Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman
How do we define what mental health issues? Adam Lanza had Autism (Aspergers), that is hardly a violent mental illness. So a parent that has an autistic child loses their rights or has them infringed upon?
Columbine was just two angry A-Holes
Cruz from what I've read was a Violent Sociopath (and that should be a HUGE disqualifier).
When the towers fell on 911 we immediately changed airline security guidelines. Armed Marshalls, armed pilots, Metal detectors at every entrance, Steel doors on the cockpits
We didn't tell people they couldn't buy box cutters, we shored up security everywhere that could be a weakness.
A bunch of kids get killed and the gut reaction is to outlaw the "Box Cutters". Why wouldn't we put Armed Guards in the schools, Allow teachers to carry, metal detectors at the entrances to the school and secure doors on the classrooms. We need to change security procedures to ensure their safety.
They said on 911 that we were forever changed, I think with these school shootings we may need to change again
and of Note, since the Airlines implemented their Security procedures, I haven't seen another plane hijacked.
|
"How do we define what mental health issues?"
The same we define that label when deciding whether or not to involuntarily commit someone.
"Adam Lanza had Autism (Aspergers), that is hardly a violent mental illness."
It's not often associated with violence. He had other issues.
Screening for mental health isn't perfect. We will miss some crazy people, we will mis-diagnose some healthy people as being sane. Those are the con's. We will also likely save some lives. Those are the pro's. Let's have an honest conversation about whether or not the pro's outweigh the con's. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But one side says every idea has nothing but con's, the other side says it has no con's. Zero honesty.
"So a parent that has an autistic child loses their rights or has them infringed upon?"
Maybe, if the impediment is severe enough. I'm not saying I am advocating for this. You asked what new laws might have prevented Sandy Hook, and this is what I came up with of the top of my head. I'm not a constitutional lawyer or a lawmaker or a mental health expert.
"Columbine was just two angry A-Holes "
Yep. I have said many times, there is no law that would stop every conceivable situation. But when you think any flaws mean a law is therefore not a good idea, then you are letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Speeding laws also aren't perfect. Because they don't stop everyone from speeding, and sometimes speeding is a good idea. When my wife gave birth to my middle son, we almost didn't make it to the hospital (he was born 14 minutes after we walked through the door, waddled in her case, if I went 25 mph we might not have made it). Despite the shortcomings of speeding laws, I have never heard anyone suggest we do away with them.
"We didn't tell people they couldn't buy box cutters, we shored up security everywhere that could be a weakness."
That's a completely valid point, and part of what we need to do, unfortunately, is fortify the schools. At the same time, we do have no-fly lists...
"and of Note, since the Airlines implemented their Security procedures, I haven't seen another plane hijacked"
You are correct again, it seems to be working. But there are a lot more schools than there are major airports, not sure if that makes it harder...
Not all mass shootings happen within the confines of a school building, either.
Hybrid Mode
