Skip to content
Categories:

Why Was The Illinois Shooter Allowed To Buy A Gun?

Post date:
Author:

Guest Post by dnA

Note–Hey everyone, Steve is sick and he asked me and a few other folks to fill in. I’m sure he’ll be checking his email, so feel free to show him a little love with a get-well note.

Last year, Congress passed a law that was hailed as “the first major gun control legislation in a decade” in response to the Virginia Tech shootings. The legislation was supposed to close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho, who had been ordered by a judge to undergo outpatient mental health treatment, to buy a gun. The press slipped into a bipartisan rapture over the involvement of the NRA in crafting the legislation:

With the NRA on board, the bill, which fixes flaws in the national gun background check system that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to buy guns despite his mental health problems, has a good chance of becoming the first major gun control law in more than a decade.

“We’ll work with anyone, if you protect the rights of law-abiding people under the second amendment and you target people that shouldn’t have guns,” NRA chief Wayne LaPierre told CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Atkisson.

“As the Virginia Tech shooting reminded us, there is an urgent national need to improve the background check system” to keep guns out of the hands of those barred from buying them, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

But six days before last Thursday’s shooting, Stephen Kazmierczak, a former student at Northern Illinois University, walked into a gun shop in Champaign, Ill. and bought two guns he later used to kill six people and then himself in a rampage on NIU’s campus. Kazmierczak, like Seung-Hui, had a history of mental illness.

The 27-year-old Kazmierczak also had a history of mental illness and had become erratic in the past two weeks after he stopped taking his medication, said university Police Chief Donald Grady.

A former employee at a Chicago psychiatric treatment center said Kazmierczak had been placed there after high school by his parents. He used to cut himself and had resisted taking his medications, she said.

Kazmierczak spent more than a year at the Thresholds-Mary Hill House in the late 1990s, former house manager Louise Gbadamashi told The Associated Press. His parents placed him there after high school because he had become “unruly” at home, she said.

Gbadamashi couldn’t remember any instances of him being violent, she said.

“He never wanted to identify with being mentally ill,” she said. “That was part of the problem.”

Whether or not Kazmierczak wanted to identify with being mentally ill, the issue seems to be that he didn’t have to. Illinois gun laws require prospective gun buyers to apply for a permit, which is more than many states require. But when Kazmierczak filled out his application form, he simply answered “no” to the pertinent questions.

Kazmierczak, 27, held a valid permit, which he recently presented to a Champaign gun dealer to buy the guns used in the rampage, authorities said.

To obtain the permit, he had to answer “no” to this question: “Within the past five years, have you been a patient in any medical facility or part of any medical facility used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for mental illness?”

Hardly a thorough background check.

Even more frustrating is that both Kazmierczak and Seung-Hui bought equipment used in the shootings from companies owned by the same online dealer, Eric Thompson. It’s not clear whether or not Kazmierczak found out about the websites from news surrounding the Virginia Tech shooting, or whether it’s simply “a coincidence”.

Eric Thompson said his Web site, TopGlock.com sold two empty 9 mm Glock magazines and a Glock holster to Steven Kazmierczak on Feb. 4, just 10 days before the 27-year-old opened fire in a classroom and killed five before committing suicide.

Another Web site run by Thompson’s company, TheGunStore.com , also sold a Walther .22-caliber handgun to Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people in April on the Virginia Tech campus before killing himself.

“I’m still blown away by the coincidences,” Thompson said Friday. “I’m shaking. I can’t believe somebody would order from us again and do this.”

I’ll avoid the obvious pun that could be made here at Thompson’s expense. But could this possibly be a surprise? How many different things can you do with a gun?

Kazmierczak may not have been flagged under current gun control laws because private mental health records are not included in the federal database–so unlike Seung-Hui, who had been ordered by a judge to undergo treatment because two female students had complained that he had stalked them and was therefore in the system; Kazmierczak’s illness was not a matter of public record because he had not been ruled mentally ill by a judge.

There seem to be at least two related problems with the existing laws that allowed Kazmierczak to buy the guns he used at NIU. The first is that Illinois laws regarding gun permits apparently don’t require applicants to undergo a thorough background check. The second is that the collaborative legislation that passed the House last year doesn’t identify people with a history of mental illness who haven’t drawn attention to themselves from the authorities.

The issue is one of privacy. It seems impossible to respect an individual’s right to keep their medical history to themselves and still have an effective database that can identify ill people who try to buy guns. At the same time, we give our medical history away when we apply to schools, and sometimes even jobs, so an argument can be made that such a history can be kept private, as long as you’re not trying to buy a deadly weapon that can be used to kill scores of people.

Is it a tremendous violation of a person’s individual rights for prospective gun buyers to have to give their medical history before buying a gun, as opposed to disclosure essentially being optional, as it was in Illinois? It seems like there would be some way to identify people with a history of mental health beyond those who have been “adjudicated” ill while respecting people’s right to privacy.

Chuck Schumer held a press conference on Saturday vowing to close the “loopholes” in existing gun laws.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), at a news conference yesterday in Manhattan, said he and congressional colleagues plan to step up efforts to close loopholes in gun-control measures and create a federal task force to come up with national school safety guidelines. They also plan to push for congressional hearings on links between mental illness and school violence.

Why do I get the feeling the NRA might not be on board this time?

Comments

  • Jeremy

    says:

    Privacy laws opponents should be the first in line against the new FISA bill then right, I mean who cares if you let the government know you have a gun if they can just get the info from your phone and online records right? Keep voting republican you robot morons.

  • Blue Neponset

    says:

    There is a big enough stigma on receiving mental health treatment. If every patient knows that a report is being sent to the government just because he/she gets a prescription for Paxil/Prozac/Etc. then that will make it even less likely that people suffering from mental illness will seek treatment. We shouldn’t overreact and make it even more difficult to seek mental health treatment just because some idiot goes off on a rampage.

  • ChicagoPat

    says:

    To obtain the permit, he had to answer “no” to this question: “Within the past five years, have you been a patient in any medical facility or part of any medical facility used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for mental illness?”

    You mean some of the internet surfers who click “must be over 18” to access porn sites really aren’t over 18? Who could have forseen such a brilliant way to hack the system?

    I’m an ER physician and I think we’ll be seeing more of this then you can imagine in the next 10 years. I’m seeing 6-10 year old kids in droves on Ritalin (stimulant) Adderal (stimulant), Risperdal (antipsychotic) and a variety of antidepressants for “hyperactivity” and behavioral disorders. Time will tell what results from chemically altering the pathways of a developing human brain are, but I somehow doubt a well adjusted adult is in it…

  • Chris

    says:

    “congressional colleagues plan to step up efforts to close loopholes in gun-control measures and create a federal task force to come up with national school safety guidelines. They also plan to push for congressional hearings on links between mental illness and school violence…”

    This is the least they can do.

    If I recall correctly, a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons expired during the reign of the Republicans and, if so, we need to put reinstate the ban.

    In addition, Kazmierczak had a large enough collection of gun that he could get off 50 rounds in the 30 seconds prior to the arrival of law enforcement. Guns are dangerous and gun collections should be highly regulated. If you want one or two to protect your family…maybe. If you need a couple for hunting, okay. But gun collections? They’re not stamps.

    Frankly, I don’t understand this right to bear arms crap. It doesn’t exist for individuals, and even if it did, we don’t allow citizens to own anti-aircraft missiles or hand grenades. Assault weapons and unlimited gun purchases are just as insane.

  • gg

    says:

    I’ve been thinking lately about the best way to keep guns out of the hands of crazy loners without completely impeding ‘lawful’ gun owners. The one idea that came to mind to me was that a gun purchaser should not only get a background check, but must get 2-3 good friends to write ‘letters of recommendation’ for the purchaser. Such a letter would require the friends to attest that they personally are unaware of any mental illness or huge personal crisis in the purchaser’s life.

    Such a plan would probably be little or no hassle to the lawful gun owner, but unbalanced people like the VT and NIU shooters would probably have a much harder time getting people to testify on their behalf, especially if there are criminal penalties for knowingly falsifying a ‘recommendation letter’ (and, yes, I’m aware that the nature of such penalties is the tricky part).

    What do people think?

  • Ben Miner

    says:

    Any attempt to deny the constitutionally guaranteed right of a law-abiding citizen to own a gun WITHOUT due process of law is a violation of the fifth amendment. A knee-jerk reaction like barring anybody who has ever had mental health treatment from ever owning a gun will just mean people won’t seek the help they need for fear of being labeled as mentally ill for the rest of their life.

  • Danp

    says:

    I hate to agree with gun kooks, but I do think enforcing restrictions based on medical background checks does more harm than good. A policeman or veteran with PTSD – I’d rather have them get care than make the decision that they can cure themselves. Restrictions on high power guns and hand guns make more sense to me.

    And Ben Miner, you’ll still have a right to remain silent (5th Ammendment).

  • Jim

    says:

    By all measures from reports from this mans fiancee and neighbors he had quit taking his medication 2-3 weeks before this happened because it made him like a zombie. I think its time that the drug companies start taking some of the responsibility and take some of our hard earned tax dollars they get and develop some medications that allow the mentally ill to fuction in society. To many doctors prescribe mind altering drugs that cause damage to young adults. There should be some sort of reports from doctors and pharmaciesto state health organizations. To often the mentally ill are given these mind altering drugs with no supervision which has to stop. These doctors that prescribe them should be responsible for monitor these patients although we all know thats not going to happen.

    Just a thought

  • SteveIL

    says:

    I believe ChicagoPat nails it:

    I’m an ER physician and I think we’ll be seeing more of this then you can imagine in the next 10 years. I’m seeing 6-10 year old kids in droves on Ritalin (stimulant) Adderal (stimulant), Risperdal (antipsychotic) and a variety of antidepressants for “hyperactivity” and behavioral disorders. Time will tell what results from chemically altering the pathways of a developing human brain are, but I somehow doubt a well adjusted adult is in it…

    What we seem to be seeing is an over-medication of our children that is affecting them adversely as they get older. I don’t believe anybody really knows the long-term effects of this rampant prescribing of children. It seems simplistic to change the gun laws when it isn’t the guns that are actually killing people, but people killing people. If it has anything to do with all of these prescriptions, doesn’t it make sense that maybe that is what needs to be looked into?

  • zoe kentucky

    says:

    The question of the day is how could this have been prevented?

    I see this whole incident far less about guns– he wouldn’t have been flagged if he had had a thorough background check– and more about the serious problems in our mental health system. I’m very pro-gun control but I don’t see how restricting guns from anyone who has been depressed, been treated for mental illness, etc. will resolve the issue. Where does one draw the line? People who are on or have ever been on prozac? If anything I see that as having an adverse effect only serving to further stigmatize mental illness or treatment, as pointed out by others.

    So what to do? The public is woefully undereducated. This man appears to have had a spiraling down before he became violent. Although everyone who has been interviewed claims that there were no apparent signs– well, other than the violent tattoos he aquired in the past 6 months.

    The fact is that it at least appears that no one had a clue what was going on in this guy’s head. There were no clear warning signs. I’m not sure what can be done about that other than increased monitoring of people who have had mental health issues– hospitalization, etc.– but I’m not sure how well that would work either.

  • op99

    says:

    “I’m still blown away by the coincidences,” Thompson said Friday. “I’m shaking. I can’t believe somebody would order from us again and do this.”

    I’ll avoid the obvious pun that could be made here at Thompson’s expense. But could this possibly be a surprise? How many different things can you do with a gun?

    I imagine a high percentage of Thompson’s customer’s don’t commit murder with their purchases, nor use them in illegal ways. We have already had too many civil liberties eroded without voluntarily surrendering our second amendment rights.

    And to bring crass politics into the equation, gun control is a loser issue for Democrats.

  • Racer X

    says:

    It’s easy to see that some examples are going to shape the larger debate, so maybe we could back up a bit and look at the bigger picture. Up to 16 million Americans have “intermittent explosive disorder”. A large number of them are, no doubt, gun owners. Can we assume that 99.99% of these people have avoided going on killing sprees, even though they’re mentally ill, and armed? If so, then why?

    I wonder how many mentally ill people get driver’s licenses, and how many people die every year because of road rage? I’d say it would be orders of magnitude beyond the number killed by deranged gunmen.

    I think it’s safe to say that some people would avoid mental health treatment if they thought it would limit their 2nd Amendment rights, whether that would stop very many shootings is somewhat debatable. Obviously there are now two recent examples which could possibly have been avoided (maybe!). And of course for every crazy shooter, there are probably a hundred instances where crazy people threaten to shoot others, but that doesn’t make the news. That said, the number of instances where law abiding people have successfully used guns to defend themselves is large and largely unreported, for various reasons. When gun ownership restrictions cause law-abiding citizens to be victimized, that too is almost never reported.

    One thing is for sure, a lot of people who never owned a gun and think that no one else should either will use this opportunity to support their positions, which are unfortunately based on the flawed belief that law enforcement will be there when they need it. A cursory check of 9/11 response times (even during “normal” times) would demonstrate otherwise, but such is the nature of belief. When things get dicey, the skeptics often have to remind their believer friends why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution. Some sensible restrictions are in order, but let’s not forget the bigger picture.

  • BigPharma

    says:

    I’m glad to see at lease some questioning the medication and I think everyone needs to re-read ChicagoPat’s comment. These drugs have been shown to result in suicidal tendencies in a small number of cases, but obviously as the number of people on the drugs grows, so will they.

    Just to be explicit, quit blaming this on guns! I guess people would rather be blown by a pipe bomb or poisoned somehow. All of that info is easily found on the internet. Blaming guns is a the cop out of a people that refuses to accept the real truth.

    Look at all of these school shootings. In every case the person would have been labeled a “dork”, was an outsider, someone on the fringes. The media says “There was no profile… we’ll never know why this happens… it’s a mystery.” RUBBISH As long as our society pushes ever more to the “only good looking people” matter, only soccer playing kids matter, only people with money matter, you better get used to this.

    When you expect everyone to live in a cookie cutter society, some people will break out. Now add in Big Pharma who is all to happy to medicate the crap out of our population that is becoming increasingly despondent over how to fit in to the cookie cutter. Politicians won’t touch that with a ten foot pole. Why not? Who do you think they are more afraid of, the gun lobby or Big Pharma? The firearms business is a few billion dollar industry. Big Phara is over A TRILLION dollars per year.

    Heaven forbid we start taking those people to task for their role in this. They, and their political cronies, are thrilled to have you blame it on guns. All they while they’ll just keep filling that prescription.

  • Speed

    says:

    I don’t know why so many liberals have a blind spot when it comes to the issue of guns. We can argue about what the constitution says all day, but restricting or banning guns works about as well as restricting or banning abortion, gay sex, alcohol, drugs, prostitution, pornography, etc. You simply create a black market, and people get the good or service through that black market. You don’t actually stop people from engaging in the activity; all you do is fuel an underground criminal enterprise. Go back and study the history of Prohibition if you need to.

    The real question is why do we live in a society where so many angry, desperate, hopeless people turn to violence – against themselves and against others.

  • doubtful

    says:

    Is it normal behavior for gun enthusiasts to buy so many guns within a compressed period of time? Maybe that should be prevented, or at least flagged.

  • DB

    says:

    doubtful

    yes, it is. I know people who buy 2 or 3 guns at a time. I had a buddy get back from Iraq recently from his 15 month vacation and he bought 4 or 5 different guns, half of them homeland defense rifles (formerly known as assault weapons). It just a hobby. We call it being bitten by the gun bug. It’s just an expensive hobby, and with the war depleting surplus stocks and raw materials, its even more expensive to buy ammunition. If people really want to stop the gun violence, let the war continue and start more wars because ammo prices have jumped at least 200-300% since 2002. That might sound crazy, but it sure has prevented me from just hoarding up about 10,000 rounds for the AR15.

  • David M

    says:

    I am growing so tired of the well being of our country being “partisan issues” These politicians have us all so divided and conquered that we’ve lost the ability to speak to each other intelligently.

    The safety of our students in colleges and high schools will unfortunately turn into material for eloquent speeches by the Republicans to “honor” our right to have guns and the Democrats will use this issue to demonize the Republicans as callous.

    I sincerely wish that issues such as this that require close examination and thoughtful dialog weren’t subjected short sighted need of our government officials to constantly look for another issue to be reelected on. I understand their are those who don’t take democracy for granted and understand the importance of citizens’ ability to resist a potentially repressive regime by allowing the population to own guns. But I do feel that we need to take an objective look (if it’s possible) at the issue at hand. Children and young adults are less safe than they used to be. I don’t want to have to worry that my children will be killed when their worst problem should be the anxiety they feel before a test. If we need to make some changes to the laws to protect the innocent then we must make some sacrifices so our children will be safe while still protecting our rights to defend ourselves. We can do some pretty amazing things. Technology shows just how intelligent of a species we are. Can’t we create laws with balance and sensibility?

    An afterthought to Speed. Cocaine, heroine, and child pornography are all also black market commodities. Regardless of their existence in the black market I still vote to keep them all illegal.

    I just thought you forgot to throw those in as well…

  • Racer X

    says:

    I agree that Big Pharma needs to be looked at with regards to this problem. I would be willing to bet that they’ve hidden data from studies that would indicate that the drugs they push can cause violent behavior. They’ve hidden data where their drugs cause heart attacks, why not mental imbalances?

    They’ve got billions invested in their drugs, and they will fight like hell to prevent anyone from seeing if they actually benefit society. What’s more, they financially benefit from our society’s decline, the more wacky people there are the more their “solutions” are needed, as long as we trust them. This is another classic “self-licking ice cream cone”.

    We should trust them only if their data is transparent, which right now it isn’t. Solutions which don’t involve drugs should be explored and funded, exercise and nutrition should be national priorities, but Big Pharma will not like that idea.

  • BigPharma

    says:

    DavidM,

    You have touched upon the real issue by talking about our technology and intelligence.

    You see, humans have lived pretty much the same way for thousands of years. If you believe in evolution than it’s hundreds of thousands of years. It’s only in the past 100 years or so that we have screwed with every aspect of our social organization in an effort to become more “civilized.”

    Yes, civilized. Apparently civil people play soccer, drink Starbucks and French wine, have white collar jobs and vote democratic. They have 3 kids, a Suburban, cell phones and wear Gap. See where I am going with this?

    I told you we are expected to live in a cookie cutter society. Boys are no longer allowed to have a fist fight in the schoolyard. That’s not civilized. Girls aren’t allowed to play with dolls, that’s sexist. We’re not allowed to do anything any more but work like dogs and flush the money into the economic toilet. Keeps the banks profits high to have us all in debt. Etc, etc, etc.

    THAT is why everyone needs to stop whining about guns. Our 2nd amendment was framed in a time when we arguably were MUCH stronger as a people. Now we think it is a privilege to be weak, to be a victim (hey, maybe you can sue!), to be offended, to be impose our views on others.

    Guns are not the problem, the 2nd amendment is not the problem. The problem is that we are becoming a pathetic people who must use technology as a crutch in order to survive. THAT is what makes us different from virtually every other nation.

  • Evergreen

    says:

    Great discussion.

    I agree it is people who do the killing…but why make it so easy for them to do so?

    My thoughts:

    1) All automatic weapons (any capable of rapid fire mass destruction ) should be illegal to own or sell.

    2) Gun purchasing should not be a one day in&out process. Purchasers should be required to pass a safety test (that includes red flag disqualifying questions to help identify thought process problems ) prior to obtaining a license, which in turn is prior to purchase. This wouldn’t catch many disturbed individuals, but might stop a few. (whether red flaggers, as potentially violent unstable persons, should be reported to public health authorities for follow up is another question…sort of like stds?)

    As population expands beyond shrinking resources and gun availability increases and ailments of unknown etiology that necessitate mood altering drugs increase….all combine in a bubbling caldron that is increasingly capable of spilling over on the rest of us. To allow unchecked proliferation of guns is stupid in such a setting, and I say that despite harboring a tendency toward survival syndrome. (small embarrassed laugh here)

  • james k. sayre

    says:

    Gee, whatever can we do to end these stupid gun slaughters? Gee, I don’t know… Oh, disarm American white men, since they seem to the cause of about 85% of the murders…
    Japan and England are fine without privately-owned guns, so maybe it’s time for us to bite the bullet (so to speak) and give up our guns. Guns won’t protect you against government tyranny; join the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) if you want to stop government tyranny…

    Another depressing disturbing feature of gun slaughters in America in the 21st century is how the corporate media has to glorify the murderer, with endless questions about his motives, blah, blah, blah. I have only one question: why are we stupid enough to continue to allow private personal access to weapons of mass murder?

  • JR

    says:

    No. 8: “Any attempt to deny the constitutionally guaranteed right of a law-abiding citizen to own a gun WITHOUT due process of law is a violation of the fifth amendment.”

    No. 13: “We have already had too many civil liberties eroded without voluntarily surrendering our second amendment rights.”

    No. 14: “I think it’s safe to say that some people would avoid mental health treatment if they thought it would limit their 2nd Amendment rights.”

    No. 21: “THAT is why everyone needs to stop whining about guns. Our 2nd amendment was framed in a time when we arguably were MUCH stronger as a people.”

    No matter how many times it gets written, individuals do not have the right to own guns under the 2nd Amendment. Justice Warren Berger was correct when he said that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud– I repeat the word ‘fraud’–on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

    For those who claim that gun laws won’t work, the rest of the industrialized world proves otherwise.

  • BigPharma

    says:

    Well, James, you are very much wrong on several fronts but I’ll just pick one: that guns wouldn’t help against government tyranny.

    Question for you: how well is the Iraq war going? How will did Vietnam go? Isn’t it really hard to route out an entrenched, well armed population? How many insurgents are there in Iraq? How many do there have to be? The answer is not many.

    There estimates in America are 200 million guns in the hands of 80 million people. How large is the standing army? 500,000? Sounds like pretty crappy odds to me.

    Unless you think the government is willing to literally bomb its own country into nothingness then I think you need to recognize that the 2nd Amendment is working quite nicely.

    As for Japan: a police state, yay, when can I sign up?! England? England is the logical conclusion of what the gun banners want America to be: a totally emasculated (yet oh so civilized) shell of a people where criminals run amok and citizens are jailed for opposing it.

    I thank God every day that America is still the home of the free. You like Japan and England? Get on the next plane over there but before you do, take a moment to contemplate that you are free to do so.

  • BigPharma

    says:

    Hey, JR, you think the 2nd Amendment is about state militias? Fine, go look up the word militia and post the definition here. Every one you’ll find will talk about a body of citizens.

    I’m sorry but the constitution is not a menu. Everyone cherishes the 1st amendment but decided the 2nd has got to go. Doesn’t work like that.

    Have you read the articles about England lately? The kids have simply turned to knives instead of guns (yeah, you’ll tell me that’s progress). Citizens go to jail for throwing a punch at a burglar!! You can be arrested for “causing fear”!

    If that’s not the living proof of Orwell’s 1981 than I don’t know what is.

  • Evergreen

    says:

    #24 caps #16’s inaccurate statement that gun control doesn’t work….

    “For those who claim that gun laws won’t work, the rest of the industrialized world proves otherwise.”

  • Lori

    says:

    “You like Japan and England? Get on the next plane …”

    You get on the next plane. We’re staying home and working to improve our country.

    JR is absolutely right. The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals.

    Incidentally, the right for an individual to own a gun is a silly freedom to fight for.
    God gave us free will, which implies that he gave us freedom of religion, speech, …

    On the other hand, the good Lord did not make Adam and Eve master over the animals, oceans and AK-47s. Guns used for human destruction are a man-made disgrace, and equating the right to own one with the same freedoms associated with self-determination is nothing short of ridiculous.

  • BigPharma

    says:

    Lori,

    Ridiculous? Your country won it’s freedom by the gun, how can you just decide that that is now irrelevant? You also can’t simply decide that the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to individuals because that thought makes you uncomfortable. For every scholar that has supported the collective interpretation there are 10 that support the individual right. “The right of the people.”

    You’re making an emotional argument, saying that guns hurt people therefore anyone who wants one must be bad. There’s no logical inference there.

    You are very conveniently cherishing YOUR freedom of speech and religion while forgetting that it is the gun that won you that freedom. Now you will say “well, we’re past that now, time to give up our arms.” Sorry, again, it won’t work like that. You and me, and the law abiding, will do that, but we’ll be at the mercy of every common thug and 14 year old punk on the street.

    Just like England.

  • JR

    says:

    Hey,BigAhole, you think the 2nd Amendment isn’t about state militias? Fine. Explore the phrase “well regulated” and post the meaning here.

  • Jim

    says:

    answer to #23 its politically correct thats why. I pity the fool that needs an AR-15 to bring down a deer. Maybe he should get an RPG he could wipe out the whole herd at once. The meat won’t be very tasty but what the hey. On a serious note I feel sorry for those that believe they need to be armed to drive down the street or go shopping. Ask the gun rights people and they believe the answer is arming teachers, students and anyone else that wants a gun. Then maybe those fist-fights someone was talking about earlier would just simply be shootings and 1 more student for the prison system. Many countries in the world get along just fine without guns.

    I personally believe that if a student under 18 years old commits gun violence then the parents should be held responsible. Parents need to raise their children not teachers or government. If they can’t or won’t teach them right from wrong then they should be charged with murder.

  • Tom Cleaver

    says:

    Ten years ago, my paranoid-schizophrenic brother aimed a double-barreled shotgun at me and pulled both triggers. He was amazed when nothing happened and I was thankful he hadn’t done anything with the gun since the last time I had had to intervene in one of his self-medicating crises. He was untreated and self-medicated with marijuana, cocaine and lots of different kinds of large amounts of alcohol. After he was taken away for involuntary committment, the police officers and I found 43 guns ranging from a .22 derringer to an AR-15 in his his bedroom. These were confiscated at the time.

    I then had to argue with the Geniuses of the Psychiatry Industry to get them to keep my brother, since they seemed to believe he was merely drunk. When he was released, he agreed to see a psychologist for counseling. One of the first things this brilliant doctor did was help my brother get a restraining order against me since I was “oppressive” in my treatment of him and “negative” in my advice to him. The good doctor also testified it would be just fine for my brother to have his arsenal returned, since he was a “good citizen” and it was.

    9 months later, I was awakened at 0300 to find that my brother was dead. With a .24 blood alcohol and a heavy load of cocaine and methedrine in his system, he drove his car onto an offramp on Interstate 5, where he met an 18-wheeler coming off the freeway, at an estimated combined impact speed of 95mph.

    These people need to be treated, and if they resist treatment, they need to be put into hospitals, for their own protection as well as ours. Some guy sleeping on a hot air vent, passed out from drinking to lose the voices, is living a better existence than he would in a hospital?

    The only problem with that is that such hospitals are run by the “helping” professions. In every 12 step meeting I’ve ever been to, the idiot in most need of help was the “helper.”

    As to the gun nuts, I’ll be happy to pry your gjuns from your cold dead hands. And to be the agent of such a state on your part.

  • BigPharma

    says:

    Well, I see we’re breaking down in to name-calling now, classic sign of someone who’s logical rational is spent.

    So, the definition of “regulated”, let’s see. How about the American Unabridged Dictionary:

    1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
    2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the
    temperature.
    3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
    4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

    So what will you infer from this? Will you latch on to #1 and say “Ahah! See? ‘To control’!” and, conveniently as always, forget about 2, 3, and 4?

    In context the founding fathers used regulated to mean well maintained not legally restricted to the point of being useless! How would that have won our freedom from the Brits?

    Either way, this isn’t about the 2nd amendment. This is about causality and people thinkin that if we just ban the tool or the substance than the bad behavior will go away.

    THAT is a total logical and historical failure.

  • JR

    says:

    BigPharma: “Your country won it’s freedom by the gun…”

    Rambo…

    Our country one it’s freedom with a “well regulated militia”. Nobody’s arguing against those. Focus.

  • JR

    says:

    “Either way, this isn’t about the 2nd amendment…”

    I’ll take that as a victory and sign-off. Kudos to Lori at No. 30.

  • JR

    says:

    “Our country one it’s freedom…

    Oops…I meant to say “won” it’s freedom. I’m undermining my positions with my first grade spelling errors.

    Now I’m signing off.

  • Ronin

    says:

    The issue is one of privacy. It seems impossible to respect an individual’s right to keep their medical history to themselves and still have an effective database that can identify ill people who try to buy guns. At the same time, we give our medical history away when we apply to schools, and sometimes even jobs, so an argument can be made that such a history can be kept private, as long as you’re not trying to buy a deadly weapon that can be used to kill scores of people.

    You have half the issue documented. The other half is who determines if a person is mentally ill?

    I fully agree that those that are mentally ill should not have access to a firearm. But this in itself will not guarantee safety. After all, there are many ways to commit murder both individually and on a mass scale.

  • Emily

    says:

    I personally believe that if a student under 18 years old commits gun violence then the parents should be held responsible. Parents need to raise their children not teachers or government. If they can’t or won’t teach them right from wrong then they should be charged with murder.

    This is a good idea in theory, but there is a huge potential for horrible backlash. In many, probably most of the cases in which a student/child commits a crime or acts out violently, the parents are greatly responsible. BUT not all cases, which is why making this a law would be problematic. Parents should definitely be thoroughly investigated, though, in a way that they aren’t presently.

    I have never been able to pinpoint my opinions on gun control, and this discussion has at least helped me to understand why! One thing I do think everyone should be able to agree on is the danger of semi-automatic weapons – why would anyone need that in daily life, ever? It’s like how switchblades are illegal; it’s not infringement on people’s rights to limit what type of weapon they can use.

  • Ronin

    says:

    I’m sorry but the constitution is not a menu. Everyone cherishes the 1st amendment but decided the 2nd has got to go. Doesn’t work like that. BigPharma stick to your guns…

    I actually agree with you on this one. However, I often see the same individuals that cherish and fight for the 2nd Amendment have no difficulty in trampling the 1st. Both should be protected.

  • Dawn

    says:

    To Ronin and BigPharma —

    I haven’t interpreted anybody’s argument that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply or needs to go. They’re arguing (and I agree) that it’s been misinterpreted of late. They’re arguing that an individual’s right to own a gun isn’t in the 2nd Amendment. Essentially, that’s was Burger was saying.

    “In constitutional law, the Court’s own precedents play a significant role. It is both striking and noteworthy that, well over two centuries since the founding, the Court has never held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have guns. The leading decision, from 1939, is United States v. Miller. The case involved the National Firearms Act of 1934, which banned possession of a sawed-off shotgun. A unanimous Supreme Court rejected the trial court’s conclusion that the statute violated the Second Amendment. Sounding like Chief Justice Burger, the Court said that the Second Amendment’s “obvious purpose” was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the militia, and that its “declaration and guarantee . . . must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” The Court emphasized “the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed- off shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Without such evidence, the Court was unwilling to say that the Second Amendment protected the right to have such a weapon, which, the Court added, was not “part of the ordinary military equipment” whose use would contribute to the common defense.”

    This history changed in March of last year when two Republican appointees on the Federal Appeals Court in D.C. voted to overturn a gun-control law for the first time ever.

  • woody, tokin librul

    says:

    9.On February 18th, 2008 at 9:30 am, Danp said: …Restrictions on high power guns and hand guns make more sense to me.

    However this guy apparently did most of his damage with a .12 gauge…Think Dick Cheney…

    on the 2nd amendment: Everybody is entitled to own a musket, and/or a flint-lock pistol.

  • libra

    says:

    Have you read the articles about England lately? The kids have simply turned to knives instead of guns (yeah, you’ll tell me that’s progress). — BigPharma, @27

    Well… You think it’s easy to kill 37 people in half an hour (or 5, in two minutes) with a knife?

  • Marzena

    says:

    For all of those who are not blaming guns, I don’t know how you can be so stupid!!! This is the only country where we hear non-stop about this kind of things. All over the world people are taking drugs and kill them selves, but you don’t hear that they are going to store buy gun and shot somebody’s else in school, only here! Only in America! Did you ask why? What is the difference between here and ex. Europe? In Europe there are not stores with guns and milk at the others side, and to get gun license is very hard, same as with driver license – we have one of the best highways but the worst drivers I ever seen. I came here from Europe 4 years ago so I know the differences. If you want to get gun license you should have couple tests, see the psychologist, you should go to and take couple of courses how to use a gun, and somebody from police or other institution like that should evaluate you, and all process should take at least 2 years. Now you fill out application (you can lie on it – nobody checks) and in couple weeks you get your license by mail, nobody will talk with you or even see you in most of this cases 1 visit and most of the people would be denied. Then they would kill only themselves, the most maybe stab 2 or 3 people, I now that this is also big tragedy, but this way we could save so much more lives. And for those who are talking about freedom in this country… The only right that you have over here is to make money and pay taxes, and have a gun… This is one of the most enslaved countries, the rest is illusion of freedom. Excuse for mistakes.

  • Persona non grata

    says:

    Why Was The Illinois Shooter Allowed To Buy A Gun?

    Wrong question dnA.

    The question should be :

    Why weren’t the students and faculty allowed to carry weapons on campus?

    This has been the resounding theme in all of the mass-shootings of late.

    It is up to each and every individual to protect themselves, you cannot dial 911 and expect to be saved in an instant.

    Firearms-free-zones serve only to offer up sheep to the slaughter.

  • Ronin

    says:

    #42 Dawn I haven’t interpreted anybody’s argument that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply or needs to go. They’re arguing (and I agree) that it’s been misinterpreted of late. They’re arguing that an individual’s right to own a gun isn’t in the 2nd Amendment. Essentially, that’s was Burger was saying.

    Actually it does.

    2nd Amendment – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Notice it reads the right of the people, not the right of the Militia.

    The fallacy is in thinking that crime will disappear with banning guns. The only change will be who is committing the crime.

    You may want to read http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

  • Persona non grata

    says:

    Second Amendment – A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Reads like perfectly plain english, especially this part:

    “the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    You and you alone are responsible for your well-being and the protection of your property. The second you delegate this responsibilty to the state you are allowing your freedoms to be upsurped.

    Its called personal-responsibilty and there was once upon a time when most Amercians espoused this logic.

  • Ronin

    says:

    I am curious for those who want to ban firearms. Do you also want to ban the automobile? The automobile has killed 13,000 more people per year than firearms (2004).

    Or maybe we should ban knives another 2,800 people died from knife wounds. Of course there is everyone else’s favorite besides firearms in banning motorcycles. This would save 3,900 lives.

    Or maybe we can ban bad cooks this would save 5,000 deaths per year in food poisoning.

    Ah, where will it all end?

  • Speed

    says:

    David M: “Cocaine, heroine, and child pornography are all also black market commodities. Regardless of their existence in the black market I still vote to keep them all illegal.”

    This is the argument I hear from people who want to ban abortion. But do you really want to END these practices, or just stamp your official seal of disapproval on them? We could ban all guns tomorrow but it will do nothing to actually stop people from getting hold of them. I can go down the street and buy almost any firearm out of the trunk of a dealer’s car in about 30 minutes.

    As a side note to others – They have some luck with restricting firearms in Britain and Japan because those countries are islands, and it’s easier to restrict what comes into them. With our long, open borders, that isn’t possible. (Also, Britain is rapidly becoming a police state). Also, yes, a few thousand insurgents in Iraq have held off the finest military in the world for 5 years. If Bush and Cheney (or Hillary or anybody) declared martial law, they would have literally millions of armed insurgents to deal with.

  • Ronin

    says:

    #44. libra said: Well… You think it’s easy to kill 37 people in half an hour (or 5, in two minutes) with a knife?

    You are actually providing a reason not to ban firearms. The general public has been trained to call 911 and wait, which typically results in an ambulance and a county examiner to clean up the mess.

    Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

  • Ronin

    says:

    “Routine metal scans in knife crime crackdown”

    So how does one cut their vegetables? Is the Missus arrested on the way home with her new kitchen knife?

    Plastic blades and those made from non-metallic metal will pass through, but are still deadly.

    I think they may want to look at the underlying problem instead of the symptom.

  • Rudy

    says:

    Intelligent discourse, particularly Dawn, JR and ChicagoPat. BigPharma, I respect your level of reasoning and consistency.

    For anyone that wants action instead of discourse, create a campaign at The Point (www.thepoint.com). A student already created an NIU campaign, but no one has created one on gun control.

  • Ben Miner

    says:

    To Danp (#9): You might want to do your homework before calling somebody out as being wrong about the Constitution. The fifth amendment covers both the right to remain silent and the due process requirement for deprivation of liberty.

    I refuse to debate anybody who holds the position that the right to bear arms is a collective right and not an individual one. To me this is no different than claiming that the world is flat. The intention of the framers is overwhelming clear (look up The Federalist Papers if you have any doubt) that an armed population is the best defense against tyranny and so by necessity the people must have guns.

  • Cheryl

    says:

    I just wonder how Schumer can expect to close the loophole. First off, i think the guy answered the question honestly. He was in a mental health facility in the late 1990s — way more than five years ago.

    If this kid didn’t have guns, he probalby could have used a lighter and a little gasoline and inflicted a lot more damage. So to keep him from getting a gun would not necessarily have stopped the killing.

    How many women, say, get depressed because an ex-spouse is harassing and threatening them? I sure hope that taking anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medication isn’t a cause to deny someone a gun. These are the people who might be dealing with a real threat.

    Instead of getting to the root of the problem — mental illness — Schumer is focusing on guns. Guns are not the problem, and the state will never keep guns out of the hands of those intent on using them.

  • Farkel

    says:

    As a ‘next step’, how about allowing colleges and universities to enlist student volunteers as undercover security officers? There are lots of veterans, National Guardsmen, past and future police officers already attending. Why not let them carry concealed in trade for some tuition waivers? Background-check them, train them, identify them (to each other), and cut them a deal. The second shot fired could be AT the perpetrator.

  • Farkel

    says:

    Lastly, to the moderator of this blog, if there is one: Are threats, like Tom Cleaver’s in the last paragraph of item #34, taken lightly? What do the rest of you think about that? Time for him to be committed? For his gun rights to be suspended?

  • Ben Miner's Worst Nightmare

    says:

    “I refuse to debate anybody who holds the position that the right to bear arms is a collective right and not an individual one…”

    Why is the NRA trolling Carpetbagger. These clowns won’t be persuaded by facts, and CB regulars won’t be persuades by idiots.

  • Ben Miner's Worst Nightmare

    says:

    “I refuse to debate anybody who holds the position that the right to bear arms is a collective right and not an individual one…”

    Why is the NRA trolling Carpetbagger? These clowns won’t be persuaded by facts, and CB regulars won’t be persuades persuaded by idiots.

    (Pardon me.)

  • Crissa

    says:

    Look, this would have been solved if he were required to keep his guns at a friend’s house.

    Denying the right to receive a gun isn’t taking away your right to due process… That would be the case if you could not challenge the ruling in a court, or somesuch.

    Even so, the court has taken a pretty broad view upon what you can do to have your rights revoked. Heck, apparently ‘being held unaware your rights were being violated until after the statute of limitations has passed’ is one of them. Remember, the clock starts ticking at the first offense, not the most recent, according to the Supreme Court.

  • libra

    says:

    #44. libra said: Well… You think it’s easy to kill 37 people in half an hour (or 5, in two minutes) with a knife?

    You are actually providing a reason not to ban firearms. — Ronin@53

    Nope. Based on the VA Tech story (I’m in VA, so it was a big story and one I’m more familiar with), my thinking goes like this:

    If someone comes into your classroom with a semi-automatic and starts spraying indiscriminately, you’re dead before you’ve had the time to reach into your backpack for your own piece of happiness (happiness… is a warm gun… yes it is…).

    If, OTOH, that crazy someone comes into your classroom and starts waving a *knife* around, he can be overpowered and disarmed, by the macho component of the student body. While those less brave have enough time to hide under their desks, if they’re so inclined.

    Just because you’re a master-less knight, doesn’t mean you have to be a mind-less one; rebels survive by their wits, you know…

    Marzenka@45,
    Nice to see someone else, originally from Poland, comment here.

  • Mikey D

    says:

    I think that everyone should be licensed to carry a gun. If you refuse to get licensed then you have to wear an armband that marks you as an easy target for the criminals. Wouldn’t the world be a different place today if the passengers had of been armed on 9-11. Not to mention the school shootings in the last 20 years. Oh wait that would give to much control to the common people. I really don’t understand why the ACLU and the NRA haven’t jumped on this. Oh wait the NRA because of the backlash that might happen and the ACLU because it might take away some criminals liberty. True if that was to happen there would be some killings that shouldn’t happen. But I think that would only be for awhile. You may think I’m a nut but I also think that drunk drivers should spend a year in jail for the first offense, five years for the second offense. And on the third taken out back of the courthouse and shot. Thats; only if they don’t kill someone on the first two offenses then its out back for them.

  • Ronin

    says:

    #64 f, OTOH, that crazy someone comes into your classroom and starts waving a *knife* around, he can be overpowered and disarmed, by the macho component of the student body. While those less brave have enough time to hide under their desks, if they’re so inclined.

    Just a simple change in tactic. A person wanting to do bodily harm to the greatest number with a knife will attack those in between class and by surprise. While I agree the # may not be as high, a death is still a death. The argument seems to be is it 37 or 18. I would venture that many would call both a tragedy.

    PS What if the knife is a sword. How many would be willing to “overpower” a person wielding such a weapon.

  • DB

    says:

    a knife would be a good weapon. No gunshots for people to hear. Just start stabbing everyone that comes into a restroom and drag them to the back and then go back and wait at the door for the next victim.

    And to the person who said all automatic weapons should be illegal, there has been only one crime involving a registered NFA firearm, and it happened by a cop killing an informant of his.

  • toowearyforoutrage

    says:

    Anyone who reads http://www.postsecret.com knows “cutters” are common and it’s no sign of violence.

    The measures suggested here could label many people ineligible for gun ownership who are less suspicious than many who’d pass with flying colors. This is more of the trap America has fallen into that every loon be it a religious terrorist or a mere psychiatric patient can be prevented from hurting others.

    Freedom = risk. Try to eliminate one, you get rid of the other.
    In the grand experiment we call America, we accept the risk of an armed, free populace and have reaped few negative consequences. (in light of the hundreds of millions of citizens we have, I don’t belittle the tragedy felt by the unlucky few)

  • edward

    says:

    I’m not against gun control, but a phrase got me thinking. While it is a valid question to ask “how many different things can you do with a gun?” I feel that to put such a thought into perspective, another question to consider would be
    How many different things can you do with a baseball bat?

  • Michael P Rolfes

    says:

    The issue here is that the students and faculty members of Northern Illinois University were not allowed to defend themselves against this attack. Had the professor or one of the students been armed, the rampage would have been over instantly.

    Congress needs to enact laws allowing law-abiding CCW permit holders to carry their firearms wherever they go! College included!

  • Raphael

    says:

    Regarding violence and guns in other industrialized countries : I’ve lived in Japan and even if you gave every adult Japanese a loaded firearm, their murder rate would not substantially increase. In England (where I’ve also lived), they took away the guns and now they have a huge problem with knives and swords(Google “knife culture” and “Britian” if you don’t believe me). The VAST majority of gun killings are committed by uneducated career criminals (drug dealers) from poor/broken families, and the US happens to have a disproportionally large number of these people compared to other industrialized nations. What percentage of shootings are committed by college graduates?

    The mass shootings (which often ARE committed by students) are, firstly, fueled by the media circus surrounding them. Want to “be famous” (as one shooter wrote)? Just shoot up a school. The other common factors seem to be an obsession with violent movies/games (how about banning those?) and anti-depressant/behavioral drug use.

    I’m also suprised no one mentioned Colorado, where one armed citizen (in a church!) stopped a mass shooting. Seems to me that the only thing that’s ever really stopped a mass shooting from happening was another armed citizen risking their own live to save others. Shooters pick schools BECAUSE they are gun free zones (like churches normally are). None of these mass shooters ever walked into a police station or a gun store and started shooting at people, did they?

  • Sal

    says:

    Raphael is right on regarding violence and guns. I can not imagine anyone going into a facility i.e., school, church, mall etc., where people might all be armed and open gun fire on them. One or two people with guns against 20 or more with guns very much narrows the chances of innocent people getting killed.

    What if everyone carried a gun? How willing would they be to walk in and start shooting at people in a place where they might have others shooting back?

    Guns are no more the problem in these terrible violent shootings than a stone which is used to bash someones head. Each of these on its own is powerless and safe. Take the guns from the honest law abiding person and leave them powerless against the lawless and the sickos.

  • Chris

    says:

    More guns as suggested above is not the answer. A saner approach, is the have tougher restrictions on existing legislation, & application processes, and have the federal government oversee the process, not the adhoc system of State control that currently exists.