Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Gun law outrage at VaTech: Cho had been involuntarily committed, lied about it

By

NPR News is reporting that the Virginia Tech shooter been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility as an “imminent danger to himself or others” in 2005.  Then, of course, he lied about it on a form he filled out in order to purchase the gun he used to murder over 30 people.

Virginia law, you see, prohibits the sale of guns to people who have been involuntarily committed.  But, apparently, Virginia doesn’t think it prudent to check whether applicants answer those questions truthfully before they sell them high-powered weapons.  Because such people can be relied upon to tell the truth at all times, right?

I can’t find a link yet, though you can hear the story at the “hourly news summary” link on NPR’s front page.  But if the report holds up, it’s an absolute outrage.  I dare anyone, even the most ardent gun nut, to defend selling guns to people without at least checking to see whether they’ve been involuntarily committed.

There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of the gun control debate — for the most part.  But for God’s sake, can everyone please agree that it’s just common sense to be sure that gun purchasers don’t suffer from a serious mental illness that has caused them to be deemed an imminent threat?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • Since involuntary committals are court-ordered, we do have the means of making this sort of information available to gun dealers. A simple system where licensed dealers can type in your name and some other information (SSN? Driver’s license? Dunno), and up pop any red flags. “This person was imprisoned for the last 25 years for murder” or “this person was involuntarily committed six months ago”…

      <

      p>
      We have the means, but do we have the political will to make reforms like this that will actually make a difference instead of just looking good?

  2. The trouble is, simple legislation isn’t something we see much of in any state leg.  So, a legislator proposing to only change that one part of the law isn’t likely to exist — and it’s got to get through the VA lege, which is amongst the most Republican in the country.  Hell, their US Congressmen are 8-3 GOP, and that includes the densely populated, highly educated, well earning NOVA region.

  3. Interesting.  Watching the network news tonight they said he was voluntarily committed and that’s why it didn’t show up when he applied for and got the gun permits.

  4. Firstly there is no such thing as being voluntarily committed.  Commitment is a legal process that occurs about one week after someone is admitted involuntarily to a hospital and refuses toi sign if willingly for treatment.  You can be detained against your will, if a psychiatrist assesses that you are an “imminent” risk of harm to self or others or unable to care for yourself due to the presence of a mental illness.  You can agree to be hospitalized at the suggestion of the doctor, but that makes you a voluntary or conditionally voluntary patient, depending upon the mental health laws of the state you live in.

    <

    p>
    As a mental health professional I am increasingly incensed that the immediate belief whenever someone commits an abhorent senseless act it must be due to mental illness.  The fact that someone was hospitalized two years ago for being suicidal is not compelling evidence of a psychiatric illness that would result in the behavior this man displayed the other day.  many young adults get suicidal and briefly hospitalized that does not mean they are seriously mentally ill.  They might be seriously mentally ill, but the fact of one hospitalization does not a serious mental illness make.  Was there something wrong with this young man?  Without a doubt there was.  Do we or will we understand what drove him to do what he did? I think not.  perhaps putting these kinds of horrific acts under the umbrella of mental illness provides a sense of knowing why.  We seem compelled to know why!  The problem is that it may well not be the reason why and it may prevent us from seeing other more complex issues.  We cannot conclude that this man was “seriously mentally ill” without evidence much more compelling than one psychiatric hospitalization two years ago and treatment with an antidepressant.  Even if it were possible to conclude he was seriously mentally ill, we are in no position to assess the contribution of his mental illness to his behavior.

    <

    p>
    We really have to ask ourselves is every behavior, however irrational or abhorent, the result of mental illness?  Were Hitler, Stalin, Sadaam Hussein,Idi Ammin, to name a few horrors out of history. mentally ill?  If they were, what does that make the millions who supported and followed them?

    <

    p>
    Please let us be more thoughtful about what mental illness is, it’s definitions, and how that may or may not relate to a particular behavioral set.

    • My mistake I should have said admitted not committed.  People can and do sign themselves in and out of treatment.  I have dealt with similar issues with elderly parents being placed in nursing homes.  One voluntary one not.  That said I would echo the concern about backlash against individuals with mentally illness.  Many can be sucessfully treated.  To have blanket laws restricting anyone with a hint of association with mental illness would be bad.  Further it would have the effect of discouraging people from seeking treatment for fear of repercussions.

  5. David, and all, latest I can find is that Cho was examined, but that the concluding report of the Shrinks found him to be no danger to himself or others.

    <

    p>
    His being Korean, et al, . . . which wrong side of the politically correct fence do we come down on? The oversight should be corrected in the state legislature, of course, but that likelihood is dim. IMHO, if the can of worms is opened, the Republicans will try to legislate some of the worms OUT of the law, and the Democrats will try to put more IN.

    <

    p>
    Damn shame, that last . . .

    <

    p>
    Best,
    Chuck

  6. This looks like a coincidence because the legislation was drafted on 4/12 but it was moved to committee yesterday.

    <

    p>
    Here is an excerpt:

    <

    p>

    To that end, this legislation allows a wide range of government agencies- school officials, juvenile court personnel representatives from district attorney’ offices, Department of Social Services case workers, and others – to meet, share information, and devise a comprehensive, coordinated response for meeting the needs of at-risk juveniles.

    <

    p>
    Here is a link to the bill:
    http://www.mass.gov/…

  7. The man gets off because a defense lawyer made a case for him not being mentally insane, even though he was under treatment and a judge lets him leave a mental institution.  Hey the judge doesn’t want to go to his cocktail party and be chastised for being politically incorrect and keeping a minority in lockup does he? 

    <

    p>
    And you blame gun laws.  Its not the gun laws, its the justice system that failed, that failed to keep this person incarcerated.  Its not gun laws.  But that’s the easy answer isn’t it.  It’s the gun laws. 

    • EaBo he had never committed a felon to be locked up, he was just committed thats different than being sentenced. So your facts are wrong there.

      <

      p>
      Also to David I’d agree with you that people with previous criminal records or a history of suicidal tendencies should not be able to purchase guns. I used to be an ardent gun control fan due in part to the fact that I am related to the victim of a gun crime, but I have become less convinced that it is the best method to stopping gun crimes. But that said I think your point is right on the money, in addition to having better access of information between mental health professionals, police, and schools in general to stop these sorts of incidents.

      • Here are the facts.

        <

        p>

        A court found that Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was “mentally ill” and potentially dangerous. Then it let him go.

        In December 2005 — more than a year before Monday’s mass shootings — a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented “an imminent danger to self or others.” That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.

        According to the “Temporary Detention Order” obtained by ABC News, psychologist Roy Crouse found Cho’s “affect is flat and mood is depressed.

        “He denies suicidal ideation. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder,” Dr. Crouse wrote. “His insight and judgment are normal.”

        That information came to light two days after Cho, a Virginia Tech senior, killed 32 people and then himself in a shooting rampage on the university’s campus.

        <

        p>
        He was thought to be dangerous.  He said he wasn’t, a doctor agreed.  He was let go to go on a murderous rampage. 

        <

        p>
        What I said does not contradict that story at all.

        <

        p>
        I never said he was convicted.  Re-read those comments.

        <

        p>
        It’s not the gun’s fault. It’s not the gun’s laws fault.  It’s Cho’s fault, and the fault of the multiple layers of people who did not heed warning signs faults.

        <

        p>
        Don’t blame the gun. It’s too easy and politically correct.

        • The post was about an NPR report that he was involuntary committed (which turned out to be false).  The issue?  Why was he able to purchases handguns if he was on the FBI’s NICS index.  It’s not about blame the guns.  Read the post.

        • It’s not the gun’s fault.

          <

          p>
          No, it’s not the gun’s fault.  The gun is just a slab of metal resting on a table, after having been placed there.

          <

          p>
          The fault is in the system that allowed him to acquire a gun.

          <

          p>
          That’s where the fault lies.  Change the system that would have allowed him to acquire a gun.  No system is fool-proof, but after learning how people might evade the goals of the system, the system should be modified to accommodate the new information.  So-called gun rights advocates don’t want to modify the system based on the new information.  Therein lies the rub.

          • Let’s pass laws that ensure beyond a reasonable doubt, that ya can’t buy a gun unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are mentally competent.

            <

            p>
            Let’s pass laws that ensure beyond a reasonable doubt, that ya can’t buy a rap record unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are educated with more than 20,000 laws – and understand each of them – that such so-called “music” will not affect your mental judgment.

            <

            p>
            ‘Bout the same thing, legally.

            <

            p>
            G’nite, all,
            Best,
            Chuck

    • “Hey the judge doesn’t want to go to his cocktail party and be chastised for being politically incorrect and keeping a minority in lockup does he”

      <

      p>
      “politically incorect” is an assuption of yours about the motivation.  This is a tragic enough situation without you opportunistically making *($ up in order to score liberal bashing points.

      <

      p>
      Shame on you.

      • No Shame on opportunistic people who are using a tragedy to blame someone or something else that is not at fault.  Gun Laws and only gun laws.  Don’t blame the person that committeed the crime.  Don’t blame the administration at Virginia Tech.  Don’t blame the judge that didn’t take the problems put before him seriously.  Don’t blame the multitude of people that didn’t heed the warning signs.  Don’t blame anybody, because hey it’s the guns fault.

        <

        p>
        That is what this post was saying.  And it’s horse hooey. 

        <

        p>
        And I’m not the one that railed against Mitt Romney for not putting something on the front page of his website.  David was. That’s political opportunism.  My comments were not.

        • …that by your own definition you have just proved my point.

          <

          p>
          “No Shame on opportunistic people who are using a tragedy to blame someone or something else that is not at fault.”

          <

          p>
          You mean like blaming racial political correctness when there is absolutely no evidence of such?  Just admit you erred and say so already.

          <

          p>
          This isn’t like a set of office drapes you can idly conjecture about facts not in evidence and have a pessimistic chuckle about the politics… people died for $(*$ sake.  Get some context please.

          • I don’t retract political correctness.  Because political correctness has stymied our judicial system.  Twenty years ago, cho would have been locked up in a psych ward for what he hreatened multiple times.  Today we don’t do that.  Why, because it’s not politically correct.  I give you the crew here at BMG’s distates for CORI as an example.  You don’t want to burden someone forlife. But then when it’s about gun control, you can’t fathom to believe that nobody keeps records of this stuff. 

            <

            p>
            Well what is it. Do we keep records or don’t we?

          • I held my tounge in that thread. But felt after you attacked my position here it was fair game.

  8. on Marketplace today

    ROBERT REICH: In the United States, if you’re seriously depressed, you can buy anti-depressive drugs – but only if you have a prescription from a doctor.

    Anti-depressants are enormously beneficial to millions of people, but they’re also potentially dangerous if used improperly. So, you have to see a doctor and get an assessment before you can go to a drug store and purchase one.

    But in the United States, in places like Virginia, a seriously depressed or deranged person can walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic handgun and a box of ammunition.

    All you need is two forms of identification. You don’t need permission from a doctor or counselor or anyone in the business of screening people to make sure they’re fit to have a gun.

    We can debate the relative benefits and dangers of anti-depressants and semi-automatic handguns, but if 30,000 Americans were killed each year by anti-depressants – as they are by handguns – it seems likely that anti-depressants would be even more strictly regulated.

    So why aren’t handguns?

    Well, the politics. Years ago, it was illegal to advertise prescription drugs. Now, due in part to Big Pharma’s clout, our airwaves and magazines are filled with images of happy people – who weren’t, until their physician prescribed a pill.

    But Big Pharma still hasn’t been able to cut out the physician altogether, because the process for screening people before they can buy an anti-depressant is just too important.

    By contrast, the National Rifle Association, with more organization and money than even Big Pharma, has eliminated almost all screening measures for buying guns. In recent years, the NRA has even shielded gun dealers from liability. Not even Big Pharma and the powerful American Medical Association have managed to shield doctors from liability.

    Look abroad and you have another useful point of contrast. In the United States, many people who are seriously depressed can’t afford to see a doctor, let alone get a prescription. Unlike every other advanced nation, we do not provide universal health care, or ready access to mental health services.

    But unlike every other advanced nation, we do allow just about anyone to buy a handgun.

    • “But in the United States, in places like Virginia, a seriously depressed or deranged person can walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic handgun and a box of ammunition.”

      <

      p>
      And, your point?

      <

      p>
      I am in the business of selling and engineering the installation of electrical and electronics systems for yachts. I am not in the business of trying to determine whether the yacht owner is so deranged that he intends to use the navigation systems I install on his multi-million-dollar yacht to ram the Queen Mary — or the USS Carl Vinson, for that matter. I am neither legally, or psychologically, qualified to so be.

      <

      p>
      Gun stores are in the business of selling guns and ammunition which they neither manufacture or regulate. As to manufacturers, they produce, similar to, say, automobile manufacturers, what they perceive the public will buy. They are not in the business of trying to determine whether the buyer is deranged enough to kill 31 students at VA Tech. Given that neither of us is in a regulatory capacity in our business, and beyond exercising reasonable (you’re an attorney, you tell ME!) review of the purchase order and the purchaser, what can we legally and morally do to prevent potential mayhem? This is a serious question, if there was a smattering of doubt.

      <

      p>
      No moral and ethical businessperson will try to circumvent any of the issues I herein raise. But frankly, if such businessperson tries to raise such an issue without convincing evidence, they would be sued for their britches!

      <

      p>
      I concede these are serious issues, and are not easily solved. But we Western Societists have parsed our occupations to the point where each of us know so much more about less, that pretty soon we well all know everything about NOTHING!

      <

      p>
      While that last has more than a little tongue-in-cheek, permit me to raise the question, please.

      <

      p>
      Best,
      Chuck

      • just as a pharmacy dispenses drugs but doesn’t prescribe them.

        <

        p>
        Methinks the suggestion was that before owning a gun, you would be required to see a head doctor to make sure you’re of sound mind.

      • If you can’t distinguish “ROBERT REICH” from “Laurel”, then I doubt you were able to comprehend the arguement he presented.  Responding to you further will therefore be a monumental waste of time.  Have a beautiful, trolly day! 🙂

        • I’m sorry for what I wrote last night,
          ‘Twas that last drink that threw me,
          Make me like I was before,
          Please, Dear God, UN screw me!

          <

          p>
          With respect and apologies, Laurel,
          Troll . . .

  9. USNews reports that he was never involuntary committed.

    <

    p>

    Following accusations of stalking by two female students against Cho and concerns he might be suicidal, campus officials obtained a “temporary detention order” for him on Dec. 13, 2005, from a Virginia magistrate, citing concerns that he “presents an imminent threat to [him]self or others.” Cho was sent to Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, Va., for examination.

    But the next day, a physician concluded that, while mentally ill, Cho did not present an imminent danger to others or require involuntary hospitalization.

  10. The problem was that Cho wasn’t in the Federal system.

    <

    p>
    Apparently, even though several layers of school, court, mental health, and campus police had found Mr. Cho rather wanting in the compos mentis department, there was no official rap sheet on him.
    So he cleared the FBI background check, got the guns, and did the deed.

    <

    p>
    Cho was an anomaly, and you can’t legislate for that.

    <

    p>
    This case is certainly no reason for me, a legal LTC holder of many years, in the most restrictive state in the union, to have more draconian regulations and ownership restrictions heaped upon me from either the state or the federal level.

    <

    p>
    **as an aside;
    David, gratuitous use of the term “gun nuts” as a universal desription, is pejorative.
    Remember: civility. 😉

      • would have resulted an a half dozen cowboy vigilantes in a circular firing squad, nobody certain who was cowboy and who was Indian anymore.

        <

        p>
        Who knows how many folks would have been hit by stray bullets there, too.

        • I heard Jim Braude say something to that effect the other day, that there would be “thousands” of deaths, “piles of bodies” if LTC holders carried on campuses.

          <

          p>
          Braude’s statement, in addition to being wholly unsupportable, ignores decades where people have been carrying on and off campus without a problem.

          <

          p>
          About 20 years ago, I took some courses at the local community college, and, guess what?
          ..That’s right, and folks never even knew.

          <

          p>
          As for the “circular firing sqaud”, trained men & women are well aware of how to handle themselves and their firearms.

          <

          p>
          In addition, it’s highly unlikely that more than a very small percentage would be excercising the right at any given time.

          <

          p>
          I agree with you a lot stomv. In fact you’re one of the most reasonable people on this forum. But the cowboy statement, though colorful, is hyperbole.

          <

          p>
          You don’t punish the many for the crimes of the few.
          And you use facts, not hypotheticals, on which to base sound policy.

          • if the actual number of people “excercising the right at any given time” is “unlikely” to be “more than a very small percentage” means that in this case the odds that someone would have been on the scene, a responsible trained gun owner, packing at the time, and not put in a position where he or she would have been unable to act (“everyone on the floor!”) seem pretty long. 

            <

            p>
            That aside, I do find it interesting.  Should we encourage gun ownership and more people being armed in public in order to create public safety?  Is public safety a natural outcome of such a situation?

            <

            p>
            I don’t have stats on me but here a conjecture:  If you were to find out that as the general percentage of the population that is armed increases the overal number of gun related deaths and injuries increases,… is there reason to speculate that there would be some kind of “critical mass” of gun ownership that would reverse that trend?

            • Not being too good in math, I kinda lost the gist of your first paragraph. 😉

              <

              p>
              But again, if the hypothetical is that a legally armed student or professor would have saved the day?
              I can’t support that.

              <

              p>
              But, it might have.

              <

              p>
              The certainty in the mind of Mr. Cho that the people at Virginia Tech were helplessly unarmed, likely influenced his decision to kill there, rather than, say a breakfast meeting of local business owners & tradesmen.

              <

              p>
              Most crimminals are cowards, and will go for the low hanging fruit.

              <

              p>
              I believe that the best way to reduce gun crime is to take that certainty from the mind of the criminal, and to instead, plant a seed of doubt.

            • Don’t have time to look up all the info but I am sure a simple Google search could get you it. 

              <

              p>
              In either the late 1970’s or early 1980’s rape of women had reached unprecedented highs in the Miami area.  In response, the local police started a push to have more women carrying guns.  They trained them on gun safety, proper shooting and handling for self defense purposes.  As a result, the number of rapes and attempted rapes went down significantly.  Other violent crime statistics also dropped and were suspected to be related to the increased number of armed people.  I am not sure about the rates of gun related deaths or injuries in this situation. 

              <

              p>
              This case is often cited by gun lobbyists and I have never heard any criticism of the facts or statistics.

              • I can only emphasize: correlation does not imply causality.

                <

                p>
                Did the economic conditions improve — thereby reducing the general crime rate?  What happened to crime rates in similar communities that didn’t encourage gun ownership?

                <

                p>
                It’s easy to find some data points and imply causality.  It’s often rarely correct.  Maybe this study corrected for economic standing, increased awareness (women being more careful about walking alone, etc. because so many rapes were happening), increased visual police patrols, etc.  Maybe it’s because of the “seed of doubt”.  Without the study…

                • Between rape and “economic conditions” would be if the rapist could now afford to pay a hooker — and sexual gratification is almost NEVER the driving reason for rape!

                  <

                  p>
                  Best,
                  Chuck

                • Economic conditions can both (a) reduce the woman’s chance of being in a place where she’s more likely to be attacked, (b) help her have the opportunity to move herself and her children away from a physically and sexually abusive husband/boyfriend/man.

                  <

                  p>
                  So, you’re flat out wrong.  Economic prosperity can help some women avoid some rapes.

      • I brought up what Lt. Col. Bob Bateman said on another thread.  I think it bears mention here.

        <

        p>
        http://mediamatters….

        <

        p>
        “…if I hear one more stupid gun-loving sonuvabitch talk about how, ‘Well, if they just had allowed all those students to have guns, this lunatic at Virginia Tech wouldn’ta got far,’ I am going to slap his dumb ass on the first plane smokin’ for Iraq, where I would like to personally drop him off, with as many guns as he would like, in Dora (that’s a particularly nasty South Baghdad neighborhood with which I am familiar). …

        <

        p>
        …As a microcosm, Dora should be the NRA’s dream town, as it perfectly matches the NRA ‘Wild West’ theory of what is needed in a society: honor is important to the individual; the family is the most important part of society; all of the inhabitants are very religious (except for when they are not); and absolutely everyone has at least one gun.”

        • because I’m clumsy. 

          <

          p>
          But there is no denying that if “one other” person was legally armed and able to take Cho down, there would have been less people killed.  It is a fact, plain and simple. 

          • Look — cut the crap.  You spew “fact” all the time, and yet, it ain’t a fact.

            <

            p>
            Proposing what would have happened with a different set of laws involving 40+ people you’ve never met is not “fact.”

            <

            p>
            It’s not.  It’s not it’s not it’s not.  Your claim is speculation.  Without some context, it doesn’t even get the title “hypothesis.”  That’s fine — speculation is encouraged, especially around here.  Just call it speculation; don’t claim it to be a fact.

            <

            p>
            So, cut the crap with your “facts.”  Please.

              • that there have been scenarios where armed citizens have minimized what probably would have been a far greater tragedy.  I’m sure you don’t dispute that there have been scenarios where armed citizens have contributed to a greater tragedy than what probably would have occurred.

                <

                p>
                Neither is the point of my above post.  The point was: what EaBo claimed to be fact was nothing more than speculation.

  11. CORI and all.  But now that it can be used to further your anti-gun agenda you are for criminal and mental history registries?

    <

    p>
    I’m trying to find the logical connection, but it’s hard.

    • You might have a better argument if you didn’t make things up.  Maybe some other boards will be better for you in these kind of postings.

      • The point was, I think, referring to Mr. Patrick’s measures to limit employer’s access to CORI. Here

        <

        p>
        Suppose you support the Governor’s initiative.  I don’t know that you do, but if you do, rationalize why you’d similarly support the creation of a database containing persons’ mental health assessment as it relates to gun ownership, and if or why that information should be available to a gun shop owner/seller.

        • …on the CORI thing yet, having not put enough study into it yet.  But the overall point you make has a big flaw with regards to making information available to gun sellers.

          <

          p>
          Assuming there was a database that gun sellers had to check with before a sale.  There is nothing that necessarily says that the seller needs any information from the database other than the denial.

          • There is nothing that necessarily says that the seller needs any information from the database other than the denial.

            <

            p>
            Fair enough.  Somewhere, there would exist, some sort of specific database.  How much of that database to be available to the gun sellers would be a matter of policy.  So now, I a gun seller would see a denial and immediately assume i) mentally ill ii) felon. Right?  What else to assume?

            <

            p>
            Also, I wouldn’t support such list because of the risk, or likelihood that the information would eventually be made public. YMMV. 

            • From Glenn Greenwald:

              <

              p>
              http://www.salon.com…

              <

              p>
              “The expansion of the Surveillance State is endless. Buried within an ABC report on the Virginia Tech shootings is this paragraph (h/t reader DT):

              <

              p>
              ‘Some news accounts have suggested that Cho had a history of antidepressant use, but senior federal officials tell ABC News that they can find no record of such medication in the government’s files. This does not completely rule out prescription drug use, including samples from a physician, drugs obtained through illegal Internet sources, or a gap in the federal database, but the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search.’

              <

              p>
              Is there any good reason whatsoever why the federal government should be maintaining “files” which contain information about the pharmaceutical products which all Americans are consuming?”

            • iii) Purchased a gun within the past 30 days, and is therefore not eligible to purchase another one.
              iv) Hasn’t passed the necessary training courses.

              <

              p>
              There could be more too… I have no idea.  Besides, without the mentally-ill prohibition, you’d still have (ii), right?

              Your concern about the data being made public is a fair one… but I’m not sure it would be any more likely than any other medical data sitting in a database somewhere.

          • put forward by EaBo and strengthened by gary.  There is hypocrisy here in the application of databases to check background information. 

            <

            p>
            The governor and other progressives/liberals/etc. are for limiting access to criminal information in the CORI system.  While others of that same political philosophy are arguing for more recording keeping and access to mental health information in regards to gun control. 

            <

            p>
            And your “flaw” as you put it, doesn’t change the hypothesis at all.  Someone applies for a gun license or tries to buy a gun.  Weather the person is denied due to a specific mental health condition or is given a just plain “denied” stamp, the scuttle butt around town would still be so-and-so has a mental health issue even if the exact illness is not known.  In fact that might even cause more gossip with people speculating what the illness is.

            <

            p>
            Bottom line, it is hypocritical of the political left to want to limit background information to prospective employers but increase the access to background information for gun control purposes.

            <

            p>
            Speaking of hypocrisy around the CORI issue.  I would say it is not a stretch to say that Boston is a more progressive/liberal city then it is conservative.  Nor is it a stretch to say that school systems are more progressive/liberal then conservative.  I am doing some environmental cleanup of an oil spill at a school for the Boston Public School system.  Before I could go on the school property to conduct my work, I had to submit to a CORI check.

            • if there was a desire to limit the information that sellers could get it could be designed in the system without having to scrap the database alltogether.  That was the thrust of his point in that particulkar comment and this techncial point is a major flaw in that point. 

              <

              p>
              I wasn’t making a comment one way or another on issues of hypocrasy.  Please feel free to comment on whay I say, but don’t put words in my mouth.

              <

              p>
              I actually think the problem is that the public sector is just too damn sloppy with its data.  In a perfect world where proper controls were in place to minimize risk I guess I wouldn’t really care about what information on me the government kept. 

              <

              p>
              But, as has been pointed out, the world isn’t perfect and in that light, any desire to keep data must be balanced against the risk of improper use and the consequences of bad data. 

              <

              p>

        • When you go buy a gun, they do some sort of “instant” background check.

          <

          p>
          Is it not simply a “pass/fail” message for the gun shop, or do they find out why the person is not permitted to purchase a firearm?

          <

          p>
          I would have thought that they wouldn’t find out why they can’t sell the gun to Joe Blow, merely that they can’t.  If that is the case, then adding mental health assessment to the list of things in the “instant” check has nothing to do with providing that particular information to the gun show owner/seller.

          • The shop owner must call into a specific FBI database that gives a pass/fail response.

            <

            p>
            The dealer cannot overrule the instant check, though he can refuse to sell of his own accord.

          • Here we do all of the background check prior to you ever buying a gun.  That is all done when you apply for a fire arms license and those are actually administered by your local police chief. 

            <

            p>
            This was actually one of Healey’s 50 points.  She wanted that background check and approval or denial done by a central authority so that the approval and denial process could be more consistent.

            <

            p>
            Also, when you go to buy a hand gun in Mass, you have to wait 7 days before you can actual get it.  Even if you have the proper license for such a gun.  This is considered a “cooling off period”.  So if you were made at your wife, boss, etc. you couldn’t get a hand gun right away to shoot them and you might calm down by the time you actually get the gun.  Although there is no waiting period for rifles or shot guns.  I believe the logic behind that has to do with being able to conceal the weapon. 

            <

            p>
            Far from a perfect system but I believe it is adequate to stop most of the problems.  I also believe that in Mass, the VT gunman would have been denied access to the gun because he had been accused of stalking.

            • But in addition to all of the checks that you mention, the FBI must approve each and every transaction.

            • Here we do all of the background check prior to you ever buying a gun.  That is all done when you apply for a fire arms license and those are actually administered by your local police chief.

              <

              p>
              That’s incorrect.

              <

              p>
              While a background check is done during the licensing process in Massachusetts, an NCIC check is still done EACH and EVERY time you purchase a firearm. That’s true whether it’s in a local gun shop or at a gun show, as long as the seller is an FFL holder. The ONLY time an NCIC check is not done is when the transaction takes place between two private parties, e.g. I sell one of my guns to another licensed owner. In those instances, a Massachusetts FA-10 form must be filled out and filed with the authorities to record the transaction (both must be suitably licensed for the type of firearm changing hands as well).

              <

              p>
              The NCIC check is done any time a firearm is purchased from a dealer, anywhere in the US. No one in this country can walk in and buy a gun without passing the check, regardless of where they live.

    • EaBo, this thread contains some truly bad-faith argument on your part.  You’ve utterly dodged the basic question in the post, which is this:

      <

      p>

      can everyone please agree that it’s just common sense to be sure that gun purchasers don’t suffer from a serious mental illness that has caused them to be deemed an imminent threat?

      <

      p>
      Instead, you insist that everyone and everything other than VA’s pathetically lax gun laws are to blame.  Well, you’re just wrong about that.  Yes, there is lots of blame to go around.  Obviously, the shooter.  Maybe, Va Tech — though as the NY Times reports today, the school’s options were limited.  Maybe the judge in Cho’s case, though obviously we have limited information about that situation at this point.  And now, apparently, it’s the fault of people who favor CORI reform.  (For the record, I’m on record against restricting access to CORI, if they can clean up the mistakes in the database.)

      <

      p>
      But what is so hard about admitting that it also makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of people with a demonstrated history of mental instability?  Do you have to turn in your VRWC membership card if you say that in public?  Wait — on second though, don’t answer that.  That’s really what this is all about, isn’t it.  You know that there should be some common-sense restrictions on gun ownership, like the one I’m describing.  But you are unwilling to buck conventional wisdom of your “movement.”  I see no other explanation.

      • ignores every other reason.  You’ve focused on the gun and gun laws.  You haven’t focused on the real more deep reasons.

        <

        p>
        This tragedy should not be exploited to further erode the second amendment to the Constitution.

        • you refuse to respond to my basic point.

          <

          p>
          I’m not “ignoring” the other causal factors — as far as I’m concerned, everything should be on the table.  You are the one who wants to take an important piece of this off the table.

          <

          p>
          Argue in good faith, or go away.

          • If the community did not shirk their responsibility he would not have been out of a mental institution in order to purchase a gun in the first place. 

            <

            p>
            I agree with instant background checks and no waiting period.  But your post is focusing on only one issue and you are implying that the gun was at fault.  Maybe I’m reading too much into your statements.  But that is what it seems.  And while you may not believe in so called CORI reforms, doesn’t mean that many of the people who read and post on this site don’t.

      • can everyone please agree that it’s just common sense to be sure that gun purchasers don’t suffer from a serious mental illness that has caused them to be deemed an imminent threat?

        <

        p>
        Sure, I agree.  But now what? 

        <

        p>
        -You have (upthread) the mental health activist who’ll disagree about the CORI type database that will be required to ascertain who should or should not buy a weapon.

        <

        p>
        -You have gun proponents who don’t wish any further limitation on legal possession.

        <

        p>
        -You put health professionals in the position to opine on whether so-and-so can own a gun, and to protect themselves for possible lawsuits, the health professional will like err on the side of saying no.

        <

        p>
        -You have the CNC (criminal or crazy) database that allows or disallows purchase, and the associated risk that the info will become public.

        <

        p>
        But yeah, I agree. Dangerous people shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns.  Or chainsaws, or knives, or rat poison, or…..

        • a chainsaw, or a knife, or rat poison, he wouldn’t have been able to wreak nearly the havoc he did.  That’s the difference with guns.

          <

          p>
          A simple check with a “CNC” (to adopt your term) database doesn’t seem like too much to ask.  It’s not like the technology doesn’t exist.  I agree that there are political minefields to be navigated.  Doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.

          • Dangerous people ought not to own guns, just like stupid people ought not to be in public office.

            <

            p>
            But in the trade off between public safety and mandating and empowering one group of professionals (i.e. the psychiatrists) to decide who’s on the CNC list, and therefore dangerous (or stupid), I err on the side of individual liberty and feel the cost of such mandate would exceed the benefit to public safety.  I sense I’m on the majority side in this argument, but I’m not sure.  That’s the difference, and probably where the argument ends I guess.

          • How is this dictinction different from the argument that, if the second person this guy saw had a weapon, there would have been 30 fewer deaths?  That’s the difference with guns, when the law abiding are not permitted to carry them.

            • Your hypothesis is: if (a) it were permissible to carry concealed weapons on college campuses in VA; (b) one or more of the students in the affected classrooms chose to bring his or her sidearm to class that day; and (c) one such student (i) realized quickly what was happening; (ii) had a clear shot at Cho; (iii) took it in time; (iv) hit Cho; and (v) didn’t set off a shooting spree with other armed students also reaching for their guns, then there would have been fewer deaths that day.  OK, assuming that all of those conditions comes in right, I’ll give you that.

              <

              p>
              My hypothesis is: if (a) VA law required gun sellers to verify statements made regarding past mental illness, then there would have been fewer deaths that day.  Will you give me that?

          • a mass murder was in the Bath Schoolhouse tragedy.  The perpetrator did not use a gun.  Never underestimate the power of man for evil purpose.

      • I am a strong proponent of weapons ownership rights. I would NOT, however, be opposed to a requirement that anytime a mental health evaluation takes place, that the FBI’s NICS system be informed of the details by the professionals involved.

        <

        p>
        What this would do would be to alert the FBI that an evaluation had taken place, nothing more. Armed with this information, and as a precondition to any firearms purchase, a requirement could be then imposed to provide for such an eval as a “follow-up.” This would ensure the mental competence of such a person before he gets his hands on a weapon. No follow-up eval, no gun.

        <

        p>
        Cho was clearly nuts. He would probably have failed an objective evaluation of his mental state.

        <

        p>
        Just a thought.

        <

        p>
        Best,
        Chuck

        • The Virginia authorities failed to update the NICS database.

          <

          p>
          I have no problem with that being the law.

        • If an individual is a danger to others, yes.

          <

          p>
          Giving the government a database containing the mental health records of every American does not sound like a good idea to me.

  12. Whoa we are talking about mental illness, CORI, and gun ownership.  Let’s try to tease this all out.

    <

    p>
    A person evaluated in 2005 for risk of harm to self/others would not be in the hospital 18 months later.  if you think that then you had better ask DMH to stop reducing it’s bed capacity.  Whether or not the person was retained after being sent for the evaluation of risk of imminent harm is made by the doctors and not the judge.  The judge would only get reinvolved if the hospital wished to detain him further and he refused and was judged to be a danger to self and others.  If every person who was ever found to be a danger to themselves (suicidal) and hospitalized was never discharged many of us, our friends, family, etc would be detained in mental hospitals.  Is that really what you are intending to say?  The understanding of mental illness is way out there, much like the Wasserman cartoon in todays’ Globe.  please view it.  It is incredibly insensitive to use the horrific symptom of auditory hallucinations as the butt of a joke.

    <

    p>
    CORI is entirely problematic.  It lists every crime a person was charged with even if the person was found not guilty, the case was dismissed, etc.  No one need to have that in formation except law enforcement and it totally disregards the notion of innocent until proven guilty.  CORI is not up to date.  i have a client whose charges were dismissed 16 months ago, and it required several phone calls to the Superior Court where the charges originated to get his CORI to accurately reflect the status of those charges.  In general, CORI is being used as a means to prevent persons who have committed crimes, done their time, have been returned to the community like the vast majority of criminal offenders, only to find that getting a job or housing is next to impossible.  instead of supporting a person’s efforts to rejoin society we put every obstacle in their way that we can think of.

    <

    p>
    Gun control is so contentious.  We may all share the goal to be safe in our families, in our communities, etc., but we really differ on whether greater gun access creates more safety or less safety.  I come down on the side of not having guns readily available, mostly because of accidents  and use in impulsive situations where if a person had time to think for even a second, that might not do harm to another.  As far as I am aware, when a person applies for a gun permit in Massachusetts, their name is checked against a data base of people who receive services from DMH,(This practice might have changed since HIPPA) of course that does not include wealthy people who get their mental health services from the private sector.

    <

    p>
    One of my many pet peeves is the flagrant lack of knowledge in the media and in the public about mental illness, it’s treatment, and the rules/laws that govern it.  people here on this blog are so knowledgeable about so many obscure issues and yet their knowledge about mental illness is extremely naive and uninformed.  This really troubles me as how many of us don’t know a family member, a friend, a loved one with mental illness.  Please try to educate yourself about this issue it is so important!!!!

  13. David, you are right about Cho did lie on his 4473 form about his mental problems; you are right about Virginia prohibiting the sale of firearms to involuntarily committed mental patients (a federal requirement).  But you are completely wrong in stating Virginia doesn’t care if the person lied or not. How, in your liberal and uninformed biased mind do you think one can determine if the applicant is lying or not?  You have ESP? If I tell you I am an Afro-American how can you know if this is true or not?  I am white, by the way. Here is a fact for you to remember:  when a background check is initiated it is the FBI (not the state)- the FBI – that gives one of three responses – Proceed, Delayed, Denied.  Since there was no record of Cho’s mental deficiency, he was approved.  The state physician(and the court system) who treated Cho dropped the ball in not reporting his state of mind – not the gun dealer.

    <

    p>  The answer to identifying these psychopaths and/or mentally disturbed might be for states to require that the names of these  people be entered into the state system and  subsequently require the state to enter the names into the FBI records.  Now doesn’t this make more sense than your anti-gun comments?  If you are like most liberals you will never admit it.

    <

    p>
    Finally, gun nuts? No, we are firearm owners who understand, defend and appreciate the Second Amendment and further understand the dire consequences that will affect us all (anti-gunners included)if firearms are banned.

    <

    p>
    Veritas vos Liberabit!

  14. David, you are right about Cho did lie on his 4473 form about his mental problems; you are right about Virginia prohibiting the sale of firearms to involuntarily committed mental patients (a federal requirement).  But you are completely wrong in stating Virginia doesn’t care if the person lied or not. How, in your liberal and uninformed biased mind do you think one can determine if the applicant is lying or not?  You have ESP? If I tell you I am an Afro-American how can you know if this is true or not?  I am white, by the way. Here is a fact for you to remember:  when a background check is initiated it is the FBI (not the state)- the FBI – that gives one of three responses – Proceed, Delayed, Denied.  Since there was no record of Cho’s mental deficiency, he was approved.  The state physician(and the court system) who treated Cho dropped the ball in not reporting his state of mind – not the gun dealer.

    <

    p>  The answer to identifying these psychopaths and/or mentally disturbed might be for states to require that the names of these  people be entered into the state system and  subsequently require the state to enter the names into the FBI records.  Now doesn’t this make more sense than your anti-gun comments?  If you are like most liberals you will never admit it.

    <

    p>
    Finally, gun nuts? No, we are firearm owners who understand, defend and appreciate the Second Amendment and further understand the dire consequences that will affect us all (anti-gunners included)if firearms are banned.

    <

    p>
    Veritas vos Liberabit!

Archives