Obama signals action following school shooting
by JIM KUHNHENN and JULIE PACE,Associated Press
Dec 17, 2012 | 3416 views | 18 18 comments | 5 5 recommendations | email to a friend | print
President Barack Obama pauses as he delivers a speech during an interfaith vigil for the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012, at Newtown High School in Newtown, Conn. A gunman walked into the elementary school on Friday and opened fire, killing 26 people, including 20 children. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
President Barack Obama pauses as he delivers a speech during an interfaith vigil for the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012, at Newtown High School in Newtown, Conn. A gunman walked into the elementary school on Friday and opened fire, killing 26 people, including 20 children. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
slideshow
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is vowing to use "whatever power this office holds" to safeguard the nation's children, raising the prospect that he will pursue policy changes to stem gun violence in the wake of an elementary school massacre.

"Because what choice do we have?" a somber Obama said at a Sunday evening vigil in the grieving community of Newtown, Conn. "We can't accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we're powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard?"

The newly re-elected president offered few specifics about how he planned to proceed, saying only that he will engage with law enforcement, mental health professionals, parents and educators in the coming weeks. Just days after the shooting at an elementary school, Obama is already facing pressure from fellow Democrats and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to tackle gun control legislation, a contentious issue he avoided as he sought a second term.

But Friday's shooting, which left 20 children and eight adults dead, appears to have spurred some soul-searching by Obama, who told Connecticut's governor that Friday was the most difficult day of his presidency. Speaking to families of the victims and first responders, Obama said Sunday that he had been reflecting on whether the country was doing enough to give its children "the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose."

"And if we're honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We're not doing enough, and we will have to change," Obama said.

Sunday marked the fourth time in Obama's presidency that he has traveled to a community shaken by a mass shooting. Just this summer, he made a similar visit to Aurora, Colo., where a dozen people were killed in a movie theater attack.

Drawing on his past experiences, Obama said he was mindful that mere words would not be enough to heal the depths of Newtown's sorrow.

"I can only hope that it helps for you to know that you are not alone in your grief," Obama said during the vigil, which followed his private meeting with families of the victims.

The president closed his remarks by reading the first names of the kids, slowly, in the most wrenching moment of the night. Cries and sobs filled the room.

Said Obama of the girls and boys who died: "God has called them all home. For those of us who remain, let us find the strength to carry on and make our country worthy of their memory."

Inside the room, children held stuffed teddy bears and dogs. The smallest kids sat on their parents' laps.

There were tears and hugs, but also smiles and squeezed arms. Mixed with disbelief was a sense of a community reacquainting itself all at once.

One man said it was less mournful, more familial. Some kids chatted easily with their friends. The adults embraced each other in support.

"We're halfway between grief and hope," said Curt Brantl, whose daughter was in the library of the elementary school when the shootings occurred. She was not harmed.

Police and firefighters got hugs and standing ovations when they entered. So did Obama.

"We needed this," said the Rev. Matt Crebbin, senior minister of the Newtown Congregational Church. "We needed to be together to show that we are together and united."

The shootings have restarted a debate in Washington about what politicians can to do help — gun control or otherwise. Obama has called for "meaningful action" to prevent killings.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday she will introduce legislation next year to ban new assault weapons, as well as big clips, drums and strips of more than 10 bullets.

Police say the gunman, Adam Lanza, was carrying an arsenal of ammunition big enough to kill just about every student in the school if given enough time. He massacred 20 students and six teachers and administrators before shooting himself in the head just as he heard police drawing near, authorities said.

A Connecticut official said the gunman's mother was found dead in her pajamas in bed, shot four times in the head with a.22-caliber rifle. The killer then went to the school with guns he took from his mother and began blasting his way through the building.

"There is no blame to be laid on us but there is a great burden and a great challenge that we emerge whole," First Select Woman Patricia Llodra said. "It is a defining moment for our town, but it does not define us."

___

AP White House Correspondent Ben Feller contributed to this report.
Comments
(18)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
jarnoldcr
|
December 23, 2012
How quickly we forget that the most violent school shooting in our national history occured during an era of unprecedented gun control (under assault weapons ban). The perpetrators did not possess assault weapons (most do not in such events). One perpetrator did possess a pistol with a high-capacity magazine (Eric)...however his partner (Dylan) was able to fire nearly twice as many rounds from multiple ten round magazines (legal under assault weapon ban). The NRA's school shield proposal makes a lot more sense than the "reasonable gun control" proposals that are likely to come from Joe Biden's desk.
wheninrome
|
December 22, 2012
So now that the NRA has spoken, and the response by the liberal, left wing fascist socialist media as well as fellow back-window-displayin', gun totin', pry 'em from my cold dead fingers GOPers alike was an overwhelming -- HUH?

Do you gun folks really put the probability of either a military invasion against our country, or a military coup within our country ABOVE the probability of someone walking into Garden Lakes or Glenwood and shooting? That's a yes or no.

Then, do you realize that it is only those extremely high-powered guns that serve more as an extension of your manhood/feminism than protection that are on trial here? Yes or no?

Are you aware that a militarily trained person killed someone in Rome in a rampage around 2 years ago, and left the scene to kill someone else, but was unsuccessful?

For God's sake, stop worrying about things as likely as the Zombie apocalypse and focus on something that is real. How can you sleep? If my son is killed by a gunman, I will need only 1 bullet.
mirage83
|
December 22, 2012
Just to address one point here and perhaps clear up a little misleading rhetoric, AR-15's and such aren't "extremely high-powered guns". High velocity, yes, but not high-energy or power. The rounds for a 30-30 Winchester lever action rifle have substantially more power/energy than the 5.56/.223.
wheninrome
|
December 22, 2012
Indeed, the AR-15 may simply be a paintball gun for all I know but what it is not is a single shot shotgun. Its possession and right to bear is what the Constitution intended to protect.

Warping the Constitution for today's battles is common on both sides to be sure, but this argument is not political. Our country chose to protect its people's safety above freedoms after 9/11. It should do so again. Especially when the freedom will still exist, only in a purer, more literal translation.
mirage83
|
December 22, 2012
The 2nd states that the people enjoy the right to keep and bear "arms", not "shotguns", single-shot or otherwise. When you try and limit the 2nd to a specific type of weapon (especially when more than a single type was available even at the time of the writing of the Constitution) you artifically minimize it's application and effectiveness.
Trelicious
|
December 17, 2012
Gun control is feel-good legislation. If it was simple as making it illegal to own a good, it would be difficult to find drugs.
JoMadden
|
December 21, 2012
Was that the same dude who said it was impossible to round up 20 million illegals and send them home, but possible to round up 300 million firearms? I agree, he's a nut.
jarnoldcr
|
December 22, 2012
Spot on, Trelicious. I agree with your other comments about politicans capitalizing on a national tragedy to push an agenda they've long had in mind. Sadly, the folks in Newtown have become pawns in someone else's political game.
wish2010
|
December 17, 2012
It is a sad day for America to see the gun control advocates launching new assaults on our second amendment rights rather than addressing issues regarding our lack of treatment for the mentally ill in our society. Our neglect of the mentally ill leaves families and schools with too much responsibility for the care and treatment of these

individuals.
wish2010
|
December 17, 2012
I would give up my life or anything else if it would bring these children back. However, the reality is that nothing is going to bring back these children.

The problem that needs to be addressed is mental illness. This individual probably had he aptitude to build a bomb and kill many more of the children. Do we ban fertilizer sales and other common household items that can be used to make a bomb.

No, the gun control advocates, including the mainstream media simply use using this tragedy to further their own agenda. Their motives are ill conceived and wrought with ignorance.
Prossarian
|
December 17, 2012
ihoppy the best reasons I can give you are:

1. Look around, how many assault weapons are already on the street? As long as they are on the street I want the ability to own my own, in case I am confronted by a criminal or someone who wishes harm to me or my family.

2.In the unlikely event we are ever invaded our country is not prepared to fight a US invasion. Unless citizens are armed and armed well we will be quickly taken over. While unlikely, I'd rather have the peace of mind knowing I could once again protect my family.

3. An armed militia in the event of a government overthrow. While this may seem unlikely, it is possible. It seems more ever-present today than ever. Once again I will protect my family and my community. If you don't beleieve it can happen, read about the American Revolution and the US Civil War, then look at the current Arab Spring, look at the Occupy Movement, think about the Tea Party if they did really choose to become violent.

As has always been said, "From my cold dead hands"!

The shootings that have occured in our country are mental health issues that have been worsening for the past decade. Unless this is addressed these things will continue. If you think that can't happen here, I suggest you talk to medical personnel in this area and let them make you aware of the people that are now living amongst us that were in NWGRH. Crazies are walking the streets of Rome, Lindale , Silver Creek and Cave Spring. They might even live next door to you. Group homes are being established all over this county and a majority of those people are crazier than betsy-bugs!
FormerRomanJr.
|
December 17, 2012
Prossarian, I rarely agree with anything you say, but that was rational thinking until you mentioned Tea Party Violence and gave the occupy folks a Pass..It works both ways and the occupy folks have shown the propensity for violence more so than the Tea Party.
Prossarian
|
December 17, 2012
Sorry Jr., maybe you misunderstood me. I did not give the Occupy Movement a pass, I said look at them. My reference to the Tea Party said, IF THEY CHOOSE to be violent. We all know the Occupy Movement has already shown violence while the Tea Party was peaceful. My fear is the Tea Party may reorganize and be pushed to violence as the Occupy movement has shown. If that happens we WILL have a revolution on our hands.
FormerRomanJr.
|
December 17, 2012
Good enough Prossarian..I too, fear a civil war in the US and will probably be gone before it happens, but it's coming.
dbeall
|
December 21, 2012
iHoppy your request easily explained. Why do we need military style weapons made available to the public? To be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government should it ever be necessary. That is the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.

To answer your question about giving up a portion of my Second Amendment rights to bring back those kids, the answer is no. Those kids are gone. Giving up my rights is not going to bring them back. Giving up my rights wouldn't have prevented them from being killed. However, what would have saved them was a well-trained and armed staff greeting the gunman at the front door and returning fire.

In fact, the knowledge that fire would be returned would likely have dissuaded the gunman from attempting the massacre in the first place.

You'll notice that he didn't shoot up a military base or a police station or a gun store or a hunting supply store or a sport shooting event or a gun show. He chose the school because he knew that he would face zero armed resistance and that his victims would be defenseless.

It's amazing that these concepts have to be explained each and every time something like this occurs.

Trelicious
|
December 22, 2012
It's not about things having changed, it's about the Democrats using dead children to further their long-standing position of gun control. They have no shame and will never "waste a tragedy" to further their political agenda. The press is complicit and would never point out such a shameful display unless of course it was the opposing party using such tactics.

Another example, search the numbers of non-white on non-white murders last year, then when you find out how numerous they were, see if you can remember one of them being reported. Then think Trayvon. The Press are as shameless as the Democrats and mouth-breathing Americans nod and point at their television screens proclaiming "yep, yep, umm hmmm, yep"
ohmybadness
|
December 22, 2012
Ihoppy, the differance between an assault rifel and regular fifel is cosmedic. We can't buy millitary automatic weapons. We can only buy stuff that lools like it. Simi automatic guns are the norm and have been since people got tired of loading musket balls and black powder. The last ban on asault weapons did nothing to help mentally ill people get better. I don't under stand this war on the individual. You don't want us to be successful on our own, we can't get our helthcare on our own, we can't defend ourselves, we can't do anything unless we have approval from some dip in washington.
jarnoldcr
|
December 22, 2012
Wish,

We must not conflate mental illness with violence. The APA has reported that the vast majority of individuals who commit violent acts do not suffer from mental illnesses. Furthermore, those who suffer from mental illness are significantly more likely to be victims of violent acts, rather than perpetrators. We must resist the urge to stigmatize those with mental illnesses by associating mental illness with violence after every national tragedy.
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at our discretion.