more in taxes. What we need is a community brain storming session where we can all contribute ideas that are actually solutions to the problem. I must admit your lock-down style school system is an idea that might work to solve some of these problems, but it does not seem like an Amercian Idea of Freedom to me. We should work at preventing the criminals from acting and not punish American citizens in the process.

Mark this is a long term problem to solve. We aren't going to get everyone to lock down their guns. Or change the mental health system but what we can do is focus on the safety of our children.
We are on the right side of this topic and need our county officials reacting to the possibility of this happening in Perry Hall/White Marsh.

SG, yes this is a long term problem. I disagree that we will not be able to "change the mental health system". I'm afraid you are probably correct that we will not be able to get everyone to lock down their guns, but we can make it a requirement to owning a gun. And if we do many will abide by it. For those who don't we can put penalties in place or take away that violator's right to own a gun. There are things we can do. Sending one cop to any school will not protect a school full of children if the cop is not in the same room with the shooter when he begins to shoot. This idea is a false sense of security.

Again well said SG from PH

A ban on assult weapons in the following 10 countries does in fact have an effect to reduce the number of gun homicides: Australia, 286 gun homicides per year
Costa Rica, 371 gun homicides per year
Serbia, 66 gun homicides per year
Turkey, 526 gun homicides per year
United Kingdom, 32 gun homicides per year
Colombia, 13,857 gun homicides per year
Mexico, 4,797 gun homicides per year
Germany, 227 gun homicides per year
Canada, 181 gun homicides per year
New Zealand, 7 gun homicides per year

Mark, please also post the OTHER means of murdering that has taken the place of firearms in those countries you note.
Did the murder rate decrease overall?

When you post this line i must question the rest of the post as well.
"Mexico, 4,797 gun homicides per year "

In the past 7 years there has been over 40,000 murdered in Mexico.

Who has access to "automatic weapons" Mark? That is a huge problem with this issue. So many have little education or clue when it comes to firearms.
Automatic firearms were banned in the 1930's and they are not used in crimes.

Mark, firearms are banned from private possession in Mexico, 40,000 murders in 7 years where firearm ownership is banned. If the people were allowed to own them the rate may be lower. Fear drives far too many and their emotions drive their thoughts.

and it looks to me like there are about 8700 fire arm deaths PER YEAR in the united states. this number can be reduced with automatic weapons ban. We need to do this now.

Again Mark with ignorance on automatic firearms? If one cannot define the firearm one cannot argue the point very well.

FBI UCS http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

2011 saw 14022 homicides with 67.7% being firearms. 26.5% with other knives or other dangerous weapons.

Well we all know of one us border agent killed with a gun in Mexico provided by this administration.

I believe it is one thing and one thing alone. EVIL. Only EVIL can do such a thing.

What is you solution Sanchez? I have not seen you suggest even one. You seem to be defending the right of unstable people to own semi-automatic weapons. Is my impression right or wrong? And if I am right why would you make this defense? And if I am wrong what is your solution?

There is no solution Mark to pure evil. Anyone with evil in their hearts like these shooters do, will not be stopped. Disarming the law abiding is the worst possible answer.

"You seem to be defending the right of unstable people to own semi-automatic weapons." What an ignorant conclusion with so little information. I posted above for the brain dead where the NRA stood on a law following the VT shooting. Did anyone with the power do anything?

You cannot stop evil.

What IS an assault weapon? If you make such a comment you must know.

again no solution Sanchez

The solution IS NOT disarming the law abiding Mark. When you are ready to give up YOUR civil rights to free speech and the right to be secure in your property and papers, then we can talk about the millions of those like me giving up our civil rights to those like you who are willing to deny others their rights.
Evil is evil and it has been around since the dawn of man.

Ban evil and this will go away. As likely as banning firearms.

Sanchez, I am not advocating that law abiding citizens give up their constitutional rights. When I suggest that we do background checks on all gun purchases, I am saying that criminals are obtaining guns at gun shows where it is not mandatory to do a background check. When I say we need to improve mental health care I an not suggesting that we take any rights away from law abiding citizens. When I suggest we place a ban on semi-automatic weapons I am saying these weapons are not necessary in order to maintain your second amendment rights. A nuclear weapon is also a weapon. Should we read the second amendment to mean all american citizens should also be able to own or possess nuclear weapons. We can ban semi-automatic weapons without taking away your other guns. This is a fair compromise.

Mark, when you say "When I suggest we place a ban on semi-automatic weapons I am saying these weapons are not necessary in order to maintain your second amendment rights" you are suggesting the violation of my rights.

It is not reasonable to ban semi-auto firearms. It IS a violation of my rights.
You cannot take some of our firearms without taking away our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

When you must resort to the embarrassing "all american citizens should also be able to own or possess nuclear weapons" theater of the absurd you lose the high ground you feel you have.

Sanchez, there are limits on rights. The restrictions of yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theate is a restriction we live with. Let me ask you in particular: Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What would you use it for?

Why would you want a car with an automatic transmission?

It's because it is more efficient.

Typical reasoned response from the left.

Well 1ke, what is the difference between a semi-auto rifle WITH a folding or telescopic stock, a pistol grip and one of the same caliber without all those mean nasty looking devices?

Just read the law. You might even look into the "...A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." What's it mean, Joe? Expound on it a bit.

Your opinionated self...

The SCOTUS already made quite clear that the second amendment is an individual right.

Go ahead and finish the quote. "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

If someone tunneled into my basement, I would want a gun to protect myself, too.

Oh, yeah, healthcare premiums are so low that appropriate mental health care is not affordable.

And in millions of responsible in owners have never had their guns used to commit a crion. So what's your point Frank?

I hate to break it down to numbers, but it comes down to this. If law abiding citizen are unable to defend themselves, more of them will fall victim to criminals with guns. So further gun control may simply trade one group of victims for another.

The gun laws affect the gun owners that follow the law, not the criminals who acquire guns through illegal means.

"And in millions of responsible in owners have never had their guns used to commit a crion. So what's your point Frank?"

The point is that the number and types of guns owned by Nancy Lanza is arguably not responsible, especially if eat more easily enables shootings as we saw here. Additionally, the trope that people are actually defending themselves with guns is getting worn pretty thin given that despite an increase in gun ownership in this country acts like this continue to occur.

"The gun laws affect the gun owners that follow the law, not the criminals who acquire guns through illegal means."

These weren't obtained illegally, and so the question is should someone be allowed to obtain the types and number of guns legally in this case. If they weren't obtained illegally, are the legal restrictions on obtaining them tight enough?

So again, the point is:

1. Nancy Lanza had guns and was not able to defend herself, and in many cases of these types of shootings, private citizens are not in a position to defend themselves even with guns.
2. The guns were obtained legally by this criminal, so talking about criminals who obtain guns illegally is irrelevant.

From what I read, the modest proposals by gun safety advocates are:

1) Require Background Checks on all gun sales, private and at gun shows
2) Reconsider whether certain types of weapons are appropriate for private ownership at home. This may mean it could be owned but stored at a gun range only.

Frank you don't understand God or religion and apparently not gun control either.

Sounds like you sit on His left hand, Shanna. Sinister. How could you have missed the whole New Testament?

Melissa, in all honesty and not being a smart-ass. What has your god done that is good and what has your god done either directly or through an act of omission that has resulted in death?

People need to read the Bible. 1. God has given us free will to chose to believe or not to believe. 2. Suffering brings you closer to God. Most people don't pray everyday but let something happen to them and what do they do? They pray. 3. God doesn't think of death as you and I do. When someone dies, thier soul leave this earth and we grieve. But where does that soul go? With God. He has those 20 children right now and I bet they are having the time of their lives!!!!!! They're not missing us one single bit. 4. Evil was involved in this situation. It was evil that caused that man to shoot those babies. It is evil that makes men and women turn their backs on God. And it will be evil that dooms us all. 5. God does good every day. You just have to open up your narrow minds and see it.

Shanna - you have not listed a single specific thing your god has done. You have only used flowering rhetoric. Please point to something he has accomplished and answered your prayers.

It is a story you will never hear. Nobody lived to tell it.

This is all we ever do in response to these kinds of tragedies. We have grown into an excellent grieving country. My brother was killed in a gun incident in 1987, I have heard this comment about "now is not the time" for 25 YEARS! its time to do something about this problem. This culture needs to be changed and putting it off one more minute will not improve anything. Get ANGRY about this and don't stop until we have protections in place.

Mark, when you civil rights deniers start to be honest with yourselves and others and state the true goal of your actions, the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, then we can talk. How much do we restrict YOUR freedom of speech and YOUR right ot be secure in your possessions?

Sanchez, I beg your pardon, but you are not paying attention here or elsewhere. I have worked for civil rights for the past 35 years. I believe all of us should be included. My problem with semi-automatic weapons is that a single person can kill 26 people in a matter of a few minutes. If the young man on Friday did not have a semi-automatic weapon he would have been stopped before that tragedy grew so large. What I am suggesting is that there should be reasonable limits to the right to bear arms just like there are limits to our free speech. You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theater that is not burning. There is a limit to how fast you can drive your car. You have the freedom to talk on your cell phone but not while driving your car. Disallowing you to own semi-automatic weapons does not remove your right to own weapons. It just reduces the rate at which you can shoot people. I have no intention of ever working to overturn the second amendment. I am just as afraid of a government who has all the guns as I am of all my neighbors carrying guns around my neighborhood. They act to balance each other. Do we agree, at least on that point?

Its time for reasonable people to stand up to the ridiculous language of those promoting more guns. They have bullied us for long enough. The promotion of the military has lead us into two wars that have drained our country financially and they blame it on entitlement programs that we have paid for all our working years. Enough is enough. We need solutions to this violence problem. We glorify shooting and fighting and that culture has lead us to this violent place. We have all kinds of "War Memorial" Highways in this country. Where do we have even one single monument to those who seek peace? The "Be all you cam be" meme is killing us. We need to stop this craziness now.

Mark, we will always have a military, we will always have guns, and we will always have wars. You and everyone else on this page will NEVER stop this. What you can do, is take away guns from the average law abiding citizen and leave the guns in the hands of just the miltary and the criminals. I want my guns. there is no reason why I shouldn't continue to have my guns or be able to buy new ones.

Big turnout of the Civil Rights Deniers at the NRA protest eh Mark?

No one is "promoting guns" Mark . We are fighting to keep our civil rights intact against the onslaught of fascists who want to deny them.

You are promoting guns. You are NOT promoting a solution to this violence. Your answers are all about keeping the most powerful weapons available. You, nor anyone else needs semi-automatic weapons unless you intend to kill people. You and I look at human life in a very different way.

My man Sanchez, locked, loaded and ready to defend the republic.

YOU nor anyone else Mark can tell me what I "need" or want. NOBODY.

"You and I look at human life in a very different way."
Mark, do you support abortion? Then yes we do look at human life in different ways. I am FOR human life especially among the weakest.
Mark, are you a supporter of

Solutions to violence. Incarcerate, Incarcerate, Incarcerate. Society also must realize that some people just can't be rehabilitated and life in prison or death is the only answer. The legal system needs to set up to protect the victims and not allow scum bag lawyers to get their clients off on a technicality. The government needs to realize that criminals don't care about laws and will use any weapon they can to commit a crime so allow the law abiding citizen the ability to protect them self with equal or greater force.

Sanchez, you have difficulty staying on topic.

Eastrider, Just how will incarceration have prevented the shooting on Friday? You cannot lock up a dead shooter or his mother. Efforts need to be made before events like this happen. We allow things like this to happen when we live in denial that we can do something about it. We need to use the influence of the law to prevent or reduce the frequency of these gun incidents.

2.3 million people are currently incarcerated, Dr. Eastsider. I think you got your wish.

Next, would you recommend some--BWA HA HA--jean-etic purging, shall we say?

Either way, your tax bill is in the mail.

From what I hear, vermin doesn't cook up real well after being hit by a couple .223 rounds...

I could live with (literally and figuratively) with a complete ban semi autos and "assault weapons." Looks like a lovely picture in my mind's eye.

Assault weapons would be a good start, yes. Or at least restrict them so that they are stored safely at gun ranges only.

More importantly, there are many ways around background checks that could be tightened. Why not start there?

To answer your questions, Eastsider, melt them. 20 years no parole for possessing one.

Sanchez is a multi-thread topic changer - he pulled this on another active thread today.

HHHMMMM - maybe this puts him in the same class as the occasional Coach Bag spammer that throws his ads onto every thread. I'll have to think about whether to click on the "flag as inappropriate" button - maybe there will be yet another suspension coming...

Frank - I have asked the question. I believe it is a reasonable question. Could you respond to the question without the antics? Frank - even you were a Fetus a one time.

"Yet, you libbies are ok with abortion, which is just as horrid as what just happened."
"I mean the results here are the same, yet your positions are completely different."

I think you need to explain your position that abortions and this tragedy are equivalent, because that is a substantial logical leap.

I'm expecting Sanchez to come flying in with a cut & paste on "Fast & Terminated" any minute now.

I thought this was about stopping gun violence - you folks will do anything to change the subject when your losing the argument, won't you.

This is the "sooner or later" moment for gun control. Better get used to the idea.

Deep...very deep. Thousands of fetuses spontaneously abort daily. I guess. Do you have deep insight into wombs?

Interesting. Responses by the "crew" are about as expected. You do follow the liberal playbook well. The responses I expected were:

Jokes to undermine the poster. Check
I don't understand the equivalent of govt. funded abortion (otherwise known as killing of unborn babies) to this tragedy. Check
Sarcasm Check

This was a horrible situation. But by the time it takes me to get to work and come home, I am sure 26 opportunites to live and experience life have been snuffed out. Not by a madman, but by a legal and approved procedure. And we as society have let this continue.
If we look to ban these weapons, fine with me - but we as society must also take this time look at our actions and what we support. Money and things come and go -but our morals and values are our legacy.

RMI - Take your abortion arguments to an abortion thread. This one is about gun violence. It's better to keep the issues focused.

HH - so obviously you do know how these issues overlap. When the issues don't fit the agenda, you wish to exclude the topic - to never come up again.
The faces of those killed bring tremendous sadness to all of us.
But what about those faces of babies we will never go to see, and their killings are done out front for all to see? They never got a chance in life either.
I don't understand how one can correctly feel deep sadness for these young children gunned down and not feel the same sadness for those who never had a chance to be born and do great things - and want to change both of those situations. We are actually PAYING doctors for these procedures.
Both situations are morally the same.
Question for you - how are they different? Please give specifics. How can you or anyone be horrified of these disgusting killings, but not be horrified of the killings routinely done during business hours and the industry that has been created?

"I don't understand the equivalent of govt. funded abortion (otherwise known as killing of unborn babies) to this tragedy."

I didn't insult you or use sarcasm. You wanted to know why someone might have different opinions since you equate them. I don't equate them, so I don't see anything logically inconsistent about having different opinions. How do you equate them?

Do you equate euthanasia to this tragedy?