I can confirm this; having family that has lived in Australia for 39 years and spent 3 years there myself.

The gun laws in Australia work...Than again Australia also has Universal Healthcare and top notch hospitals, and mental health programs...Along with that all Australian's - by law - receive a minimum of 21 days paid vacation per year...My sister, who works in Child and Family Services in Australia get a total of 6 weeks paid holiday per year. Australians consider increases in paid days off more valuable than salary increases, which their wages are already livable to beging with...Those crazy Aussies!!!

Shaking the tree!!! Very well put. Thank you for being realistic.
Since 9/11/01 - with all the panic and parinoia, and willingness by "the people" (government) to dismantle our Liberties because of fear and phobia - I have learned in any crisis, big or small, to count to zen in order to avoid escalating the issue into something worse through irrational reaction.

I am sad for what happened, the loss of innocent life is always tragic. And those poor parents...Such a nightmare!

And though I support "rational" gun control policy, nothing angers me more than when another person's irrational and irresponsable behaviours are taken out on me and others who strive to be honest responsable people.

RE Mental Health needs

Regarding the need for mental health services in the USA and these death-by-shooter incidents--

Our Congress is scurrying to change the subject because -- IN THEIR RUSH TO AUSTERITY -- they cut $4 BILLIONS from mental health care in USA. A travesty.

[Always PLENTY $$$ for the banks and corporations, though.]

The number of people now taking antidepressants in our country is mind boggling. And wasn't that Connecticut shooter under the influence of some kind of psychotropic medication when he went on his murderous rampage?!

"Guns don't kill people; people kill people...!" If I hear that tired old NRA mantra one more time, I think I'll scream. - Aliceinwonderland

As I've heard pointed out numerous times, assault weapons are not suitable for hunting or recreational target practice, nor are they an appropriate means of self defense. They are weapons of war and their one purpose is the indiscriminate, mass killing of human beings. They don't even require a good aim to hit their targets. There is simply no place for them in civilian life.

Palindromedary, since participating in this blog I've had an impression of you as a thoughtful person with a good head on his shoulders. However today you seem less rational than usual. There's something about this issue that brings out so much paranoia in people. While you have made many excellent points on the subject, I think you are over-reacting to the idea of gun control in general. Nobody has suggested taking all guns away from everyone.

"More gun laws equal more gun crimes..."Really, Douglas?! I just got finished watching Democracy Now, where I learned of a situation worth mention in this debate. Turns out Australia has had its own problems with mass shootings. They endured occasional incidents of this sort for twenty years, if I recall correctly; until April 28, 1996, the day of the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, when a Newton gunman killed 35 tourists and injured 23 others in a shooting rampage. It was the worst such incident in that country's history. Immediately after it occurred, the Australian government passed strict gun control laws that, among other things, made it illegal for civilians to possess assault weapons. All owners of such weapons were required to give them up. For compensation they were paid the full value of each weapon, plus ten percent. Not a bad deal, I'd say. But the best part of all is that it has worked. To this day, more than fifteen years after the Port Arthur massacre, there have been no more mass shootings in Australia.

It boggles my mind that even after such a horrendous and horrific act ( New town, CT) 20 children (10 and under ) murdered early morning in a classroom full of life, Lobbyists ( basically bribers) , Congressmen ( especially Republicans, few democrats too) ) , NRA and socio paths refuse to revisit the gun laws . They are looking for ways way to wiggle out of this issue or maintain status quo. There is no sense in arming people with little or no education with assault weapons, tommorow they will be armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) ,would that be justified too. I listen to Talk radio ,KFI ( AM 640 ) in Southern California , I 'd like to know if they have spend 5 minutes in support of banning assault weapons like the one used in the massacre of 20 beautiful toddlers because they are owned by Clear Channel which is a conglomerate . Why don't they arm these sick people with brief case size ,Nuclear Bombs because this will protect them with a sure shot guarantee against a Fascist regime thay fear will happen in the USA . These very people will kill Doctors for performing abortion that is done on consual basis or to save a motyher's life but they will do everything ( beg, borrow or steal) to support gun toting sick or abnormal people ,who can loose their mind over any stupid argument These NRA supporters they have no empathy for children and the parents whose life has changed forever ,for any amount of blood that is spilled, Tim McVey ( Oklahoma) and now this inhumane incident will never impress them because this is a me, me , me world. Shame on these pro assalt weapons proponents.

Pratt needs mental counseling!

Anyone's intuition can be a useful and insightful "Mental Detector", just reading the statements by Larry Pratt indicates he has a few loose screws:

Larry Pratt, argued that the right to bear arms is necessary to make our democratic government cower in fear of gun owners. Pratt said, “We have guns fundamentally protected by the Second Amendment to control the government.” He went on to say that he thinks it “bothers lawmakers” that armed Americans can attack them with assault weapons, a position Gabby Giffords probably agrees with.

No where in the founding father's discussion of the present 2nd amendment did they call for preparing for armed insurrection against ourselves as a reason to keep and bear arms. Only someone mentally obsessed with their selfish vision will promote such a looney tunes justification for hoarding hand guns. That's our Larry Pratt.

In fact, if anyone wants to bring up mental illness as a contributor to the problem of guns and violence in America it is obvious you must include questioning the mental state of any gun hoarder. Hoarding guns is evidence of a serious mental disorder.

We need to work towards a consensus that the central rational 60% can agree on. As some above stated we also have to deal with the reality that the country is already saturated with more (and more useless) weapons than can be controled. That said, I beleave that we can find creative solutions that can creatively improve the situation.

(1) Enforce Strict Liability on ownership of dangerous weapons. If you own dangerous weapons; keep them under control, out of the hands of children and others who might misuse them -- or risk extreme liability for any consequences resulting from their misuse. We already have precident for this. Ultimately if your weapon (in anyone's hands) causes injury -- you will suffer severe penalty (financial or incarceration) for not controling it's access.

(2) Require Mandatory Insurance for such Liability. This is the same as mandatory insurance for owning a car, ensuring care and compensation for those who suffer hurt. (Yes, it's a gift to the insurance industry, but they will do the background checks (and raise rates on high-risk individuals) -- something government might not be able to do. The Insurance Industry will also support this legislation, bringing big-bucks to the table.

The above and other creative innovative solutions, deal within the reality we face, can gain broad support from all many sides of the table, and can over-time work to reduce our out-of-control problem. Responsible gun owners can easilly support these reforms, as it's what they teach in practice. If they do, it pulls the rug out from under the extremists on both sides of the shouting-match.

--jim

I'd be willing to bet that very few of those who voted Teapublican think they voted for cuts to their own social programs. Most likely 47% of the voters will be convinced President Obama is throwing Grandma under the bus. You can count on it because the corp. media will place very little emphasis on the fact that the Teapublicans are demanding it as part of the deal. The spin will be that Obama is simply doing it as part of the deal. Wait and see!

In my opinion this could all be very destructive to the Democratic party and the election momentum it now has. Cuts to military spending and making the rich give back some of their illgotten wealth via taxation should be most of the discussion. I still can't believe how far to the right the teabaggers have pulled the Democrats in just a few years! Obama needs to realize that this extremism has been fomented by a few billionaires and has very little to do with what the vast majority of us really want.

YES to both answers!....... or can I vote twice?

Oh, and what better way of wagging the dog as a prelude to the so-called Fiscal Cliff horsesh1t than to stage such a horrendous thing as massacre of school children. Look how much press has been devoted to this. All they have to do is to stage various atrocities and people are so willing to give up their freedoms.

So Obama's counter offer was to raise the limit on income from $250K to $500K (everyone above $500K is to pay higher taxes) and in return he is stopping Social Security cost of living raises. And now Boner will come back with another counteroffer.