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.
Doesn't it seem way more likely and probable that a sick person will get a hold of a semi-automatic and take his hostility out on society, than for the government to come in and turn on us? The former actually happens. The latter is paranoia.
Exactly
He wouldn't care but wouldn't it had been much harder for him to get his crazy hands on one, had they been illegal? His mom bought them, legally.
It has nothing to do with me feeling good about me. It has to do with the safety of the general public. I'm thinking of my own child innocently walking in the mall or in school.
Lots of people see psychologists. And they get better. Lots of people are crazy and never see one.
You still haven't outlined hwo you will prevent bad guys and the mentally insane from getting access to guns. I tink your solution is reactionary, ie non-thinking, emotion based.
I own multiple guns because they each serve a different purpose. My breech load side by side shotgun is used for birding and skeet. It would be silly to try and use my .22 rifle or .40 handgun for such a thing. Same as it would be silly to use my shotgun for small game. The .22 would be appropriate there.
I can't speak to this woman's intent as I would not have owned and kept guns in a house with a mentally ill child.
I can speak for our culture being a mess, right down to owning four guns that could be used for the purpose her son did, who also grew up "appreciating" guns despite his abilities.
If there had been a ban on semi-automatic weapons, would it have prevented this shooting in CT?
Hell no. so why do liberals act like this is the solution? i marvel at that. they think they got it all figured out and they don't. but it is about feeling good about themselves regardless of the efficacy of their so called solution.
Once again, his mom bought the weapons. Had they been illegal, there is a good chance he would not have had them. You've seen pictures of him, right? Does he look like the kind who would have been dealing with illegal gun thugs in the black market?? No. He was an "honors" student flying under the radar living with mommy. had she not been able to buy them in the first place the lunatic would not have had them.
I have been thinking about this a lot. I propose that we crack down on these dangerous folks and their families. Trying to mainstream them has not worked. Our current gun laws did work, Adam was not able to buy a gun. So what does he do, he steals his mothers. She was completely irresponsible for having unlocked guns around this kid. Taking him to the shooting range?, what an idiot. I would not be against an amendment to prohibit the sell of guns to anyone who has a challenged person under their roof, though I admit that might not be the answer either (they could just go break into a neighbor's house and steal their funs). As a responsible gun owner though, I don't feel that I should suffer because a few jackasses have issues. Lock them up and if they and their families get their feelings hurt, that's tough. Enough is enough, I don't want them around my family.
i don't see how it's irresponsible to take your kid to the gun range. She probably talked to him about gun safety too, it's that irresponsible? She had no idea this kid was going to shoot her and a bunch of kids, otherwise she would have been a lot more cautious. you act like she knew her son was a homocidal killer in waiting and that just isn't a logical assertion.
Once again, his mom bought the weapons. Had they been illegal, there is a good chance he would not have had them. You've seen pictures of him, right? Does he look like the kind who would have been dealing with illegal gun thugs in the black market?? No. He was an "honors" student flying under the radar living with mommy. had she not been able to buy them in the first place the lunatic would not have had them.
how do you know he doesn't have another family member that owns guns? what is to stop him from constructing a bomb of some sort at the school? your view is very reactionary, and it ignores the fact the vast majority of gun owners don't shoot somebody else. so obviously there is more to this than just access to firearms. I would look at his mentaly illness but you don't seem interested in t hat b/c you can't ban that. _
what is the obession with the 4 guns his mom owned, did this guy have 4 hands? do liberals think limiting people to just one gun with somehow prevent a shooting? there is no relevance here to how many guns the mother owned. one would have been enough for this to happen.
If you need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon for a successful hunting expedition maybe you should take up fishing instead?
Five or six round magazines should be plenty adequate. When the second amendment was passed weapons were only single shot due to technology of the day so getting a five or six round magazine should be considered a bonus.
Exactly. Who the hell needs a semi-automatic to go hunting with. Or to "protect the home". From who? A band of zombies?? That's the only reason you'd need an assault rifle or semi-automatic. An intruder could be subdued by less than an automatic. Come on, lets get real.
And for those who say "liberals" are not concerned with mental health in the first place? Look back and research who votes for more mental health services. hint: not conservatives, usually.
Exactly. Who the hell needs a semi-automatic to go hunting with. Or to "protect the home". From who? A band of zombies?? That's the only reason you'd need an assault rifle or semi-automatic. An intruder could be subdued by less than an automatic. Come on, lets get real.
And for those who say "liberals" are not concerned with mental health in the first place? Look back and research who votes for more mental health services. hint: not conservatives, usually.
i actually think liberals push the notion that the mentally ill are jus tlike everybody else, ie we can't judge anybody.
you still haven't shown how criminals and mentally ill will be prevented from obtaining firearms if they want to shoot people up. You t hink if the government bans it, problem solved. that's some kind of childish wishcasting there. and i dont' understand why you think banning semi-automic weapons does anything, why can't they just other types of firearms. They are all lethal weapons, so harping on semi-automic weapons seems like a irrelevant point. they call can kill people.
I don't care how many guns people have. ( I have 3)
BUT the owner of the guns should be held responsible for any crime committed using those guns.
I am held responsible if my dog bites someone.
I am held responsible if someone dies in my pool.
I am held responsible if my deck is unstable, and someone falls and gets hurt.
Why shouldn't I be responsible if someone gets my gun and harms others? Most stolen guns are unsecured, many are stolen from inside cars.
Even the NRA says that ALL responsible owners should secure their guns. Let's take it one step further, and make owners legally responsible.
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.
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.
_
