Less than a year after a court-ordered stay at a state mental hospital, David Otto Gluth Jr. went gun shopping.The article goes on to explain that although the federal law is clear, the practice in gun-friendly Alabama is to report only those mental patience that have had a history of gun misuse. I'm sure the NRA and gun-rights advocates support this.
His involuntary commitment in 2008 to Searcy Hospital in Mount Vernon made him ineligible under federal law to have a gun.
The instant background check run by the Bass Pro Shops store in Spanish Fort failed to flag Gluth, however, because Alabama reports only a tiny fraction of mental health commitments to a national database.
Gluth walked out of the sporting goods store Oct. 19 with a shotgun, a rifle and a pistol.
Federal authorities and gun control advocates contend that thousands of potentially unstable mental patients have easy access to guns because Alabama's reporting law is so narrow.
Gluth, 42, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and served 18 years in the Army, rising to the rank of major.
He was treated for post-traumatic stress disorder at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and a psychiatrist who attended to him at the AltaPointe Health System in Mobile wrote that Gluth might suffer from bipolar disorder with psychotic features, narcissistic personality traits and a "psychotic disorder not otherwise specified."
What's your opinion? Should Maj. Gluth get a pass because he'd graduated from West Point? There's no information about his military record, but what if he'd been a bona fide war hero? Would that make a difference? Or should all mental patience who've been involuntarily committed forfeit their right to own guns?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
"Should Maj. Gluth get a pass because he'd graduated from West Point?"
ReplyDeleteNo.
"There's no information about his military record, but what if he'd been a bona fide war hero? Would that make a difference?"
No.
Like i've said before, anyone who can't be trusted to own a gun, can't be trusted to walk around free.
Conversely, if someone is trusted enough to walk around free, then they are trusted enough to own a gun.
This goes for criminals and mental patients.
With that in mind, since he was deemed safe enough to walk around in free society, He should be allowed to own a gun.
I think one of the biggest mistakes this country made was the closing of state hospitals. While the conditions weren't the greatest, they did keep dangerous people off the streets and as a result we enjoyed lower violent crime rates and a much higher degree of freedom.
They should lose their rights, but only until they are cleared by a psyciatrist that they are no longer a threat.
ReplyDelete"Like i've said before, anyone who can't be trusted to own a gun, can't be trusted to walk around free."
ReplyDeleteAztec shows his authoritarian side better than I can.
Thus, per Aztec's rule, the mentally retarded ought to be incarcerated. Senile people and those suffering from Alzheimer's go to the hoosegow. And think of all the folks who are alcoholics, substance abusers, etc.
Aztec's vision makes the gulag look like DisneyWorld.
--JadeGold
"He was treated for post-traumatic stress disorder at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and a psychiatrist who attended to him at the AltaPointe Health System in Mobile wrote that Gluth might suffer from bipolar disorder with psychotic features, narcissistic personality traits and a "psychotic disorder not otherwise specified.""
ReplyDeleteSounds a bit like Major Hassan.
If he's on a laundry list of anti-pyschotic and other drugs that make him feel lousy he might decide to quit taking them--an all too frequent occurrence amongst folks in his situation--and then what? If he's "psychotic" and therefor not really safe to be on his own, without strictly ahering to his med schedules and doses, then he's still "free" but I certainly don't want someone who might start hearing voices that urge him to acts of violence to be armed with an assortment of firearms.
AztecRedthe average deinstitutionalised person roaming the streets is usually homeless. The only real problem they cause is that they block the sidewalks and haunt public places. Additionally, they may use alcohol or drugs to self-medicate.
ReplyDeleteAlso, there is a propensity in the US to jail the mentally ill:
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/mentally_ill/
Either way, you willing to pony up the tax money to institutionalise these folks?
Of course if he starts hearing voices and decides to act on them via violence he's a lethal threat to you (and everyone else) regardless of whether he can legally own firearms or not.
ReplyDeleteNRA acquiesced to a law after the Virginia Tech Shootings that required states to report this information as a condition of federal funding, so Alabama will soon need to comply with that and begin reporting.
ReplyDeleteNRA took a lot of heat for that, and I defending them, because it also gave us a lot of positive things in return, for something that was really already federal law.
So it's not fair to say we don't support the states reporting this information. We do.
We need a middle ground between "so crazy you can never have a gun for the rest of your life" and "no problem". There are some mental problems that should restrict gun possession, but aren't permanent or incurable. It should probably be a bit easier to lose gun rights temporarily due to mental instability, but harder to lose them forever.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that anyone who is unsafe to have a gun is unsafe, period. Across the street is a mentally handicapped man--I'm guessing that he hasn't been officially diagnosed, since he has a driver's license. He gets very upset and emotional about fairly small things, sometimes screeching about them.
He appears to be safe enough to be "at large". I'm not so sure he should be driving, and I'm certain that he should not have a gun.
"Of course if he starts hearing voices and decides to act on them via violence he's a lethal threat to you (and everyone else) regardless of whether he can legally own firearms or not."
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, certainly. I think that a guy who wants to kill people will make much more of a mess if he hacks them to death or bludgeons them with a rock than if he just shoots nice round holes in them with that TAP round that you are so fond of using in your AR-15 with the 30 round magazine. Of course he might NOT be able to kill 32 people before he is subdued, rendered unconcious or killed by some brave soul with a gun, a chair, a length of garden hose, a trash can, some other near to hand household tool or their bare hands.
Yep, by all means, don't interfere with that delusional person's rights to own and use whatever firearms he can get his hands on.
"Thus, per Aztec's rule, the mentally retarded ought to be incarcerated. Senile people and those suffering from Alzheimer's go to the hoosegow. And think of all the folks who are alcoholics, substance abusers, etc."
ReplyDeleteIf they don't have a keeper or custodian, then i'm all for it.
"Either way, you willing to pony up the tax money to institutionalise these folks?"
ReplyDeleteYes. Jails are one of the few things I don't mind paying higher taxes for. The more dangerous people we take off the streets, the fewer freedoms I have to give up for "public safety".
Sevesteen's middle ground sounds good to me. Although it would be hard to organize, each case should be judged independently. Naturally, I'd say we need to fault in the direction of denying permission to borderline cases.
ReplyDeleteAztecRed, You actually say the mentally retarded and senile who don't have custodians should be locked up? And you also complain about the terrible bigotry you poor gun owners have to endure?
ReplyDeleteApparently Democommie has never heard of fire or explosives.
ReplyDeleteWe need a middle ground between "so crazy you can never have a gun for the rest of your life.
If someone is so crazy they can't be trusted with a firearm for the rest of their life then they should not be trusted to freely re-enter society.
"AztecRed, You actually say the mentally retarded and senile who don't have custodians should be locked up? And you also complain about the terrible bigotry you poor gun owners have to endure?"
ReplyDeleteWould you let a child live on their own without a guardian? No. Of course you wouldn't. In fact, we have laws against leaving children alone.
So why should an adult who is no more competent than a child be exempt from those laws?
It's funny how gun controllers such as yourself crow on and on about public safety when it comes to taking dangerous weapons off the streets, but become apathetic, if not downright offended when it's proposed that dangerous people be taken off the streets.
C'mon AztecRed, admit when you're wrong and back off. It will do wonders for your credibility on the other issues.
ReplyDeleteYou originally said we should lock up anyone who could not be trusted with a gun. That would include many who pose no threat, harmless people, with various ailments, some of which do not require "custodians."
mikey:
ReplyDelete"Apparently Democommie has never heard of fire or explosives."
I know you are just WAY too smart for an old duffer like me, but yeah, I actually do know about fire and explosives and rat poison and an array of easily procured and highly lethal agents that can be purchased at the hardware store or supermarket.
That being said, the number of idiots who have gone on murder sprees in this country who have done so with weapons other than a gun, in the last several decades is small, or nonexistent. This does not, of course include those folks like Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy and other serial killers who did their killings one at a time, often in the privacy of their own homes.
What do you think, are the odds of Major Hasan being able to kill over a dozen people at Fort Hood, if had had to rely on an edge weapon, bludgeon or some other weapon than a gun?
That being said, the number of idiots who have gone on murder sprees in this country who have done so with weapons other than a gun, in the last several decades is small, or nonexistent.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet the worst school massacre in U.S. history was committed without the use of guns.
Interesting that the spree shootings have happened in the past few decades, but were almost unheard of back when people had guns in their trucks at school, could bring them in for show & tell, and could buy them at the local hardware store or through the mail without a background check.
Using anti-gunner "logic" that means gun control actually CAUSES such shootings to occur.
Major Hassan's spree shooting happened in one of your vaunted "gun free zones"
ReplyDeleteA shining example of the effectiveness of gun bans no doubt!
What a great resource!
ReplyDeletemikey:
ReplyDeleteI will say one thing for you, you're consistent. Consistently blind to the fact that something other than unfettered access to firearms might be a reason that there weren't the sorts of mass killings that have occured since whatever golden age of guns you are referencing. But then, I suppose for a guy like you, whose toolbox is his holster or gunrack, every problem has a bullseye on it.
Which school massacere are you speaking of that used no guns?
"Major Hassan's spree shooting happened in one of your vaunted "gun free zones"
Not one of MY "gun free zones" schmuck. I don't concern myself with the military's regulation of firearms on military reservations.
I was in the military for four years. The only people who carried weapons on the three bases (two in Germany and HQ SAC in the U.S.) where I was stationed were the military police, except in one instance where army troops were deploying to the mid-east during one of the Israeli-Arab boilovers--amd they were required to unload their weapons while on the airbase. I worked in the airbase individual; equipment unit which also was the base armory. No AF personnel who owned handguns were allowed to keep them in their own quarters if they lived on base (I actually can't remember the policy re: people who lived off the airbase). If they wanted to use their gun for target shooting they came and signed it out and returned it when they were done with whatever activity they were engaged in. I never saw any rifles or shotguns in the armory that were not military issue.