Shooting Rampage at Northern Illinois U.

[Daseal]

The 2nd amendment was for people to have rifles to fight the British, not for every whack off to own a gun for pleasure. I was 17 and drunk -- we walked into walmart and bought a rifle. We used it to shoot targets, but still -- far too easy.

[Lady Brave]

If you guys want to debate the right to bear arms, go right ahead. However, it is really frustrating to read off-the-cuff comments about our "stupid laws" or how easy it is to obtain firearms legally, when people clearly have no idea what those laws are and are mostly ignorant on what qualifies someone as a prohibited person.

I'm really interested to know what the mental health history of the shooter is. I already have an idea of what his history will show and why he was allowed to purchase firearms legally. Unfortunately, it will take an increase in these type of shootings before the Feds will revise a very gray area within the mental health prohibitor portion of the firearm statute.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

If you guys want to debate the right to bear arms, go right ahead. However, it is really frustrating to read off-the-cuff comments about our "stupid laws" or how easy it is to obtain firearms legally, when people clearly have no idea what those laws are and are mostly ignorant on what qualifies someone as a prohibited person.

I'm really interested to know what the mental health history of the shooter is. I already have an idea of what his history will show and why he was allowed to purchase firearms legally. Unfortunately, it will take an increase in these type of shootings before the Feds will revise a very gray area within the mental health prohibitor portion of the firearm statute.

Well I was just reading that he was off or not taking his medication but they did not say what he was taking. I also read he had purchased the guns within 5 days of the shootings and used a hand gun and shot gun.I do know that here in VA. if people have mental issues the are not allowed to buy guns and it suppose to show up with their instant back ground check. That was one of the issues with the VT shooting and if the proper procedures were followed that guys name should have come up as rejected for the purchase of the gun. If I remember correctly it was the doctors or medical place which failed to report his mental condition. I just don't get this stuff because its not like in the past 15 years kids all of a sudden started have mental issues. Heck, we had people carrying guns in their cars on school property when I went to high school back in the early 80s. We never gave it any second thought.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well I was just reading that he was off or not taking his medication but they did not say what he was taking. I also read he had purchased the guns within 5 days of the shootings and used a hand gun and shot gun. I do know that here in VA. if people have mental issues the are not allowed to buy guns and it suppose to show up with their instant back ground check. That was one of the issues with the VT shooting and if the proper procedures were followed that guys name should have come up as rejected for the purchase of the gun. If I remember correctly it was the doctors or medical place which failed to report his mental condition. I just don't get this stuff because its not like in the past 15 years kids all of a sudden started have mental issues. Heck, we had people carrying guns in their cars on school property when I went to high school back in the early 80s. We never gave it any second thought.

The reporting of mental health commitments to NICS is not mandatory and most states do not do an automatic check for commitments when running backgrounds. Truth be told, most states rely on the applicant to voluntarily disclose their mental health history when he/she submits a firearms purchase application. Unfortunately, right now, we rely on the honor system to find out if someone has prior mental health issues. On top of that, some states refuse to disclose mental health information all together.

I don't know what VA's gun law is with regards to mental health commitments. I do know that the VT shooter was not prohibited to purchase firearms under federal law. You cannot be denied firearms under federal law if you are committed to an institution or hospital and only held for observation. I can't remember who actually had him initially committed, but the hospital chose not to formally commit him and only held him for observation. He did not qualify as a prohibited person because the hospital ultimately did not find him to be a mental defective or incompetent while he received treatment.

VA is one of the leading states that cooperates with NICS in reporting mental health commitments. According to the NICS rep I spoke with about the VT shooter, VA did everything to the letter with regards to his background check. The shooter simply slid through a very small crack in the statute. Until the Feds fix that crack and make all mental health commitments a prohibitive category, regardless of the diagnosis or treatment a person receives, crazy people will continue to be approved for firearms purchases.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

The reporting of mental health commitments to NICS is not mandatory and most states do not do an automatic check for commitments when running backgrounds. Truth be told, most states rely on the applicant to voluntarily disclose their mental health history when he/she submits a firearms purchase application. Unfortunately, right now, we rely on the honor system to find out if someone has prior mental health issues. On top of that, some states refuse to disclose mental health information all together.

I don't know what VA's gun law is with regards to mental health commitments. I do know that the VT shooter was not prohibited to purchase firearms under federal law. You cannot be denied firearms under federal law if you are committed to an institution or hospital and only held for observation. I can't remember who actually had him initially committed, but the hospital chose not to formally commit him and only held him for observation. He did not qualify as a prohibited person because the hospital ultimately did not find him to be a mental defective or incompetent while he received treatment.

VA is one of the leading states that cooperates with NICS in reporting mental health commitments. According to the NICS rep I spoke with about the VT shooter, VA did everything to the letter with regards to his background check. The shooter simply slid through a very small crack in the statute. Until the Feds fix that crack and make all mental health commitments a prohibitive category, regardless of the diagnosis or treatment a person receives, crazy people will continue to be approved for firearms purchases.

Everything I read about the VT shooting and I live in the area so there was a ton of stuff to read. Is that by Va. standards what he was committed for should have made it illegal in Va. for him to buy a fire arm and should have been report as such. He did not fall through some crack in the system it was a failure on someones part to report this to the proper people.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Everything I read about the VT shooting and I live in the area so there was a ton of stuff to read. Is that by Va. standards what he was committed for should have made it illegal in Va. for him to buy a fire arm and should have been report as such. He did not fall through some crack in the system it was a failure on someones part to report this to the proper people.

The key word is "committed" and he wasn't formally committed by the hospital. I'll have to disagree with you that the proper procedures weren't followed. I talked with the NICS rep who was involved in investigating that case. They looked to see if both the federal and state laws were complied with regarding his prior commitment and their findings were that he did not qualify as a prohibited person under the statutes because he was held for observation only. I saw more articles after that incident that reported poorly researched information than I can count. Don't believe everything you read.

There's a bigger picture here that people need to look at. There are countless people out there who suffer from serious mental conditions that should prohibit them from obtaining firearms. However, these people don't exhibit outward behaviors that warrant them being committed. So they don't fall into the prohibited category. Most people do seek treatment on their own, but we have no way of knowing that unless they choose to disclose it. Furthermore, by law, I'm not allowed to ask people if they have been treated for a mental condition. I can only ask if they've been committed. That part of the law is pretty eff'd up if you ask me. In my perfect world, anyone attempting to purchase a firearm should have to provide a letter from their physician as to their mental competency before they're allowed to buy one.

[TheSmurfs22]

99% of gunowners are responsible and law abiding citizens. The other 1% are criminals and criminals do not respect people or laws that is why they are the way they are. By tightening gun laws is only going to hurt those people who already adhere to those laws not criminals.

I am with Firstdown in that we need to look at the whole picture and what is and what is not going on in our culture these days.

[TheSmurfs22]

I think this brings back to light again what can colleges do to have a better system in dealing with these situations. Universities like Tech and N. Illinois are so much harder to regulate than elementary/middle/high schools.

[firstdown]

LB, I'll take your word on the VT thing because it sounds like you know what your talking about.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by firstdown

LB, I'll take your word on the VT thing because it sounds like you know what your talking about.

Well, running background checks and issuing firearms permits is what I do for a living. I take a lot of satisfaction in my job, especially when I know I've had a part in stopping some wife beater, nut job, or all around criminal from obtaining firearms legally. Sure, they can go out on the street and get them, but at least I've made it more difficult for them and slowed them down. The other benefit is that now I have documentation on them that they have been denied firearms and our officers will be alerted to it should they come into contact with those people in the future.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by TheSmurfs22

99% of gunowners are responsible and law abiding citizens. The other 1% are criminals and criminals do not respect people or laws that is why they are the way they are. By tightening gun laws is only going to hurt those people who already adhere to those laws not criminals.

I am with Firstdown in that we need to look at the whole picture and what is and what is not going on in our culture these days.

99%? Try about 50% of them being law abiding citizens. Only about half of the people I run backgrounds on have no criminal history. You can have multiple convictions for misdemeanor drug offenses, assault, theft, DWI, etc. and still purchase firearms. You don't have to be a law abiding citizen. Heck, you don't even have to be a citizen to buy legally in this country.

Most everyone else I encounter aren't responsible gun owners. The majority of them don't have a clue about firearms in general. They don't know how to shoot, store or transport them correctly and some don't even know what to do with their permit after it's been issued to them. They have no idea what it means to be responsible and don't really care to educate themselves.

I could go on and on. I deal with so many idiots it's not funny. People are forever coming in and playing dumb about their criminal record, flat out lying to my face and basically trying to BS me on a daily basis. Somedays I just want to reach through the window and strangle them. Luckily for them, I like my job and want to keep it. Bottom line is there are a lot of morons out there buying guns and some have an arsenal of them. If people could spend one day with me and see what I deal with, they'd advocate tighter controls in a heartbeat.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Lady Brave

99%? Try about 50% of them being law abiding citizens. Only about half of the people I run backgrounds on have no criminal history. You can have multiple convictions for misdemeanor drug offenses, assault, theft, DWI, etc. and still purchase firearms. You don't have to be a law abiding citizen. Heck, you don't even have to be a citizen to buy legally in this country.

Most everyone else I encounter aren't responsible gun owners. The majority of them don't have a clue about firearms in general. They don't know how to shoot, store or transport them correctly and some don't even know what to do with their permit after it's been issued to them. They have no idea what it means to be responsible and don't really care to educate themselves.

I could go on and on. I deal with so many idiots it's not funny. People are forever coming in and playing dumb about their criminal record, flat out lying to my face and basically trying to BS me on a daily basis. Somedays I just want to reach through the window and strangle them. Luckily for them, I like my job and want to keep it. Bottom line is there are a lot of morons out there buying guns and some have an arsenal of them. If people could spend one day with me and see what I deal with, they'd advocate tighter controls in a heartbeat.

Ok, you issue gun permits how do you know if people are responsable gun owners?