What law would have prevented the AZ shooting? - Page 5

youngunz4life · January 11, 2011, 09:28 PM

its tragic and a little ironic because in AZ people can legally CCW now without a permit. Maybe the law just hadn't been kicked in long enough yet.

johnbt · January 11, 2011, 09:34 PM

"Sorta like the nut cases get a 'freebie', as they can't be stopped until after they do something,"

It's the same law that applies to you and me.

Being odd is no crime. Being weird is no crime. You have to do something. If he threatened people then maybe something should have been done. Maybe it was. Even so, he wouldn't have been locked up forever, a short stay at best.

He was just one of many in every city and town and dusty crossroads. You can't predict which one will lose it today, this month or next year. It only looks easy after something happens.

And psychiatric medications are a hit and miss for psychoses and personality disorders, a trial and error sort of thing that doesn't work about as often as it does, although maybe I'm seeing more of the folks it doesn't work for. Sure, they help people some, for awhile, but long term, I'm not encouraged.

But being mentally ill is not a crime and 99%+ of the mentally ill are NOT dangerous to anybody but their own state of mind. It's a miserable existance to suffer doubts and worries and anxiety all the time. But it's not a crime until you do something.

Eghad · January 11, 2011, 09:38 PM

There is already a law on the books that would have taken care of this. Yet the shooter had several run ins with the law and from reading the statements folks knew he had mental health issues. Yet nothing ever happened. There was nothing on the books to keep him from purchasing a firearm.

He would still be entitled to due process to prove that he was not mentally unsound.

If you passed a law barring anyone from owning a firearm because of the potential of using it in a crime existed that would work.

Or we could pass a law that anyone ever seeing a counselor or having mental health treatment or taking drugs for stress could never own a firearm.

Are you willing to have a law like this passed so that this never happens again?

I am not. Freedom is not something that comes with a bad things will never happen guarantee. The people wanting laws like those will say they guarantee your safety if you help pass those laws. Which is a false premise.

**Tom Servo** · January 11, 2011, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Being odd is no crime. Being weird is no crime.

...which is why I can still buy guns!

Quote:

Or we could pass a law that anyone ever seeing a counselor or having mental health treatment or taking drugs for stress could never own a firearm.

This is the possibility that worries me.

I know some folks who've been through some pretty harrowing stuff involving substance abuse. Some of them have gotten better through psychiatric intervention and 12-step programs. They're exemplary members of society now. I shoot with a few.

If we passed a law like the one you describe, would they perhaps think twice before seeking treatment? They might, if getting better means bearing a legal stigma.

armoredman · January 11, 2011, 09:57 PM

Don't forget many of the drugs used for stop-smoking efforts are also psych meds...

**Tom Servo** · January 11, 2011, 10:09 PM

Heck, caffeine is a psychotropic substance.

sixgun67 · January 12, 2011, 12:52 PM

Johnbt, don't get me wrong. I'm aware that this is the process that we must follow, and mostly is a just process. I'm not complaining, it simply can be frustrating as the devil that LE must always be one step behind. As stated, there is no way of knowing when/if a person goes over the edge. I have no insight whatever as to what changes could/should/should not be made, that may have an impact on these kinds of cases.
sixgun

Musketeer · January 12, 2011, 03:06 PM

McCarthy (D, NY) is already pushing a hi cap mag ban. Guns are her only issue so I am not surprised.

King (R, NY) is pushing banning weapons within 1,000 ft of a politician. This is a real threat as King has horsepower in the new congress and the law is flat out stupid. If I am outside the building where a politician is I would be breakin the law.

T. Roosevelt stated that the risk of being shot is part of the job of beige a politician. He said that after they dug a would be assassin's bullet out of his chest (which he did not allow until after completing his speech). I'm not saying assassins should be given a pass but I am saying their existence is somethig which cannot be legislated out of existence and laws like King's only widen the gap between the "privileged class" of politicians and the plebeians. That sort of class separation is one item which helps to drive the assassin.

nate45 · January 12, 2011, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musketeer

King (R, NY) is pushing banning weapons within 1,000 ft of a politician.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard.

Aren't we all just certain that if King's politician safety law were in place, the AZ shooting would have never happened. Heck, if they would have enacted it in 1961 JFK would probably still be alive.

The whole array of idiocy in aftermath this, is like a bad Twilight Zone episode.

egor20 · January 12, 2011, 05:42 PM

King (R, NY) is pushing banning weapons within 1,000 ft of a politician. This is a real threat as King has horsepower in the new congress and the law is flat out stupid. If I am outside the building where a politician is I would be breakin the law.

This will be very interesting, at what level of politician? My County Commissioner has his house across the road from me (within 1,000 feet) one of our Assemblywomen boards her horses with me. Now will this be Federal, State, County or Local elected politicians? Will the Congressional Representative from Utah that has stated he will now start CCWing again, be arrested for having lunch with a locally elected politician from his district, and if the local is CCWing will he/she be arrested?

Damn slippery slope.......

Glenn E. Meyer · January 12, 2011, 05:46 PM

Bye, bye Peter - from the news tickers:

A spokesman for Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) told The Hill later in the day that the new House speaker will oppose the legislation.

--- Oh, the horror.

jimpeel · January 12, 2011, 06:50 PM

I am allergic to Thalium. When I tell nurses during per exam interviews they usually say "Valium?" and I have to correct them.

In May 2010 I was in the hospital and when I got out I read the paperwork for the stay and it said I was allergic to Thalidomide! Thalidomide is used for mental disorders and is the medication that caused the deformation of babies in the 60's/70's.

I had to go to the hospital records unit and tell them, in writing, that I needed the record changed. I do not want my name associated with any psychotropic drug. That could be a reason for firearms denial.

Single Six · January 12, 2011, 07:31 PM

I can tell you with all certainty that no law will stop a criminal from getting his hands on a gun. Criminals have a habit of disregarding our laws, which is why we call them "criminals". I base this opinion not on some article I read, but on 21 years of full-time LE experience. This particular nutcase, as I understand it, obtained his gun legally, but still....any law they pass in the typical liberal knee-jerk reaction to this incident will only hamper honest people.

jimbob86 · January 12, 2011, 07:53 PM

Quote:

This particular nutcase, as I understand it, obtained his gun legally,

Is there not a question on the form 4473 you fill out when buying a gun about drug use, "including marijauna"? Didn't this guy's friends say he was a pot-head? If that was the case, and he checked the "No" box, he lied/falsified the affadavit, ....... he did NOT purchase that gun legally.

Brian Pfleuger · January 12, 2011, 07:59 PM

The point though, is that he went through legal channels. The system failed.

He bought the gun "legally". He lied, which made it technically illegal, but he bought it through legal channels.

Besides that, can you imagine how many people smoke pot and buy firearms?

Not that I support illicit drug use, but that question is asinine. No one is ever going to say yes. No one will ever know the difference, one way or the other.

JerryM · January 12, 2011, 08:54 PM

Quote:
An quicker end might have been in the AZ shooting had an armed citizen been close by.

Actually, there was an armed citizen next door. By the time he'd realized what was happening, the shooter was being restrained. This took place very quickly, and with no advance notice.

Wrong forum for this, but I've been hearing from armchair commandos about it all day. I sincerely doubt any of us, under the circumstances, would have been much help.

Loughner wasn't without his share of issues, but nothing he did was enough to put him on the radar. He hadn't been convicted of anything. Like it or not, he was able to pass a NICS check in November.

Imagine expanding the disqualifiers to include those who'd simply been adjudicated mentally defective by a school official, a boss, or their peers. Such a thing would be a blatant denial of due process.

Keep expanding the definition of "mentally defective" far enough, and we'll have a situation in which people with any documented history of depression or substance abuse would be disqualified. Worse yet, many folks who might get a true benefit from a simple outpatient program or talk therapy would think twice about such things if it meant bearing a lifetime stigma.

This is nothing but a cheap way of capitalizing on a terrible tragedy for the sake of political gain, and I don't see it gaining any meaningful support.
End Quote

Somewhere I read why the CHL holder did not attempt to use his gun. Is there post on this somewhere? Thanks.

I must admit that the thought of shooting in such a crowd makes me consider the problem of over-penetration.

Regards,
Jerry

jimbob86 · January 12, 2011, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Loughner wasn't without his share of issues, but nothing he did was enough to put him on the radar. He hadn't been convicted of anything.

Hard to convict a man when the Sheriff's Dept. won't arrest him because his mom is a Parks employee....... as I understand it, he had communicated death threats, yet was not arrested, let alone charged. As I said before, I think something's rotten down Pima County way.........

nate45 · January 12, 2011, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob86

I think something's rotten down Pima County way.........

Well, they are certainly not helping to dissuade our suspicions.

Arizona shooting: Pima County Sheriff's Department, college won't release data on suspect

Sheriff's Department and community-college officials in Pima County are refusing to release a wide range of public documents about the man charged in Saturday's shooting rampage that left six dead and more than a dozen wounded.

silvrjeepr · January 12, 2011, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXAZ

Actually, It's very unlikely you'd ever have this type activity in North Korea. Their set of laws, severe restrictions on weapons outside the military and the ruling elite, and the fear induced by the administration of the harsh punishments that invariable follow, which sometimes involve family and friends who should have known / alerted authorities, has a pretty effective track record.

Short of that, I'd agree with bighoss and egor.

Maybe that's where Ms. McCarthy is headed. Is she any relationship to Joe?

The fact that no one in North Korea would be able to even think of reporting such an event probably has as much to do with their track record as anything else...

**Tom Servo** · January 12, 2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Somewhere I read why the CHL holder did not attempt to use his gun. Is there post on this somewhere? Thanks.

He did several interviews. His name is Joseph Zamudio, and he helped restrain Loughner. He apparently had his hand on the gun at first, but did not see that it was feasible to use it.

Given the circumstances, it sounds like he made a good call and did all that was possible.

youngunz4life · January 12, 2011, 10:59 PM

I don't know the details, but I wish he could've fired a couple shots in the ground or done something? I can't judge him not knowing exactly what happened+the circumstances he faced, but thats a lot of shooting to just stand by without drawing. In the end this man had to do what he felt was best, but thats got to be ringing in his mind after the fact.

**Tom Servo** · January 12, 2011, 11:12 PM

Quote:

I can't judge him not knowing exactly what happened+the circumstances he faced, but thats a lot of shooting to just stand by without drawing.

He had only seconds to:

Ascertain that what he was actually hearing were gunshots,
positively identify the threat, and
evaluate the backstop.

Consider carefully that last part. It might entail shooting into a crowd of innocent bystanders.

There's a lot more to using a gun in defense than just having it. A lot more.

egor20 · January 12, 2011, 11:26 PM

I don't know the details, but I wish he could've fired a couple shots in the ground or done something?

He did something, he evaluated the situation and decided to holster his pistol. A lot of us on this forum understand his restraint, but you will never hear it from the mainstream news organizations.

Just imagine if he had fired a couple of bullets into the ground (not sure if the ground was grass, concrete or asphalt) and hit a bystander or even a person holding the BG on the ground?

The man made the right decision

smleno1mkIII · January 12, 2011, 11:38 PM

I really hope they don't reintroduce the assault weapons ban. Even if It were in place It wouldn't have stopped this psycho there is still what are called pre ban magazines that loghtner could have obtained if he wanted them bad enough they just would have cost more, the only way there stupid ideas would work is if they forced us to give up all are hi cap magazines an forbid even the pre ban ones from being sold and made it a crime to own one but the only way that would ever jive is if they were to replace our hi cap mags with the ten rounders or they would have riots one there hands with ****** off gun owners rolling over cars and such because they took away our expensive magazines and in this day and age who can afford to buy new ones in the current economy yeah I could see some people getting quite angry with no mags for there guns. but were not that communist or fascist are we I don't think they would go that far. but maybe I'm wrong

Webleymkv · January 12, 2011, 11:57 PM

Well, from what I know about the situation, it seems to me that if the local law enforcement and/or those who knew him would have acted, he wouldn't have been able to get the gun in the first place. I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that making death threats crosses the line from harmless eccentricity to "danger to himself or others". The Sheriff's department knew about the death threats, yet they did nothing. Also, those who knew him describe him as a frequent marijuana user. Had his drug use been reported and any action taken about it, he likely would not have been able to buy a gun. So, it seems to me that the problem isn't a lack of legislation, but rather a failure to act within the current laws.

January 11, 2011, 09:28 PM	#101
youngunz4life Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2010 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,877	its tragic and a little ironic because in AZ people can legally CCW now without a permit. Maybe the law just hadn't been kicked in long enough yet. __________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

January 11, 2011, 09:38 PM	#103
Eghad Senior Member Join Date: May 28, 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 6,231	There is already a law on the books that would have taken care of this. Yet the shooter had several run ins with the law and from reading the statements folks knew he had mental health issues. Yet nothing ever happened. There was nothing on the books to keep him from purchasing a firearm. He would still be entitled to due process to prove that he was not mentally unsound. If you passed a law barring anyone from owning a firearm because of the potential of using it in a crime existed that would work. Or we could pass a law that anyone ever seeing a counselor or having mental health treatment or taking drugs for stress could never own a firearm. Are you willing to have a law like this passed so that this never happens again? I am not. Freedom is not something that comes with a bad things will never happen guarantee. The people wanting laws like those will say they guarantee your safety if you help pass those laws. Which is a false premise. __________________ Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member Last edited by Eghad; January 11, 2011 at 09:43 PM.

January 11, 2011, 10:09 PM	#106
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	Heck, caffeine is a psychotropic substance. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

January 12, 2011, 03:06 PM	#108
Musketeer Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2005 Posts: 3,733	McCarthy (D, NY) is already pushing a hi cap mag ban. Guns are her only issue so I am not surprised. King (R, NY) is pushing banning weapons within 1,000 ft of a politician. This is a real threat as King has horsepower in the new congress and the law is flat out stupid. If I am outside the building where a politician is I would be breakin the law. T. Roosevelt stated that the risk of being shot is part of the job of beige a politician. He said that after they dug a would be assassin's bullet out of his chest (which he did not allow until after completing his speech). I'm not saying assassins should be given a pass but I am saying their existence is somethig which cannot be legislated out of existence and laws like King's only widen the gap between the "privileged class" of politicians and the plebeians. That sort of class separation is one item which helps to drive the assassin. __________________ "Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

January 12, 2011, 05:42 PM	#110
egor20 Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 2010 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,824	King (R, NY) is pushing banning weapons within 1,000 ft of a politician. This is a real threat as King has horsepower in the new congress and the law is flat out stupid. If I am outside the building where a politician is I would be breakin the law. This will be very interesting, at what level of politician? My County Commissioner has his house across the road from me (within 1,000 feet) one of our Assemblywomen boards her horses with me. Now will this be Federal, State, County or Local elected politicians? Will the Congressional Representative from Utah that has stated he will now start CCWing again, be arrested for having lunch with a locally elected politician from his district, and if the local is CCWing will he/she be arrested? Damn slippery slope....... __________________ Chief stall mucker and grain chef Country don't mean dumb. Steven King. The Stand

January 11, 2011, 09:34 PM	#102
johnbt Senior Member Join Date: December 6, 1999 Location: Richmond, Virginia USA Posts: 6,004	"Sorta like the nut cases get a 'freebie', as they can't be stopped until after they do something," It's the same law that applies to you and me. Being odd is no crime. Being weird is no crime. You have to do something. If he threatened people then maybe something should have been done. Maybe it was. Even so, he wouldn't have been locked up forever, a short stay at best. He was just one of many in every city and town and dusty crossroads. You can't predict which one will lose it today, this month or next year. It only looks easy after something happens. And psychiatric medications are a hit and miss for psychoses and personality disorders, a trial and error sort of thing that doesn't work about as often as it does, although maybe I'm seeing more of the folks it doesn't work for. Sure, they help people some, for awhile, but long term, I'm not encouraged. But being mentally ill is not a crime and 99%+ of the mentally ill are NOT dangerous to anybody but their own state of mind. It's a miserable existance to suffer doubts and worries and anxiety all the time. But it's not a crime until you do something.

January 11, 2011, 09:57 PM	#105
armoredman Senior Member Join Date: May 22, 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 5,299	Don't forget many of the drugs used for stop-smoking efforts are also psych meds...

January 12, 2011, 12:52 PM	#107
sixgun67 Senior Member Join Date: October 27, 2009 Location: New Philadelphia, Oh Posts: 238	Johnbt, don't get me wrong. I'm aware that this is the process that we must follow, and mostly is a just process. I'm not complaining, it simply can be frustrating as the devil that LE must always be one step behind. As stated, there is no way of knowing when/if a person goes over the edge. I have no insight whatever as to what changes could/should/should not be made, that may have an impact on these kinds of cases. sixgun

January 12, 2011, 05:46 PM	#111
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Bye, bye Peter - from the news tickers: A spokesman for Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) told The Hill later in the day that the new House speaker will oppose the legislation. --- Oh, the horror. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 12, 2011, 06:50 PM	#112
jimpeel Senior Member Join Date: October 11, 1999 Location: Longmont, CO, USA Posts: 4,530	I am allergic to Thalium. When I tell nurses during per exam interviews they usually say "Valium?" and I have to correct them. In May 2010 I was in the hospital and when I got out I read the paperwork for the stay and it said I was allergic to Thalidomide! Thalidomide is used for mental disorders and is the medication that caused the deformation of babies in the 60's/70's. I had to go to the hospital records unit and tell them, in writing, that I needed the record changed. I do not want my name associated with any psychotropic drug. That could be a reason for firearms denial. __________________ Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm. "Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare "Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed" -- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey

January 12, 2011, 07:31 PM	#113
Single Six Senior Member Join Date: January 31, 2010 Location: N.C. Posts: 1,522	I can tell you with all certainty that no law will stop a criminal from getting his hands on a gun. Criminals have a habit of disregarding our laws, which is why we call them "criminals". I base this opinion not on some article I read, but on 21 years of full-time LE experience. This particular nutcase, as I understand it, obtained his gun legally, but still....any law they pass in the typical liberal knee-jerk reaction to this incident will only hamper honest people.

January 12, 2011, 07:59 PM	#115
Brian Pfleuger Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 25, 2008 Location: Austin, CO Posts: 19,578	The point though, is that he went through legal channels. The system failed. He bought the gun "legally". He lied, which made it technically illegal, but he bought it through legal channels. Besides that, can you imagine how many people smoke pot and buy firearms? Not that I support illicit drug use, but that question is asinine. No one is ever going to say yes. No one will ever know the difference, one way or the other. __________________ Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley

January 12, 2011, 08:54 PM	#116
JerryM Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 1999 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,889	Quote: An quicker end might have been in the AZ shooting had an armed citizen been close by. Actually, there was an armed citizen next door. By the time he'd realized what was happening, the shooter was being restrained. This took place very quickly, and with no advance notice. Wrong forum for this, but I've been hearing from armchair commandos about it all day. I sincerely doubt any of us, under the circumstances, would have been much help. Loughner wasn't without his share of issues, but nothing he did was enough to put him on the radar. He hadn't been convicted of anything. Like it or not, he was able to pass a NICS check in November. Imagine expanding the disqualifiers to include those who'd simply been adjudicated mentally defective by a school official, a boss, or their peers. Such a thing would be a blatant denial of due process. Keep expanding the definition of "mentally defective" far enough, and we'll have a situation in which people with any documented history of depression or substance abuse would be disqualified. Worse yet, many folks who might get a true benefit from a simple outpatient program or talk therapy would think twice about such things if it meant bearing a lifetime stigma. This is nothing but a cheap way of capitalizing on a terrible tragedy for the sake of political gain, and I don't see it gaining any meaningful support. End Quote Somewhere I read why the CHL holder did not attempt to use his gun. Is there post on this somewhere? Thanks. I must admit that the thought of shooting in such a crowd makes me consider the problem of over-penetration. Regards, Jerry __________________ Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

January 12, 2011, 10:59 PM	#121
youngunz4life Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2010 Location: United States of America Posts: 1,877	I don't know the details, but I wish he could've fired a couple shots in the ground or done something? I can't judge him not knowing exactly what happened+the circumstances he faced, but thats a lot of shooting to just stand by without drawing. In the end this man had to do what he felt was best, but thats got to be ringing in his mind after the fact. __________________ "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864

January 12, 2011, 11:26 PM	#123
egor20 Senior Member Join Date: November 14, 2010 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 1,824	youngunz4life I don't know the details, but I wish he could've fired a couple shots in the ground or done something? He did something, he evaluated the situation and decided to holster his pistol. A lot of us on this forum understand his restraint, but you will never hear it from the mainstream news organizations. Just imagine if he had fired a couple of bullets into the ground (not sure if the ground was grass, concrete or asphalt) and hit a bystander or even a person holding the BG on the ground? The man made the right decision __________________ Chief stall mucker and grain chef Country don't mean dumb. Steven King. The Stand

January 12, 2011, 11:38 PM	#124
smleno1mkIII Senior Member Join Date: November 5, 2009 Location: washington state Posts: 176	I really hope they don't reintroduce the assault weapons ban. Even if It were in place It wouldn't have stopped this psycho there is still what are called pre ban magazines that loghtner could have obtained if he wanted them bad enough they just would have cost more, the only way there stupid ideas would work is if they forced us to give up all are hi cap magazines an forbid even the pre ban ones from being sold and made it a crime to own one but the only way that would ever jive is if they were to replace our hi cap mags with the ten rounders or they would have riots one there hands with ****** off gun owners rolling over cars and such because they took away our expensive magazines and in this day and age who can afford to buy new ones in the current economy yeah I could see some people getting quite angry with no mags for there guns. but were not that communist or fascist are we I don't think they would go that far. but maybe I'm wrong

January 12, 2011, 11:57 PM	#125
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	Well, from what I know about the situation, it seems to me that if the local law enforcement and/or those who knew him would have acted, he wouldn't have been able to get the gun in the first place. I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that making death threats crosses the line from harmless eccentricity to "danger to himself or others". The Sheriff's department knew about the death threats, yet they did nothing. Also, those who knew him describe him as a frequent marijuana user. Had his drug use been reported and any action taken about it, he likely would not have been able to buy a gun. So, it seems to me that the problem isn't a lack of legislation, but rather a failure to act within the current laws.