Would the new laws prevent Newtown?

[Travis]

I'm reentering this debate to ask a pressing question. You see I obviously support gun control measures. But I'm not that impressed with the current proposals.

Specifically let us look at the incident that started this whole thing (for the nation, not me, my view on this matter was sealed in concrete the day my brother got shot) the Newtown massacre.

Would the currently proposed measures, had they been in place several years ago, have prevented the massacre? I don't really think they would.

Remember, as messed up as Adam Lanza was he got those guns from his mom. So any new set of laws meant to address this issue really need to address her. So a new law, if it is meant to prevent future Newtown's, must in some way prevent Nancy Lanza from acquiring her guns.

So, what might be proposed here? Any ideas?


Oh and am I imaging things or did I just see the news talking all week about how the NRA has apparently forgotten that the Secret Service is a law enforcement agency?

 

[Puppycow]

Armed guards at the school maybe?

 

[Autolite]

The new laws would prevent the Newtown tragedy just as well as the pre-existing laws would have prevented the tragedy if they had been followed.

The problem aren't the laws themselves but finding a way to convince those with criminal intent to comply...

 

[Halfcentaur]

I don't think this is the sort of thing we can prevent through changes or preparations. The idea of gun control is a broader issue concerned with overall norms, and this issue has only forced us to look at what we've been doing. But I don't think the two issues really correlate so cleanly. Perhaps the idea never would have entered his head had the presence of weapons in his home not triggered the impulse, perhaps like the suicide jumper in San Francisco, if someone had done something as little as said hello to the shooter he would have not done this. Maybe he would have tried the same thing with a knife or a sword or a chainsaw.

It seems like as a society many humans don't see or prepare for a danger until it's already happened to us or it's too late. This seems just like a trigger to me that is finally getting us to ask some different questions about things we should have been doing despite random incidents like this.

In my opinion the only way we can fight this current rise in spree killings is to make them unfashionable. As long as it's in the zeitgeist, perpetuated by media reports and water cooler gossip, it will keep happening. But I do think America has an issue with gun violence that needs to be addressed despite the incident in Newtown.

 

[Halfcentaur]

We also tend to overreact to isolated danger, like when a few decades ago someone decided to throw a rock off a highway overpass and hit a driver. We suddenly see fences and barriers go up across the lower 48 states on highway bridges in response to a few incidents.

I still think this issue of private fire arm ownership is one we needed to address and I feel the incident at Newtown has only served to force us to pay attention to the questions over personal gun ownership we should have been debating a long time ago.

I'm not even sure how I feel about the issue myself of guns, I grew up with guns and have been shooting since I was 4 years old (wtf dad). But it's clear we have a disproportionate problem in our society compared to equivalent countries.

It seems like a stupid problem to me because I consider guns as expensive toys for grown ups, despite what many gun owners claim. It's a hobby for them, and the idea of personal protection is a farce in my opinion considering the statistics. The issue is one of pride and emotional thinking.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm reentering this debate to ask a pressing question. You see I obviously support gun control measures. But I'm not that impressed with the current proposals.

Specifically let us look at the incident that started this whole thing (for the nation, not me, my view on this matter was sealed in concrete the day my brother got shot) the Newtown massacre.

Would the currently proposed measures, had they been in place several years ago, have prevented the massacre? I don't really think they would.

Remember, as messed up as Adam Lanza was he got those guns from his mom. So any new set of laws meant to address this issue really need to address her. So a new law, if it is meant to prevent future Newtown's, must in some way prevent Nancy Lanza from acquiring her guns.

So, what might be proposed here? Any ideas?


Oh and am I imaging things or did I just see the news talking all week about how the NRA has apparently forgotten that the Secret Service is a law enforcement agency?

If they make a law saying that you can't have guns in the same house as a crazy kid, it may be avoided.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Specifically let us look at the incident that started this whole thing (for the nation, not me, my view on this matter was sealed in concrete the day my brother got shot) the Newtown massacre.

I think that's the wrong approach. I think the Newtown massacre is what created the political climate to put the issue of gun violence back on the table (after being absent for quite some time), but statistically, it's not the typical type of gun violence, and our policies ought not be tailored to the prevention of rare types of gun violence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We also tend to overreact to isolated danger, like when a few decades ago someone decided to throw a rock off a highway overpass and hit a driver. We suddenly see fences and barriers go up across the lower 48 states on highway bridges in response to a few incidents.

I still think this issue of private fire arm ownership is one we needed to address and I feel the incident at Newtown has only served to force us to pay attention to the questions over personal gun ownership we should have been debating a long time ago.

I'm not even sure how I feel about the issue myself of guns, I grew up with guns and have been shooting since I was 4 years old (wtf dad). But it's clear we have a disproportionate problem in our society compared to equivalent countries.

It seems like a stupid problem to me because I consider guns as expensive toys for grown ups, despite what many gun owners claim. It's a hobby for them, and the idea of personal protection is a farce in my opinion considering the statistics. The issue is one of pride and emotional thinking.

Well said. All of this post.

The word that comes to my mind when I hear talk of guns for personal protection is "fantasy".

 

[Autolite]

If they make a law saying that you can't have guns in the same house as a crazy kid, it may be avoided.

Unless of course, as with any law, an individual chooses not to comply. The laws already in place would have prevented the shooting if they had been followed...

 

[Halfcentaur]

The word that comes to my mind when I hear talk of guns for personal protection is "fantasy".

Me too, totally.
It seems people are more apt to prepare and guard against what seems really scary as opposed to what might actually happen to them.

But with guns the issue is further complicated with ego and tribalism. Guns are a symbol of your politics and ethics for many people that makes asking questions about their actual safety and justification a bramble of tangled issues.

 

[Autolite]

Guns are a symbol of your politics and ethics for many people that makes asking questions about their actual safety and justification a bramble of tangled issues.

Perhaps those who advocate the private ownership of firearms for personal security are simply using the same rationale as President Obama.

As the boss had said, "if it only just saves one life" then there's justification...

 

[Trakar]

I'm reentering this debate to ask a pressing question. You see I obviously support gun control measures. But I'm not that impressed with the current proposals.

Specifically let us look at the incident that started this whole thing (for the nation, not me, my view on this matter was sealed in concrete the day my brother got shot) the Newtown massacre.

Would the currently proposed measures, had they been in place several years ago, have prevented the massacre? I don't really think they would.

Remember, as messed up as Adam Lanza was he got those guns from his mom. So any new set of laws meant to address this issue really need to address her. So a new law, if it is meant to prevent future Newtown's, must in some way prevent Nancy Lanza from acquiring her guns.

So, what might be proposed here? Any ideas?

Universal Health Care

Could have probably spotted and treated the mother's paranoid delusions as well as her son's psychopathies.

 

[BenBurch]

Universal Health Care

Could have probably spotted and treated the mother's paranoid delusions as well as her son's psychopathies.

"Excessive survival planning" should be added to the DSM.

 

[BStrong]

No.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

"Excessive survival planning" should be added to the DSM.

How would you define it?

 

[Trakar]

"Excessive survival planning" should be added to the DSM.

The irrational delusions that drive this behavior in some individuals is already covered in DSM. This isn't to say that everyone who puts together a survival/go pack, or puts together a safe-room for storms or other emergency situations is suffering from mental illness, merely that the obsessive focus on such activities can be a signal of such problems.

Universal health care should provide thorough mental and physical health screening, preventative care/therapy, and long-term tracking and treatment which may not catch and treat all such instances of disorder, but it would provide a better opportunity to diagnose and treat such patients. This also provides a real and substantive potential for preventing the types of horrendously violent events that we see, without the risk of infringing upon the rights and privileges of most people while providing health benefits to all.

 

[Montag451]

No measures can stop all gun crime. Could measures decrease it? Probably so it is worth doing.

Loom at fully automatic weapons. Very little crime associated with them, so obviously making them difficult to get has worked. Why can it not work with other weapons?

 

[Autolite]

"Excessive survival planning" should be added to the DSM.

Where should we put it? Before or after the 'irrational fear of inanimate objects'???

 

[Tricky]

I'm reentering this debate to ask a pressing question. Would the new laws prevent Newtown?

Of course. If the new gun laws are enacted, gun crime will disappear the very next day.

No, of course the new laws would "prevent Newtown" or any other recent mass shooting. These things take years, even decades of serious enforcement for these laws to become effective, to root out the caches of guns already owned, and to change the perception of guns already ingrained into the culture.

As one poster pointed out, these efforts are mostly symbolic, a way of saying "we're sick of this and we're going to do something about it." Because of our strong gun-loving culture, the first baby steps must be taken toward big, unambiguous... um... targets, i.e. things that make headlines and stay on the news cycle for more than a day.

But anybody who gives even the most perfunctory glance at gun statistics will see that military-style weapons are not the major gun problem in US society. Not even close. Not even rifles of any kind. Not knives, clubs or polonium 209. It's handguns. If we are ever serious about reducing gun crime in the US, we must address ways to keep handguns out of the grasp of criminals, drunks and mentally unstable people. Nobody addresses this problem because the solutions are so difficult and the ownership of pistols is so widespread, but if you're looking for the weapon of choice in most crimes, you need look no further than your own, snub nose.

Maybe this legislation is a way of "getting the foot in the door", and it is so obvious that nobody needs military-style weopons and large ammo clips that even conservative messiah Ronald Reagan said it many years ago. But such laws, while slightly better than nothing, are still a weak and nearly cosmetic attempt to address a problem that is much much bigger, and completely unaffected by any such laws.

 

[Travis]

Unless of course, as with any law, an individual chooses not to comply. The laws already in place would have prevented the shooting if they had been followed...

What laws were these?

Perhaps those who advocate the private ownership of firearms for personal security are simply using the same rationale as President Obama.

As the boss had said, "if it only just saves one life" then there's justification...

What rationale of Obama's?

No measures can stop all gun crime. Could measures decrease it? Probably so it is worth doing.

Loom at fully automatic weapons. Very little crime associated with them, so obviously making them difficult to get has worked. Why can it not work with other weapons?

I bet seizing and destroying all known guns and making being caught with one afterward an executable crime would come close.