Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords shot outside grocery store

[Allhallowsday]

...The biggest tragedy was that he killed civilians in the cross-fire. I can understand why he'd want to kill a political official, but getting innocents involved and killing a little girl is uncalled for.

You can "understand" that, huh?   I figure you're young and your words, unmeasured.  

Why do all of these assassin's have three names?

Perhaps in a few days, or several weeks, or years from now, people will be interested in talking about that.    

[indianasmith]

Please don't tell me one of us is buying into the conspiratorial ravings of a madman. Yeesh.

[Olivia Bauer]

...The biggest tragedy was that he killed civilians in the cross-fire. I can understand why he'd want to kill a political official, but getting innocents involved and killing a little girl is uncalled for.

You can "understand" that, huh?   I figure you're young and your words, unmeasured.  

Why do all of these assassin's have three names?

Perhaps in a few days, or several weeks, or years from now, people will be interested in talking about that.    

I was just trying to put in my own thoughts. But if you're going to insult me and demonize me then I guess I have no place on the new release thread.

I apologize.

[Allhallowsday]

...The biggest tragedy was that he killed civilians in the cross-fire. I can understand why he'd want to kill a political official, but getting innocents involved and killing a little girl is uncalled for.

You can "understand" that, huh?   I figure you're young and your words, unmeasured.  

Why do all of these assassin's have three names?

Perhaps in a few days, or several weeks, or years from now, people will be interested in talking about that.    

I was just trying to put in my own thoughts. But if you're going to insult me and demonize me then I guess I have no place on the new release thread.
I apologize.

You weren't "demonized" or "insulted".  Reread what I wrote until you understand, or, ignore me.  Please note, I was sharing my thoughts, just like you. 

[JaseSF]

Hearing people talk about how they warned others about this pyscho makes me wonder why no one tried to stop this guy before...it seems all too easy for such crazies to get their hands on weapons too, doesn't it?

All politics aside, what's happened is horrible and the nutjob who committed the crime should be made to pay...

Cannot believe anyone would do such a thing but I'm hearing those Westboro Baptist scum are going to picket the little girl's funeral...

[indianasmith]

the State of Arizona has moved to stop them from protesting.  It is an unconstitutional violation of free speech, but if it keeps them away until the funeral is over . . . it's the right thing to do!

This isn't particularly Christian of me, but I just wish those folks would die.

[akiratubo]

the State of Arizona has moved to stop them from protesting.  It is an unconstitutional violation of free speech, but if it keeps them away until the funeral is over . . . it's the right thing to do!

No, it isn't.  Better to let Westboro have the right to be scum than to limit free speech for all.  Anyway, it doesn't even affect Westboro.  The new law makes a "protest free zone" of 300 feet around a funeral.  Westboro typically stages their protests much farther away.

[Couchtr26]

Hearing people talk about how they warned others about this pyscho makes me wonder why no one tried to stop this guy before...it seems all too easy for such crazies to get their hands on weapons too, doesn't it?

The problem that occurs with it is that there is no central repository that can be accessed to see if someone has been diagnosed with any mental disorder.  I understand the basic principal so that no one can be discriminated against being on such a list for jobs and such, however, an exception should be made so that the FFL dealers can have some sort of searchable database so they can enforce purchases properly.  At least the ATF should have access to something of that nature. 

[lester1/2jr]

it's strange when these characters don't off themselves or get taken out at the end. like the Ft Hood shooter. weird to think they are still alive.

[ulthar]

an exception should be made so that the FFL dealers can have some sort of searchable database so they can enforce purchases properly.  At least the ATF should have access to something of that nature. 

Does everyone who commits a heinous act with a firearm get said firearm from an FFL'd dealer?  Of course not.

And hey, I used to work with a some ATF agents, and from my experience, they are the LAST group of people you want access to "something of that nature."

Wow.

Also, I would be quite hesitant to put the responsibility for 'background checking' on the businessman selling the gun.  First of all, that ain't his j-o-b; he runs a business.  Also, there will be BIG problems (like with HIPAA and ethical considerations in the medical community) with giving access to people's medical diagnoses to some guy with an FFL...there are BIGTIME privacy issues there.

This is MUCH different than a criminal record, which is public information.  But, didn't that kid have a criminal record of some sort?  I've heard (but I have not independently verified) that the Sheriff that's blathering all over the news about his opinions has had dealings with the kid in the past, and that "something" was done/not done because the kid's Mother worked for the county.

Good-ole-boyism will bite your backside just about every time.  Nice of that Sheriff to try to deflect that, though, if this is, indeed, the case.

[Couchtr26]

an exception should be made so that the FFL dealers can have some sort of searchable database so they can enforce purchases properly.  At least the ATF should have access to something of that nature. 

Does everyone who commits a heinous act with a firearm get said firearm from an FFL'd dealer?  Of course not.

And hey, I used to work with a some ATF agents, and from my experience, they are the LAST group of people you want access to "something of that nature."

Wow.

Also, I would be quite hesitant to put the responsibility for 'background checking' on the businessman selling the gun.  First of all, that ain't his j-o-b; he runs a business.  Also, there will be BIG problems (like with HIPAA and ethical considerations in the medical community) with giving access to people's medical diagnoses to some guy with an FFL...there are BIGTIME privacy issues there.

This is MUCH different than a criminal record, which is public information.  But, didn't that kid have a criminal record of some sort?  I've heard (but I have not independently verified) that the Sheriff that's blathering all over the news about his opinions has had dealings with the kid in the past, and that "something" was done/not done because the kid's Mother worked for the county.

Good-ole-boyism will bite your backside just about every time.  Nice of that Sheriff to try to deflect that, though, if this is, indeed, the case.

True but it is pointless to set up an unenforceable code.  The only purpose it serves is to set up a way to say we are doing something.  Which isn't true as you have created an unenforceable code.  You should either A) remove the code if you will not bother to set up a method to enforce, B) give a method to enforce, or C) Admit that you have absolutely no concern one way or the other as you are simply being reactive in your policy making decision.  The fact remains is that by leaving open these issues you create boogeymen to revisit the issue and receive more acclaim as you make even more worthless and unenforceable laws.   

[akiratubo]

Also, I would be quite hesitant to put the responsibility for 'background checking' on the businessman selling the gun.  First of all, that ain't his j-o-b; he runs a business.  Also, there will be BIG problems (like with HIPAA and ethical considerations in the medical community) with giving access to people's medical diagnoses to some guy with an FFL...there are BIGTIME privacy issues there.

DAMN right.  Retail salesmen of any sort have NO business having access to confidential medical records.

[Couchtr26]

True but it is pointless to set up an unenforceable code.  The only purpose it serves is to set up a way to say we are doing something.  Which isn't true as you have created an unenforceable code.  You should either A) remove the code if you will not bother to set up a method to enforce, B) give a method to enforce, or C) Admit that you have absolutely no concern one way or the other as you are simply being reactive in your policy making decision.  The fact remains is that by leaving open these issues you create boogeymen to revisit the issue and receive more acclaim as you make even more worthless and unenforceable laws.   

I feel my point here is a little unclear with this and my first post here.  Firstly, enforcement is sought for an item.  However, no method is set up for the case of that enforcement.  Rather it is used as a means to say we are doing something when in fact nothing gets done.  The problem then occurs in who should be responsible for such enforcement.  The ATF was suggested but that was not seen as viable.  Furthermore, the FFL dealer is not a simple clerk either and should he fail to follow law everyone seeks his skin.  Should he not be permitted to obey the law to avoid such problems?  However, without a method to enforce, he is without any method of doing anything. 

What other methods could be devised.  A psychiatrist instead?  However, how would you work it?  Would you keep one on retainer? Would you use the state?  The state is not concerned with any method of enforcing its own laws already.  Creating a loophole to be filled to bring about a new law which will also have some sort of loophole to create further troubles.  Government has no interest in ending problems, this is what it thrives on in the world.  Furthermore, the state isn't trustworthy either.  The US has used such methods to refuse doing many things.  In fact, Marijuana Tax Stamps required for purchase that were never sold was the first attempt at outlawing it.  So, now one on retainer?  That is expensive and not without troubles.  It would never be accurate.  While you could say mostly, many have slipped through the cracks on both sides.  For an insane person given a nice perfect bill of health read up on Edmund Emil Kemper.  For someone without trouble, you need look no further then my maternal grandmother.  So how can you propose a system that will be fair and yet address your trouble?  In the end, you don't want anyone calling to find out said information.  I don't remember saying direct access was needed.  Furthermore, a logical step doesn't always answer the question.  However, if you don't address the problem and find a method you will have an endless loop. 

[akiratubo]

The federal background check is already in place.  Anyone who buys a gun has to go through it.  It didn't work on Loughner because he didn't have a criminal or psychiatric record.

And, yes, gun salesmen are simple retail employees.  They are no different from Wal-Mart employees (in fact, Wal-Mart employees probably sell more guns than anyone else) or used-car dealers.

[Couchtr26]

The federal background check is already in place.  Anyone who buys a gun has to go through it.  It didn't work on Loughner because he didn't have a criminal or psychiatric record.

And, yes, gun salesmen are simple retail employees.  They are no different from Wal-Mart employees (in fact, Wal-Mart employees probably sell more guns than anyone else) or used-car dealers.

My problem lies in that the background check doesn't work for psychiatric records.  There is no way to check it.  That is in fact truth.  So in fact having one or not means nothing as it can't be checked.  It is an empty and useless question on the background check.  There is no repository for it, there is no access to it, and there is no way of saying there is a problem here.  It doesn't matter what psychiatric trouble you may have had in your past.  No state and no place in the federal government keeps track of it.  The question means nothing.  Many with trouble have received weapons because that question is worthless.  Read deeper on it, much of the background check is mindless questions that are never checked.  They are more we trust you to answer honestly.  Beyond criminal history and leaving the military dishonorably very little is actually checked by anyone federal or otherwise.  Akiratubo, I am trying to say that which we are lead to believe to prevent problems doesn't in fact do it.  There is very little backing that background check.