Guns in the hands of the mentally troubled
In response to my earlier post on the subject, S. writes:
Liz, I live in a rural area, have done so all my life. I have farm animals and they, in turn, attract predators. I grew up with guns, in fact my mother gave me a .22 rifle for my 14th birthday. It would be the most natural thing in the world for me to own a .22 for predator control. But I do not, for the same reason you do not. I believe it would be totally irresponsible of me to increase my suicide risk by allowing myself easy access to a gun. My "right" to do so ends where my responsibility to my loved ones begin. With my history, well, it's just not a good idea to put a gun in my hands. Thank you for this posting. I'm sure it took some courage.
And thanks to you, S., for doing the same (though I'm not using your name just in case you don't feel comfortable exposing yourself in this way. I'll append your name and email if you like).
UPDATE: From the Associated Press: "The gunman was identified as an English major whose creative writing was so disturbing that he was referred to the school's counseling service. ... News reports also said that he may have been taking medication for depression, [and] that he was becoming increasingly violent and erratic."
Comments
Call me nuts, but I think access to guns ought to be severely restricted even for "normal" people. From all of my life experiences, I think most people are not as rational as they believe themselves to be, and are much more likely to act in imitation of others than to think things through. Many other countries in the world don't allow most people to so casually and easily buy themselves guns, and they almost all have much lower rates of violent crime.
Lots of different things can be used for violence, but almost nothing else rivals a gun for enabling such large-scale, sudden carnage. Last night on the radio I heard a commentator say that the constitutional right to bear arms was actually a "provisional right", rather than an absolute one. The Second Amendment begins with the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...", meaning that the right is for those who are members of a well-regulated militia that exists to ensure the general security of the country, not just for anybody.
That's just my feeling. I don't like to see a group singled out more than necessary. And I agree with the person who asked "What did we do to deserve such a president?"
Posted by: Kent | April 17, 2007 03:51 PM
Guns stink. In the hands of the mentally unstable or the mentally stable. Guns stink. Period.
Posted by: sc | April 17, 2007 04:38 PM
Now, I'm no fan of deer. I like bunnies and turkeys and pheasant in the wild, but deer are a terrible nuisance. And, since they eat tasty corn, their flesh is as good as beef. Therefore, it stands to reason that some people should be qualified to kill deer (and dress and eat them) before the deer kill us while jumping across roads.
Having said that, I don't think that any person on meds and was stable would want to own any kind of firearm, knowing what damage firearms are capable of doing. If meds or the lack of them make you feel really, really sleepy, might they not have a different effect on another day?
We used to license people to marry to ensure they didn't have syphilis. Couldn't we consider asking the legislature to issue gun permits only to people who had a "certificate of fitness to carry" from a family physician? And I'm not talking psychiatrist! Just a doctor who has treated the prospective licensee for a year or more. The licensee could also be grandfathered in by virtue of continuous holding of a hunting license.
I don't want to penalize hunters. I do want to protect people from their own actions - and maybe get assault weapons off the street. But that's another story.
Posted by: John M. | April 19, 2007 01:39 AM