Newton, Connecticut

By judith wenzel andersen | Dec 14, 2012

     Two days ago I pulled up behind a young woman in an SUV who had a bumper sticker which read "Gun control means a steady hand and a good aim," or something to that effect. It was horrifying to me then.

     Today today there was a terrible shooting costing so many innocent lives. Just after hearing that news, I saw another "steady hand" sticker on a car in a store parking lot and it made me physically ill.

     Enough of these snide slogans and NRA... When, for God's sake will we contol handguns and automatic rifles in this country? NRA, which has spent millions to prevent control, certainly has blood on its hands.

Comments (18)
Posted by: DANIEL DATES | Dec 23, 2012 19:58

I have to ask you Mrs Wenzwl, does it make you PHYSICALLY ILL when your President has killed more CHILDREN with his ordered drone strikes, then have been killed in the last 40 mass killings? Does it make you PHYSICALLY ILL that more people have been killed by your President, with semi and fully automatic weapons ( some of which were innocent CHILDREN and WOMEN ) as well as Americans!  With him giving those weapons to Mexican Drug lords, with the Fast and furious scandal? And you want to talk about having blood on ones hands!



Posted by: Vince Bemis | Dec 23, 2012 09:05

An assault weapon is a fully automatic firearm. They are not sold to the general public. Semi-automatic firearms have been around since at least 1911. Many sporting type firearms are semi-automatic. They work exactly the same as the ones that are being used in these horrific attacks. Law abiding citizens will be the only ones affected by banning any type of firearm. When president Clinton signed the "assault weapons" ban the number of mass shootings did not go down. When the law was repealed (due to the advent of instant background checks) their frequency did not increase. Enforcement of existing laws and a focus on identifying unstable people and keeping them from getting weapons is the wiser course.



Posted by: Francis Mazzeo, Jr. | Dec 23, 2012 07:27

Why does any person need to have an assault weapon? Because they have a right doesn't make it a sensible choice. These weapons have one purpose. To kill something. If we the people had as much money as the NRA we could dress our children in bullet proof vest and helmets so they would be safer in school.It's a different society now but it ain't better. 



Posted by: Vince Bemis | Dec 22, 2012 07:19

The first amendment protects free speech. The founding fathers had a handbill passed out in the public square. Now someone can face a camera and reach hundreds of millions at once. The musket WAS the military arm of the day. They intended for THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR them in order to maintain a free state. The word "state" was with a small "s" as in state of being, NOT the nationstate. They felt strongly enough about this right to place it right after the right to free speech in the Bill of Rights. Free people have arms, subjects do not.



Posted by: Vince Bemis | Dec 22, 2012 07:18

The first amendment protects free speech. The founding fathers had a handbill passed out in the public square. Now someone can face a camera and reach hundreds of millions at once. The musket WAS the military arm of the day. They intended for THE PEOPLE to KEEP AND BEAR them in order to maintain a free state. The word "state" was with a small "s" as in state of being, NOT the nationstate. They felt strongly enough about this right to place it right after the right to free speech in the Bill of Rights. Free people have arms, subjects do not.



Posted by: Catherine Cooper | Dec 17, 2012 19:43

Maybe an assault weapon ban could be okay IF it were left alone at that. Going to be a real uphill battle to have handguns and rifles banned.I believe even Obama would have a tough time trying to rewrite the Constitution.



Posted by: judith wenzel andersen | Dec 17, 2012 15:00

     More than three Americans die per hour of gun shot wounds, not all because of criminals. A study in the Southern Medical Journal showed that a gun in the home was twelve times more likely to kill or injure a family member or friend than a buirglar.

     Guns available to an impulsive person provide a quick way to commit suicide or murder during an argument, with no chance to reconsider once the trigger is pulled.

     In our training and practice, my husband and I have seen the disastrous results of gun shots, sometimes accidents, sometimes perpetrated by people who were troubled or angry. Worse, we had to tell relatives that a child or spouse victim could not be saved, a horrible and wrenching task.

     Legislation can save lives. To quote Nicholas Kristoff regarding laws in Australia affecting the sale of automatic weapons: "In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings--but not one in the 14 years after the law took effect." He also described Canada's 28 day waiting period for buying a handgun as well as requiring two character witnesses to vouch for buyers. Such laws should not be offensive to people who feel they need handguns in the house.

     It will take a national will to stop the carnage. I hope and pray we have it.

 



Posted by: Catherine Cooper | Dec 17, 2012 11:08

I have read every argument regarding gun control. If a criminal or any person is out to hurt or kill they can in any number of ways. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer to blow up a building, the 9/11 terrorists used box cutters to take over the plane and ultimately airplanes to kill so gun control isn't the answer.Gangs, drug dealers, criminals and the mentally ill will ignore and break the law. Law abiding citizens should not be penalized for their actions. Reading a story about why someone thinks gun control will save the country won't change my and millions of hunters, target practice enthusiasts and homeowners who want to protect their loved ones and homes minds. Obama will try to push for gun control using this sad event as a reason but expect push back, because there will be and should be. The Constitution is still the guiding light for this country.



Posted by: Amanda Parten | Dec 17, 2012 04:58

The young man in question was not a criminal by any means. He was however, mentally disturbed - as are the majority of such mass killings. There is a terrific article in The Huffington Post titled "I am Adam Lanza's Mother." I suggest, Ms. Cooper, that you read this.



Posted by: Catherine Cooper | Dec 16, 2012 21:38

Criminals own guns. Criminals do not obey laws. Criminals shoot and kill people. Criminals do not obey laws. I do not want to live in a country where the only people who have guns are the police, the military and criminals.



Posted by: R Johnson | Dec 16, 2012 21:14

Well said, Rebekah.



Posted by: Rebekah Woodworth | Dec 16, 2012 11:11

With all due respect to law-abiding, conscientious gun owners like Ms. Cooper, we cannot continue to bang on about the second amendment at the expense of a meaningful, painful, highly overdue conversation about gun violence in this country.

A society which witnesses this sort of tragedy, again, and continues to refuse to consider any actions which could reduce the risk of recurrence, is either willfully ignorant or morally bankrupt.



Posted by: Catherine Cooper | Dec 15, 2012 15:53

The 2nd amendment. And bans do not work in other countries.



Posted by: R Johnson | Dec 15, 2012 15:09

And I quote:

'Twitter users and media personalities in the U.K. immediately invoked Dunblane – a 1996 shooting in that small Scottish town which killed 16 children. That tragedy prompted a campaign that ultimately led to tighter gun controls effectively making it illegal to buy or possess a handgun in the U.K.

"This is America's Dunblane," British CNN host Piers Morgan wrote on Twitter. "We banned handguns in Britain after that appalling tragedy. What will the U.S. do? Inaction not an option."'

The rest of the world is wondering why on Earth America won't do something about our gun problem.  What ELSE is it going to take?  Another shooting?  There was another one today at a hospital in Alabama.  Where and who will it be tomorrow?  And the next day, and the next day and the next ad nauseum?

Gun bans are working in other countries around the world, so why NOT here?



Posted by: Catherine Cooper | Dec 15, 2012 14:15

There is no way to edit here so here is my post again.

Guns will always get in to the hands of criminals, laws written or not. When do criminals obey laws? I want to be able to own a gun legally and will argue that with anyone. You want a world where the police, military and criminals are the only people with access to guns? I don't.

 



Posted by: Catherine Cooper | Dec 15, 2012 14:14

Guns will always get in to the hands of criminals, laws written or not. When do criminals obey laws? I want to be able to own a gum legally and will argue that with anyone. You want a world where the police, military and criminals are the only people with access to guns? I don't.



Posted by: Amanda Parten | Dec 15, 2012 11:53

Here. Here. This is gone way beyond the use of gun control. This situation is so incredibly tragic in which yet another mentally ill human being has sacrificed innocent, beautiful children, teachers, and staff. I wonder, however, why this substitute teacher would have so many guns in the house to begin with? Was she afraid of her son? Just wondering.

 



Posted by: R Johnson | Dec 15, 2012 10:03

I agree.  This has gone beyond the point that any civilized country should allow...when our constitution was created, our founding fathers could not have, in their wildest imaginings, conceived of the weaponry that we now have in this country...not exactly muskets in a militia.



If you wish to comment, please login.