Virginia Gunman Told by TV Station to Seek Medical Attention

ParticleMan said:

RobB said:

ParticleMan said:Rob, how do you propose it count for something? Not being argumentative, just trying to understand what the mechanism would be.

I honestly haven't been following the whole mess in Virginia. But I assumed this guy made threats to co-workers if they were hiding in their offices when the cops came to remove him and were told to call 911 if they ever saw him again. If that is the case, the police should have the ability to take your guns and bring you before a judge to decide if you can have them back.

If there was a restraining order system that had any teeth (in any state), and the coworkers were able to take out orders of protection, then I could see a background check requiring a check for restraining orders. Beyond that, it would require that cops knew he had a gun (if he had it before the cops were called). I guess it could be part of routine questions that the cops ask. But since there is no gun registry, if he said no, how would they know? Some states don't even require a permit.

And the last few things you said seem like a good place to start. Gun registry, and permits. And background checks.

But then the "gun nuts" will come out of the woodwork thinking people are trying to take their guns. Realistically that's probably a small but loud minority, but they're there.

TarheelsInNj said:

ParticleMan said:

RobB said:

ParticleMan said:Rob, how do you propose it count for something? Not being argumentative, just trying to understand what the mechanism would be.

I honestly haven't been following the whole mess in Virginia. But I assumed this guy made threats to co-workers if they were hiding in their offices when the cops came to remove him and were told to call 911 if they ever saw him again. If that is the case, the police should have the ability to take your guns and bring you before a judge to decide if you can have them back.

If there was a restraining order system that had any teeth (in any state), and the coworkers were able to take out orders of protection, then I could see a background check requiring a check for restraining orders. Beyond that, it would require that cops knew he had a gun (if he had it before the cops were called). I guess it could be part of routine questions that the cops ask. But since there is no gun registry, if he said no, how would they know? Some states don't even require a permit.

And the last few things you said seem like a good place to start. Gun registry, and permits. And background checks.
But then the "gun nuts" will come out of the woodwork thinking people are trying to take their guns. Realistically that's probably a small but loud minority, but they're there.

I have no idea why anyone would think that. You'd have to be nuts to think that.

So back in MA it's fairly easy* to get a LTC where in NJ I couldn't even figure out how to do it. On the other hand, if you go around threatening to shoot people, it's also fairly easy to lose a LTC in MA. And I think you're nuts if you have a problem with that.

*By urban northeastern standards

ridski said:

TarheelsInNj said:

ParticleMan said:

RobB said:

ParticleMan said:Rob, how do you propose it count for something? Not being argumentative, just trying to understand what the mechanism would be.

I honestly haven't been following the whole mess in Virginia. But I assumed this guy made threats to co-workers if they were hiding in their offices when the cops came to remove him and were told to call 911 if they ever saw him again. If that is the case, the police should have the ability to take your guns and bring you before a judge to decide if you can have them back.

If there was a restraining order system that had any teeth (in any state), and the coworkers were able to take out orders of protection, then I could see a background check requiring a check for restraining orders. Beyond that, it would require that cops knew he had a gun (if he had it before the cops were called). I guess it could be part of routine questions that the cops ask. But since there is no gun registry, if he said no, how would they know? Some states don't even require a permit.

And the last few things you said seem like a good place to start. Gun registry, and permits. And background checks.
But then the "gun nuts" will come out of the woodwork thinking people are trying to take their guns. Realistically that's probably a small but loud minority, but they're there.

I have no idea why anyone would think that. You'd have to be nuts to think that.

Well, I think there are "gun nuts" and then there are nuts with guns. The former will cry freedom and communism and all kinds of stuff but are probably fine to actually have guns, and have licenses or permits as needed. The latter are the ones who should not have access.

And frankly, I'd think the former would prefer the latter not have access too. But the message gets muddy.

The 2nd Ammendent is fact yes, but I have an opinion on its legitimacy in today's climate of violence. The men who wrote the Constitution wrote it in very different times than we live in today. They had slaves. Women were not equal. To suggest these imperfect men wrote a perfect document is absurd. We evolve. The constitution should evolve with us.

Red_Barchetta said:

Hahaha said:
I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty or right. The 2nd Ammemdment is arcane and needs to be modified to address our modern world.
And throwing up your hands and telling me to move to Virgina to vote is a cop out. As it relates to gun trafficking and violence, what happens in Virginia affects me here in NJ. I shouldn't have to live in the state to have a voice. This is a national issue that deserves a national solution.

Tom_R said:

Hahaha said:
I am 100% in support of tighter gun control (I'd prefer they were confiscated from every non-military or essential police officer, but that's a pipe dream). So my question is how do we control for people with mental illness when they seek to buy firearms? Apparently this man purchase two handguns legally in Virginia.


I'd like to hear practical approaches, if there are any.

With regard to your preference: are there any other of our civil liberties you'd surrender so readily?
Insofar as your quest to limit access for those with mental illness to purchase firearms goes; how do we identify them, without trashing patient confidentiality?
Practical approaches? Move to Virginia and vote for candidates who embrace your viewpoint.
TomR

Regardless of your consideration, or it being arcane or not, gun ownership is a right. That's a fact that is not open to opinion. Furthermore the expression of extreme incorrect positions such as yours is what gets the gun nuts all riled up and sells a lot of guns.

" To suggest these imperfect men wrote a perfect document is absurd."

Sounds almost like today's politicians. Why should I think they have my interests in heart when writing some absurd bills?

Hahaha said:
The 2nd Ammendent is fact yes, but I have an opinion on its legitimacy in today's climate of violence. The men who wrote the Constitution wrote it in very different times than we live in today. They had slaves. Women were not equal. To suggest these imperfect men wrote a perfect document is absurd. We evolve. The constitution should evolve with us.

The problem is that many, many Americans don't agree with you.

Hahaha said:
The 2nd Ammendent is fact yes, but I have an opinion on its legitimacy in today's climate of violence. The men who wrote the Constitution wrote it in very different times than we live in today. They had slaves. Women were not equal. To suggest these imperfect men wrote a perfect document is absurd. We evolve. The constitution should evolve with us.

Red_Barchetta said:

Hahaha said:
I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty or right. The 2nd Ammemdment is arcane and needs to be modified to address our modern world.
And throwing up your hands and telling me to move to Virgina to vote is a cop out. As it relates to gun trafficking and violence, what happens in Virginia affects me here in NJ. I shouldn't have to live in the state to have a voice. This is a national issue that deserves a national solution.

Tom_R said:

Hahaha said:
I am 100% in support of tighter gun control (I'd prefer they were confiscated from every non-military or essential police officer, but that's a pipe dream). So my question is how do we control for people with mental illness when they seek to buy firearms? Apparently this man purchase two handguns legally in Virginia.


I'd like to hear practical approaches, if there are any.

With regard to your preference: are there any other of our civil liberties you'd surrender so readily?
Insofar as your quest to limit access for those with mental illness to purchase firearms goes; how do we identify them, without trashing patient confidentiality?
Practical approaches? Move to Virginia and vote for candidates who embrace your viewpoint.
TomR

Regardless of your consideration, or it being arcane or not, gun ownership is a right. That's a fact that is not open to opinion. Furthermore the expression of extreme incorrect positions such as yours is what gets the gun nuts all riled up and sells a lot of guns.

I'm fine with everything you wrote. My point is that making statements like that is kicking the hive.

Hahaha said:
I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty or right. The 2nd Ammemdment is arcane and needs to be modified to address our modern world.
And throwing up your hands and telling me to move to Virgina to vote is a cop out. As it relates to gun trafficking and violence, what happens in Virginia affects me here in NJ. I shouldn't have to live in the state to have a voice. This is a national issue that deserves a national solution.

Tom_R said:

Hahaha said:
I am 100% in support of tighter gun control (I'd prefer they were confiscated from every non-military or essential police officer, but that's a pipe dream). So my question is how do we control for people with mental illness when they seek to buy firearms? Apparently this man purchase two handguns legally in Virginia.


I'd like to hear practical approaches, if there are any.

With regard to your preference: are there any other of our civil liberties you'd surrender so readily?
Insofar as your quest to limit access for those with mental illness to purchase firearms goes; how do we identify them, without trashing patient confidentiality?
Practical approaches? Move to Virginia and vote for candidates who embrace your viewpoint.
TomR

While you may not consider the Right to keep and bear arms, a civil liberty; you're wrong.

Just plain wrong!

Is the 2nd Amendment out of touch with American life in the 21st Century? Perhaps so. Write up a proposal under which you believe the necessary number of States will ratify an amendment. If it makes sense to me, I'll send some $$$ to the cause. I may even pick up a pitchfork. (No torches, please).

I didn't throw up my hands. You asked for a practical solution. I gave you one. You're the person who's thrown up their hands.

You may see gun violence as a National issue, many people do; and I won't argue the point.

But, can you make a cogent argument that it is a federal issue?

Keeping firearms out of the hands of those with a mental illness; good idea. Your parried my query as to how to accomplish said goal, without trashing patient confidentiality.

And of course, we come back to my seminal query:

Which of our other civil liberties would you so willingly surrender?

TomR

Straw man. Just because Hahaha wants to revise an outdated document to reflect different times (the amendments themselves are revisions) doesn't make her an evil, rights-stealing witch.

I'd give up freedom of the press at this point.

marcsiry said:
Straw man. Just because Hahaha wants to revise an outdated document to reflect different times (the amendments themselves are revisions) doesn't make her an evil, rights-stealing witch.

And when Trump wants to "improve" the interpretation of the 14th amendment (an outdated document in a world of almost instant air travel) with regard to birth citizenship, would you similarly conclude that this "doesn't make [him] an evil, rights-stealing witch" also.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.... Google how many shootings there were in Chicago this week.

The MAJORITY of LEGAL gun owners are 1:trained, 2: law abiding, 3: responsible with their weapons.

Banning guns is NOT going to solve the problem because 1: it didn't work for drugs 2: criminals do not follow laws.

As for the psycho in this instance, what was his former employer to do? They did their due diligence and called the police to escort him from the building and protect the employees with a shelter in place. It is up to the police to determine if he was a risk to himself or anyone else, even then they can only do a 72 hour psychiatric hold on him.

I have my own opinions as to the catalyst of this tragedy and will keep them to myself (you're welcome) but to say it's the guns fault or the employers fault is to blame everyone EXCEPT the one responsible for these acts and THAT has to stop!

Who blamed the gun or the employer? No one. So I guess it stopped before it even started. You're welcome.

RobB said:
There's a zero percent chance of changing the second amendment. A significantly more narrow judicial interpretation is extremely unlikely. Not zero - maybe 2%? Outside of that, I'm not sure what you can do. Massachusetts just passed a law that allows police to petition the court to temporarily pull a license (and guns) of someone who starts acting nutty (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, that change in the gun laws of a solid blue state triggered a huge increase in gun license applications.

More evidence that many gun owners are crazy.

Maybe owning a gun should denote someone as "unfit" to own a gun. After all, most rational people understand that owning a gun is a bad decision.

susan1014 said:

RobB said:
There's a zero percent chance of changing the second amendment. A significantly more narrow judicial interpretation is extremely unlikely. Not zero - maybe 2%? Outside of that, I'm not sure what you can do. Massachusetts just passed a law that allows police to petition the court to temporarily pull a license (and guns) of someone who starts acting nutty (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, that change in the gun laws of a solid blue state triggered a huge increase in gun license applications.

It is a tough problem, but I also think we need to be very careful before we put former employers, ex-boyfriends, or anyone else in a position to easily make a report that takes away the civil liberties of others.
We need tighter gun laws (to the extent possible), much better attitudes and availability for mental health care, and very carefully controlled ways to push adults showing dangerous disorders toward the help they need before they escalate to suicide, homicide, or overdose.
There are many parents out there who will tell you just how hard it is to get appropriate mental health help, to afford this help, or to get an adult child to use help, no matter how obvious the downward spiral (I was just reading one harrowing account yesterday). Our mental health system isn't working. Let's fix it.

It's sad that owning a gun is the default position and that your right to safety or my right to safety are clearly of secondary concern. Clearly our fire-father's desire to maintain a militia has been bastardized over the years by tens of millions of gun crazed men and the NRA.

Our U.S. Infatuation with gun ownership is an absolute sickness.

SlyFoxy1 said:
Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country.... Google how many shootings there were in Chicago this week.
The MAJORITY of LEGAL gun owners are 1:trained, 2: law abiding, 3: responsible with their weapons.
Banning guns is NOT going to solve the problem because 1: it didn't work for drugs 2: criminals do not follow laws.
As for the psycho in this instance, what was his former employer to do? They did their due diligence and called the police to escort him from the building and protect the employees with a shelter in place. It is up to the police to determine if he was a risk to himself or anyone else, even then they can only do a 72 hour psychiatric hold on him.
I have my own opinions as to the catalyst of this tragedy and will keep them to myself (you're welcome) but to say it's the guns fault or the employers fault is to blame everyone EXCEPT the one responsible for these acts and THAT has to stop!

No other country has gun freedom like the U.S. And no other (civilized?) country is near us in gun violence. It's an embarrassing sickness.

And if you look within the U.S. And query states' per capita gun violence numbers you find that there is a high correlation between lack of regulation and gun violence.

Plus I don't know how easy it is to obtain a gun in Chicago, relative to the rest of Illinois, Indiana or Wisconsin, which are very close. As Michael Bloomberg knows too well, you can only do so much in a city when someone can drive to a Maryland or Virginia gun show and come back that afternoon with a gun.

So you are welcome to have your own secret theories, but for me, our sick ease of obtaining guns is a huge enabler to gun death 80+ people every day).

Woot said:

No other country has gun freedom like the U.S.

In the above statement, you are implying that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect because no other country has gun freedom similar to ours. You realize that this argument could also be applied to the 14th Amendment and birth citizenship.

Applying your logic to birth citizenship would look something like: Because no other country has birth citizenship similar to ours the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment is incorrect.

You may want to rethink that argument.

All I know is that if it's written in BOLD, it must be true.

If the movement to repeal the 14th Amendment gains momentum and gets the approval of 2/3rds of the House and Senate, then it's a done deal. Happened with Prohibition.

Today, for this conversation, I'm concerned with the 2nd Amendment. As long as someone's right to own a gun trumps my right to life and liberty, I'm going to stand against it.

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

I think it's interesting how some people's need to "protect their families" based on a fear of unknown origin trumps the concerns and opinions of people who have actually lost a child to gun violence.

I'm not saying the former category shouldn't own guns. But I think it's interesting how their voices are louder and given more weight than people who had to bury their 6-year-olds because a jackass with a gun killed them at school.

For the pro-gun rights crowd on this thread.... here are some serious questions. Each year in the US, tens of thousands of people are injured or killed by people using guns. Do you accept the status quo? Is this an acceptable injury and death rate? Should anything be changed in your opinion?

Woot said:

RobB said:
There's a zero percent chance of changing the second amendment. A significantly more narrow judicial interpretation is extremely unlikely. Not zero - maybe 2%? Outside of that, I'm not sure what you can do. Massachusetts just passed a law that allows police to petition the court to temporarily pull a license (and guns) of someone who starts acting nutty (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, that change in the gun laws of a solid blue state triggered a huge increase in gun license applications.

More evidence that many gun owners are crazy.


Maybe owning a gun should denote someone as "unfit" to own a gun. After all, most rational people understand that owning a gun is a bad decision.

I hope you don't believe that. Then again, maybe you think driving a car and crossing the street is a bad decision.

TarheelsInNj said:
I think it's interesting how some people's need to "protect their families" based on a fear of unknown origin trumps the concerns and opinions of people who have actually lost a child to gun violence.
I'm not saying the former category shouldn't own guns. But I think it's interesting how their voices are louder and given more weight than people who had to bury their 6-year-olds because a jackass with a gun killed them at school.

The voices of the former are louder because they are organized, funded by industry and lobbyists, and decide that it is priority for them. When the latter decides to give the same energy and dedication to their beliefs, then things will change.

This issue, like so many others, is reflective of the fact that we get the government we elect. And re-elect.

Red_Barchetta said:

Woot said:

RobB said:
There's a zero percent chance of changing the second amendment. A significantly more narrow judicial interpretation is extremely unlikely. Not zero - maybe 2%? Outside of that, I'm not sure what you can do. Massachusetts just passed a law that allows police to petition the court to temporarily pull a license (and guns) of someone who starts acting nutty (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, that change in the gun laws of a solid blue state triggered a huge increase in gun license applications.

More evidence that many gun owners are crazy.


Maybe owning a gun should denote someone as "unfit" to own a gun. After all, most rational people understand that owning a gun is a bad decision.

I hope you don't believe that. Then again, maybe you think driving a car and crossing the street is a bad decision.

I do believe what I wrote. Owning guns does not make someone or their family safer. And in many hands is just a bad decision.

At least automobiles are better regulated and serve a purpose other than killing.

Red_Barchetta said:

TarheelsInNj said:
I think it's interesting how some people's need to "protect their families" based on a fear of unknown origin trumps the concerns and opinions of people who have actually lost a child to gun violence.
I'm not saying the former category shouldn't own guns. But I think it's interesting how their voices are louder and given more weight than people who had to bury their 6-year-olds because a jackass with a gun killed them at school.

The voices of the former are louder because they are organized, funded by industry and lobbyists, and decide that it is priority for them. When the latter decides to give the same energy and dedication to their beliefs, then things will change.


This issue, like so many others, is reflective of the fact that we get the government we elect. And re-elect.

This is fair. I wonder where gun control ranks for many people who would like to see greater regulation?

You're right of course, but note that you changed from 'rational people' to many. I agree that it is a bad decision for many, perhaps most.

Gun ownership should be legal. It should be heavily regulated as it is in NJ. There should be more consumer protection laws governing gun operation and manufacture than there are for barbie dolls. You should have to surrender some privacy and wait some period to get one. You should have to get friends or neighbors to write in support of your purchase; again, as you do in NJ. I would even support a mandatory gun owner insurance policy of some sort. There should be mandatory safety / storage practice for guns in homes where children reside. For a person to go through all of this, again, gun ownership should be legal.

Red_Barchetta said:

TarheelsInNj said:
I think it's interesting how some people's need to "protect their families" based on a fear of unknown origin trumps the concerns and opinions of people who have actually lost a child to gun violence.
I'm not saying the former category shouldn't own guns. But I think it's interesting how their voices are louder and given more weight than people who had to bury their 6-year-olds because a jackass with a gun killed them at school.

The voices of the former are louder because they are organized, funded by industry and lobbyists, and decide that it is priority for them. When the latter decides to give the same energy and dedication to their beliefs, then things will change.


This issue, like so many others, is reflective of the fact that we get the government we elect. And re-elect.

You're absolutely right. I oppose private ownership of guns but I'm resigned to the fact that repealing the 2nd Amendment is not going to happen. The pro-gun lobby is so effective, that no politician interested in the national politics will voice an opposition to "private, lawful gun ownership". So the discussion ends before it even began. Until there's an equally powerful anti-gun lobby that will back candidates on a national scale, we get what we get.

Red_Barchetta said:
You're right of course, but note that you changed from 'rational people' to many. I agree that it is a bad decision for many, perhaps most.


Gun ownership should be legal. It should be heavily regulated as it is in NJ. There should be more consumer protection laws governing gun operation and manufacture than there are for barbie dolls. You should have to surrender some privacy and wait some period to get one. You should have to get friends or neighbors to write in support of your purchase; again, as you do in NJ. I would even support a mandatory gun owner insurance policy of some sort. There should be mandatory safety / storage practice for guns in homes where children reside. For a person to go through all of this, again, gun ownership should be legal.

This, to me, sounds perfectly reasonable.

And yet, there will be a faction of people who will claim even those seemingly basic regulations are infringing on their rights and freedom.

TarheelsInNj said:

Red_Barchetta said:
You're right of course, but note that you changed from 'rational people' to many. I agree that it is a bad decision for many, perhaps most.


Gun ownership should be legal. It should be heavily regulated as it is in NJ. There should be more consumer protection laws governing gun operation and manufacture than there are for barbie dolls. You should have to surrender some privacy and wait some period to get one. You should have to get friends or neighbors to write in support of your purchase; again, as you do in NJ. I would even support a mandatory gun owner insurance policy of some sort. There should be mandatory safety / storage practice for guns in homes where children reside. For a person to go through all of this, again, gun ownership should be legal.

This, to me, sounds perfectly reasonable.
And yet, there will be a faction of people who will claim even those seemingly basic regulations are infringing on their rights and freedom.

Sadly, that fraction is likely the 40-50% range across this unique country.