Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:37 PM Apr 2013

Nancy Lanza was a law abiding, legal gun owner

She was also a victim of Domestic Violence and killed by her own guns. Adam Lanza didn't need to buy any guns or go through any Background Checks to kill his mother, and the Sandy Hook children. Much easier to just take Mommy's guns. ALL these proposed laws are not addressing this situation; FAMILY MEMBER'S guns being used to kill other family members, or in this situation, OTHERS.

While mass shootings with family members guns is rare, murdering family members with their own guns is NOT. NOBODY is addressing this issue at all. TRUST. You are a good, honorable person, not a felon, or a have a mental disorder, but what about your family members in your household? We must TRUST YOU to do the right thing gifting or letting their family members have or use their guns without background checks?????

Nobody is addressing this situation. Are we as a nation to just depend on the honor system between flesh and blood? Why the hell is FAMILY so damned sacred and exempt from being investigated?

This is my personal pet peeve having been through this. My dear CCW husband, IF I wanted a gun myself, I would buy it MYSELF, and GO THROUGH THE BACKGROUND CHECK because I will not be turned down based on my criminal and mental health. I don't need YOU to gift it to me because we have rings on our fingers. No, no, NO!

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nancy Lanza was a law abiding, legal gun owner (Original Post) HockeyMom Apr 2013 OP
Law abiding, yes. Responsible, NO! NightWatcher Apr 2013 #1
What child? Adam Lanza was a grown adult. He knew right from wrong. MichiganVote Apr 2013 #3
She also knew he had problems dflprincess Apr 2013 #16
Uh, she had the damn gun safe in his bedroom. Duh. MichiganVote Apr 2013 #2
Trusting family members is the precisely my point HockeyMom Apr 2013 #4
OK then Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #7
It is not about trust, it is about knowledge. ManiacJoe Apr 2013 #5
The GOVERNMENT is trusting him HockeyMom Apr 2013 #6
The government also trusted Chris Dorner. What's your point? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #9
Knowledge is what makes the spousal "trust" special. ManiacJoe Apr 2013 #10
BOTH. undeterred Apr 2013 #13
Most of what you state is not really the problem. ManiacJoe Apr 2013 #18
so the school district could have just asked my husband HockeyMom Apr 2013 #14
They probably did think of that. ManiacJoe Apr 2013 #17
that is a very good point eom arely staircase Apr 2013 #12
She was white and ostensibly wealthy. moondust Apr 2013 #8
and that is why nobody should have 30 round clips arely staircase Apr 2013 #11
I just read a number of accounts of the victims of Newtown. smirkymonkey Apr 2013 #15

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
1. Law abiding, yes. Responsible, NO!
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:39 PM
Apr 2013

She left her weapons accessible to a child and it cost several lives. She fucked up.

 

MichiganVote

(21,086 posts)
3. What child? Adam Lanza was a grown adult. He knew right from wrong.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 05:45 PM
Apr 2013

Sure, he had problems. So what? He had a drivers license, he had finished school, he had attended a local college, and he was not poor, hungry, down and out, abandoned or otherwise abused. He had two parents and extended family. He could eat three squares a day free of charge. He could travel and he did. He had the best that mental health and other services had to offer.

Fuck him'.

dflprincess

(28,057 posts)
16. She also knew he had problems
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 10:23 PM
Apr 2013

yet she continued to keep guns in the house and took him to a firing range to teach him how to use them.

That is not responsible,

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
5. It is not about trust, it is about knowledge.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:27 PM
Apr 2013

Your husband can legally gift you a gun because he knows you are a legal recipient. A background check is not needed to confirm this. If you are not a legal recipient and he gifts you a gun, both of you have now broken the law.

The big mistake Nancy made was giving her son access to the gun safe when she knew he should not have it.

 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
6. The GOVERNMENT is trusting him
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:33 PM
Apr 2013

because he is a spouse?. What makes that so special? Same for Nancy Lanza. Government trusted HER as the gun owner to "police" her son and family member. We can't and shouldn't do that.

Use trust or the word knowledge, it's the same thing because it is very EASY to do a background check on anyone online. We did ourselves for a renter to our condo, and found out that he was wanted for criminal assault. If private citizens can just for a rental, gun dealers or the government can't????

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
9. The government also trusted Chris Dorner. What's your point?
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:37 PM
Apr 2013

If "someone somewhere may someday abuse something to the detriment of others" is your guiding principle you're going to shutdown society as a whole.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
10. Knowledge is what makes the spousal "trust" special.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:40 PM
Apr 2013

He already knows your legal status. No background check will change anything there. Sounds like what you really don't like are the private transfers.

Did Nancy actually give the guns to her son, or did she give him access to her guns? My understanding is the latter.

undeterred

(34,658 posts)
13. BOTH.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 07:28 PM
Apr 2013

She gave him guns as a gift. She trained him to use the guns. She let him keep all the guns in the home in the gun safe in his room. She trusted him with guns and other weapons even though she had reason to think things were not quite right with him for most of his life. Apparently it never occurred to her that he might become violent with guns.

Although somehow, that doesn't seem like much of a stretch.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
18. Most of what you state is not really the problem.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:10 AM
Apr 2013

> She gave him guns as a gift.
> She trained him to use the guns.
> She let him keep all the guns in the home in the gun safe in his room.

The real problem is that she gave him the keys or combination to the gun safe when she knew he had mental problems.

 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
14. so the school district could have just asked my husband
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:12 PM
Apr 2013

if I was a criminal, had a mental illness, and eliminated the background check and fingerprinting for me to work there? Would have saved them a lot of $ with that! Why didn't they think of that?

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
17. They probably did think of that.
Fri Apr 12, 2013, 01:06 AM
Apr 2013

The school district probably went with independent review since any lies by your husband would have no consequences to your husband.

For gun transfers, any lies by your husband results in criminal charges for both him and you, should the government choose to prosecute.

moondust

(19,917 posts)
8. She was white and ostensibly wealthy.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 06:37 PM
Apr 2013

Implying smart and successful. Not to be questioned or bothered. One of the "good guys with guns."

Happens all the time.

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
15. I just read a number of accounts of the victims of Newtown.
Thu Apr 11, 2013, 09:58 PM
Apr 2013

It was so tragic, I was in tears. I cannot believe that anyone would not want to do something about gun control after reading about these accounts. These families are absolutely destroyed. It is so disturbing, I cannot even describe it.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nancy Lanza was a law abi...