Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You claimed base off media reports the mother knew this kid was nuts and still did all this. Like I said you and I don't know that and neither does the media. She's dead so she can't refute your or their claims. I hope our proud of yourself.
Here let me add your quote.......
"according to media accounts, his mother new full well her son was unstable, and yet she trained him to use the guns that he used to kill those children."
My step-son has asberger's syndrome, and there is no way in hell I would ever take him to a rifle range and teach him how to shoot guns. And I believe that any parent that does this is guilty of child abuse. You want a gun? Join the friggin army.
My step-son has asberger's syndrome, and there is no way in hell I would ever take him to a rifle range and teach him how to shoot guns. And I believe that any parent that does this is guilty of child abuse. You want a gun? Join the friggin army.
What's the difference between an "assult" (sic) weapon and a "normal" one?
Oh, excuse me! Typo alert! ASSAULT. There is that better?
Any rapid-fire weapon that is capable of holding an extreme amount of rounds should not be in the hands of civilians.
Call them what you will. I just have a .25 Beretta that I haven't used in many years.
You can go right ahead and make fun of me because I don't know the names, calibres, sizes, types, dimensions, characteristics of any and all weapons. That's OK. My definition of an assAult weapon is noted above.
Between my step dad, and step brother when I was growing we had plenty of guns in my house. Both law abiding citizens. So why should the rest of the law abiding gun owners have to suffer, because someone went Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?! Yes this is a horrible tragedy! Yes this was senseless! But the majority of gun owners, are responsible law abiding citizens, and would not do something like this! I'd rather those law abiding citizens still have the option to defend themselves from people like the shooter, because again, guess what???? People like the shooter DON'T CARE!!!! They are going to find a way to get guns, or find ANOTHER way to kill people!
Good question. How about we get rid of all airport security using the same logic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdwardA
So anyway details of the Lanza divorce are emerging. The father was paying more than half of his income to the woman in alimony and still paying most of the expenses. Seems to me he wanted out and out fast. I wonder if he implored this woman to put this boy away and exasperated he just wrote them off?
It must be hard knowing you brought such evil into the world and did little to stop it.
And you have inside information that the father "did little to stop it?" How do you know he didn't implore the mother to have the kid put away or even try himself?
I haven't seen any security guards or metal detectors at any schools. Cameras do little more than allow someone to watch the horror unfold. They can notify authorities but even the quickest response time is too slow. Security - stopping security - has to be onsite.
There have been lots of cases where a student flashed or fired a gun he brought but the vast majority of these "maximum lethality" cases are outsiders coming onto campus. Why is there no perimeter security like an entrance gate.
Well, it's a reality. Schools do have metal detectors. And my high school and middle schools in HISD did have security guards. What makes people think that a security guard is not going to be so easily shot?
I've seen security guards playing on their cell phone and sleeping, for cryin' out loud!
My step-son has asberger's syndrome, and there is no way in hell I would ever take him to a rifle range and teach him how to shoot guns. And I believe that any parent that does this is guilty of child abuse. You want a gun? Join the friggin army.
Any rapid-fire weapon that is capable of holding an extreme amount of rounds should not be in the hands of civilians.
How rapid is too rapid? How many rounds is "extreme"? You have to be specific, we're talking about banning certain firearms. "I know it when I see it" doesn't cut it.
Quote:
I just have a .25 Beretta that I haven't used in many years.
Be careful with your answers to the above, because if you go overboard, you may well label your own pistol as an "assault weapon".
Oh, excuse me! Typo alert! ASSAULT. There is that better?
Any rapid-fire weapon that is capable of holding an extreme amount of rounds should not be in the hands of civilians.
Call them what you will. I just have a .25 Beretta that I haven't used in many years.
You can go right ahead and make fun of me because I don't know the names, calibres, sizes, types, dimensions, characteristics of any and all weapons. That's OK. My definition of an assAult weapon is noted above.
Wait, by your logic you're morally responsible for this shooting as the owner of a gun. Do you think of yourself in that way?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.