Shared publicly  - 
Police searched the house of the Sandy Hook Elementary gunman, but found nothing to indicate that the killer was on medication.  
The amount of ammo on scene has lead investigators to say that as awful as this event was, it could have been worse.
Martin Hohenberg's profile photoKeith Hendrickson's profile photoPancho lopez's profile photoJohnny Wagster's profile photo
The shooter had to have been on something. How else do you explain that this shooter's father and the father of the movie theater shooting were both going to testify about the Libor scandal?
+Michael Donovan Do you have any links/sources for the debunking of those connections? All I've seen are reports that support them and other reports that have "no comment." I'm interested.
Multiple Internet sources told me that Morgan Freeman died two years ago... dunno who the imposter running around today is... 
The most frustrating of them all is finding no reason to all these madness... but everything has a reason.
I heard that he shot up the school because gay people can get married.  This is obviously the root of all evil.  /s
Guns don't kill people people do. Criminals and psychopaths will always get a gun. People can buy weapons on the street for under $500. How you going to regulate that? Criminals do that and we all know not everybody follows the law. All it is going to do is make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase guns and let's face the facts, we have less mass shootings the last 8 years than the assault weapon ban years between 1994-2004. Maybe someone should do a study why shooting are up when guns are more heavily regulated/banned than when they are not. 
More people die from drunk driving accidents every year than mass shootings but I do not see any outrage against alcohol and vehicles. Compared to drunk driving deaths, mass shootings are rare. 
NY, Chicago and Washington DC has some of the toughest gun laws yet higher murder rates among guns related crime. Evidence shows when gun laws are lax and more people are allowed to conceal carry there is less crime overall. Maybe we should open up to common sense and realize we will never regulate safety because human nature tends to like to break the rules. 
Jon Dye
If you don't like them posting it, simply uncircle the page.

You have zero right to tell someone else what to post on THEIR G+ page.
I know, but for some reason the anti-gun crowd is up in arms in the assault weapons ban. Anytime there is a shooting, people are uninformed but quick for solutions that make no sense. They think guns kill people therefore all guns need to be banned by many of them said.
People fear what they don't understand 
Vern C
Why is the media and lots of Fox programs talking so much about the shooter? Let law enforcement do their job and release findings. I'm not saying that the various news outlets can't do their own research, but we don't need this trickle of info about this and other shooters. He's dead. We're not on the look out for him. 

This is exactly why we all know the names of the shooters (and why should we) and can't name three victims. Strike their names from the record books. Refer to them as the "Blah Blah" shooter. All you do is make them immortal by talking about them so much. 
Jon Dye
once again, don't pay attention if you don't like it.
Ok, back on topic: why wasn't this young man on some sort of medication for emotional disorders and why was his mom building an arsenal?? 
Vern C
Medication for what? We don't know what was wrong with him if there actually was. All we have is speculation. 
Who says she was building an arsenal?  She had 2 hand guns and a shotgun. I wouldn't call that an arsenal or anywhere near building an arsenal. How about you look up online one some of these gun collectors and enthusiasts and see what an arsenal really is. You will be amazed at what people have in their hobby, and no, not everyone of them are criminals or pschos. They are law abiding citizens that has a passion for collecting guns, hunting etc.
Oh, this is speculation, but the news coming out so far is she was trying to have him committed to a mental hospital because he was getting out of control. Something about him being 20 and not underage made it difficult for her to get him committed. If anything we can say on the mother is she should have had the guns locked up and put away, with a child like she had, she should have had them with a friend. 

IMO, it is not gun banning or regulations we should be talking about, it is gun safety and trying to get more people to realize that guns are registered to the owner and outside of the owner of the weapon, nobody should have access to them. All guns should be in some type of gun protected safe, with a trigger lock on it, and put in a place where it can be safely shielded from unwanted attention of others. His mother if anything should have had her guns be at another families house while she was dealing with a son who reported was threatening her and her other kids with a house knife just days before the shooting.
By the way, in China on the same the of the shooting, over 12 people were killed by someone with a knife in school. So unless society really is going to get serious about what is going to be a solution, we will never solve these problems. First of all, IMO, lose the gun free zones since it is interesting all these mass shooting happen in gun free zones. All gun free zones are is nothing more than invitations for criminals letting them know law abiding citizens won't be carrying and will be willful victims to their mercy.

Allow trained teachers and other personal to carry arms around school. Israel does this, and no matter how many time we hear about the Hamas terrorists attack Israel we really hear no one attacking their kids who attend school and that is because almost every teacher is carrying a handgun of some sort and is trained to use it. Criminals are smart enough to know when their potential victims have or may have a gun, they actually value their lives and choose the next target.

And last, how about we enforce the laws we have on the books already before adding new ones? Does it even make sense we are always quick to add new laws after a major incident but we fail to enforce the ones we already have on the books? And what will happen when those new laws will be ignore or not followed? More laws? How about we enforce the laws we have on the books, and put more attention on gun safety. Maybe like we need to have car insurance to drive in most states, maybe people need to prove they have a gun safe and trigger lock in order to have a weapon and if they don't 5 years in prison and/or $100,000 fine can be given?

IMO I have no problem people owning guns, more the merrier however I also believe in gun safety and many people are lazy when it comes to gun safety. People should have to show proof every 2 years they have a safe to hold whatever amount of guns they have, and a trigger lock for every gun they have registered and prove they know how to put them on correctly, because anybody can but a few and show them off to the officials thinking they can get by.

It really doesn't matter how many guns someone owns, they have constitutional rights to own as many as they like, however gun safety is a must.
+Keith Hendrickson Well said. To further back your point, these mass shooters have been showing a propensity for suicide when confronted by law enforcement. They are cowards and they kill themselves often and quickly when someone who isn't afraid appears. Police will never be able to respond fast enough to an active shooter scenario. You need people trained and equipped to deal with it already there. Especially with such an easy and vulnerable target as our schools. 
Vern C
Let's just pump the breaks. This whole "arm teachers" things it full of huge holes. Their are plenty of teachers who could at any minute snap and kill children so giving them weapons may not be best. There's also plenty of teachers who would not want to be armed so your going to have to go out and find new teachers (big laugh there) who are willing to be trained and jump through all the new hoops to be certified. 
+V.A. Carter What on God's green Earth are you basing that comment on? Show me where there has been a mass killing at a school perpetrated by a teacher.

It's not a requirement, they don't HAVE to carry at the school. However, I do advocate allowing them the option, given proper training and vetting of the teacher prior to allowing them to do so. I promise you this, there are those that would, if only to save their own skin if it happens at their school. 
When the police say the ordeal could have been "worse" after seeing the amount of ammunition the mother had I am left wondering why she was building an arsenal (the word is subjective and could indicate any number of guns, including three), especially when her son had emotional disorders. How can I say he did? Well, he was withdrawn, oh, and he went on a killing spree and committed suicide... i.e. emotional problems. Why argue with these questions? Just to argue and be disagreeable? How is that beneficial? 
Maybe she was buying them for her son. Maybe she thought that if someone broke into her house at night she would grow a third arm and use all the guns at once... I don't know, but the whole thing sounds weird. 
First of all, where is the evidence where it says the ammo belonged to the mother? You do know anyone of reasonable age can buy ammo even without a permit right? So you are just assuming this was bought by her? However the son could have bought it even though he couldn't have bought the gun because he already knew his mother had the guns. Maybe that is what happened.

You do know many people have more than 1 gun. There are people with more than 10 guns. Why, because they can. Most of those people don't commit crimes however just because you would like to rush to judgement on her just because of what a police report said, is asinine. No where in the report says the ammo was hers or bought by her anyway why would she buy all that ammo just so her son can kill her? I think knowing her sons condition and his obvious rage, I am sure it is safe to say he either stole some money or had access to ammo with anticipation of using it at her school. 

I guess anybody who owns more than 1 gun must be a criminal because it just sounds weird other people have different interests than you is just wrong. 

To clarify, the son killed all those kids and people, not the mother. The police said they found a lot more ammo but no where did it say who bought the ammo but you assume it was her even though we know anybody can buy ammo by going into any store that sells it and nobody needs a permit/license to purchase ammo. 

When people are misinformed and quick with their fearful responses that something anything needs to be done now without a second of reasoned thought, all we get are well intended solutions that doesn't do anything but add to the problems we have already. With all of the liberal solutions that has been pushed down our throats the last 60 years, we would think we would at least learn by now trying the same crap over and over again is nothing more than the definition of insanity.
Your response is far too emotional. Think for a moment. There is nothing wrong with having guns and our Bill of Rights ensures that Americans are never precluded from having guns, but that does not mean that a parent with an emotionally unstable adult child should keep assault rifles in the house. Is this concept that offensive to you? To me it just sounds like common sense. I have made no assumptions. Read the article, and try to calm down. 
Actually who says she cannot have guns just because she has a unstable son?
What I have been saying is it is safety that has been ignored. She should have left the guns by another family or trusted friends house or had it stored away in a storage area. What both our problems is she did neglect on the safety of the guns in case where stored them in where he could get to them.

I however am not going to think I can tell anybody they can and cannot have guns for whatever reason as long as the law says they can and are mentally capable of keeping it with safety of storing it in a safe place and using it.

She was a teacher and until news comes out telling me for whatever reason she wasn't competent to own a weapon then we can go from there. However we cannot just restrict everybody just because who lives with them. Many people actually stores weapons better than she did. Maybe she had them because of her son, the few articles I read say her son threatened to kill her several times and he has shown violent acts before. She was trying to have him committed to a mental hospital but they told her unless he commits a criminal act they cannot do anything.

I do not know the whole story why she wanted those weapons and chose not to store them properly other than for them to be available if her son becomes so unstable he tries to attack her. I do know one thing, people knew he was unstable and was unwilling to help his mother put him in a service that can service his needs properly. Noticing how many of the shooters we have seen in the last 5 years had some type of mental problems and each were reported that they knew signs of problems with those shooters, why are parents and
other people having so much trouble getting these kids or trouble people help? Why is it until a shooting takes place the real source of the problem is ignored and people just want to ban assault weapons?

How is those restrictions working in Chicago, NY and Washington D.C?

History proves every time government restricts guns, alcohol, sex etc, problems get worse, as we have seen between 1994-2004. Liberal policies are always well intentioned no doubt but failures never the less because they never attack the real problems. Many of the shooters had health problems and why isn't the conversation about getting these troubled kids and people that need help help? Why was the mother told they cannot help her unless he does something to get put in? Don't you think our righteous government should be the blame since the mother did her best to take care of him and actually came in and said he is a danger to himself and others?
A liberal is nothing more than a person who hasn't grown up. They are a child living in an adult body, expecting something for nothing and damn if the facts get in the way. Money grows on trees, and we are not capable of thinking for ourselves. Liberals actually believe that, they think Gov. can regulate safety yet how has that gone so far? Every time Gov. gets involved with more regulations noticed NONE of the problems gets fixed but multiplied. 

Read an article a couple days ago talking how the Democrats in the 1970's and 80s cut services and funding for these very troubled/mentally handicapped people. Interesting 10-20 years later we are seeing the results of liberal policies/ideals. Of course they never own it, they always point the finger and then people wonder why nothing gets done.

To liberals, guns kill people so therefore they need to be banned. With that logic cars and alcohol should be banned also because there is a lot more drunk deaths per year than is mass shootings. If we really care about our fellow neighbors we better got outraged about that. What about the billions of murders Americans support through abortions? Scientists says cells found on Mars is proof of life, but ignore the very cells that turn into a fetus, maybe because it is easier to play ignorant of the fact that they are murderers than taking real responsibility. I love it when liberals tell us what life is, but then magically forget what life means when referring to abortion. Very convenient indeed.
+Keith Hendrickson  I love it when conservatives tell us what life is, but then magically forget what life means when referring to capital punishment.
Ok, Martin, but if you consider that capital punishment is used pretty much exclusively in murder cases, it can still be argued that it is protective of the sanctity of human life, and so I ask: What was your point?
Capital punishment is a tool that helps deter crime and keeps useless people in society taking resources that could go to schools and health care. Liberals support abortion which the life they kill hasn't done any wrong. Ignorance is bliss until reality kicks in uh? Yea, nice analogy  liberals want to protect the criminals and filth of society and murder the innocent.
It is also interesting the rifle wasn't even used in the shooting since the cops say they found it in the trunk of the car. Basically he had a shotgun and handguns. Why is the useful idiots crying about a gun ban on automatic rifles when one wasn't even used in the shooting, and history proves you can kill a lot of people with handguns, shotguns, knives and explosives. 

The media is not reporting this but on the same day as this shooting, in China, someone killed over 12-20+ people with a knife in a killing spree at a school. I guess liberals wants to ban knives too. The real issue is, liberals are children who are afraid of things they cannot control or understand, always misinformed yet wants to infringe on others their will. 

Why is the media and liberals all against guns and reporting on this school but not reporting on the 12+ kids that was slain with a knife in China on the same day? Maybe because people are actually smarter than the media and liberals think we are and needs to control the news to support their agenda. They hate guns so much, the subtraction of news on purpose is a form of creating and forming biased opinion through the news.
+Keith Hendrickson You would be surprised, or not, but "The Liberal Media(tm)" reported on the knive attack. Also, those kids were injured, not killed, and in fact, news media of all political agendas knows Americans give a rats ass about Chinese children. It's a media game, and you know it.

As for the assault rifle thing: One step after the other. More people can agree there is no good reason for an assault rifle in private hands than there is for a Browning.
Actually no they didn't. They don't report on it because goes against their agenda against guns and that is the media game. 
Either way, just proves what we are saying. If an killer/criminal wants to hurt/kill a lot of people they will use whatever they can get their hands on. National media didn't go into detail and most people do not even know about this incident in China, so no they didn't cover it like they did the Connecticut story. It is one thing to report on it and another to really let it be known. The latter didn't happen because reporting on a killer slashing kids in a school with a knife goes against their agenda.

You can come up with all the links, but every link you post proves us right. China is a police state also, and for someone to do that when everything is heavily regulated also proves that gov cannot prevent this. You cannot regulate yourself to safety. Police will never be there in time, always there after the fact meanwhile that didn't help those 20 kids from getting killed as liberals use this to attack guns and make everybody believe guns kill people. All the stats show banning guns leads to more gun crime as we seen in 30 years of the gun ban in Washington D.C. and we are seeing today in Europe.
+Keith Hendrickson So you do not agree that projectile weapons are inherently more dangerous than kitchen knives? The little difference between "20 chinese kids injured" vs. "20 american kids killed" evades you?

The US has a murder rate of 4,96 per 10000 citizens. Germany has a murder rate of 0,7 per 10000 citizens. 
Obviously, weapons availability is one of several factors in that.
Actually the point I am making is criminals will always have weapons, as we know the real numbers shows since England banned weapons they have the higest gun murder rate. 

A psycho will use whatever he has to commit a massacre. You can blame the guns all you want but until you realize the guns are nothing but a tool, and understand people kill people then nothing will get solves. There are 6 guarantees in life that you can never ban or get rid off and those are beer, sex, drugs, guns, taxes and death. You can try to get rid of the first 3 on that list but look back at history and see how that worked out.

US Government made Al Capone in Chicago when they tried to prohibit Alcohol. US Government made the drug cartels when they started this war on drugs. US has more people in prison than any other country do to drug convictions than anything other and are we not anywhere close to even claiming a win on this war on drugs.

These mass shooting are very rare compared to the deaths we see every year to drunk driving. Now if liberals were really caring they would ban automobiles and alcohol, oh wait, we already know what would happen if they ban alcohol, and it is funny how liberals tend not to own guns so it is easy for them to what to ban it but most people drive so therefore we have to actually think with common sense on not banning vehicles when the say common sense principles applies to the many law abiding people who own guns.

Most of your rich and athletes owns guns, liberal logic says more people owns guns more there would be killings. Guess what we are still here and chatting as America has more Americans who are law abiding citizens owning guns than most other places in the country and not coming anywhere near criminal acts. Liberals love to blame the guns, they think banning and limiting guns is the solution.

From 1994-2004, Bill Clinton actually banned Assault rifles. Guess what, we actually had more mass shootings and crime rate than the 7 + years since. Facts are when you ban things as we seen in the US from 1994-2008, and we are still seeing now in cities like Chicago, Washington D.C. who have high gun regulation rates and England. 

The problem with liberals is their intentions are good but doesn't realize a key fact that makes it asinine to even think it if you know history. Only people who will obey those laws are law abiding citizens. Criminals will always have guns, plus we have street black markets that we can actually by assault rifles cheaper than you can do at a gun shop with all those gun regulations they have to follow.

Fact is, Liberals do not want to even think about banning vehicles or alcohol because lets face it, liberals drink and they also drive. Why would anybody no matter any political or social view be for that? It is always interesting though since liberals are not into guns as much as conservatives or moderates, they don't mind forcing their lack of common sense views onto others because really it doesn't effect them much.

Even though mass shooting are rare and decreasing compared to what we seen in times of gun banning regulation times, we still have liberals forgetting we have more people die every year due to drunk driving and even those no side thinks banning vehicles and alcohol is a good idea or solution, it is amazing how people think that is not relevant to the case with guns. Only people that think it isn't relevant are liberals who hate guns anyways and doesn't want to admit that it is there policies that caused these deaths in the first place.

When you have a gun free zone, it is amazing how all these psychos are targeting these areas. There are more cases than not where we seen people conceal carry take down a shooter before they could do the damage we seen in other places. In the very same town of Aurua, you know the Colorado shooting on the premiere of batman where the shooter shot 20 some people. That same town on the same week had another shooting days before on Sunday during church. Someone came in with a weapon and shot and killed 1 person. Would have been a massacre if it wasn't for a fact one of the church members was concealed carrying and he shot the guy before he could kill someone else,

We do not hear this from the liberal news, because the liberals news has an agenda. If they really report this story like they did with the Colorado shooting that have what 5 days later on midnight on Friday, maybe this whole debate will be a lot easier to understand. Most liberals think that church story will never happen but we seen many cases where it has and it is the reason why concealed carry states have the lowest crime. Criminals tend to think twice before mugging, stealing or committing other crimes if they think their potential victims might be carrying. Sometimes a mere presence of a gun is enough to dangerous punks run the other way,

If guns were really the problem gun related crime would have gone up after the ban was lifted in 2004 not down. It is amazing how problems always gets worse when liberals offer their good intention solutions. 
First of all, the article about the Chinese slaying doesn't indicate if the kids were injured or killed. I assumed killed until I reread the article.

It still proves my point a psycho can do arm is mass killing or injury spree with any weapon. In Oklahoma, someone made a home made bomb  and blew up a state building. China man used a knife. Years ago we had someone putting anthrax or some other type of bio poison in envelopes and mailing them around.

Fact is all those are criminal acts and already against the law. Just like mass shooting are very rare compared to a real and bigger problem of drunk driving with is a problem that we see on a daily basis. How about liberals try to come up with a solution for that before they come with an asinine solution to guns. I know they will not think about banning cars or alcohol because liberals actually use vehicles and likes to drink like everybody else. Maybe this will wake them up to the real problems in society and why banning is not a solution but a gateway for more crime.

Because 6 things are guarantees in life: beer, sex, drugs, guns, taxes and death. Many have tried to ban the 4 first ones on the list but failed miserably. You cannot ban a guarantee and no law or political action group will change that. You will always have these things, so stop trying to ban them and come up with a solution that involves that actual people who commit the crimes and not blame the object or substance.  
Add a comment...