Firearms need stricter purchasing requirements

Three weeks ago, Jared Loughner was just another face in the crowd, known by a small contingent of friends, family members and teachers. Today, he is a household name in America, associated with the killing of six people and injuring another 13, including a United States Congresswoman, with his Glock 19 pistol outside of a Tucson, Ariz., shopping center.

This is merely another incident of gun-related violence in America that we have become somewhat accustomed to seeing. Questions stemming from this incident will be asked for months. What were the gunman's motives and did he have a previous history of violence or mental instability? However, the more interesting question is how Loughner received his firearm and should the process of purchasing firearms be stricter following these tragic events?

There are many groups advocating for stricter restrictions on gun control and the process of purchasing firearms.

Loughner purchased his weapon legally and passed the federally mandated background check that is associated with purchasing a firearm. This background check simply requires the person's name and social security number. This information then is called into the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) which checks the purchaser's name and criminal history for any offences or confinement to a mental institution. While Loughner had a previous charge of having a controlled substance in 2008, NICS states that persons convicted of controlled substances cannot purchase a firearm for a period of only one year. Therefore, Loughner was able to purchase his pistol after this mandate expired.

While owning firearms in this country is a right preserved by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, something must be done to make it more difficult for firearms to fall into the wrong hands.

First off, the background checks need be written in a simpler and more concrete fashion. Many of the checks, which can be found on the FBI's website, are written in terms that are confusing and difficult to define. The checks also do a poor job stopping persons with violent behavior from obtaining a firearm. While a person who is sentenced to more than one year in prison cannot obtain a firearm, all those who are sentenced for less than one year are still eligible. This means if a person is sentenced to a lesser degree assault charge and jailed for 90 days, they still are able to pursue ownership of a weapon after release.

The bigger flaw within the background checks regards firearm sales to those who have been deemed mentally ill or unstable. The problem is the lack of documented records the FBI database has on people who are mentally ill, though. The shooter in the Virginia Tech Massacre, Seung-Hui Cho, was able to purchase a firearm even though a court found him to be a danger to himself in 2005. Many would argue that Loughner would fit the profile of a person who was mentally unstable based on his drug abuse in 2007, yet he still was able to purchase a weapon.

While there has been legislation passed to try and keep records more updated and keep guns out of the wrong hands, these checks are lacking.     

The only appropriate solution is to have rigorous background checks and to have the most updated records possible. There also must be a concentrated effort by the FBI to have fewer cracks for illegal buyers to slip through. If these efforts are not made, then these types of tragic events are going to continue to occur.

Bryce Osman is a junior political science major from Jefferson City, Mo.