<p>what’s becoming evident as things progress isn’t the gun issue, it’s the mental health issue. Most states treat mental health in the same way the feds treat the VA medical services. In WA on more than one occasion crimes are committed by people that should be under treatment at a mental hospital. However, budget cut after budget cut kick these people out into the streets.</p>
<p>For at least two years this kid was considered mentally unstable, yet it appears even with his dealings with the legal system, while there is an acknowledgement of mental illness, there is no required treatment. </p>
<p>At some point we have to decide to fund treatment for mental illness and decide if some can’t mainstream back into society. I know the sound of instatutionalism sounds horrible, but alot of folks, including the shooter might be alive today, had the court system committment him for evaluation back in 05.</p>
<p>Where it appears the ball was dropped was with the reaction of mental health folks and/or the laws that enable such reactions. Perhaps privacy concerns have gone a bit too far when compared to public safety.</p>
<p>Actually, weenie, there are protocols and systems in place in many environments that permit law enforcement as well as legitimate gun carriers to identify each other. If you board a plane, for example, and you’re carrying a gun, you must declare it (unloaded), and typically what happens is all gun carriers on a plane are made known to each other. That’s so they know who are the “legitimate” carriers in the event of something even as simple as exposure. At any given time on a standard commercial flight there will be multiple persons (usually always law enforcement or other authorized persons) carrying firearms, and they are all aware of the identities of the others. There’s no reason why the same protocols cannot be put into practice in other environments. </p>
<p>I cannot help but think, if just one of those students had a gun of their own, perhaps this would not have been so bad. Criminals and those intent on doing harm will ALWAYS find a way to get their hands on guns. Making guns illegal or taking them out of the market will do far more harm than good, and make it more difficult for the rest of the population to defend themselves if the need arises.</p>
<p>As far as confusing the police, I think I heard some authority on the news say that in situations like this, by the time police are called, it’s already too late.</p>
<p>I do agree it is definitely the mental health issue. There were lots and lots of signs along the way - some huge but many almost imperceptable - and yet, no one could really do anything sustainable, and most people did nothing. </p>
<p>Back to the Duke case, the accuser is almost certainly mentally ill; even the AG said it is believed that she actually believes “the many stories…” etc. And she has three small innocent children in her exclusive care. Yet she’s not under any care, at least nothing that’s been reported. Not sure if that’s because no one knows what to do, or if it’s because she cannot be forced to accept care, or, perhaps there is simply no avenue of care available. She’s probably no where near what Cho was but there must be many, many people walking around in dire need of help, counseling, medication, etc., and they’re not getting it.</p>
This is just wishful thinking of the cartoonish “good guys vs. bad guys” variety. In order to be sure that for “just one of those students had a gun of their own” you’d have to create a situation where roughly 10% of all college student are packing heat. Oh yeah - wouldn’t that be great? Because we all know college student never exhibit bad judgment, poor impulse control, feelings that their world has come to an end, etc. [/sarcasm] The TV show mentality which pictures a “good guy” student leaping to the rescue and shooting the bad guy (and not getting shot by the cops in the process) is an adolescent fantasy. Remember Pat Tillman? And those guys were trained.</p>
<p>Fiction-based disaster planning is a bad idea. The adolescent fantasy of leaping to the rescue with your six guns a-blazin’ is just that - adolescent fantasizing. </p>
<p>And the excuse, repeated what - three times now? - that “bad guys” will ALWAYS find a way to do evil deeds, even if we didn’t make it as darned easy as it is is a blatant cop out which ignores the fact that they’re a lot more likely to do those things if it’s easy. And it is easy - it was easy for this guy, wasn’t it? That guy in downtown San Francisco a few years back, the guy in Texas, the Columbine kids - all legal guns, bought in gun stores. No real effort needed.</p>
<p>Roy, the head of the Va Tech English department, was the teacher who tutored Cho one-on-one when famed poet Nikki Giovanni refused to have him in the classroom because he was photographing other students and behaving in a very menacing manner.</p>
<p>This event IS foremost a civil rights matter–not a mental health matter or a gun control matter (although I hope it helps to curb assault weapons and ammunition and hand guns). Cho’s civil rights as a disturbed student were protected over, and far above, the rights of his fellow students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note the opinion that Cho was the most disturbed student she had seen in 22 years. Believe that if a prominent faculty member like Giovanni wants a student removed from the university–the University admin tried to remove him --but was rebuffed by the misguided ambitions --or fears–of the family.</p>
<p>We don’t have all the information. Perhaps he was under a new threat for removal at the time he purchased the weapons. Perhaps the freshman girl he slaughtered filed a complaint–spoiling his chances to graduate. Perhaps this is the ‘corner’ he felt he was backed into.</p>
<p>Kluge, it’s not “easy” let alone “legal” to launder or extort money, commit various frauds, deal drugs, participate in child pornography and human trafficking, commit rape, do home invasions, steal cars, etc., but tons of people do it, and more are joining their ranks daily. Making guns hard to get or illegal simply disarms and places at a disadvantage the overwhelming majority of law-abiding people who would never discharge a gun inappropriately or without very critically necessary cause, while simultaneously failing to stop criminals who will use guns to kill people.</p>
Gee, thanks Kluge for calling me dumb and a gun nut. I understand you have a different opinion than mine and some others but you should just make your arguments rather than hurling derogatory labels such as these at people you don’t know.</p>
<p>An interesting case to read is Parker v DC, a case that recently struck down DC’s handgun ban in the District Court of Appeals. Their reasoning and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is quite interesting.</p>
<p>For one thing, they mention that among all of the different things the Framers could have written, they specifically note that it pertains to “the right[s] of the PEOPLE…” This idea of the the People having rights is embodied in most of the other major Amendments as well. For example: if you are willing to say that the People no longer have the right to bear arms, how can you then say that the government cannot likewise infringe upon their right to Free Speech or Due Process? If they meant to protect the right of State militias, why not instead word the Amendment to say “the right of the States to arm Militias shall not be infringed”? The Framers themselves use similar wording in the 10th Amendment noting that there are certain rights reserved to the States or the People. Why would they differentiate on one account but be “ambiguous” on another account? Another note: the first, prefatory clause does not put any sort of limit on the second, operative clause. The Amendment does not read “For the purpose of forming a well regulated militia, and for no other…” but merely makes a blanket statement that the government shall not infringe upon individual rights.</p>
<p>The above mentioned court case also cites numerous historical meanings of the specific words in the Amendment, and all of them tend towards the interpretation of a specific right to own and use firearms. That being said, there are practical limits to our rights (clear and present danger coming to mind), but that in itself does not justify an outright ban on firearms. </p>
<p>I am perfectly fine with someone trying to amend the Constitution to repeal the 2nd Amendment (although I will fight it as hard as I could) as one has the right to petition the government and offer constructive political commentary. This, in fact, occurred with the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition so the method would not be without precedent. But the correct course of action should not be to legislate rights away. If, for nothing else, because if the government can break its promise (“the right of the people shall not be infringed”), who is to say that they will not go back on other promises (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”)?</p>
<p>Maybe the guy who was shooting unarmed people? </p>
<p>The cops wouldnt be a problem since from what i have seen while the shooting was taking place they were outside behind cars and trees, they didnt come in until the shooting stopped. What happened to police who would do whatever it took to protect those they are paid to protect even if it meant putting their life in danger. Thats what I thought it meant to be a cop and why those that hold that position are revered. Not because they risk their lives to write a traffic ticket. </p>
<p>These are the same people who you anti-gunners depend on when it hits the fan. I know many cops and I have to believe most I know would have been in that building trying to stop the shooter(s). Then again these are the same type of officers that believe an armed citizenry is a safer citizenry. Unfortunately these are the same types of officers that some of our more liberal leadership dont want as an officer in there community. </p>
<p>Todays police are trained to watch out for themselves before you. Is that what you want to depend on? Are you willing to trust your life, and your families, that they will be there. It is evident they wont. Your safety is in your own hands and is your own responsibility. </p>
<p>And how dare you try to take away my means to provide this for me and my family. If you think banning guns is going to make you safer you are just not living in reality. Here are some statistics on other countries that have enacted gun bans. If you dont like the web page the facts are available on the internet also. </p>
<p>I bet a few kids at VT now think they should be allowed to take guns on campus. If you don’t want a gun then dont get one…and if something like this happens to you then you can think how rational of a decision you made.</p>
<p>In my state (western state with guns, guns, guns,) there is a fight in the legislature over a bill that would make it much easier for one to shoot someone else in self-defense–what constitutes a threat would be much more lenient.</p>
<p>Law enforcement should be on the side of this bill, right? I mean, it makes it easier to shoot the bad guys. </p>
<p>Wrong, wrong, wrong.</p>
<p>Law enforcement is <em>solidly</em> against it. They say the “bad” guys will use it to claim self defense! They want fewer, not more, citizens whipping out guns.</p>
<p>Our state has had for decades one of the highest suicide rates in the nation for adults and teens, most commited by guns. The easy availability of guns, especially for volatile teenagers–makes suicide so tempting. No need for any planning or time for second thoughts–just bam!</p>
<p>Way too simplistic to return to the Old West!</p>
<p>Yes, because teens who are willing to kill themselves are insistent on doing it with a gun…if those who shot themselves didn’t have a gun, I’m sure a rope, razor, or bottle of pills would have done.</p>
<p>No its more of a fight to keep some anti-gun liberal prosecuting attroney who is looking to make name from running an individual who has just been traumatized and had to use lethal force in self defense through the ringer. I am talking about going to jail and having to prove you are innocent. These types of laws protect us from these overzealous ladder climber types.</p>
<p>You’re not reading what I’m saying. Sure, if someone really wants to commit suicide, they can. But guns make impulsive suicides much easier.</p>
<p>Case in point: a few years ago a local teenager borrowed his dad’s nice truck. Drove it home too fast, ran off the road and wrecked the truck. His dad’s nice truck! He was not hurt, but was terrified of his mistake. His dad kept a pistol in the glove box. Kid took the pistol out and shot himself right there. Now, if he had had to walk home first and find something else to kill himself with he might have cooled down. (And discovered the truth: his parents could forgive the truck accident!)</p>
<p>A few years ago a liquor store in my town was held up. The man who held the store up, unbeknown to those inside, had held up 2 previous liquor stores…and at both sites shot the clerk upon receiving the money from the register. One of the two shot clerks died. At this particular robbery, one of the patrons in the store had a handgun on him. He drew his weapon, discharged 4 shots into the man, and killed him.</p>
<p>Uh, the Columbine guns were not purchased directly by either killers, but were bought illegally from others that had purchased them at gun shows. </p>
<p>*Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, used four weapons bought at earlier shows during their attack on the high school. They killed 12 students and a teacher before committing suicide.</p>
<p>Robyn Anderson, an 18-year-old friend of the gunmen, legally bought two shotguns and a rifle at a Tanner Gun Show last year. All three weapons ended up in the hands of the two killers.</p>
<p>Mark Manes, 22, has admitted he bought the fourth firearm, a TEC-DC9 assault pistol, at a show and later sold it to the two students. Manes faces charges in Jefferson County District Court of selling a handgun to a minor.* </p>
<p>And while we’re discussing legal firearms used to commit crimes, consider that roughly 40% of firearms possessed by state inmates were purchased illegally vs. the 8.3-14.7% purchased at a retail store. Now, not surprisingly, for first time offenders the data reflects a higher percentage of purchases from retail establishments, but in any event, showing only 14-25% purchased retail, while 25-30% were still obtained illegally. Repeat offenders border on 40-45%. Source? The DOJ.</p>
<p>Just caught part of Hannity on Fox that said a court order called Cho an imminent danger to others. If that is so then the system failed the victims at VT. One of the questions on the form 4473(you have to fill out when buying a firearm) is" have you been adjudicated mentally defective?" If the answer to these questions is yes then the delaers stops the transaction right there. Then your info is called into the FBI NICS system and it has to be approved or denied or delayed. Why was this previous court info not in the system so he could be denied? Even if so he seemed very intent to do this by whatever means.</p>
<p>I hope no one takes it offensively: I simply consider the guns’ control debate a cyclical cause-and-effect, even nears to an infinite regress (The chicken or the egg?).</p>
<p>I think ldmom06’s (post 59) and opieofmaybery2’s (post 61) make great points by not merely focusing on the most conspicuous of symptoms but by confronting the actual disease.</p>
<p>To the previously mentioned “dealing with the psycologically imbalanced” in post 61 and “the effect of entertainment” in post 59, may we add proper education (or, precisely, the lack thereof)? I was going to suggest poverty, but the latter gives rise to crime only when not handled appropriately via education.</p>
<p>Edit: Furthermore, let’s not confine ourselves to this sad, sad tragedy which has already materialized. We need to conclude what WILL make a difference in the FUTURE. Next disturbed person may commit a simmilar atrocity before his/her “english instructer” and “classmates” notice the abnormality is that persons behavior.</p>