Question: How does a mentally unstable man who was kicked out of school and had run-ins with the law buy such a serious weapon?
The weapon reportedly used in the mass murders in Tucson was a very serious weapon -- a semi-automatic pistol, with an extended magazine. Many weapons like that were illegal in the US from 1994 to 2004 under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. They are now legal to sell and own. The National Rifle Association reports there are tens of millions of assault weapons in private hands in the US.
The federal background check for people purchasing such weapons only prohibits selling such weapons to people who have been legally determined to be mentally defective or found insane or convicted of crimes. This man had not been found legally mentally defective or convicted so he was legally entitled to purchase an assault weapon. In Arizona he was legally entitled to carry the weapon in a concealed manner.
The US has well over 250 million guns in private hands according to the National Rifle Association. That is more, according to the BBC, than any country in the world. In one year, guns murdered 17 people in Finland, 35 in Australia, 39 in England and Wales, 60 in Spain, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada, and 9,484 in the United States according to the Brady Campaign.
Does the US really need tens of millions of assault weapons and hundreds of millions of other guns? We already put more of our people in prison than any country in the world and we spend more on our military than all the rest of the world together. How fearful must we be?
Question: Why is there so little talk of terrorism?
Apparently when a mentally unstable white male is accused, white terrorism is not the first thing that comes to mind.
When Clay Duke, a white male, threatened Florida school board members with a gun and shot at them before shooting himself, in December 2010, he was mentally imbalanced.
When Michael Enright, a white male, was arrested for slashing the throat of a Muslim NYC cab driver in August of 2010, his friends said he had a drinking problem
When Byron Williams, a white male, was arrested after opening fire on police officers and admitted he was on his way to kill people at offices of a liberal foundation and a civil liberties organization, in July 2010, he was an unemployed right wing felon with a drinking problem.
When Joe Stack, a white male, flew his private plane into a federal building in Austin, Texas, in February 2010, he was angry with the IRS.
When a white male is accused of mass murder, white terrorism is not much talked of rather it becomes a terrible tragedy but not one where race or ethnicity or religion need be examined.
Now, if the accused had been Muslim, does anyone doubt whether this would have been considered an act of terrorism? US Muslims could have expected increased surveillance and harassment at home and the places where they work and worship. They could have expected a Congressional inquiry into the radicalization of their people. Oh, Representative Peter King (R-NY) has already started that one!
Thank you for such an insightful article, of course, there will be denials until a Republican is at the receiving end of the terror those people experienced on Saturday morning.
Answer: Because he was never involuntarily committed or ruled mentally defective by a judge, nor did he have any felony convictions. Try learning the facts.
"The weapon reportedly used in the mass murders in Tucson was a very serious weapon -- a semi-automatic pistol, with an extended magazine. Many weapons like that were illegal in the US from 1994 to 2004 under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban."
False on all counts. The Glock 19 used by the killer is one of the most popular pistols in the nation and is owned by millions. It was legal during the AWB, and the extended mag was legal too if it was made before 1994.
Your lament appears to beg for more rush to judgment in these cases, not less.
People in those other coutries mentioned don't feel they need a gun to be safe and what's more important, they don't feel like they would be any safer if they carried one. It's quite simple, more guns cause more bodies. There are some countries, like New Zealand, where even the police doesn't always carry a gun. No wonder people don't get shot if there is nothing to shoot with.
There is no evidence to support that claim. Armed citizens can and do save lives
"There are some countries, like New Zealand, where even the police doesn't always carry a gun"
And officers have died because of that. The NZ police are now desperately petitioning the government to allow them to carry weapons full time, but running into opposition from anti-gun bullies who think their lives are not important. Learn the facts and try again:
http://www.3news.co.nz/Police-one-step-closer-to-being-armed-full-time/tabid/423/articleID/181202/Default.aspx
It's quite simple, you're more likely to shoot someone if you have a gun. As you are more likely to be in a motorcycle accident if you own a motorcycle.
And I don't buy your "Armed citizens can and do save lives" line. Yes, they might save a couple of lives, but the deaths they cause far outnumber the saved ones.
But terrorism is "the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion". Most of the examples Quigley presents are isolated incidents that are neither systematic nor meant (so far as we can tell) to coerce.
At present, there appear to be a few annoying "longstanding traditions" getting in the way of truly free access to any conceivable weapon by literally anyone. But the Constitution, if read in the most minimalist way that the present Court increasingly seems to do, does not stipulate any such restrictions.
It has been affirmed decisively that we individuals have a "right" to bear guns, thanks to the likes of Justice Scalia et al., who appear to delight in how far they can strip the laws through their literal interpretations, It's time, therefore, we truly came clean. Not only should the government be guaranteeing the constitutional right of all individuals to bear guns; it should be mail-ordering guns to anyone who wants one: kids, incarcerated murderers, daycare teachers, etc.
To imagine, then, that the solution to the nightmare that gun lobbyists and the courts are creating is to divert money we might use for health or education to pay for bigger fences around those with money and power?? And to blame the rest of us for the violence because of what we say???!
This is madness, people.
Thank goodness the literalists will be on the bench when we point out that our First Amendment rights are being infringed.
But Glock 19 No
Know you facts please and a Glock 19 is not assault weapon
Not that I have the data near at hand to refute this but, in short, I HIGHLY doubt this. And, of course, there's that pesky word here, "terrorism", which I argue is quite mis-used.
the gunman still had to go though a federal background check before he walked out with the Glock
The glock (not an assault weapon) is light, easy to use, accurate and probably a more deadly weapon for someone with less training in closed quarters.
The real issue is exactly what kind of Arizona do people who live there want? I don't see the point of allowing people to have extended magazine pistols. Is this a hunting thing?
Can some one from a high gun-use area explain it to us city slickers?
Mike