Arizona Gun Laws And The Tucson Tragedy

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:25:16 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said on Fox News Sunday today that the mass shootings in Arizona yesterday are "unrelated" to Arizona's gun laws: "The weapons don't kill people, it's the individual that kills people." - TPM

This issue of gun control laws has basically been swept aside since the Brady Law debate days of 1994. Indeed, the gun rights advocates have so swept the field that it is hard to find any gun control advocates at all. I am one of the few. As opposed to Rand Paul, my view is that making obtaining a gun more difficult may have had an effect on yesterday's tragedy, and prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit would also have had an effect. Arizona does not require a permit to purchase a handgun nor does it require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Fox News reported:

[T]he gun used in Saturday’s shooting at a “Congress on Your Corner” event in Tucson, AZ was a Glock 19 – a semi-automatic 9mm gun with an extended magazine. Officials say they know the gun to have been purchased in Tuscon [. . . I]t’s believed that the gun was purchased legally.

The main argument against gun control laws is that it does not completely prevent tragedies such as yesterday's because if someone wants a gun they can get one.

Of course this argument can be applied to every thing for which laws are enacted. The reshaping of this argument into something to address would be that gun control laws are ineffectual in preventing shooting deaths as compared to the difficulty placed on law abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Assuming that such a right exists (I think Heller was wrongly decided), what precisely is the unbearable burden placed on these law abiding citizens? Applying for a permit? Waiting on a background check? Are these burdens really so onerous?

I have not done a check on the studies of the effects of gun control laws on gun violence, but it seems logical that such laws have at least SOME reducing effect on gun violence.

Perhaps this political and policy debate, closed for some time now, can be reopened. And before anyone chooses to remind me, yes, I know Gabrielle Giffords was on the anti-gun control side of the debate in the past. In my view she was wrong.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Morning Open Thread | Tucson Tragedy Suspect Loughner Invokes Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Arizona Gun Laws And The Tucson Tragedy | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Rand's Same old crap (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by cal1942 on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:40:12 AM EST

"The weapons don't kill people, it's the individual that kills people."

The same tired old load of crap.

They're never asked how many people the assailant could have killed and wounded without a gun.

I've always preferred (5.00 / 4) (#47)
by brodie on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 01:33:12 PM EST

allowing the gun nuts to have their Wild West firearms -- that is, only the old six-shooters they carried in a holster on their hips, in plain view -- only with proper permit/licensing in place to exclude felons and known whack jobs, and not allowed in saloons or churches or gov't buildings. Six shot max yesterday would have meant far fewer casualties, at least.

Or, for the Constitutional Originalists, we could interpret the 2A to allow only those types of weapons a member of the regular militia would have used back in the 1780s -- the one-shot/minute flint rifle type which might have meant only one casualty yesterday.

As it turned out, apparently (accd'g to a diary today at FDL) the accused's weapon was a Glock semi-auto pistol with 31 bullets in each magazine, which he was in the process of re-magging when he was finally stopped. That's not a firearm so much as a weapon of mass destruction, and in this case it's clear that not only can people kill people but guns of a WMD type kill people in massive numbers.


: I like your idea; when we (5.00 / 2) (#50)
by KeysDan on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 01:43:59 PM EST

hear that someone is "packing", we would know that it meant loading their musket. According to Sheriff Dupnik, the suspect did, in fact, re-mag, but a spring failed giving time for him to be subdued by two men. A woman that he wounded fought with him for the Glock as he was attempting the re-mag, giving critical time and support to the two men.

it seems to me that the (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by kenosharick on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:51:15 PM EST

extremists have won this debate and they do not care how many 9yo children die. Despite the regularity of such incidents and thousands dead there will be no real debate over limiting these instruments of death. These kind of incidents are extremely rare in nations with real consistent nation-wide common sense gun laws. In America we will continue to give any angry or mentally ill person all the automatic weapons and ammo they can afford to buy. How pathetic are we?

Your generalization (1.00 / 0) (#63)
by mexboy on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 05:56:59 PM EST

on this issue makes you sound like one of those extremists you rail against in your post. Ironic!


No it doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by Warren Terrer on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 06:10:49 PM EST

I don't think you know what 'ironic' means.


: care to expound? (none / 0) (#65)
by mexboy on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 06:54:49 PM EST

From the free dictionary
Irony:
3. incongruity between what is expected to be and what actually is, or a situation or result showing such incongruity.
Ironic!

Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by KeysDan on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 01:36:23 PM EST

seems to be one of the few responsible officials in Arizona. His remarks yesterday on the hostile environment were straightforward. And today, in response to the state's gun laws in effect and proposed, called Arizona the "Tombstone of America." I worry that with Mueller on the scene, we will be back to "extremists on the left and right." He has already linked the problem to the internet--no mention of old-fashioned radio, as in political talk radio.

Not a very heroic name, (none / 0) (#51)
by brodie on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 01:44:59 PM EST

but heroic remarks nonetheless.

It will also be interesting, assuming Rep Giffords makes a good recovery and resumes her job, to see whether she moves a bit on her own rather conservative gun stance.


: ie. what it took to move Jim Brady (none / 0) (#52)
by oldpro on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 01:54:08 PM EST

from pro to con...talk about learning the hard way.

I am a strong supporter of (5.00 / 0) (#54)
by Jeralyn on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 02:45:10 PM EST

second amendment rights and this event does not change that. This is not about guns, it's about what caused the shooter to use the gun to kill someone. Guns did not cause his rage or mental illness. I think I'll write a post on this now, and thank you BTD for saying "speaking for me only" on this one.

Jeralyn, please include in your post (none / 0) (#57)
by oculus on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 03:05:59 PM EST

your views on whether a person age 21 or over, who has never been committed by a court to an in patient mental health facility, but whom others (work colleagues, supervisor, fellow-students, professors, family members, etc.) have observed acting/talking in ways suggesting serious mental illsness, should be restricted by federal law from obtaining a firearm. Thank you.


Please explain how (none / 0) (#68)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:46:45 PM EST

you would write such a law. Thank you.


: Require a psych eval. Analogy to (none / 0) (#72)
by oculus on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 11:11:50 AM EST

driver license review. But Peter G tells me this can't happen due to Heller and the fact having a driver license is a privilege, not a right; whereas, post Heller, people in U.S. have a constitutional right to a gun.

In Iowa, a new state law just went into effect (none / 0) (#71)
by Farmboy on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 09:42:04 AM EST

that removed the county sheriffs' ability to deny concealed carry permits based on character references - including the sort about which you're speaking.

If a person is of age, and their criminal record does not preclude gun ownership, approval of their application for concealed carry is automatic.


: Unfortunate. (none / 0) (#73)
by oculus on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 11:12:08 AM EST

The issue is. . .hard (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:31:26 AM EST

If you really want to start down the rabbit hole of what people opposed to any gun control believe, read More Guns Less Crime by John Lott.

What's difficult about it? (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:33:47 AM EST

I do not understand what is difficult about it.

Please explain.


People who support a robust (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:42:07 AM EST

interpretation of the 2nd Amendment are prepared to argue that as an empirical matter, reducing the number of guns, or making it more difficult to get guns, does not reduce crime.

What makes it very difficult to argue for or against that proposition is that it is impossible to establish a control group.


Ah, the data (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:44:30 AM EST

is difficult.

The logic seems unassailable though. SOME people will not engage in gun violence because of the hoops to go through.


I would be interested to hear (none / 0) (#11)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:47:35 AM EST

your proposal for what might have kept Loughner from buying the gun he used yesterday, assuming he went through legitimate channels. Presumably you would have to require a psychological examination.


I would indeed (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:52:37 AM EST

I would require a background check that required review of his education and job history - which would have turned up the he was thrown out of school for mental instability.


I would support that (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:57:23 AM EST

But I don't think such a regime is obviously compatible with the understanding of the 2nd Amendment articulated in Heller. There's also the problem of who we vest discretion in to make that determination.


If Heller is about individuals (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:01:24 PM EST

then there is no states rights component to the Second Amendment thus the feds can do it.

The reality is Heller has it exactly backwards, the Second Amendment is states rights based (it should be repealed imo anyway), not individual rights based.

I think there is a plausible argument that the 2nd Amendment, properly understood, prohibits federal gun policy.


Stevens seemed to argue (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:06:12 PM EST

that the 2nd Amendment just means you have a right to join the Army/National Guard (an interesting proposition in light of the DADT discussion we just had).

I personally think that the states rights interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is something of a nightmare. Imagine, e.g., Montana requiring every citizen to purchase a machine gun (otherwise unavailable for new purchase in the U.S. since the 80s).


: I would avoid it if I could (none / 0) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:09:44 PM EST

But I think it is a plausible interpretation.

And not accepted by the military (none / 0) (#40)
by nycstray on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:12:03 PM EST

for the same reason.


Has anyone ever tried to argue that (none / 0) (#41)
by steviez314 on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:13:17 PM EST

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" means that a state could require regular proficiency exams for any gun holders, or even one just to buy a gun.

Since if you wanted to have a well-regulated militia, you would certainly want the people in it to show that they know how to use, aim, clean, store the firearm.


: We're still finding out (none / 0) (#42)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:16:14 PM EST

what Heller and McDonald mean. Neither articulated a level of scrutiny.

: Heller ends all these arguments (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:17:26 PM EST

But lott is a proven fraud. (none / 0) (#9)
by observed on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:45:31 AM EST

He's not referring to Lott (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:50:09 AM EST

in terms of a respectable study.

The reality is agreeing to what the proper variables are is a realitty.

Personally, I think a little "thin skull" doctrine thinking is in order - the populace are how we find them and the effect of gun control laws seems pretty clear to me - given the existing population, gun control laws reduce gun violence.

Yes, reducing unemployment and drug abuse and decriminalizing drugs, etc. would too, maybe even more effectively, but that does not mean the gun control will not help.


I think Washington D.C. and Chicago (none / 0) (#18)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:54:12 AM EST

would be surprised to learn that gun control works. Nevertheless, residents of both cities support it strongly. I think most would probably say that only a robust national gun control policy would produce the desired results. But that is rather hard to imagine (both as a political and a practical matter--check your email).

The parallel to the drugs problem is indeed fairly strong.


This is the fallacy thinking (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:59:20 AM EST

that permeates these discussions.

DC and Chicago have gun control laws and alos high levels of gun control violence, ergo, gun control does not work.

That is specious reasoning. The effect of gun control in those settings is not optimal, of course the national policy idea is absolutely right, and Heller makes it more difficult, but it still works regionally.


Even assuming the 2nd Amendment (none / 0) (#29)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:02:37 PM EST

doesn't pose a barrier, I don't see how you're going to get the political agreement to implement an effective national strategy.

I mean, think back to the way Hillary Clinton tried to thread the needle in her Presidential campaign: different gun laws for rural and city. That policy is a guaranteed loser for anyone who actually wants to try gun control.


As Inoted in my post (5.00 / 2) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:04:31 PM EST

I think I am the last gun control advocate in the country.


Yup, it's dead as a national issue (none / 0) (#38)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:08:36 PM EST

Has been since at least the 2000 election.

Gun control is inextricably tied into the culture war in its purest 1960s form. Look at who the straw plaintiffs were in Heller and McDonald and you get the picture.


Well, Ds might have thought (5.00 / 2) (#49)
by brodie on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 01:41:19 PM EST

the death penalty was a dead, settled issue in the 80s and 90s when our pols suddenly found they couldn't afford not to be at least somewhat in favor. But looky at how it's losing popular support lately, particularly with the news items about Death Row inmates getting a new trial or being released on dna exonerating evidence.

Never say never in politics. With events like yesterday, and now affecting members of Congress personally, it's not too farfetched to possibly see the beginning of a new movement to tighten up on gun laws. Seems anyway as if it almost takes a direct tragic gun assault on those in D.C. to get any legislation passed -- the RFK murder leading to a ban on so-called "Saturday night specials", the assassn' attempt on Reagan and shooting of press sec'y Brady leading eventually to the Brady Bill.


: Probably have to wait for a SCOTUS (none / 0) (#55)
by oculus on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 03:01:02 PM EST

shift though.

My understanding (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:51:17 AM EST

is that if you don't like his data, others have duplicated it. (Yes, I know the sockpuppet story).

In any case, it hardly matters whether he is right: as a matter of first principles, gun rights proponents very much believe that he is.


: Of course it matters. (none / 0) (#20)
by observed on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:56:34 AM EST

Very analogous to tobacco discussions,years past.

That Giffords is anti-gun control (none / 0) (#12)
by Towanda on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:49:59 AM EST

(and that, for example, others such as Feingold are anti-gun control) makes this a complicated issue.

I am pro-gun control. But others whom I respect are not. If I listen to them rather than dismiss them, perhaps we can find a compromise that I cannot discern now in a debate that too often degenerates into simplistic attacks and absolutism.


I'm not sure why (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:54:41 AM EST

Feingold and Giffords being against gun control complicates the issue.

Maybe their arguments do, but not their position.

Feingold voted for a lot of things I disagreed with and against hings I supported.

But whether he is right or wrong on any issue is based on what his arguments are.


Exactly. So the question is (none / 0) (#23)
by Towanda on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:59:01 AM EST

whether I (and you?) are sure of what his arguments are on this issue.

I need to spend more time reading and trying to understand those arguments, rather than just turning away from them to stick to my, um, guns. Figuratively speaking, of course.


My reading of Feingold is (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:02:14 PM EST

that his argument is based on wanting to get the gun vote.

There was nothing that made much sense to me.


Off/topic but re Feingold, did you see (none / 0) (#45)
by Towanda on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:28:17 PM EST

his plans? Visiting professor of law for time and an office and office supplies and support for a book in the works.


Classic campaign photo op; John Kerry (none / 0) (#56)
by oculus on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 03:02:21 PM EST

emerging from the wilds w/dead goose.


: Here: (none / 0) (#61)
by oculus on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 04:47:13 PM EST

As a dying nation... (none / 0) (#10)
by Dadler on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:46:15 AM EST

...we have all the "tools" we need to finish the job.

It is hard to believe, in a nation as utterly dysfunctional and corrupt and hypnotized-by-meaningless-distractions as ours, with the epidemic level of almost entirely misplaced anger, that all those guns are not going to be used increasingly, frequently, and with equally dire consequences. Scarier thing is, with our system as it is, the peons will only start shooting each other or other innocents. The guilty, of course, will control the festivities from their boardrooms and broadcast centers.

We can start regulating in a sane manner tomorrow, which we SHOULD absolutely, but it won't do a think about the hundreds of millions of guns in personal hands. They will still exist, still be loaded, still be used.

Let's be honest, this "argument" has been won by the NRA and that "side" of the gun fence, and it's not going to be undone. Guns rule the world. We just like to pretend they don't here. Only a matter of time. Sad but true.

Unless...


No one has tighter gun control than Ft. Hood (none / 0) (#3)
by beefeater on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:39:31 AM EST

And if you'll remember your military experience you know that. Yet Nidal Hasan managed to get on base with unauthorized weapons and massacre 15 Americans.

Some folks are just evil, and laws won't stop them.

So shall we abolish all laws then? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:43:18 AM EST

There really isn't gun control on (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:52:02 AM EST

Ft Hood. I don't understand why people think there is.


Ok (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:56:43 AM EST

But even if it did, and the shooter beat the system, the argument remains specious.

Consider this example - could any system of intelligence gathering have located and stopped Mohammad Atta on 9/11? I think so, but suppose we accept the idea that NO system could have stopped him.

Should we then abolish all attempts to try and stop terrorism?

That is the logic of the argument presented by the commenter.


If your life depended on it, (none / 0) (#25)
by andgarden on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:59:41 AM EST

I'll bet you'd find a way to get a gun on an airplane. It probably wouldn't even be that hard.


No, I agree with you (none / 0) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:03:19 PM EST

And I think at the very least having to qualify for permits will save lives while at the same time not create blackmarkets or incite people. It will enable us to have some tools to better track very dangerous weapons and people. Just because it won't be foolproof doesn't make it worthless. Vaccinations don't alway prevent the illness in every person but we aren't going to stop vaccinating our children.


: Good (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:06:52 PM EST

We've disposed of one the silly arguments.(The silliest I recall is that we would be safer if every one carried guns.)
The more substantive one is the tradeoff argument between less violence and making life more difficult for gun people.
I am not persuaded by that argument, but I am not a gun person.

It seems Atta (none / 0) (#60)
by Rojas on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 04:02:03 PM EST

Had already fallen under suspicion of the FBI. This appears not to be a failure of intelligence gathering but was instead a failure to disseminate pertinent information to our field agents and to use the information we had in developing threat assessments.
Politicians and bureaucrats reacted in typical self serving fashion. We had no idea... We need to get rid of the wall... We need the Patriot act....

Your argument seems that we need more ignorant, reactionary and anti BORs legislation simply because it is our modus operandi against things we find politically unpalatable.


: Yes that's my argument (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 08:26:15 PM EST

I do not know what reaction you are expecting from me from your idiotic comment, but reasoned exchange is clearly not it.
I'll ignore you now.
Freaking gun nuts.

There are gun-control regs on the base (none / 0) (#26)
by Towanda on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:00:31 PM EST

it would seem:

If you live on post you are supposed to house your personal firearms when they aren't being used at a special on post facility. But if it is hunting season or you are actively hitting a firing range on your time off you can have your gun with you in your vehicle or in your on post residence....NOT CONCEALED THOUGH ON YOUR PERSON without breaking the law.

Ft Hood stricter than Arizona (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:03:11 PM EST

on concealed weapons.


: If you get caught (none / 0) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:04:07 PM EST

If you get caught they'll give you the Manning treatments :)

Where other than Arizona (none / 0) (#44)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:26:07 PM EST

can you carry a concealed weapon without a permit? And I know people who never house their personal weapons in the on post facility because they are always "in use" and are either in their houses or being transported in their cars all over the post. You don't need a permit for a handgun. I guess the military figures that if they are supposed to be able to trust you with their M-16 they can just flat out trust you. And I guess I have a much different definition of "gun control" than you do. Gun control for me is when we attempt to discourage the need and use of weapons that are only designed to and only serve the purpose of taking human life.


: Well, this is confusing (none / 0) (#67)
by Towanda on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 10:53:08 PM EST

now, because the quote above is from you.

Miscontrued (none / 0) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:50:47 AM EST

Do you really know what sort of gun control Ft Hood has? If you live on post you are supposed to house your personal firearms when they aren't being used at a special on post facility. But if it is hunting season or you are actively hitting a firing range on your time off you can have your gun with you in your vehicle or in your on post residence....NOT CONCEALED THOUGH ON YOUR PERSON without breaking the law.

Also, Hasan seems to have a personality disorder at the very least...not that the military will cut him a break on that.

He was allowed in the gate without his car being gone through too because he was an officer and a Major and he had the military I.D. that went with that as well as probably a windshield sticker that specified to the MPs at the gate that he was an Army officer. He probably shouldn't have been, but the Army had paid a lot of money for his schooling and they were not willing to get rid of him without a big fight even though he was obviously not mentally stable, and they've got one too now.

Even if they had gone through his car though and saw his gun, it probably would not have mattered much to anyone if he was currently using it to practice with.....which he was.


I remember in July when (none / 0) (#4)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:40:08 AM EST

Arizona made it legal to carry a weapon concealed. I grew up in the West, and there is an attachment to Old West mental imagery for those of us born there. It is a sort of pride in the past thing, and I felt that this stupid law allowing every adult to pack a concealed handgun and the desire for such a law is mostly empowered through our cultural Old West myths.

I think it is time for us to release the Old West firearm stuff though to the past. We have a legal system now, we don't have to be our own walking talking legal system. What is wrong with someone needing to qualify for and gain permits? Guns can instantly take life, some of them many lives in seconds, how can we remain so immature? Out West our great grandparents had nothing to compare to the firearms now available either. These are different times, why are we determined that we will first and foremost protect our right to be socially naive and irresponsible?

MT's point about the Old West (none / 0) (#32)
by christinep on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:03:27 PM EST

has a lot of substance to it. And, in a kind of pretzel way, NRA has managed to reinforce that tradition at every opportunity.

The "to have & have not" gun battle waged after every eye-catching shooting catastrophe does tend to polarize and then fade out each time. It might be more effective to find a focal point about regulatory fixes where we could get some type of consensus. What about the "concealed gun" permit issue? Or, once again, the type of gun?

As for concealed gun permits: What is the rationale for allowing individuals other than designated law enforcement officials to carry concealed weapons? Pros & cons?

: The whole Old West and Guns trip (none / 0) (#37)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 12:07:14 PM EST

reminds me of some of the Southern tradition stuff that drives me out of my gourd, and yes...the spot the NRA holds in the hearts of The West reminds me of The Sons of the Confederacy :)

Get a clue (none / 0) (#53)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 02:15:30 PM EST

Assassins and those bent on murder don't give a rat's patoot about carry laws.

The fact this post has only attracted (none / 0) (#58)
by oculus on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 03:08:33 PM EST

57 comments almost five hours after it was posted, on the Sunday morning after this tragedy--seems to support the theory this ship has sailed. Unfortunate.

: I completely agree with BTD's position, (5.00 / 4) (#59)
by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 03:42:17 PM EST

but I also feel that it's futile to discuss it because, as he and you mention, today's views on it are so illogical and data-free that it seems hopeless...

"concealed weapons law" (none / 0) (#62)
by diogenes on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 05:30:50 PM EST

Do you really think that someone who is ready to commit capital murder and face the death penalty will be deterred from carrying a concealed weapon by the criminal penalties contained within a concealed weapon law?

No. (none / 0) (#69)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 11:47:53 PM EST

Any other questions? The "concealed carry" law has no relevance, IMO, to this kind of crime.


: BTD's point (none / 0) (#70)
by Rojas on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 01:30:22 AM EST

my view is that making obtaining a gun more difficult may have had an effect on yesterday's tragedy, and prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit would also have had an effect.
A very restrictive policy towards gun ownership might have prevented the shooting, but I doubt very seriously that it would have prevented a tragedy. The concealed weapons part is simply asinine.