Author Topic: gun control... (Read 8146 times)

Yeager · « **Reply #120 on:** April 18, 2007, 03:12:20 PM »

He did not commit any crimes or commited any actions that would have indicated he would use a gun in criminal activity
====
yes terror, he was in perfectly fine shape to buy a gun wasn't he.
We will eventually lose the 2nd amendmant if we continue to accept these pathetic results.

Bodhi · « **Reply #121 on:** April 18, 2007, 03:13:13 PM »

I would definitely agree to a no purchase or ownership policy for all non-residents.

Maverick · « **Reply #122 on:** April 18, 2007, 03:39:51 PM »

Yeag,

What do you propose is the trigger to deny a right?

To my knowledge this particular waste of oxygen had not been adjudicated as dangerous or a criminal. No conviction = no criminal record. No criminal record = no notice that he is unauthorized to purchase a weapon and the record check was done.

If you are suggesting that any mental health treatment is a basis for branding someone as unfit, please tell us what the treatment level will be the trigger. Does divorce counseling do it? How about a mental health check prior to court assigning child custody?

Now that you are second guessing the system you need to propose what to do. What is the "rational and simple test"? Next, how do you intend to implement it, nationally?

Terror · « **Reply #123 on:** April 18, 2007, 03:53:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
He did not commit any crimes or commited any actions that would have indicated he would use a gun in criminal activity
====
yes terror, he was in perfectly fine shape to buy a gun wasn't he.
We will eventually lose the 2nd amendmant if we continue to accept these pathetic results.

Hind sight is easy to second guess. There has been no evidence presented that would have prevented him from legally purchasing. And I can see no way that anyone would have prevented him from purchasing.

He was "stalking" a couple girls.
He went to a mental facility to go over some "suicidal tendancies".
He wrote some "disturbing" papers in his english classes.
He "scared" some of his classmates.

He was never charged with a crime.
He was never adjudicated mentally unstable.
"Disturbing" papers are not that abnormal. See any horror film script.
"Scared" classmates... pretty hard to quantify...

It is extremely hard to stop an individual like this from commiting crimes like what happened at VT. A determined individual can do alot of damage if they have no fear of the consequences. And since there was no history of violent acts from this individual, how would the law predict he would plan and carry one out?

The Bill of Rights protects individual's rights, a determined individual can take advantage of those protections to commit all kinds of illegal activity. It's something that society has to be willing accept or, if society cannot accept it, individuals will have to be ready to forfeit some of those rights.

Terror

Yeager · « **Reply #124 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:02:00 PM »

What do you propose is the trigger to deny a right?
====
Now THATS the kind of question Im asking for. At least in regards to firearms purcashing and ownership.

I do not know the answer but I would love to help determine one. Im tired of emotionally dusturbed people being able to do so much harm to others, let alone themselves. There needs to be built a process that has a good chance at intervention in these tragedies. Nothing is perfect and no one will ever be able to prevent criminal intent but we can better position ourselves to intervene. That cho guy had no business buying or even possessing a gun. He was ill. Everyone within his sphere of contact agrees he was not well. Yet his purchase was lawful. Thats a crime imo.

moot · « **Reply #125 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:05:28 PM »

Stalking is far enough to raise a flag. Maybe not void eligibility by itself, but in general it should trigger further reviews; without a doubt in his case.
It's not "meangingless".

Terror · « **Reply #126 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:18:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
Everyone within his sphere of contact agrees he was not well. Yet his purchase was lawful. Thats a crime imo.

So now before any purchase, anyone who is within a person's "sphere of contact" must be interviewed and a quantifiable and justifiable decision must be made about whether to restrict a person's rights or not.

[Sarcasm]Sounds like an straight forward and achievable goal to me. Lets start calling every applicants teachers, professors, friends, enemies, acquaintences and ask whether the applicantl should be allowed to purchase a firearm.[/Sarcasm]

I agree that it was a mistake to sell this guy a firearm, but in hind-sight. I don't know if I would have refused him the firearm at the point of sale...

Terror

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #127 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:24:26 PM »

There's something that does prove Bodhi's argument 100% correct.

Both the VT shooting, and Columbine, were done by students at those schools.

Those students were also products of our current educational system, In which there is no corporal punishment.

That Students behaving suspicously or in a so-called "dark" manner aren't doing something wrong...They are just "expressing" themselves.

In this, It's not a gun that's to blame for the VT shooting, or Colombine...It's that we as a society, have become afraid to just spank our damn kids.

Maverick · « **Reply #128 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:26:12 PM »

Before this gets heated I have some questions.

There has been an allegation of stalking. Does anyone know if a report was filed and was there any interest in prosecution? Was there an arrest?

Secondly, in regards to the mental health allegations.

Has anyone seen any report that he was admitted to a mental health institution involuntarily? Does anyone have any information regarding any findings that he was a danger to himself or others as a result of the evaluation?

I ask these questions as they are directly pertinent to the situation that Yeager has brought forward and his suggestion that this individual was a known problem.

Brenjen · « **Reply #129 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:27:07 PM »

Gun control: All 15 in the X-ring.

Yeager · « **Reply #130 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:40:40 PM »

Heres a abc newsflash mav

The fact that this guy was lawfully able to buy a firearm resulted in the deaths of 32 innocent people. This is really pretty heavy stuff.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278

Bodhi · « **Reply #131 on:** April 18, 2007, 04:52:58 PM »

Mav, Yes there is allegations of stalking and an admittance for psych eval.

from here:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html

"CNN also learned Wednesday that in 2005 Cho was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice, who declared he was "an imminent danger" to himself, a court document states.

A temporary detention order from General District Court in the commonwealth of Virginia said Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

A box indicating that the subject "Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness" was not checked.

In another part of the form, Cho was described as "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, and presents an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self, and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment."

A handwritten section of the form describes Cho. "Affect is flat and mood is depressed," said the order, which was signed December 14 by Special Justice Paul M. Barnett. "He denies suicidal ideation. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal."

Barnett would not discuss Cho's case with CNN."

Maverick · « **Reply #132 on:** April 18, 2007, 05:02:10 PM »

Based on that report, the court order should have been sufficient to have had him flagged and his purchase denied on the records check. It sounds like either the court did not follow through on the order and listing in local records or someone simply dropped the ball. That should have been in the system from early 06 if not december 05.

The system seems to have failed in this case.

Terror · « **Reply #133 on:** April 18, 2007, 05:57:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Based on that report, the court order should have been sufficient to have had him flagged and his purchase denied on the records check. It sounds like either the court did not follow through on the order and listing in local records or someone simply dropped the ball. That should have been in the system from early 06 if not december 05.

The system seems to have failed in this case.

I agree. I had not read this about the case. If he was adjudicated mentally unstable by a judge and that was not in the system for the background check to flag, then the system failed. The failure needs to be investigated and rectified as soon as possible. An individual that has been declared "dangerous to himself" should not be sold a firearm.

Terror

Gunthr · « **Reply #134 on:** April 18, 2007, 06:10:49 PM »

it appears that this person was previously declared as "mentally ill". sorry for no linky. it will come soon enough.