RavenVT100
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,107
Are you advocating this be done in ex post facto fashion similar to the Lautenberg bill?
VT Killer "legally" purchased pistols? Maybe not...
- Thread starter FW
- Start date
- Status
Knock it off, Mr. Ad Hominem.
I said I wouldn't be surprised. I didn't say I believed it.
Someone else has obliged by offering an alternative, superior explanation which takes into account VA state law. That is more than sufficient an explanation for me as to why he was able to pass NICS.
RavenVT100
Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,107
Nah. Never ascribe to malice what can be explained through incompetence.
Mods: Thanks for removing the dupes.
RNB65
Member
He would have gotten a gun, legal or not, or would have use something else. Let not forget this guy was going to make a horrific statement guns or not.
Comes back to my original argument, that no one was allowed to have a gun where he committed this, so no one could protect themselves or anyone else or try stop it. Except one extremely brave old man that lost his life trying.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" These people were just that, infringed.
Strings
Member
*sigh*
Everyone wants to obsess on the tools he used. The truth is, the tools didn't matter.
He could just as easily have taken a pair of machetes into the school, and started swinging: bodycount might not have been as high, but it would've been "spectacular" (which I get the impression he was trying for).
And other students could've done... something. TRY to fight back, somehow...
Everyone wants to obsess on the tools he used. The truth is, the tools didn't matter.
He could just as easily have taken a pair of machetes into the school, and started swinging: bodycount might not have been as high, but it would've been "spectacular" (which I get the impression he was trying for).
And other students could've done... something. TRY to fight back, somehow...
mountainclmbr
Member
I also heard he committed arson by setting a dormatory room on fire. That should be a felony if he was charged and convicted.
Im283
Member
You are kidding, right?
Media Frenzy; at least they're not (YET) blaming lax
VA gun laws.
Twould be futile (if not to them) inasmuch as the Federal checks through which he had to pass are much stricter.
The frenzy of which I speak is the frantic attempt by ALL MSM outlets to outdo each other to come up with a rational explanation for an irrational act.
And the horror of it is, they don't seem to realize that an irrational act, by its nature, defies rational explanation.
The guy was, not to belabor technical terms, a "nutcase". Whether he be certifiably insane and whether or not he was legally forbidden to purchase (I think not, due to laxity on the part of the "officials") and whether he lied on his 4473 (again I think not, due to the above doubts), the guy was definitely "commit the bitch" insane and should have been dealt with.
Although the media have dwelt somewhat on this aspect, they're still going batso trying to explain his madness in rational terms.
"STUFF" happens and the nutcases are everywhere out there and no laws or preventive measures can anticipate or prevent their irrationality.
Witness the half-dozen who have cropped up in just the last two days all over the country, trying to outdo the "VT Massacre".
Will the liberal media never let up or look at their own irrational behavior?
ElZorro
VA gun laws.
Twould be futile (if not to them) inasmuch as the Federal checks through which he had to pass are much stricter.
The frenzy of which I speak is the frantic attempt by ALL MSM outlets to outdo each other to come up with a rational explanation for an irrational act.
And the horror of it is, they don't seem to realize that an irrational act, by its nature, defies rational explanation.
The guy was, not to belabor technical terms, a "nutcase". Whether he be certifiably insane and whether or not he was legally forbidden to purchase (I think not, due to laxity on the part of the "officials") and whether he lied on his 4473 (again I think not, due to the above doubts), the guy was definitely "commit the bitch" insane and should have been dealt with.
Although the media have dwelt somewhat on this aspect, they're still going batso trying to explain his madness in rational terms.
"STUFF" happens and the nutcases are everywhere out there and no laws or preventive measures can anticipate or prevent their irrationality.
Witness the half-dozen who have cropped up in just the last two days all over the country, trying to outdo the "VT Massacre".
Will the liberal media never let up or look at their own irrational behavior?
ElZorro
JohnBT
Member
"the guy was definitely "commit the bitch" insane"
The problem is that it is NOT against the law to be insane. The requirement - the standard - that needs to be met to earn an involuntary commitment is: presents an imminent danger to self or others
It's a high standard to meet. Not 'might be dangerous', not 'sounds like he might be a threat', not 'crazy as a bedbug', not 'that's just nuts', but "presents and imminent danger to self or others."
Imminent - right now.
John
The problem is that it is NOT against the law to be insane. The requirement - the standard - that needs to be met to earn an involuntary commitment is: presents an imminent danger to self or others
It's a high standard to meet. Not 'might be dangerous', not 'sounds like he might be a threat', not 'crazy as a bedbug', not 'that's just nuts', but "presents and imminent danger to self or others."
Imminent - right now.
John
bob40caliber
Member
Strings
you are correct--the tools do not matter.....
he could have had a higher body count with a gallon of gas and a match.....
anyone remember a guy named Julio Gonzales--- 1990 Bronx,NY social club arson....killed 87....the tools do not matter...only the evil.
you are correct--the tools do not matter.....
he could have had a higher body count with a gallon of gas and a match.....
anyone remember a guy named Julio Gonzales--- 1990 Bronx,NY social club arson....killed 87....the tools do not matter...only the evil.
I think people need to step back and think before trying to make a knee jerk solution in an attempt to deflect an attack on your own gun rights.
Restraining orders as someone mentioned are issued all the time by many people in divorces or many types of civil court proceedings for nothing more than to gain leverage when there is no need. In fact they have become a standard for many lawyers.
Mental illness is also up to interpretation. In fact some of the key "warning signs" posted by the news as an indicator is an interest in weapons. SO technicaly we are all already partialy justified to be denied because we are on a gun websight and that alone is a red flag!
Many people are going to feel happy sometimes and sad other times. People are going to have break ups and relationship problems and deaths of family and friends. They are going to be doing well in in thier profession/school sometimes and struggling and maybe depressed about it another.
Drugs are a huge market and doctors are encouraged to prescribe them so anyone that decides to or is ordered to see a therapist would likely be on medication. I remember a study that showed Americans are on more drugs (legal) than most of the rest of the world.
So I guess at some point in most peoples lives they should be flagged as ineligable for firearm possession because a small percentage are unable to cope with the difficulties in life and will lash out against others?
We should complain that the authorities should identify people's mental state to determine thier rights more thoroughly to avoid problems? Of course that will increase the amount of people denied rights.
You can put up large nets and snares for many to catch a few, but many will be caught that are not the next nutjob. It also makes the argument that it is that much more of a privelidge and not a right. Encouraging that mindset with have it legislated away over time as new generations that grow up believing it is a privelidge that the government can dictate and not a right they should demand.
All of this simply to attempt to stop legal purchases by a very limited few that have not already become disqualified. I would rather be armed myself and have someone be able to obtain a firearm that I have a chance of defending myself or others against than just make an explosive/poison etc and be a suicide bomber I cannot defend against like they already do in parts of the world. At least here they try to go on a shooting spree and can be shot dead if people can defend themselves. There they just go to a crowded place and blow up.
Any knee jerk reaction to deflect attention from your rights by appeasing to the antis by handing over more power to disqualify more harmless potential gun rights supporters will only hurt us all in the end.
What happened was awful. The situation should be dealt with. The media should focus less on "record set in this killing" and coverage thereby encouraging more nutjobs to attempt to break the record themselves or suggesting a violent outlet for thier own emotional issues. Many mass killings such as the one in Australia that got thier guns banned happened right after a mass killing was heavily reported in the UK which resulted in thier gun bans. The guy that did the one in Australia was "inspired" by the heavy coverage of the guy UK event. No doubt some nutcase somewhere is going to be heavily inspired by the days of reporting and referencing the "record number" someplace. The solution is for more people in more places to be capable of stopping people willing to hurt others. Firearms are one of the best forms of defense because they give equal advantage to weak and strong, elderly and young, women and men. Less firearms will not only not stop such madmen, but will tip the scales in favor of the predominantly young men that commit such acts.
There will always be police to smuggle/steal from. Military to smuggle/steal from. Other citizens to steal from. Porous borders were living things cannot even be stopped, nevermind easier to smuggle inanimate objects. Home made weapons. As well as other sources of weapons. I recall just recently a few seperate instances of Law Enforcement storing weapons in vehicles that were stolen. Rewards were being offered that were less than the value of such weapons in the media. Included were such things as MP5s and other hardware most cannot even purchase which are now in the hands of criminals.
So let us not focus on ways to appease antis by disqualifying hundreds of thousands or millions of potential gun owners to stop a few that might slip through the cracks who can still and more commonly are armed elsewhere illegaly, but instead on ways more people can defend against people that do decide to do such things.
Restraining orders as someone mentioned are issued all the time by many people in divorces or many types of civil court proceedings for nothing more than to gain leverage when there is no need. In fact they have become a standard for many lawyers.
Mental illness is also up to interpretation. In fact some of the key "warning signs" posted by the news as an indicator is an interest in weapons. SO technicaly we are all already partialy justified to be denied because we are on a gun websight and that alone is a red flag!
Many people are going to feel happy sometimes and sad other times. People are going to have break ups and relationship problems and deaths of family and friends. They are going to be doing well in in thier profession/school sometimes and struggling and maybe depressed about it another.
Drugs are a huge market and doctors are encouraged to prescribe them so anyone that decides to or is ordered to see a therapist would likely be on medication. I remember a study that showed Americans are on more drugs (legal) than most of the rest of the world.
So I guess at some point in most peoples lives they should be flagged as ineligable for firearm possession because a small percentage are unable to cope with the difficulties in life and will lash out against others?
We should complain that the authorities should identify people's mental state to determine thier rights more thoroughly to avoid problems? Of course that will increase the amount of people denied rights.
You can put up large nets and snares for many to catch a few, but many will be caught that are not the next nutjob. It also makes the argument that it is that much more of a privelidge and not a right. Encouraging that mindset with have it legislated away over time as new generations that grow up believing it is a privelidge that the government can dictate and not a right they should demand.
All of this simply to attempt to stop legal purchases by a very limited few that have not already become disqualified. I would rather be armed myself and have someone be able to obtain a firearm that I have a chance of defending myself or others against than just make an explosive/poison etc and be a suicide bomber I cannot defend against like they already do in parts of the world. At least here they try to go on a shooting spree and can be shot dead if people can defend themselves. There they just go to a crowded place and blow up.
Any knee jerk reaction to deflect attention from your rights by appeasing to the antis by handing over more power to disqualify more harmless potential gun rights supporters will only hurt us all in the end.
What happened was awful. The situation should be dealt with. The media should focus less on "record set in this killing" and coverage thereby encouraging more nutjobs to attempt to break the record themselves or suggesting a violent outlet for thier own emotional issues. Many mass killings such as the one in Australia that got thier guns banned happened right after a mass killing was heavily reported in the UK which resulted in thier gun bans. The guy that did the one in Australia was "inspired" by the heavy coverage of the guy UK event. No doubt some nutcase somewhere is going to be heavily inspired by the days of reporting and referencing the "record number" someplace. The solution is for more people in more places to be capable of stopping people willing to hurt others. Firearms are one of the best forms of defense because they give equal advantage to weak and strong, elderly and young, women and men. Less firearms will not only not stop such madmen, but will tip the scales in favor of the predominantly young men that commit such acts.
There will always be police to smuggle/steal from. Military to smuggle/steal from. Other citizens to steal from. Porous borders were living things cannot even be stopped, nevermind easier to smuggle inanimate objects. Home made weapons. As well as other sources of weapons. I recall just recently a few seperate instances of Law Enforcement storing weapons in vehicles that were stolen. Rewards were being offered that were less than the value of such weapons in the media. Included were such things as MP5s and other hardware most cannot even purchase which are now in the hands of criminals.
So let us not focus on ways to appease antis by disqualifying hundreds of thousands or millions of potential gun owners to stop a few that might slip through the cracks who can still and more commonly are armed elsewhere illegaly, but instead on ways more people can defend against people that do decide to do such things.
Just like any court-ordered anti-stalking (i.e. restraining order) is a disqualifier.
Please Hicks, do you have any idea how easy it is to get a restraining order on someone? Would you want a crazy ex to keep you from defending yourself with a firearm?
Too many people on this board keep blaming the guns for what Cho did.
Please Hicks, do you have any idea how easy it is to get a restraining order on someone? Would you want a crazy ex to keep you from defending yourself with a firearm?
Too many people on this board keep blaming the guns for what Cho did.
John Hicks
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 143
Um, it's already a red flag in VA if you have a restraining order. This is regardless of how easy they are to get.
I value a court-ordered therapy decision (inpatient or outpatient) as having much more credence than a restraining order. In VA, at least a psychologist has to interview the person first, unlike a restraining order which is he-said/she-said.
Also, for the record, I don't like this, I'm just trying to find a way to fix the system.
Think like a "banner" for a second:
Their first thought is to ban all guns: not going to happen
Second thought is to ban the specific gun: common handgun, not going to happen (however they may try to ban a "feature" like high-cap mags)
Third strategy is to restrict who can buy one: already in place, easy to make changes to.
Fourth would be to start looking at ammo types: unlikely, but it has happened before.
Bottom line is that people will clamor for something to be done that "might" have stopped this from happening. Whether we like it or not, some legislation will be passed. Question is: do you want it focusing on the guns or preventing wackos from buying one?
The "dig in your heels crowd and give no ground" are just setting us up for a big loss in the future. It's an ugly game, politics, but you have to know how to play it. Thankfully in VA, we have VCDL calling the plays.
jh
I value a court-ordered therapy decision (inpatient or outpatient) as having much more credence than a restraining order. In VA, at least a psychologist has to interview the person first, unlike a restraining order which is he-said/she-said.
Also, for the record, I don't like this, I'm just trying to find a way to fix the system.
Think like a "banner" for a second:
Their first thought is to ban all guns: not going to happen
Second thought is to ban the specific gun: common handgun, not going to happen (however they may try to ban a "feature" like high-cap mags)
Third strategy is to restrict who can buy one: already in place, easy to make changes to.
Fourth would be to start looking at ammo types: unlikely, but it has happened before.
Bottom line is that people will clamor for something to be done that "might" have stopped this from happening. Whether we like it or not, some legislation will be passed. Question is: do you want it focusing on the guns or preventing wackos from buying one?
The "dig in your heels crowd and give no ground" are just setting us up for a big loss in the future. It's an ugly game, politics, but you have to know how to play it. Thankfully in VA, we have VCDL calling the plays.
jh
Bubbles
Member
Given the Parker case, this is the future of the anti-gunners. If they can't ban firearms, they'll work to expand the limits on who can own them. Right now felons, people who have been convicted of DV misdemeanors, and folks adjudicated mentally incompetent are prohibited. After the VT massacre this week obvious expansions include anyone convicted of any misdemeanor, and anyone with a history of depression, PTSD, attempted suicide, etc.
- Status
