How do you create a gun law around the Newtown scenario? What happens when the gun falls into the hands of an unstable person in the same household? Adam Lanza took his mother's legal and documented firearms and kill her with them. Then he went to where he knew the odds were in his favour - the path of least resistance.

There should be a police officer or deputized person at every school by default. Guns with biometric triggers that can only be fired by the person who purchased them. A special registration for assault rifles if not an outright ban on civilian use. Rifles that cannot be converted to full automatic.

All these things are possible. However, like every other long-lived industry in the US, the people who can make these thing possible are reluctant to disrupt the status quo.

Conncecticut laws currently ban the possession of "assault weapons," among other strict gun prohibitions (see Connecticut General Statutes 53-202a through 53-202o). These are among the strictest gun control laws in the U.S., and contain prohibitions currently being pushed for adoption under Federal law. Clearly, however, the strict gun control laws already in place in Connecticut did not prevent Adam Lanza from carrying out his horrible attack. Any news outlet reporting on this incident and carrying on a discussion of a Federal ban on assault weapons should be obligated to report these important facts. And, in light of all this, any further discussion of a Federal ban on assault weapons needs to include serious and thoughtful consideration of how such a ban would be effective in preventing these types of attacks in the future. In other words, we need to ask the question: if stricter State gun control measures didn't prevent gun violence in Connecticut, why should anyone believe that stricter Federal gun control measures will be effective?

If you want to carry this discussion an interesting step further, bring in the possible pernicious effects of (gun) violent TV shows, movies, and video games. Propose banning them. Suddenly the urban educated literary set, proponents of the First amendment, as opposed to the second amendment, will pooh pooh or go into rabid opposition to this proposal. Oh no! It's not US! It's them, those crazy gun owners... And so, we are unlikely to get gun violence control, be it to regulate guns (gun owners will not give up their second amendment rights) or violence-romanticization control (writers, publishers, and movie makers will not give up their first amendment rights).
Right now, writers, publishers, and journalists all find it convenient to say it's all the fault of guns, the gun industry, and gun owners. I'm not entirely sure I would discount the effects of TV, movies, or first person shooters.

The freedom that you or I have to go out and buy an assault weapon is the same freedom that will be abused by people who want them for nefarious purposes. I for one am alright with giving up that freedom if it means that it will be harder for criminals to get them too. Mabe it won't stop all mass shootings, but I want to be able to say that we did everyting in our power to do so.

I have a question, what exactly is an assault weapon? Is it a knife, a pistol, an automatic rifle, someone's fists? One of the problems with banning assault weapons is defining them in the first place. Stricter gun laws will not prevent what happened at Columbine, Sandy Hook, et all. In fact it may make them more common as the criminals know they don't have much to fear.

Astounding numbers and statistics about gun ownership. If we keep showing the numbers, and how guns are not going to be taken away from Americans but that the assault weapons need to be monitored closer, we can get some change to occur.

I am a gun owner, hunter and avid recreational shooter. I hope that we can have a meaningful debate on gun control/gun rights because constructive conversation is always good. My concern is that we will not have a debate based on rational arguments but rather the fear and scare tactics so common from both sides. While events like the tragedy in Newton push issues onto the front pages and the fronts of people's minds, it can be difficult to have a positive outcome when emotions are running high. Hopefully a comprehensive solution to reducing violence will be found and Washington will avoid slapping a bandaid on this issue that deserves serious discussion.

The city of Kennesaw, GA made it a law that every head of household has to own a gun in 1982. Burglaries, robberies, violent crime, and other crime rates went down drastically over the next 2 years and has since stayed 50% lower than pre 1982 rates with no discernable increase in accidental shootings. The most dangerous cities in the u.s. have laws forbidding gun ownership.

I personally believe only law enforcement and military should legally carry weapons. This is not the Wild West and every violent massacre that occurs shows us that the wrong people are getting hold of these weapons which are not even used often on a battlefield. The simple fact is people that think they need weapons for protection are just promoting violence themselves.

Lets do it this way Wayne LaPierre, your version of the Second Amendment propaganda last week killed 28 children and grownups at Sandy Hook Elementary School! Americans are sick and tired in living in NRA promoted fear which is really about making big money through the sale of guns for investors in the gun business -iIt ain't closely related to patriotism its about making huge amounts of money to purchase votes to sustain NRA insanity. We need gun control now and not in some vague NRA future.

Please note: a clip generally only holds 10 rounds and is a strip that allows the rounds to slide into a magazine. The two are not synonymous. It is a misnomer that pistols and rifles use clips. The term "assault" weapons is also a misnomer. The assault weapons are military weapons that allow for rapid fire. The AR15 is similar in construction and ruggedness. Even the military m4 doesn't allow for the pulling of the trigger once and the magazine empties, it requires 10 pulls of the trigger to empty one magazine.
I served in the military and view the world from the rear of those assault weapons, I see them as tools for liberators from enemies foreign and domestic, but even in the worlds's war zones I never used the weapon to kill non-combatants. One might choose be believe we are safe from foreign invades, but the threat is real as long as there are people, factions and governments calling for the fall of the great Satan we are not safe and need these weapons for the trained and well regulated individual that would stand as militia.
Mental health is the primary concern and is the casualty of the recent Newtown tragedy. When law enforcement says "we know you are concerned for you safety, but he has not committed a crime and therefore there is nothing we can do". That is more pressing that gun control. Gun control is a knee jerk reaction that feels right but is negligent in address healthcare in America.

No, these New Yorkers like Bloomberg think everyone should act exactly like him have the same lyfe style dreams etc, in reality we are all different, every state is different, how can i say ban this weapon and meanwhile the same ppl who want to ban these weapons are creating all over the world even more weapon for mass destruction, no one can save us but ourselves if we work together and start finding out easier and use our logic, not communism like these devils propose and account for our actions and teach the same to our families..