Liberals Couldn't wait to exploit tragedy

[hillstreetblues]

They couldn't wait those guncontrol fanatics. The bodies weren't even cold when the liberals and the Democrats ran to the radio and TV to say the Virginia Tech massacre proves we need gun control laws or to abolish guns.

Have they no shame!

Here is the link: http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news....d=576361&rfi=6

By ex-Philly cop Michael P. Tremoglie author of A Sense of Duty available at Amazon.com

[JSandi]

23000 local/state/federal gun laws on the books, the kid was found by a court of law to be mentally ill and a danger to himself, he was the subject of two stalking cases against females, he set a VT dorm on fire, he was here on a green card, VA and VT already banns weapons on campus by all except LE.

None of this stopped him from killing 32 people, why the hell would yet another gun law matter?

Recently a political figure in Japan was killed with a gun, Japan has outlawed guns in all forms including replica guns.

Liberals are just idiots, they want to disarm law abiding folks in the name of disarming the criminals who by their very nature are going to commit a crime. You think Cho really cared possession of a gun on campus was against the law?

Ever notice these types of attacks tend to take place in "gun free zones"?

The reality is that criminals will continue to have access to illegal weaponry no matter how many restrictions politicians place on gun ownership. In fact, not only does gun control not stem crime, it may actually increase it. Such has been the case in both Australia and England, both of which instituted handgun bans, only to encounter skyrocketing crime as a result. Here in the United States, Washington, D.C. enacted a ban on handguns in 1976 (which is being repealed), only to become the murder capital of the country.

[farvas#1]

Gun Laws

Gun laws whether stronger or weaker could not have prevented this from happening. Bottom line is the only people who stricter gun laws would hurt are law abiding citizens, for the simple fact that if someone wants to carry out something like this. They will find a gun somewhere and do it.

Maybe we should spend some of the 12 years we teach kids about history, geography, math, and biology to teach them about problem solving skills and how to handle the issues that life brings.

STAY SAFE

Jeff

[hillstreetblues]

The Guy who wrote the column is an ex-cop

By ex-Philly cop Michael P. Tremoglie author of A Sense of Duty available at Amazon.com

[cantue5]

"Ever notice these types of attacks tend to take place in "gun free zones"?"

Heard a lady from Texas on the news that said this exact same thing....most of the mass murders like this one happened in gun free zones, IE schools, post office. Makes you wonder.

On the other hand, why is it I never see these supposed laws on any ballot that we can vote on? When I went to vote for California, I never saw any laws like this that we can vote on. All I saw was a bunch of proposed laws that would "improve the city or county". Not much on state stuff. Maybe I am not too familiar with the whole law making process but it would seem to me that we should have a direct voice on what laws are being passed. There is now a law trying to be passed in California where you have to have your pet fixed or you will get fined. Who comes up with this stuff? I am willing and able to vote...where's the booth?

[willowdared]

They couldn't wait those guncontrol fanatics. The bodies weren't even cold when the liberals and the Democrats ran to the radio and TV to say the Virginia Tech massacre proves we need gun control laws or to abolish guns.

Have they no shame!

And CCW advocates were just as quick to say more guns would have prevented it, or stopped it quicker.



We have become a nation of hand-wringing, finger-pointing Chicken Littles. We need to become a nation of levelheaded problem-solvers.

[Sully49]

[QUOTE=JSandi]23000 local/state/federal gun laws on the books, the kid was found by a court of law to be mentally ill and a danger to himself, he was the subject of two stalking cases against females, he set a VT dorm on fire, he was here on a green card, VA and VT already banns weapons on campus by all except LE.

I'm not well versed with gun laws at all so forgive me if I sound naive. I'm just curious though, as he was found mentally unstable by a judge, and sent to a facility (albeit a very short stint), how come this information doesn't show up on the background check that was performed when he went in to buy the guns?

[cantue5]

If I am not mistaken I believe that weapons background checks only cover felonies on record. Could be different between states.

[3India]

Unfortunately, laws prohibiting the release of medical records do not allow such things to be revealed without consent of the patient. In Wisconsin (mind you it's has been a while since I purchased) there is a question regarding mental fitness. Reality, however, would preclude the release of the necessary info in a timely manner necessary to facilitate the 3 day waiting period for handguns. In the instance of long guns, there is no wait period. I can with some confidence say that the mental health info would be entirely irrelevant in that transaction.

Admittedly the malefactor did have a receipt for the firearms he purchased, however, the fact remains that in larger urban areas which exist on the East Coast a legal firearm dealer is not always required for the purchase of a firearm. I was in Miami on a training detail and saw a news story about a 18yo male who shot his 17yo girlfriend in the neck (fataly) with a gun purchased "off the street" for a lower than retail price.

We can search for blame all the rest of our lives. It all boils down to the actor (in any case) being responsible for the act. The test for the insanity defense is simply if the person knew right from wrong at the time of the act. From the video footage released (by networks who should be charged with tampering with evidence) it is apparent that the shooter knew what he was doing and the consequences it held.

[Sully49]

Unfortunately, laws prohibiting the release of medical records do not allow such things to be revealed without consent of the patient. In Wisconsin (mind you it's has been a while since I purchased) there is a question regarding mental fitness. Reality, however, would preclude the release of the necessary info in a timely manner necessary to facilitate the 3 day waiting period for handguns. In the instance of long guns, there is no wait period. I can with some confidence say that the mental health info would be entirely irrelevant in that transaction.

Admittedly the malefactor did have a receipt for the firearms he purchased, however, the fact remains that in larger urban areas which exist on the East Coast a legal firearm dealer is not always required for the purchase of a firearm. I was in Miami on a training detail and saw a news story about a 18yo male who shot his 17yo girlfriend in the neck (fataly) with a gun purchased "off the street" for a lower than retail price.

We can search for blame all the rest of our lives. It all boils down to the actor (in any case) being responsible for the act. The test for the insanity defense is simply if the person knew right from wrong at the time of the act. From the video footage released (by networks who should be charged with tampering with evidence) it is apparent that the shooter knew what he was doing and the consequences it held.

I'm not searching for blame, I honestly don't know enough about gun laws to really form an educated opinion. I do believe though that this person would have found a way to get a gun, or seven, somehow someway even if he was turned away from the first place he went to. Im sure it wouldn't have been hard for him to get one illegally. Here's what I found on CNN regarding his mental instability:

Some questions have been raised over Cho's mental health and whether that should have prevented him from being able to purchase the handguns.

A Virginia judge in December 2005 deemed Cho "an imminent danger to himself because of mental illness" and ordered outpatient treatment for him, according to court documents. (Watch campus shooting rekindle debate on gun control )

Special Justice Paul M. Barnett, who filled out the certification and order for involuntary admission to a mental health facility, checked the box that said: "The alternatives to involuntary hospitalization and treatment were investigated and deemed suitable."

"Only if I order them into a hospital is there any effect on their gun rights," Barnett told CNN on Wednesday. (Read the judge's order - PDF)

Virginia and federal law prohibit the sale of guns to anyone who has been sent unwillingly to a mental institution.

Here is a link to the judge's order:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/04/18/cho.pdf

I think maybe I might feel slightly better though if I knew there was at least some sort of roadblock put up if there is something like this in the person's background. At least it would've made it slightly more difficult for him, and it may have taken him longer to get an illegal gun from somewhere. During that interim period of time perhaps fate would've stepped in and he would've been run over by a semi. I guess we'll never know.

[leopold99]

anybody remember Charles Whitman? the people of austin would have shot him if he hadn't been holed up in that tower.

[pkagel]

Well, you first need the money to collect the signatures necessary and then you need the money to advertise your viewpoint. It pretty much comes down to money. In CA they care more about animals than they do humans.

.

On the other hand, why is it I never see these supposed laws on any ballot that we can vote on? When I went to vote for California, I never saw any laws like this that we can vote on. All I saw was a bunch of proposed laws that would "improve the city or county". Not much on state stuff. Maybe I am not too familiar with the whole law making process but it would seem to me that we should have a direct voice on what laws are being passed. There is now a law trying to be passed in California where you have to have your pet fixed or you will get fined. Who comes up with this stuff? I am willing and able to vote...where's the booth?

[Sully49]

anybody remember Charles Whitman? the people of austin would have shot him if he hadn't been holed up in that tower.

I thought they did shoot him?

[Sully49]

anybody remember Charles Whitman? the people of austin would have shot him if he hadn't been holed up in that tower.

Once Whitman began facing return gunfire from the authorities, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as turrets, which allowed him to continue shooting while largely protected from the gunfire below, which had grown to include civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police.

[leopold99]

I thought they did shoot him?

was it the authorities that shot him, or the civilians?