Interesting opinion from a writer who doesn't blame guns

[A-R]

I don't find this guy to be a particularly good newspaper columnist, nor particularly funny (though he keeps trying to be clever and humorous). But I'm usually impressed that he does at least attempt to understand the gun rights points of view. Anyway, interesting opinion piece in Austin paper.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/arizon ... 75002.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is where I want to say somebody ought to do something to prevent soul-searing tragedies such as this one. Clearly, somebody should. But what? Unless we find out the background check was botched, Loughner legally purchased the gun. In Arizona, he did not need state permission to carry it.

And what if he did? You think a nut job bent on mayhem would hesitate because he didn't have a permit to carry the gun to the scene of the intended mayhem? Get real.

[74novaman]

If he was still a marijuana user, it was not a legal purchase anyway. He lied on his 4473.

[RPB]

If he was still a marijuana user, it was not a legal purchase anyway. He lied on his 4473.

Isn't that illegal?
Oh yeah, you said wasn't a legal purchase .......... good point

Instead of mental exam requirements, I'm expecting urine tests ... except in California of course ...

That could get interesting in Cali ... no lawmaker in Cali would qualify to buy a firearm