The Arizona shooter

[Jean]

I guess that I missed it somewhere, but, how did this shooter get in a line and stand in it, and nobody noticed that the back of his shirt had a strange bulge in it? He could not have had a semi automatic in his pants pocket, could he? I am not a gun expert, but it does seem that any one standing in line in front of me would draw my attention. Or was no one paying attention?

[KarenInWA]

I guess that I missed it somewhere, but, how did this shooter get in a line and stand in it, and nobody noticed that the back of his shirt had a strange bulge in it? He could not have had a semi automatic in his pants pocket, could he? I am not a gun expert, but it does seem that any one standing in line in front of me would draw my attention. Or was no one paying attention?

Jean, in AZ it is legal to carry a gun, either open carry or concealed. They have very lax gun laws.

KarenInWA

[MooseMom]

 Sad for the parents of the shooter. What a nightmare for them.

I have been wondering if anyone has contacted them to give them their condolences.  They've lost a son on so many different levels.  I used to think that nothing could be worse for a parent than losing a child, but now I wonder if knowing your child lost his mind and killed so many people is far worse.

I do hope someone called them to offer them some comfort, too.  I hope they have not been forgotten.

[Hemodoc]

I guess that I missed it somewhere, but, how did this shooter get in a line and stand in it, and nobody noticed that the back of his shirt had a strange bulge in it? He could not have had a semi automatic in his pants pocket, could he? I am not a gun expert, but it does seem that any one standing in line in front of me would draw my attention. Or was no one paying attention?

Jean, in AZ it is legal to carry a gun, either open carry or concealed. They have very lax gun laws.

KarenInWA

Actually all states have to adhere to the Federal regulations on firearms and AZ is in complete compliance with Federal regulations.  Three states allow concealed carry with out a permit for all law abiding citizens, AK, AZ and Vermont. All other states besides Illinois and Wisconsin recognize the right have specific laws and requirements for concealed carry permit holders.  Once again, all are in compliance with Federal regulations of firearms.

The sale of firearms is under the Federal system and all people in the entire US must past the Federal NICS review before able to purchase a gun.

In this case, there is compelling evidence that the shooter should never have been allowed to purchase this weapon.  Unfortunately, the information stored in the NICS is only as good as is reported to this system.  In this case, he slipped through the cracks of both law enforcement and the mental health folks. 

If we are going to look anywhere, we had people sitting in class with this man worried that he would go postal at any moment and the first person that some thought of when they heard of the shootings was that he had done it.  Many will call for stricter gun laws, but we already have compelling laws that would have prevented the purchase of this weapon if only the information we now know was inputted into the system ahead of time.  That is the focus we need to look at.  Without fixing that part of the equation, we gain nothing from this tragedy.

[MooseMom]

Agreed, hemodoc.  Laws are already in place, but as usual, they're not always enforced.

I am not au fait with gun laws.  Could you tell me why the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire?  I understand the desire to own specific guns for different kinds of sport/hunting, but why would anyone want an assault weapon?  Do you think it is ok for "legal people" to have any kind of gun they want?  CAN people have any kind of gun they want?

[MooseMom]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/obama-arizona-speech-pres_1_n_808315.html#256_support-for-parents-of-shooting-suspect

I am SO glad to see this!!!

[okarol]

I didn't know about Arizona's gun law til now, but seeing how lenient it is, I am surprised there weren't more armed folks in the crowd, shooting back. I really think gun laws and restrictions only handcuff law abiding people because bad guys are going to find a way to get weapons, by theft or illegal import. And as we see, the gun registration process cannot gauge the mental stability of someone like the shooter. It's a confusing issue.

[Hemodoc]

I didn't know about Arizona's gun law til now, but seeing how lenient it is, I am surprised there weren't more armed folks in the crowd, shooting back. I really think gun laws and restrictions only handcuff law abiding people because bad guys are going to find a way to get weapons, by theft or illegal import. And as we see, the gun registration process cannot gauge the mental stability of someone like the shooter. It's a confusing issue.

Karol, I heard that there actually was one a little ways away and by the time he comprehended what was going on, it was over in about 8 seconds from what I have heard.

As far as the data, Florida is the first state to really open up with what is called shall issue concealed carry weapons permit.  Some states have firearms permits only, some have weapons permits to carry knives or other weapons legally by law abiding citizens for personal and family self protection.

Florida saw an immediate decline in crime after giving citizens back their right to self defense.  I believe we are around 35 states with shall issue CCW since then and more come on line all the time, both R and D states.  Right to guns is by far a broadly supported issue by both sides, as evidenced by Giffords herself who is a gun advocate.

So, responding to a situation like this is a very unusual situation and it is also something that almost always catches even the most prepared people off guard.  Even then, when confronted with deadly force against you, the body goes into a mental block from all of the adrenalin and you get what is called muscle memory.  People literally shut down thinking and only respond by trained instincts.  This is true even with police officers who are the most likely to encounter deadly force against them.

One of my CCW instructors is a old time police officer in Las Vegas who gave his account of a deadly shooting he was in.  He chased a suspect who ran into a blind alley.  When he realized there was no escape, he turned to the officer with a shiny object in his hand.  The LEO remembers nothing more about the event until it was over and the criminal was dead.  He had no recollection of how many shots he fired or how many the suspect fired.  It is a situation that no one in the right mind would ever desire being part of.

However, there have been many cases where bystanders have intervened and prevented further blood shed.  There are actually a fair number of these events that are reported in the news papers across the country.  Unfortunately, the criminal black market for guns is probably larger than the legal market.  If we take away the guns from the law abiding citizens what shall happen then?

[Hemodoc]

Agreed, hemodoc.  Laws are already in place, but as usual, they're not always enforced.

I am not au fait with gun laws.  Could you tell me why the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire?  I understand the desire to own specific guns for different kinds of sport/hunting, but why would anyone want an assault weapon?  Do you think it is ok for "legal people" to have any kind of gun they want?  CAN people have any kind of gun they want?

People in Idaho literally have what most would consider machine guns as well as silencers.  Yet, in CA where we have very restrictive gun laws, where am I the most safe?  CA or ID?

Well, after spending almost a year total in Idaho last year with the arrival of our daughter's first child, my wife was almost mugged at walmart not even a mile from our home, the FIRST day back!!

We are getting ready to go back to Idaho gladly in a couple more months.  Who are you more afraid of, an armed law abiding citizen or a gang banging creep?  It appears that CA has chosen the gang bangers and Idaho has chosen the law abiding citizen.  Maybe that is why we hardly saw any gang bangers up there or even in Spokane across the border in WA.

[BigSky]

Agreed, hemodoc.  Laws are already in place, but as usual, they're not always enforced.

I am not au fait with gun laws.  Could you tell me why the assault weapon ban was allowed to expire?  I understand the desire to own specific guns for different kinds of sport/hunting, but why would anyone want an assault weapon?  Do you think it is ok for "legal people" to have any kind of gun they want?  CAN people have any kind of gun they want?

The assault weapon ban was a farce put upon the unknowing public.  It was a feel good law that had no merits.

If a gun had two of the following it could be called an assault rifle,  detachable magazine, pistol grip, folding stock or flash suppressor.

So with that, even ones hunting rifle could fall under that ban.

What was done by the anti constitution crowd and the media was trying to paint these firearms as being machine guns.  Usually with the term of calling them automatics of which none of them are.   Not only are they not machine guns, but machine guns are actually legal to own and not encompassed by that bill at all which shows the absurdity of the bill. 

 


As to no one noticing he had a gun it had nothing to do with "lax gun laws"    People who commit such a crime do not let a law stand in their way.  Even if AZ had the most strict law all the individual would need to do is stick the gun down the front of his pants, wear  a loose t-shirt not tucked in and most people are not going to notice the gun, especially if their attention is diverted to something else like it was in this case.

[MooseMom]

Hemodoc,  but don't you think that CA and Idaho are two very, very different places with very very different populations?  And shouldn't local laws reflect that?  If I lived in LA, I don't think I'd care too much about what the gun laws were like in someplace like Idaho.

What is your opinion of the new gun laws in Chicago?  As you may know, there used to be a handgun ban here, but that was struck down and this was put in its place.  What do you think?
http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/chicagos-new-gun-law-goes-into-effect-today.html

[MooseMom]

BigSKy, who exactly is the "anti-constitution crowd"?  What does that even mean?

[BigSky]

BigSKy, who exactly is the "anti-constitution crowd"?  What does that even mean?

Those that try to circumvent the Constitution with laws.

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc,  but don't you think that CA and Idaho are two very, very different places with very very different populations?  And shouldn't local laws reflect that?  If I lived in LA, I don't think I'd care too much about what the gun laws were like in someplace like Idaho.

What is your opinion of the new gun laws in Chicago?  As you may know, there used to be a handgun ban here, but that was struck down and this was put in its place.  What do you think?
http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/chicagos-new-gun-law-goes-into-effect-today.html

Illinois and Wisconsin deny the right of concealed carry period. Isn't the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against your city a statement in itself.  I don't remember Chicago as a super safe city the last time I checked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/25/chicago-gun-violence-cont_n_588530.html

The entire aspect of gun control to reduce homicides by guns is a farce, it only increases the size of "gun free" zones that only emboldens these criminals.  If they know, no civilian will have a gun, what will happen, more crime, or less crime?

Washington D.C., Chicago have had horrible problems with gangs.  All that the gun ban in these two cities has done is to take away the right to self defense by law abiding citizens, even in their own homes.

The new laws are reprehensibly restrictive as well, even worse than the laws here in CA.  The crime in all the states that has adopted shall issue ccw has gone down dramatically.  Having essentially machine guns in great numbers in Idaho has not increased the crime rate.  People really need to reassess this whole gun control issue.

[MooseMom]

Gosh, I was just asking a question...

I don't really care if any and everybody can have a gun, but if some nutcase who legally has a weapon goes off and kills a bunch of people, let's not get all hypocritically upset about it.  Make your choice and live by the consequences because by god, the right for us all to have an arsenal is of utmost importance.  I'm tired of hearing about this "tragedy"...it's a common occurrence here in the US and we can't keep spending so much time mourning and gnashing our teeth when children are gunned down.  No one cares that much.  We cry a bit and then we go out and buy more Glocks because people get scared that their guns will be taken away. 

If having a gun makes you so much safer, then why wasn't anyone who was there outside the Safeway in Tucson armed and ready to shoot this guy?  He was tackled, not shot.  Lax gun laws don't protect anyone, either.

[MooseMom]

re above post, apologies for tone but I just don't have an answer to this situation.  I don't know how to keep our children safe.  I don't know if more guns or less guns are the answer.  I just don't know and it's not my call.

[Hemodoc]

Gosh, I was just asking a question...

I don't really care if any and everybody can have a gun, but if some nutcase who legally has a weapon goes off and kills a bunch of people, let's not get all hypocritically upset about it.  Make your choice and live by the consequences because by god, the right for us all to have an arsenal is of utmost importance.  I'm tired of hearing about this "tragedy"...it's a common occurrence here in the US and we can't keep spending so much time mourning and gnashing our teeth when children are gunned down.  No one cares that much.  We cry a bit and then we go out and buy more Glocks because people get scared that their guns will be taken away. 

If having a gun makes you so much safer, then why wasn't anyone who was there outside the Safeway in Tucson armed and ready to shoot this guy?  He was tackled, not shot.  Lax gun laws don't protect anyone, either.

If the nut case didn't have a gun, what about his car?  There are many examples of people using cars for mass murders as well.  The issue of guns in America is a very emotional subject of which I am well aware, but all that the gun laws are accomplishing are keeping guns in certain states and cities away from law abiding citizens.  That is at the heart of the McDonald vs Chicago case settled in favor of the plaintiff who had been denied the right to self defense even in his own home.

Gun free zones such as malls, schools and in the case of Chicago as a city have not brought about the safely that they are designed to do.  It is not a coincidence that most of these mass killings occur in gun free zones.  Europe has very stringent gun ownership, yet per capita they have the same number of mass murders with guns as the US.  It is not only America that is trying to deal with a problem where over half of the mass murders are by lunatics or what ever we wish to call them.  It is an international problem, one with few good answers.

In Europe, 16 people were killed in a public school shooting in Germany in April 2002. Another two public shootings were the killing of 14 regional legislators in Zug, a Swiss Canton (September 2001) and the massacre of eight city council members in a Paris suburb in March 2002.

According to John R. Lott Jr., all three of these European killing sprees had one thing in common: They took place in gun-free zones. Firearms surely make it easier to kill people, but firearms also make it easier for people to defend themselves.

Declaring gun-free zones risks leaving potential victims defenseless.

In the U.S., thugs using firearms at elementary or secondary schools between 1997 and 2002 killed 32 students. The total includes gang fights, robberies, accidents and the so-called "school shootings." All these attacks took place in gun-free zones.

In Israel, however, teachers and parents serving as school aids are armed at all times on school grounds with semi-automatic weapons. Since this policy was adopted in the 1970s, attacks by gunmen at schools in Israel have ceased.

Read more: The grave danger of 'gun-free zones' http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55246#ixzz1AxT3XXQB


This information is what has brought about a over 30 states across America in the last two decades to adopt shall issue ccw permits.  That is, any law abiding citizen shall be issued a CCW permit if they pass the back ground check including FBI and fingerprint review.  Crime in these states that have adopted this policy has gone down.

I would further remind folks that AZ gun laws simply mirror the Federal statutes and don't exceed them.  They are in complete compliance with every gun law at the US Federal level which are quite impressive if anyone has taken the time to actually see what a person has to do to qualify and keep and bare arms in the US.  I grew up in Alaska and have always enjoyed the outdoors, but with the wild animals in those woods, we always had a rifle and/or pistol in the car with us.  It is just a way of life for Alaska citizens as is also shared in many other states as well.

The tragedies of Germany, Paris, Zug and now in Tucson are difficult to prevent even with the strongest gun laws.  Paradoxically, gun crimes have been increasing in Europe due to the black market availability of cheap guns, while in America we are having reduced rates.  If we were to ban guns in America, would we eliminate all of the guns?  Not likely, it would just create a new black market for that here in the US as well.

I fail to see any nation that has solved the issue of mass murders to date and at the same time reduce overall criminal activity as well.  Once again, a difficult subject without good answers whether you look at it from the left or the right.  We all agree that we want to see these killings end.  What is the answer?

[Hemodoc]

re above post, apologies for tone but I just don't have an answer to this situation.  I don't know how to keep our children safe.  I don't know if more guns or less guns are the answer.  I just don't know and it's not my call.

No need to apologize MooseMom, it is an emotional issue without a lot of answers from anyone's perspective, left or right.

God bless,

Peter

[KarenInWA]

I will admit to not being very educated on what the gun laws are, but, it is my strong belief that anyone who purchases a gun should be required by law to go through and pass a strict training class on how to use them.  I will not own a gun because I am not a strong individual, and I feel that the bad guy would just take the gun away from me, kill me with it, then run off and kill others.  This happened just a couple of years ago when a mentally ill man stole a gun from his neighbor's living room and randomly killed people, including the deputy who knew him well from many domestic calls to his home.  Also, owning a gun is a HUGE responsibility, and not one to be taken lightly.  You must make sure your firearm is secured at all times, and cannot get into the hands of others.  Failure to do so may cause you to be responsible for any crime that someone may commit with your weapon.  The thoughts of what can happen as a result of owning a gun are staggering, and I feel that only those who are competent enough and smart enough to respect their weapon are the only ones who should be able to own them.  I'm all for responsible people owning firearms.  Is that what is happening across our land?

KarenInWA

[MooseMom]

I thought very seriously about getting a FOID card and then getting a gun to keep here at home.  I'm home alone every day while my husband is at work, and once I go on dialysis (and even now), I sometimes feel a bit vulnerable.  However...

I guess about 15-20 years ago, there was a very sad thing that happened in my hometown of Houston.  A guy from Scotland was visiting his cousin in town, and the two of them had partied and had drunk too much.  The Scot started wandering around aimlessly and approached a house in the middle of the night.  The house's occupant was of course startled and worried for the safety of his family, so he got out his gun, and after a warning shot that went unheeded, he shot and killed the Scot. 

He owned the gun legally, he was on his own property, so he had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.  The Scot was in the wrong place at the wrong time and on top of everything, he was inebriated.  The case did go to trial and the gun owner was declared innocent of any wrongdoing.  But it was so sad on so many levels.  The Scot's parents were understandably baffled by US gun culture and could not possibly understand how the death of their son was somehow his fault.  I remember them standing on the steps of the courthouse with a sign...I don't remember what it said...but it was awful.  Real culture clash.  But what I remember most was the moment that the homeowner met their eyes as he walked up those steps.  Even though he knew that by law he had done nothing illegal, you could tell that he'd be haunted by this for the rest of his life.  He was a good man, a responsible man who was just trying to protect his property and his family from what he thought was real danger, but he made a mistake, an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, and he became a victim of this sad story, too.  He will have to live with this for the rest of his life.

And that's what is making me think twice about having a gun.  No matter how responsible a gunowner you are, you can still make a mistake.  I don't know how much training people should go through to make them skilled and prepared enough so that they'd never shoot and kill someone in error.  So yes, owning a gun is a responsibility, but gosh...if you make a mistake, you won't be able to take it back.  That's too much responsibility for me, I think.  I just hope that people who do own a gun think really hard about the burden of their responsibility and are not cavalier.  But you can't legislate a responsible attitude, I suppose.

[Hemodoc]

I thought very seriously about getting a FOID card and then getting a gun to keep here at home.  I'm home alone every day while my husband is at work, and once I go on dialysis (and even now), I sometimes feel a bit vulnerable.  However...

I guess about 15-20 years ago, there was a very sad thing that happened in my hometown of Houston.  A guy from Scotland was visiting his cousin in town, and the two of them had partied and had drunk too much.  The Scot started wandering around aimlessly and approached a house in the middle of the night.  The house's occupant was of course startled and worried for the safety of his family, so he got out his gun, and after a warning shot that went unheeded, he shot and killed the Scot. 

He owned the gun legally, he was on his own property, so he had done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.  The Scot was in the wrong place at the wrong time and on top of everything, he was inebriated.  The case did go to trial and the gun owner was declared innocent of any wrongdoing.  But it was so sad on so many levels.  The Scot's parents were understandably baffled by US gun culture and could not possibly understand how the death of their son was somehow his fault.  I remember them standing on the steps of the courthouse with a sign...I don't remember what it said...but it was awful.  Real culture clash.  But what I remember most was the moment that the homeowner met their eyes as he walked up those steps.  Even though he knew that by law he had done nothing illegal, you could tell that he'd be haunted by this for the rest of his life.  He was a good man, a responsible man who was just trying to protect his property and his family from what he thought was real danger, but he made a mistake, an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, and he became a victim of this sad story, too.  He will have to live with this for the rest of his life.

And that's what is making me think twice about having a gun.  No matter how responsible a gunowner you are, you can still make a mistake.  I don't know how much training people should go through to make them skilled and prepared enough so that they'd never shoot and kill someone in error.  So yes, owning a gun is a responsibility, but gosh...if you make a mistake, you won't be able to take it back.  That's too much responsibility for me, I think.  I just hope that people who do own a gun think really hard about the burden of their responsibility and are not cavalier.  But you can't legislate a responsible attitude, I suppose.

The biggest worry is really with kids around the house which we don't have anymore and that is when I started getting most of my guns.  Having little kids, you really must have a safe and use it knowing how curious kids are.

When used with proper respect and diligent attention to the rules of safety, it is a safe undertaking. It is when people get careless that things happen.

And yes, tied down to a machine, it is in some ways a prudent thing to have Mr. Ruger to deal with something of that sort especially for people that live in isolated areas.  Simply put, a lot of folks won't even here a gun shot in isolated areas or just assume someone is hunting.

We take the steps to make it difficult for folks to get into the house as the starting point.  I did that in part because of the number of smash and grab robberies by teenage kids.  I remember how dumb I was as a teenager and that is not the situation I would want to have to use a gun.  Better to keep them out in the first place.

Just as with driving a car, paying attention to the safety rules is mandatory.  If you did actually go that route, make sure you get good training to feel comfortable with the process.

Getting back to the AZ shooter, my opinion is that the bang for the buck is figuring out how to get someone like this kid who did come to the attention of the school, apparently a committee profiling kids that may be at risk as the VA tech incident.  But removing them from the school did nothing to protect those that were unaware of the signs of danger noted in the school.  Somehow, the privacy issues must be overcome to get these people help and prevent these tragedies.  That is probably the most profitable approach.  The gun owners of America cringe every time an event happens because we know what is coming next.  Yet, with the VA tech and this episode, there were possible places for intervention. 

Having committees to look out for the behaviors that are worrisome may be only half the equation.  Actually doing something with the information at hand is the next step to complete the circle that should be passed on to the police or some other commission with notification of the FBI central files.  I think that connecting the dots is a very real possibility and I hope folks will follow through on some sort of recommendation to this effect.

This would be in accordance with mandatory sexual abuse and child abuse reporting standards we already have.  There is a risk of infringement of individual liberties, but if done in a responsible manner, we already have a lot of the system in place.

[Hemodoc]

Interesting commentary on AZ liberal laws on involuntary in-patient treatment for mentally ill patients.  He believes that the shooting could have been prevented by this progressive AZ law already on the books since 2004 and unchallenged constitutionally.  Truly, missed opportunity is the word of the day.

Before Tucson rampage, a powerful law went unused


By Andrew Longstreth
NEW YORK | Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:56pm EST
Jan 13 (Reuters Legal) - As evidence mounts that Jared Lee Loughner exhibited disturbing behavior months before the rampage in Tucson, it's increasingly clear that Arizona authorities could legally have detained him for psychiatric evaluation and treatment -- and potentially have been able to avert the tragedy. But officials in other states might not have had that power, a review of state laws on involuntary commitment suggests.

Arizona has one of the least restrictive laws when it comes to detaining apparently mentally ill people against their will. Under the state's broad involuntary-commitment statute, the government can mandate in-patient treatment for anyone determined to be "persistently or acutely disabled." That could include a broad range of seemingly troubled individuals. By comparison, many other states limit involuntary commitment only to people shown to be a danger to themselves or others, or who are found to be completely unable to take care of themselves.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70C6JQ20110113

All the laws necessary to prevent this tragedy are already in place if only they had been followed.  I am interested to see what sort of post hoc analysis of the actions of the Community College committee that released him from their school will find.  I wouldn't want to be a member of that committee right now given the fact that AZ has one of the most liberal laws on involuntary mental health treatment. It looks like the committee had the legal authority to go further than simple notification to the person involved and his parents. If they went so far as to notify the parents which legally is a privacy issue since he is of age, then under the AZ it appears they could have also notified the appropriate authorities.

Quite a sad turn of events for all involved.

Perhaps the AZ law should be used as the model to combat this problem of severe mentally ill folks performing more than half of our mass murders.  This law could have likewise prevented the VA tech killings as well.  Both these kids were known to have serious problems that did not come to the attention of the FBI data base.  That is a problem.  That is an issue that can be fixed.