Great editorial. And let's not forget about how many children are killed each year by getting their parents unsecured firearms in the home and accidentally shooting another child. The problem I see with guns is that, many people just aren't intelligent enough to own one. Safety training and psychiatric evaluations should all be mandatory for gun owners and other household members- for any type of gun, and if someone in your household gets a gun and shoots (accidentally or not) another person-the gun owner should be charged as if they committed the crime. I also see any need for anyone to own an assault type weapon. People can scream about the 2nd amendment all they want-but remember the types of guns they had in the 1700s when it was written.

Yes, people can and will get other weapons to kill, but the difference is that it's much easier to ward off an attacker with a knife that one that has a gun. Just like the man in China that wounded 22 people in a school with a knife-they were WOUNDED-not killed.

I will never understand the mindset of the pro-gun crowd.

While some, perhaps a majority, would agree to ban automatic assault weapons, few believe that President Obama and the Democrat Party intend to cease further gun control efforts once assault rifles are banned. It is more an issue of public trust and less assault rifles that lies at the heart of the debate. While Senator Joe Manchin famously shot Obamacare in a campaign ad, little is made of the implicit support for gun ownership, and, the public believes his views are not representative of those who would draft the legislation under a Democrat administration. Until the Democrat Party argues just as persuasively to oppose (1700's) pistol, single shot rifle and shotgun limitation as they argue to promote an assault rifle ban, they, and President Obama, will not engender the trust of gun owners who fear that any proposed legislation "must be passed to see what's in it", as with The Affordable Care Act. If assault rifles were to be banned, and, God forbid, another mass murder occurs, this time with pistols, would the Democrat Party seek to ban pistols? Once one type of firearm was banned, would it become more or less difficult to ban other types in this political climate? The previous commenter is a case in point, veering wildly from mass murder with an assault rifle to accidental discharge in the individual home with 18th century type weapons,(rifles and pistols). After reading the editorial and the comment, one senses the Decatur Daily and the commenter strongly support an assault weapons ban, yet view other gun ownership with, at best, cool, tepid neutrality. How many non-assault rifle gun owners view tepid, neutral support with confidence? Many Southern gun owners with conservative views believe they are soon to become "mentally ill."

The answer is not as simple as some may think. The real purpose of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is to enable citizens to resist an oppressive government, as was England. A well armed citizenry is a deterrant not only to politicians who would like to institute class warfare, but also foreign aggressors who may think about invading. Our military may appear strong now, but it, along with our country generally, is becoming weak. The bleeding heart "let them stay at home" approach to mental health is one root problem that can be addressed. Sure, military grade weapons should be tightly controlled, but not denied to citizens of good credentials.

If the kid had put cyanide in their lunch would we be discussing a ban on poision? This is a very, very tragic event that can be blamed only on the one who is responsible. Attempting to legislate our way to complete safety is a show of ignorance.

there is no reason whatsoever that civilians should have military grade weaponry. and i say this as former army national guard.

NO REASON. seriously, try to give one. for todays super deer?

Why is it that the answer to someone committing a crime is to infringe upon/take away the Constitutional rights of the law abiding citizen?

The Editor's refernce to the Australian gun laws is correct with respect to mass shootings, but studies have shown it had no effect on homicides carried out by firearms. As with any gun law, only the law abiding citizen will abide by it. Part of what the Australian government did was a "buy back" program, and thousands of firearms were turned in. Basically, the public agreed to disarm themselves in large numbers. I highly doubt the criminals in Australia did the same.

James: Thank you for your service to our country via the Army National Guard. As far as a U.S. citizen having no "reason" to own a military grade weapon, that should be left up to the individual. If I think I need one, I should be able to in order to protect myself to the highest level that I'm willing to pay for AND be responsible for. Why WOULDN'T I want a military grade weapon? They're dependable and well made. Plus, I don't like the idea of ONLY the gov't being able to own those type weapons.

AngieK: Some people argue that the Founding Fathers couldn't imagine the advanced firearms we have today and would surely be against them. Do these same people also believe the Founding Fathers COULD predict that American citizens would want the Constitutional right to abort the unborn up until the thrid trimester? And would they would be OK with it? I tend to think not.

What happened last week at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut was the kind of nightmare that would make anyone cringe. To say that I was saddened by what happened to those innocent children would be a gross understatement. No one should ever have to suffer this kind of devastation, and my thoughts and prayers are with everyone affected by this unspeakable tragedy.

This is not the first mass murder that has shaken our nation, and although I wish it weren’t so, this will not be the last time a twisted person attempts to take innocent lives like this.

Every time a shooting happens in our nation, a handful of “armchair experts” rise to propose that guns are the reason for the violence. If it weren’t for guns, our schools would be safer. If it weren’t for guns, you could go to the movies without fear. If it weren’t for guns, you could go Christmas shopping without looking over your shoulder...

The fact of the matter is that more laws and more control don’t equal more safety and security. If you need proof, just look at Chicago.

Chicago is the poster child for gun control, yet since 2001, 2,000 troops have died in Afghanistan while 5,000 people have been murdered in Chicago. Chicago’s homicide rate is four times greater than New York, and twice that of Los Angeles. Good intentions have yielded bad results in Chicago, and it’s time to face the facts: Criminals and psychotic individuals don’t obey “no guns” signs or gun control laws.

It might be a cliche amongst gun owners, but arguing that guns cause murders is very much like arguing that spoons make people fat, or cars make drunk driving possible.

So if taking guns out of the hands of responsibly armed citizens isn't the answer, then what is? After 9/11, massive steps were taken to harden-up cockpit doors, and we instituted the air marshal program to train and arm pilots. If anyone attempted to break through the cockpit door, they would be met by a hail of gunfire. After Columbine, why wasn't a similar program put in place to harden-up schools and train and arm teachers and administrators in tactical defense? The chilling fact remains that the Newtown murderer had no trouble breaking through the school's glass doors...

I have no doubt that there are many people who would be outraged by the idea of our schools having responsibly armed personnel protecting our kids, but my response to them would be the same as Concealed Carry Report writer John Caile’s response:

“…these same people who barely raise an eyebrow at the idea of armored car guards carrying guns to protect bags of cash, suddenly go apoplectic over the prospect of teachers carrying guns to protect young children. If that’s not misplaced priorities, I don’t know what is.”

Violent criminals and psychopaths aren’t going away, and no law will prevent them from committing murder in the future. Now is not the time to wish the problem away. Now is the time to take this issue seriously enough to actually protect our children so that this never happens again.

Take care and stay safe,

Tim Schmidt

James,

I hope this video makes you understand the purpose of the Second Amendment a little better. It never was, or ever has been, about deer hunting. I hope you have the courage to watch this video until the very end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-oNMHNrS-8

'clifton: Thank you for your service to our country via the Army National Guard. As far as a U.S. citizen having no "reason" to own a military grade weapon, that should be left up to the individual.'

there are already many, many, MANY things not 'left to the individual', clifton. automatic weaponry, i imagine, will be another one at some point in the future. as to your thought process there, what makes you (or ANY civilian) qualified to handle automatic weaponry/assault rifles? are you well versed in their operation? are you prepared for your ordnance to continue to travel down the point of origin, perhaps striking others not the intended target? are you then prepared to face the civil and criminal liabilities from your use of these weapons?

soldiers (most times) are. you are not.

thomas, i am very well versed in american history. i understand that the second amendment was passed so that the citizens of this nation could function as a type of militia in defense against tyranny.

my question to you is: how many tyrants have the CITIZENRY of the US defended against? versus how many people have been murdered by gun fire?

its not even close. matter of fact, its ZERO versus TENS OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

or even millions. i dont like that ratio. neither should you. it makes no sense any longer. even thomas jefferson is probably weeping in his grave at the state of affairs today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

James: Being former military myself, I am well versed in how to handle weapons. Thanks for showing everyone how big a douche you are by making assumptions about me that are incorrect.

Clifton, I am a douche, but that's not my point.

You aren't military anymore. And even if you were, you coukldnt stroll around with an AR 15 'defending against tyrants'. Douche.

How many tyrants have the CITIZENRY of the US defended against? Zero.

And that's because the citizenery is armed and the politicians know it.

Thanks for answering your own question.

“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, (The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, p. 334, 1950)

Sure, Thomas. The US govt was all set to round up and execute everyone til...guns.

You gun nuts need to step back from your inflated sense of phallic self worth and chill.

James: An AR-15 wouldn't fall under a "concealed carry" permit. It kind of defeats the whole "concealed" concept. Protecting oneself in ones on home would be an entirely different story. And, you're right, I wouldn't stroll around with it since this would be against the law, and I am a law abiding citizen. The problem is with the criminal element that doesn't care about the law. Also, I didn't say anything about 'defending against tyrants'. But it sounds like a good idea, and I 100% agree with the T. Jefferson quote that Thomas referred to.

James.

It does happen. Just not here, yet.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

Well, I gotta admit I agree with both of your last posts, thomas, clifton. That is what makes this such a thorny issue. There really isn't a 'black and white, one size fits all' solution.

And by no means am I so naive to think the govt is so perfect and angelic that bad things couldn't happen here under their aegis. But even if we all of us had 2 M 16s apiece, civvies would be no match agaisnt the most high tech and well funded military known to man. It just isn't feasible. So that argument kind of falls flat.

Mexico has banned gun ownership, yet the drug cartel seems to have all they need. Maybe if they would arm the citizens, their problems wouldn't be so big.

Doubtful. Think of the civilians you know. How well would they do against militarized, bloodthirsty cartels?

I know a lot of civilians who are also veterans.

Clifton,

I am agreeing with your side of the debate, but please point me to the law that makes "strolling around with an AR-15" illegal. I'll give you a hint. There's not one. A couple of years ago, a man was arrested for "disorderly conduct" for playing chess in a Birmingham city park while having an AK47 slung over his back. At the end of his trial, which was dismissed, the judge chastised the Birmingham Police officers for THEIR conduct, which was the only conduct that was disorderly. Open carry of a firearm is legal in Alabama, and the legislature reserves the entire matter to themselves, which means cities are preempted from making their own laws on it.

you serious, 'momofgirls'? activate your google-fu and look it up. better yet, call (256) 341-4600 and ask the desk sergeant. he would likely laugh in your face and hang up.

Open carry is legal in Alabama, I would not advise it however. And can someone please define Assault Weapon in a manner that does not deal with only cosmetics. Give me a functional definition not one that just defines a gun that "looks scary"

why is it harder, more red tape, more life/family history information, to get government assistance, but anyone can walk in anywhere & buy a gun with almost no effort??????????????????? thats a bit backwards.

DANITA - American citizens are afforded the right to bear arms. No one has a "right" to government assistance.