Replies

It isn’t once in a while that a madman beats our system. It is almost continuously. Remember the guy that shot up the mall in Kansas City? He attempted suicide the previous October. He was hospitalized for 6 1/2 hours, then released.

Patrick Purdy? Long history of mental illness—and when he finally did something “serious,” it was to murder five children, wound 29 others, and provide the impetus for passage of the various assault weapon bans of the 1989-92 period.

Does the name Larry Gene Ashbrook ring any bells? Killed seven people in a church in Texas in 1999. Long history of mental illness that would have locked him up in 1960.

Does Russell Eugene Weston, Jr. ring any bells? Long history of mental illness and short commitments for violence, before he shot to death two police officers at the Capitol in 1999.

Remember the guy who shot up the Jewish community center in Granada Hills, California a few years ago, scoring many points for the gun control crowd? He actually tried to get himself into a mental hospital, but a judge refused to listen to his talk about mass murder, and released him, rather than hospitalized him.

It isn't once in a while that a madman beats our system. It is almost continuously.

Remember the guy who shot up the Jewish community center in Granada Hills, California a few years ago, scoring many points for the gun control crowd? He actually tried to get himself into a mental hospital, but a judge refused to listen to his talk about mass murder, and released him, rather than hospitalized him.

-- the point of my article was that a doctor doesn't have the power to decide if you are mentally incompetent. The entire process of involuntary commitment has become extremely hard since the 1970s. As much as I disapprove of what the ACLU has done to commitment law, the net effect is that it takes a due process conformant hearing to lose your right to own a gun now because of supposed mental defect.

Fine. You don't want or trust doctors or judges to have the commitment power. Neither do I. -- Who then should have the power to [in effect], prohibit our right to own and carry weapons?

Here is the way to fix these problems, make it easier for people to get guns and allow them to carry (concealed or otherwise). Spend the money currently spent to restrict people’s ownership and carrying on encouraging ownership and carrying. This would provide the ultimate cure for any mentally ill or criminal that would harm people. This bill will have as much impact on gun crime as the “Assault Weapon” (aka scary looking black military style rifles) Ban did.

It isn’t once in a while that a madman beats our system. It is almost continuously.

It isn't once in a while that a violent felon uses a firearm, it is almost continuously, and yet we have laws that forbid them from doing such. So we should pass more, or expand, feel good laws?