Tuesday, October 23, 2012

As Inevitable As The Sunrise

I wish I could say this surprised me, but...

Wisconsin shooting brings call for new law on guns
MILWAUKEE — Two Wisconsin lawmakers are pushing legislation to tighten the enforcement of gun rules in domestic violence cases, prompted by a fatal shooting rampage at a suburban Milwaukee spa.
Radcliffe Haughton, 45, bought a handgun just two days after his beleaguered wife obtained a restraining order against him. He used that weapon to kill her and two other women Sunday at the salon where she worked, before fatally shooting himself.
Right. Because another law would make it double illegal for him to have owned the gun. Why stop at one more law? Why not two, and make it triple illegal? Ten? Fifty? Gun control failed here, rather spectacularly. [EDITED] The restraining order should have flagged made him as a restricted person when the before any purchase was made, but it didn't stop him from buying one privately - that's a systematic failure here. Someone neglected to perform the necessary steps to make sure that this individual couldn't buy a firearm. He broke the law by purchasing the firearm as a prohibited person - even if he had bought the gun at a gun store, he was responsible for noting the restraining order. Would he have?

We had a rather spectacular case right here in Massachusetts about a dozen years ago. One Michael "Mucko" McDermott shot up Edgewater Technologies, killing seven of his co-workers. Given that he lived in the town next to me when this happened, I took a rather close interest in the case. He had lived in NH, and had purchased the weapons there, but failed to secure a MA permit when he moved back in the state. He held an expired FID card at the time of the shooting; however even that would only have allowed him to own one of the three guns used.

Gun. Control. Failed.

The thing with gun control is that it needs to be applied fairly, evenly, and universally and it needs to be followed through. If you pass a law saying that "Doing [X] With a Firearm" is illegal, then you need to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate every single person you find doing [X] with a firearm. You can't only punish the minorities, or the poor, or the guy who teased you in second grade. You need to punish everyone. If you pass a law that says "having a restraining order filed against you means you cannot own firearms", then there needs to be a system in place to prevent those with restraining orders from getting firearms.

This didn't happen in Wisconsin, and three people died because of it. That doesn't mean we need more gun control; what it means is that the existing gun control we already have has to be enforced. You couldn't pay me enough to switch places with the person that sold Haughton the firearm right now - they are in for a world of legal and civil hurt. For those in states that have no prohibition against private sales, it behooves you to check up on any potential private sale you make lest you sell to the next mass shooter. It is unconscionable that Haughton passed an NCIS check for the gun he purchased after having a restraining order against him; that is exactly counter to how the system was supposed to work. But the fact that the system isn't working doesn't mean that we need more laws - but that we need the laws to be applied evenly and fairly, and followed up on...

Don't punish the law-abiding for the systematic failure of gun control.

That is all.

6 comments:

Old NFO said...

But... but... You can't actually mean "ENFORCE" the laws, why that would be 'unfair' to all those inner city/minority/under-represented classes... /snark off

LC Scotty said...

The usual suspects are crowing because he didn't pass a NICS check-he bought it from a private seller.

Dave H said...

On the radio yesterday morning the local jock interviewed a reporter from the Milwaukee area about the shootings. He said that while a few average citizens (i.e. not government officials) he'd talked to wanted tougher gun laws because of this and the Sikh temple shooting, most of them recognized that this sort of thing was going to happen no matter how many laws were passed.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Yep, every single Law that the Antis touted as "Stopping Gun Violence" has FAILED. Thank you Bloomberg, Japete, Chuckie Schumer, et.al. for ensuring that those who NEED to Protect themselves have to jump through Hoops to use their RKBA.

Speaking of Little Mickey Bloomberg, I see that he is sponsoring Scott Brown over Elizabeth Warren. But here's his Quote: "He's the man who single-handidly DEFEATED the National Right to Carry Bill in the Senate."

I'd never thought I'd have to say this, but I hope all you Good People up in the Volksrepublik of Massachusetts vote FOR Warren. At least you know that she's HONEST about her Opposition to the RKBA. None of that "Hunting Crap." Trust me, the rest of the Nation will be glad to see that Anti-Gun Asshole Brown sent back home.

But he'll probably get a Job working for Mickey....

Ed said...

The problem is that you really cannot control guns via "gun control". The solution is Constitutional Carry of guns without state license, openly or concealed, like found in Vermont. Kerry Sleeper, former Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Safety, estimated that 75% of Vermont households have at least one firearm, resulting one of the safest states in the United States. In 2009, there were no firearm related homicides in Vermont.

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/06/05/leading-the-fight-for-constitutional-carry/#axzz2A9ns4QB8

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?84351-How-does-Vermont-get-around-the-Federal-Gun-Free-School-Zone-law

Michael W. said...

If I am not badly mistaken, the Spa was posted as a gun free zone. So what happened?