Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[2aguy]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

Here is a list of all the mass shootings since the 1990s........from Mother Jones....please tell me how right wing and pro gun and what part of the NRA Mother Jones is....

Here you go...the number of mass public shootings according to Mother Jones...rabid, anti gun, left wing news source.....not the NRA...


US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation


2015....4

2014....2

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985...0

1984...2

1983...0

1982...1

 

[jillian]

Why shouldn't she have been allowed to buy guns? She wasn't a criminal either.

This is the type of thinking that makes people come out against people in your movement.

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.

SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.

 

[2aguy]

Moron...the kid wasn't violent...at all...until the killing...moron. He was passive and non aggressive......and picked Sandy Hook because it was a gun free zone....so the school district should be sued for creating a killing zone.

Actually he picked it because he used to go there and it was some kind of childhood trauma. But your fantasies about heat-packing preschoolers aside, he's someone who never should have had access to a gun.

So why did he?

Wrong...twit.....he went to Sandy Hook, the middle school and the High School....he scouted all 3 locations for years.......and the middle school and the high school had armed security...Sandy Hook did not......

 

[JoeB131]

Like I said.............try to take the guns and see what the fuck happens.......This isn't Europe........The Founding Fathers were right...........to put the 2nd Amendment in to protect ourselves even if it happens to be from our own Gov't.......

Have you looked at the numbers 2aguy has been posting.......We have enough private weapons in this country to go to War with any Nation on earth..........Not Federally owned..........Privately owned....

And you want to take them all............

Yes, I would like to take them all. You don[t need them. And frankly, if you are the kind of nut who thinks he needs to shoot a federal agent because you don't like the fact you lost an election, we need to treat you the way we'd treat a rabid dog.

 

[xband]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

We do not have a mass shooting once a day in this country......the idea comes from an anti gun cite that counts every shooting as a mass shooting.....when gang bangers shoot each other over a dice game, they count it as a mass shooting....and that is not a mass shooting......I will list the studies and that one in particular....

When you sleep with dogs you get fleas.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.

SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.

Then she should have had him committed.

 

[2aguy]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

Here you go...all of the studies....clinton's is highlighted....


I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

your so called sources are not sources.

and the latest one is 1994, more than twenty years ago and bear no rational relationship to the numbers we know actually exist

feel free to address the fact that the more guns you have, the more mass shootings we have.

and please show how keeping guns away from mentally unstable people and criminals impacts on your right to lawfully own a weapon....unless of course you're a criminal or mentally unstable.

Do you even realize that those are actual studies, conducted by trained researchers in the fields of economics and criminology...many, if not most are anti gunner studies........like the clinton justice department study...two rabidly anti gunners....


Do you realize that the gun murder rate has been going down since the 1990s as more Americans have bought, owned and carried guns...this is not made up...this is a fact....from both the FBI and the CDC.....you are wrong....in all ways....and the list of mass shootings...check it out...not going up....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.

SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.

They weren't available to him. They were locked up in a gun cabinet.

 

[jillian]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

We do not have a mass shooting once a day in this country......the idea comes from an anti gun cite that counts every shooting as a mass shooting.....when gang bangers shoot each other over a dice game, they count it as a mass shooting....and that is not a mass shooting......I will list the studies and that one in particular....

is that the wing nut lie now?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.

SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.

Then she should have had him committed.

She was in the process of doing that. That's what set him off in the first place.

 

[jillian]

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

Here you go...all of the studies....clinton's is highlighted....


I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

your so called sources are not sources.

and the latest one is 1994, more than twenty years ago and bear no rational relationship to the numbers we know actually exist

feel free to address the fact that the more guns you have, the more mass shootings we have.

and please show how keeping guns away from mentally unstable people and criminals impacts on your right to lawfully own a weapon....unless of course you're a criminal or mentally unstable.

Do you even realize that those are actual studies, conducted by trained researchers in the fields of economics and criminology...many, if not most are anti gunner studies........like the clinton justice department study...two rabidly anti gunners....


Do you realize that the gun murder rate has been going down since the 1990s as more Americans have bought, owned and carried guns...this is not made up...this is a fact....from both the FBI and the CDC.....you are wrong....in all ways....and the list of mass shootings...check it out...not going up....

i trslixr that you're using sources making claims. i know nothing about the so-called studies or if they were committed by you nutters

i do know your sources are gun nut sources and that you're never correct or honest.

 

[Wilbur Right]

Whatever Joe.....................A lot of people are tired of your shit.......and those pushing these agenda's.........and those in Oregon were doing so to get litigation.................Most are not gonna go down quietly and we sure as hell aren't gonna line up for them..................

I keep waiting for you gun nutters to act. Every day the confiscation of our beloved guns continues to grow.

Buy all you fuckers do is run your mouths on a message board.

When on the fuck are you going to DO something about this travesty?

And writing shit to Joe isn't "doing" anything. Joe isn't going to take your guns. He's waiting just like me for you and 2a guy to put YOUR guns where your mouth is.

What are you guys waiting for. The situation is bad and getting worse.

 

[eagle1462010]

Like I said.............try to take the guns and see what the fuck happens.......This isn't Europe........The Founding Fathers were right...........to put the 2nd Amendment in to protect ourselves even if it happens to be from our own Gov't.......

Have you looked at the numbers 2aguy has been posting.......We have enough private weapons in this country to go to War with any Nation on earth..........Not Federally owned..........Privately owned....

And you want to take them all............

Yes, I would like to take them all. You don[t need them. And frankly, if you are the kind of nut who thinks he needs to shoot a federal agent because you don't like the fact you lost an election, we need to treat you the way we'd treat a rabid dog.

Look Mr. NUT.............I'm just using a Cattle Prod on you so you will get back on your normal posting to show the people on this thread what you are.................You WANT ALL GUNS GONE............

And what the hell is this about upset over losing an election.................What the Fuck are you smoking....................

I said if you BAN ALL GUNS.............so is that what your crystal ball tells you if we LOSE THIS ELECTION........Your side will BAN ALL GUNS when it creates a KANGAROO COURT...................

I'm not giving up my guns Joe...........Your little YOUR A PUSSY statements are for trolling purposes only............We aren't giving them up Joe....................I'm not alone on this..........

We even had a poll back then when you posted your BS back then.........and just about everybody on that thread was against you and thought you were a dumb ass.....

Doesn't look like that has changed now has it..................

 

[2aguy]

I don't own any guns myself, but I do recognize the importance of our rights and our right to own a weapon. This kind of stuff makes me so angry!

---
I also don't own a gun, but also recognize our libertarian right to have weapons ... as long as others can also maintain their rights to liberty/freedom/life.

I believe the issue is about the DEGREE of social harm the weapon can cause vs the need of the individual to have it.
.

yes.....and in that case you are also wrong....

a study by bill clinton's Department of Justice found that Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and save lives......

vs.

8,124 gun murders...in 2014 which has been going down since the 90s.....and of those murders 90% of the murderers were career criminals and 80% of the victims were also career criminals.......

So the benefit of guns far outweighs the harm........you must agree...right?

Since 357,000,000 guns are now in private hands in 2015....so that would mean that 356,991,876 million guns were not used to commit murder...so it would be just stupid to go after all those guns that weren't used to commit murder...right?

where is your study?

also how long ago was clinton president? do you think whatever you purport it shows is still valid given we now have, on average, one mass shooting a day in this country?

Here you go...all of the studies....clinton's is highlighted....


I just averaged the studies......which were conducted by different researchers, from both private and public researchers, over a period of 40 years looking specifically at guns and self defense....the name of the researcher is first, then the year then the number of times they determined guns were used for self defense......notice how many of them there are and how many of them were done by gun grabbers like the clinton Justice Dept. and the obama CDC

And these aren't all of the studies either...there are more...and they support the ones below.....

A quick guide to the studies and the numbers.....the full lay out of what was studied by each study is in the links....
GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense

GunCite Frequency of Defensive Gun Use in Previous Surveys

Field...1976....3,052,717 ( no cops, military)

DMIa 1978...2,141,512 ( no cops, military)

L.A. TIMES...1994...3,609,68 ( no cops, military)

Kleck......1994...2.5 million ( no cops, military)

Obama's CDC....2013....500,000--3million

--------------------


Bordua...1977...1,414,544

DMIb...1978...1,098,409 ( no cops, military)

Hart...1981...1.797,461 ( no cops, military)

Mauser...1990...1,487,342 ( no cops, military)

Gallup...1993...1,621,377 ( no cops, military)

DEPT. OF JUSTICE...1994...1.5 million ( the bill clinton study)

Journal of Quantitative Criminology--- 989,883 times per year."

(Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18])

Paper: "Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment." By David McDowall and others. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, March 2000. Measuring Civilian Defensive Firearm Use: A Methodological Experiment - Springer


-------------------------------------------

Ohio...1982...771,043

Gallup...1991...777,152

Tarrance... 1994... 764,036 (no cops, military)

Lawerence Southwich Jr. 400,000 fewer violent crimes and at least 800,000 violent crimes deterred..

*****************************************
If you take the studies from that Kleck cites in his paper, 16 of them....and you only average the ones that exclude military and police shootings..the average becomes 2 million...I use those studies because I have the details on them...and they are still 10 studies (including Kleck's)....

your so called sources are not sources.

and the latest one is 1994, more than twenty years ago and bear no rational relationship to the numbers we know actually exist

feel free to address the fact that the more guns you have, the more mass shootings we have.

and please show how keeping guns away from mentally unstable people and criminals impacts on your right to lawfully own a weapon....unless of course you're a criminal or mentally unstable.

here is the actual study done by bill clinton through his Department of Justice....they hired two rabid anti gunners to create a study to directly refute the work by Dr. Gary Kleck....and after creating the study, conducting the study...they found that defensive gun use by Americans was 1,500,000 times a year....which as you saw is not out of line with the other gun studies that have been done...

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users.

This estimate is directly comparable to the well-known estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in the last column of exhibit 7. While the NSPOF estimate is smaller, it is statistically plausible that the difference is due to sampling error. Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.

SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.

Then she should have had him committed.

She was in the process of doing that. That's what set him off in the first place.

She should have had him committed quietly. I'm sure she didn't realize she would lose her life in the process.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Guy, most people would agree Nancy Lanza never should have been allowed to buy a military grade weapon, and no one would want a crazy nut like Nancy living on their block.

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.

SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.

I will grant you that. She should have removed the weapons until he was removed.

 

[eagle1462010]

Whatever Joe.....................A lot of people are tired of your shit.......and those pushing these agenda's.........and those in Oregon were doing so to get litigation.................Most are not gonna go down quietly and we sure as hell aren't gonna line up for them..................

I keep waiting for you gun nutters to act. Every day the confiscation of our beloved guns continues to grow.

Buy all you fuckers do is run your mouths on a message board.

When on the fuck are you going to DO something about this travesty?

And writing shit to Joe isn't "doing" anything. Joe isn't going to take your guns. He's waiting just like me for you and 2a guy to put YOUR guns where your mouth is.

What are you guys waiting for. The situation is bad and getting worse.

Why don't you

Have they taken the guns yet dumb ass.................

 

[2aguy]

No, I don't think "most" people would agree. What she purchased were legal weapons no different than you going to the store and buying a gallon of milk. She did nothing wrong. Her weapons were locked up in a gun cabinet (the way you libs always preach people should do) and the only time her son had legal access to those firearms was under her supervision.

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.

SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.

Then she should have had him committed.

She tried...but the left wing regressives have made that almost impossible....

 

[jillian]

Everyone seems to forget that her son killed her so he could take the weapons

no one has forgotten that. SHE gave him access to them even knowing he was dangerous.

Then she should have taken measures to avoid it.

SHE shouldn't have had a gun because of the person in her home to whom they were available.

Then she should have had him committed.

She tried...but the left wing regressives have made that almost impossible....

ok nut bar. now you know why we mostly laugh at you.

and do learn what regressive means. it makes you sound more stupid than usual.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wasn't Lanza on psychotropic drugs? That screws up your mind.