I can see by your posts in this thread that I'm so wrong. Please show me where you advocate for gun ownership.
Somehow the military recruiters understood who they were dealing with.
Somehow the military recruiters understood who they were dealing with.
I'm not asking them whether he should have been able to purchase the gun, I'm asking you, all of you. Was this the kind of customer that should be given that privilege? Don't go hiding behind the 2nd Amendment, either; this isn't about your legal opinion, this is about your judgment. Should this man have been able to buy a Glock 19 pistol in your judgment?
When you can prove to me that each and every person that military recruiters have rejected went on a shooting spree, you will have a point. Until then, you have none. Try to give us at least a LITTLE challenge on this issue.
I'm not asking them whether he should have been able to purchase the gun, I'm asking you, all of you. Was this the kind of customer that should be given that privilege? Don't go hiding behind the 2nd Amendment, either; this isn't about your legal opinion, this is about your judgment. Should this man have been able to buy a Glock 19 pistol in your judgment?
The point is that the burden is on the consumer to demonstrate that they should be eligible to purchase the weapon. And, the more capable the weapon the more stringent should be the standards.
The point is that the burden is on the consumer to demonstrate that they should be eligible to purchase the weapon. And, the more capable the weapon the more stringent should be the standards.
So here's a man who was rejected by the military; who was ejected from his community college because he frightened them, but who is completely unhindered to purchase one of the deadliest instruments available. Got it.
The point is that the burden is on the consumer to demonstrate that they should be eligible to purchase the weapon. And, the more capable the weapon the more stringent should be the standards.
Because, to me, it's so freaking obvious that he should never have been allowed to purchase a gun that I need someone intelligent to explain it to me why they think it is even conceivable that this deeply disturbed human being should ever have been allowed to possess a gun.
No, because he had a mental record, and should not have been able to purchase a weapon.
I think that present law, to my knowlege, requires that you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness or substance abuse before you are barred from buying.
Even though I tried, I cannot think of a mechanism that would have theoretically succeeded without sacrificing some rights that I consider to be important for people and society. This is a situation where you have to pick which is more important, knowing that whatever you choose will allow harm to come. I think not modifying our current practices will cause vastly less harm.
I'm not asking them whether he should have been able to purchase the gun, I'm asking you, all of you. Was this the kind of customer that should be given that privilege? Don't go hiding behind the 2nd Amendment, either; this isn't about your legal opinion, this is about your judgment. Should this man have been able to buy a Glock 19 pistol in your judgment?
I think that present law, to my knowlege, requires that you have been involuntarily committed for mental illness or substance abuse before you are barred from buying.
I am with you to a point. But I think there needs to be some mechanism to keep the mentally unstable from buying weapons.
I hear ya... but define "mentally unstable".
Is a vet with PTSD mentally unstable?
What about someone who just has occasional anxiety attacks?
Drawing the line could be quite tricky... and there's the question of violating doctor-patient confidentiality, unless the Dr actually thinks the patient is dangerous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?