Author Topic: gun control... (Read 6970 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #165 on:** April 19, 2007, 08:52:26 AM »

also... what gun control law would have worked to avoid this incident?

Should we pass a law that all doctors turn their records over to a central federal agency? that all shrinks have open records? That no criminal charge ever be "sealed"?

Those are out choices...

yeager is interesting tho... his reaction is defensive... in a strange way... a few gun owners react the same... they see the only defense is to get on board with the gun control nuts and to appease them....

They figure if they can throw a small segment of the gun owners and citizens to the wolves... the wolves will be satisfied and never come after them... after all...

They are the "sensible" gun owners who would "discuss" the issue in a dispassionate way...

Yeager... I ask you to re exam your new found views in light of what I have said. You can't appease them. They are like a python... they just get a better grip when you exhale.

lazs

Maverick · « **Reply #166 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:12:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Ever heard of purchase impulse? If you can go and buy one just like that with zero background check, it's possible to just go and purchase a weapon with the sole intent of harming someone. Or contemplating the act.

First off lets stay out of the realm of hypothetical and just with the situation at hand. If you wnat to expand the "situation" to include everything that "coulda, woulda" you can go all the way to space aliens. Hardly realistic is it.

First off he bought a gun and DID have a background check. Hence the 1 month period that is there to allow a check and also prevent the "impulse" situation you allege which is not relevent to this case. As already has been stated the system failed on the background check. Where and how has not yet been determined.

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Then once the gun sits there, it's just a matter of time when it gets pointed on people on a murderous spur. Murder impulse. They say the second and third one are easyer after the first kill.

Really??? Can you prove that? Let me offer my own empiracal evidence here. I own and have owned several handguns, rifles and shotguns in my lifetime. I have used them for hunting, sport and self defense. Not once in the over 3 decades that I owned weapons has one of them EVER been pointed (by myself or itself) at another person on a "murderous spur". Neither have the firearms or myself had a "Murderous impulse". As to your premise that the second and third killing are easier, it sounds like you have a problem in getting along with people or are having some homicidal thoughts of your own. Have you checked into therapy yet? I don't know who "they" are that you refer to but if you hang around with murderers and are not a prison guard I'd say you are in need of serious help and certainly new friends.

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H] Even if the campus security wasn't there, how many people he could have stabbed to death before them getting there - or more likely the crowd subduing him manually.

That is really unknown at this point. His "rampage" could quite simply have taken a different angle and his victims could have been ambushed one at a time rather than the method he used. There is also no given that the folks he attacked WOULD fight back aggressively and offensively as they would have to in order to subdue him. Had he used an ambush style he could have killed for quite some time before being found out.

Yeager · « **Reply #167 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:23:05 AM »

lazs,

Bottom line, mentally unstable/sick people should not be able to purchase firearms legally.

If you say here that you support the rampage shooters right to purchase his firearms because he was not breaking the law "at that time" you are not strengthening or supporting the 2nd amendment, you are weakening and diminishing it.

Mentally unstable/sick people should not be able to purchase firearms legally. mentally unstable/sick people are free to buy arms illegally, thats the way our system works, but they should not be able to buy them legally.

I have no doubt you will see Virginia strengthen its protections against mentally unstable/sick people from making lawful firearms purchases and even as likely see laws that prohibit mentally unstable/sick people from lawful ownership of firearms. As it should be.

Too bad 32 people had to die at the hands of a rampaging foaming at the mouth lunatic animal to set that work in motion. That monster had no business buying a firearm legally. No excuse of yours will cover it.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #168 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:25:18 AM »

Quote

Really??? Can you prove that? Let me offer my own empiracal evidence here. I own and have owned several handguns, rifles and shotguns in my lifetime. I have used them for hunting, sport and self defense. Not once in the over 3 decades that I owned weapons has one of them EVER been pointed (by myself or itself) at another person on a "murderous spur". Neither have the firearms or myself had a "Murderous impulse". As to your premise that the second and third killing are easier, it sounds like you have a problem in getting along with people or are having some homicidal thoughts of your own. Have you checked into therapy yet? I don't know who "they" are that you refer to but if you hang around with murderers and are not a prison guard I'd say you are in need of serious help and certainly new friends.

Sure I can prove that, just watch the news. That's what happened. He had the gun and the opportunity - and mental defect. That's all it takes.

Maverick · « **Reply #169 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:29:50 AM »

Yeager,

Virginia already HAS that protection. It didn't work in this case and no one yet has been able to show where the failure occured. Either the Court dropped the ball by not making the record in the data base, or didn't follow up to see if it was there. On the other hand if the person DOING the records check just decided they were too busy and said the idiot was clean instead of actually checking then that is the problem.

Right now no one knows where the breakdown was. So before you decide to impose more "safeguards", find out where the one in place failed or the new ones may fail in the same place.

Maverick · « **Reply #170 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:31:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Sure I can prove that, just watch the news. That's what happened. He had the gun and the opportunity - and mental defect. That's all it takes.

OK then. Post a link to any news story that says my guns or myself have done any of the things you allege WILL happen. Come on, I have a time basis of over 3 decades now so when is it going to happen?

Brenjen · « **Reply #171 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:33:24 AM »

Blame the media & video games, they played as big a part as the gun & the nut did.

Or on second thought; let's just place the blame where it belongs...squarely on the shoulders of the maniac.

I'm not sure why the media has to harp on this the way they are, it's as if all the rest of the world fell into a black hole & doesn't matter any longer. They just won't be happy until a copy cat shows up.

Here's a conspiracy theory for you: Why have these crimes begun? Is it a coincidence that these mass murders that were for the sake of media headlines were committed after the gun banning liberals began to squawk about making guns illegal? I know people who think the proponents of gun banning here in the U.S. are behind these shootings. They think the liberals are seeking out these unstable people & instigating them to help their own cause.

The news media; are they responsible? They are harping on it to the point that I want to flip out & I'm stable & well adjusted.

Maybe we can blame the video games? Nah, if they were to blame we'd all be flying around shooting up each other.

When you get this many billions of people stacked on top of each other your bound to have the occasional nut snap here & there. We are just more susceptible here because of our open style of living. We could eradicate all this by turning our society into a copy of Saddam Hussein's or Adolph Hitlers but do we really want to give up that much personal freedom for a measure of security?

It's my opinion that the best defense from these problems are to let people defend themselves. I saw a woman the other day who was in the Luby's cafeteria when that massacre occurred & she said flat out - if she or any of the other victims had been armed she firmly believes that would have saved lives. From the horses mouth so to speak, many of the dead in that instance had weapons locked up in their vehicles because of the law - the same law the mass murderer broke without hesitation (imagine that)

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #172 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:36:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
OK then. Post a link to any news story that says my guns or myself have done any of the things you allege WILL happen. Come on, I have a time basis of over 3 decades now so when is it going to happen?

I'm sure you wouldn't do anything bad with a nuclear bomb either. Surely everyone should have the right to own one.

Yeager · « **Reply #173 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:36:47 AM »

Mav,

it was a legal purchase under "current" Virginia law.

Bodhi · « **Reply #174 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:37:36 AM »

Face it guys. Ripley is so caught up in the socialist paradise in Finland that he is never going to understand the US. So just let him believe what he wants. He lives in that utopia called Finland, we just can not compare to.

Maverick · « **Reply #175 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:39:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
I'm sure you wouldn't do anything bad with a nuclear bomb either. Surely everyone should have the right to own one.

Stay on topic here. You made the allegation I'm waiting for you to prove it. Trying to dodge to an irrelevent situation is not answering the question.

Maverick · « **Reply #176 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:41:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Yeager
Mav,

it was a legal purchase under "current" Virginia law.

Yes it was, and I'll state it again. The system HAS a check in it and Virginia participates in the system. He should have been flagged and the purchase denied.

Why he slipped through is the question to answer to find where it broke down and fix it so it does not happen again.

Toad · « **Reply #177 on:** April 19, 2007, 09:52:25 AM »

Yeager, you're offering sweeping generalizations and platitudes.

You are absolutely right; no one thinks the mentally ill/insane should have firearms.

However, you are a little short on detail. Just how do you determine who is mentally ill and who is not? What standards will you use and how will you ensure that no systemic breakdown occurs.

As Mav said upthread:

Quote

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?

[/b]

You haven't answered those questions nor made any suggestions.

Further, did you take a look at the link I posted to previous world-wide school shootings? Which, if any, of those perps was known to the authorities as mentally ill? Which of those mentally ill obtained their weapons legally? Lastly, how would your proposed system have prevented any of those?

Ripley, the way you just presented it ALL guns are just waiting the spur of the moment killing and ALL will eventually be used that way.

It's pure BS. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of the guns in the US are misused. But you knew that.

We've all been over these points dozens of times, to no end and to no purpose. No opinions will be changed here.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #178 on:** April 19, 2007, 10:17:52 AM »

Toad, Mav, and others; It's been mentioned that this kid had been in an institution, and that he had a couple of priors for 'Stalking' girls at VT.

True. But, I surmise that since he was not actually admitted to the hospital, and that no charges were pressed in the supposed stalkings, I would think it's safe to assume that this is why he wasn't flagged on the NICS.

A note at the hospital, and an incomplete police report (That doesn't result in a conviction) will still be documented...But won't actually be able to restrain his rights, if the authorities don't deem the situation serious.

Do you all wonder how many people like this are almost admitted, or booked???

If we looked at all of the 'almost' suicidals...We'd be looking at millions...

Toad · « **Reply #179 on:** April 19, 2007, 10:23:21 AM »

Frode, AFAIK he wasn't arrested for stalking; he was accused of it, the police talked to him about it but he was never charged or tried or anything else.

On the admission to the mental facility, I find the reports somewhat confusing. If he did appear before a judge and was found to be mentally ill, admitted to a facility and evaluated/recorded as being mentally ill.... how is it this info did not make it into the Criminal Justice Information System and thus be grounds for denial on a NICS background check? What happened here? Where was the disconnect?