Paranoid people make grandiose plans to deal with their fears. The arsenal gathered by the Aurora killer is staggering. No one knows what delusions fueled this sick man but no proper blocks stood in his way to carry out his scheme. Other countries with stricter gun laws have murder rates that are much lower. It has been made difficult in those countries to amass such a pile of weaponry. Their internal security surpasses ours and they function as free people. It is not presidential to dismiss the present concerns of how easily these weapons were obtained over the internet without any check on who the purchaser was. All the purchases had the stain of nefarious intent and some red flags should have been raised. Mr. Romney gives it a big pooh pooh. He wants to show his neo-conservative credentials, whose members believe violence is the way to peace. Anyone who likes to probe the beliefs of this candidate should take a googled look at who has his ear. They are a dangerous group.

Have we really come to the point when the price of "freedom" is blindly allowing disturbed people with anonymously acquired assault weapons to kill and mangle the lives of scores of civilians at at time, several times a year? As pointed out in earlier editorials, if gun control laws are not the response, what is? And please don't tell me it's creating a darkened theater with not just one, but scores of moviegoers carrying weapons that are almost guaranteed to incidentally kill more bystanders than they save.

Sadly, I heard David Brooks on the News Hour talk about how conservatives are "pessimists" as if to say it is impossible to protect ourselves from some situations. I was not happy with his attitude at all!

Dear Mitt, The gunman didn't break a single law until that first bullet struck that first victim. You, apparently, aren't aware that he purchased every single weapon and every single bullet and every single piece of protective gear legally. Please adjust your response to this tragedy accordingly. Thanks.

Martha1 - It IS impossible to protect ourselves from all contingencies, even if we lock ourselves in a padded, windowless room. We will always remain vulnerable to the environment and the people around us. It's always been that way. I'm a liberal, which to me means having an open mind to new ideas. Gun control is an old idea that might give us a sense that something has improved, but that's a false assumption. It's too late; there are simply too many guns. When one of them is used, it's much more likely that it harms an innocent person, than a criminal. The one hope of control -- a small one -- might be to control the sale of ammunition in rather extreme ways. Trying to control the guns is an unrealistic goal.

It would be nice if, in Response to a question, Willard ever gave a straight answer that didn't pander to both sides of the issue.

I didn't even read it that way. I thought Mitt was just referring to the shooting part. But that's how he works. He's never clear about what he's saying so that later, if called out on something, he can deny and obfuscate.

When discussing gun control, I've always felt that the most useful discussions come on the heels of one of these tragedies and usually from the perspective of a relative of one of the victims. A better way to honor the fallen is to talk about it. Mitt is such a tool. Obama is as well, and in this case for the same reasons. They both want the frightened-stupid vote.

Mitt can try to back away from the "Anglo Saxon" comment, but it did what it was designed to do. Just in case you didn't notice, he's whte and just like you. Don't forget that, while you decide whom to vote for. He has lost so many elections, he will say anything. It may not come out of his mouth, but it comes from Fernstrom's, and that is the same thing. For shame, Mitt.

Mitt Romney is right. Stricter gun control laws cannot prevent massacres of the Aurora or Columbine sort. There are millions of firearms already in the hands of Americans. Restricting sales of new guns does little to restrict access to weapons. We need a better early warning system to identify people who are going crazy or who are crazy and then get them medical help before they go on a shooting spree.

I'll tell you this No eternal reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn I'll tell you 'bout Texas Radio and the Big Beat Soft drivin', slow and mad, like some new language Now, listen to this, and I'll tell you 'bout the Texas I'll tell you 'bout the Texas Radio I'll tell you 'bout the hopeless night Wandering the Western dream Tell you 'bout the maiden with raw iron soul

flip-flop, flip-flop ... and, of course, the fringe fanatics who want to return the US to the 1890s, but this time with thousands of military bases ringing the world, dont think that it is "too soon" for gun-freak arguments to be advanced. nope. changing position is only bad when done by someone who is left of center and arguing about guns only "too soon" when done by one who wants greater controls. does anyone actually know what Romney stands for except him as the next President ? even Jacoby with all of his spinning cant answer that question.

he cant help himself ... there is no actual set of core beliefs. apparently since 2008, Mittens has spent his time cramming his head with fringe right bumper stickers.

Wow, I didn't think that liberals could dislike the suggestion that crazy people should get medical help. Does ObamaCare give nut cases waivers from the insurance mandate?

"But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening." So there you have it. Laws do not prevent people from breaking the law. So we really needn't do anything more than punish those who break the laws rather than prevent them from breaking the law in the first place. This will deter future law breakers. This of course means that the slaughter by guns will continue and our legal system has insured our domestic tranquility (as the preamble to the Constitution states) because we will punish those who are found guilty. Unless of course they commit suicide or never are brought to trial. The price we are willing to pay for the "....right to bear arms..." He posted, sarcastically.

O luxury! thou cursed by Heaven's decree, How ill exchanged are things like these for thee! How do thy potions, with insidious joy, Diffuse thy pleasures only to destroy! Kingdoms by thee, to sickly greatness grown, Boast of a florid vigour not their own; At every draught more large and large they grow, A bloated mass of rank unwieldly woe; Till, sapped their strength, and every part unsound, Down, down they sink, and spread the ruin round.

My opinion has evolved over the last couple of years. I see nothing particularly bad about gun control laws, but I'm no longer an advocate because I think they give a false sense of security. It's too late because there are too many guns. There are more guns in this country than people. When one of those guns is used, it's much more likely to kill or injure an innocent person that a criminal. Even if gun control laws could be effective, they won't be as long as the "gun show loophole" exists. That loophole allows around 2/5's of gun sales to be unregulated, with no background checks on the buyers.