Anytime an innocent person is killed, it’s a tragedy. It really and truly is. It’s even more of a tragedy when it’s someone you care about, trust me on that.
When faced with a situation like that, it’s understandable that people start looking at just how to prevent something like that. Again, I know from experience. However, the York Daily News touched on something in a recent report that bears remembering when looking to combat tragedies like this.
A YDR analysis of 38 gun homicides from 2013 through 2016 found that in at least 21 cases, one or more of the alleged or convicted assailants was not allowed to possess a gun under federal or state law.
In three of those cases, a man killed a woman and himself.
Groups like the Violence Policy Center point to these types of murder-suicides as examples of why it’s necessary to aggressively enforce bans on firearm possession.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in some states have focused on a different way to protect domestic abuse victims: Shorten the waiting period for an alleged victim to get a gun permit after obtaining an order of protection.
Three York County murder-suicides show different holes in laws and enforcement.
One man, Monees Ansari, illegally obtained a gun that police traced back to Texas. But police could not find the last owner.
Another man, Scott Hoke, was not ordered to give up his guns despite being covered by federal bans.
Snyder was also covered by a federal ban. But police say he broke into a secured cabinet and stole a shotgun.
In other words, people who have ill intent don’t follow gun laws.
Who would have imagined that?
Over and over again, we keep seeing more and more evidence that gun laws don’t actually keep criminals disarmed. They steal guns, buy them illegally, don’t get rid of guns that were purchased legally but now own illegally through whatever means, any number of ways these people get guns…but all are breaking the law just by having them, and they don’t care.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s very unfortunate that these people shot anyone. However, even if they couldn’t have gotten their hands on a gun, does anyone really think they wouldn’t have still killed?
In the case of domestic violence murders, in particular, you’re often dealing with an attacker who is physically stronger and more aggressive than their victim. They have no problem overpowering their victim with brute force, killing with a knife or their bare hands. The lack of a gun doesn’t solve anything…unless you put it in the woman’s hands.
At that point, the math changes drastically.
Time and time again, we see more evidence that gun laws don’t actually disarm the criminals. They buy them on the street, they steal them from lawful gun owners, or whatever they have to do to make sure they have the means to hurt people most effectively.
How much more evidence is necessary to convince gun grabbers that taking away guns won’t solve the problem. It would be far more effective to look at the underlying causes of violence and go after those, rather than pretending it’s all the fault of the firearm.