Virginia shooting

And more of the same... let's not worry about actually arguing with the posts saying that gun control wouldn't work, let's just repeat our bullshit over and over again and maybe someday it'll be true...

A waiting period would have put off the shooting by five days at most. A legal ban already in place was clearly ignored (no guns on campus, anyone?) by the shooter, so it's unlikely that more of that would have helped. Does anyone care to find a better solution to our problems instead of just saying 'if my way doesn't work... we need more of it'?

Jeff
 
Yes, I do.

I think there should be an interview clause for anyone committed to a mental health center or asylum, meaning if they find you have mental/emotional issues or have been committed, they talk to your social circle, coworkers, roomates, etc. If you've been a good person for at LEAST 5 years, then you're cleared. If not, you wait 5 more. And 5 years is a suggested MINIMUM between release and ability to apply for a gun.

Obviously he was still far from safe enough to have these guns. I think that clause would have caught it. Being committed once doesn't mean you're a nut forever. A blanket ban from guns would be worthless because a lot of folks DO recover. So I figure this would be a good start and compromise.
 
I'm sure this has all been said before, but for some reason, I am really saddened by this. Not that I knew anyone there, it's just so horrific, the way the campus wasn't closed down, and that.... I don't know it's just horrible :(

And his literature and writing professors had apparently recommended him for counseling because of his content and...what became of that? I wonder if it had been looked into further if this could have been stopped, or would he have inevitably carried it out either way.

:(
 
With him being that erratic, someone should have called a crisis worker or asked the police to send an officer trained in psychiatric holds to bag him, he sounds like he was really a loose cannon and no one did anything to stop it.
 
Then no gun for you. :) The rule is if diagnosed with those heavy disorders, you get help, or you get no gun. And they can hold you for up to 33 days if harm to self in some states, and even longer if harm to others. MINIMUM of 72 hours in some states, during which you're forcibly medicated due to a "crisis situation". No, you can't do anything about it. There's also "parking lot certification" in which you're released, followed, and if you show any signs of issue, they drag you back in. Is it legal? No, but you have to prove they did it, and if you're committed, you're not likely to be believed. Judges also tend to turn their heads in those cases.
 
Yeah, he'd be locked in long term care for at least a year, and possibly indefinitely. You don't leave until they think you're ready.

Based on current evidence, he would be there for a good long stay.
 
If that's the case, people should talk to alot of death metal lyric writers.

You just never know, really. This whole thing doesn't pull at my heart strings one bit. It's interesting news. It doesn't have any direct impact on me, my friends, or my family, so I really just don't care. Sure, it sucks... lots of shitty stuff happened in the past.
 
Yeah. Great idea. Until he goes and buys a gun illegally. Where nobody is going to question anything and just exchange a pistol for some cash. Then we're back to square zero.

Seriously, the gun is irrelevant. "Gun control" is irrelevant. The entire point is being missed. He wanted to kill people. Had he not been able to get a gun at a gun shop, he probably could've got one with a little bit of inquiry through a "private" or illegal sale. I know that in California, to do a private party sale of a firearm; you have to use a gun shop as a middle man and change over the registration and all of that stuff. A lot of other states, it's perfectly okay to just sell your gun over to somebody else straight across. Not sure if Virginia is one of them or not.
Anyway, even if he couldn't do that, and he still wanted to kill people; he would have. Seriously, that's the point. He just happened to use a gun that he bought legally. "Gun control" doesn't suppress someone's desire to kill. Why is all of this being completely overlooked?
 
The lyricists aren't refusing to answer when called in class, talking to imaginary girlfriends, signing with question marks, send videos of yourself holding a hammer and guns to NBC (suggested by MSNBC) and posting on 4chan about killing for anonymous (as brought forward by a swedish newspaper)

And I'm no longer addressing just guns you thickhead, I'm also addressing nutters like the shooter.
 
Yeah. Great idea. Until he goes and buys a gun illegally. Where nobody is going to question anything and just exchange a pistol for some cash. Then we're back to square zero.

Seriously, the gun is irrelevant. "Gun control" is irrelevant. The entire point is being missed. He wanted to kill people. Had he not been able to get a gun at a gun shop, he probably could've got one with a little bit of inquiry through a "private" or illegal sale. I know that in California, to do a private party sale of a firearm; you have to use a gun shop as a middle man and change over the registration and all of that stuff. A lot of other states, it's perfectly okay to just sell your gun over to somebody else straight across. Not sure if Virginia is one of them or not.
Anyway, even if he couldn't do that, and he still wanted to kill people; he would have. Seriously, that's the point. He just happened to use a gun that he bought legally. "Gun control" doesn't suppress someone's desire to kill. Why is all of this being completely overlooked?


I agree that gun control really isn't the issue here. If someone can't buy a gun legally, there's the "black market", and..."friends" and if none of that pans out, there's stealing it. And I am sure that wouldn't be much of a concern if you were hell bent on going on a killing spree that day. I think the issue should be more about improving security on campuses. But when you really think about it, there's little anyone can do NOW.
 
I too agree that there were a LOT of "warning signs" per se, and it's pretty dumb that nothing was done about it.
But honestly, I don't know how I would've reacted in that sort of situation either. I too am guilty of the whole "somone else will deal with it and I'll just keep to my own business" mentality. As are a lot of us.
I guess that's the real problem here. No one acted on some things that should've been checked out. Save the whole referral to counseling.
But, with lawsuits and invasion of privacy/harassment, etc etc; had anyone said anything about it or tried to stop the guy or talk to other people about it, expose him, whatever; what would have become of that?
It's all really hard to say.
 
The lyricists aren't refusing to answer when called in class, talking to imaginary girlfriends, signing with question marks, send videos of yourself holding a hammer and guns to NBC (suggested by MSNBC) and posting on 4chan about killing for anonymous (as brought forward by a swedish newspaper)

And I'm no longer addressing just guns you thickhead, I'm also addressing nutters like the shooter.

A brief little clip of several bits of the video he sent is now available online at MSN News. Essentially what he says is a lot like what he writes: it generally just sounds like your generic high school "anarchist" rant. Except, it seems this guy was for real.
 
I suppose when anyone gets that deeply into it then maybe we SHOULD have them examined. A simple interview with a psychologist maybe. "What if they refuse?" Then you can consider talking to their peers. "And if they refuse?" Then you should consider putting them under temporary observation either while they remain in school, or if they raise enough concern, an involuntary hold. Thats in extreme cases though.