Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Skeezix

Crazy F*ckers and Mr. Glock

Recommended Posts

Asked his part in the shooting, Mr. Glock can say: "I made the gun." I know, I know, guns don't shoot people; people shoot people. But that doesn't change the fact that Mr. Glock can say "I made the gun."

 

And why can a guy that has been identified by mental health professionals as a crazy fucker walk into a gun shop and buy a handgun? He passed an instant background check. How can we close the gap that stands between the background check and the shooter's mental health history? That's complicated, but I think it's a central question following this tragedy. Does the NRA object to keeping guns out of the hands of people with a history of mental health issues? Or is that what the term "gun nut" implies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any easy way around that. Medical records are pretty private, and "mental health history" can be pretty subjective. I just don't see how legislation would have prevented the recent event in Virginia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most problems don't have easy solutions but that doesn't stop you from trying. I read today that in the U.S. we have 2,500 children killed by guns a year, Japan has 0. Also the shooters at VT, Columbine and Springfield Oregon a few years back were all on prescription medications when they committed their crimes. And we still argue about right to bear arms.

 

Sad really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe it's helpful to think of the 32 dead at VT as soldiers? after all, most folks say the troops in iraq are "dying for our freedoms" - that's pretty much true for the VT-folk, though that classic platitude might be better rendered in this case, "they died because of our freedoms"

 

you can't make an omlette w/o breaking eggs, no? nor can you have a right to bear arms and a right to a privacy w/o shit like this happening. i'm willing to sacrifice the former to preserve the later, for what it's worth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ivan,

 

You make a good point. You say, however, that you're willing to sacrifice certain liberties (i.e. gun ownership, privacy) in order to prevent violence. Isn't that a bit of a slippery slope, especially w/ regards to medical/psychological records? Should we permit the state to examine phych records before gun purchases? If so, then shouldn't we then let Homeland Security review psych records prior to boarding an airplane (profile terrorists and stuff)? How about library records? School records? How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of (((security)))?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan,

 

You make a good point. You say, however, that you're willing to sacrifice certain liberties (i.e. gun ownership, privacy) in order to prevent violence. Isn't that a bit of a slippery slope, especially w/ regards to medical/psychological records? Should we permit the state to examine phych records before gun purchases? If so, then shouldn't we then let Homeland Security review psych records prior to boarding an airplane (profile terrorists and stuff)? How about library records? School records? How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of (((security)))?

 

actually i said i was willing to sacrifice the former (gun rights) to protect the later (privacy) - ergo i'm with you. i don't need guns - i do need my johnson though, and no doubt The Man would want it if he kept the Big Hairy Eye-Ball on it all the time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Werd. I obviously misread your post. I agree, no one want's the Man's Big Hairy Eyeball scrutinizing their johnson (or iPod).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the circumstances stated, I have no problem with Ivan, or any instructor at a public school, examining an iPod that is being toyed with by a student during the time of instruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ivan,

 

You make a good point. You say, however, that you're willing to sacrifice certain liberties (i.e. gun ownership, privacy) in order to prevent violence. Isn't that a bit of a slippery slope, especially w/ regards to medical/psychological records? Should we permit the state to examine phych records before gun purchases? If so, then shouldn't we then let Homeland Security review psych records prior to boarding an airplane (profile terrorists and stuff)? How about library records? School records? How much privacy are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of (((security)))?

 

actually i said i was willing to sacrifice the former (gun rights) to protect the later (privacy) - ergo i'm with you. i don't need guns - i do need my johnson though, and no doubt The Man would want it if he kept the Big Hairy Eye-Ball on it all the time :)

The underlying assumption is that these two things (gun rights and privacy rights) are mutually exclusive. Thinking about these two things as diametrically opposed is detrimental.

 

Judging a person's metal health before letting them buy a gun? The next step is that they have to pass a mental health exam to buy a car--cars are far more deadly than guns. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I rarely fear being shot by anyone. I regularly fear the angry out-of-control asshole who drives like a madman and almost runs into me b/c he can't settle down enough to drive the speed limit, allow someone to change lanes, or stop for a red light.

 

The shooting is a tragedy, no doubt. But let's keep our heads about us when reacting to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most problems don't have easy solutions but that doesn't stop you from trying. I read today that in the U.S. we have 2,500 children killed by guns a year, Japan has 0.

 

WELL, THATS A GODDAMN FABRICATION.

 

BTW, curious how many subway Sarin Gas attacks has the US had recently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most problems don't have easy solutions but that doesn't stop you from trying. I read today that in the U.S. we have 2,500 children killed by guns a year, Japan has 0. Also the shooters at VT, Columbine and Springfield Oregon a few years back were all on prescription medications when they committed their crimes. And we still argue about right to bear arms.

 

Sad really.

 

Japan also has one of the highest sucide rate in the world for children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I rarely fear being shot by anyone.

 

You might feel differently if you were a student at VT, or Columbine today. Just because this happened in Virginia doesn't mean it couldn't just as easily have happened in a school in your neighborhood. Or your job office, etc. I don't think it's too much to ask that anyone who has been committed to a mental institution shouldn't be allowed to buy a Glock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eight year anniversary of Columbine shootings, but all the students there, now, were in elementary school then. It's just a normal school, nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most problems don't have easy solutions but that doesn't stop you from trying. I read today that in the U.S. we have 2,500 children killed by guns a year, Japan has 0.

 

WELL, THATS A GODDAMN FABRICATION.

 

BTW, curious how many subway Sarin Gas attacks has the US had recently?

i think we were more "successful" with the Okie bombing, don'tcha think?? and we've had crazies with the anthrax scares too...

 

so what's your point?

Edited by RuMR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but I rarely fear being shot by anyone.

 

You might feel differently if you were a student at VT, or Columbine today. Just because this happened in Virginia doesn't mean it couldn't just as easily have happened in a school in your neighborhood. Or your job office, etc. I don't think it's too much to ask that anyone who has been committed to a mental institution shouldn't be allowed to buy a Glock.

Sure. And I also feel more sensitized and fearful after I drive by a horrible accident on the side of the road. I am a little more fearful climbing right after I hear of someone else who has died doing the same. I get a little nervous when I hear about another pedestrian getting hit and killed in Seattle.

What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 points...

 

1. In regard to medical records; I agree it is a slippery slope - however in December 2005 a Montgomery County General District Court found probable cause that Mr. Cho was “mentally ill” and an “imminent danger to self and others. I fail to see where accessing public records for a background check is an invasion of privacy.

 

2. In regards to freedom; I believe an intrinsic freedom should be that students can go to class without fear of being shot. If we have to limit the personal "freedoms" of a small segment of America that wants to buy handguns and hollow point bullets then so be it. NPR did a great piece on the parallels between mental health and guns the other day; one of the points they stressed was how tightly regulated the drug industry was in comparison to the gun industry; for example one needs a prescription to buy anti-psychotic drugs - yet that same person can legally purchase a handgun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In regards to freedom; I believe an intrinsic freedom should be that students can go to class without fear of being shot. If we have to limit the personal "freedoms" of a small segment of America that wants to buy handguns and hollow point bullets then so be it.

 

Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 points...

 

1. In regard to medical records; I agree it is a slippery slope - however in December 2005 a Montgomery County General District Court found probable cause that Mr. Cho was “mentally ill” and an “imminent danger to self and others. I fail to see where accessing public records for a background check is an invasion of privacy.

 

2. In regards to freedom; I believe an intrinsic freedom should be that students can go to class without fear of being shot. If we have to limit the personal "freedoms" of a small segment of America that wants to buy handguns and hollow point bullets then so be it. NPR did a great piece on the parallels between mental health and guns the other day; one of the points they stressed was how tightly regulated the drug industry was in comparison to the gun industry; for example one needs a prescription to buy anti-psychotic drugs - yet that same person can legally purchase a handgun.

 

1. This brings to mind the arguments that companies now use in order to perform a credit background search before they hire you (even though your job has nothing to do with banking, credit systems, financial institutions, etc). I feel this is an invasion of privacy. I also find that if someone searches another person's mental records--and let's remember that psychologist are not infalible--is an intensely personal invasion of privacy.

 

2. The over-regulation of our drug industry is there for one purpose--to ensure maximum profits. Why do I have to get a prescription from my doctor to get Retin A or Diflucan. Come on, other countries seem to be able to allow their public the basic assumption that most people are smart enough to figure out what they need. Your last statement makes clear the irony in an over-regulated drug system.

 

Although it sounds all nice that people should have the freedom to carry on with thier lives with the assurance that nothing bad will happen to them, but there is no guarentee in life. You may get hit by a driver who swerves onto the sidewalk, you may get raped by a man in the bushes, you may get smacked on the head by a falling peice of concrete. But do we outlaw cars, dicks, and concrete as a result? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[i also find that if someone searches another person's mental records--and let's remember that psychologist are not infalible--is an intensely personal invasion of privacy.

All good points except the above point; in the case of Cho the medical records were not private medical records - they were public district court records. I fail to see how a background check that accesses public records is invasive.

 

Likewise I did not say that gun owners were a small percentage; I said a small percentage of America wants to buy "handguns and hollow point bullets".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×