There is something distinctly obscene about the fact that someone like Cho could just walk into a shop and purchase the horrid array of weapons that he was able to purchase. Absolutely and distinctly obscene. I can't help but be appalled at the depravity of this availability.

so is buying beer and smokes. They kill people too, want to ban those?

Beer and smokes aren't designed to kill people. Guns are. Beer and smokes aren't projectile missiles that can travel at the speed of sound and that can be fired from many feet away. Bullets are.

Smokes do not kill people? I never saw a gun that was walking down on the street on its own. Do you think that it is fair to say that people kill people not guns? If you want to ban guns, ban knives as well, violent crimes commited with knives are higher than guns. Look it up.

Gee that's not the governemnts position. Please call 5000 people today and ask them to die: An FBI study (Jounal of Criminal Law and Criminology) in 1995 found that private citizens used guns about 2,500,000 million time each year, or about 5000 times a day, to defend themselves. The vast majority of the 5000 don?t result in a shot being fired, as criminals decide to be somewhere else. Swimming pools kill thousands of people each year. http://www.lifesaving.com/issues/articles/13swimming_pool_drownings.html Where is the crusade to ban them even though they provide no useful benefit to anyone? Are these victims not worth saving? Drunk driving has killed 4972 people this year, SO FAR! http://www.alcoholalert.com/deathclock.html Clearly the alcohol/driving laws are not working, lets ban/regulate both.

Let us not forget the UnAbomber OR that the preferred weapon of choice just south of the border is a knife and across the pond they prefer using common chemicals from common household products for bomb production. Had that kid taken lessons from other killers, his death toll might have risen. Remember that to move a trailer full of toothpaste requires "Hazardous Material" certification. There are lots of ways to kill and there will always be those that will seek to do harm to others. Eliminate the need not the tools that might be used aggressively. Eliminating tools, presupposes all women were potentially whores because they were in possession of the tools of the trade. Stupid assumption.

It's pretty obvious you don't have a clue what you are talking about. He bought two guns. TWO and he bought them quite some time apart. He did all his killing with ONE GUN, the 9m Glock. One or even TWO is hardly an "horrid array of weapons" for any one other than a complete delusional gunaphobe.

One or even TWO is hardly an "horrid array of weapons" for any one other than a complete delusional gunaphobe. ----------- Ive even heard that some antis calling small arms "Weapons of Mass Destruction" talk about exaggeration.

There's nothing obscene about it... He obviously passed the background check, else the gunshop owner would not have completed the sale. He produced 3 forms of ID; and made a legal purchase...plain and simple. The ATF agrees, as do the law enforcement officials there in Virginia. What YOU object to, is ANYONE having the capability to purchase any kind of firearm, whatsoever! If you want to see a 'horrid array of weapons', you should take a peek inside my gun safe! Every one of my firearms was purchased legally. I had to endure a background check by both the FBI, and the local Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to obtain them. I also had to swear on form 4473 that I'm not a convicted felon, had never been convicted of domestic abuse, was not an abuser of alcohol or illegal narcotics, had never been institutionalized as mentally incompetent, had never been dishonorably discharged from the armed services, and hadn't renounced my U.S. citizenship. To obtain my concealed carry permit, I had to go through an 8 hour gun safety program; and then go out to a gun range and prove my proficiency with my firearm. Then I had to go through another background check. At which time I had to pay $110, have my fingerprints taken and a mug shot; which was then affixed to my permit. It's not like you can just 'walk in' buy a gun; pay for it, and walk out! At least here in Tennessee. Frankly, I shouldn't have to pay one thin dime to exercise my constitutional right to carry a gun. That's a form of taxation. Americans shouldn't have to pay a tax to exercise their constitutional rights. It's like requiring people to pay a tax, before they attend church...or newspapers having to pay a tax, before they print. My permit is good for 4 years, at which time I have to endure another background check...and be taxed an additional $50 bucks to exercise my right to carry my gun. I endure this, just for convenience sake. I don't savor the thought of going to jail, because of some misguided interpretation of the Constitution. But I shouldn't have to. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed! It seems to me, that every time I have to jump through these administrative hoops, my rights are being 'infringed'. Every time there's a Columbine or a Virginia Tech school shooting; there are even more calls for the government to 'infringe' my rights. Frankly, I'm sick of it! But since Eternal Vigilance, is the price of freedom; I suppose I'll put up with it... Zulu

It's not like you can just 'walk in' buy a gun; pay for it, and walk out! At least here in Tennessee. ----------- Consider yourself lucky Zulu. Here is CA, if you live around a big city there is no way to get a CCL. Its not a shall issue State.

could just walk into a shop and purchase the horrid array of weapons that he was able to purchase A 9mm handgun and a .22 handgun are a, what was the wording, "horrid array of weapons"? Wow it is quite clear that you hate guns and probably think that if all of us law abiding folks turned ours in and made the sale of guns illegal, all crime would magically go away. It's been mentioned in previous posts but it's worth repeating. Ever bought a gun? I suggest you try it to test your theory that it's as easy as buying candy. I'm sure that if he would have been denied to buy the guns he did, he would have bought some anyway, illegally. And quite even bought an automatic, which has been illegal and still is illegal to own for the past 70 some years. (unless licensed, but good luck with all that)

It is called the Instant Background check and was part of the Brady law. If the ACLU will not allow the mental problems of people to be added into the database, we can't narrow those people who truly should not be allowed to purchase firearms.

One question - have you ever gone into a legit Gun Store and bought a weapon? If not - stop your whining.

There is obviously nothing wrong with mentally ill people purchasing guns. What harm could they do? It's not guns who kill people its the people who kill guns... err... People who drink drive should not be allowed to buy guns according to the FBI in 1996, err.... or should we ban alcohol? but sell guns to alcoholics? I say ban cars, alcohol, but legalize guns. Every person in America should be given a gun. That way, when you are attacked you can defend yourself. Unless of course you are drunk and driving, in which case you should be shot.... (continues another 99 pages)

Don't make it about the sale of the guns. It was the idot who chose to use them the way he did. How many times must it be said to get it through... GUNS DON'T KILL THE PEOPLE! IT'S THE WAY THEY ARE USED! It's not the seller's fault, it's not the gun's fault. If anything, it should be on the backs of lobbists, judges, supporters of gun control. They all need a good kick in the pants!

Buying guns in America is as easy as buying candy in a corner store Where do you shop for candy?

Yep, it's disgusting. Just like the hordes of fools here who AREN'T bothered by it and cite the same lies and distortions as 'evidence' of the social benefits guns provide (e.g., the silliness that 5000 lives are saved daily by guns--this is not even the claim made by the purveyor of this false statistic--Lott's claim is that guns are used this frequently to STOP CRIMES, including crimes against property--the idea that EVERY person who was going to e.g., steal somebody's bike ALSO meant to kill its owner and was prevented from doing so by the owner's gun is the purest science fiction fantasy, but that's the Bizarro world the gun extremists live in). tpeople .

Just like the hordes of fools here who AREN'T bothered by it and cite the same lies and distortions as 'evidence' of the social benefits guns provide It's far more noble to cite the "lies and distortions" that you cite, right?

We need to rejoin reality and fact. Cars kill a hundred times more people per day than firearms in our country. The mistakes that doctors make in hospitals kill 10 times as many people per day as firearms do in our country. Guns are not the biggest nastiest killer in the land by any means. You do not walk into the local corner store and just walk out with a handgun. There are background checks and a lot of paperwork. In Cho's case the background check did not detect his mental illness. It should have but somebody in the government industry didn't do their job and the information was not in the system. Blaming the gun or the gun shop is ignorant. Use the facts and truth to find the situation or the person that short-circuited the system that is there to detect people like him. Odds are we are talking about a liberal ACLU backed law that does not allow the sharing of information or a liberal bureaucracy clerk that was at one of his paid daily prayers to the east and forgot to update the system. Who ever or what ever stopped this system from working should be ferreted out and exposed to the world without liberal propaganda or spin.

Cars aren't designed to kill peopole. Guns are.