My guess is that you have to factor the number of people we have in the U.S and the amount of guns held by them in the U.S. I do remember a post showing the world and where we stand on % of violence per capita. I will try and look for it for you.

Now let us think about what we hear about daily on the news, do you follow these other countries knowing what happens there daily, but boy, if some movie star farts crooked on a slow newsday ever news agency talks about it.
Please reread the top five posted before....It happens all over the world- Evil people do evil all over and that is a fact we must understand even if we don't see it first hand.

It's one thing to come back here and preach your agenda from your soapbox, Cami. We all do that at one time or another. But you should really drop the holier-than-thou crap. It doesn't suit you.

Sorry you feel that way, I would rather you tell me what is really wrong with what I posted.

Maybe you are just use to the name calling which I have witness here.
no holier- then crap as far as I am cocern just facts and presented with adult wording...with respect to all. And that is what I would like in return. Please?

SHAME ON ME??? Shame on YOU! It was a terrible attack in China. Children were maimed and children were grievously wounded. However, the children SURVIVED. And any of the parents in CT would have given anything to have their children alive. Yes, perhaps horribly wounded, but ALIVE.

As a parent, I can't imagine how horrible it was for those parents in China. However, at least when they wake up the next day, they can still hug and kiss their children, something that the parents in Newtown were forever robbed of.

My point, if you got off your high horse to actually look at what I wrote, is that while a knife attack is a dreadful thing, the children survived. That is the critical difference between a knife attack and an attack with the kind of repeat, repeat weapons that were used in Newtown.

Thank you for making your point of view that much clearer. I am sorry that we do not think the same way, and I guess that is the Amerivan way after all. Have a happy and safe holiday.

Babe, it is not often that I agree with you, but I do in this instance. I'd rather have my child harmed, but alive rather than, oh, I don't know ... dead.

And CDon, perhaps if you trimmed a little of the fat off of your porky post above, I would have read it in total. Indeed, a whole lot of the time, brevity is the soul of wit.

The one where the grahics didn't show? Without them I would agree no graphics, no meat, but I tried.
the graphics did answer her question. It just wasn't meant to be I guess.
I will delete it....

We go back a long time here, Cami. We know each other's style as well as some of the other old-timers. I know you're passionate about your arguments, as is Sicilian Babe about hers but I found your reply to Sicilian Babe to be very cruel and condescending. She doesn't need anyone to talk for her (as you don't either) but my remark was a knee-jerk reaction to what you wrote.

I don't think anything will change people's minds on this. I don't agree politically with the NRA. But if we are honest there are more than a few people on the gun control side who really would like to limit just about all weapons to police and military. I'm not in favor of that. The NYT had an editorial yesterday that talked about the "scourge" of concealed weapons. The NYT thought that "shall issue" permits were a bad idea and that the states should be forced by the federal government to rescind such laws.

Now whatever you may think of such laws, they have not in fact, caused increases in shootouts. The people who go to the trouble of taking the class and getting the permit generally speaking are not the people causing carnage. There won't be "reasonable" gun control discussion because people on both sides see a slippery slope.

SB,

I agree with you as well regarding China tragedy. As horrifying as it would be to have my child harmed, at least he/she wouldn't be dead.

No matter how much spin, how many articles/statistics are posted OR how many "don't take my 2nd amendment rights" are repeated (at nauseum), for God's sake, it takes more to vote (longer lines/waits) in some states than to purchase a gun. We MUST at least try to know WHO has guns to the best of our ability and BACKGROUNDS checks are NOT taking away rights.

All that being said, and as angry as this subject makes me, I still maintain that nothing will be done in the end. So gun lovers relax. For me, I refuse to accept the "there's nothing to see, everything else is to blame but guns, move on" attitude. It's hard to sit back & accept.

So, on my part, for starters, I e-mailed my local congressman (a-hole that he is) and got back a form e-mail saying "how I am working for you", blah blah, blah without even mentioning the topic of my e-mail.

TIS

Neither am I, Lilo. That's all I've been trying to say for the past week. I'd never want to put limitations on handgun, shotgun or hunting rifle ownership for those who qualify. Just the military style repeat weapons (I'm going out of my way not to call them assault weapons for fear of mislabeling them and offending their supporters). But you're right, both sides see any kind of concession as a slippery slope of some kind, which I think is ridiculous. But that's what I get for being in the middle politically. Everyone hates my opinions .

Strange but last I checked, the gun control people aren't actually advocating abolition of gun ownership. Besides the fact that has as much support in America as Jets fans do with Mark Sanchez starting another game for their team, notice what the left are calling for, among many measures proposed/discussed from that wide spectrum: Ban on sales of Assault weapons, limiting the number of bullets in a magazine clip, local/state gun buyback programs, extending the Brady Bill (and background checks) onto private sales like the Internet, not arming teachers but police/trained volunteer guards in schools*, tightening up measures to keep the mentally ill from getting guns, and so many more.

Do any of these proposals sound unreasonable?

*=Which the NRA actually advocated in their disasterous press conference on friday.

for people still confused, there is no such thing as buying guns off the internet without a backround check, nothing but spin that counts on people being unaware and uninformed of the reality. if you want to buy a weapon online, you have to have it sent to a ffl(federal firearms licensed) dealer near you, and pay a fee, as its against federal law to ship guns through the mail. the weapon you choose must comply with all state laws for the state in which its being shipped to. once it arrives at the dealer and you go to pick it up, the backround check is done there. obviously if you don't pass, you don't get the weapon.

How valuable are background checks? Why does a person purchase a gun? Well, among the reasons, one is to committ a crime. If you are a felon, it makes little sense to purchase a gun that requires a background check if your intention is to committ a crime. If you are mentally ill, it is statistically unlikely that you have been adjudicated as such by a court. Thus, it is just unlikely that there is an accessible record of your illness. So, to the extent that background checks would seem to preclude some felons and mentally ill persons from legally obtaining firearms, they are valuable, but they are no panacea.

There are a few gun control minded people who actually are calling for a ban of all private ownership of guns or something so close as to be no different. They are a small minority of course but they do exist. I don't think a total ban will ever happen. With so many guns in private hands (300 million!!!) it would be near impossible. But gun rights organizations fear monger over stuff like this. Neither side believes the other side is telling the truth about what they really want...

http://metrotimes.com/columns/ban-all-guns-now-1.1418281

http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/105264/can-we-please-drop-the-gun-rights-pc-ness

http://nt.gmnews.com/news/2012-12-26/Columns/Time_to_ban_all_guns.html

http://americablog.com/2012/12/its-time-to-ban-guns-completely.html

I'm not an anti-gun nut. They have their place in society. However, there are glaring loopholes that you can drive a truck through. You should not be able to buy unlimited amounts of ammunition, like the guy in Aurora did. Private sales need to be better regulated, and that includes gun shows. An age limit needs to be set. A 10 year old can't drive a car for the obvious reasons and I believe that the same should be said for guns. A child can't possibly understand the great responsibility that goes with the weapon.

And these military-type weapons should not be available to the general public.

There are age limits for different types of guns, i know here in mass you can buy a shotgun or a rifle at 18, but you cant buy a handgun til 21 i believe it is, though it may be 24.

Nearly 250,000 and growing.

White House Petition To Recognize Westboro Baptist Church As Hate Group Becomes Most Popular Ever

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitio...-group/DYf3pH2d

Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain myself properly. I didn't meant to own a gun, I meant to shoot one. There are people who take their children to the shooting range and allow them to fire a weapon. They're even allowed to fire guns at some gun shows. I don't know if the laws vary by state, although I would imagine so. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a small child firing a weapon.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/ns/us_news-life/t/boy-accidentally-kills-self-gun-show/

That is very tragic. We've been taking our son to the firing range for a few years now. He's 16 now. He loves to go shooting. If he feels he can't handle one of our guns he don't have to shoot it.

I don't see anything wrong taking kids to the firing range if they are mature enough. It would also depend on what they were shooting.

I think giving an 8 year old an Uzi is simply stupid, and had a horribly tragic end. I was shocked to find that a child that young could go to a gun show and be handed such a weapon! There definitely needs to be a law against that.

Completely agree with that. The parents should've known better.

I would think there is an age limit in certain states as well, but that goes with the driving point you had made too, even if its illegal parents will still teach their kid how to drive at a young age by letting them. Though at a gun show, that is a bit idiotic to let a kid shot any kind of gun other than a red ryder.

I just saw this thread that shooting in sandy hook got to me and trust me on this nothing gets to me. I don't see death like other normal people see death.

But all those little angels killed bothered me.

They should be safe in school. If it takes armed guards that are not afraid to get close to a shorter before they shoot they should have them. But hard to find guys not afraid to get close to do what needs to be done.

You can not legislate guns. There too easy to get and all the legislation would mean the price if guns to the bad guys will just go up.

There was a school shooting today here in CA, Taft High School (Kern County) Fortunately nobody killed, with 2 injured, one hospitalized. Details are still coming in. The shooter, a student, is in custody.



http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/high-school-shooting-taft-california-183012601.html


TIS

CNN is "Breaking" another school shooting in Texas. Just happened. Details not yet reported.




TIS

MSNBC says multiple people shot at Harris County College (Lone Star) in Texas

This must have JUST happened. Details still coming in. People told to take immediate shelter where they are. One person in custody (don't know if there are more shooters).




TIS

Here's an article on it:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Shots-reportedly-fired-at-local-college-4214123.php

This is pretty close to where I used to live, and Lone Star's a college that quite a few of my high school classmates have attended at some point. It was apparently a fight between two students, not a shootout against a crowd - and one of the two (or both?) had a gun.