<p>alwaysamom, Thank you for the link. I was wrong to think Brooks was not that partisan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“caring” would be a better word than “monitoring”, and not only the owners but those who live with them. That implies that someone could sense what’s coming. So don’t waste time/money on gun control/mental health for this but monitoring/caring gun owners. Where is the money from? Gun insurance.</p>
<p>There are too many guns in America. In Florida 1 million people have concealed weapons permits. Be careful who, and how, when you bump into a Floridian!</p>
<p>[Concealed</a> weapon permits to hit 1 million next week in Florida - Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/gubernatorial/concealed-weapon-permits-to-hit-1-million-next-week-in-florida/1265900]Concealed”>Concealed weapon permits to hit 1 million next week in Florida)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to have given this idea considerable thought. What kinds of programs do you think would be helpful?</p>
<p>Yes, thanks alwaysamom. You beat me to it.</p>
<p>I did find the interview with David Brooks, though. The exact quote is “gun ownership is way down…we’re at a historic low.” Then later he says “I think I’m all for getting rid of the assault weapons and machine guns and all that though, but if we want to prevent something like this, we have to really think seriously about drastically reducing the number of guns in our society, and particularly – this is an old Patrick Daniel Moynihan idea – the number of bullets. It is very hard to control 300 million guns. The bullets are a little easier to control.”</p>
<p>[Shields</a> and Brooks on Gun Control Policy, Susan Rice, ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Talks | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 14, 2012 | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/politicalwrap_12-14.html]Shields”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec12/politicalwrap_12-14.html)</p>
<p>Almost seems like he was told to use the talking point even though it is flat-out wrong.</p>
<p>^Let’s hope not. Let’s say he did it on his own. We need independent thinkers from both left and right. I shudder to think that they are all party’s mouthpieces.</p>
<p>What is the demographics of gunowners like? Are they mostly white male?</p>
<p>I am not a gun owner and never will be but I am not sure any gun control law short of the banning of all guns would have stopped this. The guns were purchased legally by his mom.</p>
<p>I think the question is what should, if anything, society should do with people who are different if they ever express any behavior-verbal or otherwise. My opinion is that we are not prepared to round up people on a mass scale and we will never ban all guns so we will not be able to stop these terrible tragedies.</p>
<p>*The mother owned the guns legally. Maybe the mother was foolish to own guns when her son had mental problems but the law can do nothing about that. *</p>
<p>this is very important. Those who legally own guns should be req’d/expected to keep those guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, minors, or other people who shouldn’t have access to guns. </p>
<p>what parent has guns accessible to a mentally ill family member? When a relative of mine found out that a family member suffered from a mental illness, the first thing they did was remove their hunting rifles from their home…even though they were locked.</p>
<p>Has it been confirmed that he was diagnosed as mentally ill? Autism is not mental illness.</p>
<p>Sometimes doing something like this precipitates a diagnosis of mental illness.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, if that stat is true, and obviously only the tiniest % commit crimes with them (far less than 1%), then the answer isn’t removing guns from all the law-abiding folks. </p>
<p>I do think we need to revisit the laws regarding adults who are mentally ill and refuse treatment. Letting such people loose in society is just crazy.</p>
<p>saying banning guns because people die from guns is the same as saying we should ban alcohol because people get killed by drunk drivers. I hate it that the day of this tragedy that people feel the need to push their agenda. This is not a gun problem, it’s a people problem. Sadly, family values are deteriorating in this country…and too many parents don’t know how to parent or are not there to parent at all…</p>
<p>I don’t think there is a single answer, unfortunately, which means as a nation we’ll need to work through many issues and that’s not something we’re very good at. I have family members who are gun owners and they bought theirs at gun stores, withstood criminal background checks but there are no checks on your mental health status. Giant gun shows don’t have background checks at all.
And can you imagine the consequences of registering anyone who has been treated for bipolar disorder, or takes lithium, or takes whatever stabilizes a paranoid schizophrenic? You might have better gun control, but mental health advocates would fight that kind of thing tooth and nail and I don’t know that they shouldn’t. I just don’t know.
All in all, I think Americans are a little too convinced that their individual rights are always more important than group safety or public policy. And if killing a bunch of high school students, college students, movie goers, mall shoppers, or worshippers didn’t make anything change, I am depressingly sure that killing a bunch of kindergarteners won’t, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is your agenda the only one that should be pushed? You do know that you have one, right? “This is not a gun problem” is an agenda too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It could be that the number of people who own guns have gone down, but I am quite sure the number of guns per owner has skyrocketed in recent years. So he may have been cherry picking his statistics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree to some extent. I think laws should be passed against all automotic and most semi-automatic weapons, and the systems that can be used to feed in large numbers of rounds without reloading. People should be required to give those weapons up if they own them now (no grandfathering). Other things that I think are important would be make concealed carry and “stand your ground” laws illegal at the federal level (possibly some more severe restrictions on stand your ground vs. complete outlaw). Other things I have seen discussed today include restrictions on bullet purchases (large volumes).</p>
<p>I think Japan has this right. Here is an article on how they do it. We are obviously a very long ways from this. But there are a lot of good ideas in here. And they have ELEVEN homicides a year using guns vs 12,000 a year in the US.</p>
<p>[A</a> Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic](<a href=“How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - The Atlantic”>How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - The Atlantic)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Americans and our political priorities aren’t some amorphous “other”. It is us… those reading this thread, and our friends and families. Politicians respond to pressure, and the only pressure they have gotten in the past on this has been from the NRA and gun manufacturers & distributors. There has been a small amount of pressure from victims of gun violence and their families (the Brady family is one I can think of, Jim was injured during the assassination attempt on Reagan). Until “the rest” (us) start applying political pressure as well, you are right. But don’t just throw up your hands - insist that your politicians do something.</p>
<p>And by the way… I think the hardest, but possibly longest term solution to this would be a consistutional amendment to clarify the Second Amendment. Because many gun control laws that have been passed are then struck down later by the Supreme Court because of that amendment. I am pretty sure that if our forefathers knew that we are not safe any more at elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, colleges, shopping locations, churches, temples, and going to see our publically elected representatives, they would say that is not what they had in mind.</p>
<p>I like that idea, intparent.</p>
<p>I think our forefathers probably also did not anticipate that the militia concept, which was very important in their time and seems to have been the motivation for that amendment, would become irrelevant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t care what they had in mind. At some point, we have to refuse to be hamstrung by the limited knowledge of a few men who I believe would be appalled that we are neither smart not creative enough to move beyond their limited knowledge of the world.</p>
<p>I am for gun control laws, but the real issue is mental health care, as well as getting rid of the stigmatization of institutions. Look, people like the famous poet Lowell used to go in for periodic stays, and I’m not saying we ought to lock people up and toss out the key, but a more open policy of occasional institutional stays for those losing it would be better for us all.</p>
<p>Ever since Reagan put everyone out on the street, we’ve had issues with this, imho. </p>
<p>Without the help they need, these people will harm others, and based on the fact that they almost always turn the gun on themselves at the end, it’s not some joy ride for them. It’s just insanity at it’s most outwardly destructive.</p>
<p>(I’m not saying we don’t need gun control laws.) But I am saying if we don’t get these people help, we will not eliminate the problem.</p>
<p>Also, fwiw, the names of these people ought never be mentioned on the television or in any media, at all. Only the names of the victims. The fame of the shooters leads to more shooters.</p>
<p>I think we need an anthropologist to talk about what works in Japna/China will work in the US. I would think fitting socially is more important here and isolation becomes a bigger issue. People raised differently, too, be obedient/assert your right, etc. The two cultures will find different means to resolve their conflict.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, if the number of gunowners is decreasing, I think it’s progress even if the number of guns go up. I don’t if that’s the case. Can anyone clarify?</p>
<p>Are we assuming that this kid wasn’t getting help, that he wasn’t receiving treatment or on medication or do we know that? There are lots of people who don’t have access to proper mental health care. Do we know this kid was one of them? When I practiced law, my firm represented a very well know mental health facility. One of our “round and round” debates was whether people have a right to be mentally ill. This is assuming they are not exhibiting behavior that places themselves or others at risk. Do we force treatment upon people whom we deem to have mental health issues? Keeping guns out of their hands is an easier task than forcing meds down their throats.</p>