E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Michael Isikoff
NBC News National Investigative Correspondent
When he began shooting outside the Tucson supermarket, Jared Lee Loughner had a Glock 19 pistol that he purchased for $500 and two high capacity 33-round magazines whose manufacture had once been banned under federal law, federal law enforcement officials said Sunday.
But that law, part of a broader 1994 assault weapons ban, expired seven years ago under President Bush. As a result, the 22-year-old Loughner was able to legally acquire high-capacity clips that substantially enhanced the lethality of his attack, officials said. Loughner was charged Sunday with the incidents involving federal employees: two counts of murder and three counts of attempted murder. (A copy of the charges is here, in a PDF file.)
“It gave him a tactical advantage,” said one federal law enforcement official who asked for anonymity. Referring to high-capacity magazines, the official said, “There’s absolutely no doubt the magazines increased the lethality and the body count of this attack.”
Some federal law enforcement officials — and gun control groups — pointed to Loughner’s lawful access to the magazines, as well as the semi-automatic Glock pistol despite an apparent history of mental troubles, as further evidence of the weakness of federal gun laws. There were already signs Sunday that, as with past shooting massacres, such as the ones at Virginia Tech or at Columbine High School in Colorado, the Tuscon assassination was reigniting the perennial debate over federal gun laws.
“The 22-year-old shooter in Tucson was not allowed to enlist in the military, was asked to leave school, and was considered ‘very disturbed,’” according to former classmates, "but that’s not enough to keep someone from legally buying as many guns as they want in America,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
The porous nature of the gun laws are even greater in Arizona, where the state’s governor, Jan Brewer, a gun rights champion, last year signed a law striking down a permit requirement for carrying a concealed weapon. Two years ago, she signed a law permitting guns to be carried into bars and restaurants that sell alcohol.
Loughner legally purchased the Glock pistol at a Sportsman’s Warehouse store in Tuscson on Nov. 30, filling out a standard federal form that, among other questions, affirmed he had never been convicted of a felony or been “adjudicated” as "mentally defective.” Although he had been charged with a misdemeanor drug offense in 2008 and had been suspended in September from Pima Community College until a mental health professional certified he was not a danger to himself or others, neither disqualified him from legally purchasing the weapon.
But one federal law enforcement official involved in the case pointed to the high-capacity magazines as an even bigger issue in the attack. The Glock pistol as advertised comes with a standard clip of 15 rounds. The shooter on Saturday had four magazines with his Glock: two high-capacity magazines of more than 30 rounds, and two standard rounds, giving him combined firepower of more than 90 rounds. "He had emptied the first magazine and was trying to reload when he was tackled," said one law enforcement official.
As part of the broader 1994 assault weapons ban, Congress prohibited the manufacture of high-capacity magazines that would enable a shooter to repeatedly fire more rounds without reloading. That law drew stiff opposition from the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups — and was allowed to expire under President George W. Bush in 2004.
President Obama, during his 2008 campaign, pledged to restore the ban, and in its early days the Obama White House even had language on its website affirming that the administration supported making “the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.”
But White House officials have long since dropped the issue as politically impractical, especially in light of the opposition of Blue Dog Democrats. (Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the target of Saturday’s tactic, was among them.) The language about the assault weapons ban since has been dropped from the White House site.
How much of a difference a reinstatement of the ban would have made in the Tucson shooting is open to dispute. James Cavanaugh, a former senior official of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, noted that the assault weapons ban only barred the manufacture of new high-capacity magazines; those already on the market were “grandfathered” in and could still be sold. Even without the two high-capacity magazines he had on him, the shooter could have used the Glock’s standard click to fire off 15 rounds—enough to have hit most, if not all, of the targets in the Saturday shooting, he said.
A more relevant issue, Cavanaugh said, was the exceedingly high standard for denying mentally unstable gun purchasers from acquiring weapons. The current standard — they must be “adjudicated” mentally unstable by a court — is very difficult to meet and results in very few denials, he said. While there are unquestionably civil liberties issues at stake, Cavanaugh said, “when people are psychotic, they shouldn’t be able to just walk in and purchase a gun at a gun store like he did.”
George bush let the ban end 7 years ago...its all his fault. ok msn we get where ya coming from. let it GO!...and you wonder why your ratings suffer
your dum get a reality check people will allway beabale to get guns even if there home made
I believe in Oregon, a 15 round magazine is the maximum amount that can be carried legally. I think 33 is a bit excessive, but I believe in the second amendment.
The gun didn't get up by itself and shoot anybody. If there's blame to place here, let's place it on our "non-justice" system that had more than enough repetitive information to know the shooter is a certified nutcase and did nothing to take him out of circulation a long time ago.
It's a fact that the ban ended under President Bush. Should that not be mentioned? When the debate is about gun control and/or high-capacity magazines how can one not review the timeline of the ban/expiration of the ban? @rockkiller - The principle of "someone could really get it if they wanted to" makes no sense to me. People COULD get assault rifles to, should those be sold freely? People COULD get rocket launchers if they tried really hard, so why restrict those? Firearms are for self-defense and reasonable recreation - in my state the limit is 10 rounds. That's plenty to defend your home, go hunting, and have fun at the range. Those who say they have a "right" to 33 rounds, assault rifles, etc. are being awfully self-centered. Have they not seen what these weapons do in the big cities, robberies, Columbine-esque attacks, Mexican drug wars, etc?
rockkiller: "your dum"? Did you proof read your comment? It's obvious that you either didn't, don't care, or are incapable of constructing a useful comment. May I suggest some grammar, spelling and punctuation changes (especially before you call someone else *dumb*): "You're dumb. Get a reality check. People will always be able to get guns, even if they are home made."
I think the point that you're trying to make, but rather ineloquently failed to make, is that it is next to impossible to prevent violent crimes. Any sufficiently motivated person will find the means to inflict the damage they seek.
Simply, hand-gun bands and restrictions do not work. Look at cities such as Chicago and Washington DC. Until recently, both cities had strict hand-gun restrictions in place, effectively barring private ownership of hand-guns. Yet, this oddly failed to prevent hundreds, if not thousands of shootings occurring in each respective city. The only net effect was to deprive law abiding citizens of the ability to defend themselves and blatantly violate one of the few explicitly granted to citizens by the US Constitution.
Personally, I find it appalling that the US Courts feel fit to invent freedoms not granted by the Constitution and so blatantly and repeatedly refuse to uphold those freedoms explicitly granted.
Your wrong. It's the fault of the person that breaks the law. When the Left's in trouble who will they call? The call the folks that had the good sense not to be so Liberal.
Growing up we had people with guns in their gun racks. Loaded and ready to go and we didn't have any where near as many senseless killings. The Left's really doesn't get it. The problems of today are cause by the Left's "kinder gentler" approach. The Left's acceptance of deviant behavior (some times even encouragement) is the problem.
In the preceding news report, James Cavanaugh with the BATF, said when people are psychotic, they shouldn't be able to just walk in and purchase a gun in a gun store like he did.
The shooting suspect purchased the gun by filling out the proper form. It was approved by the Feds and the dealer sold him the gun legally. The dealer has no way of knowing the buyer's condition.
the
Pima county collage drops the ball on this one period!!!
They ask him to get a Mental Health Clearance!! Showing that he did not present a danger
1 Month later he bought the gun, so if the collage was so worried about him why did they not report him to officials? would have stop this leftist communist punk from killing
Lethal cocktail ingredients:
1. Guns for everyone
2. Mad men (and women)
3. Hateful and distorted political discourse
Sooner or later it'll blow.
ecib, post # 1.9: Don't think so. He would have to commit a crime for the cops to pick him up an do what you suggested.
How would you fill if the police knocked on your door and wanted to take you down to Police Station and check you for mental stability. Someone said you were Could pose a danger. Sorry.
We must confront this issue of guns designed for combat weapons being freely available to the public, including members of the public with mental health issues. In concept, I have no issue with the right to bear arms under normal, traditional circumstances. That means an ordinary, secured hand gun or rifle in the house for self defense against robbers or as part of a rural life on a ranch.
But then you have open carry states like Arizona. The current shooting brings back memories of men showing up with guns at a townhall meeting that Obama attended. Why show up with guns for a discussion? Then you have the close election race between Gabriel Gifford and Jesse Kelley, a war veteran, who had rallies for the public to come to and having the opportunity to shoot an M-16 rifle. Gifford won and Kelley lost. Anyone find out who Loughner (Gifford's assassin) voted for?
Then we have had a relaxed attitude toward guns and politics. Then the hate politics with a strong presense of NRA guns rights activists on the right.
Last but not least, America has a special relationship with guns. Canada has more guns per population than the United States and far less violent crimes. Much of Europe and the United Kingdom are content to generally live life without guns.
I grieve for the family, but it's not the gun's fault, this guy was psycho. You gun haters are idiots.
When a decision to kill is made, Any weapon, legal or not will be used. Neither weapons, or peole may be controled by laws. If one type of weapon is unavailable, a person committed to a kill, will use any thing possable to accomplish the deed. Almost everything may be turned into a weapon. With the proper knowledge common household products may be used to cause multiple deaths. This information is available on the internet. Firearm restrictions will not prevent a killer from achieving his goal, it will only change his methodology. Those who believe that Laws can control the use of Objects, look at the Automobile. Read the Death and Injury body count caused by the Automobile each year and it becomes obvious it is America's "Weapon of Mass Distruction". Look at all the Laws regulating the use of the automobile. Do these laws actually prevent Death and Injury? In the words of Patrick Henry "Those who sacrifice essential Liberty to buy a little temporary Security, deserve neither Liberty or Security
I have a 30 round magazine for my Remington 597 .22 LR rifle; I like that I can go to the range with it and shoot more rounds without having to reload.
However, I'm not so attached to it that I can't live without it. Had it been illegal to purchase, my enjoyment would not be significantly dampened, and my rights would not feel significantly infringed upon. I've got a .40 pistol with a ten round clip and a .40 carbine that takes the same clip, but honestly my bolt action and lever action rifles are much more fun to shoot, and they only take 5 rounds each, manually loaded.
Nobody needs 30 rounds for hunting or home defense, and it's only mildly convenient at the range. And then you spend 10 minutes reloading the dang thing. For hunting, you shouldn't need more than 5 or you're a bad shot and you shouldn't be hunting. For home defense, certainly no more than ten, and a big revolver or a shotgun should do the trick.
Anybody who thinks they need a 20-30 round magazine for their AR-15 or their Glock has got a body count in mind.
It's true that 20-30 rounds is excessive but there are thousands upon thousands of these magazines in existence and yet I don't see all of these people that own them racking up a massive body count do you? Most of them are owned by law abiding citizens.
It could be said that having a 10-round clip means a body count is in mind. If he had thought 10 rounds wouldn't be enough he could have bought two Glocks.
Ya want "clip-control"? Seriously?
This arguement never gets beyond the fact that no one can ever know the mind of another.
Actually, it's "homemade" not "home made", since you brought up the matter of spelling/grammar with rockkiller.
It is just too bad that others in the crowd weren't carrying a gun with them when this nut job decided to start firing. The whole situation could have been stopped after the first few rounds instead of having to wait till 33 or so rounds were fired and more people killed. Another shame is that a crazy like this guy is still able to purchase guns at a store. A final shame is the people trying to use this for a political advantage. People trying to blame Palin for this need to realize this guy was a leftist crazy. Last I checked, leftist crazies were not part of the Tea Party, or part of Palin's other groups of followers.
Yes, then you would have had a shootout in the middle of a crowd of frightened people, and odds are that anybody returning fire would be considered an accomplice and possibly shot by police or by other gun-carrying citizens in the crowd. The whole situation could have been made a lot worse.
In this we are in agreement. We need mental health checks before people are able to purchase guns.
People trying to claim this guy is a leftist crazy need to realize they're wrong.
It's the upper limit of what has widely been considered reasonable for home defense. If you're dealing with 1-2 home intruders it should be plenty, and if you're dealing with more intruders you're probably boned anyway. The federal ban set it at 10 rounds, and I think that's wholly fair.
People do not need this type of weapon, high capacity clips and other instruments that are designed for the sole purpose of killing people, and killing them quickly and in large numbers. However, the NRA continues to fund, lobby and intimidate politicians with an agenda that is all about easy access to these killing machines. NRA supporters like to point out the organization's support of gun safety and hunter safety, but it is very obvious that their primary emphasis is on gun rights and NOT gun responsibility.
Why should a citizen who possesses a firearm for righteous purposes be opposed to registering the weapon the demonstrating that they have the ability and intention to use the firearm responsibly? Why is the focus on possessing hand guns and high-capacity weapons instead of rifles .... after all, it is the National RIFLE Association, right? Why not work harder to prevent people with anger management and drug/alcohol issues don't have guns?
The NRA through its actions contributes significantly to the huge number of gun deaths in this country and the rest of us, particularly our politicians, should resist their message.
I am not ready to live in a country that lets it's citizens own only those things some government official, newspaper editor, or poster on a blog thinks I need. Hopefully you and the other readers of this thread are not either. But if you are, such places do exist. Perhaps you would be happier living elsewhere?
Also, the NRA does not intimidate politicians. Their 4 million VOTING members do with their votes and campaign contributions.
I agree DDS. I also believe that the 4 million NRA members are only a small fraction of gun owners who have managed to make it through life without shooting anyone. What these people fail to realize or accept is that criminals or bad people will use whatever item is handy in most cases. That was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt a few months ago when a teenager used a 2x4 to kill another teenager.
It's not the firearms that need to be controlled, it's the tempers of the people who abuse them.
DDS
What is the purpose of your statement that "Perhaps you would be happier living elsewhere"? This is just exactly the kind of divisive, exclusionary conversation that adds to the hateful atmosphere in this country. What kind of arrogance you must have to suggest that those who do not agree with you are not good Americans and should live somewhere else. I am sure that you really believe that you and any other citizen should carry weapons that can kill many people in a very short amount of time. I think that the large number of guns as well as the nature of those guns creates a dangerous environment in this country and is a root cause of thousands of deaths of innocent people every year. I disagree completely with both you and the NRA .... and that, my friend, does not disqualify me from being a good citizen of this country.
Al in Oregon
The success of the NRA in promoting its point of view has increased the supply of firearms that have the sole purpose of killing other human beings and ensured that many thousands of those weapons are in the hands of people who are not responsible gun owners. Perhaps a better name for the organization should be the National Murder Weapon Association, since that is the emphasis of the real mission of the organization.
Ironically, according to some reports, Loughner was subdued after the spring in his second magazine failed. (I suspect that those 30+ round, high capacity magazines are less reliable than the more politically correct 10 or 15 round magazines.)
He may not have been as easily stopped if his second magazine hadn't malfunctioned. Of course we'll never know for sure, but this may have turned out much worse if he had standard capacity magazines.
Scott
Now imagine the situation if he only had a hunting rifle.
Don
You mean like Charles J Whitman, the infamous Texas Tower Sniper?
Do you REALLY think that this guy would have gotten off 31 shots and killed and wounded this many people with a hunting rifle, or do you just like to argue? This country is a more dangerous place because ordinary citizens are allowed to buy high-capacity firearms. If you support the right to buy such death instruments you contributed to that danger.
Don, the streets are awash with such weapons and others. While in the hands of a dangerously unstable individual, a high capacity magazine is certainly a danger. One man out of countless others out there who own such things and live their whole lives never committing an act of violence with them. Having traveled around the country, spending a lot of treasured time in the inter-mountain west, I've seen and handled such things before to no ill result. The most lively thing I've ever fired a high capacity weapon towards was a steel gong target on an established range under the supervision of a professional competition shooter. Perhaps high capacity magazines should be more difficult to purchase. I'm perfectly content to concede that much. Perhaps only from federal firearms license holding dealers? Would this be satisfactory?
Charles J. Whitman killed 16 and wounded 32 during his shooting rampage in 1966. His primary weapon was a scoped Remington Model 700 bolt action hunting rifle.
In the hands of a dangerously unstable individual, even a hunting rifle can cause mass casualties. We should not get hung up on how many rounds Loughner's magazines held, when he should not have been able to obtain the gun in the first place.
We should be mindful that if it weren't for those who risked their lives trying to stop this guy, it wouldn't have mattered how many rounds were in each of his magazines. He wouldn't have stopped until he had totally run out of ammunition.
Yeah, but Whitman needed a tower in which to do it. You can't just open fire from within a crowd using a hunting rifle. And if this shooter in this case had been shooting from a sniper nest, people could have gotten to cover.
He was only stopped when he reloaded. I'd guess that, with adrenaline coursing through his veins, his hands were shaking pretty badly, and that's why he dropped the second 33 rd magazine he was trying to load into his gun. Odds are good that if he'd been trying to reload with any size magazine, he would have dropped it in that situation, but regardless it was the pause in firing caused by reloading that gave people the chance to stop him.
I don't disagree that we should have much better mental health screening before selling people guns. That'd be a great lesson to take from this shooting, and the Northern Illinois University shooting, and the Virginia Tech shooting. But I don't see where it would be a bad idea to at least try to limit access to high capacity magazines.
Something needs to be clarified here. The article refers to the shooter's high capacity magazines as being banned during the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. While it's true that the 1994 law banned manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, it did not ban their posession or sale. In addition, enought new over 10 round magazines were already in the sales channel at the start of the ban to keep them readily available for the entire 10 years the ban was in effect. So the 1994 ban and/or its expiration had absolutely nothing to do with this regrettable incident.
guns are not the problem lack of mental health care is. as they say guns don't kill people do. with our country continually cutting health care who can get help? psychotic or not. lets all get a grip of what is real and what is not. our kids are not getting this way because of osmosis.
very sad but very biblically spelled out word for word end of times!
I missed where this event was mentioned in the Bible. Can you refresh my memory?
Steve, Don't be funny, this event is not in the Bible. However, Lady bug is trying to tell you (and others) that what is going on is leading up to the end of the world and she knows what she is talking about.
I have listed a few scriptures: If you want to know more you can looking them up in The King James Version of the Bible. Good luck.
Matthew 13:40 Mark 13:25 Rev. 6:12
13:49 2nd Thes 1:8
24:3 2nd Peter 3:10
28:20 1st John 2:17
30 round mags gave him a "tactical advantage"?
How about being the only one with a gun-- I guess that had no bearing on the amount of damage he caused?
I heart the liberal media, but not as much as the Brady Campaign. Geniuses, all!
Here's a little bit of logic. Gun laws only effect law abiding citizens; criminals could care less. You could ban guns tomorrow, and magically remove them from the hands of the populace. And next week, there'd be thousands of combat weapons (select fire and all) on the black market to meet the demand. We can't keep thousands of PEOPLE from spilling across the border; only a tiny fraction of incoming sea cargo is inspected.
If you can't put 2 and 2 together and see the big picture, you're probably right to want to ban you, and those like you, from owning a firearm. The rest of us, as always, will be responsible for our own safety and (if you're lucky) yours as well.
Well, I live right here smack dab in the middle of the 8th District. Today, I drove right by where Gabby was shot. I live in the desert here. I want to point out something here - as liberal as AZ is with our guns laws (and by "liberal" I mean free, you can carry a concealed weapon in AZ without a permit. I dont personally, but I know people who do), take note that that there was not another armed person there to take down this guy sooner - TRANSLATED, even though we have such open gun laws, not a single person there had a gun to protect the innocent people - ONLY THE CRIMINAL HAD THE GUN. And he OBVIOUSLY did not CARE ABOUT THE LAW.
So, there is nothing wrong with our laws. The problem is that we dont enforce the laws that are already on the books.
Another thing, until you live here, you have NO IDEA the dangers that lurk in the deserts of AZ. The drug runners, the coyotes running illegals through - and God only knows what else. I have friends who live within miles of the border with Mexico and they carry loaded weapons ALL THE TIME, because to do anything else would be simply stupid. They never know who or what is going to be in their yard when they simply walk out their door. Seriously, no exageration there at all.
Try coming here, getting in a car and driving along the border with Mexico. Tell me if you want to be armed when you go for your little drive in the desert. I have done that many times, riding quads with groups of friends on the weeked. We ALWAYS quad in the desert in groups, and we always carry locked and loaded weapons. Are we looking for trouble? NO!! We go out on weekends to explore the desert - BUT you NEVER KNOW who or WHAT you are going to run into.
Blame the drug cartels for that - and blame illegal immigration for that.
We will not be giving up our guns any time soon, and we dont really have any choice - because President Obama and Janet Napalatano have no apparent intention to make a serious effort to close the border. Which forces AZ to pursue SB1070 and fight them all the way - because we HAVE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.
Don't believe me? Think I am some kind of "Crazy Second Ammendment, Conservative, Tea Bagger". Well, then come here and take a drive along the border. See for yourself.
Until then - until you live here, live in the desert - you WILL NEVER understand.
Thats not really true in canada we have tough laws on handguns 5 years min if caught without permit or carrying it in public. Most criminals use knives because even if they have access to guns they wont bother. The big cities have gun problems with gangs especially with imigrants who come from countries where its the norm to use firearms. But they dont really affect the hunters who use them up north for game and legit purposes.
Those that live in their cloistered cities will never understand. I have people that come out to the ranch and tell us that it's scary. There's no noise. There's no neighbors next door. We have rifles sitting next to the doors. What if something happens on the drive out here? There's noone for miles.
You'll never get them away from the rat warrens!
Arizona is the most gun friendly state in the USA. Where were the gun-carrying self-described "patriots" who we all owe so much to for keeping America safe? Running away and hiding like we all knew they would. It was an unarmed woman who stopped the hatred. My Hero!
thenew110, It has been brought up many times on the Vine that in a case like this with a shooter in a crowd, that people feared that responsible citizens who carry concealed would pull their weapons and start shooting at the gunman, in a crowd, causing more deaths by hitting innocent bystanders. For those who haven't thought about it, that did not happen in this case. As you stated, there were probably citizens with concealed weapons in this crowd who were carrying, but did not pull their weapon, or as you put it "running away and hiding". Did you ever stop to think that being in a tight crowd, that it would be difficult to stop the gunman sensibly without endangering more innocent lives? I would agree with you that there were concealed weapons in the crowd that were not pulled but I would say that they made the right decision not to try and shoot him because they were acting sensible and respectable in this particular situation. Don't put people down for making a good decision, please. If anything, thank them for being rational in a very difficult situation!!!
If people other than the shooter had been armed... there might have been a shootout in the middle of a crowd of panicked people, and the people other than the shooter might have been shot by cops responding to the scene, or arrested as accomplices. Anybody shooting at the gunman who missed would have probably shot innocent people on accident, making an already tragic day that much worse.
Instead, they tackled the shooter without causing any further injuries, and now he'll be able to stand trial for what he did.
People who fantasize about what they would have done if they had been there with their personal arsenal are sick.
EZHUNTER - Very Well said!!!
PS. I'm waiting to hear from you : )
Lady Bug,
You are so right! Mental health is very under funded and people are falling through the cracks. In my home town a mentally unstable young man burned down part of a mall. Before the incident he himself attempted to get mental health care but was sent away as sane. His parents tried to no avail. Thank god no one was hurt! And some politicians want to deny care to more and more Americans. Not at this time and in this economy. Too many stresses in life for many these days.
And the band played on.......
Guns kill people!!! This guy could not have strangled, bludgeoned, or choked 6 people to death on his own. The 2nd amendment never intended that individuals should own guns to carry around & use when they felt like it. They were intended for national/state/public defense & hunting to supply food for one's own use. The gun laws are useless & counterproductive. The Mexican drug cartels can cross the border & arm themselves to the hilt in Arizona, then return & commit horrific massacres. What insanity permits this? (That's rhetorical; we know damn well who permits this, and it is a crime against humanity).
A well placed bomb(made with household items) could have done way more damage and caused more deaths than any gun. The gun isn't auto-fire ,the trigger has to be pulled so the gun didn't kill anybody!
maybe if the crowd was armed how long do you think it would of gone on for , or how meany people do you think would of died , the minite someone came running in the crowd all crazy like he would of had cross hairs on him before he even pulled the trigger , congress men and women should be armed. Its our second amendment right
A homemade bomb may well have blown up when the shooter was building it, resulting only in death to himself, which has happened before many times. Or it may not have gone off at all, resulting only in death to nobody, which has also happened before many times. Guns are designed so that when you pull the trigger, a bullet is fired. It's pretty simple and somebody else has already done all the work for you. All you have to do is figure out how to load it and pull the trigger. Building your own homemade bomb is a much more dangerous activity, and much more likely to fail.
So this whole "he could have just used a bomb!" argument is specious at best.
If people other than the shooter had been armed... there might have been a shootout in the middle of a crowd of panicked people, and the people other than the shooter might have been shot by cops responding to the scene, or arrested as accomplices. Anybody shooting at the gunman who missed would have probably shot innocent people on accident, making an already tragic day that much worse.
Instead, they tackled the shooter without causing any further injuries, and now he'll be able to stand trial for what he did.
Yes a homemade bomb may blow up on the person so for arguments sake lets say he uses a 4wd truck balls out peddle to the metal to aim for his target which can also result in mass casualties. The point is where there is a will there is a way,take away one means they will find another.
When that actually happens (and what, exactly, prevents them from doing that now?) then you'll have a point. Don't know why our military hasn't yet thought up the brilliant idea of replacing our guns with these wondrously effective big trucks.
There called tanks lol. Your missing the point, take the guns and they will find another way to cause hate hell and discontent.
With a great big truck, people see it coming and can get out of the way.
Yes, crazy people will find a way to kill innocent people. But this fervent, passionate desire to make it easier for them is @!$%#ing insane.
I think we can all agree that unstable people, who present a danger to themselves or others, should not have access to weapons. Given that level of agreement, as the article points out, there is a difficulty in keeping unstable people from accessing weapons. If a person has a family member that might not be legally incompetent, but they feel might be a potential danger, it seems they have little recourse. Clearly other people were aware that this particular fellow was unstable and at some level dangerous, as he was not allowed to return to school until he cleared a psychological evaluation, but not legally incompetent. Perhaps rather than argue about magazine capacity, mental capacity should be in the forefront.
snowman you have posted one of the most if not the most sensable remarks so far.
TO ALL THOSE "SENSIBLE" (get a spell checker, Mac) GUN OWNERS:
Is there no regulation relating to weapons that would ever be considered reasonable?
Let's look at the facts here. Two 33 round clips?! What in god's name does anyone--anyone--outside military or law enforcement need with a 33 round clip? As a Glock 9 owner I am FINE with my 12 round clips (California resident). I just have to replace the clip more often. So what? 12 available rounds makes me feel pretty safe. Compared to the havoc someone intent on killing can accomplish with a high capacity clip, it seems a SMALL PRICE FOR GUN OWNERS TO PAY to regulate the amount of ammo one can put into a rapid fire handgun.
No one is talking about the actual gun here, just the clip. No one needs a 33 round clip for protection, hunting, or any other LEGITIMATE need.
If this deranged nut, who acquired this gun and clips LEGALLY because there is NO LAW the would have prevented him from doing so, had a 12 or 15 round clip he would have had to reload sooner, and lives would have been spared, and others had a chance to jump on him. The local sheriff said as much.
On balance, I just don't see what problems reasonable regulations should cause for gun owners.
Since this happened in Arizona, maybe folks there just might wake up and realize THEY HAVE REAPED EXACTLY WHAT THEY SOWED!
The shooter had no clips unless he had paper clips in his pocket. They are magazines. Magazines and clips are not the same things.
here we go again
The Few: You mean few words?
To me this incident is not very different then all of the other shootings. To me this says something about how we truely monitor who buys a gun. From the sounds of it this guy should have been flagged a long time ago. Even though I don't believe that OUR GOVERNMENT should mess with our constitution, I do believe that gun belong in the hand of Hunters, Law Enforcement, and RESPONSIBLE Adults. I do hope that all of these right wingers have some serious question about fighter for guns to be aloud in Colleges. I would also like to say Congrats to Sherriff Dupnik for really telling the public how he really feels. This is something that I wish more elected officials would do.
The bleeding hearts who want to take away the right to have a gun are the same ones who don't want murderers put to death. Babies can be put to death, just not murderers.
Stay with us here, Taxed.
No one is talking about anyone taking away guns, capital punishment, or abortion. You're a friggin' broken record.
Stick with the facts, and then state your opinion.
This person was a druggie. He should have been banned from owning guns, cars and anything else dangerous.
So is Rush Limpballs but people believe every word he says even though he is doing far worse and mind altering drugs than this kid.
Google - 'Gun Town USA'
A town outside of Atlanta, GA passed a LAW requiring ALL households to own and maintain a gun. This was over 28+years ago, during this time - Not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender...
The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families"..Currently the population is 31,628 and is part of the Atlanta metropolitan area.
Read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)
This is where we're heading but it's a pity it'll probably take something horrible like this to ban all assault and semi-automatic weapons in the U.S. Read especially about all the little children killed without mercy. If the NRA and gun lobby were smart they would begin their own plan for background checks to weed out all these miscreants from getting weapons before this event(s) happen because I can guarantee the outrage will create laws so severe that the gun industry will be a thing of the past.
And this liberal (me) believes strongly in the death penalty especially for cowards like this idiot that killed an innocent child and shot a defenseless woman in the head. Everyone needs to use common-sense about these issues and not cling to stupid principles that don't apply to our modern society...
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
see http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
See 18.3 this vine - For the UK statics after their 'gun control' Laws.
IMO - This is a FAILURE of the screening process for 'Gun Owership'. I have a CCW, and had to attend classes and had a back-ground check, that included; criminal, drug dependency, and mental health screening. Plus you had to go to the Sheriffs Office for; finger printing, a waiting period, and personnel interview.
It doesn't matter, the public in Australia didn't want to see this type of carnage anymore. The law still stands there and will probably be on the books for ever. This is where we're heading in the U.S.A unless common sense gun control with strict background checks is put into law now...
You just cited an article from a conservative think tank who themselves were citing the musings of an amateur conservatively polarized writer, of course it is going to agree with your views on gun control. And by the way, using bold isn't particularly effective at emphasizing a point.
I am also mildy curious about your views on assault weapons. Most people are objecting to the availability of 30 round magazines to the general public or the lack of strict background checking. If one does need a larger pistol magazine, than by extension, wouldn't making military or police level weapons, e.g. M16, be a logical conclusion? We also come to another dillemma regarding the mental capabilities of this particular assailant. If he is, as many believe, a lunatic, than this was a gross failure of loose background checking. Also, why was no one in the vicinity able to stop the assailant as soon as the crime began? Arizona supposedly has some of the loosest gun laws in the nation, and yet no one brought a weapon to bear against him. Regulations and background checks exist to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable or criminals, not law abiding citizens like (I'm assuming), yourself. The purpose of gun laws are not to take away a perfectly legitimate form of self defense, it is to prevent unnecessary incidents such as this.
One of the main reasons I own my guns is for protection from gun nuts like the ones that come out on these blogs!
I like people that disregard the information from the people that LIVE THERE. Inferring that they, who live thousands of miles away know better. Ha! Ha!
What is your definition of a 'Assault Weapon'??? Just because it is a former Military weapon does not make it a 'Assault Weapon'. The weapons are categorized by define set characteristics.
Full Auto weapons are already only allowed to be held by dealers with class 3 dealers license. Not your average US Citizen.
While I personally think 30+round magazines are stupid. TWO - 15-round magazines are much easier to utilize and changing magazines is easy when you practice. After 26+years in the Military, handling a 9mm is second nature.
My cousin has a class 3 license and I have owned several TRUE 'Assault weapons'. I sold them, because they are just not practical for what I do and the ammo is outrageous in cost. I own and carry several types of pistols and have rifles and a shotgun, when I'm in the USA. I own property next to a 150K acre National Forest and use them to clear snakes, rabid foxes, and other unwanted pest.. In Thailand they are ALL ILLEGAL...
IMO - The shooter in this instance should have NEVER had ACCESS to a Gun of any type.
Maybe instead of take away people's guns they ought to make it mandatory to have everyone's index fingers & thumbs removed instead
Thanks for the chuckle.
Post #14. You better hope you are NOT "absolutelyright" or you will lose your index finger and thumb. Of course I know you are only joking.
I was joking?
;) muhahaha!
As a gun owner, I don't feel I should have to pay for what this a**hole did. I have guns that hold 30 rounds, and I'm not going to do anything violent. Why don't we blame Jared for what HE did?
Why do you have them then?
Do you feel the need to shoot Bambi 30 times?
"Why do you have them then?"
Because I want them.
"Do you feel the need to shoot Bambi 30 times?"
No, I don't hunt.
I agree, and I would answer those questions with the exact same words.
WTF1920,
I am a gun owner and hunter in a rural area and some of my guns can hold high-capacity magazines, but I did not have a need to fire 30+ rounds without reloading when I purchased them and several years later, I still don't.
I am just curious, do you feel that you need a 30 round clip, or do you just want it because you can get it? I am just drawing a blank on why a 30 round magazine is necessary? As a previous poster mentioned, just because someone wants a rocket launcher or some other weapon doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good idea to sell it to them.
Careful, Jacob. You're making WAY TOO MUCH SENSE on this blog!
Jacob: "I am just curious, do you feel that you need a 30 round clip, or do you just want it because you can get it? I am just drawing a blank on why a 30 round magazine is necessary?"
Jacob, I want the best things money can buy. I don't need a 300 horsepower truck either. I could honestly live with a little four cylinder car...but I don't want to. I could trade in my 30 round AK for a single shot rifle, but I don't want to. I could settle for being bald, but I want to get an expensive hair transplant.
Do you see what I'm getting at. I want to live it up.
I have a 30 round magazine for a .22 LR rifle. It lets me do more shooting at the range before I have to reload. I don't need it, and if I hadn't been able to purchase it, or if I had to give it up now, I would not be heartbroken or feel especially put upon.
In a dark twist of fate, at almost the same time that this incident was taking place in Arizona, I was at a range in Ohio with a buddy, and I shot his Kel-tec 9mm carbine, using a 30 round Glock magazine very similar to the one that the gunman used. I don't think either my buddy or I would have been heartbroken if that magazine had been unavailable to us.
I didn't like it. I found it inconvenient, because typically when I shoot my guns, all of which have 10 round magazines, I'm used to counting off each shot. It's a lot easier to know when the ammunition is expended and it's time to reload when using a 10 round magazine, especially when you're shooting a carbine, because unlike a semi-automatic pistol you don't have the slide locked back to the rear so obviously.
It's worth noting that there's not a lot of people who'd come right out and say they're going to do anything violent, regardless of whether or not they will.
If you're going to have a weapon at all, then why settle for a .22 when you can have a .44? It's a matter of personal preference.
Why a .44 when you can use a 50 cal ? Heck, lets just go straight to a 50 megaton hyrdogen bomb and get it over with.
"Why a .44 when you can use a 50 cal ? Heck, lets just go straight to a 50 megaton hyrdogen bomb and get it over with."
Ok, now that's just stupid. Using an extreme example to undermine a good point...Way to be a third grader. :)
It was a valid point and well-made.
Why do you need a weapon that's only real purpose is mass slaughter?
"It was a valid point and well-made"
Uh, no......not really. It was stupid as hell. LOL
"Why do you need a weapon that's only real purpose is mass slaughter?"
None of my guns were ever used for "mass slaughter" or whatever. They're just sitting there in my cabinet not hurting anything. What's your deal?
My .22LR rifle is the one with a 30 round magazine as well as a couple of 10 round magazines.
I also have a .40 semiautomatic handgun w/10 round magazine, a .40 carbine w/10 rd magazine, a .30-30 lever action rifle, and a 7.62x54R bolt action rifle.
The handgun and the carbine are for home defense (one is upstairs, one is downstairs) and for medium game (coyotes and such), the .30-30 and the 7.62x54 are for large game, and the .22 rifle is for plinking and small game.
To Jabbausaf: You really can't go wrong with those 7.62X54 bolt action rifles. Mine is 80 years old (stamped 1931) and it still works great.
I have a Mosin-Nagant M38 carbine produced in 1943 at the Izhevsk armory, with the CCCP markings, that was used during WW2. It doesn't shoot straight at all, the Russians were using corrosive primers during WW2 and the interior of the barrel is damaged, but it's a nice historical piece.
I also have a Mosin-Nagant M44 carbine with bayonet produced in Poland in the 50s, I think 1951 if I remember the date stamp correctly. It's one of the Polish "Circle 11" Mosins, well-made and never used in combat so it's in great shape, beautiful wood stock too. It works great and shoots great. Darn near simplest gun in the world, and of all my guns, it's the easiest to clean.
I'm just happy they're making US-made 7.62x54 ammunition, so I don't have to try to scrounge up Soviet surplus ammo of dubious quality.
Shocker that the left is calling for gun control after this tragedy. This nut job could have been stopped by laws already on the books, but why pass up an opportunity to push gun control, badmouth Sarah Palin, and blame something else on George Bush? If this loser would have driven a car through the crowd or tried to burn down the supermarket would the best course of action be to ban cars and matches? You lefties are shameless in your desire to control people.
Hey didn't Joe Manchin (D-WV) use an add with guns to turn his losing campaign into a winner?
You're WRONG, Patton. There are NO LAWS ON THE BOOKS that would have prevented this idiot from purchasing this gun and magazines. THAT'S WHY HE WAS ABLE TO DO SO. Unless "adjudicated" mentally ill, ANYONE CAN BUY A GUN under federal law.
I love the gun nuts on blogs like this saying things like, "This guy should have been flagged", etc. You folks are the SAME PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TOO MUCH INVOLVEMENT IN OUR LIVES, REMEMBER?
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!
THINK!
You are not entirely correct. Any convicted felon is prohibited by federal law from so much as touching any firearm. They do not have to be adjudicated mentally ill. Possession of a firearm by a felon is a mandatory 10-year prison sentence, assuming the local police and judiciary are willing to enforce the law. Many times they are not. And merely putting a finger on a firearm constitutes "possession" because it means that you are in control of that firearm.
You are correct glenbo. This guy was convicted of a drug related offense. That means he should have been flagged from the get go. Why wasn't he? Well that falls into the jurisdiction of the LOCAL authorities. Any drug conviction, whether violent or not, is enough to make it so no NORMAL human being can get a gun. Again, this is a tragedy, but it falls on the locals due to the fact he was convicted there, and something let it slip through the cracks. So I'd look at the sheriffs office, and the judicial system that didn't flag his conviction in the system.
The drug offense was a misdemeanor, which does not in any way prevent or restrict firearm purchasing and ownership.
So, no, there aren't existing laws on the books that would have stopped this guy.
We are the most violent industrial nation on earth. Someone want to explain that piece of fact??? Our biggest export is weaponry and porn. We should be proud. We teach our children from day one to "Be an Army of one" and we are "shocked" this happens in America? Whatever. This guy did what we teach our children and what some Presidents do: if you got a problem, deal with it with armed violence. Violence begets violence. Our whole society worships violence and weaponry, plain and simple.
Really? Got proof of that?
More B.S. The most violent cities have very strict gun laws and most 80% or self inflicted drugs money ect. Live by the sword die by the sword , I bet he would not go chargin it like that in a gun store now would he think about it .
Actually the UK is one of the most VIOLENT Modern Societies. And they OUTLAWED almost ALL guns after 1997 and London has more CCVC per person than any Country in the World.
Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the USand any country in Europe, according to the Conservative Party. Contrary to what the UK OFFICIAL numbers reflect, because of the UK reporting methods. Multiple crimes by one criminal are counted as ONE crime, IF they are convicted and not overturned on Appeal.
Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since Labour came to power.
The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.. see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Got anything newer than over a year old? Try again:
You can count the number of uk gun killings last year on your digits.
UK: Most Violent Nation In Europe
02-Jul-09
2,034 per 100,000 people suffer violent crime in the UK, compared to 466 in America and 1,609 in troublespot South Africa. Britain’s figures far outstrip those of second-worst EU country — Austria, with 1,677 violent crimes per 100,000 people.
Britain also has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
But overall the UK came 13th worst in our rate for murders. Lithuania topped the list, followed by Estonia and Latvia.
The figures, recording crime in 2007, also show the UK has the fifth-highest robbery rate in the EU, and the fourth-highest burglary rate.
The numbers were released by the European Commission. see http://www.policeoracle.com/news/UK-Most-Violent-Nation-In-Europe_19604.html
Here are more EC stats on the UK and other EU Countries - http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2009/07/people-refuse-to-believe-this-is-true.html
Bring it on. Two issues that are losers for Democrats, taxes and gun control. We need all the ammunition, pardon the pun, we can get going into 2012. Having said that, 33 round magazine is a little overkill, again pardon the pun. I think 10 to 12 shots is more than enough for any self defense situations.
well have 2 guns then
You obviously have never been in a "life or death" use of force altercation. The basic facts are that most reported legal shooting situations occur in low light, under 12 yds and involve 2 to 3 shoots max. Yet police and citizens carry multiple magazines for the "what if" all else fails scenario.
As a retired policeman with OIS's under my belt, and close quarter combat instructor as well as former Marine I am confident that I can deal with most hostile threats with a single stack 7rnd mag, yet I still carry three.....always be prepared.
PS: The shooting did not occur in a bar or resturant.
Classy. And the Tea Party wondered why everyone else thought (thinks) the gunman is associated with them.
Maybe all the violent imagery and threatening language?
33 round magazine made all the difference? Give me a break. Even an idiot can reload a standard 15 round magazine in a second or less with a little practice.
I am a gun rights advocate as much as the next guy. I even own several assult rifles/pistols and go shooting a couple times a month. With that said however, there are serious issues with out gun laws. Instead of the Democrats and liberals trying to push a new assult rifle ban, which would do nothing but hurt law abiding citizens, they should try to push gun laws that close loopholes and make it harder for nut jobs to buy weapons. Tougher background checks, and safeguards for people buying guns are fine with me because I'm not crazy, and I don't want crazy people like this guy having easy access to a weapon.
I also hate the fact that Republicans start crying about their second amendment every time anyone even hints at making it harder to get a weapon. If your mentaly stable and fit to own a weapon, I fail to see the issue. Banning the sale of any type of weapon we can currently buy? That is in fact a terrible idea, and one that should be fought. But laws that make it harder for mentaly chalanged people to get a weapon? You must be crazy to argue thats a bad thing.
"But laws that make it harder for mentaly chalanged people to get a weapon? You must be crazy to argue thats a bad thing."
Right. Until they make it too hard and very few can pass and get a gun. And what if you're not one of the few? Then what?
It all starts with trying to be "reasonable". If you give them a foot, they'll take a mile. They always do.
Ya what if you snaped broke some stuff around the house Let of some steam, now your mentily ill . The people we need to worry about are the ones that hold there anger in. Because when they go of they go of .
Sadly, this incident will just help the government to get closer to eventually taking away all of our rights for firearms.
That will never happen because even liberal Democrats, including John Dingell, know to keep quiet about gun control during campaigns. Everyone is pro-2nd Amendment when they are up for re-election.
How weird is it that the guy paid for his taxi and even went into the store with the cab driver to get his change just before he started shooting. Figure the nut job would have just said keep the change or not paid at all since he won't be needing money ever again. On another note, I support the 2nd amendment and the highest court in the land has ruled that gun ownership is an individual right so you gun control fanatics can go suck. Arizona has very little gun restrictions and I find it odd that nobody else on the scene was armed. Probably because the congresswoman was a Democrat. If it had been a Republican rally/meeting in Arizona this idiot would be covered with dirt by now instead of getting fed by tax payers dollars.
The AZ governor Jan Brewar is a Bi-Polar drunken idiot to allow concealed weapons in bars. Watch her interviews and it is plain to see she is not coherent in the middle of the day. I support concealed weapons but this governor is so far out there she is scary stupid.
I feel in this shooting the added round capacity did not make the difference, he is crazed and would just have carried more weapons or clips.......
40 other states besides AZ have this law on the books.
Jan Brewer is still a nut on many other issues. Watch 20/20, sorry everytime I see her name I go off......
If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that others in the crowd should have been armed so that they could have taken the shooter down sooner. This is brilliant! It would have worked out perfectly having numerous panicked individuals trying to decide which person holding a gun was the bad shooter. The carnage would have been doubled at least. You think that a twit like this shooter would have known where to go to get a weapon on the black market. I don't think so. He was not a carrier criminal and most people do not travel in the circles where guns are readily available. If you were a criminal you would not want law abiding people to have guns because they supposedly want them to use against you.
The so called debate over legal gun ownership will not go away because America is basically a nation of red necks as proven by the fact that they elected George W Bush as president.
It was in Tucson which was the meeting of the OK Corral gun battle? Yup..................Many legislators have said they will now carry concealed guns. My question, when they pull one in error will they be charged with aggravated assualt with a deadly weapon? If they actually shoot an innocent bystander will they get a murder or at minimum manslaughter charge? I bet they will claim government immunity and walk. Note quite constitutional when you are the victim.
Not that I would ever go, but staying away from a Sarah Palin rally now has real consequences, she like to kill animals on her Alaska-Russia reality show..............
I hate to nitpick, but the shootout was in Tombstone. I'm just a stickler for Arizona history.
Bullets do not have address labels on them.
The hell is that supposed to mean, Ben?
It means that when you get into a firefight, you cannot ensure that your bullet is going to end up in the person you were shooting at.
Sorry leftists, but the gun debate is over. We won and you lost. There will never be anymore gun laws enacted on the national level.
Yes. And people died.
People died, but not at the hands of a law abiding citizen.
It happened in Australia (see Port Arthur Massacre - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)) which resulted in the absolute ban of semi-automatic and assault weapons. Not because of politicians but because of public outrage. Unless, the gun laws get stricter in the US now, we're heading for the same type of tragedies and the result will be the same - total ban on these types of weapons.
You might be surprised that many of us progressives are not pushing for anymore gun laws and feel that a lot on the books are a waste of time which only negatively impact law abiding citizens. But even those of us pro-gun progressives see self-protection and sport as the only legitimate reasons for gun ownership besides official law enforcement and military use. Those who believe that they are legitimately available to protect yourself from the government, or to be used to as a force to "correct" anything you should decide is an injustice, are way off base.
I believe, part of the issue in this case is the extensive use of rhetoric and symbology to suggest a legitimate purpose is to reshape government they way theywant it. We've heard pundits making these suggestions all the time and even political candidates suggesting "Second Amendment remedies", or drawing crosshairs on opponents, shooting representations of legally passed laws, and many other such examples suggesting that guns could be part of a solution to their perception of a political problem. These same people talk about revolution while also making not so subtle references to violent revolution with weaponry. This very suggestive language about using weapons criminally to get one's way ought to be illegal. This is not responsible exercise of free speech. It is in fact encouraging both criminal and treasonist behavior. At a bare minimum, it is inappropriate speech for public consumption. It is one thing to hear such speech in off hand comments amongst a small group of individuals in private conversation, but it's something entirely different when you do this in front of microphones and TV cameras. This may very well be equivelant to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It is inviting insurrection.
Personally, I believe Mr. Isokoff is overstepping a bit in this article. What officials? He names none. What organizations? He names none. The only former official he quotes is more focused on the issue of mentally imbalanced individuals obtaining weapons. No doubt in the coming days there will be some individuals speaking out who don't ask for anonymity. But until then this isn't a story, but just an opinion piece.
Frankly, most of us skilled, intelligent gun owners know armed crowd members or extended magazines had little to do with this case and differences in the outcome being suggested probably would have made little difference. It's also somewhat noteworthy that among the four people that subdued this guy, one was a 61 year old woman and one was a 74 year old man who was actually grazed by a bullet. None of them were armed. Any armed citizen or police officer for that matter would have likely have had to chose not exchange gunfire with this individual in the crowded scene that this occurred. From what I have read, I suspect this shooter did not expect to survive this incident. I have not seen an accurate accounting of such, but it sounds like his initial volley of shots was probably using a standard magazine. I might be wrong on this and if anyone has a better account, please provide a link. My guess is he anticipated a shootout with police which would ultimately end his life. Although one could make a strong argument that he should have died on the scene, I hope the fact that he survived may be a good thing, because just maybe we will be able to learn just went through his mind to commit this act. Maybe we learn something that potentially prevents some similar incident. I think gaining that knowledege could potentially be more effective than trying to restrict gun ownership, in regards to prevention of violent acts such as this.