^^ but, I truly do believe that better education about mental illness and more access to mental health care would make a big difference when it comes to preventing these shootings. For instance - why would the shooters mother have firearms in a home where she has a mentally ill child?

Interesting article. I do agree, the media definitely makes them seem more frequent.

That scares me. A hot headed person CANNOT be allowed to carry a firearm. That is when the risk of a fender bender or road rage incident turns deadly.

I do not want all teachers armed for the very reasons you mention. I would like to see it as has been done in places like Harrold, TX. Maybe not even all the teachers who are qualified to carry should carry, but that opens up another can of worms.

Unfortunately, that is the truth.

And how, pray tell, do you propose we keep guns out if the hands of the "hot heads"? It's not a medical diagnosis. It's a character flaw.

I've noticed this photo, complete with spelling mistake, cropping up in Facebook, and other websites.

Please.....if you're wanting to honor the memories of the deceased, at least spell the name of their town correctly. It is NewtoWn, not Newton.

http://www.internationalforgiveness....k-Candle_1.jpg

I have no idea. I might suggest that all permit holders or even gun owners be required to complete an MMPI and have it evaluated. I voluntarily took one some 30 odd years ago. Unfortunately we get into privacy issues, innocent until proven guilt, proving competency before exercising a right, there are many problems that need to be addressed. If we do this regarding 2nd Amendment rights then they must be applied equally to rights of free press, speech, expression, religion, and lawful assembly. A slippery slope.

I don't think you can compare owning a gun (a physical, tangible item) to practicing religion.

As bizarre as it is for me to look at PA state liquor stores as a model, maybe that's the answer - un-privatizing gun sales. There are too many dealers out there who will overlook the requirements to get the $$$.

It has nothing to do with that aspect of being tangible or intangible. It is the exercise of at right. If we could require a test or standard be applied to firearms ownership, which I think would be a good idea but oppose based on the difference in a 'right' and a 'privledge', it would then be required for other rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. You must take a test to know the position of candidates before being allowed to vote. The press must have tested knowledge of a topic before being allowed to report on the topic. (This would be great for reporters speaking about 'assault rifles', 'high powered' ammunition, and automatic firearms.) Religion has probably caused more human on human death in the history of man. License religion so that the government can protect us from violent followers of some religions. People would also have to be licensed to practice their religion and if you claim to be Christian forget about being allowed to get an abortion. I support the right of a woman to choose, but I personally find it abhorent. My belief is based on religion and I believe that the governement cannot force a religious belief on the general populous. We are born with rights. Those rights are in the Constitution. Beyond that are privledges, which can be licensed and controlled by the government and I don't want to see rights become privledges. Rights must be exercised with responsibility and I do see some advantages to licensing rights, especially when it comes to voting, but I must oppose any attempt to regulate rights.

History and the Supreme Court disagree with you.

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, emancipation and the actions of some states that sought to blunt the effects of emancipation, and the Dred Scott decision.

Prior to ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court specifically held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. The drafters of the amendment believed that the amendment was necessary not to confirm what was already the law, but to change the law and impose on the states the obligation to respect the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

It wasn't until 1920 that SCOTUS first held that the First Amendment applied to the states. Prior to 2010, SCOTUS had held on more than one occasion that the Second Amendment did not apply to states. There are a few rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to trial by jury, that still-valid SCOTUS decisions hold do not apply to the states. As far as that goes, the same 2010 case that held that the Second Amendment does apply to the states, McDonald v Chicago, specifically notes which rights in the Bill of Rights are not incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also said very clearly, "The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government."

I just now saw this, and I completely agree.

As someone who has lived out in the country her entire life (except when I'm away at school), it's very comforting to know that my father has firearms that could protect us if someone were to break in to our home. People are vulnerable out in the middle of nowhere. It's an easy way for a criminal to try and commit a robbery without being noticed by passerbys, and calling 911 won't do much good when we have one sheriff for our entire county on duty at a time.

This is something that people who think nobody should ever possess a gun simply don't understand. Some people are responsible for their own safety.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/york-newspa...154215176.html

Wow, what a bunch of idiots. What could possibly be the point of doing this? Can't get a gun in upstate NY because you're a felon? No prob dude, just check the interactive map for a gun owner in your very own neighborhood and wait till he leaves on vacation or for work and just break in and steal his guns.

^^^^ WOW. I cannot imagine what news outlet could possibly think that's okay.

I wonder if the newspaper or author of that article could be held responsible for any damages occurred from this?

I grew up in such an area, and never felt that firearms were a solution. Stuff can be replaced. People die.

I guess I should have clarified. I was talking more about break-ins that would be threatening to my family's life. If a criminal broke into my home with an intent to kill (rare, but it does happen to people), the only way for us to protect ourselves would be with a weapon. Sorry, that's reality. Police simply can't be there in enough time to protect citizens who live out in the boondocks. You really can't expect people who live out in the country to not be able to defend themselves.

So if someone breaks into your house, you're really going to assume he has the best of intentions?