Thanks for reading and the feedback Mark!

I couldn't agree more Jon. We live in a society that asks too often "what can you do for me?" instead of "what can I do for you?" If we cared more about our fellow man instead of a few more dollars in our bank accounts the world would be a better place.

The mental health issue is interesting. To tie this to "free" healthcare is kind of a stretch because nothing is free unless you are not responsible for paying the tab. Let that to other taxpayers might be an answer in today's "I am entitled" culture. There has been not so slow march to where we are today with homeless people and mentally disturbed folks who are walking our streets. It started with well- intentioned liberal ACLU advocates who received a favorable ruling in the Supreme court in 1975 which made it much more difficult to put people into institutions where they could receive care (even if they were unable to pay, Jon). We are where we are today is not because of there is no "free" healthcare entitlement but because of a civil rights decision.

If you look at the fine print in most health care plans, there are more limits on what is covered as far as mental health goes than in any other area of healthcare. You are given only a minimal # of visits to a psychiatrist, a minimal # of days in a hospital if inpatient care is needed, etc. These people can't get well if they are not given what is needed to heal.

There are people who have a mental illness and live in denial and don't seek help at all. Parents who don't see their children of family members suffering with mental illnesses and they sweep it under the carpet as they are ashamed to admit that someone in their family has this type of illness. Being bullied also pushes people over the edge to where they do these types of killing.

Most counties including Allegheny County offer either free mental health or on a sliding scale which goes on how much money you make to be able to seek Psychological Help. Also people don't want to admit that they have mental issues because they are ashamed that they need this sort of help.

A comment that can only be described as ignorant, here Art.
When the Nazis were invading Europe and threatening Britain, the British had no personal weapons. The NRA that you despise sent hundreds of thousands of weapons to the British people since their Government had taken them away. They were used to help defend England.
Out of the approximately 300 million firearms in the hands of Americans, how many are used for the commission of crimes? The guns used in this particular tragedy were stolen from the murderer's mother [since he was denied ownership a few days prior] and used to commit an act of evil. No gun law could have prevented this. If that were true, there would be little crime in NYC, Chicago [on pace to hit 500+ murders for the year], Washington DC, and even Connecticut which have very strict gun laws. The places where guns are banned are the murder capitals of the Country.
Do you even know that a large number of weapons manufacturers are headquartered in Connecticut?
Read the Federalist Papers and learn what the Second Amendment means and why it exists.
Read your WWII history books and learn who else banned gun ownership. I'll give you a hint: One was Stalin and one was Hitler.

"No gun law could have prevented this."

True, no gun law could have stopped it, but one gun law could have minimized the carnage; a law reducing the access of nonauthorised users to assault rifles. If Lanza had only been able to use handguns, the toll may not have been as high.

Gun enthusiasts are going to have to back off on their no-compromise stance, or ironically its going to be that very stance that gets their assault rifles taken away entirely. Any debate scholar will tell you that a no-budge stance forces the same on the opposing team. A compromise should be where assault rifle enthusiasts should be leaning to get their ideas across. First off, they should back off the paranoid sounding rhetoric and admit that the true reason they love assault rifles is that shooting them is FUN, its an awesome rush that is part of a fun hobby. They should open themselves to compromises, such as assault rifles being kept at the gun range or club, to be signed in and out by their users. ARs are not needed for freerange hunting, in fact they favor bad shooters by allowing them to endanger other hunters through spray and pray shooting instead of the skilled pick-your-shot of a bolt action rifle. ARs are also not needed for home defense, as handguns are perfectly sufficient for that purpose.

If gun enthusiasts don't ease up on the NO NO NO, LA LA LA, NO LISTEN NO COMPROMISE, then that's going to be the very thing that gets the guns confiscated.

Mark A. Your comment echos many others saying the same thing, "Pass laws to prevent people from buying assault rifles...." or similar. Several politicians stepped to the microphone this past week, saying the same thing.

While the idea may have a reasonable ring to it, it misses the fact that 2.5M assault rifles are floating in the hands of the US population right now. Any new law about restricting manufacture and importing of said weapons will only have an impact for years, and years to come, as the existing ones are destroyed, lost, rendered useless, or otherwise made ineffective for mass killings. How long will it take for this to happen? Twenty years, fifty years, one hundred years, ...? Certainly, the impact for the near future is zero.

I'm not advocating a more widespread sale and use of these weapons, rather making it clear that such a path would not make an impact as proponents would suggest.

Art, I would much prefer there be a shootout than a one-sided massacre. Instead of your rhetoric, what is your plan? How do you stop someone that comes into a school intent on murdering as many people as possible? A person with no plans on coming out of the situation alive is not deterred by laws and whatever punishment you might have planned for them.

Jon - I do not see a right to healthcare in the Bill of Rights or Amendments 11 through 27. Even Obamacare will tax people and redistribute their money to others so even that cannot be termed free healthcare and still not right for those not covered.

Jon you and your old lady might be paying 1375, but expect that amount to double and triple over the next few years as someone is going to have to pay for the entitlement health care that obama put in place.

Jon - I don't see how you can make all the statements you have without knowing me. You are simply spouting off all the Left Wing stereotypes that you have learned from the media and partisan Democrats. About the only thing you did not accuse me of was Gay bashing but I guess you ran out of space. The only thing I stated before was that nothing is free, so to be "entitled" to "free" healthcare simply means that someone else is being taxed or charged to pay for it. It is as simple as that. And Obamacare is not a step in the right direction but a leap in the Left direction. Like all entitlement programs, American taxpayers will not be able to afford it.

bd, I have to agree with you and Jon is so clueless in his thinking. Wait till Jon's health care doubles and triples over the next few years to pay for entitlement healthcare then he will be whining and complaining how it isn't fair that he is paying for others to have fee entitlement care

I don't buy the argument from assault rifle fans that they own them to keep themselves safe against an oppressive government. These gun owners will never, ever, ever have to use them against the government, that is a bunch of macho fantasy nonsense. The people who yabber on about oppressive governments have no idea what it is really like to live under one. This isn't the revolutionary times, this is modern America. if there ever is another civil war, it certainly won't be fought by a bunch of gun club yahoos. it will be fought by organized opposed armies, not people in their homes. Just admit that the real reason is it makes you feel cool and strong and awesome, and is super fun to shoot. I get those kinds of feelings from caring for my family and being a valuable member of the community, i don't have to wave around an instrument of death to feel like a man.

Mark on a daily bases how many times do you actually see someone"
" Just admit that the real reason is it makes you feel cool and strong and awesome, and is super fun to shoot. I get those kinds of feelings from caring for my family and being a valuable member of the community, i don't have to wave around an instrument of death to feel like a man."

On a daily bases how many times do you see someone waving a gun around and feeling macho???

cc
A stupid comment.
Being dismissive is being stupid while acting superiorly.

Mark Trombetta the comment was for Mark A, who has a problem with guns and he thinks people own them to feel Macho. He is the one that made the comment that " I get those kinds of feelings from caring for my family and being a valuable member of the community, i don't have to wave around an instrument of death to feel like a man."
Most responsible gun owners do not wave around an instrument of death to feel like a man. I know of no one that waves around an "instrument of death," and I've been around guns all my life. Mark A is off his rocker.

Where are you getting this nonsense? This quote is completely made-up, it is a corruption of what Washington said. You need to stop listening to fox news and poorly-researched gun sites.

Here's what Washington actually said, in his first congressional address:
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

Washington was talking about the nation as a whole, maintaining its own factories and ability to stay independent from other countries, especially when it comes to making arms, for a planned and organized ARMY, not a bunch of self-proclaimed America protectors.

Do your research before simply regurgitating misinformation that you find satisfactory to your claims.

So you seriously think that our government is headed towards becoming a dictatorship and that you'll need your assault rifle to hold off government troops? Mark, if you are truly that paranoid and frightened of things for which there is zero evidence, then in my opinion you need to be on the list of mentally disturbed, gun-forbidden people that the NRA is advocating.

Assault rifle lovers are fond of claiming that they are patriotic, law-abiding citizens. Suppose a law IS passed that creates a ban and mandatory buyback of assault rifles. Would you abide by that law?

Mark A, how much time did you spend in Medical School studying Psychology and how many years of practice do you have in the field.

Mark, I would say 99.9999 of the gun owners out there are patriotic, law-abiding citizens and don't go out and kill people. It seem that the ones that are mentally ill get a hold of gun's illegally either by stealing or killing some one to get their hands on guns to go out and do these types of shootings.

There are more people killed on roads by DUI's than by guns so would you hand over your car and keys if someone came to your door and demanded them or would you fight to keep your car as your not the one that killed someone while driving under the influence.

How about the Government banning Xbox because of all the violent games out there, would you turn your Xbox in if someone showed up at your door to take it?????

when cc says: There are more people killed on roads by DUI's ...

That's RICH! LOL

So if a license inspector and policeman came to your house to enforce the buyback on your assault weapon, you would fire on them? Wow, just wow. I guess the law-abiding part only applies to the laws you like?

Do you think Australia is a totalitarian state? I'm not sure you really understand what a totalitarian state is; it is a government that subordinates the individual to the state and strictly controls all aspects of life by coercive measures. Enacting a ban on one type of firearm comes nowhere near to that definition. This is too much Hannity and Limbaugh talking here.

Mark A you are totally off the wall in your way of thinking. Where did Mark Trombetta say that he would pull out his assault rifle and say that he was going to kill someone???? I wouldn't turn over my guns either but that does not mean that I would kill someone to keep my guns.

This is the same quote as above, taken from the speech of january 8 1790 and with words taken out. It is edited and is thus out of context and not real.

This is also misquoted. The full quote from the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788 was this: “When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, – who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”

He's thus not discussing what should be done in America, but what was done by England TO America. It at least supports your argument correctly, but is still quoted wrong and taken out of context.

A conversation is needed in America, not pointless cherrypicking of Googled misinformation. Anyone can do that, to little or no effect. Here's one I found:

"Martha, where are the rolling papers? The yellow ones, dear, this crop of sticky icky is truly the chronic. Also, don't believe everything you read on the Internet."
- George Washington

In this quote, Jefferson is referring to the ideal of one man with a rifle, not one man with ALL KINDS of weapons. Jefferson did not advocate ordinary citizens using cannon, and in my opinion he'd also be against citizens possessing assault weapons, he would say they are unnecessary.

See, quote cherrypicking is an ineffective method of argument, because even if the quote is correct, it is still open to other interpretations besides yours.

What I'm getting is that you think a ban on a particular type of extra-dangerous weapon is equivalent to taking away all your guns. It is not, it is only taking away a particular type of gun that is used for rampages. At least, that is the position of people who are pro-ban, which i am not. It definitely needs to be discussed though, without all the noble founding father BS cherrypicking.

The jefferson quote can apply to your pistols and rifles, those are more than sufficient for you to defend yourself. if there is a civil war, it will be fought by organized armies equipped with weapons of war, not gun enthusiasts who enjoy assault weapons for the rush of plinking them at the range. In my opinion, you are way oversestimating your own importance, you have a sense of grandeur about your own rights, at the expense of refusing to respect those of others.

Cmon, you know its really about just getting that rush of power at the range.

Mark A
What type of weapon is "extra dangerous"?
Funny looking ones? Black ones? Ones with skulls on them?
You are right that Jefferson was speaking of rifles as well. That is what "assault rifles" are.
Hey, they even put that in the name!
Well, at least the liberal kooks did.
You can't fix stupid.

Mark the more you open your mouth the more psychological help you need. There are millions of these guns out there owned by law-abiding patriotic citizens. If they ever did one of your "WHAT lF" buy back programs to take these guns off the street, the only ones that would still have these guns are the ones with Mental Health Issues and criminals.who don't follow the law to begin with and wouldn't follow a gun buy back program either.

no its not, it is edited from "A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined" with words taken out. Anyone can take words out of any quote to make it seem what it is not

You really won't like this one Mark A:

Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

That is from the Pa State Constitution.
OUCH!!!!
You will either have to amend it or move.
....Or maybe that is out of context as well?

My God!!!
a conspiracy?
From Merriam-Webster [known right wing nut jobs]:

arm
noun, often attributive

Definition of ARM

a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially: firearm

Nice rambling train of thought with random tangents. Also, this thread ended like, last year.

Sorry, Mark A
You are just too smart for me.

Ditto to what Andy says here about stopping these events. Remember that Columbine had an armed guard inside the school at the time of the shootings.

The knee-jerk reaction of so many districts to add armed guards makes for great PR and political rhetoric. But, effectiveness, ... well, others have shown this path to be ineffective.

Roger - the armed guard was not in the Columbine school at the time of the shootings. He was with another guard at a different location where the "smokers" went. By the time he heard about the shootings, he had to protect the students running out of the building and never went into the building at all.

Point remains that Columbine school had armed guards and that did not stop the shooters from their evil deeds.

You need to look at over all statistics, not just one example, i.e. Columbine. When you pull out one example can can almost always find one to support your opinion. The fact is Columbine HS is a large campus, had one armed guard, who happened to be in his car eating lunch at the time of the shooting. IF you were to put armed guards in schools, that is not an example of how you would do it. I don't know the layout of Coumbine so I'll use my old HS as an example. There are four separate buildings, so at a minimum you would need a guard per building. So, yes Columbine had a guard but he wasn't even on duty at the time of the shooting. My understanding is he still manage to keep several students that were outside out of the line of fire. I'm not saying we need armed guards in every school, but if the approach is used it has to be planned properly for the size and layout of the school. The fact is, something like 20 or 30 percent of schools already have armed guards. Are the instances that have been avoided because of their presences? We don't know. Those don't make the news. All options should be on the table and thoroughly evaluated.

So, if we "just don't know" and we have conflicting stories here about where that guard was and what he was doing, where are the "overall statistics" you want us to consider?

In every article that I have read of the Columbine Shooting, they said that the guard was at lunch during the shooting. He did fire back at one of the the ones that was shooting out the window to protect the student that were leaving the school. Columbine is also a very big school which they only had one armed guard and he couldn't be in 20 places at one time. The two that committed these murders brought these guns in school in their bookbags, they had also set up explosives all over the school to go off the day of the shooting.

Your first mistake is trying to argue with these people with logic. Don't you know when something like this happens we're supposed to throw away the constitution to protect the children?

What I notice about the list is that all the early events (with the exception of Bath MI which was a booming not a shooting; and a couple due to drunkness) is that they are all targeted against a single individual, such as a teacher that had disiplined them. That's now how I interpreted the statement on generaltional issue directed at. When we look at mass radom shootings those don't appear to have started until the late 70's. Shootings where if there was a motivate, it's lost somewhere in the mind of the shoter. And there is clear lack of respect for life based on the number of people randomly targeted.

Sue T-I'm inclined to believe its generational as well. When did the military draft end? Most kids either learned self discipline, or were weeded out. In a particular sense, it was the only social welfare program we ever had that worked.

And when did Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" begin? The beginnings of the Nanny State, the end of the draft, the great shift away from personal responsibility were factors that lead to today's Little Johnny who we never wish to diminish his self esteem. Of course Little Johnny gets out of the protective cocoon of high school and finds out, hey, its a tough world out here. That could explain the lone shooters who think its cool to shoot up Victim Disarmament Zones. Did you ever note they rarely attack police stations or military facilities, or other well guarded (by force of arms) places?

The overarching problem here is not so much the rare school shooting, but rather the particular socio-economic sub stratum that have grown up in a society with no strong male father figure, no incentive to work, and few consequences for their actions. Chicago had 500 firearm murders in 2012. That in a city that is noted for its most draconian gun laws. The teens who turn to drugs and gangs are obviously not impressed with, nor inclined to, obey the gun laws.

There is, in my never humble opinion, a direct correlation between the hopelesness brought on by generations of public assistance, and cold blooded murders in the big city. (continued--)

Sue T--part 2 of this rant.
Do you really think Obama, Biden, or for that matter anyone in Government is going to point their collective finger at the Governments own Frankenstein Monster? Do you see an admission, in your lifetime, that generations of folks living off the dole, often in horrid conditions associated with ghetto living created by the Government, are the real issue? In the end, call it gun control, or just control, or people control, gun laws are racism in its most evil form. Picture yourself as a law abiding inner city resident afraid to walk to the local grocery store, especially after dark, because YOU are lawful and don't own a firearm for your own defense, but children--15, 16, 17 years of age have no regard for the law, or for life itself. What have we, as a Nation, created?

Its most certainly generational. Reinstate the draft, and put those who commit crimes with firearms into the deepest recesses of our jails and prisons for a long, long time. Until we teach inner discipline, and instill a sense of responsibility for one's actions, don't look for the gun issue to go away.

Politicians like to be voted back into office. Addressing the real problem gets them labeled racists, and their political careers are history.

Quoting: "... And when did Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" begin? The beginnings of the Nanny State, the end of the draft, the great shift away from personal responsibility were factors that lead to today's Little Johnny who we never wish to diminish his self esteem. ..."

Here, here!!! At the time, Great Society programs seemed very logical, and iniquitous. I think I am in a large majority that never saw the unintended consequences of LBJ's program. Many of us that supported the program fully at the time, now understand what has happened.

I am no historian. I have no great insight into societal behaviors. I was never deeply involved with these programs personally. However, in my short hindsight, Great Society sparked a major change in culture, society, personal achievement, work ethic, and the citizen's view of big government. Someday, the writers of history will be able to piece together the changes instituted by Great Society, and the impact. Even in the short time since implementation, and the age of some of us, the patterns are emerging pretty clearly. More time is needed. But, your comment regarding the fulcrum is dead on target, ... at least from my vantage point behind the thick post.

You have taken the discussion in the gun violence direction. But, there are a myriad of directions to go with the significance of the GS event.

How many generations? even since the 1970s?

John have to totally agree with you. It isn't the law abiding citizen that are going out and committing these killings. It is the ones that are getting these guns illegally that are committing these crimes. Just watch any of the news station at 5-6 am in the morning and see how many drive by shootings, shooting in bars, on the streets of Pittsburgh there are every night. These aren't happening in good neighborhoods, they are coming from areas that have high volumes of people living off the system. They get these guns illegally and then they pass these guns on to others to commit the same type of shootings. I know a lot of people who won't drive anywhere near the North Side, East Liberty because of all the drive by shootings in these area's.

These aren't happening in good neighborhoods, they are coming from areas that have high volumes of people living off the system.>>>

Like Richard Bauhammers of Mt. Lebanon? George Sodini of Scott Twp? Richard Poplowski of Stanton Heights?:
No, this kind of mental sickness behavior does not occur only in low income areas. And FTR, many in those low income areas you point at are not "living off the system", they are working people.
Lots of prejudice showing here.