[Vision2020] [Spam] Guns or thoughts

[Tom Hansen]

Paul Rumelhart stated:

"However, while this guy was on people's radars, he was not thought to be
enough of a problem to be committed, so it's possible that he could not be
thought of as enough of a problem to be put on this magic list."

Documents concerning Cho Seung-Hui, and available at "The Smoking Gun":

"Temporary Detention Order" identifying Seung-Hui as "mentally ill and in
need of hospitalization, and presents and imminent danger to self or others
as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be
substantially unable to care for self, and is incapable of volunteering or
unable to volunteer for treatment."
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0419071cho1.gif

"Certification and Order for Involuntary Admission to a Public or Licensed
Private Facility" that diagnoses Seung-Hui as a person that "presents and
imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."  Yet, on this
same form, Seung-Hui is released to out-patient status to be scheduled for
recommended treatments
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0419071cho5.gif

The Smoking Gun's complete article concerning Cho Seung-Hui can be accessed
from:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0419071cho1.html

Clearly, the foul-up occurred at the psychiatric facility that diagnosed
Seung-Hui as being an imminent danger to himself and his community and still
released him.

You are correct, though, Paul.  Virginia law requires that Seung-Hui to have
been "committed" for reasons of mental illness before he could be denied
possession of a firearm.  Since Seung-Hui was not technically committed . .
.

Laws concerning gun control vary heavily from state to state.  In Vermont,
there virtually is no gun control.

Should we:

1)  Establish uniform guidelines (pronounced "federal law") concerning gun
control in all 50 states? 

Or  

2)  Establish a national database listing everybody who has been committed
to a psychiatric facility for reasons of mental illness?

#1 can be easily enforced.  The problem is nobody wants to "table it" at the
US House or Senate, what with the most powerful special interest group in
the nation (the NRA) looking over their shoulders (especially during
election years).

#2 can be easily established, yet virtually impossible to enforce, what with
varying standards from state to state, not to mention individual civil
rights.

Thoughts?

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"Uh, how about a 1-strike law. Death doesn't seem too extreme for a Level-3
sex offender."

- Dale "Comb-Over" Courtney (August 3, 2005)