On Saturday, Jan. 8, Jared Lee Loughner went on a shooting rampage at a supermarket in Tuscon, Ariz., where U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was making an appearance. By the end, 14 people had been wounded, including the Representative, and six people had been killed. In light of the tragedy in Tucson, an emphasis on regulation of the gun industry seems a logical by-product; instead, we have seen a defensive strategy for gun possession-including on the university level.According to the Huffington Post, Arizona Republicans "want new laws allowing college and university faculty members to be able to carry concealed weapons on campus." Yet this hardly seems to be the time to propose the expansion of gun use. Instead, it would make sense for the state to take a step back on its National Rifle Association-style push for gun rights.

Unfortunately, Arizona Republicans seem to be using a shooting-one that killed a 9-year-old girl-as a catalyst for legislation increasing the use of guns.

Sad as it is ironic, the same day that the Huffington Post ran its article, a Los Angeles Times blog reported that a student at Gardena High School brought a gun to school concealed in his backpack. When the student placed his backpack on his desk, the gun accidentally went off and shot two of his classmates, one of whom is, as a result, in critical condition.

Let's be clear: He wasn't trying to shoot anyone, he wasn't aiming the gun at anyone and he didn't even have it in his hand. The shooting happened simply because the student brought a concealed weapon to school and it was triggered by a mundane, normal activity-putting a backpack on a desk.

Is this really the fate that the Arizona Republicans are trying to push for, especially in light of what happened in Tuscon?

Now, I'm not in favor of abolishing guns, but especially considering all that has happened recently in Arizona, it would make more sense for lawmakers there to focus on preventing a shooting, rather than increasing the possibilities for a potential shooting to occur. And what better way to prevent another shooting than by ensuring strict enforcement of current legislation as well as preventing further pro-gun legislation from coming to fruition?

While the idea of increasing the areas in which guns can legally be used is scary enough, it's equally disturbing to think about how someone such as Loughner was able to legally get his hands on a gun.

Federal law only prohibits the sale of guns to those "adjudicated as a mental defective." A court had not deemed Loughner "mentally defective," but Loughner was kicked out of community college and denied entrance into the Army. Surely these things combined should have put up a red flag for any sort of background check that would precede Loughner's purchase. Is it not possible to increase background checks so that warning signs such as these are detected prior to the sale of a firearm?

But, even if it's not possible to increase background checks, the larger problem is the fact that Loughner never got help for his mental illness, even though it is obvious that he had the signs. It is possible that the reason Loughner was never treated is because of the stigma attached to those deemed mentally ill-the stigma both for those with the disorder and for their families.

Think about it: Our society is filled with jokes and derogatory comments about people with mental illness. Growing up in such a culture, one can understand why a family would feel uncomfortable admitting to itself, let alone to the world, that one of its loved ones has a mental illness. As a result, those who truly need the help, like Loughner, might not get the attention they deserve. What better way to spend our country's money than to protect the lives of its citizens-isn't that, after all, one of the fundamental purposes of our government?

One way of protecting citizens is by increasing regulation of the gun industry. However, another equally important step is to reduce the stigma of psychological help so that Loughner or his family would have had more of a desire to get Loughner help. Regulating the gun industry isn't enough; we have to lead a campaign against the stigma so that those who truly need the help will have no qualms about seeking it- and will have qualms about buying a gun to take someone's life.