Arizona Suspect's Erratic Behavior Raises Questions About Gun Sales

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

JB Books

Shooter Emeritus
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
14,111
Reaction score
190
Location
Hansenland
Anti-gun bandwagon...

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."

He tried to enlist in the Army in 2008 but was rejected as unqualified. And those who knew him described him to reporters as a "troubled young man" who frequently had such unusual outbursts that no one even wanted to sit next to him in class.

But, according to The Washington Post, on Nov. 30, Loughner legally purchased the Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol that law enforcement officials say he used to shoot U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at an event Saturday outside a busy supermarket in Tucson, Ariz., killing one of her aides, a federal judge, a 9-year-old girl and three retirees.

And that has revived the debate about gun ownership laws throughout the nation, but particularly in Arizona, which has some of the weakest gun control laws in the country. State laws there permit any law-abiding citizen over age 18 to buy a gun.

"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?"

Federal law enforcement officials told the Post that the semiautomatic pistol was fitted with a magazine that held about 30 bullets, and that Loughner had another magazine that held about 30 bullets, as well as two others that each held about 15 bullets.

Reese Widmier, manager of the Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson, confirmed to the Post that the gun was sold by the store Nov. 30.

Loughner did pass the federally required background check, Widmier told the newspaper.

Dr. Park Dietz, a forensics psychiatrist, told AOL News today that gun control laws make it difficult to determine whether someone is mentally stable enough to purchase a gun.

"He's old enough to buy it on his own because there was no way to determine this was a mentally ill person," Dietz said. "The only thing the existing law does about that is quite absurd. The ATF form asks if you have ever been adjudicated mentally ill," he said in reference to the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms.

Dietz noted that he once had law students visit 25 people on a ward for the criminally insane who had been adjudicated dangerously mentally ill, asking them whether they had been adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.

"They all said no, while sitting on the ward," Dietz told AOL News.

"In some states the instant background check does include a search of computer records of who has been committed as dangerously mentally ill but it is quite inconsistent around the country whether they do it or how complete the information is."

Arizona does not have a waiting period unless something is flagged during the instant check.

However, the debate in Arizona is far from simple. Giffords herself is a long-time gun owner who has described herself as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. And despite the lack of restrictions on gun purchases and ownership in Arizona, not everyone agrees that the laws should be toughened.

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

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Rep. Raul Labrador also said changes in gun laws are not the answer, but the answer lies with each individual who owns a gun.

"I don't know if it's the gun laws that make a difference," the Idaho Republican said.

However, Arizona's Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, on the same program, said: "Gun laws have to be examined."

Sponsored LinksAnd New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, whose husband was killed and son wounded in 1993 when a deranged gunman opened fire on a Long Island Rail Road train, said the shootings show exactly why laws should be tightened.

"This is clearly an illustration of why we must all work together to fight gun violence in America and keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of the wrong people," she said in a statement.

Giffords' Republican challenger to office during the last election, Jesse Kelly, who was pictured on his campaign website in military gear, holding his automatic weapon, did not blame gun laws or political rhetoric for the rampage.

"Arizona is a state where people are firearms owners," he told The Associated Press after Saturday's shooting. "This was just a deranged individual."
 

JesseR

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,974
Reaction score
1
Location
Broken Arrow
I don't know how many read the Tulsa World but there were Three stories in Sunday's paper about gun violence. When will people realize that guns don't kill people....
 

Gideon

Formerly SirROFL
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
1,736
Reaction score
1,087
Location
Tulsa
This is cataclysmic failure to communicate.

The law has little to do with the fact that his mental health issues didn't turn up in a background check. The problem is that the background check system obviously doesn't pull from enough sources, OR that people don't send this kind of information to the right people.
 

NikatKimber

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Special Hen Moderator
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,770
Reaction score
1,492
Location
Claremore
This is cataclysmic failure to communicate.

The law has little to do with the fact that his mental health issues didn't turn up in a background check. The problem is that the background check system obviously doesn't pull from enough sources, OR that people don't send this kind of information to the right people.

IIRC, the shooter in the VT incident should have been prevented from buying legally, but the state had not kept up the paperwork putting people into the system.

All this goes back to one thing:

Ultimately, laws will not prevent crime; rather the goal is to provide a penalty severe enough that the thought of getting caught deters the would be criminal.
 

JB Books

Shooter Emeritus
Special Hen
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
14,111
Reaction score
190
Location
Hansenland
What they don't get is that restrictive gun laws only handicap law abiding citizens. A person intent on murder and mayhem does not give give a damn about breaking a gun law.
 

NikatKimber

Sharpshooter
Staff Member
Special Hen Moderator
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
20,770
Reaction score
1,492
Location
Claremore
What they don't get is that restrictive gun laws only handicap law abiding citizens. A person intent on murder and mayhem does not give give a damn about breaking a gun law.

Exactly.

If they don't slip through the cracks in the system as it is (like the AZ incident and the VT incident) and can't buy legally... they'll just get the gun some other way, or worse, build a bomb or something.

Both of these people had another thing in common, they both had plenty of time to plan the crime out. So waiting periods, or forcing them to the "black market" would not have been an issue to them.
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,496
Reaction score
15,895
Location
Collinsville
"In some states the instant background check does include a search of computer records of who has been committed as dangerously mentally ill but it is quite inconsistent around the country whether they do it or how complete the information is."

News Flash!!! The "instant background check", AKA NICS, is EXACTLY the same for the entire country! What isn't the same is the reporting levels required for those adjudicated mentally incompetent. The NICS check is only as good as the information that's fed into the system!

This guy was well on the radar scope for the liberal anti-gun sheriff of Pima Co. What did they do about this guy? Not a damned thing. Did the anti-gun sheriff secretly hope that someone like this would do something like this to further his anti-gun agenda?

Perhaps what should be in the spotlight is not the fact that a nutjob got a gun, but that the county did not practice due diligence in making sure he was correctly categorized, so that he couldn't legally buy a gun!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom