One reportedly dead in Virginia Tech shooting (Update: Now 33)

[Jose]

Extending CCW to such GF-zones and increasing the average CCW rate in the US from the 1% or so level to even 5% would do much more to enhance safety than would yet another faltering, error-prone computer system to prevent legal sales to whackos.

Agree 100%

 

[Chris]

One of the arguments for the license authority to be able to determine a "Suitable Person" is to allow for such instances.

Of course, we all know that such power has been used for nothing but blanket denials for the most part. The problem with such restrictions is that regardless of how well and intended the reason was when it was put into place, those who wish to abuse the power will do so with impunity.

No, the blame isn't on a system that can't stop such individuals, but with a system that prevents good people from having the ability to stop such individuals. There will always be more good people than bad. But when only the bad have the power (ie Armed) the good are nothing more than targets.

The good news is that those that wish to NOT arm themselves do not have to. The very fact that SOME choose to do so is what will work to deter and quite possibly stop such incidents.

 

[Jose]

Read about this here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10214838/ and here http://www.gunowners.org/a012307.htm.

I am in no way agreeing with everything McCarthy wants. I definitely oppose the sweeping restrictions of the Lautenberg amendment.

But there certainly needs to be a debate about the level of exposure mental health records should get to NICS and the specific conditions and severity of conditions that should disqualify someone from owning firearms.

 

[MaverickNH]

No, the blame isn't on a system that can't stop such individuals, but with a system that prevents good people from having the ability to stop such individuals. There will always be more good people than bad. But when only the bad have the power (ie Armed) the good are nothing more than targets.

Well said. If that fit on a bumper sticker, I'd stick it on my bumper.

 

[Garys]

But there certainly needs to be a debate about the level of exposure mental health records should get to NICS and the specific conditions and severity of conditions that should disqualify someone from owning firearms.

Be careful what you ask for. Lowering the threshold presents two potential dangers. First, any treatment, even treatment without commitment for a short term problem might become a life time disqualifier. Second, what if a family member has been treated? Should that be part of the check? I can see that coming at some point too.

Gary

 

[Jose]

Be careful what you ask for.

Which is why I said we need to debate what is and what is not appropriate. I do not have the answers.

If we, as responsible gun owners, do not think this through and come up with what is acceptable and not acceptable mental health reasons for disqualification and have rationale for those decisions, someone is going to do it for us and we will probably NOT like the result.

I am asking for proactivity, not reactivity.

 

[matt1956]

I am in no way agreeing with everything McCarthy wants. I definitely oppose the sweeping restrictions of the Lautenberg amendment.

But there certainly needs to be a debate about the level of exposure mental health records should get to NICS and the specific conditions and severity of conditions that should disqualify someone from owning firearms.

I completely disagree. I see your point, but you ahve to understand there would be no "debate" on what is ok and what is not.

Look at it this way.

Say you loose a loved one and have a hard time coping with it. SO you go to therapist... then when you renew your LTC, your a**h*** chief can say, sorry, you have been under phsycatric care and thus you are DQed... you have no basis to fall back on.

How about a child whose parents go through a bad divorce... and (I know a person close to me that had this happen) the COURT orders you to see a therapist because you refuse to see one of your parents and they need to determine why? Is that now a disqualifyer?

How about Rape victims? If they need to take a mild prescription to simply get through the day with out living in fear, do they now get the big DQ?

What about simple anxiety, somthing that millions of adults go through on a regular basis... if they seek help to deal with it... does this now DQ them?

Sorry.. .very bad idea and I would fight this all the way.

You have to remember, you open this door, then what stops them from medical records?

 

[drgrant]

Mike, you are of course correct in that people can obtain guns illegally.

My point is that we need to take a long hard look at ways that can flag people on NICS when they cross a certain threshold of nuttiness. I don't know where that threshold is. But is IS there. At some point, a pattern of violence and/or instability needs to flag someone as unsuitable to own firearms.

I mostly agree, but the problem is where do we draw the line... if we let the
politicos do this, then what happens is we end up with the line being in the
wrong place, as it is with crap like the Lautenberg amentment, where a woman
has a lifetime firearms DQ because she ripped the pocket of her husband's jeans-
eg, "misdemeanor of domestic violence".

The other problem within our current system of "prohibited person" BS is that
there are only extremely difficult ways for people to get out of the qualification
that don't belong there. There is no panel or anything like that, where a person
can take a lawyer, and some evidence, and plead your case for restoration of
rights. People with old felony convictions and the like are denied rights and
have no way of restoring them short of buttering the bread of some politician-
and even then its a fat chance if the politico you have to grease is an anti or
happens to be on the wrong side for whatever reason.

One of the central arguments of responsible gun ownership has been to keep them out of the hands of those who have demostrated an unacceptable propensity to violence. I think this guy meets that definition.

Open to debate on this............

My opinion has always been that if "society" deems someone unfit to own
a firearm then they should be incarcerated or otherwise prohibited to interact
with other human beings. I see no difference between, say, allowing
someone to own a firearm and allowing someone to drive a motor
vehicle. (Last I knew, there was no FIP or looney bin BS wrt motor vehicles,
anyone who isn't in prison for DUI can basically own a car. ) Both can be
"deadly weapons" when misused by the wrong people. I realize this has
a "cost' associated with it, ,but what is the cost of the loss of innocent life
s well as the cost of loss of liberty by people who were trapped on the edge
of the system. I would bet that at most, we can just agree to
disagree on this part of the equation. I realize that this is not the
current reality, and we're going to effectively have to deal with dumb
systems like NICS for the rest of our lives, unless there is a revolution of
some sort. Within that framework, then, maybe NICS should be changed,
but also changed in the sense that while the net is widened it is easier for
people who may have been wrongly assigned to it to be vindicated or
have rights restored.

I would be all for reforming NICS in its current state if a few things could
happen.... if the falsing rate is brought to near zero (eg, ANY delays
or false denials are unacceptable! A woman seeking a firearm for protection
under duress and getting a delay = dead woman) and a panel is created for the
restoration of rights deprived via old felony convictions or possibly misapplied/misguided
looney bin/lautenberg disqualifiers.

The problem with getting any NICS reforms to happen is to do it without
the antis being involved in any way shape or form, and without pissing off
the overwhelming majority of the gun owner base. We cannot afford
any more fragmentation in our ranks. I think this is part of the reason
the NRA has avoided approaching the issue is because it fears that it will
drive a wedge in the community.

-Mike