the safest supervised place? At home with their parents supervising…Not over the coaches house, unsupervised, even playing with pellet guns..

When it’s time for them to learn how to handle a weapon, it will be through their dad, and no one else.. SMH at all parents who think that letting their kids hang out at the coaches house, is cool…

Extracurricular activities not on school grounds are usually dangerous and unsupervised. Not a bright idea, if parents aren’t there to supervise their children…

I do blame the gun owner, but I also think the government needs to do a better job enforcing it’s existing gun laws, particularly for gun owners who live with children or near places that children congregate.

Very sad R.I.P Dj

All the incidents were committed by people who were mental incompetent
_____________________________________________________

That is my point exactly. In this country, even the mentally impaired have legal access to guns. Assuming they were all mentally stable when they purchased their weapons, current gun legislation does not require that registered gun owners undergo periodic mental evaluations after the consummation of the weapons sale. A person who was sane in 2005 could have legally purchased his weapon in 2005, but there are no mechanisms in place to monitor the mental health of that person after that. That is one of the deepest flaws in the gun control argument. Driver’s license renewal is monitored more closely than gun license renewal and it’s a crying shame.

Also, I’m not denying the logic that guns don’t kill, people–people kill people. What I am saying is the potential for destruction with a firearm is much greater than it is for knife. When is the last time you’ve ever heard the news describe that an assailant went on a stabbing spree? Guns are usually the weapon of choice because of their destructive capability relative to their size and ease of use.

Regulating who gets access to weapons that have the potential to cause great public harm relative to other types of weapons isn’t the mark of a repressive government–it’s the mark of a wise one.

P.S.

I like hearing your points.

But let me ask you this how far would they have made it if someone would have used a gun in against them in defense?

Guns and weapons are not the problem, it is the problem who use them to commit crimes, even before the advent of missile propelled weapons, people committed mass murder,most serial killers dont use guns, what we as people most understand is that we are violent it is in our nature, humans and non violence has never existed, ever, and statically gun control does not deter violence, we as a society must remember that this was an accident committed by children who probably had no idea that this would be the outcome

If the United States were in landlocked Europe during WWII we probably would have fallen, too. The countries fell to Nazi Germany because everyone ignored Hitler’s racist rhetoric first, not simply because Hitler out-gunned everyone. Hitler couldn’t have taken over Europe without winning the war of ideology first.

Furthermore, those same countries I named are thriving democracies today with civilian gun laws that are more restrictive than what we have in the US.

One thing we do agree on is that gun laws don’t work. What we do disagree on is the why.

In my opinion the reason why gun laws don’t work is because the ones we have are too lenient and are not enforced.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that all the major mass shootings that have captured news headlines in the past two years were done by people who obtained their guns legally, most notably the following:

Ft. Hood Massacre
VA Tech Massacre
NY Immigration Center Massacre
PA La Fitness Massacre