Police: Cho Was Taken to Psychiatric Hospital in 2005

[Roon]

Source: ABC news

April 18, 2007 — A Virginia district court found Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho to be "mentally ill" and an imminent danger to others," according to a 2005 temporary detention order obtained by ABC News.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page=1

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3052278&page=1

[BOSSHOG]

1. We all know

the NRA trumps any psychiatric evaluation. If we start keeping guns out of the hands of the likes of Cho, who is next, bubba?

[snappyturtle]

3. Exactly! n/t

[Alexander]

5. We also know

That knee-jerk anti-gun reactions trump any serious discussion we can have about how to regulate firearms.

[BOSSHOG]

7. I am not anti-gun

It was a knee jerk reaction that has now led to planning for 32 funerals. If I just woke up this morning thinking that gosh, wouldn't it be great if we did something about regulating firearms right now, that would be a knee jerk anti-gun reaction. Cho was mentally unstable. The NRA enabled him to get a gun. Wouldn't the NRA be a great place to start the conversation. Unstable people getting firearms because a powerful lobby calls a constitutional amendment ambiguous. Yeah, I guess a kneejerk reaction might be appropriate. Or would you rather we wait until somebody else shoots up another bunch of humans?

[Alexander]

15. "The NRA enabled him to get a gun." - Total crock of shit.

You do realize that there are millions of law-abiding Americans who own guns for one reason or another, and they don't all support the NRA.

Not to mention this happened in a gun-free zone, the kid should have been taken out of school for his psychotic behavior, and no one's advocating that stalkers and arsonists be allowed to have firearms anyway.

But, don't let facts get in your way. The anti-gun people and ignorant lawmakers who try legislating things they know nothing about would rather just stereotype anyone with a firearm and doom the Democratic Party to permanent minority status.

Senators Webb and Tester would take great issue with your comments. And in case you didn't realize, they are the reason we have our tenuous hold on the Senate right now.

[Bicoastal]

29. It should be DIFFICULT to buy and own a gun.

I'm not kidding. If you feel its necessary to own a gun, you have to prove to your fellow taxpayers that you can handle it. Obviously, a large number of people can, but many clearly can't--and that's the minority that ends up taking lives, so it would be folly to use the old "most gunowners are perfectly responsible" line. When it comes to gunowners, the awful damage the minority can do far outweighs the upstanding behavior of the majority.

I don't really think guns should be banned, but they should be one the more difficult things for a civilan to legally own and operate in the country, and right now I'm just not sure that's the case. After all, Cho was in and out of the Virigina gun store in less than an hour. What about a couple weeks worth of research by the seller or manufacturer--it may be more time and money, but aren't people's lives worth it?

[marshall]

52. Why should it take a couple of weeks?

I don't care how long it takes people to get guns--they can wait as long as it takes to get the background check done. But in the day of personal computers why can't every gun owner be given access to a database that keeps this stuff, and make it instantaneous? Cho was adjudicated mentally ill by a judge in 2005 and should NOT have been allowed to buy a gun. He should have been flagged in a national database that licensed gun dealers should have access to.

And the dealers don't have to know the details of why (so as not to violate HIPPA and whatever other privacy laws apply)--they just need to be told simply that this person does not meet the criteria to purchase a gun.

[aquart]

55. One background check would have revealed the history.

If we did background checks. The federal government was able to say in a minute that he had no anti-depressant history.

But, you know what? If the maniacs will confine their massacres to pro-gun states, I'm as fine with it as you are.

What pisses me off is that people from sane states were also killed.

[Irreverend IX]

69. You've obviously never purchased a firearm.

You have to get a background check when buying a gun. Every single time. Now that the OP story has come to light, it's obvious that the problem lies in the fact that the info on this guy's condition and his involuntary commitment was never made part of the NICS database.

[TX-RAT]

77. If we did background checks

The back ground check was done, he came back clear. His mental state was not reported to the feds. Had the magistrate left it as committed, instead of changing it to out patient, it would have came back on the back ground check and he would have been denied. If you want to get mad a somebody, get mad at the magistrate, who changed the decision.

[BOSSHOG]

60. Will you be attending any of the funerals?

What have you done to prevent the VT shootings? Of course you are not a knee jerk kind of citizen. What has the NRA done to prevent the VT shootings? What is the NRA doing now to prevent future shootings? The NRA wants you and I to have guns if we want them. They don't give a fuck what we do with them once we have them. If anyone makes a move to prevent a future VT massacre the NRA will swamp congress with reasons that it should not be done. THE NRA ENABLED HIM TO GET A GUN. When a lunatic buys a gun and kills one of your loved ones, don't share your grief with me, Wayne Lapierre will take care of your suffering.

[Paladin]

64. Self-Deleted

n/t

[Paladin]

65. Well Said, BOSSHOG

n/t

[Paladin]

66. Self-Deleted

n/t

[TX-RAT]

78. THE NRA ENABLED HIM TO GET A GUN.

What part of the transaction did the NRA play?

[calimary]

76. The problem is, however, that this whole issue may well be trumped by

one question: "how was a messed-up guy like Cho able to buy guns?" As long as THAT one is standing there like a big, swolen, red pustule, gun enthusiasts WILL be forced on the defensive. It will shatter support for lax gun laws and easy public access to firearms and lead to tightening of regulations, and/or MORE regulations. I, for one, am no gun fan. I wish nobody had any - simply because it would keep guns out of the hands of people like Cho. But I realize that this isn't realistic and I'm more or less resigned, albeit reluctantly, to the reality of guns in our society. But calamities like this won't win many sympathizers to gun enthusiasts, at least for awhile.

It's gonna be similar to the predicament small-government or NO-government or no-FEDERAL-government people have had in pushing their position. You know, the grover norquist types. All you have to say to oppose their view and shut them up is two words: "Hurricane Katrina."

All anybody against guns will have to say when pro-gun people start defending their case is another two-word answer: "Virginia Tech."

Until we face the fact that we have to do proactive work - make sure people like Cho get help and are diffused before they explode, AND (here's that dirty word again) tighten or strengthen or implement REGULATIONS that would do things like make sure this ticking time bomb's record was COMPLETE and available with all the red flags in it so the gun store he visited wouldn't be able to arm him in the first place.

I think guns should be like abortion. Necessary evils, both. Safe, legal, and rare. And NEVER taken lightly or casually.

[primavera]

12. "Serious discussion"?

Since when have gun rights advocates been willing to entertain any discussion about any form of regulation of their precious weapons of mass destruction?

[Bicoastal]

14. Just answer me this...

Why should the background check and health history evaluation you undergo before being hired for a JOB be longer and more comprehensive than the one that places a firearm into your hands?

This guy would have been rejected from almost any medium-to-high-paying job for several years, with his history of stalking women and a mental hospital stint. Yet legally, he's able to buy a gun.

Guns aren't the problem. The system that regulates the sale and purchasing of guns is the problem. It SHOULD be difficult to buy a gun--and if you've got nothing to hide, why not be patient?

[primavera]

18. No argument there

I don't disagree that the process of obtaining a firearm should be more difficult and should endeavour to screen people more closely, not only for obvious things like criminal records, but for mental health issues potentially affecting one's ability to responsibly use a firearm. But I don't believe the NRA is supportive of such restrictions.

[Alexander]

17. Since lots of people realized "gun rights advocates" are not the NRA.

Many law-abiding gun owners do not support the NRA, but they also don't appreciate guys like Kerry saying they'll "allow" hunting rifles. Oh, how generous. We should be honored that we are "allowed" to have a hunting rifle as opposed to a handgun, because of course handguns are FAR deadlier. :eyes:

Too bad so many Democrats and self-proclaimed "liberals" still can't figure that one out.

I guess the ignoramuses and anti-gun people in the party would rather doom us to permanent minority status than accept the fact that criminals will find ways to get guns in this country no matter what we "allow".

[primavera]

20. That's good to know

One admittedly hears the voice of the NRA disproportionately loudly, but it's good to know there are gun owners who are more willing to entertain discussions about how to keep guns out of the hands of people like Cho with a documented history of violence and mental illness. That would at least be a step in the right direction. It seems like all I ever hear from gun owners though is how guns aren't the problem, that really this guy Cho could have accomplished the same massacre armed with nothing more than a potato peeler, so it's unfair to even think about restricting access to poor, maligned guns.

[ProudDad]

22. ALL of the fucking handguns

should be melted down and made into a monument to human stupidity!!!!

They have one purpose and one purpose only -- to kill another human.

They have NO purpose or place in a civilized society.

I don't expect the United States to become a civilized society in my lifetime.

Have fun shooting at one another with your ridiculous toys...

[JuniperLea]

30. Hunting rifles

can be broken down and concealed too. And they can have a scope...

We don't take cars away from people because some people choose to use them as a murder weapon. Manure should be outlawed too, since you can use it as a component for bombs. What about all the bomb books available online and in book stores.

Anyone in this country has the resources to break any law on the books whether they know it or not. Any criminally minded, murderous subhuman who wants to kill another person will find a way.

Mental health services seem like a kinder, gentler way to handle murderers. Anyone who can bring themselves to take another human life is sick in the head.

[CreekDog]

27. Mentally unstable, threat to others, and legal gun owner

Hmmm.

A gun is a tool for killing. So, the law doesn't restrict someone who is mentally unstable and a threat to others from owning a tool whose purpose is to kill? And people are arguing against a law to change that?

Beam me up Scotty.

[TX-RAT]

79. the law doesn't restrict someone who is mentally unstable

Sure it does. Since he was out patient instead of committed, it wasn't reported to the feds. The magistrate that made that change, was the one person who could have easily prevented him from any legal purchase of a firearm.

[durrrty libby]

13. If people were half as passionate over the war, health care,

education,etc, as they are about their God-Damn Guns, we would have a wonderful country.

[EFerrari]

57. If my ex had been into guns, I'd be dead by now at least 10 times.

Guns aren't the problem. The complete breakdown of any mental healthcare system worth the name is.

[Virginia Dare]

2. What's he doing living in a DORM?????..n/t

[snappyturtle]

4. I know I heard he was living on campus but

I'm sorry that I can tell you exactly what the source was.

[CottonBear]

6. I don't know. I saw his two roommates interviewed on TV.

Cho was creepy, ant-social, insane, suicidal and dangerous.

[Bicoastal]

8. Is there ANY reason why he should have been able to buy a gun?!

I'm sorry, but our gun laws are simply not doing their job when a young man with a history of stalking and a temporary stint in a mental hospital less than 2 years before should have been able to purchase a firearm. All of this SHOULD come up on a background check! My GOD--they make you wait 2 weeks on a background check and health evaluation for a prespective job, but only a matter of MINUTES before placing a firearm into your hands. Is there something wrong with this picture or what?!

"Yeah, but everyone knows gun laws don't mean jack. He could have found a gun in any case." Bullshit! Why would he risk trying to find a gun illegally, when he knew how easy it was to get one at Roanoke Firearms?!

Look, no one's saying it should be impossible to get your hands on a gun. But it SHOULDN'T be this damn easy.

[wordpix]

11. could not agree with you more. GUN CONTROL NOW!!!!!

[marshall]

26. What are the criteria for NOT being allowed to buy a gun?

I would like to know the scope of existing law. Was Cho's run-in with mental health enough to prevent him from legally buying a gun?

[TX-RAT]

80. It sure was.

It changed when the magistrate changed it from committed to out patient treatment.

[wordpix]

9. how does it make sense that he stalks & threatens women but he's only a danger to himself?

:shrug: Whoever is responsible for this District Court ruling should be removed from the bench, pronto because his cognitive and critical thinking skills suck. :puke:

snip: Back in 2005, the District Court in Christiansburg said that Cho was a danger to himself but not others. He was ordered to undergo outpatient care.

The ruling came after Cho was taken to a nearby psychiatric hospital for evaluation in December 2005, after two female schoolmates said they received threatening messages from him and police and school officials became concerned that he might be suicidal.

[Nikki Stone1]

45. Guess us women just don't count as "others" (ie, people)

...

[aquart]

56. Well, not according to the Supreme Court.

[davepc]

10. wow, then his purchase of the gun was ILLEAGAL. the backround check FAILED

[Xithras]

19. Only if it showed up.

And apparently it didn't.

[xxqqqzme]

49. how old was he 2 years ago? If he was 18 or under that

record wouldn't have followed him - at least in California it wouldn't

[idgiehkt]

54. 21 n/t

[RamboLiberal]

16. Who is responsible for this loophole in the law

The NRA, liberals, conservatives, those who want to protect privacy? I don't think this is completely the NRA's fault. This is something the current congress and state legislatures should address. I'm a gun owner and I think mental health records should be part of the background check. And I'd allow seizure of firearms if a board of mental health experts deemed a gun owner a danger to society or himself.

Of the 100 episodes of rampage killings examined for this series by The New York Times, none better illustrates than the case of Lisa Duy just how difficult it can be to enforce a key provision of the nation's fundamental gun control law. That provision prohibits people who have been involuntarily committed to mental institutions from buying a handgun. But laws in most states guard the privacy of the mentally ill, and to protect them from stigma these statutes generally bar law-enforcement agencies from access to mental health records.

As a result, gun background checks of people with psychiatric problems typically fail to turn up their mental health history, a loophole that has contributed to the wave of school and workplace shootings of the last decade. In the 100 cases reviewed by The Times, the vast majority of them from the last 10 years, half the killers were people with a history of serious mental health problems, and at least eight had been involuntarily committed.

Now, fueled by those shootings, there is a growing debate pitting public-safety concerns against the rights of the mentally ill. This March, in the wake of the Duy shooting and another like it in April 1999, Utah became one of the few states that give law-enforcement agencies mental health information for background checks on prospective gun buyers. Connecticut acted similarly last fall, after a state lottery employee with a history of depression and psychiatric hospitalization killed four of his bosses and committed suicide in 1998.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9800EED8143EF932A25757C0A9669C8B63

On edit added:

Most states have privacy laws barring such information from being shared with law enforcement. Legislation pending in Congress that has bipartisan support seeks to get more of the disqualifying records in the database.

In addition to mandating the sharing of mental health records, the legislation would require that states improve their computerized record-keeping for felony records and domestic violence restraining orders and convictions, which also are supposed to bar people from purchasing guns.

Similar measures, opposed by some advocates for the mentally ill and gun-rights groups, did not pass Congress in 2002 and 2004.

The FBI, which maintains the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, has not taken a position on the bill, but the bureau is blunt about what adding names to its database would do.

“The availability of this information will save lives,” the FBI said in a recent report.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10214838/

[ProudDad]

23. Who's responsible?

The NRA, John Ashcroft/fuckface Gonzoles, every gun nut and every fuck who votes against the abolition of handguns and total control and registration of all other guns!


Case in point: http://www.nyagv.org/legislation-fed.htm

Ashcroft refused to release gun trace data...

A good start would be a bullet trace database at the federal level for all guns. Any gun that is then involved in a crime would result in the original buyer of record of the gun to go to prison...along with the gun seller

There, that's reasonable and you can keep your fucking toys.

[RamboLiberal]

24. Any Dem who votes to abolish handguns is not getting my vote

Sorry, but you can't legislate total safety in this society. Cho could've easily found another way to do his mayhem. For instance got in a car and mowed down students outside. Sorry, but the rest of us who want a handgun for protection and for sport shouldn't be deprived because there are mental cases and criminals like Cho.

[ProudDad]

25. Ah, but you can legislate

reasonable legislation to respond to a minority's pathology...

I updated my post above with a good starting point for legislation that would more effectively keep guns out of the hands of the "criminals and crazies"...

[CreekDog]

28. I hear gun control argued here, not gun abolition

But then again, don't stop a good law from happening because you are afraid of a slippery slope.

[ngant17]

46. An automatic handgun makes killing more efficient

than, say, a car. There are exceptions, such as driving a truck bomb into a crowded restaurant. In that case, a handgun or machinegun would probably not be as effective as maximizing death and injury.

Without the handgun, I don't think Cho could have killed as many people in as short a time unless he had a mini-submachine gun, automatic rifle, hand grendade or IED. But attempting to find those weapons, or to make them, would be an order or two more difficult than simply purchasing a Glock at a pawnshop or a local VA flea market.

[candice]

51. Yes, and gun owners are more likely to commit suicide...

according to a NY Times article yesterday. The one person I know who committed suicide did it when depressed, just after his Dad had given him a gun to protect himself from the crazies in San Francisco. If the gun is there, an impulsive suicide can be carried out. I doubt that my friend would have killed hiimself without the gun staring at him.

[treestar]

75. No, but shouldn't the background check somehow include this stuff?

So that Cho or those like him couldn't have the gun? Granted, it might be hard to do it without some undesirable big brother type laws - mental health professionals would have to report their patients' names to the FBI.

Maybe requiring a psychiatric report for the gun owner would help, but then you would still get people who would get past the psychiatrists.

But in the end, you're right, there is always the possibility of getting the gun illegally anyway, or using something else. Focusing on the guns doesn't really do much good. More of the same that has been proven not to work.

[mainer]

21. "Acne medications" -- Accutane user? Violent thoughts a side-effect

I've heard that he was taking some sort of medications, but haven't heard which ones. The news article mentions that he applied acne lotion every day. If he was also taking Accutane, it could certainly inspire violent thoughts and is a known side effect.

[medeak]

31. Virginia gunman declared by court mentally ill

Source: CNN breaking

CNN breaking

Virginia Tech gunman was declared by court in 2005 mentally ill and imminent danger to others

No link yet.

[saigon68]

32. Good to see he got the Treatment he needed

</sarcasm>

[kestrel91316]

36. Sounds like he got a 72-hr hold and that was the end of that. Not.

[liberalnurse]

40. This is not uncommon.

The school can't expel him for an illness....Discrimination.

My thoughts and issue is with the parents who enabled their angry, crazy son to continue in an unsupervised, stressful college plan. Big time shame and denial.

They forked over the tuition...........pretend the monster was just fine.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

42. "Big time shame and denial"

Hammer, meet nail.

Medieval attitudes toward mental illness really have got to go. Maybe we need public service announcements that enlighten people on the facts about these diseases.

[kestrel91316]

48. They should have expelled him for the stalking and arson.

[saigon68]

71. He could have joined the Army

He could have then been driving a tank to "act out" his fantasies.

The army likes guys like him

[medeak]

43. Since Reagan deregulated mental hospitals...

it's nearly impossible to get someone hospitalized. Dear friend of 30 yrs has been through hell to seek help for her schizophrenic brother...who habitually set fire to apts she rented for him. Her husband was in law firm with Paul Laxalt (Ron Reagan's campaign head) and it took HIM over 7 years of legal rangling to get him into group home. He's been doing great since btw...we all cried when he sent a xmas card to his Mom this year...medication working.

Yes...gun laws need to be changed...but so does mental health care and someone needs to have a platform of retracting the harm that Reagan did

[marshall]

53. That's another issue

Whether he was hospitalized or not (and he definitely needed treatment), he was ruled mentally ill by a judge and by law should NOT have been allowed to buy a gun.

[saigon68]

70. No doubt he would be judged "Mentally Competent" for his actions

[medeak]

33. CNN headline

A court order from 2005 states that Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui was declared mentally ill and "an imminent danger to others," a district court clerk tells CNN.

story in progress...

[slackmaster]

34. Sounds like a disqualifying event for a gun purchase, but I am not sure

The question may be whether or not the state of Virginia does an adequate job of passing that kind of information up to the FBI for the NICS database.

Plenty of blame to go around on all sides, as always.

[CottonBear]

37. Not in VA, but would have been in places like NY and CA. n/t

[slackmaster]

38. Definitely so in California

We call it a '5150' detention based on the section of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

It can be issued by any law enforcement officer, on duty or off (including firefighters and lifeguards), by any doctor, any RN, or any non-administrative employee of a psychiatric facility.

My psycho stalker nurse ex-girlfriend threatened in "jest" to have me committed once. I didn't think it was very funny.

[ingac70]

41. No guns for people with mental problems in Tennessee....

supposedly not for those treated for drug and alcohol problems in the last 5 years, either.

[CottonBear]

35. I wonder why he couldn't have been involuntarily hospitalized for at least the minimum time.

He could have been prescribed medication and been under the direct supervision of a pyschiatrist so that they would know he was taking it. I wonder if his parents or family were informed or involved?

Tragic. :(

[ingac70]

39. If true, he should have been ineligible to purchase hand guns!

The states need to get their heads out of thier asses when it comes to record keeping.

[medeak]

44. any more news on this?

with all the hoopla over the NBC package...haven't heard another word? wonder if the "clerk" was correct?

[happyslug]

62. The Great Debate, how do you encourage the mentally ill to seek treatment?

First, most times the best time to get someone treatment is BEFORE someone's mental illness gets so bad he or she is involuntary committed. When someone is involuntary committed that is after a hearing when a Psychologist or Psychiatrist has testified that the person is a danger to themselves to others. Often this only occurs AFTER something like Virginia Tech happens.

The key is to get people help BEFORE something like Virginia Tech occurs. How do you do that? Society has to encourage people to seek such treatment. One way to encourage people to seek treatment is to make sure someone is NOT punished when he or she seeks treatment. Thus the various laws making sure such treatment is NOT revealed to the general public so that the person seeking treatment is NOT "punished" in any way more than in the fact they are seeking treatment. This is the rationale for NOT providing list of people who seek treatment, even involuntary treatment for the courts what people to seek treatment.

Now, it is possible for someone who is seeking treatment to be involuntary committed after he or she seeks treatment. This happens quite often, the issue is how do you encourage people to still seek treatment knowing they may be forcibly retained? The answer has been to make sure ALL records of mental treatment is kept confidential.

Now, lets look at someone who owns a gun but needs mental help. How do you encourage him or her to seek help, if he or she KNOWS that if he or she seeks help and it is determined that he or her is a risk to himself (or herself) and others he or she would lose his or her right to own a gun? The answer has been to keep the records confidential, thus such gun owners can seek help without risking losing the right to own a gun.

On the other hand can Society leave people with mental illness that can lead to something like VIrginia Tech own weapons? Most people will say no, people with severe mental problems should NOT own weapons. But, such people may NEVER seek help, if they will lose their right to own a gun. If they do not seek help, how can anyone determine if they are a hazard to themselves or others? The answer is no one can.

That is the big debate, how do you encourage people to seek treatment? One way is NOT to punish them if they do seek treatment. If someone seeks treatment and his right to own a gun is taken away is that not "Punishing" him? You may NOT believe so, but many people is need of mental help will view taking their right to own a gun as "Punishment" and as such NOT seek treatment. i.e. given a choice between seeking treatment and losing their gun, their prefer to keep their guns.

Thus the need to balance between the need to encourage people to seek help, and the need to protect society. I personally do NOT have a problem with putting people who have been adjudicated a hazard to themselves or others on the instant check system now in use in the US whenever someone buys a gun. Notice, not just someone who is suffering from a mental problem, but someone who is a true danger to others. I also believe such a ruling MUST meet all of the requirements a conviction of a Felony (i.e. right to a trial, a right to an attorney and the right to have independent Psychologists or Psychiatrists to issue report on the alleged mentally ill person). Thus a mere finding by a Psychologist or Psychiatrist that a person should be committed would NOT be enough, a judge would have to rule. Furthermore you must a system to remove such a person from the data base IF THE PERSON MENTAL HEALTH IMPROVES. You could adopt something like the Rule of Protection from abuse (PFAs), whenever the PFA expires, so does the ban on buying a weapon.

My fear is what will be adopted is a system that strips a person with any mental illness from ever owning a gun. This will PREVENT people from seeking treatment and as such Cause more harm then good. The better system would be a ban on owning guns for a set time period, so that a hunter will realize that the most his right ot hunt with a gun be restricted will be for three or so years (In my Home state of Pennsylvania PFAs can run three years). IF such a rule combined with the right to shorten the time period if Psychologists or Psychiatrists determine the person is no longer a danger to him or herself or others, then you have a balance (Should be tied in with a review at the end of the time period to see if the person is still a danger).

Remember, we have to balance the need to take guns away from people who are a danger to themselves and others AND the need to encourage people to seek treatment. A ban will do both, but a hearing with limits as to time periods will do so.

[AngryOldDem]

73. That's the frustrating thing

Unless they are deemed to be an imminent danger to themselves or others, you can't force people to get help. Sadly, by the time the danger is determined, it's too late.

Many fine lines are brought into distinction here. My question over the past days has been over the discussion about when professors/teachers should alert authorities about "disturbing" papers, etc. Can one's mental state truly be judged by a paper, or a short story, when you don't have the obvious other clues as was the case with Cho?

[Irreverend IX]

67. This should have disqualified him.

There's no need for more regulation; the existing law states that anyone adjudicated mentally incompetent should be denied the purchase of a firearm. The problem clearly lies with getting mental health records into the NICS database.

[brentspeak]

47. Virginia (and some other states') gun-selling rule: Don't ask, don't tell.

[candice]

50. Just take the money and run!

[superconnected]

58. What I don't get is why the insane are so, well, insane.

Why shoot up innocents when we've got actually bad people in the world he could have gone after.

I'm always surpised by people's choice of victims.

The sane people aren't capable of going postal and killing the bad people, and the insane people aren't capable of figuring out who the bad people are.

Meanwhile the bad people get away with, well, murder. Only in the systematic sense that's so much bigger than what this media-whore did.

At least we know his motive, "fame." Again, showing his insanity. Anyone with movites higher and admirable, ie to save the human race from parasites like the bushys, wouldn't be packing a gun in the first place...

[Irreverend IX]

63. There was John Hinckley... nt

[RobinA]

72. Well....

"Good person," "bad person" is a judgment call that a psychotic person is uniquely unsuited to make. I worked in a psychiatric hospital and had a woman sit down beside me and remark in a voice totally without emotion, "I know you killed my sister." Now, I had never even SEEN this woman, she was new on the unit that day. But to her, I was a "bad person." Mr. Cho appears to have had similar judgement difficulties.

[Igel]

59. A judge made that determination, not based on any

evaluation by a professional. It got the detention order *and* the necessary evaluation.

"His insight and judgment are normal." Possibly suicidal, and *that's* what the judge said: and ordered treatment. He got treatment. Later he even got "voluntary" treatment after some urging. The psychologist didn't spot a problem; the school didn't spot a problem--and it was probably illegal for the school and the psychologist to share information without Cho's permission.

As with so many other things, including the Foley business at the Congressional level and the way some abusive faculty in my grad department were handled, everybody's action was proper. The classical definition of a tragedy.

The argument could have been made at the time that people should do more, and had they done more they would have found that doing even more was necessary. The problem is that you can't do more in every situation, resources are limited, so you perform triage. Sometime a general principle--privacy, professorial etiquette, whatever--prevents information from getting to the necessary people. Sometimes you don't pay attention when you don't have to but should, or simply make a mistake because you're human. Only in hindsight do actions become obviously inadequate and insufficient, but by then the harm is done.

The person who did the killings is dead. It's best to try to fix the problems, to the extent possible, but not make somebody else responsible for the murders simply because the perp is dead and there's a need for vengeance or assigning blame.

[Algorem]

61. did his brother have dinner plans with Neil Bush?

[grytpype]

68. HOW THE HELL DID HE GET A GUN THEN?

What are they doing selling guns to people who have been legally declared to be a danger to others????

This is a huge opportunity to gain some ground against the gun industry.

We need a federal law that prohibits selling a gun to a person who has been declared by a court to be a danger to others.

[EFerrari]

74. Because the mentally ill in this country are invisible

until they're not.

And being "a danger" is usually taken to mean at a particular moment, iirc, not forever.