[Vision2020] [Spam] Guns or thoughts

[lfalen]

Tom

Please read the article in saturdays DN by Mike Finckbiner

Roger       
-----Original message-----
From: "Tom Hansen" thansen at moscow.com
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:54:22 -0700
To: "'Paul Rumelhart'" godshatter at yahoo.com,  vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] [Spam] Guns or thoughts

> 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)
> 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================