Gun Safety Rules--Adam Lanza's mom failed and died along with others

[BehindBlueI's]

We should be careful saying that certain people should or should not have guns because WHO gets to make the determination that a person should or should not?

I'll say it. Certain people shouldn't have guns. We all know it. How and where we draw the line is a matter of debate, but we surely don't have to allow the violently mentally ill to have access to firearms as a matter of principal. We have rights, but we also have responsibilities that come with living in a society.

 

[downzero]

I'll say it. Certain people shouldn't have guns. We all know it. How and where we draw the line is a matter of debate, but we surely don't have to allow the violently mentally ill to have access to firearms as a matter of principal. We have rights, but we also have responsibilities that come with living in a society.

I totally disagree. Anyone who cannot be trusted with the basic rights of man doesn't belong walking free in our society. If we can't afford to lock them up, we should let out all the non-violent drug offenders and lock up these people.

We don't "all" know that government should have the authority to disarm anyone. In fact, I'm quite certain the constitution suggests, if it doesn't explicitly state, that such action is not a legitimate function of government.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll say it. Certain people shouldn't have guns. We all know it. How and where we draw the line is a matter of debate, but we surely don't have to allow the violently mentally ill to have access to firearms as a matter of principal.

I agree with you, in principle. But, I also think the framework we currently have in place - no felons (sorry, NYFelon), people with diagnosed mental illnesses, kids under certain ages without adult supervision, etc. - are all satisfactory.

Sure, maybe we can tweak the reporting of the mentally ill part to work better but there remains one simple fact: any of us can be at risk of being shot and having our firearms stolen (those that weren't lost at sea). Whether the murderer/thief is a maniac, family member, evil incarnate or whatever doesn't change that there are certain vulnerabilities we all have.

Using the actual results to judge the prior actions can be risky. Yes, Lanza's mom's protections were factually insufficient - whatever they were. But to judge whether they were morally insufficient requires more information.

 

[NIFT]

Voire dire question: how do we know that she did not "keep them locked up" and the murderer simply broke into the locker/safe/closet/etc.?

Not being a jerk, just asking.

It is patently and painfully obvious that the guns were not inaccessible to Adam Lanza.

Safety Rule:

Keep guns (and ammunition) inaccessible to unuathroized persons.

1. The guns and ammunition both were not inaccessible, and
2. Adam Lanza, given his state and his mom's statement that she was "losing him," certainly qualifies as unausthorized.

 

[T.Lex]

Adam Lanza, given his state and his mom's statement that she was "losing him," certainly makes him unausthorized.

I admit to losing track of parts of the story during the holidays, but what was "his state" and what did she mean by "losing him" - assuming she actually said that?

I know people who had a schizophrenic adult-child. They only had 1 firearm - a pistol that they could use AGAINST him, if they needed to. Terrible situation. (They haven't needed to, and he doesn't seem to have those issues anymore.)

But, for the sake of argument, let's say she had 1 self-defense pistol, and the other guns in a locked safe where only she knew where the key was. So, he overpowers her or otherwise gets the pistol, kills her, then takes as long as he needs to in order to find the key. Is she still to blame?

It seriously concerns me that there is an implication that she should not have had ANY firearms if there was the slightest chance that Adam could've done the unthinkable.

 

[rvb]

Good article for the editorial page. Thanks.

I recently got glares from family for stating that IF the mother failed to have her firearms locked up, then she frankly got what she deserved for allowing her son (whom she believed should be committed to a facility due to his mental health issues) to have access to the firearms that were used to commit that horrible act.

Had they been locked up, or locked up better, could he have still done the deed? Sure. But it may have been prevented if access wasn't easy (and especially if she had followed through with her correct assessment that he needed locked up to get the treatment he needed).

I have no problem with giving my kids or family access to my firearms, assuming that I do not have concerns about their mental health or maturity or criminal background (I have extended family I would never give access to, or even be around w/o my carry gun).

In the grand scheme of things, safes are cheap.

Now maybe she did have them locked up. Maybe it was a keyed safe and he was able to find/steal the key. Maybe he beat a combination out of her. We don't know. If that's the case, then she truly is another victim vs an unwitting accomplice.

Maybe it's a reminder for us all to assess those around us, and assess the security of our firearms. I feel I've taken the necessary steps and reached a balance of security and accessibility I am comfortable with (and I'll be continually re-evaluating as my children grow). Have you?

If only the media would focus on this... that basic gun safety combined with correct treatment of the mental issues could have prevented this crime... not a gun ban.

-rvb

 

[DragonGunner]

It is patently and painfully obvious that the guns were not inaccessible to Adam Lanza.

Safety Rule:



Keep guns (and ammunition) inaccessible to unuathroized persons.

1. The guns and ammunition both were not inaccessible, and
2. Adam Lanza, given his state and his mom's statement that she was "losing him," certainly qualifies as unausthorized.

Explain please.....?......you have info that the guns were not locked up in a safe...? You have info he did not take a torch to the safe or some other form and get them? I have not yet heard how he came to get them, sure she may of had them all laying out....but I have not heard that yet either. Just because you have them in a safe doesn't mean a "unuathorized person" cannot get access to them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It is patently and painfully obvious that the guns were not inaccessible to Adam Lanza.

Safety Rule:

Keep guns (and ammunition) inaccessible to unuathroized persons.

1. The guns and ammunition both were not inaccessible, and
2. Adam Lanza, given his state and his mom's statement that she was "losing him," certainly qualifies as unausthorized.

It is easy to be a self-righteous Monday morning quarterback. As previously mentioned, no system of containment will stand up to attack indefinitely. We do not know that the weapons were not secured. We do not know what this twisted young man may his mother in the course of accessing the questions. It is easy to be a tough guy when you are not on the receiving end of torture. All we know is that he killed her, not how long or excruciating it may have been. Let's say that it was quick and clean. That left him with all the time in the world to breach a safe, most of which on the market can be defeated with hand tools given enough time.

Now, unless this woman had divine influence, it is not fair or reasonable to argue that she should have used her almighty powers to stop this disturbed young man with failure to accomplish that goal indicating negligence on her part. By that standard, you should empty the prisons and place the blame squarely on the victims of the crimes. After all, it is their fault for allowing it to happen, isn't it?

I suppose it is also possible that she left her guns in her sock drawer, but we don't know that, either.

 

[foszoe]

Too many people post with the benefit of hindsight.

A few months back there was an Indianapolis resident who made a trip to Bloomington, got himself into some trouble, checked in for a mental evaluation and had all his guns confiscated. There was plenty of discussion as to whether he should have his guns back or whether the act of taking them had gone too far.

Now, Lanza, with the end result known, should not have access to firearms because him Mom THINKS she is losing him? Is she qualified to make the distinction that he is legally incapable of possessing a firearm? I am sure after many trips to the range, she was fairly certain he handled the weapons safely. She was also a "prepper". Depending on what she was prepping for, it could be highly desirable that every person in the house had access.

 

[Slapstick]

Voire dire question: how do we know that she did not "keep them locked up" and the murderer simply broke into the locker/safe/closet/etc.?

Not being a jerk, just asking.

Kirk do you mean to tell me that someone could break into your safe while you where home without you hearing them? If so then you need a new safe. Remember she was shot in her bed so she was at home.

If she were that concerned about her son then she should have 1) have a safe that couldn't be broken into without specialized tools, 2) kept the combination to herself and 3) she always had the a option to store them off site until she adequately dealt with her sons problems.

Going to disagree with you on this one, 100 % preventable if she would have used some common sense.

 

[BKExpress]

NIFT, thanks for sharing. This is a very well written article and I accept the author's challege of "obsessive adherence to gun safety rules."

 

[GunSlinger]

Who among us does not have huge blind spots reference our children? I've had mothers who sat in on in interview where a teenager admits to armed robbery or to setting a friend up to be beaten and robbed, and they universally say he's not a bad kid and then make an excuse. He hangs out with the wrong people, he's going through a phase, etc.

Its very tough for many folks to take a step back and be impartial when it comes to their children and their children's propensity for violence, even adult children. Its not a failing of safe gun handling so much as a failure to foresee the future (a common flaw) and possibly ignoring warning signs.

This exactly. +1 and rep'd

 

[NIFT]

Good grief!

Some folks have really gone off the deep end on this one and have conjured up fantastical conjectures on the Lanza event, thereby creating a large tim of red herrings. The column was about basic gun safety rules. with one in particular. Many people, here, seem to have missed that entirely.

Let me try this one more time for those who claim they do not understand basic tenets of gun safety, here is one of those basic tenets:

Keep guns and ammunition inaccessible to unauthorized persons.

If that basic safety rule is uncomprehensible to you, or you somehow object to it, then I can't help you.

 

[NIFT]

NIFT, thanks for sharing. This is a very well written article and I accept the author's challege of "obsessive adherence to gun safety rules."

You just made my week!

 

[Litlratt]

I refuse to criticize the mother as there are too many unanswered questions regarding how her son obtained the firearms.
If he did, in fact, try to purchase a firearm prior to the Newtown tragedy, that would suggest to me that hers were not easily accessible to him.

 

[DragonGunner]

With some of these responses its no wonder so many are wrongfully sentenced by jurors.....just scary......a few of you should watch Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men.....

 

[Regular Guy]

I'll say it. Certain people shouldn't have guns. We all know it. How and where we draw the line is a matter of debate, but we surely don't have to allow the violently mentally ill to have access to firearms as a matter of principal. We have rights, but we also have responsibilities that come with living in a society.

Here's what happened in my family a few years ago--just something to keep in mind:

My Dad was an upstanding citizen--WW 2 vet (who enlisted in the Navy despite having a draft exemption for working in a defense industry job), hard working blue collar man, even several years in law enforcement as a town marshall. Avid hunter and shooter, too; he once said to me late in life, "Even though I don't use my guns anymore, it's enough just to sit here and look at them." The last guy in the world that would go on a shooting rampage.

Then he developed Alzheimer's Disease. After a couple years he started imagining things, like people outside the house at night even though Mom & Dad literally lived out on the back 40 in northern Michigan with no houses or neighbors around.

One night when Mom was in another room sleeping he called my sister and asked her to call the sheriff and ask him if it was ok if he shot the people that were out in his yard, bothering him. Well, sis & brother in law got there as fast as they could and found him trying to load his .270; they emptied the house of all the guns that night.

But none of us ever anticipated this--this was DAD, not some nut case. And none of us were experts in Alzheimer's. It blindsided everyone. In hindsight we should have acted sooner, but we simply never thought of it.

I guess what I'm getting at is it can be extremely hard to realize a close family member shouldn't have access to guns, and then in a blink of an eye it's too late.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But none of us ever anticipated this--this was DAD, not some nut case. And none of us were experts in Alzheimer's. It blindsided everyone. In hindsight we should have acted sooner, but we simply never thought of it.

I guess what I'm getting at is it can be extremely hard to realize a close family member shouldn't have access to guns, and then in a blink of an eye it's too late.

Be glad you figured it out in time. Not being so quick on the uptake cost me an uncle. Alzheimer's, a new prescription sleeping pill, and two weeks later he fatally shot himself while babbling nonsense.