Verified answer

considering it wasnt even his gun, it was his mothers, im wondering the same thing. liberals say they want to prevent unfit people to buy guns. well, i think this guy wouldve qualified as unfit yet he managed to obtain a gun by taking his mothers without permission. so i wonder what the liberal answer would be.

it,wouldn't.if a person is intent on doing something,laws or controls aren't going to keep them from doing it.if it wouldn't have been with a gun, it would have been something else,like a bomb,or he could have waited outside school with a car and ran over who he wanted.like every other time this happens,there were signs that should have been noticed that the person was unstable.the person needed to be dealt with.not wait till after the fact and then want to outlaw whatever weapon they used.

his mother should have had those guns in a secure gun cabinet and out of reach of this idiot.you notice when this happens the weapons were taken from unsecure places,or someone let them have

access to the weapons.none of these weapons were owned by the people using them.they steal them, so they aren't to concerned about breaking the law.

In hindsight, his mother knew he wasn't balanced, so why weren't those guns in a gun safe, with a combination lock? (keys can be found). That should be a requirement. It would lessen the problem of children getting to the guns in the home. Not a cure, but it would be a big help keeping children, and other family members from getting their hands on weapons.

There are some rules that want progression. even with each and every thing we've been warned with reference to the detrimental aspects of "gun unfastened zones" for the reason that a minimum of 2007. that is been a protracted, unnecessarily puzzling, bloody and painful highway even with the undeniable fact that it appears like we've finally discovered that lesson. additionally, it appears like this must be a handbook for psychological wellness care -- while a mom has made a puzzling decision and is attempting to have her son dedicated there is a few thing that ought to be investigated assessed and acted upon promptly if there's a valid reason. we are able to 2nd wager her all day and hindsight does not make it complicated to declare "ought to haves" yet regardless of - we ought to learn a lesson right here.

In theory - if his mother didn't have guns (because of a ban on law abiding citizens possessing one) then he wouldn't have had easy access to one during his mental breakdown and the senseless murder would not have happened. Of course one has to ignore the idea that more people would be murdered by criminals who have no fear of being shot at by law abiding citizens..

Nobody is saying it would, but at this point, it could not hurt. I can understand the fear people have and why they want guns, but we need a paradigm shift in the way society solves there problems.

Fewer guns, fewer gun crimes, fewer massacres.

That is just simple arithmetic.

Edit:

Frank, the USA has 3 murders per year per 100,000 population. The UK has 3 per 4.200,000. Either being a US citizen immediately makes it 42 times more likely that you will shoot somebody, or that level of crime is caused by the easy availability of guns.. According to your argument, gun ownership defends the average citizen. The figures indicate that it is the average citizen who is most likely to kill.

He had no criminal record and would have had no problem passing a background check.

maybe if the mom hadn't had a gun in the first place then maybe the massacre wouldn't of happened