A New York Times editorial, "An Assault on Everyone's Safety," criticizes the "ludicrously thin membrane that now passes for gun control in this country" and considers the oversized ammunition clip on the Glock 19 "fired by a disturbed man who should never have been able to purchase it legally." The editorial elaborates:
The gun itself was purchased by Mr. Loughner at a sporting goods store that followed the bare-minimum federal background check, which only flags felons, people found to be a danger to themselves or others, or those under a restraining order.
Mr. Loughner was rejected by the military for failing a drug test, and had five run-ins with the Pima Community College police before being suspended for disruptive activity. Why can’t Congress require a background check — without loopholes for gun shows or private sales — that would detect this sort of history? If the military didn’t want someone like Mr. Loughner to be given a firearm, neither should the public at large.
Until we have sane gun control laws, we are paying the price stated by the wise penguin speaking to an NRA type in the Tom Tomorrow cartoon below:
Barring some seismic realignment in this country, the gun control debate is all but settled--and your side won. The occasional horrific civilian massacre is just the price the rest of us have to pay. Over and over again, apparently.
Note: Click on the image to enlarge.