I am 100% certain Nancy Lanza considered herself a RESPONSIBLE gun owner.

[RomneyLies]

I'll even state right out, I have yet to meet a gun owner who did NOT consider themselves responsible gun owners. They'll go on and on about how responsible they are with their guns.

It's pretty obvious that many "responsible gun owners" are not.

[DrDan]

1. obviously - no one would consider themselves irresponsible

[elleng]

2. Probably and/but she recognized her son's problems getting worse,

and kept the guns. And as a believer in (?) 'end times' (or whatever,) (from her sister in law) she was not what I'd consider to be rational, so neither responsible or rational.

[DeeDeeNY]

9. Yes

She not only kept the guns but kept them and the bullets unlocked and accessible to her troubled son.

[Berserker]

14. Please give us a link

This is news to me. That would be very irresponsible.

[HooptieWagon]

40. Good luck getting a link.

They're pulling shit out of their ass. I haven't seen any report from LEO on whether the guns were properly secured or not. Certainly, with a troubled son living with her they should have been, but it's quite possible he could have obtained the key by force or stealth.
So until an official report is made public, we simply don't know.

[99Forever]

127. What possible difference does it make...

.. whether the tools of death were "properly secured or not"? If they were "properly secured", then why are there 28 dead bodies, including 20 dead babies? If they weren't, it makes the OP's point, that regardless of what gun cuddlers say, claiming to be "responsible" is a far cry from actually being so.

[HooptieWagon]

128. Many are claiming the guns weren't secured at all,

when that doesn't seem to be the case. We don't know how well they were secured. We don't know to what lengths the son went to gain access to the guns.
Suppose the guns were locked up like Ft Knox, and the son drugged his mother to get the keys or drill into the safe? Yes, in hindsight we can agree that the guns weren't secured well enough, or really shouldn't have been in the house at all, but we don't know what lengths the son had to go to access them. If he had to knock her out, steal her car, drive to hardware store, buy HD drill and cobalt bits, drive home, drill into safe, take guns, drive to gun store, buy ammo, then drive to school (and had no previous indication of violence)....then I'd say the guns were probably secured reasonably well in light of foreseeable circumstances. I don't know that happened of course, but until we know what did happen its as valid as any other possible scenerio.

[99Forever]

132. I appreciate that you took the time...

.. to write all that, but the bottom line is, it means almost nothing. He got the guns, one way or another, and slaughtered 27 people with those guns, 20 were babies. That is the bottom line. No guns, no deaths.

[HooptieWagon]

133. That is simply not a big-picture conclusion.

He used guns because he was able to access them. He also could have used a bomb, arson, or other means. Columbine was intended to be a bombing. Its only recognized as a mass-shooting because the bombs failed to detonate. Had they gone off as intended, it would be recognized as a mass-bombing, with additional deaths by shooting. There was the Oklahoma City bombing, the Olympic bombing, and there was the gay nightclub arson years ago...all of which intended and caused mass murder with zero firearms involved.

Yes, mass-shootings are horrific. But they still are just a fraction of gun-related homicides. We should do more to reduce ALL gun-related homicides (and suicides). However, acting on the notion that restricting guns will eliminate mass-murder is just an unrealistic fantasy.

[99Forever]

134. Coulda... shoulda... woulda...

He used guns, end of story. Speculate till pigs fly, The simple, undeniable fact, is that he used guns, designed with the express purpose of killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Guns that had he access to, that made the horror he unleashed upon those innocents possible. There is NO getting around that truth.

The rest is merely a poor attempt to divert that sad truth.

[Chemisse]

18. Is that true? I have been wondering if he broke into her gun stash.

It's hard to imagine someone would leave that kind of weaponry unlocked, especially with a mentally ill son in the house.

[HooptieWagon]

129. One media source (The Telegraph?) reported that he tried to buy guns a day or so earlier.

I don't know if that was accurate...so much reporting has turned out to be wrong. But if that was true, then it can be assumed that attempting to buy weapons was easier than accessing hers.

[amborin]

130. she was highly irresponsible in many ways

some really good comments from ny times readers re: this issue, including from many gun "professionals"

they documented the ways in which she was highly irresponsible, including publicly enthusing about her collection, etc...

best comments discussed the insanity of calling someone a gun "enthusiast"

how can you be enthused about an object that killls and maims others?

what if people kept collections of super lethal poisons in their homes and enthused about their collections?

[atreides1]

3. She probably was

But you personally don't think she was and obviously don't believe that anyone who owns a gun is responsible..or can be responsible!

[Fumesucker]

7. Evidently she was shot while sleeping

Which means the son she "was afraid she's losing" got hold of one of her guns while she was asleep.

Sounds fairly irresponsible to me.

[Sgent]

11. I've been a gun owner for years

keeping a gun in a house with someone suffering from acute mental illness is irresponsible.

[MissMarple]

16. +1

[kestrel91316]

4. And yet she left her toys unsecured, all the while knowing how dangerous her son was.

Parenting FAIL. Gun responsibility FAIL. Human being FAIL.

[HooptieWagon]

39. How do you know they were unsecured?

Do you have a link to that information? Would you not agree it was possible the guns were secured, and the son somehow obtained the key or combination?

[kestrel91316]

41. IF the guns were secured and he destroyed the safe to get to them, then I retract what I said.

If he had access to a key or combination, my opinion remains unchanged. That's the same as leaving them out on the kitchen counter for him to play with.

Who in their right mind gives a dangerous, violent person a way to get to their personal weapons?????????

[HooptieWagon]

46. He could have taken the key by force.

Or stolen it. Or perhaps the father had a spare key, that son was able to steal. I would agree it's risky keeping guns in the house with a mentally troubled son, but if he had never given prior indications of violence she may have thought ordinary precautions adequate. We really don't know, and people making shit up like OP and others are merely propagandists with an agenda, comparable to FOX.

[kestrel91316]

58. There are reports that she told friends that she was afraid of him. She should have

properly secured the guns or gotten rid of them at that point. If he could get to them other than destroying a safe, he had access.

People need gun safes with a combination lock that ONLY the owner knows how to open. Anything else is gross negligence IMHO.

[HooptieWagon]

64. If she was afraid of him, and left the guns unsecured,

she was pretty freaking stupid.
If the son had no prior indication of violence, the guns should have been highly secured. That she was afraid of him suggests the possibility of hints of violence. In that case, she should have removed the guns from the house. She could have easily kept them at a gun club or range, if she didn't want to sell them.

[HooptieWagon]

77. The reports are she told friend she was losing him, not afraid of him.

Wow, you're quite the source of misinformation.
She was worried about him burning himself, and that he was regressing, that she couldn't reach him anymore. She did not say she was afraid of him or that he had displayed violence.
You might want to wait until facts are in, rather than jumping to conclusions and spreading misinformation.

[mainer]

75. If he got his hands on them, aren't they by definition "unsecured"?

Truly secured guns would be unreachable.

[HooptieWagon]

76. Not necessarily.

The school was locked and secure, yet he got in.
Its possible the guns were well locked, and he got access by force or stealth. Perhaps mother had them secured, and son stole spare key from father?
This part of the investigation hasn't been made public yet. Certainly there's questions to be asked, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions until the facts are released.

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. I agree.

Any firearm not in one's immediate possession should be under lock and key, period.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Great point. I've never met a gun owner who didn't say he was responsible

They're all sooo responsible aren't they?

[Daniel537]

20. Yes, the vast majority are responsible.

Show me the data that says otherwise?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. Oh, you are kidding me, right? We have constant shootings...

20 kids were just shot because of a "responsible" gun owner, and you're still up there on the podium defending gun owners and gun ownership? Give me a break.

[Carnage251]

32. Are the lives of the adults who died less important to you?

Why not say 26 people?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

73. Okay, let me say it this way 20 kids and 6 adults. Happier now? nt

[Chemisse]

131. I think the fact that so many of the victims were children has really hit home with people.

If it had been 26 adults, the outcry would be more subdued. It's just human nature. We all want to protect the innocent and trusting (children - and pets).

[HooptieWagon]

35. Assuming she wasn't a responsible owner...

Then 999,999,999 gun owners whose sons didn't steal their weapons and kill 27 people is still the vast majority. You might even say "most".

[ThoughtCriminal]

65. Wow - that's like

3 gun owners with sons for every person in the country, and the murder rate must be zero.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

72. Crack cocaine doesn't kill everyone in the U.S., so it should be readily available for everyone

That's your argument.

[HooptieWagon]

84. You're making a strawman argument.

Crack cocaine has no legitimate use, so there is no reason for it to be legal. Crack is highly addictive, and does cause a high rate of death among users. And a high percentage of crack users commit other crimes to fund their habit. And no-one is saying crack cocaine should be legal.

Guns have several legitimate uses. Guns aren't addictive. Guns don't cause a statistically high rate of death, nor do legal gun owners commit crimes to buy their guns (although criminals do, and would continue to do so even if all guns were banned).

[Sarah Ibarruri]

85. Hunting? Fine. Ban all other guns. nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

89. Bushmaster .223 is advertised as a hunting gun

[Sarah Ibarruri]

92. And banning all other guns will NOT solve the problem.

What needs to be done is to make all gun owners responsible for the ownership of their guns. If they lose them, mandatory jail, regardless of how they lost them. They undertake to own them, and the onus should be on them.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

94. this i have no problem with...

but just yesterday you were out for all gun owners. the whole 'live by the gun, die by the gun' thing...effectively stating that she deserved to die because she owned firearms. is this an adjustment of that stance or am I missing something?

sP

[Sarah Ibarruri]

99. There's a death-and-gun fetish in this country that I found in no other country I lived in

And in addition, guns are pervasive in this country. Each, the fetish and the guns, feeds on the other. It's a never-ending cycle of gun madness. It has to be stopped somewhere. I'm all for a complete ban, but that won't be easy with the gun fetish.

[HooptieWagon]

121. There's a video game fetish, why not blame them?

Let's blame metal bands while we're at it. Or Rap, pick your choice.
Yet the elephant in the room peep are ignoring is inadequate mental health care.
So go ahead and ban guns, then everyone will relax thinking there will never again be a mass murder. Except... the biggest mass murder, and the biggest scool mass murder were both bombings. And Columbine was meant to be a bombing...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

124. Because people don't get shot by game videos. They get shot by guns, using bullets. nt

[HooptieWagon]

103. Certainly steps can be taken in that direction.

Most gun owners take some steps to secure their guns, if for no reason other than theft-prevention. Some actually do go to great lengths to secure their guns. And yes, there are those who do little or nothing.

[HooptieWagon]

102. It is useful for some hunting,

a little small for large game. And it is popular for target shooting, though not in actual organized competition.

What the gun-banners fail to comprehend is that semi-automatics represent almost all new handgun sales (nobody buys a new revolver these days), and a sizeable majority of rifle sales. The guns are immensly popular, and 99.9999% of the purchasers will never shoot someone.

[HooptieWagon]

98. How about target or skeet-shooting?

How about sentimentality...some people keep a gun they used in the service, or owned by a deceased loved one. Some people own guns as an investment they can also use. Some people buy collector guns in admiration of quality workmanship of a bygone era. And of course there are reasonably justifiable cases of owning a gun for protection...my brother used to carry a revolver on his long truck hauls because he often carried a large amount of cash, and a college roomate later carried a pistol on her job when she was in the field doing environmental impact studies-not only for protection from critters, but in case she came accross some yahoos who might find a lone woman in the middle of nowhere a tempting target.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

104. There are more guns than adults here. In the U.K. guns are very strictly controlled

Sure, people can go skeet shooting in the U.K. However, there's none of that constant fear that the neighbors all have arsenals of guns and might shoot their wives, your kids, your dog, or you. In fact, you can knock on all houses in a neighborhood and you'd be hard pressed to find someone with whatever guns are allowed by law. As a result, The U.K. has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 gun homicides committed per 100,000 people compared to the United States' 3.0. This in 2009.

Here in the U.S.? Want to hear the solution to this I'm hearing from gun owners? Go out and buy a gun! Add to the madness.

[HooptieWagon]

107. Well, here's some numbers for you.

There's something like 180 million guns in private hands, owned by about 100 million people (about 1/3 the population). About 42% of population live in a household with a gun owner. So there's less than one gun per adult, although you aren't terribly far off.
There are a bit over 30,000 gun deaths per year, which is a statistically small fraction of the number of guns, or gun owners. More than half of gun deaths are suicides. There are quite a few accidental deaths. Justifiable homicides (usually by LEO, but occasionally private gun-owner) are fairly low numbers. Mass shootings, while horrifying, are also low in numbers. Most gun deaths by homicide are in the commission of other crimes. Most shooters have prior felony records (thus they own gun illegally, and would continue to in any gun ban or restriction), and so do most victims. Most victims know their killer. Most deaths are by handgun, rifles (of any type) much less frequent. Deaths by shotgun and automatic weapons almost non-existant. The number of gun deaths is in decline, even with the AWB expiring. I guess thats largely due to longer jail sentences to repeat offenders.

The NRA uses fear tactics to market guns...you need a gun to protect yourself. Non-owners pick up on this fear-mongering, as you apparently have. Sit down a moment and relax. If you aren't a felon, or hang out with felons, there's a low probability of being a victim of gunshot. And unless your neighborhood is filled with felons, whatever guns your neighbors own aren't a threat to you. You might as well worry about lightning, or gater attack, or slip and fall in bathtub as worry about being shot.

[Lizzie Poppet]

67. No, we don't. Not really...

We have more shootings than we should, to be sure, but given the astronomical number of civilian firearms and that there are tens of millions of gun owners, the 10-11k firearms homicides per year (awful as that number is) makes it utterly clear that the large majority of gun owners are in fact responsible.

Personally, I'd like to see many of them take it up a notch, though. Many could take better security measures than they do (gun safes, trigger locks, etc. on any weapon not in your immediate possession). I would like to see this mandated by law.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

71. "No, we don't. Not really... We have more shootings than we should"

Oi vei.

[Lizzie Poppet]

82. Nice reasoned, cogent response there.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

90. this is the sort of response you get from the 'can we finally have a discussion about guns'

crowd... what they mean is, 'shut the fuck up. if you own a gun you are evil. if you own a gun you should expect to die by it... and moreso, you deserve to.

sP

[Lizzie Poppet]

93. Sadly, I think you're spot-on.

Looking for how one deletes an account here (doesn't seem to be a voluntary method, unless I decide to troll my way into a PPR), as an ugly, ugly side of this community has arisen here after the Sandy Point tragedy. I know people are in an emotionally distraught state after such an atrocity, but that's no excuse for some of the hate, bigotry, and ideological totalitarianism I've seen over the last few days.

[susanr516]

79. Agreed

I am in favor of laws requiring gun owners to keep firearms locked in gun safes. My father was a gun enthusiast. His firearms were always locked away, and the ammo was also locked up in a safe, which was kept in a separate room in the house. He always talked about responsible gun ownership and how dangerous a gun can be. As an adult, I have chosen not to have guns in my home because I don't want that kind of responsibility.

[RomneyLies]

38. That's right, EVERY gun owner is responsible

except for the fact that many are not as evidenced by 28 corpses in Newtwon Connecticut.

[HooptieWagon]

66. All gun owners are no more responsible than all mentally ill people are.

The vast majority of gun owners don't committ violent acts...neither does the vast majority of mentally ill people.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

74. Are you making an argument that because *everyone* doesn't get shot, that it's okay

to have a high rate of shootings? Please tell me it ain't so.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

91. what is a high rate to you?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

95. Please stop it. You're talking to someone who lived in Europe, and felt considerably safer because

of the gun problem here. I think you get the idea that everyone here has never been out of the U.S., and that you can reduce the gun problem here to, "Well then, why don't you give me an exact number of murders by gun acceptable to you." NONE are acceptable.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

97. but there is violence in Europe as well

hell, a maniac shot up a whole fucking island full of kids there. and he is in a nice, cushy prison. scotland school yard a couple of years ago...

i agree that NONE are really acceptable but NONE is also not realistic. people will kill other people. it happens.

sP

[Sarah Ibarruri]

105. This is what I responded to someone who has the same opinion as you....

There are more guns than adults here. In the U.K. guns are strictly controlled. Sure, people can go skeet shooting in the U.K. However, there's none of that constant fear that the neighbors all have arsenals of guns and might shoot their wives, your kids, your dog, or you. In fact, you can knock on all houses in a neighborhood and you'd be hard pressed to find someone with whatever guns are allowed by law.

As a result, The U.K. has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world with 0.07 gun homicides committed per 100,000 people compared to the United States' 3.0. This in 2009.

Here in the U.S.? Want to hear the solution to this I'm hearing from gun owners? Go out and buy a gun! Add to the madness.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

112. so why does the UK have a higher rate of violent crime in general?

you said you felt safer... but just from guns? the UK has a much lower MURDER rate in general, but the proportion of those carried out by gun is about the same...

sP

[Sarah Ibarruri]

117. You love to change the subject. We're talking guns and DEATH

We're talking guns and being murdered. We're talking guns and being shot dead.

But now you're going to bring up pickpockets? In the midst of a discussion on guns and death?

I think you're trying to make something frivolous out of this, so I am ending this discussion with you. When you cease ridiculing this, let me know. Bye

[ProdigalJunkMail]

122. you said you felt safer so i was asking

once again, while the murder rate is lower (and i more than agree that it is a societal issue), the percentage of murders by gun is still the same (approximately). why? and HOW since there are such stringent measures of gun control.

you want to end the discussion? fine. it is obvious that you have no interest in answering questions. the only thing i am ridiculing is your 'one size fits all' solution that seems to be based on emotion rather than fact.

sP

(oh, and i hardly equate pickpocket and violent crime...do you? really?)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

123. I said I felt safer because I do. I don't want to live in a war zone where gun deaths are rampant.

Apparently you have no problem with that. After all, you have a gun you can pull out after you get shot.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

125. i am not carrying a gun...

i just find it odd that you are some combative. i also find it odd where violent crime rates are higher than in the USA you seem to feel safer.

oh, well. i am glad your one-size-fits-all-live-by-the-gun-die-by-the-gun-emotions-over-logic mentality is not in charge...

sP

[Sarah Ibarruri]

126. I'm not carrying a gun either, and I resent being forced to live in a war zone by gun-lovers nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

135. i would wager that any feeling you have about living in a warzone

might be tied to the crime in your area committed with firearms rather than the citizens lawfully carrying a weapon. you are more likely to be killed by an automobile or even a doctor than a gun. and the sad part about this fear you have is that you KNOW this to be true yet you choose to be more afraid of guns than things that are much more likely to do you harm. unless you are an agoraphobe and stay indoors most of the time that seems a little out of whack.

i am sorry you feel scared all the time... or angry... or whatever it is. but your fear is misplaced.

sP

[Sarah Ibarruri]

138. Wrong as usual. It has to do with the risk of being shot in the U.S. versus

living in other countries.

[Carnage251]

34. How many times have you ever heard anyone say that they weren't responable about anything?

I don't think I ever have.
* I've never met a gun owner who didn't say he *wasn't responsible

[Taverner]

6. As much as I think we need more gun control - Nancy never expected this

And although she should have - even if she did, I doubt it would have changed anything

[jeff47]

19. If she never expected this, that means we have to on her behalf.

Which means lots more gun safety laws. Because gun owners have shown their expectations are insanely dangerous.

In this particular case, if she had been required to store her guns in a gun safe, it's likely this massacre would not have occurred.

[Dems to Win]

47. My brother was 12 when he figured out how to crack my parent's safe (contained jewelry)

We really can't pussyfoot around the reality: any gun ownership is dangerous. A tragedy waiting to happen.

[jeff47]

48. Gun safes are a tad better constructed than most home "Jewelry" safes.

Most of those are awful - they're good for feeling "safe" but not much more.

And I have no qualms about minimum construction requirements laws on the gun safes I'm talking about.

[Dems to Win]

49. of course. Still, kids do learn passwords and combinations.....

The only gun-safe home is a home without guns.

[HooptieWagon]

50. How do you know they weren't in a safe?

By all reports, the son wasn't stupid. He could have secretly had a duplicate key made, or he could have forced her to give up a key. Or maybe she left the guns all over the house willy-nilly. We don't know at present, and anyone who claims to know is a liar unless they knew the woman and were in her house.

[jeff47]

59. Its been reported that the guns were not secured (nt)

[HooptieWagon]

62. I have not seen that report. Do you have a link?

If that is the case, it's irresponsible whether she had a mentally ill son living at home or not. Guns are a big theft target, they should always be locked up.

However, I haven't seen the report you mentioned, so I'd appreciate the source.

[jeff47]

69. Well, google's right over there.

You could also point out in ANY article written about this incident the party where they mention the words "gun safe" or "trigger lock" or defeating any other gun safety mechanism.

[HooptieWagon]

70. I just spent an hour on google, finding no mention.

Leading me to suspect the "report" you cited doesn't exist.

[Dems to Win]

8. If you love your family, you don't have guns. Period.

Given the statistics of how often guns harm their owners and family members, there really is no such thing as 'responsible gun owner'.

Unless you live in the wilds of Alaska and regularly encounter bears

[xfundy]

10. They're all "responsible"

.. till they or their children go off on a shooting spree.

[Bonhomme Richard]

12. All gun owners are responsible gun owners until they're not. N/T

[ramapo]

13. Doesn't matter

She owned an assault weapon. Nobody should own an assault weapon. Simple as that.

[libdem4life]

15. Do we now know she was sleeping...like shot in her bed? And that the weapons were not

locked up? I'd not read either of those details, but I don't watch TV.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

25. 60 Minutes said shot four times in the head...

while she was still in bed.

I haven't heard anything about whether the weapons were locked up.

[libdem4life]

36. Oh my. It's just hard to imagine her bearing all of the blame for this

even though she is deceased. God rest her soul.

[HERVEPA]

81. Screw her soul, whatever you think that is.

She was a gun nut, a survivalist, and her idiocy caused the death of all these people.

[libdem4life]

83. Many on this board are #1, maybe #2 and until someone proves to me that her guns

were not locked up, I will refuse to blame and shame and denigrate a dead mother. Hard as it may be to understand, neither uf us know the fact. She should have ...... yada yada ... I can't believe the Judges and Juries on here.

[HooptieWagon]

86. Yea, there's a whole lot of rush to judgement and knee-jerk responses here on DU.

Like we don't need no stinkin' facts, we'll just make up our own to fit our preconcieved notions driven by raw emotions. So FOX-like, and so dissappointing to see on DU.

While there certainly are a lot of questions about the mother's actions and lack of actions, we simply don't have the answers and the mother is no longer around to explain. It's a poor response to judge her before hearing the facts.

[HERVEPA]

109. They were her guns

Her kid who she knew was messed up was able to get them.
She has a direct responsibility in the death of those kids.
I'll save my compassion for those who deserve it, like those who died trying to save kids.

[HooptieWagon]

110. We don't know if son had previous indication of violence,

or how, and if, she had the guns secured, or how the son accessed them. It is almost preposterous to suggest she knew her son was violent and left unsecured guns around the house for him to use. The likely case is she had some degree of security based upon her knowledge of her son, as a mother. Perhaps she had further plans...she could have planned to remove the guns that day. We don't know.

What we do know:
She obviously didn't foresee her son killing her and shooting up an elementary school.
She obviously didn't foresee that whatever gun security she had was vulnerable at some point.
We know this from hindsight she doesn't have.

[HERVEPA]

113. Christ!

She was a gun nut survivalist. You have a kid totally detached and screwed up. You don't have the guns in your house, period.

[HooptieWagon]

114. We don't know how accurate that description was.

It's not like she lived in a fortified compound, grew her own food, and was preparing herself for the arrival of government black helicopters. So "survivalist" was probably an exaggeration.
I don't know for a fact, but it appears she wanted to be "prepared" in the event of a breakdown in society...not that she was opposed to govt, but trying to be ready if govt wasn't there.
OK, personally I don't think I need firearms to be "prepared", but who's to say I'm right and she's wrong? We won't know that until the day comes, if ever.
Secondly, she apparently had her guns secured to some degree. The kid initially tried to buy guns, but gave up when he found there was a waiting period. So buying them was easier than accessing hers. At some point her gun security broke down, but since we don't know how she secured her guns, or how the son got ahold of them, we don't know the weak link. It is a real stretch to claim she knew her son was violent yet left her guns around for him to get, as you are suggesting. More than likely she thought her gun security was adequate based on her son's past behavior, not realizing he was developing violent thoughts.

[obamanut2012]

96. JFC

[Kablooie]

17. Every driver in America is also better than average if they judge themselves.

[HooptieWagon]

88. And everyone's kid is "above average".

We don't know if or how the mother secured her guns, or the details of how her son got access to them. So at this point, everything is speculation.

[pasto76]

21. if you consider a basic risk assesment matrix

where the likelihood of something going wrong combined with the consequences. You can have low risk, low consequence; low risk high consequence; high risk low consequence; high and high. You get the point. if either quadrant has a HIGH in it, it is a high risk. I argue guns always have a high consequence, which makes even the low likelihood of something going wrong a high risk thing. Its just high risk.

but by societal norms, most people are, in fact, 'responsible'.

I sumbit however that we can change that. Much like when I was little, the drunk driving campaign was "know when to say when" to now - "impairment begins with the first drink". Its changed the whole culture of how people view drunk driving. We can do the same thing with guns

[Iggy]

22. Are You 100% Certain Ms Lanza

was fully honest and forthright regarding the mental state of her son?

I've seen this movie before; I'm 100% certain Jared Loughner's parents knew their son had several screws loose.. that the wheels were about to come off-- yet they did nothing. when the meltdown came, they ran and hid from the media. did they bother to make ONE public statement of sympathy for their son's victims?

it's time for parents to be held much more accountable for their children who end up murderers.

[RomneyLies]

24. I have no idea about her thoughts on her son's mental stability.

I am 100% certain she considered herself a responsible gun owner because I have yet to meet a gun owner who did NOT consider themselves to be responsible gun owners.

Which pretty blatantly demonstrates that many so-called responsible gun owners ARE NOT!

[Iggy]

31. We Already Know Numerous Gun Owners are NOT Responsble

again, how many times in the past twenty years have we read this pathetic story in the newspaper:

Seven year old Billy gets hold of his dad's loaded handgun, stupidly left lying around the house, and shoots the six year old neighbor kid Tommy dead. Why is the parent/gun owner not charged with second degree murder?

[kestrel91316]

43. Beats me. Because they should. And we need to work to make that the new way of doing things.

Equal culpability with the perpetrator. Just like being the driver of the getaway car in a fatal bank robbery.

[Iggy]

115. WRONG Answer >>>>

It's no mystery why ignorant, irresponsbile parents are not charged with a crime when their guns are used to kill someone with the misfortune of living next door to their dumb asses-- years ago the NRA stopped the Indiana legislature from passing legislation which would have made penalties for irresponsible gun owners much more serious.

[kestrel91316]

119. The NRA isn't God. We can defeat them. I think we now have the momentum.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. Shit, I'm not the most responsible gun owner out there...

Don't be so cock-sure about what someone you've never met believed. I know several other gun owners who are not very responsible.

I will say I handle guns safely and skillfully (I often shoot competitively in organized matches), but I'm pretty blasé as far as responsible use/storage/ownership is concerned. Heck, family/friends borrow some all the time. Like most people who brag about not owning a gun because they have no need/fear, I live in a safe neighborhood and really have no reason to worry about break-ins, no kids living at home, and no kids visit my place. It's the kind of town where most people don't feel the need to lock their doors.

[ReRe]

27. There was much that was going on in that family....

... something that went on for years and years, indeed for twenty years. Nancy might have been one of those kinds of parents who thought there was nothing wrong with her youngest son. She was probably encouraged to get the desperately needed help that her son required, but didn't do it, or did it for a while and felt it wasn't working. Or perhaps she found family counseling a little too personal. Something. Something beyond what any of us can surmise. Something "Alfred Hitchcock" in nature. Something that caused an almost unbelievable horrendous event to occur to 26 innocents and indeed to herself and her son on Dec 14, 2012 This all started and ended with Nancy Lanza. Those were her guns and ammo and it is apparent that they were not 100% secured. She was 100% irresponsible.

[HooptieWagon]

33. How do you know that?

It is possible she did have the guns secured, and her son somehow got the combination or key. It is possible she kept no ammunition in the house, and the son bought it with his brother's ID (which the mother likely didn't know he had).
So, in actuality we know very little until the full police report is made public, and making declarative statements of "fact" is just pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it on the wall.

[libdem4life]

37. Seconded.

[ReRe]

42. You have your opinion, I have mine.

I don't know nothing yet about what happened in that family FOR SURE. Do you call "Something" declarative? The reason I know "something" was wrong in that family is because I have been around the block a time or two. And THAT IS a fact!
Let's just agree to disagree at this time, OK?

[HooptieWagon]

53. Your own words- "she is 100% responsible".

Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. We don't know at present, unless you have a link you aren't posting.

[ReRe]

56. I said

...her guns weren't 100% secured, and that she was 100% irresponsible, not 100% responsible."

[HooptieWagon]

60. Meaning she was 100% responsible for her son getting the guns.

Which may or may not be the case. Perhaps she left them unsecured, perhaps she had them moderately secured thinking that enough, or perhaps she had them very well secured. We don't know at this time, so assigning blame is premature.

[kestrel91316]

44. I find your attitude about gun owner safety obligations to be quite disturbing.

Let me guess - you own lots of guns yourself, and don't feel the need to secure them?

Magical thinking kills.

[HooptieWagon]

55. Well, then you're batting zero on your guesses.

I have no guns. And I believe guns should be very well secured. In this case, we (the public) don't know how, or even if, they were secured. Statements of certainty that they were, or weren't, are utter bullshit just like your guesses.

[HooptieWagon]

28. Oh, you knew her?

I didn't know her, so I'm not certain about anything. I have a lot of questions, which will perhaps be answered someday soon.

[Purveyor]

29. And a 'piss poor' parent...perhaps? eom

[valerief]

30. Yep. They're like all those 'responsible' pit bull owners who are shocked when their little

darling has mauled a dog or person to death.

I've had enough of these 'responsible' people and their killing machines, be they flesh or metal.

[undeterred]

45. Honestly, everyone who has a gun in their home should think about

who else is in the household that knows about it.

If Nancy Lanza was concerned about her son's mental health, and she was, she should have considered getting rid of the guns.

[Major Nikon]

51. I'm pretty sure most of the conjecture about her is not all that productive

Quite a bit of it has already been proven false. Nobody here knows about the conditions by which she stored her guns. Nobody here knows the extent to which she knew or should have known her son was dangerous.

I think a lot of this conjecture does a disservice to those who have these types of disabilities and those who care for them.

Just my $0.02 worth. You are entitled to your own opinions and I'm not going to suggest otherwise.

[HooptieWagon]

78. Wow, a voice of reason. nt

[LynneSin]

52. She was just enjoying her 2nd amendment rights to own those highpowered guns

just saying

[Hoyt]

54. The kid was brought up in gun culture - that ain't responsible.

[abelenkpe]

57. My mom thinks she's a responsible gun owner

There are several guns in her home too. My sister and her kids live there. They've been going through tough times. My mom is a birther, teabagger and freeper. My 18 year old nephew, who also lives there, has aspergers. Personally think they are all a little unstable and shouldn't be around firearms. But I also think everyone Ive met who does own a gun is crazy in their own way. That's why I stay away from them.

[Marrah_G]

61. And that is why we need much stronger regulations and limits

[Berserker]

63. She may have been

a RESPONSIBLE gun owner but did you forget she was shot in the head 4 times while in bed and her guns stolen? It's pretty obvious that many people are fucking idiots.

[MinM]

80. More to the point, the NRA, and those who issue Concealed Weapons Permits...

likely would have as well. Prior to this past week, I'm sure Nancy and Adam would have been the type of people that the NRA would have used in ad campaigns.

[HooptieWagon]

87. Actually, no.

The NRA is driven by the gun industry. The overwhelming source of funding is from gun manufacturers and retail outlets. Their objective is to sell as many guns as possible, and actions towards that end are propaganda to fabricate a "need" to own guns (one of which is protection from "bad guys&quot , and making gun ownership as easy as possible. The vast majority of gun owners do not belong to the NRA (less than 10%), nor approve of or support the NRA's political activities. The success of the NRA isn't because of huge grass-roots support of gun owners, rather its the transfer of industry dollars to campaign war-chests.
There is no evidence at present indicating Nancy Lanza was a member of the NRA. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn't. And it is doubtful the NRA would feature someone in an ad who just went to a gun range once in a while...that doesn't drive their propaganda. More common would be an ad of a mother who successfully defended her home from armed and violent intruders. Even though such instances are rare, it fits the fantasy the NRA is selling. Afterall, ALL marketing is the selling of a fantasy.

[quiche]

100. If she had lived ...

She would have been held responsible, if only in a civil court lawsuit.

In fact, they should make up a new criminal law - and call it the Nancy Lanza law - that anyone who keeps automatic weapons in a house with a mentally ill person or person on dangerous medications, should be held criminally libel for any misuse of those weapons.

And this new crime should be a felony requiring jail time and a huge fine, plus confiscation of all weapons. And the person after serving their time should never be allowed to purchase another weapon.

[HooptieWagon]

106. She didn't own any automatic weapons.

Fer christ's sake, sit down and take a deep breath. She owned a couple semi-automatic handguns, a semi-automatic rifle, a shotgun, and a single-shot collector rifle. The semi-automatic handguns and rifle are among the most popular and biggest selling guns today. They fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled, automatic fire is impossible. And we don't know how or if she secured them. Obviously in hindsight they weren't secured well enough...but we don't know how her son got access or if he ever had prior indications of violence.

[Demobrat]

101. She was shot with her own guns.

Obviously, they were not "secured".

[HooptieWagon]

108. So you know how son got access to the guns?

Please do share.

We don't know how the son accessed the guns. Maybe they were laying around, maybe they were locked up and son stole spare key from father or something. So, until facts are known, it might be advisable to stop representing assumptions as fact.

[Demobrat]

111. I don't have to know how he did it.

He did it. If the guns were "secured" he could not have done it. Is there something about the word "secured" you don't understand?

[HooptieWagon]

116. The school was also secured, yet he got in.

Banks are secured, yet still get robbed. Artwork worth millions get stolen, despite multi-million dollar security systems, alarms, and armed guards.

We know she had some security, since the kid initially tried to buy guns but was thwarted by the waiting period. Obviously, buying was easier than accessing hers. But we don't know details of how her guns were secured or how son accessed them. It is logical to assume she thought she had adequate security relative to her sons prior behavior. We don't know if she fully comprehended how badly her son's condition deteriorated, or if so what her future security arrangement plans were. It is possible she was going to remove them from the house that day, who knows?

[RomneyLies]

120. Not very responsible, eh? n/t

[mizz pibb.]

118. It is scary that so many people just believe what the media puts out there...

I guess the WMD Powerpoint wasn't proof enough of the lies which can be spread!

[HooptieWagon]

136. Regardless of what media reports, there's a lot of DUers flat out making shit up.

We just saw a presidential campaign where one candidate and his running mate were serial liars. It seems to have infested DU to a degree.

[Care Acutely]

137. Also blows apart the "but MY guns are SAFE" myth.