Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-17-2012, 02:13 PM
 
1,229 posts, read 1,144,397 times
Reputation: 667

Advertisements

I still say something is wrong with the mother. Why did she even buy an AR.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-17-2012, 02:14 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,656,690 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by itlltickleurinnerds View Post
I still say something is wrong with the mother. Why did she even buy an AR.
Probably because she was convinced by the radical right that Obama was dead-set on Destroying Freedomâ„¢ and Destroying Americaâ„¢.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,983,795 times
Reputation: 6190
Quote:
Originally Posted by itlltickleurinnerds View Post
So the law needs to be strengthened, People who own guns should be asked do you have anyone living with you or that will have access to your guns that has had a history of mental illness, and remind them they can be charged with a crime if they lie or if the person gets ahold of their guns. Maybe it would have made this woman think twice about her situation. One other thing, there is something that stinks in the wood pile. This woman is said to have been in fear of what ever and wanted protection, first of I own and have built ARs, AKs, M1A1s, Garands bla bla bal FNFALs Mini14s ect. and never have I ever kept one for self defence in my home. I carry a Ruger SR9c and keep a Glock 27 hidden in my home. An AR is not a good weapon for home defence. A shotgun, short barreled pump maybe, but an AR no not buying it. Something is wrong here. I have read that she was a survivalist, but then that was refuted. It may take a week or more but something is wrong here.
Yes, from what I've read, something seemed odd in that house, for lack of a better term. Any truly responsible gun owner would not have kept or allowed their mentally ill child access to guns. In addition, an AR-15 is more novelty and less self defense. I, like many others, can only speculate but it's also why I caution against knee jerk reactions to this particular incident.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 02:17 PM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,647,311 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by itlltickleurinnerds View Post
Just as there is a closed pool thanks to Ronnie Reagan, of automatic weapons, [no new weapons can be put in the system for private ownership, and those weapons that do exist for private ownership have to be sold through a class 3 dealer and you have to submit to an extensive back ground check, and then pay a 200 dollar stamp tax. once you own one you can not sell it at the local seven eleven. It has to be sold the same way you bought it.] This is why there is no to very few crimes committed with legal full auto weapons.

So why not create a new classification of gun. The semi auto pistol and rifle. If you buy or sell one, you have to pay say 50 bucks to the gov. to do a back ground check on you, and then you own that gun and can not sell it no mater what your local laws are at the wal-mart parking lot to god knows who. It has to be transfered each time you sell. Yep its a bit of a *****, and I myself a gun owner to the tune at one time of 150 guns [I am a bit of a collector] have sold guns legally in parking lots, AR and a Cetme[all legally]. But if it stops things like what happened last week a bit of hassle is nothing compared to the life of a 5yo.
Why all the new taxes? Is government going to cure all the criminally insane people with those new taxes? Not that many in government would complain about a new source of tax revenue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 02:19 PM
 
1,229 posts, read 1,144,397 times
Reputation: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Yes, from what I've read, something seemed odd in that house, for lack of a better term. Any truly responsible gun owner would not have kept or allowed their mentally ill child access to guns. In addition, an AR-15 is more novelty and less self defense. I, like many others, can only speculate but it's also why I caution against knee jerk reactions to this particular incident.
We agree on this, I say its not being responsible using a rifle for self defence in a home. Most any rifle bullet will not only go through the tissue paper walls on most homes unless you live in Fla and have cement walls, but the next door neighbors wall ect. Even hand guns should have fragmentation rounds so if you miss in the dark and hit drywall when it comes out the other side its not going to do much damage to a person not intended to be hit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 02:22 PM
 
1,229 posts, read 1,144,397 times
Reputation: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Why all the new taxes? Is government going to cure all the criminally insane people with those new taxes? Not that many in government would complain about a new source of tax revenue.
If you want to have mental checks, and take care of the mentaly ill it has to be paid for by someone. Taxes are where this revenue comes from. I am not for rolling back the second amendment, but we do need more oversight and regulation and we as gun owners have to pay for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 02:22 PM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,647,311 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Yes, from what I've read, something seemed odd in that house, for lack of a better term. Any truly responsible gun owner would not have kept or allowed their mentally ill child access to guns. In addition, an AR-15 is more novelty and less self defense. I, like many others, can only speculate but it's also why I caution against knee jerk reactions to this particular incident.
Definitely a family where mental and physical illness was a common factor, that's for sure. Now we will have to wait for the federal government to create laws and regulations to prevent people with illnesses like these from existing. Unfortunately, that's an impossibility, because some people will always suffer a mental illness of some sort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 02:23 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,983,795 times
Reputation: 6190
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Definitely a family where mental and physical illness was a common factor, that's for sure. Now we will have to wait for the federal government to create laws and regulations to prevent people with illnesses like these from existing. Unfortunately, that's an impossibility, because some people will always suffer a mental illness of some sort.
Yeah but we could at least make the commitment of known dangerous mental ill less cumbersome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 02:24 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,656,690 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Yes, from what I've read, something seemed odd in that house, for lack of a better term. Any truly responsible gun owner would not have kept or allowed their mentally ill child access to guns. In addition, an AR-15 is more novelty and less self defense. I, like many others, can only speculate but it's also why I caution against knee jerk reactions to this particular incident.
And so in this case, you're relying on the honour system to keep guns out of the wrong hands. That is, Nancy Lanza should have known that her son was mentally ill and capable of murdering 27 people. Otherwise, she was not a responsible gun owner.

Do you see how your view of the gun world contains far too many fail points?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-17-2012, 02:26 PM
 
14,293 posts, read 9,647,311 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by itlltickleurinnerds View Post
If you want to have mental checks, and take care of the mentaly ill it has to be paid for by someone. Taxes are where this revenue comes from. I am not for rolling back the second amendment, but we do need more oversight and regulation and we as gun owners have to pay for it.
Just how exactly will you screen these people? Not every mentally ill person will fail a simple written test. Then what do you do once our government has declared them mentally ill? Will they get the option of a retest? And how will you screen out people who were sane when they bought a gun, but years later they slowly went insane? Then can we do it for drivers licenses too?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top