OCU,
On #8, I agree with you. Consumers should have some sort of rating system with regard to security devices. There is a chance this would have slowed or stopped the Newtown shooter, though we don't know how he got access to the firearms in his home. If he somehow got ahold her the key, or his mother was foolish enough to give him the key code, then this wouldn't have helped, of course. The only two people who might know that answer are no longer with us so we are left to guess.
On #12 and #19, I agree, as well. Schools, as well as other institutions and groups, should have a well-thought-out plan for emergency response. While I don't think anyone is going to be able to form a 'one-size-fits-all' sort of plan, some sort of incentive (perhaps a discount on insurance or something?) would be a welcome addition.
As for #16 and #17, they would have made little difference here, unless they apply to anyone who lives with someone who may be a danger to themselves or others. That said, I do believe that anyone who is deemed dangerous by a qualified medical professional should be barred from firearms possession, and that we should better enforce the laws that punish those who give access to people who are prohibited from possession.
As for the other items you point out, all of them are on their face, reasonable. There has long been programs encouraging responsible gun ownership, and many schools and organizations run gun safety programs, as well. I, for one, am quite curious as to what information the CDC will be able to glean as far as the roots of the violence pervading our society, so we can better address it. As I said before, I think anything to improve and guide our treatment and/or prevention of mental health issues will only benefit us as a country.
However, I would like a clarification on one thing: what does "finalizing mental health parity regulations" entail? I'm not even sure what this means, to be honest.
What is the point of rules that are not enforced?
| 