Here's what I think....as if it matters.... (Page 12)

They just did it.  I'm of course being a little bit flip but it's not too far off  They voted and said this is now illegal.  They do not have the right to bear arms in their constitutions so they can make whatever laws they want with regards to firearms.

Here is an Op-Ed piece in today's NY Times about just that issue.

You can agree or not with the idea of implementing it, but it made me think it is in fact possible to reduce the number of guns out there. Buybacks, changing social perceptions, etc. It should also be possible to increase the burden of proof of safety before getting guns. 

However, given the highly polarized nature of our country these days (again - look at the battles over healthcare/insurance), I doubt anything will happen.

One of the comments after the article stated that Switzerland and Israel are saturated with guns (true) and have a much lower crime rate than we do.  Besides, I'm willing to bet we already have more gun control laws on the books than Australia and S. Africa combined.

Australia also had only 7% gun ownership.  Guns were turned-in, but they don't know how many are still out there.

Make something illegal overnight and it's like contraband in a prison.  They're still gonna have it, they just hide it better if it's illegal. 

In Switzerland's case guns yes. Ammunition no. Ammo is very tightly controlled and regulated. Guns are widely held due to miltary service. All males up to the age of 42 (I think) are required to maintain their weapon in house, report annually for military reserve duty, and weapon inspection twice a year. 

This has been a worthwhile and thoughtful discussion to follow.

I want to add a Wiki link to the 2008 Supreme Court decision involving the 2nd amendment:

District of Columbia v. Heller

I don't understand it enough to comment,
but am interested in the opinion of anyone who does. 

I'm seriously asking you GB, so far the predominate things suggested have been training, gun safety... and of course various ban of just getting rid of them. But "safety" and training do not change mass shooting sprees. Newtown was "trained" and probably had a "safety course". He wasn't an irresponsible owner because he didn't own any guns.

I heard on lady last night that her some was becoming increasingly difficult to control. I don't know. I'm sure we will get more information later as far as what went on in the house. Right now I can't even imagine how she had guns in that environment, but we do not know what she did... and at the end of the day, back ground checking her all day would not deny her a gun because her adult child was homicidal.

I have heard arguments before about mental illness and safety.

1. If you are going to punish, restrict, take away, hold people on a fear of what they might do, nobody will come forward for help.

2. Health info Privacy is the barrier between health care and law enforcement and privacy rules prevent the two from talking or coordinating.

3. Difficulty in actually determining that this person has a high degree of risk and should be barred from certain freedoms indefinitely/TBD is a tough sell in most courts.

What is the answer. I'm not saying mental health is THE problem, but is certainly is a part of it.

So then let's look at this...

A group of middle East terrorists crash a couple planes. A M.E. guy hides a bomb in his shoe. Another one in his under ware. So now, the entire flying population has to endure searches of infants and blue haired old ladies. Take of our shoes, no liquids, body scans... we all roll our eyes and talk about how completely ridiculous it is... because in the name of "political correctness" they can't profile the ones that might actually do it. We all go on about more bloated bureaucracies and government regulations and that it does not do much other than make everyone show up to the airport 2 hours ahead of their flight.

Yet after 911... they didn't ban planes. They didn't ban flying. They didn't make travelers PROOVE they had a reason they wanted to be on the plane and a background check to say they were safe. No licenses were issued to those that were cleared and could fly at will. There was a "no fly" list put out though.. and it some that should not have been on it, and lapses like usual. But the bottom line was the public was still allowed to fly, they just had to jump through some hoops.

So how is this different? You saw my numbers, <1 out of 1 million owners/1 out of 1 million assault rifles... but yet as you say, you think it is perfectly acceptable to remove freedoms from the 1 million... not just jump through a couple more hoops and continue on as they have.

And let's be clear about... shooting 20 children is not "irresponsible"... it is mass murder. We don't know what the deal was with the mom, but she was shot in the face 4 times. I'm sure she will not be so irresponsible in the future. If you want to make the argument now that the Federal Government is in the business of legislating individual "responsibility"... hu, no thank you.

I'm with jmk on this - I don't see the point you must be trying to make. Especially since a friend of mine put a quote on her facebook page attributed to John Oliver - "One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport.Thirty one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns".

I read this (attributed correctly or not - I have no idea) as saying that after a single failed attempt, we have all ended up making significant changes in what is seen as acceptable obstacles in our right to freely travel, while despite all the school shootings, not a single change is considered acceptable as an infringement.

I have no problem with schools being locked down and visitors/parents needing to pass a check point to get in.   There......solved. 

You can call that whatever you want......but you mark my words..... that's where we are headed.

No problem JMK. For you too Gear Boy, I read your post.

My point is nobody stopped flying, they just had to do some more stuff.

Well... now, many many people... maybe not you two specifically, want to ban semi-auto weapons. Many would ban guns if they could. Many think there is no reasonable explanation to have a semi-auto.... or especially a black rifle with a detachable magazine that is really scary. Yet 90 million owners and 37 million assault rifles say different.

What I have said is if I have to get a permit to carry concealed on a "shall issue" basis... and it isn't a "Federal registry" even though law enforcement knows exactly who has CCW permits... then why can't I just get a permit for an assault rifle? Stricter checks, more training, regular renewals, I'm still allowed to do what I want... because I AM NOT THE PROBLEM. Why should 90 million owners be punished for the acts of 62 people over the last 30 years?

Profile violent offenders, domestic violence cases, mentally ill. If someone is concerned call a hot line to report them. Already if people get in trouble, as a condition of their release or bond, they have to surrender their weapons till it is cleared up. There are already mechanisms for disarming those that present a danger.... or they go to jail... or they get into a 8 hour stand off with police... but it is better than shooting up a public place.

The other part about airport security... if anyone thinks a TSA employee is responsible for keeping us all safe, think again. It is a part of the solution... but there is an entire war behind the scene working on finding those that would attempt another event like before. And another part about airline security nobody sees... armed federal agents on planes and air crew with guns. Fact.

I apologize if I am not making this clear.  I will try...

I am not opposed to back ground checks

I am not opposed to jumping through more hoops.

I am willing to put up with more regulation.

I am willing to apply for a assault weapon permit.

I do not agree with banning. That is not "regulating", that is prohibiting. It's ridiculous.

They did not prohibit flying, they did not ban planes. They just required a few things to make sure you were not going to blow up the plane... then you were allowed to go on your merry way.

If that's what it takes to keep kids and teachers safe to be educated and to educate then so be it.  That would also take care of other criminals such as pedophiles entering a school unchecked.

I don't know how schools are set up in the States, but here in Melbourne, anyone could walk into my kid's school at recess, anyone.

The reason we haven't had anyone flying more planes into buildings is that we took 2 measures that were extremely effective: 1.  We strengthened and locked cockpit doors.   2.  We put armed air marshals on flights.

We took more measures that were marginally effective: We increased our intelligence gathering.  Which means we were able to know about a toner cartridge bomb but not stop it from getting on a plane.

We took even more measures that were NOT effective, and severely intrude on people's lives. (usually due to poor execution and poorly-trained workers) :  We increased screening at airports.  We pat down grannies and 4 year-olds.  We prevent people from flying because they are on a list(or they have the same name as someone on that list.)   We do NOT prevent the underwear bomber.   We do NOT prevent the shoe bomber.  

The reason we haven't had a successful attack is NOT because our security theater is effective.  It's because the terrorists were idiots, and because passengers know now that the days of sitting on a runway for a ransom demand or prisoner exchange are long gone.  It's him or you.

Back to guns and school shootings.  Sure, we can ratchet up on gun control.  It will be marginally effective at initially keeping guns out of a less-determined person's hands.  It will create a larger burden on law-abiding citizens.  But it's largely "security theater."   You're NOT going to stop or deter these kinds of killings with gun control.  You're not.  Almost every single one of these killings is premeditated and planned, usually months in advance. Gun control doesn't stop a Columbine. (aside from their Tec9 with a 10-shot clip, they used a low-powered rifle and 2 shotguns and loads of home-made bombs)  Gun Control doesn't stop a Newtown.

Left Brain is right, IMHO.  We need to find the equivalent of the armed marshal and strengthened cockpit door.

Edited to fix quoting and remove one phrase that sounded snarky but wasn't intended to be.

Awesome! Consensus.

So, I went to the gun store today to but two magazines. Bizarre. Guns were literally flying off the selves. I over heard a employee say they were the 2nd or 3rd largest retailer... I expected state.. he said nation... they will probably be out of stock by the end of the week. This place is HUGE. It was packed. Monday after the shooting, Colorado had it's single biggest CCW permit application submission day ever. Weird.

My kids schools have been doing this for several years.  They have code for when an unintended visitor is in the building...................."Could Mr. Vernon Williams please come to the office?"