School Shooters Under the Influence

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Blame everything but the guns! Not the guns!

Obviously not. We all know that the killer threw pills at the victims.

[Harsh_77 718]

Read my posts again. I see two problems. The pro-gun crowd, like the OP, only wants to discuss ONE of those problems. They're willing to throw any solution out there as long as it doesn't mention the guns they love so much.

He chose guns for the same reason that most people choose guns when they want to do something like this - they're easy to get and provide the most casualties possible in a very short period of time.

They don't choose knives, or baseball bats, or cars. They choose guns. Because there are so many out there just ready to be used. The guns shouldn't have been in the home to begin with, but they were. Why? Because it's easy for people to acquire them. And lots of them.

Restricting the guns might work / might not work, but the bigger problem with the younger generation is they cannot differentiate between reality and the video game.

We have developed this culture where we teach our younger generation they cannot be wrong and everyone is winner and everyone in the class gets a ribbon or award.

Look at the last 2 cases neither of them was the legal owner of the weapon, they stole the weapon. So you restrict weapon these guys with mental issue will find an alternative approach.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Look at the last 2 cases neither of them was the legal owner of the weapon, they stole the weapon. So you restrict weapon these guys with mental issue will find an alternative approach.

The guy did not steal the weapon - it was there for the taking because the lawful owner of these guns had failed in her responsibility to ensure that these guns are not getting into the wrong hands. The lawful owner of these guns was not capable of handling them responsibly and 20 children and 6 educators are dead because of that. They are not dead because the guy had mental issues, they are dead because the lawful owner of firearms was not capable of handling them responsibly.

[Karee 4,191]

Obviously not. We all know that the killer threw pills at the victims.

[Harsh_77 718]

The guy did not steal the weapon - it was there for the taking because the lawful owner of these guns had failed in her responsibility to ensure that these guns are not getting into the wrong hands. The lawful owner of these guns was not capable of handling them responsibly and 20 children and 6 educators are dead because of that. They are not dead because the guy had mental issues, they are dead because the lawful owner of firearms was not capable of handling them responsibly.

Neither case they did not have owner’s permission, shooters were not the legal owner.

Second case is where owner herself was shot and killed – you cannot expect her to restrain the weapons or anything at that point.

I completely agree it was wrong of her to deny the problems she had with this kid and thinking introducing him to guns would make him more responsible.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Neither case they did not have owner’s permission, shooters were not the legal owner.

So fcuking what? He got his hands on the weapons, didn't he? That means the legal owner handled them irrepsonsibly leaving them some place where the killer could easily get his hands on them.

[Harsh_77 718]

So fcuking what? He got his hands on the weapons, didn't he? That means the legal owner handled them irrepsonsibly leaving them some place where the killer could easily get his hands on them.

You don’t want to understand that they were acquired without the owner permission… which means that however much you talk about restricting the gun laws and closing the loophole nothing is going to work.

Ppl who are going to acquire it will acquire it no matter what the nut cases would not be restricted by the gun laws or closing of the loopholes.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Neither case they did not have owner’s permission, shooters were not the legal owner.

Second case is where owner herself was shot and killed – you cannot expect her to restrain the weapons or anything at that point.

I completely agree it was wrong of her to deny the problems she had with this kid and thinking introducing him to guns would make him more responsible.

They are not dead because the guy had mental issues,....I guess he seems normal to you...100 percent mental issues caused this act.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

They are not dead because the guy had mental issues,....I guess he seems normal to you...100 percent mental issues caused this act.

Mental issues and access to weapons.

[Harsh_77 718]

They are not dead because the guy had mental issues,....I guess he seems normal to you...100 percent mental issues caused this act.

Lanza’s mother is dead she was shot – she was the owner in the last case.

Unless you talking about another case or in another reference.

[Harsh_77 718]

Mental issues and access to weapons.

Evylin – I would agree with you if the Adam was sold a weapon and he would had passed the background check.

That was not the case, it was his mother who had purchased the weapon, so now are you saying her mother should not have been able to purchase a weapon too?

I would agree with you to an extent where purchaser’s mental condition was also considered a factor in the background check.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Evylin – I would agree with you if the Adam was sold a weapon and he would had passed the background check.

That was not the case, it was his mother who had purchased the weapon, so now are you saying her mother should not have been able to purchase a weapon too?

I would agree with you to an extent where purchaser’s mental condition was also considered a factor in the background check.

I do not care who bought them. All I said was that he had a mental illness and he had ACCESS to weapons. Unfortunately in this country, not being able to legally buy a weapon yourself doesn't mean you can't get one easily.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Evylin I would agree with you if the Adam was sold a weapon and he would had passed the background check.

That was not the case, it was his mother who had purchased the weapon, so now are you saying her mother should not have been able to purchase a weapon too?

I would agree with you to an extent where purchasers mental condition was also considered a factor in the background check.

I posted this in the other thread, background checks should be like military clearances. They should vett you, and your family, and closest friends. Before anyone gets a clearance, they is a thorough background check done on you. For Secret, they go back 5 years, Top Secret, 10 years. I have a TS and they called my parents, people I was stationed with and most of my friends. If there is some indication that you have a member that's close to you and has mental issues, that might warrant some concern.

The funny thing about all of these incidents is that they have two things in common, medication and guns. Yet people keep looking to figure out how to deal with the mental issues, but leave the guns in the equation. Take the guns out of it for a second. Would these people go to extreme lengths to kill multiple people? There have been posts with the knifes and 22 kids, but no one died. If a mentally ill person is going on the internet and building bombs that can take out 10+ people or making posions that infect large quanties of people, or using multiple ways to cause destruction you can focus on the mental angle and work on that, but the guns make it easier to carry out those heinous acts. That's what you should look at.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Su and Marvin

[Harsh_77 718]

I do not care who bought them. All I said was that he had a mental illness and he had ACCESS to weapons. Unfortunately in this country, not being able to legally buy a weapon yourself doesn't mean you can't get one easily.

That’s exactly the point of the pro gun folks, you restrict the legit gun owner the crazy nut would find another way to access them.

The case of the mall shooter, he or his family did not have weapon he stole it from friend.

So the whole point of blocking and making it difficult for the legit gun owner is not going to solve the problem, maybe will make some folks feel better for while.

[Harsh_77 718]

I posted this in the other thread, background checks should be like military clearances. They should vett you, and your family, and closest friends. Before anyone gets a clearance, they is a thorough background check done on you. For Secret, they go back 5 years, Top Secret, 10 years. I have a TS and they called my parents, people I was stationed with and most of my friends. If there is some indication that you have a member that's close to you and has mental issues, that might warrant some concern.

The funny thing about all of these incidents is that they have two things in common, medication and guns. Yet people keep looking to figure out how to deal with the mental issues, but leave the guns in the equation. Take the guns out of it for a second. Would these people go to extreme lengths to kill multiple people? There have been posts with the knifes and 22 kids, but no one died. If a mentally ill person is going on the internet and building bombs that can take out 10+ people or making posions that infect large quanties of people, or using multiple ways to cause destruction you can focus on the mental angle and work on that, but the guns make it easier to carry out those heinous acts. That's what you should look at.

I don’t know if it would be feasible to do such an extensive background check for every single purchase but I would agree the mental state of purchaser could be considered.

Again that is also a huge effort a system that would have all the health records nationwide.

Infact most talk show host or news media is more focused on guns over mental health issue, there is no focus on video game, acceptance of the violence, acceptance of the gang culture is hardly covered.

Most news media was more focused on why NRA did not make a statement…. Common.

NRA had nothing to do with why would NRA issue a statement.