Gunman shoots 18 people.

[WildCat]

- had no known history of mental illness.

Except he did, apparently. And he was off his meds.

 

[LawnOven]

Someone callous enough could make a tidy sum releasing a cover version of Leadbelly's "DeKalb Blues" with updated lyrics. There's always a way to market grief.

Getchya famous Dekalb (memorial) Corn right here! Wrapped in a piece of barbed wire, signed by Cindy Crawford.

Yeah, I think that about covers everything Dekalb is famous for. Time to exploit!

 

[LostAngeles]

Except he did, apparently. And he was off his meds.

We don't know what those meds are. We can speculate that they were for mental illness since he became erratic afterwards, but they could have been any number of things. I was given low doses of an anti-depressant for migraines and that made me a bit loopy. The drug being marked for restless legs syndrome can cause compulsive behavior. Hell, he could have been on vicodin for all we know for a toothache and coming off the narcotic made him erratic.

Edit: I just popped over to Consumerist and found this. It's on the med, but what the hell, man?:

...The FDA has reported 37 suicides and more than 400 reports of suicidal behavior in connection with Chantix, a pleasure blocking drug that sits in the nicotine receptors and prevents the smoker from properly experiencing their nicotine high. The FDA recently issued a patient advisory about the drug, requesting that patients carefully monitor their moods. The possible side-effects of Chantix now include "anxiety, nervousness, tension, depressed mood, unusual behaviors and thinking about or attempting suicide."

... The FDA says "vivid, unusual, or strange dreams may occur while taking Chantix." The problem, it seems, is that for some people... these dreams don't just happen while you're asleep. ...

Links: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01788.html
http://nymag.com/news/features/43892/
http://consumerist.com/357049/this-is-your-brain-on-chantix (contains the above info)

End Edit

The highest probability is that you're right, WildCat, but I just wanted to point out there might be other things.

Also, it's not entirely conflicting that he had no known history of mental illness. If you asked my classmates and some of my friends, they would have no idea about my depression. You can put up some really good masks sometimes.

Now, if they had asked his doctors, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Apparently this guy was on medication and all four guns he used were legal and licensed to him.

In which case, he would have had the full support of the NRA.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The man of the hour:

 

[Drudgewire]

In which case, he would have had the full support of the NRA.

He would have had the support of the NRA to purchase them. If someone had been carrying and shot him dead while he was in the middle of the rampage, THEY would have had the FULL support of the NRA.

The NRA supports legal ownership AND USE of firearms.

 

[Nogbad]

Him getting shot after killing one person rather than shooting until he got bored and offed himself? Yes, I'd consider someone else with a gun in that situation "essential."

The point I made was that despite the large number of guns available this rarely happens. How "more armed" do you want your society to be?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

It won't. It would certainly make it a little more difficult for them to obtain arms, especially if their background is being checked.

The last firearm I bought, a .308 bolt-action rifle, included a check with the FBI about me. I don't know what the database includes, but I did get the rifle. The question arises, then, what information a strict registry of firearms would provide that a comprehensive listing of persons prohibited from purchasing firearms does not.

There was some talk after the Va. Tech shootings about changing the way mental health stuff was reported to the FBI look-up system... I wonder what happened with that.

What about "to serve and protect"? Isn't that their credo?

Motto, not credo. It looks nicer on the side of the police cruiser than, "You have the right to remain silent...".

The problem is that there just aren't enough police to protect the citizenry. They catch the bad guys, then hope that punishments make the OTHER bad guys think twice about committing similar crimes.

I'm just saying people are trained to do certain things. Pro guns proponents seem to think they are supermen: during a shoot out they think they could spot the bad guy and take him out. To me that's absurd. You need training to do that, and even then nobody is immune to mistakes. Having a gun of your own doesn't make you safer, IMO it makes things even worse, it makes things even more unpredictable. It multiplies the possibility of something going wrong by a hundred.

Yep. It's a problem. Imagine being faced with a choice of, "a small chance," and, "no chance at all."

But, actually, it's not too hard to spot the bad guys during a gun fight: They're the ones shooting at you and not wearing jackets with, "POLICE," written on them. Once the jackets start showing up, things can become muddled, but I'm willing to accept the risk being shot by the police, accidentally, over the risk of being shot, on purpose, by a bad guy.

As for unpredictable: I LIKE unpredictable when the predictable part is me or the people around me getting shot. Multiplying the possibility of something going wrong for the bad guy/guys by a hundred is kind of my goal!

It's pretty much all moot, though, because these cowards choose places that are, "no gun," zones on purpose.

 

[dudalb]

Not really. Here is the application for a Firearms Owners Identification Card here in Illinois. Note question #3 "In the past 5 years, have you been a patient in any medical facility or part of any medical facility used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for mental illness?".

Problem is, medical privacy laws prevent this from actually being checked on. This needs to change! I don't think the honor system is adequate in this case.

eta: Illinois does not license or register firearms, just the owners.

I agree.
I am a gun owner, and firm believer in the right to own firearms,but I have no problem with laws to keep those with mental ane emotional problems from buying guns, and giving police the right to enforce this ban,medical privacy laws be damned in this case.
This area is one reason I am not longer an NRA member, along with the One World COnspiracy crap I hear coming from some high officials in the NRA.
BTW I hope Britney Spears does not have access to guns.....

 

[baron]

Not really. Here is the application for a Firearms Owners Identification Card here in Illinois. Note question #3 "In the past 5 years, have you been a patient in any medical facility or part of any medical facility used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for mental illness?".

I don't get your point.

Question 3 does indeed ask about having recent mental illness. What of it?

He could have lied and said "no" (assuming the opposite is true). As you say, nobody's going to check.

He could have been treated for a mental illness in a facility NOT used primarily for the treatment of people with mental illnesses, therefore still had a mental illness and responded "no".

He could have responded simply "yes" (nothing on that form says he would be denied in that eventuality)

He could have had a non-mental illness that impairs judgement, for example diabetes.

Not what I'd call a stringent procedure.

 

[Drudgewire]

The point I made was that despite the large number of guns available this rarely happens. How "more armed" do you want your society to be?

If I'm part of that society I'm going to say "by at least one more gun," since I don't have a .45 yet.

 

[Fnord]

Except he did, apparently. And he was off his meds.

What was his medical history, I wonder? Depression? Bipolarism? Schizophrenia? Impotence?

Maybe he went off his Viagra.

But this does bring up a good point. Should it be legal to sell firearms to a person who is currently undergoing pharma treatment for emotional or mental disorders? How about within the last five years? Ten? Never?

Sure ... put guns in the hands of people suffering from chrinic depression or bipolar disorder; or anyone who has ever been convicted of a DUI or who attends A.A. meetings. That'll teach'em! (Sarcasm)

 

[WildCat]

Maybe he went off his Viagra.

I really doubt people would say "he went off his meds" if he stopped taking Viagra.

But this does bring up a good point. Should it be legal to sell firearms to a person who is currently undergoing pharma treatment for emotional or mental disorders?

Absolutely not. And that's why laws need to be changed to allow the medical records of firearms buyers to be checked. I thought this was going to be the case after Virginia Tech, apparently it wasn't a high priority.

 

[baron]

But this does bring up a good point. Should it be legal to sell firearms to a person who is currently undergoing pharma treatment for emotional or mental disorders?

And what about a procedure for taking guns off people who develop such illnesses after they've already obtained their guns?

 

[WildCat]

And what about a procedure for taking guns off people who develop such illnesses after they've already obtained their guns?

I'm all for that also. The same way they're taken away from convicted felons.

 

[Drudgewire]

Considering the opinion of some of the people in this thread seems to be that anyone who would own a gun must be crazy, I'll take the side of those who call that a dangerous slippery slope.

 

[Fnord]

{snip} ... that's why laws need to be changed to allow the medical records of firearms buyers to be checked. I thought this was going to be the case after Virginia Tech, apparently it wasn't a high priority.

And what about a procedure for taking guns off people who develop such illnesses after they've already obtained their guns?

That has my vote. My dad missed shooting my sister by just an inch or two because when he "went off his meds" (oxygen - he was emphysemic), he though that anyone coming near the house was trying to break in. He'd had those guns since before I was born.

There is actually provision for becoming the conservator of someone else, provided that it can be proven in court that the conservatorship is necessary. How do we know when it's necessary? After the person does something to endanger their own life or the lives of others due to mental or emotional impairment!

In other words, it's much more difficult to take away a person's right to bear arms because you merely suspect that they might harm themselves or others, than it is to use deadly force on a crazed shooter and then bag the body.

There are likely very many more persons with mental impairments who own firearms and do not shoot up a school than those who have the same impairments and pull a DeKalb or Columbine incident.

Where to draw the line?

 

[baron]

I'm all for that also. The same way they're taken away from convicted felons.

If it were feasible I'd be in favour too, but the point I'm trying to make is that additional measures in isolation can't work.

Take this proposal, that people should have their guns taken away if they subsequently suffer from mental illness. On the face of it, it's a great idea. In practice it's impossible. It's been estimated that more than 1/4 of Americans have mental illness at some point in their lives ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111202/ ) so this measure, laudable though it is, just isn't realistic, and that's not even considering the other effects it would have such as the reduction in people seeking treatment for their illness, which would arguably lead to even more gun crime.

 

[Normal Dude]

This area is one reason I am not longer an NRA member, along with the One World COnspiracy crap I hear coming from some high officials in the NRA.

Ditto. I am very much pro gun ownership, but I canceled my membership with the NRA two years ago. Their rhetoric and "everything-is-black-and-white" outlook is simply too much for me.

 

[Drudgewire]

Ditto. I am very much pro gun ownership, but I canceled my membership with the NRA two years ago. Their rhetoric and "everything-is-black-and-white" outlook is simply too much for me.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the NRA... but I retain my membership just so I can pull it out along with my ACLU card and really screw with people's heads.