COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
world

Obama says gun tragedies must end

43 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) 2012. AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

43 Comments
Login to comment

I think Obama's wife should have been with him. I don't know why she didn't go. It's important that she be there with her husband consoling the grieving relatives.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

As long as any random nutcase can get hold of guns such tragedies will be repeated again and again.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

"Thank God for liberty and the 2nd amendment". NRA staying damn quiet on this one. Anyone want to bet against the Brady bill not getting re introduced?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Here comes Obama's gun-grab. Like his predecessor used the tragic events of 9-11 to take away or severely limit personal freedoms under the guise of public safety or "national security", as well as the implementation of the power to use military forces against US citizens domestically, coupled with indefinite detainment without trial(2012 NDAA), Obama is taking the next step to total control. That's the big change.

-18 ( +3 / -21 )

The speech didn't include a single use of the word 'gun'. This is surreal. I know Americans tend to be very fond of euphemisms and I'm trying to think of a suitable one for him here....no, it's gun. Let's just call it what it is, eh? You know, that thing designed to kill things.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It'll only end when ownership of guns ends, and that will never happen in the US. We'll be reading about the next massacre before too long.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

guns, guns, guns.. who is to blame? start pointing fingers, start calling out names.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Herve Nmn L'Eisa: Here comes Obama's gun-grab.

Here comes your tacky attention grabbing drivel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here comes Obama's gun-grab.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Believe it or not countries with a lot more freedom than the USA do have strict gun control. And guess what? You almost never hear about gun massacres in those countries.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Readers, other countries are not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I could make a pun. 拳銃はアメリカに取って癌。 Guns are a "cancer" (gan) in America.

I'd blog about this but I'm still too sad.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

It's a lot easier to blame the guns than the people, that's for sure.

However, we really need to look at a few factors that tie so many of these massacres together- especially mental illness. The options for treatment are so limited, the freedom of the patients is so jealously guarded. Especially, families who have troubled young men like this one have nowhere to turn.

It's a huge step for a parent or guardian or teacher to try and get assistance if they think someone they know is suffering a mental disorder. An easy first step is needed for people. Some kind of referral service, call center, counselling hotline, like that.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Vast Right-Wing Conspirator

It's a lot easier to blame the guns than the people, that's for sure.

HUH!.... Well really do you think there would be 28 odd people dead if it wasnt for this guys ability to access the type of weapons he had? Yes he had mental issues, yes we should address those issues within the community and that will help the problem but you know what an immediate fix is. It is really not that hard, remove these peoples access to weapons. Its really not that difficult, other countries have managed to achieve it and it hasnt ended in disaster. I think for the gun nuts its easier to blame the person rather than the weapon. Gawd forbid we realise that someone used a gun for its intended purpose..... What do ALL massacres that have occurred lately had in common, whats the one reoccurring theme? Oh its a gun. But wait lets not remove that lets look at other things we mustnt give up our 100 year old rights that no longer apply, that cause these tragedies. That allow loonies to access these tools of murder. No lets not do that.....

As sad as l felt reading this story l am sitting here right now shaking my head thinking why bother, why get upset, why even care this happened. Because the people whose country it is dont care, some posters on here dont care. Because if you truly cared you wouldnt be sitting there defending your redneck right to stroke your little gun.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

It's a lot easier to blame the guns than the people, that's for sure.

However, we really need to look at a few factors that tie so many of these massacres together- especially mental illness. The options for treatment are so limited, the freedom of the patients is so jealously guarded. Especially, families who have troubled young men like this one have nowhere to turn.

So that pretty much means America has more mentally ill people than any other advanced nations in the world... uh huh.

It's so easy to blame "mental illness" for all the troubles in society.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Outta here;

THe problem is that the toothpaste can't be put back into the tube. The guns are ALREADY out there, as many as there are people in the US. They won't disappear just because you want them to. They won't wear out or become obsolete for at least a hundred years. Even if the sale of guns was completely banned tomorrow, it wouldn'T address what to do with the ones already available.

Given the culture of the USA, it IS very hard to limit access to firearms. It would be impossible to try and collect the ones currently in circulation. What do you suggest, a door-to-door search? Prohibiting alcohol didnt work, prohibiting drugs isnt working, so what makes you think prohibiting guns will be any more successful?

I'm no big fan of guns. I don't own one, never have, and don't want one either. But hysteria and name calling won't solve the problem, nor will laws that criminals simply ignore.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The US really needs to get a clue a realize that there is no room for assault rifles ANYWHERE except the battlefield. If people want so badly to use such weapons, they can join the military, but it needs to stay off the streets!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Nobody, in any country, needs an automatic rifle to protect their home.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Vast Right-Wing Conspirator

You can't have gun control over night but you can whine off many gun users if you outlaw the possession, trafficing and sale of bullets will have a major impact. Unlike narcotics gun shooting is not adictive therefore as time progresses demand will wither and bullets will become scarce that it will become too expensive for the common street gang to use them especially in large quantity.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Be nice to see a new FEDERAL law, anybody who sells guns and ammo across state line, automatic DEATH PENALTY! These guns dealers do not care about us, they only care about $$$$$, they have lots and lots of BLOOD on their sweaty palms! The NRA has no where to run, they also have blood all over their hands! It is just plain stupid to think that people should have guns left and right, and this idiot woman in Connecticut had the brains to buy guns for her idiot, stupid, mentally messed up son?? Good thing the crazy son killed her off too! Bad, that real bad that so many kids had to become victims of this stupid family. May the stupid mother and her messed up 20 year old crap of a son both burn and burn in hell for ever and ever! RIP innocent victims of America's stupid gun laws.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

An assault weapon ban was passed in 1994 under president Bill Clinton but it expired in 2004 and was never resurrected. Obama supported restoring the law while running for president in 2008 but did not make it a priority during his first term.

I know it is not so easy to go against both the constitution and the arms industry (not to mention all the conservative Americans who will get furious with this decision), but here is the chance for Obama to prove that he really wants change. Go for it, Mr. Obama. At least you must revive the debate for it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Suggestion: Require that guns be brought, physically, to a police station yearly for re-registration in an approved transport carrier. This would serve three purposes: It would require people to possess such carriers, cutting down on the number of guns lying open for the kids to find; it would encourage people with guns who don't really want them to turn them in for disposal; and it would allow authorities to confiscate any gun found unregistered for any reason, even if not used in a crime.

There are many, many good ideas floating around about how to reduce this madness. Perhaps this tragedy will serve as the, uh, trigger. If not, rest assured: There will be many other such "opportunities."

3 ( +3 / -0 )

guns are tool. No more, No less. The fact it was designed for killing is irrelevant. And it sounds like the killer was bound and determined to take a a lot of people out. If guns had not been available, I'd guess he's have made a bomb

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

It will take decades to get the stockpile of arms in circulation now to disappear, so there is no quick solution. Tragic and devastating events like this are going to happen again as long as they are available, and as long as elected officials believe there is a place for guns in society. Texas rep for GOP Louie Gohmert said in an interview that if the Principal of this elementary school had an M-4, the she could have shot him when she first heard the shooting http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/louie-gohmert-guns_n_2311379.html . What a complete mess!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well friends, it's between your children's lives (and yours) and the American gun culture. One has to be sacrificed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Kabukilover:

While true, there are certain levels of pain we are willing to endure to prevent larger pains from being committed

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Obama: "Can we say we're truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?"

No, mainly because of Obama's economic policies. I will say though that tougher gun control is in order.

Moderator: Please don't use this thread to post your usual anti-Obama rant.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

While true, there are certain levels of pain we are willing to endure to prevent larger pains from being committed

"-larger pains"? What - UN black helicopters? One would guess your opinion regarding this would change radically if the child you had nurtured for six years and whose future formed the core of your existence was suddenly, inexplicably shot dead.

It is said that conservatives are liberals who have been mugged; it might as well be said that gun rights supporters are gun restriction advocates who have never been closely touched by tragedy. The very fact that the scales seem to be tipping is witness to the increasingly large circle of Americans who have.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The gun proponents who pray at the NRA altar say that we need guns in order to protect ourselves. Ask the mother of that nut job how legally owning all those guns protected HER. Oh wait. You can't. He shot her multiple times in the head WITH HER OWN GUNS.

So much for the "we have to have them in order to protect ourselves" argument. We need the semi-automatic weapons GONE or we're going to have another incident like this.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

There are so many assumptions here. Where to start? "Assault' weapons. Sorry no such thing. The media has for years tried to connect ordinary civilan semi automatice ( one pul of the trigger = ONE shot) with full auto military ordinace. Full auto firearms have been under strict Federal control since 1934. Just because a rifle looks like a military grade firearms does not make it function as such.

Crime with firearms in American has been on the steady decilne acording to FBI Unified Crime Reports. So there is hardly an epidemic to deal with.

Semi automatic rifles account, according to the FBI report, for about 2% of homocides so there too we see no sudden rise nor sudden crisis.

All retail firearms transactions are subject to Federal approval and paperwork under Form #4473 so there is more than enough paperwork and govenment "approval' for a purchase.

Author and research PhD writer John Lott in is work "More Guns Less Crime" found that private citizens use firearms more than a million times per year to defend themselves from crime. He also found that those states with the lowest violent crime rates were the same states with the Higest number of Conceal Carry permits.

The Second Amendment was never about "hunting". It as are all the ten Amendments in our Bill of Rights about the Rights of the People. In a word it is about Liberty. Our Freedom of Speech is a fundimental and critical right necessary for a free society but what if Govenment decides we dont have such a right? That, as well as protecting our other Rights from a criminal govenment is the reason behind The Second Amendment.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

All Americans need to be packing heat to confront these Lib/Globalist shooters that are trying to demoralize the second amendment. Never has the issue been more dire for responsible American gun owners. Time to stand up and be counted -open carry or concealed carry-

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

As others ahve said, the crime rate in the USA is in steady decline, and has been for decades. Even the number of mass killings is going down, in spite of the media frenzy. In the past century, the worst decade for mass killings was the 1920s.

Also, the whole "assault weapons" hysteria is just that. The real killers are handguns.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Ah, John Lott - the guy who confuses correlation with causality. States with low violent crime but high gun-carrying rates tend to be rural states, and violent crime is lower in rural states. He could said that tilling the land reduces violent crime and been equally as correct.

He also said that most massacres occur in places where guns are not allowed such as schools, shopping centers or movie theaters. The man is Einstein: places where people gather en mass are generally places where guns are not allowed. (That was not the case with the GOP convention in Tampa, and wow, did they vamp up security for that.)

The notion that gun ownership is somehow a pillar of freedom is, in two words, absolutely foolish.

If you are concerned about democracy, support freedom of information. Guns only kill; they do nothing but damage American freedom.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Even the number of mass killings is going down, in spite of the media frenzy.

Wrong. From 1900 to 1965 there were 21 mass public killings but from 1966 to 2009 there were almost 120.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

SKR;

Stats I saw called the 1920s the peak, and the 21st century having less than the 1990s.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Mr. Lott's study proved that increased guns in the public's hands didn't INCREASE crime, but it didn't really prove anything about DECREASING crime.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/do-concealed-weapon-laws-result-in-less-crime/2012/12/16/e80a5d7e-47c9-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_blog.html?hpid=z1

Gun control advocacy is coming this time from an unusual place - the NRA members:

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.), a conservative Democrat and National Rifle Association member, told MSNBC that the massacre of 20 children and six adults by a gunman wielding a military-style rifle made clear the need to consider new regulations on assault weapons.

“I don’t know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” Manchin said on “Morning Joe” on Monday. “I don’t know anyone that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting.”

…he said the schoolhouse massacre “changed the dialogue, and it should move beyond dialogue. We need action.” The gun lobby, he said, should be part of that conversation.

“Never before have we seen our babies slaughtered,” Manchin said. “Anybody that’s a proud gun owner, anybody that’s a proud member of the NRA, we’re also proud parents. We’re also proud grandparents.”

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/lawmakers-focus-on-possible-assault-weapons-ban/2012/12/17/667504b0-4852-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html?hpid=z1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laurence Lance: Crime with firearms in American has been on the steady decilne acording to FBI Unified Crime Reports. So there is hardly an epidemic to deal with.

30,000+ dead every year. Choose whatever word you want for that.

Semi automatic rifles account, according to the FBI report, for about 2% of homocides so there too we see no sudden rise nor sudden crisis.

So you're saying we should ban handguns instead? Banning certain types of weapons would at least be a start to a conversation that would at the very least include some kind of analysis as to what kind of firearm should be reasonably sold to an individual. For now the conversation amounts to "anything goes."

All retail firearms transactions are subject to Federal approval and paperwork under Form #4473 so there is more than enough paperwork and govenment "approval' for a purchase.

Nah, just buy the gun from a private seller and you can skip all the paperwork. Or just find one of the 270 million already out there.

Author and research PhD writer John Lott in is work "More Guns Less Crime" found that private citizens use firearms more than a million times per year to defend themselves from crime.

The number I saw was 2.5 million, which leads me to believe it's a BS statistic made up of whatever the person wants it to be. And I'm wondering just how many people are defending themselves from other guns.

but what if Govenment decides we dont have such a right? That, as well as protecting our other Rights from a criminal govenment is the reason behind The Second Amendment.

Just so absurd. Are we talking about the same government that is in the back pocket of the NRA? People are worried about you and the influence your groups have in government, not the other way around. And may I ask just what it is you're planning on doing when the government sends a cruise missile to your house? You honestly think your little gun is the reason why you're still here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I've said it before and I'll say it again: A woman owned hand guns and a Bushmaster AR-15 clone and in the end NONE of them helped her survive. Her brains were splattered over the wall by one of the weapons she had bought.

Mr. Lott's study is keen on pointing out guns used in defense, but where's his study pointing out how many guns purchased for defense get used in murders? Where's the study pointing out how many of those uses for defense were against assailants armed with guns that had been purchased for defense?

If you want to own a double-action flintlock musket or pistol, I'll back you to the hilt because that's what the writers of the second amendment meant by "arms". If you want a semi-automatic weapon, however... we're going to have a problem.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Im not sure guns the problem. They definitely arent helping the matter but I feel the problem lies buried in American culture and thought. How does the US government deal with problems?...Violence and revenge. Hunt down your enemy and make them pay with a brutal death.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nobody, in any country, needs an automatic rifle to protect their home.

The day that self appointed moral authorities start making up laws based on what they think we "need," society is in big trouble.

the free market will solve everything. A free market would have put armed guards in the Batman shooting, and prevented it from happening.

A free market would have not allowed for the ridiculous notion of "gun free zones" where kids are sitting ducks for lunatics with guns.

Here's a clue for the hang wringing reactionists:

Killing people is ILLEGAL but people do it anyway.

Drugs are ILLEGAL but people get them and do them anyway.

Many people think that outlawing guns is the easy and obvious answer. But all that would do is take the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, and put them into the hands of criminals.

It would make events like this happen more often, not less.

Unless you want to declare martial law, and take away ALL GUNS from ALL PEOPLE, including all the criminals that already own them.

How exactly would you do that? Do you think if cops could take away guns from the criminals that have them, they'd be doing it already?

Do you think any American politician would last more than a second if he was going to declare MARTIAL LAW, and use the ARMED FORCED to go through American cities, house by house, and take away guns by force?

The only solution to this is an unhampered, free market. Where schools can choose to hire armed guards if they want to. Mall can choose to hire armed guards if they want to.

That way, any nutjob with a gun would have it so easy.

ALL politicians know this. That's why ANY LAW that comes from this tragedy will be nothing but vote-getting window dressing.

Politicians will be TAKING ADVANTAGE of this tragedy to get more votes, to gain more power, and to take away more freedom.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

gaijininfo: Unless you want to declare martial law, and take away ALL GUNS from ALL PEOPLE, including all the criminals that already own them.

Start with banning the sale of guns. If one is used in a crime it gets melted down. If someone is the registered owner of a gun and it's used in a crime then that guy also loses all of his guns and the right to own one. That would make owners even more responsible with their weapons since they are on the hook. Not for the crime, but the right to own a gun.

The first people to lose their guns would be the criminals, the people who act responsibly will keep their guns for generations. After 20, 40, 60 years we'll since a big drop in the number of guns on the streets and no access to more of them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

So gaijinfo wants a free market on guns, wants more guns to solve the issue of people using guns in these types of horrendous actions. In a country that has nearly as many registered guns as it does people do you really think this will solve anything at all? More guns does not equal more safety it merely means more weapons on the street more chances for this type of thing to happen again.

I will be honest l am truly amazed and disturbed by the lack of reasoning and logic by some Americans. The way to fix the gun crime in the US is to increase the number of guns. If there was a high accident zone on a road would you remove the speed limit to fix the problem? It's the same thing.... You would reduce the speed limit you would make changes to the road. Well this gun problem is the same. Sart by removing semi auto weapons in public hands. I still have not heard one single legitimate reason as to why a civilian needs access to a semi auto rifle or hand gun. Not one. Then reduce the sales of ammunition, toughen up gun ownership laws and make it a privelidge not a right to own a gun.

There is outrage and condemnation and military action if a Taliban kills a group of people in Afghanistan. They are called barbaric uncivilised. Yet when an American guns down young children some of these same people who are the loudest in their condemnation of other cultures turn around and defend their right to own weapons. Maybe rather than preaching right and wrong to the rest of the world you Americans should look in your own backyards first.

Other countries have had these tragedies and successfully removed semi auto weapons from the public arena and their civilisation hasn't collapsed as the gun nuts predicted. Maybe the US should do the same.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Obama: "Can we say that we're truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?"

No. Is it OK to say that? lol

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You don’t have to be 18-years-old or sober to lawfully use a gun in some states ,

Lawrence if you aren't part of the solution, You are part of the problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites