Moonlight Graham Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 BTW they shouldn't even release the name of this killer or his picture, it gives them the exposure they're looking for. They want to go down in a blaze of glory and immortality in many cases it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Some do but very few. If she bought them for self defence, they didn't do her much good. Or 26 others. The fact remains that some do, and there's nothing to indicate that Lanza's mother shouldn't have been allowed to own them, so I don't follow the relevance of your comments. Edited December 15, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Are these venues random? It seems to me that the killers seek places of "hope". === In your list, I don't see a maniac walking into a senior citizens home. Why do these lunatics choose schools? It doesn't sound as if this venue were random. From what I've read, Lanza specifically targeted his mother's classroom. In other incidents, schools were targeted because the shooters were students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) The fact remains that some do, and there's nothing to indicate that Lanza's mother shouldn't have been allowed to own them, so I don't follow the relevance of your comments. So a mass murder committed with a legally obtained weapon is somehow different from one committed with an illegally obtained one? Who knew? Edited December 15, 2012 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 So a mass murder committed with a legally obtained weapon is somehow different from one obtained with an illegally obtained one? Who knew? What? You're the one who made the "Maybe if they [gun laws] were stricter, his mother wouldn't have had a pair of semi automatic handguns," which is what I've been responding to, so I don't know where this off-the-wall comment is coming from. Perhaps because you are unable to address the points I made? - what I've actually said? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 What? You're the one who made the "Maybe if they [gun laws] were stricter, his mother wouldn't have had a pair of semi automatic handguns," which is what I've been responding to, so I don't know where this off-the-wall comment is coming from. Perhaps because you are unable to address the points I made? - what I've actually said? Yes, that is why you have gun laws. The stricter they are, the harder they are to obtain. It should be painfully obvious even to you that if she hadn't had those guns, he couldn't have used them. Even if she obtained them legally, they were her guns and she was responsible for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Yes, that is why you have gun laws. The stricter they are, the harder they are to obtain. It should be painfully obvious even to you that if she hadn't had those guns, he couldn't have used them. Even if she obtained them legally, they were her guns and she was responsible for them. And it should be painfully obvious to you that even in Canada people own such guns. So again. How would stricter gun laws have prevented the mother from owning them, as there's nothing to indicate that she shouldn't have been allowed to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 And it should be painfully obvious to you that even in Canada people own such guns. So again. How would stricter gun laws have prevented the mother from owning them, as there's nothing to indicate that she shouldn't have been allowed to? Some people do own such guns but they have to go through a lot of hoops to get them and there are strict rules about how and when they can be transported and used. You can't just go out and buy one to stick in your bedside table or glove box. I you are caught with one in your glove box, you will be in deep shit no matter how many permits you have. Stricter gun laws could stop her from owning them by making her unable to buy them. That's why they are called stricter gun laws. Anyhoo, debating this with Americans is a mugs game. Can't believe I let myself get sucked in again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Some people do own such guns but they have to go through a lot of hoops to get them and there are strict rules about how and when they can be transported and used. You can't just go out and buy one to stick in your bedside table or glove box. I you are caught with one in your glove box, you will be in deep shit no matter how many permits you have. His mother wasn't caught with one in her glove box, so again, the relevancy of "stricter gun laws" escapes me. Stricter gun laws could stop her from owning them by making her unable to buy them. That's why they are called stricter gun laws. And I'm asking you why you think stricter gun laws would have prevented her from owning them, as there's nothing to indicate she was unstable, and even Canadians own such guns. Anyhoo, debating this with Americans is a mugs game. Can't believe I let myself get sucked in again. Translation: 'I can't discuss this with anyone who brings up points I can't argue and/or doesn't just agree with me.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) And I'm asking you why you think stricter gun laws would have prevented her from owning them, as there's nothing to indicate she was unstable, and even Canadians own such guns. I'm not really qualified to answer that question. Perhaps some others like Derek L could be more helpful. I don't know anyone who has a handgun except my son who is a cop and now a member of the ERT and he only has his service weapon. He doesn't personally own any kind of gun and doesn't want to. He doesn't even bring his service weapon home if he doesn't have to. He leaves it locked up at the station. Edited December 15, 2012 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 His mother wasn't caught with one in her glove box, so again, the relevancy of "stricter gun laws" escapes me. No, but he got a hold of them and they were her guns. She was responsible for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 I know lots of people who own guns. I have a licence for an unrestricted weapon because I planned to try out clay pigeon shooting but at the last minute I decided on a guitar instead of a shotgun. Maybe next year. I know one woman who has handguns. As Moonlight Graham posted, there are 270 million guns in the US. Access to guns is not going to be a factor. Limit access to guns, and it still happens. Look at Dunblane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Some people do own such guns but they have to go through a lot of hoops to get them and there are strict rules about how and when they can be transported and used. You can't just go out and buy one to stick in your bedside table or glove box. I you are caught with one in your glove box, you will be in deep shit no matter how many permits you have. Stricter gun laws could stop her from owning them by making her unable to buy them. That's why they are called stricter gun laws. Anyhoo, debating this with Americans is a mugs game. Can't believe I let myself get sucked in again. Then allow me to step in as a fellow Canuck. So remove all guns, but then whack jobs and such would have a different weapon of choice, say a knife or sword. So ban them. The above mentioned nutters are gonna have another weapon of choice, like explosives, some kind of evolved personal grenade or maybe bigger depending on what they want and can find on the net. Should we ban the net while we are at it? Because you gotta know the nutters and such are finding all kinds of support from other nutters and great ideas on how to blow up whole rooms of people at once. So ban explosives and the net. Now the whackjobs are using cars, hammers, and bows. The point is it never ends. That's because banning guns, or making them harder to get(which is fine by the way) treats the symptom, not the root problem. The problem is people are killing each other. How do you change that? Maybe jbg has it right about a community of people. People can get so isolated in the middle of society. Isolated but they can self medicate with whatever they get into. It's not healthy and it can lead to anything, obviously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Who's talking about banning guns? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Anyhoo, debating this with Americans is a mugs game. Can't believe I let myself get sucked in again.And of course, Canada with its strict gun laws, has never suffered gun shooting and death.Wilber, I prefer gun control laws but like Trudeau Jnr, I opposed the Liberal long gun registry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) I'm not familiar with types of guns - why is the Bushmaster .223 banned in Connecticut? I had read that the weapons used were A Sig Sauer handgun and a Glock handgun. The Bushmaster was found at the scene, probably a post ban M4 carbine variant. It is a very popular "assault rifle" style of firearm that replicates a Colt AR-15 (military version is an M-16) with a shorter barrel. The ban was in force federally from 1994 - 2004, but some states kept the ban in place. Weapons owned pre-ban were grandfathered in to the law for CT. Post ban models are semi-automatic only, but any skilled gunsmith can restore full auto function. Kits are sold on eBay ! Edited December 15, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Then allow me to step in as a fellow Canuck. So remove all guns, but then whack jobs and such would have a different weapon of choice, say a knife or sword. So ban them. Sure, but knifes are not nearly as effective: China stabbing spree hurts 22 school children. The above mentioned nutters are gonna have another weapon of choice, like explosives, some kind of evolved personal grenade or maybe bigger depending on what they want and can find on the net. Should we ban the net while we are at it? Because you gotta know the nutters and such are finding all kinds of support from other nutters and great ideas on how to blow up whole rooms of people at once. So ban explosives and the net. Now the whackjobs are using cars, hammers, and bows. The point is it never ends. That's because banning guns, or making them harder to get(which is fine by the way) treats the symptom, not the root problem. The problem is people are killing each other. How do you change that? Maybe jbg has it right about a community of people. People can get so isolated in the middle of society. Isolated but they can self medicate with whatever they get into. It's not healthy and it can lead to anything, obviously. Your slippery slope argument fails on so many levels. The most obvious ones being that explosives are regulated, even large purchases of fertilizer. As for bows - it's like the knife story above. Lacks efficiency. Cars and hammers? Well they have legitimate uses don't they? But guns? What does a semi-automatic have for uses? Oh, right, the efficient and effective killing of things. People in particular. But hey, the "nutter" must have been in a "well regulated militia" (or surly his mom was in one?) so he needed that gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Until we face the fact that the problem is people killing each other, then nothing will change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Cars and hammers? Well they have legitimate uses don't they? But guns? What does a semi-automatic have for uses? Oh, right, the efficient and effective killing of things. People in particular. There are many legal uses for many types of firearms, including semi-autos. But hey, the "nutter" must have been in a "well regulated militia" (or surly his mom was in one?) so he needed that gun. The "nutters" mother had a constitutionally protected right to own guns, and apparently complied with state registration laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Until we face the fact that the problem is people killing each other, then nothing will change. People have/will always kill each other. It is part of the human condition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Until we face the fact that the problem is people killing each other, then nothing will change. And man hasn't been able to face the fact of why he can't stop killing others in all his history, so what makes me think he'll wake up about it now? Nothing ever changes. But if we restrict guns, he'll feel better about it the next time children hit the ground. Edited December 15, 2012 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 The "nutters" mother had a constitutionally protected right to own guns, and apparently complied with state registration laws. Oh, so she was a member of a "well regulated militia?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Oh, so she was a member of a "well regulated militia?" No, she was an American. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 Until we face the fact that the problem is people killing each other, then nothing will change. Yes we should just ban people. Much better to allow people to be "free" to buy guns then allow kids the freedom to grow up should be the NRA's new motto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 15, 2012 Report Share Posted December 15, 2012 What good will that do? Do you have any ideas of your own? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.