RME BrassBootleg Regardless of the debate of guns, who should have them, etc etc, a man is dead because of the actions of another. Perhaps you can tell me who that man is. It can't be Michael Case, the Amtrak conductor who was shot; I haven't heard there was another victim shot by Klein in any of the altercations with Amtrak personnel. And without knowing who is dead, making a post like that in this thread is just inane.
BrassBootleg Regardless of the debate of guns, who should have them, etc etc, a man is dead because of the actions of another.
Perhaps you can tell me who that man is. It can't be Michael Case, the Amtrak conductor who was shot; I haven't heard there was another victim shot by Klein in any of the altercations with Amtrak personnel.
And without knowing who is dead, making a post like that in this thread is just inane.
Oh, oh, I thought he had, my apologies. I misread, my fault on that!
An artist sees the world in colors and patterns. An engineer sees the world in mathematical equations. Both help shape the World and are just as important as the other.
BrassBootlegRegardless of the debate of guns, who should have them, etc etc, a man is dead because of the actions of another.
Regardless of the debate of guns, who should have them, etc etc, a man is dead because of the actions of another.
RMEdefinition of 'psychosis'
There are five symptom domains of psychosis: hallucinations, delusions, disorganized thinking (seen in the form of speech), grossly disorganized or abnormal motor behavior (including catatonia), and negative symptoms. Of these, the ones that should disqualify anyone for gun ownership would be hallucinations and delusions, for reasons that should be obvious to any objective observer. Psychotic symptoms can be seen in various conditions, but the chronic ones such as schizophrenia would be the ones to be noted.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Phoebe Vet ATLANTIC CENTRAL And nothing prevents them from owning cars which can be just as deadly. Not long ago here we had a guy cross the center line of a highway at 75 mph and kill a family so he could commit suicide. Yet there is no great outcry to ban cars? Sheldon Very few people want to "ban guns". Most of us just want more control over who can have them. It makes no sense to say, for example, felons cannot have guns if there is no mechanism to keep you from selling your gun to a felon. A responsible gun owner needs to be responsible for the security and disposition of his weapons as well as his care in their use.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL And nothing prevents them from owning cars which can be just as deadly. Not long ago here we had a guy cross the center line of a highway at 75 mph and kill a family so he could commit suicide. Yet there is no great outcry to ban cars? Sheldon
And nothing prevents them from owning cars which can be just as deadly. Not long ago here we had a guy cross the center line of a highway at 75 mph and kill a family so he could commit suicide. Yet there is no great outcry to ban cars?
Sheldon
Very few people want to "ban guns". Most of us just want more control over who can have them. It makes no sense to say, for example, felons cannot have guns if there is no mechanism to keep you from selling your gun to a felon.
A responsible gun owner needs to be responsible for the security and disposition of his weapons as well as his care in their use.
Again, no disagreement here. I would never sell a gun without going through the legal proceedure. And as described above, most states have laws already, even for gun shows and private sales. Here is the thing, criminals don't follow laws.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
As to Gun shows and private sales, I don't know if it is state or federal law, I just know that it applies to me, in Oregon, sales at gun shows and between private parties are REQUIRED to have a paper trail documenting the sale, including a background check for the buyer, and the serial# of the weapon must be submited and is traced, for possible theft and other reasons.
Oregon, at least has fairly reasonable laws, many bristle at the paper trails and background checks, but on the other side, it is a shall issue state, where unless a person has a legal reason prohibiting the possesion of firearms, state law REQUIRES that an applicant be issued a CCW, after submitting to a background check and having the proper training course documentation. It is not subject to polictical or personal discrimination/bias.
The one area that I feel oregon is a bit lacking in is in out of state CCW reciprocity, we have provisions for out of state people to recieve an Oregon CCW, but the state does not recognize other states CCW's. It is not realistic to expect people to get a CCW from every state. Fortunately many states do offer reciprocity to other states CCW's, and by holding both an Oregon CCW, and a Utah CCW, I am covered in IIRC 30 states, covering most of the states that I am likely to travel to/through.
Vermont, is a very progressive state in the personal protection scenario, in that anyone that is not otherwise prohibited from possesing a firearm, may carry Open or concealed without any permit required. The interesting thing is, Vermont is very liberal in regards to firearms, but you rarely hear of issues there, or think of Vermont in terms comparable tothe "Wild West" that so many claim will happen with more liberal firearm laws. At the same time, it seems the more restrictive the firearm laws are, the more trouble they seem to have, possibly a case of the criminals realizing where the Low Threat, Target Rich enviroments are?
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
RME schlimm the system does not work because folks can cross state lines and buy at "shows" and online. This is strictly a problem with 'private sales'. The whole mandated Federal system of licensed dealers, and mandated delays, paperwork, and other actions involving them, does not apply to a private individual selling his or her 'property' to another, and it is difficult to conceive of any legislation that would control this effectively, particularly with respect to people who are or have been connected with law enforcement in some way or are 'politically connected'. As has been pointed out (by NRA and others) one thing that might work for gun shows is to require any attendees to be checked for 'proscribed' legal status (e.g. felony convictions) before being allowed anywhere they might be able to contact private sellers -- even in the parking lot. It's illegal for felons to even touch a gun, so by the same logic that keeps all teens out of places that serve alcohol, it makes sense to assure felons are kept out of venues that have guns for sale. We could raise the issue of whether targeted prosecution, or conviction for 'political' or statutory felony offenses rather than violent crimes, ought to trigger the same draconian consequences for things like self-defense weapon ownership. But I am not going to do that here. However, I have a question for the expert with distinctive competence in this discussion: precisely what, in statutorily-applicable plain language, constitutes the reliable definition of 'psychosis' that you say disqualifies someone from being allowed to possess a firearm? By extension, what is the legal determination of 'blindness' or other physical geriatric disability that disqualifies someone, who would you propose the law empower to make and document that decision (and what methods of fair appeal, open to everyone and not exploiting special privilege or secret knowledge, would be provided to individuals who might be maliciously, subjectively, or selectively brought under what are essentially confiscation provisions), and perhaps most importantly how do you expect to get the guns out of their possession? It's remarkably easy for private citizens to be subjected to the civil equivalent of extraordinary rendition; just have the cops show up at your door with an arrest warrant erroneously issued for something like a FTA in traffic court where the clerk wrote in the wrong summons number by mistake. Give those officers any problem and watch the deadly force be used, just as if you were already adjudged guilty. Imagine the fun when the nominal purpose of the 'call' is to address what is now 'illegal weapons possession', or the officers in question don't think they need a warrant to come onto private property to enforce a judgment. (Or, as I think would be highly likely for Mr. Klein, and I think perhaps already observed for Mr. Klein in some respects, the officers observe the 'blue line' and quietly advise him he needs to sell those guns, sir, when it's convenient, and leave him with them ... psychotic, blind, Alzheimer's-forgetful, or whatever.) I am frankly surprised that unregulated private sales of handguns are still legal, Second Amendment concerns or otherwise. But I also wouldn't trust a great many agencies or people in government not to use any documentation of gun ownership as an excuse for selective attention or even harassment, and an easy guide for easy coonfiscation, while continuing to take little if any positive action toward the major causes of handgun violence (including violence facilitated in escalation by handgun availability). Fix those things, keep control over all the legitimate criminal acquisition, possession, and use, and then come to me and we can discuss how to start relieving the elderly and infirm of their ability even to wield guns unloaded as a deterrent, and the definitive medical or psychological tests that would authorize that.
schlimm the system does not work because folks can cross state lines and buy at "shows" and online.
This is strictly a problem with 'private sales'. The whole mandated Federal system of licensed dealers, and mandated delays, paperwork, and other actions involving them, does not apply to a private individual selling his or her 'property' to another, and it is difficult to conceive of any legislation that would control this effectively, particularly with respect to people who are or have been connected with law enforcement in some way or are 'politically connected'.
As has been pointed out (by NRA and others) one thing that might work for gun shows is to require any attendees to be checked for 'proscribed' legal status (e.g. felony convictions) before being allowed anywhere they might be able to contact private sellers -- even in the parking lot. It's illegal for felons to even touch a gun, so by the same logic that keeps all teens out of places that serve alcohol, it makes sense to assure felons are kept out of venues that have guns for sale.
We could raise the issue of whether targeted prosecution, or conviction for 'political' or statutory felony offenses rather than violent crimes, ought to trigger the same draconian consequences for things like self-defense weapon ownership. But I am not going to do that here. However, I have a question for the expert with distinctive competence in this discussion: precisely what, in statutorily-applicable plain language, constitutes the reliable definition of 'psychosis' that you say disqualifies someone from being allowed to possess a firearm? By extension, what is the legal determination of 'blindness' or other physical geriatric disability that disqualifies someone, who would you propose the law empower to make and document that decision (and what methods of fair appeal, open to everyone and not exploiting special privilege or secret knowledge, would be provided to individuals who might be maliciously, subjectively, or selectively brought under what are essentially confiscation provisions), and perhaps most importantly how do you expect to get the guns out of their possession?
It's remarkably easy for private citizens to be subjected to the civil equivalent of extraordinary rendition; just have the cops show up at your door with an arrest warrant erroneously issued for something like a FTA in traffic court where the clerk wrote in the wrong summons number by mistake. Give those officers any problem and watch the deadly force be used, just as if you were already adjudged guilty. Imagine the fun when the nominal purpose of the 'call' is to address what is now 'illegal weapons possession', or the officers in question don't think they need a warrant to come onto private property to enforce a judgment. (Or, as I think would be highly likely for Mr. Klein, and I think perhaps already observed for Mr. Klein in some respects, the officers observe the 'blue line' and quietly advise him he needs to sell those guns, sir, when it's convenient, and leave him with them ... psychotic, blind, Alzheimer's-forgetful, or whatever.)
I am frankly surprised that unregulated private sales of handguns are still legal, Second Amendment concerns or otherwise. But I also wouldn't trust a great many agencies or people in government not to use any documentation of gun ownership as an excuse for selective attention or even harassment, and an easy guide for easy coonfiscation, while continuing to take little if any positive action toward the major causes of handgun violence (including violence facilitated in escalation by handgun availability). Fix those things, keep control over all the legitimate criminal acquisition, possession, and use, and then come to me and we can discuss how to start relieving the elderly and infirm of their ability even to wield guns unloaded as a deterrent, and the definitive medical or psychological tests that would authorize that.
Again, thank you, great response.
I am frankly surprised that unregulated private sales of handguns are still legal, Second Amendment concerns or otherwise. But I also wouldn't trust a great many agencies or people in government not to use any documentation of gun ownership as an excuse for selective attention or even harassment, and an easy guide for easy confiscation, while continuing to take little if any positive action toward the major causes of handgun violence (including violence facilitated in escalation by handgun availability). Fix those things, keep control over all the legitimate criminal acquisition, possession, and use, and then come to me and we can discuss how to start relieving the elderly and infirm of their ability even to wield guns unloaded as a deterrent, and the definitive medical or psychological tests that would authorize that.
Electroliner 1935I would like clarification as to what " THREE POINT PROTECTION" is. I think the engineer needs to set the Brakes, remove the reverser or in some manner assure that the throttle can't be operated (field switch off?) and something else.
See this previous thread on the subject which contains much of the history.
Classic 'three step protection' as I understood it:
(1) apply full independent brake plus a 20lb trainline reduction of the automatic, and wait for the blow to completely stop;
(2) generator field de-energized;
(3) reverser centered, preferably handle removed.
Nominally the 'protection' only applies to cars still connected to the engine; the 20# reduction is to ensure even subsequently-uncoupled cars won't move, and the reason to wait for the blow to finish is so that no effect of closing an angle cock 'in the meantime' can cause a pressure excursion that could cause an automatic-brake release.
Just as with the Ten Commandments, different organizations have different formal listings, and with Amtrak the three steps are apparently different (they don't drop the generator field, but disable HEP energization as the last step, so it is safe for carmen to touch or manipulate the cables when working between cars.)
Some people claim that the 'third step' is the verbal notice on the radio that 'three step protection is enabled' or 'disabled'. I suspect that will be true on some roads, and I expect some of our railroaders will have stories about this subject. If I were writing the procedure I would have the radio acknowledgement include the actual steps taken first, and only then say 'three step protection enabled' or whatever, to remove any ambiguity about just what steps constituted three.
schlimm ATLANTIC CENTRAL schlimm ATLANTIC CENTRAL schlimm I said "ideally." I am under no illusion that some sensible regulation of gun ownership will happen in this polarized, ideological climate. So the psychotic, senile demented and blind will go on buying guns and causing mayhem. And drunks and druggies will keep driving cars and do way more harm than guns.....but prohibition did not work either. Perhaps you do not understand a simple statement. Not ban guns; prevent the senile and mentally ill from owning. Get the difference? Yes, and I agree. For the most part most States already have such laws. The trick is enforcement without undue burden on others or abuse of power - read what RME wrote above, he has more time than me. Same problem with drunk driving. Most states do not and the system does not work because folks can cross state lines and buy at "shows" and online. I suggest you reread RME more carefully.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL schlimm ATLANTIC CENTRAL schlimm I said "ideally." I am under no illusion that some sensible regulation of gun ownership will happen in this polarized, ideological climate. So the psychotic, senile demented and blind will go on buying guns and causing mayhem. And drunks and druggies will keep driving cars and do way more harm than guns.....but prohibition did not work either. Perhaps you do not understand a simple statement. Not ban guns; prevent the senile and mentally ill from owning. Get the difference? Yes, and I agree. For the most part most States already have such laws. The trick is enforcement without undue burden on others or abuse of power - read what RME wrote above, he has more time than me. Same problem with drunk driving.
schlimm ATLANTIC CENTRAL schlimm I said "ideally." I am under no illusion that some sensible regulation of gun ownership will happen in this polarized, ideological climate. So the psychotic, senile demented and blind will go on buying guns and causing mayhem. And drunks and druggies will keep driving cars and do way more harm than guns.....but prohibition did not work either. Perhaps you do not understand a simple statement. Not ban guns; prevent the senile and mentally ill from owning. Get the difference?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL schlimm I said "ideally." I am under no illusion that some sensible regulation of gun ownership will happen in this polarized, ideological climate. So the psychotic, senile demented and blind will go on buying guns and causing mayhem. And drunks and druggies will keep driving cars and do way more harm than guns.....but prohibition did not work either.
schlimm I said "ideally." I am under no illusion that some sensible regulation of gun ownership will happen in this polarized, ideological climate. So the psychotic, senile demented and blind will go on buying guns and causing mayhem.
I said "ideally." I am under no illusion that some sensible regulation of gun ownership will happen in this polarized, ideological climate. So the psychotic, senile demented and blind will go on buying guns and causing mayhem.
And drunks and druggies will keep driving cars and do way more harm than guns.....but prohibition did not work either.
Perhaps you do not understand a simple statement. Not ban guns; prevent the senile and mentally ill from owning. Get the difference?
Yes, and I agree. For the most part most States already have such laws. The trick is enforcement without undue burden on others or abuse of power - read what RME wrote above, he has more time than me.
Same problem with drunk driving.
Most states do not and the system does not work because folks can cross state lines and buy at "shows" and online. I suggest you reread RME more carefully.
I don't know about other states, but in Oregon, for me to buy a firearm from out of state, I have to have it shipped to a FFL (Federal Firearm License) shop, and go through a background check to recieve it. You can not just buy firearms on line and have them shipped to your house like shoes,CD's whatever, it simply doesn't work that way.
And YES, most states DO have such laws, regarding mental illlness, and according to the report that I read, Mr. Klein had, had his CCW revoked by the state of Wisconsin, so he should not have had a concealed weapon on him.
We arrived Naperville on #4 on Thursday and got off the train and when my ride picked us up, she told me about the incident. As the story has been the victom of bad "journalism" what I have deduced from various sources is that the man who was ticketed to a connecting train at Chicago was impeded from leaving the AMTRAK train, and this is my assumpumption, the conductor closed the cars door behind him and the shooter then shot through the superliner doors open window at the conductor. He could not have shot him from a Metra train as it would have been on the North track and #4 would have been on the South track with its doors on the South side meaning the Amtrak car would be between the Metra train and the conductor.
It is impossible to defend against a mentally ill person. And damm near impossible to convince a court to restrict a persons civil rights until it is glaringly obvious.
Also, when we left Los Angeles on #4 (16) we stopped at Fullerton and watched as police, fire, and EMT's arrived. An announcement came over the PA that they were removing a stowaway. Very shortly after the firemen and the EMT's arrived, we saw them return and leave. After about twenty minutes, the train departed and we saw four policemen talking to a young (20-30 yrs). man. Our train was ferrying two engines and a deadhead sleeper to La Junta CO, for use in qualifying crews between La Junta and Pueblo CO. The stowaway hab been riding on the front of the deadhead sleeper (the ledge under the upper level vestible) and directly behind the last locomotive.
I would like clarification as to what " THREE POINT PROTECTION" is. I think the engineer needs to set the Brakes, remove the reverser or in some manor, assure that the throttle can't be operated (field switch off?) and something else. I heard a trainman ask whether 3 point protection was activated before he went to reconnect the HEP cables after our road power returned from setting off the La Junta equipment.
You mean to tell me that senility, mental illness, delusional and dementia medical conditions DO NOT preclude owning firearms?
Wazzamattaforyou guys? You mean to tell me you cannot reconcile your 2nd amendment with those conditions but you can put a man on the moon? Simple doctors note- no guns for this guy, all firearms removed from their possession. Something stinks.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAnd drunks and druggies will keep driving cars and do way more harm than guns.....but prohibition did not work either.
The red herrings are beautiful this time of year.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Yes, I was still editing my thoughts....
"blow and go lite" - But I don't drink at all, why should I pay? in any way,shape or form?
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I actually support better screening, but the levels you are suggesting are paramount [I think you mean 'tantamount'] to putting a blow and go on every car to prevent drunk driving.
Actually, a better analogy (for driving) might be something done in a number of states now: a mandatory 'retest' every few years for drivers over a particular age to confirm they still meet the criteria for a driver's license. In my opinion this isn't something that 'a doctor's note' or mail-in form can do effectively: it needs to be done at State level, using the same equipment and techniques used to assess new drivers, and involve at least some version of road-testing or simulation to confirm the ability to drive as well as physical abilities. How often this needs to be done is the same kind of issue schlimm raised for firearms: some older people may lose capacity relatively quickly and without advance warning, while others may reach advanced age without material loss of ability ... or apparent ability. (There is also the manipulation of any system of periodic retest as a means of tacit control or abuse, which I'll take up again in a bit.) Only a fair and equitable test can determine if a particular individual is still 'capable' by due-process-legitimized standards, and I think it is fair even to 'spot-check' for this -- just not selectively by 'profiling' or as an excuse...
Personally, I think having a 'breathalyzer lite' on the steering wheel for every driver who drinks alcohol is a perfectly reasonable thing to mandate; it is certainly a better approach than, say, attempting to pass responsibility for 'impaired driving' onto hosts or bar owners. I also have no particular 'rights' issue requiring the devices for underage or probationary drivers (whose rights are already impaired, sometimes in insulting ways) to the extent that alcohol consumption 'illegally' by underaged drivers is actually a demonstrable cause of accidents. (My own view of the thing is that the device should be 'personal' and act like a computer dongle or smart-key interlock, but imagine the fun getting new cars standardized and old cars equipped...)
The slippery-slope problem, of course, is that ultimately most or all vehicles come to have the blow 'n go on them, and Federal law mandates severe penalties if tampered with, and the devices have to be expensively replaced any time they fail, whether or not the driver drinks. It is not likely our current system of adversarial, coercive government could implement this either effectively or fairly, but they certainly can implement it on any social groups that can be cost-effectively coerced...
... and then you get the issue of the driver with a stroke or heart attack who can't start his car to get help, or drivers with COPD whose health is endangered by the puffing, and we're off to exciting tort land again.
With respect to periodic firearms recertification: it's similar issues that are the problem. Whether or not you agree with the NRA over creeping Government encroachment on the Second Amendment, there is little question in my mind that 'recertification' would become a political excuse for one-step-removed gun confiscation (schlimm says it's a 'separate issue' but what would any sane person think the next law-enforcement step would be if a person is "adjudged" incompetent to use firearms they control? mandatory Stellite plugs and breech welding to make them incapable of firing, at owner expense?). Watch as the criteria get selectively imposed, and different groups selectively monitored for the 'reviews' and subsequent action. If there were a way to make and enforce truly fair and equitable standards for 'incapacity to own a gun' and we had governments immune to the temptations of political expediency, I would be all for the idea. But we live in a world where governments have gotten to the point they think it's a real nifty idea to confiscate driver's licences from 'deadbeat dads', which is far over the line from any rational use of licensing for a legitimate purpose; I would not trust such a group of people with establishing, let alone administering, something as sensitive as periodic 'gun-fitness' testing.
There is certainly a middle ground - at least some forms of carry permits, for example, ought to require elements of the kind of tests schlimm proposes at any time they are renewed -- and a sliding scale of renewal based on age might be just as 'justifiable' here as for driver's licenses. There is a nominal Second Amendment issue here as well, but I don't see 'infringement' in the testing for appropriate 'well-regulation' of ability to use weapons effectively.
Would the testing schlimm proposes have made a difference in this particular case? I'd still bet that the individual in question would not have been 'unarmed' in the time and place of the incident, regardless of the "laws" nominally applicable to the general population. And fixing that is likely to be a whole lot harder than, say, imposing special tests on flood victims or the ordinary elderly.
schlimm RME schlimm Under current practice in most states, there is nothing (with much certainty) to prevent a seriously mentally ill person from owning a gun. That is the problem. No, the "problem" in this case is that a former Federal law-enforcement officer shot at someone. Are you claiming with a straight face that any present or prospective 'gun control' legislation would be applied to that person? That his fellow officers would forcibly confiscate his firearms even if he were nominally adjudicated mentally defective or whatever? In Chicago??? Yes, ideally there should be extensive background checks every three years for ownership. This would include (at least) severe mental illnesses (anything with psychosis), some physical illnesses, blindness, drug and alcohol abuse, and felony convictions. Confiscation? Different issue.
RME schlimm Under current practice in most states, there is nothing (with much certainty) to prevent a seriously mentally ill person from owning a gun. That is the problem. No, the "problem" in this case is that a former Federal law-enforcement officer shot at someone. Are you claiming with a straight face that any present or prospective 'gun control' legislation would be applied to that person? That his fellow officers would forcibly confiscate his firearms even if he were nominally adjudicated mentally defective or whatever? In Chicago???
Yes, ideally there should be extensive background checks every three years for ownership. This would include (at least) severe mental illnesses (anything with psychosis), some physical illnesses, blindness, drug and alcohol abuse, and felony convictions.
Confiscation? Different issue.
I actually support better screening, but the levels you are suggesting are tantamount to putting a blow and go on every car to prevent drunk driving. On any topic, the good people should not be punished in advance for the sins of a few.
Which in fact is a very few considering the large number of legal gun owners who have never committed a serious crime, let alone a gun crime and the relatively few people who do commit gun crimes.
That is effectively a ban and/or it negates the presumption of innocence.
Just let the good people shoot back, the problem will get smaller from a number of directions........
I have an idea, if you have a violent felony rap sheet, and you get shot dead, by a cop or your "friends in the hood", we don't count you in the murder stats........then look at the murder rates in Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago........
And then we should look closer at the times when guns stopped trageties from being worse, Like the Appalachian School of Law shooting in 2002 where reporters would not report that the gunman was stopped by two armed students......
RMEschlimm Under current practice in most states, there is nothing (with much certainty) to prevent a seriously mentally ill person from owning a gun. That is the problem. No, the "problem" in this case is that a former Federal law-enforcement officer shot at someone. Are you claiming with a straight face that any present or prospective 'gun control' legislation would be applied to that person? That his fellow officers would forcibly confiscate his firearms even if he were nominally adjudicated mentally defective or whatever? In Chicago???
ATLANTIC CENTRAL schlimm petitnj Some pretty silly comments from Amtrak, Metra and the police. "Highly unusual" -- god I hope so. Amtrak is increasing police presence -- guy wasn't riding an Amtrak train. You could have 100 police on board and that wouldn't stop this sort of thing. "Guns are not allowed" -- nor is bank robbery -- has that stopped it? Please someone admit that this is another failure of the mental health system. I bet the perpetrator has had numberous run in with the police and the psychiatric system. Nothing has helped. He looked out the window, saw a uniformed officer and took a shot to keep the officer from taking him off the train. Sorry to be so coarse, but at some point we are going to have to learn how to treat these people -- or continue this charade of arresting the really sick folks after they have done something like this. Amtrak's answer will be to add more police. Will have absolutely no effect on these instances. Under current practice in most states, there is nothing (with much certainty) to prevent a seriously mentally ill person from owning a gun. That is the problem. And nothing prevents them from owning cars which can be just as deadly. Not long ago here we had a guy cross the center line of a highway at 75 mph and kill a family so he could commit suicide. Yet there is no great outcry to ban cars? Sheldon
schlimm petitnj Some pretty silly comments from Amtrak, Metra and the police. "Highly unusual" -- god I hope so. Amtrak is increasing police presence -- guy wasn't riding an Amtrak train. You could have 100 police on board and that wouldn't stop this sort of thing. "Guns are not allowed" -- nor is bank robbery -- has that stopped it? Please someone admit that this is another failure of the mental health system. I bet the perpetrator has had numberous run in with the police and the psychiatric system. Nothing has helped. He looked out the window, saw a uniformed officer and took a shot to keep the officer from taking him off the train. Sorry to be so coarse, but at some point we are going to have to learn how to treat these people -- or continue this charade of arresting the really sick folks after they have done something like this. Amtrak's answer will be to add more police. Will have absolutely no effect on these instances. Under current practice in most states, there is nothing (with much certainty) to prevent a seriously mentally ill person from owning a gun. That is the problem.
petitnj Some pretty silly comments from Amtrak, Metra and the police. "Highly unusual" -- god I hope so. Amtrak is increasing police presence -- guy wasn't riding an Amtrak train. You could have 100 police on board and that wouldn't stop this sort of thing. "Guns are not allowed" -- nor is bank robbery -- has that stopped it? Please someone admit that this is another failure of the mental health system. I bet the perpetrator has had numberous run in with the police and the psychiatric system. Nothing has helped. He looked out the window, saw a uniformed officer and took a shot to keep the officer from taking him off the train. Sorry to be so coarse, but at some point we are going to have to learn how to treat these people -- or continue this charade of arresting the really sick folks after they have done something like this. Amtrak's answer will be to add more police. Will have absolutely no effect on these instances.
Some pretty silly comments from Amtrak, Metra and the police. "Highly unusual" -- god I hope so. Amtrak is increasing police presence -- guy wasn't riding an Amtrak train. You could have 100 police on board and that wouldn't stop this sort of thing. "Guns are not allowed" -- nor is bank robbery -- has that stopped it? Please someone admit that this is another failure of the mental health system. I bet the perpetrator has had numberous run in with the police and the psychiatric system. Nothing has helped. He looked out the window, saw a uniformed officer and took a shot to keep the officer from taking him off the train.
Sorry to be so coarse, but at some point we are going to have to learn how to treat these people -- or continue this charade of arresting the really sick folks after they have done something like this.
Amtrak's answer will be to add more police. Will have absolutely no effect on these instances.
Under current practice in most states, there is nothing (with much certainty) to prevent a seriously mentally ill person from owning a gun. That is the problem.
If you could let your bias go for a second, you would have seen I was talking about restrictions on ownership, not banning guns.
schlimmUnder current practice in most states, there is nothing (with much certainty) to prevent a seriously mentally ill person from owning a gun. That is the problem.
No, the "problem" in this case is that a former Federal law-enforcement officer shot at someone. Are you claiming with a straight face that any present or prospective 'gun control' legislation would be applied to that person? That his fellow officers would forcibly confiscate his firearms even if he were nominally adjudicated mentally defective or whatever? In Chicago???
Personally, yes, I think there should be restrictions on the ability of people with some mental-illness concerns to access firearms -- in fact, I would argue this applies even to the merely suicidal. I have no objection to waiting periods, or objective background checks, and even some kinds of statutory exceptions to Second Amendment rights. My personal opinion is that one of the best arguments about an unrestricted interpretation of the Second Amendment can often be found by looking at many of the people in gun stores. But very little of that applies in this case, and I would be interested in a professional opinion of how that particular class of person could be effectively 'gun controlled' under a fair system.
So, the news is that the alledged perpetrator is a 79 year old retired Federal law enforcement officer. He seems to have lost contact with reality.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/naperville-sun/news/ct-nvs-amtrak-shooting-charges-0520-20170519-story.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.