"Rumor" in the aftermath of Va Tech shooting

[Eeyore]

I commented on an article on theatlantic.com that asserted the "experts agree" that increased background checks are the most effective way to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I pointed out that all recent mass shooters had passed (or avoided) a background check. A guy with the username "Smart Adze" took issue with the Viriginia Tech shooter (Cho) having passed the check. He said he'd been "in the community" at the time, and that "rumor had it" that Cho passed the background check because a "gun rights advocate" had blocked Cho's psych flag from being registered in the background check system. Has anybody else ever heard this alleged rumor? Is it really "a thing" or this guy just a dingbat?

I challenged him to provide more details about this rumor, but he just reiterated what he claimed to have heard. So I referred him to the Governor's Report and quoted the causal factors in that report. (Needless to say, a nefarious gun rights activist thwarting the proper functioning of the background check system was conspicuously absent.)

Anyway, this guy's handle should've been "Dumb Adze" because he insisted on arguing about things on which we agreed, ignoring issues about which we differed, didn't know how NICS worked or the different factors that go into it, and kept repeating how he used to be a libertarian until the shock from this tragedy caused him to re-evaluate his beliefs (irrelevant). His ignorance did nothing to dissuade him from having a very strong opinion, and he obviously had to have the last word even though he had nothing useful to add, so eventually I walked away from the exchange. But if, for everyone who read the comments, I managed to debunk the "rumor" about an evil gun rights activist undermining the government, I guess I'll call it a tactical victory.

 

[solus]

first the records per se are sealed.

second, how would the individual's MH enter into the police system if he was treated by 'schools, or outside mental health providers with the privacy laws in place.

second and a half, of course you believe the monday morning quarterbacking the nice LEs do to discern a trail of blame...you can use the governor's report to satisfy the itch you have after a bowel movement.

third, it is they said, OMG really, and off it goes

fourth, want assistance in removing the fish hook you bit on?

ipse

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

"experts agree" that increased background checks are the most effective way to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Whose experts, the Atlantic Monthy's?
What are they expert on?

 

[davidmcbeth]

Our rights are not tied to the lack of the number of mass killings.

They are .. irrelevant.

 

[Grapeshot]

Aaa - the Atlantic monthly is a member of the (inaccurate & inconsistant) media. Nothing else is needed to know.

 

[Eeyore]

Whose experts, the Atlantic Monthy's?
What are they expert on?

You just paraphrased the first sentence of my comments on their website. AFAIK, no one ever answered that.

Solus, as usual, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Stultiloquentia. It appears you are trying to argue the issue of background checks here on OCDO. Why preach to the choir?

So, I'm guessing that no, no one has ever heard this rumor either. I only asked because I've been away from VA since 2008 and thus have been out of the loop on things like this. It appears Dumb Adze is either making things up himself or bit off on some internet hallucination.

Psychologically, I think it's important for people who demand "universal" background checks to blame something, anything, other than the system itself. Otherwise, they'd have to face the fact that government agencies and processes (in which they are placing all their hope) are bureaucracies and thus are inherently flawed. That might lead them to question their beliefs about more government control over everything. And we can't have that now, can we?

 

[solus]

You just paraphrased the first sentence of my comments on their website. AFAIK, no one ever answered that.

Solus, as usual, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Stultiloquentia. It appears you are trying to argue the issue of background checks here on OCDO. Why preach to the choir?

So, I'm guessing that no, no one has ever heard this rumor either. I only asked because I've been away from VA since 2008 and thus have been out of the loop on things like this. It appears Dumb Adze is either making things up himself or bit off on some internet hallucination.

Psychologically, I think it's important for people who demand "universal" background checks to blame something, anything, other than the system itself. Otherwise, they'd have to face the fact that government agencies and processes (in which they are placing all their hope) are bureaucracies and thus are inherently flawed. That might lead them to question their beliefs about more government control over everything. And we can't have that now, can we?

sorry you misunderstood and leaped to the wrong conclusion.

1. your quote: He said he'd been "in the community" at the time, and that "rumor had it" that Cho passed the background check because a "gun rights advocate" had blocked Cho's psych flag from being registered in the background check system. unquote my response: how would the individual's MH enter into the police system if he was treated by 'schools, or outside mental health providers with the privacy laws in place.

2. the second part, Monday quarterbacking is excellent when you spend weeks 'reviewing' what went wrong with the 'system' and of course there will be a small nuance which 'failed' and allowed Cho to be able to purchase a firearm.

added ~ 3. should the university, schools, private MH practitioners send their diagosis to a central repository? hummm, the Aurora shooter's university MH practitioner knew about his active threat and yet said nothing? (BTW so did VA Tech's MH practitioner know about CHO's but said nothing due to university privacy policies.

4. restated...that you bit into the conversation and walked away complaining as well doubted your own knowledge, shows you got bit by the angler's fishhook...so was being polite to offer to remove the fishhook for you.

ipse

 

[Eeyore]

1. You are ignorant/incorrect about the circumstances of Cho's treatment

2. Duh. Preaching to the choir, as previously stated.

3. As Fallschirmjager paraphrased my opening sentence, you just paraphrased the remainder of my argument on theatlantic.com

4. Unwarranted assumptions have led you to an erroneous conclusion

 

[Grapeshot]

1. You are ignorant/incorrect about the circumstances of Cho's treatment

2. Duh. Preaching to the choir, as previously stated.

3. As Fallschirmjager paraphrased my opening sentence, you just paraphrased the remainder of my argument on theatlantic.com

4. Unwarranted assumptions have led you to an erroneous conclusion

Knee jerk reaction.

Some people are blind with their eyes wide open.