0
quade

Schizophrenic gun owner goes on killing spree

Recommended Posts

He was a known schizophrenic, yet still had access to guns. He says saw "demons" and voices in his head told him to kill.

This is exactly the scenario I've been talking about in other threads. I'm curious how some people are going to defend this.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/carson-city-ihop-gunman-saw-demons.html
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Would it make you feel better if he used an axe?



Compared to, "two assault(sic) rifles, two handguns and 595 rounds of ammunition"? Yes. Chances are good more people would be alive.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or they might not, it is impossible to know what would have happened either way.

Either way if he really wanted to come into possession of a firearm do you think a law would have stopped him?

I will repeat, the ONLY thing that gun control laws prevent is LAW ABIDING citizens from possessing firearms, and LAW ABIDING citizens are the ones you have the least reason to fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Never said I was in favor of them having access. Merely stated that legislating that someone doesn't have access and reality being that one doesn't have access are two very different things.

And no, I don't believe those who are known to be mentally unstable should be able to legally own firearms. Not that that will stop them from acquiring one should they so desire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And no, I don't believe those who are known to be mentally unstable should be able to legally own firearms. Not that that will stop them from acquiring one should they so desire.



Much the same can be said about suicide bombers. That doesn't mean you have to make it easy for them.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So, then, you're in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns?

I think you need to realize that's an extremist position even the NRA is against.



So you decided to create yet another thread where you would misrepresent the viewpoints of others?

You got schooled left and right on the previous attempts. Why bring more upon yourself? And why fail again to present any substance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So, then, you're in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns?

I think you need to realize that's an extremist position even the NRA is against.



As for the extremist position, yes I realize a few of my positions are considered "extremist." Mainly because I am a libertarian and just want the gov't to leave me (and everyone else) the fuck alone.

For example, in the NJ election next Tuesday, there is a referendum to amend our state constitution to allow betting on sporting events. Personally, I do not believe people should gamble, as it is a wasteful use of money and can lead to serious problems. However, I also believe that I have absolutely no right to tell another person what they can or can not do (outside the universally accepted prohibitions, such as murder, theft, etc.). So I will be voting in favor, even though I personally disagree with the subject of the amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kelp, why don't you go school yourself . . . on Wayne LaPierre's position?

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22Our+position+on+this+is+crystal+clear:+If+you+are+adjudicated+by+a+court+to+be+mentally+defective,+suicidal,+a+danger+to+yourself+or+to+others,+you+should+be+prohibited+from+buying+a+firearm,%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

If you're further right than the NRA on this . . . you're pretty fuggin' right of center.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Errr, hang on a minute.

The rest of the CIVILISED world thinks USA is MAD !

Gun crime ( robberies / murder / accidental shootings etc etc ) in UK / Australia / NZ / western europe is very low. why is this we wonder...? Oh hang on ! maybe it's because the only people who have access to weapons of WAR are soldiers ! is that not obvious ???? how long are the americans going to allow people to own guns.. it really is utterly retarded. By the time you factor in the GOD bit also... The USA is about 250 years behind western europe.
sigh.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

and LAW ABIDING citizens are the ones you have the least reason to fear.



I once had a discussion with a law-abiding American who owned a couple of fire-arms but apparently had no clue what the phrase "firearm safety" meant. Of course there's no reason to fear that idiot, because bullets that are fired accidentally don't kill. ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So, then, you're in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns?

I think you need to realize that's an extremist position even the NRA is against.



This is funny shit

Getting your tactics from kallend now?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So, then, you're in favor of the mentally ill having access to guns?

I think you need to realize that's an extremist position even the NRA is against.


I rarely post in this forum.
But from the tone I assume you feel that NO ONE should own a gun? is that correct?

I agree that mentally ill should not, and the background checks should be accomplished, but lunatics will be lunatics with or without guns.

The GUN is NOT the issue here. The lunatic is. How could we have stopped him from killing those people? Someone, somewhere, other than just himself, must've known he was on the edge.

If he couldn't have access to guns he would have driven his car into a shopping mall, or he would have used an axe, or he would have use a pencil and stuck it into the soft spot in his victims throat or head.

Yep, if he did any of those it may not have claimed as many lives yet he still would have murdered someone.
Would it be as appaling to you?
My photos

My Videos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

read this and weep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The only countries worse than you lot are utter shitholes.

unbelievable to consider gun ownership has nothing to do with death ! keep strumming that banjo...



Guns are part of America, always have been and always will be. You have your rights, we have ours.

Many of us appreciate the right to have firearms and accept the risk that comes with that.

Different countries have different ideals, social norms etc, that's what makes different countries different. I don't want us to all be Sweden. The "cowboy" nature of America is what made us what we are and millions of people try to come here every year, so we're doing something right.

I spent the first 18 years of my life in countries where firearms were not allowed and I personally prefer what America has to offer.
The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's his constitutional right to own all the guns he wants afterall. As a matter of fact, society is to blame because surely if there is a mentally ill person who owns guns, then everyone around that person should be obligated to own even MORE guns to protect themselves from any fallout.

No, there is no gun problem....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's his constitutional right to own all the guns he wants afterall. As a matter of fact, society is to blame because surely if there is a mentally ill person who owns guns, then everyone around that person should be obligated to own even MORE guns to protect themselves from any fallout.

No, there is no gun problem....



That's a pretty asinine statement. I don't think anybody here has said they support batshit crazy people owning guns.
The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the guy had no criminal history. That can’t be held against him. What next?

“he was committed more than once.” Hey! Now we’re getting somewhere. I can tell you that in Cali, under the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act, a 5150 results in an automatic loss of firearms for a period of five years. This loss of firearms can be appealed. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=08001-09000&file=8100-8108

Had he been in California, this awful incident would not have occurred, Paul. I’ve shown you that as a matter of law, there is simply no way this could have occurred in California. In fact, Sencion’s AK-47 was modified to make it fully automatic. This wouldn’t have occurred in California because it is illegal. (The modification was illegal in Nevada, too, but let’s focus on his mental status.)

Yes, Sencion “legally” purchased his guns. But did he legally possess them? Nope. There was a law that wasn’t enforced. He purchased the guns legally because he had no criminal record and had no known medical illness (Note, Paul, the effects of HIPAA). Of course, once he was committed then there was a reason not to sell him any weapons. In fact, there was probably reason to take them.

Thus, the weapons were probably legally purchased when he bought them. Then they were illegally POSSESSED once he was committed. To me, that’s a good way for the laws to work. The problem was that the laws were not ENFORCED.

What’s your suggestion, Paul? To create MORE laws to prevent this from happening that won’t prevent it from happening? Or should we enforce the laws that are on the books now? I get the distinct impression that you’d rather see laws get more draconian than enforce what we already have.

Take a look at the Seal Beach massacre, Paul. Deal Beach was like a second home to me. That asshole wasn't mentally ill - he was an asshole. He ALSO shouldn't have had a gun because, as I understand it, he had a CLETS TRO against him. Unenforced.

It's the lack of enforcement of the laws, Paul. Not the need for new ones. But by failing to enforce the laws, one can argue for stricter ones.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yep, if he did any of those it may not have claimed as many lives yet he still would have murdered someone.
Would it be as appaling to you?



Actually, he's explained that no, it would not. It's that a crazy person with a gun can turn a standard massacre into something far more terrible - a shooting massacre.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That's a pretty asinine statement. I don't think anybody here has said they support batshit crazy people owning guns.



Schizophrenia is 'not' badshit crazy as you might put it.

and who gets to decide? you? me? Yet another government agency?

My point was that everyone screams there is no 'gun problem' in the USA. I made my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0