It was inevitable: gun rights in the crosshairs, again

Posted by: Phineas on January 11, 2011 at 12:59 pm

**Posted by Phineas

In the 72 hours after the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of several others in Tucson, our moral betters on the liberal left were shouting in (coordinated?) outrage that it had to be due to the angry, overheated rhetoric from the Right, and most particularly from Sarah Palin. Even the Sheriff of Pima County couldn’t resist getting in on the act.

Though the Left is still pushing the “dangerous rhetoric” idea, even to the point of introducing a bill to criminalize free speech*, their campaign to smear their conservative opponents is crumbling like a wet cookie as it becomes increasingly clear that the shooter suffered from a serious mental illness and had no coherent political beliefs. So,with that tactic failing, what’s a good statist to do? How else can we exploit human tragedy to further our political agenda? Hmmm…

I’ve got it! Let’s blame it on Arizona’s loose gun laws! Then we can get gun-control legislation passed!

Trouble is, like the “inflamed rhetoric” argument, the idea that weak gun laws in Arizona allowed a mentally ill man to legally conceal-carry a firearm does not stand up to the light of truth, as Big Journalism’s Dana Loesch shows:

More on the role of conceal carry in a bit. I’ve seen many are making the case that just “anyone” with mental illness can buy a gun and that Arizona’s “relaxed” gun laws contributed to the Arizona tragedy because a mentally ill individual was allowed to legally purchase a firearm and we can’t just have mentally ill people buying guns. No, we can’t, which is why Arizona has a law about this. AZ law expressly states that due to their prohibited possessor stipulation, anyone proving a danger to themselves or others pursuant to court order is not allowed to purchase a firearm.

Under Arizona law, prohibited possessor are defined in ARS 13-3101 which states:

  • 7. “Prohibited possessor” means any person:
  • (a) Who has been found to constitute a danger to himself or to others or to be persistently or acutely disabled or gravely disabled pursuant to court order under section 36-540, and whose right to possess a firearm has not been restored pursuant to section 13-925.

Had campus security and his parents followed up with proper treatment and reported his actions, he, from what it sounds, would have been an easy PP and unable to buy a weapon. Had the Sheriff’s office acted upon what is suggested as their advanced knowledge of Loughner’s troubled history, they may have obtained a warrant and confiscated his firearm – or apprehended him before he bought it. Of course, this simply assumes that Loughner was only motivated to cause harm because he was in possession of a firearm and presupposes that the firearm was an accessory motivator and rules out for certain that Loughner would never have attacked anyone with, say, a knife, bat, or any other weapon.

The problem isn’t the fallacy that Arizona’s law failed – Arizona’s law, like every law, can only work if followed. Prohibited possession can only work if if troubled individuals are reported to authorities so that the existing laws can be applied to them and, in this case, prevent them from purchasing firearms.

In other words, the problem was that existing law was not applied when it should have been. (And the Sheriff’s office there is in serious need of investigation for its failures in this case.)

Loesch then goes on to address the faulty argument that permissive concealed-carry laws enabled this crime and increase the risks we face, citing numerous studies — including data from the FBI — to show that states that permit concealed-carry experience a sharp drop in violent crime. (For example) Inconvenient truths, of course, rarely matter to the Statists in the media and government, who are quick to seize any reason, however fallacious, to try to advance their agenda of paternalistic control, including taking away our ability to defend ourselves.

For our own good, of course.

*Maybe they need another public reading of the Bill of Rights?

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

9 Responses to “It was inevitable: gun rights in the crosshairs, again”

Comments

  1. NC Cop says:

    Yet AGAIN, I am forced to point out to the 1997 North Hollywood shoout in which two men, high on drugs and toting fully automatic assault rifles, shot it out with police. The men walk casually around firing at police and anything else that moves because they know the police arent armed with anything that can hurt them.

    Observe: North Hollywood Shootout

    Now, remember 1997? Who was president? Slick Willie, of course and if you’ll also remember this was smack dab in the middle of the much touted assault weapons ban!!!

    It’s a simple concept, criminals don’t obey the law, that’s why theyre criminals! Do you honestly think if this nutcase didn’t get a gun legally, he would have shrugged and given up?

    What is wrong with these people??

  2. Carlos says:

    OK, statists, which is it? Do you want the government to intervene every time something is reported, or do you condescendingly wish to preserve EVERY person’s right to walk the streets (even and especially the mentally ill)?

    Seems to me that most times when someone obviously at least two bubbles off plumb is tried to be put into an institution, someone (usually those stalwarts of freedom, the ACLU) stands up and says there’s no reason and the state is just pickin’ on those poor souls.

    Please, make up your minds.

  3. Phineas says:

    I remember that shoot-out very well. A friend and I watched on TV during our lunch hour. We honestly thought at first that it was a TV drama, until we realized we were watching the news live! It was just amazing. I recall cops saying they were running into a nearby gun store to commandeer heavier weapons, because they were so outgunned.

  4. What is wrong with these people?? They suffer from a mental disorder and they hate America. They’ve been infected with liberalism. They have no values and no morals and will use any opportunity to accumulate and protect their power.

  5. if they outlaw angry political rhetoric the liberals will have to become mutes.

  6. Carlos says:

    I’m so glad it was a civilized conversation a few years ago when the mildest of lefties was calling for the assasination of a sitting Vice President and even some Repubs(?) were cheering the hanging(-in-effigy) of a sitting president.

    Yes, we should be so civilized and calm OUR rhetoric down.

  7. Steve Skubinna says:

    Funny – am I the only one wondering what all those lefties are doing over at the Reichstag building lugging cans of kerosene and matchbooks?

    Nah, forget it. Probably nothing.

  8. Kate says:

    I am thinking that at this point you can EXPECT kneejerk legislation by the do nothings in Congress that remain after the last election. The squeaking is inevitable.

    Aren’t they talking about outlawing the size of the ammo magazine that can be purchased? Oh, then only a few less people would have been shot by this nutcase. And if they remember correctly he was going for another magazine of bullets after the first round of about 20 shots. So are they also going to ration the number that you can purchase, too?

    First take the most obvious measure, which didn’t happen in AZ, and make it difficult for the deranged to obtain a weapon. We all know that even the most incompetent people have a way of getting things done and criminals always seem to have a source for illegal firearms.

    ANd in the end the NRA was right in saying “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.

  9. teetem says:

    As has been said, ad nauseum, it isn’t the gun that does the killing, it’s the person behind it. There was another young man at that parking lot that day, who went into Safeway to buy cigarettes. He was ALSO carrying a gun, which was his right – he considered going to see why all the people were congregating in the parking lot first, but decided to go into Safeway to buy his cigarettes first – Maybe, if he’d chosen differently, he would have been able to subdue the shooter. I’m sure he’s got that thought running through his head continuously… Maybe someone will call for a ban on cigarettes, because ‘but for those cigarettes…’