GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, OR DO THEY?

[Midwest Spy]

I'm disappointed that nothing was mentioned regarding public awareness efforts and reporting/follow-up guidelines for citizens and LE. Ah well, it was just an idea and there's noting to stop a centralized effort from being undertaken without the federal government serving as the central knowledge point (just more difficult to organize). Even without any kind of formal effort in that regard, it appears that the terrible reality of the Newton shootings has prompted more people to report suspicions and law enforcement to act quickly and seriously to such reports. I've seen several reports of thwarted attacks in the news since December. It would be most effective if there were guidelines to ensure that proactive reports continue to be followed-up on in a speedy and effective manner, even after Newton isn't on the forefront, to avoid things falling through the cracks like in Columbine. But, one step at a time...

It really will take a community/family effort to thwart this newest threat to our society: whackjob boys/men between the ages of 17-30.

Just observing Lanza's particular situation from afar, and knowing what most everyone else knows about him, my first inclination is that he suffered tremendously when his dad left, and then when his brother moved out, he really started moving toward rock bottom.

So, with that being established, what could his community/family have done? His extended family (mom's relatives in Vermont I believe) seemed rather isolated, his brother was in New Jersey (and sounds like he didn't come home a lot) and I think dad had been 'done' with him for years.

Mom apparently really took a liking to guns. Whether she felt like this was some sort of connection with her clearly ODD son, she made a mistake in having all these weapons at hand.

Here's where I actually agree with the gun nutters. Changing existing laws would not have prevented Lanza from doing what he did. Mom legally purchased the weapons.

Do we extend background checks to include family members? It almost seems necessary. Does that infringe on someone's 'rights'? I don't know, but if you know that you have someone at home who's not mentally stable, I say 'tough' to your ability to legally purchase firearms.

Ms. Lanza kept her sons mental deficiencies pretty well hidden from the public (from what I've read). She kept him at home 99% of the time. The general public, except for a few teachers that knew him during the past 4 or 5 years, would not have known how disturbed he was.

We have to have a couple of things happen. 1) This one's obvious. If you have a child at home who exhibits some sort of mental illness, you have to get rid of your guns. Period. 2) This is the more difficult one. Family members and community leaders (teachers, principals, mentors, pastors, youth leaders, etc) need to overstep their bounds and identify youth who would appear to show signs of mental illness. Once those people are 'outed' so to speak, steps then need to be taken to make sure where those kids are living that all firearms are removed from the home (whether the parents like it or not).

Again, the spree killers of the past few years are not acquiring their firearms illegally (for the most part). Lanza wouldn't have known how to get a weapon on the black market. Hell, he never left his house.