At least 20+ dead students in Virginia Tech; shooter dead

McTag wrote:

I would like to know, with the information about this man which is coming out today, why it is so easy over there for a dangerous psychopath to buy a semi-automatic weapon.

Because the NRA and extreme gun proponents are so afraid of having their guns taken away they are willing to have dangerous psychopaths buy semi-automatics in order to preserve their precious "right to bear arms."

There are extreme beliefs on both sides of this debate in my opinion. I see nothing wrong with ordinary guns owned by people (perhaps background checks ought to be looked at more closely by congress) but I see no need for those semi-automatics or even more deadly arms being owned by ordinary people unless your job requires it and you are trained for it.

As far people being allowed to carry weapons on government or school property, are we really ready for our kids to be having sanctioned shootouts? Wouldn't that cause more harm than good in general?

Sure occasionally it might work out OK, but to me the potential for things going wrong, far out weighs the likelihood of people not trained in these kinds of dangerous situations where anything can happen being able disarm a person on a rampage.

The only law that needed to be changed here was the one that allows a person with a history of mental illness to buy them.

If that were the case, things may well have ended with a lot less bloodshed.

oralloy wrote:

English Common Law is the source of the rights in our Constitution.

This is not necessarily so. Although many of the concepts which underlie our rights as citizens in the Bill of Rights derive from concepts which were embodied in the English common law, the Constitution as promulgated before there were any amendments represents an almost complete departure from previous forms.

The militia provides an excellent example, to which i allude because this discussion arises from the Second Amendment, which is itself a reference to a well-regulated militia. Blackstone says that people may have arms for self-defense, according to their condition and station. That is what lead St. George Tucker to comment on Blackstone's Commentaries to the effect that: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." Tucker, at least, recognized that one of the principle points of the Second Amendment is to assure that no one is restricted in their participation in the militia because of what is alleged to be their condition or station. This is something which handgun ownership proponents never like to admit or discuss, because they wish to interpret the amendment as authorizing their ownership of handguns, rather than being a bulwark against privileged particularism in militia membership.

kickycan wrote:

The only law that needed to be changed here was the one that allows a person with a history of mental illness to buy them.

If that were the case, things may well have ended with a lot less bloodshed.

Nonsense.


In Virginia anyone can buy from gunshows.....if a dealer is selling their "private collection" they can sell with no checks at all.

I don't have much of a problem with any of these as stated although I would have some concerns with the actual implementation. Let me address them one at a time.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Hand guns in criminal and/or crazy hands are a bad thing. We all agree.
What do you do about it?
1. Pass legislation that criminalizes ownership of any weapon not registered with the ATF, complete with ballistics test firings and #engraving and establish a database not unlike the fingerprint database of the NCIC for every known weapon in existence. Said legislation should be written to assume non compliance with this measure constitutes conspiracy to commit first degree murder and stipulate that all parties to the crime of trafficking, owning, selling or otherwise knowingly handling said weapons are thereby guilty of this offense.

OK, for some follow-up questions - Who controls this database?

How do individuals know what info is being kept on them?

How do they appeal any inaccurate data that might be in it?

How does this system deal with replacement parts and normal wear and tear? ("Ballistic fingerprints" are useless after a few hundred rounds have been fired through a gun and totally worthless if the barrel is changed.)

How long is this data maintained, who gets access to it and what else can it be used for?

And who pays for all of this? The person who buys/owns the firearm or the general population that is supposedly deriving some measure of protection from it?

(The conspiracy to commit 1st Degeee murder is a stretch but I'll pass on that for the moment!)

Quote:

2.Pass legislation that automatically promotes use of a firearm, be it registered or not, in commission of a crime is treated the same way.

The same way as what? We already have laws in every U.S jurisdiction against committing crimes with a firearm. It's called "Assault with a deadly weapon". Getting people charged with it is another matter of course.

Quote:

3. Pass legislation that allows a large segment of the "law abiding community" to carry weapons at will; providing they have met strict criteria and undergo periodic training to obtain and maintain a license that both allows them the continued privilege AND obligates them to use their discretion according to their training (not unlike a life-saving certificate obligates one to save the drowning man).

A "large section of the law-abiding community"? You mean like a random 80% or something? Who decides which part of the law-abiding community gets to have a gun and who doesn't? A lottery? Or is there some government flunky that gets to decide based on how they feel that day?

Quote:

4. Pass an amnesty bill that allows owners of weapons who cannot or don't want to own weapons under the new guidelines. Full appraised value should be paid for guns and ammunition by the federal government.

Full appraised value before the law is drafted or afterwards? We saw how this worked in CA. The law passed and people went to get appraisals and found out that the gun they paid $1200 for last month was suddenly "worth" $100.

Quote:

5. Pass extremely harsh mandatory penalties for all forms of Violent Crime to get and keep the A-holes off the streets, before they graduate to cold hearted killers. This kid was just a freak; but the bigger problem stems from gang violence.

No one can be reformed? Just "lock 'em up and throw away the key!"?

Quote:

6. Eliminate the idiotic legislation that seals childhood records from juries during criminal proceedings. If a 19 year old violent offender has a long history of violence; the jury needs to know about it.

I could see allowing some of records to remain in the system but I think you run into the issue of throwing out the baby with the bath water here. Is your intent that no one ever gets to escape anything in their past?

Quote:

7. Abandon the idiotic Drug War in favor of concentrating 20% of its current resources on treatment facilities and awareness campaigns, and the other 80% on Ending Violent Crime as we know it.

"Ending Violent Crime as we know it"?? OK! I'm all for that! H

How do we do that? Is it enough to put up "Stop violent crime!" signs in people's front yards? This just seems to be so vague as to be useless. If we knew how to stop violent crime we'd have done it wouldn't we?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Hand guns in criminal and/or crazy hands are a bad thing. We all agree.
What do you do about it?
1. Pass legislation that criminalizes ownership of any weapon not registered with the ATF, complete with ballistics test firings and #engraving and establish a database not unlike the fingerprint database of the NCIC for every known weapon in existence. Said legislation should be written to assume non compliance with this measure constitutes conspiracy to commit first degree murder and stipulate that all parties to the crime of trafficking, owning, selling or otherwise knowingly handling said weapons are thereby guilty of this offense.

fishin wrote:

OK, for some follow-up questions - Who controls this database?

ATF who should, if they aren't already, be tied in with FBI, CIA etc. The NCIC Databank could probably house it.

fishin wrote:

How do individuals know what info is being kept on them?

Just like the ATF, they should assume; EVERYTHING.

fishin wrote:

How do they appeal any inaccurate data that might be in it?

Same way you would an error in an NCIC, whatever that may be.

fishin wrote:

How does this system deal with replacement parts and normal wear and tear? ("Ballistic fingerprints" are useless after a few hundred rounds have been fired through a gun and totally worthless if the barrel is changed.)

I didn't know that... barrel change could require re-certification... and I suppose a periodic test fire requirement could be worked in. I'm out of my depth here... how often does the average guy go through several hundred rounds?

fishin wrote:

How long is this data maintained, who gets access to it and what else can it be used for?

Maintained forever... and I see know reason everyone from the local constable to Interpol shouldn't have access to it. Don't like it; don't get a gun/license.

fishin wrote:

And who pays for all of this? The person who buys/owns the firearm or the general population that is supposedly deriving some measure of protection from it?

The money currently wasted on not keeping drugs off the street wouldn't be dented by it.

fishin wrote:

(The conspiracy to commit 1st Degeee murder is a stretch but I'll pass on that for the moment!)

I thought I heard (no claim of accuracy) that silencers are treated as intent in some states. Why not? What acceptable purpose would there be in non-compliance?

fishin wrote:

Quote:

2.Pass legislation that automatically promotes use of a firearm, be it registered or not, in commission of a crime is treated the same way.

The same way as what? We already have laws in every U.S jurisdiction against committing crimes with a firearm. It's called "Assault with a deadly weapon". Getting people charged with it is another matter of course.

Same way as premeditated murder. Of what use is a gun during a burglary? If the perp is packing, he's dangerous enough to put away for good in my book... especially once all the perps know that will be the punishment should they get caught packing.

fishin wrote:

Quote:

3. Pass legislation that allows a large segment of the "law abiding community" to carry weapons at will; providing they have met strict criteria and undergo periodic training to obtain and maintain a license that both allows them the continued privilege AND obligates them to use their discretion according to their training (not unlike a life-saving certificate obligates one to save the drowning man).

A "large section of the law-abiding community"? You mean like a random 80% or something? Who decides which part of the law-abiding community gets to have a gun and who doesn't? A lottery? Or is there some government flunky that gets to decide based on how they feel that day?

Full legal and medical history, proscribed training both to acquire and maintain a gun permit from the ATF, though probably issued more locally. Basically, a LOT of hoops to as much as possible insure that the wrong guy isn't being licensed, and anyone without a license is automatically guilty as stated earlier. Hoops are ongoing (say, annual?), so you gotta want it bad.

fishin wrote:

Quote:

4. Pass an amnesty bill that allows owners of weapons who cannot or don't want to own weapons under the new guidelines. Full appraised value should be paid for guns and ammunition by the federal government.

Full appraised value before the law is drafted or afterwards? We saw how this worked in CA. The law passed and people went to get appraisals and found out that the gun they paid $1200 for last month was suddenly "worth" $100.

Tough luck. They have their option to sell it to an eligible buyer for whatever they can get, accept what the State determines is fair market value, or jump through hoops and get a permit if they're eligible.

fishin wrote:

Quote:

5. Pass extremely harsh mandatory penalties for all forms of Violent Crime to get and keep the A-holes off the streets, before they graduate to cold hearted killers. This kid was just a freak; but the bigger problem stems from gang violence.

No one can be reformed? Just "lock 'em up and throw away the key!"?

Where did I say that? If I were redesigning our criminal justice system; there would be tiers of punishment layed out by reasonable criteria and in violent offences: repeat and or certain conditions would automatically send you to the next tier with the final tier being execution. There will plenty of room once we parole the non-violent drug offenders... but the message has to be abundantly LOUD AND CLEAR that violence will no longer be tolerated.

fishin wrote:

Quote:

6. Eliminate the idiotic legislation that seals childhood records from juries during criminal proceedings. If a 19 year old violent offender has a long history of violence; the jury needs to know about it.

I could see allowing some of records to remain in the system but I think you run into the issue of throwing out the baby with the bath water here. Is your intent that no one ever gets to escape anything in their past?

I see no reason for anyone to escape anything in their past as far as repeat offences are concerned. The Tier system could be adapted to differentiate between the guy who committed a similar crime 5 or 15 years ago. But why does the system need to forget while considering a new offense?

fishin wrote:

Quote:

7. Abandon the idiotic Drug War in favor of concentrating 20% of its current resources on treatment facilities and awareness campaigns, and the other 80% on Ending Violent Crime as we know it.

"Ending Violent Crime as we know it"?? OK! I'm all for that! H

How do we do that? Is it enough to put up "Stop violent crime!" signs in people's front yards? This just seems to be so vague as to be useless. If we knew how to stop violent crime we'd have done it wouldn't we?

I just described it. :wink: As we know it simply means the rabidly out of control level of violence we currently accept in the dark corners of every major city.

The obscene frequency with which domestic violence is ignored to someone's peril. The new fad of Video taping the beating of another for the fun of it. The daily horrors being reported on the news (at least here in Palm Beach County). If bad actions have worse consequences, people are either discouraged from doing them or locked up where they can't. Either is fine with me... as they make their own choices and will have to live with them.

Where I grew up in Wisconsin if a kid didn't want to fight a bully; he'd have to live with being called a coward. If the bully beat him up anyway; the consequences were severe indeed and repeat offenders were routinely sent off to the Juvy centers as they should be. If two kids voluntarily tangled, the Cops were still called if someone got hurt but the offences were relatively minor. I believe Wisconsin Law still reads that a condition of battery is "without permission"... and "give me your best shot, punk" constitutes permission. Kids grew up with a fair amount of respect for the dangers of physical confrontation AND the law. These days, it seems the law gives them so many chances that it's hardly a threat until someone really gets hurt... and even then the bleeding hearts are crying give him another chance (like that piece of **** Lionell Tate who at 12 years old beat a six year old to death, over a prolonged period of time)(go figure he broke probation with a knife... and later robbed a Pizza Delivery Man at gun point... shocker).

Harsh examples of every offender need to be the norm to have any hope of reversing the trend toward more and more violence. Kids shouldn't have to deal with this **** day in and day out. Women shouldn't have to travel in packs and the elderly shouldn't have to fear having their welfare stolen from them as they roll around on the hoverounds. We're in the 21st century and the law still prefers to turn the blind eye to domestic violence... is any wonder children grow up to be violent as well? Enough. Lock the bastards up and when you start running out of room; begin exterminating them from the worst down until witnessing violence becomes a shocking experience, as opposed to what you expect to see on your way to school.

Ok.

Good evening. This may be hair-splitting and of no significance here. Cho was not "involuntarily commited" to a mental health facility. Rather he was "referred" to a mental health facility. He agreed to that. The distinction would be that the former would have made it illegal to buy a gun. The point, as I noted before, is probably moot, as the system that we have here doesn't seem to include "involuntary commitments" in the background checks.

So the media is packing up and leaving Blacksburg. From what I hear, the locals and the students are glad to see that happen. Classes will resume on Monday. Most of the kids went home Wed or Thur. Some remain.

Fishin, I think there is probable legal trouble with just tasking anyone pulled in for a hold, voluntary or not (think, hundreds of thousands of scenarios.)

In general, an armed populace can produce an effect against an invader or occupier, most often by guerrilla warfare rather than direct confrontation, but, at any rate, they should have the right to do what they can and not be rendered completely defenseless.

ossobuco wrote:

Fishin, I think there is probable legal trouble with just tasking anyone pulled in for a hold, voluntary or not (think, hundreds of thousands of scenarios.)

Agreed! My concern is that most of teh federal and State laws in this area were written in the 1930s and earlier when the standard practice was to put pretty much everyone who was mentally ill in an "institution". I still remember a lot of them being aorund in the 1960s but we prettuy much did an about face an decided that the mentally ill had the right to live in open society with everyone else. We closed the asylums and sanitariums and moved to more of a short-term critical care and shelter workshop/independent living situation for long term care.

But the laws haven't changed to reflect that and IMO, something needs to change there.

IMO, the one and only good thing that is going to come out of all of this is a long hard look at mental heath systems in this country - at least I hope it does.