- MARCH 10, SAMSON, Ala. — A gunman kills 10 people and commits suicide in a rampage that spanned two dozen miles across the southern Alabama countryside. Police say Michael McLendon had struggled to keep a job and left behind lists of employers and co-workers he believed had wronged him.
Weapon: Semi-automatic rifle
Verdict: Unclear. With nature of firearm unknown, impossible to say whether so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" would have changed the outcome.
- MARCH 22, OAKLAND, Calif. — A man pulled over in a routine traffic stop fatally shoots two officers and then kills two more in a gunfight in which the suspect was also killed. Relatives say Lovelle Mixon, 26, had been frustrated about not finding work and feared returning to jail.
Perpetrator: Lovelle Mixon
Weapon: Semi-automatic pistol & rifle
Status: Prohibited person. "Authorities said Saturday night that Mixon had an extensive criminal history and was in violation of parole for assault with a deadly weapon" Additionally, the weapons used were not legal in CA.
Verdict: Gun control ineffective. Perpetrator was forbidden by law from owning firearms.
- MARCH 29, SANTA CLARA, Calif. — A man shoots and kills his two children and three other relatives, then kills himself at a family housewarming party in an upscale neighborhood. Investigators don't yet know the motive of Devan Kalathat, a 42-year-old engineer at Yahoo.
Weapon: Two semi-automatic handguns
Verdict: Inconclusive. Pistols not covered by AWB.
- MARCH 29, CARTHAGE, N.C. — A man opens fire in a nursing home and kills seven elderly residents and a nurse who cared for them. Investigators say Robert Stewart, 45, apparently had targeted an estranged wife, a nurse's assistant who escaped by hiding in a bathroom.
Weapon: "Deer rifle", double-barrel shotgun
Verdict: Current "Assault Weapons Ban" would not have affected choice of firearm.
- APRIL 3, BINGHAMTON, N.Y. — A gunman bursts into an immigrant center and kills 13 people before killing himself. Police say Jiverly Wong, a 41-year-old Vietnamese immigrant, was apparently upset about losing his job and about people picking on him for his limited English.
Weapon: Two semi-automatic handguns
Status: Inconclusive. Suspect "had permit" for handguns, but had a criminal record.
Verdict: Inconclusive. Pistols not covered by AWB. Additionally, NY extended AWB so that it remains in effect; also requires permit for firearms ownership.
- APRIL 4, PITTSBURGH — A gunman wearing a bulletproof vest opens fire on officers responding to a domestic disturbance call, killing three of them. Police say Richard Poplawski, 23, had been upset about losing his job and feared the Obama administration was poised to ban guns.
Weapon: Semi-automatic rifle, handgun.
Status: Ineligible person to own firearms - suspect had dishonorable discharge from Marines: "Neighbors said Mr. Poplawski had been kicked out of North Catholic High School and then was dishonorably discharged from the Marines three years ago, and had worked a series of short-term jobs in recent years."
Verdict: Gun control ineffective. Perpetrator was forbidden by law from owning firearms.
- APRIL 4, GRAHAM, Wash. — A man fatally shoots his five children in their mobile home and then takes his own life in his car miles away. Relatives identified the father as James Harrison. A motive was not yet known.
Perpetrator: James Harrison
Weapon: "Rifle"
Verdict: Unknown. With nature of firearm unknown, impossible to say whether so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" would have changed the outcome.
We have two cases where existing gun laws were already broken; we have one case where it's possible that laws were broken; and four cases where it appears the perpetrators were law-abiding gun owners. In all but two cases, the so-called Assault Weapons Ban would not have affected the situations, as they were committed with firearms that would not have been affected by the ban; in those two cases, the weapons used were not identified.
One thing is clear in this analysis: Had the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 been renewed in 2004, only two out of the seven recent mass shootings could possibly have been affected. In all but one case, the suspect used either a handgun or a non-AWB-affected rifle, and it's quite possible that even in that last case the firearm used would not have been affected by the AWB.
The five non-prohibited perpetrators illustrate the messy, dangerous side to freedom. Sometimes people snap; and sometimes, in statistically insignificant numbers, when they snap they decide to take others with them. Short of dramatically and unConstitutionally changing the American way of life with a complete ban on firearms, there's little that can be done to safeguard against these acts.
And while that thought is disconcerting, it's far less disconcerting than the certain police state needed to prevent such acts from occuring again.
That is all.
11 comments:
If only a law prevented a crime, but they do not.
Ref Binghamton -
Wong's conviction for fraud appears to have been a misdemeanor, meaning he's not a prohibited person.
NY doesn't require permits for long guns, only handguns... and some handguns do fall under the AWB. Like the Ruger Charger. No, I'm not kidding. Mag well outside the pistol grip and weight greater than 50oz.
libertyman,
Exactly. They only punish after the fact.
Sometimes.
zercool,
Hence why he's not listed as a definitive prohibited.
And I know - MA has the very same restrictions... :(
As far as Unknown Guns I can't 100% confirm but I remember reading the Samson shooting rifle was a Bushmaster AR-15
The Oakland shooting was an SKS of some sort.
The Binghamton shooter used a pair of Berettas, one a 9mm (who knows which it might be) the other a .45 (I assume it could only be the PX4-45, as that's the only .45 Beretta I know of. The PX4 would be VERY difficult to aquire 10+ round magazines legally, also I belive this gun was shipped only with 10 rounders for flush-fit.
GREAT post, Jay.
Devil's Advocate:
ZOMG!! Must. Ban. *ALL* GUNZ!!
The AWB wouldn't have covered all of these incidents so we must need *MORE* restrictive gun control because if we take all the eeevil gunz away then crime will disappear and everyone will have a job and food on the table and shelter over their head and we'll have a booming economy and there will be nothing but peace and love throughout the land.
*DEEEEP hit off bong*
See what I'm talking about, man?
< /hippie impersonation >
Thanks Weer'd.
I scoured the 'net far and wide looking for information. Learned a helluva lot more than I ever wanted to know about these sadistic, cowardly fuckwads, too...
(Gee, y'think that might be the problem???)
Matthew,
If the Bradys et al had the intestinal fortitude to actually *CALL* for a complete ban, I'd have a helluva lot more respect for them - at least then they'd be intellectually honest.
After all, that's what they want, deep down inside. They just won't admit that's their ultimate goal.
I've often said that the only gun control measure that stood any chance of actually reducing gun crime would be to ban all firearms and make possession of even a single round of ammunition punishable by death on the spot.
Are we ready for that? I don't think so.
Hell, I don't think we're ready for England style "gun control".
And they know this.
So they push canards like "mass shootings like these wouldn't happen if we still had the AWB".
And when they do, I'm here to kick 'em in the ass and call 'em filthy liars...
Another way to spin it would be if the AWB's "prohibited naughty bits" made any of the crimes easier, made any of the guns more dangerous (Ino,ino), made the BGs harder to detect or harder to stop, didn't make the BGs obey federal laws on posession by prohibited persons, etc.
Jay:
Apparently, the Pittsburgh killer was not dishonorably discharged. It was an "administrative" discharge, which I understand would not make him a prohibited person. The media was making assumptions without checking the facts, again.
He may have been subject to an order of protection, but that's still not conclusively known.
(Via Sebastian over at Snowflakes in Hell)
Of course the law against shooting numerous people for no reason (I think it used to be called "murder") has been on the books for quite a while, and has had zero effect on preventing the mass murders listed here.
Pass another law on the means used to kill multiple persons, that should stop the next atrocity - long enough for the murderous bastards to find another way.
One gallon of gasoline lit off in a crowd would cause quite a mess, as would opening a cylinder of chlorine gas in a closed building, or swinging a broadsword viciously in a crowd, or driving a car along a sidewalk, or tossing cinder blocks off highway overpasses during rush hour, or stirring a cup of wet sewage into a restaurant's salad bar.
I would go on, but I'm sure there are laws against all these activities, that completely prevent them from ever possibly occurring. Not.
The evil lies in the persons performing the evil, not in the means.
In Iraq, an industrial shredder, a car battery, and simple sticks were used to torture and kill thousands. Many Iraqis were reported to have been tossed off the roofs of their homes, avoiding the need for anything other than a victim and a murderer to commit the murder. Mass murder in the hundreds of thousands occurred in Ruwanda using machetes (i.e., common gardening tools).
When the perpetrators are addressed, I will take the argument seriously. Until then, outlawing the means to commit what is already outlawed is a futile effort.
the guy in NC and the father in WA were both listed as having a history of domestic "troubles" had their spouse filed charges on either one, they would have been prohibited too...
During all this news coverage a young man slaughtered some of his family, including beheading a child with the same knife. It barely made the news.
Post a Comment