Not wishing a debate....

[Railroad]

So here we are. Not legally allowed to act on instinct as we did in (pick a year prior to 1960), but somehow required to catch a nut case as he buys 9 mm ammunition in quantity. Oh, by the way, the Wal-Mart employee is not allowed to refuse to sell the ammunition based on a gut instinct, except by subterfuge.

There are very obviously indications in many scenarios that lead us to say we don't have the requested ammunition available for the customer in question.

But legal spam has left us mindless and thoughtless as we wait on the customer.

Does the blame for the shootings in the most recent story go to the suppliers? Does the blame go to the government who examined records and approved the gun permit (two entirely different things, by the way, I can buy many bullets without a gun permit)? NO!! The blame rests squarely with those who think that more general regulation and less personal responsibility magically compensate for the deranged products of our depraved society and parents who aren't tending to their kids.

 

[aps45819]

The blame for the shooting lies solely with the shooter, only one person pulled the trigger.

However, some follow up on his expulsion from school for mental instability by the local law enforcement (which publicly blamed Sarah Palin) might have prevented this tragedy

 

[Railroad]

The blame for the shooting lies solely with the shooter, only one person pulled the trigger.

However, some follow up on his expulsion from school for mental instability by the local law enforcement (which publicly blamed Sarah Palin) might have prevented this tragedy

Thank you - you're 100% right. It's the idiot and not the system, meaning that no matter how we try, there is no idiot-proof system, so we cannot prevent bad things from happening by any one-size-fits-all framework.

Too many restrictions in the interest of so-called human rights, when indeed the answer still needs to fit more closely the Texas Rangers than the left-wing opponents.

 

[desertrat]

Thank you - you're 100% right. It's the idiot and not the system, meaning that no matter how we try, there is no idiot-proof system, so we cannot prevent bad things from happening by any one-size-fits-all framework.

Too many restrictions in the interest of so-called human rights, when indeed the answer still needs to fit more closely the Texas Rangers than the left-wing opponents.

The thing to me is he passed the check to buy a weapon.

 

[Gilligan]

However, some follow up on his expulsion from school for mental instability by the local law enforcement (which publicly blamed Sarah Palin) might have prevented this tragedy

How might that vague 'some follow up' actually manifest itself? More to the point, how would it and result in a record being attached that would deny the right to purchase a handgun? Or any kind of gun or rifle..?

The outrage is real and genuine in most cases. But I cannot for the life of me see a rational and effective way to connect the follwoing dots:

erratic behavior --> police intervention ----> block on gun purchases

..and in how many cases could a similarly inclined individual buy a weapon on the 'street' or steal one from a family member, or.. Most of them, I would think.

 

[aps45819]

The thing to me is he passed the check to buy a weapon.

if anything was passed on from the college about his expulsion for mental problems it got buried in the sheriff's office. Nothing was entered into any data base.
In AZ, the school could have reported him to law enforcement, who could have required mental evaluation

 

[Larry Gude]

How might that vague 'some follow up' actually manifest itself? More to the point, how would it and result in a record being attached that would deny the right to purchase a handgun? Or any kind of gun or rifle..? .

Seeings how the cops had contact with the guy before hand, seeings how he made death threats, I say ask the cops what they think should be done. What stopped them from arresting him and some sort of system intervention to see what's up with the guy. Same thing with Ft. Hood, beltway sniper and Va Tech guy. All had run ins with officials.

 

[Gilligan]

related media story..sounds like what I asked.


Sheriff's Official Says Reports on Loughner Were Not Enough to Prompt Police Action

 

[twinoaks207]

As long as our society continues to focus blame for actions on anyone and anything other than where it actually belongs (on the individual), we will continue to have these kinds of events. We cannot fix the problem unless our society chooses to return to holding individuals responsible for their own actions. It truly is as simple as that.

 

[RPMDAD]

related media story..sounds like what I asked.


Sheriff's Official Says Reports on Loughner Were Not Enough to Prompt Police Action

Yea hard to tie it all together on this guy with his record.
The police also had a record on this guy aside from the campus police. Nothing that points to the violence he ended up committing. Also on the military enlistment, the following article states he passed the drug tests, but he admitted in an interview he was an habitual user.

TUCSON, Ariz -- TUCSON, Ariz. - The two teenagers were in an old minivan just before midnight, driving through their scrubby neighborhood on the outskirts of Tucson when they were pulled over by sheriff's deputies. The driver and his passenger, Jared Lee Loughner, both smelled strongly of pot. It was the eve of Loughner's 19th birthday. Deputies cited him for possessing drug paraphernalia, his first criminal charge as an adult.

In fall 2008, Loughner reported being harassed online and also got arrested for tagging.

On Oct. 2, he walked into the Pima County Sheriff's Department to report that someone had stolen his identity to create a phony MySpace page. A report noted that Loughner was worried prospective employers would see the page "myspacedotcomscrewupretard."

Later that month, Loughner tagged a traffic sign in Marana, a town north of Tucson. He was arrested and released with a citation. He entered a diversion program and paid $500 restitution.

Shooting suspect displayed downward spiral that accelerated a year ago, records, interviews show - Sacramento Living - Sacramento Food and Wine, Home, Health | Sacramento Bee

Indeed, Army officials say Loughner passed a urinalysis designed to detect drug use. "He didn't fail a drug test — he admitted to excessive drug use," an Army official says. The confession was so clear that the military had no choice. "He admitted that he smoked marijuana to such an extent that we said, 'No, thank you.' We're not going to accept a habitual drug abuser into the Army." "It's bizarre," another official says. "I certainly wouldn't go through the whole process only to say, 'Hey, I've been smoking marijuana for the past couple of years.' "



Tucson Shooting Suspect Jared Loughner, Marijuana and the Army - TIME

 

[Gilligan]

Exactly. I see absolutely nothing..zip..that is anything other than a raft of disconnected and almost random stuff, only collated after the fact of his violence, and only then pointed to by the usual hand-wringers as something somebody, somewhere was supposed to have magically been able to pre-emptively do something about.

Utter nonsense, says me. Get over it. Until we perfect mind reading and mind control..these things will, sadly, happen.

 

[bcp]

Reading the story gives me an impression. Its only my impression so Im not saying this is factual.

First, it says that he had asked the congresswoman a few days earlier a question, and he was evidently not happy with her answer.

It also says that he was not affiliated with any party and that he had no interest in politics.

It says he did have communist reading material.

If he was not interested in politics, would he have actually gone to Sarah Palins site in the first place to see the list?

I think the whole thing boils down to an insane person asking a question that really had no answer to it, getting mad and shooting the congress woman, I suspect that if he would have asked Sarah Palin the same question, she might have been the one shot at.

The liberals can try to pin this on the conservatives all they want, but the fact of the matter is that he had communist and socialist reading materials and if anything, that would point to a liberal mindset.

it was one of their own.

 

[Ken King]

Exactly. I see absolutely nothing..zip..that is anything other than a raft of disconnected and almost random stuff, only collated after the fact of his violence, and only then pointed to by the usual hand-wringers as something somebody, somewhere was supposed to have magically been able to pre-emptively do something about.

Utter nonsense, says me. Get over it. Until we perfect mind reading and mind control..these things will, sadly, happen.

Well there were some facts available and known to the Federal Government that should have prevented Loughner from being able to legally purchase a firearm. That being that when he was denied enlistment in the Army in 2008 it wasn't for failing the drug test administered, it was for his admission that he had habitually used narcotics for at least two years immediately preceding his application and had gotten clean for his known upcoming test. Habitual narcotics usage is a reason to deny entrance into the military and it is also a reason to bar anyone from legally selling him a firearm, if known.

The creation of DHS was supposed to remove communications barriers amongst the various government agencies through the relay of information. The information on hand denying him entry into the Army should have been shared throughout the Fed and that information should have barred any legal weapons purchase on his part. It seems that the system either failed or it isn't appropriately designed.

Now would that have stopped him from doing what he eventually did, probably not, but it might have hindered him somewhat.

 

[bcp]

Habitual narcotics usage is a reason to deny entrance into the military and it is also a reason to bar anyone from legally selling him a firearm, if known.

.

I wonder, is saying that you smoke weed enough to stop you from getting a firearm, or would you have to be busted with enough to make it a felony offense.

I think that you might actually have to have a major bust or two on record to disqualify you. I dont think that just telling someone you smoke is enough. He could have claimed to tell the recruiter that just to get out of serving.

 

[Ken King]

I wonder, is saying that you smoke weed enough to stop you from getting a firearm, or would you have to be busted with enough to make it a felony offense.

I think that you might actually have to have a major bust or two on record to disqualify you. I dont think that just telling someone you smoke is enough. He could have claimed to tell the recruiter that just to get out of serving.

The wording of the law is -

18USC§ 922. Unlawful acts
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

The definition for addict is -

21USC§ 802. Definitions
As used in this subchapter:
(1) The term “addict” means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.

Now would it make sense for someone wanting to join to admit that they are a habitual user? It wasn't like he was trying to avoid being drafted. Maybe he did change his mind, but everything I have read was that he was upset that the Army denied his entry.

 

[bcp]

Legally speaking, Marijuana is NOT a narcotic. Marijuana is essentially Cannabis and thus Cannabis is not a narcotic either. The definition of the word Narcotic can be a noun or an adjective. There are marijuana could be used in speech as being a narcotic, but the word in legal terms would not apply. In the federal controlled substances act Marijuana is listed as a non-narcotic. Cocaine is also NOT a narcotic. However, opium and heroin are narcotics.


Although I tend to agree with you on this.
doper Dan should not be sporting a weapon while smoked up on a drug that could make him paranoid.
I can see where things would have a chance if ending badly.

 

[Ken King]

Legally speaking, Marijuana is NOT a narcotic. Marijuana is essentially Cannabis and thus Cannabis is not a narcotic either. The definition of the word Narcotic can be a noun or an adjective. There are marijuana could be used in speech as being a narcotic, but the word in legal terms would not apply. In the federal controlled substances act Marijuana is listed as a non-narcotic. Cocaine is also NOT a narcotic. However, opium and heroin are narcotics.


Although I tend to agree with you on this.
doper Dan should not be sporting a weapon while smoked up on a drug that could make him paranoid.
I can see where things would have a chance if ending badly.

Okay, I can see where it might not meet the requirements for addiction as it isn't a narcotic, but "doper Dan" should still not be able to legally get a weapon as being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.

 

[itsbob]

The thing to me is he passed the check to buy a weapon.

If you are a mental case and want to buy a gun and come upon a question on a form that asks something like "Are you a mental case? Yes__No__" How would you answer?
Bottom line current STUPID law depends on the criminal being honest on a stupid form. Unless they have an actual felony CONVICTION the entire process is worthless.

 

[Larry Gude]

If you are a mental case and want to buy a gun and come upon a question on a form that asks something like "Are you a mental case? Yes__No__" How would you answer?
Bottom line current STUPID law depends on the criminal being honest on a stupid form. Unless they have an actual felony CONVICTION the entire process is worthless.

I am getting no play out of my brilliant idea to ask the left if they really want to treat guns like cars.

Go down to the department of guns, take an easy test, prove rudimentary proficiency, and go buy all the guns you like, whenever you like and simply be required to have an insurance policy based on the model you choose, your age and other risk factors?

 

[Gilligan]

Well there were some facts available and known to the Federal Government that should have prevented Loughner from being able to legally purchase a firearm. That being that when he was denied enlistment in the Army in 2008 it wasn't for failing the drug test administered, it was for his admission that he had habitually used narcotics for at least two years immediately preceding his application and had gotten clean for his known upcoming test. Habitual narcotics usage is a reason to deny entrance into the military and it is also a reason to bar anyone from legally selling him a firearm, if known..

I'm quite sure that you don't underestimate the degree of difficulty associated with efficiently and effectively implementing that 'connection' between an Army enlistment denial and a black mark on a Federal database used to screen gun purchases. Same goes for making the same connection between a simple local LEO or security guard report, with no arrests/conviction, or a school counselor's tentative recommendation that someone seek counseling, and on and on and on..

This mythical, massive and all-inclusive database that everyone keeps hypothesizing...it is only 'practical' when we are all chipped and 100% of all of our personal information is available to any government operative for any reason they care to come up with.