The aftermath - realistic assessments of the situation please - Page 4

Dashunde · December 19, 2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

One thing that has struck me about the discussion in the Newtown tragedy is his access to his mother's guns. His family has admitted they knew he had mental issues, yet the guns he used in the murders were not, apparently, secured sufficiently to keep them out of his hands. Is there a law in CT about the owner being responsible for crimes committed with weapons he owned that were not secured? If his mother had survived, would she have been prosecuted for not securing her guns?

If those guns had been in a safe, with the door locked, he'd have had no easy access to firearms ... there are so many things that should be done to help prevent a repeat of Newtown; let's enforce laws about securing firearms ... let's see the feds actually prosecute those who use guns in crime on gun charges, and not bargain them away to speed the process

Exactly.

K_Mac · December 19, 2012, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Obviously I have guns and shoot for enjoyment. If my grand babies were killed in one of these incidents I would be asking how the right to own a semiautomatic weapon, 30 round clips out the wazoo, and thousands of rounds of ammo supersedes my families right to life. This argument is probably going to get ugly. The arms manufacturers and munitions companies will fight like hell. Funny in a sad way that the rhetoric about political action on gun ownership drives sales of guns through the roof.

Colorado Redneck as a grandfather with four grand babies in elementary school I understand your fear. I also understand your desire to do something to stop the senseless killings. We all want to stop the proliferation of violence and evil in this world. What we cannot do is gut the 2A in our desire to do something. The consequences of that will effect the lives of our children and grandchildren in ways that also scare the hell out of me.

zincwarrior · December 19, 2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:

In all honesty, despite the recent political climate and the horrific events that have occurred.

What is the likely hood of something actually successfully being passed?

I would say its extremely high now, as in statistical certainty. I'd give a 90% chance that reinstatement of the old ban will occur within 90 days of the new Congress, if that long.

Kimio · December 19, 2012, 10:47 AM

So much for my FAL build. It's really disheartening really. It's idiotic as well, as the laws already in place did absolutely NOTHING to stop this from occuring.

zincwarrior · December 19, 2012, 10:50 AM

No disagreement from me. I'm for more detailed background checks and more focus on mental healththe gun aspect, but the heavy focus should be on the mental health industry and the fact all these people had massive run ins previously with schools, police etc.

Fishing_Cabin · December 19, 2012, 11:14 AM

just saw on the tele that VP Biden has been put in charge of the gun control debate, pathway they want to go down.

Xfire68 · December 19, 2012, 11:23 AM

Quote:

At minimum, there will be a huge effort to limit magazines to 10 rounds.

Not sure what good this would do? There are millions of hi-cap mags out there already.

A ban on them would do little for at least 30-50 years when these mags start to ware or break. Many of these mags will last 100 years.

Stressfire · December 19, 2012, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Not sure what good this would do? There are millions of hi-cap mags out there already.

A ban on them would do little for at least 30-50 years when these mags start to ware or break. Many of these mags will last 100 years.

Yup. Now try explaining that to an emotionally charged anti.

I'd be willing to bet my AR that the first words out of their mouth would be some variation of "they should be taken away from people who have them"

Think tracking those who possess the guns was hard, try tracking down every "hi-cap" mag made since 2004 and prior to 1994.

JimDandy · December 19, 2012, 11:51 AM

Quote:

If those guns had been in a safe, with the door locked, he'd have had no easy access to firearms ... there are so many things that should be done to help prevent a repeat of Newtown; let's enforce laws about securing firearms ... let's see the feds actually prosecute those who use guns in crime on gun charges, and not bargain them away to speed the process ...

She took her boys to a range and handed them guns to shoot at the range. They didn't turn and spray the other shooters. Her boy had issues, but hadn't given indications he was this messed up, apparently. If you even suspected your kid was messed up enough to shoot you in the head while you sleep, would you take him to a practice range? For all we know, those guns were in a safe, or had trigger locks, or other security arrangements. Mine do, and I dont have youngsters around. But my family can get at them any time they want too. I don't feel worried my close relatives are going to take my guns and shoot me in the head at night.

Edit: Even if the guns had been locked away from the kid, he knew his mom, and he was mentally ill, not stupid. By all accounts so far, he was actually very bright, and probably would have been able to guess a combination, or take the emergency key or triggerlock key out of her purse while she slept. Put yourself in her shoes for a minute. How difficult would it be to secure your firearms from your wife, or adult children if you gave them free run of your house for a week or more, and had no reason to suspect they would actively and aggressively try to get into your guns?

Quote:

Obviously I have guns and shoot for enjoyment. If my grand babies were killed in one of these incidents I would be asking how the right to own a semiautomatic weapon, 30 round clips out the wazoo, and thousands of rounds of ammo supersedes my families right to life.

I would ask why you think the 30 round magazines, and sem-automatic rifle were actually required for what he did. He went to an area almost assuredly gun-free. He could have accomplished the same thing with a revolver and speed loads. To be honest, he could have accomplished the same thing with a black powder replica and as many rounds in pre-loaded cylinders.

Look at This pistol reproduction and kits

Webleymkv · December 19, 2012, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Obviously I have guns and shoot for enjoyment. If my grand babies were killed in one of these incidents I would be asking how the right to own a semiautomatic weapon, 30 round clips out the wazoo, and thousands of rounds of ammo supersedes my families right to life.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not trying to be mean spirited or insensitive and that I hope this doesn't come off too harshly. The unfortunate fact is that is someone is determined enough to kill a large number of people, he or she can find a way to do it regardless of how restrictive the laws might be. As has been mentioned, the deadliest school atttack in U.S. history was perpetrated not with a gun, but with bombs. Likewise, the Columbine shooters also built bombs and brought two with them when they attacked the school (thankfully, those bombs failed to detonate or the situtation would have probably been even worse).

That being said, I don't see why my rights should be taken away because of a grief-stricken knee-jerk reaction that doesn't solve the problem. Firearms are but one tool that can be used to commit mass murder and if we remove that tool, the mass murderers will simply find another, possibly more destructive, tool with which to carry out their evil intentions. Instead, we need to find out what causes certain people to carry out such heinous acts, how such people can be recognized, and what we can do to prevent them from using any tool, gun or otherwise, to commit mass murder in the first place. I'm just as saddened, angered, shocked, and sickened by this as anyone, but I'm not going to let my grief cause me to rush into something without thinking it through. I want a solution that will actually address the problem like looking at mental health reform and school security rather than the quickest, easiest thing to make me feel better like gun control.

Al Norris · December 19, 2012, 01:38 PM

From an article by a very socialist leaning paper in MD: A solution that can't fix the problem - The Frederick News-Post Online

The author, Marta Mossburg, is a senior fellow at the Maryland Public Policy Institute and lives in Baltimore County (a notorious anti-gun county).

Quote:

Banning so-called assault weapons will not prevent people like Adam Lanza from getting guns any more than current laws stop criminals from buying weapons illegally. A ban does run the risk, however, of giving members of Congress and Americans a false sense of security that the issue is solved and evil can be eliminated through legislation.

A good reasoned article that was unexpected from this news source.

Then there is "The View," an ABC "reality show" with some rather ignorant gals as the hosts. However, this time they are put in their place by their guest, Dr. Michael Weiner, a forensic psychiatrist.

http://abc.go.com/watch/the-view/SH5.../the-view-1217

Agree with the above two views or not. At least some folks are getting air-time for some rational thought.

zincwarrior · December 19, 2012, 02:14 PM

Quote:

I would ask why you think the 30 round magazines, and sem-automatic rifle were actually required for what he did. He went to an area almost assuredly gun-free. He could have accomplished the same thing with a revolver and speed loads. To be honest, he could have accomplished the same thing with a black powder replica and as many rounds in pre-loaded cylinders.

Or just an axe.

JimDandy · December 19, 2012, 02:17 PM

Somewhat yes, but he would have had to chase them down. I mean literally even a black powder replica would have been enough to shoot the two grown women who tried to overpower and disarm him. He wouldn't have had to chase the children down with any gun.

dspieler · December 19, 2012, 03:24 PM

I'm more of a lurker than poster because I usually don't have much to add that hasn't already been contributed but I do have a couple of former colleagues that work in DC, and we had a back and forth on facebook this morning, gaming out the politics of new legislation. For the record, one of them was spot on in her prediction of how the Affordable Care Act would eventually get passed.

Here's their take:

Background checks for private and gun show purchases will be a slam dunk. This will easily pass the senate and enough Republicans and conservative Democrats otherwise reluctant to support gun control measures will get peeled off to get it through the House.

Swift confirmation of head for BATF. This will also be a slam dunk.

Carrot and stick approach to encouraging states to share information about individuals identified as mentally ill. It turns out that frequently states are privy to information but it does not make it into the database for background checks. There will be alot of details to be worked out so but something addressing this will probably be proposed and probably a version will be passed (It will be difficult to make it mandatory so politically it will be easier to get sufficient support).

Related to this, there is some discussion about making it easier to add/delete names to NICS and the potential for a reinstatement of a waiting period on purchases. Here, it may be an issue of rather than adding state information to NICS, that multiple sources are queried before approval.

There is alot of support forming around something like a 10 round limit on magazines. Here the politics are more complicated so they are putting odds of barely better than even for passage. Here, the goal is getting bills quickly to the new Congress. Strike while the iron is hot kind of thing.

There is alot of chatter about an 'assault weapons ban' but there's also quite a bit of reluctance to wade into the swamp of defining this.

There's a strong desire in higher law enforcement circles for something to address straw buyers but that it is way too early to guess at the politics of this. Essentially this would need to be a limit on number of transactions per person per time period.

So, right now, there's alot of ideas being floated around, partly to gauge the political response. You'll probably keep hearing quite a few ideas come out, many that are just trial balloons, so don't get too carried away by rumors.

JimDandy · December 19, 2012, 03:36 PM

I'm not sure what a limit on purchases in a time period would do other than make a straw purchaser be able to put a bigger number on the value of their purchase. Not that I'm against eliminating that problem, just don't see how teling people you can only do it 12 times a year instead of infinite, so now it's going to cost you extra to get Sally to buy for you is going to do anything about it.

DanWesson357 · December 19, 2012, 03:46 PM

bikerbill
One thing that has struck me about the discussion in the Newtown tragedy is his access to his mother's guns. His family has admitted they knew he had mental issues, yet the guns he used in the murders were not, apparently, secured sufficiently to keep them out of his hands. Is there a law in CT about the owner being responsible for crimes committed with weapons he owned that were not secured? If his mother had survived, would she have been prosecuted for not securing her guns?

If those guns had been in a safe, with the door locked, he'd have had no easy access to firearms ... there are so many things that should be done to help prevent a repeat of Newtown; let's enforce laws about securing firearms ... let's see the feds actually prosecute those who use guns in crime on gun charges, and not bargain them away to speed the process ...

Sadly, there aren't enough people talking about this. Lanza should never have had access to these weapons to begin with. And it speaks volumes as to what was wrong in that household if his mother knew of his issues, yet kept firearms unsecured.

I'm all for a legal push that will force gun owners to have proper means to secure their weapons. Not only would this have prevented people like Lanza from gaining access to these weapons, it serves a double purpose in preventing weapons that are stolen out of homes from ending up on the street. I don't think trigger locks are the appropriate answer. But I think we must accept that in 2012, to own a gun pretty much means that you need to own a safe to store it in. Nothing is a failsafe, but it's a much better deterrent than what people have now.

No assault weapons ban is going to work, especially considering the illegal gun trafficking that goes on in this country. We need to focus on mental healthcare reform, getting illegal guns off of the streets, better securing of our weapons, and closing the gun show loophole. I understand that the gun show loophole had nothing to with this tragedy, I just think it's long overdue.

JimDandy · December 19, 2012, 03:54 PM

Wow, would that open a can of worms. The discrimination lawsuits the first time somone can't own a gun because they can only afford to live in a building so old it can' support the weight of floor safe...

And blaming the mother is almost as bad as blaming the gun. Especially for "not locking up her gun" when we don't even know if she locked them up or not. Pick the closest family member you know. How long would it take them to gain access to your guns if you didn't suspect they'd go batcrap crazy and steal them before shooting you in the head with them. They'd be able to guess your combination, they'd find your emergency key... someting. Our loved ones know us well enough to get into our things, if we don't specifically pick passwords and combinations to keep them out. And we don't do that because they have to be able to get into those things if they need to, and we don't suspect them of using those things to our detriment.

boattale · December 19, 2012, 04:14 PM

If I was king of the world, there would be a double barrel shotgun and ten rounds of ammunition in a fast access safe in every classroom and the manager's office at every business in the United States and the person most responsible in that office would take one day's training at the range with the shotgun every year.

JN01 · December 19, 2012, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Unfortunately, despite the apparent huge increase in gun sales after tragic events like the Conn shooting, census data seems to say that the percent of households with guns is actually going down, not up. It seems that there are fewer gun owners, but those owners own more guns.

Census data? Are you talking about a particular poll? I don't think any polls or estimates on the number of households are accurate. A lot of people aren't going to honestly answer a stranger when asked about gun ownership.

Anecdotally, I know lots of people who, in the past year or two, have bought their first gun and/or have gotten concealed carry licenses. These people represent the whole spectrum of social/economic/political status.

I personally have heard discussions this week where people who I thought would surely support more gun control remarking that bans would be ineffective.

I am also encouraged by the fact that unlike incidents in the past, we are seeing pro gun rights (or at least pointing out the futility of gun control) opinions being aired in the media- particularly in some of the left wing venues noted by previous posters.

Would I be surprised if a bunch of new restrictive laws passed? No (especially knowing that a lot of Congressmen, and Republican Congressmen in particular seem to lose their spines when things get tough). However, I do feel there has been a huge change in public opinion in the last 10 years or so- new restrictions may not be the slam dunk it seems to be right now.

At least I hope that is the case.

DanWesson357 · December 19, 2012, 04:26 PM

Most gun safes are not that heavy. Many are a two-man carry. If a dwelling can support a bed, it can support a safe. I'm not pushing for everyone to own a tank. The key is bolting them down, not the actual weight.

No1der · December 19, 2012, 04:30 PM

There's an old saying that a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. I mention this because I think that is the mindset in Washington right now. I can honestly say that I'm not certain how I feel about this. The tragedy in Newtown was/is horrible and definitely a watershed moment that has caused this gun enthusiast to seriously reassess this long time gun enthusiasts beliefs.

Please nobody jump on my back for saying that, I'm not making any kind of political statement at all. I'm making a personal statement about my own state of mind in these very troubling times.

Edit: Sorry for the clumsy way in which I said what I said.

willhud · December 19, 2012, 04:34 PM

Not sure how vetted the article is, but there is an article on Fox news that says the mother had started procedures to essentially committed.
“From what I've been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed," Flashman told FoxNews.com." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18...#ixzz2FXFZHb47 If that was indeed the case, then she certainly had cause to keep him away from guns. I am not trying to demean the poor woman here, as I can't imagine the miles she must have walked with this kid for 20 years. And no matter how screwed up your kid is, they are still your kid and you love them.

As far as passing laws requiring gun owners to secure their weapons, how would you enforce that? Only after the fact? I believe that we all should secure our firearms to what is needed in our own situation. My wife and I do not have kids, we seldom have visitors. I don't feel a great need to have our guns locked in a safe. I also don't want to have to spend $1000.00 to lock up the $200.00 .22 LR rifle and $300.00 .22LR pistol that my wife and I go shoot at the range. Now, if I had a house full of kids, or a bunch of snooping family dropping by all the time, I might change my mind on that.

P1090 · December 19, 2012, 04:35 PM

Quote:

And blaming the mother is almost as bad as blaming the gun. Especially for "not locking up her gun" when we don't even know if she locked them up or not. Pick the closest family member you know. How long would it take them to gain access to your guns if you didn't suspect they'd go batcrap crazy and steal them before shooting you in the head with them. They'd be able to guess your combination, they'd find your emergency key... someting. Our loved ones know us well enough to get into our things, if we don't specifically pick passwords and combinations to keep them out. And we don't do that because they have to be able to get into those things if they need to, and we don't suspect them of using those things to our detriment.

Not to mention that most people don't lock up their power tools. Some of the cheaper night stand safes can probably be broken into with five minutes and a hacksaw. I'm not the brightest guy out there, but I don't think a safe would be much of a deterrent if someone really wanted to get your guns.

JimDandy · December 19, 2012, 04:37 PM

I'm not going to jump on your back, but I would like to try and provide perspectve

12 year old girl shoots intruder through closet door

14 year old boy saves himself and his younger siblings against armed intruder

This story doesn't mention it, but this guy's kid was at home, and both people he shot were armed.

manta49 · December 19, 2012, 04:40 PM

A condition on your firearms certificate here is that the firearms have to be locked away in a approved gun safe. The safe has to be bolted to the wall only the gun owner is to have access to the safe. The police check the safe and if its installed properly before a firearms certificate will be granted.

Quote Police Service N Ireland.

Safe Firearm Storage
It is your responsibility to ensure that your firearms and ammunition are stored safely and securely at all times. You must take any necessary steps to prevent unauthorised access, so far as is reasonably possible. A gun cabinet is required - specification BS 7558 (1992) - and it must be secured to the fabric of a building.

If you are moving your firearm and ammunition by vehicle then it must be hidden from direct view and stored within a locked box or secured to an anchorage point.

PS Seems reasonable to me.

December 19, 2012, 03:46 PM	#91
DanWesson357 Member Join Date: April 3, 2009 Location: Metro Detroit Area, Michigan Posts: 67	bikerbill One thing that has struck me about the discussion in the Newtown tragedy is his access to his mother's guns. His family has admitted they knew he had mental issues, yet the guns he used in the murders were not, apparently, secured sufficiently to keep them out of his hands. Is there a law in CT about the owner being responsible for crimes committed with weapons he owned that were not secured? If his mother had survived, would she have been prosecuted for not securing her guns? If those guns had been in a safe, with the door locked, he'd have had no easy access to firearms ... there are so many things that should be done to help prevent a repeat of Newtown; let's enforce laws about securing firearms ... let's see the feds actually prosecute those who use guns in crime on gun charges, and not bargain them away to speed the process ... Sadly, there aren't enough people talking about this. Lanza should never have had access to these weapons to begin with. And it speaks volumes as to what was wrong in that household if his mother knew of his issues, yet kept firearms unsecured. I'm all for a legal push that will force gun owners to have proper means to secure their weapons. Not only would this have prevented people like Lanza from gaining access to these weapons, it serves a double purpose in preventing weapons that are stolen out of homes from ending up on the street. I don't think trigger locks are the appropriate answer. But I think we must accept that in 2012, to own a gun pretty much means that you need to own a safe to store it in. Nothing is a failsafe, but it's a much better deterrent than what people have now. No assault weapons ban is going to work, especially considering the illegal gun trafficking that goes on in this country. We need to focus on mental healthcare reform, getting illegal guns off of the streets, better securing of our weapons, and closing the gun show loophole. I understand that the gun show loophole had nothing to with this tragedy, I just think it's long overdue. __________________ "If someone's personality changes when they carry a gun, they should leave it at home." - Catfishman

December 19, 2012, 04:14 PM	#93
boattale Senior Member Join Date: November 28, 2012 Posts: 118	If I was king of the world, there would be a double barrel shotgun and ten rounds of ammunition in a fast access safe in every classroom and the manager's office at every business in the United States and the person most responsible in that office would take one day's training at the range with the shotgun every year. __________________ Its all downhill from here. Except the parts that are uphill.

December 19, 2012, 04:26 PM	#95
DanWesson357 Member Join Date: April 3, 2009 Location: Metro Detroit Area, Michigan Posts: 67	Most gun safes are not that heavy. Many are a two-man carry. If a dwelling can support a bed, it can support a safe. I'm not pushing for everyone to own a tank. The key is bolting them down, not the actual weight. __________________ "If someone's personality changes when they carry a gun, they should leave it at home." - Catfishman

December 19, 2012, 10:47 AM	#79
Kimio Senior Member Join Date: January 2, 2011 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,171	So much for my FAL build. It's really disheartening really. It's idiotic as well, as the laws already in place did absolutely NOTHING to stop this from occuring.

December 19, 2012, 10:50 AM	#80
zincwarrior Senior Member Join Date: July 1, 2011 Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex Posts: 2,259	No disagreement from me. I'm for more detailed background checks and more focus on mental healththe gun aspect, but the heavy focus should be on the mental health industry and the fact all these people had massive run ins previously with schools, police etc.

December 19, 2012, 11:14 AM	#81
Fishing_Cabin Senior Member Join Date: February 10, 2010 Posts: 720	just saw on the tele that VP Biden has been put in charge of the gun control debate, pathway they want to go down.

December 19, 2012, 02:17 PM	#88
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	Somewhat yes, but he would have had to chase them down. I mean literally even a black powder replica would have been enough to shoot the two grown women who tried to overpower and disarm him. He wouldn't have had to chase the children down with any gun.

December 19, 2012, 03:24 PM	#89
dspieler Member Join Date: October 18, 2012 Posts: 25	I'm more of a lurker than poster because I usually don't have much to add that hasn't already been contributed but I do have a couple of former colleagues that work in DC, and we had a back and forth on facebook this morning, gaming out the politics of new legislation. For the record, one of them was spot on in her prediction of how the Affordable Care Act would eventually get passed. Here's their take: Background checks for private and gun show purchases will be a slam dunk. This will easily pass the senate and enough Republicans and conservative Democrats otherwise reluctant to support gun control measures will get peeled off to get it through the House. Swift confirmation of head for BATF. This will also be a slam dunk. Carrot and stick approach to encouraging states to share information about individuals identified as mentally ill. It turns out that frequently states are privy to information but it does not make it into the database for background checks. There will be alot of details to be worked out so but something addressing this will probably be proposed and probably a version will be passed (It will be difficult to make it mandatory so politically it will be easier to get sufficient support). Related to this, there is some discussion about making it easier to add/delete names to NICS and the potential for a reinstatement of a waiting period on purchases. Here, it may be an issue of rather than adding state information to NICS, that multiple sources are queried before approval. There is alot of support forming around something like a 10 round limit on magazines. Here the politics are more complicated so they are putting odds of barely better than even for passage. Here, the goal is getting bills quickly to the new Congress. Strike while the iron is hot kind of thing. There is alot of chatter about an 'assault weapons ban' but there's also quite a bit of reluctance to wade into the swamp of defining this. There's a strong desire in higher law enforcement circles for something to address straw buyers but that it is way too early to guess at the politics of this. Essentially this would need to be a limit on number of transactions per person per time period. So, right now, there's alot of ideas being floated around, partly to gauge the political response. You'll probably keep hearing quite a few ideas come out, many that are just trial balloons, so don't get too carried away by rumors.

December 19, 2012, 03:36 PM	#90
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	I'm not sure what a limit on purchases in a time period would do other than make a straw purchaser be able to put a bigger number on the value of their purchase. Not that I'm against eliminating that problem, just don't see how teling people you can only do it 12 times a year instead of infinite, so now it's going to cost you extra to get Sally to buy for you is going to do anything about it.

December 19, 2012, 03:54 PM	#92
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	Wow, would that open a can of worms. The discrimination lawsuits the first time somone can't own a gun because they can only afford to live in a building so old it can' support the weight of floor safe... And blaming the mother is almost as bad as blaming the gun. Especially for "not locking up her gun" when we don't even know if she locked them up or not. Pick the closest family member you know. How long would it take them to gain access to your guns if you didn't suspect they'd go batcrap crazy and steal them before shooting you in the head with them. They'd be able to guess your combination, they'd find your emergency key... someting. Our loved ones know us well enough to get into our things, if we don't specifically pick passwords and combinations to keep them out. And we don't do that because they have to be able to get into those things if they need to, and we don't suspect them of using those things to our detriment.

December 19, 2012, 04:30 PM	#96
No1der Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 2012 Location: NOVA aka Northern VA Posts: 123	There's an old saying that a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. I mention this because I think that is the mindset in Washington right now. I can honestly say that I'm not certain how I feel about this. The tragedy in Newtown was/is horrible and definitely a watershed moment that has caused this gun enthusiast to seriously reassess this long time gun enthusiasts beliefs. Please nobody jump on my back for saying that, I'm not making any kind of political statement at all. I'm making a personal statement about my own state of mind in these very troubling times. Edit: Sorry for the clumsy way in which I said what I said.

December 19, 2012, 04:34 PM	#97
willhud Member Join Date: September 4, 2012 Posts: 60	Not sure how vetted the article is, but there is an article on Fox news that says the mother had started procedures to essentially committed. “From what I've been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed," Flashman told FoxNews.com." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18...#ixzz2FXFZHb47 If that was indeed the case, then she certainly had cause to keep him away from guns. I am not trying to demean the poor woman here, as I can't imagine the miles she must have walked with this kid for 20 years. And no matter how screwed up your kid is, they are still your kid and you love them. As far as passing laws requiring gun owners to secure their weapons, how would you enforce that? Only after the fact? I believe that we all should secure our firearms to what is needed in our own situation. My wife and I do not have kids, we seldom have visitors. I don't feel a great need to have our guns locked in a safe. I also don't want to have to spend $1000.00 to lock up the $200.00 .22 LR rifle and $300.00 .22LR pistol that my wife and I go shoot at the range. Now, if I had a house full of kids, or a bunch of snooping family dropping by all the time, I might change my mind on that.

December 19, 2012, 04:37 PM	#99
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	I'm not going to jump on your back, but I would like to try and provide perspectve 12 year old girl shoots intruder through closet door 14 year old boy saves himself and his younger siblings against armed intruder This story doesn't mention it, but this guy's kid was at home, and both people he shot were armed.

December 19, 2012, 04:40 PM	#100
manta49 Senior Member Join Date: July 15, 2011 Location: N Ireland. UK. Posts: 1,809	A condition on your firearms certificate here is that the firearms have to be locked away in a approved gun safe. The safe has to be bolted to the wall only the gun owner is to have access to the safe. The police check the safe and if its installed properly before a firearms certificate will be granted. Quote Police Service N Ireland. Safe Firearm Storage It is your responsibility to ensure that your firearms and ammunition are stored safely and securely at all times. You must take any necessary steps to prevent unauthorised access, so far as is reasonably possible. A gun cabinet is required - specification BS 7558 (1992) - and it must be secured to the fabric of a building. If you are moving your firearm and ammunition by vehicle then it must be hidden from direct view and stored within a locked box or secured to an anchorage point. PS Seems reasonable to me.