Guns in wake of Virginia

[NREMT-Basic]

This individual was a legal citizen that followed all of the requirements for legal firearm ownership. Another law would not have changed anything. This was not a failure of firearm legislation. It was a failure of the mental health facilities to recognize that he had a problem.

Place the blame where it belongs.

He was not a citizen of the United States. He held the status of resident alien. Big difference.

[BushyFromOz]

resident alien

I know this is a serious discussion, but i couldn't help but imagine a little green korean guy being picked up by Fox Mulder and Dana Scully.

Then again the bloke did seem like he was in a different dimension or another planet or something :shock:

[nbsp]

He was not a citizen of the United States. He held the status of resident alien. Big difference.

He was a permanent legal resident, don't pass him off as a foreign problem. In virginia, there IS no difference between legal permanent resident and citizen in terms of buying a gun.

One law enforcement official said Cho's backpack contained a receipt for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol. Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.

Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell said his shop sold the Glock and a box of practice ammo to Cho 36 days ago for $571.

"He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We won't sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious," Markell said.

[nbsp]

I haven't read this thread at all, so apologize if this has already been brought up, but I find how poorly the poll was made humorously entertaining.

[paramedicmike]

He was a permanent legal resident, don't pass him off as a foreign problem. In virginia, there IS no difference between legal permanent resident and citizen in terms of buying a gun.

He was eligible to buy a weapon if he meets all the requirements. This extends beyond having committed a felony. In Virginia, and in other states as well, you aren't eligible to buy one if you've been involuntarily committed for psychiatric reasons. This guy was involuntarily committed.

I don't know and am not familiar with the process required on behalf of licensed arms dealers in order for them to sell a weapon to someone. But the shooter in this case was not allowed, under VA law, to buy a handgun.

Funny how the media leaves out vital pieces of information.

-be safe

[nbsp]

He was eligible to buy a weapon if he meets all the requirements. This extends beyond having committed a felony. In Virginia, and in other states as well, you aren't eligible to buy one if you've been involuntarily committed for psychiatric reasons. This guy was involuntarily committed.

I don't know and am not familiar with the process required on behalf of licensed arms dealers in order for them to sell a weapon to someone. But the shooter in this case was not allowed, under VA law, to buy a handgun.

Funny how the media leaves out vital pieces of information.

-be safe

hmmm.... half right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd...nyt&emc=rss

He was not involunatrily commited, but declared "an immediate danger to himself", which falls into the range of “adjudicated as a mental defective,” which means he shouln't have been able to buy a gun. The background check should have caught it, but apparently there's a problem with the reporting methods and the court ruling didn't show up.

Thanks for bringing that up. I had no idea.

The point still is, you cannot and do not call him a "resident alien" and try to pretend that this is some kind of problem caused by foreigners, which is what the media have been doing all this time. Some even go as far as to re-name his green card a "resident alien card". Cho Sueng Hui lived 15 of his 23 years in america and it's rather odd to deny that he's american too.

[Scaramedic]

I feel the need to point some things out.

#1. A2L as far as the Native Americans go, the problem with most nations was that they were fighting rifles and pistols with bows, arrows and spears. The outcome would have been different if the tribes were armed with the same weapons as the Cavalry. Case in point, Little Big Horn.

#2. Why do we have an elaborate system to check our credit with no less than three agencies that decide whether or not we get a credit card yet no such thing for weapons? Why not have a private company that verifies a persons ability/sanity to buy firearms? If your late making your cable bill payment they report it to an agency. Yet if you go nuts and threaten to kill people there is no way to alert firearms dealers that your cheese might be off the cracker. So why not have a centralized system in place for police and mental health agencies to report dangerous behavior. If you decide to go buy a weapon they run a check and get a simple yes or no answer. No elaboration needed, just like credit checks the dealer would not know why you are being turned down.

#3 This is a Pistol. AKA sidearm, handgun, piece, roscoe, or nine.

Seung-Hui Cho used two of these to kill 32 innocent people and 1 crazed loner.

This is a rifle. AKA hunting rifle, long gun or elephant gun.

Charles Whitman used several of these to kill 15 people from a tower at the University of Texas in 1966.

This is a gun. A Howitzer to be exact. AKA Cannon.

Have been used to kill millions by armies for the centuries.

The Machete.

Used to kill hundreds of thousands of ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutu sympathizers in Rwanda. No background check needed for these in any country.

Ironic isn't it?

Peace,

Marty

[paramedicmike]

hmmm.... half right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd...nyt&emc=rss

He was not involunatrily commited, but declared "an immediate danger to himself", which falls into the range of “adjudicated as a mental defective,” which means he shouln't have been able to buy a gun. The background check should have caught it, but apparently there's a problem with the reporting methods and the court ruling didn't show up.

These are the first two paragraphs of the article you cited:

Under federal law, the Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from purchasing a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a government official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun.

As the story unfolds, more information becomes available to the public. Nothing I've read to date stated that he'd been "adjudicated as mentally defective" just that he'd been involuntarily committed. If true, the fact that he was "adjudicated as a mental defective" is just the icing on the cake. Either way, and it might just all be semantics, he shouldn't have been allowed to purchase/own it.

I think Scara raises a good point. There seems to be greater reporting on our credit history than there is with regards to the background checks for weapons purchases. Or maybe it was just a lazy weapons dealer. Who knows?

-be safe

[nbsp]

We must be some kind of long-lost opposite twins, because nothing I've read said he was involuntarily committed. In fact, I've read many times that he was NOT involuntarily committed. He was not declared outright mentally defective, but as I've said, he was declared "an immediate danger to himself", which falls into the range of “adjudicated as a mental defective.”

Credit companies are more thorough with history because there is a greater incentive. One, they want to be absolutely certain that they get their money and two they want to find more ways to charge you money. Giving you a credit card is a long term deal while selling a gun is a one time transaction. The only incentive is gun control laws.

[nbsp]

Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was "involuntarily committed" or ruled mentally "incapacitated."

"It's clear we have an imperfect connection between state law and the application of the federal prohibition," Bonnie said. The commission he leads was created by the state last year to examine the state's mental health laws.

This may be where the snafu happened, since "mentally defective" does not fit perfectly into either category, although this is the only article that mentions it so I can't vouch for its accuracy.