Yeah, right, he was too imbalanced to buy a gun but was fine to return to the VaT campus. As long as he didn't buy a gun legally there was no danger......and they lived happily ever after.
My personal opinion is that we (not you, Dave, or Gip but the country as a whole) need to stop blaming each other and each other's opinions evertime some incredibly insane thing happens like this... IMHO the gap that occured here was that this man was showing incredible signs of instability and danger to others. You can be opposed to gun ownership if you wish, but if you accept legal ownership as the right of the common citizen, then it would be very difficult to come up with a system that would have picked him up given the fact that he apparently was given a complete pass when he should not have been. The problem is not that he was a certified mentally unstable person...he was not...he was given a pass by those who possible (probably) should have pursued the case...he probably SHOULD have been committed...he probably SHOULD have gone on a list of folks that would have triggered the authorities when he sought to buy a gun. Having said that, if he knew that would happen he still would have found a way to hurt people and express his rage, assuming that he was out walking around. He could have gotten weapons illegally, or he could have used some other method. You can't put somebody on a list like that, taking away their basic rights just because somebody complains about them, if it turns out that they are not found to be mentally ill. Nor can you do so for every person with a mental illness...if you start restricting the rights of everybody who walks into a shrink's office with a little depression, anxiety, or PMS, then who is going to seek treatment of their illness? If you are opposed to everyone having that basic right, then that is a different argument. This was an incredible event...more so because it seems that the signs were all there...and nobody cared. Therin lies the fault, IMO.
It's incredibly simple to me.... You can't pass through airport security with toothpaste but you can buy a gun legally even if you are known to be mentally unstable. The gun ownership rights people have taken this to the far reaches of sanity. You probably think that Timothy McVeigh "had his reasons" if you think it was OK and within his rights for Cho to buy a gun at Roanoke Firearms Co. We're selling guns legally to CRAZY people......HELLO.....anybody with half a brain out there?
MCG, Under federal law, Cho was not eligible to buy a gun because of the state adjudcation that his mental instability posed a risk of iminent danger to himself or others. The problem is that many states, including Virginia, are not enforcing the law. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/us/20cnd-guns.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
Thanks for posting that Bobda. Good to see the Feds aren't so hellbent on protecting gun rights to the point of lunacy. However...what's up with Va. and probably other states for ignoring said federal laws? How and more important WHY would they do such a stupid thing? In light of such irresponsibility the state of Virginia had better have some very deep pockets to weather the lawsuits that are sure to come.
Well, I'm glad it's so "incredibly simple" to you. Cheap shot...who said it was ok? If it WAS within his legal rights then it is not OK...but is it because the law wasn't followed when he went to buy the gun or because the system failed to follow up and certify this man who it seems to me was obviously certifiable? I'm getting mixed messages on this...but I don't believe that someone should end up on a list just because somebody accuses him and he's ordered to undergo evaluation...but the evaluation should be thorough and proper and this obviously wasn't. "adjudicated as a mental defective, as well as those who have been involuntarily committed" can be interpreted in different ways...did he qualify as a "mental defective" because he was ordered for evaluation? Does he qualify as "involuntarily commited" because he had outpatient evaluation and was ok'd? Not having privy to his mental health records I don't know how thoroughly he was evaluated, but given his history I find it incredible that he was passed over as ok. It would seem that somebody dropped the ball. If the law was not followed (I'm not yet convinced but I'm not a lawyer...we have two here who can evaluate this better than I) then that is to be condemned and corrected. REGARDLESS of whether the law was followed, the problem is that an OBVIOUSLY incredibly violent and sick man was passed over by everybody except those few who felt threatened by him. He was allowed to return to normal society with nothing being done to solve the problem. Nothing was done...nada. The simplistic answer is to blame the "gun ownership people who have taken this to the far reaches of insanity." Please show me where anyone has advocated gun ownership for insane, violent people. Yes, we are selling guns (?legally) to CRAZY people...sorry if I only have half a brain (your implication) but it seems to my half brain that when they are identified then they ought to be certified...then their rights should be restricted. I believe that the "interventions" and evaluations of this guy were miniscule and totally inadequate...people were not doing their jobs. Maybe some of your anger should go there.
Stu...you don't believe that he should have been able to legally purchase weapons so you don't fit the "half-a-brain" category. I truly don't think anyone here believes that by the way. In any event the system failed VT and it's victims and the system will most likely have to pay for it's shortcomings. Yes...the system turned him back in to society mistakenly and on top of it allowed him to purchase weapons. The Federal laws as Bobda posted should have prevented that. Anyone having mental health issues and having been involuntarily detained for mental reasons should be on a 5 year waiting list with model behavior required before a gun purchase is allowed. That may not have solved the problem with Cho but we'll never know that because he did in fact purchase and use these weapons.
Fair enough... I am not really in disagreement with any of your points... My points are only that the recognition and treatment system failed completely and miserably and without that working there is no way to prevent this kind of thing...at first I thought that this was probably somebody who evaded the system due to some quirk, but no...this guy was recognizably violent and insane...and nothing was done. Everybody knows a few weird people, but how many people have you heard of who terrified an entire writing class enough that almost all of the students dropped it? Who terrified their teachers enough that they were reported to administration multiple times? Who made other students actually think of the Columbine perps? Who were accused of stalking multiple women? What does it take? But for him to go on a list should mean that SOMEBODY stepped up and declared him a danger and nobody did it. If we want a judge's mere order for an evaluation because of a complaint to be enough, so be it, but in my non-lawyerly opinion it isn't a fact yet that the current law demands this. It would seem to be an issue whether the judge declared him mentally deficient or ordered him to be evaluated to see if he was mentally deficient...I am unclear which it was...I have seen it worded different ways. My other point is that I believe that nobody....nobody at all....is in any way in favor of mentally ill folks having firearms. The tough nut to crack is in the proper way of defining who that is...this guy was so far gone that there should have been no problem...but nobody committed him.