Sandy Hook: All of the “solutions” are bad ones
The usual argument on this point is “we need to ramp up our mental health efforts,” but that’s easier said than done. And what we’re really talking about is involuntary detainment and observation of people if they are deemed threatening by “odd behavior.” If you think seeing therapy and mental health treatment is stigmatized now, wait until the government can easily access your mental health records without your consent to determine if you’re a threat to society.
You’ll hear an argument about arming teachers, a solution that has its own problems, among them that the security at any given school will depend upon A) teachers willing to carry weapons in their classrooms and B) their ability to control a firearm at all times. The first time a teacher forgets and leaves their gun where a student can touch it, that whole policy will become the newest scapegoat.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Yes, definitely. Because getting stabbed is SO MUCH LESS DANGEROUS than getting shot. /sarc
(Seriously, though, you do realize guns aren’t death rays? And that knife wounds are generally more dangerous than bullet wounds?)
makattak on December 17, 2012 at 3:11 PM
I’ve found this happens many many times once actual data is introduced. People who ‘default’ to the left move right (perhaps not dramatically, but still) as they are exposed to more and more facts.
A country can not govern itself based on emotion. Everyone is saying ‘we have to do something,’ but no one on the left is saying ‘we need to do something effective.’
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 3:13 PM
At the article states, the answer is difficult. I tend to think that having more armed people is not effective. Philadelphia has a lot of armed people, and there are a lot of shootings and shooting deaths. It’s obvious that there’s more to it than people just being armed.
Responsibility comes into play. All the guns used in the most recent murders were legally purchased and legally owned. I would say that they were store irresponsibility. If they were locked, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation today.
The problem when arming more people is that we assume that they’ll act responsibly. Conversely, the more we restrict people, the more we’re assuming they’ll act irresponsibly. Surrounding that, how much freedom do we have to act irresponsibly?
Deep stuff.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 3:20 PM
I disagree.
I would argue that the ‘right’ simply accepts that these things will occur, and it’s just the cost of “freedom”.
Banning all guns would be effective. I don’t necessarily subscribe to that position, and yes, it wouldn’t eliminate 100% of gun deaths, but it would be effective in limiting gun deaths.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 3:22 PM
Getting stabbed is so much less dangerous than getting shot. No sarc needed. It’s an incontrovertible fact.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_hom_vic_by_wea_gun-crime-homicide-victims-weapon-gun
61% of homicides in the US are done by a gun. 14% of done with a knife.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Yeah, it’s complicated. I agree with people who say that if there’s an obviously disturbed person in one’s household, one should be extra careful about keeping guns away from that person. This can apply to depressed people as well, who might turn suicidal, although truly suicidal personalities will usually find a way.
I don’t know how much warning Mrs. Lanza had, but her friends are saying that Adam was deteriorating. Maybe she just didn’t want to believe she was losing him. Moms tend to go into denial about their babies.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Wouldn’t the fact that he’s murdering someone preclude him from being “law-abiding”?
BlueCollarAstronaut on December 17, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Since 9/11, more Americans have been shot to death in Chicago than in Iraq. You can’t own guns in Chicago.
To your question: How much freedom do we have to act irresponsibly? All of it. That’s America. It’s freedom.
What’s changed is our attitude toward irresponsibility. These days, it is incubated and encouraged today. Nothing is ever your fault, every problem has an easy answer, every kid gets a trophy, and failure is simply impossible.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 3:31 PM
When the UK banned guns, their gun crime doubled over the course of a decade. Their violent crime rate is now higher than ours, although our murder rate is still higher. In contrast, our violent crime rate has been decreasing for decades, as more people are legally carrying. So it’s clear that anti-gun laws are ineffective at lowering crime. The presence of criminal gangs is what drives the crime rates in our two countries, not the gun laws.
In order to ban all guns, you’d have to change the constitution. And then, with 300 million guns currently in the country, they would be available illegally to whomever wanted them for decades. They can be made outside of factories too.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 3:34 PM
No. It wouldn’t.
Violent crimes per 100,000 residents:
Britain – 2,034
Austria – 1,67
S. Africa – 1,609
Sweden – 1,123
Belgium – 1,006
Canada – 935
Finland – 738
Netherlands – 676
Luxembourg – 565
France – 504
United States – 407
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 3:39 PM
Sorry. Link to data
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 3:41 PM
It would result higher rates of rapes and murders, and home invasion deaths and injuries. Armed citizens avert crime at least 500,000 times a year, depending on what study you go by. This is far higher than the number of murders by gun.
I’ve looked at the numbers, and I decided ling ago that I am better off statistically with a gun. Others may feel differently, depending on their situation. But I am not going to tell them how they are supposed to defend themselves, and they shouldn’t tell me. Decades ago I chased off a huge man who tried to molest me when my car broke down on the highway in the middle of nowhere. All I had to do was pull my gun halfway out of my purse and he ran like a rabbit. No one, not you, not Obama nor Feinstein, will ever take away my ability to defend myself this way. I will not let them.
juliesa on December 17, 2012 at 3:42 PM
FBI says 2.5 million per year.
550 rapes and 1,100 murders per day are prevented by gun owners. In only 1% of those cases is the weapon even fired.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Those numbers are very misleading. In Britain, a fight between two people is considered a “violent crime”.
That being said, I was careful to say that it would limit gun deaths and not crime in general.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 3:49 PM
The 2.5 million per year number is only when using a scale of 0-2.5million times per year. In other words, it’s as likely to be 0 times a year as it would be a 2.5million times a year.
Do guns prevent crime? No doubt. Are guns used in crimes? No doubt. Can we quantify the value of having guns to protect against crime vs. guns being used in crime? Maybe one day, but they haven’t been able to yet.
In my perfect world, I’d have the only gun.
segasagez on December 17, 2012 at 3:58 PM
What do you mean ‘they haven’t been able to yet’??
We know empirically how many gun crimes there are per year. (300,000)
We know empirically how many crimes are prevented using guns per year. (2,500,000)
Do some basic math. You have a net positive or negative. (-2,200,000 violent crimes)
We KNOW guns are a net positive. Empirically, and beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 5:03 PM
For the record. Idiot! ^^^^
Bmore on January 8, 2013 at 6:20 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2