So this guy walks into a gun store..

[Virginia Dare]

someone who is known to have written things so violent and disturbing that his college professors referred him for psychological counseling. Someone who is apparently known to have been stalking women and has set a fire in his dorm. Someone who is apparently on anti-depressants for some diagnosed mental problem.

Anyway, he buys enough guns and ammo to blow away dozens of people.

The guy in the gun store cheerfully sells them to him no questions asked, hands him a receipt and tells him to have a nice day.

What's wrong with this picture?

[Marie26]

1. Everything. nt

[Snotcicles]

63. You neglected to mention the profit margins on guns and ammo. nt

[Irreverend IX]

68. The profit margins on guns and ammo are very thin.

The entire gun and ammo industry is worth about $2 billion a year. The McDonalds corporation alone is six times as big. Why do you think you never see magazine ads for guns? They're one of the few products left that aren't made to break in five years, so manufacturers can't count on a whole lot of repeat business.

[Fresh_Start]

2. all perfectly legal, so apparently nothing

to the 50+% of Americans who believe guns are more important than any of their other civil liberties.

[firefox_fan]

4. Background checks are a joke.

n/t

[villager]

5. why, for gun nuts everywhere "it's a wonderful life..."

n/t

[billbuckhead]

6. But it's not 50+ percent it's a vocal minority with corporate money behind them

[Fresh_Start]

13. you're right, it just seems like its the majority

because it has majority type control

[slackmaster]

3. You're asking the wrong question

I wonder why the guy wasn't in jail, and why he was still enrolled at VT, after setting a fire in a dormitory.

[Horse with no Name]

10. I have a friend who has a psychopathic son

and he set a state park in Texas on fire when he was in middle school.
He is lifetime BANNED from ANY state facility UNLESS it is a law enforcement institution.
Of course, this IS Texas.:shrug:

[slackmaster]

14. I hope they managed to get him a felony conviction in the process

That would make it a lot harder for him to buy a gun.

[Horse with no Name]

18. Nope.

This kid is SERIOUSLY disturbed, he is the kind that would do something like this.
His parents put locks on the other kids bedroom doors so he couldn't harm them while they slept.
The BEGGED for the state to do something...and the state said no, he was their problem and if he did something that harmed someone, they would be held responsible.
They didn't have the insurance needed for private institutionalization, and the courts kept saying...ONE more offense...one more offense...etc, and they would state commit him. However, the fires, panty stealing, grand theft auto...nothing got the kid committed. The state never charged him with the felony because they didn't want him in the system.
He is still wandering the streets today as an adult now.

[slackmaster]

25. He could easily lie about his mental health on the federal paperwork and buy a gun

Too bad.

[Horse with no Name]

32. Well unfortunately he wouldn't have to lie

His Dad is 100% Texan and probably owns enough firepower to take down Vermont.
He could have access to a gun very easily.
My friend married his Dad and finally left because she felt she was endangering her other children by staying.
Very sad situation.

[Maat]

28. I saw this happen time and time again as a social worker ...

and there a waiting list two miles long for counseling. Oh, the insurance will pay for a fifteen (yes, I said '15-minute') visit with a psychiatrist, who would slap the kid on meds knowing very little about him, but just try and secure ongoing assessment, counseling, and life-skills and anger management training for the kid.

The part that got me, as a CPS (Child Protective Services Officer) worker (i.e. social worker), was the irrational blame put on the parents, and the expectation that THEY do something with no resources. A mom half the size of an antisocial kid can't force this kid to do anything. This type of situation is horrendous.

We need universal health coverage, and it needs to cover ALL necessary mental health services ON PARITY with services for physical illnesses.

[Horse with no Name]

Amen.

[EFerrari]

42. It happened over and over to us and in three different counties.

I could get Doug put in jail in a heartbeat. Actual CARE took years and years to get. And the whole time, the situation was construed as something wrong with us as a couple which neatly obscured the system failure at every turn. Like a divorce is going to handle a personality disorder by magic.

There seems to be a way to blame and push away any family configuration. :mad:

[sandnsea]

17. Hand over half your paycheck

How do you expect to house every person who ever committed any crime whatsoever.

I'd also like to give rich people a heads up - keep this attitude up and us po' folk are going to break a window and be done with it. When 1/3 of the population is in jail - well it just won't have quite the same stigma or meaning anymore, will it.

The background check should have caught this guy. The gunners always say keep the guns out of the hands of criminals. Well, here's how well your plan is working.

[slackmaster]

23. You think an ARSONIST isn't worthy of being arrested?

I don't know about your state, but it's one of the few crimes that can qualify for life imprisonment in mine. I'd rather see 50 drug dealers go free than have one known arsonist out in society.

The background check should have caught this guy.

I agree that it should have, but if you let him off for a crime like arson how would he ever show up on the background check?

[sandnsea]

27. Arrested, yes - jailed for life, no

He absolutely should have been arrested, in fact I assumed he was. I was objecting to your view that he should have been in jail, as if we can jail every person who ever committed a crime. It's just not possible.

Either way, the school should have submitted his name to a gun database. If the only solution we're allowed to implement is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed, then we have to get serious about it.

[slackmaster]

31. It would only have taken a felony arraignment to stop the guy from buying the Glock

Not being "jailed for life", not even a conviction. Just a pending trial.

:argh:

[sandnsea]

33. Gosh

In my view, it only would have taken a documented letter from a certified psychiatrist to prevent that guy from buying a gun. It shouldn't be solely dependent on a felony arrest record.

[slackmaster]

34. Shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't

You're talking about a change in the law.

I'm talking about enforcing the fucking law. The law isn't broken. The VT shooter should have been flagged as prohibited from buying a firearm because of something he actually did.

[sandnsea]

44. Yeah

He actually lit a fire under the care of mental health professionals and a psychiatrist should have been required to notify someone.

And if he just lit a fire in a trash can because he thought it was funny, well gee, do we want every kid who pulls a stupid prank to have a felony record?

[slackmaster]

50. Right, and who among us hasn't stalked a few women just for a hoot?

:argh:

[sandnsea]

58. ????

Where do you people come from??? Are you fucking kidding me?

You don't know teen-aged boys who do all sorts of crazy ass shit with fire???

[slackmaster]

70. The ones I knew who did crazy ass shit with fire are mostly dead or in jail now

Imagine that.

[sandnsea]

74. Not the ones I know

They're mostly responsible parents and taxpayers. Imagine that.

Word games.

[damntexdem]

71. It would have prevented it only if there were a viable background check.

He likely still would have been able to buy that Glock in VA no matter what was on his record.

[Sapere aude]

7. Yes and this happens every day, many times a day so we need to keep guns away from everyone.

[slackmaster]

11. Including women who are being stalked and abused?

Security guards?

Police officers?

People who live alone out in the sticks?

[Virginia Dare]

77. No sir, just from the homicidal maniacs if you please...n/t

[Sukie1941]

8. What the clerk forgot

The salesman of that gun forgot to have the perp sign a very simple document.

It reads "If I decide to use this weapon on a human being, I promise it will be a member of my own family and not a member of someone else's family."

Bottom line for me: If someone kills a friend or family member of mine, there won't be a trial and there won't be an O.J. I believe in vigilante justice to the bottom of my heart.

[LSK]

72. people like you scare me

Educate yourself on modern civilization please.

[ClintonTyree]

9. Unless the guy has a criminal record....

there's not much the gun dealer can do. I'm not defending gun dealers by any stretch of the imagination. But the guy followed the law, as it is written. There's so much that is wrong in this tragedy. Hopefully some good will come of it down the road.

[slackmaster]

12. Yes, too bad he wasn't arrested and prosecuted for that fire he set

:argh:

[Junkdrawer]

15. Was his money good? Then he gets a gun...Hell, try to limit his purchases to 2/month...

and watch the gunners go ballistic...

[Midlodemocrat]

21. Ha. Here in Virginia, you're limited to one per month.

That'll teach ya.

:eyes:

No wonder the pavement up the I-95 corridor to NYC is so well worn.

[Thothmes]

86. 2/month

In Virginia, you can purchase only one hand gun per month.

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. What's wrong is that you think we need a national database of mentally ill people,

a database that's immediately available and accesible to civilians, and should be used in profiling people's purchases; and/or that you expect a retailer to somehow be able to do the job of a psychologist/psychiatrist in mere minutes of knowing a particular customer.

How is a gun store clerk supposed to know what a person's professor has done? How was the clerk supposed to know that a customer is a stalker? Or set fire to a dorm? Or is on anti-depressants?

[Midlodemocrat]

20. Which while good in theory is a violation of HIPAA

Most mentally ill people aren't violent, so putting them into a database is a violation of their privacy.

[sandnsea]

22. Yes there is supposed to be a fucking database

Somebody is on anti-psychotic drugs, yes they should be in the database.

[slackmaster]

29. That is not what the law says sandnsea

People taking antipsychotic medications and antidepressants have rights too.

You get put in the database when you are adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution, among other reasons.

Here is the text of the law just to keep the discussion factual, starting with Section 922(d) of the United States Code:

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—
(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26)));
(6) who <1> has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or
(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

[sandnsea]

47. "adjudicated as a mental defective"

Which is horrible verbage, but is exactly what I'm talking about. The guy should have been in the database.

[slackmaster]

54. If you can think of a way to change the law to do that without infringing on civil rights

I will support it.

[sandnsea]

56. You just quoted the damned law

It's right friggin' there. Psychiatrist makes the referral with the knowledge of the patient. If the patient objects, it gets ADJUDICATED. Hello???

[slackmaster]

59. It takes court action and more than one doctor to adjudicate someone in California

Your mileage may vary.

[sandnsea]

60. And so??

Whatever it takes. Get the fucking shit done and quit playing all these goddamned word games while kids die.

[slackmaster]

69. Please stop accusing me of playing "word games"

Words have specific meanings, and I am a good guy.

If I could do more to get all the people who should be adjudicated or committed taken care of, I would.

[Throwing Stones]

35. it's been alleged that Cho was on anti-depressants

which, I am on, as well, under the close supervision of a qualified psychiatrist. I'd prefer that my name not go in a national database, thank you.

[phylny]

39. Correction: It's been alledged that Cho was PRESCRIBED anti-depressants.

Whether he was actually taking them or not is not yet known.

I only say this because of those who immediately start accusing anti-depressants for violent acts. It's possible that he stopped taking them, or never took them, hence the violence ensued.

[sandnsea]

46. Up to your psychiatrist

I specifically said anti-psychotics which are different than anti-depressants. In any event, psychiatrists should be able to make the referral. If you disagree, tell it to the judge.

[Throwing Stones]

55. but I don't think anything's been said about Cho being on anti-psychotics

and even so, not all psychotic behaviour is necessarily violent, and I still would not want my privacy violated.

[sandnsea]

57. Gee -- Up To The Psychiatrist

Isn't that what I clearly said. His mental health professional should have been able to consult with the staff psychiatrist regarding the overall picture for this guy. The fire, clinical sessions, history - there should have been a mechanism to prevent him from buying a gun.

If you aren't dangerous, then a mental health professional wouldn't even think of doing this. Wouldn't enter their mind. It's for the minority of cases where people are sounding violent, and the law is in place to take action as is quoted above.

Nobody likes their privacy violated. Sometimes it has to be done to protect the community at large. That's just the way it is. If all law were based on privacy violation, we wouldn't have very many laws.

[Throwing Stones]

62. Without upping the level of snip here

What you originally said was

"Yes there is supposed to be a fucking database

Somebody is on anti-psychotic drugs, yes they should be in the database."

To which I replied that there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Cho was on anti-pyschotic drugs.
From there, it seems to have devolved into flaming, although I was simply pointing out that database or no database, wtf does it have to do with Cho's ability to purchase a gun. You want a national database that includes all of your "suspicious" activities? Hmm. sandnsea flipped off this driver that cut 'em off, sandnsea raised 'em's voice at the barrister for putting too much foam in the latte, sandnsea had to talk to a counselor once a few years ago about some personal problems 'em was going through. These might all add to sandnsea's -insert privilege here- being revoked.

edited to replace brackets with dashes

[sandnsea]

64. Sandnsea goes to see the judge n/t

[Junkdrawer]

24. What about more comprehensive background checks....

And if you don't want your background checked, don't try to buy a gun...

You know, like most of the REST of the world does it...

[proud2BlibKansan]

66. But would a background check have caught this guy?

I don't pretend to know the details of his medical history. But if he was just on anti-depressants, that isn't a red flag to keep him from getting a gun. If he really was an undiagnosed schizophrenic, as some DUers think, he would have passed the screen, since he had not yet been diagnosed.

[Rabrrrrrr]

87. We do have background checks - I've gone through them.

I do agree they need to be better, though. I don't know if the all-states database has been implemented yet, or if that law was ever even passed, but it should be.

But we could never have a background check that can check for everything, unless we are willing to give up far too much privacy; and even then, it will never work on people who haven't done anything yet to get flagged on a background check.

[TX-RAT]

38. I agree

[Virginia Dare]

78. Okay, thanks for telling me what I think...n/t

[DCKit]

19. Virginia, you know I love you, but what if the guns were not bought throught legal channels?

Here in DC I am not allowed to own a handgun, yet have seen "the bulge" under the shirt of far too many teenagers to believe that banning guns is going to take them out of the hands of criminals.

BTW, my Mom is one who lives more than a mile from her closest neighbor and deals with rattle snakes and bears. You can be sure she has an assortment of firearms.

edited to add: And, Oh, I have been robbed at gunpoint twice (last on Feb. 17th, in front of two DC cops who then threatened to arrest ME) and threatened once with a pistol.

[Virginia Dare]

79. I support the right to own guns...

for purposes of hunting and/or personal protection, but this goes beyond the pale in my opinion. If a man is known to be stalking women and/or has a history of mental problems, he shouldn't be able to walk out of a store with a gun on the same day of purchase.

[DCKit]

88. Then we are in agreement. VA needs to strengthen their laws. nt

[napi21]

26. You're picking on the gun store, but they did everything right.

The puyer had NO criminal record, didn't smell of alcohol, and showed no signs of any problem. What do you want the shop owner to do? Perhapse you believe the school should have put something on file because of this student's writing history, but WHAT? He didn't commit any crime! Do you really believe that anyone who is taking some kind of depression meds should be denied owning a gun?

I honestly think lots of people are going after the guns, and that's just not the right approach. There have always been people who flip out! There are also those who plot and plan murders...sometimes MASS MURDERS. If you tried to take EVERY gun out of circulation (which would be impossible), these folks would find another way to do what they want to do. Maybe a home made bomb?

I suspect the best we can hope for is to put things like siren systems on campusesthat would notify everyone there is a REAL PROBLEM and you muct stay or go to a secure area and stay there until an all clear is sounded, similar to what a lot of towns in tornado prone areas have. There will always be a rish, and NOTHING will protect everyone all the time except a secure bubble fof some kind, but nobody wants that!

[Virginia Dare]

80. No, it was perfectly legal, that's the problem, imo

by the way this is the fifth gun known to be used in a homocide bought at this particular store. :wtf:

[underpants]

30. Welcome to Roanoke Firearms!

http://www.roanokefirearms.com/

[Marie26]

40. They STILL have the Glock as a "featured gun".

That's the same gun that they sold to this mass murderer. Sickening.

[slackmaster]

43. Twisted as it seems, they will probably sell a bunch of them

To people afraid the model will be banned.

[Marie26]

45. Oh, I'm sure they will. nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

49. So? They Should Stop Selling Them Now? That's Absurd.

Should Ginsu stop selling their knives if someone used one to commit a murder? Should prestone stop selling its brand of antifreeze because of that psycho nut woman who used it to kill two of her husbands? Pretty silly premise really.

[slackmaster]

51. OMC, I share your tendency to cold, dispassionate logic

There is no rational reason they should stop selling the pistol.

[Marie26]

76. I'm talking about the website

Fine, sell it, it's legal. But the ad is obscene, IMHO.

[slackmaster]

89. You know what Justice Potter Stewart said about obscenity, right?

"I know it when I see it."

I don't see the same thing you do.

[Marie26]

75. Perhaps stop proudly advertising the murder weapon

To show just a little bit of respect for the families & the school? But that's probably too much to ask of a store that shows guns pointed at Osama in the window.

[Virginia Dare]

81. How about they stop selling them to homocidal maniacs?

That would be a start!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. Put The Blame On The Homocidal Maniac. Not The Innocent Store Owner Who Had No Way Of Knowing.

I can't stand faulty misplaced blame.

[Virginia Dare]

84. No, I put the blame on bullshit laws...

that allow just any schmo to walk into a store and walk out with a deadly lethal weapon along with the ammo to take out dozens of people in one fell swoop.

I support the right to own guns, but there has got to be tighter restrictions on certain weapons and ammo, and there has got to be a better method of checking people's answers on the questionnaires before they leave the store with the weapons and/or ammo.

This is the fifth gun used in a homocide from this store alone. That's not right.

[Beausoir]

65. Is that for real? I thought it was some kind of sick joke.

[Virginia Dare]

82. According to Brian Ross, ABC News tonight.

this is the fifth weapon known to have been used in a homocide purchased at this store. :wtf:

[Marie26]

85. They're catering to criminals

Oh, in my humble opinion. The website proudly advertises that they have the "newest cutting-edge items you won't find in many gun shops!" Like a Kimber 1911 w/digital laser grips!! The store features guns like sniper rifles, automatic weapons, and glocks. These are the not the kinds of guns hunters buy; these are the kinds of guns criminals buy. Roanoke is right on I-81, the highway that runs up the east coast to Washington DC, & then connects w/I-95 to NYC. Virginia has some of the most lax gun laws in the country. 2+2= 4 here. The poster who talked about people coming from NYC to buy guns in VA wasn't kidding. People from Northeast cities come straight down I-95 to get their guns in VA, no questions asked. It's not hard to figure out their target clientele here.



These are the kinds of guns they advertise. Who needs this??

[undeterred]

36. Was he misusing his student loan money?

If its unrelated to tuition, books, or other school expenses...

[NV Whino]

37. It's Virginia

People from New York drive to Virginia to buy guns. No lie.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

48. Were charges brought against him in the stalking cases?

That alone should have been enough to keep him from purchasing a firearm. However, from what I've read I'm not sure if any charges were ever brought against him. I also don't know if Virginia requires a background check, and if it does how accurate they might be. I assume there's no waiting period there either. There were many indications that this person may have been heading for a meltdown, but I'm not clear on what, if any, actions that were being taken to prevent it.

[slackmaster]

53. Naw, he was just a college kid doing things for laughs

Haven't we all set a trash can on fire just to see people panic?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

61. Nah, stalking is a serious crime

At least is should be.

[Done]

52. Damn, I clicked here because I thought this was a joke.

As in "guy walks into a bar..."

But this isn't funny at all.

:cry:

[Erebus67]

67. If he had been held responsible for the arson

charged with the stalking, gotten an RO slapped on him, the NCIS check would have rejected him. But none of that happened. We can pass all the laws we want when we don't enforce them this kind of thing happens. If all the laws we have now didn't prevent it because they were not enforced or were ignored what makes anyone think new ones will work?

[Scout]

73. he wasn't a "criminal" yet, so he had a "right" to buy as

many guns as he wanted!

:sarcasm: