The question is not "Who didn't see it coming?" but rather whata could they have done about it if they did?

Thank you for that update. I wonder just how 'voluntary' voluntary is? What was he told in order to convince him to stay 'voluntarily'? Fear of jail? When will he be informed that he only faces a misdemeaner count before he 'unvolunteer'?

Voluntarily means that he and the doctor can make the discharge decision without going through a judge. Had he required them to keep him involuntarily, it would have required a judge to release him.

I have.

Like it or not. This man has not broken any laws aside from misuse of a telephone. Unless he can be convicted of a felony, He has every right to own guns.

I think the guy made a bad choice, and he should pay or that within the limits of the current law.

Chris, While I am not sure I agree that Frank is twisting words--words are important, I do agree with you that we need a meaningful conversation about how to stop this kind of thing from happening BEFORE someone gets killed. People who exhibit this kind of behavior to others are letting people know that something is wrong with them. We have a society full of people who think it is ok to verbally bully and threaten people because there is no law against it. This is what happens when those people lose control. Where is the stop valve between the "legal" threats and the illegal assaults? I wish I knew.

Yes. The patch headline was "25 guns thousands of rounds". I think everyone was caught up in the moment after Colorado.

I tink that some of it can be attributed to inaccurate information in the early hours, but there are many"news" outlets with an agenda and that was evident from the sensationalism.

Thankfully PG County has a prosecutor that is concerned with the law and not with a lynch-mob mentality. Let's hope she gets re-elected.

The guy in Colorado sent a letter.

I am still interested in teh 'real' agenda of Pitney Bose. It is starting to look more and more like a ploy to avoid unemployment benefits or a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Anyone giving odds?

Where does a staunch defender on the right to bear arms stand on the right of people who have anger problems, alcohol or drug problems, or just like to go around threatening to kill people even family members they are angry with. That is not normal behavior, and certainly doesn't fit into the category of bearing arms for protection. I believe in being able to defend your family, but how do we keep those arms out of the hands of abusers if their "threatening" behavior is not against the law? There is a very fine line there.

Please define "anger problems" ? Who gets to decide that?

Also what is included in "alcohol problems"?

We have laws. Anyone convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor (sentenced to 2 or more years) is prevented from obtaining a firearm.

crimes like this, are born from some kind of hostility or anger, as a start before any shooting , When anger becomes so severe it shows in violent verbal outbursts, that is an anger problem. If alcohol is a contibuting factor to escalating angry feelings into verbal threats, that is an alcohol or a drug problem. Usually there are friends or family who have seen such behavior taking place in some way BEFORE it gets to the point of making major threats of mass violence. When the escalation begins, that is the time to be concerned BEFORE it all breaks loose. My issue is how to determine when people have crossed the line from being defenders of rights to violating rights when there is no law against the behavior that is escalating but not over the legal limit. No charges have been filed because the technical law has been broken, but many times friends and family see trouble brewing long before it boils. We have laws which require the investigation of suspected child abuse, but not for investigating suspected anger escalation in gun owners. I don't know what the answer is, but somehow we need to get to the problem BEFORE it boils over. It seems to me that the military just discharges problems into the public sector even when the known discharge reasons exhibit some some signs of violent behavior. We train our military to be defenders using firearms and tactics, but in some cases the line shifts in the brain. There is no one set of circumstances to fit all.

So it's the fault of the military? How does that explain the Colorado shooter, Gabby Giffords shooter. Neither was military.

It will be wrong to prevent gun ownership based on a friends observations. Too much room for abuse there. That would be like arresting someone because they go to a bar a lot and they might drive intoxicated. Unfortunately, our system is not perfect and never will be.

There is no one size fits all. Every case will have different roots but there has to be some similiarities that will help identify problematic cases before they become tragedies. If family or friends see warning signs, what can they do now to head off something before someone gets killed or hurt. If the reporting standardss are set too high, tragedy has to occur before anything can be done. I am the mother of an adult daughter who was killed by a jealous boyfriend 10 years ago next month. I know not all gun owners are murders, but I also know that not every gun owner is a responsible person using guns for defense or sport only. How do people bring problems in the making to light before tragedies occur if "the right to bear arms" is seen as an inalienable to everyone until they kill or maim? There is no "one size fits all" for gun owners either. I am searching for solutions to a very real problem, not a fight over guns.

I am not experienced in using this kind of blog or any kind at all. I apologize if my comments are not in order or if I have posted a comment to the wrong person. I have no agenda against anyone because I think this is society's problem to deal with. i respect both sides of the gun ownership issue.

Mary, some people shoot for sport. You use different calibers of gun for different things. So, to answer your question yes some people do need multiple guns. The young lady from the USA that just won a gold medal in trap shooting I'm sure owns several guns and possesses masses of amunition. Put limits on guns and amunition for anyone and it will affect everyone involved.

Ditto on Tom Hope's comment. It's pretty easy for hunters and competitive shooters to end up with multiple firearms and quite a bit of ammunition in pursuing their sports, even if their actual goal isn't to "amass an arsenal" per se. There's a wide variety of competitive shooting events for various types of firearms, for everything from high-powered rifles, though large/small caliber handguns, and even muzzleloaders. Most folks who enjoy competitive shooting don't restrict themselves to just one aspect of the sport. Also, when it comes to hunting, one firearm does not fit all. I wouldn't use my squirrel rifle to hunt bear any more than I would use my trout rod to fish for tuna.

There is a difference between what is necessary and what is legal. Why not put a limit on the number of stamps you can collect? Or cars? Or motorcyles (Mr. Jay Leno)?

Who are you to decide what items someone should be prohibited from colelcting?

Lots of reasons. One reason is many people look at them as investments. The stock market and housing prices have gone bust the last several years, but the price of guns have gone up. Especially fully automatic ones. Think of them as another option for a 401k. Besides, different guns have different uses. Sort of like tools.

I don't understand why people argue need in these cases. My wife collects all sorts of things that I don't see any practical use. Like beanie babies, remember those? She thought they were going to put our kids through college. I don't get judgmental about it, I just figure she has a different outlook on things than I do.

@Tran
Would you want the law to restrict how much food or the number of cars you can have? Cars kill more than guns. Just a thought before you push for more gun regulation.

According to figures compiled in 2007 (i.e. 5 years ago), there were 270 million legally-owned firearms in civilian hands in the United States. The total US population as of 2012 is about 313 million people. The US has the highest per capita civilian gun ownership of any nation in the world -- not too far shy of one firearm for every man, woman and child in the country (and these are only the legally owned ones). Now, when you seriously look at that ratio of gun ownership, then do your homework and find that, in 2009 (latest reliable figures I could find), there were fewer than 3 firearms homicides for every 100,000 people in the US, then there is only one reasonable conclusion: Despite the stereotypes, the continuous media hype, and the political posturing, the overwhelming majority of American gun owners are exercising a commendable level of responsibility with their firearms.

Yes, according to Alsobrooks, it has to do with the length of sentence tied to the case.

Wow. Good info. I thought it was limited to felonies and domestic violence cases.

This case aside, it seems rather harsh that someone could forever be barred from owning a gun for annoying someone on the telephone.