Thank you for this excellent Video and views presented by concerned citizens.

NRA claims that movies,tv and video games are a big cause of gun violence so today they have released a video game on how to shoot for children as young as 4.

we already have laws and regs .... bad and evil people will ALWAYS have access to guns.

Kudos to all of you who organized and participated in the vigil for Sandy Hook and to press for sane gun control laws. We should look toward NY as they are on the verge of passing even tougher gun control laws than they already had on the books including banning more assault weapons, adding restrictions on the number of bullets a ammunition magazine may carry, and closer monitoring of the mentally ill. NJ should also lead the charge but unfortunately the Governor doesn't seem to think this is a priority.

i see none of these people have tried to legally obtain a firearm in NJ. that, or they do not understand what "sensible" means.

Good for them. One of the biggest problem is the patchwork nature of gun laws & regulations across the US. NJ and NY have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. But all you need to do is go to a nearby state with lax gun control attitudes (like Virginia or Vermont) and all the good those laws attempt to do are undone.

The only thing that stricter gun laws do is that it makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to exercise our second amendment right as Americans to possess firearms. Do you really think that someone looking to commit a crime is going to go through the proper legal channels to obtain a weapon?
Yes, what happened in Conn. was a tragedy, no doubt about it. But the horses have already left the stable, and Now you want to close the barn door? I find it not only personally insulting, but equally as offensive to all those grieving families to use such a tragedy as propaganda to fuel the issue of gun laws.
I know I’m going to come off as a conspiracy theorist for saying this, but who do you think was behind the Conn. shooting? and while we’re at it, the Colorado shooting as well? Our government of course. Why? for precisely this reason, to justify the restriction of firearms and magazine capacity. All they have to do is plant the seed, and the public takes over; and here we see it in this perfect Ridgewood example.
Think about it, really. What purpose do these high-capacity magazines serve? And why goes the government want to restrict them? To render us incapacitated and unable to defend ourselves. Our leaders are systematically taking away our rights, so that when the time comes, we will be unable to resist Anything the government wishes to impose upon us.

make a law requiring insurance for gun ownership and see how fast the insurance companies write regulations

No one in this country needs an assault weapon for any type of hunting or so called sport shooting.

nobody needs a 600HP car that can go 200 mph either. how many more people die in auto accidents each year. what is your point?

nj has some of the strictest gun regulations in the country. we hover around 4.5 gun related homicides per 100k people. that is low.

vermont, who has some of the most lax gun laws in the country, is 2nd to last for gun related homicides per 100k people. a mere 18% of their homicides are gun related. compare that to illinois, where there are among the most strict gun laws in the country. they rank 7th in gun related homicides per 100k people. 75% of homicides are gun related.

stricter laws will NOT result in less gun related deaths. criminals will always get their hands on them. even after the previous assault weapons ban, the crime rate fluctuation was within the range for standard deviation.

according to the fbi, more people are murdered each year with clubs and hammers than rifles. twice as many with bare hands. 4x as many are murdered with knives and edged weapons than with rifles.

crazy. always. finds. a. way.

Anyone know the stats of gun crimes committed by legal gun owners?

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with self defense from an out of control government or other individuals. Why does someone need more than ten rounds in a magazine? Look at the story below and then you tell me what would have happened if this woman, defending her two children and herself, after shooting this one thug 5 times and missing once and then out of bullets encountered a 2nd thug in her home. I suspect the outcome would be quite different if the gun she had was empty or it had 6 more rounds.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/burglary/video-burglar-paul-slater-shot-five-times-armed-mom

The 2nd amendment had to do with a well-regulated militia. It was controlling single shot, muzzle loaded musket.
I am for anyone owning a single shot, muzzle loaded musket.

Keep your guns. Bullets are now $1000 each and traceable.

I sure hope your a sharpshooter or you are quick in reloading your musket when someone enters and threatens you in your home Mr. Hahn. A well-regulated militia requires that milita also be a well equiped militia which extends well past your idea of muskets. Tell me exactly where in the second ammendment it mentions muskets?

You are correct. It does not say musket. But that was the gun of choice when the 2nd amendment was ratified.
We now have well-regulated militias. They live in barracks. They serve in times of war & other crisis.
Hey, the last time someone entered & threatened me in my home it was the local police. The charges were dismissed.
Long Time Resident. Good luck with your love of guns. I hope they make you feel secure against the world.
The rest of us just do not want ourselves or our children to be shot by one of your well-regulated militia guns.
I see the grammar lessons are not quite working out.

Newsman, you are a fool and obviously uneducated. The 2nd amendment deals with the right to bear arms, not the right to hunt. And last time I checked, the NRA does not manufacture weapons. You wanna blame law abiding citizens for what happened? How about the part where the Connecticut shooter stole the weapons to commit the crime. Yes they were his mothers, but they were not his and he was not able to purchase the weapons legally, as he had been denied.

On a separate note, why has nobody mentioned the media is to blame? When these tragedies happen, these people become national attention for days, weeks, even months as we're seeing with the Colorado shooting. They make it so you commit a crime like this, you go down in history. It's very sad

I think an annual registration fee should be paid on every gun. The money could be used to put guards in schools as the NRA has proposed. If you don't pay you go to jail for tax evasion.

How about personal responsibility? Does anyone know their history? See link below.

http://floppingaces.net/2013/01/09/stalins-gun-control-methods-worked-remember-your-history-or-be-doomed-to-repeat-it/

It has now been just over one month since the horror of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, and yet most children in public schools remain as unprotected as they were before that terrible day in December. Why? Because our politicians (on the local, state and national levels) choose to focus on the more sexy “gun control” debate while doing nothing that will have an IMMEDIATE impact on the level of safety we provide for our children while they are at school.

I will leave the gun control debate to others -- other than to say that I appreciate those that seek to protect our Second Amendment rights which are there to protect us against tyranny of the government and are not about hunting or sport.

But I must ask why -- more than one month after Newtown -- is there not an armed police officer assigned to each public school? What are we waiting for? This is the one proposal that can be acted upon IMMEDIATELY -- as in today-- that would have an immediate impact on the safety of our children.

To be fair, Francisco Negron, general counsel of the National School Boards Association is quoted as saying that about 23% of the nation’s school districts have law enforcement officers in their buildings (source: http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=77bb63de-ba0f-43b7-b2d3-9836e122546d), and some towns and schools have assigned armed police officers to schools since the Newtown tragedy (e.g., Sandy Hook (the former Chalk Hill Middle School in Monroe, CT where the children of Sandy Hook are now located); Washington Park School, Totowa, NJ; Memorial School, Totowa, NJ; Marlboro, NJ schools; Butler, PA schools; Hillsborough County, FL schools).
But why has this not happened at every school in the country?

Is it because politicians are more interested in the headline grabbing gun control debate than protecting our kids? Is it because gun control advocates are more interested in their gun control agenda than in protecting kids right now? Let’s put an armed police officer in every school, and then debate whether that should be the long term solution or if other solutions should be considered instead of or in tandem with armed police officers at our schools.

The argument stated in the video against having an armed offier at our schools because a would-be mass murderer might kill the armed police officer first is not valid. Under that logic, don't call the police when a mass killing is underway because the bad guy might win the shoot-out. Why does the President of the United States, other high-ranking politicians and other wealthy people (like NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg who wants the rest of us who can't afford to hire bodyguards to be unarmed) have armed guards with them when they are in public? Certainly the would-be assassin might kill the bodyguard first. Is that a reason for those people not to have bodyguards?

Vostra, idk who you are, but thank you for your posts. In all seriousness your arguments make the most sense and it's a shame that there has been no immediate action. Police should be in schools if the public feels so threatened by events like newtown; but instead they choose to just stand by and let things remain the same.

Nice Signs....

There are 2 separate issues, protecting the second amendment, and trying to keep crazy people from doing crazy things. It is simple minded, never mind dangerous to think by destroying that amendment would keep criminals from obtaining guns, or finding another way to do harm. In the scheme of time, the American Revolution was yesterday, and to be so sure something like that couldn't happen again is just plain ridiculous. I agree with so many of you on your defense of the 2nd, and am so glad to see others who aren't looking for a feel good only solution, but I don't agree with the armed guards at schools. All someone would have to do is to call in a credible bomb threat and pick the students off as they exited the building. You can't stop insanity. I think a lot of work will have to be done here. I think that an examination of our culture, one that has devalued life to such a degree, has contributed to this demented behavior. On a side note, why is it so common on these discussion threads for at least someone to pick on spelling or grammar when they run out of something to say.

Ex Rocker, I agree with all of your points except the one about an armed officer at the schools. There are no PERFECT solutions, but when something bad happens we call the police. Isnt' it better for the police to be there already? Even in your hypothetical (which could happen whether or not a police officer was at the school) what would people do? They would call the police as soon as they could. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Maybe I could have been clearer when I said I didn't agree with police at a school, I should have said I didn't agree that would be enough. I have no problem with officers at a school, I think they could prevent SOME things, but I don't think that will stop some deranged soul from doing what they want to do. Have them there, but don't leave it at that. Just as wanting to get rid of legal weapons will only make some people feel like they've done something and then moving on to another "issue of the day", I wanted to point out that armed officers wasn't a complete fix either. I think we should do many things to prevent as much as we can. I don't think strict gun laws have done much if you look at Chicago's toughest laws in the country, but with the highest rate of gun violence. I'd like a much bigger emphasis put on mental health and like I said, taking a very hard look at why some people in our culture have reached this point. That will take a lot better mind than mine, and a lot more introspection than some in Washington are comfortable doing.

I hope I didn't mess up and this gets posted twice. My reply seemed to have disappeared. LOL
I should have been clearer. I should have said I didn't agree with armed officers at a school being enough. Just as I don't agree that stricter gun laws is anything more than a feel good answer that would allow some to move on to the next "Popular issue of the day". I think police at schools could prevent a lot of things, and I have no problem with them being there. I just don't think that will stop a deranged soul from doing what they want to do. I also think that limiting the amount of bullets in a clip would not stop a nut from bringing in more than one gun. Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the country, and it also has the highest rate of gun violence. A stronger emphasis on mental health issues, and ways that potential killers can be reported will go a lot further than assuming that criminals won't find a way to get a gun. It's going to take a greater mind than mine to figure out how to curb this nonsense, and a lot more introspection into the quality of our culture than some in D.C. are comfortable doing.

Ex Rocker, I could not agree with you more. Our biggest problem is our depraved culture and also the emphasis we place on the rights of criminals and mentally ill people over the rights of the rest of society. That does not mean that criminals or the mentally ill should have no rights, but those rights should be balanced so as to protect the rest of us. And we should do more to identify violent, mentally ill people and get them off the streets and get them help to hopefully overcome their issues.

Unfortunately, from what I am hearing, Ridgewood’s superintendent, the High School's principal, and the new majority of the village council, are not interested in measures like assigning police officers to schools, which would actually add a significant level of protection while other solutions are discussed in our community. Apparently, they want to rely on more video cameras as a solution. Has anyone heard any specific proposals from our Mayor (other than his speech at the protest) to protect our kids? Mr. Mayor, it is your responsibility to do what can be done at the local level to prevent a similar tragedy from happening here. Other towns' mayors have acted -- I would like to know what you plan to do.

V D video games and tv may influence a mentally disturbed person but not all of them have guns. Guns have to be traceable and owners should have liability insurance just as you would for a car, a homeowner, a doctor,a hairdresser, and many others. Even if you shoot someone accidentally there should be consequences. Registration can also protect 're as possible gun owners.

Dutchess, there you go again attacking only gun owners. Shall we require that you register your butcher knives and have separate liability insurance for them? Should we require that even if you cut somone accidentally "there should be consequences" as you demand for gun owners? What exactly are you suggesting gun owners have insurance for -- to compensate the criminal that breaks into the gun owner's home to rape or kill and gets shot instead?

VG, the subject is gun owners! And I don't think being a responsible gun owner should feel threatened. Nobody is taking away your guns. But is someone you loved was shot or killed by a gun that was gotten with out a background check or a way to track a gun you would feel differently, I would hope!
If I ran over you with my car you would be compensated. Why shouldn't I be compensated if you shot me? Actually if I cut you with my kitchen knife you could probably make a claim to my homeowners insurance.
Why is registration so tabu? Are you hiding something?

Dutchess,
You know I did not argue against background checks. I have no problem with our current laws -- not specific to gun owners -- allowing for compensation if accidentally injured by someone. Just as there is no need for separate insurance to compensate someone if you cut them with your kitchen knives (as you point out), there is no need for separate insurance for an accidental shooting at your home. As for my issue with gun registration, I have a problem with it for several reasons. First, people like you (and/or a tyrannical government) would then use that list to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. Second, people like you would try to force me to pay an annual registration fee (a solution that is particularly hard on low-income people - many living in places far less safe than Ridgewood). And before you argue that we pay registration fees for cars let me remind you that having a car is NOT a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Third, the Supreme Court has held that felons cannot be forced to register because they would be forced to admit to their own guilt (i.e., a felons can't legally possess firearms), which would be a violation of the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination. So what you propose is that only law abiding people register. Fourth, registration does not prevent a gun crime from happening. Fifth, a criminal is unlikely to use a gun registered to him/her. And to answer your obnoxious question, No, I am not hiding anything.

Vostra Guida- why are you so paranoid? Do you have such little faith in our Constitution and how our government was set up to have check and balances? If God forbid our gov't ever turns to tyranny, your gun will have no impact vs. the firepower of the army. Are you stockpiling missiles and grenades too? Pathetic. Also- look at past statistics about armed officers in schools- they have not helped at all. Didn't help at Columbine, and wouldn't help at RHS either where ever door is open at all times. Why aren't gun lovers so willing to accept 11,000 gun murders a year as acceptable for this country. IT IS A SHAMEFUL STATISTIC.

Bon, if that statistic (11,000 gun murders a year) is shameful what about the 45,000 killed every year in this country by something other than guns. Why is that statistic not more shameful?

Bon,
I don't understand your comment. I have great faith in the Constitution, in part because it contains the 2nd Amendment. Why do you resort to name calling? I am neither paranoid nor a "gun lover." I recognize the importance of the 2nd Amendment and the role it plays in keeping the government in check. Even in recent times governments of Western nations have turned on their own people: Germany, Italy, Spain, to name but a few. I'm not saying it is about to happen here, but it could. Your claim that citizens would have no chance against the U.S. government no matter what weapons citizens have is shortsighted:(1) history is replete with examples of the "weaker" vanquishing the "stronger" (our own Revolution for one); (2) you have no idea what weapons a tyrannical government may have in the future and thus no idea whether armed citizens would have a chance; (3) you have no idea what percentage of the military will support such a tyrannical government or side with the people instead; and (4) at any given time in the past decade, less than 1% of the American population has been on active military duty. That leaves a lot of citizens (assuming they are still allowed to be armed) to fight. As for officers in schools, it would be better if you would just read the prior posts (in short, once a gunman starts shooting don't you call the police to come -- wouldn't it be better if he/she were there already? Go after the murders and leave law abiding gun owners alone.

Dutchess,
You are wrong. NJ does not require you to register your guns. http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/new-jersey.aspx
PURCHASE
Rifles and Shotguns It is unlawful to sell, give, transfer, assign, or otherwise dispose of or receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire a rifle or shotgun, other than an antique rifle or shotgun, unless the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver, or holder is licensed as a dealer under New Jersey law or possesses a valid Firearms Purchasers Identification Card (FID), and first exhibits the FID to the seller, donor, transferrer, or assignor, and the purchaser, assignee, donee, receiver, or holder signs a written certification form that identifies the purchaser, his or her address and FID or dealer’s number, and states he or she presently is not disqualified from purchase.
POSSESSION
It is unlawful to knowingly possess any handgun, including any antique handgun, without first having obtained a Permit to Carry, and it is unlawful to knowingly possess any rifle or shotgun without having first obtained a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FID), however, no Permit to Carry or FID is required.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Forgive me! I meant having to pass a background check and license!Why are you so hot about this? Nobody is going to take away your guns as long as you are a law abiding citizen.
You mention traditionally lawful purposes as being self defense within the home. That does not sound like the right to carry or the necessity for An AR 15.

Dutchess,
I am not "hot" about anything. I have calmly explained the current laws in place and explained why it is important not to give up the right of the people to bear arms. You and others hear about a tragedy and immediate start demanding more "gun control" without knowing what the current laws are and without thinking through all of the consequences of what you are proposing. You try to bully people by calling them names or accusing them of being "hot" over an issue or not caring about children. I have explained why I believe your proposals are unconstitutional, redundant, and/or ineffectual in achieving the goal of preventing or reducing violent crime. As for home defense (which is not the only lawful reason for having a gun), how do you know what each home needs? Do you think the needs of everyone in NJ or the USA are the same? Have you ever had to defend your home or family? Have you ever been in a riot or looting situation? You know so little about guns and yet demand action based on your uneducated gut feelings on the issue. As I said before, I have no problem with background checks and permits, which are already the law in NJ, so if that is all you want, then be happy, you already have those laws. Not sure why you are asking for my forgiveness, you made a mistake, I explained why you were wrong, and you corrected your statement. Nothing really to forgive, but if it makes you feel better, I forgive you.

Dutchess,
Just to be clear, I am not saying you are generally uneducated, I simply mean that you have not taken the time to educate yourself about guns, gun laws, constituional rights relating to guns, supreme court decisions relating to the 2nd amendment, before you began proposing solutions. I'm sure your heart is in the right place (a courtesy you do not afford me).

Dutchess... you may be well meaning but you are also foolish. You don't realize that the more government ratchets down on any type of possesion of any substance or object, invariably the government makes you a criminal. I am sure you are open minded enough to recognize that there is such a thing as "overzealous prosecution." Liberals rant about that kind of thing all the time, except when it comes to 2nd amendment. You might even admit, if you were honest, that even law abiding people make mistakes. Do we now want these otherwise law abiding people prosecuted by some politically appointed prosecutor who seeking to make headlines for himself? The fact is there are plenty of laws protecting people now. We don't have the manpower to enforce most of them. What makes you think more laws will protect you and won't be abused by prosecutors?

I still believe we need an assault weapons ban and smaller clips.
As a matter of fact I unknowingly could have been a victim of gun violence after I witnessed a young man steal an item in Ridgewood. Reported it after he was gone.He was arrested and found to be carrying a 357! I was relieved I had the good sense not to confront him. Why he was carrying that gun I'll never know but I am glad I didn't have a gun! I Don' t know where he got the gun but it would be a good idea to have a way to trace it.

Your argument is illogical and misdirected. First, a 357 handgun is NOT an assault weapon and so would not be covered by the ban you propose. Secondly, d you think that an assault weapons ban would have stopped that young man from carrying a gun? You have to come to grips with the fact that people ignore laws all the time.Creating a law is not a security blanket. It's an illusion.
Secondly, why aren't you concerned about the culture of violence. I haven't heard many people here talk about addressing violent video games, violent movies and other exploitantive material that comes out of hollywood, not mention the impact social media has on the young psyche , which often leads to taunting, extremism and isolation. Where is the focus on the mental health community that is failing us?

Dutchess,
A few questions.
1) What exactly is your definition of "assault weapon"?
2) What size clips do you think is the appropriate size and why?
3) Assuming you get your "assault weapon" ban and "smaller" clips, and another tragedy occurs using the next most scary looking gun, are you going to demand the ban of that type of gun and insist on the return to single bullet muskets?

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what the law is in NJ or NY. You go down south and you can legally get a gun in a day and illegally in minutes. In Arizona, grandma next to you filling up at the gas station is packing a pistol in plain sight..........Trying to ban guns will be as successful as banning alcohol. Good luck.

Great article in The Wall Street Journal today for those of you interested in understanding the issue better.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578245803845796068.html?mod=hp_opinion

Vostra Please don't do this. you are confusing the knee jerk, wet their pants liberals with facts. They don't do well with facts, they traffic in emotion and opportunism - hallmarks of our great clueless president, who feels no reservation about misusing children in his misguided policy promotion schemes.

Pass all the gun laws you want, it still does not address the issue and problem of an individual who is determined to kill others in large numbers. Until we all, as a country, are wiling to admit that guns don't kill people unless they are used by evil or mentally deranged people, the killings will continue. Once this country realizes its not the gun or bomb, as Tim McVeigh used, but the person that is the nproblem and we develop a way to deal with and stop these people, then and only then will these senseless killings stop.