In little Noah’s honor, sensible gun legislation
A second proposed statute would establish a standard for securing firearms. Someone who has “reasonable cause to believe” that he has made a gun accessible to a person who is mentally ill and considered dangerous, or otherwise poses a grave and imminent danger to others, would be guilty of a misdemeanor, and maybe even a felony, if that dangerous person gets the gun.
Noah Pozner’s family also proposes that the government fund school-security reviews and upgrades, and augment emergency grief counseling. (From the memo: “After Noah’s death, family members underwent an initial extended and horrible period without any mental health assistance.”) The family credits lockdown procedures for saving Noah’s sisters, and urges schools to do mandatory lockdown drills. …
The proposals don’t restrict the rights of responsible gun owners, and they aren’t attacks on gun culture. Instead, they seek to strengthen norms — like the norm that firearms should be secured — that are already present in that culture. So they are more politically viable than most gun-control proposals, and more likely to achieve practical success, as well.
At the same time, they don’t follow the template of the National Rifle Association. They don’t assume, that is, that the only solution to the problems caused by bad people with guns is good people with guns.
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: 1 2 Next »
Democrats: Merchants of “Weapons of War”
http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2013/01/democrats-merchants-of-weapons-of-war.html
Resist We Much on January 22, 2013 at 10:57 AM
I see a whole lot of vague terms in there that would guarantee a gigantic legal mess every time such a case made it to court.
Bishop on January 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Pro-tip: When an Oppressive makes this kind of claim, it is usually a blatant LIE, and they know it.
That should read:
The proposals restrict the rights of gun owners, and they are attacks on gun culture.
Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 11:02 AM
Yes, because grief counseling is something the government should provide. On average over 6000 people die each day in the United States.
Think about that.
ButterflyDragon on January 22, 2013 at 11:03 AM
So it is still ultimately up to the responsible individual? How is this enforced? How do we insure only responsible individuals participate. Is a Military personnel who comes home from serving the country and has PTSD to be trusted? Who decides? I’ll pass. Uninfringed.
Bmore on January 22, 2013 at 11:03 AM
Lock up the guns, or lock up the people?
Because if we’re worried about someone becoming violent, are we really okay with what they can accomplish in a crowded hall with a couple of molotovs, or with a vehicle while the daycare kids are crossing the street?
No one is really thinking through what it means to make families of ill people liable for the actions of that ill person.
TexasDan on January 22, 2013 at 11:06 AM
What about responsible policy-makers? We’re letting a grief-stricken family advise national policy on dancing around one of the principle Constitutional freedoms? Sounds like a great idea. What’s next, people who’ve just gone bankrupt writing the tax code? Not that they could likely damage it any more than it already has been…
As to the rest of it, it’s terrible that they had to go without professional support for any length of time in the aftermath of the tragedy. But I can guarantee that was either a personal failure on the part of the professional for not being there, or a failure of the family to seek help. There would have been counselors there, and if not then someone dropped the ball, and another law isn’t going to fix that.
Atlas on January 22, 2013 at 11:07 AM
Can we stop with the “little” crap, every time a kid gets killed?
It’s cheap and manipulative. It smacks of the tactics that people like 0bama use, surrounding themselves with children when they want to push an agenda.
I swear, during the Casey Anthony trial, every time a newscaster mentioned the child Caylee, it was preceded by “little.” Drove me nuts. Yes, we know she was little, She was freaking 2 years old!!!!!!
/rant off
UltimateBob on January 22, 2013 at 11:07 AM
I would like to see some discussion of the idea of requiring gun owners to buy liability insurance. This is floating around many liberal blogs. This seems to me a plausible and free-market way to increase security and safety of guns. Insurance might be expensive but there would be significant discounts for keeping guns and ammo separate, having locked gun cases, etc. and higher premiums for more guns. If you can’t get life insurance because of a recent mental illness, you wouldn’t be able to get firearm insurance either. Insurance rates would be higher for types of guns that are more frequently stolen and used to commit crime and shoot people.
What is the conservative argument against this?
rockmom on January 22, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Legislation is not the solution to our problem.
Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM
we have to do it!! because little noah said so!!
Sachiko on January 22, 2013 at 11:09 AM
For one, the financial burden infringes a right that per the 2A shall not be infringed.
TexasDan on January 22, 2013 at 11:13 AM
Especially legislation that only addresses someone to blame AFTER something has happened…
Tim Zank on January 22, 2013 at 11:16 AM
In the names of little Charlie and Helen, pass sensible spending control.
Ted Torgerson on January 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Translation: Just let me stick the head in.
We already have “sensible gun legislation”. It’s called the 2nd Amendment.
Here’s a sensible law I’d back related to guns. When someone commits a felony crime with a gun, make it a capital offense and use lethal injection to prevent them from doing it again. That will take lots of gang bangers, drug dealers, robbers, rapists and other worthies out of the equation. None of the three strikes crap either. Use a gun to commit a crime and you are reduced to a dim memory.
MikeA on January 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Actually, it is THE solution to stopping an insane act like this one was before it gets worse.
Bitter Clinger on January 22, 2013 at 11:19 AM
@rockmom: Has requiring auto insurance significantly limited the number or safety of automobiles – insured or otherwise? Or just spread the risk of reckless driving?
Seth Halpern on January 22, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Cindy Munford on January 22, 2013 at 11:22 AM
or danger of automobiles
Seth Halpern on January 22, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Yeah, but then they could sell the rest of us an uninsured gun owner policy. Hmmm, I’m starting to see this idea get legs.
Cindy Munford on January 22, 2013 at 11:28 AM
Easy, they price a Constitutional right out of reach with astronomical sums for this ‘insurance’ and viola!
No more right of self-defense.
Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Have the insurance companies stated this is a problem? They’re losing money because of irresponsible gun owners being sued?
If the insurance company doesn’t have a problem, why create a solution for a nonexistant problem?
Requiring liability insurance is just a gun tax if the insurance company sees no reason to have different rates for gun owners.
But regardless of the extra costs to gun owners, why would money stop senseless killings? Little Noah’s family would be better off if they could sue the homeowner insurance company the guns were stolen from? Is that the argument? Of course not, it’s a way to penalize gun owners financially.
Gunowner liability insurance is a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t exist.
ButterflyDragon on January 22, 2013 at 11:29 AM
rockmom on January 22, 2013 at 11:08 AM
If my .38 is unloaded, it’s useless for self-defense. I won’t submit.
annoyinglittletwerp on January 22, 2013 at 11:30 AM
There are already laws – both criminal & civil that cover this scenario. There is no reason to write additional laws.
Blake on January 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM
Crap! Correction:
Sorry about that people.
Galt2009 on January 22, 2013 at 11:33 AM
It’s an unnecessary financial burden & invasion of privacy. I mean what — we have to share our medical records with State Farm?
Blake on January 22, 2013 at 11:36 AM
Was that because their bank accounts were frozen or something? There should be a law against the government freezing assets of gun victims’ families, so that they can pay for the help they need.
Dusty on January 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM
God given rights don’t require liability insurance. God said I have a right to self defense, not liberals.
jawkneemusic on January 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM
@Galt2009: I doubt they’d price anything out of reach for the average owner, if left to their own devices. They want to make money, too, after all.
Seth Halpern on January 22, 2013 at 11:46 AM
I wonder…do people who are murdered for access to their (presumably) secured guns get charged with this? Because that’s what happened in Newtown and led to the death of ‘little Noah.’ (I keep getting the image of a bearded midget in a long, flowing robe building an ark.)
James on January 22, 2013 at 11:49 AM
I’m so tired of liberal claptrap; “No professional taxpayer funded shrink rushed to my side to help me through it, I was required to be an adult and deal with my private grief myself and that’s just not fair.”
Kids die every day, drownings, car accidents, cancer, and a myriad of other causes. These people think they are entitled to taxpayer provided grief counseling because their “little” Noah was killed by a madman.
I swear if there had been Modern American Liberals 50,000 years ago the human species would have gone extinct early on.
clippermiami on January 22, 2013 at 11:50 AM
How do we go about charging the Newtown killer’s mother for her failure to secure her firearms?
myrenovations on January 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Which is only one breathless heartbeat away from “Firearms must be secured in an authorized shooting club that provides reasonable access to firearm owners.”.
Keep the hits coming libs, just keep ‘em coming.
roy_batty on January 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM
Racist.
rogerb on January 22, 2013 at 11:59 AM
Most people have family, friends, church, etc. to lean on in difficult times. To hear this family had no type of support like that leads me to believe they’re real douchebags.
ButterflyDragon on January 22, 2013 at 12:00 PM
I’ll agree to this when Liberals agree to the “financial burden” of folks having to acquire and show ID to vote.
BierManVA on January 22, 2013 at 12:03 PM
If you can tell me how this might reign in illegal firearms use by criminals I am all for more discussion.
roy_batty on January 22, 2013 at 12:03 PM
Why do you automatically assume that having insurance to cover the liability for the safe possession/use of a thing will make that possessor/user take more care in it’s possession/use?
Auto insurance doesn’t make for more careful drivers. Homeowners insurance doesn’t make for more careful homeowners. Health insurance doesn’t make for more careful, um, healthers(?)
Who would take more care about activities which might risk their life in some way, a husband with a wife and three young children who has no life insurance or one who has $1,000,000 policy?
Dusty on January 22, 2013 at 12:05 PM
Wow, mom sure became a liberal activist quickly…
Akzed on January 22, 2013 at 12:07 PM
“…shall not be infringed.”
Akzed on January 22, 2013 at 12:08 PM
I was in a terrible situation a while back and my first reaction was to ask God why he let it happen that I didn’t have the money to pay for the help I needed. Why God? Why?
Dusty on January 22, 2013 at 12:13 PM
And that’s assuming they were never “secured” to begin with. After all, the guy first tried to buy a gun on his own, which tells me it was easier for him to try and purchase his own gun instead of trying to steal his mother’s.
I haven’t seen any confirmed reporting (read: statement from the police) saying her guns weren’t secured. Heck, I haven’t seen anything from the police saying the guy actually used that rifle that was found in his trunk…
JohnTant on January 22, 2013 at 12:29 PM
Wow, mom sure became a liberal activist quickly…
[Akzed on January 22, 2013 at 12:07 PM]
I think she asked a legitimate question. There needs to be an effective rebuttal to the proposal.
The problem is that such a simple sounding solution is fraught with numerous complexities having to do with secondary and tertiary subjects. For instance, one such is that while requiring insurance imposes costs directly on all gun owners for the actions of a very small segment of the population, the benefits of gun ownership are reaped by all (including the rent-seekers) of society via lower crime rates and less chance of government tyranny. Now, if society is willing to reimburse gun owners for those benefits, I’d be willing to discuss further the idea of requiring gun owner insurance, since it would be more of the employment contract, i.e., we provide security and you pay us to cover our costs and make a small profit for taking that risk.
Dusty on January 22, 2013 at 12:36 PM
I’m also not sure about the whole, emergency grief counseling stuff…do they want a FEMA style grief team on call for every single state in the union? The mind boggles just thinking how massive an effort this would be. What about friends? When my friend tragically lost her daughter a year ago, FRIENDS were her grief counselors! When i had a terrible fire 10 years ago, with my entire family in the house, my friends and neighbors banded together to give us clothes and toys and cash and food and support. Must we make every single thing a law, decide that instead of human decency kicking in to do the right thing, there must be a law that states government MUST provide?
ellifint on January 22, 2013 at 12:39 PM
All of this throws into very stark relief the selective enforcement of the laws we do have. I was astounded to read the number of people who lie on their background checks but are never prosecuted. If they simply went hard and fast after every former felon who lies in an attempt to purchase a weapon–make it the fastest way back to jail–I think that would have a very chilling effect on the number of people who attempt to “lie and try”, some of who probably slip through and get the gun.
TexasDan on January 22, 2013 at 12:42 PM
Huh, maybe we could come up with govt run health care while we’re at it. And govt run pensions. And we could fund solar energy companies. I mean, the potential is infinite.
Shall not be infringed. Cold dead fingers. You follow?
Akzed on January 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Why do you hate the 99%, you racist wingnut?
TexasDan on January 22, 2013 at 12:44 PM
Surely you didn’t think he was serious.
TexasDan on January 22, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Um, if he didn’t mean it I didn’t neither…?
Akzed on January 22, 2013 at 12:47 PM
If that’s not the solution, why do we have armed policemen?
Sorry, but that amounts to a meaningless platitude. No one is pretending that “a good guy with a gun” will magically fix everything, and that there’s no room for other measures. But ultimately, any measure to overcome force requires force. The big difference is that the NRA thinks private citizens should be able to defend themselves, while the left would rather see people die than people being able to defend themselves.
That may be an ugly statement, but it’s incontrovertible.
There Goes The Neighborhood on January 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »