Boston Suspects Did Not Have Valid Handgun Licenses (Really?)

[Westside Steve]

so bipolar and clinical depression are on the list? Or just having been hospitalized? Or should be, I mean.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Like I said, it's not my area. I'd rather have people who know these issues determine who is a likely risk and who isn't. From there you can decide what works as a matter of law, and what's feasible.

 

I was just suggesting that this stuff might get too complicated and too invasive to do what you might like to do. But I don't know enough about it.

[nunboy]

Here's a story out today:

 

 

Why do we need stricter background checks? A story from Oregon shows how the present rules invite terrible tragedies:

The woman at the counter of Keith's Sporting Goods wanted a handgun. She wasn't interested in price, quality or how to use it safely. She spoke slowly that day in June as she made one request: Would the clerk load it?

Maria Ward doesn't judge her customers. Americans have a right to buy firearms, after all. But this woman seemed traumatized. Ward worried she planned to hurt someone.

"I'm sorry," Ward told her. "I'm not going to sell you a firearm."

Ward, who owns the Gresham gun store with her husband, then did something she'd never done before. She warned the Oregon State Police not to allow anyone else to sell Brenda Nyhof Dunn a gun. But the agency, which performs background checks for most gun sales in Oregon, told Ward there was nothing it could do under the law.

The next day, Nyhof Dunn drove to Dick's Sporting Goods in Gresham. She bought a rifle and ammunition, according to the police report, which included a receipt from the transaction. She paid $10 to have the Oregon State Police perform a background check, which she easily passed. Hours later, she fatally shot herself. She was 36.

Oh well, so sad, but how could anybody have known, right? Wrong.

No restrictions apply to people like Nyhof Dunn, whose battles with bipolar disorder and major depression drove her to voluntarily enter residential psychiatric care 13 times in the final year of her life. The month she died, Multnomah County sheriff's deputies visited her home after she told a 9-1-1 operator she planned to hang herself in her parents' barn.

Thirteen hospitalizations for bipolar disorder and depression in a 12-month span - and still allowed to buy a gun. That's the law as it stands now. Does it make any sense?

Oh well so sad is right.

Would anyone short of her family care if she had done it with rope in the barn like she had stated? Would people be pushing for registration of lengths of rope greater than <insert arbitrary number of feet here>? Is she going to be banned from buying rope because she was hospitalized for mental issues?

[MLD Woody]

^There. That is an example of you sating something stupid

[heckofajobbrownie]

And not predictable at all.

[BadNewsBrowns]

Scott Taylor ‏@ScottTaylor19 5m

the Bomb Squad responded to the Walmart at Steelyard Commons for a suspicious unattended package. It only had personal effects in it.

 

Scott Taylor ‏@ScottTaylor19 5m

The owner of the package was arrested for Inducing Panic

pretty messed up lol

[nunboy]

^There. That is an example of you sating something stupid

please elaborate.

[nunboy]

And not predictable at all.

Why should we care about the life of someone who did not care to live? Its sad and tragic for the family involved. But what does that have to do with anyone outside of her family? To use suicides as a point for background checks and gun control is foolish. In your own story she had claimed that she was planning on using rope and hanging herself in a barn, if she would have done that none of us would have never have even heard this story. so what was the point of that article?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Why should we care about the life of someone who did not care to live? Its sad and tragic for the family involved. But what does that have to do with anyone outside of her family?

 

What are you, an asshole? Because something doesn't directly affect your family it's not worth caring about? The Boston bombings didn't affect your family directly. Why should you care about those people? What the fuck kind of argument is that?

 

The woman was mentally ill. It's not that she "did not care to live." She wanted to kill herself because she was mentally ill. Seriously mentally ill, requiring multiple hospitalizations. The question we're discussing is whether or not people who lack the mental stability to own a firearm should be able to purchase one. Clearly, this woman was not well, and bought a gun so she could kill herself with it. Or maybe she might have used it on others. Because she wasn't stable. In other words, she's not exercising her 2nd Amendment right to self-protection. She's trying to end a life because she's not stable.

 

And you'd like to protect her right to be mentally unstable and to own a gun? Well, I don't want to do that. Because that's fucking nuts.

 

The question then becomes how do you design a system that keeps people like this from passing that background check and getting that gun. Which is all moot now anyway.

[nunboy]

 

What are you, an asshole? Because something doesn't directly affect your family it's not worth caring about? The Boston bombings didn't affect your family directly. Why should you care about those people? What the fuck kind of argument is that?

 

The woman was mentally ill. It's not that she "did not care to live." She wanted to kill herself because she was mentally ill. Seriously mentally ill, requiring multiple hospitalizations. The question we're discussing is whether or not people who lack the mental stability to own a firearm should be able to purchase one. Clearly, this woman was not well, and bought a gun so she could kill herself with it. Or maybe she might have used it on others. Because she wasn't stable. In other words, she's not exercising her 2nd Amendment right to self-protection. She's trying to end a life because she's not stable.

 

And you'd like to protect her right to be mentally unstable and to own a gun? Well, I don't want to do that. Because that's fucking nuts.

 

The question then becomes how do you design a system that keeps people like this from passing that background check and getting that gun. Which is all moot now anyway.

And if she did it with rope what are we doing to prevent that? Would we even have heard about it?

Look I am not trying to be an ass, but really what are we supposed to do when someone wants to kill themselves? We cant go trying to rubber pad the world for people that are willing to do themselves harm. Maybe she should not have been released from the hospital in the first place. it was very clear that she was suicidal. not sure why you are trying to put this is on a gun background check as the failure point here.

And there is no parralel to what happened in Boston because they didn't buy guns to off themselves they made bombs and hurt other people.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm pretty sure you're missing the point. And I think you can give up with the rope bit.

 

Also, she was in the hospital voluntarily, which means she doesn't need to be released. She can just leave. Which she did. And then she bought a gun and shot herself. And you think we should let her and other seriously mentally ill people buy guns because ...why? What right are you protecting? The right of a mentally ill person to blow their head off? The right of a seriously mentally ill person to shoot up a workplace, or a Safeway parking lot, or a school?

 

You're really saying that the 2nd Amendment rights of the seriously mentally ill outweigh the public safety concerns that come with allowing seriously mentally ill people to buy guns? That's what you're saying?

 

After all, it's not our problem what they do with them, right? As long as it doesn't affect you personally.

[heckofajobbrownie]

[heckofajobbrownie]

So there you go, Steve. Seems 38 states don't even mention it when you involuntarily commit people. They don't go into the system.

 

That seems like an easy fix, no?

[nunboy]

I'm pretty sure you're missing the point. And I think you can give up with the rope bit.

 

Also, she was in the hospital voluntarily, which means she doesn't need to be released. She can just leave. Which she did. And then she bought a gun and shot herself. And you think we should let her and other seriously mentally ill people buy guns because ...why? What right are you protecting? The right of a mentally ill person to blow their head off? The right of a seriously mentally ill person to shoot up a workplace, or a Safeway parking lot, or a school?

 

You're really saying that the 2nd Amendment rights of the seriously mentally ill outweigh the public safety concerns that come with allowing seriously mentally ill people to buy guns? That's what you're saying?

 

After all, it's not our problem what they do with them, right? As long as it doesn't affect you personally.

You want me to give up the the rope part because it flies in the face of what you are saying. She was suicidal, should she be prevented from buying rope, or going near tall buildings?

And since she was in the hospital voluntarily she would not be put on any gun buying prevent list. Since invountary commitment gets prohibited. So what was your point again?

 

What are you asking to be done here. If the hospital thought she was a risk I am sure that they have means to keep her involuntarily but I am not sure of the specifics and I am sure that it changes by state as well.

 

 

 

 

edited for clumsy wording.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I want you to give up the rope part because it's irrelevant. It's just a lame argument that we've heard over and over. The (obvious) difference between a rope and a gun is that someone who is seriously mentally ill isn't going to hurt anyone else with rope. And the (obvious) point about her suicide is that she had easy access to rope her entire life, but wanted to buy a gun and shoot herself and we let her.

 

So again, tell me why we shouldn't have a law that says someone in her mental state shouldn't be flagged and not allowed to buy a gun? What right of hers - or anyone else's - are you trying to protect? Because that's what this is about. Not rope.

 

Tell me.

[nunboy]

I want you to give up the rope part because it's irrelevant. It's just a lame argument that we've heard over and over. The (obvious) difference between a rope and a gun is that someone who is seriously mentally ill isn't going to hurt anyone else with rope. And the (obvious) point about her suicide is that she had easy access to rope her entire life, but wanted to buy a gun and shoot herself and we let her.

 

So again, tell me why we shouldn't have a law that says someone in her mental state shouldn't be flagged and not allowed to buy a gun? What right of hers - or anyone else's - are you trying to protect? Because that's what this is about. Not rope.

 

Tell me.

You want me to give up the rope part because it does not help your argument. How far are you willing to go to protect someone that does not want to be protected? Are you going to prevent severley depressed people from going to large buildings or bridges or from purchasing lengths of rope?

 

She was not involuntarily commited so your entire point is moot. Even if every state were to add involuntary commitments to a registry she would still not be on it.

a suicide is a suicide is a suicide, but some people with an agenda love to try and make this about guns.

[heckofajobbrownie]

And more rope.

 

Dude, try again. What reason are you giving us for wanting to allow a person with obvious and serious mental health issues to buy a gun? Why do you want to do that? What's your rationale?

[nunboy]

And more rope.

 

Dude, try again. What reason are you giving us for wanting to allow a person with obvious and serious mental health issues to buy a gun? Why do you want to do that? What's your rationale?

I am asking you questions that you won't answer. How far are you going to go to stop her? And what would having all involuntary committed people on a list have done to prevent this? If she was a such a clear clear risk to her own health why was she released? Are the Hospitals able to commit her involuntarily after she had tried to leave for a voluntary commitment? Why is her suicide the responsibility of the gun?

 

I am bringing the rope up because you keep trying to dismiss it without any reason other than you don't want to address it. If she went through with the rope like she had stated she was going to, would you be asking for a national registration cross check with every rope purchase? Would you even care about this story if it did not involve a gun?

[MLD Woody]

I'm pretty sure you're missing the point.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh my God.

[nunboy]

 

I'm pretty sure you're missing the point.

 

what point?

[heckofajobbrownie]

My brother, just set aside your one tired argument for a second and look at this story as an example of one person with serious mental illness who was allowed to purchase a firearm, and without much ado. Secondly, note that this firearm was not purchased for any of the reasons we give when we talk about the right to bear arms. She purchased it for the sole purpose of using it to shoot someone, in this case herself. Of course, in other cases, the mentally ill people are buying the firearms so that they can shoot someone else.

 

Now, you tell me why that kind of mental history should not be part of a background check system that would have prohibited her from buying that gun. Make that case.

 

Why do you think someone with her mental history should be allowed to buy a gun?

 

Go.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I think what we're seeing here isn't an argument, but a reflexive impulse to defend one's side. In this world, even common sense restrictions that vast majorities of American agree should be in place, like not allowing the mentally ill to purchase firearms, become yet another battle in the culture war, which leads one to defend any change in the existing law for no good reason at all.

[nunboy]

My brother, just set aside your one tired argument for a second and look at this story as an example of one person with serious mental illness who was allowed to purchase a firearm, and without much ado. Secondly, note that this firearm was not purchased for any of the reasons we give when we talk about the right to bear arms. She purchased it for the sole purpose of using it to shoot someone, in this case herself. Of course, in other cases, the mentally ill people are buying the firearms so that they can shoot someone else.

 

Now, you tell me why that kind of mental history should not be part of a background check system that would have prohibited her from buying that gun. Make that case.

 

Why do you think someone with her mental history should be allowed to buy a gun?

 

Go.

Explain why its a tired argument. what part of it is not valid?

If her issues were so serious that she was a risk to herself, why did the hospital not step up and prevent her release? She should have been committed for her own protection. Then this whole story would never have happened. I will ask again would you care about this story at all if she did it in any other way?

 

Go ahead enact all the registration you want, things like this will continue to happen, and people will continue to prop up their dead bodies to further their political agenda.

[nunboy]

I think what we're seeing here isn't an argument, but a reflexive impulse to defend one's side. In this world, even common sense restrictions that vast majorities of American agree should be in place, like not allowing the mentally ill to purchase firearms, become yet another battle in the culture war, which leads one to defend any change in the existing law for no good reason at all.

Or a disingenuous concern in order to move along your political point of view. just remember to ban all of the things.

[heckofajobbrownie]

This is getting weird.

 

What's your argument for letting someone with that kind of mental history buy a gun?

[The Cysko Kid]

Explain why its a tired argument. what part of it is not valid?

If her issues were so serious that she was a risk to herself, why did the hospital not step up and prevent her release? She should have been committed for her own protection. Then this whole story would never have happened. I will ask again would you care about this story at all if she did it in any other way?

 

Go ahead enact all the registration you want, things like this will continue to happen, and people will continue to prop up their dead bodies to further their political agenda.

Have you ever been to a mental hospital of any kind? There's one at marymount hospital and its understaffed and has a very small budget. Who's going to pay for her involuntary commital?

[heckofajobbrownie]

And we're aware that serious mental illness and depression will sometimes lead to suicide in the future. Yes, I think we're aware of that. That's not the argument we're having.

 

So tell us, since you've ignored it 5 or 6 times, what's the argument for letting someone with that type of mental history purchase a gun?

[nunboy]

And we're aware that serious mental illness and depression will sometimes lead to suicide in the future. Yes, I think we're aware of that. That's not the argument we're having.

 

So tell us, since you've ignored it 5 or 6 times, what's the argument for letting someone with that type of mental history purchase a gun?

Why stop at guns? She was a danger to herself. She should be denied access to anything deemed dangerous to her, including herself.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm just going to keep going because now I'm laughing.

 

What's your argument for letting someone like that legally purchase a firearm? I mean, I could make one. I'm not sure I'd believe it, but at least I could make the argument.

 

Can you think of one? It doesn't seem that you can. Which is another way of saying, "Okay, I agree with you, I just don't want to say I do, or admit I do."