I am not seeing how those two events gets clumped together...Newtown was a mentally deranged lunatic who used non "assault weapons" ("four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school") and the Boston bombings were done by some radial Islam terrorists using bombs, and the older brother did (apparently) have a shootout with the police and I quoted a news article:

"Law enforcement sources told ABC News the gun recovered from the scene of the Tsarnaev brothers' shoot out with police was a Ruger 9 mm semi-automatic handgun. Sources said the gun is in the custody of the Massachusetts State Police lab and that the serial number on the firearm was obliterated."
 
  Seems to me that since the guns were not legal or registered, additional laws would of done NOTHING to prevent these tragic events. I think it is important to note also, that the lone surviving terrorist was only found when the feds couldn't find him and gave the all clear. Once the all clear was given, a citizen noticed something off of his boat and called the authorities (unless I am mistaken).

And apparently, according to the Police Chiefs of the world, 94% of us want tougher gun laws? Maybe if the position of "Chief of Police" was a elected (by the people) and not appointed...thus becoming a political puppet for whomever appointed, they would not be so quick to take away our 2A rights.

  That's just how anti gun people think, crazy right?  The perps in those two incidents were not legally allowed to own firearms.  And as for this 90 and 94 percent thing?  I don't ever remember participating in a national survey in the past months....

^^^Right??^^^ Exactly!

also, the powder they used wasnt gunpowder, but from fireworks.

It's total BS!! 

Regardless of these events being good examples they are being put out there by the spin doctors.  It's no different than the politicians who diffuse and redirect blame when they do something wrong.  There are so many people out there who do not think for themselves it's very easy to sway opinion...........the remember the headlines, but not the details/facts.


I think the real issue is with all the Russian interest in this guy, how does he slip through the cracks?  I realize the Govt gets a lot of info/suspects.............but how many come with requests from Russian for more info?

Really?  This is a stretch for you?

Newtown - bad guy with guns killed innocent people

Boston - bad guys with guns blew up some people, then proceeded to shoot some good guys and innocent people

If, in either case, the bad guys had not had guns, fewer people would be dead.

Tom_G, I am confused, are you saying that a gun ban would of prevented either of these events (or even lessened them)?

So are you saying that we are back to the old argument that it was the guns that are responsible, not the people or the bombs?

Newtown - Bad guy kills Mom, steals her guns and kills people

Boston - Bad guys blow up civilians and the gun found was NOT a legal one

And while I am ranting, that terrorist bastard Army officer who killed 13 in Texas, that was labeled "workplace violence" and not "terrorist attack" (even though he yelled some jihad crap right before starting his rampage), so the Soldiers who were injured DID NOT receive purple hearts.

In the governments mind, a ban will take effect, its just a matter of when and how theyll

get stupid people to follow there agenda..... EVERY act of violence and carelessness they

can attach to firearms, they will..... Its like the ratchet affect.....

If they can connect a cat stuck in a tree with a firearm, the stupids will buy it.....

Tom_G, I am confused, are you saying that a gun ban would of prevented either of these events (or even lessened them)?..............

Tom G might not be saying it, but I am.  Here is the caveat though............it's not just about guns, but about taking a lot of other civil liberties away that we take for granted.

You seize the guns, curfew, execute the scum in the prisons, put people in prison easier, etc............do this and yeah I can make the world safer from crime in general, just not crime that stems first from the Government against its people.

I think Tom_G was being cynical.

Tom_G, I am confused, are you saying that a gun ban would of prevented either of these events (or even lessened them)?

Nope.  I never said any such thing.  I simply responded to the title of your post and your original question:

I am not seeing how those two events gets clumped together...

To deny that firearms had any part in either event is, well, silly.  Of course firearms were an element.  Of course more people would have lived if the bad guys had not had firearms. 

I just think that there are much bigger issues that we need to fix before we worry about gun control. Hell, we already have gun control...what we need is crime control. Why don't we just ban crime! 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/26/boston-bombing-suspects-mom-terror-database/2115939/


HHhhmmmmmm.............

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was added to the the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center's TIDE watch list in fall 2011 at the same time as her son Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who died April 19 in a shootout with police outside Boston, two anonymous government officials told AP. He subsequently traveled to Russia in January 2012 and returned in July.