A Newtown family offers sensible steps

  • Article by: RAMESH PONNURU , Bloomberg News
  • Updated: January 22, 2013 - 7:10 PM

The proposals don't restrict the rights of responsible gun owners, and they aren't attacks on gun culture.

  • 4
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 4 of 4
RossbergJan. 22, 13 7:56 PM

These are the kind of ideas we should be discussing as part of the "national conversation" on guns we're supposed to be having. They appear to be very thoughtful and non-controversial. Instead this "conversation" has been hijacked by those who see tragedies only as golden opportunities to advance their unrelated agendas which has resulted in panic buying of firearms by others out of fear of losing their rights.

2
5
gandalf48Jan. 23, 13 9:02 AM

These are common sense ideas, punish people who are careless with their weapons around others who are mentally unstable. Also, it's a good idea to require any sort of threat to be reported to authorities. It's refreshing to hear new ideas that aren't related to attacking specific types of guns (which are only cosmetically different than another type of gun). Here's one more idea, instead of a debate about putting guns in schools why not have a pepper spray type weapon...train a few people on how to use it and keep it locked up and only to be used by the few people trained on its use. Then you don't have the possibility of a gun getting in the hands of a student, accidental shooting or something like that in a school.

1
1
dschachenmeyerJan. 23, 1312:33 PM

In principle I agree with these suggestions. My only concern would be the degree to which it places a greater requirement on a lay person to assess someone else's mental state. I would like to see more definition about what is "reasonable" for the average person who has little or no psychiatric training, especially if that person could end up in jail for six months if they are wrong. I also agree with Gandalf's suggestion. Placing more guns in schools will almost certainly lead to more accidental deaths, but there are other non-lethal tools such as pepper spray and tasers that could disable or slow down a school shooter until police arrived.

1
1
gandalf48Jan. 23, 13 1:47 PM

dschachenmeyer - [My only concern would be the degree to which it places a greater requirement on a lay person to assess someone else's mental state.] *** I believe they generally add the word "knowingly" to those types of laws. You wouldn't expect a stranger to know someone is unstable but a parent who has dealt with their child going to psychologists for years, knowing the specific issues that kid has and makes the choice to leave their firearms accessible to that kid is being irresponsible. Even still those laws are rarely enforced and the real reason for creating such laws is to make sure everyone follows the rules, the only time I could see someone actually being prosecuted is if parent "knowingly" allowed their unstable child to have weapons which lead to the deaths of multiple people.

0
1
  • 1 - 4 of 4

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT