After Newtown school shooting, more Americans back tough gun laws

Comments (28)
StigTW wrote:

All this gun control talk is probably sending sales through the roof

Dec 17, 2012 7:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Macedonian wrote:

Guns are part of the American history but were not associated with cases like this untill recent years so the question is if the guns are the real problem or there is something else. Could it be the downturn of our economy as a main cause. This case as the otherones are failure of the society. For example in China every couple of months some mentaly distressed person walks into a kindergarten and stabs kids with a kitchen knife so does China needs tougher kitchen knife laws ?

Dec 17, 2012 8:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fairness101 wrote:

Well, there are aggressive people and wackos everywhere in the world. Wackos tend to just pick up any kind of readily available disaster tool. So,in a gun-restricted country a wacko would drive his car into a crowd or attack people with a knife, in the US the wacko would use a machine gun. That’s why it is more dangerous at a school in the US than for example a school in Spain or Germany. As long as guns are close to unrestricted, danger remains. There have already been various other heavily armed wackos since last Thursday with plans.

Dec 17, 2012 9:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
THeRmoNukE wrote:

Meanwhile also on Friday, a China man with zero guns murdered 1 adult and 22 children (aged 6-11) with a knife. Look it up, NY Times also reported it. He stabbed those little kids to death. So don’t tell me Lanza’s 3 guns and high capacity magazines are the problem when someone is so evil with a capacity to stab 22 children.

The only way to stop evil is by other people taking action. We should all pray for opportunity to defeat evil like these murderers when we have an opportunity. Shall we ban knives? Ropes? Hammers? Sharp fingernails?

Dec 17, 2012 9:13pm EST  --  Report as abuse
boonteetan wrote:

Give him the credit of being able to make the right speech at the right time. As for the action part, he is in real debt. The president owes Americans much, with hands still tied. Can he effect the gun control this time? (btt1943, vzc1943)

Dec 17, 2012 9:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Wassup wrote:

Insanity cannot be outlawed. Making laws to prevent loyal law abiding citizens from protecting themselves is insanity and against the Constitution. Criminals don’t care whether guns are outlawed. Miscreants like Lanza with access to an arsenal cannot be outlawed. The Newtown tragedy is felt and sorrow runs deep for all Americans. The failure of American Society cannot be legislated away no matter the political fodder to be gained by the self serving elected officials and their spokesmen who are dilusional and think otherwise.

Dec 17, 2012 9:53pm EST  --  Report as abuse
edgyinchina wrote:

That’s true Fairness101; but when the NRA, gun controlled GOP cuts all funding for mental health, these wackos get to roam free… So either way the blood is on your hands…

Dec 17, 2012 9:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Wassup wrote:

Reuters: What was your poll number of participants? Perhaps 5 to 10? You never mention population, political leanings, race, gender, or other important objectives for consideration of your rant. This poll might have been made up of trained horses or perhaps sheep at your discretion. Your kind of manipulation of a “poll” should be outlawed as being mind bias at the least and just plain repeated manipulation of thought if not more.

Dec 17, 2012 10:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Akrunner907 wrote:

It is time to go after Hollywood and the proliferation in violent, gun-filled movies. Of the top 50 movies in 2012, a full 75 percent were entwined with gun violence. It is time that we end the violence portrayed in movies, TV, and video games. For those people that are mentally ill, the saturation of gun violence is enough to have an affect on them.

The adrenaline fueled movies glamorize violence and the illegal use of firearms. I can’t tell you how many people post questions about the use of a firearm and quote some movie that they saw it in. Just Google some of the questions and you will see them.

I am all for enforcing gun laws, but it is Hollywood’s abusive, violent-prone movies that are the root cause.

Dec 17, 2012 10:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Anthonykovic wrote:

This shift in public opinion is still pathetic – as clearly half the American population sees nothing fundamentally nor morally wrong with the status quo. Real sad.

Dec 17, 2012 10:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Anthonykovic wrote:

This shift in public opinion is still pathetic – as clearly half the American population sees nothing fundamentally nor morally wrong with the status quo. Real sad.

Dec 17, 2012 10:21pm EST  --  Report as abuse
WallaBingBang wrote:

I seriously doubt an online survey of 1300 people is actually representative of what ALL Americans actually think. What is the margin of error, +/- 8%?

Dec 17, 2012 10:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

Online polls are inherently flawed because there is no mandatory participation. The sample is self-selected, not random.

Increased refusal by significant percentages of the public has made polling in general less and less accurate. The world has changed since the 1950′s. Opinion polls are a 1950′s technique. Mostly the lack of cooperation has been due to an increasing lack of trust among the public.

At no time have self-selected population samples been considered reliable, and that would include the “study” cited in the article.

Dec 17, 2012 10:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
yellowdog wrote:

I support the 2nd amendment. I support people with the right training having concealed carry permits. I object to these constant gun grab conversations whenever something happens involving a gun. We have enough laws on the books, enforce them. I’m buying another hand gun before the end of the year.

Dec 17, 2012 10:42pm EST  --  Report as abuse
halo117 wrote:

This IS NOT ABOUT NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS.

It’s about a Mother who FAILED TO LOCK-UP HER GUNS TO KEEP HER MENTALLY CHALLENGED SON FROM GETTING TO THEM

THE MOTHER IS THE BLAME HERE.

Dec 17, 2012 10:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oneof7billion wrote:

None of the children attacked in China died , you should check the facts before posting.

I think we have all heard these tired arguments from the pro-gun people. Now it’s time for common sense to prevail and enact tighter regulations.

Dec 17, 2012 11:19pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UauS wrote:

sometimes to see through the tough issue it is be helpful to take it to extremes (which are improbable by default).
so, in which case people are safer – when NO ONE has guns, or when EVERY ONE has guns?..

Dec 17, 2012 11:28pm EST  --  Report as abuse
martinevans wrote:

In the incident in China the children were injured not killed. As awful as that is I think every parent in newtown would have settled for that.

Dec 17, 2012 11:39pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dbjones wrote:

Do we know whether the shooter’s weapons were “legal,” or how he obtained them? I haven’t heard, but I haven’t looked especially hard either.
It seems that in deliberating about committing such a massacre as this one – and he had to deliberate to some length beforehand – the offender would try to obtain whatever implement/s would do the greatest damage in their hands. Of course, that attempt would be limited by whatever implements were available. Thus, the gun-control argument (one cannot use that which isn’t available). Still, lack of guns would not stop a Ted Kaczynski. What if the Chinese mass-murderer had access to guns? What if Lanza had access to assault rifles?
I’m just curious about this notion of a hierarchy of weapons. I’m sure there must be some, rough hierarchy, but how does it go? What’s at the top?
Regarding the gun-control debate? What are the pro-control advocates seeking? Does anyone really support the idea of an unregulated firearms industry?

Just thoughts

Dec 17, 2012 11:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Macedonian wrote:

let’s drain all the oceans so we won’t have tsunamis amymore

Dec 17, 2012 11:59pm EST  --  Report as abuse
dbjones wrote:

Follow up….. Without banning firearms in their entirety (which won’t happen), what measures can be taken to meaningfully impact the probability of events such as Newtown in the future? I’d say that regulating sales is a given. As are regulations pertaining to capacity (age, criminal background, mental health history, etc…). What about regulating production? Or should supply and demand take care of that?

Dec 18, 2012 12:04am EST  --  Report as abuse
UauS wrote:

the oceans and tsunamis are not people’s creation, weapons are.

Dec 18, 2012 12:14am EST  --  Report as abuse
VS87 wrote:

Why are over half the people posting here so damn obtuse? This article regards reforming gun laws, NOT outlawing the right to bear arms. Read: your constitutional rights will not be infringed upon. Nowhere does it say that big government will come into your home and take all your guns.

Too many Americans seem to be watching Fox news to the extent that their basic mental capacity seems to have diminished.

No crimes of this nature have happened with classes of weapons which require stringent controls/licenses – they were mostly carried out with handguns and other weapons which can be obtained upon the completion of what by all accounts seem to be shoddy background checks. In this particular case the guns used were illegally in the possession of Lanza’s mother, which is another matter, however in general, more stringent requirements should be set for owning firearms – in a lot of other nations (excuse me Patriots, sometimes one DOES have to look to countries outside the USA for inspiration) one is required to regularly participate in gun club activities in order to maintain his/her license and to gain proficiency through tests and competitions in order to be eligible for an upgrade to more powerful arms. I don’t know if something similar exists in the USA, but it would be a good first step while making the initial point of entry a bit tougher.

This is again, not unconstitutional – if one has the conviction required and truly believes it necessary to bear arms, then it would be a very small price to pay by going through extra checks/bureaucracy and attending club activities in order to have them.

And for those mentioning the regular massacres in China carried out with hammers and knives – it would seem both nations have severe issues with mentally ill citizens. The medicine in China’s case may be different – it would be difficult to outlaw knives and hammers, however, the USA has displayed a pattern whereby such individuals use firearms as their weapon of choice (crossbows included!) – if one merely curtails the availability of these, perhaps some of these disturbed individuals would take to other methods to have their will be done, but at the same time, others might leave be altogether.

Arguments encouraging ALL citizens to be armed at all times (pre-emptive prevention) are just silly, and nor does it help to point out isolated cases in other nations, Norway for instance, and claim that it is absolute proof that tougher gun laws don’t work.

For those of us outside the USA, and this hurts to say, but the school/workplace shooting is becoming as American as Apple Pie – perhaps folks inside the US feel it too. Enough is enough – even if reforming gun laws won’t be 100% effective (deranged, conniving, intelligent maniacs will always exist) they will likely prevent other deeds carried out by hotheads who otherwise might not have gone to all the trouble of obtaining guns.

It’s time to be reasonable, and use common sense, and agree as a people on a reasonable set of restrictions that will benefit the entire nation without ceding rights to government. From where I’m sitting, it doesn’t look to be an entirely impossible task.

Dec 18, 2012 1:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
nolemming wrote:

The right to bear arms was written into the constitution as was nesessary at the time to defend the country using militas, Switzerland was the model would you believe. The rise of the unconstitutional professional standing army has for better or worse negated the need for militas and Joe public owning arms. Somehow we have both evils

Dec 18, 2012 1:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

THeRmoNukE wrote:
“Meanwhile also on Friday, a China man with zero guns murdered 1 adult and 22 children (aged 6-11) with a knife. Look it up, NY Times also reported it. He stabbed those little kids to death.”

The right-wing lies never end…

From the BBC: “A man with a knife has wounded 22 children”

From the Daily Mail: “Twenty-two children were hurt by a knife-wielding man at a primary school in central China.”

From CBC: “A knife-wielding man injured 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in central China”

It took me about 30 seconds to do that fact check. How come I can do that and you can’t?

So, what *really* happened was that a man in China, armed with a knife, killed nobody at all. A man in the USA, armed with a gun, killed 28.

The gun killed 28, the knife killed 0. There is a great argument for gun control. If Adam Lanza had been armed with a knife, those 28 would probably still be alive.

Dec 18, 2012 4:18am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Wassup wrote:
“Miscreants like Lanza with access to an arsenal cannot be outlawed.”

No… but the arsenal can be, which prevents people like Lanza from being armed.

Have you noticed how none of the Lanzas of the world attack schools/malls/theatres with hand-grenades, RPGs, etc? Guess why… could it possible because they can’t get them? Because there is no shop down the street selling them? Because they are not laying around at home for him to steal or borrow?

The same could be true of guns, if only the right-wing would stop obstructing it.

Dec 18, 2012 4:23am EST  --  Report as abuse
Abulafiah wrote:

Wassup wrote:
“Reuters: What was your poll number of participants? Perhaps 5 to 10?”

The answer is in the article, had you managed to read as far as the fourth paragraph:

“1,395 people were interviewed online from December 11-13, before the shootings. Another 1,198 people were surveyed after the shootings”

WallaBingBang wrote:
“What is the margin of error, +/- 8%?”

This too is in the article….

“plus or minus 3 percentage points”

usagadfly wrote:
“Online polls are inherently flawed because there is no mandatory participation. The sample is self-selected, not random.”

I remember you saying all this stuff about the Reuters/Ipsos polls that predicted an Obama win, and history proved them right.

Self-selecting polls may not be as reliable as random polling, but they are definitely reliable enough. What they lack is mostly “no opinion” style answers, which may or may not matter depending on the poll.

For polls recording trends (such as this one… notice that it is recording the % increase, not the % of population) rather than absolutes, it doesn’t really matter that the sampling is not totally random. It matters more that the same sampling is used in both polls.

Dec 18, 2012 4:44am EST  --  Report as abuse
dbjones wrote:

Update…..I was wrong about Lanza not having access to assault rifles; did a little research and learned about the M4 he used.

In response to VS87′s comment about possibility of limiting ownership to those who participate in a club, and/or limiting even their ownership rights/rights of use based on their merit (whether knowledge or performance based), it doesn’t seem that approach would have deterred Lanza. His mother was, apparently, an avid shooter, and the weapons were her’s (from what little I’ve read). Still, the idea of local governance is interesting. I’ll explore that one more.

Lastly, though I haven’t read of anybody stopping a would-be mass murderer, The Armed Citizen blog on the NRA website does relate reports of armed citizens using firearms, ostensibly, for personal protection. It might be worth checking out, to some.

Dec 18, 2012 6:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.