What law would have prevented the AZ shooting? - Page 3

Philo · January 10, 2011, 12:04 PM

Anti-gun legislation does not work. Look at Chicago as a perfect example of this. By their nature, criminals and nut jobs don't care about laws. More laws will just inhibit the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Glenn E. Meyer · January 10, 2011, 12:34 PM

Yep, it's clear from the literature that all the current laws have not affected crime rates. Thus, at the professional meetings you see:

a. Don't need more laws - they wouldn't work. The protection issue is cited. The more extreme protection claims are technically criticized but few deny that protection does occur.

b. The laws weren't strict enough. They have to be nation-wide with confiscations, etc. Protection doesn't really happen or the level is not enough to justify the level of gun crimes we have.

It's rather ideological. Many folks can't conceive of protecting themselves or worry about the victims of the guns. Most of the country is in favor of guns that allow protection but want reasonable mechanisms to stop the flow of guns to criminals and mentally deficient. Reasonable is the key word.

So if you ask should people be allowed to own guns for protection - most say Yes. Should there be gun control (unspecified) but allowing access for law abiding folks - most say Yes.

BlueTrain · January 10, 2011, 12:38 PM

There was in fact many years ago in which a man blew up a school building. It just happened to occur at about the same time that Lindburgh flew the Atlantic, so the news sort of got pushed to the back pages, there being no instant news at the time. However, the explosives that were used were easily obtained at the time and the authorities quietly made them more difficult to get.

LinuxHack3r · January 10, 2011, 01:37 PM

Not to get totally off subject, but once a kid was "stabbed" with a small Swiss Army knife at my school, nothing major, a few stitches and was good to go. In my Economics class, we were asked what we thought would have prevented it. I wholeheartedly answered:

I think they should just make it against the rules (illegal) to stab people on school property. The teacher answered "It already is". Well, and I said this, "a lot of good that did".

I think they should just make it ILLEGAL to use ANYTHING to kill ANY NONCOMBATANT PERSON.

Oh wait:/

But you already know this, but the stories and words the news agencies are using are scaring the hell out of me. Take a gun into a school and shootup everyone, it's accepted. Have a. Military man shoot up a military base, sad but overlooked. Shoot a politician.....all hell comes down on our whole community. The treading being down right now is very dark indeed.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Glenn E. Meyer · January 10, 2011, 01:46 PM

Oh, come on - not to be rude but this isn't reality but just getting in a tizzy.

Columbine and VT have generated tremendous impacts on all kinds of things. As did the Ft. Hood shooting. This is the day after a horrible event, so there is a lot of foaming at the mouth by every so-called expert on every side of the political spectrum.

Keep it real. We closed the last AZ thread for ranting and silliness. This is a big hint.

The question is Laws - and we want reasoned opinion!

LinuxHack3r · January 10, 2011, 01:47 PM

Well I answered that in my post:

I believe no reasonable and constitutional laws would have prevented the shooting.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

thallub · January 10, 2011, 02:03 PM

Quote:

There was in fact many years ago in which a man blew up a school building. It just happened to occur at about the same time that Lindburgh flew the Atlantic, so the news sort of got pushed to the back pages, there being no instant news at the time. However, the explosives that were used were easily obtained at the time and the authorities quietly made them more difficult to get.

It was the Bath school disaster. It could have been much worse: A second cache of explosives under that school did not detonate. It was fairly easy to buy dynamite until the late 1970s.

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.an...e/disaster.htm

No law will deter a deranged ideologue bent on murder.

huchahuchax · January 10, 2011, 03:10 PM

I'll agree that there really is nothing you can do. Having purchased more than my fair share of firearms, it seems to me that even though this kid passed the background check to purchase his hand gun, he clearly lied on his paperwork, thus obtained the gun illegally. I know it does not count for much, but of course that will never make it into the media's account of the story.

BlueTrain · January 10, 2011, 03:10 PM

So what should be illegal, then?

jimbob86 · January 10, 2011, 03:16 PM

Quote:

So what should be illegal, then?

How about making more laws w/o proving that the existing laws are being fully enforced? That should be illegal.

Musketeer · January 10, 2011, 03:18 PM

Quote:

So some of you folks are suggesting that secrecy is a solution to some of these problems? You could probably find some good advisors from Germany or North Korea, maybe even China (a preferred trading partner). In other words, we just keep these things hushed up.

Sorry but you are not seeing the problem. A great many of these mass murderers carry out their attacks specifically because they have seen the "immortality" that was gained but the nuts who have gone before them. I saw the Virginia Tech shooter's picture on the cover of a book yesterday at Borders and know that:

1. If I believed in an afterlife he would be laughing.
2. Living nuts are seeing his picture and realizing he got what he wanted.

These sociopaths desperately need to be seen and heard. Without all the publicity many of them would simply be another nut who swallowed a bullet at home and alone with a letter or manifesto left behind. Now they know their writings and rantings will get placed on every news stand, highlighted on every news broadcast and if they are really "lucky" made into a TV movie!

Report the facts. Report who was shot and where. Perhaps give a name. Any publishing or reading/describing their manifestos beyond dedicated subject texts ought to be banned. Any publishing of their faces on periodicals should be banned.

All out COTUS rights have limitations. You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. The media should also not be allowed to participate in their very profitable casual contract with these sociopaths by giving them exactly what they want in return for providing the maximum murder and mayhem, fueling the media's circulation and revenue.

You cannot stop these lunatics from killing scores of people but you can remove the incentive to do so. That is a law which could help.

jimbob86 · January 10, 2011, 03:19 PM

Laws only affect the law abiding, BT. Making more stuff illegal won't stop folks intent on Murder. That's about as illegal as it gets, and that won't deter the murderer from any lesser law breaking. Making more laws won't have any effect whatsoever on stuff like this.

huchahuchax · January 10, 2011, 03:35 PM

If his intention was to purchase a handgun and at least two 30 round magazines with the intended purpose of commiting cold blooded murder, but filled out a federal form expressing his intention to NOT commit murder - then he obtained the gun illegally. There is still nothing to protect the public from his murderous intentions, but it sure would be nice to turn on the TV and see the talking heads actually recognize that this was the first law broken in the crazy crime spree, instead of hyperventilating about how a disturbed individual was somehow able to easily purchase a firearm legally.

Glenn E. Meyer · January 10, 2011, 03:52 PM

Banning free speech is not a good way to go. This situation has three possible infringements on rights.

1. Gun rights
2. Free speech
3. Ratcheting up governmental action against mental disorders with an uknown efficacy and a scary borderline for action.

We might argue for good taste and civility be implemented by people of good will. That won't happen.

Loonies of every political ilk will blather. It will inflame many.

Blame capitalism because the media makes money on sensationalism. Thus profits should be banned?

Ban sports that are violent, movie, crazy preachers - We just have to grin and bear it as a price of various liberties.

If you banned the reporting of the crimes, say good bye to the gun press as images inflame folks. I was told that when they had gun magazines like Guns and Ammo in England their covers were censored as violence provoking.

orangello · January 10, 2011, 03:57 PM

A law banning live/public appearances by politicians would've prevented this particular tragedy since that law would control the actions of a sane, presumably law-abiding person. Laws designed to control the actions of less-sane, less-law-abiding persons are unlikely to be very successful, IMO.

bikerbill · January 10, 2011, 03:58 PM

You can't think of a law because there isn't one ... McCarthy's proposal would once again outlaw large capacity magazines, since the idiot shooter used a 30-rd? 33-rd? mag in his Glock ... Incidently, a conservative column I get in my email pointed out that Wash DC with one of the nation's strictest gun laws, had 131 gun deaths last year. Tucson, a city of similar size in a state with few gun laws, had only 51. Food for thought ...

Glenn E. Meyer · January 10, 2011, 04:00 PM

Already some gun dealers are beating the drum of banning the extended mags. Get them now before the ban - here's the UN.:barf:

MLeake · January 10, 2011, 04:04 PM

... I was at my LGS yesterday, and the store owner there was trying to tell people he DID NOT anticipate a ban.

But, if I understood him right, all his extended Glock mags sold out in one day, anyway.

**Tom Servo** · January 10, 2011, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Already some gun dealers are beating the drum of banning the extended mags. Get them now before the ban - here's the UN.

We were completely sold out of the 33-rounders by Sunday afternoon. I suppose this was to be expected.

Several people remarked that they found it odd we hadn't raised prices. Fact is, our cost isn't going up, so there's no reason for the price to go up.

OTOH, I'm to understand that there was at least one guy at the local gun show Sunday charging $80 under the pretense that they'd soon be banned.

Honestly? A ban on high-capacity magazines sounds suspiciously like a little law we had from 1994-2004, and many politicians, regardless of inclination, remember the political fallout from it. I'm aware that Carolyn McCarthy has plans to introduce such a bill, but I'm also aware that this isn't 1995. It won't even get through committee.

mikerault · January 10, 2011, 04:46 PM

Glenn,

You say gun related mass killings don't happen in England?

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ould-work-here

I beg to differ....

Nickel Plated · January 10, 2011, 05:14 PM

I can't think of any constitutionaly kosher laws that would have done a single thing to prevent this. This is the price of living in a free society. Deal with it or move.

jrclen · January 10, 2011, 05:14 PM

In my opinion no law will ever prevent a criminal from committing a crime. No restriction will ever prevent someone from obtaining a fire arm if that person really wants one.

If a name is placed on a list, shouted from the roof tops, and broadcast over the news media, telling everyone everywhere that a certain person is not allowed to purchase, own, possess or touch a fire arm, he or she will still have one if they wish to have one. No matter how crazy they are or how illegal they are.

We only need to look to the war on drugs. Marijuana was banned in 1937. Yet it can be readily purchased across the country. If the government bans guns, someone will sell guns illegally just as they now sell drugs. And the illicit dealers will not care how crazy a person might be, nor will they use back ground checks.

Laws punish crimes, they do not prevent crimes.

jimbob86 · January 10, 2011, 05:20 PM

Quote:

I can't think of any constitutionaly kosher laws that would have done a single thing to prevent this. This is the price of living in a free society. Deal with it or move.

I looked at your location (NYC), and see you have decided to just deal with it.....

thesheepdog · January 10, 2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Get them now before the ban - here's the UN.

You mean "Here comes the British Regulars, again!"

Double Naught Spy · January 10, 2011, 05:54 PM

Laws involving penalties for negative acts tend to be viewed an punative, not preventative. Those fearing punishment will abide by them much of the time. Those not fearing punishment won't care at all.

I see it as being situationally like dealing with a suicide bomber/attacker. The person has already resigned him/herself to the consquences and so there is no punative argument that will keep them from their task.

In this particular case, the suicide bomber/attacker senario may be a very good fit. At least from what I have read, the shooter didn't appear to have any means of escape that was immediately available. So maybe he may have planned on dying there. Being tackled and suviving would not have been in his plans....- conjecture on my part, based on how I perceive the situation from the information I have.

No law will stop a person who wants to break it and who doesn't expect to be around to be convicted for the transgression.

January 10, 2011, 12:34 PM	#52
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Yep, it's clear from the literature that all the current laws have not affected crime rates. Thus, at the professional meetings you see: a. Don't need more laws - they wouldn't work. The protection issue is cited. The more extreme protection claims are technically criticized but few deny that protection does occur. b. The laws weren't strict enough. They have to be nation-wide with confiscations, etc. Protection doesn't really happen or the level is not enough to justify the level of gun crimes we have. It's rather ideological. Many folks can't conceive of protecting themselves or worry about the victims of the guns. Most of the country is in favor of guns that allow protection but want reasonable mechanisms to stop the flow of guns to criminals and mentally deficient. Reasonable is the key word. So if you ask should people be allowed to own guns for protection - most say Yes. Should there be gun control (unspecified) but allowing access for law abiding folks - most say Yes. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 10, 2011, 12:38 PM	#53
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	There was in fact many years ago in which a man blew up a school building. It just happened to occur at about the same time that Lindburgh flew the Atlantic, so the news sort of got pushed to the back pages, there being no instant news at the time. However, the explosives that were used were easily obtained at the time and the authorities quietly made them more difficult to get. __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 10, 2011, 01:37 PM	#54
LinuxHack3r Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Posts: 282	Not to get totally off subject, but once a kid was "stabbed" with a small Swiss Army knife at my school, nothing major, a few stitches and was good to go. In my Economics class, we were asked what we thought would have prevented it. I wholeheartedly answered: I think they should just make it against the rules (illegal) to stab people on school property. The teacher answered "It already is". Well, and I said this, "a lot of good that did". I think they should just make it ILLEGAL to use ANYTHING to kill ANY NONCOMBATANT PERSON. Oh wait:/ But you already know this, but the stories and words the news agencies are using are scaring the hell out of me. Take a gun into a school and shootup everyone, it's accepted. Have a. Military man shoot up a military base, sad but overlooked. Shoot a politician.....all hell comes down on our whole community. The treading being down right now is very dark indeed. Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk __________________ Si vis pacem, para bellum

January 10, 2011, 01:46 PM	#55
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Oh, come on - not to be rude but this isn't reality but just getting in a tizzy. Columbine and VT have generated tremendous impacts on all kinds of things. As did the Ft. Hood shooting. This is the day after a horrible event, so there is a lot of foaming at the mouth by every so-called expert on every side of the political spectrum. Keep it real. We closed the last AZ thread for ranting and silliness. This is a big hint. The question is Laws - and we want reasoned opinion! __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 10, 2011, 01:47 PM	#56
LinuxHack3r Senior Member Join Date: June 17, 2010 Posts: 282	Well I answered that in my post: I believe no reasonable and constitutional laws would have prevented the shooting. Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk __________________ Si vis pacem, para bellum

January 10, 2011, 12:04 PM	#51
Philo Member Join Date: November 20, 2010 Location: Minnesota Posts: 71	Anti-gun legislation does not work. Look at Chicago as a perfect example of this. By their nature, criminals and nut jobs don't care about laws. More laws will just inhibit the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

January 10, 2011, 03:10 PM	#58
huchahuchax Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2007 Posts: 298	I'll agree that there really is nothing you can do. Having purchased more than my fair share of firearms, it seems to me that even though this kid passed the background check to purchase his hand gun, he clearly lied on his paperwork, thus obtained the gun illegally. I know it does not count for much, but of course that will never make it into the media's account of the story.

January 10, 2011, 03:10 PM	#59
BlueTrain Senior Member Join Date: September 26, 2005 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 6,141	So what should be illegal, then? __________________ Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds.

January 10, 2011, 03:19 PM	#62
jimbob86 Junior member Join Date: October 4, 2007 Location: All the way to NEBRASKA Posts: 8,722	Laws only affect the law abiding, BT. Making more stuff illegal won't stop folks intent on Murder. That's about as illegal as it gets, and that won't deter the murderer from any lesser law breaking. Making more laws won't have any effect whatsoever on stuff like this.

January 10, 2011, 03:35 PM	#63
huchahuchax Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2007 Posts: 298	If his intention was to purchase a handgun and at least two 30 round magazines with the intended purpose of commiting cold blooded murder, but filled out a federal form expressing his intention to NOT commit murder - then he obtained the gun illegally. There is still nothing to protect the public from his murderous intentions, but it sure would be nice to turn on the TV and see the talking heads actually recognize that this was the first law broken in the crazy crime spree, instead of hyperventilating about how a disturbed individual was somehow able to easily purchase a firearm legally.

January 10, 2011, 03:52 PM	#64
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Banning free speech is not a good way to go. This situation has three possible infringements on rights. 1. Gun rights 2. Free speech 3. Ratcheting up governmental action against mental disorders with an uknown efficacy and a scary borderline for action. We might argue for good taste and civility be implemented by people of good will. That won't happen. Loonies of every political ilk will blather. It will inflame many. Blame capitalism because the media makes money on sensationalism. Thus profits should be banned? Ban sports that are violent, movie, crazy preachers - We just have to grin and bear it as a price of various liberties. If you banned the reporting of the crimes, say good bye to the gun press as images inflame folks. I was told that when they had gun magazines like Guns and Ammo in England their covers were censored as violence provoking. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 10, 2011, 03:57 PM	#65
orangello Senior Member Join Date: February 25, 2009 Posts: 566	A law banning live/public appearances by politicians would've prevented this particular tragedy since that law would control the actions of a sane, presumably law-abiding person. Laws designed to control the actions of less-sane, less-law-abiding persons are unlikely to be very successful, IMO.

January 10, 2011, 03:58 PM	#66
bikerbill Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2007 Location: Lago Vista TX Posts: 2,425	You can't think of a law because there isn't one ... McCarthy's proposal would once again outlaw large capacity magazines, since the idiot shooter used a 30-rd? 33-rd? mag in his Glock ... Incidently, a conservative column I get in my email pointed out that Wash DC with one of the nation's strictest gun laws, had 131 gun deaths last year. Tucson, a city of similar size in a state with few gun laws, had only 51. Food for thought ... __________________ "The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus

January 10, 2011, 04:00 PM	#67
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Already some gun dealers are beating the drum of banning the extended mags. Get them now before the ban - here's the UN.:barf: __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

January 10, 2011, 04:04 PM	#68
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Funny thing... ... I was at my LGS yesterday, and the store owner there was trying to tell people he DID NOT anticipate a ban. But, if I understood him right, all his extended Glock mags sold out in one day, anyway.

January 10, 2011, 04:46 PM	#70
mikerault Senior Member Join Date: January 4, 2011 Posts: 109	Glenn, You say gun related mass killings don't happen in England? http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...ould-work-here I beg to differ....

January 10, 2011, 05:14 PM	#71
Nickel Plated Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2010 Location: Brooklyn, NYC Posts: 610	I can't think of any constitutionaly kosher laws that would have done a single thing to prevent this. This is the price of living in a free society. Deal with it or move.

January 10, 2011, 05:14 PM	#72
jrclen Junior Member Join Date: April 26, 2010 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 5	In my opinion no law will ever prevent a criminal from committing a crime. No restriction will ever prevent someone from obtaining a fire arm if that person really wants one. If a name is placed on a list, shouted from the roof tops, and broadcast over the news media, telling everyone everywhere that a certain person is not allowed to purchase, own, possess or touch a fire arm, he or she will still have one if they wish to have one. No matter how crazy they are or how illegal they are. We only need to look to the war on drugs. Marijuana was banned in 1937. Yet it can be readily purchased across the country. If the government bans guns, someone will sell guns illegally just as they now sell drugs. And the illicit dealers will not care how crazy a person might be, nor will they use back ground checks. Laws punish crimes, they do not prevent crimes.

January 10, 2011, 05:54 PM	#75
Double Naught Spy Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2001 Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX Posts: 12,717	Laws involving penalties for negative acts tend to be viewed an punative, not preventative. Those fearing punishment will abide by them much of the time. Those not fearing punishment won't care at all. I see it as being situationally like dealing with a suicide bomber/attacker. The person has already resigned him/herself to the consquences and so there is no punative argument that will keep them from their task. In this particular case, the suicide bomber/attacker senario may be a very good fit. At least from what I have read, the shooter didn't appear to have any means of escape that was immediately available. So maybe he may have planned on dying there. Being tackled and suviving would not have been in his plans....- conjecture on my part, based on how I perceive the situation from the information I have. No law will stop a person who wants to break it and who doesn't expect to be around to be convicted for the transgression. __________________ "If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange