Peter Troy, who had a history of mental illness, shot and killed two people at a church in New York.
In Alabama, a man with a history of mental illness killed two police officers with a rifle he bought on Christmas Eve.
In suburban New York, a schizophrenic walked into a church during Mass and shot to death a priest and a parishioner.
In Texas, a woman taking anti-psychotic medication used a shotgun to kill herself.
Not one of their names was in a database that licensed gun dealers must check before making sales — even though federal law prohibits the mentally ill from purchasing guns.
Most states prohibit information on mentally ill folks from being accessible for decision-making systems like checking on gun purchases — on privacy grounds. Another question about privacy vs. public safety that’s up for discussion — and legislation.
I don’t think anyone may argue that these people shouldn’t have had guns. Not because of any mental defect, but because guns should not be available so easily. To anyone. The obcene mob known as the National Rifle Association has long pushed to water down any gun restrictions, including background checks. The NRA cares more about the right to have assault weapons in every home then it does about the right of Americans to be free from tyranny.
Why does anyone need a gun anyway? Not for defense. More people are killed or seriously injured each year by the guns kept for private defense. This includes family members, neighbors, and the owners. Criminals shot in defense by home owners are few and far between.
Because you want to be an effective check on the government? Forget it. Sure you can buy a M-16 or an AK-47. The government has a lot more of those as well as F-16s and something called the M1-A1 Abrams tank. Voting is much more of an effective check then shooting politicians. You put people like Bush in power then expect your civil liberties to be eroded.
Hunting is possibly the one activity where guns have a place. Unfortunately, high powered weapons make poor hunting weapons as they tend to ruin the meat. In areas like where I live, firearms are restricted to black powder and shot guns, as well as bows. There are too many living close by and errant shots have been known to hit houses and vehicles. And for most urban dwellers, if you need meat, try the supermarket. Hunting is not a sport. A sport gives an equal chance to both sides, a deer ¼ mile away can’t fight back.
If you wish to suggest you have a “god given right” to posses firearms, or worse, a”Constitutional Right”, then you ignore my god given, Constitutional Right to pursue my own liberty and freedom without fear of “accidental” death or injury from people like you.
Guns were made with one purpose in mind. To kill. Put a gun into the hands of ANYONE who MIGHT go off the deep end some day, and you have a walking time bomb. I am surprised that there are not more incidents like these.
All guns should be banned from private ownership. The only exception to this would be guns used in law enforcement. Possession of a weapon should be punished much more severely then current drug laws punish people.
“All guns should be banned from private ownership.”
I think this was a German policy in the 1930’s.
This is really doesn’t make any sense. When you go through an instant back ground check for a firearm, if you fail they don’t tell you why you failed. You have to go to the county sherif or local police department to find out why you failed. I don’t see why tying in the treatment records of mental health institutions would be a violation. The police already have access to these records.
————
Any society that seeks to deny the rights of the individual in favor of group will have no rights either individual nor as a group. When the rights are decided in favor of the group then anything may be perputrated in the name of masses by those in power, ie. the rich.
Just as our Constitutions seeks to protect the rights of miniority the rights of the individuals to self-defense through the ownership and use of firearms is protected. Any reading of the papers of the Founding Fathers will lead to no other conclusion,
What do you need a gun for anyway? Their made to kill… Who has a legit need to kill?
Define mental illness. Are you mentally ill because you have taken a few pills for depression? Are you mentally ill because you belong to a group that is out of the mainline (ie gays, Scientologists, Moonies?) Are you mentally ill because you paint your face yellow and green and go to a fooball game and scream like crazy? Are you mentally ill because you listen to Michael ‘Moron Nation’ Savage?
I’m much more fearful of the organized extremists, such as the ultra-right (neo-Nazis, neo-Cons, KKK types) and the religious zealots of any kind that have a following and some credibility amongst the ignorant masses, than of some random mentally ill individual getting a gun.
If an individual has been psychiatrically diagnosed as a ‘severe menace to society’ then two things should happen: a) he should be restricted from weapons purchases as a matter of public record, and (b) he should be under treatment and kept from being a danger to others… but then only if the threat of direct physical violence is well documented.
Just as our Constitutions seeks to protect the rights of miniority the rights of the individuals to self-defense through the ownership and use of firearms is protected. Any reading of the papers of the Founding Fathers will lead to no other conclusion,
If we go by the spirit of the law, the 2nd Amendment has less to do with self-defense than it does the establishment of an armed militia in the absense of a standing Army, which the United States did not have at the time. That would imply that the establishment of the US Armed forces would largely make the 2nd Amendment moot. Unless you assume, as many gun lovers do, that the 2nd Amendment also allows for the bearing of arms against government tyranny. The problem there, of course, is how exactly one defines tyranny and whether or not you could ever actually get away with bearing arms against the US government.
If we go by the letter of the law, however, it gets more tricky. The 2nd amendment says nothing about “owning” “firearms.” It says you can keep and bear arms. Technically, a ban of privately owned firearms in lieu of government issued weapons to every citizen would not be in violation of the Constitution.
And “arms” is a very, very broad category that includes all manner of munitions, of which guns are only a small part. It would include, for example, nuclear weapons. But I don’t know of anyone who supports private ownership of nuclear weapons or anyone who feels that the banning of such a right is a slippery slope towards tyranny.
So the question is where you draw the line. But whatever your position, if you are arguing for the private ownership of guns or against the private ownership of nuclear bombs, you are not arguing a Constitutional position.
Here’s a Scenerio (BTW, it’s a true story):
You catch a man in your back yard, who claims he’s looking for his lost dog when actually he’s “casing the joint.” Your house, that is.
Hours later, he smashes the glass of a side door to your house with a baseball bat to gain entry. You hear his footseps. He’s climbing your stairs.
You thank your lucky stars:
1) That private ownership of firearms has been banned in the enlightened locality where you live, since “no one has any possible legitimate need for a gun,” or:
2) That you live in the Lone Star State, where the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.
i guess i am the only one in this forum that actually owns a gun. Actually many guns. In the midwest or flyover states as you coasters call them we still hunt. We have become overrun with game because of restrictive hunting in the past. In regards to gun permits or being able to buy a gun anyone can buy a gun from a indvidual with no trace no background check and the gun is usually cheaper. There are millions of guns held privately. You do not need to go to a store fill out any forms. As long as private sales are legal anyone can buy a gun. no waiting no background check. As we saw in new orleans the right to defend your own property is still needed.
I doubt VERY seriously that YOU are the ONLY one who owns a gun. Geez. That said does this mean you think every mentally disturbed person should be packing?
Hours later, he smashes the glass of a side door to your house with a baseball bat to gain entry. You hear his footseps. He’s climbing your stairs.
3) Or you thank your lucky stars that you’re more intelligent than the buffoons who believe that guns are the only effective means of self-defense, and you grab your non-lethal taser and disable the intruder and call the police.
2) That you live in the Lone Star State, where the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.
You can own a nuclear weapon in Texas?
I was just reading how Google will build up a genetic database. This could represent the future of defining who you are. So Google red flags you based on your Google genetic profile. Google might not red flag you, it will just provide the means to do so. What happens next?
Our rights are changing. Guns are one issue, that involves privacy. With new searchable databases, privacy is being stripped away. You may soon have no right to privacy or no privacy and other rights such as the right to bear arms will change as well. It’s not to difficult to imagine a new database, searchable of course, that locates and keeps tabs on gun owners. The antigun people pushed for a national registry. With Google and some engineering, we may see an unofficial gun registry that rivals what the government could put together. It could exceed what the government tried. Maybe they’ll run gun buyback Google ads. Using the stigma of mental illness combined with privacy breaching, it may get easier to undertake a program of gun seizure. They may be in for a fight though. The people who want to take the guns shouldn’t have guns. It’s an uphill battle from there. They might all have laptop computers. Shoot the computers.
Then you have statements like this.
“All guns should be banned from private ownership. The only exception to this would be guns used in law enforcement. Possession of a weapon should be punished much more severely then current drug laws punish people.” Pat
The logic there is that law abiding gun owners should be treated like criminal scum. Try using Google to locate the dope dealers and junkies roaming around Anytown, USA. Make your own Google crackhouse and methlab maps. Put your computer to good use.
Silly……
If they couldn’t get a gun they would have used something else…
Should beer be banned because idiots drink and drive, or maybe the cars are at fault…
Oh my goodness let’s not suppose someone should be held personally responsible for their actions !!!
Before you condem me as an idiot, I probably agree WITH you on other issues.
We had a home invasion case locally almost identical to the one referenced in the Houston link above. I’d link it, but the local paper’s archive is a pay site.
I don’t think a Taser is a good alternative for self-defense. It’s only good for a single assailant and there are questions about whether it’s really effective for self defense at all. See “Doubts over their effectiveness as self-defense weapons” in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser. Oh, and if the assailant has a gun, good luck with your Taser.
Guns are a part of US culture and that’s just not going to change.
This Taser idea needs worked on. If the other person is packing a 10mm handgun and all you have is a Taser you are screwed. It’s the same as the marketing pitch before the Taser mania began. Then it was Mace or hot pepper spray. There was keychain spray, little holsters, fake pagers and all sorts of various products. Then there were the stun guns. All of which were promoted as an alternative to guns. It’s a big political issue also. The Democrats have driven themselves right into the political grave promoting gun control legislation. Look at all of the guns and there are more being made.
The Republicans say that they are coming for your guns and the average person knows who they means. The Democrats just keep beating the same gun control drum and shooting themselves at election time. I don’t see guns being done away with. It even looks like gun ownership is on the increase. I’m not against Tasers, but I don’t really want one. It seems sort of dumb to arm a police officer with a Taser, when the criminals all have guns. I guess the idea is that you use the Taser on the regular drunk, disorderly townspeople and save the bullets for run of the mill armed offenders. It used to be that a baton was enough to subdue the average drunk and disorderly person. Now you have to have 50,000 volts and a budget for Tasers and ongoing Taser training. I’ll bet they need special insurance also, for the people who go into cardiac arrest or have their pacemaker zapped. It all seems to be about the same thing, which is selling gadgets. Did you read about the defective bulletproof vests? You had police wearing crap vests, carrying Tasers and the criminals are driving around armed with the best stuff money can buy. If you got the dough you can get anything. All of which kills gun control. Maybe if they get rid of money nobody will need a gun or buy a gun or want a gun.
Re: “You can own a nuclear weapon in Texas?”
Of course. Haven’t you heard about our new Concealed Tactical-Nuke Carry Law. But only one megaton or less, dad gummit.
Re: “Guns are a part of US culture and that’s just not going to change.”
That’s right. And remember:
An armed society is a polite society.
-Wyatt Earp [sic]
My advice when you find yourself west of the Sabine and north of the Bravo: Mind your manners.
amen Mr Hammer