Mom kills sons, self at gun range

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: JD50There is nothing wrong with the current regulation at gun ranges. Apparently you think there is. Of course you wouldn't be so ignorant to come to this conclusion without being informed would you? Well I'm obviously not as informed as you are, so would you mind educating me and telling me what the current regulations are at gun ranges, what you thing should be improved, and more importantly, how many people are murdered at gun ranges every year?

There is something wrong because a woman with a history of mental illness was able to rent a gun and shoot her son in the head with it.

How many times has that happened at a gun range?

Doesn't matter. Nuclear weapons have been only used twice. Any reason to be worried about them being used again?

So are you admitting to being completely ignorant of the facts and arguing against something you know absolutely nothing about?

You're deflecting. Just because you don't like the reality of the situation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

A mentally ill person should never, ever have a gun in their hand. Ever. Period. End of story. I know you want to win but how can you defend this?

You keep bring up nuclear weapons in a thread about some crazy woman killing her kid and you accuse me of deflecting? I ask you for specific facts that have direct relevance to this case and you once again counter with some dribble about nuclear weapons and you accuse me of deflecting. Are you kidding me?

I'd love for you to point out where I said that a mentally ill person should have a gun in their hand.

Should a mentally ill person ever be allowed to shoot a gun? Should a gun range have a reliable way to determine if someone is mentally ill or has a history of mental illness? Would such a system have prevented this woman from using the weapon she did to kill her son?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: JD50
The one common theme I've noticed with the anti-gun crowd is that they're completely ignorant of the facts and they don't care to be informed. These threads pop up at least once a week and we go over the same exact points every time. Yes, you (and the other anti-gun folks) really do need to back up your position with facts. If you're not interested in at least learning a little bit about the subject then why bother?

But I'm not anti-gun, dammit, why does every reference to control and regulation have to equal anti-gun? Everyone should be in favour of some gun control. You can't let people wander around with anti-aircraft missiles for example. What we're talking about here is the level of control not the concept of it!

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Should a mentally ill person ever be allowed to shoot a gun? No

Should a gun range have a reliable way to determine if someone is mentally ill or has a history of mental illness? That's been addressed. We have privacy laws in this country that prevent such a thing. I'd love to hear your way of getting around privacy laws and addressing this.

Would such a system have prevented this woman from using the weapon she did to kill her son? I have no idea, what system are you proposing?

 

[Jack Flash]

Since you asked me to get some data, I did. Simple google search and first page of results, ignoring duplicates.

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1439
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/shot083.shtml
http://www.tallahassee.com/leg...ege-ends-in-death.html
http://www.mydeathspace.com/ar..._himself_at_a_gun_club
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/st...=news/local&id=5874542
http://www1.phillyburbs.com/pb...-07132007-1377176.html

Got half way through the page and decided that would be enough for now.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Quick question by a non American. What is required in the majority of states to get a gun

A pulse.

Since jpeyton is a fucktard, I'll actually give you some useful information..

Laws vary by state, but usually there is a 72 hour waiting period for an ATF background check. Any felonies, domestic violence, or dishonorable discharges (among other things) will get you denied. Rules for hunting rifles are sometimes different.

Here is a good link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...ited_States_(by_state)

If you're going to post "facts" you may want to check those.
There is no waiting period in the federal law. There may be waiting periods in state laws. There is however a clause that says if the instant background check can't clear you on the spot, they have 72hours to complete it and deny you. If they do not deny you in the 72hrs that is the same as being granted.
In some states you do not even have to submit to the background check if you have a state issue license.

Did you miss where I said 'Laws vary by state' and proceeded to provide a link which breaks it down by state? I gave general guidelines that a lot of states follow.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Since you asked me to get some data, I did. Simple google search and first page of results, ignoring duplicates.

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1439
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/shot083.shtml
http://www.tallahassee.com/leg...ege-ends-in-death.html
http://www.mydeathspace.com/ar..._himself_at_a_gun_club
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/st...=news/local&id=5874542
http://www1.phillyburbs.com/pb...-07132007-1377176.html

Got half way through the page and decided that would be enough for now.

All of those except for one were suicides..... Should we have people go through mental health checks before they are allowed to drive on to the Golden Gate Bridge?

Text

Since the bridge opened in 1937, more than 1,200 people have died after jumping off it, according to articles published by the San Francisco Chronicle in 2005.

 

[MovingTarget]

Heh, seems to me the issue here isn't the availability of guns, gun laws, gun culture, etc., but more of an issue about the state of mental health services in this country. Even those who can afford healthcare have mental health treated as more of a luxury than a necessity.

Mitchell's father, Charles Moore, told police that Marie Moore had a history of mental illness and had previously attempted suicide and been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital in 2002 under the state's Baker Act. [\Q]

This was a tragedy, but I don't see any way this could've been stopped unless her mental health was treated with a more proactive, continual approach.

Edit: I suck at quoting.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JD50
The one common theme I've noticed with the anti-gun crowd is that they're completely ignorant of the facts and they don't care to be informed. These threads pop up at least once a week and we go over the same exact points every time. Yes, you (and the other anti-gun folks) really do need to back up your position with facts. If you're not interested in at least learning a little bit about the subject then why bother?

But I'm not anti-gun, dammit, why does every reference to control and regulation have to equal anti-gun? Everyone should be in favour of some gun control. You can't let people wander around with anti-aircraft missiles for example. What we're talking about here is the level of control not the concept of it!

Because most people who are anti-gun realize its unlikely they will ever be able to change the 2nd Amendment, so they will try to regulate guns to the point where every using or owning one will be nearly impossible. You may not be one of those people but a lot of people are.

Also, many people who are anti-gun will compare them to things like anti-aircraft missiles to try to convince people of their position. The difference is we ALLOW the government to control things like anti-aircraft missiles because we hold the belief they will protect us from incoming planes from other nations. Most of us 'pro-gun' people realize that its nearly impossible for the police or the government to protect us from someone kicking in our door and killing our familes. Thats why we reserve the right to carry and own our own firearms so we can protect ourselves from threats the government is unable to do. It will also be useful if the government decides that we the people no longer have the right to tell them what to do.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Should a mentally ill person ever be allowed to shoot a gun? No

Should a gun range have a reliable way to determine if someone is mentally ill or has a history of mental illness? That's been addressed. We have privacy laws in this country that prevent such a thing. I'd love to hear your way of getting around privacy laws and addressing this.

Would such a system have prevented this woman from using the weapon she did to kill her son? I have no idea, what system are you proposing?

Keep in mind that not all mental illness is created equal. The mentally ill are still citizens and have the same rights as the rest of us. There is a huge qualitative difference between, say, someone who occasionally is treated for depression/anxiety on their own accord, and people like this person who had to be involuntarily committed as they had proven to be a danger to others and themselves. Stripping away the 2nd amendment rights of those who seek help when they need it is the wrong way to go about things as it would discourage seeking treatment...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Should a mentally ill person ever be allowed to shoot a gun? No

Should a gun range have a reliable way to determine if someone is mentally ill or has a history of mental illness? That's been addressed. We have privacy laws in this country that prevent such a thing. I'd love to hear your way of getting around privacy laws and addressing this.

Would such a system have prevented this woman from using the weapon she did to kill her son? I have no idea, what system are you proposing?

Keep in mind that not all mental illness is created equal. The mentally ill are still citizens and have the same rights as the rest of us. There is a huge qualitative difference between, say, someone who occasionally is treated for depression/anxiety on their own accord, and people like this person who had to be involuntarily committed as they had proven to be a danger to others and themselves. Stripping away the 2nd amendment rights of those who seek help when they need it is the wrong way to go about things as it would discourage seeking treatment...

I agree completely.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
Since you asked me to get some data, I did. Simple google search and first page of results, ignoring duplicates.

http://www.gunguys.com/?p=1439
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/shot083.shtml
http://www.tallahassee.com/leg...ege-ends-in-death.html
http://www.mydeathspace.com/ar..._himself_at_a_gun_club
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/st...=news/local&id=5874542
http://www1.phillyburbs.com/pb...-07132007-1377176.html

Got half way through the page and decided that would be enough for now.

All of those except for one were suicides..... Should we have people go through mental health checks before they are allowed to drive on to the Golden Gate Bridge?

Text

Since the bridge opened in 1937, more than 1,200 people have died after jumping off it, according to articles published by the San Francisco Chronicle in 2005.

So can I own my nuclear bomb now?

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: JD50
The one common theme I've noticed with the anti-gun crowd is that they're completely ignorant of the facts and they don't care to be informed. These threads pop up at least once a week and we go over the same exact points every time. Yes, you (and the other anti-gun folks) really do need to back up your position with facts. If you're not interested in at least learning a little bit about the subject then why bother?

But I'm not anti-gun, dammit, why does every reference to control and regulation have to equal anti-gun? Everyone should be in favour of some gun control. You can't let people wander around with anti-aircraft missiles for example. What we're talking about here is the level of control not the concept of it!

Because most people who are anti-gun realize its unlikely they will ever be able to change the 2nd Amendment, so they will try to regulate guns to the point where every using or owning one will be nearly impossible. You may not be one of those people but a lot of people are

And people with brains will understand that there is a middle ground with what is reasonable and what is completely unreasonable. But you won't find any brains here...

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Should a mentally ill person ever be allowed to shoot a gun? No

Should a gun range have a reliable way to determine if someone is mentally ill or has a history of mental illness? That's been addressed. We have privacy laws in this country that prevent such a thing. I'd love to hear your way of getting around privacy laws and addressing this.

Would such a system have prevented this woman from using the weapon she did to kill her son? I have no idea, what system are you proposing?

Keep in mind that not all mental illness is created equal. The mentally ill are still citizens and have the same rights as the rest of us. There is a huge qualitative difference between, say, someone who occasionally is treated for depression/anxiety on their own accord, and people like this person who had to be involuntarily committed as they had proven to be a danger to others and themselves. Stripping away the 2nd amendment rights of those who seek help when they need it is the wrong way to go about things as it would discourage seeking treatment...

It's a real Catch-22, isn't it?

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: senseamp
You don't even have to have a gun permit to rent a gun at gun range for practice, even here in California. I don't think much of anything could have prevented this.

In ranges around here you are usually brought to the club and vouched for by another member. So you can't just walk in and rent a gun, a person who has passed requirements for gun ownership and is a member of the club is responsible for you.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: spidey07
What you guys aren't even getting at is she could have done this with a kitchen knife a few dozen other things. The gun or the range isn't the problem, nor is her renting a firearm.

The problem is that she had a history of mental illness, including involuntary hospitalization, but the range had no way of knowing this.

How do you propose that the range gain access to this information? We have laws in place that make a person's medical records private, and only people who need to know for reasons concerning their medical care are allowed to know. Also, we have no registry of mental patients. Finally, how do you define a mental problem, should a person who was treated for depression as a child after her father died be forever restricted from owning a firearm?

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: spidey07
What you guys aren't even getting at is she could have done this with a kitchen knife a few dozen other things. The gun or the range isn't the problem, nor is her renting a firearm.

The problem is that she had a history of mental illness, including involuntary hospitalization, but the range had no way of knowing this.

How do you propose that the range gain access to this information? We have laws in place that make a person's medical records private, and only people who need to know for reasons concerning their medical care are allowed to know. Also, we have no registry of mental patients. Finally, how do you define a mental problem, should a person who was treated for depression as a child after her father died be forever restricted from owning a firearm?

As unpopular as it would be, a national gun registry with an issued permit given only after background checks and mental evaluations would be an effective way for ranges to enforce a safe policy.

No permit? You can't shoot here. It's a step that many hardline gun owners might not like, but I believe it's in the interest of these BUSINESSES who are going to take a lot of heat for things like this.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: spidey07
What you guys aren't even getting at is she could have done this with a kitchen knife a few dozen other things. The gun or the range isn't the problem, nor is her renting a firearm.

The problem is that she had a history of mental illness, including involuntary hospitalization, but the range had no way of knowing this.

How do you propose that the range gain access to this information? We have laws in place that make a person's medical records private, and only people who need to know for reasons concerning their medical care are allowed to know. Also, we have no registry of mental patients. Finally, how do you define a mental problem, should a person who was treated for depression as a child after her father died be forever restricted from owning a firearm?

As unpopular as it would be, a national gun registry with an issued permit given only after background checks and mental evaluations would be an effective way for ranges to enforce a safe policy.

No permit? You can't shoot here. It's a step that many hardline gun owners might not like, but I believe it's in the interest of these BUSINESSES who are going to take a lot of heat for things like this.

This would be ok, however every other gun registry that I know of in the United States was eventually closed, preventing citizens from becoming legal owners of new guns. IF we could come up with some iron clad way of preventing such a national registry from ever being closed down, or used in any form of harrassing manner, then I would be ok with it. However, the history of such registries leads many people who believe in gun rights to be very wary about any such plan.

Edit: corrected statement about the effect of closing gun registries.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: spidey07
What you guys aren't even getting at is she could have done this with a kitchen knife a few dozen other things. The gun or the range isn't the problem, nor is her renting a firearm.

The problem is that she had a history of mental illness, including involuntary hospitalization, but the range had no way of knowing this.

How do you propose that the range gain access to this information? We have laws in place that make a person's medical records private, and only people who need to know for reasons concerning their medical care are allowed to know. Also, we have no registry of mental patients. Finally, how do you define a mental problem, should a person who was treated for depression as a child after her father died be forever restricted from owning a firearm?

As unpopular as it would be, a national gun registry with an issued permit given only after background checks and mental evaluations would be an effective way for ranges to enforce a safe policy.

No permit? You can't shoot here. It's a step that many hardline gun owners might not like, but I believe it's in the interest of these BUSINESSES who are going to take a lot of heat for things like this.

This would be ok, however every other gun registry that I know of in the United States was eventually closed, preventing citizens from becoming legal owners of new guns. IF we could come up with some iron clad way of preventing such a national registry from ever being closed down, or used in any form of harrassing manner, then I would be ok with it. However, the history of such registries leads many people who believe in gun rights to be very wary about any such plan.

Edit: corrected statement about the effect of closing gun registries.

I completely agree. The 2nd amendment needs to be preserved and these registries could never be closed. That said, gun control leaves something to be desired. Real work needs to be done to prevent unlawful and unsafe gun use and distribution while simultaneous keeping lawful and fit gun owners free to bear arms.

 

[JACKDRUID]

the lady was mentally ill... why would the son bring his crazy old mother to a gun range is beyond me...

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
the lady was mentally ill... why would the son bring his crazy old mother to a gun range is beyond me...

Great question. If he knew, it was certainly a stupid move.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: spidey07
What you guys aren't even getting at is she could have done this with a kitchen knife a few dozen other things. The gun or the range isn't the problem, nor is her renting a firearm.

The problem is that she had a history of mental illness, including involuntary hospitalization, but the range had no way of knowing this.

How do you propose that the range gain access to this information? We have laws in place that make a person's medical records private, and only people who need to know for reasons concerning their medical care are allowed to know. Also, we have no registry of mental patients. Finally, how do you define a mental problem, should a person who was treated for depression as a child after her father died be forever restricted from owning a firearm?

As unpopular as it would be, a national gun registry with an issued permit given only after background checks and mental evaluations would be an effective way for ranges to enforce a safe policy.

No permit? You can't shoot here. It's a step that many hardline gun owners might not like, but I believe it's in the interest of these BUSINESSES who are going to take a lot of heat for things like this.

Who would perform this mental evaluation? Who would pay for it? The person wanting the gun? Seems to be unfair to poor people without insurance. How often would we need to do these checks? Only when purchasing a gun? What about guns that were purchased before this mental handicap took effect? Do we require retesting every x number of years? Who keeps track of that? All this to take care of something that rarely happens?

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

Originally posted by: spidey07
What you guys aren't even getting at is she could have done this with a kitchen knife a few dozen other things. The gun or the range isn't the problem, nor is her renting a firearm.

The problem is that she had a history of mental illness, including involuntary hospitalization, but the range had no way of knowing this.

How do you propose that the range gain access to this information? We have laws in place that make a person's medical records private, and only people who need to know for reasons concerning their medical care are allowed to know. Also, we have no registry of mental patients. Finally, how do you define a mental problem, should a person who was treated for depression as a child after her father died be forever restricted from owning a firearm?

As unpopular as it would be, a national gun registry with an issued permit given only after background checks and mental evaluations would be an effective way for ranges to enforce a safe policy.

No permit? You can't shoot here. It's a step that many hardline gun owners might not like, but I believe it's in the interest of these BUSINESSES who are going to take a lot of heat for things like this.

Who would perform this mental evaluation? Who would pay for it? The person wanting the gun? Seems to be unfair to poor people without insurance. How often would we need to do these checks? Only when purchasing a gun? What about guns that were purchased before this mental handicap took effect? Do we require retesting every x number of years? Who keeps track of that? All this to take care of something that rarely happens?

I'm not a policy maker, but I believe it should not be treated like a medical evaluation typically would. (Read: no insurance necessary) Government subsidized psychiatrist, I suppose.

I think 5 years between reissuing a valid permit would be fair similar to a drivers' license. Couldn't buy ammo or new guns without a valid permit and the evaluation would be part of it.

Since this isn't a restriction on guns but instead of gun owners I think grandfathered guns and ammo would not be feasibly audited rather new gun and ammo purchases after a cutoff date would require the valid license. Similarly, gun ranges would immediately be required to check for a valid permit.

And yes, all of his because of something that rarely happens. Gun owners understand distinctly the value of personal liberties and protection but I think this sort of verification system could do a lot of good for the pro-gun community showing that they are in fact level-headed people who simply choose to bear arms, not crazy people.

More good than bad, IMO.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
the lady was mentally ill... why would the son bring his crazy old mother to a gun range is beyond me...

Great question. If he knew, it was certainly a stupid move.

i shoot at this place... it's just up the street from me... this is a really weird thing... although i always take the last stall since i don't like having people on both sides...
but if mom decides to plug me i'm toast... i guess i'm going to have to make her go by herself from now on...

i've seen plenty of people that shouldn't be shooting there (or at least should be in a private stall that's bulletproof on all sides), and the guys who run the place keep a pretty close eye on things and holler at people if they're being dumb... but this sure seems like it happened so fast that no one could do anything...

i'm pretty conflicted on how to deal with this... if you make everyone get a permit then these ranges will go out of business... but there had to be a chain of events that got these people to that point that could have been broken...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash

I'm not a policy maker, but I believe it should not be treated like a medical evaluation typically would. (Read: no insurance necessary) Government subsidized psychiatrist, I suppose.

I think 5 years between reissuing a valid permit would be fair similar to a drivers' license. Couldn't buy ammo or new guns without a valid permit and the evaluation would be part of it.

Since this isn't a restriction on guns but instead of gun owners I think grandfathered guns and ammo would not be feasibly audited rather new gun and ammo purchases after a cutoff date would require the valid license. Similarly, gun ranges would immediately be required to check for a valid permit.

And yes, all of his because of something that rarely happens. Gun owners understand distinctly the value of personal liberties and protection but I think this sort of verification system could do a lot of good for the pro-gun community showing that they are in fact level-headed people who simply choose to bear arms, not crazy people.

More good than bad, IMO.

Since when did Barrack Obama post on these forums? Fuck you BB.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: cubeless

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
the lady was mentally ill... why would the son bring his crazy old mother to a gun range is beyond me...

Great question. If he knew, it was certainly a stupid move.

i shoot at this place... it's just up the street from me... this is a really weird thing... although i always take the last stall since i don't like having people on both sides...
but if mom decides to plug me i'm toast... i guess i'm going to have to make her go by herself from now on...

i've seen plenty of people that shouldn't be shooting there (or at least should be in a private stall that's bulletproof on all sides), and the guys who run the place keep a pretty close eye on things and holler at people if they're being dumb... but this sure seems like it happened so fast that no one could do anything...

i'm pretty conflicted on how to deal with this... if you make everyone get a permit then these ranges will go out of business... but there had to be a chain of events that got these people to that point that could have been broken...

I watched the CCTV video of the shooting and yes, it did happen so quickly that no one could have prevented her once she had the gun in hand.

The economic consequences of requiring a permit could potentially be drastic but if permits can prevent incidents like this maybe the positive PR is worth it? Perhaps if gun ownership and usage becomes more acceptable they will see an increase in business?

All topics for healthy debate.