<p>I think the apparent drowsiness and possible psychosis might be unrelated. I thought he looked confused at times, which is common in psychotic patients I have worked with, but at other times he looked like he was trying not to fall asleep. I try this during long lectures after the wrong kind of lunch.</p>
<p>I like to think I would not bother with that, if I was acutely psychotic.</p>
<p>Looks like Holmes did fail his oral prelims and then bought a one of his rifles soon afterwards.:</p>
<p>[James</a> Holmes Bought Rifle After Failing Oral Exam at University of Colorado - Yahoo!](<a href=“http://gma.yahoo.com/james-holmes-bought-rifle-failing-oral-exam-university-074214315--abc-news-topstories.html]James”>http://gma.yahoo.com/james-holmes-bought-rifle-failing-oral-exam-university-074214315--abc-news-topstories.html)</p>
<p>From the article: “Experts say it’s possible Holmes had an underlying mental illness that was triggered by the stress of failure.”</p>
<p>I recognize that there are people here who don’t like gun control. But would anybody like to defend the public availability of the high-capacity magazine that this guy was using? (Indeed, if it hadn’t jammed, the carnage could have been much worse.) Would you be defending the availability to the public of an RPG? Can’t we at least draw the line at something that’s designed to enable a person to kill a lot of people in a short period of time?</p>
<p>As for his mental illness–personally, I really don’t like to contemplate the idea that there are sane people who would decide that this is the thing they want to do.</p>
<p>^agree. it’s a horrifying thought. Do we think Timothy McVeigh was mentally ill?</p>
<p>
It seems to me that he was a terrorist, with a political agenda. He may have been insane, too, I don’t know.</p>
<p>In relation to what Hunt said (post#463), I was wondering if the solution I cite below is realistic. I, too, havent seen a gun up close unless its encased in a glass case such as in a museum. </p>
<p>To satisfy the pro-gun crowd, ownership of assault rifles will be allowed only if the rifles and ammunition are stored and used in a shooting gallery or a gun club. Owners will be assigned a locker in the facility where they can store both. Of course, they have to pay rental fee for the lockers which amounts to $$$ for the facilities. The owners will have to be chaperoned every time they access their locker. The number of rounds of ammunition is also limited per session.</p>
<p>After watching the footage of him in court I have an uneasy feeling that he was faking the confusion/sleepiness. My mom watched it and thought it was fake so maybe she put it in my head.</p>
<p>It doesn’t surprise me that he failed his exam and then bought a gun.</p>
<p>
There are lots of out-of-the-box ideas, but it’s unlikely that any of them will be approved. I read a column in which the writer suggested that you should have to have a co-signer to get a gun–someone who would attest that you should be allowed to have one.</p>
<p>My idea is that guns should be available but should be heavily taxed. So, if you want a handgun, you can have it as long as you can come up with $5,000 to buy it. Maybe $100,000 for an assault rifle. This would at least make it harder for people like Holmes to get an arsenal, but would still make guns available to those who think it’s important to have one.</p>
<p>Or maybe an even better idea–to get a gun, you have to buy a big liability insurance policy, just as you do with a car. Indeed, that combines the ideas above, because the insurance company would take steps to see if you’re a good risk or not.</p>
<p>I’d also like to see more accountability for those who have legal weapons to keep them secured. Many weapons are stolen everyday, and I don’t have confidence that the owners always took appropriate precautions to prevent that.</p>
<p>A moderate amount of new info:</p>
<p>[James</a> Holmes reportedly known as “dolt” as intern, calling into question academic credentials - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57479689/james-holmes-reportedly-known-as-dolt-as-intern-calling-into-question-academic-credentials/]James”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57479689/james-holmes-reportedly-known-as-dolt-as-intern-calling-into-question-academic-credentials/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What do you suppose those steps would be? Unless the gun owner had a criminal record they’d have no way of knowing if they’re a wacko. Insurance companies don’t have unlimited access to information. What would they look for? Many of these people have no kind of prior criminal record, so that’s out. They don’t get medical records, and they may not have ever received any kind of mental health treatment anyway. People slip through those cracks all the time.</p>
<p>And let’s forget the mass-killing psychopath for a moment and focus instead on your average run-of-the-mill criminal-- if there’s no priors, what are we looking for? Low income? Address in the inner city? Black male? How about a teenager staying in the house, like TJ Lane? What basis can you use to decide who is going to abuse their gun privileges and who isn’t? Short of getting a statement saying that the gun will be properly locked up (which is all but completely useless) and proof that someone has the proper permits (and people who don’t will just refuse to purchase the mandatory insurance, just like they do for automobiles), I am not sure what this could accomplish other than to make it harder for people who follow the rules to have guns-- and I’m saying this as someone who is anti-gun, I don’t want anyone to have guns.</p>
<p>I actually really like Hunt’s idea for gun insurance. Why couldn’t the insurance industry regulate it, they do with everything else, health, life, auto, and figure out how to rate people etc. It is heartbreaking that one of the survivors of this rampage has no health insurance and his medical expenses are in the millions. Why should he have to incur such cost when it was due to another’s crime. If he was injured in a car accident the insurance would cover his injuries.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Insurance policies have coverage limits.</p>
<p>Auto insurance isn’t required in my state.</p>
<p>In the adjoining state, it is required but many drive without it (and without licenses too)</p>
<p>I carry uninsured motorists insurance in case I get into an accident with someone that doesn’t have insurance. Wonderful, huh?</p>
<p>I realize there are inadequacies in the auto insurance industry, and yes some would simply not obtain even required insurance, however this doesn’t mean gun insurance couldn’t provide some measure of sanity. We should seek measures that can provide some progress, not wait for perfection.</p>
<p>Here is the research on the 1994-2004 Ban. Apparantly assault rifles aren’t used in “ordinary” criminal activities very often because they cannot be easily concealed. The substantial number of folks who have large capacity magazines seems to debunk the idea that they are of no interest to law abiding citizens.</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf[/url]”>https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf</a></p>
<p>It probably would save more lives to outlaw the sale/distribution of alcohol other than through state or federal carryout dispensaries, deny sale to anyone who has any record of any offense involving alcohol, tax the daylights out of it, require massive liability insurance in order to be able to purchase it, enhance penalties for all crimes commited under the influence, including mandatory jail time for even first offense driving under the influence.</p>
<p>Honestly, what is the social utility of alcohol consumption, especially in consideration of its contribution to assault (physical and sexual), divorce, domestic violence, accidental pregnancy, drownings, car accidents, etc.</p>
<p>Is the social utility of alcohol really any greater than semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines?</p>
<p>Or, do we just “live with it” (alcohol and LCM’s) and prosecute the crimes when they happen?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow! Not even liability insurance? In my state, you don’t have to have insurance to cover your own losses, but you must have insurance to cover others’ losses (medical and property).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Live free or die.</p>
<p>There’s news that Holmes sent a package to a psychiatrist at his school detailing what he was going to do ahead of time. The package sat in the mailroom for a while.</p>
<p>As I think about this insurance idea some more, I think it has a lot going for it. It ought to appeal to conservatives, because it lets the private sector deal with the problem. Insurance companies should love it. The insurance companies could give you a discount if you lock up your guns, etc. It would create an automatic waiting period (at least for the first gun). No government entity would deny your right to buy a gun–it would be the insurance company that wouldn’t cover you, or would charge you a very high rate if they thought you posed too high a risk.</p>
<p>"Maybe what we need is a stigma attached to gun ownership. It’s obviously not enough that I judge people who own them. "</p>
<p>Isn’t there already a stigma?</p>
<p>
That depends on where you live. It certainly was no stigma to own guns where I grew up, and it still isn’t. It was normal. I don’t think I ever knew of anybody with an assault rifle, though.</p>