Comments on: Guns, Violence & Politics http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/ part of the problem since 1976 Sun, 12 Oct 2008 05:08:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Jon http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-3142 Jon Sat, 05 May 2007 08:48:10 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-3142 Boing Boing has <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2007/05/04/how_other_countries_.html" rel="nofollow">an article</a> up about this as well... Boing Boing has an article up about this as well…

]]> By: matt http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-3134 matt Wed, 02 May 2007 19:30:15 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-3134 To answer your question [How/can/could a background run from a 4473 application get at the data? ]. Simply put, one would wave their rights to confidentiality when they applied for the gun permit. The point I wanted to stress was that ineffective laws are still ineffective even when there are more of them. Again the real problem here has little to do with the availabilty of handguns and more with the responsibilty we all have to take the needed precautions. Wehave to heed the signs of caution when a co-worker or peer start to show signs of isolation, deep depression, lack of intrest in previously enjoyed activities etc...and we have to step up and call in the calvery , so to say, to be sure the information is being relayed to the proper athorities. That is a real pro-active solution that people can use. We are in big trouble if the best we can do to protect ourselves is what ever the poiticians come up with. To answer your question [How/can/could a background run from a 4473 application get at the data? ]. Simply put, one would wave their rights to confidentiality when they applied for the gun permit. The point I wanted to stress was that ineffective laws are still ineffective even when there are more of them. Again the real problem here has little to do with the availabilty of handguns and more with the responsibilty we all have to take the needed precautions. Wehave to heed the signs of caution when a co-worker or peer start to show signs of isolation, deep depression, lack of intrest in previously enjoyed activities etc…and we have to step up and call in the calvery , so to say, to be sure the information is being relayed to the proper athorities. That is a real pro-active solution that people can use. We are in big trouble if the best we can do to protect ourselves is what ever the poiticians come up with.

]]> By: Jon http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-3123 Jon Tue, 01 May 2007 14:38:40 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-3123 That's why no one said that. What I said was that the statistics in the blog that I reference at the beginning don't tell the whole story, and neither do any of the other statistics I trotted out. That’s why no one said that. What I said was that the statistics in the blog that I reference at the beginning don’t tell the whole story, and neither do any of the other statistics I trotted out.

]]> By: FWA http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-3122 FWA Tue, 01 May 2007 14:27:42 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-3122 Saying that the UK has strict gun control and low crime isn't telling the whole story. The UK has never had high gun crime rates, even before they banned handguns. Saying that the UK has strict gun control and low crime isn’t telling the whole story. The UK has never had high gun crime rates, even before they banned handguns.

]]> By: Jeff http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-2991 Jeff Sat, 28 Apr 2007 12:53:48 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-2991 matt, I hate to take issue with yo because, by and large, your post makes sense. And I agree with a lot of it. However, your comment that "federal law does not allow some one with any history of mental health problems to purchase or possess guns" is not factual. When purchasing a firearm of any kind in the United States, one must complete a Form 4473. Form 4473, section 11, question f, asks "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) of have you ever been committed to a mental institution?" Cho answered no. He may have been directed by a court to be evaluated, but he was never adjudicated as in need of treatment or as incompetent. Like as not, he answered correctly. But let's say that some judge had adjudicated him and had committed to psychiatric treatment for, say, a year. He gets out of hospital and goes to buy a gun. He answers the same question on the form "no". How is the federal government to know that it is not correct. The ADA and HIPPA acts provide for all kinds of protections regarding the confidentiality of any records that pertains to one's medical treatment. How/can/could a background run from a 4473 application get at the data? Interesting, eh? matt,
I hate to take issue with yo because, by and large, your post makes sense. And I agree with a lot of it. However, your comment that “federal law does not allow some one with any history of mental health problems to purchase or possess guns” is not factual. When purchasing a firearm of any kind in the United States, one must complete a Form 4473. Form 4473, section 11, question f, asks “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) of have you ever been committed to a mental institution?”

Cho answered no. He may have been directed by a court to be evaluated, but he was never adjudicated as in need of treatment or as incompetent. Like as not, he answered correctly. But let’s say that some judge had adjudicated him and had committed to psychiatric treatment for, say, a year. He gets out of hospital and goes to buy a gun. He answers the same question on the form “no”. How is the federal government to know that it is not correct. The ADA and HIPPA acts provide for all kinds of protections regarding the confidentiality of any records that pertains to one’s medical treatment. How/can/could a background run from a 4473 application get at the data? Interesting, eh?

]]> By: matt http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-2801 matt Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:15:49 +0000 http://jontillman.com/2007/04/24/guns-violence-politics/#comment-2801 In response to "Guns, Violence & Politics" I would like to address some issues that I feel might shed some light on the gun control policies (or lack of for some) in America. First, a tragic event like the VT shootings will always stir up an anti-gun arguement (and rightfully so). The sad truth is that the madman behind the shootings was on a mission to murder as many people as possible and he did so. Another sad truth is the when Cho purchased the weopons used in the shootings, he was breaking a federal law already in place that does not allow some one with any history of mental health problems to purchase or possess guns. It does go to show that even with laws on the books to prevent this from happening, it happened anyway. Even worse, had he wanted to, Cho could have readily got his hands on some serious weopons via the black-market, made a bomb off the internet, or a host of other horrible things that are illegal as well. My question to others would be: would more laws against guns would be equally as ineffective as the ones we have now if they too go unenforced? Everyone in other countries,for the most part, (esp the US) has a belief that their ways of doing something is some how better then some one elses way. Myself and others like me are on the fence when it comes to gun control in America. The fact is that ever controlling politicians when given an inch will take 10 miles. Throw in some ultra funded lobbying orgs and start changing the constitution and you might find yourself on a very slippery slope that will take away a lot more then the guns from the bad guys. Matter of factly, the bad guys might be the only ones left with the guns. If gun control is as effective as drug control in the US, we should stop now before we waste time and money on it. With or without guns isn't a viable solution to the violent behaviour that manifests itself in our culture today. It can be argued that if some students at VT had been armed as well, they could have shot Cho before he killed 32 people....maybe not....who knows? Taking away guns from law abiding citizens won't curb the problem. In response to “Guns, Violence & Politics” I would like to address some issues that I feel might shed some light on the gun control policies (or lack of for some) in America. First, a tragic event like the VT shootings will always stir up an anti-gun arguement (and rightfully so). The sad truth is that the madman behind the shootings was on a mission to murder as many people as possible and he did so. Another sad truth is the when Cho purchased the weopons used in the shootings, he was breaking a federal law already in place that does not allow some one with any history of mental health problems to purchase or possess guns. It does go to show that even with laws on the books to prevent this from happening, it happened anyway. Even worse, had he wanted to, Cho could have readily got his hands on some serious weopons via the black-market, made a bomb off the internet, or a host of other horrible things that are illegal as well. My question to others would be: would more laws against guns would be equally as ineffective as the ones we have now if they too go unenforced? Everyone in other countries,for the most part, (esp the US) has a belief that their ways of doing something is some how better then some one elses way. Myself and others like me are on the fence when it comes to gun control in America. The fact is that ever controlling politicians when given an inch will take 10 miles. Throw in some ultra funded lobbying orgs and start changing the constitution and you might find yourself on a very slippery slope that will take away a lot more then the guns from the bad guys. Matter of factly, the bad guys might be the only ones left with the guns. If gun control is as effective as drug control in the US, we should stop now before we waste time and money on it. With or without guns isn’t a viable solution to the violent behaviour that manifests itself in our culture today. It can be argued that if some students at VT had been armed as well, they could have shot Cho before he killed 32 people….maybe not….who knows? Taking away guns from law abiding citizens won’t curb the problem.

]]>