[Vision2020] [Spam] Guns or thoughts

[Paul Rumelhart]

There would need to be strict guidelines if we made any changes to gun 
control laws based on certain psychiatric conditions.  Remember that it 
is not against the law to be mentally ill.  I don't know whether it's 
better to do this at the Federal or State levels.  I'd be very afraid of 
an overreaching law governing this.  However, it seems like we could 
pick off some of the low-hanging fruit and find some way to keep those 
with the most violent-prone diagnoses away from firearms.

Paul

Tom Hansen wrote:
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>