TexasCHLforum.com

Geister wrote:

To me the root of the problem wasn’t that he was allowed access to firearms, it’s that he was out walking around in society. The system broke when it allowed him to retain his freedom and stay in society. Cho probably would have killed even without access to firearms. Yes the death toll may have been lower, but there still would have been a death toll, and it would have been eliminated by removing Cho from normal society.

In my opinion, this particular incident is not a case for further increasing the level of the background check for firearm transfers. Rather it’s a case for involuntary incarceration.

From what I've read on-line about Cho (and it could be wrong):

Cho was temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment; he was never committed. I don't think everyone that is temporarily detained for a psychiatric assessment should be committed. Lots of people who suffer from mental illness are not violent towards others so we shouldn't assume that anyone who's a little off in the head acts like Cho.

I never said everyone that is temporarily detained should be committed…

Geister wrote: No one really knew what exactly was going through his mind. I think he should have been locked up as well, but based on what I've read about him, there was not one specific incident prior to the massacre that would have gotten him locked up for a long while. We didn't know that he should have been locked up until AFTER he committed the killings.

I completely agree…

Geister wrote: He had a psychiatric assessment for a threat of suicide, not murder. Not even the psychiatrists who dealt with him really knew that he had violent thoughts towards others, and they focused on his depression and suicidal tendencies.

Ok, so again we agree, he fell through the system…a deranged, homicidal individual was “released� into society.

I believe any system that guards individual freedoms is going to let a few folks like Cho slip through the cracks. That’s the downside to protecting individual rights, but it’s a downside I can accept since I feel the greater good is served.

The point of my post was, and still is, if your goal was to avoid the slaughter, removing Cho's free access to society was the only option, and for that reason the discussion of his access to firearms was not applicable…his open access to society was.

Geister wrote: The only real effective thing we could have done is allow CHLers to carry on campus in Virginia.

Now if your discussion is how to limit his impact to society, then I agree having concealed carry on campus may have improved the situation, if a CHL had been there, and had the mindset to pull the trigger, but I doubt it would have saved all the victims that day, and yes I believe a lower death toll would have been a better outcome…And of course I'm for concealed carry on campus (and everywhere else).

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Here's the problem.

Can someone tell me how you defend "guns for psychos" without sounding like one yourself?

At least in my case, I’m not advocating “guns for psychos�, I’m advocating defensive weapons for law abiding citizens as an individual right. Sounds different to me...

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Nobody is talking about banning guns for people with minor problems, perhaps for which they were prescribed medication in the past.

But my concern is who gets to decide what “minor� is? The opportunity for abuse is high, in my opinion. Also, and this is the main concern for me, we're not looking at the root of the problem. The NICS database is not the issue in this particular case.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Cho was adjucated to be a danger to himself and that judgement happened to be CORRECT. Yet, he still passed the NICS check.

I can’t argue with that statement, that guy was definitely a couple of degrees off bubble, and he did pass the NICS check, and yes I wish he had been put away.

To me the root of the problem wasn’t that he was allowed access to firearms, it’s that he was out walking around in society. The system broke when it allowed him to retain his freedom and stay in society. Cho probably would have killed even without access to firearms. Yes the death toll may have been lower, but there still would have been a death toll, and it would have been eliminated by removing Cho from normal society.

In my opinion, this particular incident is not a case for further increasing the level of the background check for firearm transfers. Rather it’s a case for involuntary incarceration.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I have heard that the NRA is helping to draft the legislation. I for one have confidence they will do a good job, and that the bill will be one that even most Vermonters can support.

I’m not convinced. You may be right, the data’s not available to me yet.

I do support the NRA since I feel they are one of the best options I have for counter acting some of the anti groups, and I’m very glad folks like Chas are on committees and helping steer actions (I would feel better if he was involved in deciding actions on this one!). But I have not been in agreement with some of their actions in the past, so there’s no guarantee I will agree with their response to this issue. But since they are the best game in town at this time, I’ll stick with them…Much like I vote for Republicans…

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The alternative would have been to come out in favor of "guns for raving lunatics". That would have caused many of the 4 million members to melt away, and our political support along with it.

Just imagine what would happen to our gun rights if something like THAT came about.

As I stated above, I am not advocating “guns for raving lunatics�. That’s a sound bite statement, a good one, but still a sound bite intended to force the opposing side to take a defensive stance. By the way, great tactical move…

In this particular case, I don’t think RKBA is the question though, it’s should Cho have been allowed free and uncontrolled access to society? If the answer was “yes�, then he had a right to self defense, and that included RKBA. If the answer was “no�, then he should have been confined.

In other words, if my goal was to avoid the loss of innocent life (a noble goal that I support, that's why I'm pro RKBA), extending the database to include Cho would have been marginally ineffective. It may have reduced the loss of life, but I don’t believe it would have eliminated it.