- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,233
- Reaction score
- 1,184
- Location
- The Wild West
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
"At some point we need to ask the question: How did this man with this history of mental instability end up with this weapon," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said on CNN's "State of the Union" today.
"How did he go through the process and end up with this gun and this ammunition?"
Color me surprised that it took less than 24 hours for someone to turn a tragic event into a political grandstand against gun ownership. :doh
Arizona Suspect's Erratic Behavior Raises Questions About Gun Sales
When something goes wrong, there's nothing wrong with asking why.
Fighting guns in the hands of criminals and morons is noble but realistically impossible.
I am not in agreement with you usually but agree with you here that there would be the automatic knee jerk reaction to discuss gun control.
Now, I am waiting for the automatic knee jerk reaction by a gun owner (which I am one) that if someone had a gun there the damage could have been shorten. That reaction I question. In this particular case if you had been there with a gun could you really have stopped the carnage. In a crowd like that I don't know about firing a shot. You would have to be point blank on him and what are the odds of that. And if you were up that close to him I think the best solution would have been the one taken by the man and woman who tackled him and disarmed him.
I am still impressed with the unidentified woman who wrestled away his magazine from him. That states a lot about the power adrenaline gives you . That lady is a hero in my book.
I think that people should have to undergo a through background check to get a gun. Guns do not kill people, people kill people yes, but we need to try to make sure that something like this does not happen again.
I think it raises the reasonable question as to why his history does not show up in the proper database in order to flag him. A college booted him and said he needs to show a mental health evaluation stating he's not a danger to himself or others before he could return. Then the military rejected him as unqualified to serve. These are red flags on record, but if you don't check they obviously wont show up.
There's nothing wrong with asking why. What's objectionable is when a bunch of idiots are convinced that they KNOW why things went wrong and then try to push their particular brand of bull****, using the tragedy as fodder.
The solution to gun crime is never more gun legislation.
There's nothing wrong with asking why. What's objectionable is when a bunch of idiots are convinced that they KNOW why things went wrong and then try to push their particular brand of bull****, using the tragedy as fodder.
I think it raises the reasonable question as to why his history does not show up in the proper database in order to flag him. A college booted him and said he needs to show a mental health evaluation stating he's not a danger to himself or others before he could return. Then the military rejected him as unqualified to serve. These are red flags on record, but if you don't check they obviously wont show up.
How about better gun legislation? Making a blanket statement like that really shows your ignorance. Using that statement you could infer that you are suggesting the solution to gun crime is always less legislation.
Beyond committing a crime people do have a right to privacy.
You already have to go through the NICS (National Instant Check System) when buying a gun legally from a dealer. Any red flags (mental, substance, criminal) are supposed to pop up and prevent the sale.
However, he might have stolen the gun, or bought it from a drug dealer, likely as not. :shrug:
Color me surprised that it took less than 24 hours for someone to turn a tragic event into a political grandstand against gun ownership. :doh
Arizona Suspect's Erratic Behavior Raises Questions About Gun Sales
:doh :doh
Define "better" gun control before you go spouting off about ignorance.
You already have to go through the NICS (National Instant Check System) when buying a gun legally from a dealer. Any red flags (mental, substance, criminal) are supposed to pop up and prevent the sale.
However, he might have stolen the gun, or bought it from a drug dealer, likely as not. :shrug:
He purchased it legally, meaning the NICS didn't flag him.
The question is, could his university mental health issue or his military service denial be something kept in a database that is added to the NICS system.
Better would be something which would have caught this guy, or in general would ensure this is less gun crime, of course 'better' is entirely subjective. I'm not suggesting I have a solution, and I know there's no such thing as a perfect solution. I was merely attempting to point out the sillyness of implying the only solution is less gun legislation and all and every additional gun legislation is wrong.
Personally, being from Arizona and a gun owner, I like our state's gun laws. However I don't think there perfect. One idea I got from looking at the article comes from the first paragraph "Jared Loughner's behavior was so disturbing, he was forced to withdraw from community college classes last fall, told he could return only with a mental health evaluation showing he "does not present a danger to himself or others." Now I don't know who decided this man couldn't return to school for mental health reasons, if it was a medical professional or just some person working there. However if a medical professional did decide an individual needed a mental health evaluation to show he "does not present a danger to himself or others" it would be a good reason in my opinion to throw up a red flag during your pre-purchase check at the gun store.
Course that's a pretty simple example and I'm by no means saying its what we should do, its just an idea to look into to help ensure less of this crimes occur.
I'm trying to think about how to improve our laws to avoid crimes like these, as opposed to just throwing up my arms and saying "well I guess there's nothing we can do!"
Does Arizona not already run a criminal background check? If he passed the check, legally he should have been allowed to buy the gun. Unless the store owner had any idea that he was going to do something criminal with the firearm, procedurally they did the correct thing by taking his money and giving him the gun, and that it not something that needs to be changed.
What happened was a tragedy, but it was NOT a flaw in the system.
What happened was a tragedy, but it was NOT a flaw in the system.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?