Newtown School Shooting: McCollum Urges Immediate Congressional Action to End 'Epidemic of Gun Violence'

Do you agree with Rep. Betty McCollum? What do you think is at issue in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting? Is it gun control? Addressing mental health? Both? Share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Fourth District Congresswoman Betty McCollum (D) issued the following statement .

"Today’s elementary school shooting is heartbreaking. As a mother, the mass murder of young school children and educators is incomprehensible. My prayers are with all families of the victims.

"The time has come for President Obama, Congress and the American people to come together to act immediately to end the epidemic of gun violence and the proliferation of guns designed to be weapons of mass murder. Inaction and obstruction by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to common sense gun laws is not tolerable.”

Markus January 21, 2013 at 03:18 PM
"You're fine with some idiot teenager drinking a twelve pack of beer and driving down your street at 80 mph on a Saturday afternoon putting everyone outside at risk, but you would put me in jail for sleeping with my neighbor's husband?" That's a stretch to say I'm fine with reckless behavior. The effects of adultery can be measured in millions of destroyed families. The resulting collateral damage is countless times worse than anything most "drunk" (.08) drivers do. So who should go to jail? I've always found it interesting that a person can cheat on their spouse, violate the marriage contract, completely destroy a person/family emotionally and financially and never spend 1 minute in jail while some guy has two beers with dinner and spends the night in jail and the next five years paying for it! It seems a little backwards. If any driver hurts or kills someone and they're found to be grossly negligent regardless of whether they've been drinking or not, their punishment should fit the crime. Obviously we need some laws, but most laws currently on the books could be condensed into a few basic laws protecting our life, our liberty and our property. "Businesses polluting and knowingly poisoning (not enough to kill) people?" The city puts a known poison in our water supply and people drink it every day. Ever heard of aspartame? The FDA is totally OK with poisoning the population with that. Our government is probably the worst offender and it's perfectly legal.
Susan January 21, 2013 at 03:31 PM
What's funny here is that I don't think that I can disagree with any of your statements in this last comment. Again, our difference is that you think (a lot) less laws will solve the problem and I think that common sense laws will solve the problem. Drunk driving laws do stop most people from driving drunk, but yes, the current limit is asinine. I don't think you can argue that without drunk driving laws, we would have a lot more drunk drivers on the road. One question: are you advocating that the government punish what it deems to be destructive sexual behavior? I don't disagree with your assessment of the results, but I can't believe YOU would suggest such a thing.
Susan January 21, 2013 at 03:39 PM
I'm going to change my conclusion just a bit. From what I have read, I think that you might be saying that we CAN'T fix the problems as bad people will be bad people, and making more laws only makes more problems. How close am I?
Markus January 21, 2013 at 06:45 PM
"From what I have read, I think that you might be saying that we CAN'T fix the problems as bad people will be bad people, and making more laws only makes more problems." Now you're getting it. "I don't think you can argue that without drunk driving laws, we would have a lot more drunk drivers on the road." The whole idea of "drunk" driving is a little specious and arbitrary. I would argue that you would have a lot more normally law abiding people who have consumed alcohol driving because they wouldn't be terrified of the consequences of getting pulled over. It's doubtful it would keep really drunk drivers since drunk people typically have little judgment making ability and will drive anyway. I'm not arguing the government punish adulterers. However, the wronged party should be able to sue for damages, but with our "no fault" divorce laws that's impossible. I've seen too many people get taken to the cleaners by a spouse who decides they don't want to honor their vows. Marriage is a contract and contract law should apply.
Susan January 21, 2013 at 08:16 PM
I think I've always understood it, it's just that I'm still trying to find that balance. It seems that the big question is whether or not laws deter enough bad behavior to be beneficial to society. Also whether the government should intervene with laws that help protect the innocent citizens' freedom and rights from those who do not respect those rights and freedoms. Two interesting points and great topics for (more) debate. I think I will check in with our old thread and see if I can get any of the others back in this. I also may start digging for information on the internet regarding both items. I would think it would be very difficult to measure whether laws deter behavior and/or actually protect the innocent as there is no way to measure something that doesn't happen.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »