The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 10, 2011, 02:58 AM   #26
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,821
Quote:
How do we identify these creeps ahead of time?
Thats the rub.

Behavior patterns leading up to violence are well known. However, not all that display those precursors actually wind up doing violence. Some do, and some don't. So is the solution to apply prior restraint to everyone? Even in places where that is done, they still have problems.

I don't have an answer, because even total prohibition of legal ownership has shown to not prevent all violence. At best, it just makes it a little harder for the perpetrator, and at worst, guarantees law abiding people will be virtually helpless victims.

Ever notice that none of the mass shootings takes place at a firing range, or at a police station? They always seem to happen in places where you wouldn't expect people to be armed. These killers may be insane, or crazy, but it would appear that they aren't stupid.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 03:04 AM   #27
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,613
Quote:
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.
If this had all happened in 1995, I might be inclined to agree.

However, the climate is much different now. McCarthy is a fringe element, and the mainstream doesn't want to hear anything about new gun-control legislation.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 03:21 AM   #28
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 371
No laws would have prevented this as criminals do not follow the law.
Davey is online now  
Old January 10, 2011, 03:38 AM   #29
PIGMAN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2011
Location: ARIZONA
Posts: 175
Fortunatly we have a republican/tea party majority in the house and i do not think any new firearms legislation will be forth coming.
PIGMAN is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 08:19 AM   #30
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 645
Its ironic that Rep. McCarthy is such a gun control zealot since what got her started, and in fact got her elected, was an incident that clearly (in my mind) shows the need for LESS gun control for law abiding citizens. For those of you who do not remember or know of this incident, it was when an armed criminal boarded a commuter train in NY and started shooting as many as he could. The shooter killed Ms. McCarthy's husband and wounded her adult son. The shooter calmly walked down the aisle of the train car, reloading several times until finally he was stopped by some passengers while trying again to reload. Had there been some legally carrying passengers the rampage might have been stopped much sooner, with much less loss of life. But of course in NY, where carrying is a serious felony, none of the law abiding folks had a gun. The shooter did not seem concerned with being stopped by another person with a gun since he clearly knew that only criminals and police would be armed. Rep. McCarthy ran for congress on an anti-gun platform and has remained fanatically anti-gun ever since despite the clear evidence that gun control laws do not stop crime. I have actually written to her a few times but have never received an answer or even an acknowledgement of my letters. She is a true believer in gun control and after every mass shooting tries to get more stringent Federal law enacted. What really amazes me is that she keeps getting re-elected by the fools in her district (including some of my closest relatives!). These relatives look at me as the "crazy uncle" because I own guns, believe in the right of self defense and the 2nd Amendment and most unforgivably, vote Conservative!
vito is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 08:25 AM   #31
DiscoRacing
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 19, 2008
Location: milton, wv
Posts: 3,640
Quote:
The problem with laws is that criminals don't abide by them.
Thats the short and skinny of it there.
__________________
Desert Eagle Alliance Group Launcher Extraordinaire ______
----Get Busy Live'n.....Or....Get Busy Die'n......Red
-------They call me Dr. Bob,,,, I have a PhD in S&W
DiscoRacing is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 08:26 AM   #32
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
None.
Rifleman1776 is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 08:46 AM   #33
a.lol.cat
Member
 
Join Date: December 14, 2010
Location: Da Interwebz
Posts: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by nate45
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?
If that is an ammo "stockpile", than 1/2 of the people on this site must have "reserves" equal to a "small county".

As said before, laws can't stop these things, crims don't follow them, and they only really set out punishments for breaking them.
a.lol.cat is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 08:47 AM   #34
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by vito View Post
The shooter did not seem concerned with being stopped by another person with a gun since he clearly knew that only criminals and police would be armed.
I agree that a CCW holder might very well have stopped the shooter that killed McCarthy's husband.

However, I question its value in deterring that type of person.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 09:01 AM   #35
cnimrod
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 24, 2009
Location: NJ/NY
Posts: 144
AZ handgun laws

Help me out, I'm debating with some of my more liberal friends (hey I live in NJ what can I say) the preceding posts seem to indicate a background check similar to here in NJ is required to get a handgun in AZ.
true?
thanks
cnimrod is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 09:20 AM   #36
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,853
If you don't have a CCW permit you go through the NICS check, takes about 15 minutes. If you have a permit, which is still available, no check required - it's already been done. That's the Brady law, federal, not state.
Haven't seen anything announced from Washington yet.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 09:24 AM   #37
LordTio3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2010
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Posts: 850
You want to know what legislation could have prevented this? None at all. Not one. This man was intent on killing a number of people. He was going to do it. And as he was not in jail or under detention at the time of the crime, the only thing limiting his commission of that crime was his personal level of creativity.

Let's look at this hypothetically for a moment. Say he had been convicted of a felony or of mental instability and was unable to buy a handgun or ammunition. He would not have had that gun on him (bought from a store), and let's assume (big assumption) that he couldn't find a gun anywhere else to use.

Could he still get a driver's license? Did he have $300 to drop on a 1989 Toyota Corolla? Considering the public nature of this event, how many MORE people could he have killed while mowing them down at 45 miles per hour through the parking lot?

Would we see the Left Wing screaming for legislation against the free use of motor vehicles? Restrictions on "fuel stockpiling"; claiming that the fuel he used to mow the people down was "Far in Excess of What is Required for Daily Commuting"? Of course not. No one would dream of it. No one is going to tell you where you can or can't drive your car, and the CERTAINLY aren't going to tell you how to use your fuel; or try and restrict how much you REALLY NEED. Heck, you can even have a 50 gallon reserve tank at your house, and no one is going to think twice about it. But a "high capacity magazine" that is used for "hunting people"? Surely; SURELY you can't be serious, or expect other people to mistake that for a complete and rational thought.

Oh, and by the way, even if we did see increased restriction on driver's licenses and fuel consumption... HE'S A CRIMINAL! AND CARS ARE EVERYWHERE! How hard is it to break a window and steal a car?! It happens thousands of times per year. Do we further restrict the use and safety of cars because someone MIGHT steal one and then use it in the commission of a crime? Where does it end?

Reading that article, I nearly broke a tooth clenching my jaw. The short-sightedness of the anti-gun campaign just baffles me until I'm literally nauseated. However, when I find that I'm speaking about these issues to someone who doesn't know about guns, and tends to see them as they are represented in most of our media (as "the other"), I find that comparing restriction and free-usage to something like the regulation and free-use of automobiles (a much more ubiquitous, freely-used, and universally deadly machine) helps to put things into perspective.

~LT
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ- Greek:"Come and take them..." Meaning: Here we peaceably stand as armed and free men, willing to defend that peace, and ready to make war upon anyone who threatens that freedom.
LordTio3 is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 09:31 AM   #38
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim March
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.

Bingo. Deny them publicity.

Except you'd have to add "and/or convicted". Otherwise, as soon as they're convicted, they're no longer "suspected" and all their crap would be published.


Of course, I can't actually claim that any of this would have stopped this guy, or any other individual. It couldn't hurt though, I don't think, and it might stop SOMEBODY.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 09:38 AM   #39
tmorone
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Posts: 221
One thing that stuck out to me in that article was "stockpiles of ammunition" like he used shouldnt be allowed. Seriously!? I don't even know why I read those articles sometimes, so frustrating.
tmorone is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 09:46 AM   #40
LordTio3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2010
Location: Bloomington, Indiana
Posts: 850
Quote:
Bingo. Deny them publicity.

Except you'd have to add "and/or convicted". Otherwise, as soon as they're convicted, they're no longer "suspected" and all their crap would be published.


Of course, I can't actually claim that any of this would have stopped this guy, or any other individual. It couldn't hurt though, I don't think, and it might stop SOMEBODY.
Absolutely. I agree completely with JM. Criminals forfeit their rights in the commission of a crime, including their right to free speech to an audience. I think as soon as anyone is arrested under suspicion of killing multiple people, their online accounts should be frozen. Facebook, myspace, twitter, youtube, blogger, e-mail. They are intellectual property, just like regular property, that is being gathered in accordance with an ongoing investigation. Not open to the public, not for massive viewing on the internet. Instantly frozen and inaccessible by the public.

Maybe that's just me. But when you publicly murder someone, ALL of your rights are forfeit except those concerning your trial and punishment.

~LT
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ- Greek:"Come and take them..." Meaning: Here we peaceably stand as armed and free men, willing to defend that peace, and ready to make war upon anyone who threatens that freedom.
LordTio3 is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 09:48 AM   #41
4runnerman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2010
Location: Minnsota
Posts: 2,887
I to think there is nothing that could have stopped this. Gun control is not the answer. Normal people go off the deep end and that is a fact of life. All we can do is pray that our family is not around when it happens. Taking guns from everyone is the most lam-brain thing they can come up with. I have no doubt crime would go up if that ever happened. Sad thing to happen,but more fuel for the fire for the anti-gun people. Maybe if Media started doing stories on good gun control(but that news don't sell).
__________________
NRA Certified RSO
NwCP- Performance Isn't Optional
4runnerman is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 10:01 AM   #42
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
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.

One little problem here with suggestions that criminals don't obey laws is that this fellow wasn't a criminal, as far as I know, until he started pulling the trigger. So the problem is keeping people from becoming criminals in the first place, though I have no idea what might work. All of things about background checks and so on might work but I expect everyone here would object just the same. But if he wasn't a criminal in the first place....

More security? Like metal detectors, frisking and so on? That would presumably eliminate the legally armed individual. In some places they don't let people with the wrong bumper stickers go to political rallies (which this wasn't) and in a way, I guess that works, too. Sort of benign way of eliminating the opposition.

I am sure, however, that everyone in congress is concerned, not to mention every other elected official and probably most appointed officials, like judges. Judges already have their hands full with threats from certified and convicted criminals, must less from people who just don't like them. But remember, people in office were elected. That means more of the voters wanted them in office than the other person. If someone thinks that they feel justified in making threats or worse to an elected office holder, and it happens, well, then, that bothers me.
__________________
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.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 10:17 AM   #43
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim March
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.
Good, more victoms of a mass shooting. Some are already talking of stiffling talk shows and such. The real victom seems to be the Constitution itself.

Not bad enough that the aftermath of such incidents bring on the attacks on the 2nd Amendment, now us 2nd amendment supporters want to go after the 1st Amendment.

After the 1st and 2nd, what part of the Constitution are we going after next, The 4th & 5th.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 10:31 AM   #44
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"Actually, if the military turned him down for a psychological reason, then that should have been reported to the NICS system."

Nope. Wrong. That is not a legal adjudication by a court, which is what the law requires. Being turned down by the military carries all of the weight -none - of an employer turning down a job applicant after giving a battery of personality tests.
johnbt is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 10:34 AM   #45
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,488
The Long Island Train shooter was stopped by people bearing the only arms they are allowed to use -- the ones attached to their shoulders. The best that the antis could come up with was that it would have caused an "escalation of the violence" if there had been an armed passenger on the train.
__________________
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, 10:42 AM   #46
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"somewhere along the line there appears to have been some sort of failing"

It is not against the law to be weird. It is not against the law to refuse offers of treatment for what ails you. Neither one makes you a prohibited person under the law when it comes to gun ownership or possession.

It's easy to say now that being disruptive at school 5 times (that's what CNN reported) should have resulted in him being locked up and fed psychotropic medications (or resulted in the loss of his driver's license, voting rights and gun rights), but you know what they say about Monday Morning Quarterbacking being so easy.

You can't predict behavior with an real degree of accuracy. The only true predictor of future behavior is past behavior and the man under discussion doesn't appear to have had any arrests and convictions.

Predicting behavior as it relates to job goals and training goals - it's what I've been paid to do for 36 years while working with individuals with disabilities.

John
johnbt is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 10:48 AM   #47
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 7,109
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.
+1 ...... but that should not prevent folks (and the Press) from voluntarily shunning him. The more clicking you all do on CNN, et al. the more stories about this worm there will be. You know what happened. He's done. If you speak of this event, speak not of the horror or celebrate the victimhood of the dead and wounded: that only encourages the copycats. Instead, celebrate the heroes, and condemn the goblin. Shame him. He killed a 9 year old girl: What could be lower?
__________________
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, 10:56 AM   #48
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
If these people were going to have any shame from killing people, they wouldn't do it.

You can't "shame" them. What is shame to sane people is glory to these nut bags.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 10:59 AM   #49
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,834
Since I study these issues professionally and just finish writing a piece on this from an upcoming encyclopedia about American gun issues - let me opine:

1. Studies have clearly, clearly shown that we do not have techniques that will predict violence without a tremendous false alarm rate.

The current law asks for adjudication - are we willing to go to a lower standard without courts involved? Do we want gulags for all those folks who have problems. Should everyone who a GP recommended an antidepressant or a sleep aid have no gun rights or have to go to court to be evaluated? Want to be reported to a government agency?

The chilling effect on those going to seek mental help would be awesomely destructive. As it is now, people need help don't get it because of fear of consequences. Police and military avoid help for PTSD because of job consequences.

One thing that has helped in preventing further school rampages is other students reporting threats. That might have stopped 43 more Columbines. But without a direct threat, weapons ownership alone is not predictive.

2. If only a CCW type was there (implying you might be the hero).

a. The CCW type probably cannot stop the initial wave. If the gun fight continues you have a chance. We should not post incorrect chest pounding. In Colorado, the shooter was not prevented from starting the rampage. One was killed and 4 wounded before he was engaged.

b. Swiss - so what - they keep their fully auto guns at home. In fact, Switzerland is in a debate for moving away from that model. It is similar to ours in a sense. They have suicides with the army gun and want to take them away. The Swiss stopped the Nazis with collaboration as well as guns.

c. Since the shooting was done by someone probably disturbed, they probably don't consider that Mr. CCW will be there. Also, many of them are suicidal - called suicide with hostile intent and related to an view of honor and a warrior's death designed to inflict pain on others. They don't care about you and your 45 ACP. There are rampages in CCW states.

3. Control the press and the media. It's a big debate. In the lab, violent portrayals, weapons presence, etc. do prime aggressive thoughts and actions. What is debated is whether such small effects are acting in the real world. That is not decided in the literature. Obviously people learn but do the media or culture just channel pathology?

It's the same for drugs and sexuality. Now, you may be ok with censoring A but not B or vice versa. Depends on your politics - but then you don't understand the BOR and only rant about your viewpoint.

There is a good point that voluntary control of the aftermath hysteria might aid in not priming future shooters. Their 'honor' view or 'warrior' view is vicariously reinforced by such imagery. Thus, the media is part. Also, the memorials are part. All the wailing and lamentations - candles and churches fed into that. So let's ban natural grieving processes and church, synagogue services.

There's evidence that the extremes of religion prime violence - ban that?

4. A law - no shooting - remove all the guns from society. That's impossible - physically and politically. Ban speech - the same.

We might tune up reporting for the ajudicated but this guy wasn't. There was a tune up after Cho with added protections.

So, the gun world can go hysterical again and so can the antigun world. If you want to watch cable A go nuts against your stuff or watch Cable C go nuts for your stuff - good for you.

A rational view says that in the current USA, there is not a blanket legislative remedy for tragedies like this.

In the UK and Australia - they had a compliant population of law abiding gun owners who did turn in weapons after massacres and they haven't had a similar one. They view guns as tools and sports also - so that was that. They still have (esp.in the UK) lots of economic gun crime - as criminals don't care.

We aren't going to confiscate all legally held guns in any forseeable political paradigm.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 11:05 AM   #50
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
They don't have the same emotional impact as shootings...

.... but it wouldn't be too hard to come up with scenarios where cars and trucks inflicted a similar level of casualties.

Semi hit a school bus in Florida a couple years ago...

Old man lost control of his car in Chinatown...

Yet we don't see sustained yammering for enforcement on truck driver's work and rest periods, to prevent fatigue related accidents. We don't see sustained yammering for annual testing of people over a certain age for driver's license renewal.

(In fairness, we don't see recurrent testing for teenagers, either, and they are arguably more dangerous.)

If Loughner had wanted to create massive casualties at the rally, and could not have obtained a firearm, he could have just bought, borrowed or stolen a Ram 2500 duallie, and driven through the crowd at speed.

(Or he could have pulled an Oklahoma City bombing... all it takes is fertilizer and diesel fuel... are we controlling those items now? Are we all for propane tank and cell phone control? Killing large numbers of people is not a challenge. It just requires a lack of moral compass, or a degree of insanity.)
MLeake 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 04:17 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 0.14975 seconds with 7 queries