Congress may act to keep guns from mentally ill

rebornFixer

know1 wrote:

Is that the same thing as being officially ruled mentally ill? I don't know the answer, that's why I'm asking the question.

But I also made a second point - that, by law he wasn't allowed to have that gun on campus so it doesn't seem that stricter gun laws are the answer since he was already operating under the strictest of laws as they were banned completely.

Yes, a professional makes the diagnosis and you're then technically mentally ill. There was no legal or court ruling at any point because he never went to trial for any reason (to my knowledge).

And I agree with your second point 100%. Stricter laws will not solve this problem.

69charger

hippiemom wrote:

Nah, let's let people who have been judged to be a threat to others own guns. Let's give driver's licenses to the blind while we're at it :rolleyes:

Why are you discriminating against them? Don't they have the same rights as anyone else?

Everyone is exactly the same. We cannot judge. :rolleyes:

my2hands

hippiemom wrote:

Nah, let's let people who have been judged to be a threat to others own guns. Let's give driver's licenses to the blind while we're at it :rolleyes:

Eddie Murphy talking to Stevie Wonder in the car:

"You want to impress me? Take the fucking wheel, now that would impress me"

mammasan

know1 wrote:

Is that the same thing as being officially ruled mentally ill? I don't know the answer, that's why I'm asking the question.

But I also made a second point - that, by law he wasn't allowed to have that gun on campus so it doesn't seem that stricter gun laws are the answer since he was already operating under the strictest of laws as they were banned completely.

He was declared a threat to himself and others by a Virginia court and ordered to inpatient treatment at a mental health facility.

You second point is good but it also exposes the flaw in having different gun laws in this country. Take the state of New Jersey for example. We have some of the strictest gun laws in the country but yet we have a lot of crimes where fire arms where involved. The large majority of them are illegal fire arms, but the majority of these illegal fire arms where purchased in states where the gun laws are far more lax. There was a report published that stated that most of the illegal weapons where traced back to Virginia which has very laxed gun laws and is only a 5 hour drive from New Jersey. So a case can be made that by enforcing some what more stringent gun laws across all states you can signoficatly reduce the amount of illegal weapons on the street.

sponger

I wouldn't mind owning a firearm. I've always considered maybe picking up the famed beretta 92. That's really the only pistol I've ever considered owning. It looks too cool not to own. And of course I wouldn't mind pairing it up with an H&K MP5. Then I'd like to throw on a bullet proof vest along with a flame resistant hood and cruise the neighborhood looking for anybody who wanted a piece. If I came across an a-hole giving me hard looks, I'd quickly pull over, get out of the car in full gear, lay the MP5 over the hood, and cut said a-hole to pieces. If necessary, I'd switch to the sidearm to finish off any reinforcements he might have in his proximity.

But, as things go, there are plenty of other things I'd rather spend my money on. Car mods, stereo upgrades, and perhaps a new mtn. bike are just a few things that immediately come to mind. Guns are cool, but they're nowhere near the top of my list.

Then there's the issue of home security. I'm a deep sleeper anyway. Besides, I'm really, really depressed these days. I think there's a distinct possibility that if I owned a gun, say, sometime late last year, I might or might have been around to post this ridiculous nonsense right now.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

69charger wrote:

Why are you discriminating against them? Don't they have the same rights as anyone else?

Everyone is exactly the same. We cannot judge. :rolleyes:

A lot more blind people should be allowed to drive and fly airplanes...the discrimination really is absolutely terrible. I think all Public transit bus drivers should be blind.

Yes that would be the most logical thing to do to avoid discrimination.

.

Kann

By the way. In order to drive aren't you (I know I am) supposed to pass some sort of exam to be allowed to drive? An exam which can assess if you are apt to drive? Because using a car while unapt can be dangerous.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

Was the Virginia Tech gunman officially diagnosed as mentally ill?

While I'm not sure where I stand on banning guns exactly, I do know this:
GUNS WERE BANNED ON THE VA TECH CAMPUS. Nevermind, mentally ill or properly licensed, NOBODY was supposed to have them so it doesn't make me real confident that any gun laws will be effective.

and if he hadn't been able to buy one, he wouldn't have had one on campus either. he WAS diagnosed as mentally ill.

though im still not sure how they can enforce this.

soulsinging

know1 wrote:

Is that the same thing as being officially ruled mentally ill? I don't know the answer, that's why I'm asking the question.

But I also made a second point - that, by law he wasn't allowed to have that gun on campus so it doesn't seem that stricter gun laws are the answer since he was already operating under the strictest of laws as they were banned completely.

not quite. yes, it is almost impossible to enforce a campus ban becos you cannot tell who is carrying them. however, to carry them onto campus, you have to buy them somewhere first. if he had not been able to buy one (a MUCH easier and more enforceable law), then he wouldn't have been able to carry it onto campus. is this really so hard to comprehend?

that said, im not sure how they get mental health to show up on background checks. it's why i still think it's fucking stupid to do background checks.

soulsinging

69charger wrote:

Why are you discriminating against them? Don't they have the same rights as anyone else?

Everyone is exactly the same. We cannot judge. :rolleyes:

take note folks. this is the response of a man trying desperately to recover some dignity after being made to look like the fool he is.

blackredyellow

soulsinging wrote:

and if he hadn't been able to buy one, he wouldn't have had one on campus either. he WAS diagnosed as mentally ill.

though im still not sure how they can enforce this.

But in his case, he went to a store that performed a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/24/gun.loophole/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

The problem was that he was never entered in the system as someone disqualified as being allowed to purchase a gun.

From the CNN article above: "Under federal law, anyone who has been judged to be a danger to himself or others because of mental illness, as Cho was, should be prohibited from buying a gun."

If he was turned down form the gun stores for purchasing a gun, who knows if he would have acquired a gun from an illegal source... no one knows that answer, but there is a decent chance that he wouldn't have been able to get one and 32 people would still be alive.

onelongsong

Rushlimbo wrote:

These guys in Washington come up with some outlandish ideas. Keeping firearms from crazy folks ?! What a thinktank we have working for us.

=============================================
U.S. Congress may act to keep guns from mentally ill
By Thomas Ferraro
Sun Apr 22, 4:09 PM ET

Prompted by the Virginia Tech massacre, a U.S. Congress reluctant to tackle gun control may pass limited legislation to help keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill, lawmakers and aides said on Sunday.

"Given the horror that happened at Virginia Tech, I think there's a real chance of passing this," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), a New York Democrat, told "Fox News Sunday."

A Republican leadership aide agreed, telling Reuters, "If there is a consensus, and it is in lieu of knee-jerk draconian measures, (the chances are) probably really good."

Congress was initially hesitant to respond to the shooting rampage at Virginia Tech on Monday with any vow to toughen gun-control, a politically divisive issue.

In fact, Democrats, who had earlier championed such measures, including a since expired 1994 ban on assault weapons, effectively abandoned the issue when they won control of Congress last year.

Yet after it was determined that the Virginia Tech killer had been admitted earlier to a psychiatric hospital and deemed "a danger to himself and others," lawmakers dusted off previously rejected legislation.

Seung-Hui Cho, a Virginia Tech student, took his own life after fatally shooting 32 others. He had bought two handguns in Virginia but his mental health had not made it to a federal registry.

The proposed bill would provide money to the states to help update the national instant-check background system with mental-health adjudications, which ban firearm purchases.

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Charles Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and gun-rights proponent, has teamed up on such legislation with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (news, bio, voting record), a leading gun control advocate.

Appearing with Schumer on "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), a Pennsylvania Republican, voiced support.

So did Sarah and Jim Brady, two leading gun-control advocates. They have helped lead the charge since Jim Brady was wounded in the 1981 attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan. He was Reagan's press secretary.

"We're not working to take handguns away from people. But what we do believe is that we need to curb the availability of these weapons to prohibited classes: felons, fugitives, and of course in this case, those who have been adjudicated mentally ill," said Sarah Brady who appeared with her husband on CBS's "Face the Nation."

A bill passed by Congress a decade ago and named for Jim Brady, required an instant background check for gun buyers.

"What we had here, unfortunately, as come out in the last day or so, is that the system did break down," Sarah Brady said.

(Additional reporting by Rachelle Younglai)

the laws are already on the books. what will repetative laws accomplish?

know1

soulsinging wrote:

not quite. yes, it is almost impossible to enforce a campus ban becos you cannot tell who is carrying them. however, to carry them onto campus, you have to buy them somewhere first. if he had not been able to buy one (a MUCH easier and more enforceable law), then he wouldn't have been able to carry it onto campus. is this really so hard to comprehend?

that said, im not sure how they get mental health to show up on background checks. it's why i still think it's fucking stupid to do background checks.

You can get a gun without buying one. I think it happens all the time.

rebornFixer

know1 wrote:

You can get a gun without buying one. I think it happens all the time.

Indeed ... Or, at least, you can buy a gun from a source that doesn't follow all the laws on the books. This is probably what happens in the majority of cases where known criminals kill someone.
Is this really so hard to comprehend?

hippiemom

reborncareerist wrote:

Indeed ... Or, at least, you can buy a gun from a source that doesn't follow all the laws on the books. This is probably what happens in the majority of cases where known criminals kill someone.
Is this really so hard to comprehend?

But would Cho have been able to do that? To buy a gun on the black market, you have to know someone on the black market, and it doesn't sound like this guy knew anyone at all, anywhere. It's like drugs ... sure, they're easy to buy if you know where to go, but for someone who doesn't use drugs or hang around with drug people, they wouldn't know where to start if they wanted to go pick up some crack, unless they lived in a neighborhood where drugs are traded pretty openly. I'm guessing Cho wouldn't have had the foggiest idea how to go about getting a gun if he hadn't been able to walk into a store and buy one.

my2hands

anyoone that thinks the USA does not have a MAJOR problem with firearms is either a fool, or has not been paying attention the past 20 years. period.

guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people

rebornFixer

hippiemom wrote:

But would Cho have been able to do that? To buy a gun on the black market, you have to know someone on the black market, and it doesn't sound like this guy knew anyone at all, anywhere. It's like drugs ... sure, they're easy to buy if you know where to go, but for someone who doesn't use drugs or hang around with drug people, they wouldn't know where to start if they wanted to go pick up some crack, unless they lived in a neighborhood where drugs are traded pretty openly. I'm guessing Cho wouldn't have had the foggiest idea how to go about getting a gun if he hadn't been able to walk into a store and buy one.

Perhaps, but you don't know that for sure ... Neither one of us has met Cho. To be honest with you, I am a completely law-abiding person but I could probably buy an illegal handgun if I really wanted to (why the hell would I want to, of course!) ... For the record, it shouldn't be this easy to get a gun in Virginia or any other state. I will argue, however, that one cannot honestly say that stricter laws would have worked in this particular case. Many other school shooters do not simply walk into gun stores and buy weapons.

rebornFixer

my2hands wrote:

anyoone that thinks the USA does not have a MAJOR problem with firearms is either a fool, or has not been paying attention the past 20 years. period.

guns dont kill people, people with guns kill people

Fools are people who think guns are the primary problem, however. Its attitudes about gun use and violence in general that are the deep, real problem here. Lax gun laws are a manifestation of that deeper problem ... They are not a fundamental cause.

hippiemom

reborncareerist wrote:

Perhaps, but you don't know that for sure ... Neither one of us has met Cho. To be honest with you, I am a completely law-abiding person but I could probably buy an illegal handgun if I really wanted to (why the hell would I want to, of course!) ... For the record, it shouldn't be this easy to get a gun in Virginia or any other state. I will argue, however, that one cannot honestly say that stricter laws would have worked in this particular case. Many other school shooters do not simply walk into gun stores and buy weapons.

I wouldn't know where to buy a weapon illegally, but thanks to Ohio law I don't have to. I know where to buy a used weapon where there's no paper trail and the guy who sold it to me doesn't even know my name. Any weekend of the year, I can do just that at a gun show, and they're advertised in the newspaper, it's all perfectly legal. Who needs black market guns when you've got the state helping out this way?

You're right, most of the other school shooters didn't buy most of their guns, they stole them, which is why there needs to be extremely harsh penalties for gun owners who fail to secure their guns and ammunition. That would prevent a huge number of accidental shootings as well, which kill more people than these occasional shooting sprees.

rebornFixer

hippiemom wrote:

You're right, most of the other school shooters didn't buy most of their guns, they stole them, which is why there needs to be extremely harsh penalties for gun owners who fail to secure their guns and ammunition. That would prevent a huge number of accidental shootings as well, which kill more people than these occasional shooting sprees.

For sure ... Safe storage laws do save lives, that's actually been found in studies. Common sense would also dictate keeping anything dangerous safely stowed away.