[thulldud]

I saw a comment yesterday in support of stricter gun control laws. The person said that Loughner hadn’t broken any laws up until he pulled the trigger, pointing out that he was in legal possession of the gun.

What does such a person say about gun laws that already exist and are not enforced? What good is another one?

The libs predictably use high-profile shooting cases to get more laws passed, laws which they don't enforce, because they really need the violence to get what they really want: a total ban.

THAT would be enforced, bet on it.

As to Loughner being legally in possession, the laws on background checks don't operate if there is no background. That was because the sheriff didn't do his job, which meant that Loughner's bizarre goings-on were not flagged in the database.

[Interesting Times]

The person said that Loughner hadn’t broken any laws up until he pulled the trigger, pointing out that he was in legal possession of the gun.

Suggest gently that his pulling the trigger was the real problem.