Anybody Own Firearms? Gun Control?
04-21-2007, 01:02 AM
#342
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Straits
Posts: 3,012
I agree, there should be a mandatory gun safety course. In order to receive your permit, you'd have to score pretty high. But there will always be human error. Just like vehicular accidents/deaths, it's impossible to stop stupid people from using guns irresponsibly.
Most states do require a psych check in order to buy a gun, at least here in WA they do. It takes about 3 weeks for the Sheriff's Dept to do their background check for a concealed permit.
Most states do require a psych check in order to buy a gun, at least here in WA they do. It takes about 3 weeks for the Sheriff's Dept to do their background check for a concealed permit.
04-21-2007, 07:49 AM
#343
Originally Posted by NYT
U.S. Rules Made Killer Ineligible to Purchase Gun
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: April 21, 2007
WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.
The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.
A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.
Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”
“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” Mr. Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.
Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter. “We are going to fix this,” he said.
“I’m sure that the misfit exists in states across the country and the underreporting exists,” he said.
After two female Virginia Tech students complained about Mr. Cho’s behavior in 2005, he was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.
“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
But Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health, said that under his reading of Virginia law, outpatient treatment could qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia law should have barred Mr. Cho from buying a weapon as well. Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagreed with that interpretation.
Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”
A spokesman for the Virginia attorney general’s office declined to comment on Friday, saying only that various agencies were “reviewing this situation.”
Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal firearms agency, said Friday that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.
But Mr. Marianos added, “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”
Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia had probably been occurring for some time.
“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” Mr. Henigan said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”
Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.
“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” Mr. Honberg said, explaining that the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing the requirements.
“When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this,” he said.
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, has been pushing a bill to require states to automate their criminal history records so computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete.
The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
According to gun control advocates, the mental health information currently submitted to the national check system is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Congressional aides say Mr. Dingell is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections,” Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”
A spokesman for the rifle association declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies.
“It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms,” he said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: April 21, 2007
WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.
Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.
The special justice’s order in late 2005 that directed Mr. Cho to seek outpatient treatment and declared him to be mentally ill and an imminent danger to himself fits the federal criteria and should have immediately disqualified him, said Richard J. Bonnie, chairman of the Supreme Court of Virginia’s Commission on Mental Health Law Reform.
A spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives also said that if Mr. Cho had been found mentally defective by a court, he should have been denied the right to purchase a gun.
The federal law defines adjudication as a mental defective to include “determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority” that as a result of mental illness, the person is a “danger to himself or others.”
Mr. Cho’s ability to buy two guns despite his history has brought new attention to the adequacy of background checks that scrutinize potential gun buyers. And since federal gun laws depend on states for enforcement, the failure of Virginia to flag Mr. Cho highlights the often incomplete information provided by states to federal authorities.
Currently, only 22 states submit any mental health records to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a statement on Thursday. Virginia is the leading state in reporting disqualifications based on mental health criteria for the federal check system, the statement said.
Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was “involuntarily committed” or ruled mentally “incapacitated.”
“It’s clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition,” Mr. Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state’s mental health laws.
Mr. Bonnie, the director of the University of Virginia Institute on Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy, said his panel would look into the matter. “We are going to fix this,” he said.
“I’m sure that the misfit exists in states across the country and the underreporting exists,” he said.
After two female Virginia Tech students complained about Mr. Cho’s behavior in 2005, he was sent to a psychiatric unit for evaluation and then ordered to undergo outpatient treatment, which would not qualify as an involuntary commitment under Virginia law, Mr. Bonnie said.
“What they did was use the terms that fit Virginia law,” he said. “They weren’t thinking about the federal. I suspect nobody even knew about these federal regulations.”
But Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at the University of Florida who is an expert on mental health, said that under his reading of Virginia law, outpatient treatment could qualify as involuntary commitment, meaning Virginia law should have barred Mr. Cho from buying a weapon as well. Mr. Bonnie said he and the state’s attorney general disagreed with that interpretation.
Mr. Slobogin added that the federal statute “on the plain face of the language, it would definitely apply to Cho.”
A spokesman for the Virginia attorney general’s office declined to comment on Friday, saying only that various agencies were “reviewing this situation.”
Richard Marianos, a spokesman for the federal firearms agency, said Friday that federal and state officials were looking into the question, studying the court proceedings and testimony.
But Mr. Marianos added, “If he was adjudicated as a mental defective by a court, he should have been disqualified.”
Dennis Henigan, legal director at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said the oversight on the federal law in Virginia had probably been occurring for some time.
“They may have been doing this for years, just basically assuming, if the guy’s not disqualified under state law, then we don’t have to send anything to the state police,” Mr. Henigan said. “It’s a failure to recognize the independent obligation to the federal law.”
Most states do not follow the letter of the federal law when it comes to the mental health provisions, said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy group.
“I suspect if we look at all the requirements that exist for the states, there’s probably a whole lot of them that don’t implement them,” Mr. Honberg said, explaining that the gap often comes from a lack of resources but also because no one is enforcing the requirements.
“When something like this happens, then people start to pay attention to this,” he said.
Representative Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, has been pushing a bill to require states to automate their criminal history records so computer databases used to conduct background checks on gun buyers are more complete.
The bill would also require states to submit their mental health records to their background check systems and give them money to allow them to do so.
According to gun control advocates, the mental health information currently submitted to the national check system is often spotty and incomplete, something Ms. McCarthy’s bill is designed to address.
Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan and a former member of the National Rifle Association’s board of directors, is co-sponsoring the bill, which has twice passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Congressional aides say Mr. Dingell is negotiating with pro-gun groups to come up with language acceptable to them.
“The N.R.A. doesn’t have objections,” Mr. Dingell said in an interview. “There are other gun organizations on this that are problems.”
A spokesman for the rifle association declined to comment Friday on the legislation, but Mr. Dingell said the measure could prevent future tragedies.
“It resolves some serious problems in terms of preventing the wrong people from getting firearms,” he said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
04-23-2007, 07:39 PM
#345
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 1,533
What are people's objections to mandatory psych evaluations to buy guns? I don't necessarily mean liscensing to own guns but just to purchase them.
I think we can all agree that; "Crazy people should not have access to firepower".
Or
Is it the pro-gun's person position -
Crazy people / evil people / others CAN, if they wanted to - as a purely practical matter, get access to any number of implements of destruction and I want to be personnally armed so I can shoot them first if they threaten me.
I think we can all agree that; "Crazy people should not have access to firepower".
Or
Is it the pro-gun's person position -
Crazy people / evil people / others CAN, if they wanted to - as a purely practical matter, get access to any number of implements of destruction and I want to be personnally armed so I can shoot them first if they threaten me.
04-23-2007, 11:44 PM
#346
Indeed, crazy people should not have access to firearms, BUT THEY DO. We need to screen better than we do now, but in the mean time, I'm glad I have the right to carry my own protection.
(Just as an example, my ex biz partner is a nice guy and will give you the shirt off his back, BUT he has a fuse about THIS >.< long. He should NEVER have access to a firearm, however, there is nothing stopping him from getting one.)
Tom
(Just as an example, my ex biz partner is a nice guy and will give you the shirt off his back, BUT he has a fuse about THIS >.< long. He should NEVER have access to a firearm, however, there is nothing stopping him from getting one.)
Tom
04-24-2007, 04:14 PM
#347
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 1,533
Originally Posted by Tomas
Indeed, crazy people should not have access to firearms, BUT THEY DO. We need to screen better than we do now, but in the mean time, I'm glad I have the right to carry my own protection.
(Just as an example, my ex biz partner is a nice guy and will give you the shirt off his back, BUT he has a fuse about THIS >.< long. He should NEVER have access to a firearm, however, there is nothing stopping him from getting one.)
Tom
(Just as an example, my ex biz partner is a nice guy and will give you the shirt off his back, BUT he has a fuse about THIS >.< long. He should NEVER have access to a firearm, however, there is nothing stopping him from getting one.)
Tom
04-24-2007, 04:28 PM
#348
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hanover, PA
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by etli
What are people's objections to mandatory psych evaluations to buy guns?
04-24-2007, 06:44 PM
#350
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 256
I believe that once you are 21, the likelihood of either your school you went to, or you parents/friends of seeing any mental instability would be pretty high. I'm not saying it would be correct 100% of the time, but I think it would be pretty clear. I think the psychological system we have now is good, as long as it is enforced. Keep in mind, this guy in Virginia was NOT legal to purchase a firearm. He was deemed psychologically unfit, but they didn't put it on his record. The person that made that decision should be the one getting punished here. The shooter obviously had problems, and this incident is almost a direct result from the responsible party not doing their job.
04-24-2007, 06:49 PM
#351
Senior Member
SL Member
Scion Evolution
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Corona, CA
Posts: 1,412
Originally Posted by Tomas
Indeed, crazy people should not have access to firearms, BUT THEY DO. We need to screen better than we do now, but in the mean time, I'm glad I have the right to carry my own protection.
(Just as an example, my ex biz partner is a nice guy and will give you the shirt off his back, BUT he has a fuse about THIS >.< long. He should NEVER have access to a firearm, however, there is nothing stopping him from getting one.)
Tom
(Just as an example, my ex biz partner is a nice guy and will give you the shirt off his back, BUT he has a fuse about THIS >.< long. He should NEVER have access to a firearm, however, there is nothing stopping him from getting one.)
Tom
Living in California, I'd like to have the peace of mind of being able to carry my firearm...unfortunatley....like I said.....Its California.... *shakes head* I have got to move, before they make that illegal.
04-25-2007, 02:03 AM
#352
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Southside Chicago
Posts: 256
Originally Posted by tC4italy
Originally Posted by Rabid_Lemming
The fact of the matter is, not everyone is responsible enough to own a gun. Many people are too volatile and shortsighted to think their actions through in a manner as well thought out as many of the arguments in this thread. Tomas, I am not saying that you are alone in your respect and responsible outlook with regards to firearms (the number of active members in the NRA would say otherwise). but far more people act on a whim than with careful consideration (barring a strong mental imbalance of course). As such, the idea of arming college kids is just terrifying to me. When I was in college I made my bill payments by bouncing at a bar. I know what kind of irrational behavior occurs, and to be honest I was and still am guilty of the same irrational actions (albeit less so now).
The argument that a knife is just as deadly as a handgun in a close enough range seems flawed to me. A person unskilled in knife fighting can and often do miss vital organs and arteries. A man coming at you with a knife gets close to you, thereby allowing the possibility of fighting for your life. The knife is limited by the strength of it's wielder. A gun on the other hand is not. When someone is pointing a gun at you, you really have no option of fighting for your life. You run and dodge and hope they have bad aim. Perhaps this would be a point when someone could argue that if you had your own gun, you could shoot back, but this scenario isn't a duel at high noon. A person less skilled with a firearm can cause greater damage than the same man with a knife. Sure the person can miss, however the physics behind a bullet is just far more damaging to human tissue than a knife in the case where the shot or the stab/slash doesn't miss.
With that said....
Where the hell did this kid learn to shoot? he must have been wicked in Halo 2!!
The argument that a knife is just as deadly as a handgun in a close enough range seems flawed to me. A person unskilled in knife fighting can and often do miss vital organs and arteries. A man coming at you with a knife gets close to you, thereby allowing the possibility of fighting for your life. The knife is limited by the strength of it's wielder. A gun on the other hand is not. When someone is pointing a gun at you, you really have no option of fighting for your life. You run and dodge and hope they have bad aim. Perhaps this would be a point when someone could argue that if you had your own gun, you could shoot back, but this scenario isn't a duel at high noon. A person less skilled with a firearm can cause greater damage than the same man with a knife. Sure the person can miss, however the physics behind a bullet is just far more damaging to human tissue than a knife in the case where the shot or the stab/slash doesn't miss.
With that said....
Where the hell did this kid learn to shoot? he must have been wicked in Halo 2!!
that is EXACTLY what I was trying to get at and I said the same exact thing to my co-worker who understood me instead of calling me names =)Here is a video about the reality of knife fighting. Be forewarned, there are graphic images inside.
*WARNING*Graphic images in video*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...2C+knife&hl=en
And tell me, how many people can react to a knife or sword being shown straight at them? Not everyone is a Martial Art master and, if the person is smart, they will pick a weapon that has more reach than your leg.
Do not just sit in your chair and think you know you can react and defend against something you never dealt with. Life is not like the movies.
06-13-2007, 05:23 AM
#354
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: the ghetto
Posts: 107
^^ Thats a great article Tom. I'd have to say, as an ex-californian, that i am happy in the state of WA to be able to properly defend myself. Albeit, i've taken several gun safety courses and practice at a shooting range. The people who want to get a gun and use it, will, regardless of it being legal or illegal-- but for those of us who are law abiding citizens, we should have the right to protect ourselves and our families, given the proper training.
06-13-2007, 08:05 PM
#355
Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 85
I don't own any yet - I love guns, this might sound silly but when I was younger I wanted to go into the army for that reason and that reason only, the training and the guns....
I've gone down to PA a few times and had the pleasure of shooting -
AK-47
AR-15
9MM Glock
Beretta (which I named my dog after)
Smith & Wesson
Rifles
World's Largest Handgun...
damn can't think of the rest off the top of my head... I'm going to havr to go home and look at my pics again....
One thing I have to say is that they're so much fun! I wouldn't keep them laying around, when I get my house you bet I'll have about 5 of them hidden somewhere...
I've gone down to PA a few times and had the pleasure of shooting -
AK-47
AR-15
9MM Glock
Beretta (which I named my dog after)
Smith & Wesson
Rifles
World's Largest Handgun...
damn can't think of the rest off the top of my head... I'm going to havr to go home and look at my pics again....
One thing I have to say is that they're so much fun! I wouldn't keep them laying around, when I get my house you bet I'll have about 5 of them hidden somewhere...
06-13-2007, 08:15 PM
#357
Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 85
Originally Posted by Dwatts5250
What exactly is the worlds largest handgun???
If I remember correclty - Smith and Wesson makes it, I have to go home now and look for my pictures, it's this heavy silver gun that you need both hands to just hold it up, when you shoot it - man it feels like it could break your hand.....
I'll look for the pics to show you guys.
06-13-2007, 08:15 PM
#358
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Royal Post Palace
Posts: 14,092
Originally Posted by Shogun
Do not just sit in your chair and think you know you can react and defend against something you never dealt with. Life is not like the movies.
06-13-2007, 08:16 PM
#359
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9,731
Dwatts,
50 cal desert eagle I beleive. But I am sure someone will mention a larger one. The 50 would be cool.. but not very practical when it comes to carry and/or multiple shots, since after your first shot you are so far off target the next shot is way off.
Largest handheld rifle I know of is the 700 nitro. Double barrel.. looks just like a shotgun (you can stick your thumb in the barrel) but fires 70 cal rifle rounds. It is made to bring a charging elephant down in one - two shots. You also need a chiropracter after a couple of shots as well :D
50 cal desert eagle I beleive. But I am sure someone will mention a larger one. The 50 would be cool.. but not very practical when it comes to carry and/or multiple shots, since after your first shot you are so far off target the next shot is way off.
Largest handheld rifle I know of is the 700 nitro. Double barrel.. looks just like a shotgun (you can stick your thumb in the barrel) but fires 70 cal rifle rounds. It is made to bring a charging elephant down in one - two shots. You also need a chiropracter after a couple of shots as well :D
06-13-2007, 10:10 PM
#360
The warning about second-shot accuracy with the Desert Eagles is a good one. My early training on defensive use was to get my first shot off fast and either on target or a little short.
The purpose of the short shot (hitting in front of the opponent) is that it will likely kick up dirt/debris/etc. in front of them, making them flinch and throwing off their shot. This potentially gives time to make your second shot count.
With an over powerful handgun, one needs to make the first shot the kill shot - follow-on shots are unlikely to have good accuracy unless you are up to the punishment...
Tom
Get a shot off fast. This upsets him long enough to let you make your second shot perfect. --Robert Anson Heinlein
The purpose of the short shot (hitting in front of the opponent) is that it will likely kick up dirt/debris/etc. in front of them, making them flinch and throwing off their shot. This potentially gives time to make your second shot count.
With an over powerful handgun, one needs to make the first shot the kill shot - follow-on shots are unlikely to have good accuracy unless you are up to the punishment...
Tom
Get a shot off fast. This upsets him long enough to let you make your second shot perfect. --Robert Anson Heinlein