KaskadskyjKozak

Yeah, just ignore the other part of his post. Can't you at least acknowledge common ground, or is this a mental disorder itself? People are agreeing to ban assault weapons, closing gun sale loopholes. Let's hope momentum builds for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder That's a great wiki link. Except autism isn't considered a personality disorder. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/health/connecticut-shooting-autism/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Dru should know better

"Removing large numbers of rapid-firing firearms from civilians may be an effective way of reducing mass shootings, firearm homicides and firearm suicides." Seems like a no-brainer: 1) reinstate the automatic weapons ban 2) have a federal "buy-back" program for folks who have the weapons already (legally or not - no questions asked) and want to sell them back (the gov't destroys them)

Many functioning adults in this society are autism spectrum/Asperger's and they are not in some custodial relationship with some "healthy" adult that is responsible for them. Do a news search and you'll see autism advocacy groups are getting pissed already at the attempts to linke autism/Asperger's to violent behavior.

I like Joe Lieberman's idea of having a bipartisan commission study these incidents and come up with a set of recommendations. The most likely actions would span a number of areas including, but not limited to, mental health assessment and treatment, evaluating the entertainment industry's role, and, of course, gun control. It is also on us all to help prevent these things from occurring - getting to know your neighbor, that problem/quirky kid, and yes, maybe being a "snitch" and proactively reporting someone that is "off", stockpiling weapons,etc. I've already posted above my thoughts on gun control I'd support. Scroll up. But let's be realistic, we have a stockpile of weapons in this country and a gun culture, so these events will still happen no matter what. It will take time to reduce them. This ship would turn very slowly.

It's funny that when it comes to gun rights this is a question, but if you substituted any other situation the answer is clear. Let's try it out. - The bank left the vault unlocked when the robbery took place and they stole all the cash in it. - The soldiers left the nuclear payload unsecured when the insurgents attacked the base. - You left your car unlocked and the thief stole the belongings. This women had some clear choices being faced with an unstable son. Secure the weapons in such a way he would never be able to get them OR just get rid of them. She choose not to. Wrong. If you leave your car unlocked and someone steals from you, it is still theft, they still committed a crime, not you. The owner is not charged with theft. Ditto for the bank vault. Good luck charging this woman for the crime, BTW. Prosecute her to the full extent of the law!

Well, that's Rob's assertion, so you might ask him.

Kind of like keeping your computer password a secret? That's 100% fool-proof, right?

How do you know that she did not have them in a lock box? Well, we definitely know that she failed to keep them secure one way or another, didn't she? That's how responsibility works. It was her job to be responsible for those guns. She failed. Oh, and let's not forget this is not a minor living in the home - the perpetrator was a grown adult, aged 20. And yes, that matters.

How do you know that she did not have them in a lock box?

. I want to know what this mother was like, and if she should have owned the guns she did or not. Considering how it turned out, I'd say she should not have owned them. Exactly. It always something like this - oh he got them from his grandfather/parent/brother/friend's house. The short of it is that if we were not a society awash in guns this troubled person would not have even got into the school. The current model of free-market guns is not working. Among 1st world countries we are an outlier in gun violence. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/us/connecticut-nancy-lanza-profile/index.html?iref=obinsite

The murderer's mother was held responsible in the end - she paid the ultimate penalty

Everyone should care. You don't fix a problem without understanding everything that contributes to it, and obtaining the facts. I want to know what this mother was like, and if she should have owned the guns she did or not. I'd like to know what influence she had on her son in this matter - was she glorifying gun use to him? Was she mentally ill herself (survivalists usually aren't dealing with a full deck, IMO).

You're really challenged aren't you Rob? I mean shit, jumping to conclusions everywhere, making up statements others never made... Here's a little meat for you - I support the ban on assault rifles. Problem is it appears this guy used handguns and the rifle was left in the car. I'd be for limitations on handguns with large magazines, automatic firing, etc. I'd be for limiting how many such handguns you can own (how about one if any?), and I'd be for strict monitoring/registration for such weapons, a national database for owners managed by the gov't, rules about getting permits for them renewable on an annual basis or you forfeit your weapon, closing loopholes on private sales of such weapons, etc.

Your assertions don't even jibe with your link! LOL The fact is they are still trying to understand what happened here and it's no where near as clear cut as you claim.

The graph would be a tad more significant if it correlated autism (in children) with organic food CONSUMPTION

Everything I read so far has been that the boy was intelligent, maybe autistic but not mentally disturbed, and not showing warning signs. Have you read to the contrary? The mother may have done all she could to keep the kid away from the guns. Not much you can do when you are dead, of course. Have you read to the contrary, that she provided him convenient access? How would this be prevented by legislation btw? Maybe the nanny state could install cameras in homes of people with a mentally disturbed inhabitant?

The guns were stolen from his mother, after he murdered her. Was his mother the kind of person that should not have owned guns, the kind of person more legislation would even impact? If not, then your point again is off target.

Has "society" improved much from the mid 90's? Americans are certainly killing a lot less people with firearms compared to then. I'm referring more to how a person can snap and go on a rampage like this, and feel it is "ok" somehow to slaughter so many innocents. But then again it may just be evil, which has always existed.

Jason, The problem is society.

the 1791 solution goes a good deal beyond keeping muskets out of the hands of half-wits... One report was saying the perpetrator was far from a half-wit - had some form of mild autism, but was extremely intelligent, even described as a "genius". So much for "half-wits" being the problem

So, gun control (disallowing the mentally ill from obtaining them) helps how here exactly?

Well said. Unfortunately I think you are spot on here.

I never said more guns is the answer. If there are laws on the books that this guy violated to obtain the weapons, then gun control clearly is not effective, is it? If this guy has a history of mental instability and was allowed to stay free and clear (rather than be treated, medicated or possibly institutionalized), then clearly there is a problem there, isn't there? To fix what went wrong you actually have to identify the failure first.

That means sooo much coming from you.