People are responsible for their own actions. The only way to stop an active shooter (or someone using a knife, ect... China on the same day) the only way is to meet force with force. Had the principal been trained and had the opportunity to respond armed, there might have been a completely different outcome. This tragedy is heartbreaking.
If a dialogue needs to go forward, it would irresponsible to allow the likes of Durbin, Pelosi, Reid, or even Boehner and Obama to come to the table, ad they have an agenda to disarm the people and not just to seek answers in light of this tragedy. And, before any meaningful talks should take place, the existing laws need to be enforced. And, while doing so, lets discuss the impact of video games, movies, media-biasing and brainwashing on the people. Lets discuss the mental hi
Ralph Green - 11 years ago
EDUCATION ! Yes this was a tragedy ! Was it a tragedy that could have been avoidable? YES ! Could it have been avoided if the mother (suppoledly an educator) had opted for tough love for a child that need professional help? PROBLY ! how? If an educated proffessional in the field of mental health problem area that the child had was treating him and done his/her job correctly he may not have been without proper supervision ! If the mother had done her "LEGAL " responsibilities and had the firearms secured so that "A mentally troubled youth could not get access to them without supervision would this tragedy happened? "NO !" will banning firearms correct the problem ? "NO !" EDUCATION
Gun banning fails from it's inception. Gun banning will never stop the black market, stolen guns, or homemade guns. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/120-rifles-stolen-metro-atlanta-train/nTJ2k/
Greg Hart - 11 years ago
This question is flawed, the guns in question were semi-automatics. The difference is when you pull the trigger on a semi-auto, one round is fired. On a fully automatic gun, once the trigger is pulled the gun doesn't stop shooting until the trigger is released, unless the gun is designed to fire three round bursts.
People often use the term "automatic" when they should be using the term "semi-automatic" or "auto-loading".
The difference between the two is huge.
R POWELL - 11 years ago
GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. GUNS CAN NOT KILL. THEY HAVE NO FEELING AND NO ANGER. IT IS THESE STUPID PEOPLE BEHIND THE GUN THAT KILLS. YOU CAN LOAD AND COCK A GUN AND PUT IT ON A TABLE AND IT WILL LAY THERE AND DO NOTHING TILL SOME ONE PICKS IT UP. SO LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL, GUNS DO NOT KILL IF YOU START THAT CRAP THEN YOU HAVE TO BAN CARS, PLANES, AND BOATS. AS YOU PUT IT THEY HAVE KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS. ANY TIME WASHINGTON GETS INVOLVE IN ANYTHING AND I MEAN ANYTHING THEY SCREW IT UP TO THE HILT. WASHINGTON JUST NEEDS TO GET OUT OF OUR LIVES. ( WE NEED MUCH SMALLER GOVERMENT AND I MEAN MUCH SMALLER GOVERMENT ) GUNS ARE WHAT KEEPS AMERICA FREE FROM THE GOVERMENT. THE GOVERMENT WANT THE GOOD TO PAY FOR WHAT THE EVIL HAS DONE. TAKE UP THE GUNS AND SEE HOW LONG WE WILL BE A FREE COUNTRY. WE WILL BECOME JUST LIKE THE MIDDLE EAST. NO I DO NOT THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD GIVE UP THEIR GUNS AT ANY COST. KILLINGS HAVE BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE START OF TIME, AND IT WILL GO ON WHEN WE ARE DEAD AND GONE AND THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO STOP IT. THAT IS A FACT SO FACE IT.
Doreen - 11 years ago
This young man said it best....
Nate13•19 hours ago−
I hate to become a one-trick pony on these message boards, but I'm going to bring up an old theme I've been harping on lately: nihilism.
We live in an age of moral relativism that, having no foundation on which to stand, is rapidly descending into nihilism - the absence of morality or any justification for it. I'm going to leave the shooter's intentions alone for the time, as I'm sure those will be discussed at length for weeks.
I'm talking about nihilism not just in the shooter, but in the broader culture that attempts to understand these horrific events without a moral reference point. In the aftermath, we attempt to get more and more legalistic, bureaucratic, and technocratic to solve problems that can't be legislated away.
These events are products of sick, evil people in an increasingly sick culture that has no stomach for "outdated" concepts like absolute right and wrong. We believe if we could just pass enough well-worded laws, we could eliminate this behavior from society. We treat these tragedies as outputs, thinking that we can just tinker with the inputs enough to get our desired results.
For God's sake, the bodies were still warm and we were already talking about piles upon piles of statistics, as if the problem of violent gun crime could be solved mathematically with some study or Congressional inquiry. I'm afraid that, absent the presence of morality in our discussions of these murders, we have no tools to solve the underlying problems except legalism and policy making. People will keep fixating on the problems with guns because we've become woefully inadequate at talking about problems inherent in humanity.
It always amuses me in pitying way when I hear people retreat even further into nihilism after an event like this by making that old appeal to the "Argument of Evil" which asks, "If there truly is a good god, why does he allow such evil deeds?" As if the very presence of evil invalidates the possibility or under-pinning for good!
Forgive my frustration, but what right do we have to even speak about evil in our society? We are so immersed in violence, greed, sex, instant gratification, and materialism that we've lost all sense of what evil even looks like. To know evil, you must first know good. And while we work ourselves into a righteous huff over "evil" for 2% of the year when these disgusting acts occur, for the other 98% we desperately try to rebel against all forms of conventional morality - that cramps our style, doesn't it?
A child one minute before passing through the birth canal can have a pair of surgical scissors put through his or her brain without society batting an eye. A fully formed, breathing, crying, desperate, helpless baby who is the result of a botched abortion has no entitlement to life in parts of this "enlightened" Western world. And we talk about "evil"?
Government officials pass guns to cartels to slaughter civilians, and we get to talk about "evil"?
Corrupt businessmen get to use their connections to the power brokers in Washington to access public funds to bail out their billion dollar corporations (who went broke in part due to unbridled greed), and we sit here and talk about evil?
We can start talking about "evil" when we as a society find our lost sense of "good". But we can't relegate morality to the fringes, then demand to know where God was.
Doreen - 11 years ago
First of all the guns were NOT automatic....and Automatic guns have been illegal for years... We need tougher laws on the mentally ill .. or more services out there for them.. Most Insurances do Not cover the mentally ill... or programs for them... Guns will NOT kill unless you have a NUT case behind them...Besides when you change all the gun laws or ban guns.. Do you think that a "wicked" person out there couldnt find a way to purchase a gun off the streets? I myself would NOT try to do a crime if I knew the one I was holding a gun on could possible being carrying themself.. Ask yourself that question??
My heart go out to the familes that lost lives.. it was a sad day in America. :(
John - 11 years ago
The over litigious rules and regulations regarding guns as well as other things was part of the reason I moved out of NJ to a red state
Rick - 11 years ago
This question is very revealing. It reveals how completely IGNORANT the media is, relative to firearms! The obvious liberal bias is also revealed.
JOhn - 11 years ago
No, I favor tighter controls on the mentally unstable. From all descriptions, that young man should have been institutionalized, not free on the streets, but our bleeding hearts feel that is wrong, which also explains a significant percentage of the "Homeless."
Albert Almeida - 11 years ago
It is nice to see that as of 2:13 pm, this poll has 2013 smart people on here voting
Robert - 11 years ago
First off, let's be very clear. NO automatic weapon was used in Connecticut or the two Colorado shootings. Automatic weapons are illegal to own unless you have a permit and those are extremely difficult to obtain. Semi automatic weapons on the other hand come in all shapes and sizes. Military style weapons are no different internally than common hunting and target weapons. The sime fact is that 99.99% of all gun owners are responsible. One only has to look as far as Chicago to see that excess gun laws aren't working.
Ed in Hoboken - 11 years ago
His poll has this as an answer: Yes. No civilian needs automatic weapons.
However, AUTOMATIC weapons were banned in 1934, and the shooter did NOT have an Automatic weapon.
Which DAVID says is just Semantics. Like getting the facts right is just Semantics.
The difference between Automatic and semi-Automatic is not semantics.
One is legal, one will get you a LONG prison sentence just for holding it.
One shoots a single bullet when you pull the trigger, one shoots ALL your bullets, when you pull the trigger.
In his poll, he asks people to declare that "no one needs" something that virtually no one HAS.
And can't get. Including the police.
What they HAVE is very different.
If you want people to discuss the issue, inform them, so their discussion is worth something.
Not decrying something no one has, including the shooter.
Also, why not ask if people think the staff should have been allowed to carry guns to protect themselves, rather than being forbidden to do so, by Federal Law.
You might also point out that CT has some of the strictest gun laws in the country already. How'd that work out?
Have you noticed that all these shootings are in Gun Free Zones -- they attract the crazies. They know no one will shoot back. Easy pickings.
Ed
On Monday, December 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, "David Chmiel" wrote:
No bias here. Also not here to debate semantics. I do want people to discuss the issue. Thanks for your feedback, please don't hesitate to contact me any time you have a point to make about anything...
Sent from my iPhone
George - 11 years ago
"Yes. No civilian needs automatic weapons."
Automatic weapons? Automatic? Really? Figures that the folks behind a web page from New Jersey would not know the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic".
Just put up more "gun-free zone" signs everywhere. And make them a LOT bigger. That was probably the problem. Adam Lanza didn't see the sign that said "gun-free zone" because it was too small. OR maybe he couldn't read too well.
On second thought, install a recording that repeats "This is a gun-free zone, please do not bring weapons into this area." Have it play that message in 5 or 6 different languages. And be sure that it says "please". Because if it doesn't say "please", a person with a gun or any other type of weapon intent on carrying out a massacre might disregard the message.
Yeah, that should work.
JL - 11 years ago
Live by the sword--die by the sword. Why don't the religious gunmongers remember that one?
Art S - 11 years ago
Gun control works.
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
Gary Smith - 11 years ago
THIS IS A TRICK QUESTION. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS!
Chris Gardes - 11 years ago
Typical NJ.com uninformed nonsense. Automatic weapons? Why don't you get to the heart of the issue; mental illness and a mother who leaves firearms accessible her mentally unstable son.
200 million law abiding gun owners did NOT use their guns to commit a crime today. A handful of them will actually prevent, deter, and actively thwart it. But you won't read about any possible benefits to firearms ownership here or any other mainstream media source.
Anthony - 11 years ago
The poll is skewed. I don't think guns are the problem, but no citizen needs automatic weapons. That part of the "yes" answer should not be there.
Additionally, it is nearly impossible to buy an automatic weapon in the vast majority of the country, and certainly in NJ.
Dave - 11 years ago
The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense. Limiting the types of weapons available to law abiding citizens will not deter crime. Criminals don't pay attention to laws. OJ used a knife
Frank - 11 years ago
You can't get rid of guns just like you can't get rid of drugs. So what do you do???? EDUCATE PEOPLE and HELP THE MENTALLY ILL!!!!!!
Janice - 11 years ago
I am aghast after reading the comments here. Who cares if these weapons are not technically automatic? You are trying to change the subject and you ego is showing as you present yourself to be a weapons expert. Who cares? 20 dead children and 6 teachers are dead and I am certain their families are not concerned about the politically correct name for the weapon that killed them.
And for those of you who advocate for guns in school that is horrendous. You argue that more guns is the answer. Armed teachers for God sake. Adam Lanza's mother was a gun owner. How did that work out for her? Please, again, for God sake open your eyes.
Politicalpony - 11 years ago
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A quick history lesson for the unknowing and unaware. Ironic that I should open with the following:
Connecticut gun code of 1650:
"All persons shall bear arms, and every male person shall have in continual readiness a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service."
Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
Noah Webster, 1787:
"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 of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
John P. - 11 years ago
The answer to violent crime is to issue more concealed carry permits to the good, law abiding citizens. This is tacitly acknowledged by the calls to have armed cops posted in our schools. But it would be much cheaper and more effective if we let principals, vice-principals, and teachers carry guns in schools, where they could cover more locations than one cop could, and are more familiar with the facilities.
When seconds count, remember that the police are minutes away. So-called "gun free zones" simply create Happy Hunting Grounds for Psychopaths. You'll never hear about a psychopath going on a shooting rampage at a public gun range; they aren't THAT crazy.
bobby joey - 11 years ago
this poll shows your ignorance...the guns used in the Newtown shooting were not Automatic....these are already regulated.
susan eldridge - 11 years ago
Take a look at prescription meds (psychotropic drugs) therein the problem lies .... http://cegant.com/commentary/school-shootings-and-psychiatric-drugs
Charles Measley - 11 years ago
Dear NJ.com whoever wrote the questions in this poll is extremely uneducated. Fully automatic weapons are virtually illegal in the United States. So the school shootings whether it be Columnbine, Virginia Tech or the recent tragedy in Connecticut have not used fully automatic weapons. Do your research next time!
Randy Scott - 11 years ago
Just some random thoughts to share:
An armed society is a safe society.
The act that is bringing the gun debate to a head was committed by pure evil.
Timothy McVeigh did not use a firearm in 1995 and his favorite move was "Red Dawn."
Teachers if willing should be allowed to conceal carry on one's person - not in a locked draw
where a student would eventually gain access.
By changing the laws pertaining to firearms, you will only DISARM law bidding American People. Once you disarm communities, a repeat of the 2004 Beslan Massacre will happen in the US. According to the intelligence community, this massacre was a dress rehearsal for an
event that has NJ on its list.
Renato - 11 years ago
We don't blame cars for drunk drivers so why do we blame guns for violent criminals ?
John - 11 years ago
Violent video games are the problem. He probably just thinks he "made a mistake" and respawned into another life. I guarantee he was 3x prestige in cod
Firearms are for protecting the innocent, family, friends, community - as well as property; and for sport and hunting. We need to address these tragic occurrences with the burning question about the morality of our society and how weak our family values are - not appease the tyrants in Washington who do not want citizens to protect themselves from "foreign and domestic enemies" and protection of life, liberty, property, and unarmed fellow Americans.
What should be reformed is our educational system, which the federal government has failed - believing that legislation and more funding is always the answer to problems. The solution is that the family nucleus must once again be strong, government remove itself from unconstitutional regulations and legislation, put matters of education back to the state governments and local communities that cooperate with a parent-teacher situation. Society needs to quit considering morality and traditional family values as "old school". The Golden Rule is never outdated and is global.
There are irresponsible drivers out on the road every day - should there be a ban on motorized vehicles over 50 horsepower? Get real, folks.
This poll states in the "Yes" portion that "no civilian needs automatic weapons" ...
Fact: No civilian is allowed automatic weapons without proper permit -- and weapons used in recent tragedies were not automatic weapons.
This is part of the problem with polls - the manner of the choices and questions, the wording. The people who advocate the right under the 2nd Amendment do not disagree that civilians require automatic weapons (machine guns). To point out the ignorance of gun control advocates in Washington, Feinstein does not know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.
The real problem is SOCIETY. Back when there was not any real gun control, did you read about public shootings like this? If there is a rise of nutcases like the dirt bag at Newton, CT, then two things need to be addressed: (1) What is wrong with our society? and (2) background checks must be thorough in determining mental capabilities.
However, in the Newton case, the mother legally owned those firearms - and the son used them against her and innocent babies and teachers.
Is Feinstein against violent video games that children are allowed to have and play?
Is Feinstein performing or ever performed a study that the family nucleus is falling apart in America because government does not hold marriage as a sanctified institution? Broken families equals broken children.
Morals and values are not sponsored by governments through their programs; thus we have promiscuous sex and infanticide. The same people who are crying to get rid of firearms from the hands of its citizens promotes mass infanticide and expects the taxpayers to pay for abortion clinics. Sex education was meant for children to understand the reproductive process, not promote sex before marriage or irresponsible sex. There is something wrong with American society when children at age 12 are getting abortions. It is also a bad mark against the family nucleus of America.
The shooting in Connecticut and Colorado are examples of our youth manifesting/venting their troubles onto innocent bystanders.
The problem in American society is not pinpointed to one factor, and certainly not inanimate objects like firearms. I trust NO government or the people operating it who want to take away the means of self-protection. T. Jefferson: "When people fear their government their is tyranny, when government fears the people there is liberty". Have we not learned from Hurricane Katrina the result of people not afforded the 2nd Amendment self-defense liberty? Does anyone realize that private homes were broken into by local, state, and federal authorities to confiscate firearms from law-abiding people - while the criminals still possessed firearms?
Nothing has broken my heart more than to see little children hurt and killed by anyone for any reason, but instantly the control freaks who think they can legislate all troubles away, begin their misguided advocacy of making the 2nd Amendment null and void. Worse, they use falsified and incorrect statistics to get people to agree with them. I am the third generation within a family that believes in the 2nd Amendment, and during that long period in American history, not one person in that family misused a firearm. It is because we have been taught at a young age that firearms are to be respected, not misused, and is not the answer for anger or any irresponsible thoughts or actions.
The same people who want to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens and dissolve the 2nd Amendment, also advocate that the 1st Amendment be applied in only certain cases; as well as think nothing of murdering unborn infants in numbers that makes Hitler's Final Solution look amateurish; or think nothing of sending its youth to some stupid war caused by misguided foreign policy and bull-crap politics - all of which whose policies has yet to work.
I am sick of hypocritical politicians and their socialist policies and advocacy for government control from cradle
Billy Budd - 11 years ago
Your poll is bollocks. We are not talking about automatic weapons. Automatic weapons in civilian hands are already illegal unless federally registered and licensed to an very small community of approved individuals.
john - 11 years ago
The question is wrong the guns were not automatic. Automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1930s.
People are responsible for their own actions. The only way to stop an active shooter (or someone using a knife, ect... China on the same day) the only way is to meet force with force. Had the principal been trained and had the opportunity to respond armed, there might have been a completely different outcome. This tragedy is heartbreaking.
If a dialogue needs to go forward, it would irresponsible to allow the likes of Durbin, Pelosi, Reid, or even Boehner and Obama to come to the table, ad they have an agenda to disarm the people and not just to seek answers in light of this tragedy. And, before any meaningful talks should take place, the existing laws need to be enforced. And, while doing so, lets discuss the impact of video games, movies, media-biasing and brainwashing on the people. Lets discuss the mental hi
EDUCATION ! Yes this was a tragedy ! Was it a tragedy that could have been avoidable? YES ! Could it have been avoided if the mother (suppoledly an educator) had opted for tough love for a child that need professional help? PROBLY ! how? If an educated proffessional in the field of mental health problem area that the child had was treating him and done his/her job correctly he may not have been without proper supervision ! If the mother had done her "LEGAL " responsibilities and had the firearms secured so that "A mentally troubled youth could not get access to them without supervision would this tragedy happened? "NO !" will banning firearms correct the problem ? "NO !" EDUCATION
Gun banning fails from it's inception. Gun banning will never stop the black market, stolen guns, or homemade guns. http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/120-rifles-stolen-metro-atlanta-train/nTJ2k/
This question is flawed, the guns in question were semi-automatics. The difference is when you pull the trigger on a semi-auto, one round is fired. On a fully automatic gun, once the trigger is pulled the gun doesn't stop shooting until the trigger is released, unless the gun is designed to fire three round bursts.
People often use the term "automatic" when they should be using the term "semi-automatic" or "auto-loading".
The difference between the two is huge.
GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. GUNS CAN NOT KILL. THEY HAVE NO FEELING AND NO ANGER. IT IS THESE STUPID PEOPLE BEHIND THE GUN THAT KILLS. YOU CAN LOAD AND COCK A GUN AND PUT IT ON A TABLE AND IT WILL LAY THERE AND DO NOTHING TILL SOME ONE PICKS IT UP. SO LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL, GUNS DO NOT KILL IF YOU START THAT CRAP THEN YOU HAVE TO BAN CARS, PLANES, AND BOATS. AS YOU PUT IT THEY HAVE KILLED MORE PEOPLE THAN GUNS. ANY TIME WASHINGTON GETS INVOLVE IN ANYTHING AND I MEAN ANYTHING THEY SCREW IT UP TO THE HILT. WASHINGTON JUST NEEDS TO GET OUT OF OUR LIVES. ( WE NEED MUCH SMALLER GOVERMENT AND I MEAN MUCH SMALLER GOVERMENT ) GUNS ARE WHAT KEEPS AMERICA FREE FROM THE GOVERMENT. THE GOVERMENT WANT THE GOOD TO PAY FOR WHAT THE EVIL HAS DONE. TAKE UP THE GUNS AND SEE HOW LONG WE WILL BE A FREE COUNTRY. WE WILL BECOME JUST LIKE THE MIDDLE EAST. NO I DO NOT THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD GIVE UP THEIR GUNS AT ANY COST. KILLINGS HAVE BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE START OF TIME, AND IT WILL GO ON WHEN WE ARE DEAD AND GONE AND THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO TO STOP IT. THAT IS A FACT SO FACE IT.
This young man said it best....
Nate13•19 hours ago−
I hate to become a one-trick pony on these message boards, but I'm going to bring up an old theme I've been harping on lately: nihilism.
We live in an age of moral relativism that, having no foundation on which to stand, is rapidly descending into nihilism - the absence of morality or any justification for it. I'm going to leave the shooter's intentions alone for the time, as I'm sure those will be discussed at length for weeks.
I'm talking about nihilism not just in the shooter, but in the broader culture that attempts to understand these horrific events without a moral reference point. In the aftermath, we attempt to get more and more legalistic, bureaucratic, and technocratic to solve problems that can't be legislated away.
These events are products of sick, evil people in an increasingly sick culture that has no stomach for "outdated" concepts like absolute right and wrong. We believe if we could just pass enough well-worded laws, we could eliminate this behavior from society. We treat these tragedies as outputs, thinking that we can just tinker with the inputs enough to get our desired results.
For God's sake, the bodies were still warm and we were already talking about piles upon piles of statistics, as if the problem of violent gun crime could be solved mathematically with some study or Congressional inquiry. I'm afraid that, absent the presence of morality in our discussions of these murders, we have no tools to solve the underlying problems except legalism and policy making. People will keep fixating on the problems with guns because we've become woefully inadequate at talking about problems inherent in humanity.
It always amuses me in pitying way when I hear people retreat even further into nihilism after an event like this by making that old appeal to the "Argument of Evil" which asks, "If there truly is a good god, why does he allow such evil deeds?" As if the very presence of evil invalidates the possibility or under-pinning for good!
Forgive my frustration, but what right do we have to even speak about evil in our society? We are so immersed in violence, greed, sex, instant gratification, and materialism that we've lost all sense of what evil even looks like. To know evil, you must first know good. And while we work ourselves into a righteous huff over "evil" for 2% of the year when these disgusting acts occur, for the other 98% we desperately try to rebel against all forms of conventional morality - that cramps our style, doesn't it?
A child one minute before passing through the birth canal can have a pair of surgical scissors put through his or her brain without society batting an eye. A fully formed, breathing, crying, desperate, helpless baby who is the result of a botched abortion has no entitlement to life in parts of this "enlightened" Western world. And we talk about "evil"?
Government officials pass guns to cartels to slaughter civilians, and we get to talk about "evil"?
Corrupt businessmen get to use their connections to the power brokers in Washington to access public funds to bail out their billion dollar corporations (who went broke in part due to unbridled greed), and we sit here and talk about evil?
We can start talking about "evil" when we as a society find our lost sense of "good". But we can't relegate morality to the fringes, then demand to know where God was.
First of all the guns were NOT automatic....and Automatic guns have been illegal for years... We need tougher laws on the mentally ill .. or more services out there for them.. Most Insurances do Not cover the mentally ill... or programs for them... Guns will NOT kill unless you have a NUT case behind them...Besides when you change all the gun laws or ban guns.. Do you think that a "wicked" person out there couldnt find a way to purchase a gun off the streets? I myself would NOT try to do a crime if I knew the one I was holding a gun on could possible being carrying themself.. Ask yourself that question??
My heart go out to the familes that lost lives.. it was a sad day in America. :(
The over litigious rules and regulations regarding guns as well as other things was part of the reason I moved out of NJ to a red state
This question is very revealing. It reveals how completely IGNORANT the media is, relative to firearms! The obvious liberal bias is also revealed.
No, I favor tighter controls on the mentally unstable. From all descriptions, that young man should have been institutionalized, not free on the streets, but our bleeding hearts feel that is wrong, which also explains a significant percentage of the "Homeless."
It is nice to see that as of 2:13 pm, this poll has 2013 smart people on here voting
First off, let's be very clear. NO automatic weapon was used in Connecticut or the two Colorado shootings. Automatic weapons are illegal to own unless you have a permit and those are extremely difficult to obtain. Semi automatic weapons on the other hand come in all shapes and sizes. Military style weapons are no different internally than common hunting and target weapons. The sime fact is that 99.99% of all gun owners are responsible. One only has to look as far as Chicago to see that excess gun laws aren't working.
His poll has this as an answer: Yes. No civilian needs automatic weapons.
However, AUTOMATIC weapons were banned in 1934, and the shooter did NOT have an Automatic weapon.
Which DAVID says is just Semantics. Like getting the facts right is just Semantics.
The difference between Automatic and semi-Automatic is not semantics.
One is legal, one will get you a LONG prison sentence just for holding it.
One shoots a single bullet when you pull the trigger, one shoots ALL your bullets, when you pull the trigger.
In his poll, he asks people to declare that "no one needs" something that virtually no one HAS.
And can't get. Including the police.
What they HAVE is very different.
If you want people to discuss the issue, inform them, so their discussion is worth something.
Not decrying something no one has, including the shooter.
Also, why not ask if people think the staff should have been allowed to carry guns to protect themselves, rather than being forbidden to do so, by Federal Law.
You might also point out that CT has some of the strictest gun laws in the country already. How'd that work out?
Have you noticed that all these shootings are in Gun Free Zones -- they attract the crazies. They know no one will shoot back. Easy pickings.
Ed
On Monday, December 17, 2012 at 10:55 AM, "David Chmiel" wrote:
No bias here. Also not here to debate semantics. I do want people to discuss the issue. Thanks for your feedback, please don't hesitate to contact me any time you have a point to make about anything...
Sent from my iPhone
"Yes. No civilian needs automatic weapons."
Automatic weapons? Automatic? Really? Figures that the folks behind a web page from New Jersey would not know the difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic".
Just put up more "gun-free zone" signs everywhere. And make them a LOT bigger. That was probably the problem. Adam Lanza didn't see the sign that said "gun-free zone" because it was too small. OR maybe he couldn't read too well.
On second thought, install a recording that repeats "This is a gun-free zone, please do not bring weapons into this area." Have it play that message in 5 or 6 different languages. And be sure that it says "please". Because if it doesn't say "please", a person with a gun or any other type of weapon intent on carrying out a massacre might disregard the message.
Yeah, that should work.
Live by the sword--die by the sword. Why don't the religious gunmongers remember that one?
Gun control works.
On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html
THIS IS A TRICK QUESTION. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS!
Typical NJ.com uninformed nonsense. Automatic weapons? Why don't you get to the heart of the issue; mental illness and a mother who leaves firearms accessible her mentally unstable son.
200 million law abiding gun owners did NOT use their guns to commit a crime today. A handful of them will actually prevent, deter, and actively thwart it. But you won't read about any possible benefits to firearms ownership here or any other mainstream media source.
The poll is skewed. I don't think guns are the problem, but no citizen needs automatic weapons. That part of the "yes" answer should not be there.
Additionally, it is nearly impossible to buy an automatic weapon in the vast majority of the country, and certainly in NJ.
The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense. Limiting the types of weapons available to law abiding citizens will not deter crime. Criminals don't pay attention to laws. OJ used a knife
You can't get rid of guns just like you can't get rid of drugs. So what do you do???? EDUCATE PEOPLE and HELP THE MENTALLY ILL!!!!!!
I am aghast after reading the comments here. Who cares if these weapons are not technically automatic? You are trying to change the subject and you ego is showing as you present yourself to be a weapons expert. Who cares? 20 dead children and 6 teachers are dead and I am certain their families are not concerned about the politically correct name for the weapon that killed them.
And for those of you who advocate for guns in school that is horrendous. You argue that more guns is the answer. Armed teachers for God sake. Adam Lanza's mother was a gun owner. How did that work out for her? Please, again, for God sake open your eyes.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A quick history lesson for the unknowing and unaware. Ironic that I should open with the following:
Connecticut gun code of 1650:
"All persons shall bear arms, and every male person shall have in continual readiness a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service."
Thomas Paine, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong."
John Adams:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
Thomas Jefferson:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands."
Noah Webster, 1787:
"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 of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
The answer to violent crime is to issue more concealed carry permits to the good, law abiding citizens. This is tacitly acknowledged by the calls to have armed cops posted in our schools. But it would be much cheaper and more effective if we let principals, vice-principals, and teachers carry guns in schools, where they could cover more locations than one cop could, and are more familiar with the facilities.
When seconds count, remember that the police are minutes away. So-called "gun free zones" simply create Happy Hunting Grounds for Psychopaths. You'll never hear about a psychopath going on a shooting rampage at a public gun range; they aren't THAT crazy.
this poll shows your ignorance...the guns used in the Newtown shooting were not Automatic....these are already regulated.
Take a look at prescription meds (psychotropic drugs) therein the problem lies .... http://cegant.com/commentary/school-shootings-and-psychiatric-drugs
Dear NJ.com whoever wrote the questions in this poll is extremely uneducated. Fully automatic weapons are virtually illegal in the United States. So the school shootings whether it be Columnbine, Virginia Tech or the recent tragedy in Connecticut have not used fully automatic weapons. Do your research next time!
Just some random thoughts to share:
An armed society is a safe society.
The act that is bringing the gun debate to a head was committed by pure evil.
Timothy McVeigh did not use a firearm in 1995 and his favorite move was "Red Dawn."
Teachers if willing should be allowed to conceal carry on one's person - not in a locked draw
where a student would eventually gain access.
By changing the laws pertaining to firearms, you will only DISARM law bidding American People. Once you disarm communities, a repeat of the 2004 Beslan Massacre will happen in the US. According to the intelligence community, this massacre was a dress rehearsal for an
event that has NJ on its list.
We don't blame cars for drunk drivers so why do we blame guns for violent criminals ?
Violent video games are the problem. He probably just thinks he "made a mistake" and respawned into another life. I guarantee he was 3x prestige in cod
Firearms are for protecting the innocent, family, friends, community - as well as property; and for sport and hunting. We need to address these tragic occurrences with the burning question about the morality of our society and how weak our family values are - not appease the tyrants in Washington who do not want citizens to protect themselves from "foreign and domestic enemies" and protection of life, liberty, property, and unarmed fellow Americans.
What should be reformed is our educational system, which the federal government has failed - believing that legislation and more funding is always the answer to problems. The solution is that the family nucleus must once again be strong, government remove itself from unconstitutional regulations and legislation, put matters of education back to the state governments and local communities that cooperate with a parent-teacher situation. Society needs to quit considering morality and traditional family values as "old school". The Golden Rule is never outdated and is global.
There are irresponsible drivers out on the road every day - should there be a ban on motorized vehicles over 50 horsepower? Get real, folks.
This poll states in the "Yes" portion that "no civilian needs automatic weapons" ...
Fact: No civilian is allowed automatic weapons without proper permit -- and weapons used in recent tragedies were not automatic weapons.
This is part of the problem with polls - the manner of the choices and questions, the wording. The people who advocate the right under the 2nd Amendment do not disagree that civilians require automatic weapons (machine guns). To point out the ignorance of gun control advocates in Washington, Feinstein does not know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic firearms.
The real problem is SOCIETY. Back when there was not any real gun control, did you read about public shootings like this? If there is a rise of nutcases like the dirt bag at Newton, CT, then two things need to be addressed: (1) What is wrong with our society? and (2) background checks must be thorough in determining mental capabilities.
However, in the Newton case, the mother legally owned those firearms - and the son used them against her and innocent babies and teachers.
Is Feinstein against violent video games that children are allowed to have and play?
Is Feinstein performing or ever performed a study that the family nucleus is falling apart in America because government does not hold marriage as a sanctified institution? Broken families equals broken children.
Morals and values are not sponsored by governments through their programs; thus we have promiscuous sex and infanticide. The same people who are crying to get rid of firearms from the hands of its citizens promotes mass infanticide and expects the taxpayers to pay for abortion clinics. Sex education was meant for children to understand the reproductive process, not promote sex before marriage or irresponsible sex. There is something wrong with American society when children at age 12 are getting abortions. It is also a bad mark against the family nucleus of America.
The shooting in Connecticut and Colorado are examples of our youth manifesting/venting their troubles onto innocent bystanders.
The problem in American society is not pinpointed to one factor, and certainly not inanimate objects like firearms. I trust NO government or the people operating it who want to take away the means of self-protection. T. Jefferson: "When people fear their government their is tyranny, when government fears the people there is liberty". Have we not learned from Hurricane Katrina the result of people not afforded the 2nd Amendment self-defense liberty? Does anyone realize that private homes were broken into by local, state, and federal authorities to confiscate firearms from law-abiding people - while the criminals still possessed firearms?
Nothing has broken my heart more than to see little children hurt and killed by anyone for any reason, but instantly the control freaks who think they can legislate all troubles away, begin their misguided advocacy of making the 2nd Amendment null and void. Worse, they use falsified and incorrect statistics to get people to agree with them. I am the third generation within a family that believes in the 2nd Amendment, and during that long period in American history, not one person in that family misused a firearm. It is because we have been taught at a young age that firearms are to be respected, not misused, and is not the answer for anger or any irresponsible thoughts or actions.
The same people who want to take firearms away from law-abiding citizens and dissolve the 2nd Amendment, also advocate that the 1st Amendment be applied in only certain cases; as well as think nothing of murdering unborn infants in numbers that makes Hitler's Final Solution look amateurish; or think nothing of sending its youth to some stupid war caused by misguided foreign policy and bull-crap politics - all of which whose policies has yet to work.
I am sick of hypocritical politicians and their socialist policies and advocacy for government control from cradle
Your poll is bollocks. We are not talking about automatic weapons. Automatic weapons in civilian hands are already illegal unless federally registered and licensed to an very small community of approved individuals.
The question is wrong the guns were not automatic. Automatic weapons have been illegal since the 1930s.