The shooter had access to legally acquired guns. Gun laws would not have prevented the shooting. But I'd like to know why normal citizens have to have automatic weapons. My family regularly hunted game for food. They never needed automatic weapons. We had guns in my home and we were taught to respect them, sternly taught never ever to point them at another person.
I have a close friend who has struggled with schizophrenia most of his adult life. He lives in poverty, largely shunned by most of our friends. But he's not violent. It was a struggle to get him help. Many people suffer from this illness and it's hard to recognize or admit a loss of control, and the social stigma against it makes it even harder to admit one needs help. Social and medical programs are often the first to be cut when governments look at budgets. Mentally ill people are poor and can't afford expensive lobbyists, so they often bear the brunt of budget cuts. There is no question, having read about Lanza's behavior from the accounts of his contemporaries, that he struggled with some kind of mental problems. Why his mother, a kindergarten teacher, needed three automatic weapons at home is something I cannot begin to fathom. There have to be limits to liberty, and being able to kill everybody in a movie theatre on a day when you are especially pissed off does not seem to have been included in the Second Amendment of our Constitution. That's where I draw the line.
It's this simple: your freedom to swing your arms about stops the minute you hit me in the nose. There are laws about drinking and driving. Nobody gets hysterical when those are imposed. They are commonsensical. Why, then, shouldn't there be restrictions about how and under what circumstances one can use other deadly devices? One begins to wonder if people equate guns with their phalluses or something. It's irrational. I have no problem if you have properly locked up weapons that are under control and pose no danger to law abiding citizens, but I think you should have to buy liability insurance to cover unauthorized damage. If your kid gets in your car and runs somebody over with it, you should have to pay for the damage he causes. By the same token, if your kid gets into your guns and shoots somebody, you should have to be liable for the damage caused. Presently there are no restrictions of this type and there should be.
Perhaps if people were held liable for such tragedies, we'd be less likely to see this kind of insane shooting rampage. I may be wrong, but it's better to try to do something to stop it than to just sit around wringing our hands, saying tsk tsk every time somebody shoots up a shopping center, movie theatre, place of worship or kindergarten.
