The Gun Thread

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

.....I think that if you let students and faculty carry the weapons they already have albeit with proper training and safety courses and you let it be known that Johnny and Mrs Fisher are armed, you could either force a killer to look elsewhere or put him down before he kills 1/2 the school.

As for psych testing to get a gun permit, I have a few questions.

Who would administer the tests?
What would the definition of mentally ill be that is used to stop somebody from getting a gun? If they test hard enough we would all be labeled 'abnormal' "Do you ever get angry?", "Yes?", "FAIL!"
How often do you have to be tested? Once? Once a year? Once a week? How can a test taken, say, five years ago be considered valid? Do need to be tested every time you go to the range? I mean you could be "normal" and then a week later snap and go hunting people,right? Look at the tragedy in Binghamton. The shooter was 'normal' right up to the first shot...

Is there any rule saying a student or professor can't bring a firearm to class if they possess a concealed carry permit? Seems like those permits are not that hard to get in many states, but people don't have them. Is that an indication that most people don't want to walk around armed? What more should our society do to allow people the right to carry weapons? Seems like there is already ample opportunity to waltz around armed, if you wish.

There is currently no psych test for purchasing weapons. The psych part is only applicable if you have already been deemed mentally unstable by a judge. I don't know if there is a psych test for a concealed carry permit. Who's got one and knows the procedure?

Jiverly Voong was a perfectly normal angry loner who loved guns, hated America and talked about assassinating the President.
Seems like the discussion surrounding this guy should be focused on our too lax immigration policies, rather than our gun laws.

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by OMEGAMAN

I had heard he was entitled to buy guns. What was preventing him from purchasing firearms legally?

He was certified (by a judge) to be an imminent danger to himself and others as a result of mental illness. By Federal law, that should have prevented him from purchasing firearms, and it was an error on the part of the State of Virginia to not enforce the requirements of that law. - post 253

[75Sv1]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Is there any rule saying a student or professor can't bring a firearm to class if they possess a concealed carry permit? Seems like those permits are not that hard to get in many states, but people don't have them. Is that an indication that most people don't want to walk around armed? What more should our society do to allow people the right to carry weapons? Seems like there is already ample opportunity to waltz around armed, if you wish.

There is currently no psych test for purchasing weapons. The psych part is only applicable if you have already been deemed mentally unstable by a judge. I don't know if there is a psych test for a concealed carry permit. Who's got one and knows the procedure?

Jiverly Voong was a perfectly normal angry loner who loved guns, hated America and talked about assassinating the President.
Seems like the discussion surrounding this guy should be focused on our too lax immigration policies, rather than our gun laws.

I think it is the right or providence of the University or College to ban carring firearms on campus. I think private stores also forbide carring firearms concealed into their property. Universities can also ban what you can have in your dorm rooms, even coffe makers, hot plates, microwaves etc. Not to mention kegs of beer. I did attend a college where 'we' were allowed firearms in our dorm rooms. Since the courses were gunsmithing, it made sense. We weren't allowed full autos, or basically anything class 3, and airguns (BB or pellet guns) or blow darts.
Tom

[HuskyMan]

Originally Posted by 75Sv1

I think it is the right or providence of the University or College to ban carring firearms on campus. I think private stores also forbide carring firearms concealed into their property. Universities can also ban what you can have in your dorm rooms, even coffe makers, hot plates, microwaves etc. Not to mention kegs of beer. I did attend a college where 'we' were allowed firearms in our dorm rooms. Since the courses were gunsmithing, it made sense. We weren't allowed full autos, or basically anything class 3, and airguns (BB or pellet guns) or blow darts.
Tom

exactly, the ban only applies to students who wish to obey it. nutjobs like Cho don't give a rats behind about a ban. and what better place to make a "statement" than for him to walk into a classroom where he knows that NOBODY has a gun.

gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens, criminals don't give a rip...never have and never will.

take a look at the homicide rate in so-called "gun-free" cities, i.e. New York City. the gangs must love these places because they KNOW that nobody can stop them. the people vote for their own demise.

[75Sv1]

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

exactly, the ban only applies to students who wish to obey it. nutjobs like Cho don't give a rats behind about a ban. and what better place to make a "statement" than for him to walk into a classroom where he knows that NOBODY has a gun.

gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens, criminals don't give a rip...never have and never will.

take a look at the homicide rate in so-called "gun-free" cities, i.e. New York City. the gangs must love these places because they KNOW that nobody can stop them. the people vote for their own demise.

No, like any law, it applies to all. It is just the ones who get caught violating the law and who the law wishes to prosecute and punish. Many work places also have directives against firearms being on their property. I would get fire from my job for brining in a weapon to work. I know a few Siks at work. Thier religion says they should carry a knife. They don't at work. One or two do wear a turbine. I am Pro gun by the way. Just both sides have a choice in the matter. If someone doesn't want me on their property, then fine. With colleges, the argument might be that they recieve public or taxpayers funding.
Tom

[HuskyMan]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

He was certified (by a judge) to be an imminent danger to himself and others as a result of mental illness. By Federal law, that should have prevented him from purchasing firearms, and it was an error on the part of the State of Virginia to not enforce the requirements of that law. - post 253

well then, it appears that someone's computer system didn't receive the "updates". since I haven't seen the Judge's order, I don't know if it prevented Cho's owning a firearm. perhaps it didn't. perhaps the system was working exactly the way it was intended to work.

on the other hand, if the Judge's order DID prohibited Cho from obtaining a firearm, then yes, the system failed. either way, a lot of Virginia Tech students are gone, gone from their families along with the dreams of obtaining a college diploma. what a tragedy.

if Cho was committed to doing his deed (and it appears he was committed), a denial at the local gun shop would have only slowed him down.

my point is, gun laws and gun bans simply serve to disarm the people from the right to defend themselves from these whackos. we are told to "dial 911" and "wait until help arrives". there are numerous court cases involving a citizen dialing 911 and help NEVER arriving. the PO'ed citizen sues the City for failure to respond to a 911 call and guess what? Judge rules that "there is NO legal requirement to respond to a 911 call."

recently had a conversation with a 20 year police veteran. he told me that if anyone breaks into his house he will shoot them first and then dial 911. he said by the time the police arrive, the show is over and YOU just might be the one that's dead!

[HuskyMan]

Originally Posted by OMEGAMAN

I had heard he was entitled to buy guns. What was preventing him from purchasing firearms legally?

Brady Bill II, FBI Background check, uh, seems the computer systems were hooked up. in addition, Cho was not a convicted felon, only deemed mentally unstable. there is a difference.

point being, just because someone is deemed "competent" to own a gun today, doesn't automatically guarantee they are going to be "competent" to own a gun tomorrow.

saw a special on one of the news shows awhile back. they were doing testing on convicted felons who had been convicted of violent crimes. they ran them through an MRI and found that a certain section of the brain that gives most people a sense of "conscience" was much much smaller. the show went out to say that the FBI estimates that 1 out of 100 people are true psychopaths (void of conscience, they are capable of committing violent acts and and not feel a thing).

if the population of the United States is 300 million and 1 percent are psychopaths, then there are three million whack jobs on the streets. gee, I feel so safe........

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

well then, it appears that someone's computer system didn't receive the "updates". since I haven't seen the Judge's order, I don't know if it prevented Cho's owning a firearm. perhaps it didn't. perhaps the system was working exactly the way it was intended to work.

on the other hand, if the Judge's order DID prohibited Cho from obtaining a firearm, then yes, the system failed. either way, a lot of Virginia Tech students are gone, gone from their families along with the dreams of obtaining a college diploma. what a tragedy.

if Cho was committed to doing his deed (and it appears he was committed), a denial at the local gun shop would have only slowed him down.

So, because he would only have been 'slowed down', we should remove all restrictions from purchasing firearms?

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

Brady Bill II, FBI Background check, uh, seems the computer systems were hooked up. in addition, Cho was not a convicted felon, only deemed mentally unstable. there is a difference.

point being, just because someone is deemed "competent" to own a gun today, doesn't automatically guarantee they are going to be "competent" to own a gun tomorrow.

saw a special on one of the news shows awhile back. they were doing testing on convicted felons who had been convicted of violent crimes. they ran them through an MRI and found that a certain section of the brain that gives most people a sense of "conscience" was much much smaller. the show went out to say that the FBI estimates that 1 out of 100 people are true psychopaths (void of conscience, they are capable of committing violent acts and and not feel a thing).

if the population of the United States is 300 million and 1 percent are psychopaths, then there are three million whack jobs on the streets. gee, I feel so safe........

Please do yourself a favor, and read the laws, not just the wiki explanation.
There is no mention of the word felon in the law, the wording - 'is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year'.

Furthermore, it is unlawful to purchase firearms if - '...has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution'.

Do you have a concealed carry permit, and if not, why? If it will make you feel safer, go get one. What you are advocating is just as much an imposition on people's rights as the folks saying take away the guns. I don't want the government telling teachers they need to take swat training, or telling private institutions that they must place weapons in their facilities, or even that they must allow weapons on their grounds. If you don't want to go to a university because you are afraid of getting shot, don't go. It is not the governments place to force guns on people any more than it is their place to take them away.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by HuskyMan

if Cho was committed to doing his deed (and it appears he was committed), a denial at the local gun shop would have only slowed him down.

Slowing down is sometimes all that's needed to blow off steam in other ways besides killing a bunch of people. We don't really know what went on in these killers' minds shortly before the killings, but I'd bet their commitment to carry out their plans varied with time and their mood. You're missing the point about gun control. Yes, we all know that murderers don't care about gun laws, but that's not the point. The point of gun control is to make it more difficult for these people to obtain guns. It's the same idea as locking your house or your car. Of course a determined criminal can still break in, but make it difficult enough and he might move on or change his mind. So your argument that murderers don't care about gun laws is beside the point.

[DieselAddict]

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

I also don't think it is the greatest idea in the world. I just don't know what you can do to stop -- not prevent-- the kind of mass murder that has been going on lately. By the time the cops can respond one of these killers can kill dozens of people who cannot fight back. I think that if you let students and faculty carry the weapons they already have albeit with proper training and safety courses and you let it be known that Johnny and Mrs Fisher are armed, you could either force a killer to look elsewhere or put him down before he kills 1/2 the school.

As for psych testing to get a gun permit, I have a few questions.

Who would administer the tests?
What would the definition of mentally ill be that is used to stop somebody from getting a gun? If they test hard enough we would all be labeled 'abnormal' "Do you ever get angry?", "Yes?", "FAIL!"
How often do you have to be tested? Once? Once a year? Once a week? How can a test taken, say, five years ago be considered valid? Do need to be tested every time you go to the range? I mean you could be "normal" and then a week later snap and go hunting people,right? Look at the tragedy in Binghamton. The shooter was 'normal' right up to the first shot...

There are no easy answers. I'm sure if guns didn't exist we'd see fewer mass shootings like this, but it's too late for that, and I'm not sure I'd want all guns removed even if that were possible & legal. I'm a pragmatist and I don't care for ideologies. What I'd like to see is a reinstatement of the assault weapon ban and better enforcement of background checks to reduce easy access to guns for (would-be) criminals. Once that's implemented, I wouldn't mind allowing law-abiding teachers and students to carry concealed if they have a valid license to do so. I don't think it should be publicized who is armed and who is not, that would be dangerous. Make the potential killer wonder who may be armed, just like airplane hijackers have to wonder if there's an undercover marshal on the plane.

[HuskyMan]

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Please do yourself a favor, and read the laws, not just the wiki explanation.
There is no mention of the word felon in the law, the wording - 'is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year'.

Furthermore, it is unlawful to purchase firearms if - '...has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution'.

Do you have a concealed carry permit, and if not, why? If it will make you feel safer, go get one. What you are advocating is just as much an imposition on people's rights as the folks saying take away the guns. I don't want the government telling teachers they need to take swat training, or telling private institutions that they must place weapons in their facilities, or even that they must allow weapons on their grounds. If you don't want to go to a university because you are afraid of getting shot, don't go. It is not the governments place to force guns on people any more than it is their place to take them away.

now that you bring it up, the word "government" means "to control". that is what government does, it is a "governor" or "controller". I agree with your statement, "I don't want the government telling teachers they need to take swat training, or telling private institutions that they must place weapons in their facilities, or even that they must allow weapons on their grounds". however, aren't the teachers being denied the right to have a gun in the classroom? therefore, the teachers and students are being controlled (told what to do), aren't they?

in this case, the government hasn't denied the teachers at Virginia Tech the right to have a gun in the classrom, the Universities' Policies prohibit it. therefore the teachers and the students are being "controlled" because they have voluntarily submitted to the school's policies. no one is forcing these people to teach or take classes at the University, so the teachers and students are choosing to be "voluntarily controlled" (now that term seems like an oxymoron to me.....but that's another discussion).

since you appear to have a better understanding of the "law" than myself, perhaps you might care to explain how Cho waltzed into a gun store and loaded up on guns and ammo. apparently he sailed right through the back ground check (as in the purchase he made was LEGAL), didn't he? the "law" seems to have failed us all, didn't it counselor?

my question is, if a "Cho incident" happened once, is it possible for it to happen again? there isn't enough ink and paper to write enough "law" to protect the public from the Cho's of this world.

there is a misconception that the Chos of this world are stupid. many score very high in the IQ department. I"ve had discussions with law enforcement that confirms this fact. they are anything but dumb, however that doesn't mean they are stable.

however, it appears that you have your mind made up concerning this issue so it just isn't worth carrying this discussion any further......

[Mistress]

Cho was mentally unstable and even if he fit the other criteria within the law to own a fiream, how is a gun dealer going to know the "Chos" of the world are mentally unstable unless they do a psych eval along with the permit.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

... I'm sure if guns didn't exist we'd see fewer mass shootings.....

No chit.

[HuskyMan]

just want to say that I am bringing up issues here that I feel need to be addressed. I don't have all the answers to this issue. it just appears there is a lot more to the story concerning Cho and some of it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'm seeking answers and open to suggestions as to what, exactly is the solution.

I grew up in a small town and remember not having to lock the doors to the house or the car. it seems that those days are gone forever in this country. we have a gang problem in this country that seems to have consistently increased over time.

I always liked the idea of the Guardian Angels; the guys who wore the red berets and rode the subways in New York City and took on the gangs. guess they could be called a citizens posse of sorts. one thing for sure, if something isn't done and soon, the gangs will soon be running this place. even the History channel has a show about it titled, "Gang Land".

I've spoken with people who live overseas who occasionally visit the United States (former citizens who decided to get out). they say that when they arrive here they are very surprised by the decline in morals and ethics. they can't wait to leave. sad.