Skip to main content

View Diary: If you think Boston is a reason to abandon gun safety laws, you're a special kind of moron (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Someone I know made that argument (5+ / 0-)

    Me, on Facebook:

    So let me see if I understand this correctly. . . . this week's events are indications that what we need are FEWER restrictions on weapons that can kill?

    Really?

    And, BTW, thanks, NRA, for also making it harder to trace the explosives used in the Marathon bombings. And by thanks, I mean #%@!%# you.

    This person's response (emphasis mine):
    If you think that this week has indicated we need more restrictions on weapons that can kill, get ready for everyone to submit to a background check before they can buy pressure cookers, timers, nails, and ball-bearings.

    I tend to think that we need an approach that will address the desire rather than the means.

    My reply:
    Ummm, I do believe there's something important missing from your list. . . .

    We don't want our country back, we want our country FORWARD. --Eclectablog

    by Samer on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:43:29 AM PDT

    •  My reply (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ginny in CO, kyril, FrankRose
      I tend to think that we need an approach that will address the desire rather than the means.
      I agree.  But, I'd go further and say we need to address recruitment activities.   These boys got the "recipe" for this disaster out of an Al Quaeda publication.  

      But, more importantly, we also need to an approach that addresses intent -- one step beyond desire.  

      Russia warned us about Tamerlin.   We incurred a high cost for ignoring that warning.   We need a more stringent process for responding when we receive a warning  that a person might be dangerous, or that a person might be a terrorist.    

      It's a far different question to talk about screening everyone, in the hopes we might get a hit on one in several thousand, than it is to discuss how we respond to reported threats.   Some targeted changes in this specific area -- how state, local and federal agencies respond when it is reported that a person may be dangerous, could do far more than anything else that we have discussed, to help prevent these tragedies.

      Russia warned us about Tamerlin

      James Holmes' psychiatrist warned campus police that he may be violent.

      Police visited Jared Loughner's house and asked the family to hide the guns. '

      In each case, a warning preceeded the violence.  If we developed a more effective way to respond to such warnings, then these tragedies might not happen in the future.

      •  not ignored (6+ / 0-)

        "Russia warned us about Tamerlin.   We incurred a high cost for ignoring that warning. "

        It wasn't ignored.  I just don't think they found anything that would cause them to keep him under surveillance for two years after that.  
        And from everything that I've seen and heard, there was absolutely nothing that caused any of the younger brother's friends to think that he was capable of anything like this.
        There are so many "warnings" about the possible dangers of so many people that I don't see how law enforcement could possibly function if they had to try to preempt all possibilities.  
        What is much easier is to make it more difficult for dangerous people to obtain weapons that allow them to kill and injure many people other than themselves.

      •  Did see an article that reported a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril

        communications problem with Russia. Our embassy there tried to get more info, numerous requests not responded to.

        Bottom line is something that is huge in health care. Communicating a problem is not enough. If no action, insufficient action, or inappropriate reaction is taken, the people with first line responsibility have to pursue it. (Which usually means the nurses, even over multiple shifts.)

        I believe Feinstein and others have pointed out the recurring problem that was not solved post 911, is the stovepipe (or silo) configuration of intel and security agencies. Need to know, loose lips, etc. keeps or delays info from being shared appropriately.

        I think there were other signs here. Tamerlan was kicked out of the mosque he had been attending and the aunt is reporting they have refused burial. The mosque has also been reported as supporting people with radical ideas.

        The local police had been called to the home when the parents were both still there for numerous loud domestic arguments. Do they have any protocols to hook a couple up for counseling?

        OTOH, after Sandy Hook, there was a report on school programs developed after Columbine to educate students (and teachers) about forewarning comments. Something that most of the shooters had made and were not recognized until afterward. Where students were educated in this and given contact people who were trained to investigate with caution, the cooperation was significant. No specific number was given, but apparently more than a few incidents were averted.

        "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

        by Ginny in CO on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 12:11:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site