1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Niu Killer Tried Suicide 4 Times

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by rainbowbob, Jul 11, 2008.


Should he have been able to purchase firearms based on his known history?

  1. Yes

    7 vote(s)
  2. No

    31 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rainbowbob

    rainbowbob Member

    Jan 15, 2008
    Seattle, WA
    I would like to know whether you think Kazmierczak's right to legally purchase firearms should have been forfeited based on his known history of mental illness - including 4 attempted suicides.
  2. wally

    wally Member

    Jan 2, 2004
    Houston, Tx
    If the Army kicked him out, no way. Isn't a dishonorable discharge one of the questions on the 4472 buyers form for the instant check?

  3. jrfoxx

    jrfoxx Member

    Sep 23, 2004
    Yes, it is, but getting a true "dishonorable" is usually pretty darn hard.Most get an "administartive", or at worst "other than honorable", neither of which disqualifies you.
  4. camslam

    camslam Member

    Jul 21, 2006
    Chilling Out in the Valley of The Sun
    Probably not, but only if you have the ability to see the future.

    This is one of my problems with our gun laws. I would love to be able to keep all people that are dangerous away from guns, but that is absolutely impossible.

    As rare as it is, we have CCW permit holders that have shot and killed people. With the millions of people that have those permits, it is inevitable it will happen again.

    What I am saying is you cannot keep dangerous people from hurting others. The only thing you can do is be prepared if you encounter them.

    That is why we need to be able to carry our guns at all times and in all places if desired. Obviously with the current rules in place of having a background check, fingerprints, class instruction, and a valid permit to do so.
  5. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Jul 18, 2007
    Galveston, TX
    I think that, as far as the Federal government is concerned, he should have been able to purchase a gun.
    Because of the potential corruption that can come from allowing the Federal government to set boundaries on who is a citizen and who is a subject.
    I, myself, have manic depression, and have come very close a few times. However, that has become a part of my own situation, a part of the growth that I have experienced in learning to deal with my problem.
    I have suffered for my depression and my beliefs (they tend to be a devastating combination to one's social weight), and I have experienced the law's hand in the matter.
    It was not pleasant, nor just.
    I am also getting my first rifle in a few days, an Enfield No. 4 Mk. I.
    Should I be barred from firearm ownership?
    Now, in hindsight, we all can see that this person was not me; he was not capable of dealing with his problems.
    But, to the Federal government, what is the difference between me now and Kazmierczak before the shooting?
    Nothing. There is no possible distinction that can be made between our two case files, so to speak.
    My point is that no government agency can say with true authority who is sane and who is not; and thus can have no (just) standing on the matter.
    If I had known Mr. Kazmierczak, I would imagine that I would have known that he was not fit to use a firearm. But he was probably also not fit to use a car or a knife. The Federal government is not one person, and thus cannot know Mr. Kazmierczak or anyone else, and so cannot pass a judgment of "citizen" or "subject" on them.
    These statements raise the question, of course, "how does one keep order in a society if the Federal government cannot prevent unrevealed psychopaths from possessing arms?"
    The answer is: by arming the populace and through the state and local governments.
    While state and local governments carry no more true authority than the Federal government, they are more local and humanized, and there are also 50 flavors of them. In addition, they are easier to change than the Federal government (and, one can pray, can be abolished and re-established by a well-meaning and well-doing Federal government if found by the populace to be oppressive. i.e., they have to answer to someone. There is of course the caveat that this on a wide or repeated scale drastically increases the size of the Federal government).
    The only restriction on firearms that I believe is prudent is that of thrice-convicted felons, with the option of appeal.
  6. Neo-Luddite

    Neo-Luddite Member

    Sep 13, 2006
    Northwest IL--the other 'Downstate'
    People get admin discharges for medical conditions early on in military service all of the time--almost always under honorable conditions.

    Esquire is dragging this story out to get some more miles out of it IMO, just in time to go back to school.

    My wife and I are both alums of Northern and had many, many classes in Cole; it offers little avenue for easy escape but plenty of cover for someone with a CCW to take up a defensive position.
    Illinois is a right-denied state.

    The law in Illinois has changed effective June 1st and ANY medical practioner can alert the state police if they believe a patient of theirs is a threat to self or others; and can do so with no fear of ANY civil liability.
    The ISP can then revoke their FOID card.

    Should the killer at NIU have been prohibited from purchase--maybe. But the thing to consider is that adding more mental health regulation to the RKBA will lead us down a path that will end the private transfer and sale fo firearms--I can't see any other ultimate result.

    Once more, from what I've heard of the this young man--he was as smart as he was disturbed (or mentally ill if you prefer); he could have probably come up with something far more deadly than a shooting rampage in terms of carnage.
  7. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Dec 24, 2002
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    [sincerity] The gods be thanked we're a medical state rather than a police state! [/sincerity]
  8. La Pistoletta

    La Pistoletta Member

    Jan 6, 2004
    You have to have objectively defined criteria for rendering someone unable to purchase a firearm.

    The only such criterion suitable for prescription by the government is the person in question being a convicted criminal.
  9. .cheese.

    .cheese. Member

    Feb 13, 2007
    I don't think so.

    Especially considering that lack of or low levels of serotonin can be corrected with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and similar drugs.

    The article mentions nothing about a history of violence towards others, homicidal tendencies, or anything similar.

    I'm of the camp that if somebody wants to kill themselves, who cares whether they have a gun or not? The fact that he failed 4 times suggests to me that he didn't REALLY want to die, because if he did, to actually do so would be incredibly easy to manage with or without a gun. He had 4 cries for help.

    Fascination can mean a lot of things. Every night on some channel there is a documentary about some killer of some sort. Does everybody who watches such shows have a "fascination" with the subject? I'd say so. Does that mean that they are going to kill? No, because if that were the case, we'd all be dead by now.

    Just the other day there was a thread on here with a powerpoint presentation showing X-rays and photos of a dead body that had been shot multiple times with Hornady TAP .223 and Speer Gold Dot .40 S&W. I found it fascinating, if nothing else from a scientific point of view. Does that make me a sick bastard? I don't think so. If it does, you might as well lock up every medical doctor out there, because at some point in their training, they learned by working on cadavers.

    There are a million ways any one of us could be classified by the mainstream press as sick, twisted, and dangerous. That's why you should read the paper with a certain level of skepticism.

    Hindsight is 20/20.... the press can do what they want, but I don't think we yet have any way of knowing who will kill, and who will not - and until we have a method that ensures 100% accuracy, I don't feel taking away somebody's right to protect themselves is warranted. The same crowd that is afraid that a suicidal individual might kill himself with a gun wants to take away his ability to own a gun and protect himself from others who would kill him? What sense does that make? Either way, the person is in danger and frankly, it's none of our business to decide whether he can end his own life, but it is negligent for us to ensure that he can't protect his own life.

    Not to mention that somebody hell bent on homicide will find a way to carry it out no matter what. Jack the Ripper didn't have a gun, and plenty of other killers didn't either. Similarly, plenty of killers who had guns didn't buy them legally - so what's the point?
  10. CountGlockula

    CountGlockula Member

    Oct 1, 2006
    In a Los Angeles coffin.
    Dude's pretty messed up.
  11. .cheese.

    .cheese. Member

    Feb 13, 2007
    Well, I think it's more than just that considering that he's dead. :eek:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page