New Jersey Democrat Wants To Increase Penalties For Trying To Obtain Guns Illegally

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Instead of passing new gun laws just enforce the ones on the books now.

Folks on this side of the gun debate tend to point out that there are already laws on the books to keep guns out of criminal hands, they only need to be enforced. People on the other side tend to ignore that and want to create even new laws that can be ignored.

However, a Democrat in New Jersey is making a proposal that’s probably not going to send gun rights activists into a frenzy. Don’t believe me? I don’t mind, I wouldn’t believe me either.

But it’s true.

You see, he wants to up the penalties for laws already in place.

State Sen. Troy Singleton has introduced two gun bills to increase the punishment of people who either steal guns or illegally solicit someone to purchase a firearm for them.

Singleton, D-7th of Palmyra, introduced the measures Monday, saying they send a message of “zero tolerance” to criminals who attempt to illegally obtain a gun in New Jersey.

His first bill would make it a third-degree crime punishable by between three and five years in prison to solicit another to buy a gun for someone disqualified from possessing or purchasing one.

These types of “straw purchases” are a common tactic of gun traffickers, who are frequently the source of firearms used in crimes in New Jersey.

During the first quarter of 2018, 77 percent of the guns recovered from crimes in New Jersey were traced and found to have come from another state, according to the New Jersey State Police.

In addition, the legislation mandates that the penalty for soliciting a straw purchase cannot be merged with the penalty for a related or unrelated crime.

Of all the proposals I’ve seen come out of New Jersey, this is one I don’t mind.

Not that I expect it to make a damn bit of difference. After all, part of the problem we currently have isn’t a lack of penalties but a lack of enforcement as a whole. Adding penalties won’t matter unless people are actually prosecuted.

If this were to accompany stricter enforcement, then so much the better. Otherwise, it’s a waste of time.

But, as wastes of time focused on “gun crime” go, it’s hardly the worst one. After all, we all tend to agree that we don’t want armed criminals. We also tend to agree that criminals get guns from one of two places. They either get them through straw purchases or they obtain stolen guns, either by stealing them themselves or by buying them off the black market.

This proposal takes aim at both of those while doing nothing to hurt law-abiding gun owners.

Frankly, this is what we’ve been asking for. I’m amazed that it’s come from a Democrat, truth be told, but it is what it is.

However, I’d also advise state Sen. Singleton to also make sure this measure goes hand-in-hand with the strict prosecution of those who try to buy guns through straw purchases. If that happens, it will do a fair bit to help on that front.

I’m not sure there’s much you can do to stop people from stealing guns, truth be told, but I can at least appreciate the effort.


Gun Owner Loses Firearm In Sofa At IKEA

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This irresponsible boob makes all of us responsible gun owners look bad.

This person maybe be facing charges as IKEA has a no guns allowed policy.

When you’re carrying a gun, it’s important to remember where it is at all times. After all, it’s a lifesaving tool, but only if you can get to it when you need it.

On the other hand, a lost gun is a major problem. Off your person and out of your control, you don’t know who will pick it up and what will happen with it. That’s bad for everyone.

However, one gun owner made it hard to claim we’re all responsible when he allowed his gun to do an impression of pocket change at an IKEA.

After finding a gun in a sofa at IKEA, a child fired the loaded weapon in the store, prompting an investigation of the incident.

Earlier that day, a customer at the Fishers, Indiana, store sat down on the couch to test it out, CNN affiliate WTTV reported.

When he got up to keep shopping, he didn’t realize his gun had fallen out of his pants.

Later, a group of kids sat down on the sofa and found the gun, Fishers police told WTTV. One of them pulled the trigger and fired a single shot.

No one was injured, and the store stayed open after the incident, WTTV reported.

An IKEA spokesperson said in a statement that customer safety and security is the company’s top priority.

“We take this incident very seriously and we have offered the family of the child involved our sincerest apologies,” the statement said.

IKEA says they conduct regular walks and safety audits, but it’s unlikely they had any reason to look for a firearm in the cushions of a sofa.

Prosecutors are looking at the case to decide if any charges should be filed.

For what it’s worth, I’m not sure stupidity is a criminal offense, and yes, this was stupidity.

While the report doesn’t make any reference to what kind of firearm was involved, it had to be a very small pistol. I’m thinking something like a .22 revolver or even a Derringer. It couldn’t have been anything much heavier otherwise, he’d likely have noticed. It doesn’t sound like it was holstered when found, either, so my guess is that it was a small revolver in the pocket and not in any holster, which then slipped out of the loose pocket and was later found by a kid.

Thank God no one was hurt.

Folks, we need to police our own on stuff like this. If you know someone carrying like this, give them a verbal slap upside the head. I’d advise a literal slap, but I don’t want to get hammered for instigating violence or some such nonsense. Frankly, though, this warrants a slap or twelve.

Honestly, anyone with half a brain should be able to see the problem with carrying a gun like this. Even if you’re not parking your butt on sofas, there are any number of other situations where you may find yourself in a position to lose your gun. For example, what if you have to get involved in a non-firearm altercation? If sitting on a sofa will cause the weapon to fall out of your pants, what will rolling around on the ground with a 200 lbs man going to do?

Seriously, don’t do this stuff. Make sure your weapon is secured on your person so stuff like this won’t happen.

No, Other States’ Gun Laws Have Little To Do With Boston Crime

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

The crime in Boston is do to the politically correct enforcement of laws and not guns from other states.

As part of the debate on guns, we routinely point out that gun laws don’t work. We’ve provided a pile of anecdotal data along those lines through the years, as has everyone else remotely connected to the pro-gun side. Others have provided actual data illustrating this point.

However, anti-gunners in the media routinely present only one side of things. Up to and including blaming other states for their states’ criminal problems.

ONE REGULAR REFRAIN of gun-rights extremists is that tough gun laws do little or nothing to curb gun crimes, because criminals don’t obey them.

That thinking is as simplistic (and long-lived) as the old bumper sticker that proclaimed, “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

Actually, a recent study by the Boston University School of Public Health confirmed what everyone should know by now: Tough gun laws work. That study concluded that waiting periods before a gun purchase, the requirement of a permit to buy a gun, forbidding gun purchases by people with violent misdemeanors on their record, and seizing guns from those convicted of such misdemeanors could result in a cumulative decrease in gun crime of almost 14 percent.

I’m going to break in and say that I refute the findings of that study. While it found that guns flow in from other states, it doesn’t actually show that tough gun laws work. It merely cited the easiest ways for criminals to get guns currently. It doesn’t mean that every state adopting tough gun laws will stop bad people from getting guns. That’s kind of our point.

Anyway, back to the Boston Globe‘s fretting:

Still, outmoded thinking and false claims by gun rights advocates persist. One regular conservative retort to calls for tougher gun laws is a five-word refrain: How’s that working in Chicago?

Actually, when it comes to gun crime in Chicago, the focus should be less on the Windy City’s gun laws than on those of nearby states. Almost 60 percent of guns used in crimes in Chicago come from places with weak guns laws, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Mississippi prominent among them.

In other words, Chicago’s not responsible for its problems, Indiana is.

Then I ask, explain London to me, if you will?

England is an island, so there’s no easy access to other localities with loose gun laws. Most visitors have to go through a select number of entry points, all requiring tight security that should make it difficult to bring guns into the country. The limited road access points come from countries that also have strict gun control laws.

In other words, it should be difficult to get guns into the country where they’ve been essentially banned for years.

If tough gun laws work so well, why is London having such a difficult time with gun crime? Why are they having such a difficult time with violent crime in general that they even banned carrying pocket knives?

Calls to place the blame on other states are nothing more than geographic narcissism. It’s not their fault they have crime; it’s the fault of other states with ready access to guns, but far fewer crimes, another flaw in the Boston College study’s argument.

Crime is motivated by many factors, factors which seem to exist more in places like Chicago and other large urban centers. Population density, economic disparity, education, or any number of other factors may contribute far more to violence in these cities than any access to firearms. That’s the only rational explanation I can think of as to why access to guns doesn’t turn Indiana, Texas, or Georgia into war zones like Chicago.

Not that we can expect an editorial out of Boston to comprehend that simple fact.

Still No Attention On Brutal SC Mass Killing. Wonder Why?

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This murder does not fit the drive by media’s template that only evil guns cause mass murders.

Earlier this year, we reported on a brutal mass killing in South Carolina. In that case, a man beat several members of his family to death with a dumbbell. At the time, I wrote on it and pointed out how the mainstream media seemed to be ignoring it completely.

It seems that months later, the mainstream media has still opted to ignore this particular case. A quick Google search shows that there have been no recent stories on this matter since mid-March, for one thing.

Back then, the largest outlets to have touched this particular crime were the New York Post and the Daily Mail in England. The rest of the coverage comes from smaller, local news agencies like television stations or newspapers. No New York Times, no CNN, no MSNBC.

In March when this happened, the nation was still dealing with the fallout from Parkland. It had been roughly a month since a gunman had entered the Florida high school and killed 17 people. We were already primed for news about horrific events.

Now, three months later, there’s still silence.

Part of that might be a lack of movement in the case. Nothing new has happened, of course, so why report anything new. That explains the smaller media outlets not reporting anything new, but what about those outlets that haven’t reported a damn thing?

The golden maxim in the news business is, “If it bleeds, it leads.” While people say they want happy, positive news coverage, they don’t respond to that. They respond to the aftermath of violence, though. Everyone in the news industry knows it. It’s part of why coverage of mass shootings is so irresistible, even without trying to advance a narrative.

So why was this one ignored?

Back in March, I charged the mainstream media with intentionally ignoring this story because the killing not only proved mass killers could murder people without guns, but it would also help illustrate how important guns can be. After all, not a single one of the victims was able to overpower the killer, but if one of them had a gun, they might have resisted then.

I still think that was partly true. I think the other part has more to do with the media figuring they had a bigger story by milking Parkland simply because people were already wanting more information on that killing.

Neither cause paints the media in a positive light, though.

Today, three months later, it seems everyone has forgotten about this horrific crime. While David Hogg and his merry band of misfits are touring the country in a chartered bus, still capitalizing on their 15 minutes of fame from one crime, so many people are ignoring this one and the victims. Would it have mattered more if they had been shot? Would they have been worthy of our attention then? Would they have been worth a live feed from near the scene? Would friends and family of the victims have then been worthy of being interviewed?

The idea that the answers to any of these questions might be “yes” disgusts me to no end.  The fact that I can’t feel right declaring the answer as being “no” disgusts me just as much.

This crime didn’t advance the narrative, and they already had a golden goose of a story. They didn’t care about 72-year-old Joseph Manigault, 69-year-old Rose Manigault, 42-year-old Kenya Manigault or 15-year-old Faith Manigault because, frankly, they suck at their jobs.

So when people wonder why I’m quick to condemn them, this is the story I’ll show. These people were brutally murdered and the media that thinks they’re worthy to lecture us on morality not only harbors some of the most disgusting human beings imaginable but then ignore stories like this.

Again, it disgusts me.

NJ’s Governor Phil Murphy Thinks Poor People Shouldn’t Have Guns

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Governor Phil Murphy(D-NJ)like all DemocRats swear they are looking out for the little guy when in reality they are screwing the little guy.

We already knew that Governor Phil Murphy hated guns. His signing of a slew of recent gun control bills made that obvious in case anyone didn’t know. Of course, those laws didn’t stop a recent shooting in Trenton, NJ, but whatever, right?

What we didn’t necessarily know was just how much he hated poor people.

I mean, he may pretend he’s a champion of the little guy, but if that’s the case, why does he want so badly to make it too expensive for poor people to be armed in his state?

Gov. Phil Murphy is proposing to significantly hike fees for buying and selling firearms in New Jersey, a move that would raise the cost of gun permits and licenses for the first time in half a century and likely trigger a legal challenge from Second Amendment advocates.

Murphy, a Democrat who has already signed half a dozen gun control bills in his first few months in office, has publicly called for raising such fees.

The plan would raise the cost for handgun purchase permits from $2 to $50; firearms identification cards from $5 to $100; handgun carry permits from $50 to $400; retail gun dealer licenses from $50 to $500; and wholesaler/manufacturer licenses from $150 to $1,500, among other hikes.

Scott Bach, the director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, said the move was “intended to punish law-abiding gun owners for the acts of criminals and madmen and discourage the exercise of Second Amendment rights.”

“It also has the unintended consequence of denying that basic civil right to lower-income populations,” he said.

In some cases, the changes would nearly double the cost of purchasing a firearm, some of which retail for less than $200.

Muphy argues that it’s more expensive to get a license to own a dog in most towns in New Jersey than it is to get a gun.

I counter that argument by pointing out two facts. One, dogs are more expensive to upkeep than a gun and, as a result, tend to be owned by those with disposable income anyway. The second and most important counter, however, is that owning a dog isn’t a constitutionally protected right.

Anyone with half a brain can look at these measures to see they are going to hurt poor people the most. Even for someone looking for a nightstand gun, the cost will rise from a mere $7–still too much for a right, but manageable for most folks–to $150. That’s a lot of money, especially considering how long some people have to save in order to buy a Hi-Point at a similar price.

Meanwhile, the poor are those who are most likely to live in high-crime neighborhoods where their lives can be in danger simply for looking the wrong day down the street. These are also retired people who may have assets worth stealing but little actual income anymore.

In other words, Phil Murphy wants to make gun ownership in New Jersey only practical for higher-income folks. He’s made it clear he doesn’t care about the safety of lower-income people.

Oh, and what will these measures do to prevent crime? Nothing.

For him, it really is about not liking guns in citizens’ hands and little else.

Pennsylvania House Rep Tries To Bury Anti-Gun Bills

Leave a comment

HT Bearing Arms.

I hope that  Pennsylvania  Representative Rep. Aaron Bernstine(R-10)nis able to derail these anti gun bills.

As gun control seems to be worming its way through the legislative process up in Pennsylvania, it sounds like a foregone conclusion that these bills will become law. Even the supposedly pro-gun GOP in the state seems to be embracing the bills.

To be fair, they’re not the most drastic anti-gun measures we’ve seen, but they’re still problematic.

Because of this problematic nature, pro-gun representatives probably feel like their backs are up against the wall. They’re looking for ways to fight this infringement on personal liberty any way they can.

I can’t say I find fault with this particular method.

Seeking to derail two bills that he said infringe on gun owners’ constitutional rights, state Rep. Aaron Bernstine has filed 79 amendments for the House to discuss and debate.

“We’re going to do every single thing that we can do to stop the folks in the anti-gun movement of achieving their goals of removing firearms from law-abiding citizens in Pennsylvania,” said Bernstine, R-10, New Beaver.

Bernstine is a staunch Second Amendment supporter who posted video on Facebook of himself at a gun range shortly after his driveway was vandalized last year and recently tweeted a photo of him and his young son target shooting.

House Bills 1872 and 2227, Bernstine insisted, would violate the Pennsylvania constitution, which states that the right for Pennsylvanians to bear arms “shall not be questioned.”

Both of the bills passed the House Judiciary Committee and have been referred the Rules Committee. House Bill 2227 passed in an 18-9 vote on Tuesday, while House Bill 1872 passed 14-13 on Wednesday.

Bernstine’s effort is a noble gesture, even if it turns out to be a futile one. Burying the bills in amendments slows down the process completely and may well “nerf” some of the more egregious possibilities of both of these bills.

As such, it’s a pretty smart move. Even if it doesn’t block the bill, it may well make them less of an infringement on people’s right to keep and bear arms. It sucks, but this is how the legislative game is played, and while I’m sure anti-gunners are already crying foul over this one, both sides do stuff like this all the time.

The goal is to either include poison pills or, at a minimum, make the least intrusive law humanly possible.

It’s just a shame that it’s even necessary.

The solution to many of these situations isn’t new laws, but enforcement of our existing laws. With news that so many of these shooters are domestic abusers, I can’t help but see enforcement of our domestic violence laws as being the key to stopping so many of these killings. Prosecute those who beat their families and then they can’t get legal access to guns in the first place.

Lock that down and stop trying to create new laws.

But, since politicians love to create new laws, Bernstine’s 79 amendments makes a valiant effort at trying to prevent Pennsylvania from embracing the stupid that has overtaken so many states in the wake of Parkland.

Ohio’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ Measure To Get Vote, Kasich Vows To Veto

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

I hope the Ohio Legislators vote to override RINO Kasich’s veto.

While Stand Your Ground laws get a bad rap, the truth is that they save lives. When armed citizens know they’re not required to run away from an attack and can act to save their own life or another, they can make faster decisions and act more decisively. Quick, aggressive action is the key to winning most violent confrontations, after all.

In Ohio, a bill that will put Stand Your Ground laws on the books will soon be coming up for a vote.

A controversial ‘Stand Your Ground’ gun bill will likely get a floor vote in the Ohio House next week and even if Gov. John Kasich follows through with his veto promise, there would be enough support to override a veto, said Speaker Ryan Smith, R-Bidwell.

House Bill 228 would give armed Ohioans the right to ‘stand your ground’ when facing a threat in public places such as parks, roads or stores. It would also shift the burden of proof in self-defense cases to the prosecution, which would align Ohio with the vast majority of states.

It is the first pro-gun rights bill to advance to a floor vote since the mass shootings in Parkland, Florida and Santa Fe, Texas, which prompted national protests and school walk outs.

Meanwhile, a package of six gun control measures — sponsored by state Rep. Mike Henne, R-Clayton, and supported by Kasich — faces an uphill battle in the GOP-controlled House.

For the record, Gov. Kasich’s vow to veto the bill is all the evidence you need to see that just because a politician is a Republican, it doesn’t mean he’s pro-gun.

Of course, let’s also note the third paragraph of the above-quoted text:

It is the first pro-gun rights bill to advance to a floor vote since the mass shootings in Parkland, Florida and Santa Fe, Texas, which prompted national protests and school walk outs.

Is there any doubt the media is biased? It should be noted that Santa Fe didn’t spark much of anything. Probably because Texans understood that the tool with the gun was the problem, not the tool in his hand. As a result, the students didn’t start crying and preening on national TV, demanding that their every wish be catered to.

But the media wants you to forget that. As such, they want to lump the two shootings in together to pretend both generated an equal measure of outrage. They’re hoping you simply forgot, and they’ll probably hide behind a claim of poor phrasing.

In either case, the paragraph is a non-sequitur since Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with either incident. They’re completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

What matters is that Ohioans will be able to act in their own defense or while defending the life of another without having to spend precious seconds debating whether they should retreat first or not. They can act and know that the law protects them from prosecution.

The fact that Gov. Kasich would veto such a bill suggests that he’s out of touch with his own citizens, the majority of people in the United States, and reality.

And to think, he wanted to be president.

Attorney Argues Parkland Deputy Had No Legal Responsibility To Protect Kids

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

Sadly retired deputy Scot Peterson’s attorney is correct about him not having to defend the students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled the police are not obligated to protect and serve.

While we reported on the efforts by survivors of the Pulse shooting in Orlando to seek redress against people they feel failed to protect themfrom a crazed shooter, they’re not the only ones looking for legal redress for people failing to protect them. It seems the father of one of the slain children in the Parkland massacre is doing the same.

Meanwhile, retired deputy Scot Peterson is defending himself by saying he had no legal requirement to protect those kids.

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Many have called him a coward, but former sheriff’s deputy Scot Peterson had no legal duty to stop the slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, his attorneys say.

Peterson took shelter rather than confront the killer, but he did not act with malice or bad faith, according to his attorneys, Michael Piper and Christopher Stearns of Fort Lauderdale. Therefore he can’t be held legally responsible for the deaths, they say in court documents.

Allegations against Peterson suggest only that he “opted for self-preservation over heroics,” the attorneys wrote.

The statements came in a motion seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Andrew Pollack, the father of 18-year-old Meadow Pollack, who was killed in the shooting.

Pollack sued Peterson on April 30 in Broward Circuit Court, accusing the former school resource officer of failing to do his duty.

While shooter [the killer] rampaged through the school on Feb. 14, security footage shows Peterson ducking between two pillars outside, avoiding gunfire. Sheriff Scott Israel said Peterson should have entered the building and confronted the killer. President Donald Trump, like Pollack, called Peterson a coward.

I’ve called Peterson a coward too.

But he’s right.

I don’t like it, but Peterson is right. The government has no duty to protect its citizens. This has been found by the courts several times through the years, so I’m afraid that despite my sympathy for Pollack’s position, he’s likely to lose this case.

He shouldn’t, though.

You see, while I do believe that every human being has the responsibility to protect themselves, the government has made it so that there are some places where we’re simply not allowed to do so. So-called “gun free zones” artificially restrict our rights by making it so that we’re unable to defend ourselves from those who ignore laws and take guns into these places with the intent to kill as many disarmed people as possible. Places like schools, for example.

Because the government has restricted our ability to defend ourselves, I’d argue that they should be held responsible for the safety of all those who are within that gun free zone. After all, if you’re going to make it virtually impossible for citizens to protect themselves, then you need to protect them.

Makes sense, right?

Unfortunately, I suspect that such isn’t going to be the cast. I’m afraid Pollack will lose. Unless the intent is to take this to the Supreme Court and try and change the interpretations of the law, not much will come of this except making an expensive mess of things for a little while. It’s a shame, but it’s the law.

NJ Gun Control Works So Well, 17 People Shot At Art Gathering

Leave a comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

New Jersey like Chicago has draconian gun laws yet their shooting and murder rates just keep climbing.

Albert Einstein once said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” and that describes the gun control crowd. 


New Jersey has strict gun controls. I’ve had readers reach out to me, at least in part, to vent about the draconian laws in their home state and how it keeps them from defending themselves.

In New Jersey, you need to define a clear need for a concealed carry permit, for example. Saying you’re concerned about mass shootings isn’t enough. You have to have a real, viable reason to fear for your life.

That’s too bad. Someone might have been able to stop a couple of rampaging lunatics from shooting 17 people at an all-night art gatheringearly Sunday morning.

The gunmen were identified in a mass shooting that left 17 people shot, 22 injured and one person dead at an all-night art celebration in Trenton early Sunday, according to the Mercer County Prosecutor’s Office. Authorities are calling it a “mass casualty shooting” on Father’s Day.

Four people – including a 13-year-old boy – were initially in extremely critical condition on Sunday, according to the MCPO. Three of those people, including the boy, were upgraded to stable condition by late Sunday. A third suspect is in critical condition.

A 33-year-old gunman Tahaij Wells, 32, is dead (pictured left), and another, Amir “Mir” Armstrong, 23, is in police custody and charged with unlawful possession of a handgun (pictured right). Both were identified as Trenton residents. One of the shootings was labeled “officer-involved.”

Wells was just released from prison on homicide-related charges, according to the MCPO.

“Devastated by last night’s shooting at Art All Night Trenton,” New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy said. “We must eradicate the scourge of gun violence from our communities.”

The Art All Night festival was an opportunity for local artists to present their works, and some ironically used it as an opportunity to protest gun violence. The shooting reportedly started near a booth that said: “Imagine a world fee of gun violence.”

I’m not sure if that last bit has a typo or not, but I’m going to assume the booth said: “Imagine a world free of gun violence.” Honestly, it’s a noble sentiment. I wish there weren’t any kind of violence in the world. But there is, and the Art All Night Trenton got to witness it first hand.

So much for noble sentiments.

A police officer apparently put down Wells, but I can’t help but think about how this would have been different if this had been in a state that doesn’t automatically distrust its citizens when it comes to guns. I promise you the chances are damn good that both bad guys would have been put down long before 17 people were shot.

Remember what happened when terrorists showed up at an art show in Texas? They had AK-47s and didn’t even make it through the door for crying out loud. I somehow doubt these two yahoos would have lasted much longer.

Keep in mind that New Jersey also just passed a whole slew of new gun control measures, but guess what? None of them would have stopped this rampage, especially since it appears that Wells was a convicted felon and couldn’t legally own any firearm.

It’s almost like the bad guys don’t obey gun laws any better than they obey other laws. Go figure.


Another Florida Tragedy, This Time Showing Gun Control’s Failure

1 Comment

H/T Bearing Arms.

This tragedy shows just how useless gun control laws are to prevent criminals from getting guns.

Florida feels kind of like the epicenter of tragedy in this country at the moment. Despite it having no kind of monopoly on horrible events, one can almost be forgiven for believing otherwise.

The most recent involved a man taking four children hostage after his girlfriend told police he’d battered her earlier this week. In the end, all four children were killed, a police officer was shot, and the hostage taker committed suicide.

Oh, yeah, he was also a convicted felon.

A Florida felon who authorities say killed four children after a daylong standoff that started with the shooting of an officer had recently violated his parole, and his parole officer recommended that he be put in jail for six months. Instead he was given supervised probation, court records show.

Gary Lindsey was arrested last month for theft and then jailed for violating his probation from a decade-old arson charge, the records show. His probation officer said Lindsey posed no threat to the community but she still recommended that he be incarcerated for six months. However, Lindsey’s sister agreed to pay $1,000 and he agreed to pay $300 a month toward restitution, and his supervised probation was reinstated during a court hearing. The records show Lindsey had been working at an auto center in Orlando, earning $1,300 a month.

Sunday’s 21-hour standoff began when Lindsey’s girlfriend left the apartment and told police she had been battered. Lindsey fired at responding officers, seriously wounding one of them. He then holed up inside the apartment for much of the day with the four children, who they say ranged in age from 1 to 11. The girlfriend was the mother of all four children and Lindsey was the father of two of them, said family friend Walter Benenati.

“We heard gunshots, and I saw through the window that the policeman was down,” neighbor Miguel Lopez said. “The top stair was full of blood. They took the police officer down. … It was horrible.”

The officer is in critical condition but is expected to survive, thankfully.

There’s no level in which this isn’t awful. It’s horrible. I just don’t understand how anyone could murder children. I can’t comprehend it.

But there’s something else here to be looked at. Namely, the fact that Lindsey was able to get his hands on a firearm.

The news report above makes no mention of that. It doesn’t even ask the question, which is interesting. I mean, killing four people and shooting another before taking your own life is a mass shooting, right? Normally at this point, we have all kinds of questions about the killing and how the murderer got his weapon.

Why not now?

In part, I suspect it has more to do with the fact that there’s no way he could have obtained a firearm legally. He either lied when he bought it, stole it from someone else, bought it off the black market, or something similar. He couldn’t have walked into a gun store, followed all the rules, have the store do the same, and still purchased a gun. It’s not possible.

And because of that, it doesn’t rate the scale of tragedy it might otherwise have warranted.

Instead, a bad guy broke one of the plethoras of rules designed to prevent them from getting guns, did something horrible as a result, and the anti-gun crowd will either ignore the reality that the rules failed yet again or will simply think more rules will somehow make it all better.

It won’t.

Time and again, we see gun control failing to stop the truly evil.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: