Assasination attempt in Arizona

[Rick Lee]

This is the 4473 you have to complete when buying from a dealer. It's feel-good, do-nothing BS. Who the hell ever answers "yes" to some of those questions? I guess it's good for weeding out the super idiots.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf

[sammyg2]

For those who think tighter gun laws are the answer, ponder this:

How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use when he killed 168 people?
How many guns were used when the sheet-heads killed almost 3000 people on 9/11?

NONE!

When a wacko wants to kill, he will find a way. If he gets a gun he'll use it. If he can't get a gun he'll find something else to use.
The gun is simply a tool and taking away the guns will not take away the killing.

PS: how many rounds do you think this wacko would have gotten off if everyone in the crowd was packing?
Sometimes guns are used to kill and sometimes the bad guys are on the recieving end. Sometimes guns SAVE lives.

[drcoastline]

So you fill out the paper work and they hand you a gun? They don't run a check to verify the information?

I hold several NJ professional licenses (not guns). We must fill out a criminal background check form. The form is issued by the NJ state police. Prior to issuing the license the state police run a background check for criminal activity and to verify the information.

Granted it wouldn't have helped for this situation or even some of the others but man it sure seems like a lax process if that's it.

[oldE]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

When a wacko wants to kill, he will find a way. If he gets a gun he'll use it. If he can't get a gun he'll find something else to use.
The gun is simply a tool and taking away the guns will not take away the killing.

Good point, Sammy.

So the other options are: Take away the wackos
or: Keep the Wackos away from the guns.
or: Do nothing and accept the random violence.

None of the above are easy choices.
Les

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

When a wacko wants to kill, he will find a way. If he gets a gun he'll use it. If he can't get a gun he'll find something else to use.
The gun is simply a tool and taking away the guns will not take away the killing.

IN the past 5 years, there was an early muslim male that decided to do his jihad part. He took his SUV and started running over people in I think Santa Barbara.

Where there is a will, there is a way. Unfortuantely, we have a country of 300M people and a certain small percentage are unstable wackos. And until they do something to alert the authorities, they are not put into the system.

It also appears that his mother works for one of the local governments and used her influence to prevent her "little angle" from going to jail. SHE should have known he was unstable and she should have done something.

He was recently thrown out of a local community college. He was not to be allowed back without a mental check. BUT, he opted to drop out instead. His parents should have sent him off to doctors at that point. But they didn't.

So where is the failure? People who knew him, knew he was a problem, yet did nothing. So instead we have people suggesting yet another set of gun laws.

No. We have enough gun laws. What we need are people and parents with the guts to do what is needed, instead of relying on "some one else", like "the government", to do the dirty work.

[masraum]

So you fill out the paper work and they hand you a gun? They don't run a check to verify the information?

I'm sure it's the same as it is here in Texas, you full out the paperwork, they call the FBI, and get an approval in 15 minutes or so.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by red-beard

It also appears that his mother works for one of the local governments and used her influence to prevent her "little angle" from going to jail. SHE should have known he was unstable and she should have done something.

.

But he was so acute ..........

[speeder]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

For those who think tighter gun laws are the answer, ponder this:

How many guns did Timothy McVeigh use when he killed 168 people?
How many guns were used when the sheet-heads killed almost 3000 people on 9/11?

NONE!

When a wacko wants to kill, he will find a way. If he gets a gun he'll use it. If he can't get a gun he'll find something else to use.
The gun is simply a tool and taking away the guns will not take away the killing.

PS: how many rounds do you think this wacko would have gotten off if everyone in the crowd was packing?
Sometimes guns are used to kill and sometimes the bad guys are on the recieving end. Sometimes guns SAVE lives.

So basically it's a worthless goal to try to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people, is that what you're trying to say? Because hey, they're just going to get in a car and drive it through the supermarket anyways or take down 20 people with a meat cleaver...semi-auto firearms with extended clips really don't make it any easier...

What a nimrod. If you're the voice of gun owners, we're doomed.

[RANDY P]

can anyone suggest a more perfect way to keep guns out of hands of criminals?

It's just a futile effort, and just a talking point for politicians to sell themselves. It's useless.

rjp

[speeder]

The guy wasn't a criminal.

Next?

[Taz's Master]

Originally Posted by speeder

So basically it's a worthless goal to try to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people, is that what you're trying to say? Because hey, they're just going to get in a car and drive it through the supermarket anyways or take down 20 people with a meat cleaver...semi-auto firearms with extended clips really don't make it any easier...

What a nimrod. If you're the voice of gun owners, we're doomed.

speeder, I have not read the entire thread, so if this has been discussed, please forgive me. My questions are: If the action is already illegal, why do you suppose outlawing the tool will be more effective in preventing the action? Look at the correlation between alcohol and violent crime, would you support outlawing alcohol to prevent alcohol fueled violent crime? Do you think this would be more or less effective than outlawing guns to prevent gun crime?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by speeder

So basically it's a worthless goal to try to keep guns out of the hands of unstable people, is that what you're trying to say? Because hey, they're just going to get in a car and drive it through the supermarket anyways or take down 20 people with a meat cleaver...semi-auto firearms with extended clips really don't make it any easier...

What a nimrod. If you're the voice of gun owners, we're doomed.

So what would you suggest then? There are steps in place to deny legal gun purchases to nutbags. This guy stayed out of the nutbag category for reasons totally unrelated to any gun or gun law. Other than expanding the criteria for getting nutbags on that no-sell-gun-to list, what would you do? Ban hi-cap. mags so the tens of millions of them already out there quadrulple in price and a nutbag just has to carry three 10 rounders instead of one 30 rounder if he's too dumb, lazy or poor to get a hold of the old ones? Wonder why these types of events never happen at places like gun stores, shooting ranges or police stations.....where everyone is armed? Really, what's your suggestion? Let me guess - pass more laws to restrict the honest, trained, mentally competent and law-abiding people like myself. Please explain how restricting my gun rights and hobby some more will make this kind of thing at all less likely to happen again tomorrow.

[stomachmonkey]

[speeder]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

So what would you suggest then? There are steps in place to deny legal gun purchases to nutbags. This guy stayed out of the nutbag category for reasons totally unrelated to any gun or gun law. Other than expanding the criteria for getting nutbags on that no-sell-gun-to list, what would you do? Ban hi-cap. mags so the tens of millions of them already out there quadrulple in price and a nutbag just has to carry three 10 rounders instead of one 30 rounder if he's too dumb, lazy or poor to get a hold of the old ones? Wonder why these types of events never happen at places like gun stores, shooting ranges or police stations.....where everyone is armed? Really, what's your suggestion? Let me guess - pass more laws to restrict the honest, trained, mentally competent and law-abiding people like myself. Please explain how restricting my gun rights and hobby some more will make this kind of thing at all less likely to happen again tomorrow.

I can imagine a pretty strong argument that, "the smaller the clip, the smaller the body count". He was stopped when it was time to re-load. Most average nutbags can't reload in a crowd of victims faster than 5 people can tackle him.

Expanding the criteria for keeping guns out of the hands of nutbags would be an excellent idea. It sounds like the current safeguards in AZ. are a complete joke.

[Lothar]

Originally Posted by oldE

Rick,

I have a little problem with this argument. Granted, while more people die every year in the US from traffic accidents than gunshot wounds, there is a difference in the designed purpose of the device.

A motor vehicle's purpose is primarily transportation, followed by pleasure of possession, show, competition.
A firearm's designed purpose is to move a bullet with enough velocity to kill or seriously injure the target. Like vehicles, people also possess them for the purposes of pleasure, show and competition.

1. Guns are not exclusively offensive weapons. Even excluding sport shooting and hunting, it would be wrong to assume that the design purpose of guns is to kill. As a defensive weapon, guns are designed to stop an attack.

2. There are cases where driving privileges are suspended due to a medical condition. If a person is suffering from a condition that could cause seizures that could lead to an accident, restrictions are applied routinely.

Your analysis of guns vs. cars with respect to purpose is flawed, not to mention that gun laws are as effective as laws against armed robbery and murder. The criminals don't care. They are not planning on getting caught.

[DARISC]

Originally Posted by speeder

...I thought that you guys were always preaching about how everyone packing in the supermarket or shopping mall could/would stop a mass murderer blah blah blah

I'm not convinced that having another idiot spraying bullets in the supermarket would have improved things blah blah blah

AZ. is considered to be the land of the gun nut blah blah blah


I would not object to stricter screening for mental heath issues but that would mean no guns for a lot of people who post here regularly.

"a lot of people who post here regularly"

WHAT?!

Pilgrim, somebody oughta belt you in the mouth. But I won't. The hell I won't!

It's spineless wimps like you who've allowed this country to degenerate into a bunch of spineless wimps like you...what with your irrational, pansy ass rejection of THE ONLY SURE WAY to execute the bad guys at the scene of a crime before it escalates, i.e., CIRCULAR FIRING SQUADS!

Now you'll probably start whining about "collateral damage".

Sheesh.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by speeder

I can imagine a pretty strong argument that, "the smaller the clip, the smaller the body count". He was stopped when it was time to re-load. Most average nutbags can't reload in a crowd of victims faster than 5 people can tackle him.

Expanding the criteria for keeping guns out of the hands of nutbags would be an excellent idea. It sounds like the current safeguards in AZ. are a complete joke.

What safeguards were specific to AZ? Surely, you know the safeguards are a matter of federal law, as I posted that ATF form earlier. Nothing to do with AZ. It's the same for CA, you know, where all the sane people live.

So let's ban hi-cap mags (again). Because we all know someone willing to take a capital murder charge or commit suicide by cop will be scared off by the misdemeanor offense of having a post-ban hi-cap. mag. Yeah, that's the ticket. And a determined killer would never be able to find a hi-cap. mag if they were illegal, right? The guy can already buy a gun because he's not on the nutbag list. What's to stop him from buying two and doubling his capacity? With a little more training he'd have been able to reload a lot faster or start out with a 10 rd. mag and reload before people had figured out what was going on. I know you're smarter than your suggestions suggest.

[Tim Hancock]

With a little practice, reloading and firing a shot on target from slide lock is under two seconds..... Mag capacity laws will not hinder anyone who has practiced reloads.

[Lothar]

Originally Posted by speeder

I can imagine a pretty strong argument that, "the smaller the clip, the smaller the body count". He was stopped when it was time to re-load. Most average nutbags can't reload in a crowd of victims faster than 5 people can tackle him.

Not really. See below

[oldE]

Originally Posted by Lothar

1. Guns are not exclusively offensive weapons. Even excluding sport shooting and hunting, it would be wrong to assume that the design purpose of guns is to kill. As a defensive weapon, guns are designed to stop an attack.

2. There are cases where driving privileges are suspended due to a medical condition. If a person is suffering from a condition that could cause seizures that could lead to an accident, restrictions are applied routinely.

Your analysis of guns vs. cars with respect to purpose is flawed, not to mention that gun laws are as effective as laws against armed robbery and murder. The criminals don't care. They are not planning on getting caught.

Lothar,

I think we are making a distinction in this discussion between criminals and mentally unbalanced.

I think your point # 2 is a perfect example of how a system already in place to protect public safety is working for the most part. There seems to be a mechanism supported by law which attempts mentally unstable persons from acquiring a firearm. Why does that not work? Can it be made to work with the laws in place?

" As a defensive weapon, guns are designed to stop an attack. "
and they do this by moving " a bullet with enough velocity to kill or seriously injure the target" As a device, they have no other intended function.

No easy solutions.
Thanks for helping me along in this discussion.
Les