Not for nothin' but do we have to look at his face for the rest of the day Steve?
Posted by snark at April 18, 2007 10:32 AMAnd to the point of the post....
Doesn't the need to prevent people like Cho from getting legal access to guns start to bump up against the right to privacy if the suggestion is that government officials should be accessing school and medical records to do background checks for people seeking to buy guns?
Posted by snark at April 18, 2007 10:36 AMBut, but, but . . rights! Conviction! Jury of his peers! All those things are incidental and outside of the due process of law!
(just predicting the arguments that'll be whined at)
Posted by idiosynchronic at April 18, 2007 10:38 AMNot for nothin' but do we have to look at his face for the rest of the day Steve?
At least it doesn't have a big MASSACRE IN VIRGINA pasted across it.
The kid was screwed-up. All of the psychobabble in the world will never fully explain the act, and the MSM ratings whores will run with this until we are all so numb that we no longer care. Cho killed 33, Bush kills hundreds of thousands in state sanctioned death. There are killers and there are KILLERS. It's interesting to examine the rationalizations for both acts.
Posted by phidipides at April 18, 2007 10:40 AMphd, y pt t prfctly nd clrly.
[Editor: ignore=off]I really don't think we've explored the need for psychological evaluations of these college students. You look at Cho's predispositions. His desires. His stated intentions towards others. His disconnect from humnaity. If these could have been identified early on, then career counselors at the school could have steered him towards a different path, possibly even finding him his true calling in life. Something with a state sanctioned spin on it.
Posted by phidipides at April 18, 2007 10:58 AMAs I too will be fatiguing of the wall to wall coverage soon....I am curious that there has been little information from the gunman's own family. Not that I want them hounded as our media is inclined to do either, and I'm sure they must be distraught/guilt ridden...but just wonder what role if any they may have played in trying to get the desperate help that was needed for their clearly disturbed son? Any way...it's a tragedy for all involved.
Posted by emal at April 18, 2007 11:13 AMIs it just me or has anyone else considered that he might not have been able to kill so many people if Congress hadn't let the assualt weapon ban expire? I believe there were limits to the number of rounds of ammo in that ban.
Posted by ann at April 18, 2007 11:31 AM"Leftcoaster Poster Had Red Flags But Still Got Access"
A regular stalker-poster of the popular center-left blog went on a rampage today in his neighborhood shopping mall with 2 AK-47s, 50 banana clips, and a backpack full of IED Bibles.
An angry Moron O'Donnell demanded to know why his disturbing posts were not reported to the proper authoritahs.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 18, 2007 11:40 AMThe NRA's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre if George W. Bush's BFF and the NRA is one of last remaining supporters of this administration.
It's not an accident that Bush reassured the NRA FIRST - only hours after the V. Tech victims were murdered and didn't offer comfort to the families of the victims until the FOLLOWING day.
Bush has his priorities and it's the NRA and its members. Bush doesn't give a rats ass about the American people.
Posted by Christopher at April 18, 2007 11:52 AMAnn, you are right. In 2004 a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons, meaning firearms like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s became legal for purchase because Congress let the ban expire. I guess the Republican Congress didn't see a need for Clinton's ban on assault weapons and number of rounds.
The removable clip, under the 1994 ban, had
a maximum capacity set at 10 rounds. I don't know what it is now, but I would assume there is no limit.
I don't want the Dems to get wrapped up in a national debate on this because the simplistic statements are all on the guns side, except one I heard today : The 2nd Amendment is the only one with the word "regulated" in it.
The only message I see right now : Whatever the solution is, Republicans don't have it."
Seriously, the Republicans have no solutions for this. If we attack this as a problem, stating causes and effects, well, the Repugs shine like stink.
Richard Crews, I'm with you. But the Dems may have no choice but to learn to talk about it, because it's the only issue the Reps have any sort of strength in, which means they're gonna push it like a sumbitch.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 18, 2007 01:32 PMSteve, I don't think the issue is that Cho was able to purchase guns after being found mentally ill. There are fairly rigid laws to keep medical records private. The larger issue might be that the mental health budget has been cut so much since Reagan that they did not have the resources to treat him as an in-patient which was clearly necessary.
Posted by ann at April 18, 2007 02:11 PMAnn, anyone who was found to be mentally ill by a court should have been flagged to the state's law enforcement data base, especially for gun purchases.
Posted by Steve Soto at April 18, 2007 02:15 PMApparently this mental illness question (Have you ever been adjudicated legally incompetent, mentally incapacitated, or been involuntarily committed to a mental institution?) was
a part of the VA firearms purchase eligibility questionaire that buyers had to answer(but who is to say that buyers are going to be truthful). But it obviously was a part that was considered in VA as necessary part of the gun buyer eligibility process and should have been a red flag that showed up in a law enforcement data base. Wonder if it showed up when the kid went to buy the gun, and if it didn't show up why?
Ann, anyone who was found to be mentally ill by a court should have been flagged to the state's law enforcement data base, especially for gun purchases.
Is that part of law? I agree it is critical, but with all the new laws regarding medical records privacy, I have to wonder. Not that I agree, mind you. But if anon is correct that it is a voluntary response in an application, that's absurd.
I still believe that our minimal funding for mental health is a larger issue. This kid should have been placed in an outpatient facility rather than give a bottle of pills and sent on his way.
Posted by ann at April 18, 2007 02:46 PMI agree it is critical, but with all the new laws regarding medical records privacy...
If it's a court ordering someone's detention then it becomes a legal matter. Not all mental health issues arise out of or are dealt with via the court system. I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone with mental health issues or school disipline problems be added to a police database. At least I hope not. But once a court has found a person to be a danger to himself or others I think that infor should be available to any law officer doing a background check.
Posted by snark at April 18, 2007 02:58 PMann, that was anon post was mine, I got it straight out of the VA State Police website after doing a search for VA gun purchase application. Here's some other info from the VA State Police website.
National and state databases are accessed simultaneously at the time of transaction. Four are maintained by the Virginia Department of State Police, accessible by the Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN): Virginia’s wanted and missing persons files and protective orders, Virginia’s criminal history record files, a calendar file on handgun purchases required to monitor and enforce lawful handgun limitations and Virginia’s database of adjudications of legal incompetence and incapacity, and involuntary commitments to mental institutions.
snip....
If an identification is not made in one or more of these files, the computer responds "YES THE TRANSFER IS APPROVED" and a unique computer-generated approval number is provided to the firearms dealer for the transaction. The firearm may be transferred upon the dealer's receipt of the approval number. If an identification is made, the computer responds "NO, NOT APPROVED AT THIS TIME" and review of the information/record is required to determine identification and lawful eligibility of the prospective firearms purchaser. A return call is made to the firearms dealer to provide a final determination of eligibility.
That straight from the Virginia state police website.
What info is used to generate the search of the police databases? Name? SSN? Could a simple misspelling of his name have lead to a non-detection of his mental issues?
Posted by snark at April 18, 2007 03:11 PMsnark, I have no idea and don't know if and how these data bases are even maintained,updated, or how one gets onto/off of it,and/or whose responsibility is it if one is deemed mentally incapacitated to get those individuals onto it? I have no idea how these data bases are even used, and don't know how the gun dealer/seller uses them or ??? I just did a search about VA gun purchase application process and that VA State Police site came up and I read some of the links. Maybe someone else who actually lives in the state or has dealt with this issue or these types of data bases can answer. I can't help you there. But I do know nowadays a person's health insurance provider can and does often determine the treatment course (inpatient stay or outpatient... or ???) for mental illness.
Posted by emal at April 18, 2007 03:26 PMSteve,
USA Today reports the nationwide background check system has serious flaws that could allow thousands of people who should be disqualified to quickly buy a gun.
The newspaper said many states "don't keep the records needed to build the FBI database used for the instant check system."
According to the newspaper's check of all 50 states, "only 19 states, or 38 percent, are able to check three of the other key categories that could disqualify a purchase: mental incompetency, domestic abuse and court-mandated restraining orders."
This is how Cho was able to obtain two firearms.
Posted by Christopher at April 18, 2007 03:32 PMCho was not diagnosed as mentally incompetent.
He was diagnosed as a kid who was having trouble with relationships, was talking about how bleak life was, and he was acting a lttle aggressively. So the mental health facility said he was mentally ill after he committed himself, the standard hearing was held, but the ruling does not have the force of a legal ruling. That is a different process. He would not have been on any of the databases that block access based on a formal ruling of incompetence.
By your standards here, any kid on Prozac or Paxil is a threat to the world. It's easy to be an armchair psychologist based on past events. It's also wrong to do so.
Posted by at April 18, 2007 05:57 PMBy your standards here, any kid on Prozac or Paxil is a threat to the world. It's easy to be an armchair psychologist based on past events. It's also wrong to do so.
Anon (is it really so hard to type a name?),
That was the point of my first comment. The knee jerk reaction is to say "put everyone with mental or behavioral issues in the police database". But there are serious privacy implications with that. My understanding was that there was an official court determination that Cho was a threat to himself and others. At the point that courts are making judgements about people being threats because of mental issues it seems understandable that those people would be rendered ineligible to own or possess guns.
I certainly do not want to see anyone being treated for any form of mental illness automatically place into a police database.
Posted by snark at April 18, 2007 06:55 PMFrom the linked article:
On the form, a box is checked, showing that Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
Posted by ann at April 18, 2007 07:07 PMAnon, why is it OK for a kid with a court psychiatric commitment to be on campus with a gun without the campus police knowing about it?
Posted by Steve Soto at April 18, 2007 07:57 PMThat's not anon. That's me...I...holy god, who am me?
Anon (is it really so hard to type a name?)
It's a beer Wednesday. I have college-aged minds to deal with tomorrow. Something has to give.
Anon, why is it OK for a kid with a court psychiatric commitment
Committal is not a judgement of mental incompetence. His was a standard self-referred committal. Plain vanilla. The magistrate only said it's okay for him to be held. He was NEVER, NEVER held as incompetent in a legal proceeding that said he shouldn't own a gun. He would never have shown-up on a record anywhere as being unable to purchase a gun.
The kid was mentally ill. Big, bad, fucked-up sick. You cannot stop all bad consequences with a plethora of laws, rulings and good intentions. You are trying to take this all back, make it better, and find some justification for the horrific act. There is none. You cannot make it go away. He was ill. That's all. You are not making people safer. You are not making your loved ones safer. That's okay too, it's cathartic.
Posted by phidipides at April 18, 2007 10:39 PMphid,
I had suspected that was your writing style. I agree with you. Incidents like this are almost impossible to prevent anywhere other than in a police state.
Is that where we really want to go as a nation?
Guns, particularly high powered auto and semi-automatic types, need to be much more heavily regulated in this country. I don't think the answer lies with eveloping a vast privacy infringing police database on people who have committed no crimes. Which is what the implication of Steve's above questions seems to be.
Posted by snark at April 19, 2007 06:03 AM"Is it just me or has anyone else considered that he might not have been able to kill so many people if Congress hadn't let the assualt weapon ban expire? I believe there were limits to the number of rounds of ammo in that ban."
It's just you. Nothing prevents anyone from carrying more magazines.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 19, 2007 07:18 AM