GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[HairOfTheDog]

There's been nothing to stop anyone from getting involved in the past when these nutjobs make threats. In fact, someone did ring the alarm bell on Klebold and Harris... but the authorities did not follow through. Same with the VA Tech shooter, same for the guy in Aurora. There were clear signs, but nothing was done.

If commercials and PSA's are suddenly going to change human behavior than I am for it.

But don't count on it.

I'm not a hopeless person that thinks that nothing can ever be changed or improved. I re-read all of your posts tonight; some feel very heated. I'll just clarify the points addressed.

I think it's a wrong assumption that those of us who don't own guns are any less patriotic or supportive of the Constitution than those who do (yourself and the names you tossed out). Personally, I don't support the gun and ammo bans, but that doesn't mean that nothing else can or should be considered in order to minimize gun violence and mass murder. You seem to be saying that anything that's suggested is a farce and a crock of shit - doing nothing is the only way to go. I instead believe that other things can indeed be done to minimize the risks and have considered and learned a lot about gun control lately and developed some opinions.

Regarding Bkgd Checks:
I didn't suggest that the ATF was failing on background checks, I don't know where you got that. It was made clear that the NICS database has only a small portion of documented mentally ill persons in its files. Many mentally ill are flagged/caught during the application process each year; more will be caught if the database is more up to date. That's just a fact and I support keeping guns outs of the hands of the mentally ill to the extent possible. I also support making the NICS tool as effectives as it can be to help accomplish that goal (which will require better local/state/fed coordination).

Regarding Public and LE Engagement:
Citizens should always be concerned with their own public safety and that of those around them. If the warning signs in some of the recent mass murders had been reported or followed-up on according to guidelines based on what we've learned from past failures (and successes), it's possible that some of the massacres could have been prevented. Developing consistent reporting and follow-up guidelines for the public and local law enforcement to implement isn't an infringement on anybody's Constitutional rights, doesn't involve regulation or government intervention (beyond it being the natural point for centralizing the creation of guidelines/processes based on experiences with massacres across the country) and gets people engaged in the effort to minimize violence in their communities. I don't understand why anyone would object to that, but I respect that you do for some reason and that's fine.

Have a good night.

P.s. The Constitution promotes states' sovereignty. Since New York law doesn't dictate federal law or any other state's laws, I was originally unclear about what laws you were objecting to earlier; I understand now. Thanks.