So the NRA's response to Sandy Hook is...

Actually, the hypocrisy lies with those who slobbered all over Clinton's trouser legs when he suggested it, but hoot and throw feces when the very same idea comes from the NRA.

Funny how this shit didn't happen back when Eddie Eagle and the NRA were allowed in the schools and summer camps to teach gun safety. It was after the left went, "Gunz! ZOMG! Don't teach safety in schools and camps!," that we get this shit.

Please. The answer to that is easy. Throw 'em out on the streets as soon as they learn to walk. You never heard of any Dickens orphans getting mowed down by gunfire, and as long as the little bastards aren't in their own homes, they'll be safe as kittens at the mama cat's tit.

Back to my analogy - how many kids and babies are murdered by DUI drivers? How do we take away the cars that are used by them? How many cars do we get rid of to save the kids?

Yes. It's bad because it's stupid. It's bad because it diverts effort into something that won't work, and thereby slows progress toward finding something that will work. You want to save lives? Quit fucking around with fantasy.

You demonstrate a deep paranoia with comments like the above and this rep:

Go ahead and link to a post where I said we should take your guns. I've got plenty of time.

You keep saying this, and yet, I don't think anybody did. I for one don't even recall him making that suggestion, and I certainly wouldn't have gone Monica Lewinsky on him had I known about it. Can you post some evidence that his statement was anything but a non-starter? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Locked up in a safe at all times and only one person, me, knows the combination.

Or

The guns, all of them, are stored in a location off site.

No finger pad type safes since the person could just kill you can then drag your still warm body to the safe and put your finger on the pad.

Some may argue about home invasions but reality is the risk is small and if you're that afraid of living in a big house by yourself (as has been reported for the initial reason she bought a gun) sell the house and move to a smaller place near more people.

Congress requires that states do a lot things. That doesn't mean federalization.

Congress requires that to get Federal Money states have to do "X".

Happens all the time.

In this case Congress would simply tell the states, "You want Federal money for schools? Then we require you have law enforcement present in all schools when they are open."

Hell how do you think the Feds are able to mess with the school lunch menus? States want the money so they had to comply with the new requirements.

So you're argument that he is calling for the Feds to take over all schools and the police in those schools doesn't hold up because he did not ask for that. He simply asked that Congress require it.

What happens when you cross a straw man with a red herring? You get an Asyncritus post.

Kindly describe the grey area in the case of (A) a kid born with a syndrome where he cannot feel physical pain, (B) a kid whose frequent violent outbursts were sufficient for his mother to tell the babysitter "don't turn your back on him," (C) a mother who regularly takes said kid to the shooting range, and (D) a mother who leaves her guns unsecured where said son can get at them.

We'll leave out the doomsday prepper and the homeschooling. Just the first four will do. Make your case for how this is just like locking up an entire segment of the population for the crime of being born Japanese.

^ Talk about straw men and red herrings!

Your lack of reading comprehension has to be deliberate, from a professional author, so your post doesn't even deserve an answer.

You may now show your superiority by pretending to have "won."

When you can't address the post, play the KIRK1ADM "an author such as yourself" card. You used to be smarter.

You brought up the "grey area," and I'm not disputing its existence. I'm asking why you mentioned it in this particular case. So either you believe there was a grey area in the Lanza case, or you're playing at "Oooh, look at the shiny over there!"

Which is it?

This is demonstrably not so.

Because everyone knows that the primary purpose of a motor vehicle is to fire a projectile into a target at high speed.

I would like to say that at this point we still know jack shit about the kid. We don't know when she took the kid to the range. It could have been when he was acting "normal".

We don't know that he can't feel pain. The media is not trustworthy in this case.

With that said the mother is still at fault because she was in the process of getting her son committed to a mental hospital meaning she knew that at that point in his life he had serious problems. Problems to serious for her to handle and yet she still did not lock up her guns or put them into the hands of a trusted neighbor or family member until the process was done and the kid was gone.

And now it seems she was away on vacation for several days beforehand, leaving him alone in the house.

The media is not trustworthy whenever it presents information that runs counter to your "These things just happen and there's nothing we can do about them" scenario.

Jayzus. You can't make this shit up...

For the people who ridicule the notion that a legal gun owner might be disarmed or killed by their own gun, this pretty much says it all.

Don't ridicule it. It does happen. To civilians and to cops. (2011 - 3 were killed with their own weapons http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr#ucr_leoka)

What I do ridicule is someone like you who assumes it will always happen to the point it makes you afraid.

Except you old hag I've never said "These things just happen and there's nothing we can do about them"

You can. The media does it all the time.

Which is why I'll be waiting for the official report.

If I were afraid, I probably wouldn't go out in public or ride the subway, or maybe I'd cling to a security blanket.

That's true. Your "solution" is some Wild West scenario in which everybody's carrying.

The "Wild West scenario" is the one every opponent of concealed carry offers up.

It just doesn't happen. CCW holders are, as a group, very law-abiding and very, very few permits issued have been revoked. It should be a self-evident truth: carrying a gun without a license is a minor crime (a misdemeanor mostly, even in California), while using a gun in commission of a violent crime is a major felony...those who intend the latter aren't the least bit distressed by the former.

The belief that every fender bender is going to turn into the gunfight at the OK Corral just isn't borne out by the FACTS.

Fender benders aren't the concern. The Big Damn Hero syndrome is.

In addition to that I've said have armed police at schools. I have not said arm teachers. (although I would not be opposed if it was allowed a teacher wanted to carry)

How is that Wild West behavior on my part?

Also a lot of criminals are very careful with guns because the criminals know the sentencing laws as well as most lawyers. They know that committing certain crimes may be a misdemeanor but if you bring a gun into the mix you're facing a felony charge that could get you put in prison for a decade or more.

And again the facts don't bear out the Big Damn Hero syndrome. It's just not happening no matter how many times you click your heels and make a wish to the gun fairy.

As the laws stand now. Besides, as I say, you're all talk.

Still doesn't happen.

Let me ask you this, though. Please don't dodge, answer truthfully.

Suppose you were in an office in a high-rise building having a consultation with, say, a lawyer. In the midst of your conversation, you are startled to hear gunshots from the lobby down the hall. Screaming. Chaos breaking out.

Someone is shooting up the place. You can hear the shooter going office to office, shooting whomever he finds. Screams and pleadings for mercy are cut short by gunfire. People are being killed, no doubt about it. You and the lawyer hide behind his desk. A couple of loud shots ring out from the office right next to the one you're in.

You and the lawyer have no way out. The only door leads to the hallway the shooter controls. The window leads to a 22 story fall.

In this scenario, which would you prefer:

(1) The lawyer says "I have a gun" and pulls a small automatic pistol out of a holster concealed on his hip.

or

(2) The lawyer has no gun.

Now, IMHO, anyone who's even a little bit rational MUST choose (1) over (2). You still may not survive the outcome in (1), but, in all likelihood, you're DEAD (or, at best, grievously injured and left for dead) if (2) is the scenario.

Would ANYONE be the least bit concerned about the lawyer playing BIG DAMN HERO in this scenario?

Actually, I'd like everyone's answer to that. And if you say (1) is the better option, aren't you accepting that, yes, sometimes guns ARE the answer?