Quote:
Outside the theater, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Friday that “now is not the time” to discuss gun control, a position backed Saturday by rock musician and gun enthusiast Ted Nugent, who was in Lafayette for a sportsmen’s exposition and came by to lay some flowers.
Asked whether Houser should have been allowed to purchase a gun, Nugent said “I think it’s inappropriate to even approach that subject. I think it’s all about prayers for the victims and the families.”
“probably for the same reasons most felons aren’t allowed to vote. The American public has agreed to remove most constitutional rights for them.”
Personally, I think once they serve their sentence they should have all their rights restored.
And what is their excuse for taking the right to have a gun away from the mentally ill?
“now is not the time” to discuss gun control"
To gun nuts it’s never the time.
Start one about Kate Steinle, while you’re at it… oops, don’t bother - that wasn’t anymore a white guy than the one that got depressed and looked for recruiting stations. (getting high and shooting military personnel must be one of those cultural differences that make for a healthier societal mix. :-* )
That the obsession is for white guys isn’t exactly news. That mental illness is kind of necessary to randomly shoot people isn’t either. Chicago - for instance - suffers a full-time bout of crazy, yet their nuttiness never merits a thread.
http://homicides.suntimes.com/
Curious.
Saintfan,
Mental health care has swung far in the opposite direction. Haven’t heard anyone talk about “forced institutionalization”, but hospitalization has come a long way since those days, but now the average length of stay for inpatient care is maybe a few days, often only for the purpose of acute stabilization, not actual treatment, and many patients are discharged prematurely and the likelihood of a recurrence of symptoms is high.
Also, laws are written to protect the public. Dont speed, or you could hurt yourself or someone else. Restrictions on firearms for the mentally ill are to protect them and the public.
I WANT them to be restricted. However, it seems that we don’t treat OR restrict firearms access. You don’t have your access restricted unless you’ve been involuntarily committed except they hardly do that anymore.
I’m not obsessed with “white guys” but I am kind of obsessed with people who have had serious, flag raising interactions with either the mental health system or criminal justice system and yet still have legal access to fire arms. The recent mass shootings in my own state were perpetrated by people who might have been stopped from accessing guns but fell through cracks and loopholes.
Houser (the Laffayette shooter) had been committed. Sounds like that fact may not have been properly reported
http://theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/13007232-123/lafayette-theater-gunman-bought-gun
He was committed in Georgia. Bought the gun in Alabama. There seems to be no particular reason he was in Louisiana. That part is mystifying.
Wouldn’t it be great to have national, uniformly applied reporting and screening regulations? . . . but oh . . . state’s rights.
The background check that FFL (Federal Firearms Licensee) dealers are required to run on potential buyers is through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
But there are enough loop holes and cracks that these people keep falling through and there seems to be very little hope for closing and filling them.
But if states aren’t consistent in how they report things (see the article) the national system will not have the info.
As I frequently say there’s no big scary government database. I work in public-sector IT. There are a whole lot of gaps in how different entities share information.
From the article posted in #106
However, no federal law forces states to report involuntary commitments to the FBI database. That means there’s no guarantee that people who should be barred from buying guns will ever have their names on the list.
“It’s been described as a fatal gap,” said Ari Freilich, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The system is only as good as the records provided to it by each state.”
In the case of the Marysville-Pilchuck HS shooting in my area the owner of the guns (dad) should not have been able to walk into Cabela’s and purchase weapons but there are information reporting and sharing issues between the tribal government and the back ground check data base.
Is there a big difference between having “legal” access to firearms and “illegal” access to firearms?
“However, no federal law forces states to report involuntary commitments to the FBI database. That means there’s no guarantee that people who should be barred from buying guns will ever have their names on the list.”
So write your congressmen and get a bill brought up proposing this law.
I just read another article that said Louisiana reported absolutely no one to the mental health database until 2014.
Wow.
Funerals for both victims are Monday. Wondering if Westboro will show up as threatened.
Yes there is a difference in legal vs illegal access to me. Ordering on the interned (Aurora guy) or walking into Cabela’s (MP HS dad) should not happen. That is officially sanctioned potential for mayhem. Of course all those illegal guns were likely legal at one time. I’m wondering how many of those NOLA carjacked vehicles had one tucked in the glove box. I suppose a guy with a DV record could get a Saturday night special on some street corner but he shouldn’t be able to walk into a pawn shop or gun show and buy it in broad daylight IMO.
[Quote ]
So write your congressmen and get a bill brought up proposing this law.
[/Quote ]
Lol.
@Dragonflygarden - writing my senators and congress people would be preaching to the choir. It takes red state and district constituents to start writing.
I don’t believe James Holmes bought any of his guns online. He bought them in person at a store.
What is DV?