Ban Guns - Freeze-Frame Radio

Lady Strange · 80's Rock Chick

RE: Ban Guns

ghostdancer · Ghost In The Machine

Wow, very well thought out and expressed Woo!!! And I whole-heartedly agree with you that we need to mandate tougher punishment and also that as a collective whole, society needs to pull their heads out of the sand and truly realize that mass shootings can happen any place, any time, and that they can be committed by a person of any age or religious background.

I'm sorry your husband lost his grandma at the hands of a family member. I'm sure that must have been an awful ordeal for the family to go through. cry

Woo Hoo · The Chosen Woo

Thank you Sandy

willy_smith34 · Lord of Linguists

O.K. after a long day of introspect, I just read through the discussion that I kind of started. I was reactionary to JD's post, I also believe that JD may have had a kneejerk reaction to the news about this incident. I think this topic may have been good for us all, as it was only periferral to the actual issue.......32 poeple lost their lives........That is tragic and causes all of us to have a passion for some solution. currently the act is now in the past, we cannot do anything about it. We need to be greatfull for our lives and each other for the support we gave each other.

I thank you all, even though I didn't truely get involved in anything yesteday. I just mourned the tragic loss of life in my own way.

now I am here to celebrate life. I love that we all helped give each other something to be passionate about.

and I'm sorry JD for getting angered.

I am glad you are all here for me, and I am here for anyone who needs it.

Again thank you all.

garougal · Cleverly Disguised As A Responsible Adult

I thought this article was interesting in relation to this topic...

Rules should have barred weapon purchase

By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago

McLEAN, Va. - A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.

if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object(); window.yzq_d['U5zNXELEYrI-']='&U=13b3a43ue%2fN%3dU5zNXELEYrI-%2fC%3d585623.10433480.11207233.1414694%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d4514983';

Cho purchased two handguns in February and March, and was subject to federal and state background checks both times. The checks turned up no problems, despite a judge's ruling in December 2005 that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."

"On the face of it, he should have been blocked under federal law," said Denis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The 23-year-old South Korean immigrant was evaluated by a psychiatric hospital after he was accused of stalking two women and photographing female students in class with his cell phone. His violence-filled writings were so disturbing that professors begged him to get counseling.

The language of the ruling by Special Justice Paul M. Barnett almost identically tracks federal regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Those rules bar the sale of guns to individuals who have been "adjudicated mentally defective."

The definition outlined in the regulations is "a determination by a court ... or other lawful authority that a person as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness ... is a danger to himself or to others."

Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead.

The Virginia attorney general's office declined to discuss the application of gun laws to Cho's case. Barnett also declined to comment.

The state uses a slightly different standard than the federal government, barring sales to individuals who have been judged "mentally incapacitated."

George Burke, a spokesman for Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (news, bio, voting record) of New York, said millions of criminal and mental-health records are not accessible to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, mostly because state and local governments lack the money to submit the records.

McCarthy has sponsored legislation since 2002 that would close loopholes in the national background check system for gun purchases.

Initially states were required to provide all relevant information to federal authorities when the instant background checks were enacted, but a U.S. Supreme Court ruling relieved them of that obligation.

"The law is very confused about this," said Richard Bonnie, a professor of law and psychiatry at the University of Virginia who heads a state commission on mental-health reform. "The source of the confusion is the relation between federal and state law."

Also Thursday, the owner of an Internet gun store based in Green Bay, Wis., told The Associated Press that Cho used his Web site to purchase one of the weapons used in the shootings. Cho paid $268 for the gun.

Eric Thompson, who runs http://www.thegunsource.com, said the Walther .22-caliber handgun was then shipped to a Virginia pawnbroker so Cho could pick it up.

Thompson said he had no idea his business was involved until he was contacted Tuesday by ATF agents.

"I just feel absolutely terrible that this tragedy even happened in the first place," he said.

willy_smith34 · Lord of Linguists

Hindsight is always 20/20

garougal · Cleverly Disguised As A Responsible Adult

Certainly so...and foresight is fostered through educating onself. smile

darleneapd · Cuff 'Em N' Stuff 'Em

Actual cut and paste from ABC news website.... below

There are at least 32 confirmed dead in the shooting at Virginia Tech University, making it the worst campus shooting in American history. Law enforcement officials believe the gunman was firing at least one 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

Do you think this incident is a reason to pass stricter gun control legislation?

No. Violent shootings are isolated incidents and it's irresponsible to link them to gun control.

86,783

Yes. This shows the violence that can occur when someone has access to handguns.

26,025

I'm not sure. I need more information.

1,970

Total Vote: 114,778

Not a scientific survey.

MzHartz · Permanent Vacation

You know, I have no problem with stricter gun control. I do have a problem with banning guns entirely, but if someone does not seem to be able to handle the responsibility of owning a gun, they shouldn't be able to get one. But I think the same way about having children...

willy_smith34 · Lord of Linguists

so Ggal, are you in favor of government survailance being legalized without control?

Mad Mema · Bad Biker Granny

I'm firmly a member of the "guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" crowd. Sorry, but that is simply a fact. Were that banning guns was the answer to gratuitous murder. It might slow a few people down, but it would not stop someone bent on killing. Just about anything in the hands of a psychotic could be used as a weapon. Suppose the dude at VA Tech had used a chemical device instead? How much more devastation could he have achieved? Not possible? Check the internet. There is always a crazy out there willing to share a recipe.

In my opinion, it would be a much more polite society we live in if consealed carry were truly legal. Yes, there would be a lot of nut jobs out there carrying guns. In fact, there already are masses of gun toting lunatics out there who don't concern over the law. If everyone had to assume that everyone else was carrying, then I think society would be much more polite and considerate.

willy_smith34 · Lord of Linguists

good point mema

garougal · Cleverly Disguised As A Responsible Adult

willy_smith34 wrote:

so Ggal, are you in favor of government survailance being legalized without control?

Certainly not. I feel this would be an abuse of the political foundations of our country. As much is the government is responsible for protecting our country's citizenry, so are the citizens responsible for keeping government in check and balancing our freedoms with the interests of the nation as a whole. Again, there is no easy answer. Consider the Patriot Act - does that not impress our citizens as something to question and assess given the authoritarian liberties it affords our government?

I think it is also important to note that in assessing our possible scenarios, it is importnat that both the government and the citizens must be cautious not to apply logical fallacies in making decisions of this nature. This is not an "either this or that" scenario, nor does post hoc thinking resolve the issue. The concern over gun control and gun-related violence is too expansive and complex to allow such simplistic thinking to rule judgment.

willy_smith34 · Lord of Linguists

exactly