Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My honest answer to the question is a sad one: Nothing.
I don't believe any Constitutional and practical law can be written which could have prevented the Newtown Horror, but I'd be interested in hearing anyone's attempt at it.
Didn't I hear that Lanza broke out, and climbed in through, a window? All the security at the door did no good.
But if everyone knew that every school had an armed guard, I think a potential murderer would be less likely to even try such an attack. Right now, people know there is no one with a gun patrolling a school, so it's an easy target.
But if everyone knew that every school had an armed guard, I think a potential murderer would be less likely to even try such an attack. Right now, people know there is no one with a gun patrolling a school, so it's an easy target.
I agree with you about 90%.
Our daughter graduated from an inner-city high school that, weirdly enough, is extremely high in engineering and technology. Anyway, all the doors are locked to outsiders except the front doors, where there are several security guards. I honestly don't know whether or not they were armed. I always found them to be very nice guys, but they DID mean business.
There has never once been any kind of weapons, or shootings, in that school, despite the fact that it's supposed to be a "ghetto school." I'm sure that those security guards are part of the equation.
On the other hand, this school is in a "black" area of our city, and it never seems to be the black kids who go on shooting rampages that kill dozens of people.
Mexico, they totally ban private ownership of guns. Yet they have plenty of murders and killing from drug gangs and others. Lets try executing all murderers. I bet we'll have fewer murders.
People in wars are told they are great heroes for killing so many of the "enemies". But who decides who the enemies are? Should every person in another country be the enemy if the US govt has a complaint about their leader? Should all Americans be declared "enemies" if the leader of another country is upset about something our govt did?
Some, after being in a war, go on to be police officers, where they may kill or imprison people who they are told are the "enemies", according to laws passed by Congress, after they took the bribes (campaign contributions) from special interest groups. In some cases, "enemies" are harmless people, who may be growing a few plants to treat their medical condition. Then cops can take their money, probably their car & house, too, even though they can't do this to murderers, AFAIK. Then, victim gets years in prison with no money for good lawyer.
When he was young, Newt Gingrich tried MJ & suggested it should be legal, at least for medical purposes. Then he became a lobbyist for the medical industry, and introduced a bill that would allow *executions* of any American in possession of 2 ounces or more of cannabis!!! Public allowed him in politics 50+ years.
If a police officer kills an unarmed person, there is usually no penalty, as "internal affairs" gets to decide.
Police officers have complained they get no training about mental illness, and anyone who acts or thinks differently than others makes them concerned, but they may not know if they should shoot them, talk to them to get more info, or take to a hospital to be evaluated by a doctor.
The Mexican drug gangs got weapons & drugs supplied by US "Operation Fast & Furious". They killed cops, mayors, military people, as US goal was govt replacement. Yet "our" govt thinks "marijuana" is some kind of threat? Police officers aren't told by their trainers that cannabis will make a person calm if anything will. The US Dispensatory of 1851 recommended cannabis for treating all mental problems (from the book Licit & Illicit Drugs, published in early '70s by Consumers Union, the Consumer Reports people).
Big Pharmas pills for depression were based on a theory that there is a chemical imbalance in the brain & their pills correct it. Yes, a theory, never proven! Now Big Pharma admits some of their "anti-depressants"
may make a person more likely to commit suicide. Dr. Joseph Mercola did a 3 hour expose on this, called "The Marketing of Madness". It's on mercola.com or on You Tube Dr. Mercola.
Executing murderers might not reduce mass homicides too much because many who do it are suicidal as well. Many of these articles on mass shootings mention the shooter then killed himself. Best wishes.
I've read plenty of posts since the Connecticut tragedy, arguing about gun control, violent video games, anti-depressants, mental illness, etc. Whatever our stance on any of these issues are, whatever our differences are, I believe that 99.999% of all of us are UNITED in wishing with all our heart that such a tragedy would NEVER occur again.
I believe that now is the time for all of us to become educated on these factors and the possible cause-effect relationship in regard to such mass murders.
I will admit I do not know the answer. If banning or implementing <fill in the blank> would mean no school shooting or other mass murder ever again, then I am for it. But knee-jerk reactions that don't directly solve the problem will not help our society.
What do you think could TRULY prevent such a tragedy? I realize it is probably a combination of many things. I would love to see a respectful, genuine discussion of this question.Every victim of this and other previous tragedies deserve this from us.
The federal and state governments need to mandate that funding to mental health treatment and facilities will be available to treat mental illness that may lead to further tragedy. However, seeing how psychiatric hospitals don't exist on Wall Street, I wouldn't expect an anouncement to that effect anytime soon.
My honest answer to the question is a sad one: Nothing.
I don't believe any Constitutional and practical law can be written which could have prevented the Newtown Horror, but I'd be interested in hearing anyone's attempt at it.
You don't think another citizen could have stopped this guy, like some of the teachers or principal, if they had another gun?
We are overthinking what should be an easy solution. Remove gun free zones, allow citizens to carry guns, train teachers/principals to defend themselves and shoot. Can you stop all of them? Can you improve the chances of stopping more? Yes
But some may not approve of, say a principal, keeping a gun in the school.
There are tons of examples of citizens stopping non-sense like this. Just google it.
I was in the Politics and Controversies sub-forum looking for an intelligent discussion on gun-rights and gun-control, and realized I wasn't going to have it there. The only intelligent conversations I've had with conservatives have not come from the P&C forum, so I should have known better.
The upcoming gun debate is basically going to address three questions. And I think it's going to be three questions we should be talking about.
Who should be allowed to buy firearms.
How should be they be allowed to buy firearms.
What firearms should they be allowed to buy.
Who should be allowed to buy firearms.
Our current laws restrict possession to able-minded law-abiding citizens. Former convicted felons and the clinically mentally deficient are generally barred from purchasing and owning firearms without special writ. Everyone else is open game. These standards are enforced by those in the business of selling firearms by conducting background checks.
Those backgrounds checks fail at two critical points--private sales and illegally obtained firearms. The private-sales allows me, Joe Schmo, to sell my legally obtained firearm to anyone without first requiring to verify they are not a former convict or mentally deficient--I.E., not run a background check. There's an easily solution to that.
The second is illegally obtained firearms, which runs the gamut between theft and straw-purchases. These are much more difficult to cease.
You can easily enough "enforce backgrounds checks at points of private-sales by first requiring anyone who wishes to buy a firearm to first receive a "purchasing permit" similar to CPLs which essentially means you've gone through a background check. It would then be up to the seller to verify that an individual has one of these permits.
However, that doesn't actually stop the primary means of criminals getting guns in the first place--strawmen, theft, and dealers. That requires something else.
How should be they be allowed to buy firearms?
An obviously significant question which tries to (once again) address the problem of private-sales. People like to talk about "the gun-show loophole," but evidence seems to be against that being an actual source of criminal firearms, especially since gun-shows are primarily filled with vendors who don't want to lose their federal licensure.
If you are only allowed to buy your firearms from a registered FFL dealer and never from a point of private sale, you're not actually going to stop strawmen purchases, or theft down the road either, which are still primarily the means by which criminals get their firearms.
"It can't hurt" you might think, until you realize that you've created a captive market for resell. FFLs, knowing they are the only buyers of firearms, can now artificially inflate and deflate their prices of firearms because it would be against the law to buy a used firearm. Imagine if you could only buy used cars from car-dealers.
What firearms should they be allowed to buy.
The quintessential question that everyone brings up--why are people allowed to buy military machine guns with "ultra-destructive" bullets (what incredible hyperbole...).
For the same reason people are allowed to buy 650hp 8-speed road-monsters. There is no sane reason for the average person to own a Ferrari, or a Porsche, or even the more affordable Corvette, Mustang, or other essentially speed-designed vehicle. It's illegal to go over X mph in your state, yet people buy these race-bred vehicles for use in general public.
And they buy them specifically because they go fast, or because they make a great noise, or they look fantastic, or whatever personal reason people buy them.
Keep in mind, before you talk about how guns are designed for death, that there are only 10,000 non-suicide deaths (not even homicides...) a year with firearms. Compare to automobiles, where there are 30+ thousand deaths a year from accidents. You're three times more likely to die from going to work than you are from being shot, and those numbers are skewed in favor of being shot, because most gun violence doesn't happen to random people where as auto-accidents are pretty much a roll of the dice.
Gun violence less of an issue than we think. Bigger problem is violence violence, which if you don't watch the news, you probably realize has been declining for 80 years. Whatever we're doing, it works pretty well. We have lower rates of violent crime now than really ever before--the trend has been quite positive (by being negative).
To Be Continued.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
