south carolina

The FBI reports that Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof should not have been allowed to purchase the gun he used during the attack.

FBI Director James Comey said Roof was arrested for weeks before the shooting, but he was still able to purchase a gun because the paperwork for the offense was incomplete and inaccurate at the time, according to the Associated Press.

Those who wish to purchase a gun in South Carolina must undergo an FBI background check, however, if state and federal records are not up to date at the time of the background check, anyone who shouldn’t normally be able to buy a gun, like Roof, can slip through the cracks.

The FBI examiner who conducted Roof’s background check didn’t see that he had previously been arrested for admitting to possessing drugs due to issues on the rap sheet.

This arrest should have disqualified him from purchasing a gun, according to FBI rules, but he was able to get the gun within three days because the examiner didn’t have sufficient information to deny him.

An error like this reveals huge issues in state gun laws and the background check process, but is South Carolina the only state where this mistake could happen? What are the gun laws in Arizona?

Similar to South Carolina, those who wish to purchase a gun in Arizona must also undergo an FBI background check since neither state is a point of contact for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”) database, which would allow the state to conduct its own background check using state and federal records and databases.

If the person already has an Arizona state permit to purchase or possess a firearm, they may be exempt from a background check. Even if they have committed crimes what would make them ineligible to possess a gun, they may be protected by their old permit if the state doesn’t update its records before they can make a purchase.

This means that yes, someone like Roof who is considered a prohibited possessor and shouldn’t be allowed to possess or purchase any type of firearm could still be able to get a gun in Arizona.

Tasers are used by 15,000 law enforcement and military bodies in the U.S. as an alternative to lethal weapons when force is necessary to subdue a person in a threatening situation.

However, recent criticism of police use of force has led to the scrutiny of police use of Tasers, and whether they are actually safer than guns and other weapons.

When fired, Tasers emit a 50,000-volt shock of electricity to the body, which overrides the central nervous system of whoever was struck, leading to an instant collapse as well as uncontrollable muscle contractions, according to a report by the Stanford Criminal Justice Center.

The fall, due to lack of muscle control, is often the cause of more serious injuries relating to the use of a Taser. In general, however, the company claims the shock doesn’t typically cause serious or lasting harm to the average person. Instead, the Taser International website says Tasers have saved more than 140,000 lives, and that injuries are reduced by up to 60 percent when alternative means of force are used.

This may not be true, however, for a significant number of people who are not considered average in terms of health.

For pregnant women and those who have certain health problems including cardiovascular issues, mental illness, heart conditions and high blood pressure, a Taser shock can cause serious injuries and death in some cases.

Dontay Ivy, an Albany man with heart problems and paranoid schizophrenia, died after being shot with a Taser and wrestling police to the ground earlier this year. The cause of death is still being investigated, but Ivy’s family plans to press charges for negligence, racial profiling and excessive force.

Others extreme cases, like that of South Carolina man Walter Scott, involve the use of a Taser in combination with other weapons as the cause of death. North Charleston police officer Michael Slager was fired and later charged with murder for using excessive force against Scott.

These cases bring into question whether Tasers are an acceptable method for police to control a situation, or if their use encourages unnecessary force.

Geoffrey P. Alpert, a criminology professor at the University of South Carolina who researches police use of force, said in the New York Times that Tasers could be effective tools when used properly, but he cautioned that many officers in the United States had come to rely on them excessively.

“Officers need to be spending more time de-escalating situations, instead of resorting to the use of this very convenient tool,” said Emma Andersson, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “The jury’s still out on whether or not it’s lethal force, but it’s not nothing; it’s very dangerous.”

Others, like Taser International’s spokesman Steve Tuttle, who argues that they are no magic bullet, but they are “safe, effective and accountable” devices.

Currently, no extensive report on the use of Tasers exists, but it seems that all parties can agree that Tasers are dangerous, and must be used with caution. A guideline by the U.S. Justice Department from 2011 sets the standard, stating that Tasers are weapons, and should be used out of necessity, not convenience.