Rand Paul: 'Weapons Don't Kill People,' Individuals Do (VIDEO)

Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) weighed in on Saturday's tragic Tucson, Ariz. shooting over the weekend, saying that the actions of alleged shooter Jared Lee Loughner reflect on Loughner, not on U.S. gun laws.

Paul was quick to condemn the act of violence and to offer his prayers and thoughts for the shooting victims during a "Fox News Sunday" interview. That said, he argued, the shooting was an outlier that does not necessarily reflect systemic regulatory problems.

"It's probably about a very sick individual and what should have been done for that person," he said. "But the weapons don't kill people. It's the individual that killed these people."

Paul, an ophthalmologist, went on to offer a psychological analysis of the suspect. "I looked at some of the writings of this young man," he said. "And from a medical point of view, there is a lot to suggest paranoid schizophrenia, that this man was a really sick individual."

The new senator from Kentucky campaigned on strong support for gun rights. In October, he visited an area machine-gun shoot and vowed to preserve gun rights at all costs.

"I don't have to apologize for supporting the Second Amendment. I support it and will continue to support it no matter what the liberals say," Paul said at the October event. "The president says that you're out here in the middle of the country clinging to your guns and ammunition. What I tell the president is, 'We're clinging to our guns, our religions and our ammunition.'"

Loughner, who has been described as an unstable loner, was able to purchase a semiautomatic 9mm handgun last year and fire off an entire 30-round extended magazine before being tackled by witnesses Saturday.

WATCH the Paul interview (via Crooks & Liars):

Comments

[Charles Richard Brown]

10:50 AM on 01/13/2011

""But the weapons don't kill people. It's the individual that killed these people.""
No, Rand, weapons DON'T discharge themselves... duh. Thank you for being Captain Obvious.

How many people do you think Jared could have killed and or wounded with out a weapon designed for the explicit purpose of killing human beings?

[Thomas Kuzdal]

10:25 AM on 01/13/2011

Independence, KY loves you, Rand Paul.

Not sure why. Thanks for peeling off a few layers to point out that "people kill people". Hey, I didn't know that.

[ProfGiles]

01:25 PM on 01/11/2011

Guns + Person = Gun Violence-
No gun = No gun violence

[krr02]

08:32 AM on 01/11/2011

if a bartender continues to feed drinks to one intoxicated....

he bears responsibility ...and can be libel...

yet it seems assault weapons warrant less attention...

we know over-serving alcohol is dangerous....

one day we shall learn OVER-arming is also...

thanks nra

[Bodine666]

11:52 AM on 01/11/2011

----assault weapons warrant less attention----

I've been pressing anti-gun nuts to define assault weapon for years. The only definition I've been able to get is that it's a term used to inflame the passions of the public. I seriously doubt you could give me a definition. Still, you throw this term around as though you know.

Well, here's your clue. The alleged murderer did not use an 'assault' weapon. Assault weapons are not available for purchase in the US since 1920s. The facts are that every argument used by anti-gun nuts has been thoroughly debunked by extensive research by such folks as National Institute of Justice, US Dept. of Justice and Harvard Law School to name a few.

Assault weapon: a weapon with a mechanism to change mode of fire from semi to full auto, though some may also switch to burst mode.

That being said, this is, in no way, intended to diminish the tragedy of what happened here. I agree there should be some discussion over what to do. The problem is that anti-gun folks usually have a sack full of provably false claims that they stick to like some kind of religion. There can be no constructive discussion unless all parties are willing to approach with an open mind and quit refusing to accept something simply because they don't like it.

BTW, it's liable, not libel.

[lmunoz]

08:26 AM on 01/11/2011

Rand Paul shows great originality of thought and wit as usual...

[Wolfsghost]

08:22 AM on 01/11/2011

Why say anything at all if you're only going to repeat old worn out phrases.

[gumbo1049]

07:51 AM on 01/11/2011

Electing people like this cause problems and have consequences.

[aeuropeanvoice]

07:42 AM on 01/11/2011

Isn't it about time responsible Americans started a lobby similar to NRA against possession of guns ?
You 'll get nowhere without it,the same used up arguments pro and contra will be brought forward over and over again.
Why don't you all organize and act ?

[Manhattanite]

07:30 AM on 01/11/2011

Had the attacker been armed with a knife, he would have done a lot less damage. Semi-automatic weapons, however...

[trweste144]

07:17 AM on 01/11/2011

Senators don't contradict themselves­. Senators words contradict themselves.

[getoffmyside]

06:53 AM on 01/11/2011

This will save us a lot of money in our military budget.

[Mattie]

06:30 AM on 01/11/2011

This man is part of the problem, we need to elect people who are part of the solution.

[eagle17765]

06:03 AM on 01/11/2011

I get it ... guns are the innocent v/ctim of the "individual."

All the more reason that "individuals" should have RESTRICTIONS on types of guns they can own.

[ScorpioTop]

03:46 AM on 01/11/2011

If Rand Paul truly honored the 2nd he would take seriously where it states "a well regulated militia". that part of the sentence is always ignored. Gun use kills people. 13,000 dead Americans a year, thanks to guns. Apologies mean little without a solution to his madness.

[Heru1]

03:25 AM on 01/11/2011

next he'll say, 'its not the gun, its the bullets." rand's logic is schizoid

[eagle17765]

06:08 AM on 01/11/2011

I think he's saying "Individuals" need restrictions on THEM ... you know, the gun is innocent.

[nbb]

07:36 AM on 01/11/2011

The gun assuredly facilitates the act......

[JeanRR]

08:16 AM on 01/11/2011

It's not the bullets, it's the momentum. It's not the momentum, it's the body reaction to trauma. One could go on and on.