Vince Neil Calls For Gun Control

He fell out with gun-toting fans on his Twitter over the issue, and banned them from attending Motley Crue shows if they ever "put guns in front of kids." What's your view on the issue, in light of the Connecticut massacre?

logo
Ultimate Guitar
4

Vince Neil took to Twitter in a rant about gun control after the Connecticut massacre, but didn't expect so many of his followers to hit back at him.

Now he has banned fans from Motley Crue shows if they "put guns in front of kids."

Almost 30 people died in the shootings at a school last week, with most victims being children. There is now a widespread debate about whether assault weapons should be banned, and whether private sales should be banned.

As Noisecreep notes, Neil's thoughts are not linear and appear to follow his "random thoughts," but in general he raises concerns that more could be done to protect children from this kind of tragic event.

Sad day today. Prayers to all the families. Gun Control!!!

Vince Neil (@TheVinceNeil) December 14, 2012

He was quickly outraged by the number of followers who put more value on the second amendment than on the lives of children:

Why is everyone so concerned with guns? What about the CHILDREN that were MURDERED today! Get your priorities straight!! Come on people!!

Vince Neil (@TheVinceNeil) December 14, 2012

I did say gun control but I didn't think 90% of you would care more about your gun than dead children!!!

Vince Neil (@TheVinceNeil) December 14, 2012

He finished with this: "F--K YOU to EVERYONE who puts guns in front of kids!! Do not come to ANY shows! You are sick!!"

It's a powerful debate that can't seriously be condensed into a few casual tweets, but we're interested in hearing your views.

Should there be stricter gun controls, or is it too late? Could anything else be done to prevent these devastating events? Let us know what you think in the comments.

269 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Sheep Shagger
    I wonder if he supports drunk driver control too?
    cyclonus
    Yup, guns kill children (and people in general) but so do drunk drivers, which Vince Neil knows a thing or two about from experience
    getawaygman
    if guns kill people, than spoons and forks make people fat. people kill people. sick, disturbed people. if people would follow some of Texas' lead in letting principals, counsilers, etc... concealed carry, than maybe this can be stopped. taking guns away from the other 99.9% of people who use them for protection and/or hunting isn't the right move. bring on the dislikes
    Bair
    "taking guns away from the other 99.9% of people who use them for protection and/or hunting isn't the right move" I hunt with assault rifles. I'm a terrible shot.
    sonofgkex
    You really have no concept of what an assault rifle is, do you?
    Bair
    a semi/fully automatic weapon designed to only kill humans? Do they make sexual assault rifles? Should look into that.
    Chradamw
    Fully auto weapons are illegal and not sold to civilians.
    Piglizard
    Full auto weapons are legal to the public, but only if they were made before the 80's (not sure of the exact date). They are extremely hard to find, and you can't find one for less than ten grand. You have to sort through a mess of paperwork, that takes about 2 months to complete, but they are legal.
    JohnnyApplecore
    First time I've ever actually said "HA!" after reading something on the internet. You deserve that medal.
    Rands2113
    I liked your post mainly because of your Icon and because the Gold comment was so true!
    Shaggy91
    Seriously. By his logic, we should all lose our ability to drive because his drunk ass got behind the wheel...which resulted in people dying. And if he had killed a child it would have brought about the exact same response. Hey Vince, do us all a favor and stop playing politics. One Dave Mustaine is enough, we dont need musicians pushing politics.
    swave75
    This is the bad thing about working all day. Someone gets to write this before I do.
    Biker61
    "We must reject the idea that every time the law's broken, society is guilty rather then the lawbreaker. It's time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions" Ronald Reagan
    HarrySound
    Honestly...the rest of the world is looking at america and thinking "WTF ARE YOU DOING" No one needs a gun, unless you need to kill people.....like the military .
    dr718
    Conceal and carry permits-statistically proven to reduce violent crime. Read John Lott. Tim McVeigh killed 168 people at once. 9/11 happened with no guns. Most gun violence occurs in urban areas where gun control is highest. The criminals don't care about the laws. Mental health is certainly a priority but in today's lawsuit-happy society, no one can remove a kid from school who appears to have this kid's problems until it's too late. The kid's mother knew he was troubled, and went ahead and gave him access to weapons. Had his school district moved to have him transferred to a place that could really help him, you know she would have fought it with lawyers as most parents do. If you want more mental health solutions, some people are going to have to be restricted and limited in how much time they spend in society at large.
    CoyT
    I'm for banning assault weapons, giving much more funding to mental health services, and making it much harder to attain any gun. A lot of places don't even do background checks, which is ridiculous. It should be a long process to ensure, as much as possible, the owner will be responsible. That seems reasonable to me. I realize nothing will fully stop gun violence, but we gotta do something.
    Benjumanji
    1. Look at the language of the assault weapons ban that is in place in some states. All it does is ban guns that look badass. No joke, you can buy a more powerful non-assault rifle but not a scary-looking less powerful rifle. 2. You're absolutely right that we need better mental health awareness and services. The bigger problem is the stigma that accompanies mental illness, though, and that won't just go away overnight. 3. Most gun violence is committed with guns that were obtained illegally, and almost every mass murder committed with firearms was NOT committed with assault weapons but instead with handguns and shotguns.
    hennessey14
    Exactly, assault weapon is just a media trigger word (no pun intended) that makes people scared when they hear it.
    Yax
    The explicit purpose of "assault weapons" is to kill or wound humans. It's their only purpose. That's why they want them banned. Sure, there are shitloads of powerful hunting rifles and shotguns. Their purpose however isn't necessarily to kill humans. That's the difference.
    saint_berzerker
    Even with all of that, the lunatics Mom would've still gotten guns. All that would do is tie things up for normal, law abiding citizens. It would have stopped NOTHING in this certain situation.
    getmad24_7
    He calls for increased mental health funding, so hopefully the shooter would have been being properly treated.
    bifteksupernova
    what about keeping multiple guns out of a house with someone who poses as a liability. the more i read about the shooter the more i see that he was obviously troubled, but he had access to multiple guns at his fingertips. like many people are saying, he could simply have taken the guns from his mom if they were banned, which he did. i realize this would be extremely hard to oversee, and im not trying to say "everyone with mental health issues poses a threat to society!". its just something ive been thinking about lately.
    dustinp
    Obviously you've never attempted or researched the firearm buying process here in the U.S. By federal law, every firearms dealer must perform a federal background check (per the brady gun control bill) on anyone wishing to purchase a firearm. Any criminal history of assault, domestic violence, any felony regardless of what it is, or the slightest hint of mental deficiency is an instant denial. In my state, not only is a federal check mandatory, but one must undergo a state mandated background check as well, before you may be issued a purchase permit. Sure, if you know who to talk to, those people can always purchase one illegally, but if you think you're going to stop that from happening, you're nuts.
    Vypor
    I'm just wondering about all these Americans claiming they need to use guns for protection - how they don't have to be afraid of anything just so long as they get to carry their gun everywhere. This kid that shot up that school - his moms gun did a whole lot to protect her towards the end.
    K!!LsWiTcH
    people in cities and such dont generally carry guns on them. i actually am for guns but disagree that the general public should be able to carry a gun in public (there are ways you can in new york for example if you can prove you walk around with a lot of money or something as part of your job). but like how tallica said, everything this kid did was illegal. if the guns were legally registered and obtained what law would have stopped this?
    Vypor
    Im curious - where do you think most "criminals" get their weapons? Do you think the majority of criminals get their hands on weapons that they made themselves or snuck into the country - or do you think that they get them from people who purchased them legally in the first place? So long as guns are available to everyone, then guns are still available for criminals to get their hands on them. That being said, I think its a bit of a stretch to use the term "criminal" for people that walk into public places and open fire. Criminals aren't the ones doing that, psychos are. Criminals are dealing drugs, stealing cars, embezzling money - psychos are losing shit and killing large groups of people.
    ethan is hot
    This has nothing to do with the gun control debate, but Vypor, I love your avatar. On the gun control side of things, I feel the way others do, the moderate way. DO I want guns outlawed? Hell no. I heard the other day that this shouldn't be about gun control, it should be about gun safety. Some things can't be avoided, but in the past 3 years alone the President has had to give national speeches about massacres involving guns. Tuscon, Aurora, and Newtown, it is obvious something needs to be done. I hate the idea of getting rid of guns all together and I hate the idea that there can never ever be a law that involves guns in any way period at all EVER, other wise you're not an American. That logic makes no sense. In any case, I think we are all in agreement that something needs to be done about situations like these.
    lost my pick
    It's a shame to see that it takes this kind of event for people to realise that something needs to change.
    jetwash69
    Make people realize something needs to change? Don't think this is going to make anyone burn his or her NRA card. It will make the people who always wanted to ban guns feel stronger about it. And ironically, the increased popularity of gun control will skyrocket demand for firearms and ammunition by people concerned about future availability. Therefore, those who feed the hysteria for more gun control end up unwittingly putting more guns on the street. And if they were to succeed in enacting their desired legislation, then by definition only criminals would have guns. Do we really want the only people who are armed to be the ones to be the ones that don't follow law? Where is the intellectual superiority in that approach? What about the police, you say? Im glad you asked, because I was a police officer for about a year. I am qualified to tell you that a Cop's job isn't to protect civilians from criminals, but rather to try to deter criminal activity and take reports/investigate crimes after the deterrence fails. When they're lucky, they capture a small percentage of criminals and then only lock up a fraction of them. It's extremely rare for a Cop to get an opportunity to stop a crime in progress. You're delusional if you expect police to guarantee your safety, and the law does not support you.
    iommi600
    US has one of the most alarming crime rates of the last years, almost 70% of the crimes being related to gun violence. And not a single restriction was put that day...
    Hi Im Alex
    You can restrict them all you want but if someone wants a firearm bad enough there are plenty of ways for them to obtain them. Look at heroin, crack, heck look at pot. They are illegal yet people can still get them on a regular basis.
    Mouloudo
    but you dont see as many people smoking pot than people smoking tobaco why? because cigs are legal and pot is not, same thing for weapons, even if banning them wont make them disappear it will seriously decrease its number and the number of gun violence. Just take this kid, if he didn't have access to his mom guns, do you really think we would have taken his baseball bat and kil 27 people with it?
    EyesWideOpen
    To the people claiming that more gun laws wouldn't stop anyone anyway. Why do we have any laws? I mean what's the point in making any of the laws if "oh they don't care about the law. They'll just do it anyway". The point of a law isn't just to punish someone for committing a crime. It's to make it much harder for that person to be able to commit in the first place. So many cases here of people being purposely thick and ignoring logic just so they don't have to give their death dealing toys away from them.
    jetwash69
    It makes it harder for someone to commit a crime in the first place when there's a higher probability of an average citizen being empowered to stop them. I don't consider something that can save my life and protect my family a "death dealing toy". They've already saved us several times without us even having to show them, much less kill anyone. If we hadn't had them, I might have had to kill with my bare hands or blunt objects just to defend myself. Too bad there's no way to measure the amount of lives firearms save.
    Izzy-Sweet
    "In America, we need guns to protect ourselves!" "From what..?" "People with guns!" F*ck logic.
    Jazz1992
    End of discussion. This man said it all. EDIT: Was referring to Izzy-Sweet, in case it wasn't obvious. Finally, we can edit our comments on this goddamn site!
    Face R1pper
    If five 300 pound men come knocking down your door and running into your home, you are going to want that gun.
    introvert10
    Or you could decide to possibly protect children from being mass murdered by keeping one more gun out of circulation and hand over your t.v. to the "five 300 pound men" that have invaded your fantasy world.
    Face R1pper
    When you start living in the real world you will realize that people are not friendly and there are things that are more important than your TV.
    introvert10
    "there are things that are more important than your TV" My point exactly.....CHILDREN!!!!! Thanks for the support.
    Face R1pper
    Yes, and you protect your children by keeping weapons legal. Not taking them out of the hands of good citizens so cops and criminals will have the unrestrained ability to massacre the rest of the country.
    dicky_fish
    Sorry I have to jump in on that moronic statement! Just how many civilised countries in the world that have an armed police force have had reports of cops going on unrestrained massacring sprees? America - where paranoia and insecurities have absolute control!
    Face R1pper
    Its hilarious how uneducated Euros are regarding history, politics, and economics. But it is worrying that some Americans are starting to take them seriously. You really need to grow up if you think the purpose of police is to protect you. And you are just as uneducated if you seriously think that weapons can be effectively banned from a nation the size of the United States. Consult the war on drugs to see how that is going to work out.
    jetwash69
    What if they don't want your TV, but just want to rape your daughter? I know a guy whose daughter was raped at her grandmother's house in broad daylight by a home intruder. Not anyone's fantasy world. Real life. It was one guy, not 5. And he wasn't even 200 pounds. But I guess you don't care about her; she's just one person and she wasn't even killed. No, just scarred for life.
    Vinson
    The dude Killed his mom, Stole her guns, illegally transported the guns, to a gun free zone, then killed more people.....I'm pretty sure every one of those acts has a law against it. And somehow yet another law would have stopped this dude? Vince, your an idiot.
    spiff-corgi
    Hmmm... but in England at least a mother of a disabled person would not have guns that he could get access to. So take that out of the equation and the rampage would never have happened.
    Vinson
    As it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to acquire firearms ANY other way....much like how it's IMPOSSIBLE to get your hands on banned substances like Cocaine, or crystal meth.....
    spiff-corgi
    No, it wouldn't have been impossible, which is why people are in uproar over the system. If there was a strict system in place to stop disabled or mentally ill people from obtaining firearms, it would be rendered completely useless if the disabled person's relatives all had guns that he could just steal and use.
    Mouloudo
    no but it woudl be harder... cigarettes are as dangerous as joints, but you dont find as many people smoking pot than people smoking a cig pack per day. why? because pot is illegal contrary to cigs
    Shaggy91
    but its not England. and it wont become England because no American wants to live in England or else they would move. Different places, laws, and culture. none superior to another, but dont try and impose one societal bias on another culture...doesnt work and sounds stupid.
    spiff-corgi
    I find this very ironic given that America loves to try and impose its own ideals on developing nations in the Middle East. I'm not saying America has to do certain things because obviously it doesn't. But when there are several situations a year where somebody takes a gun and goes mental with it, as well as general gun crime on a daily basis, I'm going to express my moral outrage at a country that allows it. You're a developed nation yet you still abide by an archaic, completely out of place system.
    Vinson
    Where guns are hard to find....people use bombs....Armed people can defend them selves against armed criminals....defending against bombs is much harder. Also, interesting statistic...according to the FBI, the #1 weapon used in violent homicide is BASEBALL BATS....do we ban those next?
    spiff-corgi
    Are you for real? That was a hell of a leap in logic. Firstly, how do you ban an object that has an innocent purpose but happens to be blunt so can be used as a weapon? Secondly, a gun is designed to fire metal at a high enough velocity that it breaks through skin. One bullet can kill a man. You'd be very unlucky if one smack with a baseball bat killed a man. Thirdly, you can't break into a school with a baseball bat and kill thirty people. Fourthly... Bombs? What are you even talking about? So if we ban guns people will start carrying bombs around? What?
    Yax
    What kind of FBI statstics have you looked at? The real FBI stats tell a different story: 68% of USA's homocides are committed with guns. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/... Here, and they cite and link t the FBI stats.
    jetwash69
    The FBI statistics break it down by type of firearm, whereas the Guardian manipulated the statistic by lumping all firearms together. E.g., FBI distinguishes between revolvers, semi-automatic pistols, fully-automatic pistols, single shot rifles, semi-automatic rifles, fully-automatic rifles, single-shot shotguns, semi-automatic shotguns. These are important distinctions, especially if you want to justify banning "assault weapons". In the category of "other," the FBI lists baseball bats out separately from batons, nun chucks, etc., but The Guardian lumps them all together. So it most probably is true that baseball bats are the #1 most lethal weapon; particularly if evaluated by deaths vs ownership per capita. Your source certainly doesn't disprove that. Simon Rogers also didn't provide parity in his stats on gun ownership per capita vs. gun murders, vs. total murders--for the UK, he only cited total murders. Statistics don't lie, but reporters do. Dude, take some stats classes and critical thinking classes before you delve into media-sourced statistics to support your position. If you've taken them already, then get your money back 'cause they're not working. And if you think The Guardian is unbiased, then read their editorial piece here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...
    jetwash69
    Baseball bats have been banned from airplanes for the last 11 years. Even the mini-bats that they give away at baseball games.
    cwm1990
    maybe you should act on you moral outrage and fight cime instead of whining to us
    Darth Wader
    I do think it shouldn't be so easy to get a gun and should be more checks and balances in attaining a gun. So I think stricter gun control would be good but at the end of the day, it wouldn't have stopped the CT shootings since he got the gun from his mother. I am definitely against outlawing guns since that would be ridiculous.
    shreddymcshred
    If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. The problem isn't even about guns though, it is about how our country is deficient in handling mental illness in our culture.
    IrishConnor1994
    You have to pass a psychological test before you can become a cop, because they don't want any deranged people running around with a gun, so it would make sense if they made citizens pass a psychological test before they can buy a gun too.
    Darth Wader
    Good point. The problem still becomes if the deranged person takes the gun from a stable person.
    lemmon182
    I think the solution is pretty straight forward. Ban guns. Simple. America is the only developed country in the world where firearms are legal, and the crime rate related to firearms is through the roof. Sure, all your Americans will whinge about it, but look at nearly every other developed country and their annual deaths related to firearms. America, I believe is above 10,000 while Australia is about 60. Just get rid of them.
    IrishConnor1994
    Personally, I think banning is the way to go too, I'm only saying screening people because given American's need to own guns, banning won't happen, testing potential owners is the next best thing.
    Mouloudo
    spot on lemmon, most americans are insecure weaklings, they're so scared that someone will take their big weapons out of their hands, and that they have to face life with only their fists, courage, and balls
    FallenEmerican
    I can go buy and obtain a grenade illegally and guns that are illegal too by federal law. You have your head up your ass if you think banning guns from law abiding citizens will stop mass shooting sprees. O yeah there a book that teaches you how to make explosives out of household products that will kill people. lets ban books too? or maybe your house hold products or how about potatoes since you can make a potato gun and kill someone with that? or how about airplanes since someone can hijack those and kill alot more than 30 people. Critically think for yourself stop listening to your tv and read some philosophy on truth
    Mouloudo
    what you're talking about, your whole com is a non sense blob... philosophy teached you that you can kill people with potatoes? wtop watching movies man, of course you can kill people with everything, but name me a school massacre by toothpick
    Darth Wader
    I said I was against outlawing guns (which meant I don't think we should outlaw guns). Sorry if that was badly worded or unclear.
    Mouloudo
    yeah cause curing every mental illness is more realistic than to ban guns... countries where guns are illegal have much lower crime and murders rate PERIOD, dont find stupid excuses to carry your big caliber between your legs to compensate
    shreddymcshred
    banning guns won't do anything, so your argument is null. The relationship between guns and murders in the US is one of correlation, not causation.
    TheExterminator
    You're ignoring one problem in favour of another. BOTH the relative easiness to get guns and mental health are the problems, as well as the media's constant exploiting of victims and turning the killer into something of a legend all for ratings. It's not one or the other, it's both.
    My Last Words
    Still, how many of these shootings are performed by outlaws ? Just look at the statistics and compare the US with other civillized countries. They don't lie.
    shreddymcshred
    They break the law when they steal the guns They break the law when they carry them without a permit They break the law when they bring the guns to "no weapons" zones They break the law when they murder people. That makes them outlaws. These are the people who will get weapons no matter how many laws are in place to stop them.
    shreddymcshred
    The statistics can't lie, they are numbers. The interpretations and misuse of the data is where the deceit happens. It fools intelligent people like you into believing false information.
    EyesWideOpen
    Why would outlawing guns be ridiculous? This is the kind of shit that makes the rest of the world look at and listen to Americans and go "Jesus...".
    blacklight68
    My country has almost no guns...and there's relatively a lot less gun crime. Just sayin'.
    shreddymcshred
    and what does your knife/baseball bat/improvised crime rate look like. a rose by any other name.
    ZOSO <(")
    no citizen should be dened the right to own a gun. if a teacher at that school would have been armed the killing spree would have been a lot shorter
    shreddymcshred
    This is false logic. Possession of a gun is no guarantee of effectiveness.
    bifteksupernova
    so instead of keeping guns out of schools, lets arm them for the next lunatic who wants to make the news
    wspeed6
    He talking about it being a deterrent so a crazy is less likely to go in there because he will be killed. Thats why they off themselves so they aren't killed by someone else, or put in jail for life.
    nms553
    Mustaine1940. Have you ever considered using a period in your sentences?
    vppark2
    I was going to say the same thing, but theres more than that. Spelling errors across the board, sentence structure, and misuse of commas. Ok, im not the one to be a grammar nazi here haha but the use of laziness on him is beyond bareable.
    saint_berzerker
    I'm sure Neil's security would still have guns. I'd feel safer around guns than anywhere near Neil in a car.
    jaccguitarist
    Why the hell anyone thinks it's a good idea to be able to buy assault rifles is beyond me. I could maybe understand someone having a handgun in their sock drawer for protection or having a rifle if they go hunting, but an assault rifle? Seriously? Here in the UK we don't have guns and the general murder rate per head of the population is way lower than the US. I would feel extremely unsafe if people were allowed to buy guns here.
    batti
    maybe it has something to do w/ the culture. People from the USA are more used to solve problems aggresively, than brits(and its harder to go on a "happpy stabby" spree)
    Hi Im Alex
    Look I currently serve in the Pennsylvania National Guard as an infantryman. I work with anything from M4s to Mark 19s. I understand that yes you would never use them for hunting and the capability for them to be USED(remember a gun is neutral it can be used for good or bad depending on the person) for terrible things is very present. However, this goes back to the begininng of our country. The second amendment allows for U.S. citizens to be armed with some of the very same weapons that could be used against them if the goverment every became tyranical or opressive. Think of this. If you take away a tiger's teath and claws would you still find it menacing? Of course not. Guns represent the claws and teeth and the people the tiger itself. What happened in CT, Columbine, Vtech was never a gun problem. Guns took the wrap because they were the tools the psychos used. What America needs to do is work on deaing with those with mental issues and also how the media the portrays these monsters.
    alsagino1
    The second amendment is severely outdated and is completely unnecessary in the current political climate. The fact is that the U.S. has more gun related deaths per capita than anywhere in the world. I certainly believe that's due to a lack of laws controlling guns. Over and above the accessibility to guns, gun control laws create a culture that doesn't involve guns. Here in Canada we have guns and gun related deaths but our culture is such that guns are not considered a right and therefore these deaths are much less common.
    Face R1pper
    As long as guns still exist, the second amendment will never be outdated. That type of attitude is exactly what the framers of the Constitution was trying to prevent. Unfortunately too many people today are politically and historically uneducated and let what they see on television make decisions for them rather than categorical imperatives based on past experience.
    YoTimDog
    When the Second Amendment came about, it was a time of muskets and muzzle-loaded rifles, not semi-auto handguns and assault rifles.
    alsagino1
    While I wouldn't consider myself an expert in politics, I am in my fourth year of studying Political Science therefore I'm not uneducated, and stand by what I said.
    Hi Im Alex
    Aasgino1, here is the thing, you said your from Canada and not the U.S. (Correct me if I am wrong) and while respect your opinion here is the thing. If any legislature in the U.S. is not going to affect you I don't care. This is something that citizens of the U.S. need to address amongst ourselves and I don't care what other countries have to say because this isn't about them. Here is the thing, this individual was bent on doing evil and he was going to do it regardless if he had a gun. He could have used a knife, bat, hammer, bow & arrow, burned the place down whatever. The problem is not the weapons but the individual. Believe it or not just like in Canada there are good people and there are bad people. No matter what laws we put in place people are still going to break them and as sad as it is to say stuff like this will still happen. Now how can the second amendment be outdated. If I do recall we still have guns and they are covered in this amendment. Remember that if we take away guns all this does is affect law abiding citizens. Please tell me when a criminal ever even cared about the law. Those who trade freedom for security deserve neither in my opinion. I don't what I can say to get people to understand that sick people are a part of this world and it is them and only them who are at fault. What we need to do is focus on mental health and also how the media portrays these events. Guns are not evil and this country has functioned pretty well with us having them since we earned our freedom and we still can coexist as long as we work on the real proplem
    Mouloudo
    man you keep on contradicting yourself " Believe it or not just like in Canada there are good people and there are bad people", but canada has a much lower crime rate. So if the rate of bad people is basicly the same everywhere, the only variable is... gun possession... Yeah Canada has a lower murder/crime rate because guns are illegal there, and not because there's less mentaly ill people in canada or less " bad people"... and I could basicly break any of you sentence but it would take a long ass text
    Hi Im Alex
    But we aren't dealing with Canada. We are dealing with America and you have to understand we have different cultures. The only variable is not guns in this equation. Simply outlawing guns will not help. Criminals will still be able to get and use them for evil. Look up when alchohal was outlawed, heck even look at pot. Even when they were/are illegal people could/can obtain them with relative ease. All outlawing guns does is affect those who actually follow the law. What will actually help prevent future instances is dealing with all of the issues here not just banning guns. We need to be able to deal with those with mental problems in a more apporpriate manner. Also how about instead of banning guns we make it harder and stricter for people to obtain/ have them, but simply ban them. I understand that you said in Canada guns are not view as a right, but remember this is America we are talking about and here they are. There isn't one straight answer to this problem and both sides need to understand that.
    alsagino1
    What happens in the U.S. effects Canadians ie. guns crossing the border. And you have to agree that stricter guns laws can only alleviate the issue. Yes there are sick people in the world, why not at least make it difficult for them to get a gun. I just don't by the fact that mental illness issues differ that much from Canada to the U.S.. The only other reason for the drastically higher gun crime in the States is the access to guns.
    Face R1pper
    And perhaps the large difference in the number of people and types of people? Compare the number of ghettos and gang related activities in the United States to the number in Canada.
    Hi Im Alex
    First off if this is an American proplem and despite coming acorss as a a***** I have to say if your not a citizen of this country than I could really care less for all the critisism. Outlawing guns will not solve this probem. Look at what happened during probition and now during the war on drugs. If you the government makes it illegal then only the LAW ABIDING citizens are going to be punished. Crack is illegal and yet criminal still can get ahold of it quite easily. While I don't consider myself a gun fanatic I do support the second amendment because without ordinary citizens being able to bear arms then there would not be an America. I think the problem stems more from our country's lack of identifing and helping those who do have mental illness. Also the media doesn't help when they give the monster who do such evil deeds massive recongition. Now these sick people feel like if they go out murdering innocents they will go done as a monster instead of a nobody. My 2 cents.
    Dylan_Guitar93
    If there weren't any guns in the first place for these people to get their hands on and obtain, there would be no need for teachers to have guns to protect those children. Secondly if your going to have a firearm and use it on intruders could you imagine the emotional/mental issues those kids would through let alone potential influence that traumatic event could play on their life? Guns AREN'T or WOULDN'T be necessary if it weren't for such people keeping them in their possession. I mean no offence to you Face R1pper and your beliefs but how can we believe guns be necessary in the first place if their purpose is to protect us from others with guns who posses corrupted intentions?
    wspeed6
    Your scenario sounds wonderful but ultimately unrealistic. Guns exist and laws don't really solve the problem (although they do help). Our current laws are a great example of that failure. The real problem is metal health. We as a society need to take it seriously and unfortunately we don't.
    Mouloudo
    yeah cause trying to cure every mental disorder is far more realistic than banning every gun on the territory... not
    wspeed6
    Yeah lets not deal with the real cause. We all should pretend guns CAUSE these problems.
    Face R1pper
    Unless you can turn the clock back a few centuries to prevent the invention of guns, that is not going to happen. Guns will never leave our society, we have to learn to live with that. And kids do not develop emotional and mental issues simply because their parents own firearms. I'm not sure if that was what you meant to say but that was the message I got from it. Rational people value their own lives. If more people were carrying guns, crime would decrease because potential criminals would be afraid of retaliation. In a situation such as this one, it would not matter because there is an irrational person who does not care about his life and will accomplish his goal with whatever means he can. Because guns will always exist, and criminals will never obey the law anyway, gun restrictions will only harm rational people that obey laws. And they will allow both irrational people and rational criminals to commit crimes like these without opposition. If we are not given the ability to protect ourselves, then how can we be safe when there will there will always be criminals with greater strength than our own because we choose to follow the law? Anyone who believes the police exists to protect citizens is ignorant and irresponsible, and guns are necessary for the safety of rational and responsible citizens.
    Mouloudo
    you're wrong, countries where guns are illegal have much lower rates of murders and crimes than countries like the US, no other western country has as much massacres and crimes than the US, and guns are legal here, so no your logic " more guns= less crimes caus criminals will be affraid" is absurd
    Face R1pper
    First of all you cannot compare the Untied States to other countries, they are different cultures with different political structures. Second of all that is not necessarily true so you cannot claim that logic is absurd, especially when it is common sense.
    Mouloudo
    that's not common sense! the more criminals/mentally ill people have easy access to guns, the more you gonna have gun related violences... THAT's common sense. Banning gun wont solve the problem in it's entierty, but it wil drasticly help
    Vinson
    For the last time! Criminals do NOT follow the LAW!!!! That's what makes them CRIMINALS! Do you think a lunatic who would go and kill other people is gonna go" Oh wait, I can't go and murder people in the school....I don't have a gun permit, and the school is a gun free zone! Guess I'll just have to watch TV then."? Ever notice 99% of these type of tragedies happen in "Gun free zones"??? Ever wonder WHY? Gun control KILLS people!
    Vypor
    In one of my previous comments i posted this question - Where do you think these "criminals" are getting their guns for the most part?
    thf24
    I always try to see both sides of an issue and never assume I'm right about anything, but on this one, anyone who believes gun control would solve anything is truly stupid. Either that or you have successfully shut every piece of logic and common sense on why it wouldn't solve anything that you've ever been exposed to.
    dyingtolive8
    This guy's a DUMBFUCK. Maybe he didn't realize that the school in CT was a GUN FREE ZONE. That didn't do those kids a damn bit of good. Fuck Vince Neil's concerts anyway. Better believe I'm gonna teach my kids how to respect and use a gun.
    hrnttwk
    I get what he's saying. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, this guy is that last person that should say anything about laws. Let's see, DUI (multiple), vehicular manslaughter, excessive use of illegal drugs, battery, assault and disorderly conduct. Love the music but not what I would call a pillar of the community.
    LiquidColors18
    This doesn't seem to have much to do with music. This article seems like a good way to get an unproductive argument going in the comments section.
    vppark2
    It's a lot better than seeing an article on Adele, Coldplay, The Black Keys, and the like.
    batti
    It did involve a certain opionative musician(if you can call him that /jk)
    rugby11
    I feel like if you guys lost a child the way he did you wouldnt be so quick to make drunk driving jokes..
    jetwash69
    Maybe if we had lost a child to cancer, and if we had killed a friend and brain damaged 2 innocents by DUI, then we'd learn to value life enough not to DUI again. But he'd been arrested on suspicion of DUI twice and convicted once since then. He's also knocked out a sound guy for 45 minutes. And he's been accused of more, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on those. Now, as an ex-con for manslaughter (who only served 15 days), he has the gall to make comments about gun control. Sure, as a convicted felon, he lost the right to bear arms in 1984. So why should he value that right for law-abiding citizens now? Millions of Americans have sacrificed their lives defending our Constitution and Bill of Rights, but Vince doesn't appear to care about that since he's chosen to foresake those rights by being a felon. I think he's fair game for humor at this point.
    ahamoca
    I'm a British dude living in the UK, it boggles my mind when I think of regular day to day citizens allowed to carry or own guns. In our country it is completely outlawed, unless you hunt etc - and even then it is rather difficult to obtain the correct paperwork. And if you get caught with possesion of a gun (even a fake) you get the maximum penalty, at least 6-10 years in prison. I guess I have never held the right to own a gun therefor I don't know what it would be like to be told you can no longer have one - but to someone who has lived their whole lives without ever touching or seeing a gun, it seems a little crazy to want them in the first place. I've never had a gun pointed at me and there is very little chance of that ever happening in the UK, so I don't feel the need to protect myself with one. Despite the difference in geographical size, your country (US) has more gun related murders PER DAY than we have PER YEAR... now that says something. Your country aint 364 times bigger than ours. I dunno... I guess it's your right to decide - it just seems a no brainer to me to have much stricter laws where guns are concerned.
    GMPX
    But this is the problem, point out the raw 'kill numbers' of gun free societies vs the USA to the Americans who use that old BS line 'guns don't kill people, blah, blah' and they still refuse to grasp the concept of a gun free society. To quote that wonderful song Gun Control by D.R.I. We were given the right to bear arms When our land was all ranch and farms The law is old and in need of updating There's no time time for hesitating
    'TallicaRules
    I don't really like any of his music but i agree with him. Its pretty shocking how Americans still choose their guns over lives of little kids. If this tragedy does not bring gun control..you guys are ****ed!
    batti
    People just are like that "I want laws that regulate (guns, the economy, environment), but I dont want them to affect me"
    cwm1990
    he put them in the same post of coarse people will react, he wanted people to agree with him, thats what his post was about.
    sonofgkex
    course- a path or direction (Set a course for home) coarse- a word which refers to granularity (sandpaper is very coarse) No thanks is necessary for the free education. You are so welcome.
    Jmoarguitar
    In Canada, there are tons of guns, however most are rifles since hunting is big here. It is extremely hard to even acquire a pistol in Canada, and as a result gun related crimes are rare. I think it's time America rethinks it's gun control regardless of the shooting. There's the whole "criminals will get a gun anyway" theory, but I'm curious to how many people might turn to crime since it was so easy to get a gun. If the option is there, than it's just that much more easy. And to the angry "this is murica!" people who just ignore any outside criticism, you're getting it because the people criticizing come from countries where things like this don't happen much if at all. It's proven all around the world.
    introvert10
    Oh, Jmoarguitar...here you go again thinking that these American's are willing to put aside their giant egos (and assualt weapons), and that they are actually willing to admit that other countries are more progressive than they are. Tsk, tsk...how dare you question their biggest, baddest, most powerful country in the world (20 years ago).
    Crimson.King
    How many of these shooting occur because the killer took their parent's guns? I think a law should be put in place to hold the owner of the gun partially responsible if their weapon is used in any crime. I bet gun owners would do a hell of a better job keeping their precious guns secured.
    Wininacan
    Him and tommy lee have killed more people than the vast majority of gun owners
    TotalSoup
    Any one who choses there Guns over kids lives should be taken out back and put down.
    thetoasteroven
    How are you gonna do that if you ban all the guns.
    ethan is hot
    The same way a crazy man would kill someone without guns. He would find another way with a different weapon. Isn't that the counter argument to gun control? Not picking sides, I see myself as in the middle here, but come on.
    Mouloudo
    yeah cause you hear a lot of massacres in school with knives or baseball bats...
    guitar7masta
    But that is always the counter argument, ISN'T IT?! "It doesn't matter if we ban guns, they'll use something else to kill people with."
    Mouloudo
    yeah it's like " dont ban alcohol behind the wheel, because even if driving under the influence of alcohol is made illegal, some drivers will die anyway from other causes"... great point!
    LiamPodmore
    @Darth Vader. What if those stricter gun ownership laws prevented his mother from owning firearms too?
    guitargodwannab
    i so agree with Vince, it is absolutely sickening that ppl are more pissed off about him calling for Gun Control.....honestly as someone who isnt American (but Canadian), USA gets exactly what they call for. they want the right to bear arms then guess what ur gunna get freaks like this guy who will shoot up a school of young children introvert10 is right, is Obama wants to still honour this "2nd Amendment" then put laws in place so the public remains safe and that this situation doesnt occur again, or anything like this or Columbine
    shredder3386
    How often do five 300 pound men come in to your home? You might want to invest in a lock or a phone maybe.
    Face R1pper
    Good idea! Hit them on the head with a phone!
    shredder3386
    You are totally right, that's exactly what people do with phones. The US has one of the highest gun violence rates in the world. Other countries can get by fine without them, hell a lot of POLICE in the UK don't even carry guns. But a redneck with an itchy trigger finger is the best way to diffuse a situation for sure.
    spiff-corgi
    An average citizen should not be allowed a gun. Any use of guns, outside of killing people, is held by farmers and game hunters, who need special licenses in England. These guns are also much less efficient at killing people, so should someone get their hands on one and wish to do that they would have a much more difficult time. The guns that are allowed in America are for killing people. You can call it "self defence" but the purpose is still to shoot someone with it. There is no practical purpose and no need for a weapon that extreme just for "self defence". The entire concept is colossally stupid.
    Face R1pper
    Weed is illegal too and its pretty damn easy to get that. It won't be hard to smuggle in truck fulls of guns if they are banned, and think of how high the crime rates will be then. People need to move away from the dangerous attitude of relying on the government to solve problems for you, people need to take responsibility for their own lives. It is appalling that people are beginning to think that self-defense is a bad thing.
    spiff-corgi
    I seriously cannot fathom the stupidity of that comment. Do you actually think that or are you just having some happy trolling? Point #1: A drug that gives you the munchies and mellows you out is not the same thing as a something that fires chunks of metal into a person's body. Point #2: The idea that "it would happen anyway" is a nihilistic approach to law. By that logic we shouldn't have any laws or ban anything because people still murder and rape people even though it's illegal. By making something illegal, you change the social attitudes towards it. Point #3: Relying on the government for things is bad? Right... sure... Any step towards a socially conscious and mobile society is a step towards communism, right? Governments in a democratic society are voted for by the people. In a functioning democracy, the structure is designed to help the people. If you don't like the idea of the system helping you with stuff, why are you a member of society? What is the point in working and paying your taxes if you want to do everything yourself and give the government no power? You're wasting your own time. Point #4: When I talking about "self defence", I was being facetious.
    Irueludruel
    You do know England's gun crimes have skyrocketed since their ban.
    spiff-corgi
    Gun crime sadly did increase following the ban due to areas of the country like Nottingham and London that have a huge gang influence, but homicide from gun use has not increased. The ban on handguns was implemented in 1997, and obviously there would be an increase because you're taking guns that will be used as self defence away from people. It's this increase that makes America so scared to try and ban guns. But over time the gun-related offences have decreased, and are continuing to decrease. "There were 7,024 offences in England and Wales in which firearms, excluding air weapons, were reportedly used, a 13% decrease on the previous year, continuing the general decline since 2005/06." From Parliaments online records, last updated January 30th 2012.
    Face R1pper
    It amuses me how so many Euros tend to be poorly educated on the basic liberal concepts that are necessary to sustain a free society. Clearly you are not familiar with American politics and therefore you should not comment on it. But for some of the more ignorant Americans that may share your opinion I feel that this is worth responding to. 1: They are then they are given the same status under federal law. There are no shades of grey when determining legality. 2: Its really just common sense. If criminals know that there will be fewer threats because less people have guns, they will be more likely to commit crimes. Its simple math. 3: Not communism, fascism. The purpose of government is not to have power, but to protect the individual power of each citizen. Maybe Euros are lazy and don't like this idea, but in America we like to be independent and responsible for our own lives. 4: Indeed you were.
    spiff-corgi
    Well, actually it's not fascism. Politically, even American's liberal party is further right than Britain's Conservative party. A society promoting public structures such as an National Health Service and policing that works to keep people safe rather than just giving people guns and letting them deal with crime themselves, is a much more leftwing society. It's, as I said, closer to socialism than fascism. The problem with American politics is that they have a hard time separating communist principles from socialist principles, which is why they're one of the only MEDC's without an NHS. Anyway I'm taking up half the comments section with my replies so I'll leave it for now. Have a nice, gun-filled, day.
    Face R1pper
    The abolition and repossession of select private property and government alliance with big business is fascism. It is arbitrary and authoritarian. Socialism would be repossession of all private property and government control of all business. And neither one of these would be considered communism. After straying from its origins of liberalism, America is now much closer to fascism than the other two.
    headbang123
    All you're doing by increasing gun control laws is making shootings more illegal than they already are. Most criminals i know arent gonna be like "oh well i shouldnt shoot this guy, its illegal".
    K!!LsWiTcH
    guns? how about banning vince from drinking? sounds like he was drunk when he wrote this. probably the least intelligent comment from an artist to come out of this.
    seabear70
    I'm going to make a factual post that will probably get me hated. In the last 60 years, there have been over 100 mass shootings. In all but two, they took place in locations that banned guns. The batman shooting location was chosen for one reason and one reason alone. Of the seven movie theaters within 20 minutes of the shooter's home, the chosen theater was the only one with signs posted that forbid carry of weapons. Now, those children died because the laws of our country offered them up for slaughter to a screwed up individual. He was offered a target that offered no resistance. We know this, your lawmakers know this, the media knows this. As soon as he was aware of resistance coming to him, he killed himself. Anyone who wants to stop the violence needs to grow up and start looking at reality. We are not going to eliminate violence even if we could eliminate guns. Does anyone really think that that nutcase would have been deterred by a lack of a gun? The Batman shooter was a bomb maker, he was going to kill. A reject like that would use a baseball bat if that is what it took. Now, the bright side is the worst year for mass shootings was in 1929. Despite the headlines, the worst mass killing in a school was in 1927. Your world is now safer than it has ever been, though I can understand that the recent events make it feel just the opposite. Now, us "Gun Nuts" have been accused of a lot of crap. The truth is we, as a rule, don't want to kill anyone. As a CCW I get asked the same thing every time the subject comes up. "Who do you want to kill?" I always answer the same way. "Hopefully no one, and if I had the intention of murdering someone it's kind of hard to imagine why I would take a class and go through all the background checks when I could just walk into anywhere with a gun and shoot them." I carry a gun. I carry it because I want to live. I don't carry it because I want other people to die. People who want to ban guns need to deal with reality.
    jetwash69
    When I was a cop, every morning before the shift I wasn't concerned that someone would shoot me; heck I had a level-II vest . My concern was that some bastard would make me shoot him/her. Luckily in the whole year I never even had to draw down on anyone. Unfortunately I saw a lot of crap that wouldn't have happened if the victims had been armed. We rarely arrived at the scene in time to protect anyone, but sure put a lot of people on the roads in danger trying. The only pro-gun control cops I've met have been the ones currying favor with anti-gun politicians to advance their careers.
    DanC117
    As far as "assualt weapons", the ones that you can buy legally are lower powered than an actual "assualt weapon". Whether the guns are banned or not it's not too hard to get them and if you can't find them then you aren't looking. The truth is there are just some sick people out there that will get their hands on weapons with the intent to cause harm no matter what. Better to own one yourself and not need it than to not have one and end up in a situation where it could have saved your life. Before someone says that I just don't care about what happened, I just want to say that I really do, I know more about how it feels to deal with this kind of pain than most.
    ahamoca
    and there we have a whole other arguement of 'People will always find a way to kill etc' ...
    amartini607
    Another thing people don't seem to be understanding is that for whatever reason, he wanted to harm those people. He very well have could've used knives, which would not have gotten as many people, but still could've done what he wanted. Hell, could've used his bare hands. People kill people. I'm not saying that just anyone should be able to buy a gun, but people are going to get them one way or another, and I think that if there were stricter guidelines for legally obtaining one, but there wasn't a huge social stigma that these types of things wouldn't happen as much, but all in all, the human race is despicable and no matter what, people are going to murder other people, its happened since the beginning of our race and it won't end until were all gone, most likely from killing each other.
    ahamoca
    Zanary - but if like here in the UK, guns were not available, this act wouldnt have happened. The China story whilst being sad, was an extremley rare occurance. An arguement based on blaming the individual rather than the weapon is a flawed one, guns in the majority are made for one thing and one thing only - to kill.
    thf24
    The United States is a much bigger country with longer, more accessible borders, therefore guns would be much harder to keep out here than your country. You can obtain many illegal drugs in the US fairly easily if your mind is set on getting them; why would guns be any different?
    Face R1pper
    You don't even have to have your mind set on getting illegal drugs. They're that easy to find, why would weapons be any different?
    Face R1pper
    You clearly can't understand freedom then. If more people had guns to protect themselves then less people will go around commit crimes against others. And if teachers had guns in school that day it would have prevented the casualties from being so high. Therefore guns are necessarh to protect the lives of little kids.
    Mouloudo
    protect themselves form what? from other people with guns, do you realise how stupid this is? you give gun to people so they can defend themselves against other people who also had permission to posess guns... that's the snake eating his tail
    vppark2
    You want the teachers to have guns? What if they have little to no experience with the use of guns, and attempted to shoot down this guy, only to possibly hurt the lives of others around them? Teachers are there to teach kids learning, and yes protect them in certain situations like these on what to do to proceed into a lockdown. That being said, they are NOT there to help capture the enemy. That is what the police is for. This is why I think we need better security in some schools, for whatever situation there is to come, if ever.
    guitar7masta
    What happens if the teacher goes crazy?
    Face R1pper
    If any of you think that it is possible to entirely eliminate guns from our society you are being ignorant and immature. If one teacher happens to go crazy with a gun, there will be plenty of others around him with guns who will not be crazy.
    Sir-Shredalot
    1. change sedantary, isolated, computer based lifestyle kids have. make them all do social activities 2. control prescribed meds and minimise prescriptions to children 3. stricter licencing, higher gun and ammo cost. sentencing for adults who dont lockdown guns, annual checkups for gun owners 4. make public knowledgable re guns and safety changing gun culture. 5. stricter sentences for gun crime and illegal gun ownership give it 3-4 decades!!
    ne14t
    It's not a matter of totally abolishing the right to own guns, but I mean there is absolutely no reason a person needs to own an AK47, M16, Uzi or any type of firearm like that sure they are cool but they are designed for one purpose, killing people, nothing else. Gun control should be similar to what it is here in Canada restrict certain classes of weapons so you either need additional training and testing to purchase them or simply make them not available to the public. And then most importantly do not sell them to people who are not fit to own them, if someone is mentally ill don't say they can only buy three machine guns and two pistols after a 7 day waiting period tell them sorry you are not fit to own firearms. Don't bother with the gun registration bullshit though that doesn't work we spend millions on it and then scrapped it withing a few years.
    J.R. Legrasse
    The government shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The government, however, can decide which "arms" are legal and which are not, and how much ammo and which types of ammo can be bought and sold legally in America. If that means only one handgun for home protection and one hunting rifle for food and sport becomes the sole legal option, then that's the government's perogative. It's constitutional. The 2nd Amendment was written in a time of blunderbusses and musketoons. One doesn't need an Uzi with an extended clip to hunt deer. And for those paranoid doomsday preppers that spout the only reason gub'mnt tyranny ain't here because the citizenry is armed...your relative peashooters aren't going to be much use against fighter jets, tanks or assault copters with smart missiles anyway. No matter how many semi-automatics you own, the government already have you outarmed, so get over your gun fetish already. btw, the first part of the 2nd Amendment addresses a WELL-REGULATED militia. So gun fetishists should be championing the government regulating well, since it's constitutional for them to do so.
    Mustaine1940
    to all of you talking about drunk driving whatever thats a mistake when u hit someone with a car its a common mistake or if u mean to its not at all as easy as walking somewhewre and shooting up a crowd with a gun, gun bans should be made no normal citizen in conneticut should have access to an M16.....maybe a handgun and thats that, no citizen should have uzis or any type of semi or automatic weapon that us constitution was written for the fact that if theres an intruder or town attacker back in the day any one citizen ciould shoot him down, that doesnt mean everyone needs to load up on weaponry so they can feel safe they shouldnt need shotguns and m16s to feel there safe from the outside world thats how bad americas got praise guys like neil nugent and mustaine for using their popularity to speak their minds about this
    centermass
    no dude drunk driving is not a common mistake thats a shitty choice! a mistake is 2+2=7 see the difference? and you clearly have zero idea what or why the right to bear arms was written into the U.S. constitution.
    bradd101
    A mistake, yes. But still a show of irresponsibility and general "*****ry" that he's never REALLY been punished for (That miniscule jail time is pathetic). That is bad enough if he hadn't then been arrested for DUI's quite regularly throughout the years since, and then created a marketing campaign for his alcohol brand which made light of the situation. And Nugent and Mustaine are morons
    bluesman6885
    Vince Neil can go **** himself...musicians have no business commentating on politics unless they have obvious first hand knowledge or expertise of an issue. Again Fuck Vince Neil, I never liked his ****ing band anyway...Hey Vince! I never planned on going to one of your shows anyway!