Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Perhaps the sight or feel of firearms triggers latent psychosis in some people.....Perhaps the possession of a weapons enhances delusions of grandeur and invincibility? Whatever, crazy people with guns create problems that sane people with guns cannot cure or prevent.
Yes, the killer is clearly responsible but don't forget for a second the role society has played in this nightmare.
We both know Seattle is an extremely safe city for its size.
and getting sicker.
expect the mayhem and carnage and chaos to increase.
at an increasing tempo.
murder in the streets.
remorseless slaughter of the unborn.
waystops on the descent.....
As for the gang problems, drug legalization, as well as free and abundant access to birth control - including paying people to get vasectomies and tubal ligations - would work wonders.
But the conservatives would block any of these initiatives, preferring to use Jesus as an excuse for their cheapness.
in fact, the underclass should be paid to abort their filthy illegitimate spawn.
of course, that would continue to thin the already thinning ranks of "Liberals" but, well,... don't you just love it when a plan falls together?...
Q. What constitutes a mental illness that prevents a person from buying a gun? — Demo NYC, New York
A. Under federal law, anyone who has been formally committed to a mental health facility or adjudicated as a “mental defective” is disqualified from buying and possessing firearms.
The first prong is fairly self-explanatory, describing people who have been hospitalized by court order. The second is a little more complicated. It describes someone who has been designated by some legal authority — usually a court, but it also could be a board or commission — to be a danger to himself or others, or to lack the mental capacity to manage his or her own affairs. It also describes people found by a court to be incompetent to stand trial, or found in a criminal case to be insane.
In other words, the fact that a psychiatrist has given someone a diagnosis of mental illness does not, by itself, bar that person from having a gun. Some sort of legal adjudication is required.
That, in fact, is one reason Jared Loughner, the suspect in the Tucson shootings, was not prohibited from buying firearms, despite having some serious mental health issues.
Complicating matters a bit, some states have set their own slightly different mental health criteria for firearms prohibitions. For example, in California, anyone who has been placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold for 72 hours in which they have been deemed a threat to themselves or others is barred from having a gun for five years. Virginia bars people who have been the subject of a temporary detention order and who voluntarily agree to inpatient treatment.
Q. How does a gun dealer know that a person has been adjudicated “mentally defective”? In other words, do the federal and state laws that prohibit mental defectives from purchasing firearms actually prevent mental defectives from purchasing firearms? — Rupert, Alabama
A. This is the whole point of the F.B.I.’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which contains information on prohibited firearms purchasers. In some states, firearms dealers contact the NICS call center directly; in others, the checks are handled by state agencies. The problem is a lot of states still do not share their mental health adjudications with the NICS. The reasons include privacy issues, technological challenges and just inattention from state officials. That was what the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, passed after the Virginia Tech shootings, was meant to address, giving money to states to improve its sharing of records, including mental health ones. Since the passage of the act, record sharing has improved, but there are still serious gaps. Even with states that are now sharing their mental health records with the NICS, they might not have uploaded older records of people who have been committed or adjudicated as mentally ill or incapacitated.
in this particular case i think it relevant to remind you that the prize was awarded as a result of his reportage on a senseless violent crime that was in a large part a result of of the same factors that seem to have been in play here. different particulars , of course, but similar in significant ways, and with deadlier results. you want immediate context and perspective ? reread that piece.
At this point, Diaz doesnt need to be demoted, he needs to be fired.
Seattle is still a very safe place to live, statistically.
Are you kidding me?