No simple answers

Luisa said: "We could at least start with personal responsibility:
If you have a child or other family member with emotional or behavioral problems--DO NOT HAVE A GUN COLLECTION AT HOME."

I think any parent who does not themselves have mental health issues knows that. It seems obvious that Adam did not grow up and live in a mentally healthy environment with someone who was capable of making good decisions. Do not paint the majority of other parents with that brush. I think most people assume personal responsibility (including most gun owners). We need help in protecting more people from those irresponsible few who can in minutes murder 26 people and emotionally devastate a community and a nation.

Now that bits & pieces of information about the dynamics of this home - peronal responsibility seems questionable and denial and enabling appears to be the norm. In this particular case, from reports, money wasn't an issue since Nancy Lanza received just under $290K in alimony and support. There have been some reports that suggest that schools are the "first line of defense against mental illness": http://abcnews.go.com/Health/connecticut-shooting-schools-line-defense-mental-illness/story?id=17998901#.UNB__iJVwSY . If this is an accurate point, then Nancy defeated that by pulling him out of school. Adam apparently had been diagnosed as having Asperger's Syndrome that "is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction". By pulling him out of school and going so far as to provide forewarning when an outsider was to visit the house so that Adam could hide - was she exacerbating the problem? There have also been reports that consideration was given to moving to Washington State to run away from his problems on the East Coast.

Given all of these issues, one must ask why she even had guns in the house and just what good she thought would come from taking him to a shooting range.

Agree with CheenaGringa
With all of the money available, and her awareness of his social problems,
Why not Professional help? This sounds like a Mother's love was going to be the solution. Sadly, we know the results

While agreeing on the psychological reasonings I think the most effective thing to do immediately is get those damn assault weapons out of circulation, ban them, whatever. The crazies will always be with us but if they have to reload after every 6 rounds they will be less able to commit mass murder.

WOW some have reverted to name calling because they don’t agree with me. How childish... First, cars are NOT “essential” to commerce, only commerce as you would like to see it. And so what if they are. That argument was used for asbestos at one time too. It’s just a way to justify death. Death is death: apples to apple. If you would like we can remove the suicide deaths that don’t kill others to get a more accurate picture.

Feel free to legislate without education and watch the result, Mexico has done this. It will result in more insanity. I’m not saying don’t legislate. I’m saying we have a bigger problem than legislation alone can fix. I guess I will just say this and leave it at that as some of you will never understand. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GUN OR CAR ACIDENT!!!!!!! I have never seen a car or a gun “accidentally” perform its designed function within its designed parameters, nor have you. They only function with a sad result when idiots control them. Fix the idiocy and you will fix the problem. You can not do this without education.

Luisa wrote:We could at least start with personal responsibility:

If you have a child or other family member with emotional or behavioral problems--DO NOT HAVE A GUN COLLECTION AT HOME.

I could not agree more. Personal responsibility and accountability IS were this begins.

Every monster, serial killer, mass murderer and crook has a mother, and hardly any of them saw what was coming with their kids. Motherlove isn't enough.
Around here, too, kids get caught doing robberies but momma doesn't believe her angel could be a bad kid.

hound dog wrote:

CheenaGringo wrote:I received the following re: Canadian gun laws. I am not clear if these are national regs or those for BC where this person happens to be from:

"In order to get your hands on the guns this lunatic had you must:

1. Take the unrestricted and restricted gun safety course, and pass the safety exams with an 80% mark at least on both
2. Have extensive mental health and criminal background checks done by the RCMP
3. Go through the 28 day waiting period
4. Do an interview, as well as have 2 references interviewed
5. You must be a member in good standing at an approved shooting range
6. You must have an authorization to transport to and from the range from your CFO
7. You must keep these guns locked up with trigger locks or in a secure safe
8. These guns are restricted and must be registered
9. The magazine on the rifle must be pinned to 5 rounds and 10 rounds on the handguns.

Thank you for sharing that with us Neil. Now, to further educated people on U.S. gun laws |vs. Canadian gun laws where guns are not a necessity since everybody is so nice just like in Connecticut , here is the the gun law in Alabama where The Dawg more-or-less matured and one must demonstrate the ability to actually breathe or, in the absence of said skill demonstrating viability, must be accompanied by a distant relative or paid advisor who can breathe and attest to the fact that at some time since 1938, the applicant actually did breathe and seemed at least moderately lucid except in the event the applicant is an African American or illegal immigrant of Latin American heritage in which case he must be able to cite from memory all 174 provisions of the Alabama state constitution in specific detail and pass a test proving he or she can shoot the eye out of duck at 300 yards.

No, he took the shortcut and stole the guns.

People who are intent on mass murder have no problems with theft.........

jrm30655 wrote:
No, he took the shortcut and stole the guns.

People who are intent on mass murder have no problems with theft.........

He didn't steal them. He borrowed them from his mother, who was an irresponsible gun owner and didn't need that kind of firepower to start with.

seisdedos wrote:

jrm30655 wrote:
No, he took the shortcut and stole the guns.

People who are intent on mass murder have no problems with theft.........

He didn't steal them. He borrowed them from his mother, who was an irresponsible gun owner and didn't need that kind of firepower to start with.

So he planed on giving them back...?

tictoc wrote:

seisdedos wrote:

jrm30655 wrote:
No, he took the shortcut and stole the guns.

People who are intent on mass murder have no problems with theft.........

He didn't steal them. He borrowed them from his mother, who was an irresponsible gun owner and didn't need that kind of firepower to start with.

So he planed on giving them back...?

Nah, she didn't have anymore use for them.


If a grown child that lives in your home and takes your car, that he also uses from time to time, without asking, is that stealing?

So he planed on giving them back...?

Considering what he did to his mother, it would only be by post-life express.
I'd say he "took them" from his mother's house.

tictoc wrote:WOW some have reverted to name calling because they don’t agree with me. How childish... First, cars are NOT “essential” to commerce, only commerce as you would like to see it. And so what if they are. That argument was used for asbestos at one time too. It’s just a way to justify death. Death is death: apples to apple. I guess I will just say this and leave it at that as some of you will never understand. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GUN OR CAR ACIDENT!!!!!!! I have never seen a car or a gun “accidentally” perform its designed function within its designed parameters, nor have you.

Yet another nut job...

seisdedos wrote:

tictoc wrote:

seisdedos wrote:

jrm30655 wrote:
No, he took the shortcut and stole the guns.

People who are intent on mass murder have no problems with theft.........

He didn't steal them. He borrowed them from his mother, who was an irresponsible gun owner and didn't need that kind of firepower to start with.

So he planed on giving them back...?

If a grown child that lives in your home and takes your car, that he also uses from time to time, without asking, is that stealing?

If they plan to kill me with it (not return it) then yes...

tictoc wrote:

seisdedos wrote:

tictoc wrote:

seisdedos wrote:

jrm30655 wrote:
No, he took the shortcut and stole the guns.

People who are intent on mass murder have no problems with theft.........

He didn't steal them. He borrowed them from his mother, who was an irresponsible gun owner and didn't need that kind of firepower to start with.

So he planed on giving them back...?

If a grown child that lives in your home and takes your car, that he also uses from time to time, without asking, is that stealing?

If they plan to kill me with it (not return it) then yes...

Kill you with the car? Your argument is beyond ridiculous.

jrm30655 wrote:

seisdedos wrote:So what happens when an armed teacher goes berserk and shoots a bunch of students? All of this bullshit about everyone carrying a weapon is insane. Yeah, that's the solution, more focking guns.

One of the other teachers blows him away?

Do you not think that a teacher can bring in a gun if he wants to?

http://www.google.com.mx/imgres?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&hs=jBL&sa=X&tbo=d&rls=en&channel=suggest&biw=1600&bih=729&tbm=isch&tbnid=EnWSyPqJj-r03M:&imgrefurl=https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php%3Fstory_fbid%3D459773427403850%26id%3D121716071175930&docid=LChzHKyJK4fZOM&imgurl=http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/s480x480/406611_10151225294535326_474779999_n.jpg&w=480&h=240&ei=TMPRUIfIOLSk2gW0loGYAQ&zoom=1

Perfect Seis!!!!
[img][/img]

Here's an editorial published in the New York Times:


December 17, 2012
In Other Countries, Laws Are Strict and Work
Like other shootings before it, the Newtown, Conn., tragedy has reawakened America to its national fixation with firearms. No country in the world has more guns per capita, with some 300 million civilian firearms now in circulation, or nearly one for every adult.

Experts from the Harvard School of Public Health, using data from 26 developed countries, have shown that wherever there are more firearms, there are more homicides. In the case of the United States, exponentially more: the American murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries, which have much tougher laws controlling private ownership of guns.

There’s another important difference between this country and the rest of the world. Other nations have suffered similar rampages, but they have reacted quickly to impose new and stricter gun laws.

Australia is an excellent example. In 1996, a “pathetic social misfit,” as a judge described the lone gunman, killed 35 people with a spray of bullets from semiautomatic weapons. Within weeks, the Australian government was working on gun reform laws that banned assault weapons and shotguns, tightened licensing and financed gun amnesty and buyback programs.

At the time, the prime minister, John Howard, said, “We do not want the American disease imported into Australia.” The laws have worked. The American Journal of Law and Economics reported in 2010 that firearm homicides in Australia dropped 59 percent between 1995 and 2006. In the 18 years before the 1996 laws, there were 13 gun massacres resulting in 102 deaths, according to Harvard researchers, with none in that category since.

Similarly, after 16 children and their teacher were killed by a gunman in Dunblane, Scotland, in 1996, the British government banned all private ownership of automatic weapons and virtually all handguns. Those changes gave Britain some of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world on top of already strict rules. Hours of exhaustive paperwork are required if anyone wants to own even a shotgun or rifle for hunting. The result has been a decline in murders involving firearms.

In Japan, which has very strict laws, only 11 people killed with guns in 2008, compared with 12,000 deaths by firearms that year in the United States — a huge disparity even accounting for the difference in population. As Mayor Michael Bloomberg stressed on Monday while ratcheting up his national antigun campaign, “We are the only industrialized country that has this problem. In the whole world, the only one.”

Americans do not have to settle for that.

There are those who as they read this are chanting:
"USA--we´re Number One! USA--we´re Number One!"

Here is a very interesting take on this, and since the beginning i have been convinced that this was caused by drugs.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=215059


Excerpt:

Many people may have missed this, and in fact I did until someone on the forum brought over the quote itself. That drug is a relatively new one and in fact was the subject of a non-approvable letter originally.

The name caught my eye because I loosely follow biotech companies and remembered it from the denial back in 2008. The FDA wanted another study and more safety data. The company repackaged and resubmitted the previous study instead, which was a "Hail Mary" pass that almost-never succeeds. In this case it did and the company's stock skyrocketed.

But this isn't so much about the drug itself as what it says about this young man, if in fact he was on the drug. See, this drug, like all anti-psychotics, sometimes causes serious psychiatric side effects itself, including extreme aggression.

It also isn't indicated for anyone not under severe psychiatric stress -- and schizophrenia is pretty-much the 900lb gorilla of mental illness.

If this is real then we deserve to have this fact out in the open, in public, right damned now and all political activity associated with alleged "remedies" must stop until this allegation is fully vetted and either proved up or disproved, in public.

If this is true there is no gun law that would have stopped this event; if he could not have gotten a gun he would have used a gallon of gasoline, a home-made bomb, a knife, something, anything. We know he was willing to kill his own mother to acquire the weapons -- he would have killed a cop, a random person on the street, or a store clerk.

If this allegation is true this mass-murder was not about guns at all.

I think we need to see exactly what drug(s) this young man was on before we decide what or who contributed to this disaster. But, no matter what else is involved, U.S. gun laws and culture need to be looked at and changes made. This mass murder IS about guns because guns were used to kill people. Since we have no idea what the killer´s state of mind was, we can not know what other weapons of killing he would have/could have used. And, certainly, this drug has not been involved in every mass murder in recent U.S. history. No one believes there is one, simple answer to what is going on in the U.S. Everything has to be considered.

Quite true Lady Otter Latté, however the use of SSRI's has produced many many incidents of suicides and homicides.

There is one website which has been tracking this for years. There are many many thousands of these incidents. Obviously only a fraction of these episodes have been rightly attributed to psychiatric medication. Frankly I think that Big Pharma, has a helluva lot to answer for. I might add that this particular drug, if he was on it, had previously been rejected by the FDA due to psychiatric side effects such as suicidal ideation and or homicidal ideation.

As the author states, he could have used a number of other weapons, which could have been equally lethal, such as setting a fire.

So yes, he used guns, however why did he use them?

Clearly people on psychiatric medication, diagnosed as schizophrenic should NOT have access to weapons of any description.

We pretty much agree, E-raq. Big Pharma is a piece of the puzzle. So is U.S. gun worship and culture.

To those proposing banning of Guns,
Examine Mexico's Laws & existing situation

Your point? How many dead in the "drug war?" Lots of gun violence in Mexico even though guns are strictly controlled.

'

David wrote:Your point? How many dead in the "drug war?" Lots of gun violence in Mexico even though guns are strictly controlled.

'

No matter how many gun laws there are, the bad guys can always obtain guns.

And if you really think they're going to do something about gun laws in the US, I'd like to know what you're smoking. The NRA is too powerful with too much money and the Senators and Congressmen want to get re-elected, so they won't do anything. And neither will President Obama. Lots of words and NO ACTION.

John:

Seems to me that you predicted something similar about Obama being reelected? It seems that some of the politicians who have always supported the NRA and have received top grades from the NRA have recently publicly stated a change in positions.