Pure NRA nonsense rhetoric. The right wing extremists in this country are dinosaurs, soon to be extinct. The last election showed how out of touch you are and this latest NRA response to the tragedy in Conn. is just further evidence of the downbound train you are on.

Bob,
I agree with how you think 100%. We should be able to buy any type of weapon as long as we aren't a criminal or a dirtbag or mentally unstable. The criminals will still have weapons and if they know that people are unarmed , there will be more crime. And all this talk about "assult rifles" is nonsense, even though the government "banned" full automatic weapons back in the 1930's, you can still own one. You need a class three license -(about $300.00) a more extensive background check, and I believe you give up your right to having your home or business searched without a warrant. So if you really want to shoot something fun on a range, find a friend with a class 3 license!

Uh, yes, there were some ignorant folks in the red bowels of America making these claims. Until it was pointed out to them - gently I hope - that you can't really do that. So quick, go grab weapons for march to succession - ridiculous people.

Well Glenn, The facts do not lie. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011 New York City and Chicago have higher crime per 100,000 people than anywhere else. Gee and it is virtually impossible for any LAW ABIDING Citizen to get carry permit there. More gun control = more crime. AND the majority of the violence is carried out by criminals and DRUGS are the underlying reason for most of itA monkey that breaks into houses in your town and STEALS money, jewelry and other valuables, do you think he is taking the stuff home to his house because he is a have not and you have it?? No the majority of them head to treasure hunt or any number of other places that buy STOLEN jewelry and don't ask questions. Then the dirtball takes the money and buys DRUGS. If you would venture out of Upper St. Clair once in awhile, you might see what the real world is all about!

Jim, you seem to be looking for a debate where there is only a request for both sides to back up there "facts". Your link does support a correlation between control and increases gun violence. And points to a deterrent effect of an armed populace. Still correlation is not causation.

Which of the 23 proposals by the President would have stopped the shooting Saturday night on E Carson St? Which ... would have stopped the shooting in the parking lot in Washington a couple of weeks ago? Which ... death of the man on Friday night in Pittsburgh? Which ... the recent court conviction in Pittsburgh of the death of the police officer?

Using the President's words (as well as those of Joe Biden), "... stopping gun violence ..." is just plain naive. Much of the support for the 23 proposals comes from those believing that the 300M gun now in circulation will suddenly disappear, and we start over from zero gun population.

Please explain the multi-million dollar proposal to have CDC "study the reasons for gun violence." What does this mean and why kind of expectations are to come from such a "study?" How does such a study differ from one intended to discover the reasons for evil?

Help us out with some explanations, please. Thanks.

ProudProgressive, ... looking for answers to the questions. Thanks in advance.

Yes, Proud.. still looking for answers to my questions to you. My questions had nothing to do with mass murdering weapons. I am not a member of NRA, nor a supporter. NRA has zero to do with the questions I asked regarding the local incidents. NRA folks hold national conversations. My questions were merely local events to which I asked some simple questions. Answers, please ....?

Roger, Your questions are merely the same NRA juiced "hypotheticals" - driven arguments that support the ignorant notion that no gun control measures will solve all of our problems, so we should try nothing and nothing should change. And yes though I'm till waiting for you to answer my basic question, I'll tell you most assuredly that if we had tighter controls on the sale and tracking of weapons in this country, and serious enforcement of the laws and penalites associated with gun ownership, sales and use, then those incidents you mention will become much less frequent in our country.

Ah, ha... now I see you are backing down from the "stopping" posture, to "less frequent." The inclusive language of the WH after the Sandy Hook event was intended to gain support for programs they knew would not work.

No, the questions remain. I see nobody wants to take each of the 23 proposals, and tell us how they are effective. For example, the appointing a head of ATF. This position has been open for six years. Yes, six years! And, it took the Sandy Hook event to take action to fill the post? Really? Is this how serious we really are about firearms, that the national head of the firearms division remains open for six years? Why didn't George W Bush fill the position when he was still in office? Does this tell us that this is one national agency that is ineffective, and brings nothing to the table, but rather is a figurehead agency?

What about allocating millions of dollars to CDC to "study the reasons for gun violence?" What does this have to do with the South Side incidents? We already know that mankind is flawed, and has perpetrated violence one-upon-another since Cain killed Abel. Why do we think that 2013 in the US is any different, and that through some "study" we can find something new? Will they also determine the reasons for the violence that happened at the natural gas plant in Algeria?

You may bring the NRA to the discussion all you wish, but it has zero to do with the matter. These issues transcend the US,, NRA, and 21st century.