We need to ban guns so that the killings are only commited by cops and criminals. Only then will we all be truly safe.

Hey Clyde, just remember everything you are posting here, if someone breaks into your home or confronts you on the street with a weapon. All I can say is if someone breaks into my home, they will be leaving in a hearst.

Hey Clyde, how about finding an unbiased source other than that of someone whose sole purpose is to eventually ban all guns by one ridiculous law at a time. Any website that ends with .org cannot be used as a reliable source as they are an "organization" with some sort of purpose. Find me an unbiased source and I might bite on some of your "facts". In reality, if the second amendment is ever repealed, the only people with the guns will be the cops and criminals...is that the kind of society you want to live in?? I don't.

Don't live in the projects.

clyde, go live down in the projects of caprini green and reason with these people. Gues what, even the police do not go into that area. Your idea that the police will be inside every home protecting every person from someone that breaks in is a joke!!! Just keep on thinking that the police are your only protection.

Like I said, I think there is no way Thompson should be held accountable.

I think we can all agree that weapons are designed for hunting animals or killing people. I do strongly believe in the right to bear arms.

Comparing the sales of semi-automatic pistols designed for killing people to the sales of perscription drugs designed to help people and the sales of automobiles, also designed to help people... come on now, get serious.

The catch twenty-two of it is that guns are designed to protect people from other people who... have guns? Yea, take away guns, the protection isn't needed. At least not in the form of a gun.

Now maybe comparing the sales of guns to the sales of cigarettes... that may be... Just teasing, I don't even want to hear the uproar that could start.

Every citizen doesn't need to arm itself, that is why we have law enforcement agencies that are highly trained and experienced to deal with the those who use firearms to hurt or try to hurt others.

My references for the above facts are:

1 Retrieved February 17, 2008 from http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issue...
Citing from within Quote:
a)Embassies and foreign reporting agencies, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, 1997.
b)Annest, JL, et.al. "National estimates of nonfatal firearm-related injuries: beyond the tip of the iceberg," Journal of the American Medical Association, 1995, 273:1749-1754.
c)Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Rates of homicide, suicide and firearm-related death among children – 26 industrialized countries." Morbidity Mortality Weekly Report. 02/07/97; 46:5. 101-105.
d)U.S. Department of Education. Report on State Implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act: School Year 1998-99. October 2000, p. 2.
e)FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1999, table 2.11.
f)Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, from the WONDER Injury Mortality Data.
g)Unpublished data from the Vital Statistics System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 2000.

Baseless? Try these facts on for size:

“Kids and Guns: Key Facts
• For every child killed with a gun, four are wounded.[2]
• According to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of firearm death of children 0-14 years old is nearly twelve times higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. The firearm-related homicide rate is nearly 16 times higher for children in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. The suicide rate of children 0-14 years old is twice as high in the U.S. as it is in those same 25 other industrialized countries combined. Interestingly, there is no difference in the non-firearm suicide rate between the U.S. and these other countries. Virtually all the difference is attributable to suicides committed with guns in the U.S.[3]
• Over 3,500 students were expelled in 1998-99 for bringing guns to school. Of these, 43% were in elementary or junior high school. This means that, in a 40-week school year, an average of 88 children per week nationwide are expelled for bringing a gun in school. And these figures include only the children who get caught.[4]
• During 1999, 52% of all murder victims under 18 in the U.S. were killed by guns. In 1986, guns were used in 38% of such murders. In 1999, 82% of murder victims aged 13 to 19 years old were killed with a firearm.[5]
• In 1998, more than 1200 children aged 10-19 committed suicide with firearms. Unlike suicide attempts using other methods, suicide attempts with guns are nearly always fatal, meaning a temporarily depressed teenager will never get a second chance at life. Nearly two-thirds of all completed teenage suicides involve a firearm.[6]
• In 1998, 3,792 American children and teens (19 and under) died by gunfire in murders, suicides and unintentional shootings.[7] That's more than 10 young people a day. “ 1

The second amendment wasn't issued in a time of war. It was written when the rest of the constitution was written which was after the Revolutionary war was won. The reason that it was included was because it was still very fresh in the minds of the founding fathers that a totalitarian government could control the people at its will with out any worry of its own citizenry fighting back. They wanted to insure that our country would never be ruled by people who couldn't be held accountable, by force if necessary. And in order to uphold that standard, the citizenry had the right to arm itself against whatever threat it felt necessary to arm itself against. "How many children are dead because..." is again baseless. You can fill in the blank with anything. How about How many children are dead because their parents owned hard candy and they choked to death?

I appreciate your opinions on this issue but please save your insults. I have my opinion and you have yours. Please respect that. I have never owned and have no desire to own a gun. Scratch that, I wanted a BB gun when I was younger but my dad had the foresight not to give me one. Owning guns is not the answer. The part in the constitution regarding the right to bear arms was issued during a war. That amendment,in my opinion needs to be modified. How many children are dead due to their parents owning guns?

clyde:
The difference is that gang members are criminals who demand respect from everyone and have no respect for anyone. They are well known for murder at the slightest insult. But they are cowards, who, for all their bluster, fear death, as well they should. An armed citizenry intimidates criminals. An unarmed citizenry emboldens them. And armed citizens don't shoot people for wearing the wrong colors.

clyde, your not even using a fair comparison for your argument. Gangs, as a rule, don't obtain their weapons legally, nor would they participate in any sort of training or licensing. Gun owners, if you have been reading and paying attention, don't want to arm everyone. Again, the conceal and carry law would be voluntary with restrictions, not mandatory, as you seem to believe. Most law abiding gun owners don't have a problem with the laws that exist, however, as the NIU shooting has proven, all of the laws were still followed, and the crime still happened. If you are following the story, you would have read that. The shooter at NIU, if unable to obtain guns, would have found another way to carry out his plan. Guns are here, they have been since our country has been founded. The constitutional right to have a gun has been around for hundreds of years. That right has also protected our citizenry for the same hundreds of years. Do you honestly think that if someone is motivated, and doesn't have a gun that they won't murder someone? Next you will want stronger baseball bat background checks, and only sell cutlery to adults after a two day waiting period. Your argument is flawed and baseless.

I am sorry, I can't buy your pro-gun stance. If your idea to arm everyone worked to make people safer, look at gang zones. Gang members walk around with guns and other gang members do the same. Guess what? Lots of violence.

The fact that the criminal element doesn't know who is armed, and who isn't, has been proven to be an effective deterrent. Right now, we know who carries a gun, because they wear a uniform and a badge. I would prefer that the odds were stacked against a criminal looking to perpetuate a violent crime. With the chance that someone who is law-abiding, trained, and of course, licensed, could intervene would give the innocent a fighting chance. Russ68 is right, not everyone who owns a gun, would want to carry. truth1 has it right, kinda creepy going to a place where only the lawful are unarmed in the "firearm free" zones. Guess the shooter didn't see that law either. clyde, look up Australia's plight with gun control, and the direct result it has had on violent crime increase in their country. (Use Google)

clyde, when the police get there everyone else would have put their guns away.

If five people have concealed guns, how are you to know who will pull out their gun and shoot the gunman? Also, when the police arrive and there are six people with guns out, how are they supposed to know who the "real" gunman is?

Not everyone is qualified, able or desires to carry concealed. Concealed carry works in large part, because the bad guys do not know who is and who is not carrying. Actually, the mere presence and introduction (without actually firing) of a firearm by the intended victim, is usually enough to prevent the crime from occuring (check FBI crime statistics).
.
The idea that in this case or simular incident, that 100% - or even more than 5% - of the people in the room would be armed, and that a wild west type shoot-out occuring is simply not reality.

Think about this clyde,
Can police be everywhere at once? No, they can't. Are police pshyic? No, they are not. The fact is that police arrive post vicitmization 99% of the time. The best thing people can is protect themselves. Gun control laws are not about guns - they are about control. One person with a gun can control 100 people without guns. But if every law-abiding citizen has a gun, then the criminals won't have control.

Let's think about this...all the students have guns and the gunman enters from behind the stage (like he did)...he starts shooting and the students start shooting...end result more than five are dead...guess what, the gunman in the NIU situation shot himself, he doesn't need others shooting at him.

I didn't really believe in the concealed carry argument for stopping a shooter, I thought it might cause more trouble than it would solve.

I have done a lot of thinking and now I can really see where someone else who could have stopped him with force could have really helped.

I would now be far more afraid to go anywhere that guns are "not allowed".

I see the light.

There are too many guns out there period. Concealed weapons are not the answer. What about Australia, deltafox?

ashtophet, respectfully, the second amendment also protects us from each other, and our government. Stronger laws only mean that criminals will have guns, and law abiding citizens will not. Criminals love an unarmed society. Ask Australia...

Whats tragic about this, is that it proves that all the laws in the world don't stop a crazy man from doing the most unimaginable. However, I agree that by providing a sound conceal and carry system, Vermont style, is a sound idea to prevent these tragedies from becoming more and more frequent. 3 minutes can be an eternity when someone is going on a rampage. But think, if one student had been carrying, the death toll could have been decisively less.

Gun control is a failure - this nutjob had a FOID card, and made his purchase from a gun shop where he most certainly filled out a 4473 form and went through a NCIS background check, then the Brady Bill waiting period. He then went to a "Gun Free Zone" where he knew that he would be the only one armed, and thus able to do what he did. One armed and trained concealed carry permit holder could have minimized or prevented this tragedy. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away to protect you.

I agree, guns do not kill people, people kill people. A gun can not kill someone by just sitting there. It takes someone to pull the trigger. I own firearms, I use them for hunting, target shooting, and home defense. I don't care what kind of gun laws they try to pass. They will not get my firearms. I bought and paid for them with my hard earned cash and I have the right to own them. It is not this man's fault that these idiots went out and killed people. Also, as far as I know, if you buy a firearm over the internet, you have to have it shipped to a FFL dealer and also go through any background checks in order to get it just as you would buying straight from a dealer.

I agree 100% ashtophet. Any type of firearm should not be allowed to be sold over the internet. That is ridiculous and allows for even more difficulty in enforcing the very weak and few laws regarding gun sales. Gun laws (what few there are)differ from state to state.
What kind of a human would make their livelihood from selling weapons. Sad. And YES, guns do kill people... statistically over and over and in large numbers. The killers don't just run up to the victims and force them to die by thought. It IS the gun. The comment about the car dealer was as childish as it gets. It is 2008 - progress is in order. This is not the 1700's or 1800's, we need laws that reflect modern day life.

The right to bear arms refers to an organized militia, not random individuals who are interested in killing others. Stronger gun controls anyone?

guns dont kill people, people kill people....I feel sorry for mr thompson. he should not be held accountable he had noway of noing

I am sorry to Mr. Thompson for whatever blame he might geet on this. It is not his fault. He did not have any prior knowledge of the attack, nor did he probably ever think this would happen. He was simply doing a job and is getting wrapped up in the whole thing.

rexkramer and MAKESENSE are correct. The gun dealer is not responsible for what happened nor should he feel responsible. It's not like the guy killed those people with empty magazines and a holster.

"Contributed to those actions"...? Exactly how do you make that leap? Mr. Thompson has about as much responsibility for the tragedy that happened as a pharmacist has for filling a prescription that someone chooses to overdose on.

Well, I'm sure that all the car dealers in the area feel the same way when one of our kids are killed with something they sold you huh??

If I were Thompson, it would be hard for me to stay in business knowing that I had contributed to those actions. I think there is no way he should be held accountable, but just the thoughts of what could happen next would make me reluctant to sell. I guess thats why I'm not a weapons salesman.

I were Thompson, it would be hard for me to stay in business knowing that I had contributed to those actions. I think there is no way he should be held accountable, but just the thoughts of what could happen next would make me reluctant to sell. I guess thats why I'm not a weapons salesman.