Third Party & Independents: Archives

Thank you for showing some common sense and intelligence on this issue.

Thank you, EdB.

David, terrific article. Five Stars.

I was just replying to Tom Snediker in the blue column thread along these very lines. I was saying there that I thought that should be some sort of means of communication, a database perhaps, between mental health doctors or agencies, and the ATF (who must give an official seal of approval on gun purchases) and those who deal in the gun trade.
This kid at VT had a long string of severe problems that should have automatically prohibited him from ever being able to buy a gun.
Just common sense.

Thank you, Adrienne, and I agree. Rep. McCarthy is really taking the lead on this approach.

Adrienne and David, we already have a federal background check system wherein those “who have been adjudicated as mental defectives or have been committed to mental institutions” are not eligible to buy guns.

But beyond that, we don’t dare go down a road in which mental health doctors or agencies start deciding who does and who do not get to practice their Constitutional rights. Where does that end? What else in the Bill of Rights should be denied those who suffering from depression or other mental problems which don’t rise to the level which require institutionalization?

As for the VT kid, he had never been institutionalized or even arrested for anything. Reportedly, he exhibited a variety of anti-social behaviors, none of which were illegal (or if they were, he hadn’t been charged or convicted with anything). At one time he may have been on anti-depressants, which is not exactly the same thing as being “mentally ill.”

It would be a huge violation of doctor-patient privilege to set up some data-base which required doctors to report you to the government if you show signs of depression or are deemed to be eccentric. The very idea is Orwellian.

LO,
Read this before you continue to whine about how mental health screening for those who wish to buy guns is “Orwellian.”

David,

Very good article. It’s obvious you put a lot of work and research into it. I totally agree with you. My earliest responses to this attack were simply outrage. I looked to see what the follow-up was regarding the “WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON SCHOOL SAFETY” from last year. Well, I guess the last congress was too busy and the new congress has been also. Not much has changed.

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/white_house_school_safety.html

I think Adrienne makes a very valid argument. As I recall you have a history in mental health care. How could anyone argue that delaying the purchase of a firearm (especially a handgun) based on mental health concerns is a violation of any right above that of NOT BEING SHOT AT!

I’ve not only worked in the mental health profession I’ve been a recipient of mental health services. Twice for grief counseling (it helps) and most recently for depression due to my neurological condition.

Yes, I’ve always sought this help myself. I’m a gun owner and ALL of my firearms are in the possession of my oldest son now. It’s kind of the same as some older or health challenged citizens being responsible enough to stop driving on their own (yep, me again) and others having to be forced to stop driving.

My point here is that if my ability to purchase a gun were delayed due to something like seeing a counselor for grief counseling, THAT’S A GOOD THING. Certainly I should be able to appeal that decision and the nature of my illness should be considered by a qualified adjudicator.

Common sense must come into play. The constitutional right to bear arms can not surpass my right to not be shot to hell by a psychopath. If someones purchase of a firearm is delayed a few weeks I think that’s worth a few dozen lives.

I work for a Police Department, and we do back ground checks on everyone who wants to purchase a gun, and yes we have told some NO. Who makes the decision on who gets a gun or not? Should this kid been given a permit to purchase, no, but again who makes the decision not to allow it, if all the procedures were followed, did the police know that he had stalking complaints against him, or might have a mental problem?
As one person said, if one of the other students or teacher had a gun maybe it would not have been as bad as it was, but any lost of life is bad.
As KD said common sense comes into play, with this, because if you outlaw guns then only the outlaws will have them. Come to Detroit and you can buy a gun off the street, screw the background check.

I do not own any personal handguns.

Oh the ATF does not give final approval on a gun permits.

One way to fight violence of any kind is a very stiff prison sentence for the offender. A lot of states have laws that allow judges to give harsher sentences to offenders that use firearms in the commission of a crime. Some states like GA require extra time being added to a sentence when a gun is used in a crime. The problem is a lot of judges won’t add the extra time. Even here in GA where it is required.
It’s almost as impossible to shut down the illegal gun market as it is the drug market. Specially when judges hand out slaps on the wrist to offenders. Here in GA a felon in possession of a fire arm is punishable by not less than 10 years and nor more than 20 years in prison. Most felons only get probation on their first offence for this. Illegally selling a firearm is punishable by the same sentence. First offenders again usually get probation. Just how the hell is this shutting down the illegal gun trade? These crimes should have stiffer sentences and probation should not be an option.
I do favor mandatory gun safety course on the type of gun a person wants to buy before they can take it home. If someone wants to buy a revolver they should have to learn not only how to handle it safely but how the damn thing works. Same with a pistol, and bolt action, lever action, semiautomatic, and especially full automatic rifles.
A gun is like a car, the better the training of the operator the less the odds of an accident. Also the when operated safely the odds of an accident occurring goes down.
One of the big contributing factor to all the violence we’re having is the violence seen on TV every night. Folks become used to seeing it and the more susceptible try to emulate it. The best way to stop this is to get the violence off TV. But you’ll get Roe vs Wade reversed before you get all the violence off TV. Everyone from the producers down to the viewer will be hollering censorship if the government tries to do it. It just aint gonna happen that way. The best way is for the citizens themselves demand it be taken off. They can get the attention of the networks very fast by boycotting advertisers that advertise during violent shows. But I doubt that’s gonna happen anytime real soon.

“Oh the ATF does not give final approval on a gun permits.”

Really? Maybe I’m wrong, but I always thought a copy of peoples fingerprints and their photograph had to be submitted to the ATF by the local police when they’re doing your criminal background check, and that the ATF has to then sign off on it before you’re allowed to buy a gun.

Adrienne,

I didn’t have to submit fingerprints either time I was checked.
My checks did take longer because (so I was told) I was already in the database due to having had a Secret Service check so I could work at the ‘96 Republican Convention in San Diego.

David,

Thoughtful post. I don’t think gun control is really the issue here. The exception may be a means of evaluating mental stability. I don’t think their is a definitive test that could determine this. Also a person could be relatively “normal” when a purchase is made and devolve into madness.

The bigger issue is the lack of effective mental health screening in our healthcare system. Everyone here feels there was nothing they could do, even though they clearly saw signs of depression and isolation in this sick young man.

Perhaps understandably his parents have reportedly been hospitalized in reaction to this event.

Despite our advances in medicine, we do not make preventive healthcare easily accessable. Whether it be inflammatory processes that lead to our largest killer: heart disease, or mental health evaluations which could lead to a lessening of both violent and self destructive behavior.

America needs to buck up, face its real issues and stop bickering over notions of false freedom and the lobbied protections of the insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical industries and the deteriorating delivery system they have developed, and begin to address the serious dearth of healthcare.

Rocky:
“I didn’t have to submit fingerprints either time I was checked.
My checks did take longer because (so I was told) I was already in the database due to having had a Secret Service check so I could work at the ‘96 Republican Convention in San Diego.”

Seriously? That’s amazing. I assume you did have a fingerprinting when they did the Secret Service check though, right? Maybe because it’s on file they didn’t make you do it again. In California, you can’t even get a drivers license renewal these days without them taking your thumbprint.

Gergle, some very good points in your post.
You wrote:
“a person could be relatively “normal” when a purchase is made and devolve into madness.”

Good point, yet a mental health check could be made into something that has to be renewed every year, or every other year. People who love their guns should be willing to do this, no?

David, Excellent article. Sure is tough trying to get an education these days. As I was reading your article the Kucinich Department of Peace idea popped into my mind. Maybe its not such a bad idea afterall, although I would look to the states for action on this issue as opposed to the feds. It seems the first response is to go after convicted felons, much as the response after 9/11, but the first thing you notice is most of the killers have a clean record or no felonies at the very least. It would seem this man needed compassion and help from those that laughed and said they thought he would go ballistic one day. Its tough to legislate something like this and as you stated there is no one easy answer. Thanks for the thought provoking post.

Adrienne and KansasDem, mental health concerns are grounds now for denying a gun purchase now, but there is a process that has to be followed, and just because somebody is depressed, unsocial, or in therapy doesn’t mean that we can start denying them their civil rights or that they need to be reported to the police. There is the matter of doctor-patient confidentiality, not to mention the right to due process and the fact that hundreds of thousands of people if not millions are in therapy without posing a threat to either themselves or others.

Additionally, if you’re assumed to be not only a criminal but stigmatized as a potential mass killer if you seek mental health care, people who need it will be dissuaded from going in the first place.

Allegations of stalking should be and need to be followed up by police, and if the allegations have merit that individual should be arrested or at least be placed under a restraining order. But in this case, none of that happened. We still have a standard in this country of innocent until proven guilty, and we don’t start denying people constituionally protected rights on the basis of rumors and allegations that are never followed up.

Now in this case, it sounds like the culprit may have “involuntarily committed” at one point. In which case, if true, he should never have been allowed to purchase handguns. Apparently this info didn’t come up on a background check like it should have (again, if it was actually the case), which is yet another example of laws that are already on the books not being enforced.

It’s pointless to pass more laws when the ones in existence are not being followed.

No you do not need to be finger printed to purchase a gun. Now if you want to legally carry a concelled weapon(in Michigan), then you are finger printed and it is sent to the FBI and State to be stored. The Secret Service has nothing to due with it.

Adrienne, I would suggest and not trying to sound mean, but go to your local pd and see what is required to get a permit to get a hand gun. Each state is different.

The blame for this massacre and the others in recent history belongs squarely on the shoulders of those who work to disarm the citizens of this country.
It’s no coincidence that the cowards who perpetrate these atrocities attack schools, where they have a large number of legally disarmed victims, instead of police stations.
People who don’t know what they’re talking about or who have an agenda will decry the supposed “easy availability of guns” but in many parts of the country you have to get a permit to buy a gun and we have the Brady background check everywhere (including gun shows). Some places even have the ridiculous waiting periods.
Before we had restrictions on gun ownership we didn’t have killings like this. The knowledge that some of their potential victims are armed will usually make bad guys find something else to do. If the anti gunners hadn’t succeeded in stripping people of their right of self defense at VT a lot of innocent people would be alive today.

Adrienne,
Even though you have to fill out an ATF Form 4473 to buy a gun the ATF isn’t involved in the gun purchase process. The Brady check is done by the dealer calling a system operated by the FBI. He provides the buyers personal information (name, ssn, DOB, place of residence, place of birth) and the FBI checks the buyers’ criminal and mental health record in their database.

I don’t know how many guns any of y’all have bought. But I’ll bet some of y’all haven’t ever tried to buy one if ya think ya don’t get fingerprinted when ya buy a gun.
I have bought guns in several different states. And I have never bought a gun of any kind, anywhere, anytime without being fingerprinted. And I got finger printed again when I got my concealed carry permit. And get finger printed every time I renew it.
I don’t know about everywhere else, but last time I looked Federal law requires background checks every time you buy a gun. This includes fingerprints. They are sent to the FBI and ran against their criminal fingerprint data.

Adrienne
The ATF doesn’t issue concealed carry permits. That’s usually up to the local police chief or county sheriff. But like KT said, that depends each states laws as to who handles it.
The ATF really doesn’t even care if ya have a gun or not. As long as you’ve bought it leagally. That’s not their territory.
Now if ya want to buy a fully automatic weapon, then the ATF gets involved as ya have to apply to them for a permit.

traveller
Well said!

Adrienne,

Thanks. The problem I have with a mental health check, even annually is- what are you going to check? Does the person have delusions? We all do. Freud thought delusions kept people from being depressed by their reality. Is there aggression? There are lots of aggressive people who do not kill.

Human behavior is notoriusly hard to predict, but problems aren’t that hard to spot if you are involed with someone daily.

I’m not a big believer in these evaluation tests. I was asked to take an evaluation test once as a condition of consideration for a management job.
It tested, in part, for cynicism vs. naivity. The questions were obvious and initially I skewed my answers away from cynicism.(I was actually already performing this management job) because I thought that’s what they wanted. My boss wanted me in the job, so after I “failed” this part, I was allowed to retake the test. Of course, I scored in completely the opposite direction. The test was a stupid farce. I got the job.

Mental Health care is the big problem. The stignma and ignorance of what mental health is, needs to be addressed. Socialization is a big part of this particular incident. China’s idea of Block leaders involved in the lives of their locals, while in China’s case is probably repressive, is something we should think about. It’s not that far from being your brother’s keeper or Hillary’s “it takes a village.”

Adrienne,

Believe it or not, the Secret Service took my SSN and drivers licence, and that was it.

It took about a week and I was cleared to work.

BTW Newt gave the shortest speech ever while introducing the talent for the concert outside by the marina.
We did lasers, the Secret Service went nuts when we started the smoke machines, it was weird.

KT:
“Adrienne, I would suggest and not trying to sound mean, but go to your local pd and see what is required to get a permit to get a hand gun. Each state is different.”

Dang, I’d love to know why all you gun nuts get so uppity and snotty whenever you talk about yer guns? :^)
I think that if your state doesn’t fingerprint you when buying a gun, they SHOULD.

Ron:
“I don’t know how many guns any of y’all have bought. But I’ll bet some of y’all haven’t ever tried to buy one if ya think ya don’t get fingerprinted when ya buy a gun.”

Exactly. Every single time.

gergle:
“The problem I have with a mental health check, even annually is- what are you going to check?”

Well for instance, this disturbed kid was wacky enough to have been locked up in a mental hospital — I think that’s probably something that needs to be checked out, yes?

Rocky:
“Believe it or not, the Secret Service took my SSN and drivers licence, and that was it.”

I’m totally shocked by that, Rocky. Without prints, you could have been just some guy with a stolen SSN and drivers license.

Adrienne,

So if you’re depressed about living in a high crime area, in an insecure apartment with a perv living next door, and a rapist on the loose in the neigborhood makes you a little paranoid, and you seek treatment, you have to give up your gun?

Adrienne and KT, on ATF signing off, that would require a readily accessible national database of criminal and mental health status for individuals. This is something that does not yet exist in an efficient and comprehensive way for either ATF or local law enforcement, but, they are slowly making progress on bringing such a system online, thanks to 9/11 reaction.

Kansas Dem, thanks. If we see a person bleeding on the street, we do what we can to seek assistance for them. Two things are incredible to me about this. First, that a half century after the onset of a modern psychological and psychiatric science community, that we, relegate nearly 95% of mental health care to dispensing pills. And secondly, that we as a society are still so uninformed and ignorant as to what constitutes mental health and public threat in terms of the mentally unhealthy.

Both of these sad facts mean that Americans still don’t take mental health as part and parcel of physical health, nor regard psychological trauma in the same way we respond to physical trauma of fellow citizens.

On a side note, if we were regard substance addiction as both a physical and mental health issue, we could probably eradicate 90% of smokers in our nation. That would pay huge dividends to society in health care savings. But, instead, we deal with smokers by passing laws which fine them for being addicted, as if that is going to cure them. It is absurd.

Ron Brown said: “One way to fight violence of any kind is a very stiff prison sentence for the offender.”

I don’t think that is accurate Ron. Putting people in today’s prisons makes them more violent, not less, after they are released. They are far, far more defensive after time in prison and that makes them more prone to act defensively in public life. We need some serious and intense prison reforms that segregate violent criminals from insane criminals, and non-violent criminals and provides distinctly different rehabilitation programs to each category.

Ron said: “It’s almost as impossible to shut down the illegal gun market as it is the drug market.”

It is true that shutting down the illegal gun market would be impossible. But, it is not true that we can’t reduce it by as much as 90% by making the cost of obtaining an illegal weapon so high, as to preclude most who would obtain one illegally from being able to.

Of course, such an accomplishment would have to begin with very much tighter controls on sales and distribution of firearms, making them akin to prescription drugs which are many times more expensive to obtain illegally as legally.

Many said it would be impossible to shrink the Ozone hole, or put a man on the moon in less than 10 years. It is a simple matter of priority and dedication. Nothing more.

Ron said: “First offenders again usually get probation. Just how the hell is this shutting down the illegal gun trade? These crimes should have stiffer sentences and probation should not be an option.”

Again, we need to dramatically instate rehabilitation programs and treat first offenders on an out-prison basis as we treat many health issues on an out-patient basis. The simple fact is our probationary systems across this country are vastly overloaded and cannot provide the counseling, oversight, and rehabilitation services needed to help first offenders from ever becoming 2nd time offenders. It is a matter of policy, resources, and dedication, nothing more.

Ron I agree with you entirely on the safety courses. I also agree that government censorship is a very bad way to go. However, our politicians have what is known as the “bully pulpit” from which, without legislation, they can help the public stay aware of the values and options available to us as citizens in the free marketplace to choose health and civil order over violence and disorder. We the voters should expect and demand such leadership of our politicians and withhold our vote from those who lack the capacity or, are so deep in gun manufacturer’s pockets, as to refuse their public leadership role.

32 americans were killed by bullets fired from one single gun. Over each year, around 10,000 americans will be killed by bullets fired from guns.

But the solution for you guys is not controlling bullets market, or gun market. No, the solution according to you is detecting the people that could trigger a gun before they do it.
Minority Report, anyone?

And some of you brag about pragmatism.
Yeah, right.

traveller,

If the anti gunners hadn’t succeeded in stripping people of their right of self defense at VT a lot of innocent people would be alive today.

Could you show us factual proof of that. Until you do, this is only your opinion.

Meanwhile, what killed innocent people was bullets fired from a single gun trigger by one single guy.
Which is fact, not an opinion.

gergle said: “I don’t think gun control is really the issue here.”

I agree. Gun access and ownership are two of the major issues which we must address. Ownership is a right to law abiding citizens with the ability to use them safely for hunting, sport, or self-defense. Access needs to be controlled very much as prescription drugs are controlled. There will still be abuse, but, it will be greatly diminished.

“The exception may be a means of evaluating mental stability.”

I couldn’t agree more. Would we allow access to nuclear weapons to a Saddam Hussein or Charles Manson? Of course not. Neither should we allow ready access to firearms to individuals who have been determined to be psychologically unstable. But, of course, that would require America to get serious about establishing a national mental health program and policy which permits professionals legal access to interview and evaluate persons who exhibit bizarre, suicidal, or potentially homicidal behavior. Note the word “behavior”. It was carefully chosen.

Our government and the justice departments should not, on Constitutional grounds, be involved in determining whether a person’s thoughts or ideas are acceptable or not. But, our justice and police departments have always been involved in addressing behavior which poses a threat to society. Mental instability is a public threat, more especially in a society awash with easy access firearms with high rapid lethality measures.

That leads to inevitable conclusion that America needs cooperative working relationships between a vastly beefed up mental health system and police and justice departments. America abandoned mental health hospitals in the 1970’s due to the erroneous and naive belief that miracle drugs would end schizophrenia and character behavior disorders.

It is time America reinvested in mental health hospitals again, mental health insurance, and mental health screenings in our schools and places of employment and stop using prisons as substitutes for mental health hospitals. Prisons don’t treat mental health conditions. It’s like giving poison to a hungry person so they can have something in their stomach.

30 years ago, America had people in the mental health industry who were nuts themselves. Timothy Leary was a Ph.D. in psychology. While I was in the Army working in a psychiatric hospital, the hospital’s own chief psychiatrist, my Lt. Col. supervisor, became a patient on my ward, only to return several weeks later to his role as chief psychiatrist of the hospital. That’s nuts (not him, he was dealing with a situational crisis with his wife, but the system that made him a patient on his own psychiatric ward).

We have come a very long way since then, and it is now possible to accredit and oversee a far better and more professional approach to licensing mental health professionals, and create a working partnership between the mental health system and our law enforcement system with judicial oversight and protections for individual rights protection.

Freud was a brilliant pioneer of his day, but, like all pioneers, their charting new territory is by no means comprehensive or error free. We no longer live in the days of Freudian theory which reduced all issues to sexuality. And organic chemistry and brain dysfunction are highly professional scientific regimens today. But, they no longer pretend to be the answer to all mental health issues.

Counseling too, for situational and abusive emotional disruption, has come out of the dark ages, and millions of Americans have benefited from several, to many, hours of professional counseling assistance in managing overwhelming situational and emotional circumstances. They reap the benefit of speeding up the process of getting back to their normal and healthy lives, as opposed to becoming obsessed and consumed by the anomolous event, such as the loss of a loved one, or being victimized by crime or other or an abusive relationship.

Philippe, Americans cannot, and will not, ignore their cultural, constitutional, and historical past to accommodate a European approach to this issue. It would be like asking the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq to forget their past, religion, and experience under Saddam Hussein, and just get along. One must deal with the reality of the situation holistically with the tools and resources available.

traveller said: “Before we had restrictions on gun ownership we didn’t have killings like this.”

Your argument is immensely flawed and illogical. Before we had restrictions on gun ownership we didn’t have legal abortions either. But, that does not establish cause and effect between the two circumstances.

Gun restrictions don’t cause gun violence anymore than owning a gun causes criminal use of one. Your argument is nonsense.

Ron, I have purchased a shotgun, a .30 caliber rifle, a .22 pistol and a .357 magnum in Texas and have never been fingerprinted. The pistols I purchased at gun shows. Granted this was more than 10 years ago. But, there are 100’s of millions of firearms out there in the hands of folks who have not had their fingerprints taken as part of the purchase deal.

Fingerprinting at the time of gun purchase is controlled by state law, not federal as far as my research can discern. And there are states that permit cash and carry purchases at gun shows without FIRST being cleared by a background check and waiting period for that check to be conducted.

Here are some interesting statistics on the progress of developing a nationally accessible database to screen felons from purchasing firearms. Only 3 out of 4 can be screened and 1.9% of applications are denied.

Adrienne, KT is right, there is wide variability in laws from state to state regarding gun purchases.

Googling “2007 federal law gun purchase fingerprint fingerprinting” brought up a number of articles detailing those differences.

“we, relegate nearly 95% of mental health care to dispensing pills”

David,

Also, this has become far too common of a practice by primary care providers who know little or nothing about the drugs they’re prescribing other than what the pharmaceutical rep told them, without even a referral to a mental health professional. It’s downright shameful.

Ok I have to agree that mentally some people should not own water guns let alone anything else. Who make the decision and who should and should not be able to own one. Everybody goes thru depression at one time or another. I have talked to a mental health professional, but I never thought about shooting someone, since I was depressed at the time, should I have been banned from buying a gun.
Look at all the military coming back for Iraq that have been labled with PTSD, do we stop them? It is still a right under the 2nd amendment to be able to own a gun.

On getting a gun, I was at a gun shop in KY, they have a sign stating if you come from Ky,IN,Tn,Oh that there was no wait to purchase. Put your money down and take it with you.

Adrienne, I am not a gun nut, as I do not own a single gun, but feel that you should be able to if you want to.

Problem is that 100% of those that buy guns and use them correctly are going to get looked at and punished for the VT massacre. Maybe instead of looking at buying guns, and who is buying them, maybe Virgina’s gun laws need to be looked at. Their laws and requirements might be very simple and easy.

Philippe can I see where you got your information about 10000 killed by guns. If you are using that as a reason to stop the sales of guns, then lets take it a little farther and stop the sale of beer because drunks kill, wait stop the sale of cars that the drunks use.

KT

KT,

I’m not so sure the fallout will be gun control. In Texas, after the Luby’s massacre, a concealed weapons law was enacted, making pretty much anyone who passed a simple test eligible to carry one.

KT:

can I see where you got your information about 10000 killed by guns.

Goes to CDC’s injury mortality report database, select homicide and firearm, you’ll get 11,624 homicides by firearm for 2004.

If you are using that as a reason to stop the sales of guns, then lets take it a little farther and stop the sale of beer because drunks kill, wait stop the sale of cars that the drunks use.

Drunks don’t kills with beer. They kills with gun and/or (!!) with the car they were driving while drunk, most of the time. Taking away guns and car from drunks people *before* the homicide and *until* they rehab sounds a more pragmatic and effective way to reduce homicides due to drunking than demagogically stop selling beer and car to whatever people, drunk or not.

Plus, nice spin attempt. AFAIK, beer and car main and only purpose is not to project at high speed a piece of metal thru an organic body. Well, for beer at least. But it is the only functional purpose of any firearm.
Wait.
Well, maybe these purposes are totally different in your country, afterall. I’m only exposing these objects’s purpose as they’re commonly defined where I live, France. Pardon my biais, then.

David,

Americans cannot, and will not, ignore their cultural, constitutional, and historical past to accommodate a European approach to this issue. It would be like asking the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq to forget their past, religion, and experience under Saddam Hussein, and just get along.

Woa. I though americans were more reactive and could change faster their way of life than old europeans or, as you said, even older civilizations.

I’m not advocating to accomodate an European approach, I’m not euro-bragging here.
I’m advocating to stop “stay the course” policy regarding gun violence, exposing one approach that can’t be worst that your current one, saying “don’t be shy to change, try it, try something different”.

Now I understand your point and regarding the weight of tradition and the depth of gun culture roots, the USA is starting to behave slowly like other countries.
Stay optimist, we’ve eventually banned death penalty, legalized abortion and so far rehab from war addiction. It just take a very long time and many death…

One must deal with the reality of the situation holistically with the tools and resources available.

You make me checking what “holistic” definition is before I agree with you. Which I do.

David
“more rational approach of targeting NOT guns themselves or the 2nd Amendment for law abiding citizens, but, in laser like fashion, legislation that would address gun violence specifically, with the emphasis on ‘violence’, not guns”

As you guys have said throughout your posts, that would consist of stricter screenings, govt lists and more 2nd Amendment restrictions.
IF that is true, then it is really no different than what anti 2nd Amendment people have been calling for.
And changing the name from gun-control to violence-control, to hopefully be more accepted, is all it seems to be.

These stories from the “Across the USA” page in USA Today on Wednesday;

Magnolia,Ark. Authorities say Shavalee Smith, 12, was killed when a gun handled by her 11-yr-old cousin discharged. Smith was at her cousin’s house here, and the boy was showing her the gun when it fired, police said. The boy had taken the firearm from a relative’s vehicle a few days earlier.

Maryland, Hagerstown.-Jimmie Lee Johnson, 36, of Baltimore was sentenced to 30 years in prison for shooting at another driver who wouldn’t get out of the passing lane. Johnson argued at his February trial that he emptied his handgun in self-defense after Kyle Hitchcock made an obscene gesture and uttered a racial slur.

New Jersey, Asbury Park.-Officials are investigating how an off-duty parole officer’s pistol accidentally discharged, wounding three restaurant workers with one bullet. The shooting followed a private party. Two of the victims were treated and released and the third was hospitalized.

Oregon, Corvallis.-A former Oregon State student was sentenced to about five months in prison for wounding a homeless man collecting cans behind a fraternity house. Josh Grimes shot the man in the thigh with a .22-caliber round, but said he never meant to hurt the man.

Ohio, Columbus.- A man accused of shooting a teenager in the head after she and her friends had been sneaking around outside his house has been found competent to stand trial. Friends and relatives of the girls have said the teens considered the house, across from a cemetary, to be spooky. Allen Davis, 40, admitted firing a rifle but claimed he didn’t mean to harm the teens, whom he considered trespassers.

All these guns were purchased legally and owned by “responsible” citizens. Put that in your NRA pipe and smoke it.

David, great replies, and thanks for the info.

gergle:
“So if you’re depressed about living in a high crime area, in an insecure apartment with a perv living next door, and a rapist on the loose in the neigborhood makes you a little paranoid, and you seek treatment, you have to give up your gun?”

I think it should depend entirely on the severity of that persons depression. If they’ve been distraught enough to be locked up in a mental hospital, then a “little paranoid” probably no longer applies, and maybe it would be for the best if they had to legally give up their gun.
As you said earlier, when someone buys a gun they might not be crazy, but can become unglued afterward. Well the same might apply in this instance. If a person fully recovers, their mental state could be reevaluated, and their 2nd Amendment right to their gun could be restored.
Is that so terrible an idea? I don’t think so.

kctim:
“As you guys have said throughout your posts, that would consist of stricter screenings, govt lists and more 2nd Amendment restrictions.”

Yes, but what is so wrong with stricter screenings and govt. lists when it comes to owning a deadly weapon? As it stands now, American’s jump through more hoops and take more tests simply to drive our cars. This makes no sense to me.

Would we allow access to nuclear weapons to a Saddam Hussein or Charles Manson? Of course not.

That’s an interresting criterea for gun ownership: “Would I trust this guy with a nuke?” If not, then I guess I wouldn’t trust him with a gun either.

David, great article. I wish I had noticed it earlier. I hate jumping into the middle of a thread.

Fingerprinting at the time of gun purchase is controlled by state law, not federal as far as my research can discern.

I think that’s true. When I bought mine in California, all I had to have was a valid drivers license or some other form of ID — and the patience to wait a few days.

ROCKLEDGE, FLORIDA — The man accused of robbing several stores at gunpoint over the weekend will go before a judge this afternoon.
Clifford Hall, 37, of Cocoa has been charged with several counts of armed robbery after police said he robbed a Viera 7-Eleven convenience store, a Rockledge liquor store and a Cocoa hotel over the weekend.
Hall was arrested after an 18-mile pursuit by police that led to a car crash and foot chase. He then broke into a Canaveral Groves home, where he was held by the homeowners at gunpoint until police could arrive.

GLENDALE, OREGON — Everyone knows you don’t mess with Texas. But as one man learned Sunday morning, you don’t mess with Gerald Heggstrom of Glendale, either.
Heggstrom, 52, captured an intruder in his garage early Sunday morning and held him at gunpoint until police arrived

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON — A woman shot and killed an armed intruder in her West Seattle home Thursday morning, police said.
Spokesman Scott Moss said the intruder began beating a male resident about 6 a.m. The woman got a handgun and fired several shots, hitting the intruder in the abdomen. He died inside the home at 35th Avenue Southwest and Southwest Brandon Street.
The 38-year-old man who was beaten was in satisfactory condition at Harborview Medical Center with a head wound, hospital spokeswoman Kristin Foley said.
The woman who shot the intruder told police she and the man who was beaten did not know the intruder, Moss said.
Seattle homicide detectives were investigating.

On March 14, in a case that seemed a natural for national news, a football star was gunned down while trying to hold up a liquor store. Derrick Breedlove, a talented tight end, had recently signed a scholarship to play for Hampton University in Virginia. Scouts were already touting him for an NFL career. But when he entered the liquor store wearing a ski-mask and brandishing a sawed-off shotgun, Breedlove was shot and killed by a clerk.

On April 2, Virginia “Sue” Devoe was attacked in her Clintonville, Ohio home. Her former boyfriend, James Ryan McVey, kicked in the front door, dragged her through the house by her hair, and repeatedly kicked her. Then he attempted to kidnap her. That’s when Devoe’s 91-year-old neighbor came to her aid. Shirley Becraft drew his handgun and shot the intruder. McVey’s death ended years of violent assaults on Devoe. A local investigator praised Becraft, saying, “It’s hard to know where she would be now if he hadn’t [shot McVey].”

On March 18, in Orange City, Florida, Robert Shockey waited inside Blockbuster Video for his son, who worked there, to close the store. The store had been the scene of a violent armed robbery a month before. Shockey, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, saw two ski-masked robbers burst through the doors. One carried a hunting rifle and threatened an employee. Shockey pulled his handgun and shot the gun-wielding assailant. When the second robber reached for the rifle that his accomplice had dropped, Shockey shot him. Police not only ruled the shooting self-defense, they stated that they planned to give Shockey a “good citizenship award.”

And so it goes. On March 5, Bethan Scutchfield, a 71-year-old invalid from Colville, Washington fatally wounded a stranger who broke into her house and knocked her to the floor. On March 6, an 83-year-old San Antonio woman shot a teenager as he tried to break into her home. On March 3, in Pembroke Pines, Florida, two robbers pointed semiautomatic weapons at businessman Corey Dacres but the victim pulled his own gun and shot both of them. Dacres, who has a permit to carry a concealed weapon, was not injured.

ALL these guns were owned by “responsible” citizens.

Everyone, lots of very interesting debate going on here about gun control as I read here while celebrating Patriot’s Day here in Massachusetts. (I’ll take guesses as to what we are celebrating the anniversary of from out-of-staters if you promise not to cheat and look it up.) One hint: It does not celebrate the dominance of the New England Patriots in three of the last five superbowls.

Personally, I believe the only reason I am alive today is because of gun control laws here in Massachusetts. Last January a student at my school, John Odgren, with Asperger’s syndrome (A form of Autism) brought a knife to school and tried to kill as many people as he could. He started in a bathroom across from the library and killed one person there and before he was able to proceed into the library (where I was at the time) a group of faculty and students wrestled to the ground and took the knife away from him. Imagine, if he had a gun he would probably been able to shoot more people and going into the library was a probable next step for him to take.

Also, for those of you who think that control laws don’t deter criminals because the illegal market for weapons is to easy look at John Odgren’s myspace entry here.

I’m glad to fianlly turn sixteen. I can finally legally drive and buy hunting knives in Massachusetts.

He waited until he was old enough to buy a knife he could use to kill someone; I believe the only reason he did not use a gun is that it would have been illegal for him to obtain it.

With regards to Mental Health, I agree 100% that the system needs improvement. In the case of John Odgren, there were many warning signs including an incident in which he brought a knife and toy gun to school

Adrienne
“Yes, but what is so wrong with stricter screenings and govt. lists when it comes to owning a deadly weapon? As it stands now, American’s jump through more hoops and take more tests simply to drive our cars. This makes no sense to me”

Whats so wrong with stricter screenings, wiretaps and govt lists when it comes to detering terrorism?
You want govt to protect you from the next Cho, others want govt to protect them from the next 9-11.
Both instances use fear to give up rights. I don’t believe we should allow that to happen.

Tim

All these guns were purchased legally and owned by “responsible” citizens. Put that in your NRA pipe and smoke it.

So what’s your solution? Ban ALL guns?
What if they did manage to get all the guns out of the hands of every single person in the country? Do you really think that would make it safer? Do ya want to buy some Atlantic Ocean property I have for sale in California?
If there weren’t any guns available the criminals would start using bows and arrows. And when those get ban they’d start using slingshots. And when those get ban they’ll start using knives.
Just when do ya stop banning things just to keep criminals from using them in crimes?
There are a lot of nut cases out there, but the majority of gun owners are responsible and don’t use them for criminal purposes.
I find it very interesting that the only time ya ever here of someone using a gun it’s about someone that’s been shot by a dumb ass or a criminal. It’s never about someone using a gun to save their life or the life of someone else.
And it does happen a hell of a lot more than the liberal anti gun media reports on.

kctim:
“Whats so wrong with stricter screenings, wiretaps and govt lists when it comes to detering terrorism?”

Because in violation of the 4th Amendment the Neocons didn’t bother to get warrants, instead, they chose to circumvent the law with no oversight. When there is probable cause, Americans know that the 4th amendment no longer applies, yet they also know that warrants and oversight are still mandatory.

“Both instances use fear to give up rights.”

No, I’m not calling for people to give up their 2nd Amendment rights arbitrarily, I’m only asking for there to be more oversight into the entire process.

Ron,
My post may have been misleading in the fact that I am not anti-gun nor would I like to see all guns taken away. I expected a response to my post in the fashion that kctim did. There are good arguments both for supporting and opposing gun control.

I don’t think the VT massacre should spur new legislation on either side of the argument. It was an aberation, a horrible one at that. But these kinds of things are going to happen when we live in a society that is so focused on guns and violence.

Frankly, the only people I oppose are those that want no restrictions at all-those who feel that if students had been allowed to have guns in the dorm and classroom, that this would have been avoided. Could you imagine what campus life would be like if a majority of students packed a Saturday night special? Ridiculous!

Adrienne
By punishing somebody exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, for not getting the govts permission to exercise that right, you are asking people to give up their Constitutional right and make it a permission bestowed upon them by govt.
Tom S. said he thinks he may be time to revisit the 2nd, in his thread. Maybe it is, I do not know. I just hope I’m dead before its taken from us.

“I’m only asking for there to be more oversight into the entire process.”

The gun buying process isn’t what failed here is it? Police, faculty and “professionals” that evaluated him, were aware of his condition and did nothing. But the gun is always placed at the forefront when something like this happens.

Besides, we all know how well govt lists work and how over the top that they can go.
Do you really want neighbors reporting on you to the govt?
I don’t.

kctim:
“you are asking people to give up their Constitutional right and make it a permission bestowed upon them by govt.”

No, I’m not asking people to give up their Constitutional right, I’m asking whether we can find a way to agree that there needs to be more oversight into the act of buying a gun than currently exists. That’s all.

“Tom S. said he thinks he may be time to revisit the 2nd, in his thread. Maybe it is, I do not know.”

I think it is too, and I wish that you could find a way to agree that the best way to protect the 2nd Amendment is to put some responsible screening and safeguards into place — so that anti-gun advocates won’t have any ammunition left to attack that Constitutional right and take it away from law abiding Americans. btw, pun intended. :^)

“I just hope I’m dead before its taken from us.”

Please, don’t be dramatic — be reasonable!

“The gun buying process isn’t what failed here is it?”

I think the lack of real safeguards and standards in the process of buying guns is failing this country, yes. But understand, I don’t think it’s the fault of the people who sold that kid his guns — it’s the fact that we have nothing set in place to keep guns out of the hands of clearly unstable people.

“Police, faculty and “professionals” that evaluated him, were aware of his condition and did nothing.”

Well, they obviously tried to do something, but it clearly wasn’t enough. Additionally, they didn’t have a means to communicate what they knew about this kid with each other, and the possible danger he posed to everyone around him.

“But the gun is always placed at the forefront when something like this happens.”

As someone who is responsible with his guns, I can fully understand how that would anger you, however you must agree that a nutcase can take out a lot of people in a short amount of time with guns, and that this is why people always immediately focus on the stunning effectiveness of that weapon when a tragedy like this one occurs.

“Besides, we all know how well govt lists work and how over the top that they can go.”

I think the only people who say that government can’t do anything correctly and in an organized fashion are those who honestly don’t want it to work.

“Do you really want neighbors reporting on you to the govt?”

If I was acting as crazy as this kid was? For years? HELL, YES.

“I don’t.”

Fine, but just think over what I’ve said anyway.

Warren P,
Wow, that’s a dramatic story. Thanks for adding it here.

Kctim,

I think Adrienne, is only asking that we not sell guns legally to crazy people and criminals. It’s seems based on VT we still do.

Adrienne,

Psychological screening of gun owners isn’t a bad idea, but sounds cumbersome to me. I’d just like us to deal with mental health beter first. In my personal experience, I don’t really fear most gun owners, just the criminals. Of course, there was that nut that pulled one on me in a fit of road rage. But then he just pissed me off.

Could you imagine what campus life would be like if a majority of students packed a Saturday night special? Ridiculous!

Posted by: Tim in NY at April 19, 2007 02:07 PM

Well, there would be 31 less dead kids.
While I’m against have to have a concealed weapons permit to tote a gun, I believe there are place where they shouldn’t allowed or carried.
Courthouses
Churches
Hospitals
Schools (specially by the students)
Bars
Jails (inmates and visitors)
State, City, County, and Federal offices (except IRS:) )
And most sports events.
Most any other place would be up to the owner.

Thanks, AP.

“No, I’m not asking people to give up their Constitutional right, I’m asking whether we can find a way to agree that there needs to be more oversight into the act of buying a gun than currently exists. That’s all.”

The only way we can have more oversight is if we agree that the govt should dictate who is allowed to own a gun.
What we have now is already intrusive enough.

“I think it is too, and I wish that you could find a way to agree that the best way to protect the 2nd Amendment is to put some responsible screening and safeguards into place”

There are already thousands of “safeguards” in place. The next step, as you all have said, is for us to get govt permission to practice our right. It would be even less of a right than what we have already made it.

“— so that anti-gun advocates won’t have any ammunition left to attack that Constitutional right and take it away from law abiding Americans. btw, pun intended. :^)”

That is because it would no longer be a right.

“Please, don’t be dramatic — be reasonable!”

I’m not being “dramatic” in the least. If we give up our 2nd Amendment rights totally, our country would no longer be what it was founded as. I do not wish to live in that country.

“it’s the fact that we have nothing set in place to keep guns out of the hands of clearly unstable people.”

That is because 99% of the time, a person is not clearly unstable until they do something horrific. Cho is a great example.

“Well, they obviously tried to do something, but it clearly wasn’t enough. Additionally, they didn’t have a means to communicate what they knew about this kid with each other, and the possible danger he posed to everyone around him.”

That is because they did not have absolute proof of it.

“however you must agree that a nutcase can take out a lot of people in a short amount of time with guns,”

Of course.
But I also know that a lot of people could have prevented that nutcase from doing as much harm if they were allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

“and that this is why people always immediately focus on the stunning effectiveness of that weapon when a tragedy like this one occurs.”

It can also be “stunningly effective” in stopping him. The fact that some nut does this once or twice a year shows that there are more responsible gun owners than nutcases.

“I think the only people who say that government can’t do anything correctly and in an organized fashion are those who honestly don’t want it to work.”

“If I was acting as crazy as this kid was? For years? HELL, YES.”

What if you aren’t acting like this guy and was just a shy, darker skinned person whose neighbor reported them to the govt, not for the “tell on your neighbor gun control” but for the “tell on your neighbor, terrorist control?”
Still a HELL YES?
Do we really want to give up so much to go that far?

“Fine, but just think over what I’ve said anyway.”

I always do ma’am. Even when I frustrate you to your wits end and even your conspiracy theories :)

Ron,
31 less dead kids? You’re presuming someone would have shot Cho before he shot his first victim.

Perhaps lives might have been saved during that particular day, but how many more would die during the average school year due to accidents, arguments and the easy availablity of a weapon, and of course, the presence of drinking and bravado.

Thanks, AP.

kctim:
“The only way we can have more oversight is if we agree that the govt should dictate who is allowed to own a gun.”

I think the govt. should be allowed to dictate that crazy people can have guns, yes. Everybody else can get one.

“What we have now is already intrusive enough.”

I don’t agree. As we’ve been discussing in this thread, every state has widely differing standards over what information needs to be given when buying a gun. Some are super lax, and some are more stringent, I believe it’s only being wise to make it stringent at point of purchase. And I do think it’s a good idea if all states required waiting periods and fingerprinting and a photo. If people intend to be responsible and law abiding with the use of their gun, they have nothing to fear from such requirements.

“There are already thousands of “safeguards” in place.”

Could you please elaborate here? I ask because as far as I can tell, there aren’t very many.

“The next step, as you all have said, is for us to get govt permission to practice our right.”

Not “govt. permission”, but simple oversight, to protect the common good.

“It would be even less of a right than what we have already made it.”

Having a right to something doesn’t mean you get to be irresponsible, Tim. That’s my whole point.

“If we give up our 2nd Amendment rights totally, our country would no longer be what it was founded as. I do not wish to live in that country.”

I don’t want us to give up that right either. But I also don’t want to give up my life because people decide that any oversight is asking too much. As for our country, look at the one we’re living in now — one where a complete nutcase whose professors and fellow students were scared of could go buy a gun with no waiting period, and a few days later go on a shooting spree at his school.

“That is because 99% of the time, a person is not clearly unstable until they do something horrific. Cho is a great example.”

No, he’s an example of someone who many people knew was clearly crazy — he was a timebomb waiting to blow.

“That is because they did not have absolute proof of it.”

He was a stalker who was locked up in a mental hospital, I’d say that seems proof enough for society to want to keep a gun out of someones hands.

“But I also know that a lot of people could have prevented that nutcase from doing as much harm if they were allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.”

So every college classroom in America should become a Wild West Show? Sure, maybe they can even issue official school-spirit holsters for everybody first day of class.

“The fact that some nut does this once or twice a year shows that there are more responsible gun owners than nutcases.”

It does. No argument there.

“What if you aren’t acting like this guy and was just a shy, darker skinned person whose neighbor reported them to the govt, not for the “tell on your neighbor gun control” but for the “tell on your neighbor, terrorist control?”
Still a HELL YES?”

No. But in this case the kid’s neighbors were people in the dorm where he lived, and he was stalking two of them.

“Do we really want to give up so much to go that far?”

In this case, at lot of innocent people gave up their lives.

[Sigh] Look, I don’t have all the answers, but I think it’s time we start addressing gun violence because there is just too damn much of it.

“I always do ma’am.”

:^) You always call me “ma’am” whenever you’re doing your best to annoy me. Don’t think I haven’t noticed that.

“Even when I frustrate you to your wits end”

Yes, because you’re totally unwilling to meet me half-way.

“and even your conspiracy theories :)”

Ha! Look who’s talking. ;^)

Whoops, first line there should have been:
I think the govt. should be allowed to dictate that crazy people CAN’T have guns, yes.

“If people intend to be responsible and law abiding with the use of their gun, they have nothing to fear from such requirements.”

Come on now. If people intend to be responsible and law abiding with their telephones, then they have nothing to fear if govt listens in on some of their calls either.

“Could you please elaborate here? I ask because as far as I can tell, there aren’t very many.”

There are thousands of gun laws in this country. The problem is not that we don’t have enough.

“Not “govt. permission”, but simple oversight, to protect the common good.”

It is the same thing.

“Having a right to something doesn’t mean you get to be irresponsible, Tim. That’s my whole point.”

The vast majority of people are not irresponsible ma’am, and they should not be treated as criminals for exercising their right. Thats my whole point.

“I don’t want us to give up that right either. But I also don’t want to give up my life because people decide that any oversight is asking too much.”

That is living in fear Adrienne. I refuse to do it over a terrorist hit that MAY happen and I refuse to do it because some nut MAY go crazy.

“As for our country, look at the one we’re living in now — one where a complete nutcase whose professors and fellow students were scared of could go buy a gun with no waiting period, and a few days later go on a shooting spree at his school.”

So scared that they chose to not protect themselves? Or were they so scared that they would have taken measures to protect themselves, but were forbidden by law to do so?

“No, he’s an example of someone who many people knew was clearly crazy — he was a timebomb waiting to blow.”

If he was “clearly crazy,” then he should have been locked up. He wasn’t though was he. Unless that govt list includes every tiny thing about a persons personal life and forbids gun ownership for even the slightest infraction or suspicion, it will be useless.

“He was a stalker who was locked up in a mental hospital, I’d say that seems proof enough for society to want to keep a gun out of someones hands.”

Convicted stalker or did the girls not file charges? And wasn’t he locked up for just a few days because of depression? Depression is a very common thing, do we really want people not getting help because they are afraid of losing their right to own a gun?

“So every college classroom in America should become a Wild West Show? Sure, maybe they can even issue official school-spirit holsters for everybody first day of class.”

The wild west show argument Adrienne? You’re better than that lame scare tactic.

“[Sigh] Look, I don’t have all the answers, but I think it’s time we start addressing gun violence because there is just too damn much of it.”

And I am not questioning your intentions about that either. I’m not playing a game of trying to one up you on anything about this.
We are on seperate sides of the issue and we both have to ask questions of one another so that something which protects our right and is helpful, can be found. Just as we both wish our reps would do.

”:^) You always call me “ma’am” whenever you’re doing your best to annoy me. Don’t think I haven’t noticed that.”

Actually, I’m prior military and was trained in a job which required strict discipline and respect so that my brothers in arms could count on me in any situation.
I also come from a military family where sir and ma’am was instilled in me when I was speaking with an adult.
Many people find it annoying but its a hard habit to break.

“Yes, because you’re totally unwilling to meet me half-way.”

I meet you half-way alot. I just play devils-advocate WAY to much I guess.
Except on this issue, I don’t want any lists :)

““and even your conspiracy theories :)”

Ha! Look who’s talking. ;^) “

Puleez! At least my conspiracy theories consist of little green men and not some evil Bush plot to rule the world :)

Ron,

So what’s your solution? Ban ALL guns? What if they did manage to get all the guns out of the hands of every single person in the country? Do you really think that would make it safer?

I think gun violence will drop drastically, yes.
Dare to give it a try?

If there weren’t any guns available the criminals would start using bows and arrows. And when those get ban they’d start using slingshots. And when those get ban they’ll start using knives.

The survival rate of injuries by these weapons are so high, in particular with today’s ER quality, compared to gun shot that you needs a logarithmic chart to plot both on the same chart.

Just when do ya stop banning things just to keep criminals from using them in crimes?

The objective is not reduce crime rate, but homicide rate. And there is a difference. Check… pretty much any western country.

There are a lot of nut cases out there, but the majority of gun owners are responsible and don’t use them for criminal purposes.

And? How that is helping to reduce this ridiculous homicide by firearm???

BTW, AFAIK there are a lot of nut case out there, but the majority of nukes owners are responsible and *never* used them. Except… well, whatever.

Funny how pro-gunners don’t want the same for the rest of the world. Trust my personnal responsability, but I wont trust yours.

No wonder it doesn’t works.

It’s never about someone using a gun to save their life or the life of someone else. And it does happen a hell of a lot more than the liberal anti gun media reports on.

What does happen a hell lot more also is when people save their life or the life of someone else by not using a gun they don’t need, own or even buy. Damned media.

Could you imagine what campus life would be like if a majority of students packed a Saturday night special? Ridiculous!

Well, there would be 31 less dead kids.

That’s plain speculation. You could also speculate there would be 20 dead, 5 being self-defense collateral victims, and the shooter successfully escape the school during the self-defense confusion.
Both share some valid probality, you know.
Check again friendly fire reports about confusion under stress (or worst, fire) to get a better idea of the usual dramatic effect.

What is not: 32 deaths by bullets fired from a single gun.
What is not: students on campus are there to learn, not fighting.

But, I see your points, noway guns can be that deadly weapons when used, the *only* issue is that not everybody have one, which ruins the detterence power of carring one. In fact, the whole world population should be armed, day and night. Violence will drop.
No doubt.
Make sense.

Well, if you don’t learn from humankind history, that is.

kctim:
“There are thousands of gun laws in this country. The problem is not that we don’t have enough.”

Too vague. There are thousands of laws when you add them up state by state, but the truth looks to be that most states aren’t nearly doing enough to keep guns out of the hands of people who are unstable. And because of that, it is giving gun owners a bad, and largely undeserved reputation.

“I meet you half-way alot. I just play devils-advocate WAY to much I guess.
Except on this issue, I don’t want any lists”

I see that. You have not moved an inch in this discussion about this issue. And the thing is, I know that you are stubbornly holding to a position that is easily attacked by anti-gun advocates. If this persists, and gun violence in this country continues to accelerate as it has been, I think we may well see our 2nd Amendment rights disappear entirely. Personally, I would prefer that we avoid that.

David:

Excellent article. I say that even though I believe in gun control. You have stimulated a thoughtful discussion.

I agree with your list of contributors to violence. However, the source of these contributors is the American attitude toward competition. When you have Americans of all kinds running around saying “I’m better than you,” I’m smarter than you,” I’m richer than you,”… and then stiffing others in so many ways to prove it, it leads to violence.

Excessive competition leads to selfishness, disregard for others, a lack of civility, too much emphasis on money - and violence of all kinds.

Let’s teach compassion and the value of community in our schools.

Therein lies the problem Adrienne.
For a majority of us pro 2nd Amendment people, what you propose IS the end of our 2nd Amendment rights.

And, you are aware that you neither have moved from your desire to have govt control who may be armed, right?

Many of us believe we have already given up way too much. You believe more is needed. It really is a stalemate if you ask me.

Interesting article in case you haven’t seen it yet.

http://men.msn.com/articlepollgc.aspx?cp-documentid=4732850>1=9311

I’m guessing the Dems learned their lesson about this in previous elections where they were removed from power. Wanna bet they don’t get too crazy about this until after the 08 election?

kctim, interesting article. Here’s one for you to read. I discovered it on the same page as the link you gave me.

“For a majority of us pro 2nd Amendment people, what you propose IS the end of our 2nd Amendment rights.”

That’s an unnecessarily dramatic stance to take, in my view.

“Many of us believe we have already given up way too much.”

If background checks are considered giving up too much, I can see why far left anti-gun advocates talk about far right gun advocates like they’ve got a screw loose.
I feel I’m firmly in the middle on this issue, able to see valid points on both sides — and I believe a bit of bending is definitely in order.
Thanks for the discussion.

I can only think of one thing scarier than being forced to shoot a deranged human being bent on killing me or my family and that is having to watch him shoot me and or my family because I am not prepeared to defend myself because I do not have a weapon.
I believe lesson one from this tragedy is the police cannot deal with this kind of an attack in a timely manner. Its unfornuate but they cannot and if they could would you really want to live in that world?

Paul, thanks for your comments. I am a competition advocate. But, at the same time, I can agree with you entirely. Here’s how.

As a young gymnast I was taught that I was part of a team, but, that the competition against was my failure to progress and grow. We were not taught to compete against each other, or other gymnastic teams. We were taught to compete against our own excuses and reasons for not becoming the very best that we could.

Later, when I was introduced to the Buddhist religion, I recognized this same philosophy. I already knew its wisdom from my gymnastic years. I converted within months.

Cooperation is always more productive than competition. But despite the growing number of Ph.D.’s in the world, the human race has a very long road toward maturity to internalize and make preeminent in their lives that elusive bit of wisdom.

It is a very difficult wisdom to incorporate in a world of infinite demand for finite resources. If we survive long enough, technology advances will also aid in our acceptance of cooperation and diminishing intra-human competition, by closing the demand-resource gap.

I take Maslow’s hierarchy pretty serious. If one has what one needs, happiness is little more than a decision that one is. Without those needs met, however, competition for resources and security preempt happiness, replacing it with satisfaction or, despair and frustration depending on how successful one is at competing with others.

It seems that many people are focusing on the gun as the cause of the massacre in VT and have come to the foregone conclusion that restricting guns would have prevented the tragic loss of life. The VT massacre, however, was perpetrated by an individual who wanted to kill people. Now he choose to do that with a gun, but the fact of the matter remains that he wanted to kill people. What I am concerned with is the “why” not so much the “how.” Why did he want to kill people? Legislating the “how” ignores the underlying problems of “why” he choose to kill.

The person decided to kill and choose a gun to do it. He did not find a gun and decide to kill. Whether you support gun ownership, oppose gun ownership, or simply want to see tougher restrictions, the “gun” did not kill those people, the “person” killed those people. Now this is not to say that gun legislation is bad and won’t fix anything, but to ONLY focus on gun legislation has the net effect of ignoring the underlying problem.

Peter, those of us interested in the “how” are interested because if creeps like Cho could not access any guns there would be far fewer fatalities, perhaps only one or two stabbed before everyone could wrestle him to the ground and disarm him as what happened in my school three months ago (see my earlier comment). I agree with you 100% that the “why” part is very important as well, adjustments need to be made to the mental health system and a standard procedure that is actually followed when authorities investigate person who is a homicide or suicide risk.

Peter R. Eichman,

The person decided to kill and choose a gun to do it. He did not find a gun and decide to kill.

True.

Whether you support gun ownership, oppose gun ownership, or simply want to see tougher restrictions, the “gun” did not kill those people, the “person” killed those people.

The gun make it way easier for him to killed many people.
If he had decide to kill people only with his hands, he can’t have killed 32 people. Maybe one, maybe two, but while it’s his decision that make 32 people dead, the choosend tool allows him to kill *that* much easily.

The gun efficiency play a major role in the bill.

Now this is not to say that gun legislation is bad and won’t fix anything, but to ONLY focus on gun legislation has the net effect of ignoring the underlying problem.

I agree. I’m just against the idea that guns “deadly efficiency” play no role here, as many pro-guns are pushing.

“The gun make it way easier for him to killed many people.
If he had decide to kill people only with his hands, he can�t have killed 32 people. Maybe one, maybe two, but while it�s his decision that make 32 people dead, the choosend tool allows him to kill *that* much easily”

Not true Philippe. People like Dahmer have done it without the use of a gun before. Why? Because they all were, or are, sick.

Peter makes a very good case. If we were to concentrate on the “why,” there would be alot more support for better measures to be enacted.

kctim,

I didn’t know who’s Dahmer. I guess you’re refering Jeffrey Dahmer here, a serial killer who didn’t needs gun to killed 17 people, indeed.
Most occuring over a 2 years span. For the later murders, the rate climb up to 2 per week.

2 *years*. A week. Not 2 *hours*.
It’s not the same time scale, isn’t it?

Philippe
It is still mass murder by a person who needed attention. He did not need a gun to commit his crimes either.

That is the reason Peter’s and others posts makes so much sense. Maybe we need to cut down on the immediate emotional reaction which is to ban guns or further restrict them, and look more at the why, such as he suggested.

you are asking people to give up their Constitutional right and make it a permission bestowed upon them by govt.

kctim, 32 kids are dead, and you insist that we must allow crazy people to buy guns because it says so in the Constitution?

To quote you guys who think the government should be allowed to spy on and secretly detain American citizens, “The Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact.”

Look, I’m all for gun ownership — I love the smell of gunpowder and oil — but only responsible citizens should have guns. Cho was obviously not a responsible citizen.

As I’ve said before, as long as some people advocate gun rights irregardless of a person’s ability to use them responsibly, you’ll hear the term “gun nut” thrown around.

Here’s a thought. Rather than have the government control gun ownership, how about an independent entity — maybe even the NRA — makes the decision on who is responsible enough to own a gun, and then make the decider legally responsible for any criminal activity committed by people they certify?

Rather than just blindly cite the second amendment, why not come up with an acceptable solution that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people?

kctim, if you are going to rely upon strict interpretation of the Constitution’s 2nd amendment you must be for children having a ‘right’ to firearms, and freed slaves of that time.

You see you can’t have it both ways. It is either a “militia” or it is every citizen of the U.S.’s right to buy and own firearms, including 4 year olds, and felons on probation.

The instant you grant that the 2nd Amendment does not grant rights to EVERY CITIZEN regardless of age or other legal status, you must grant that the Congress has the Constitutional authority to set parameters and certain limits on the ‘right’ to bear arms.

adrienne

“Because in violation of the 4th Amendment the Neocons didn’t bother to get warrants, instead, they chose to circumvent the law with no oversight. When there is probable cause,”

except for the neocon part, i would agree. i don’t believe we should give up our rights in order to feel a little safer. that is why i also have to agree with kctim. i’m an owner operator, that is i own a commercial truck and haul rock, sand, gravel, and so on. in order to make a living i’m required to submit to random drug testing, not because i’ve done anything, just incase i might decide to. we give up more and more of our constitutional rights every day to feel a little safer and this is a dangerous thing. once we turn over our rights to our gov’t we seldom get them back.

No AP. I insist on saying responsible Americans should not loose their right simply because of the actions of a nut.

I actually do not support govt spying on us. Never have and never will.
Funny how you are willing to quote “The Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact” for this but mock those who use it for terrorist though.

And as I’ve said before, as long as people insist that govt should grant permission to exercise their rights, the terms “socialists,” “confiscation” and “unconstitutional” will be thrown around.

Here’s a better thought: Controlling gun ownership makes it no longer a right, even if its the NRA controlling it.
I don’t believe the IRS is technically a govt run organization is it? Look how that has turned out. They force, threaten and intimidate American citizens and confiscate their personal property. Man, I sure look forward having more of those types of organizations.

Blindly site the 2nd Amendment. You say that like its a bad thing. Oh wait, it is isn’t it. IF people know their rights, its that much harder to take them away.

David
I got my first gun on my fifth birthday and slavery is no longer part of the issue. But yes, they should have been allowed to be armed.

EVERY citizen of the US is the militia which protects us from govt. They cannot do that without the 2nd Amendment.
There is no “having it both ways” about it. The people either have a right to be armed or they don’t.
It is not the right to ask govt to keep and bear arms, is it.

Look, I realize the people have allowed govt to take away their rights based on the peoples fears and I know there is no getting them back.

This fear is why we already have a list to make sure we are not guilty. And, I know this fear is going to create more lists and more lists so people “feel” safer.

So, living in a Democracy as we now do and knowing that govt now grants us the rights it wants, how do we stop nuts from getting guns?
Either make a govt watch list where everybody must qualify to own any type of weapon.
OR
Get rid of the 2nd totally, not piecemeal, and then we will be a country without any gun crimes whatsoever, such as Europe.

Those are the only two viable options left.
Gun owners have already given up all the things which make it a right to own a gun. To take more, is to take away that right.
Either place the blame back on the nuts, where it belongs, or take away the right.

kctim said: “I got my first gun on my fifth birthday and slavery is no longer part of the issue. But yes, they should have been allowed to be armed.”

Well then, your issue is with the Founding Fathers for surely they did not act to protect or even speak of entitlement of freed slaves or mental defectives or prisoners to buy and own firearms, nor whole tribes of American Indians for that matter.

So, perhaps there is another country whose Constitution and founding father’s intent would suit you better on this issue? Because in this nation, from its beginning, the Constitution NEVER granted every person in America the right to own and bear arms. From the beginning, our government routinely confiscated weapons from many classes of Americans without our Founding Father’s objections, I might add.

Clearly, as a matter of historical record, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was never meant to extend to every person, but, instead to law abiding citizens for the purpose of defense, maintaining civil order, and food acquisition.

That leaves a host of folks which our Constitution as framed in the minds of its drafters, subject to different laws and policies which deny 2nd Amendment liberty, just as life is a right unless deprived by due process as in capital punishment.

You cannot make a logical case that the 2nd Amendment is without exceptions and above Congressional authority to modify and condition. For that has never, ever been the case in this country from its very founding.

Fact is, the best solution resides somewhere in the middle.

I don’t advocate “tearing the guns from your cold dead hands.” Those law abiding citizens who currently own legal weapons should keep them. The types of weapons available should be addressed again. Assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, those who sell kits to make weapons fully automatic, should be banned. There is no justification for anyone owning a fully automatic assault weapon, in my opinion.

The process to purchase should be uniform and unyielding. As Dennis Miller said, it takes a week to get my dry cleaning back and 15 minutes to get a gun. Something is wrong with that statement.

In a sensible way, we need to regulate guns themselves, the process to ownership, and the qualifications of the owner. It is a solution no one will probably like, which makes it perfect.

David
Out of curiousity, which of those groups of people were considered US citizens?
Which class of US citizens did the founders not object taking rights from?
Even so, they were not perfect but they did set a Republican form of govt which worked for a long time.

Again with the leave the country if I don’t like what it has become argument huh.

“Clearly, as a matter of historical record, the intent of the 2nd Amendment was never meant to extend to every person, but, instead to law abiding citizens for the purpose of defense, maintaining civil order, and food acquisition”

Clearly? Great, I would love to see where it was said that govt should control and monitor the people exercising the right they gave them.
Kind of flys in the face of protecting ourselves from govt tyranny, but I’m open to learn.

“You cannot make a logical case that the 2nd Amendment is without exceptions and above Congressional authority to modify and condition. For that has never, ever been the case in this country from its very founding”

How do we change or add an Amendment again?
Should we allow our govt to go out and violate, change or add Amendments every time an emotional tragedy occurs? Oh wait, we did that with Columbine and 9-11 didn’t we. Alot of people really didn’t like that too much did they.

I am hardly knowledgable enough to argue what the founders “really meant” David. But I do know what they said about being armed and that they gave us a right to be armed, without govt infringing on that right.

Fear is a dangerous thing to govern by.

Chi-Chi
“Fact is, the best solution resides somewhere in the middle.”

We have reached the middle. Anything else makes it no longer a right.

“The types of weapons available should be addressed again. Assault weapons, fully automatic weapons, those who sell kits to make weapons fully automatic, should be banned. There is no justification for anyone owning a fully automatic assault weapon, in my opinion.”

Why? Cho used a 22 and a 9mm(?) It wouldn’t have stopped him.

“In a sensible way, we need to regulate guns themselves, the process to ownership, and the qualifications of the owner. It is a solution no one will probably like, which makes it perfect.”

Then “we the people” should let govt do it Chi Chi. It doesn’t get any harder to understand than that.
Follow the required steps and take away the right to keep and bear arms and make us a “safe” country like the Europeans, where they have no gun deaths or crimes.

There is just one little problem with doing that isn’t there: Too many Americans still believe in their rights and still love being a citizen of the US.

There are still too many people who do not fear guns and who do not believe in taking the blame off the nut and placing it on the gun.
Give it another 10 or 15 years though. It will be alot easier then.

kctim said: “But I do know what they said about being armed and that they gave us a right to be armed, without govt infringing on that right.”

Well what you don’t seem to grasp is that, that right was not without condition. And I will give you a glaring example. They never took police power away from the government. Police have always had the authority and power to confiscate weapons from those misusing them or intending to in accordance with laws, highly different laws too, varying from state to state.

It never occurred to our Founding Fathers in their writings that this was a violation of the 2nd amendment. It was a given exception understood and recognized both as common knowledge and in writing in the powers of the Executive Branch.

If our founding fathers feared the government taking arms away from citizens, they would never have granted police powers to the executive in the event of civil disturbance, riot, or insurrection. For that has always been a part of the Constitution as well. The power of government to take weapons from those engaged in such activities. And the Congress has always had the authority to legislate whatever the people want. It is up to the Supreme Court to determine if such legislation violates the Constitution, not the people, unless they can amend the Constitution.

You can’t just take one passage from our Constitution and defend it verbatim. The Constitution is a complex and interwoven, interdependent document. And in many ways, what the Constitution giveth with the one hand, it taketh or modifieth with the other, and vice versa.

The Constitution also is a product of its time, with language we don’t speak today, and whose cultural and historical context at the time of its writing, gave specific meaning in its time and tongue that is not so obvious upon reading today.

The Constitution is loaded with assumptions of its day, taken for granted kind of items. Like the fear of any religious order gaining control of government and erecting itself as a national religion. That was a real fear then, in light of what had transpired in Europe forcing emigration to the colonies. They were serious about separation of church of state as a reaction to the merging of church and state in England and the liberties that were lost as a result.

Well said, Chi Chi.

kctim:

“Why? Cho used a 22 and a 9mm(?) It wouldn’t have stopped him.”

I, unlike you, am not reacting to just this instance. I thought we were having a broader discussion.

“Follow the required steps and take away the right to keep and bear arms and make us a “safe” country like the Europeans, where they have no gun deaths or crimes.”

Where are you getting this. I am not advocating that at all. I don’t think this is an all or nothing proposition. Both sides need to give a little ground to find something that will work. And don’t give me the slippery slope crap. Giving a little now may help preserve more of what you want, rather than the usual “pry it from my cold dead fingers” balogna. Both sides need to understand that taking extreme stances only bolters the resolve of your opposite. Requiring owners to simply list what weapons they own is a far cry from what you envision.

“There is just one little problem with doing that isn’t there: Too many Americans still believe in their rights and still love being a citizen of the US.”

Great. So exercise that right. No one is stopping you. Again, taking extreme views reaches no resolve. But then again, I suppose if ya aint got a gun ya aint a real American anywho. Exercise your rights. But, like any and every other right granted by the Constitution, exercise that right responsibly, reasonably, and not at the cost of other’s rights.

“There are still too many people who do not fear guns and who do not believe in taking the blame off the nut and placing it on the gun.”

This is a distinction without a difference. The gun his generally harmless without the nut. The nut is generally harmless without the gun. Put them together and you have a problem. As I said in my first post, it takes a week to get dry cleaning back but 15 minutes to buy a gun. Slow down the process. Your right to bear arms is not guaranteed to be speedy. What is the harm? And the time can heel a lot of ills.

David R Remer:

Thanks.

I insist on saying responsible Americans should not loose their right simply because of the actions of a nut.

So, you’re fighting for the right of psychopaths like Cho and Dhamer to own guns? Shit happens, but don’t restrict gun ownership?

David is right, the Constitution doesn’t say every man woman and child has the right to own a gun. The second amendment says,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The assumption was that citizens would be called on to defend the country. There was no standing army at the time. It seems fairly clear that the 2nd amendment only pertains to citizens who would be expected to defend America from attack.

Given that the United States has a standing army to defend “the security of a free State”, the necessity of the amendment is in question.

I don’t advocate getting rid of it — I really do love my gun — but it’s fairly clear that the Founders placed a restriction on gun