Replies

I stated that it was speculated that Whitman’s tumor may have caused it,

Yes you stated that. I wasn't taking a contradictory position, just expanding bit.

if so even at today’s laws would not have red flagged him due to such a medical condition is not a prohibiting factor.

Not the tumor, but some of his behavior. Some of the statements he made to pshrinks would raise flags today -- not enough to bar gun purchases, but enough to require further investigation. There is some evidence of domestic violence, but at the time that wasn't something many women reported, so it's not clear whether it was frequent or severe enough that it would have led to charges or a restraining order, either of which would make it to NCIS.

I did not include Malvo due to his age, but Williams/Mohammed was never deemed to have a mental illness (from what I can find) prior to the attacks to prohibit him from purchasing.

Mohammed was not allowed to possess firearms. His second (ex-) wife had a restraining order against him. The Bushmaster rifle used in the sniper shootings was apparently stolen from a gun shop in Tacoma, Washington, but there's been some speculation that it was sold out the back door.

The gun shop, Bull's Eye Shooter's Supply, had so many weapons "disappear" that BATFE yanked the owner's FFL in 2003. He transferred tje business to a friend, and the store is still operating.

Bull's Eye was sued for negligence, and settled a lawsuit from the victims' families for $2M. Bushmaster, the manufacturer, was named in the suit for negligently shipping weapons to someone so sloppy. They kicked in another half-mil to the settlement.

The Brady bunch provided the legal braintrust, and the claim against the manufacturer seems thin to me, so there's more than a whiff of lawsuit-lottery here. But even at that, it sure looks a lot like negligence to me. How the H-E-double-hockey-sticks does a teenager "shoplift" a .223 semi rifle (which is what Malvo said in court) without getting caught and without the theft being reported?

Mitchell Johnson & Andrew Golden of the Jonesboro school massacre.` `

Ages 13 and 11 at the time of their crimes. As with the others, they were ineligible, as minors, to own or buy guns. They stole their weapons from one kid's grandfather.

Charles “Tex” Watson of the Tate murders.

I don't see any reason he would have been barred from owning or buying firearms. The only red flag I can see, and it's a bit of a stretch, is if you could make a legal case that he was making arms available to Manson, who as a convicted felon can't carry.

So you've got a decision tree that starts with a simple question -- should or should not legal gun sales to certain persons be prohibited? If yes, which persons are those? How are they to be detected? How much expense, restriction and intrusion and intrusion do we balance against how much protection? It's basically the same sort of decision tree that applies to any area of public policy in a constitutional democracy.

I don't see this bill as a sharp line. It's not A on one side and Z on the other. It's pretty much bracketed between L and Q, IMHO.

Finding a gun is just as easy as finding drugs, they are quite often available from the same dealer.

With a couple of discreet calls, I could probably score some weed this afternoon. Maybe acid or X. Coke or smack? It would probably involve going through multiple people -- and as I'm a middle-aged white nerd, they'd probably peg me for a narc. (I have some friends who still smoke up occasionally. I can't sit in judgement of them when I have a scotch in one hand and a cig in the other.)

I wouldn't even begin to ask where to get an illicit gun. ANyone who nows me would be alarmed (not because they're scared of gduns, but because they know I have legal ones), and anyone I don't know woul, again, probably think I'm a cop.