I have lived alone out in the country where we ourselves are the first line of fire-protection and self-defense. I have no problem with weapons as tools for hunting or self-defense. However like so much in the US, our obsessions go far beyond reason -- we deal in simplistic fantasy, and we are being exploited by uncaring commercial interests, putting profits beyond rational common-sense.

This tragedy hit me hard. Retired and without children, the trusting eyes of 6 to 10 year-olds have always had direct access to my heart. There could not possibly be more innocent victims anywhere. Such a tragic loss and what an abject failure of any so-called civil society.

If we are to consider ourselves civil, we must (1) reduce access to weapons designed for mass killing and (2) provide real treatment for individuals clearly needing care beyond what families can provide. Those two fundamental goals are not extreme, nor beyond reach -- even in our divided contentious political arena.

Perhaps, just perhaps we can, enough of us, can reach out across our divides seeing others through damp-eyes with broken-hearts, and try to do the right thing. Perhaps these lost young children can bring us to our senses, realizing that by working together we CAN find our way back to the path we lost when we forgot who we were, when we traded our dreams of future for immediate gratification and self-focus.

We will have many proposals for patches and bandages; that's okay. What we face is a dysfunctional social anarchy, with no common-ground, no common language, no shared common purpose.

Let us simply use this crisis to relearn how to speak to each other with reason, recognizing others with different views -- not as idiots, but simply diverse citizens sharing the pain of common problems, coming from different viewpoints to consensus. There has to be a rational national commons where we can agree -- or we have no common unity.

I'll leave the many details to the coming debate: reasonable limits to fire-power, limits to access, even limits on industry influence in government.

One point I haven't heard discussed much is liability -- the liability of posessing dangerous equipment (weaponry). We insure the liability of our cars and swimming-pools. If a party-host or bar-tender can be held liable for a drunk-driver's accident, someone with legal weapons might equally well be liable for their mis-use by others finding them unsecured, accessible by someone too young or known to be irresponsible. With ownership of something obviously dangerous must come responsibility and real liability for misuse.

We also have legal precedents of manufacturer's liability. Light aircraft manufacturing was destroyed in the US, due to product-liability claims by survivors against deep-pocket plane-manufacturers (when pilots ran out of fuel and passengers died). This liability reached many decades back -- and almost destroyed Piper and Cessna. Why do weapon suppliers get a liability-pass?

And don't get me started on liability excused as collatteral-damage from the ancient traditions of war -- but that's for a future generation to solve.

There are many rational reforms we can make; but first we must relearn to talk with our citizen neighbors, across our tribal divides. We must reach towards consensus, not letting irresponsible corporate-interests divide us against our own shared human interests

--jim

Not true. Nuclear materials and weapons are NOT prohibited. There is a guy named Jeff Immelt who has nukes. They are highly regulated (and should be regulated more).

Last week there was a mall shooting in Oregon, a hospital shooting where the gunman was able to kill two before a cop shot him, and one more - the details of which I don't remember. The week before that was the Washington Redskins shooting that inspired Bob Costas. Seems it happens ceaselessly and we only really hear about it when the death toll is more than 10 or 15..

Availability of guns is only one factor - the system of delivery, if you would - of our mass homocidal tendencies. The main reason, I think, people are killing so much is greed - and greed overriding ethics - and intolerance in our society. "How you play the game" doesn't matter anymore, only "whether you win or lose". People also have willfully ignorant intolerance of others and facile lack of concern or consideration for them. People forced to the margins by this then "get even with the world" by killing a lot of people.

Not to justify killing but commonly, in such cases of human conflict and victimization, more than one party is guilty or, leastways, not completely innocent. At any rate, when it keeps recurring you should probably consider all those angles

It's what is now being called the "factor of mental illness". It is being acknowledged that our society has been neglecting the concern of mental health. Perhaps it would be better to have a healthy society, one more conducive to mental health, rather than throwing money at the problem by making available more therapy to those who are already nuts.

But to do that we would have to admit that there might be something wrong with our society and we can't do that about the good ol' USA.

One additional measure with respect to accountability, I heard someone propose is: imposing large fines upon applicable gun manufacturers when mass shootings occur; the idea behind this is since the gun industry is manufacturing something lethal and selling it such as with the tobacco industry; this can remove the gun manufacturing profit motive.

Why don't we have the same regulation as we do for owning and operating automobiles? Training, testing, issuing limited time licenses that have to be renewed and add a mental stability test to the eye test. That should be required to operate one, then there should also be registration and licenses for the guns as well. Require mandatory liability insurance so if a gun causes damage, the registered owner, whether he causes the damage or someone who used his gun did, there is compensation for the damage. Insurance companies would then help weed out the high-risk owners. Securing them should also be a required by law so they are not easily taken by unauthorized people. We put locks and alarms on our cars to protect them from unauthorized users. We are more careful with our cars than we are with our guns. Why?

I appreciate the logic you apply and your comment. It is a practical measure towards reducing the incidence of violence; additionally, those who have mental illness need support services available instead of cutting them from budgets. In my opinion rather than using guns, "rational-minded", mature, people use discourse, diplomacy; and can constructively, try solving problems.

Watch Joe Scarborough's commentary this morning 12/17/12. He showed great leadership as a consertative who has had enough and is taking action.

Jan in Montana

Recognition and treatment of mental illness must predominate this debate. Even if your among those whom think the gun and the use thereof is the illness, as opposed to the symptomatic enabler. Change as urgent as it may seem, must be en-acted in baby steps to be effective. If we observe the outcome of the ten year assault weapons ban of 1994 thru 2004, number one it only passed because of its ten year sunset claus,number two...Number two it energized enough albeit barely enough money and / political energy to put George Bush within reach of the White House. With the help of the court and hundreds of thousands of paranoid gun owners George Bush became president and the Iraq war came next. Push too little and the weapons manufactures win, push too hard and the weapons manufactures win bigger! Already republicans have recognized the funding potential to be exploited from this tragedy, starting only moments after the event with Rush Limbaugh. To the original point there is an unknown quantity here in the land of the gun and its emerging more frequently. An evolving culture where social interaction occurs often only though a moniter, where guns are a virtual entertainment device, a seemingly harmless expression of testostrone if you will, and the consequenses of their use is reset at the end of the game. Where real world experiences are sparse. Where these now young adults watched Bush and Rumsfeld prosecute war as if it were a game that could be reset.

Lets start with Grover's plea that his pledge is for the American Tax Payer's. His pledge wasn’t an attempt to save the people from ruthless legislators who prey on people. His whole agenda is to get control of the Legislative Branch for his benefactors, the “secret funders” of his TTP (taxpayer protection pledge) his job as a lobbyist is in direct opposition to the oath of office that these politicians have taken to be stewards of this country.

The impact we are all witnessing, is the gridlock in Washington primarily fueled by this egregious pledge. All of those who have signed this pledge suffer from the knowledge that if they do the responsible thing (compromise) to make this country run smoothly then they will probably not even be nominated by their party caucus in the next election.

In his statement he talks about how Rick Perry has governed his state without tax hikes, that is non-sense Texas is suffering big time and has the same gridlock that many States (Montana too) have when their legislative branch is bound up with Norquist Pledgers who are beholding to the Secret Funders of his distribution network to politicians.

George Bush didn’t raise taxes however he created the homeland security department, no child left behind (without funding), the secret jails all over the world, two wars, and a business model that nearly bankrupt America.

If you want to believe the fluffy crap that Norquist is trying to spin in his “quest opinion” then perhaps you should be aware that his pack of pledgers (we have a bunch here in Montana) are funneling legislation written specifically for big business, not for Mom and Pop as he’d have you believe.

When a politician takes the oath of office he/she swears to do his/her duty with no mental reservations or purpose of evasion... with them signing this oath and having to be beholding to a third party (power of the pledge) they in turn become “domestic enemies”, I kid you not these people are dangerous for America!

WE have an epidemic in AMERICA. If it was any other type of epidemic there would be a public outcry for federal and state governments to do something ASAP. HOWEVER, this epidemic is a taboo subject.

Democratic New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler said, "We have a lobby, the leadership of the NRA, who function as enablers of mass murder. And that's what they are. They're enablers of mass murder"

87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. AND 80 percent and 79 percent, support background checks on gun buyers. THE NRA membership needs to stand up to their NRA leadership and make their voices heard.

Here's an idea for public gun safety--
I am not a politically active person and I am not a gun owner even though I am NRA gun safety trained. But I throw out this idea for others to consider.
Since the Constitution states the necessity of "a well-regulated militia" and forbids Congress from the abridgement of the public's "right to keep and bear arms", I have asked myself what is the most restrictive gun control that could be instituted that would honor the spirit of the Second Amendment.
I have arrived at the idea of the "Public Armory". This would be a secure public facility for the mandatory storage of all personally owned firearms in a community. This federally funded facility would be administered by the local sheriff's office and would serve the purpose of getting guns out of the hands of impulsive citizens. It also could allow for the storage of the most advanced weaponry a person might obtain. Every legally registered gun owner would have full and open access to the Public Armory via a non-electronic, non-digitally monitored lock and key system that the administrators would guard but not controll access to. Each gun locker would be exceedingly secure but access to the lockers would not be restricted. Citizens could obtain access to their weapons at any time for any reason. Storage of any firearm (with an exception for a single handgun per household member) in a residence overnight would be prohibited. Violation of this prohibition will be penalized with a $1000 to $5000 fine.
This idea could provide public safety from irresponsible gun ownership. It could serve as a repository for the confiscation of unregistered weapons and, most importantly, preserve the American tradition of individual gun ownership.
My idea may not be fully formed but I offer it as one citizen's plan to accomplish a sorely needed goal.
David Daniel
Iowa City IA

I share your frustration and aggravation.
Even though Kend makes an embarrasingly true point about the U.S. Government/Military occupying the world, I am happy to share that the people I have come to know who live in other countrues (Australia, Germany, Spain, Thailand, Finland, and Canada), are more disgusted by our commercial brand of lies and half truths that we call news, and find it completely silly that we - "The great U.S.A." - do not have a Universal Healthcare System, Better Funded Education System, and a Liveable work wage.
I actually enjoyed their views and comments - regarding our last election - as being supportive of the middle class and our struggle to regain a strong workforce.

Both my brother and sister have dual citizenship. They were both born here in the U.S. but have lived in Australia for 39 plus years. Once I asked them why they never move back to the U.S...Their reply was that they don't find the American culture to be all that great. They've both spent time here through the years; usually 4 to 6 weeks at a time - gotta love the way Australians live life - but they never were impressed by just how homaginized, phobic, and overly commercialized we as a nation are.
Of course other countries have their social issues, but even conservative Germany understands the need to maintain a strong wellfare system for those less fortunate. And Portugal...They resolved much of their drug related street crime by legalizing drugs...Go figure. Instead of banging their head up against a wall and wasting billions of dollars a year maintaining a war on drugs they view it as a health issue, and the money they propagated from this approach goes towards well resourced rehabilatation programs for those who seek help, and those that don't either are healthy "users" or natural selection takes care of the abusers; either way no one goes to jail for purchase, possetion, or using.

What I struggle to understand is why do companies that employ thousands or millions of people have a problem with taking good care of their employees. Example; Wal mart is the largest employer in the world, yet thay have more employees on wellfare than the next 3 largest companies combine. The average wage for a full time Wal Mart employee is less than $10.00 an hour. However the Wal Mart Empire is worth HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLAR$$$$$$! Yet unless you are in upper managment, or in Future Development and Opperations, your wages are not liveable.
Am I just a foollish sucker to ask the question; Why won't these multi-billion dollar companies take good care of their hard and honest working employees that enable them to be successfull and live such lavish and luxurious life styles? Is it to much to ask the guy with 4 homes, a Lear Jet, 2 Benzes, a Bently and a Mazaradi for a liveable wage (one beyond just the inflation rate)?

Call me crazy but if I were a ultra conservative uber rich buisness owner who was anti-union, anti-welfare state, etc. I would thank my employees by paying them a wage that would enable them to be independent and I would offer them healthcare, and stock options. To me that's more than just good buisness; that's being greatful to those that make it possable to live in the lap of luxury.