How absurd that this career bureaucrat makes excuses about the law already in place to supposedly prevent exactly what happened, by saying the law "could" have worked. Yeah, and it didn't. That's the fact. What that usually means is that the law will be "strengthened" for an even greater level of "common sense gun safety"... and likely the only people that will pay the price are law-abiding firearm owners:

Michael Lawlor, Connecticut's undersecretary for criminal justice planning and policy, believes the state's gun seizure law could have prevented the killings of 20 first-graders and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012, if police had been made aware that gunman Adam Lanza had mental health problems and access to his mother's legally owned guns.

"That's the kind of situation where you see the red flags and the warning signs are there, you do something about it," Lawlor said. "In many shootings around the country, after the fact it's clear that the warning signs were there."

Exactly! "After the fact". Hindsight is 20/20, Monday morning quarterbacking and all that. The fact is the touted law failed and all this bureaucrat can do is make excuses. Sound familiar? We need "tougher" laws for sure. Of course he fails to mention that California already has a law that allows police to involuntarily commit someone if they believe that person is a danger to himself or others, and Santa Barbara County sheriff deputies (five or more of them as I recall) visited Elliot Rodger less than 3 weeks before he used his hammer and machete and gun and car to assault and kill people. So, of course, California is going to create another law, and the California reps and senators in Washington are going to try to pass a federal law that lets nearly anyone make a charge of "possibly harmful to self or others" that would result in commitment and seizure of firearms. Can Hawaii be far behind? I doubt it... Baker, Green and Ruderman are probably already copying the California proposal.


"With all that we see in the news day after day, particular after Newtown, I think departments are more aware of what authority they have ... and they're using the tool (gun seizure warrants) more frequently than in the past," said South Windsor Police Chief Matthew Reed. "We always look at it from the other side. What if we don't seize the guns?"

If that's the logic, the only prudent thing to do is seize all guns from every person known to have one. That would eliminate the vast majority of guns, and only criminals with unregistered, stolen and black market guns would be able to hurt people using guns. And what are the chances of those folks using their guns for that purpose? "Other side" indeed. How does anyone with a functioning brain having any critical thinking skills at all fall for this crap?

Well their thinking isn't wrong. It has been demonstrated in many places around the world that banning most or all guns does indeed drastically reduce ~gun~ deaths. That is a proven fact so believing it isn't unreasonable.

Unfortunately for its proponents it is also unconstitutional here in the US. That's the main flaw in the anti gunners' logic: they proceed with incremental regulations as if they can get to the end game of confiscation and think each progressive step makes us all safer. No - unconstitutionally banning guns outright would make us safer from gun deaths but the incremental steps in that direction actually make everyone less safe.

What ISN'T a flaw in their thinking - those that think strategically, at least - is that incrementally increasing regulation is the only way to eventually get a Supreme Court ruling that fundamentally guts the 2nd amendment and makes confiscation viable.

Well their thinking isn't wrong. It has been demonstrated in many places around the world that banning most or all guns does indeed drastically reduce ~gun~ deaths. That is a proven fact so believing it isn't unreasonable.

Unfortunately for its proponents it is also unconstitutional here in the US. That's the main flaw in the anti gunners' logic: they proceed with incremental regulations as if they can get to the end game of confiscation and think each progressive step makes us all safer. No - unconstitutionally banning guns outright would make us safer from gun deaths but the incremental steps in that direction actually make everyone less safe.

What ISN'T a flaw in their thinking - those that think strategically, at least - is that incrementally increasing regulation is the only way to eventually get a Supreme Court ruling that fundamentally guts the 2nd amendment and makes confiscation viable.

An estimated 500,000 to 3 million people every single year defend themselves with firearms.  The CDC report Obama told them to spend tax dollars to create demonstrated the stats that people who have a gun for self defense and are victims of violence suffer fewer incidences if death or injury.  (DUH!) 

So, in your great world of banned guns, where will these numbers stand?  Another 500,000 to 3 million victims of violence with no means to defend themselves?  What of the sick, elderly, and weaker among us?  Are we going to revert to "survival of the strongest?"

We rarely hear the other side of the coin in the gun debate.  How many are saved by guns versus injured or killed by murder?  From a logical, numerical viewpoint, the gun ban argument holds no water at all.  To argue for a ban is pro-criminal and anti-victim.

mauidog, I'm assuming you mean "their" world - or at least that "your" world wasn't directed at me.

The libs aren't looking at that. I've pressed the ones I know on this over and over and they simply aren't looking at OTHER crimes. They're just looking at US gun deaths vs. gun deaths in other countries.

Doesn't matter when I point out that half or more are suicides and a percentage of the rest are law enforcement related. For the most part they are just viscerally reacting to death == bad. More death in the US than elsewhere == problem.

I'm pretty sure that will continue until we manage to change the conversation from guns == death to guns == defense against ALL forms of crime. And have demonstrable proof that an armed population is a safer population across the board. We need DATA that says about how many people defend themselves with firearms not estimates.

What I've been trying to figure out is how to say that in a way that somehow gets across to someone who knee-jerks guns==death. The closest I've gotten so far is marital arts. Learning a martial art is commonly known to REDUCE violent tendencies in a person while making them much less likely to be victimized. Most don't even have to use their skills -simply having them is enough to avoid being a victim. But they can't make the mental leap to carrying a weapon being the same way. Guns == Death gets in the way.

mauidog, I'm assuming you mean "their" world - or at least that "your" world wasn't directed at me.

The libs aren't looking at that. I've pressed the ones I know on this over and over and they simply aren't looking at OTHER crimes. They're just looking at US gun deaths vs. gun deaths in other countries.

Doesn't matter when I point out that half or more are suicides and a percentage of the rest are law enforcement related. For the most part they are just viscerally reacting to death == bad. More death in the US than elsewhere == problem.

I'm pretty sure that will continue until we manage to change the conversation from guns == death to guns == defense against ALL forms of crime. And have demonstrable proof that an armed population is a safer population across the board. We need DATA that says about how many people defend themselves with firearms not estimates.

What I've been trying to figure out is how to say that in a way that somehow gets across to someone who knee-jerks guns==death. The closest I've gotten so far is marital arts. Learning a martial art is commonly known to REDUCE violent tendencies in a person while making them much less likely to be victimized. Most don't even have to use their skills -simply having them is enough to avoid being a victim. But they can't make the mental leap to carrying a weapon being the same way. Guns == Death gets in the way.

And until politicians, Hollywood, TV, books, schools and the so-called news stop glorifying guns as the evil cause of deaths in mass numbers, you're fighting a losing battle. 

Propaganda takes many forms.  It's tough to convince people who have seen Lethal Weapon, The Matrix, and almost every Schartzenegger movie that more guns in the hands of ordinary citizens makes logical sense.

Countries that have implemented gun bans have shown a reduced number of gun related deaths. The other side to that coin though is skyrocketing violent crimes. The ban reduces gun deaths, but does nothing to improve safety for the citizens since it actually drives violent crime up.  People just can't seem to put two and two together...