Who should own guns? should there be background checks? - Page 6 - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

rghice · 04-18-2007, 04:40 PM

Cho was a legal gun owner, and then he killed 33 people. He passed all the checks. Mabe this is more of a failure on our mental health system. Everyone is so worried that someone might find out that they had to be a mental hospital, it is an invasion of their right to privacy. 33 people are dead because of this crap. Cho was in a mental hospital, that should be on one of the checks. I work in the mental health field and I have seen a person who is "normal" one min. and next he is talking to pictures on the wall about taking over the world. Mental health problems just start to show up in me around early 20's.

**Powerman** · 04-18-2007, 05:15 PM

I probably didn't make it clear enough. Va. has a limit of one handgun purchase every 30 days. He bought the 9 and then 30 days later bought the .22. So he had premeditation and was willing to wait is what I'm getting at.

I understand you are playing Devil's Advicate here jednp. I guess the crux of the issue is how do you prevent something from happening. If I am a convicted felon or charged with a felony, I forefit my rights and it has been proven. As far as "predicting" who is sane, or who and when someone becomes dangerous, or when a law abiding person is going to become lawless... There is just no way to put any kind of a measure on that. There is no way to legislate that and to prevent lawfull citizens to be unfairly singled out. Again guilty before proven so.

In hind sight, we always look at thing and ask where did we go wrong? What could have been done differently? However, the very fabric of our country is predicated on innocent before proven guilty. If we start chipping away at that, and say that it is in the intrest of public safety to act before something happens, then where does it end? One can be found guilty of conspiraring, but that is with evidence. How can we look at this shooting and say he was a mean loner, he should not have the right to buy guns. If he was charged in other crimes we have ways to take care of that. If he was found innocent then he is innocent. There is just no way to legislate bad things from happening in the future.

deepdiver · 04-18-2007, 05:37 PM

Just heard on Fox news that after stalking incidents back in 2005 a psych evaluation concluded that he was an imminent threat to himself AND others. A judge, instead of following the psych recommendation for mandatory treatment, gave him voluntary treatment. If the judge had followed the psych recommendation then he would have been in the system as mentally ill and would not have not been able to purchase a firearm.

If that is true, then we have, in some regards, a bit of different situaitonn and someplace else to focus for the problem.

Slider506 · 04-18-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jednp

again..the more and more I think about this... I guess I've been trying to play devils advocate... is there a way to go after people who are a threat.. and keep them from having a gun.. that will actually work? without affecting people who aren't a threat to someone.. because simply being depressed does not mean you want to kill yourself or someone else.

the more and more I think on this issue, my answer keeps coming back to NO in my mind. No matter how I try to put a little spin on this or that.. change it around a bit.. every single way I can see it affecting normal people inadvertantly.

Obviously my best course of action to stop this violence.. is just like what most of you think... carry a damn gun.. and quit having "no guns" zones. that's what I plan to do.

That is what the tool is for! and the no gun zones are only to make the libs feel better and put more people at risk!!

**Powerman** · 04-18-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deepdiver

Just heard on Fox news that after stalking incidents back in 2005 a psych evaluation concluded that he was an imminent threat to himself AND others. A judge, instead of following the psych recommendation for mandatory treatment, gave him voluntary treatment. If the judge had followed the psych recommendation then he would have been in the system as mentally ill and would not have not been able to purchase a firearm.

If that is true, then we have, in some regards, a bit of different situaitonn and someplace else to focus for the problem.

I was looking at the same thing, but not sure of the details. If you are deemed a threat to yourself or others, you can be placed on a involuntary hold for 72 hrs. However, you can't be held indefinitly, and at some point you would have to be legaly declared metaly ill. So he might have been held for 72 hr evaluation, but commiting is another story.

So I can't be denied because I have had some mental health issues, but only if I had been ejudacated as mentaly ill.

deepdiver · 04-18-2007, 06:06 PM

My understanding of the newscast was that in VA mandatory treatment is a declaration of mental illness and therefore would have prevented future purchase of firearms. I never worked in VA and am not familiar with VA law on the issue. In Ill, at least when I worked in the psych field, if the judge gave you mandatory in patient treatment you were restricted from firearm purchases and were "in the system" to be found on a background check until or unless another judge, after treatment, deemed you ok again.

**Powerman** · 04-18-2007, 06:20 PM

Gotcha, thanks.

jednp · 04-18-2007, 08:00 PM

according to the news, he WAS declared mentally ill... and it appears they are correct when you look at the documents they show on the screen.

To get my CCW permit, I had to prove that within the past 10 years I hadn't been declared mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or ordered into the care of someone else... if I was found to have had any of those things in the last 10 years.. I wouldn't get my permit.

So that brings me to my next question... I think 10 years is a long time.. a lot can change about a person.. and if they went through treatment and changed.. that's good..

But do you think that mental health.. if you have been officially declared mentally ill and an immediate danger to yourself and others... within a certain time period.. should that be a reason to deny purchasing a firearm?

The courts ruled this kid mentally ill... there are documents to prove it.. just because he wasn't forced into treatment... he was still proven to be mentally ill. that to me, should have been found on the background check.. most specifically, the part that says he is an immediate threat to himself and others.

I value my 2nd amendment rights.. and I honestly think part of defending our rights, is keeping guns out of the hands of people like this. So IF the background check didn't catch this about him... why didn't it? There are official court documents declaring him mentally ill.. to me that's enough to have that info found in a background check.

04-18-2007, 05:15 PM	#52
Powerman XDTalk 3K Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,129	I probably didn't make it clear enough. Va. has a limit of one handgun purchase every 30 days. He bought the 9 and then 30 days later bought the .22. So he had premeditation and was willing to wait is what I'm getting at. I understand you are playing Devil's Advicate here jednp. I guess the crux of the issue is how do you prevent something from happening. If I am a convicted felon or charged with a felony, I forefit my rights and it has been proven. As far as "predicting" who is sane, or who and when someone becomes dangerous, or when a law abiding person is going to become lawless... There is just no way to put any kind of a measure on that. There is no way to legislate that and to prevent lawfull citizens to be unfairly singled out. Again guilty before proven so. In hind sight, we always look at thing and ask where did we go wrong? What could have been done differently? However, the very fabric of our country is predicated on innocent before proven guilty. If we start chipping away at that, and say that it is in the intrest of public safety to act before something happens, then where does it end? One can be found guilty of conspiraring, but that is with evidence. How can we look at this shooting and say he was a mean loner, he should not have the right to buy guns. If he was charged in other crimes we have ways to take care of that. If he was found innocent then he is innocent. There is just no way to legislate bad things from happening in the future. __________________ XD-45 service Springer Trigger job TFOs Welcome to the new equality. You too can be just as retarded as Rosie. Coal... Powering China's economic engine. Liberals now see it as a way to destroy ours.

04-18-2007, 05:37 PM	#53
deepdiver XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: SE Missouri Posts: 1,585	Just heard on Fox news that after stalking incidents back in 2005 a psych evaluation concluded that he was an imminent threat to himself AND others. A judge, instead of following the psych recommendation for mandatory treatment, gave him voluntary treatment. If the judge had followed the psych recommendation then he would have been in the system as mentally ill and would not have not been able to purchase a firearm. If that is true, then we have, in some regards, a bit of different situaitonn and someplace else to focus for the problem. __________________ XD .45 Service Compact

04-18-2007, 06:06 PM	#56
deepdiver XDTalk 1K Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: SE Missouri Posts: 1,585	My understanding of the newscast was that in VA mandatory treatment is a declaration of mental illness and therefore would have prevented future purchase of firearms. I never worked in VA and am not familiar with VA law on the issue. In Ill, at least when I worked in the psych field, if the judge gave you mandatory in patient treatment you were restricted from firearm purchases and were "in the system" to be found on a background check until or unless another judge, after treatment, deemed you ok again. __________________ XD .45 Service Compact

04-18-2007, 06:20 PM	#57
Powerman XDTalk 3K Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 3,129	Gotcha, thanks. __________________ XD-45 service Springer Trigger job TFOs Welcome to the new equality. You too can be just as retarded as Rosie. Coal... Powering China's economic engine. Liberals now see it as a way to destroy ours.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-18-2007, 04:40 PM	#51
rghice XDTalk Newbie Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 26	Cho was a legal gun owner, and then he killed 33 people. He passed all the checks. Mabe this is more of a failure on our mental health system. Everyone is so worried that someone might find out that they had to be a mental hospital, it is an invasion of their right to privacy. 33 people are dead because of this crap. Cho was in a mental hospital, that should be on one of the checks. I work in the mental health field and I have seen a person who is "normal" one min. and next he is talking to pictures on the wall about taking over the world. Mental health problems just start to show up in me around early 20's.

04-18-2007, 08:00 PM	#58
jednp XDTalk 4K Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 4,691	according to the news, he WAS declared mentally ill... and it appears they are correct when you look at the documents they show on the screen. To get my CCW permit, I had to prove that within the past 10 years I hadn't been declared mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or ordered into the care of someone else... if I was found to have had any of those things in the last 10 years.. I wouldn't get my permit. So that brings me to my next question... I think 10 years is a long time.. a lot can change about a person.. and if they went through treatment and changed.. that's good.. But do you think that mental health.. if you have been officially declared mentally ill and an immediate danger to yourself and others... within a certain time period.. should that be a reason to deny purchasing a firearm? The courts ruled this kid mentally ill... there are documents to prove it.. just because he wasn't forced into treatment... he was still proven to be mentally ill. that to me, should have been found on the background check.. most specifically, the part that says he is an immediate threat to himself and others. I value my 2nd amendment rights.. and I honestly think part of defending our rights, is keeping guns out of the hands of people like this. So IF the background check didn't catch this about him... why didn't it? There are official court documents declaring him mentally ill.. to me that's enough to have that info found in a background check.