The 22-year old described by oh, so, so many people as "troubled" or worse, "legally bought" the pistol he used to shoot Rep. Gifford and a host of others in Tucson last weekend.
"Legally bought"? Yep, that's what NBC's Brian Williams (and, no doubt others) reported in their Monday evening reports.
"Legally...".
Let me see, now.
First, to buy ANY firearm, whether it's a rifle, a shotgun, or a handgun, a prospective owner must fill out the required FEDERAL form. It's the one that requires one to acknwledge whether he's nuts, a drug user, or a crook.
Not sure about the third one (law enforcement says he has had "legal" issues), but from ALL reports, including said Anchor Williams' on Monday, Jared Loughner, the accused shooter, was certainly a drug user, and his behaviour can certainly be described as one that would cause me to believe he had a mental problem.
He dropped out of a community college last fall when school officials told his parents that he "...would have to get a mental health evaluation" if he was to remain in school. He had started to "...act oddly during his classes at Pima Community College, causing unease among other students."
Internet postings have surfaced, including videos "...filled with rambling statements on topics including the gold standard, mind control and SWAT teams".
Ok, Mr. Williams, please explain how this pistol was purchased "legally".
I haven't checked Arizona's state laws regarding pistol sales. But, even if "anyone" can buy a handgun there (without a state permit), then there is still the federal ATF forms that Loughner ILLEGALLY filled out. If he had admitted to being a drug abuser, or admitted that he had a mental problem, then he would not have been sold the gun.
Of course, as I and others have pointed out over the decades, this form is little more than a joke. If a crook admits that he's a crook, or a nut fesses up, or a drug user tells the truth, then they wouldn't be able to get a gun. At least, not one from a gun dealer. So, they lie. And, they commit a FEDERAL crime in the process. So, where is the ATF in all this? Instead of the agents running around intimidating legitimate gun owners and dealers, would it not make a lot more sense to do screenings of those folks who fill out federal forms? It took a matter of minutes for journalists and anyone else who googled Loughner's name to find out that he's a nut, all but certified. It certainly would have presented enough probable cause to knock on his door, perhaps even enough to snatch him up for filing a false FEDERAL application.
The point is this: we have enough laws on our books (problably too many) to take care of people like Loughner. Our problem is that we don't enforce those laws. By "enforce", I don't mean that the cops aren't doing their jobs. "Enforce", in this instance, includes the fact that our judicial folks don't do theirs.
Perhaps the ATF guys should learn from the CIA. That agency doesn't use "spooks" like they once did. Instead, they have a whole heard of geeks sitting around, looking at the internet, evesdropping on foreign cell and satellite phone conversations, monitoring broadcast networks all over the world. They are electronic snoops these days.
If the ATF would move into the 21st century, and employ little more than the same internet the rest of us use every day, they might even be able to prevent a number of senseless acts such as the one in Tucson.
The ATF forms could be entered into a data bank, and the names scanned against known or suspected nuts, drug users and the like. Some, including a lot of gun enthusiasts, will say that this is unfair. The data has already been taken, and comparing it to internet nuts will only protect the legitimate gun owners from getting black eyes every time a nut goes off the deep end.
And, the rest of us are just as guilty. In this day and time, we should express our concerns with the likes of the Loughners out there. Seems like the school did what it was suppose to do, and that was to recommend a mental evaluation. The parents? I am not sure what they did at that time. I'm not sure if they knew he had a gun, or was thinking of buying one. How about others around him? Sure seems like any number of people, after the fact, in gettting their 15 seconds of glory, say they always thought something was wrong with Loughner. Too bad they didn't come forward a bit earlier.
As a parting "shot", I have a thought or two about the extended magazine in the middle of the story, what some ill informed journalists refer to as a clip. It matters not whether it holds a maximum of 10 rounds or can hold 30. One bullet is too many if it's going to be fired at innocent people. Seems like some people feel that it's ok to shoot just one person.
A half-trained shooter, with a semi automatic handgun and a half dozen 10- round magazines, can actually reload in about a second per magazine.
Personally, I would not want to use the longer magazines. They may give the shooter a "tough look", but...pracitcally speaking...they make concealing the weapon more difficult, and they are more prone to jam than the "stock" magazines that come with the gun. Just a personal thing.
Controlling the sale of guns to legimate, law abiding citizens is not the answer.
Controlling the sale of guns, cars, or any other weapon of mass destruction, to drug users, kooks, and bad drivers should be at the top of the list.
One nut with one gun is a lot more dangerous than 10,000 law abiding gun owners, each owning fifty guns.
No comments:
Post a Comment