22 dead kids

[Swimmer]

I can tell you that the shooter could and probably did buy the weapons legally and was probably permitted. A resident alien can get a permit to carry for any number of reasons. I have issued two that I can recall recently.

I think since this guy was under treatment for depression the law should read or a law should be in place that a state and national check be done after giving a precription for treatment of depression or any other mental illness. All of these shootings have been done by people who are unfit mentally. While mental illness is certainly treatable guns and access to guns should be taken away until its amedical certainty the person has recovered.

[Diamond Tackle]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I think since this guy was under treatment for depression the law should read or a law should be in place that a state and national check be done after giving a precription for treatment of depression or any other mental illness. All of these shootings have been done by people who are unfit mentally. While mental illness is certainly treatable guns and access to guns should be taken away until its amedical certainty the person has recovered.

BINGO!!! this covers it in a nutshell ,pardon the unintentional pun.
I got no problem with that.
Youre under a doctors care for depression, and on MEDS, you LOSE your right to your guns. PERIOND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember when TYSON beat up those senior citizens , cause the old guy cut him off on the road. IMAGINE if that bafoon had a gun at that time. He was so stoked on Zoloft he would have killed his own parents that day.
Since were pointing fingers at guns and all, what about the pharmaceutical companies, who make drugs which have "RAGE" & "MANIA"as a possible side effects???

[fishpoopoo]

swimmer, i think it highly unlikely that one person could disarm 20-30 people in a room. i wouldn't give up my gun - not that the shooter would ever know i was carrying one.

carrying a loaded pistol or revolver in a backpack or purse is an unsound and unsafe practice. you're responsible for whatever happens to that weapon. a loaded weapon should be on your person under your control (properly holstered). there are many many good options out there for deep concealment - be it a belly band, an ankle holster, or a tuckable IWB.

as far as a mental illness database - no such animal exists on a national level, i think. this is mostly a state thing.

problem is, you run into privacy challenges. secondly, not all mental illnesses should disqualify one from being able to have a firearm. it really depends on the individual. example: vietnam vet who is active LEO being treated for PTSD, but is still capable of CCW'ing.

i don't know how such a database would work, but don't think it would be a bad thing to have.

[Swimmer]

I hear you Bassturbed. Just offering up some fears I have with what you propose. I still like the idea that if your taking meds for depression you lose your weapons/permits.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I still like the idea that if your taking meds for depression you lose your weapons/permits.

that is the case in many states.

for what it's worth, question 12 f. on ATF 4473 is:

"Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes being adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affiars) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

of course, if you really want the gun you're going to answer "no."

[chris L]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

I can tell you that the shooter could and probably did buy the weapons legally and was probably permitted. A resident alien can get a permit to carry for any number of reasons. I have issued two that I can recall recently.

I think since this guy was under treatment for depression the law should read or a law should be in place that a state and national check be done after giving a precription for treatment of depression or any other mental illness. All of these shootings have been done by people who are unfit mentally. While mental illness is certainly treatable guns and access to guns should be taken away until its amedical certainty the person has recovered.

good idea wish it was easy to put into law . kinda like the people that are against national licensing . what is the hurry that you need a weapon now and not in 2 weeks . the geese going to fly away ?

the other part is he was one of their own ( student ) . how do you stop someone that has access to building that an outsider may not . we have gates with card access and keys needed for stairways and entry doors . still if one of the little darlings wanted to start a simular event , there would be no way to stop them until the damage was started .

[fishpoopoo]

Chris,

If my info is correct, the gun that was used in the shooting was legally purchased 35 days ago.

Not sure what a 2 week waiting period would accomplish.

We have the technology to do instant checks even in our home state (for valid pistol permit holders).

Not too long ago I witnessed a gun dealer call the staties for transaction approval on a handgun. He gave the staties the pistol permit number ... and then said "by the way, this man's shrink just called and told me the applicant is suicidal." The applicant was denied for a handgun purchase.

I applaud 1) the doc for having the foresight to call the dealer, and 2) the dealer for ethically volunteering the info to the staties.

We have pretty well-developed criminal history databases, but not mental illness databases. I mean, some states may have involuntary committment records that are readily available, but there's nothing that says "joe blow is taking anti-depressant meds right now."

you know, i just raised a hornet's nest on some gun chat boards about anti-depressants.

they are are apparently used for a LOT of illnesses, like heart disease, fibromyalgia, weight loss, smoking cessation, and sleeplessness, particularly amongst the older crowd. you'd be making a lot of people ineligible by restricting the rights of someone solely based on the fact that they are taking a particular medication.

[Swimmer]

Bassturbed I am familiar with the questions on the permit apps, the only problem is there is not any way of checking whether the applicant answers that question truthfully. Now with the new federal HIPPA law it will be harder to find out anything about anyones health. I refused to give a permit out twenty some odd years ago to a person I knew was lying. Moved to town, a week later walks into the p.d. and fills out the application. His father was a chief in a small town, (so why didn't he get it there), no one would give me the time of day in that town. Things were different then than now. Then you could ask about physical or mental problems. He went to court, which in Mass. is/was his right. Judge said I didn't have grounds not to issue it. So I did. A week after I gave it to him the ambulance was sent to the front of his apartment. He was on the sidewalk in the throws of a mental breakdown. Laying next to him was a gun that fell out of his coat. Took the gun and the permit. Never saw him again. Gun was melted in the local foundry, permit was shredded.

Yah Makomike I wanted to ask that question myself, but I figured I had suggested and said enough. The only one so far to have defended themselves yet was the holocaust survivor. It doesn't take much to understand that one. And that brings me to why I reasoned the way I did about armed students. Not one seemed to defend themselvves by going after the shooter, throwing a chair, table, books, whatever. Thats why I say I find it difficult to imagine anyone of them shooting someone. It is an action that has to be ingrained into a moral law-abiding person. Shooting someone is an action that is contrary to most everyones psychological makeup and generally great thought beforehand is given before one decides that they are capable of doing so.

I do believe firmly that if they want to carry they should be allowed to with proper training and guidance, no doubt about it.

[Raven]

the glock had the serial number filed off i thought...
so maybe you're talkin about the other gun....

they can still magnetize the glock and get the stamp to
align the filings on the spot to read it...

sooner or later we will have computer technology
capable of brain analysis which will shed more
lite on this type of violent behavior.

[TheSpecialist]

Say all you want about not having legally armed students in school, how there isn't enough time to get your gun when someone has the drop on you, but the facts speak for itself. It took me awhile to find this because most of the media accounts say students tackled the shooter, not that he was first subdued at gunpoint by lawfully armed citizens.....


http://www.uwire.com/content/topops012402002.html




COLUMN: Law school, guns, and a media bias

By James Eaves-Johnson

The Daily Iowan (U. Iowa)
01/24/2002





TODAY'S HEADLINES
01/24/2002







Colorado bill would punish students for rioting

Zantops' friends reflect on Dartmouth couple's legacy

NCAA may adopt stricter eligibility rules

Rival Arizona State stuns No. 10 Arizona

FILM REVIEW: Mandy Moore disappoints in 'A Walk to Remember'

CD REVIEW: Nas, Wu-Tang Clan show growth, change with new albums

COLUMN: Rural America faces inevitable death

COLUMN: Law school, guns, and a media bias





(U-WIRE) IOWA CITY, Iowa -- Last week, a disgruntled student at Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va., went on a shooting spree. Peter Odighizuwa tragically shot six people, killing Dean Anthony Sutin, Associate Professor Thomas Blackwell, and student Angela Dales.
Most news reports pointed out that the situation ended when several students "confronted," "tackled," or "intervened." However, Tracy Bridges, Ted Besen, Todd Ross, and Mikael Gross did not merely "confront" Odighizuwa. Bridges and Gross separately ran to their cars to get their handguns once the shooting began. Bridges approached Odighizuwa with Besen's and Ross' aid. Gross was close behind. According to Bridges, "I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down." Bridges, Besen, and Gross had previously received police or military training.

Unfortunately, the media did not point out that the "intervening" students were armed. A Lexis-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross were armed. A Westnews search exposed worse results. It revealed 112 stories, of which only two mentioned the armed students.

With media bias like this, it is no wonder that people fail to see the benefits of gun ownership. This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage. Even here, reporters rarely presented the positive side of firearms. Instead, they preferred to default to the politically correct story portraying guns as something only the bad guy uses.

Of course, this media bias is not unprecedented. A more thorough Lexis-Nexis search by a Yale researcher revealed 687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. Of those, only 19 mentioned that Assistant Principal Joel Myrick retrieved a gun from his car and stopped the shooters four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived.

Few will remember that an armed guard helped many students at Columbine escape and was thwarted only when shooters began using explosives. Fewer still will remember that a restaurant owner who was hosting a school dance for students in Edinboro, Pa., stopped a student shooter 11 minutes before police could arrive.

Our myopic view of guns leads too many of us to believe that if we disarm people, we will be safer. Unfortunately, mandatory disarmament only disarms those who are interested in obeying the law. Laws against gun ownership and possession are ineffective against those who would do us harm.

No one would believe that people in Iowa City don't smoke marijuana or that underage college students don't find ways to procure alcohol. Why should we be any more naïve when it comes to rules against firearms?

I was unable to discover Appalachian School of Law's weapons policy, but if it is like almost every other law school in the country, it probably prohibits students from possessing guns on campus. That is probably why Bridges and Gross did not have their guns on their persons. Imagine what these men might have prevented if they could have responded immediately, guns in hand.

Unfortunately, at the University of Iowa, we are more defenseless. The university prohibits the possession of firearms. At our law school, as on most of the campus, people would be unable to run to their cars to fetch their guns, as the only available nearby parking is on university property.

Even worse, our Public Safety officers would be unable to protect us. Only last week did the state of Iowa Board of Regents decide to arm Public Safety officers with air Tasers. Most Tasers are ineffective at more than 21 feet, and they can be defeated with a heavy coat. The UI officers are trained to use firearms, like ordinary police officers, and they have the authority to do almost everything an Iowa City police officer does.

The university should allow responsible individuals with defensive firearms training to carry arms on campus. That begins with the officers who are responsible for our safety. Right now, we are at the mercy of any thug willing to come on campus with a gun. Many would be murdered before Iowa City police could arrive. The presence of responsible armed individuals on campus could reduce or prevent the harm done by a thug. Just over 10 years ago, the UI was visited by such a thug. We are just as defenseless today as we were then. Even the students in Grundy, Va., weren't so defenseless.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by Bassturbed

Chris,
you know, i just raised a hornet's nest on some gun chat boards about anti-depressants.

they are are apparently used for a LOT of illnesses, like heart disease, fibromyalgia, weight loss, smoking cessation, and sleeplessness, particularly amongst the older crowd. you'd be making a lot of people ineligible by restricting the rights of someone solely based on the fact that they are taking a particular medication.

Not all criminal records can be accessed immediately. Some are on (older) micro film in different states. When you do a III (triple i) if they are on micro it can take a few weeks to get. Thats O.K. if your talking about a permit application and not a seven day buy rule. Many times the III wont come back before the hard copy of the micro fiche arrives.

Bassturbed all those physical problems you just mentioned (in quote) whose sufferers may take anti-depressants. All those people generally suffer from some form of depression do they not.

[fishpoopoo]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

Bassturbed all those physical problems you just mentioned (in quote) whose sufferers may take anti-depressants. All those people generally suffer from some form of depression do they not.

Swimmer, I am not a doctor so I am relying on the informed opinion of others. There seem to be numerous therapeutical applications for anti-depressants that are unrelated to depression. Like taking Zoloft for erectile dysfunction.

Then again, I guess I'd be a little depressed if I couldn't get my soldier to salute, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna shoot up a school.

One of the pitfalls of screening people for anti-depressant use is that it may prompt people who need treatment to avoid it altogether for fear of tainting their otherwise pristine records. This has been borne out in FAA pilot licensing as well as military service screening (submarine programs).

[chris L]

Originally Posted by Bassturbed

Chris,

If my info is correct, the gun that was used in the shooting was legally purchased 35 days ago.


Not sure what a 2 week waiting period would accomplish.

We have the technology to do instant checks even in our home state (for valid pistol permit holders).

Not too long ago I witnessed a gun dealer call the staties for transaction approval on a handgun. He gave the staties the pistol permit number ... and then said "by the way, this man's shrink just called and told me the applicant is suicidal." The applicant was denied for a handgun purchase.

I applaud 1) the doc for having the foresight to call the dealer, and 2) the dealer for ethically volunteering the info to the staties.

We have pretty well-developed criminal history databases, but not mental illness databases. I mean, some states may have involuntary committment records that are readily available, but there's nothing that says "joe blow is taking anti-depressant meds right now."

you know, i just raised a hornet's nest on some gun chat boards about anti-depressants.

they are are apparently used for a LOT of illnesses, like heart disease, fibromyalgia, weight loss, smoking cessation, and sleeplessness, particularly amongst the older crowd. you'd be making a lot of people ineligible by restricting the rights of someone solely based on the fact that they are taking a particular medication.

in virginia anyone can legally buy a gun . anyone ! here in ct there is a waiting period . as there should be in every state . I know what we have here in Ct I have a permit to carry also . legally obtained and properly trained . the key word you said was "(for valid pistol permit holders)." what about the ones that dont have a valid permit and are out to try an obtain their very first one . oops no instant check , why cause there wasnt one done before , were we have and all they are looking for is recent issues that would warrent them taking it away . A waiting period is a good idea , whats the rush ? nothing would have stopped this idiot from doing what he did other than a bullet in the head . Why not ask why no one responded when a teacher brought this to the authorities ? there was nothing said/done illegal , but I bet they are wishing they at least looked into it . Its proof that no matter safe the authorities and citizens of this country want it safe and secure there isnt one thing that can be done to accomplish it . this is my opinion and doesnt reflect anyone else's ideas . I dont take anti-depressants for heart disease it depresses and inflates just fine . thank you very much

[fishpoopoo]

Chris - a background check applies to all gun sales in the U.S. wherever you are. Not everyone can buy a handgun in Virginia.

He bought the gun 36+ days ago. A seven or even fifteen day waiting period would not have helped.

In CT if you have a valid pistol permit ... THERE IS NO WAITING PERIOD except for NFA toys.

In this case, it looks like the NICS background check failed MISERABLY.

Fox News is reporting that the shooter was involuntarily committed (by court order) for psychiatric observation.

He was therefore INELIGIBLE to legally buy ANY gun under federal law.

According to my sources, the gun dealer did EVERYTHING BY THE BOOK and the purchaser had all the right documents and paperwork. HOWEVER, the applicant apparently LIED in his response to question 12 f of the ATF Form 4473. NICS (that's the fed.gov, folks!) cleared Cho for the purchase.

There was apparently a BREAKDOWN in the government database - he otherwise would have most certainly been DENIED a handgun purchase with this on his record.

Wow, this really is looking like a case where somebody just slipped through the cracks.

[Backbeach Jake]

I've been nearly shot four times. Twice in the same day hunting, which I gave up. Not fo fear of being shot, but for fear that I'd return fire and kill someone. And twice by jokers who thought it was a fun idea. I could hear the slug rip past my head both times. Fun? Boy were they wrong. One got a beating and the other had his Dad's guns confiscated. Had I been armed, I woulda killed them both. I can honestly say that fear was not a factor, but focus sure was.
Having said that, I cannot imagine the depth of grief that all those familys are enduring. All those hopes and dreams gone..

[The Iceman 6]

The Kid made a video!!! And Manifest!!! You just feel so bad for the families, this story will be going for quite some time, forever for the families....I pray for them...