How do you stop Crazy people from getting guns?

[jcrew2001]

There needs to be a mental health check that a store needs for every customer who buys a gun.

If this guy was hospitalized and the police escorted him to counseling, that is a red flag right there.

[LoveMyCali]

1. Isn't that what the waiting period

for a background check is for, or since it deals with medical issues is that kept private?

:shrug:

[MadMaddie]

35. But the waiting period is not applicable in this case is it?

He purchased the guns 30 days before the shooting and did nothing within those 30 days. So a 7 or 14 day waiting period is useless.

[EFerrari]

2. The people who do the check can't be the people who make $ from gun sales. nt

[Dr Fate]

14. That's right. Maybe is should be a regulated Law Enforcement professional.

I admit i dont have the answers- just thinking out loud here...

[EFerrari]

15. Me, too. But taking the pass/fail out of the retailer's hands

might be a good first step. :shrug:

[shadowrider]

3. Checking for mental health CONVICTIONS

is done with the background check. He was NOT hospitalized, he was NOT convicted in court. He was sent for OBSERVATION and CLEARED by the doctor.

And there is nothing anywhere that says someone who is stable now won't go off-hook in the future due to a job loss, divorce, cheating spouse whatever. There is no way to guard against that.

[billbuckhead]

5. Basically no one can be trusted with guns

Even the secret service has an accident this week. Police have accidents all the time. America needs to make guns much harder to get and cut back on the firepower they have.

[EFerrari]

18. I wouldn't trust me with a gun. Hell, sometimes a blender

is more than I can handle. :)

[Dr Fate]

8. Post #6 might be a way to guard against it. I refuse to believe we dont have options.

n/t

[Killarney]

4. With privacy/hippa laws, we'd never know

It's only convicted felons, not crazies.

It's too bad.

[Dr Fate]

6. I might be for some type of fair interview process with a Law Enforcement professional.

I know it will inconvenience gun enthusiasts, but they need to start thinking about OUR rights and inconveniences too.

I admit I don't have all the details worked out- but would it hurt for the gun buyer to have a 15 minute to 1 hour interview with a trained law enforcement professional before they buy weapons?

Of course, we would have to put checks in so that due process is not being violated...In other words, the cop cant just arbitrarily black list the buyer- if any red flags go up, then there would be a 2nd step...

Gun people- can you WORK WITH ME on some ideas on how this could work, besides just shooting it down?

[slackmaster]

7. There is a mental health check

Someone who has been committed, or adjudicated mentally defective, SHOULD raise a red flag in the Brady background check that is done for all new gun purchases and many used ones (all in my state).

One of the weaknesses in the system is that states don't report these disqualifying incidents consistently or reliably.

[Dr Fate]

11. I agree- the current checks are not good enough. We need more ways to "well regulate" gun buyers.

Whatever it is, it will probably end up as an inconvenience to you- I apologize for that, but we are all being inconvenienced by this.

[slackmaster]

16. I'd be happy with a uniform, national system that every state uses and feeds

That would prevent someone who was declared a nutbag in Nantuckett from buying a musket in Muskogee.

BTW - I strongly believe that buying a gun in California is sufficiently inconvenient, and that it does a pretty good job of stopping unqualified people from buying them through legal channels.

It's so inconvenient that getting my Federal Firearms License was a no-brainer. I get to bypass a lot of the crap.

[Dr Fate]

23. Great- but as usual, you take us back to square one. How could we have stopped THIS guy?

Post #6 offers a solution up for scrutiny & debate- but I'd also like some suggestions on ways a process like this-or a similar one- could work, if you dare.

Believe it or not- I do NOT want guns banned- but you will force more people to advocate for bans if you cant help us find solutions to keep these events from happening again.

SOLUTIONS- not these round & round "gotcha" semantics arguments.

[slackmaster]

24. No conceivable system could prevent every possible mucking incident

A clever mucker who carefully plans out an attack is always going to be able to get or improvise some kind of effective deadly weapon.

The only thing I think could have stopped Cho would have been getting him either jailed or committed, or at least expelled from VT, for things he is alleged to have actually done - Stalking, setting a fire, etc.

[Dr Fate]

25. Of course we cant stop every single solitary incident. But post #6 MIGHT have stopped THIS incident

Either way, you have failed to argue how it couldnt have stopped this incident- or similar ones.

THIS particular shooter doesnt appear to have been so clever in hiding his strange, violent behavior. It's possible that a trained pro might have seen some warning signs- and done some follow-up investigation before letting him get a weapon.

Please, adress some of the specifics in post # 6.

"The only thing I think could have stopped Cho would have been getting him either jailed or committed, or at least expelled from VT, for things he is alleged to have actually done - Stalking, setting a fire, etc."

So having a trained, regulated Law Enforcement Pro interview him BEFORE he bought the gun (with possible follow up if some red flags go up) is not another way to find out some of these things-BEFORE he is allowed to get the gun?

[slackmaster]

26. Maybe so, but so would a restraining order, a criminal charge, explusion from VT

None of which would require a draconian change in the law.

[Dr Fate]

27. Draconian? It's just an interview before you buy a weapon.

If he had bought the gun before a restraining order was necessary-or before he acted up on campus, there is no way your soultions would prevent this kind of shooting.

With my solution, there is a chance that a trained pro could have spotted his violence-prone mental illness BEFORE he bought the guns- even without these specific instances. For that matter, we dont know what other instances of strangeness or violence that is in his entire history.

You want to talk about Draconian? Draconian is exactly what gun absolutists are bargaining for if they keep refusing to budge on anything- you WILL force people to warm up to gun bans if you wont work with us on REAL ways to prevent these things.

Again, we all know that you can argue your case well- that's great- but we need you to help us find real solutions too.

[slackmaster]

28. It introduces a subjective determination affecting the exercise of your rights

That's the problem I have with it.

If the LEO happens to not like black people, or young people, or men, or Asians, he or she could easily discriminate against you.

[Dr Fate]

29. No, I already adressed due process-come up with something new- or an improvement to the model

I already stated that there needs to be a way to make sure Due Process is not violated.

I also said that the hypothetical Law Enforcement Pro shouldnt have the final word on whether the applicant is denied a gun.

IF he was concerend about the mental health of the applicant, there would need to be a second step (or further steps/appeals)- perhaps a type of hearing- I might suggest to have a regulated board that included an equal amount of gun owners- or even mostly gun owners- surely they dont want nuts with guns either. Then again, I'm willing to budge and give an inch or two here.

Okay- so we have established that it need not be Draconian or violative of Due Process- what other problems are there with this model?

[slackmaster]

32. Fair enough, the only other real problems I see are cost and "selling" it

Financial stuff, salaries and recordkeeping and such.

But that's not too big of an obstacle. What we have now isn't exactly cheap.

The real speedbump your idea would hit is getting it implemented at the federal level. You'd be creating non-funded mandates for states and localities, and a lot of them get pretty snippy about that.

[Dr Fate]

34. As would banning guns- which I do NOT want to do,

Thank you for working with me on this.

My goal, from here on out, is to establish common ground with your faction in our party. So please except my apologies for our earlier, less civil go-rounds.

I dont disagree with your rebuttle- I admit that my model needs work- or even possible replacement with something better.

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. I'm beginning to see that only crazy people buy them anyway.

[ToeBot]

10. How do you stop Crazy people from getting guns? Easy...

You stop people from getting guns.

[slackmaster]

17. "Easy"?

:rofl:

[Ress1]

12. It's too late,

the country is saturated with weapons.

[jody]

13. The same way you ban illegal drugs. n/t

[tridim]

19. The war on (some) drugs just created a black market and more dangerous drugs

Bad idea.

[jody]

20. Do you believe banning firearms would not create a black market? n/t

[tridim]

22. Of course it would.

And formerly legal gun nuts would have new access to currently banned weapons.

The breakdown is in the current laws that regulate gun sales. Background checks are now proven to be worthless.

[tigereye]

21. um, we don't refer to people with mental health problems as "crazy people"

fyi

Most people with mental health diagnoses, even more severe ones, are not violent.

[liberal renegade]

30. there isn't a solution

so quit wasting your beautiful minds trying to think of one. Handguns have one purpose and one purpose only. 11000 people every year die of gun violence in the good ole USA....Personally I hate guns and dislike gun nuts.

[Dr Fate]

31. I refuse to believe that we cant find a BALANCED solution here.

I'm trying to air one out in post #6.

[Catchawave]

33. Maybe the ammo should be controlled?

Assault weapons are worthless without it. Funny that here in Virginia we have ABC stores to buy alcohol, but you can buy ammo at Walmart? In boxes of 100!!!