Yep. This tragedy would not have been prevented at all as the Mother legally purchased the guns. The amount of guns purchased is irrelevant to the story because even one gun would have resulted in the same outcome. I really wish lawmakers would look at this realistically. The kid was a dooshbag and leave it at that.
If Lanza’s mother did not have any guns, he may not have been able to perform his crime that day. It may have taken him more days or even years before he perhaps figured out a way to get guns or perhaps he would have realized it would be easier to make a bomb. He was highly intelligent. A bomb would kill even more people.
He himself was a ticking time bomb. The type of weapon is largely irrelevant to his story. He was going to go off. It was just a matter of time.
But background checks are a point of law and this mass murder started with the murderer shooting his own mother in the face with a firearm that he stole from her. He then stole her car and drove away, and used those firearms to murder two dozen more people.
I hate to state the obvious, but in all of human history, murdering your own mother in cold blood is about the most horrible crime that anyone can commit, even in areas and circumstances where there is no government law that prohibits it.
This horrible incident shows the limits of secular law, a concept that never enters the minds of people for whom government is god.
We need to stop giving Ethnic Group/Protected Class status to the Mentally Ill
Too many today make excuses for the Mentally Ill, not make them responsible.
One of the biggest liberal mantras is that the 94 AWB (Assault Weapons Ban)should be reinstated. You hear it from them all over the place in relation to this massacre in CT. However nobody ever confronts them with the facts. That being that the AWB is still in effect and is still the law in CT. Every state that borders CT. (NY,MA,RI) also still has the AWB as law today. So how would implementing a law that is still in force prevent anything. Would two identical laws be better than one. The only thing I can think of is that their intentions are not to reinstate the 94 AWB, but to go beyond it.
Does anyone remember the Kip Kinkle case in Oregon about 10 years ago. In that case the father bought his disturbed 15 year old son 2 guns, which he used a short time later to kill his father, mother and several people at his high school.
The problem here seems to be parents that are not too smart.
Ms Lanza knew she had an off kilter son. Was it responsible of her to have guns in the home, even locked up as he was probably smart enough to get past the locks?
Same with teenagers sneaking their father’s booze or getting someone to go into the convenience store for them. How many gang members are carrying legally? All these regulations aren’t for society’s safety but for more money into the government’s pocket.
Why weren’t the weapons secured in a safe?
Sounds like the mother was well off financially. If she was a responsible gun owner she should have had a gun safe. Given her son had problems that should have been a no-brainer.
How about annual background checks on teachers. Any teachers with crazy family members lose their teaching license. Problem solved with inverse lib logic.
Well, that settles it. We have to outlaw guns. < \idiot obama mentality>