I swear that one was on SVU... but, your observation about targeting violent people? Why not? They can use Google Analytics in many ways. Wouldn't surprise me. Which is why I made the comment about having a society which cares for its members rather than one which preys on them... the "Anything goes as long as we profit" thinking is beyond disgusting.

Your young relative needs more real world interaction. When we were young, I craved it... and that's the normal thing.

The process of socialization, disrupted by the gadgets is what produced normal people. Wait and see what you end up with now. If my parents found me playing a game where points were awarded for running people over, they'd have had me bundled up and in a shrink's office faster than the speed of light.

O tempore, O mores.

Guns? Who needs them...

I don't have much to add to this discussion, other than I completely agree with anyone who said that the United States needs more mental health facilities and easier access to them.  I have no real opinion on the gun control and/or gun ban side of the issue, because I see a direct parallel when you apply that with the drug and/or substance abuse issue (which accounts for huge amounts of people killed in car accidents) -- "banning" something doesn't hit at the heart of the issue -- people who want to obtain banned items find a way of obtaining those items and the fact that they are banned means a whole other level of criminal element enters the equation because of the lucrativeness of dealing in banned items, and it punishes the people who legitimately own guns for either sport, protection or business (I lived in rural Kansas for a while and when you have to put your cow down or something like that, there isn't always a vet around to do it for you). 

The heart of the problem, as I see it, is a real lack of easy access to adequate mental health for ALL in this country.  If mental health were a basic human right, some of the stigma of seeking help would be eased; more people would be aware of what to look for in themselves and others.  As the parent of an adult child with psychiatric issues, I can tell you first hand about the nightmare trying to get help for your adult child can be!  "Free" care for indigents is nothing more than a dispensary for SSRI's which only address a small portion of the illness.  Getting actual therapy is impossible unless the patient is covered by an expensive insurance policy.  Even when it IS covered, it's usually just 6-8 visits, which is not enough to help someone who is seriously messed up. 

I cried MORE when I read this article than I did when I heard about the tragedy in Connecticut: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

That's kind of melodramatic.  More children are killed in car accidents than by guns, (as vStyler mentioned much earlier in the thread) but we don't outlaw cars because of it.  In a just world, EVERY child would grow up, healthy, happy, loved, provided for -- but we don't live in a just world; there is no such thing as a just world.  Even if we got rid of every man-made danger to children, there would still be natural disasters like tsunamis that take out whole areas of the landscape with no regard for what age group happens to be residing there.

I grew up in a home that included gun owners.  My father (may he rest in peace), was an avid hunter, as was my brother.  I was not.  When my cat got her legs amputated by the next-door farmer's plow in the field across from our house and she came crawling back, I was spared the traumatic witnessing of that horror because my father and brother had guns and put Cocoa our of her misery before I was aware of it.  Sometimes the second amendment, in the hands of a wise parent MEANS that a child grows up -- I think pretty much all of us have either seen "Old Yellar" or at least know of the plot line.  A boy grows up, because he experiences an adult-life problem and has to deal with it like a man.  Most of us live in urban areas now and the need for that type of access to guns is diminished but not to the point that we need to abolish the second amendment. 

That's simply pathetic. Guns are designed ONLY TO KILL. Cars are designed to get people from A to point B. Melodramatic? I think not. It puts the proper light on this ridiculous argument.

Please read what I said about conditioning. Also, please read that I agreed that farmers and those who have to hunt for food for their tables should have rifles. Not AK-47's nor M-16's, 

As someone who has played BOTH.. I can tell u from actual experience... NFL football is a more violent sport... if they played NFL football without armor, with the 2012 speed and power of the players...people would be dying all over the place... and really the two sports are completely different, played in different ways...and cannot be legitimately compared.

I'm British, i LOVE rugby.. but.. imo.. to play NFL rules football without protection wouldn't even be possible without serious injury in the league every single week.

Funny thing, but the only ex Rugby or Aussie rules players you EVER see in the NFL, are kickers. You don't see star athletes in Australian rules or Rugby coming to the States and making the 'easy money' in the NFL

I'm guessing.. you have never actually played American football Jafo.

I just discussed the gun control/Connecticut massacre issue with my husband (crazy...I thought we had discussed every issue under the sun in the past 12 years) - his answer was brilliant.  We need to have police at every school.  He informed me that every Tulsa school entry is guarded by metal detectors and there's a branch of the Tulsa police specifically dedicated to Tulsa Public Schools.  Think about it...just about every public event we have in this country is guarded by armed security (football games, concerts, shopping malls, airports) - why shouldn't we be protecting our most vulnerable citizenry with as much zeal as we do those places?  Perhaps the amount of bullying that goes on in schools would decrease, as a side benefit, if schools were patrolled by armed guards.  It's brilliant!

Not a new idea, Karen. About the financial stuff John's correct... reallocating resources is one solution...anything but taking away my gun!

This says it all, and I lived  about  a 2 hours drive. they have brought gun laws in Tasmania Australia since this  IDIOT  done this, now the only people are allowed to have  guns are Farmers and they must be registered, cops and security guards but if you have broken the law or  have a criminal history you are not allowed to have a gun or license

Port Arthur massacre footage posted on internet

Graphic police footage showing the aftermath of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania has been posted on the internet.

The footage was part of a 12-minute police training video and shows images of some of the victims of the massacre, when Martin Bryant shot dead 35 people at the historic site.

The entire video has been posted on the social networking site Facebook while parts of the tape have been uploaded to YouTube.

Tasmanian police say they have been flooded with calls from distressed residents and they have contacted victims of the massacre.

Facebook and YouTube have been contacted in an attempt to remove the video and police are investigating the source.

They believe it is 'almost impossible' to stop the spread of the video which is now appearing in edited forms across the web.

Deputy Commissioner Scott Tilyard says it is not the first time the training tape been posted on the internet.

They first became aware of the video online in February.]

Current Australian firearm laws

State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defence.^[2]

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.

Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories with different levels of control. The categories are:

• Category A: Rimfire rifles (not semi-automatic), shotguns (not pump-action or semi-automatic), air rifles, and paintball markers. A "Genuine Reason" must be provided for a Category A firearm.

• Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.

• Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

• Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

• Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.

Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibers are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.

• Category R/E: Restricted weapons: machine guns, rocket launchers, assault rifles, flame-throwers, anti-tank guns, Howitzers, artillery, etc. can be owned by collectors in some states provided that these weapons have been rendered permanently inoperable. They are subject to the same storage and licensing requirements as fully functioning firearms.

Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).

Australia has very tight restrictions on items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as the UK. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to license. Airsoft guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most. Suppressors (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are extremely restricted in Australia to a few government bodies

There was no such gun culture before the Constitution, ernie leo. Gun ownership in America far exceeds anywhere else on earth. The reasons cited are: Fear of criminals (although the guns at home supply them and harm far more family members than criminals), hunting and sport. Big problem: Guns don't know the difference between hunting, sport or self defense. All they seem to know how to do is kill. 

People had weapons as part of a similar reserve system as the one Israel has. That has changed. They also had weapons to fend off attacks from Native Americans (which evolved into exterminating them), the British and the French. Since the War of 1812, we haven't had that worry). Current America is radically different from those times. Time to adjust, no?

Oh yes... those were my relatives... and America was given an instrument which could evolve and change with time. It isn't a holy relic... it's supposed to be a living document.

Yes...I don't have one now...but in the "future" one reason to buy one "may" be out of necessity. The world is rapidly changing...and if I see things are getting to the point where there might be a threat...perceived or otherwise...I sure as hell am not going to stand here with my pecker in my hand and not buy a gun because some people choose to live in fear or assign some hysterical stigma to a gun. I would buy one hoping to never have to use it...but if it comes down to me and my family over a criminal with a gun...he's going down. Now if you want to call that fear be my guest. I just don't see this as being fearful of anything...it's being prepared for a real and possible scenario. Luckily I live in an area that hasn't seen home invasions...so the need isn't there right now. I'd sure as hell not go to war without a weapon...this is no different. Sure...I could just use harsh language and wave my big pecker at them, but somehow I just don't think that would be enough. 

Bottom line is I'd do whatever I had to to protect my family or myself if I felt there could be a threat...perceived or otherwise...and the decision on how to best go about that is mine alone as well as the consequences. If you choose harsh language that's up to you...I would choose to not gamble with their lives...and in the end I can always sell the gun with my family intact and have a laugh over my possible momentary lapse in reason. I'd choose being prepared over not being.

What's with this need to be conditioned or desensitized to a gun. It's a piece of metal that shoots bullets. You either respect that or you don't. I don't need therapy to handle a gun or counseling after I shot one. If your to weak to understand and respect a gun you shouldn't touch one. And I really don't need to justify my handling or use of a gun to anyone. I don't have a problem with it...you obviously do.

Really!? Look...you obviously had a bad experience or something with guns...I didn't...deal with it. I grew up with a healthy respect for guns and what they can do. I do not now nor have I ever thought of them as nothing more than a tool or something to use as sport. Now...I'm sorry as hell that there is idiots in the world that can't deal with life to the point of doing something as cowardly as killing another human being out of spite for his/her unhappy life...I don't have that problem. I've got numerous reasons to be angry...but I've never felt the need to take out a bunch of people because of it.

Maybe if doctors stopped putting themselves on pedestals and started charging people a more realistic amount of money for guessing...then maybe the mental cases could get some help. It's not like your gonna run out of patients. Now...if your really serious about your rants here then you need to open a clinic and start helping these mentally unbalanced people. Here's your chance to make a difference.

And please by all means point out my contradictions. On second thought don't bother. It's just getting insulting now...and after this I'm done here...it's just going round and round and getting pointless...I've made my stance known...I stand by what I said...now you all have to deal with it. I have a clean and clear conscious.

Can we please be a bit more considerate in our choice of words!? Just because you "think" your in the right doesn't mean you are or give you some right to insult people. Pathetic? Melodramatic? And of course your not being any of those are you Doc...yeah right. You need to be more respectful and considerate.

Karen stated a "fact"...to bad if it doesn't fit into your argument, instead you chose to ignore it or brush aside since you obviously have no concern over her concerns...the "fact" remains that people are killed by all kinds of things...cars being one of them...that can be and are used as weapons. Just because a car wasn't designed to kill doesn't mean it can't and it has been used just for that reason. Again...humans are the problem...not guns.

.. AND PROTECT.

Quite Ironic to see the Pres. making his speech tonight... surrounded by Secret service agents carrying automatic Weapons... to protect him from mentally ill people who want to harm him.

Are they going to follow everyone else around when everyone's right to personal protection has been taken away from them? Which.. is.. exactly.. what he wants.

From a Yahoo News commenter:

" And here comes the gungrabbing Marxist president to the rescue after all his faux crocodile tears for the cameras of the media pimps. You know what the real problem is? It isn't firearms which have existed in great numbers since before the official founding of America. If you consider the first primary school education mass killings didn't occur until 1974 it's pretty clear that it's a more permissive and liberal society that has created narcissistic sociopaths that have confused moral license for liberty and believe they are entitled to other people's lives, liberties and wealth. Abortion, gun grabbers, and Occupy Wall Street thuggery are exhibits one, two and three. The problem isn't guns, it's the culture of violence compliments of liberal narcissism, Hollywood and media pornsters which pushes those "on the edge" to the tipping point. It's many factors, but post-modern "progressive" culture only needs to look in the mirror to see their part in these kinds of atrocities which weren't happening until after the explosion of radical liberalism in the 1960s."

I believe there would be a civil war in this country before innocent, law abiding Americans will allow the minority liberal cause to take their rights away from them.

Note. No offense Doc.. but I have to agree, sometimes you do come off as condescending, righteous, know-it-all'y? You might step back just a little and choose to modify how you make some of your points.

There are two sides to every story.