The signal to noise ratio in the conversation about gun control is overwhelmingly tilted towards the noise.  The lack of proof for the assumptions of the pro-gun side of the argument is getting quite tedious, especially considering the noticeable evidence that a change would not erode anyone's true rights, and most likely be helpful.  There are too many rights that are being ignored with the focus on gun rights.  People have a right be be able to send their child to school and not worry about automatic guns in the hands of a disturbed person.  They have the right to go the mall and not worry about craziness.  Or go the the movies.  We have the right to not worry that we will be caught up in the crossfire between a crazy person and a random, self-appointed vigilante who is taking aim with a weapon which they are not fully prepared to skillfully employ.  Both the gun skills and the judgment of a person with a concealed weapon scare me just as much as the spectre of yet another unhinged body with an armful of weapons.  The people who are continuing to mindlessly bang the drum of gun rights have demonstrated a lack of rationality and reasonableness such that we can no longer look for consensus or agreement.  Some people's judgment just doesn't cut it anymore.

I would have to belive that Lanza's mother would have been able to pass background checks, character references, and all the checks Massachusetts has for gun ownership.  Thus, even with these tougher laws, the Newtown atrocity would still have happened.   I think bad laws often come when laws are paased in the fog of a tragedy.  I am not a gun owner, so I have no problem with any measures to limit access to guns.  But I think the Newtown tragedy needs a far bigger response, beyond the control of guns.

Video games ought to be severely limted in their content.  It is not enough to put ratings on them, because we all know how easy it is for kids to get there hands on items that carry a sexy taboo, like an "adult only" rating.  I would support the outright ban on certain types of violent video games.  This is what made it so natural for Lanza to gun down innocent kids-it was like a live video game, and felt natural to him.  

In looking at the statistics, it appears that gun deaths per capita have more to do with attitudes on guns rather than laws. Rural states, where a child is more apt to grow up accustomed to guns, and presumably, gun safety, have lower gun death rates. Vermont, a state with common sense laws on gun ownership, has especially low gun fatality rates. Washington, D.C., with highly restrictive gun laws, has the highest rate. So the argument that more laws will lower the fatality rate is completely bogus. That said, I still feel that there is no legitimate need for a high capacity magazine for a semi-automatic "hunting" rifle. A person who feels the need perhaps just needs some marksmanship training. The Army is always looking for a few more people. Just ask for the 11-B MOS. The recruiter will fix you right up.

What a chance for the NRA to change their image.  Instead of being percieved as a knee jerk organization always against any attempt to regulate firearms they can get out in front of this issue.  Make a constructive statement to eliminate firearms that have nothing to do with hunting, nothing to do with target shooting and everything to do with mass murder and an excess of testosterone.

Scot, I took you for a smart Libertarian. This article is irresponsible and stupid. If Sandy Hook never happened, you would have no article. Scott Brown would be considered a replacement Kerry and Warren's stance on assault weapons would seem Quixotic. Are you telling us that when she mentioned the ban on assault weapons "first" that you coward from mentioning it? Why not champion the cause when it was mentioned? Because your pushing the liberal cause in this liberal rag sheet. Nope, wait for any hope that Scott Brown may have then slam the door him. This has nothing to do with assault weapons. It has everything to do with your disdain for Brown. And you think we're stupid enough to not know the difference. Thanks for the insult.

I missed the part in the story where the Globe asked our other senator from Massachusetts, his feeling on gun control. Lizzie has done NOTHING ever against gun control. Of course, it's easy to talk the talk on this, we'll see. My guess is she will fall in line and be told how to vote by the party and when.

I have never heard one solid reason why the production and sale of assault weapons and large clips for civilian use is necessary.  I get a lot of second amendment nonsense.  I get silly debates trying to classify weapons, "Well a Bushmaster is a rifle" of course it's a rifle, but it is classified as an assault weapon. 

People like Warren oppose certain weapons because of the "intention" of the weapon.  I have a shotgun for hunting, a 308 for hunting, a 6mm Remington rifle (so certain folks don't get confuses),  but I don't have my old AR-15 the army kept it.  Something I was glad to leave behind.  But neither I nor anyone else want all weapons banned.

What I hear is mostly nonsense from people who have never been in a fire fight, never killed, never been shot at, but talk as if they are prepared to take on the US 1st Infantry Division in case the duly elected govt. does something they don't like.  There is a name for that and it is called paranoia.  It is childish and foolish and counterproductive.

Perhaps Lizzie and a lot of other people are late to the party, perhaps Scot is late to the party, but how after Conn. anyone can find an excuse not to engage this issue is beyond me.  I may be tired of articles relating to the subject, but I hope folks keep writing and writing until people can't stand it anymore and pass the necessary legislation.

Scott Brown has never taken any position on any issue that he didn't poll first. Polls shift. So does he. A leader for our time. right.

Brown never represented his constituents. He represented Grover Norquist, oil companies, the NRA and other friends of the GOP, while sitting on the fence regarding any question, refusing to discuss the issues while focusing on checkboxes in job applications. Wiser heads prevailed and will again if he makes the mistake of running after a large percentage of voters sent him on his way.

We certainly do need sensible laws concerning gun ownership. Our history with the effort has been to include so many loopholes that a sieve holds more water. The worst thing is that any gun law that is passed will come about because it is easy and inexpensive to do. No effort (or, more importantly, funding) is being proposed to establish criteria for identifying and compelling appropriate treatment or confinement for those individuals who have suffered psychoses or personality disorders that render them too dangerous to be left alone. It had been accurately pointed out that on the same day as the Newtown massacre that in China a mentally disturbed man knifed twenty-two children. In this country those who are most dangerous are only admitted to locked mental health facilities after having been on waiting lists, sometimes for months, in hospitals where security is less thorough.

Guys,

The pro-gun folks need to think a little harder. Much of what one hears from them isn't intelligent analysis, but rather tired sloganeering or inartfully transparent rearrangement of tired tropes (guns don't kill people, &tc). Despite the NRA's attempt to shut down any federally funded research on this, the fact and evidence are quite clear, both in this country and in others that have had gun problems and have taken action to address them.

I grew up in hunting communities -- upstate Idaho, northern New York, Downeast Maine -- and I have to say, back then, no hunter used anything remotely resembling these weapons, and no one felt at all deprived in their hunting experience. If you had a .30-06, you felt pretty damn good about your rifle. And I don't believe I ever saw a magazine that held more than seven cartridges. Some people prided themselves on hunting with bolt-action rifles. (And while I'm at it, no one would have gone on a canned hunt.) I got my hunter safety card in an NRA course in junior high in Idaho, and back then, the NRA wasn't an extremist gun-nut group, at least not to my memory. They were nice, middle-aged guys who taught kids how to use guns responsibly and, I think, would look in horror at what's happened to their organization in the last 25 years.

There is a lot of talk about "rights".  The rights of gun owners.  The right to send a child to school without fear for the child's safety.  The Bill of Rights.

A bit of perspective:  It took about ten years to ratify to constitution.  The Bill of Rights was a huge part of the struggle.  Since then, hundreds of thousands of people have died protecting those rights.

A handful of crazed gun men will now change our constitution in the span of a few short years?  Is this what it takes?

As a people, we deplore some of the so called "free speech" we hear, indeed, one of the worst offenders was going to attend the funerals at Newtown.  But have we trampled on the 1st ammendment because of that?  No.  Would most of us like to?  Yes.  But that is not the way our nation works, we are NOT a democracy.  We uphold INDIVIDUAL rights, sometimes unfortunately at the expense of the many.

What took ten years to create is going to be ripped apart in a few short months by a government that cannot even manage its budget? protect an embassy? and now is going to tell us they will protect ALL our children?  Really?

But Scot is telling us about the wonderful "Death by Gun" run in 2009.  Here are some facts, the murder rates in this area:

Massachusetts 2.8    3.3    2.6

Maine              2.0   1.8    2.0

New Hampshire 1.3  1.0    0.8

Rhode Island   1.3    2.8    3.0

Connecticut     3.6    3.7    3.0

I quoted the murder rates for 2011,2010,2009 since dead people are just dead, the means of killing someone are actually immaterial.  MA with it's tough gun laws is just killing people differently, evidently.  New Hampshire with virtually no gun laws isn't doing a lot of killing for some odd reason?  Neither did RI last year...Strange, these statistics just don't make sense.  Sort of like politicians.

Scot,

The result of the endorsement was a predrawn conclusion, the interview was at best a phoney pretense, so let's not stretch the boundaries of credibility even more!!!

There is room for true intellectual and honest debate from both sides. There should be restrictions, much tougher than now. But instead of having a brainless Joe Biden, or senator of dubious truth telling, why not get professionals, law enforcement, military, gun manufacturers, get representatives from both sides to come up with a viable compromise solution that works.

We had a 16 year old Boston student walk into a high school with a gun and ammunition, did you or anyone in the Globe ask that this student be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for violation of federal and state gun laws? That of course was rhetorical.

There is a need for calm rational discussion, in spite of the typical new jerk liberal response as well as the right wing nut jobs that believe they government is going to steal their guns!! Get rid of the the extremes from both side and meet in the middle, where most stand.

If you are going to have moral outrage, be consistent

History:

Your post falls into othe poorly thought-out category I describe below.
Here's why:

1) No one is talking about stripping the 2nd amendment away from the Constitution. There is plenty of room within the context of the amendment for sensible gun regulation, as the Supreme Court makes clear.

2) The analogy to othe First Amendment doesn't work very well, since speach is rarely lethal (though I felt worried a time or two covering this campaign or that, that I might die or boredom at the oratory).

3) Murder rates are always higher in densely populated urban areas than in mostly rural states. I haven't double-checked your stats, but let's assume they are true. We are trying to present mass killings, which are more and more prevalent. Can you give me some examples of those killings being carried out by weapons other than guns?

Scott L. still campaigning for Brown?

It is not a restriction on my second amend. rights to restrict the size of clips or to ban certain weapons.  This idea that we are somehow losing something makes almost no sense.  No one believes banning assault weapons will end "murder" as we know it, but we do believe that we can have some impact upon events.  This fear of "gun regulation" to me is no different than the foolish paranoia surrounding "fluroide" back in the 50's when I was a kid.  Rational people can make rational decicions when it comes to gun laws one has to wonder if some of these "anti-regulation" folks are rational.

A politician can’t really be called a gutsy leader if he changes his position only after several appalling tragedies, and as he positions himself for another campaign.

WHat about Reid, Pelosi and Obama?

History:

You are debating straw men. Who called for  banning all semi-automatic weapons? I don't see that quote in this discussion nor do I know anyone who has said that. Good lord, semi-automatic really just means a gun that reloads automatically after it's fired. Any rifle with a magazine does that, including the 30.06 I referenced in my first post.

In other words, debate the issue. Don't pretend you are beseiged by people trying to ban any and all firearms, because that's just not so.

Well ... we're off to the races! Just a few facts: I learned this only yesterday from a credible source - the staggering figures often quoted as to number of gun deaths in the USA per year also include gun suicides and in fact, that number represents 1/2 of the total. When you look at the numbers with that in mind - the incidence of gun death involved with crime or madness look very different. You can then run that number into any equation - analysis by state size, racial mix, urban or rural and now if becomes clear why the total gun death number is so high yet - on a daily basis - Newtown notwithstanding - our streets are not running red. ( except Chicago )If newspapers reported each gun suicide as such rather than the usual " suddenly " or " unexpectedly " citizens could see both sides of the coin. As for assault weapons - if all you do is reinstate the previous bill - you have done nothing - the manufacturers will simply design their product to meet the minimum threshold of the law. Outlawing of large capacity magazines well - what of the tens of thousands currently spread across the land? If the President is willing to take the Congress to the mats and wants meaningful legislation rather than trimming at the edges, he would propose a total ban on all long guns other than shotguns and bolt action rifles. This allows 90% of the hunters to merrily go their way while all owners of semi - automatic rifles, and I care not as to the cosmetic design, would either be offered buy - backs, turn in or seizure. We lack the will to do this and in doing so - will occasionally make blood sacrifice of children at the alter of gun violence and the Second Amendment.

Issue 1: Being a gun owner means being responsible for accessibility.

Being an irresponsible gun/s owner can =
Child endangerment
and/or
Community endangerment

Issue 2: Public schools and the teachers that work there are the front line work force documenting the children with developmental disabilities and being emotionally disturbed in order to try to get them the help they need for their success in their academics and personal lives. There is probably historical documentation on Adam Lanza while he was in K-12 that indicated he might be needing support, guidance, and assistance to accommodate to what we perceive as a normal life. These are normally referred to as "special education" students. Special ed is not just what was formerly referred to as mentally retardation or brain damaged or some combination combined with physical disabilities. Every classroom teacher and all of a school's support staff can detect these students and encourage but not require that the parents choose to have their student variously tested. Many parents choose to not have testing done as they fear stigmatization for their child. That child goes unassisted. I see it every day. Often times the documentation is onerous before any help is even considered. It is a legal minefield.

One child's problems, Adam Lanza, has become those of a de-sensitized, violent-type-play and entertainment nation as he may've sat at home without a job or friends for balance and perspective, in other words, reality checks.

Issue 3  Being responsible citizens 
v.s. 
Nanny government and loss of rights/privilieges/self-protection in any eventuality

Issue 4 Public Policy

Armed citizenry constitute the United States largest volunteer militia. These citizenry need to be adequately trained in the safety and security of their weapons within and without their domains.

Issue 5 Mental health coverage should include extended opportunities for supervised day care/in home caregivers,and/or assisted living facilities and/or drop in centers for medicine/s administration and guidance for identified citizens that should be part and parcel of Obama Care Health Insurance.

Guys,

This is part of a repost from my reply to below:

I think one big and important change would be what we do in Massachusetts: Require a background check by local law enforcement (the folks who tend to know the community) and also require several references. That may not have stopped this particular tragedy -- though one can imagine other provisions that might have -- but it would very likely have kept other mass murders who have legally bought  guns from obtaining them. Could the Oregon shooters have gotten a gun with such a system? The Colorado shooter? The Arizona shooters? The Virginia Tech shooter? Probably not. Meanwhile, if one is a sane and normal person, why would you care if you had to put up with such a check? I think of it largely the same way as I do airport security. Yes, it's a pain in the tail, but if it meaningfully reduces the chances that there's a kook with a gun or a terrorist with as shoe bomb sitting next to me, I'll gladly put up with the inconvenience.

Scot,

Everyone has to watch the NRA  analysis and solution for the Newtown tragedy.  Wayne La Pierre, the director, just gave a speech that will be the subject of every newspaper and new outlet in about 10 minutes.  It is now on Verizon's home page and I would guess all others.

Well I just caught the NRA's statement.  Incredible.  Basically they call for martial law, supply security guards to schools.  Well heck let's put up barbed wire, machine gun nests how about bunkers.  "We are all targets".  I suppose the answer to that is we all carry guns.  America as Dodge City.  This is insanity.  Probably one of the most bizarre news conferences I've seen. 

The NRA's leader said "What if an armed guard had been at the school?"  The obvious answer is he'd probably be dead.  Armed with his 38 or 45 against the AR-15 and I guy I believe who was wearing body armor all we'd have is a dead guard.  This is nonsense, utter nonsense.

"Historyisjustthat"  I just noted your comment on the AR-15 not being an assault weapon.   I refer you to the Army manual as to the definition of an assault weapon, ""Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."  The definition is truly related to the power and further in the definition related to range.  A further review would give an explanation of the characteristics of the weapon.  The AR-15 is merely a civilian version of my old M-16 and would outside of the lack of capacity for automatic fire be considered an assault weapon.  Civiilians don't need it.  I've got a perfectly good 308 that fires semit-automatic, it seems to me any hunter can be satisfied with what is available for hunting purposes.

Pelosi:

“Perhaps you’re familiar with the 60-vote rule in the Senate," Pelosi told me. "Our members are very courageous. They’ll walk the plank on any tough vote. But I don’t want them to walk the plank on something that’s not going to become the law.”

“This is a very high priority for us," Pelosi continued. "But because of what is—money. Let’s face it. Big money out there on the side of those would be opposed to gun safety.”

“The fact is if there was no prospect of success, we wanted the members to be here to continue to make the fight, so that when there was

Reid gave a similar idiotic answer adn Obama got all testy when Jake Tapper had the gall to ask him why he has not done anything.

Begolf:

I do think Attaturk makes a very good point in response to your post.

Scot

Scott, I think it's safe to say Scott Brown isn't a real leader in any way, nevermind gun control. I'd like to know one issue. ONE. That Scott Brown is a leader on. Nothing. Let's elect leaders, not empty-headed GOP tools. 

It seems like anytime a state passes a law it gets overturned. I just do not have high hopes, or regard, for all the folks at the federal level to come up w/ something substantial.

Both sides to blame but the dems and liberals are the ones screaming the loudest and have always abhored guns. But, when it is time for action, you get nothing from the top 3 - POR

Begolf: There's some truth to that, but the question you have to ask, is why?

"Begolf"  The fact of the matter is none of the parties have done much regarding the subject simply because the vast majority of the American people let the NRA bash any politician who opposes them.  During off year elections we sit home and fail to vote and then special interests groups like the NRA and other groups are able to get small groups of people to propel their issues.  It's actually pretty simple if people would simply show up during the off year these miniority groups including the far fringes of either party would not be able to every two years from turning the country into a nuthouse.

If we desire politicians to do something then we need to vote and press others to vote at times other than just Presidential elections.  The sooner we learn that voting matters each time the sooner we will have shown we know how democracy works and will able to find solutions we can all agree on.  The fault at bottom belongs with the American people.

There it is again--"guns kill people"; yes they rise up of their own accord, point, and shoot.  Automobiles cause fatalities.  When are we going to grow up and realize that it's the PEOPLE that utilize these weapons for destruction that cause the destruction. 

And if they were taken away, the people bent on destruction would find another means to do so; like one reader's comment that EXPLOSIVES were the weapons of choice in the country's worst school murder.

Connecticut has the 5th strictest gun laws in the country; if someone at the school had been trained and allowed access to a gun , those kids would have had at least a fighting chance. 

Guns also protect:  ask why we don't read about brave people successfully protecting themselves and others. There would be a lot more if we would allow them the RIGHT to protect themSELVES.

Why do most "incidents" happen in known "gun free" zones? If you were going to rob a house, you'd select one that wasn't likely to have a gun.  Murderers know this--"gun free" acts like a magnet for people bent on destruction--they know their chances of success are pretty darn good.

WE are aiding and abetting the slaughter of innocents by denying them the protection they deserve.

I am wondering why the liberals are having a problem with the NRA's response to this tragedy?  One of their favorite heros, Bill Clinton:

"In April 2000 as part of his commemoration of the first anniversary of deaths at Columbine High School in his weekly radio speech President Clinton announced $120 million in grants, much of it for a program to place armed police officers in schools."

Well darn, if it was good enough for Bill Clinton, it should be good enough for most liberals, no?  Or is this just a case of: "Not Invented Here" syndrome?