The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 9, 2011, 10:46 PM   #1
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
What law would have prevented the AZ shooting?

Well, as many here guessed, the antis are already suggesting new gun laws.

Carolyn McCarthy readies gun control bill

One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday.

Now, I'm of the firm belief that you cannot legislate against the lunatic. I'm fairly certain that a majority here feel the same.

However, I am sincerely asking:

Can anyone think of a new gun law that would have prevented this recent tragedy?

Please keep the partisan politics at bay.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old January 9, 2011, 10:56 PM   #2
bigghoss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2006
Location: Pueblo, Colorado
Posts: 2,659
I cannot think of any law that would prevent something like this, that wouldn't keep honest people from being able to defend themselves and ultimately contribute to more deaths than it prevents.
__________________
I don't collect guns, I accumulate them.
bigghoss is offline  
Old January 9, 2011, 11:14 PM   #3
egor20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,762
None.
__________________
Chief stall mucker and grain chef

Country don't mean dumb.
Steven King. The Stand
egor20 is offline  
Old January 9, 2011, 11:19 PM   #4
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: TEXAS!
Posts: 1,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate
who asked "What law would have prevented the AZ shooting?"
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?
__________________
!أنا لست إرهابي

Last edited by TXAZ; January 9, 2011 at 11:27 PM.
TXAZ is online now  
Old January 9, 2011, 11:33 PM   #5
ep2621
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: East Texas
Posts: 198
The problem with laws is that criminals don't abide by them.
ep2621 is offline  
Old January 9, 2011, 11:39 PM   #6
Silverado
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 2009
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 122
An quicker end might have been in the AZ shooting had an armed citizen been close by. I seem to recall an incident in Colorado a few years ago where a woman civilian carrying a pistol stopped a heavily armed lunatic from entering a packed church with bad intentions.

Seems like a cogent argument can be made from this tragedy to make CCW EASIER, not harder. Preaching to the choir, I'm sure.
__________________
"Today my jurisdiction ends here. Pick up my hat." Sheriff Langsdon
Silverado is offline  
Old January 9, 2011, 11:44 PM   #7
Iron Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 345
Laws would in no way have prevented what happened. The shooting was very sad and I feel for the victims and their families.
Iron Man is offline  
Old January 9, 2011, 11:48 PM   #8
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Actually, if the military turned him down for a psychological reason, then that should have been reported to the NICS system.

Secondly, the parents were informed of his bizarre behavior. I would like to know what there follow up was and whether he ever saw a shrink. If he already had a pscho diagnosis, then the system failed. This case is quite a bit like the Virginia tech incident, they were crazy but not so crazy they come on the radar screen until their first incident.

Very sad and tragic day for America.

How much you want to bet his MPS paperwork got lost somewhere?
Alaska444 is offline  
Old January 9, 2011, 11:52 PM   #9
Jimmy10mm
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2010
Location: Greenacres, FL
Posts: 906
The Sullivan Law, passed in NY in 1911, making it a misdemeanor to possess an unlicensed gun (among other things) and a felony to carry one, doesn't seem to have done them much good in the hundred years hence.

The Wiki notes that out of 8 million New Yorkers 30,000 are licensed to carry. Out of that 8,000 of those are retired LEO. If that doesn't demonstrate the truth of 'when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns' what does ? The Wiki didn't give an estimate for BGs with guns but the arrest records speak to that.
__________________
Quote:
"the 380 in your pocket is better than the 45 you left at home." posted by, mavracer
Jimmy10mm is offline  
Old January 9, 2011, 11:55 PM   #10
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,471
Laws do not prevent crimes, they only set penalties for committing crimes.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 9, 2011, 11:58 PM   #11
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,051
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.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 12:12 AM   #12
ep2621
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: East Texas
Posts: 198
I heard on the news that he stood in a for awhile to meet/ask questions to her. Seems to me that security and metal detectors could have prevented this. Not more gun laws that only hurt law abiding citizens.
ep2621 is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 12:12 AM   #13
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,292
THE REDUCTION OF INSANE TERRORISM ACT OF 2011

Whereas violent nutcases will always act out in violent ways,

AND

Whereas the modern trend is for them to do a whole series of videos in advance, write a manifesto or otherwise create psychosis-fueled propaganda that will be picked up as "news" the moment they kill enough people,

AND

Whereas this drive to "fame" is a huge part of the motivations for these violent acts,

WE INTRODUCE THE FOLLOWING BILL to deny them the fame and attention to their madness that they crave:

1) It shall be illegal for any news outlet to publish the name of anyone suspected of committing murder of multiple persons.

2) It shall be illegal for any news outlet to publish the writings of anyone suspected of committing murder of multiple persons.

3) It shall be illegal for any person to publish the name or writings of anyone suspected of committing murder of multiple persons, online or elsewhere.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 12:36 AM   #14
ep2621
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2010
Location: East Texas
Posts: 198
Jim,

You have a very good point. This nutcase went from a nobody to a household name in 24 hours. (he is less than a nobody, but you get my point) It is a fact that many people like him do this for the fame.
Every major news channel is in a competition to see how much they milk this for.

While I doubt something like you have suggested would ever pass, I do agree.
ep2621 is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 12:39 AM   #15
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
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.
Its early days yet Tom, but I'm very much afraid this is their plan. Rest assured, if allowed to do so, they'll take it to the nth degree.

Given the inflamed rhetoric I've been hearing. Its not too far fetched to imagine co-workers, classmates, etc reccomending persons for evaluation, who like guns, belong to the NRA, or a political movement they disagree with.

Also the whole notion that the supply of ammo the shooter had was a stockpile, is very frightening. Lets say he had 3-33 round magazines, 99 rounds. Two fifty round boxes of 9 mm is a stockpile?

Lets just hope the pro-gun congress people put the kibosh on this nonsense. And not fearfully give into the emotional fervor.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 12:44 AM   #16
golfnutrlv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 1,347
Ultimately, the state of the suspect matters not to the people in power. They will use any excuse they can to try and restrict our rights for no good reason, other than one criminal's actions.

They do not care about the people who died, they only care about what they can make out of the situation. Does the word "Politicize" ring a bell.

Planning on picking up some extra high cap's just in case.

MOLON LABE!
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
VIGILIA PRETIUM LIBERTATIS
"The price of liberty is vigilance"
America is at an awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.
golfnutrlv is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 12:49 AM   #17
ripnbst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 24, 2010
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 1,385
Well for starters in AZ they don't have "permit" ccw. In AZ anyone anywhere who can buy a gun can CCW.

Maybe having to undergo a psych evaluation prior to being eligible to buy a gun? The shooter in this case was clearly a wack job.

You could also argue that people should have to undergo drug testing (and pass) prior to purchasing a gun.

But these both would definitely be at the cost of the shooter and include some "lead time" which would not allow one to go to the store and return home with their desired gun.

However I am a firm believer in the fact that imposing any type of further restriction or legislation does absolutely nothing for us. Criminals will be criminals, they aren't thinking "Welp, guess I wont shoot the guy because its against the law."

Further legislation does nothing more than restrict us who legally use and possess firearms anyway.
ripnbst is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 12:55 AM   #18
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,292
Listen to this guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4#t=1m40s

Seems I'm not the only one who's figured out what's going on.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 01:17 AM   #19
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,702
SS/DD...... (Same Stuff/Different Day)

After Virginia Tech, and again after the Omaha Westroads Atrocity, I went on a rant about the media telling us all about the nutjob: they are giving the next nutjob an incentive to "Go out in a Blaze of Glory"...... the answer is this:

Quote:
ITS SIMPLE. BAN HIS NAME AND LIKENESS FROM THE LEXICON. Speak of him as a MAD DOG TO BE PUT DOWN. Not as a boogeyman to be feared, but as a POS to be flushed and forgotten.
http://ccwnebraska.yuku.com/topic/15...nly-one?page=1
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 01:21 AM   #20
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,457
There are no written laws which can stop this type of behavior. It would be akin to a woman holding a restraining order in front of her as protection from the subject's bullets. Notice how they aren't even waiting until Monday to start introducing anti-firearms legislation?

However, we do have a new law which is being discussed to outlaw the crosshair symbol. Ya can't make this stuff up.

In other news, one Democrat group has already sent out a fundraising request based on this incident. Have they no shame?
__________________
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
jimpeel is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 01:26 AM   #21
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,457
Jim March,

That was cool how you started that video at exactly the correct place. I'll have to keep that in mind.

Is that an added formula you place on the link or is there somewhere on youtube that allows you to be able to start the video at whatever place you desire?
__________________
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
jimpeel is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 01:40 AM   #22
Mustangpalmer91
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2010
Location: Scranton, PA
Posts: 69
How about a personal weapon of militia is kept at by everyone just like Switzerland.
Mustangpalmer91 is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 02:03 AM   #23
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,292
JimPeel: note the end of the URL:

#t=1m40s

One minute 40 seconds in.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 02:19 AM   #24
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,121
It has already been done....

Quote:
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,.....
In the Soviet Union, people who did anything but toe the party line were determined to be "mentally defective" and sent to "treatment" and "re-education camps". They weren't responsible, the poor souls, they were "mentally defective"....

In this country today, you can be as "mentally defective" as you wish, and unless and until you are convicted of a crime (punishable by 1 year or more) OR are adjudicated (by a court) of being mentally incompetent, you can buy a gun from a licensed dealer. No law can prevent, only punish after the crime has been committed. And until you are found guilty in court, you must be considered innocent, under our system. That is why you always hear the media use the word alleged, until after a conviction. The guy caught red handed, in front of dozens of witnesses, and he will still be called "alleged shooter" until after the trial is over. Then he will be called "convicted".

As has been already noted, the "15 minutes of fame" that the media will give the shooter is often all the motive needed to send a borderline individual over the edge from fantasy to actual action. They know that they will be famous, at least for a brief time. And for some, that is enough.

The problem is that while obvious after the fact that the shooter was not stable enough to be allowed a weapon, before the fact there is no reason to deny him one. And yet, many people will think that there should have been one. They will seize on the smallest detail, anything even remotely outside the "norm" and say that we should have seen this coming, and prevented it.

Yet there are laws in this nation that prevent just that. Its called privacy. Until and unless a certain specific set of conditions are met (such as verbal threats of violence, etc..) even professional mental health personnel are legally prohibited from reporting or turning in someone that they feel is unstable, because it would be a violation of that individual's right to privacy.

Patrick Purdy, the shooter in that Stockton CA schoolyard waaaay back in the early 80s (the incident that sparked the still thriving "assault weapon" hysteria) was receiving monthly checks from Social Security, because of his unstable mental condition, which prevented him from holding a job. Yet, he bought 3 handguns in California, legally, passing the background check and waiting period each time. The SS administration was prevented, by law, from giving the information about his mental condition to the state.

Other mass shooters over the last couple decades have had similar backgrounds. Not stable, but not clearly unstable enough to trip the legal trigger preventing them from legally acquiring firearms.

And those legal requirements are there for good reason. Even though they fail to prevent horrific tragedies like this one, they do prevent, virtually on a daily basis, the system from abusing and trampling the rights of people who have done nothing wrong!

This is the price of liberty. It is a steep one, and not one a lot of the world is prepared to pay. Much of the world takes the other approach, being highly restrictive about firearms ownership, if not completely resticted outside of military and police. And you know what? They get the mass killings anyway.

Because people willing to break the ultimate moral law are not deterred by lesser laws, either.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 02:41 AM   #25
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Nevertheless, in my opinion, somewhere along the line there appears to have been some sort of failing not only for the victims but for this disturbed man as well.

What is the solution, I don't really know, but he did have interactions that pointed to a man that should not own a gun for up to three years ahead of this tragedy. How do we get these nut jobs on the radar screen since we do have restrictive laws that are not going away.

As far as the privacy laws, there are always waivers which could be enacted voluntarily when applying to the military and other such positions which would free the reporting by the military for instance in this case if he was rejected for a mental defect. Some people simply should not have or own guns period. How do we identify these creeps ahead of time?
Alaska444 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14477 seconds with 7 queries