Gun Law-Arizona Shooting

Hakaman · Post by **Hakaman** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:08 pm

I haven't heard all the details yet, but I was listening to the news while getting my car serviced today.
A reporter was interviewing a retired Arizona Sergeant , talking about how today's gun laws are set up.
Specifically talking about two points:
1) Large capacity magazines (he used a Glock 19 with a 31 round mag, fully loaded)
the sergeant though they should be banned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JOP65TGTMY
2) The idea of making "stricter" laws concerning mental issues. This is a very sensitive, confusing topic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... d-fly.html
The sergeant suggested there needs to be stricker laws concerning mental illness.
Any thoughts on these ideas?
Haka

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:23 pm

When you get shot you get shot, even if it is with the 2nd or 3rd magazine, right?

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:34 pm

We're going to see a lot of calls for greater restrictions but a person bent on causing destruction, with no thought toward concern for themselves, is virtually impossible to stop. No laws would have realistically changed what happened, as I understand it the target of his aggression was felled with the first shot. The opportunists will try to exploit the situation to support their political ideals.

R,
Bullseye

Hakaman · Post by **Hakaman** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:57 pm

When you get shot you get shot, even if it is with the 2nd or 3rd magazine, right?

I've got that same mag for my G34, it is quite impressive in size and capacity. None the less, like you say, if it wasn't the 31 round mag, it could have easily been the 3x17rd mags = 51 shots ! It doesn't take much time or effort to swap out an empty mag, maybe 2 seconds?

is virtually impossible to stop. No laws would have realistically changed what happened,

I'd have to agree. Take away guns from all the good guys and what you have left are still the bad guys with guns. Does a bad guy care about legally possessing a gun? Absolutely not.

thanks, haka

ruger22 · Post by **ruger22** » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:06 pm

The "authorities" would have as much luck eliminating guns as they do getting dope off the street. The bad guys might have a little more trouble and expense getting guns, and the rest of us would be SOL.

dsymes · Post by **dsymes** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 2:28 am

I will risk taking the other side of the argument and ask, what is the reasonable limit for capacity on personal defence weapons?

Let's face it - if high capacity magizines were not legal in Arizona, the perp in this case would have been unlikely to have had one, and would have used what he could have legally bought in a gun store. Could he have caused as much damage and death if he were skilled in reloading under stressful conditions? Sure, although he was in fact disarmed while attempting to relaod. The obvious conclusion is that in this one case, a high capacity magazine may have allowed a nut to kill more people that he would have been able to kill if magazine capacity were limited to, say, ten rounds.

If you would like to argue that the additional victims are the price we pay for our liberty to exercise the second amendment, I can respect that point of view even if I may not agree with it. If you would like to argue that the social benefits of 30+ round magazines outweigh the costs, I'll listen. Just don't use weasel words like "When you get shot you get shot, even if it is with the 2nd or 3rd magazine," OK? That doesn't address the facts of this tragic event.

radio · Post by **radio** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 8:46 am

laws don't stop crime
laws can't stop crazy

If a law were passed today regarding the hi-cap mags in Arizona--they don't simply vaporize. Facts are facts--more guns, less crime--somebody should have put him down shortly after he tragically shot his first victim. All of the evidence shows that he was a NUT and many, many people knew about--including the authorities. It was not handled properly before the shooting OR during the shooting.

There are more of those people walking the streets today--are you ready OR are you placing your (and your loved one's) lives in the hands of a LAW?

Post by **Bullseye** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:34 am

Murder is against the law, and always has been. So is attempted murder, but neither of those laws seemed to deter the shooter one bit from committing the heinous crime. How will more laws prevent an individual who's determined to hurt or kill from perpetrating a devastating crime like the one in AZ last week?

I remember times where deranged individuals have run over scores of victims with automobiles, but I never heard anyone back then ever propose banning cars or even certain types of cars. Perhaps, we should look at banning all cars that can achieve speeds greater than 60 mph, after all this type of ban would save countless lives. Today we hear how 'Hate'[sic] speech is caused countless deaths and needless suffering, again should we propose bans on free speech? Only certain words, or phrases would be banned, but who gets to make the determination of what words are to be banned? Take just about any argument about gun bans and insert the words "free speech" wherever you see "firearms or guns" and then see how you feel about the proposed legislation. And if you think this is too far of a stretch, then you're failing to see the bigger picture - this is not about gun control it is about people control, the operative word is "Control"!

Just my opinion.

R,
Bullseye

bigfatdave · Post by **bigfatdave** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:50 am

dsymes, limiting capacity is ineffective and just doesn't work to prevent violent felons from going about their business. The charge of "over-sized magazine possession" isn't going to deter someone from a plan that already involves "premeditated murder", and I would appreciate if you stopped insinuating that restricting the possessions of law-abiding citizens would have any effect on the actions of violent felons. Its just insulting, stop it.

The shooter was obviously:
1- unbalanced (understatement of the year award?)
... and ...
2- incompetent

That task, however deplorable, would have been better accomplished with grandpa's hunting rifle from a nearby truck-bed or just with a truck moving at ~40mph. Look up the location on Google street view, there's uncontrolled parking lots all over the place, for acceleration distance or a sniper's hide.

Nobody would support banning grandpa's varmint rifle or deer gun, would they? Nobody would support banning "assault vehicles" if the crime were done with a larger rolling kinetic energy weapon, would they?

===

Luckily, random cops in AZ who answer the phone for interviews don't make the law, and when it works correctly the legislative process allows debate and rationality before the passage of emotional after-the-crime laws get to a vote.
And why the hell are we only discussing the mag-cap laws NOW? Was it not a concern between 2004 and last Saturday? Because if all there is to drive a law restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens is a single incident in the news, the law is probably crap and/or introduced to further a standing agenda. Do you really think McCarthy stayed up late writing up her little ban? Or do you think it has been in a desk drawer waiting for the right moment?

Hakaman · Post by **Hakaman** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 9:58 am

For the most part, "laws" only affect the "law abiding", not the criminals (outlaws). Ok, so every law abiding person turned in their high capacity magazines and guns, do you really think the criminals would? Doesn't this country have laws against using illegal medications? drunk driving? road rage? stealing? tax evasion? etc, etc, etc. Human nature is such that there will always be outlaws who have no regard for the law. It is a fact of life.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:19 am

Hakaman wrote:For the most part, "laws" only affect the "law abiding", not the criminals (outlaws). Ok, so every law abiding person turned in their high capacity magazines and guns, do you really think the criminals would? Doesn't this country have laws against using illegal medications? drunk driving? road rage? stealing? tax evasion? etc, etc, etc. Human nature is such that there will always be outlaws who have no regard for the law. It is a fact of life.

Well said Haka, my sentiments damn near exactly.

blue68f100 · Post by **blue68f100** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 10:40 am

My neighbor and I have discussed this a bit and my CC instructor touched on it several years ago. Keep in mind Texas law may be different.

He gave a senerio similar to the one in Az but not as many victims. What he asked us with no one in uniform how would we know if one is not an under cover cop (in this case yes). There is no way to tell if you walk into a gun fight. What if the one with the gun shot a persons trying to server a warrant, medication bust. Again unless they identify themselves you have no way of knowing. In this senerio he recommend staying out of it unless we were threatened. Since we are not law enforcement we are not protected by law if one of our bullets miss (or goes through) and hits some one else in the shuffle. We are liable for every thing our bullet hits. There needs to be laws to protect citizens who step up to stop a crazy causing harm. We are taught to avoid confrontation. But if threatened we can protect our selves. So if he was shooting at us we could shoot back, defending our selves. But if he was not shooting our direction we do not have the right to stop a crazy, according to Texas law. An off duty or retired cop does in Texas, armed citizens do not. I do not think a grand jury would proscute a armed citizen in this case, but according to TX law he was in the wrong if he was not the one being shot at.

I think there needs to be a law to grant CC persons the authority to stop a crazy that has gone nuts shooting innocent persons in public. And there needs to be more CC persons on the street.

In TX law there is a law that addresses mental persons from owning firearms. But if medications makes them normal and clean for a certain period of time they can qualify to own guns again. But I have yet to see any law from preventing someone that is going to break the law, stop them. We need to put more armed citizens on the street and have a law to protect them like law enforcement if they step up putting their life on the line to stop a crazy from shooting innocent people in a public place.

bgreenea3 · Post by **bgreenea3** » Sun Jan 16, 2011 11:10 pm

banning standard Capacity mags (what they should be called) and going back to the resricted capacity mags would have no bearing on what happened in AZ. the big 30+ glock mags are unwieldy to do mag changes so it probably caused Mr Crazy Jared Laughner to fumble. so I say the glock 18 mags that he used "saved" lives.....Maybe....

The way I look at it, when the wolves come I would rather be a sheepdog than a sheep. and I would rather have friendly sheepdogs on my side to help me out if i needed it.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:01 am

bgreenea3 wrote:.

The way I look at it, when the wolves come I would rather be a sheepdog than a sheep. and I would rather have friendly sheepdogs on my side to help me out if i needed it.

Woofie!!!, little Greener this old sheepdog is on your side and the big Greener's too.

You are probably right on that mag thing, that long mag would be very difficult to handle on a reload.

KAZ · Post by **KAZ** » Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:03 am

This recent terroristic activity has quickly brought forth those that seek to prevent future horrendous acts by eliminating/restricting the tool rather than the criminal. Public opinion on firearms range from those that see no reason for private ownership to those who would allow them under certain conditions/types. As said before one of the largest losses of life in our country was the dance land fire that killed 77 after a rejected boy friend poured less than 1/2 gallon of gasoline in an entry way. The Columbine killers did most of their shooting trying to set off their propane bombs. The insane will find a way. Now, I wouldn't have one of those extended magazines as a gift, but a ban will not accomplish anything, other than possibly giving some politicians a photo op. The public would have been better served if this killer had been recognized prior to the event as he gave plenty of advance notice. Regards