"Hate to be cynical ... well at least about this, but absolutely no new legislation regarding guns and gun sales and ownership will result from this latest horrific shooting." - Ed So one physcopath goes on a shootiing spree and millions of law abiding gun owners should pay a penalty for that? What kind of logic is that? With that logic, we should take everybody's cars away because nearly 11,000 people were killed by drunk drivers in 2009 alone?

"These mass killings - usually involving shoppers, college students, or school children- happen on a regular basis. Americans are shocked and saddened and for a week or so there's a lot of back and forth about whether to take all the guns away or arm every man, woman, and child with their own firearm. (Seriously, it's already been stated that if someone in the theater had a gun, the killer wouldn't have hurt so many people. How's that for a movie fantasy?)" - Ed

Do you remember back in April (in Aurora no less) when that convicted felon (can't legally possess a gun) walked into a church and shot and killed a church member and was in turn shot dead by another member who was present and also happened to have a concealed carry license and was carrying that day? Yeah, didn't think so. Also, most CCW licensed owners practice (unlike our attention whore in Aurora who owned his guns for less than 2 months) and would have likely dropped him rather quickly. Again, your logic sucks.

"The sum total of all this is that people will absorb this tragedy, mostly forget about it, get distracted and the NRA will continue it's highly effective campaign to maintain weapons in 40% of American households. If the tobacco lobby had historically been as strong as the gun lobby we'd all be smoking three packs a day today. " - Ed

Man, that analogy is the lamest thing in your post. Guns are no more dangerous than we allow them to be. That is like saying that spoons make people fat. Strike three, you're out.

Ed, gun control works no better than drug control. Criminals will find a way to do whatever they have in mind no matter what. Hell, I could just as easily have done just as much damage by simply mowing down the crowd of eager moviegoers standing in line with your Prius if I was so inclined. That Holmes guy does not represent gun owners and for all I know he did it even to bring your little wet dream (more gun control) back to the forefront. Jessica Ghawi's (one of the victims) brother was interviewed on TV on Sunday and the interviewer of course asked him about whether he thought there should be better laws on gun control and you could tell the question bothered him. He said this event should in no way be politicized. He only wants people to remember and mourn the victims (as it should be).

Yet today 4 democratic lawmakers apparently came forward to try to ban high capacity magazines yet again (shooter used a notoriously bad 100 round drum magazine) that they call clips (shows how illiterate they are with gun nomenclature). The so called "assault" rifle jammed right out of the gate and so why did THAT even become their talking point (politicizing)? Besides, how often do you hear of people going on these kinds of rampages with those types of weapons anyway? Yeah, not very often.

I get sick of these events drawing attention to millions of legal gun owners because of some idealistic idiot that pulls a stunt likes this. And more gun control won't solve a damned thing anyway. But if you liberals really want to start doing some gun control, how about getting Holder to stop walking thousands of them across the border to Mexico over to the Cartels?

And while you're at it remember that guns were not the problem here at all. It was the man behind them with the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster