I don't think you could call her a responsible gun owner.

1. The weapons were not secured. He got to them.

2. From what we are learning Adam Lanza, her son, had a history of personal and mental problems. She must have know this so to have weapons in her house accessible to him was very irresponsible.

I know there are a lot of other variables but there are two that could have been changed.

And just how do you know that? I'm willing to wager that those weapons were secured, and he knew how to get to them.

Are you advocating banning weapons for parents that have children with mental health issues?

In cities that they've done the above, get guns off the street, strong gun laws, hasn't done a thing but insure only criminals are armed.

He got them and he used them. They were not secured.

No. I'm saying that she did not act responsibly in regards to those guns and her knowledge of her son.

Which is my point. Your secure weapons are never secure, especially when the goal is to train your family to use them.

But up until yesterday, she likely would have claimed that her son would never be capable of such an act. Ah, the power of hindsight.

I guess I'm saying the two go together. True hindsight is a wonderful thing, but as this story unravels I'm afraid Nancy Lanza will take some blame. The only positive thing here is that maybe there are others who are in a similar situation and they will take steps to prevent a similar tragedy.

People, good people do take action.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=110

Except that from the statistical point of view the opposite is true. We've never had tougher gun control laws than we do now yet these incidents seem to be occurring with greater and greater frequency. If your theory were right they should be decreasing.

On the other hand, most first-world countries have far more restrictive gun controls in the US than there are now, and yet their incidence of violent crime is orders lower and statistically decreasing.

Though as I said in discussions on this topic before, what I think that actually points to is that the problem isn't anything to do with guns at all. It's a much wider cultural issue and reducing it to a gun control debate of "guns or no guns" is not the right approach.

Also, I find reducing this topic to "guns or no guns" extremely sad considering what actually transpired. It just shows that though the shootings keep happening, nobody learns anything. Instead, it just turns into a politicized back-and-forth, left-vs-right debate that does nothing to address the underlying cultural problems behind this. And people are willing to drop their sensitivity to this sort of thing in favour of easy political labels.

Maybe. I'm misinformed but I heard that in last twenty years or so the laws had been relaxed in many states...not that they had been ever hard on people by my understanding....
I guess its all relative....

its just another conservative dream about a non existant past which is used to try and avoid reality. Just on the concealed carry issue the number of no restictions states has quadrupled the shall issue states have nearly quadrupled and the no issue states are now pretty much non existant. From everything covering such a wide range as parks cities pistols assault rifles the laws have been relaxed not tightened, also with the rash ofexceptionally crazy castle laws the restrictrions on just shooting people have been relaxerd as well.
But the message is still "laws are now tougher than they have ever been" so swallow the spin from august MH:03:

Name a single city that has ensured that only criminals are armed with its laws?
You should be able to come up with an example of a city as you did use the plural so there must be more than one city you can choose from.

Unless of course there isn't a single city in the states that has ever done so:yep:

Several years ago, there was a school shooting in California, the shooter used an assault rifle. After, California banned assault rifles, but the killings didn't slow down, because they just used other guns. Now, the assault rifle ban out there, is so watered down, it doesn't look like they banned them in the first place.

Says you but the International Crime Victims Survey says otherwise:
http://rechten.uvt.nl/icvs/images/Graph03.JPG

No it doesn't.

1.yet their incidence of violent crime is orders lower and statistically decreasing.
2.overall victimisation for 10 crimes.
So violent crime is put up and you decide that to counter the point you shall include "theft of a bicycle" as one of 10 crimes.

But maybe it was a violent theft of a bicycle:rotfl2:

America should have stronger gun laws right now. All you need for self-defence is a handgun, and yet this person was using a civilian assault rifle.

Would you feel better if he had committed his crimes with a shotgun?