beefsupreme | Aug. 9, 2012 at 4:50 p.m. (report)

I think if I was ever in a situation like this, I would prefer it if someone could return fire before the police arrive. Call me crazy.

captain | Aug. 7, 2012 at 11:04 a.m. (report)

People say Criminals will find a way to get their guns. The problem is this guy WAS NOT a criminal. All you Gun Lovers must be compensating for something else that is lacking in your life. Some testosterone-based logic to "protect my castle". Give me a break! Peace.

fetlarpo | Aug. 6, 2012 at 8:51 p.m. (report)

Every day a person Dave Begel's age defends themselves from a subject that wants to hurt them or steal their property, Dave if you want to ban rocket launchers for citizens so be it, but who will stand for the defenseless when subjects rape or burgularize. We all know the police don't arrive in time to stop a rapist from penetrating an innocent victim.

garymke | Aug. 6, 2012 at 5:38 p.m. (report)

This was an unfortunate and tragic event for the victims and their families. The author and all posters have the right to their opinions. We have the right to free speech but also the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, there are some lunatics out there that may decide to bear arms when they want to make a statement. People don't think before they act. If people want to be real, then make the legal system move swiftly and decisively, and have some real consequences (eye for an eye type stuff). It may have an effect as a deterent, but I still don't think that would do much in cases like this. While I disagree with Dave's 'take', he has a right to his opinion. The handful of nut-jobs doing something like this is not a reason to ban guns - and wouldn't do much to stop these types of incidents anyway. There are plenty of guns and ammo available, and criminals are going to get their hands on guns and commit crimes regardless of what the laws are. They don't care about laws.

realMKEgal | Aug. 6, 2012 at 3:37 p.m. (report)

idle: "how would you keep guns from all these freaks who never broke the law prior to their "spectacle" crimes?"
Same way I'd keep cars (or alcohol) away from all the people who drive drunk & kill people, before they've actually committed a crime.

"since there is no central registry of the mentally ill"
Thank goodness! Would you want your medical records in some centralized government data bank? Bear in mind all the security breeches of various banks, gov't agencies, etc., then re-think your answer.
The social stigma of seeing a counselor or taking medicine to control a brain disease is bad enough. Imagine how many untreated, potentially dangerous, people we'd have on the streets if they knew they'd end up in a gov't database for seeing a doctor.
_That_ is a scary thought.

If we're going to prevent people from having self-defense tools based on their medical diagnosis & possible future actions (rather than their _actual_ crime), I think we should prohibit epileptics, narcoleptics, & anyone with a seizure disorder or neuromuscular disorder, because you never know when they'll lose control of their bodies, & that could be dangerous if they're holding a gun. Never mind if they're taking medicine, or a doctor says they're fine, they haven't had a seizure in years. Nope, once broken, always broken.

"any criminally insane person can buy as much fire power as he/she wants"
Wrong. Someone who's been adjudicated mentally incompetent, or found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity, is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition. It's a federal law. Laws stop crime, right?

"they aren't classified as criminally insane until legally adjudicated as such in a court of law"
Right.
Remember the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
The State can't punish someone for a crime they haven't committed (or at least, that they haven't been found guilty of in a court, which is sometimes a different thing).