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

Just because there are some bad people out there, and lots of guns, it does not follow imo that a society would be safer if most people carried a weapon. Just the opposite.

It is entirely possible that if handguns were banned, the practical difficulties of obtaining a weapon (he didnt look the sort of boy who had criminal connections) and (alternatively) of making and delivering his own weapon of mass destruction, could have thwarted his muderous intent.

One more point. The only use for a Glock 9mm is to kill people. Thats what it is designed to do. Everything esle that Cho could conceivably have used had to be perverted in some way from its original design purpose. Not so with hand guns. Apart from police there should be no place for them in civil society,

Steve 41oo wrote:

Just because there are some bad people out there, and lots of guns, it does not follow imo that a society would be safer if most people carried a weapon. Just the opposite.

If it is "just the opposite" how come states don't become less safe once people are allowed to carry a concealed weapon if they wish?

It is entirely possible that if handguns were banned, the practical difficulties of obtaining a weapon (he didnt look the sort of boy who had criminal connections) and (alternatively) of making and delivering his own weapon of mass destruction, could have thwarted his muderous intent.

The making of pipe bombs is quite simple and easy.

One more point. The only use for a Glock 9mm is to kill people. Thats what it is designed to do. Everything esle that Cho could conceivably have used had to be perverted in some way from its original design purpose. Not so with hand guns. Apart from police there should be no place for them in civil society,

So long as it is legitimate for civilians to kill in self-defense, implements specifically designed for the killing of other people have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians.

oralloy wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:

Just because there are some bad people out there, and lots of guns, it does not follow imo that a society would be safer if most people carried a weapon. Just the opposite.

If it is "just the opposite" how come states don't become less safe once people are allowed to carry a concealed weapon if they wish?

I did say imo. By all means produce some evidence to support your contention that I am wrong. I said just the opposite because my gut feeling is that more guns = more shootings, and that a trivial dispute (think of road rage) can end up very serious indeed when guns are involved.

oralloy wrote:

The making of pipe bombs is quite simple and easy.

Not so easy. And not as easy as buying a hand gun in Roanoake.

oralloy wrote:

So long as it is legitimate for civilians to kill in self-defense, implements specifically designed for the killing of other people have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians.

Really? Do machine pistols have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians? Do sniper rifles have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians?

It may be that if someone pulls a gun on you, the only course of action is to open fire. On the other hand it might be much more prudent to let him have the $50, it might save your own life and his.

Do machine pistols have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians?

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

The Iraqi insurgents wholeheartedly agree with that.

Steve 41oo wrote:

Really? Do machine pistols have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians? Do sniper rifles have a legitimate place in the hands of civilians?

Of course they do.

???

Paaskynen wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

The Iraqi insurgents wholeheartedly agree with that.

Precisely. This belies the assertion that an armed populace is of no use in a war.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Paaskynen wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

The Iraqi insurgents wholeheartedly agree with that.

Precisely. This belies the assertion that an armed populace is of no use in a war.

Brandon, you are the first American I have come across who declares the Iraqis have the right to kill American soldiers on their soil.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Paaskynen wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

The Iraqi insurgents wholeheartedly agree with that.

Precisely. This belies the assertion that an armed populace is of no use in a war.

Brandon, you are the first American I have come across who declares the Iraqis have the right to kill American soldiers on their soil.

I did say imo. By all means produce some evidence to support your contention that I am wrong. I said just the opposite because my gut feeling is that more guns = more shootings, and that a trivial dispute (think of road rage) can end up very serious indeed when guns are involved.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Paaskynen wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

The Iraqi insurgents wholeheartedly agree with that.

Precisely. This belies the assertion that an armed populace is of no use in a war.

Brandon, you are the first American I have come across who declares the Iraqis have the right to kill American soldiers on their soil.

fishin wrote:

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.

I think the laws changed in reaction to the awful abuses of mentally ill people in the times you speak of.


De-institutionalisation came a bit later......and was, while speaking rights based language, at bedrock more about cost-cutting...at least in practice.




There is certainly a problem with finding beds for people, but I do not think the problem with committing unwell people is so much resource based, as law based.


At least here...



Often, I know that professionals may believe a person should be committed for longer than they are, or ought, at least, to have well policed treatment orders in the community, but know that the laws as they stand will not allow this...or that the custodians of the appeal processes will not support the families and mental health practitioners in their treatment plans.


This is often an ENORMOUS problem for families, or friends, or people like university staff, who may well see signs of deterioration in people before professionals pick it up, but cannot get treatment orders.


Sigh....I don't know......these balances of people's rights to self-determination vs need for treatment/committal for safety reasons, are extremely difficult ones, and mental health professionals cop enormous anger whichever way they go.


I hope the "long hard look" doesn't result in what it normally does....scape-goating of the people directly involved in the case, with recommendations for better care, which the resources and laws do not allow for.

The mental health professionals need a way to "alert" the appropriate authorities

Brandon9000 wrote:

Paaskynen wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

The Iraqi insurgents wholeheartedly agree with that.

Precisely. This belies the assertion that an armed populace is of no use in a war.

Brandon, you are the first American I have come across who declares the Iraqis have the right to kill American soldiers on their soil.

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.

You're correct: you didn't specify that but used the term "in general":

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

I said that an armed populace can be effective against an invader or occupier, and agreed with Paaskynen that Iraq was an example of the principle. I never said, or in any way implied, that Iraqis possessed moral justification to kill Americans. Saying that something is effective is quite different from saying that it's justified. I suspect that he understands this perfectly.

... , but, at any rate, they should have the right to do what they can and not be rendered completely defenseless.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I said that an armed populace can be effective against an invader or occupier, and agreed with Paaskynen that Iraq was an example of the principle. I never said, or in any way implied, that Iraqis possessed moral justification to kill Americans. Saying that something is effective is quite different from saying that it's justified. I suspect that he understands this perfectly.

Brandon9000 wrote:

... , but, at any rate, they should have the right to do what they can and not be rendered completely defenseless.

dlowan wrote:

fishin wrote:

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.

I think the laws changed in reaction to the awful abuses of mentally ill people in the times you speak of.


De-institutionalisation came a bit later......and was, while speaking rights based language, at bedrock more about cost-cutting...at least in practice.




There is certainly a problem with finding beds for people, but I do not think the problem with committing unwell people is so much resource based, as law based.


At least here...



Often, I know that professionals may believe a person should be committed for longer than they are, or ought, at least, to have well policed treatment orders in the community, but know that the laws as they stand will not allow this...or that the custodians of the appeal processes will not support the families and mental health practitioners in their treatment plans.


This is often an ENORMOUS problem for families, or friends, or people like university staff, who may well see signs of deterioration in people before professionals pick it up, but cannot get treatment orders.


Sigh....I don't know......these balances of people's rights to self-determination vs need for treatment/committal for safety reasons, are extremely difficult ones, and mental health professionals cop enormous anger whichever way they go.


I hope the "long hard look" doesn't result in what it normally does....scape-goating of the people directly involved in the case, with recommendations for better care, which the resources and laws do not allow for.

I agree whole-heartedly Ms. Wabbit. I don't think that we need to go back to an age where everyone with a mental illness is locked up. But, just as one might "baby-proof" their home when a todler comes to visit, I think we need to ensure that "reporting" is both useful and purposeful and serves the needs of the greater society.

The mental health professionals need a way to "alert" the appropriate authorities if a patient is a danger and maintain their professional obligations to the patient at the same time. All of that, of course, on top of ensuring they have the tools to do what they can to help the indivual move away from a destructive state of mind to begin with.