You either don't live in the United States or you have not bothered to learn the laws here. All the shootings were done in heabily regulated places where guns were not allowed. It did not happen where guns were and are allowed so people can defend themselves. In each case the shooters broke the law just bringing the weapons on campus so the gun bans did nothing to save the people being shot but helped the shooters. You are correct we need more gun control. Gun control is defined as hitting your target. One shot one kill. these idiots used bunches of bullets to kill a few people what a waste of ammo. They used to teach gun safety in school now they don't. we did not have shootings in schools back then now we do.

They killed innocent school children and I am not sure whether the absolute horror of what was done 10 years ago has dawned.

Not going to happen with the current government we have.  I'm keeping my weapons, and getting plenty more.  Don't use this tragedy to advocate your stance, it's pretty pathetic.  

Restrictive gun laws DO NOT PREVENT CRIME, that has been proven over and over.

That's exactly what you are doing. 

The reason this country is great, despite our current "leader", is that we have the right to bear arms.  We are not subjects, we are citizens.

You have a really weird concept about Americans. I think you need to stop trying to assume you understand Americans because you clearly don't. Laws stop law obiding citizens from either getting guns or misusing them. They don't, however, prevent criminals who don't care about these laws from acquiring them and using them.

I agree assult weapons are not something every household should have. I don't see why anyone should have to shoot a gun at all unless necessary, let along 50 or more bullets per second. But to have them as a collector or simply because you enjoy using them at shooting ranges, then sure, I don't mind. In the end keeping law abiding citizens from acquiring any kind of weapon will not keep these weapons out of the hands of criminals.

Unrestricted?  Are background checks unrestricting access to guns?

Didn't envisage? The VAST majority of the people back then had some form of a gun.  Mainly used for hunting or protection. 

No condemnation of the media and it's glorification through massive coverage?

As I said before. Background checks allow for free availability?

Bahu, there was a gentleman (I cannot recall his name at the time) whose child was a victim in the Columbine tragedy.  He was not a member of the NRA and did NOT possess a gun at home.  He spoke before congress stating that he did not feel that it was the guns that murdered his child but rather the PEOPLE behind the guns that did.  He stood there to oppose gun control laws.

Guns don't murder people, people murder people.

Just as it was mentioned on another thread.  Great Britain implemented gun control.  Gun related crimes fell but crimes with other weapons (knives and other items) sky rocketed balancing out the over all crime level. 

The guns used in the Columbine massacre were obtained illegally. It wasn't a lack of laws that allowed it to happen, there were laws already in place. Those laws were broken. More laws would only effect law-abiding citizens.

Funny none of the weapons used at Columbine were "Assault" rifles. Liberals love that word, it's their battle cry in their anti-gun campaign, but it only shows their ignorance. The really problem, as Humordt keyed on, is that there are many gun laws in effect, but are casually, or unevenly enforced. So next time your liberal judges give a light sentence, or liberal activist want to empty prisons, take a hard look there. What about the two idiots at Columbine? It's their parents fault plain and simple. This two probably didn't get a good kick in the @ss when they deserved it (yeah liberals are against that too), or the parents just didn't care and let them do whatever they felt like. Spare the rod spoil the child. a good parent knows when enough is enough.

If according to many liberals that guns kill people, not people kill people, shouldn't NRA conventions and gun shows be frequent massacre site? Why do most shooting seem to occur at liberal institutions, like schools and colleges?

I've always viewed guns as a coward's weapon. Just pressing the button on the boom stick is rather easy and...disconnecting.  If you're going to kill someone the least you can do is get up close and personal.

...perhaps I'm just being overly philosophical about it.

~Zoo

That's funny I've always viewed someone that would take a life without good reason a coward. Amazing how some blame the object and not the mind behind it. Are the recent beheadings "honorable" in your eyes? I imagine it's easy with the victim bound and tied, kneeing before you. The weapon of choice might be an indicator of efficiency, convenience, or symbolism, or just some overly philosophical (LOL). To me, watching a slower method of death is sadistic. Ahhh the "Saw/Hostel" generation.

I'm not worried about you though Zoo, your too bright to have the same world view you might have now when you get older.

Klebold, Harris and their accomplices violated over 20 firearms laws.  Which of them prevented this crime?

The fact is, they didnt set out to shoot a few students, their plan was to level the school and kill everyone.  The reason their plan failed was they did a bad job with the wiring.  Remember all the propane tanks the press talked about?  What they didnt' talk about was all the other explosive devices they had placed throughout the school and parking lot.. including their own cars.

Use this tragedy for whatever political gain you choose, but if you're going to do that, at least use the facts instead of long disproven myths.

http://us.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/20/columbine.myths/index.html

In light of the recent 9th Circuit ruling, it appears that not only did the founding fathers invision such a society, they encouraged it.  Not for "self-defense" but for the defense of the people from oppressive government, local and federal.  As was pointed out in the article about this ruling posted on JU, the court never once mentioned hunting or target practice.  The focus of the 2nd amendment is to insure the citizens have the means to keep government in line.  That being the case, "assault" weapons are definately the weapon of choice.  Some genious said that "An armed society is a polite society".  George Washington encouraged citizens to become proficient with handguns for the purpose of defending home and property.  The rest of the world points at our shooters and tsks at us.  But they still build boats, swim rivers and walk across deserts to get here...must not be TOOO bad.

I never stated otherwise, did I?  An object can't kill you by itself, unless it falls on you. I don't blame any object for anything except my fucking weedeater when the son of a bitch doesn't want to start or the stupid wall for hitting my damn toe...but that's another matter. 

I don't believe in hurting innocent people for any reason.  In fact, I'm not very supportive of violence but I acknowledge it as a necessity.  Sometimes people don't listen, so you have to kick their ass.  Not a pretty way to solve a problem, but effective nonetheless.

Not at all.  The only honor in fighting comes from a fair match.  Either you both have the same weapons (be it guns, knives, or fists) or it's just a cowardly stunt by whoever holds the most power to get off on it.  i.e. school shooting, beheading, what have you. 

I reckon if you're going to fight, at least keep it on the same level.  Bringing a gun to a fist fight is a cowardly thing to do.

Executions are another thing entirely and should be carried out as quickly as possible.  I'm not one for grotesque displays of agony.  I can stomach it, but I don't necessarily want to see it...nor would I encourage it.

I think my world view is fine as it is...which is to say it works for me.  It's based around reasoning and common sense with a heaping helping of realism and openmindedness and just a pinch of idealism(mostly to make sure I don't lose too much hope in humanity).  Vague, sure...but it's a good system. 

Oh, and just to be clear I don't care if people own guns...honestly couldn't care one way or the other.  The only time I care is if you point one at me.

~Zoo

There are twi issues here: Availability of guns and crime. I think American social scientists have empirically demostrated that there is a positive correlation between crime i. e. violent armed crime and guns. I am not saying that by banning assault weapons crime will disappear. I am only saying it is worth a shot (irony intended).

I find it strange that in this day and age of gobalisation we should we talking the language of subect and citizen. Almost all countries of the so-called civilised world prohibit the carriage and storage of guns even in private residences. France, England and even Germany have strictt laws concering guns. So it is not the right of citizens to bear arms.

Background checks are not all that cvareful. If youi do not have a "criminal record" thjat shows up on the computer screen you are through with the background check.

This argument that guns dont kill only people do inverts the instrument and the subject with agwency. Guns kill only because they are in the hands of people with such intentions and guns do not have any choice in the matter:only ciivil society dioes.

I think the two students who carried out the Columbine Massacre got the weapons from their homes: their parents were involved in getting and storing weapons.

Bahu, for you to be consistent you would have to call for bans on propane tanks also, since that was to be the main weapon of the rampage.  So when will you start being consistent?