I'm imagining the shopping list: 2 pr socks, 5 TV dinners, 3 cans cat food, 10 red rubber baby buggy bumpers, a Glock, a Bushmaster, 3 spare clips and 100 rounds.
Better yet is not to keep an arsenal in the house at all. Looks like she was planning for combat duty. I wonder why. Rural Connecticut doesn't seem the streets of LA or NYC. I wonder what she was afraid of. I wonder if she had mental issues herself.
The rest of the world manages with gun control laws in some way, shape or form. Even Switzerland has very strict rules and laws in place (they restrict ammunition, for example). So what makes you so special that you don't think you can survive if you are prevented from owning assault weapons? Why do you need military grade weapons? Why should such weapons be sold in stores like Walmart? And I am serious here. Why do civilians need military type weapons? Self preservation? Are you expecting an army to come storming through your door or something? Are you afraid your property is going to be stormed by armed gangs going for your TV? I mean you can't even hunt with it. So why do you need to be able to purchase such weapons? Don't forget. Your laws allowed the likes of McVeigh to purchase these weapons legally. Would that poster you linked earlier exist if he had opted to shoot his victims instead, as he claims he wished he had done? The woman was paranoid and was stockpiling food, water and an armory apparently. A trigger lock would prevent her from shooting anyone who could come for her precious metals when the world ended.
There's been couple of people here who have posted things in a effort to present the idea that the killer in this case might well have not been mentally ill. I responded to one stating that what they posted was simply an opinion and nothing more. I've also commented here that so far (until this moment right now) that everything I've seen in the news was focusing on gun control as THE answer to the problem of mass murder. But I've now seen one very short NBC news video (I'll attach a link) that at least points out that mental problems are HIGHLY neglected in this country. Link: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/50230964/#50230964 And one more thing: You may say anything you like but you will never convince me that normal, sane people just decide to become mass killers - especially of children - without having one or more screws loose in their brain. Accept it or not, in this case and the similar ones, there's most certainly mental illness involved.
Considering the final outcome, I think she would have served herself better, if she had been seeking power and excitement, with a motorcycle instead of guns.
Funny thing about my argument is, people are saying "oh, you're just using right wing/NRA logic"... I'm not a member of either. I'm not saying gun control isn't the answer... I'm simply stating a blunt fact - banning guns entirely is not going to do a damned bit of good. Required shopping list for anyone who wants to own a gun should include (if only by virtue of common sense), a trigger lock for each gun and a gun safe with a combination lock to keep them in. Reason for the combination lock is simple - that way, you can't just break into someone's house, grab the key, and steal the guns. Double points if the gun safe is concealed. Again, don't blame the damned tool... unless, of course, I get to say that pencils cause students to do poorly in school and spoons make people fat... blame how the tool is used. The problem isn't guns; the problem IS people and how they use them (or in a lot of cases, simply leave them laying around) So, quit with the arguments of "omg bahn guns" and let's perhaps focus on something that would help keep guns safe. Personally, I think a full background check should be required for anyone purchasing a weapon. Mandatory accessories for the gun include a trigger lock. Also require mandatory training courses before you are allowed to get ANY kind of gun permit, and make it so those courses actually MEAN something (I know with the one I went to, you could take the test at the end three times - if you failed it three times, you had to wait a week before retaking the course... I say once and done, if you fail, sucks to be you try again next year)
Most likely. The neighbours described her as nice but seemed nervous beneath the surface. Imo stocking guns and food as the extreme survivalists do is in itself a sign of madness. Maybe she convinced her son the end was near and he didn't see any other solution but to "save" the children from the coming horrors of the Apocalypse? Maybe they watched Terminator together one time too many.
No one is saying that gun control is the only answer to mass murder. But it is one step in a society plagued by gun violence. Restricting access to weapons that belong in warfare is one step. And no one is saying that mental health is not a problem either and the lack of facilities and the costs involved in privately treating mentally ill people in the US (and elsewhere for that matter) means that most goes untreated. Whatever steps the US should take cannot be stop gap measures or overly reactionary. But even prior to this shooting, something needed to be done. Not just because of mass shootings but simply because gun violence is so prevalent in the US. That said, you have reached that point now where you could tip either way. Australia was there several years ago after the Port Arthur massacre and there was an immediate demand for gun control. Because here we had a well to do upper middle class white male who legally acquired semi automatic weapons and he went on a rampage in a tourist spot, killing dozens of innocent people. And the questions at the time were 'how could he have even bought these weapons?'.. And those questions became louder and louder and the newly elected Conservative government at the time listened and also asked the same question. And this was a Government that formed part of what we call the National Party, which normally represents the farmers and the traditional gun owners. What that Government then did was to put into place laws restricting and banning access to any form of automatic weapons and then implemented a gun buyback scheme and the response was overwhelming. Even guns that were not illegal were turned in voluntarily. We had reached that watershed moment. After several mass shootings in a fairly short period of time, Port Arthur was the moment where the populace said enough was enough and demanded something be done. You can still purchase a weapon in Australia, but you have to go through a range of background and police checks and psychological tests and yes, you do have to keep these weapons under lock and key. And people do buy them. I know several who do own guns. What struck me about this latest shooting in the US was not so much the shooter but his mother. Here we have a wealthy woman, who was legally allowed to purchase a huge range of weapons and did so legally and openly. She openly declared and discussed her arsenal and she also freely stated that she was a 'prepper'.. She was so paranoid that she was prepping for the end of the world as we know it.. the supposed economic collapse and anarchy.. So she stockpiled weapons, food and water. I mean this woman clearly had issues. She was also living with a mentally ill son. And yet, she was still legally allowed to obtain these weapons. Amazingly enough, the local police were shocked by just how many weapons she owned. And I thought to myself 'wow, she didn't even have to register those weapons with her local law enforcement?'.. There was no one to check that those weapons were locked away properly? The police in the US don't check these things? They don't question or made to know about people who are stockpiling weapons in their homes for the supposed end of the world? I admit, I don't understand how a woman like her was able to amass so many weapons and no one even raised an eyebrow about it. No one raised an eyebrow when she took her mentally ill son shooting at the shooting range, mentally ill son everyone knew had problems.. And yet, no one thought to question her as to why she was teaching him to shoot.. Why did she need these types of weapons? How can no one have asked her that? That is what I do not understand..
Okay, maybe I've missed something, but the comments on this thread that I've seen have not been about guilt/responsibility, they've been about the fact that putting more resources into mental health problems in this country may help prevent things like this in the future. It would certainly help thousands of people who are suffering from mental illness, so it kinda seems like a win-win to me.
At the farm supply store down the road from my house, that's a one stop shopping trip that would take me about a half hour. The biggest hurdles in bomb murder are in trying to get away with it. Anyone on a suicide trip can set up the bomb itself pretty easily, and deploy it effectively without much in the way of skill or practice. And people out to do mass murder without the personal psychiatric twists tend to choose bombs over guns, for that and other reasons. The US has the unique problem of having ensconced the right of citizens to possess working military grade weaponry in its Constitution. But even with that restriction we could more closely regulate things like high capacity handguns, assault rifles, and the like. The principle would not be the one behind licensing cars, say (cars are far more dangerous than guns, and possession is not Constitutionally protected), but rather something like the regulating of septic systems, wells, swimming pools, large dogs, and other potential hazards. These rare and horrific amok runnings (the fact that there are terms for such rampages in other languages helps provide context, here) are not our highest priority problem, after all. Neither are the drug murders, which are mostly contained and avoidable. It's the constant stream of accidents, impulses, temper flareups, domestic flip-outs, ricochets, hunting errors, and so forth, that are doing the damage. And in the US there is no way to address them via the guns themselves - too many guns, too widespread, to infused. As with cigarette smoking, tobacco spitting, garbage dumping, etc, the approach to such things is more effectively social than legal.
Seems like this terrible act was born of enormous rage or frustration, rather than the act of a delusional maniac. Have no idea why sciforums would be a typical place for Lanza other than he liked technology, apparently. The LIKELIHOOD and LETHALITY of this may have been reduced by a ban on military grade assault weapons. In the end as a thousand others have said, it is clear that American culture is unique in producing monsters like Lanza. They are the predictable product of the deterioration of values and family and community structures, which began after WWII. Why is everyone so surprised? I'm not. Saddened, not surprised.
I wonder if the mother went ever to church, because she seams to so insecure that she had to arm herself and I doubt scum son was raised in a God fearing home . I would not be surprised if they were not atheists. Go
So far the only 'mental health' issue for this killer is Aspergers. But: http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/201...as-connecticut-killing-spree-experts-say?lite And: When Lanza's parents divorced in 2009, the settlement left his mother with a comfortable income and the comfort of knowing that the then-17-year-old boy would have his education paid for and his medical insurance covered. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/nancy-lanza-peter-lanza-divorce_n_2316461.html So there is (so far) no indication that more resources would have helped this situation. It appears the family DID have the resources available to them. And that is assuming it was a mental health issue and not just another a$$hole with a grudge. There are outstanding questions regarding the homeschooling and what inspired mom to pull her kid out of school. IF the school suggested further steps (such as medication), I am unsure just how far you or I (read government) should be allowed to force minors to take pills against a parents wishes. There is too much documentation on the over-medicating of children via school suggestion. So I am unsure if it is a win-win as I have seen a parents fight (with the professionals) over the wrong medication and its side effects on their child. We dont know if these guns were unlocked/unsecured. We only know he stole his mothers guns to commit this crime.
Today an 11-year old boy in Utah brought and gun to school and started waving it around. He said his parents wanted him to take the gun to protect himself and his friends, if something like Sandy Hook would happen again. The parents deny everything and the boy is taken out of school.
Reports are now coming out that it may have been the mother's attempt to have this psycho institutionalized that set him off: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No wait, according to the senate it was: VIDEO GAMES! Interesting quotes despite the move to study if video games was the cause: "According to FBI statistics, youth violence has declined in recent years as computer and video game popularity soared. We do not claim that the increased popularity of games caused the decline, but the evidence makes a mockery of the suggestion that video games cause violent behavior." Max Fisher at The Washington Post analyzed the 10 largest video game markets in the world and found no statistical correlation between video game consumption and gun-related killings. Of course we all suspected he was insane and that the guns themselves were not a motive, its just he has access to guns and used them, that is a problem, sure its not THE problem, but this case has revealed several problems: - Lack of viable psychological policies for detecting and treating psychos BEFORE they commit murder - Lack of gun laws and polices that would have prevented or reduced the chances that people like this guy's mother would have guns that he could access, in short lack of gun laws that would have prevented psychos like this from getting guns.
