giving guns to mental patients

godpt3

Another Campus Tragedy -- With Guns in the Hands of a Mental Patient
One of the many alarming things about the latest college shooting (especially for someone with a kid in college), is the way the media have treated the issue of the shooter and his guns.

By Greg Mitchell

(February 16, 2008) -- One of the many alarming things about the latest college shooting (especially for someone with a kid in college), is the way the media have treated the issue of the shooter and his guns.

They generally describe it in terms of "move along, nothing to see here" by emphasizing that the deadly weapons were all purchased legally. It turns out that Steve Kazmierczak, the heavily medicated young man -- who had been institutionalized less than 10 years ago -- had recently bought six (not the earlier reported four) weapons, including a shotgun. He also purchased accessories online.

After high school, we now learn, Kazmierczak's parents sent him to a psychiatric treatment center for teens, where he lived for more than a year while getting therapy and medication for what was described as "unruly" behavior. Later he was booted out of the Army for an undisclosed reason.


Welcome to America, where former mental patients, still on medication, can walk up to a gun dealers' shop (in a basement or garage) and legally assemble an arsenal.

Here's the latest from the ABC News site: "Law enforcement authorities told ABC News that Kazmierczak had likely planned the assault on the school for at least five days. All four guns involved in the NIU shooting were purchased legally from the same Champaign, Ill., gun dealer, ABC News has learned. The Remington shotgun and the Glock 9 mm were purchased Feb. 9, 2008. The Hi Point 380 was purchased Dec. 30, 2007 and the SIG Sauer 9 mm was purchased Aug. 6, 2007 from the same gun dealer.

"Authorities were still checking where he obtained two other pistols, a 9 mm Sig Sauer and a Hi Point 380.

"In a disturbing twist, authorities report Kazmierczak purchased ammunition from the same website as the Virginia Tech gunman."

The owner of that site, Eric Thompson, told the Associated Press: “I’m shaking. I can’t believe somebody would order from us again and do this.”

I can.

blackredyellow

My question is, what do you do about it?

If you go see a shrink, do you automatically get put on some national database of crazy people?

know1

What percentage of people today could be considered a "mental patient"? My guess is it's a very, very high percentage. I think it you're on anti-depressants, you're a mental patient.

KosmicJelli

blackredyellow wrote:

My question is, what do you do about it?

If you go see a shrink, do you automatically get put on some national database of crazy people?

No.. I think a "shrink" should be responsible to notify authorities if they think their client has some absolute problems and is in danger of harming others... they have to report in "other" situations...

people can be "crazy" without the will to harm others...

godpt3

blackredyellow wrote:

My question is, what do you do about it?

If you go see a shrink, do you automatically get put on some national database of crazy people?

You know, if a person has ever been committed to an institution, they probably shouldn't have access to guns. Ever. Now, I'm pretty sure that the firearms application has a place to check if you've ever been under psychiatric treatment. However, there's nothing to stop someone from simply lying on their application, and no real way for anyone to check. So the best solution is to create a national database, available to law enforcement and those performing background checks, of those who have been treated for mental illness. It's no different than registering sex offenders.

blackredyellow

godpt3 wrote:

You know, if a person has ever been committed to an institution, they probably shouldn't have access to guns. Ever. Now, I'm pretty sure that the firearms application has a place to check if you've ever been under psychiatric treatment. However, there's nothing to stop someone from simply lying on their application, and no real way for anyone to check. So the best solution is to create a national database, available to law enforcement and those performing background checks, of those who have been treated for mental illness. It's no different than registering sex offenders.

I agree about commitment, and I think that is the law. I could be wrong, but I don't think that this Illinois shooter was ever committed.

godpt3

blackredyellow wrote:

I agree about commitment, and I think that is the law. I could be wrong, but I don't think that this Illinois shooter was ever committed.

His parents committed him shortly after high school and I think he spent a year institutionalized.

Urban Hiker

know1 wrote:

What percentage of people today could be considered a "mental patient"? My guess is it's a very, very high percentage. I think it you're on anti-depressants, you're a mental patient.

Well, shit. I guess I'm a mental patient. Does this mean I can't get a gun? I really want to shoot my TV.

Guns aren't the only issue. We recently had a murder committed by a "mental patient" who admitted he carried around a butcher knife. This is what came of it: http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_012908WAB_caphill_charges_KS.6db91d65.html

Will1659

KosmicJelli wrote:

No.. I think a "shrink" should be responsible to notify authorities if they think their client has some absolute problems and is in danger of harming others

They are obligated to do so if they know their patient is planning to commit a crime. Somebody look up the Tarasoff case. I forget if that obligation extends to just having a strong suspicion about a patient, though.

And while I'm all for cutting down on the number of people allowed to keep a small arsenal at home, I don't see how you can use the "mental patient" criteria to do so. There are multitudes of people who are or have been under the care of a psychiatrist who are far less dangerous than someone who's never been in their life.

OutOfBreath

Keeping guns away from mental patients would probably be a good step, keeping the definition at commitment to institution. But what is needed from the get-go is real treatment of psychiatric cases. When they largely go without, and have easy access to guns, well that's a bad combination as several shootings have shown.

So what the US should also be debating about these shootings is mental health care, and ensuring that those that need it get it. If not, it's a very bad idea to have guns so easily accessible.

Peace
Dan

genie

godpt3 wrote:

Another Campus Tragedy -- With Guns in the Hands of a Mental Patient
One of the many alarming things about the latest college shooting (especially for someone with a kid in college), is the way the media have treated the issue of the shooter and his guns.

By Greg Mitchell

(February 16, 2008) -- One of the many alarming things about the latest college shooting (especially for someone with a kid in college), is the way the media have treated the issue of the shooter and his guns.

They generally describe it in terms of "move along, nothing to see here" by emphasizing that the deadly weapons were all purchased legally. It turns out that Steve Kazmierczak, the heavily medicated young man -- who had been institutionalized less than 10 years ago -- had recently bought six (not the earlier reported four) weapons, including a shotgun. He also purchased accessories online.

After high school, we now learn, Kazmierczak's parents sent him to a psychiatric treatment center for teens, where he lived for more than a year while getting therapy and medication for what was described as "unruly" behavior. Later he was booted out of the Army for an undisclosed reason.


Welcome to America, where former mental patients, still on medication, can walk up to a gun dealers' shop (in a basement or garage) and legally assemble an arsenal.

Here's the latest from the ABC News site: "Law enforcement authorities told ABC News that Kazmierczak had likely planned the assault on the school for at least five days. All four guns involved in the NIU shooting were purchased legally from the same Champaign, Ill., gun dealer, ABC News has learned. The Remington shotgun and the Glock 9 mm were purchased Feb. 9, 2008. The Hi Point 380 was purchased Dec. 30, 2007 and the SIG Sauer 9 mm was purchased Aug. 6, 2007 from the same gun dealer.

"Authorities were still checking where he obtained two other pistols, a 9 mm Sig Sauer and a Hi Point 380.

"In a disturbing twist, authorities report Kazmierczak purchased ammunition from the same website as the Virginia Tech gunman."

The owner of that site, Eric Thompson, told the Associated Press: “I’m shaking. I can’t believe somebody would order from us again and do this.”

I can.

:eek::eek: man, i wondered what the hell happneded in there and what was his reason. shit this is scary. i swear if i ever decide to travel to US i'll by myself a gun too you know just to even things out a bit

dunkman

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


give them a gun.. give them all guns... even people who are in jail should have them, rapists and everything... it's their 'right' and that 'right' should not be infringed upon.. if people are going to take that 2nd amendment so literally then even 4 year olds should have guns as its their right.. i cant find anywhere that says "only sane people between the ages of 21 and 99 are allowed to bear arms" it says the people... c'mon give OJ a gun.. give Charles Manson some machine guns... why not? its their 'right'.


but how many americans who have a gun are part of a militia? do they have regular meet-ups, memberships, training, insurance, a hierachy of command, funds, etc etc... thats what i would term as "well regulated".. 1 guy having 9 guns in his bedroom incase a bad man comes in isnt part of a militia.. he should have his guns removed... it breaches the 2nd amendment

genie

dunkman wrote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


give them a gun.. give them all guns... even people who are in jail should have them, rapists and everything... it's their 'right' and that 'right' should not be infringed upon.. if people are going to take that 2nd amendment so literally then even 4 year olds should have guns as its their right.. i cant find anywhere that says "only sane people between the ages of 21 and 99 are allowed to bear arms" it says the people... c'mon give OJ a gun.. give Charles Manson some machine guns... why not? its their 'right'.


but how many americans who have a gun are part of a militia? do they have regular meet-ups, memberships, training, insurance, a hierachy of command, funds, etc etc... thats what i would term as "well regulated".. 1 guy having 9 guns in his bedroom incase a bad man comes in isnt part of a militia.. he should have his guns removed... it breaches the 2nd amendment

haha i can just imagine a 4 year old with a gun playing cowboys and indians

Math

Maybe I'm gonna be a little off topic, but still my question is gun related.

I'm asking it from a naïve point of view.

As a european, I've always been surprised, and a bit scared, by USA citizens' passion over firearms. What's the deal with guns and americans? I seriously don't understand. I'm not judging or anything.

It's just that I see more and more gun related topics so... Educate me.

Urban Hiker

Math wrote:

Maybe I'm gonna be a little off topic, but still my question is gun related.

I'm asking it from a naïve point of view.

As a european, I've always been surprised, and a bit scared, by USA citizens' passion over firearms. What's the deal with guns and americans? I seriously don't understand. I'm not judging or anything.

It's just that I see more and more gun related topics so... Educate me.

We are a bunch of paranoid megalomaniacs. :rolleyes:

IMHO, of course.

Im still here

Math wrote:

Maybe I'm gonna be a little off topic, but still my question is gun related.

I'm asking it from a naïve point of view.

As a european, I've always been surprised, and a bit scared, by USA citizens' passion over firearms. What's the deal with guns and americans? I seriously don't understand. I'm not judging or anything.

It's just that I see more and more gun related topics so... Educate me.

well for one thing hunting is very big in the States

another thing is the 2nd Amendment

another thing is called the Castle Law (look it up yourself)

ps: I shot my first gun when I was 6, and it wasn't a bb gun either

Math

WHat?! You think you are the only ones to have laws? We are allowed to own guns too. We also have the "selfdefense" law.

The question is not why you own guns. The question is Why do you want to. And don't tell me it's only for hunting or defending yourself. I know those two arguments. What I want to understand is the passion around firearms.

And not just hunting firearms. I mean handguns and all. What's the deal?

Im still here

Math wrote:

WHat?! You think you are the only ones to have laws? We are allowed to own guns too. We also have the "selfdefense" law.

The question is not why you own guns. The question is Why do you want to. And don't tell me it's only for hunting or defending yourself. I know those two arguments. What I want to understand is the passion around firearms.

And not just hunting firearms. I mean handguns and all. What's the deal?

you tell me

i was taught when i was young it was for hunting and self defense

but it is fun to shoot a gun


for the record i have never shot a person, and i pray to God i never have to

Math

Well, "fun to shoot a gun" is a new argument to me. I never thought it was.

Still does not explain why USA citizens seem more passionate about guns than most populations. I know it's a generalisation, but it's based on what I feel. Maybe this feeling comes from mass media or the huge number of threads related to the issue and the number of americans who participate in those debates.

I mean I also would like to be able to defend myself if attacked, but still I (and it's just a personnal opinion, not a disguised judgment of some sort) think I'll never get a firearm in my house.

I guess I'd rather be robbed than have to shoot at somebody.

godpt3

dunkman wrote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


give them a gun.. give them all guns... even people who are in jail should have them, rapists and everything... it's their 'right' and that 'right' should not be infringed upon.. if people are going to take that 2nd amendment so literally then even 4 year olds should have guns as its their right.. i cant find anywhere that says "only sane people between the ages of 21 and 99 are allowed to bear arms" it says the people... c'mon give OJ a gun.. give Charles Manson some machine guns... why not? its their 'right'.


but how many americans who have a gun are part of a militia? do they have regular meet-ups, memberships, training, insurance, a hierachy of command, funds, etc etc... thats what i would term as "well regulated".. 1 guy having 9 guns in his bedroom incase a bad man comes in isnt part of a militia.. he should have his guns removed... it breaches the 2nd amendment

According to the Supreme Court, "A well regulated militia..." means the National Guard.