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.
And yet the mother kept her guns where he could get at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker
That may be true, but money does guarantee you immediate access to a gun safe, which would have prevented this man from stealing his mothers guns..
What all this speculation is failing to take into account is that this man was an adult. He would have found a way to arm up regardless of his mother's propensity toward owning guns.
NOW IS THE TIME to take action by amending the 2nd Amendment to the extent of having a far more sufficient oversight on Gun Control.
Think logical; Because the permits are so easily obtained for virtually everyone, people are dying daily. Getting everybody armed is not solving the problem, but increases it. GETTING RID OF THE GUNS & VIOLENT ENTERTAINMENT is the only logical solution toward saving lives.
Because we are in bad times is no excuse to get armed!
Getting more involved in helping individuals in need and diminishing violent entertainment would have a positive effect to our society and environment.
Only well trained law enforcement services and military should be allowed to have guns when their on duty. Other than that, there is no reason why every private individual should bear arms in the first place. Were not living in 1776 anymore.
It`s high time for politicians to begin evaluating our legal right to bear arms and begin implementing more responsible control.
I don't think it's that simple. No one wants to bring back something like you'd see in that old movie, "Bedlam". But as for "keeping harmless people locked up"--well, did it do those harmless, mentally ill people a lot of good to let them out to wander around the streets of New York City, either, with no one to monitor whether they took their meds or not? Sure, most of them are not likely to hurt anyone else, but wandering through traffic, blathering away to people that no on else can see, sleeping on sidewalks in freezing temperatures, becoming the victims of cruel, "mentally healthy" people...I don't see the great advantage to that, either.
Was talking to a guy who works in a soup kitchen that also provides services to help the homeless beyond feeding them--gets them drug/alcohol treatment, for example, lets them take showers, get clothing. They had one guy wander in off the street one day, and in talking to him it turned out he was a Vietnam vet, one of those who was sprung from an institution because if he just took his meds, he'd be FINE. The problem is that once the meds run out, they don't realize they need to take them, they sink back into their illness, and they get lost on the street. This vet was one of those. He had DAV benefits coming to him FOR EIGHT YEARS that he had not collected because he had no address and no one knew where he was. This is a person who clearly needed to be looked after, and a person whose illness was directly related to service to our country, yet he was tossed out on the street to fend for himself and it failed.
But it was their rights that they fought for, not who would care for them after they were set free or where they would even go.
That was never dealt with; it was just going to magically happen all on its own.
We fight for rights but don't discuss the ramifications of giving those rights.
I find it absurd that liberals can only try to solve the mental health issues by bringing back those cruel insane asylums and locking up people for crimes they never committed.
Exactly right that the 1800s way isn't how it's done today - but as we see by the mass shootings, what's done today isn't working. No -- no more lobotomies but drugs accomplish the same thing. And I don't believe in drugging people against their wills either.
What's needed isn't what is being done today because we know that it isn't working, but to return to the 1800s style lockups isn't quite what is needed either.
I know of one mental institution that was a lock up and had those big eerie buildings but it also had gardens and workshops for the inmates. They actually could earn money by doing carpentry, re-upholstery, sewing and tailoring and sell garden products.
Maybe it could be something in between -- where there could be some structure, and occupational therapy (work and jobs) but without the stigma and inhumane treatment and warehousing of people.
The scary mental institutions of the 1800's that you fear simply do not exist today. And no, "liberals" are not trying to bring back cruel insane asylums. Where do you get such a ridiculous notion?
Believe me, I've recently been in a "lock up" institution.... it's really just like a hospital which you have to get "buzzed into" through a security checkpoint. There are TONS of activities and a schedule to create a sense of consistency which is so important for the mentally ill. They learn all kinds of things (art, music, etc.), but don't get traditional "job training" because in all seriousness, there is NO WAY they will be able to hold a job on the outside. Some can't even feed or clean themselves properly. Those who are more "aware" do indeed make things and sell them for extra spending money. Those who are more cognitive and deemed safe for society go on highly-supervised field trips. It's really not that bad!
In short, people who get locked up today really really really need to be locked up. It doesn't mean they are mistreated at all... in fact, there are frequent surprise inspections and audits to make sure their rights are being preserved and conditions are kept inline with government standards. Most patients don't even see it as a limitation of their freedom. They just don't understand it and welcome the consistency of schedule.
But it was their rights that they fought for, not who would care for them after they were set free or where they would even go.
That was never dealt with; it was just going to magically happen all on its own.
We fight for rights but don't discuss the ramifications of giving those rights.
Yes, but let's be realistic. It had nothing to do with "rights" and everything to do with not spending money.
That's a good point. That is the age when schizophrenia mostly shows up.
Also wondered why he targeted the little kids. Did something happen to HIM at that age? Was there something in his memory connected to first grade? (Just speculating here, based on nothing I've seen or heard.)
he may have had words in the midst of hatred for his mother and told her to add horror and devastation to her...I'm going to kill all your students and friends at the school....so it might be possible things may be bridged here somewhat and not entirely independent. He may have in evil demented mind killed himself alongside the killing of the children and the overwhelming of his mother. A sick evil mad individual.
Last edited by stargazzer; 12-16-2012 at 11:12 AM..
I guarantee you.. If her guns had been stored in a gun safe, this rocket scientist wouldn't have been able to get access to them. The only way he could have then is with the combination...
However, as I posted in another thread, if the guns were readily available why did he try to buy a gun using his brother's name?
Adam Lanza’s mother taught her son how to become a killing machine who used what he learned from her about firing guns to commit one of the worst massacres in American history at a Connecticut elementary school.
Weapon-loving Nancy Lanza regularly took her awkward loner-son Adam to shooting ranges, where the painfully shy boy — who suffered from the autism-related Asperger’s syndrome — blasted away targets using his mom’s small arsenal of guns.
“She’d take them to the range a lot . . . Nancy was an enthusiast — so much so that she wanted to pass it on to her kids,” said her former landscaper and occasional drinking buddy Dan Holmes.
That's a good point. That is the age when schizophrenia mostly shows up.
Also wondered why he targeted the little kids. Did something happen to HIM at that age? Was there something in his memory connected to first grade? (Just speculating here, based on nothing I've seen or heard.)
Some skrinks say it could have been out of jealousy, that he killed the kids because he thought his mother loved them more than him. Such is a sick mind. The kids he killed were his mothers students.
The reports are that the kid (shooter) was home schooled. Gun nut parents, home schooled kid. This is coming together.
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.
Amend the 2nd amendment !
