What law would have prevented the AZ shooting?

N

nate45

New member
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.
 
B

bigghoss

New member
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.
 
T

TXAZ

New member
Nate said:
who asked "What law would have prevented the AZ shooting?"
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
S

Silverado

New member
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.
 
I

Iron Man

New member
Laws would in no way have prevented what happened. The shooting was very sad and I feel for the victims and their families.
 
A

Alaska444

Moderator
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?
 
J

Jimmy10mm

New member
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.
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
An quicker end might have been in the AZ shooting had an armed citizen been close by.
Click to expand...
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.
 
E

ep2621

New member
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.
 
J

Jim March

New member
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.
 
E

ep2621

New member
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.
 
N

nate45

New member
Tom Servo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
G

golfnutrlv

New member
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!
 
R

ripnbst

New member
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.
 
J

jimbob86

Moderator
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:

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.
Click to expand...

http://ccwnebraska.yuku.com/topic/1519/Am-I-the-only-one?page=1
 
J

jimpeel

New member
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top