I'm a gun owner and I have no problem with stronger gun laws but I have 1 question, what law are you going to pass that makes a criminal who doesn't follow laws and is illegally carrying a weapon stop breaking the law and say I can't do that, because the law says so. Please answer that. The laws we are passing only effect law abiding citizens, not criminals, CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW ANY GUN LAWS OR LEGISLATION THAT YOU PASS!!! You can ban guns but guess what, the criminals will still have them and why, CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW ANY GUN LAWS OR LEGISLATION THAT YOU PASS!!! Is anyone seeing the pattern here. You know drugs are illegal and banned, not restricted but illegal and banned yet they are still in every state in this country. How's that working out for everyone.

We need laws to make it harder to buy guns (background checks, age limits, etc) and easier to report and confiscate guns from illegal gun owners. Too much free for all right now.

If the NRA is right and most of these mass murders are mentally ill, then significant roadblocks for gun purchases should make it much harder for them to get high powered weapons.

Specifics please. Provide details on "significant roadblocks".

We are talking about an enumerated civil right.

To quote Gavin Newsome.. "Whether you like it or not!"

Roadblocks on civil rights shouldn't be allowed.

There is an absolute truck load of data from around the world, empirical and anecdotal, that says otherwise.

First step should be inarguable. Allow the CDC and other government agencies to research the issue. What possible objection could there be to that?

These are children and should be school. The schools should have a special hour or two in the appropriate class to discuss both sides of the 2nd Amendment.
All this "KIDS" know is GUNS are bad because that's what the school teaches, not discussions.
Guns alone are stupid looking paper weights....
Guns have been around for over 200 years these coward killers a relatively short time, it's the "society", "culture", school liberals and poor family support. Start with that and leave my "funny" paper weight alone.
Semper Fi

96 deaths a day is based on data by the CDC for a 5 year average. An average of 35 from homicide and 59 from suicide. One thing the CDC data does not include is how many homicides were justifiable and how many were done with a stolen or illegal firearm.
I am all for more enhanced background checks but not for banning certain or all types of firearms. California is already one of the strictest states when it comes to firearms, but the city of Chicago has some strict laws as well.
Guns are not the problem. They are intended for sport, hunt and defense. More attention should be brought to mental health and background checks because the fight against gun violence has been the same for many years without any change. It's time for a new game plan

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@resident

I think you haven't heard a lot of the information regarding this incident in particular, because several of your statements/questions don't make sense in light of that information.

The FBI was notified twice about the Parkland shooter (I refuse to use his name), once when he posted a comment that he wanted to be "a professional school shooter" and again only 6 weeks before the shooting took place. The FBI failed to follow up. If they had, this person would never have had the chance to commit the crime. Making such threats is illegal. Why didn't they investigate?

The Broward County Sheriff's Department received at least 18 calls regarding this individual since 2008 (he would have been about 9 years old when first reported). The sheriff did nothing to follow up on this person. They chose to ignore all that activity rather than enter it into the files that are checked when a background check is run. If they had done as they were supposed to, he would never have passed a background check in the first place. Why didn't they report him as they should have done?

The local police responded to calls at this person's home no less than 39 times in the last 7 years (he would have been 12 years old when that began), yet the local police failed to place this person in the database as they were supposed to, he would never have passed a background check. Why did the police fail to do their job?

The authorities had nearly SIXTY (60) opportunities to place this person in the database so that he wouldn't get a gun, yet they never did. Why does that mean that law-abiding citizens should give up their rights? Why are we not focusing on the breakdown of the system that would have prevented this situation in the first place?

Incidentally, it is my understanding that Florida has a statute called the Baker Act, which allows authorities investigating threats of violence to confiscate the weapons of an individual under investigation while the investigation is being conducted. Why, again, did the FBI fail to investigate the threats?

It is unreasonable to attack the 2nd Amendment and the NRA when the they have nothing to do with the situation. Unless it can be proven that ENFORCING the law as currently written would not have prevented this tragedy, attacking Constitutional Rights should not even be part of this discussion.

Unfortunately, those who only want to attack those rights, because they personally don't choose to avail themselves of them, refuse to see past their dislike for the choice of others to defend themselves. If this is supposed to be a discussion in order to find a solution to a problem, then everyone's ideas have to be on the table. When you insist that the "only solution" is "common sense gun control" then it is no longer discussion, just diatribe.

There is a way to make this better, but that requires discussion and that can't happen if you refuse to hear the other side. Less shouting and more listening would be a good start.

@"@jaime smith" of Waverly Park

FYI, all of the "truck load of data" the media will tell you about is very carefully cherry-picked to push an agenda. It's not science, it's politics.

"There is an absolute truck load of data from around the world, empirical and anecdotal, that says otherwise."

Anyone who has studied complex issues like crime know that comparing different jurisdictions is pretty much meaningless because there are too many variables to come to a scientific conclusion of comparison. Anyone who says otherwise is pushing a political agenda, not doing science.

Doing science relating to violent crimes in general or violent gun crimes specifically means examining each jurisdiction over decades of time and changes in laws for each jurisdiction. What matters in change over time for the specific jurisdiction if you're goal is learning about the crimes or the effects of the laws.

"First step should be inarguable. Allow the CDC and other government agencies to research the issue."

There is NO LAW preventing the CDC from researching violent crime nor even firearms related crime. The media is lying to you about that. The law they are lying to you about only forbids the CDC from pushing a political agenda on gun-control.

This law was only passed because the CDC at the time of that law was indeed pushing a pre-determined political position under the guise of "science" and public health. The CDC is perfectly welcome to do actual research and publish the data it finds and all of the methodologies used to collect the data and how they came up with any conclusions they published.

Just as the CDC does about actual public health issues, however, the CDC wont do the normal type of scientific investigations and full-disclosure of methods and raw data. The CDC leadership only wants to publish a political position and exploit it's reputation to give their agenda credibility.

"What possible objection could there be to that?"

Ask the CDC why they refuse to do actual science on firearms crimes in the same ways they do science about things the CDC normally studies?

Not that anyone cares about facts.

"Mountain View senior Serena Myjer said she has been shooting guns since she was 10 years old..."

Then she should have also been taught the facts about all types of firearms so she would not have been so easily fooled by the media.

"...and that gun hobbyists have the right to collect firearms,"

Well she got part way there, but that's like saying that "collectors" have the right to collect books, but not the right to freedom of speech.

"...she said there has to be a clear line drawn between hobby guns...."

Tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners consider their AR-15s or other semi-auto rifles to be their "hobby guns". So, exactly where does this child draw the line between OK-to-own guns and NOT-OK-to-own?

"...and guns designed to fire virtually at the speed of automatic weapons and enable mass shootings."

Again, this shows that even someone who started shooting guns as a child can be just as ignorant about guns as people who have never touched one.

I've seen people fire revolvers faster than an AR-15 can fire.

""Some guns are simply too dangerous for public sale," Myjer said."

The problem she does not yet realize is that no matter how many
types" of guns get banned, the gun-haters will just keep claiming that yet another "type" must be banned.

All the well-known gun-haters have stated their ultimate goal is total ban on civilians having any access to firearms of any type.

Not that anyone cares about facts.

@ Gun Owner of Rex Manor

"...An average of 35 from homicide and 59 from suicide. One thing the CDC data does not include is how many homicides were justifiable..."

For actual facts relating to firearms, you can ignore the utterly political CDC, you need to go to the actual data charts in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Those will tell you about both homicides done by law-enforcement officers and by civilians and the numbers on how many were ruled "justified", ie, self-defense.

"and how many were done with a stolen or illegal firearm."

Again, the CDC and the media wont tell the public the facts, only in the FBI UCR and a handful of studies by politically neutral organizations can you find meaningful data.

What actually matters is that we already have all the laws we need to drastically reduce violent crimes committed with a firearm, but the politicians wont enforce them, the police wont make the arrests, the prosecutors wont take these known criminals to court and judges wont impose meaningful sentences.

Why pass more utterly useless gun laws when nobody takes the current laws seriously enough to enforce them?

Not that anyone cares about the facts.

"Hundreds of students" (out of, what, 1800 at MVHS) took their protest as far as the school quad and complained about how easy it is to buy guns and assault weapons and ammo legally. Well, that is a start. Before March 14, I bet MVHS had 10 political activists. Now many more students are figuring out that we should never leave politics in America to politicians or corporate special interests or foreign regimes that wish to undermine or destroy our country. If we do, we could end up with a lying megalomaniac compromised by Russia in the White House. Gun violence is a serious problem and not easy to fix. There are already more guns than citizens in America. Criminals will always get guns. But pick a problem and work on a fix. And do oust politicians on the wrong side of issues you find most important.

@mvresident2003

"There are more deaths by stabbing than gun fire."

You have not stated that correctly.
If you combine all types of rifles and shotguns used to commit homicide, that ranges from about 250-350-ish deaths, but homicides by knife are about 1,500-1,700 per year in recent years.
Homicide deaths by hands/feet as the weapons are about 650-ish.

"Where's the outcry to make knives illegal???"

That would be the United Kingdom. The UK first did mandatory 100% registration, ignored by the criminals of course, then used the list to confiscate about 99.9% of the registered guns in the UK, leaving only the criminals armed. THEN the UK went on a knife ban and public relations offensive to demonize anyone who owns "assault knives" and totally banned carrying knives.

The London Underground tube has big posters on the wall shaming anyone who owns knives and anyone who ever tries to resist criminal attack.

Not that anyone cares about facts.

"Gun-control" versus "Drug-control" versus "Alcohol-control" and the "Opiod crisis".

FYI, the "opiod crisis" is mostly caused by illegally imported Fentanyl.

Before anyone, especially young people, assume that ANY form of new "gun-control" laws have any chance of saving lives or preventing violent criminals from getting guns anytime they want, you should first examine the history of the prior USA attempts at "controlling access" to "dangerous things" that lots of Americans want.

The "drug-control" laws would be the gun-haters dream set of laws, but they have never worked. In fact, the drug-control laws made EVERYTHING WORSE!

In recent years we have heard about the "opiod crisis", meaning that, in rapidly growing numbers, many thousands of people are dying each year from the various forms of opium based drugs.

ALL opium based drugs have either been outright illegal to possess or produce or import for many decades, or the few legal opiods have been severely regulated by doctors prescription and laws that forbid anyone but the prescribed person from using these drugs.

And in spite of the USA spending over $100 Billion (yes, BILLION) each year trying to suppress illegal drug possession and illegal use, all forms of illegal and prescription drugs are readily available to anyone willing to break the laws to get them.

Gun-control laws cannot even slow down the availability of guns to anyone who is willing to break the laws to obtain guns. And all the gun-control laws aimed at restricting law-abiding people from obtaining guns accomplishes nothing but selling lots more guns and building a wealthy criminal underground to illegally import and sell guns to anyone without background checks or even age limits.

Alcohol Prohibition was supposed to prevent the huge dammages cause by alcohol users, but instead Prohibition just caused millions more people to use alcohol and become alcoholics and support a massive wealthy criminal underground that provided alcohol. Ordinarily law-abiding Americans chose to ignore Alcohol Prohibition and even law enforcement officers were corrupted into supporting the illegal trade in alcohol. Children could easily buy alcohol and there were no controls of any sort on the quality/purity of what was being sold.

Those who fail to LEARN from HISTORY are doomed to repeat it!

Not that anyone cares about the facts.