Tim, how does one differentiate "Normally I support concealed carry by civilians"? After all was this not a citizen carrying a gun? this was a person like you, who believed in the right to access of firepower, look what came of it. Gun control, plain and simple, it's needed. There may have been a need for personal protection/food a couple of hundred years ago, but in this day, and age however there is no need for anyone other than law enforcement to own a weapon beyond a rifle for hunting or sport. Why does a civilian need anything high powered, military grade, or automatic? unless they are going off to war it's unnecessary. A sad day indeed.

If there had been gun control, he would have had a harder time getting access to several.

This was a tragic day all around. I didn't want to make a political statement about gun control while those kids bodies still lie in that school but MSNBC and Mayor Bloomturd couldn't even wait 24 hours so here we are. I'm not suggesting we should have citizens (teachers or administrators) carrying concealed weapons. What I am saying is that law abiding citizens concealed carrying IS a crime deterrent. That scum bag in Aurora that shot up that movie theater for example... do you know why he chose that theater and not any one of the six others that were closer to his home? Because this one was the closest on that had "No Guns Permitted" signs posted. He knew his victims would be unarmed sitting ducks.

We don't need gun control, we need criminal control. We need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, which early reports indicate this nut job was. These were NOT his guns. He cannot even legally possess a handgun in the state of CT. All three guns were legally owned and registered to his mother (who he murdered). We need to have a discussion about why she had these guns unsecured in her home knowing she had a mentally disturbed son. I don't have kids and I still keep my firearms locked up (yes easily accessible to me with my finger print). This is about INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY and NOT about STEALING MORE OF OUR LIBERTIES! Unfortunately, this woman was murdered but if the early reports are true, she bares some blame here. Every gun owner has a responsibility to secure their firearms.

Any by the way "Your Name" you should turn off MSNBC because they are firearm illiterates. The .223 Carbine Rifle that was used may "look scary" to you but it's NOT an automatic assault rifle. All automatic weapons are ILLEGAL to own without a Class 3 license from the ATF. This rifle was a semi-automatic (one shot her trigger pull, just like the 9mm handguns he had). It would have taken this lunatic some time to fire off 100+ rounds as was reported, with the weapons he had and the reloading he would have had to do.

I have a better solution that trying to ban civilian gun ownership which will never happen...

I have friends in law enforcement and it's very common at any given time, even in smaller departments, to have one or more officers off work on a comp claim for minor injuries. Instead of having them sit at home and watch daytime TV, why not bring them back on light duty and station one at every K-12 school. Or even still, hire retired officers to do it. Schools are soft targets and this would at least be a start and I think it's something reasonable that both sides of the political aisle can agree on.

I just re-read the first part of your comment.... you're a fool. I'm NOTHING like this scumbag and how dare you. I have no criminal record. I don't break the law. I respect life and I'm not mentally ill as this nutbag was. I think you should seek some counseling for yourself. Your comments are pretty sick. So there's no need for "personal protection" today? Really? Tell that to the citizens of Chicago or Washington, DC... BOTH cities that have banned gun ownership (prior to the "DC v Heller" ruling) and two of the most violent crime ridden cities in the nation. Why don't you move to one of those liberal utopias... or better yet, stick a sign on your front lawn indicating your house as a "gun free zone" and lets see how long it takes before you're a victim yourself!

I've noticed that Patch does this for stories that they think will get a lot of comments. I agree with you, if Patch wants to be hyper local, then make the comments only local. I'm posting on Walnut Creek patch, which is not at a ll local to this story. Peace out.

Winifred - One of the most accurate comments I've read all day.

Mona, we have gun control. Look at the places with the toughest gun laws (Chicago and Washington DC), they are two of the most violent, crime ridden cities win the nation; two of the cities with the most gun violence. The CO movie theater shooter chose that particular theater, passing over six others closer to his home, specifically because it was posted as a "gun free zone". Banning guns just disarms law abiding citizens while emboldening criminals. So why not try something different? Why not address the breakdown of society... the glorification of violence in Hollywood movies, music, first person shooter games, etc. Why not address the problems of the mentally ill amongst us? How many guns were used on 9/11/01 when over 3,000 of out fellow citizens were killed? How many guns were used by Tim McVeigh in OK City? Evil is evil, plain and simple.

The media will stop when the public stops reading it. Just take a look - articles on violence & tragedy get the most the hits and garner the most comments by far. Stop blaming the media for giving folks what they 'want'.

If they started locking up all the crazy people with guns The Republicans wouldn't receive a single vote ! Better to have something popping into your mind than have someone popping a cap into your ass,eh Tim ? We don't need to take the guns away,we just need a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years for any unpermitted possession or use of a firearm (unregistered,concealed,brandishing,illegal discharge,etc.) with absolutely no exceptions ! This way when facing twenty years the criminals will go down in a hail of gunfire while at the same time we take a significant number of NRA knuckleheads off the street for the better portion of their lives ! It's a win win situation as we can rid ourselves of the gunslingers & the guns they leave behind ! Encouraging citizens to leave their arsenals at home when they leave the house or face a lengthy jail term would certainly be a step in the right direction,but then again if you're right you must be wrong !!!!

Gun violence has not gone up. It has been consistent per 100,000 for a long time, spiking out now and then for who know what reason. It has actually been declining since about 1993 nation wide, which I know is no comfort when tragedies like these happen. But I agree. Health care usually covers mental health and we need to take this serious. Sometimes there are no waning signs, at least that we can see. Other times there are. We need a way to get as many of these time bombs out of society and into institutions. What could we do? Maybe enough incidents, signatures, a pattern of being very unstable and get them help. Protect us from them. There are some dangerous people walking around that people know are unstable for lack of a better word. There has to be a way, with enough evidence to remove them from society before they kill. A restraining order is a start, but really nothing, if you are lucky enough to even be granted one against someone who is continuously harassing you and mentally ill, angry, delusional, and capable of this kind of thing. I have no clue why some people are still allowed to be in our society , and not in an institution for all our safety. Our hearts go out to the families. This is horrible beyond words.

I don't think anything is going to solve this problem, only help reduce it's occurence or number of deaths. And mental illness is not a soul reason imo to institutionlize someone. Or if they are an addict, but a pattern of violence, threats, stalking, harrassing, and other warnign signs need to be taken seriously.

CIndy you are delusional. If a law abiding citizen had a concealed carry in that theater they could have taken out the shooter and saved lives. You obviously associated with timid and fey men who know nothing about guns. So please don't assume everyone is as stupid as those with whom you assoiciate.

Can we ask where you got all these 'facts? Your comment is so nasty and inaccurate - talk about spreading the hate. Shame on you!

"Doesn't make what he did right "

Thanks for clearing that up... I was beginning to wonder.

Apart from Random capitaliZation, what "sweEPing" changes would you proPoSe?

James, I agree wholeheartedly with every word you wrote except for one thing. The time to make sweeping changes is long overdue which will make it a whole lot harder, if not impoissible to correct. Another example of long overdue sweeping changes is illegal imigration. In fact the list of "long overdue's" is so long it's hard to see the end of it.

Mona,

Sorry, I don't get Patch Comment Notifications. Kind of have to be here at the right time or sift thru them all.

As someone who's lived thru a lot, do you see these overdue Items ever being Handled? I think some of it could be changed rather Quickly with the backing of Students Parents. Of course not every Parent cares, but there's many who do.

Everyone keeps talking about the 30 School Shootings since 1999, what about the ones before Columbine. School Shootings date back all the way to the 1960's, only then it was considered "Isolated". As time wears on, they have only Frequented and gotten much worse. Those in Government cannot keep ignoring the Issue and Making Excuses for why they choose not to tackle it.

What's the Body County gotta hit before it becomes a Priority.

If we just got rid of those pesky gun laws (e.g., 2nd Amendment), perhaps our murder rate would be as low as Mexico's, right?

Your stats and logic are bogus.

Truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Note also that the homicide rate in Connecticut (3 per 100K) is 15% less than for Europe....

Comparative Death Rates and the Second Amendment by Roger Alford. Refer to: http://opiniojuris.org/2008/03/18/comparative-death-rates-and-the-second-amendment/

"In 1995, the firearms death rate in the United States was 13.7 per 100,000. In comparison, the firearms death rates in countries that severely limit access to handguns were significantly lower. For example, in 1995, Canada had a firearms death rate of 3.9 per 100,000; Australia had a rate of 2.9 per 100,000; and England and Wales had rates of 0.4 per 100,000 (a factor of 34 against the US). One of the most glaring distinctions between these countries and the United States is the significantly lower incidents of lethal violence caused by handguns."

UNODC: GLOBAL STUDY ON HOMICIDE - 2011
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf

"The role played by firearms in homicide is fundamental and, while the specific relationship between firearm availability and homicide is complex, it appears that a vicious circle connects firearm availability and higher homicide levels. Firearms undoubtedly drive homicide increases in certain regions and where they do members of organized criminal groups are often those who pull the trigger."

Please Bernard. Just because you are timid and weak, doesn't mean that other MEN are that way.

Bernard: Are you confused or simply using the typical sleight-of-hand tactics of the anti-gun crowd? This thread is about mass murder by a crazed individual. Your original comment linked differential rates of violence to rates of death and claim a 22X higher stat for Europe versus the US due to gun policy. Bunk.

I quoted you statistics for homicide (violent death of others via all methods).

You quote back *firearm death* rates (NB: *homicide* (all causes) versus *gun deaths*). Most gun deaths are from suicide. Most homicides in the U.S. are from guns. "Assault weapons" represent a tiny component of gun deaths (even including all rifles, it is modest).

With more guns, you will see a greater share of all murders and suicides being done with guns. Duh.

All things being equal, will more guns and lax laws equal more gun deaths? Yes. Duh.

Will tighter gun controls lead to fewer homicides and suicides overall? Unclear, but probably by a small (but significant) amount.

There is legitimate debate to be had here, but deceptive hyperbole doesn't help your cause, IMHO.

Just the thought of an angry crackpot like Fred Eiger having access to guns should be reason enough to tighten the guidelines for who can possess firearms ! It's not the "real men" shooting up elementary schools,it's the "timid & weak" like cowardly Fred who resort to mass murder on a weekly basis ! Just take a look at the brooding losers who commit these senseless acts & you won't find a single "real" man,just sick & twisted malcontents like Fred ! I'd surmise that the only reason Fred hasn't started shooting is that he's afraid of his own shadow & never sobers up enough to buy ammunition ! Fred is a danger not only to himself,but to every decent resident of San Leandro who believes in freedom & equality as well ! Fred Eiger is a shining example of everything that is wrong with America today & the frightening thing is that there are plenty more just like him armed,living next door & ready (like their guns) to go off at any minute ! Now that's really frightening !

I got news for you Bernard. If it were just the 9mm handguns, there wouldn't have been 27 dead and there would have been more injured survivors. It was that .223 carbine rifle that did the damage. Are you going to ban semi-automatic rifles as well?

Summer, since your so afraid of guns, I think you too should stick a "gun free zone" yard sign on your ftont lawn.

I'm not afraid of guns,it's who has the guns that scares me !!! If they were only used for killing & maiming animals,personal safety & target practice like the NRA claims, America would be a safer place (except for animals).

"If they were only used for killing & maiming animals,personal safety & target practice like the NRA claims"

Citation, please.

And sure enough I was right... all 26 at the school were shot and killed with the .223 carbine rifle, not the 9mm handguns. So now what Bernard? How would getting of handguns have stopped this awful tragedy?

For the record Summer, although I am an NRA member I do not agree with their entire agenda. I support them because without them there would be no defense of our Second Amendment right against the gun grabbers. I don't think any gun control would have stopped this, however, I would think some reasonable measures should be implemented such as...

1. Limit all magazine/clips to 10 rounds maximum (like NY and CA already do)
2. Implement NY State style process for purchasing/owning/carrying handguns... NY requires a handgun permit (required permit application in person at county gov office). Applicant goes before judge who issues permit. A permit to purchase/possess is also a permit to carry concealed unless restricted by the judge. I went through this process to get my NY permit when I lived there. Having to appear in person might week out psychos.
3. Implement harsh penalties for gun owners who don't secure their weapons. Stolen weapons should be required to be reported to law enforcement immediately upon knowledge of loss.
4. Prohibit gun possession by anyone in a household where an occupant has been diagnosed with mental illness.
5. Lastly, and probably most controversial, get rid of unfair "may issue" carry laws where politicians and celebs with no gun knowledge get carry permits and responsible citizens cannot. Each state should have a fair, but thorough ccw process with background checks and I would add an in person psychological evaluation.

Thank you for hosting this vigil at Paden Elementary School, Catherine.

As President Obama noted in his talk yesterday: these are our children, our teachers, and our neighborhoods.

WE get it K. You hate Obama. Think you can maybe NOT use this tragedy to draw attention to that fact?
disgusting.

There is always one loser in the crowd who will use any excuse - even the death of 20 six/seven year olds to try and promote their own person political agenda. How pathetic.

The lawless will take note. Go ahead and advertise yourself as a potential victim.

Really? This study in the Harvard Journal of Law and Policy Review doesn't agree with you.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Janet: you are either confused or employing the Fallacy of Equivocation. More guns equals more gun homicide, but you suggest that more guns lead to more homicides (in general) and the available evidence simply does not support the notion that this causal relationship is material (as compared to the cultural/social issues you allude to).

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

(Note, as I have pointed out previously, that Connecticut's homicide rate is 15% less than Europe's)

Also, mass killings are a special, extremely small component of overall gun deaths.

Would I prefer a deranged person to have a kitchen knife versus a machine gun? Of course. But you are implicitly stretching this edge case beyond its usefulness in reasonable policy discussion.

In any case, the VAST majority of gun homicide (>80%) are with handguns which, barring Constitutional amendment, are not really "on the table" from a policy perspective.

@Chris K: Please cite such "statistics."

"You aren't going to kill 26 people in a matter of minutes".

Really? Let's see... Al Qaeda killed over 3,000 Americans with box cutters... Libyan terrorists blew up Pan Am Flight 103 killing 259 people over Lockerbie, England.

You're right, Janet - I seriously doubt the shooter could have 'knifed' his way into the school - nor could have killed 26 with a knife (or baseball bat) without being stopped first..

Everyone knows KFrances could turn a story about puppies for sale into some ridiculous, mind-numbing comment that actually makes people dumber for having read it.

Ww get it K. You hate Obama. Think you can maybe NOT use this tragedy to draw attention to that fact?
disgusting. the third time.

Crawl back under your rock. Even with your limited intelligence, you could make more of an effort to stay on point of the actual article. Pathetic.

"Everyone knew if Obama won a 2nd term he'd go for the guns...and guess what...he's going for the guns."

I have no doubt that the vast majority of rational Americans agree with the President's comments last night...you on the other hand...

Go away, pathetic loser.

KFrances,

What's your Alternative to School Safety?

Nobody likes the Idea of Storm Troopers & Body Violation Technology present at Schools or anywhere for that matter but when these types of Attacks Continue on a Steady basis, do you blame people for wanting to be safe via any means necessary?

This is the Direction our Society has decided that it wants to go which in turn requires new Strategies and Tactics. I mean seriously, how many more people have to Die before these Incidents are taken Serious? Everybody joins the Band Wagon against Drones and other Ideas but then don't Offer any Viable Solutions themselves. Remember ours is FAR from a Perfect World.

Are these quotes from your science fiction novels?

I am a bit short of cash. Where can I sell or barter my DNA?

I once ate at a Sneaky Pete's.

Oh, God. What if they have my DNA now? It was a great chili dog, though. Well worth it.

The President doesn't have to exploit this for political gain. He was just reelected and will not face the voters again. I didn't vote for the man, but I thought he came across as genuine and sincere in his speech. He eluded to "changes" that need to be made. You assume he means grabbing guns but he's get to push for gun control legislation. He's right though, we need changes both to gun laws (as I noted above) as well as changes in how we deal with the mentally ill living amongst us, as well as our culture in general. Now, we see everyone going to church and speaking of God, yet God cannot be mentioned in the classroom. Perhaps if we can't teach of God and faith, then just maybe it's time to accept what we've become and just have armed security or law enforcement at every K-12 school.

Not as fragile as your grip on reality, obviously.

Yes...they are going for the Constitution, as the drone program expands domestically they plan to strip civil rights:
http://dailycollegian.com/2012/03/04/a-second-constitutional-convention/

Yes the President has nothing to lose now so he will enact many Executive Orders like NDAA....and follow the money/history of PsyOps operations:

http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/33-2/465.pdf

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/ita/seminars.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(United_States)

KFrances - Do you write for SNL because you are hilarious?

Ridiculous the first time that was said and has not improved with age. ridiculous.

C5: most guns sold today are semi-automatic (one trigger pull, one shot). Even a revolver is one pull, one shot. I am not sure which guns you would allow.

Also, the vast majority (~80%) of gun murders are done with handguns, which you seem to approve of (although I don't know which kind--- single-shot Derringers?).

In terms of magazine capacity, the average number of shots fired in gun homicides is about four.

Who "needs" a semi-automatic .223 rifle with a 30 round magazine? No one.

But is that the right question? In general if you start with a bias for freedom (bolstered by a specific Constitutional right), shouldn't the question be: on what basis does society have a compelling interest to limit this right?

The available evidence suggests that banning high-capacity rifles has virtually no impact on homicide rates.

You really need to ban pistols and confiscate the existing "installed base" if you wanted to make a real impact on GUN homicides. Even then, evidence suggests that would-be killers will find other means (albeit less efficiently), so the decline in HOMICIDE would be much less than the decline in GUN homicide.

I just think it is important to separate the emotion from the facts in this debate.

We don't allow felons to own weapons. Perhaps we should ban people (parents) who live with mentally ill people who have a diagnosed propensity for violence or who are not responding to their medication (children) from owning weapons.

We decided felons pose too much of a risk to own a firearm. Perhaps individuals living with mentally ill people who have a propensity for violence pose too much of a risk to own a firearm.

It seems more reasonable to apply any bans to those people who pose a risk. Why punish the entire population?

chris, i'm not a gun expert so got my definitions mixed up. it is multi-shot guns that trouble me, and large magazines. i guess semi automatic is still a single shot weapon...lesson learned.

as for the rest...as i said, i know you cannot rid society of real evil, but i do believe that to the extent we can make society somewhat safer by banning weapons of war in private hands, i'm all for that. not based on emotion, based on a pragmatic view of what might be doable from a policy standpoint but would be of at least some benefit. imo these weapons of war have no place in private hands and make society less safe, not more. imo

@DTW: Agreed on keeping guns from mentally troubled people, but I fear that it will be impossible to do view legislation. People have been adjudged to be "Mentally Defective" (legal term of art, I guess), are currently barred from gun ownership-- but that is a high bar. The challenge is denying guns to those who have a 1 in 1,000 risk of violence versus 1 in 100,000. How do you do that?

@C5: You are confused because the anti-gun folks intentionally obfuscate the facts. Most people who are anti-gun think that a semi-automatic "assault rifle" is a machine gun. The only meaningful definition of "assault rifle" is "a gun banned under anti-assualt rifle laws." It is a circular marketing term and says very little about the lethality of the gun in question compared to non-banned guns.