The Liberal Gun Club Forum

This blogger raises an interesting point:

http://robdoar.com/jared-loughner-did-n ... ain-a-gun/

Comments?

I think it's a valid point, especially since it's documented fact the Army rejected him because of his drug-use history, but rather cold comfort to the victims. I personally wish the school would have been more vigilant in pushing for an involuntary mental health eval. that would have caused him to fail NICS, but on the other hand, I wouldn't put it past this dude to obtain a weapon through burglary, or through his druggie contacts on the street, etc. I'm distressed that Cho at VT also did not fail NICS even though he had had an involuntary mental health screening.

I also heard the first Wal-Mart clerk deliberately delayed Loughner's purchase because he was acting weird; he had to go to a 2nd Wal-Mart to make his purchase.
Wonder if he bought full metal jacket (target) rounds or defensive (hollow-point) rounds...? Hollow point defensive loads can be hard to come by these days in big box stores...which could have been a factor in how things played out...

--JJR

Wonder if he bought full metal jacket (target) rounds or defensive (hollow-point) rounds...? Hollow point defensive loads can be hard to come by these days in big box stores...which could have been a factor in how things played out...

I thought the same thing.

I realize that this blogger is looking for an answer to the question "how could this have been avoided?" however, with all the research that is widely available, I think it if pretty asinine to say that anyone who uses that substance should be treated any differently than someone who drinks alcohol. The way that our gov/justice system deals with that topic is far outdated, and the arguments for treating that substance differently than alcohol almost always come down to the same tired and unsupportable argument of "because it's illegal".

I want there to be a simple way of getting these lives back, and preventing future psychos from committing such heinous crimes as much as everyone else out there, but this argument, I believe is not going to get very far, and I'm not even quite sure what the point is. Is this blogger just trying to find any way possible to say "Look, he broke the law!"? I mean c'mon, he broke the fucking law when he pulled out a gun in public, then when he pointed his gun at another person, then when he pulled the trigger, then again, and again.

JJR1971 wrote:This blogger raises an interesting point:

http://robdoar.com/jared-loughner-did-n ... ain-a-gun/

Comments?

I think it's a valid point, especially since it's documented fact the Army rejected him because of his drug-use history, but rather cold comfort to the victims. I personally wish the school would have been more vigilant in pushing for an involuntary mental health eval. that would have caused him to fail NICS, but on the other hand, I wouldn't put it past this dude to obtain a weapon through burglary, or through his druggie contacts on the street, etc. I'm distressed that Cho at VT also did not fail NICS even though he had had an involuntary mental health screening.

I also heard the first Wal-Mart clerk deliberately delayed Loughner's purchase because he was acting weird; he had to go to a 2nd Wal-Mart to make his purchase.
Wonder if he bought full metal jacket (target) rounds or defensive (hollow-point) rounds...? Hollow point defensive loads can be hard to come by these days in big box stores...which could have been a factor in how things played out...

--JJR

I sign a similar form when I purchase a gun, but I don't think one can say Loughner's purchase was illegal. By saying yes an individual would be incriminating themselves so obviously they will answer no. It doesn't ask about convictions for drug abuse which could be checked. I've always thought it was a dumb question and it might be illegal, I don't know. The army recruiter likely saw Loughner's behavior and used to drug screen to reject him.

AmirMortal wrote:I realize that this blogger is looking for an answer to the question "how could this have been avoided?" however, with all the research that is widely available, I think it if pretty asinine to say that anyone who uses that substance should be treated any differently than someone who drinks alcohol. The way that our gov/justice system deals with that topic is far outdated, and the arguments for treating that substance differently than alcohol almost always come down to the same tired and unsupportable argument of "because it's illegal".

Amir,
I don't think the law as it applies to this form actually does distinguish between alcohol and other drugs. Someone, say a chronic alcoholic with multiple DWIs, Public Intox, etc. on their rap sheet is clearly addicted and would be lying/breaking the law if they check "no" on this form, too.

--John R.

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

A person who has the occasional drink would be declined if these two were treated the same.

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

The keyword is "unlawful." The form itself does not treat alcohol differently. It is just that there are more circumstances under which consuming alcohol is legal when compared to other controlled substances. It is the rest of the legal code which makes the distinction.

lemur wrote:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

The keyword is "unlawful." The form itself does not treat alcohol differently. It is just that there are more circumstances under which consuming alcohol is legal when compared to other controlled substances. It is the rest of the legal code which makes the distinction.

That is my point.

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

This has struck me as strange since I first read it. Most of Form 4473 is very specific, but this question seems (deliberately?) vague.

"Are you a user?" (rather than "have you ever used?) implies, but doesn't specifiy, a relatively recent time frame. "Addicted" isn't defined either, and self-report of drug use and dependence are notoriously inaccurate. It's almost as if someone wrote the question so they could say, "hey, we asked" without really wanting to know the true answers.

While the form itself is vague, I believe there is case law that addresses the meaning of these questions.

I don't know whether Loughner legally had that gun or not. But the Federal Government has pushed a culture of violence for the past century, can we really be surprised when some nutjob takes it seriously? When it's 'okay' to kill thousands of innocent civilians why is someone going to draw the line at a politician?

I believe there are mentally unstable and just plain nasty people in this world and there always will be. And when I meet one intent on harming myself or others, I will be much more concerned about whether I have a gun than whether he does.

MtnMan wrote:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

This has struck me as strange since I first read it. Most of Form 4473 is very specific, but this question seems (deliberately?) vague.

"Are you a user?" (rather than "have you ever used?) implies, but doesn't specifiy, a relatively recent time frame. "Addicted" isn't defined either, and self-report of drug use and dependence are notoriously inaccurate. It's almost as if someone wrote the question so they could say, "hey, we asked" without really wanting to know the true answers.

While the form itself is vague, I believe there is case law that addresses the meaning of these questions.

Key phrase is actually "or addicted to";
...and while it may be undefined, hazy/vague, but a good DA could point to a rap sheet with multiple DWIs, multiple Public Intox, etc, as evidence of addiction and probably make it stick.

In any case, Loughner was a pot-head, which is an unlawful activity that kept him out of the U.S. Army. I guess he failed their drug screening but didn't have any actual drug possession priors that would/should have barred him also.

What passes for conventional Liberal wisdom these days, at least last time I watched Lawrence O'Donnell, is zeroed in on magazine capacity limits, which I'm ambivalent about at best. My Springfield XD has a prominent label "Not Legal In California" due to Magazine capacity issues. I've seen some gun bloggers argue that he probably would have been able to shoot *more* people if he'd stuck to standard capacity factory mags, but that's a highly technical argument that's hard to articulate with a soundbite and make it sound convincing to the vast majority who are ignorant about firearms.

JJR1971 wrote:I've seen some gun bloggers argue that he probably would have been able to shoot *more* people if he'd stuck to standard capacity factory mags, but that's a highly technical argument that's hard to articulate with a soundbite and make it sound convincing to the vast majority who are ignorant about firearms.

I dunno about inarticulable...

"Ever had problems moving a large chair because it's big? Takes more time to rearrange mega-sized furniture than small, right? Same with oversized gun magazines, standard is easier to handle than big."

Less than 10 seconds to spit that out, and it works with all sorts of stuff. Cars vs tractor trailers, large turkey platters versus standard size plates, two hand swords vs standard carving knife, etc.