"Rules should have barred weapon purchase"

"Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Vendaval -> "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 2:56:42 AM)
"Rules should have barred weapon purchase" By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 26 minutes ago "McLEAN, Va. - A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks. " (break) " Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead. The Virginia attorney general's office declined to discuss the application of gun laws to Cho's case. Barnett also declined to comment. The state uses a slightly different standard than the federal government, barring sales to individuals who have been judged "mentally incapacitated." George Burke, a spokesman for Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (news, bio, voting record) of New York, said millions of criminal and mental-health records are not accessible to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, mostly because state and local governments lack the money to submit the records. McCarthy has sponsored legislation since 2002 that would close loopholes in the national background check system for gun purchases. Initially states were required to provide all relevant information to federal authorities when the instant background checks were enacted, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling relieved them of that obligation. "The law is very confused about this," said Richard Bonnie, a professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Virginia who heads a state commission on mental-health reform. "The source of the confusion is the relation between federal and state law." " http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/virginia_tech_shooting_weapons;_ylt=Av1usSdtJGlULPTSr1643hlH2ocA

meatcleaver -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 4:02:08 AM)
I think it just shows how meaningless rules are when there is a buck to be made out of selling weapons to any passing nut who wants one.

LadyEllen -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 5:17:14 AM)
The rules indeed, do not seem to be well put together or applied. But then, as in UK, if he wanted a gun he could have got one, regardless of being barred. E

BOUNTYHUNTER -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 5:23:34 AM)
Yeper, swaps meets and flea markets all around with short guns sold and traded out in the open...bounty

meatcleaver -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 5:52:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen But then, as in UK, if he wanted a gun he could have got one, regardless of being barred. E When someone is killed by a gun it is national news because it is still relatively rare but spouting it all over the national news makes it feel common place. Gun crime is 0.05% of all violent crime (though a definitition of what all violent crime is would be helpful) Gun crime in London has dropped 11.9% this year and something like 7% last year. Where there is a serious problem is black on black gun crime. However the chances of an ordinary white person getting caught up in gun crime without being the criminal are miniscule. I just came across this paragraph in an article in today's Guardian. In 2004-05, there were 78 fatal shootings in England and Wales: 40 victims were white, 25 black, seven Asian. The figures do not record the ethnicity of the killers but, by and large, murderers tend mostly to target members of their own ethnic group. In 2005-06, there were 50 fatal shootings: 18 victims were white, 19 black and four Asian.

LadyEllen -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 6:02:57 AM)
I wonder if there are any figures from pre the ban in UK, and disregarding psychotics like the two who made the ban possible, of gun related crime and deaths originating from legally held firearms? Our regulation and barring system failed in those two cases, abysmally. Now we have a thriving black market in weapons in the UK. No joke, no exaggeration - I could be armed by tomorrow if I ask the right person in the area where I live. E

MellowSir -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 6:04:51 AM)
Remember for every law that's made, there is someone who will break it. Once control of guns was lost, it was lost for good, next topic.....

meatcleaver -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 6:13:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Our regulation and barring system failed in those two cases, abysmally. Now we have a thriving black market in weapons in the UK. No joke, no exaggeration - I could be armed by tomorrow if I ask the right person in the area where I live. E So could I but there is a big difference in the mind set between Western Europe and the US which plays an important part in gun culture. In the US guns are an iconic part of macho culture and ownership of a gun appears to be in some sections of American society (according to posts on here), aspirational. Here in Europe you are less than zero if you possess a gun for any purpose other than hunting and as far as I'm aware there is no worthwhile hunting in urban areas. The status of the gun in society plays an important part of the overall psychology when it comes to the use of guns. Young blacks males having a particular pronblem with the import from America of gangsta culture.

Rule -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 6:16:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver I just came across this paragraph in an article in today's Guardian. In 2005-06, there were 50 fatal shootings: 18 victims were white, 19 black and four Asian. Them Guardians cannot count these days. quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I could be armed by tomorrow if I ask the right person in the area where I live. So buy one with a muffler, or buy a stun gun, or stumble and accidentally shoot through the door when an obnoxious guy is banging on it.

LadyEllen -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 6:23:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver So could I but there is a big difference in the mind set between Western Europe and the US which plays an important part in gun culture. In the US guns are an iconic part of macho culture and ownership of a gun appears to be in some sections of American society (according to posts on here), aspirational. Here in Europe you are less than zero if you possess a gun for any purpose other than hunting and as far as I'm aware there is no worthwhile hunting in urban areas. The status of the gun in society plays an important part of the overall psychology when it comes to the use of guns. Young blacks males having a particular pronblem with the import from America of gangsta culture. Absolutely. There is no real reason or argument for me to have a gun. Trouble is, I've yet to hear one good reason or argument for me not to have a gun, should I want one. E

LadyEllen -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 6:27:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen I could be armed by tomorrow if I ask the right person in the area where I live. So buy one with a muffler, or buy a stun gun, or stumble and accidentally shoot through the door when an obnoxious guy is banging on it. Problem with that Rule, is that I would get five years minimum just for possessing the gun, plus something more for discharging it, plus something more to that if I actually hit the prat. Similar applies whatever weapon I used. As explained before, I'd last a day in a male prison (which is where I'd go) and maybe two days in a female prison. Meanwhile I'd lose my home and possessions and my kids would be out on the street. Not an acceptable return on self defence, I'm sure you'd have to agree. Much better is what I'm up to at the moment to remove the problem. E

xBullx -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 7:10:15 AM)
Hello Vendaval, Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun....... If their unstable and have a wish to inflict harm they will....... I was listening to a Criminal Patholygists that said this is actually a communication failure between mental health and law enforcement folks. This report made excellent sense. He said the ACLU needs to consider the civil liberties of the dead at a place like Va Tech when they fight to preserve the rights of a mad man. Doctors often have suspicions of a man being like this and do to liberties and doctor patient codes they allow these men to walk our politically correct streets. These men are allowed more right to life in the US system then the victums they conspire against. I'm not for more laws, I'm for being able to enforce those we have and finding a way to better identify these troubled souls before they snap. We waste time studying less important things, why not put more effort into this. Rules don't stop senseless death; education, awareness and a proactive stance are the best hope to quell this needless loss of life. If you turn your back and say, ohhh, this won't happen to me you will in time join the national statistics lists. Live well, Bull edited for hopefully correct spelling of the name

Rule -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 7:18:15 AM)
Elvis is dead. Timothy is having a beer.

xBullx -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 7:33:11 AM)
I suppose that means something to you..........

Rule -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 7:37:54 AM)
I will elucidate: it means that Timothy is not unstable. It means that people who say "I saw Timothy the other day" are more credible than people who say "I saw Elvis the other day".

pahunkboy -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 7:45:08 AM)
the brady bill is too strict. it is not just felonies that can ban you. incidently watching the local redneck and pickup truck lcale herer for 20 yrs- the murders we do have in the 4 county area range from a hammmer- to a woman poisoning her abusive husband- , a knife. guns are only maybe 25% locally, one shooting at a university and everyone goes mad. the perps have it all wrong. the releveent target is malls-big box stores. [globalization] if a person does such to be infamous- ppl forget your name. IM "soome good" will come out of this. teh ivory tower crowd needs to get its head straight and instead of thesisizing/trivializing the whoas of the US- come up with solutions. incidently- folks wiht Phds, taaaaake a shtt just like us commen folk do. gasp

vield -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 7:58:45 AM)
One interesting point about gun purchase rules is that the only law abiding citizens can be convicted of violating rules about background checks, permits, waiting periods or types of guns one can own. Convicted felons are barred by federal law from any degree of gun possession, so their Fifth Admendment protection against self incrimination protects them from any penalty resulting from not following purchase, permit or registration regulations.

xBullx -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 8:06:52 AM)
So you believe blowing up a bunch of folk that have nothing to do with your angst is stable. I suppose you believe that stablity also flows through a man with a mind childish enough to believe he is getting 70 virgins upon slaughtering civilians that have no part in his "war". Timothy was not stable in his deductions on who was his enemy. How many of those children in day care were effecting his right to life? He may have been competent to stand trial, but that doesn't mean he was stable in his deductive reasoning.He may have control enough of his facilties to essemble his destructive machine, but that does not coincide with mental clarity. He was lead astray at some point, by either an internal or external force. In my opinion, he was shakey at best. There are productive ways to facilitate your angst, he failed to recognize that and in the end accomplished nothing to further his cause. Unless of course it was to simply get attention. He then succeeded and is in that regard stable I suppose. To further sate my point, stablity is not always concurrent with the possession or the lack of sanity. Or does it have anything to do with imaginary friends. So far as I see it, but I suppose you have some point. Bull P.S. If Timmy is having a beer he is sharing a table with Elvis, so I would sincerely doubt the credibility of anyone having seen him yesterday.

LadyEllen -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 8:07:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Hello Vendaval, Timothy McVey didn't use a gun....... If their unstable and have a wish to inflict harm they will....... I was listening to a Criminal Patholygists that said this is actually a communication failure between mental health and law enforcement folks. This report made excellent sense. He said the ACLU needs to consider the civil liberties of the dead at a place like Va Tech when they fight to preserve the rights of a mad man. Doctors often have suspicions of a man being like this and do to liberties and doctor patient codes they allow these men to walk our politically correct streets. These men are allowed more right to life in the US system then the victums they conspire against. I'm not for more laws, I'm for being able to enforce those we have and finding a way to better identify these troubled souls before they snap. We waste time studying less important things, why not put more effort into this. Rules don't stop senseless death; education, awareness and a proactive stance are the best hope to quell this needless loss of life. If you turn your back and say, ohhh, this won't happen to me you will in time join the national statistics lists. Live well, Bull Very sensible approach. Problem though is, how do we discern who is dangerous? There are incurable psychotics walking round who are not dangerous in any way - whilst I dont think its a good idea for them to have a gun, if theyre not dangerous then why shouldnt they, bearing in mind US constitutional rights? There are also problems with profiling - being solitary/excluding onesself from others does not necessarily indicate any likelihood of going on a killing spree. Neither does suffering from depression et al. And the other problem is, that those who are most dangerous - who are so angry at the world that they might pose a serious threat, are generally uncooperative with anyone intervening in their mindset, even if they make themselves known to be so - which is difficult when they are withdrawn in the first place. Yes, the rights of victims and potential victims override the rights of the criminally insane, but great care must be taken in identifying possibly dangerous individuals, that we didnt also sweep up a lot of people who fit a certain category but are not a perilous presence in society. I for instance, according to psychiatrists at least, have an incurable personality disorder. I also have had depression on and off. I was excluded at school and even now have few friends. I'm not a danger to anyone, yet I fit the profile pretty well for a serial killer. There are doubtless thousands, even hundreds of thousands who do too, who are no danger to anyone. E

meatcleaver -> RE: "Rules should have barred weapon purchase" (4/20/2007 8:15:46 AM)
The chances of being killed by a terrorist are less than winning the national lottery and I bet that is similar in the US. The chance of winning the national lottery is 14,000,000:1. Though the chance of being murdered is somewhat less at 1,000,000:1 but if you aren't a testoserone soaked young male the chance is somewhat less. If you are a young testosterone soaked male, your chances somewhat higher. There are a lot of other things that really should take precidence over this paranoia.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125