Anyone Watching The News About The Shooting In Tucson AZ?

[Lucid_Lunatic]

Has anyone seen the people who stopped the nutjob? Younger people, 20's to 40's ran and took cover until the older folks did what needed to be done. An old retired Army guy (looks to be in his late 60's), who had been grazed by a bullet in the back of the head, another older man in the same age group and an older woman in her 60's or 70's went after him and got him down and disarmed him.



Says alot about our generational differences in the face of immediate danger and tragedy.

[Lucid_Lunatic]

There's certainly a problem when a mentally ill individual can legally buy a firearm. If a guy's gonna explode, he's gonna explode, but he can cause a whole lot more damage if he's got a semi-automatic weapon in his hands.

He slipped through the cracks. I believe "how" and "why" on that matter should be examined.

That being said, I don't believe that his rampage should prevent responsible adults from owning firearms.

That's the whole problem. The kid had never been "mental" until just recently and had never been to any type of doctor or professional about it. There was really nothing to detect until it was too late.

[Arkitkt]

Different news channels are partially blaming Republican and Tea Party politicians because of their views on gun control and keeping 2nd Amendment rights. The part they keep forgetting to add is that Congresswoman Gifford also supported gun rights and is a gun owner.

This has nothing to do with gun rights. Just the media putting a biased spin on things trying to say the other side is for something and that makes them responsible. The only problem with that spin is that the target of the attack also supported these same things.

I haven't heard a lot of commentary regarding gun rights. Even on MSNBC they're really not making that point. On the contrary, they mentioned a few times that Gifford is gun rights advocate.

But just like with the Virginia Tech shootings you have to ask yourself: How is a guy with a history of mental issues allowed to legally acquire firearms?

[GuitarGuy503]

I just pulled up a news article with a pic of the guy and he looks freaking insane.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110110/...resswoman_shot

[Lucid_Lunatic]

How is a guy with a history of mental issues allowed to legally acquire firearms?

He didn't have a history until a few weeks ago when his university asked him to submit to a mental evaluation and he declined.

[Arkitkt]

He didn't have a history until a few weeks ago when his university asked him to submit to a mental evaluation and he declined.

Shouldn't that be enough of a history?
He also was rejected by the army for undisclosed reasons.

[newking70]

He also was rejected by the army for undisclosed reasons.

he failed a drug test.

[krankguitarist]

He didn't have a history until a few weeks ago when his university asked him to submit to a mental evaluation and he declined.

He was able to buy a firearm after he was rejected from the army, though. If the military decides that they do not want a person wielding a weapon for their country, shouldn't that bring up the question of if they're fit to own one in their private life?

And he wasn't *just recently*...to use this charming term, "mental". Accounts from his previous classmates from high school and college paint a pretty clear picture on that. He's been troubled for a long time, it appears only recently that he's gotten considerably worse.

[Lucid_Lunatic]

Shouldn't that be enough of a history?
He also was rejected by the army for undisclosed reasons.

2 weeks is not sufficient time just because someone acted weird one day. According to his friends and people who knew him, he was a normal guy who played guitar and smoked pot and was laid back until just recently, and even then, nothing that would make someone think he was dangerous. The reason they wanted an evaluation is because he became obsessed with his weird ramblings about grammer, currency and mind control.


He was rejected by the Army because he tested positive for THC on a drug test.


The problem with mental illness is that 99% of everyone has something going on. It might be simple depression to full blown schizophrenia. When do you say someone who has shown no history of being dangerous is a danger to society? It's simple with some cases, and most of them reside in a nut house somewhere. Others just snap one day, like this guy did, and there is nothing that can be done about it until it happens because there are no real signs pointing towards it.

Tons of people everyday gripe and grumble about the politics they believe or disagree with. Some have a really warped view, but that doesn't make them a danger.

Hindsight after something like this is always 20/20, but going on what has actually been released about the kid, I don't see anything that would have said this was going to happen. If we start locking everyone up that has a weird view of politics or smokes pot or talks about thier political views, even if they are a little askew, we are gonna lose a huge chunk of the free population.

[Arkitkt]

he failed a drug test.

Should be enough.

[Gr8Scott]

I don"t doubt your story. So, these guys see this tragedy as an opportunity to further their opposition to gun rights. You see the tragedy as nothing but a danger to your gun rights. Where exactly is the difference between you and them here?

Where did I say that it was "Nothing but a danger to my gun rights?"

I requested that if you wanted to discuss it further with me that you could PM me and we could continue the conversation in a less public forum. Instead, you've planted words in my mouth for me publicly. I've done the same to you in the past myself, so I guess it's your turn.

I feel like I now have to answer your final question in the quote publicly given the fact that you posted it for God and everyone to see. I don't recall saying anything to the effect of "lets turn this negative into a positive" regarding the horrible slaying of all those innocent people. IMHO, that makes me different. To me, it's horrible no matter how you slice it. There is no possible positive outcome to what happened. I guess you could say the same about me opening my big mouth in the first place as well.

I agree that I probably should have exercised more restraint like Bones did and that surely does make him the better man.

Now do me and everyone else in the forum a favor and PM me if you want to take this conversation further in private. Same goes for anyone else who feels the need to discuss this with me. I don't care if you PM me just to question my lineage or my manhood, just do it privately and I'll appreciate it greatly.

Thank you.

[Gr8Scott]

When do you say someone who has shown no history of being dangerous is a danger to society? It's simple with some cases, and most of them reside in a nut house somewhere. Others just snap one day, like this guy did, and there is nothing that can be done about it until it happens because there are no real signs pointing towards it.

I just wanted to say that I agree with you 100%. Excellent post.

[Lucid_Lunatic]

Should be enough.

This can open a can of worms. Failing a drug test for THC (marijuanna) should not be something that attracts the attention of the federal database to keep you from owning a gun. If people go with that argument, then by the same token, both of our last former preidents shouldn't have had the right to own guns, much less run for public office seeing as how the Democrat (Clinton) was a former pot toker and the Republican (Bush) was a former alcoholic coke head. It doesn't bother me, I'm just saying, if that's the argument to be used against this guy not being able to buy a gun legally, it's not a very sound arguement.

[IanBallard]

How do we know these guns are legally attained anyway? Being that federal laws are already in place that keep certain people from owning firearms, particularly handguns, that also by the nature of restriction, produces a black market for guns so that those who cannot acquire them legally can get them. The prohibition (of anything in high demand) is that once a government bans it, restricts it or taxes it out of the black market price, illegal markets spring up.

This is the general arguments against drug prohibition as well as guns. People are going to get them one way or another and the groups who control the illegal goods are usually quite nasty in their own right, to protect their racket.

The reality of thing is this: Human nature is violent. This can be exploited or can be abated in various ways. Mexico has a total gun ban but 30,000 have died in the last two years from gang violence. Switzerland has compulsory gun laws and they have a very nill crime rate. Why? Not that you have Wyatt Earp walking around, but people understand that folks are armed and potential criminals think twice about walking into a crowd and firing. Imagine if you had a dozen conceal/carry people in the crowd. This guy may not have been able to empty his clip at all.

Just sayin'. I'm not a gun fanatic but I read and understand history. Hitler, Mao and Stalin banned guns too. That wasn't a very utopic society, now was it?

[idsnowdog]

Mental illness isn't illegal and mental illness does not equate to criminal intent. Most advocates of preemptive action for mental illness are just dressing up Eugenics.

[IanBallard]

This can open a can of worms. Failing a drug test for THC (marijuanna) should not be something that attracts the attention of the federal database to keep you from owning a gun. If people go with that argument, then by the same token, both of our last former preidents shouldn't have had the right to own guns, much less run for public office seeing as how the Democrat (Clinton) was a former pot toker and the Republican (Bush) was a former alcoholic coke head. It doesn't bother me, I'm just saying, if that's the argument to be used against this guy not being able to buy a gun legally, it's not a very sound arguement.

Violent potheads? Exactly. Hardly hear of that.

[80's_Metal]

The 2nd ammendment people. its the right to keep and bear arms.
Thats whether you are stoned, or mentally insane or just plain ol stupid....
Nobody should ever have to debate that right.... Its written like that : This right is "never to be infringed upon."

Thats what America was founded on.... You hae the right to speak your mind and carry a gun.... often times those have to run together if you speak stupidly too often.

Now... when idiots like this guy fall off the deep and and commit some tragic failure because of his idiotic drug / mental stability / political problems he loses those rights.

Nobody should argue these points anymore.

Love ya... mean it.

[newking70]

^^^i'am sure he's making a mint from the government.

[Lucid_Lunatic]

One thing that's for certain the guy they assigned to defend him is in for a hell of a time.Apparently it's the same guy from the Unabomber case.
I understand emotional detachment for sake of being professional but that's gotta be dam near impossible for anyone to do in a case like this.

It's the same guy who defended to OKC bomber.

[Lucid_Lunatic]

Just looked it up.

Judy Clarke.
Her resume is a who's who of some of the worst types of people out there:

Unabomer
9/11 conspirator
Atlanta Olympics bomber
Susan Smith

I wasn't sure if it was the same one who defended McVeigh or not.

He bombed a few abortion clinics as well as the ATL Olympics. One was here in Birmingham.

The saddest part of that story is how the media ruined the life of the honest hero, Richard Jewel, who they first suspected and centered in on. He was hounded by people until his untimely death because the news made him a household name.