Quote:
Originally Posted by thisisbenji
I'm pretty sure that I saw on CNN that the Newtown shooter got his guns from his parents who left them unlocked. Seems to me like they were legally brought into his house.
|
Yes, that is correct, though I'm not sure about the "unlocked" bit and the parents were divorced. His father lives in another town.
No gun laws were broken. In any event, the shooter had access to his mom's guns. Which begs the question of whether stricter gun laws would have kept this from happening. Personally I think not.
The existing laws prevented the shooter from obtaining his own guns. He was too young to get at CT handgun permit (which, depending on the town, can take months, involve notarized references from employers and other non-family members, as well as extensive background checks… this all applied to me). Connecticut also has a waiting period for long guns that applied to the shooter, which deterred him from buying a rifle a few days before the incident.
THE GUN LAWS WORKED EXACTLY AS INTENDED. THEY PREVENTED THE SHOOTER FROM BUYING A GUN. THEY DID NOT STOP THE MASSACRE.
Cab305... nice, mature response there, fella. Tell me… do you keep all poisonous materials in your house under lock and key? Perhaps people should think twice about letting their kids near your residence.
Let's take a deep breath and consider how responsible adults handle dangerous items and substances with regard to children. This goes for power tools, poisons, knives and other sharp objects, alcohol, medications and, yes, firearms. You teach kids to leave them alone, you restrict access to them by hiding them or locking them up, and you don't make a big deal out of it. This is plain, simple common sense.
My handguns are in a safe when I'm not actively handling them. On those rare occasions when kids are in my house they don't know that I own a gun and there's no way I'm going to tell them.
Securing a firearm from access by those who should not be handling it is the responsibility of the owner. Any owner who abdicates this responsibility is, frankly, behaving stupidly IMHO.
By the way, this responsibility is in fact codified in Connecticut law as follows:
Quote:
CHILD PROTECTION
Safe Storage
The law imposes criminal penalties on people who store loaded firearms on their premises if they know or reasonably should know that a minor (person under age 16) is likely to gain access to them without the minor's parent's or guardian's permission (CGS § 29-37i). A person is not criminally liable if the firearm is locked up or in a location that a reasonable person considers to be secure, or carries it on his or her person or close enough so that he or she can readily retrieve it.
A person is criminally negligent if the violation of these provisions results in a minor using the firearm to injure or kill himself or someone else (CGS § 53a-217a). A violator is strictly liable for damages if a minor obtains the unlawfully stored firearm and causes the injury or death of anyone (CGS § 52-571g). The provisions do not apply if the minor obtains the firearm by unlawful entry.
|
Source: Connecticut Summary of Gun Legislation,
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0369.htm
Note here that the shooter was not a "minor" under the law. However, the principle of responsible storage still applies as far as I'm concerned. I don't care who you are… you're not qualified to handle my firearms without my direct supervision. Period.