Newtown School Shootings

**Major Robert Dump** · 12-20-2012, 19:47

Originally Posted by Lemur

There's truth in that. I find the ACLU less worrysome, however, given that their myopia is focused on free speech, rather than armaments. It's relatively difficult to kill people with speech. Unless your name is a killing word.

Ironically, I suspect the mental health angle will be easier to address than any attempt to impose safety standards on gun owners. So, if we believe current reporting, and the mother of the killer (a) wanted to commit him against his will, and (b) had unsecured guns in her home, (a) will be easier by far to address than (b).

Personally, I think if you have a violent or unstable person in your home, and you do not take steps to secure your firearms, you are an unbelievable idiot. But the mother already paid for her stupidity, with her life.

The problem with the "its a mental health issue" is that some of those who I hear parroting this (not referring to anyone here, but rather the pundits and pols) are also people who are opposed to things like not allowing veterans with severe PTSD to own guns, and not allowing felons to live in homes with otherwise legally owned guns. If in fact we take the mental health approach from both a treatment perspective but also from a reporting perspective (i.e. database *shiver*) then this may be a workable solution. However, I suspect organizations like the NRA will oppose any sort of information collecting and any measures to to keep guns out of homes with crazies or crazies out of homes with guns.

And a workable solution is also going to have to involve the involuntary commitment of people deemed mentally unstable. does something like this run the risk of being abused? absolutely, it was in the past (politics, agendas, grudges) and it will be again. but to parrot the supporters of the patriot act, "well, my party won't abuse it!" amirite??

So lets start bartering one set of freedoms for another. Thats what this comes down to. Can't have our cake and eat it, too.

**Lemur** · 12-20-2012, 19:55

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I suspect organizations like the NRA will oppose any sort of information collecting and any measures to to keep guns out of homes with crazies or crazies out of homes with guns.

Oh, the NRA has done better than that. It's illegal for ATF to release any statistical information about makes, models, or types of guns used in crimes. No specifics, mind you, just statistics, and it's been illegal since 2003. Thanks, guys.

Also illegal for CDC to fund any health studies that include fierarms as a metric. Not discouraged, not directed, illegal.

It's bullhockey like this that makes me think the NRA has absolutely no interest in rights, reason, or law. Just moar guns, please. I'd be interested to see how much of their money comes from industry, but wait, that sort of reporting is also illegal. For the NRA, and nobody else. Gotta love laws written with specific "carve outs" for single organizations.

The NRA's financial resources also outstrip any other voice in the gun discussion by a factor of approximately 100-1. Illustration:

**ICantSpellDawg** · 12-20-2012, 20:01

Right, well all of that is stupid. You want new legislation, start there and I can back it. MRD, I could back better recognition of the dangers of mental illness, such as mandatory discussions with people like Lanzas mom who are attempting to have family members civilly committed that they have the option to have their guns kept out of the home until the resolution, otherwise face jailtime should shtf.

**Lemur** · 12-20-2012, 20:43

A little more detail on just how much the NRA doesn't want pesky scientists analyzing pesky data:

[A]mazingly — there is no current scientific consensus about guns and violence. The most thorough and authoritative analysis is the 2004 report by a panel of leading experts, “Firearms and Violence,” sponsored by the National Research Council. Its startling conclusion was that we simply don’t know enough to make scientifically grounded judgments about which approaches — from gun-control measures to permission-to-carry laws — are likely to work. The panel’s primary recommendation was simply: “If policy makers are to have a solid empirical and research base for decisions about firearms and violence, the federal government needs to support a systematic program of data collection and research that specifically addresses that issue.” Or, as an expert quoted in the Times article on the report said, “The main thrust of it is, we don’t know anything about anything, and more research is needed.”

In the years since the 2004 report, research on firearms has, despite the panel’s recommendation, significantly decreased. According to a 2011 Times article, researchers in the field report that “the amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result.”

It’s not that scientists are uninterested in gun research or don’t know how to study guns’ connection to violence. It’s rather that the N.R.A. has blocked most efforts at serious gun research, going so far as to restrict access to the highly informative data available from Justice Department traces of guns used in crimes. As The Times reported, “Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.”

As a result, things still stand pretty much as they were in 2004. There is no scientific consensus on the best approach to limiting gun violence, and the N.R.A. is blocking work that might well lead to such a consensus. [...]

[I]f we want an enduring transformation, this is the time to insist on an end to the N.R.A.’s cynical blockade of scientific research on guns and violence. The organization has announced that it plans “meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again” and holds a press conference on Friday to detail its ideas. Giving up resistance to gun research should at the top of its list.

**Papewaio** · 12-20-2012, 21:08

Freedom of Speech is trumped by commerical interests/lobby groups? Say it isn't so.

I think an American reporter who is prepared to go to a foreign war zone or report on the next watergate should be prepared to do the 'illegal' thing here and get these stats reported.

=][=

If prohibition of guns doesn't work apply that logic outward.

Decriminalize drugs. Auto smashes the drug cartels.
Tax the pharmas that make the legal high grade versions (mental health tax).

Increase awareness of mental health, remove the stigma.

Get physically more healthy. Increases mental health, increases the odds that the population can actually overthrow a tyrannical dictator. In the mean time increase length and quality of life.

**Husar** · 12-20-2012, 22:04

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I think an American reporter who is prepared to go to a foreign war zone or report on the next watergate should be prepared to do the 'illegal' thing here and get these stats reported.

Well, maybe the war zone is the less dangerous option.