PDA

View Full Version : AZ Shooter is/was a Prohibited Possessor


dustoff31
01-10-2011, 7:50 PM
On two counts. He is obviously crazy and he is drug user. More to the point he was known to the local authorities to be both, yet he was never reported to the NICS center.

Had that been done he would have failed the NICS check and wouldn't have been able to buy the gun. Yes, he could have gotten one somewhere else, but that's beside the point.

I don't want this to turn into an LE bashfest, plenty of officials were aware of this clown and did nothing. The fact is, they all failed. And so the NICS system failed. And so 6 are dead, 11 are wounded.

When the anti's cry for more gun laws, we often counter by saying all we need to do is enforce our current guns laws. Once again we are proven correct.

What do you think?

paul0660
01-10-2011, 7:55 PM
With the system you desire, I would run out of dimes to drop in an hour.

This one slipped through the cracks. I don't see a way to avoid that.

zoglog
01-10-2011, 8:00 PM
Same thing happened in the Vtech shooting.

It's the same policy that this government needs to learn. INTELLIGENCE IS KING.
Most notably all the stupid TSA rules and wasted tax dollars.

wildhawker
01-10-2011, 8:05 PM
The system which would have stopped this man's purchase would also infringe on millions on non-prohibited purchasers' rights.

At this time, and I qualify this as a judgement based on facts known at present, it looks like this was a mentally insane person who had not been adjudicated as such.

GrizzlyGuy
01-10-2011, 8:10 PM
Based on the facts thus far reported, I see no failures by law enforcement or government in general. If anything, there may have been a failure by his parents, relatives and friends to try and get him medical attention for his medical condition.

These things are going to happen in a free society: that's the price you pay for liberty. I don't mean to sound callous, but the right answer is to mourn, grieve, get over it, and move on.

dfletcher
01-10-2011, 8:17 PM
I do wonder if the sheriff made his "this vitriol must stop" speech to deflect criticism of his department's previous interaction with the shooter. If what I've read is accurate they handled many calls from concerned citizens.

greybeard
01-10-2011, 8:23 PM
The system which would have stopped this man's purchase would also infringe on millions on non-prohibited purchasers' rights.

At this time, and I qualify this as a judgement based on facts known at present, it looks like this was a mentally insane person who had not been adjudicated as such.
Ditto

nick
01-10-2011, 8:25 PM
Per Rachel Maddow and her "expert" (ex-NYC deputy sheriff - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Sheriff's_Office now working for ATF), it was the "extra high capacity" mag's fault, not the shooter's. After all, even the police officers don't carry those 30/32-bullet mags, so why would a civilian need it?

Caught that piece while getting some water from the kitchen here in the office. Someone had MSNBC on. Since I don't watch TV all that much, I'm not used to just how much misinformation is spewed in 5 min (there was much more misinformation there, too much to bother to list).

dustoff31
01-10-2011, 8:38 PM
Just to clarify my position, I'm not advocating randomly dropping dimes on people.

The police and his school knew he nuts. The school kicked him out because they were afraid of him. The sheriff admits that he had made "a number" of death threats. Why wasn't he 5150'd?

He had at least one drug arrest which was plead down to possession of paraphenalia.

When I say the system failed, I mean the overall system.

BigDogatPlay
01-10-2011, 8:41 PM
... it looks like this was a mentally insane person who had not been adjudicated as such.

Agreed 100%. While he might have, or perhaps even should have, fallen into the mental health system at some point, the fact is that he did not. Given everything we've seen so far, which is really very little, he's a miss... like a lot of other people you may pass on the street in a given day.

These things are going to happen in a free society: that's the price you pay for liberty. I don't mean to sound callous, but the right answer is to mourn, grieve, get over it, and move on.

+1...

paul0660
01-10-2011, 8:45 PM
Good points, Dustoff. I need more info.

Citadelonline
01-10-2011, 10:52 PM
Given everything we've seen so far, which is really very little, he's a miss... like a lot of other people you may pass on the street in a given day.
From what I'm hearing he was unlike a lot of other people you might pass on the street. This guys behavior was (reportedly) so far off-center, students in a college class were scared to be in the same room with him.

Regardless of our opinions on the matter, there is no law against acting or even being crazy, as long as no laws are broken. It's conceivable he may have been evaluated for 5150 but didn't meet the criteria for a psychiatric detention. It's also possible for a mentally deranged person to fake their way through an exam.
But he allegedly passed a firearms background check, so the most likely scenario is that this individual slipped through the proverbial crack.
Whatever the case, you can't lock someone up for something they didn't do.

but the right answer is to mourn, grieve, get over it, and move on.
Add "and legislate guns and ammunition out of existence" and you may be on to something. Of course I'm exaggerating, but anti gun politicians are already talking about "fast tracking" anti gun laws and the left are elevating the anti gun rhetoric.

Arizona may well be on its way to a hi cap mag ban, and the fact that a U.S. Congress person was one of the victims of this tragedy, I believe we're going to see a bill or bills banning (again) hi cap mags on a federal level.

I don't want to sound insensitive about this horribly tragic event that took the lives of 6 people including a 9 year old child and the misery his cowardly actions have caused, but with the grievous wounding of a United States Congress person and the murder of a federal judge, I believe any chances we had to overturn AB962 have vanished.

BigFatGuy
01-10-2011, 11:27 PM
I read in another article he has a relative who worked for the same county as the sheriff, so it was (I'm sure) professional quid-pro-quo that they not arrest this kid before today.

1JimMarch
01-10-2011, 11:55 PM
http://thechollajumps.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/jared-loughner-is-a-product-of-sheriff-dupniks-office/

by James Kelley

Jared Loughner is a product of Sheriff Dupnik’s office

Jim again, I won't quote the whole article as there's a lot of editorial and speculation, but the "meat" of it is short:

Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation.

I checked around and found partial confirmation from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0824904120110109

Dupnik said there had been earlier contact between Loughner and law enforcement after he had made death threats, although they had not been against Giffords.

If the death threats were ignored due to nepotism, that's huge and turns this whole sick thing around...esp. since Dupnik has taken the lead in the "blame the right" game.

KracknCorn
01-11-2011, 12:19 AM
There are crazy people in the world and that's just a fact. Sometimes you can predict it and sometimes you can't. The sad realistic truth is, there's really nothing you can do about it. Sh*t happens. You just have to deal with them when they actually do something. The feeling of helplessness and that we should have done something is where we lose our freedoms most of the times. People will always try to figure out a way to prevent things like this from happening and this is where the irrational gun laws come into play. Statistically, the chance of getting shot in a mass shooting by a crazed person is probably 1/100000000.

five.five-six
01-11-2011, 12:22 AM
These things are going to happen in a free society: that's the price you pay for liberty. I don't mean to sound callous, but the right answer is to mourn, grieve, get over it, and move on.

to be fair, they happen just as often in a totalitarian society as well, you just are not free to talk about them

nicki
01-11-2011, 2:19 AM
Jim,

You are at ground zero and few are better than you at finding government dirt.

I am sure that everyone on this board will make calls and call in favors if you ask.

The Brady Bunch jumped in on this as well as the Media.

The Media loves controversy and if you can show that the sheriff's department was negligent in thiis, that is a story that will be covered.

If anyone will spread the word on what you have just pointed out, it would be Sarah Palin.

Wheter you like her or not, she has been unfairly turned into a scape goat on this and she needs to come out swinging.

Governor Brewer probably also would jump on board.

Jim, don't be a stranger, you have friends here.

Nicki

753X0
01-11-2011, 4:54 AM
As I understand it, this perp tried to enlist with the military and failed a drug test, in addition to suffering an arrest (not sure about conviction) for possession of drug paraphernalia. To my way of thinking, either of those should present a rebuttable presumption of prohibition. (Given that the current 4473 questions are appropriate.)

Patrick-2
01-11-2011, 5:11 AM
There was a push post-VA shooting to get more people into the NICS system by way of including those deemed to have mental health or stability issues by state, local and private facilties. This was supported by many in the gun-rights communities.

But there was concern from many others (including many traditionally liberal sources) that the act of putting them onto a list would 'stigmatize' them. There were also some legitimate concerns regarding confidentiality of records and overbreadth of application. So nothing really ever came of it.

The Sheriff here said things on day one that will come back to haunt him and many others. They knew the guy and knew him to be a problem. They did nothing to help.

That said, even if he had been prohibited he would have probably found a gun anyway. It's just too bad someone didn't get to him with some meds before he started listening to plastic skulls in his backyard and shooting people. People like this need to forced into it. This was no closet nut job...he had plenty of history with the locals.

I think the Sheriff is dissembling the argument by pointing to others. He knows what is coming and wants to take the first shot. That's not policing, that politicking.

Doheny
01-11-2011, 5:38 AM
A psych eval probably would have caught him...and some here.

Not sure that's where we want to go.

OleCuss
01-11-2011, 5:47 AM
I'm with dustoff31. This guy was a known psychotic (probably paranoid schizophrenia) who had made multiple death threats and had at least one arrest to his name.

The system should not be set up to ignore such folks and leave them untreated on the street. Even if one ignores the firearms issues - this guy shouldn't have been able to have more than a butter knife available to him (and that should probably have been plastic).

wash
01-11-2011, 9:14 AM
I think the problem is our mental health system.

Being comitted means being locked up in essentially a jail with lots of crazy people. A lot of crazy people have families who care about them enough to keep them out of the nut house. Those people don't make the list of prohibited people unless they have some other prohibiting condition.

I don't think this could be solved without laws that would violate our privacy and have some nasty consequences.

This is the price we pay for freedom and the blame should really be placed on the perp and the people who kept him out of the system.

robcoe
01-11-2011, 9:42 AM
The sheriff admits that he had made "a number" of death threats.

If this is the case then the sheriffs office really dropped the ball.

taperxz
01-11-2011, 9:58 AM
The system which would have stopped this man's purchase would also infringe on millions on non-prohibited purchasers' rights.

At this time, and I qualify this as a judgement based on facts known at present, it looks like this was a mentally insane person who had not been adjudicated as such.

Actually Brandon, You may be wrong on this one. IF REPORTED CORRECTLY, This person failed a drug test administered by the Federal government. Therefore the one little slip up here could have been that communication between the armed forces and ATF is lacking.

I am not trying to step on the rights issue here but, perhaps it would be appropriate that if you are caught with ILLEGAL drugs in your system, it should at least become incumbent upon the user to prove he is not on drugs upon purchase of a firearm.

IN THIS CASE the AZ shooter, signed a waiver to allow the army to in fact submit to a drug test. If the government has knowledge of illegal drug activity that you allowed them to test you for, when purchasing a firearm perhaps this particular person could have been tested again to make sure he is in fact no longer on drugs. ( i know there is no law in place for this)

Hey it would be the price you pay for illegal drug use. I think it would be fair to say that no one here would be an advocate for an illegal drug user to be packing.

liketoshoot
01-11-2011, 10:00 AM
Ok lets look at it this way, he was not able to get a gun, either because of a gun ban, or him being a "not allowed" person, he had writen that the Senator was his target. he goes on the internet and finds out how to make a bomb. now he plants it/wears it. Hundreds are hurt or killed.
All I'm saying is he would do this no matter what the gun laws were/are.
Mental people need to be in some kind of care, their familys NEED to speak out and find them help.
Stop blaming the gun with any size mag.

DemocracyEnaction
01-11-2011, 10:09 AM
:gunsmilie:Reporting every misdemeanor Intoxication or DUI violation and the like would only create yet another costly and exspansive beauracracy that the average blue collar guy would have to pay for and become a victim of. Remember blanket policies cover us all and dont always help the situation. He could have just as easliy committed this act with a $10 machete from Harbor frieght. Yes, sad but true.

SuperSet
01-11-2011, 10:14 AM
Why is no one blaming the parents?

Uriah02
01-11-2011, 10:15 AM
He was not a prohibitted person unless he self incriminated himself on 11E of the 4473, unlawful marijuana user. His drug charge was dropped from his record following his traning/recovery program he attended.

Uriah02
01-11-2011, 10:16 AM
Why is no one blaming the parents?

A 22 year old is not a child.

taperxz
01-11-2011, 10:16 AM
:gunsmilie:Reporting every misdemeanor Intoxication or DUI violation and the like would only create yet another costly and exspansive beauracracy that the average blue collar guy would have to pay for and become a victim of. Remember blanket policies cover us all and dont always help the situation. He could have just as easliy committed this act with a $10 machete from Harbor frieght. Yes, sad but true.

Alcohol is not an illegal drug. Alcohol is not what kept the AZ shooter out of the army. ILLEGAL DRUG USE is what i am referring to. Keep in mind i am trying to be very stream line in what i am saying. This was a drug test the AZ shooter volunteered to do! I am NOT saying you should have a drug test as a condition to purchase of all people. Only those that have been tested for illegal drug use for other reasons.

My PERSONAL feeling is that people who take illegal drugs are in fact somewhat mentally, lets just say problematic. They have a personal need to have an altered state of mind.

Patrick-2
01-11-2011, 10:21 AM
:gunsmilie:Reporting every misdemeanor Intoxication or DUI violation and the like would only create yet another costly and exspansive beauracracy that the average blue collar guy would have to pay for and become a victim of. Remember blanket policies cover us all and dont always help the situation. He could have just as easliy committed this act with a $10 machete from Harbor frieght. Yes, sad but true.

OK, I am serious supporter of gun rights but will this one out as dead wrong. No way a machete from Harbour Freight could have wounded 20 people in seconds.

Guns are more deadly than machetes when used en masse. True. Don't argue it, otherwise armies of the world would choose blades over bullets and your desire to carry a gun in public could be countered with the argument that a pocket knife would suffice.

A single person, by surprise? Probably. A crowd of people running after the first victim drops (don't tell me they didn't move)? No.

Hysterics are kicking in on both sides of this. The answer to one person's hysterical argument is not another argument that exceeds reality's tenuous grasp.

The dude was sick. There are 308 million of us in this nation, and you get 2-3 of these deranged attacks in a year?

Relax everyone. Let Brady get stupid. We stay smart. It'll pass. Because this incident does not reflect upon you unless you associate this guy with you.

wash
01-11-2011, 11:20 AM
Alcohol is not an illegal drug. Alcohol is not what kept the AZ shooter out of the army. ILLEGAL DRUG USE is what i am referring to. Keep in mind i am trying to be very stream line in what i am saying. This was a drug test the AZ shooter volunteered to do! I am NOT saying you should have a drug test as a condition to purchase of all people. Only those that have been tested for illegal drug use for other reasons.

My PERSONAL feeling is that people who take illegal drugs are in fact somewhat mentally, lets just say problematic. They have a personal need to have an altered state of mind.
You wouldn't be too happy if you got prohibited because you ate a couple poppy seed muffins the day before your test.

False positives happen...

taperxz
01-11-2011, 11:27 AM
You wouldn't be too happy if you got prohibited because you ate a couple poppy seed muffins the day before your test.

False positives happen...

I never said prohibited! re read my post carefully!

Everyone especially young folks make mistakes without harming others. All i am saying is that if you had been a known drug user, and the government has documentation of that use, it should be up to you to show that you are no longer on drugs. Why not? They ask you the same question on the form. If you answer no you are either not a drug user or a liar.

Purdey
01-11-2011, 11:34 AM
Alcohol is not an illegal drug. Alcohol is not what kept the AZ shooter out of the army. ILLEGAL DRUG USE is what i am referring to. Keep in mind i am trying to be very stream line in what i am saying. This was a drug test the AZ shooter volunteered to do! I am NOT saying you should have a drug test as a condition to purchase of all people. Only those that have been tested for illegal drug use for other reasons.

My PERSONAL feeling is that people who take illegal drugs are in fact somewhat mentally, lets just say problematic. They have a personal need to have an altered state of mind.
I'm not sure if someone who receives a misdemeanor ticket for having a bag of weed should be reported to the NICS system and prohibited from buying/owning firearms. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't although I doubt the cost would be all that high. All the courts would have to do is boot-up NICS system and add the information.

What I do know is that if you are going to prohibit someone like that from owning/buying firearms then you sure as hell better prohibit anyone with a DUI conviction from owning/purchasing firearms.

In the case of the DUI convict, the person got intoxicated and knowingly drove endangering their lives and the lives of others. They not only broke the law they put lives at stake.

Purdey
01-11-2011, 11:37 AM
I never said prohibited! re read my post carefully!

Everyone especially young folks make mistakes without harming others. All i am saying is that if you had been a known drug user, and the government has documentation of that use, it should be up to you to show that you are no longer on drugs. Why not? They ask you the same question on the form. If you answer no you are either not a drug user or a liar.

Should the authorities also demand the rolls of AA meetings (not that there are rolls) to determine those who are known alcohol abusers?

taperxz
01-11-2011, 11:42 AM
I'm not sure if someone who receives a misdemeanor ticket for having a bag of weed should be reported to the NICS system and prohibited from buying/owning firearms. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't although I doubt the cost would be all that high. All the courts would have to do is boot-up NICS system and add the information.

What I do know is that if you are going to prohibit someone like that from owning/buying firearms then you sure as hell better prohibit anyone with a DUI conviction from owning/purchasing firearms.

In the case of the DUI convict, the person got intoxicated and knowingly drove endangering their lives and the lives of others. They not only broke the law they put lives at stake.

You are 100% wrong! I have limited my scope to illegal drugs and an actual blood test that you have consented to.

The DUI is already an illegal act that can happen with the legal use of alcohol! People who get a DUI have to deal with the law based on that alone.

All i stated was that it should be incumbent upon the violator to prove that the person is in fact no longer a user of illegal drugs and this is only after it has been documented that the person did in fact use them. MJ IS an illegal drug! Bottom line.. If you want a gun don't do illegal drugs. It's already the law!!

taperxz
01-11-2011, 11:44 AM
Should the authorities also demand the rolls of AA meetings (not that there are rolls) to determine those who are known alcohol abusers?

Excuse me, what part of legal and illegal don't you comprehend?

Purdey
01-11-2011, 11:48 AM
Based on the facts thus far reported, I see no failures by law enforcement or government in general. If anything, there may have been a failure by his parents, relatives and friends to try and get him medical attention for his medical condition.

These things are going to happen in a free society: that's the price you pay for liberty. I don't mean to sound callous, but the right answer is to mourn, grieve, get over it, and move on.

No way.

The "right answer" MUST include LEARNING from the experience and then using that new found knowledge to minimize the chances of something similar happening again.

wash
01-11-2011, 11:52 AM
If you give them an inch they will take a mile.

My personal libertarian view is that we need to end the drug war. It will save a lot of money and make it easier to deal with drug abusers.

I'm not so concerned with the risks of junkies with guns. They already have guns. If they didn't have to rob houses and mug people to support their habit, a gun in their hand wouldn't be as bad as it is now, especially if they are a law abiding, peaceful junkie.

I'm all for sentence enhancements for people who get high and then break the law, but prohibiting a person because they prefer weed to booze isn't a way to prevent gun crime.

Purdey
01-11-2011, 11:52 AM
You are 100% wrong! I have limited my scope to illegal drugs and an actual blood test that you have consented to.

The DUI is already an illegal act that can happen with the legal use of alcohol! People who get a DUI have to deal with the law based on that alone.

All i stated was that it should be incumbent upon the violator to prove that the person is in fact no longer a user of illegal drugs and this is only after it has been documented that the person did in fact use them. MJ IS an illegal drug! Bottom line.. If you want a gun don't do illegal drugs. It's already the law!!
Actually it's you that is wrong.

If someone is prevented from owning/buying firearms because they used an illegal drug THEN those who use legal drugs to break a law (DUI) should also be prevented from owning/buying firearms.

A DUI is a crime that is inexorably tied to drug use -- legal or not.

Purdey
01-11-2011, 11:55 AM
Excuse me, what part of legal and illegal don't you comprehend?

It's LAUGHABLE to suggest banning those who get ticketed for weed possession to be banned from buying/owning firearms without also banning known drunks.

Purdey
01-11-2011, 12:02 PM
If you give them an inch they will take a mile.

My personal libertarian view is that we need to end the drug war. It will save a lot of money and make it easier to deal with drug abusers.

I'm not so concerned with the risks of junkies with guns. They already have guns. If they didn't have to rob houses and mug people to support their habit, a gun in their hand wouldn't be as bad as it is now, especially if they are a law abiding, peaceful junkie.

I'm all for sentence enhancements for people who get high and then break the law, but prohibiting a person because they prefer weed to booze isn't a way to prevent gun crime.

No kidding! I don't know the ultimate answer but it's out-and-out brain-dead thinking to suggest those who get convicted of DUIs should get a pass IF (for example) people who receive a ticket for procession of weed are kept from buying and owning firearms. There needs to be some uniformity and the cry of "weed is illegal, alcohol is legal, that's why!" just doesn't feed the bulldog. It's simplistic, reductionist thinking that does more harm than good.

DemocracyEnaction
01-11-2011, 12:02 PM
I think my point was lost. I was trying to point out that people are not perfect and we all know that whether it be drugs,alcohol,gambling, etc. etc. We all make mistakes, even hard working educated americans. However we shouldn't all be regulated for the sake of a few looney tune wackos. Yes the machete comparison is drastic, I'm just merely pointing out that a wacko will do wacko things no matter what. This was a horrible act. And most potheads are pretty lazy mellow folks, this seems to be the behavior of a meth head that has been up for an extended period of time. Remember it is this very debating of ideals that some people are saying caused this attack. Proving that people will use terrible tragedys like this to shift blame and sling mud for their cause. :rant:

Lrchops
01-11-2011, 12:05 PM
On two counts. He is obviously crazy and he is drug user. More to the point he was known to the local authorities to be both, yet he was never reported to the NICS center.

Had that been done he would have failed the NICS check and wouldn't have been able to buy the gun. Yes, he could have gotten one somewhere else, but that's beside the point.

I don't want this to turn into an LE bashfest, plenty of officials were aware of this clown and did nothing. The fact is, they all failed. And so the NICS system failed. And so 6 are dead, 11 are wounded.

When the anti's cry for more gun laws, we often counter by saying all we need to do is enforce our current guns laws. Once again we are proven correct.

What do you think?

Your as bad as the liberal media outlets who lay blame on conservatives. You are blaming OFFICIALS!!!

When do we grip onto reality and just realize that there are whacked out crazy people that no one can realistically control? Who has the crystal ball?

These incidents are few and far in between, although tragic when they do happen. I am discusted by the left wing politicians who are using this incident as a reason to implement further gun control restrictions and implement more laws. It is insulting to the deceased and thier families and at best tasteless. The left wing always uses these incidents as a platform for thier agenda and they care nothing of the price payed by the innocent!

Shameful at best to blame anyone other than the low life sick and twisted murderer. The murderer is not worthy of anything and can never match up to even the most vial examples of the worst in society. My heart goes out to the victims and thier families and all those affected by this tragety.

My hate goes out to those who use this tragety as a means to further thier political ambitions!

Arondos
01-11-2011, 12:14 PM
OK let's say we manage to legislate guns, knives, and bombs out of existence.

There's a town hall type meeting with a large crowd and little to no security going on in a public park.

This nut case is a fine and upstanding citizen. He doesn't go around any of these laws to get hold of a gun, knife, or explosives on a black market.

Instead he borrows his Mom's car, steals one, or rents one. Gets up a good head of steam and simply drives a couple of tons of steel through the crowd.

Guess we need to outlaw cars because someone not in their right mind can use one to harm people...

Blame the person. NOT the tool used to do the job.

taperxz
01-11-2011, 12:18 PM
Actually it's you that is wrong.

If someone is prevented from owning/buying firearms because they used an illegal drug THEN those who use legal drugs to break a law (DUI) should also be prevented from owning/buying firearms.

A DUI is a crime that is inexorably tied to drug use -- legal or not.

Your reading comprehension has a little to be desired. IE: Your barking at the moon!

Please re-read my original post. My idea is NOT to prohibit anyone for past drug use! My idea is to make sure that someone who has already tested positive in their previous life time simply provide proof that they are not still in fact on ILLEGAL drugs.

If you don't want the inconvenience of doing this then don't do illegal drugs!!

If you are doing illegal drugs, get help! It's obvious you can't exist in this world mentally if you need to take them. IE: its a form of mental illness.

Alcoholism is not illegal in this country. If you are drunk, you are simply prohibited from doing certain things. LIKE driving and even buying a gun. Alcoholism in this country is still somewhat of an arbitrary term anyway because it is legal to get drunk. If you admit on paper, that you are in fact addicted to alcohol, yes, you are prohibited from making a gun purchase. The difference is illegal drugs are just that 100% illegal to use!

dixieD
01-11-2011, 12:19 PM
Same thing happened in the Vtech shooting.

It's the same policy that this government needs to learn. INTELLIGENCE IS KING.
Most notably all the stupid TSA rules and wasted tax dollars.

The other policy that unfortunately supports the magnitude of some of these tragedies is the assurance of security. It is a false sense of security. Police cannot be everywhere at once. What we are taught is to dial 911 if we are in danger, retreat, and hope the responding officers arrive in time. Nothing wrong with dialing 911, however I think that our public officials are remiss in their not truthfully advising people that they and only they can possibly be responsible for their own immediate safety in a self defense situation. They are remiss in pushing only the 911 solution. People should be informed of this truth, and given the opportunity take necessary precautions and preparations for their own safety.

BigDogatPlay
01-11-2011, 12:46 PM
From what I'm hearing he was unlike a lot of other people you might pass on the street. This guys behavior was (reportedly) so far off-center, students in a college class were scared to be in the same room with him.

Which describes a great many people you can come into contact with any day of the week in cities across California. Particularly larger cities. The downtown streets of San Francisco, as example, are filled with people who are most likely in serious need of some manner of mental health intervention. SFPD shot such an individual just last week after he stabbed a plainclothes officer.

Purdey
01-11-2011, 12:50 PM
Your reading comprehension has a little to be desired. IE: Your barking at the moon!

Please re-read my original post. My idea is NOT to prohibit anyone for past drug use! My idea is to make sure that someone who has already tested positive in their previous life time simply provide proof that they are not still in fact on ILLEGAL drugs.

If you don't want the inconvenience of doing this then don't do illegal drugs!!

If you are doing illegal drugs, get help! It's obvious you can't exist in this world mentally if you need to take them. IE: its a form of mental illness.

Alcoholism is not illegal in this country. If you are drunk, you are simply prohibited from doing certain things. LIKE driving and even buying a gun. Alcoholism in this country is still somewhat of an arbitrary term anyway because it is legal to get drunk. If you admit on paper, that you are in fact addicted to alcohol, yes, you are prohibited from making a gun purchase. The difference is illegal drugs are just that 100% illegal to use!

DUIs automatically lose their CCWs here in CA. Seems reasonable...

taperxz
01-11-2011, 1:01 PM
DUIs automatically lose their CCWs here in CA. Seems reasonable...

Ya, whatever! It is still not a prohibition to purchase a firearm.

taperxz
01-11-2011, 1:02 PM
Or your ability to UOC, LOC in the legal places, or concealed locked carry.

the_quark
01-11-2011, 2:17 PM
The system which would have stopped this man's purchase would also infringe on millions on non-prohibited purchasers' rights.

At this time, and I qualify this as a judgement based on facts known at present, it looks like this was a mentally insane person who had not been adjudicated as such.

Well, one interesting possible (and generally non-conservative and non-libertarian) conclusion from this is that we need to spend more money on mental health. Fifty years ago, I think there's a good chance this guy would've been involuntarily committed for life before this. Obviously that system isn't acceptable, but we ripped it out and haven't done a good job coming up with a replacement. I'm thinking if you graphed "involuntary commitments" vs. "mass shootings" over time, you'd see an inverse correlation.

There's an argument that if you're pro-gun, should also be pro-mental-health-spending to try to prevent stuff like this from happening.

hawk81
01-11-2011, 3:33 PM
This is true.


Based on the facts thus far reported, I see no failures by law enforcement or government in general. If anything, there may have been a failure by his parents, relatives and friends to try and get him medical attention for his medical condition.

These things are going to happen in a free society: that's the price you pay for liberty. I don't mean to sound callous, but the right answer is to mourn, grieve, get over it, and move on.

DemocracyEnaction
01-11-2011, 4:04 PM
Your reading comprehension has a little to be desired. IE: Your barking at the moon!

Please re-read my original post. My idea is NOT to prohibit anyone for past drug use! My idea is to make sure that someone who has already tested positive in their previous life time simply provide proof that they are not still in fact on ILLEGAL drugs.

If you don't want the inconvenience of doing this then don't do illegal drugs!!

If you are doing illegal drugs, get help! It's obvious you can't exist in this world mentally if you need to take them. IE: its a form of mental illness.

Alcoholism is not illegal in this country. If you are drunk, you are simply prohibited from doing certain things. LIKE driving and even buying a gun. Alcoholism in this country is still somewhat of an arbitrary term anyway because it is legal to get drunk. If you admit on paper, that you are in fact addicted to alcohol, yes, you are prohibited from making a gun purchase. The difference is illegal drugs are just that 100% illegal to use!
You just cant get past that Alcoholism is ok thing. Most of the time Alcohol yes alcohol is a type of self medication masking other mental disorders. Just because the goverment says its legal doesn't mean its a good thing, Should we all take a breathalizer to buy a gun? You would probably be cool with that though nevermind.

taperxz
01-11-2011, 4:16 PM
You just cant get past that Alcoholism is ok thing. Most of the time Alcohol yes alcohol is a type of self medication masking other mental disorders. Just because the goverment says its legal doesn't mean its a good thing, Should we all take a breathalizer to buy a gun? You would probably be cool with that though nevermind.

Don't tell me, you didn't do that good with reading comprehension either!

I said only the use of ILLEGAL DRUGS!!!!!! Alcohol is not an ILLEGAL DRUG!!

However if you admit on the DROS form that you are indeed dependent on alcohol you will disqualify yourself from buying a gun!! The law is already there!

Where is the facepalm pic??

kalguns
01-11-2011, 4:27 PM
Does anyone know what kind of gun and caliber was used?
From what I read it sounds like a Glock 9mm or .40 cal.

captbilly
01-11-2011, 4:34 PM
The problem with the present system is that it really isn't effective at removing guns from someone who became unstable after they got their guns. We need some way to monitor people after they built up their armory, so if they go nuts after losing their job at the Post Office, or after a nasty divorce, the police can hold on to their guns until they calm down. The cost and complexity of such a system is likely to be high though.

I just don't think that any system that focuses on characteristics of the guns themselves is likely to ever be very effective (unless all guns are banned, and I am not at all in favor of that). If a crazy or very angry guy can't have a 30 round magazine he can carry several guns.

ZX-10R
01-11-2011, 4:35 PM
Hi parents failed him and to compound that he failed himself.

jpigeon
01-11-2011, 6:23 PM
Looks like the looney left are using this tragedy for 1A and 2A encroachments. Dont punish law abiding society for the crimes committed by the few. Find better ways to punish the few...

Joe
01-11-2011, 6:28 PM
Does anyone know what kind of gun and caliber was used?
From what I read it sounds like a Glock 9mm or .40 cal.

It was a glock 9mm

diginit
01-11-2011, 6:48 PM
It's LAUGHABLE to suggest banning those who get ticketed for weed possession to be banned from buying/owning firearms without also banning known drunks.

Pot is a drug, Illegal and a felony in Nev and Az. CA laws are just wierd. Even going against Fed Law. We all know that. Alcohol is legal in all 50 states and drinking while shooting is NOT a prohibiting offence. Like it or not... I don't like shooting with T totalers. But a beer or a shot is OK. Providing they are not getting stupid or staggering. But we have called smoking pot "getting stupid." As a joke for years. From personal experience... You won't notice how dumb it makes you until you quit. Then smoke a pipeload a few weeks later. Anyways...

What ticks me off is that one idiot goes nuts and 600 million legal gun owners in the US have to pay for his FKups. Penalizing 600 million people for 1 MORONS' action is what is laughable!

This guy had known mental problems and was refused the purchase of ammo from Wally World. Of all places. Someone should have gotten a clue. Too bad no one at the scene had a legal weapon and could have stopped this nutcase.

audiophil2
01-11-2011, 6:54 PM
I don't understand those that blame anything or anyone other than the murderer for his actions.

I don't understand those that want any type of additional law limiting a persons firearm rights such as more comprehensive background checks.

I don't understand anyone that would suggest intrusive spying on people.

I do not understand anyone that would suggest reporting on their neighbor.

I do not understand anyone that thinks government should monitor gun owners.

Those that want to increase spending on mental health will complain when their taxes go up.

Those that want to increase spending on mental health are the same ones that say they want a limited government, no welfare, food stamps, Obamacare, etc.

Arizona cut spending on public mental health to almost nothing last July. Poor MI people that used to get services like subsidized housing, counseling, transportation to counseling, and even simple phone calls to counselors have lost all these services. Now all a MI person can do is see a person once a month for a medication check. That's it. The mental health professionals predicted anarchy in the streets by December 2010. They were just a few days off.


The Saturday of the shooting I was playing poker in the afternoon with a diverse group of people aged 25-65 both male and female. No one even mentioned worrying about new gun laws let alone suggesting any type of law that would decrease Arizona freedoms.
Yesterday I went to the local radiologist for a chest xray and ultrasound. I had my Glock concealed. When it was time for my tests I quietly informed two seperate tech that I was legally carrying a gun. They simply told me to keep it holstered and they would conduct the procedures.
There has been almost no talk of guns due to the recent shooting in my neighborhood. There has been a lot of mourning though.
Many of the suggestions I read on this site to resolve this issue remind me so much of how Hitler dealt with mentally ill people and gun owners. Sad.

diginit
01-11-2011, 7:18 PM
I don't understand those that blame anything or anyone other than the murderer for his actions.

I don't understand those that want any type of additional law limiting a persons firearm rights such as more comprehensive background checks.

I don't understand anyone that would suggest intrusive spying on people.

I do not understand anyone that would suggest reporting on their neighbor.

I do not understand anyone that thinks government should monitor gun owners.

Those that want to increase spending on mental health will complain when their taxes go up.

Those that want to increase spending on mental health are the same ones that say they want a limited government, no welfare, food stamps, Obamacare, etc.

Arizona cut spending on public mental health to almost nothing last July. Poor MI people that used to get services like subsidized housing, counseling, transportation to counseling, and even simple phone calls to counselors have lost all these services. Now all a MI person can do is see a person once a month for a medication check. That's it. The mental health professionals predicted anarchy in the streets by December 2010. They were just a few days off.


The Saturday of the shooting I was playing poker in the afternoon with a diverse group of people aged 25-65 both male and female. No one even mentioned worrying about new gun laws let alone suggesting any type of law that would decrease Arizona freedoms.
Yesterday I went to the local radiologist for a chest xray and ultrasound. I had my Glock concealed. When it was time for my tests I quietly informed two seperate tech that I was legally carrying a gun. They simply told me to keep it holstered and they would conduct the procedures.
There has been almost no talk of guns due to the recent shooting in my neighborhood. There has been a lot of mourning though.
Many of the suggestions I read on this site to resolve this issue remind me so much of how Hitler dealt with mentally ill people and gun owners. Sad.

This is all may be factual, But have you seen the news lately? DC had a moment of silence and flew flags at half mast. They didn't do that when San Bruno blew up and burned. Flags were not even flown half mast when New Orleans flooded. Why? A gun was involved.... OMFK'N God. Now Hillary wants a national Hicap ban.

audiophil2
01-11-2011, 7:25 PM
This is all may be factual, But have you seen the news lately? DC had a moment of silence and flew flags at half mast. They didn't do that when San Bruno blew up and burned. Why? A gun was involved.... Now Hillary wants a national Hicap ban.

Are you really trying to compare an accident with the murder of a Federal Judge and attempted murder of a US Congresswoman?

diginit
01-11-2011, 7:32 PM
Are you really trying to compare an accident with the murder of a Federal Judge and attempted murder of a US Congresswoman?

WTF is the difference? People are people and they died. It doesn't matter what their status is. You are saying that we should ignore accidents and pay special attention to people of stature? Please go back to England, 1774. All this fuss just because they were federal employees? If it were you, me, and 10 others killed at Safeway, What do think would happen? Would we get a moment of silence? The thing that really makes me sick is the little girl losing her life. All this whining about fed. workers is just that. Whining.

taperxz
01-11-2011, 8:07 PM
Are you really trying to compare an accident with the murder of a Federal Judge and attempted murder of a US Congresswoman?


San Bruno was no accident! It was negligence on the part of a huge corporation. There lives are just as important as any congressman or judge!

SpringfieldEMP
01-11-2011, 8:23 PM
More laws is not the answer here. The answer is getting these people that need help, the help they need.

Having had to deal with a family member with mental illness, I can speak first hand how incredibly difficult it is to get someone help.
The authorities cannot do anything to an adult until such a time that the individual is seen as a danger to themselves or others.
We had my family member on SEVERAL 72/hr holds, and each time they were given a sedative and were promptly released after the 72 hours. Even though it was quite clear they needed help.
Unless someone wants the help, NO ONE can force them until they become a danger to themselves or others. Sadly, many times it is already too late at that point.

I do not know what the answer is... I do know that there are many individuals that need help. I just do not know how to get them the help they so desperately need.

This is not a gun control problem...

audiophil2
01-11-2011, 8:28 PM
San Bruno was no accident! It was negligence on the part of a huge corporation. There lives are just as important as any congressman or judge!

An accident is something that happens. It comes from the Latin words accidens and accidere which are translated into English as "happening" and "to happen", respectively. Trust me, 4 years of Latin here. You'll love what the Latin word for a sword's sheath is, I did in HS.

So an accident may occur as a result of negligence but the actual thing that "happened" is an accident. That's where the phrase "accidents happen" comes from.

Still, I have no idea what San Bruno, Katrina, and flags at half mast have anything to do with the OP.

audiophil2
01-11-2011, 8:30 PM
More laws is not the answer here. The answer is getting these people that need help, the help they need.

Having had to deal with a family member with mental illness, I can speak first hand how incredibly difficult it is to get someone help.
The authorities cannot do anything to an adult until such a time that the individual is seen as a danger to themselves or others.
We had my family member on SEVERAL 72/hr holds, and each time they were given a sedative and were promptly released after the 72 hours. Even though it was quite clear they needed help.
Unless someone wants the help, NO ONE can force them until they become a danger to themselves or others. Sadly, many times it is already too late at that point.

I do not know what the answer is... I do know that there are many individuals that need help. I just do not know how to get them the help they so desperately need.

This is not a gun control problem...

You are absolutely right. It is next to impossible to get someone help unless they want it. They will go as far as pretending to get help and they can check themselves out at anytime in most cases. The days of locking people in jail for mental illness are thankfully long gone.

taperxz
01-11-2011, 8:33 PM
Are you really trying to compare an accident with the murder of a Federal Judge and attempted murder of a US Congresswoman?

It was your question not mine.

taperxz
01-11-2011, 8:38 PM
An accident is something that happens. It comes from the Latin words accidens and accidere which are translated into English as "happening" and "to happen", respectively. Trust me, 4 years of Latin here. You'll love what the Latin word for a sword's sheath is, I did in HS.

So an accident may occur as a result of negligence but the actual thing that "happened" is an accident. That's where the phrase "accidents happen" comes from.

Still, I have no idea what San Bruno, Katrina, and flags at half mast have anything to do with the OP.

You can attempt to define all you want. The context in which you speak is lacking. It's obvious you know nothing of the San Bruno explosion. Which happened due to corporate greed.

wildhawker
01-11-2011, 9:52 PM
And your argument's basis and background is?

taperxz
01-12-2011, 6:54 AM
And your argument's basis and background is?


Someone who knows the right people ;) It's a cliche kicked around this forum quite often. If ya know what i mean.:D

background? 40 years of it.

BTW: I am sure you as a Nor Cal' er have heard many things about our utility provider covering up and taking short cuts on their distribution systems! I just happen to know the right people in the suits and ties.

audiophil2
01-12-2011, 7:51 AM
You can attempt to define all you want. The context in which you speak is lacking. It's obvious you know nothing of the San Bruno explosion. Which happened due to corporate greed.

And how is this related to the OP?

Wherryj
01-12-2011, 9:28 AM
On two counts. He is obviously crazy and he is drug user. More to the point he was known to the local authorities to be both, yet he was never reported to the NICS center.

Had that been done he would have failed the NICS check and wouldn't have been able to buy the gun. Yes, he could have gotten one somewhere else, but that's beside the point.

I don't want this to turn into an LE bashfest, plenty of officials were aware of this clown and did nothing. The fact is, they all failed. And so the NICS system failed. And so 6 are dead, 11 are wounded.

When the anti's cry for more gun laws, we often counter by saying all we need to do is enforce our current guns laws. Once again we are proven correct.

What do you think?

Even if one considers that he wasn't reported, the shooter STLL obtained the firearm illegally. Perhaps I'm assuming too much, but the last time I purchased a firearm there were questions about whether I was mentally stable, used drugs, etc.

He knew that he used drugs and knew that others considered him mentally unstable (kicked out of school for it, etc.). By failing to acknowledge these facts, he was purchasing the weapon in a fraudulent manner.

The truth about this tragedy is that there were already enough laws to prevent it, but as usual our country has chosen not to enforce these laws.

Perhaps adding more unenforced laws to the books will make us safer?

taperxz
01-12-2011, 9:56 AM
Even if one considers that he wasn't reported, the shooter STLL obtained the firearm illegally. Perhaps I'm assuming too much, but the last time I purchased a firearm there were questions about whether I was mentally stable, used drugs, etc.

He knew that he used drugs and knew that others considered him mentally unstable (kicked out of school for it, etc.). By failing to acknowledge these facts, he was purchasing the weapon in a fraudulent manner.

The truth about this tragedy is that there were already enough laws to prevent it, but as usual our country has chosen not to enforce these laws.

Perhaps adding more unenforced laws to the books will make us safer?

AGREED! In all my rants i was also trying to make clear the the Fed govt did have something on file proving he was a drug user from when he was not allowed to join the Army because of a drug test. Now, does the Army talk to ATF?? Probably not! This one slipped through the cracks. Government is to big to catch this stuff.

taperxz
01-12-2011, 10:01 AM
Are you really trying to compare an accident with the murder of a Federal Judge and attempted murder of a US Congresswoman?

This was your question in regards to another post that talked about San Bruno and i simply clarified to you that since i know of some of the investigative work being done that i dont think it was JUST and accident. Your question, my reply! Pretty much it in a nut shell.

dantodd
01-12-2011, 10:13 AM
Even if one considers that he wasn't reported, the shooter STLL obtained the firearm illegally. Perhaps I'm assuming too much, but the last time I purchased a firearm there were questions about whether I was mentally stable, used drugs, etc.

I think that trying to run "blame game" by saying the guy was a "prohibited person" is a bit facetious. The fifth amendment probably protects the buyer from truthfully answering a question about illegal drug use on a government form.

I would not argue accept an argument that he was prohibited therefore the system all works peachy.

There is no question, that I am aware of, asking if you are mentally unstable. They do ask if you have been adjudicated mentally ill, as a Dr. I am CERTAIN you fully understand the difference.


He knew that he used drugs and knew that others considered him mentally unstable (kicked out of school for it, etc.)


I think here is where the crux of the question lies if we are to discuss, in a meaningful way, his right to possess a firearm. Did his college counselors notify law enforcement that he was a danger to himself or others? If not, why didn't they report him to authorities to protect others and help him get help they obviously thought he needed? If so, what happened to those reports? Did the sheriff receive the report and brush it under the rug because he knows the man's mother? This may well be what happened based on the sheriff saying that he was aware of many threats issued by the shooter before he tried to retract the statements.

While the blame rests on the man who pulled the trigger it may well be instructive and help prevent future shootings to examine how someone so clearly mentally ill could have slipped through the cracks over and over again. He clearly should have been prohibited long before the shooting took place.

wildhawker
01-12-2011, 11:16 AM
It's the rare customer, and virtually no government, can afford what it says it wants.

Discretion is a *****.

-Brandon

Someone who knows the right people ;) It's a cliche kicked around this forum quite often. If ya know what i mean.:D

background? 40 years of it.

BTW: I am sure you as a Nor Cal' er have heard many things about our utility provider covering up and taking short cuts on their distribution systems! I just happen to know the right people in the suits and ties.

Dreaded Claymore
01-12-2011, 11:26 AM
Based on the facts thus far reported, I see no failures by law enforcement or government in general. If anything, there may have been a failure by his parents, relatives and friends to try and get him medical attention for his medical condition.

These things are going to happen in a free society: that's the price you pay for liberty. I don't mean to sound callous, but the right answer is to mourn, grieve, get over it, and move on.

You said it GrizzlyGuy. I think the best way to prevent violence is MORE COMMUNITY. We all need to look out for each other at the local level. That's how we'll spot crazies early and get them help. I said the same thing after the Virginia Tech shooting. That kid was bonkers and he needed some help, but he was disconnected from the people around him and they didn't realize the seriousness of his need.

After all, the only other way is to have government constantly check us for insanity, and the whole point of this country is a limited government that won't constantly interfere with our lives.

dfletcher
01-12-2011, 11:47 AM
This probably isn't worth starting a separate thread, but looking at this guy's picture and listening to pretty much anyone who interacted with him for any appreciable period of time - the universal response is that he "deviates from the norm" at the very least.

Keeping in mind that human beings can present different faces publicly and privately depending on circumstance, does anyone think the folks who sold him the gun should have not sold it to him of their own accord? True, he passed the background and filled out the 4473 in a satisfactory manner - should they have decided on their own, a subjective assessment, not to do the sale? Should "this guy is behaving weird?" have a place in a gun sale?

I wonder if buying from a chain outlet (big corporate if you will) as opposed to a small one man shop played a role. I can see a sole propriator telling someone "get the hell out of here you nut" but can also see a clerk in a big store doing the "dot the i, cross the t" and that's it approach.

minuteman
01-12-2011, 11:50 AM
I do wonder if the sheriff made his "this vitriol must stop" speech to deflect criticism of his department's previous interaction with the shooter. If what I've read is accurate they handled many calls from concerned citizens.

This is actually a really good point. After a couple brushes with the law including making threats and getting kicked out of school the sheriff kept tossing him back into circulation.

minuteman
01-12-2011, 12:03 PM
This probably isn't worth starting a separate thread, but looking at this guy's picture and listening to pretty much anyone who interacted with him for any appreciable period of time - the universal response is that he "deviates from the norm" at the very least.

Keeping in mind that human beings can present different faces publicly and privately depending on circumstance, does anyone think the folks who sold him the gun should have not sold it to him of their own accord? True, he passed the background and filled out the 4473 in a satisfactory manner - should they have decided on their own, a subjective assessment, not to do the sale? Should "this guy is behaving weird?" have a place in a gun sale?

I wonder if buying from a chain outlet (big corporate if you will) as opposed to a small one man shop played a role. I can see a sole propriator telling someone "get the hell out of here you nut" but can also see a clerk in a big store doing the "dot the i, cross the t" and that's it approach.

I think that would open up too much of a liability for the already difficult positions of gun stores. People would accuse the gun shop of not doing enough instead of using the system that is already in place. It isnt the gun store employee's job to be a mental health evaluator as well. On the other side, the gun store employee also does not get to decide who they will sell to based on feelings or prejudices.

Wherryj
01-12-2011, 12:32 PM
From what I'm hearing he was unlike a lot of other people you might pass on the street. This guys behavior was (reportedly) so far off-center, students in a college class were scared to be in the same room with him.

Regardless of our opinions on the matter, there is no law against acting or even being crazy, as long as no laws are broken. It's conceivable he may have been evaluated for 5150 but didn't meet the criteria for a psychiatric detention. It's also possible for a mentally deranged person to fake their way through an exam.
But he allegedly passed a firearms background check, so the most likely scenario is that this individual slipped through the proverbial crack.
Whatever the case, you can't lock someone up for something they didn't do.


Add "and legislate guns and ammunition out of existence" and you may be on to something. Of course I'm exaggerating, but anti gun politicians are already talking about "fast tracking" anti gun laws and the left are elevating the anti gun rhetoric.

Arizona may well be on its way to a hi cap mag ban, and the fact that a U.S. Congress person was one of the victims of this tragedy, I believe we're going to see a bill or bills banning (again) hi cap mags on a federal level.

I don't want to sound insensitive about this horribly tragic event that took the lives of 6 people including a 9 year old child and the misery his cowardly actions have caused, but with the grievous wounding of a United States Congress person and the murder of a federal judge, I believe any chances we had to overturn AB962 have vanished.

The last time this happened to one of the elite, as opposed to one of us mere "subjects", we had a flurry of laws and a "Campaign" named after the victim.