Originally Posted by jreg81

Wow. Lanza's MOTHER owned the gun. He did not. He illegally took it and used it. THAT'S ILLEGAL. He was a disturbed individual who threw out warning signs for YEARS. The problem is with a society and/or system that allows such a person to go untreated and be roaming free. What if he used a bomb instead? Or a knife? The issue isn't about the weapon of choice, it's about the individual and what led him to do it; what conditions existed that allowed it?

But one thing is very clear; Lanza was NOT a legal gun-owner. No way, no how.

Holmes was a head-case too. Plenty of documentation on it. So is there some systemic change that should have been in place to disallow such a person from owning a gun? Yes, I can agree with that. (still wish there was at least one CCW-holder in that theater)

Columbine? "kids had others purchase the guns" - ILLEGAL. You said it, not me. End of story on that one.

Criminals break the law. Criminals will not give a rats ass if obtaining a gun through someone else is illegal. Criminals will not give a rats ass if stealing their mother's gun is illegal. And Criminals will not give a rats ass if someone mentally unstable having a gun is illegal. Criminals will get their gun---or any other weapon they can---to do their crimes. That's why they are criminals. They don't follow laws like the rest of us.