Las Vegas Sun

April 24, 2014

Currently: 84° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

Gun regulations aren’t what failed

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

What discussion would we be having right now across the nation if just one person inside that school was armed, trained and had stopped Adam Lanza before he could commit this horrific act? What discussion would we be having right now if Nancy Lanza had secured those weapons the way most law-abiding owners of assault weapons do?

There wouldn’t be much of any discussion in the first case and none in the second because the incident never would have happened.

It is completely understandable why someone who has not grown up within a culture of assault weapons would say that they should be banned and that there is “no good reason” for anyone to own one. I will agree that there is no good reason for anyone to own an assault weapon if they will agree that there is no good reason for alcohol or cigarettes to be legal.

There is no good reason for anyone to own a high-powered, road-race-style motorcycle capable of ungodly speeds and operate it on our public highways. More than 10 times as many people are killed every year in motorcycle accidents as by assault weapons.

But in the case of a mass shooting like Sandy Hook, it’s simply not enough to say the reason those people lost their lives was because Nancy Lanza failed to control Adam Lanza’s behavioral issues and his ability to access those weapons. Someone needs to pay; assault weapons, the NRA, video games, movies — anything but the stark reality that in our society, bad things happen to good people every single day. It’s not until something like this happens that people finally wake up and pay attention.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 9 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Good points, Dan, but if I've said it once, I've said it 1,000 times: it's not about gun control. It's about control, period! The "useful idiots" on the left simply want to run our lives. They want the power to regulate everything we do, from how much water our toilets use to how big our soft drinks may be. They want to regulate our speech, our thoughts, what we eat, what we drive and how we live. At the same time, they want to deregulate every possible deviant action they can by destroying centuries old traditional values and to shred the Constitution. The enemy within is far more dangerous to our liberties than the enemy without.

  2. Future: Does holding "the deranged killer" responsible alter the outcome of his/her actions? If "liberals" don't hold the killer responsible who does? Are "conservatives" the answer? Have "conservatives" done any more than liberals to "address the cultural environment of violence"? Leave out the usual political blame game you always seem to revert to when addressing an issue. It's not always political gamesmanship; sometimes it is a social issue that knows no political boundaries.

    It is too late for this country when it comes to "gun control". If the government outlawed gun ownership tomorrow it would make no difference as there are millions of guns already out there, and there would be no effort to confiscate them (and I don't believe there should be). "Gun Control" will be a knee jerk reaction to recent events, and ultimately nothing of significance will be done.

  3. Guns are not the problem. People are. This belief runs against the liberal agenda. Even though the facts overwhelmingly support that these insane murderers are responsible for these crimes, the real target of the liberals are guns and magazine clips. Confiscation by and mandatory selling to the government is the real liberal objective as is a gun free society. Diane Feinstein's new draft bill on gun control is just the beginning.Obama's appearance on the David Gregory NBC show this weekend to undoubtedly support Gregory's violation of DC's strict gun laws by possessing a 30 round clip on last week's Meet the Press show, are harbingers of more gun control tactics to come from the liberals.The fact that Obama's and Gregory's children attend the same school ( Sidwell Friends School) which is protected by 11 armed guards who are not secret service employees is conveniently ignored by Obama and Gregory and the liberals. The liberal hypocrisy is unbelievable. Thank the Stars for the NRA and the private owners of 300 million guns in America.

  4. Adam Lanza failed, Nancy Lanza failed, Ryan Lanza failed, gun control failed, and still does, the culture of the country failed, mental illness assistance failed. All of it and them failed. And 26 innocent victims are dead and their friends and families will never be the same. That doesn't begin or end the toll of murders over the last 236 years. We can't stop all the unnecessary murders. But, we can surely reduce them, or make them more difficult to carry out. Especially when people, laws, regulations, and systems that are in place supposedly to protect the weakest among us, fail and don't.

    CarmineD

  5. In his initial letter Mr. Ward states "What discussion would we be having right now if Nancy Lanza had secured those weapons the way most law-abiding owners of assault weapons do?"

    It appears that we are having these discussions in large part because Ms Lanza did just exactly what Mr Ward denies: she followed the existing laws governing the purchase and registration of her firearms.

    In its 12/15 issue (1), the New York Times reported that "Law enforcement officials said they believed the guns were acquired legally and were registered." It appears that we are having these discussions in large part because Ms Lanza did just what Mr Ward denies - followed the existing laws governing firearm purchase and registration. Can anyone cite a more recent/more reliable source that refutes the Times?

    I see a good argument, contrary to Mr Ward, that these discussions are taking place precisely because Ms Lanza DID abide by the (insufficient) existing laws. Of course, the fact that her son began his massacre by illegally killing her and stealing her firearms has no real bearing on the issue.

    (1) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregi...

  6. Your motorcycle analogy is flawed. You're obviously not a biker.

    Nancy Lanza was trying to get him help. But he found out. He was mentally ill. This should not be a gun control debate.

    Could she have called her local police station to get fast and effective help? No. She would be questioned such as "has a crime been committed?" To whom should she have turned? Answer that question, please.

  7. "Irving Pinsky, attorney is asking to sue the State of Connecticut for $100 million on behalf of a Newtowne school survivor". - national news.

    After the schools are broke, teachers refuse to instruct and the gun dealers are rich, the only system that will continue to work is the Tort system of malpractice.

    The client "sustained "emotional and psychological trauma and injury" after listening to the tragedy over the loudspeakers in the classroom. This means the loudspeakers in classrooms also failed because they induced emotional trauma rather than dependable instructions on how to remain safe.

    Academic instructors cannot be allowed to carry guns because that makes them responsible for successful protection of students. Should they fail, lawsuits for malpractice against the school district, State and teachers would be filed. No law can be passed that makes gun equipped teachers immune to malpractice.

    Once the shooter is in the classroom, it is too late. If a shooter came in the back door of a classroom and fired, students would jump to their feet and block the view of the shooter. If the instructor tried to shoot with a quick, clear view and instead, hit a student the parents would sue. If the instructor hit nothing - they or the school system could be sued for many claims, including emotional trauma.

    Guards would have to be stationed along each straight section in the halls to prevent entry. The taxpayer would be forced to pay the bills to create an environment of paranoia with the sole objective of proliferating guns. The academic environment would be ruined but the gun dealers would make millions. That turns Mainstreet USA into Afghanistan USA, but gun dealers, military equipment and bullet proof backpack suppliers rich.

    The answer is very simple: make those responsible for public shootings pay. They are without a doubt, those who build and sell assault rifles for the public. Make them pay until it becomes unprofitable or financially impossible to build these pieces of deadly trash.

    Toy makers are routine sued for causing injury to children. Gun makers, dealers and sellers should experience the same fate: pay for the damage they do. In that manner, they could also keep their warped sense of Constitutional guarantees.

  8. "It is completely understandable why someone who has not grown up within a culture of assault weapons would say that they should be banned and that there is "no good reason" for anyone to own one."

    Ward -- good letter! That the rest of us are facing more restrictions because some people just can't handle their freedoms is the true perversion.

    "The "useful idiots" on the left simply want to run our lives. They want the power to regulate everything we do . . .At the same time, they want to deregulate every possible deviant action they can by destroying centuries old traditional values and to shred the Constitution."

    lvfacts -- agree with your first bit, disagree strongly with the last. One person's "deviant action" is another's personal pleasure. As several U.S. Supreme Court decisions have clarified, restricting what consenting adults do in private is not subject to any government's legitimate lawmaking and enforcement.

    "Umm let's see there were 24 trained and armed guards on duty at Virginia Tech on the day of the massacre."

    MotorSports -- excellent point

    "This case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law." -- Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct. 1187 (2009), Justice Alito, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia join, dissenting.

  9. KillerB, "That the rest of us are facing more restrictions because some people just can't handle their freedoms is the true perversion."

    Please remember to pass that message on to the slaughtered children of Sandy Hook and the adults.