Did the Arizona shooter break any laws before he drew his weapon and fired?

[Still a Democrat]

Was the type of weapon, where and how he obtained and carried it, etc., all legal?

[aquart]

1. There have been statements it was legally obtained.

That makes it all right, of course.

[billh58]

2. Yes.

See this CBS News article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/01/08/national/main7226879.shtml?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea

[MineralMan]

3. What does that matter, really?

Why do you ask?

[Tippy]

4. 9 mm.

Bought it from a gun shop in AZ..Anyone can carry in AZ the way I understand it

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. CCW paperwork is no longer required

If you are allowed to own a pistol, you can carry it concealed. Several other states are the same way.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Aparently not

Some here and elsewhere have tried to blame the gun laws in AZ, but it would have been no different in CA or NY with the exception of the magazine capacity.

[Still a Democrat]

8. Wasn't the magazine capacity important?

It seems it allowed him to do more damage before being stopped.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Its also a PITA to change due to its length

At the AM press conference I heard he did not continue shooting due to a spring failure. Another weak spot in the really high capacity magazines.

A properly trained individual can get off a lot of rounds in a short time with the standard magazines.

[TheWraith]

18. Not really. If he'd used standard mags, he'd have had to take a second or two to reload.

That's it. If they'd had a 10 round limit like CA and NY do, make that maybe 3-4 seconds. He didn't attempt to flee because he ran out of ammo, he just tried to get away--that's what allowed him to be tackled.

[Endangered Specie]

24. He also could have easily bought 2 or 3 guns and performed "new york" reloads.

[TheWraith]

27. Or just use one gun. That's what the Virginia Tech shooter did.

He had one main gun with a standard capacity mag, and a backup gun, and reloaded several times. Nobody tackled him, and it didn't stop him from killing tons of people.

[jeepnstein]

36. The Va Tech shooter...

was also mentally ill but this didn't show up in a NICS check. Hmm... Do we see a pattern here? Nah, it's easier to collectively punish lawful citizens who are more likely going to hit the lottery than shoot their Congressional Representative.

Hysteria as public policy leaves much to be desired.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. ONE second for a reload, less if you practice. N/T

[SteveM]

37. No long mag? Just take several smaller ones. nt

[ZombieHorde]

7. I believe conspiring to commit a serious crime is a crime. nt

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

9. None at all, isn't he a good guy to do all that?

... altho premeditation is presumed for any later charges.

[Bold Lib]

10. IIRC he was arrested twice before. Don't know if he was ever convicted though.

He was also kicked out of college for frequent outbursts during classes. He had many previous signs that his mental health was not well.

[Hoyt]

12. Illegal -- apparently not, the gun lobby considers him an upstanding citizen. Immoral? -- well . .

It depends upon whether you believe people should be allowed to tote in any public place. I don't. Nor do I think these tricked out guns --and modifications -- should be lawful. People don't buy this stuff because of the mugger behind a tree.

[ManiacJoe]

14. There was no tricked-out/modified gun.

[Hoyt]

19. To you two-- He had a gun set up to kill more than the mugger behind the tree.

At that point, it is no longer for protection as the gun toting lobby likes to claim. Fact is, most toters aren't really worried about the mugger behind the tree -- thus, they have to have maximum load magazines and often some kind of killer load. Yea, I know -- I may not be describing things the way those who obsess over guns would, but the point is still the same.

Let's get back to what the Constitution truly said -- folks in a regulated militia can keep a muzzle loader at home.

[Atypical Liberal]

20. and you can keep a printing press at home. n/t

.

[ManiacJoe]

21. There was no special setup.

Are you not reading the linked reports/articles?

I will give you credit for admitting your ignorance of a technical topic. The question is, are you willing to educate yourself so that you can be an knowledgeable participant in the conversation?

PS. Your copy of the Constitution is defective.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

26. Complete conjecture

and hyperbole. Not a single true statement in this post, as is often the case with the losing side of this issue....hmmm, I wonder if there is a connection there,,

[TheWraith]

28. Oy. Just oy.

"maximum load magazines"

Or as they're known in the rest of the world, normal capacity magazines.

"and often some kind of killer load."

And that would be WHAT? Some kind of special bullet that kills people double extra dead? Do you think that there are somehow different bullets for someone trying to carjack you, as opposed to those used by someone intent on committing murder? Can you define the difference? And if you can't, why not simply admit that you don't have the technical knowledge to comment? You love to claim that we're trying to trip you up on technicalities, but that's like saying that the difference between my Saturn and a Ferrari is a "technicality" because they both have a manual transmission. Having strong opinions on things you clearly don't understand is how we get creation science and global warming denial.

[Hoyt]

30. What's to understand -- other than why some people still think they need a gun in public.

That is difficult to understand.

The technical aspects of a gun are pretty simple. It's the moral aspects that some folks stumble over.

[TheWraith]

31. So do you think that cops shouldn't be armed?

And if cops are entitled to be armed because they might come in contact with criminals, how do you justify making sure that ordinary people don't have the option to defend themselves?

Not to mention, you're trying to change the subject away from the fact that you don't know the first thing about weapons, yet you're pretending to have expert knowledge that this or that thing indicates someone just wants to commit murder.

[SteveM]

38. More problems with your statements...

"Let's get back to what the Constitution truly said -- folks in a regulated militia can keep a muzzle loader at home."

Sorry, but I can't find "...folks in a regulated militia can keep a muzzle loader at home." Can you point this out?
(Are you using a wooden printing press at this moment? I'll wait while you ink up.)

"Fact is, most toters aren't really worried about the mugger behind the tree -- thus, they have to have maximum load magazines and often some kind of killer load." Can you verify your "fact?" How many is "most?" Do you know how many carry "maximum load magazines?" What are "maximum load" magazines? "...some kind of killer load." What about standard anti-personnel/self-defense loads makes them so objectionable if the purpose is to stop a violent attacker? Most folks aren't interested in using rat shot.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. To which "Tricked out guns modificiations" do you refer?

[aikoaiko]

13. Its too early to know.

[Unstoppable Madman]

16. He was an unlawful user of drugs

and lied about it, he knowingly bought the gun illegally.

[RegieRocker]

17. That is only illegal drugs right? Legal drugs are ok?

Like alcohol?

[Endangered Specie]

25. I belive abuse of legal drugs is also covered:

"Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance"

[TheWraith]

29. For clarity, "controlled substance" does technically include alcohol.

Nicotine too, but I'm not aware of anyone ever being turned down on account of being addicted to cigarettes.

[Endangered Specie]

40. Is tobacco a controlled substance though?

[X_Digger]

41. Now under FDA purview, I believe. n/t

[LAGC]

23. Mere drug convictions don't prohibit you from buying a gun in most cases.

Especially misdemeanor pot-related convictions.

[kudzu22]

35. But current use does

From ATF form 4473, question 11:

e. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

[SteveM]

39. Prohibitions attract more prohibitions. nt

[safeinOhio]

32. self enforcement never works.

how many drive 55 in a 55 zone unless they see a cop car?

edited to say, "other than me"

[old mark]

33. He probably was legal. He had no convictions or arrests for violent crimes,

although he had evidently threatened others in the past, and he never felt the need for treatment for his mental and emotional problems. A drug misdemeanor is not enough. If he had been arrested for terroristic threats, he probably would have been denied the right to own a firearm through the background check, but evidently he was never arrested other than for a drug arrest.

You can not arrest people or violate people's rights because of what you think they might do in the future...


mark

[Euromutt]

42. If he did, would it have made a difference?

The question presumes that, if only the possession or carrying of the firearm had been illegal, it would have been possible to intervene before the perpetrator started shooting. But the fact is that history is littered with examples of assassins who both possessed and carried the murder weapons illegally, but weren't detected; thus, the fact that they were committing multiple offenses prior to opening fire made absolutely no difference to the outcome.