You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What law would have prevented the AZ shooting?
- Thread starter nate45
- Start date
Mustangpalmer91
Moderator
How about a personal weapon of militia is kept at by everyone just like Switzerland.
It has already been done....
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
If this had all happened in 1995, I might be inclined to agree.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.
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.
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!
DiscoRacing
New member
The problem with laws is that criminals don't abide by them.
Thats the short and skinny of it there.
Rifleman1776
New member
None.
nate45 said: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.
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.
armoredman
New member
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.
Haven't seen anything announced from Washington yet.
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
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
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Jim March said: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.
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