youngunz4life
New member
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.
What law would have prevented the AZ shooting?
- Thread starter nate45
- Start date
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
...which is why I can still buy guns!
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
New member
Don't forget many of the drugs used for stop-smoking efforts are also psych meds...
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
sixgun
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.
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.
Musketeer said:
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.
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.......
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
New member
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.
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.
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.
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
New member
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.
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
Moderator Emeritus
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.
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.
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
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
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.........
jimbob86 said:
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
New member
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...