Arizona congresswoman among 18 shot at Tuscon grocery

Do you think that someone who is willing to shoot someone else is really going to follow the rules? It would be easy enough to kill people with homemade devices, so outlawing guns wouldn't help prevent the mentally disturbed from committing acts of violence. They would just go to the hardware store and make some pipe bombs.

Thankfully, some bystander tackled the shooter. That is what we need more of -- brave people, willing to "put down their fears, sometimes times to their death, but always to victory." (the motto of the King's Guard in ancient Greece)

I am not talking about outlawing guns. I do not understand why there are not more laws and controls for the ownership, sale, and registration of guns. Even if it took one gun out of one bad person's hands, it would be worth the effort. Guess I am not one of those people that consider packing some heat as one of my really important rights.;-)

The fact that you want to classify him as left or right speaks volumes. He is insane. We have created a a society that promotes violence. That's what we should be talking about.

futurebeachbum didn't say anything about wanting to classify him. He noted that it would be interested to see how he is classified. I can only deduce that he means how the gov't, people, or news classifies the guy. Many other people on this thread are suggesting that Sarah Palin made the guy shoot all these people.

As you said, he must be off his rocker to go postal like he did.

I am not talking about outlawing guns. I do not understand why there are not more laws and controls for the ownership, sale, and registration of guns. Even if it took one gun out of one bad person's hands, it would be worth the effort. Guess I am not one of those people that consider packing some heat as one of my really important rights.;-)

We have to wait and see how he procured the weapon. He may have had it legally, or he may have just stolen it, or he may have used some loop hole in Arizona or Federal law. Depending on the outcome of that, new laws might be put in place to prevent such things in the future. But we shouldn't jump to any conclusions since we don't have the information.

We have to wait and see how he procured the weapon. He may have had it legally, or he may have just stolen it, or he may have used some loop hole in Arizona or Federal law. Depending on the outcome of that, new laws might be put in place to prevent such things in the future. But we shouldn't jump to any conclusions since we don't have the information.

Loughner: I can't trust this government - U.S. news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com


Well, if this msnbc story is right, he purchased a glock 19 legally in Arizona. He was carrying multiple clips, plus a knife. Thank goodness somebody jumped on him.

We have to wait and see how he procured the weapon. He may have had it legally, or he may have just stolen it, or he may have used some loop hole in Arizona or Federal law. Depending on the outcome of that, new laws might be put in place to prevent such things in the future. But we shouldn't jump to any conclusions since we don't have the information.

I really don't care at this point how this specific person acquired the gun- this tragedy just reawakened my fears of guns in the wrong hands in general.

I really don't care at this point how this specific person acquired the gun- this tragedy just reawakened my fears of guns in the wrong hands in general.

I understand your point.
Realistically, however, I doubt that guns-in-wrong-hands can be legislated OUT of (or not into) wrong hands. Laws work for the law-abiding. What works for the insane, angry, and disenfranchised is more complex. :(

I understand your point.
Realistically, however, I doubt that guns-in-wrong-hands can be legislated OUT of (or not into) wrong hands. Laws work for the law-abiding. What works for the insane, angry, and disenfranchised is more complex. :(

I understand, and realistically know that there are bad apples everywhere. However, tightening rules that are a benefit to rule followers and a detriment to rule breakers is a start.

Yes, there will always be people so F-ed up, misguided, and determined that they WILL find a way to carry out their dastardly deeds - no matter what.

But I am, always have been, and always will be a fan of making it as difficult as possible for criminals and terrorists to achieve their ends.

Yes, you can kill scare, hurt, and kill people in a lot of ways. It's just harder if you can't get guns that shoot many bullets in a short time period and can't buy them that same day.

Criminals are lazy, crazy people screw up, and the more hoops and hurdles there are, the more likely they are to trip and fall.

And the easier you make it, and the more you egg the crazies on (especially with no consequences for the eggers), the more incidents you will have.

I don't know of a single person that I am comfortable with having a gun and who needs a gun for a legitimate purpose, that could not still buy or own a weapon and ammo for that purpose EVEN IF we put some common sense controls in place to weed out some of the wack-a-doos.

That is all.

I don't see how a change in our gun laws could have prevented something like this, short of requiring mental health screening for gun purchases. Even with that, screening isn't an exact science, so there's no assurance it would've helped. I really don't think there's much we can do about situations like this. :idontno: Love to hear people's ideas though.

I suppose if he was rejected by the military for mental health reason, that information could have gone into the background check database. But that seems like a corner case.

I'm not saying it's a 100% solution, but I am saying that even a 50% solution saves a lot of lives.

Does anyone doubt that this guy was nuts? (Still think he should get the death penalty BTW.)

Does anyone doubt that this nuttiness was officially identified at some point?

Does anyone doubt this is repeated many times?

I can't get car insurance or trade stocks without someone checking my credit score, running my SSN, or wanting a photo ID.

But I can buy a gun without any restrictions.

I don't see how a change in our gun laws could have prevented something like this, short of requiring mental health screening for gun purchases. Even with that, screening isn't an exact science, so there's no assurance it would've helped. I really don't think there's much we can do about situations like this. :idontno: Love to hear people's ideas though.

While I support gun owners rights, I also believe that some states are way to lax on background (or lack of) checks.

Regarding the AZ issue. While I know that a lot of the details have yet to be disclosed, it is becoming apparent that this kid was kicked out of the local community college in October for behavioral issues. It is even being reported that the college PD even documented that he would not be allowed to return without documentation from a physician that he was neither a harm to himself or others....

Back to the gun control point....IMO, anytime law enforcement deems someone potentially harmful to themselves or others why not do a review of the gun registry data base to see if they lawfully own guns. If so, removal of the weapons should be warranted until it is deemed that the person is no longer a threat. In this case, that would have at least kept him from using the legal weapon he had in his possession. Would it have stopped him from the act? Who knows, but without easy access to a weapon, he may not have acted...

I'm sure that my opinion will be slammed hard by some as socialistic, far left anti-gun, etc. but that fact of the matter is there are some people that should not have access/possession to guns regardless of one's interpretation of the constitution.

I'm not saying it's a 100% solution, but I am saying that even a 50% solution saves a lot of lives.

Does anyone doubt that this guy was nuts? (Still think he should get the death penalty BTW.)

Does anyone doubt that this nuttiness was officially identified at some point?

Does anyone doubt this is repeated many times?

I suppose we'll find out who knew what. What comes from that will hopefully be constructive.

I can't get car insurance or trade stocks without someone checking my credit score, running my SSN, or wanting a photo ID.

But I can buy a gun without any restrictions.

FWIW, you can't buy a gun without a national background check, and that is tied to your criminal records, military background, and certain mental health records.

Handgun Background Check - Handgun Background Check System Has Loopholes

I can go to a gun show and buy a gun with no background checks whatsoever. The NRA and manufacturers fought hard for that.

The title and first paragraph of your link says it all. Not only is the system flawed when it is actually used, only 22 states participate.

"The FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, established by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, works if the individual states submit all of the data into the system. Otherwise, people considered too dangerous to own handguns can buy them with few problems"

The second paragraph tells how the system failed to screen out the Virginia Tech shooter - despite his many issues.

"In the aftermath of the April 16, 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech, the deadliest shooting spree in U.S. History, it was discovered that Cho Seung-Hui had been determined to be mentally ill and a danger to himself and others. In spite of that court ruling and an order to undergo a psychological evaluation, Cho was able to purchase the handguns he used to shoot 32 people and himself from a licensed gun dealer."