Man who killed him mom, and self, in a standoff with police was not allowed to have firearms. That’s the headline at washingtonpost.com and various other “news” sites. That’s the story in a nutshell. Apparently, it bears repeating . . .
A man who killed his mother and then fired more than 100 rounds at police as her body lay in a yard during an eight-hour standoff before killing himself, wasn’t permitted to have firearms and likely obtained them from his father, who killed himself days after the rampage.
And this is news because . . . ?
The forces of civilian disarmament must convince people that civilian disarmament disarms criminals.
Where’s the evidence for that, exactly? The fact that the WaPo considers a Pennsylvania felon’s ability to obtain firearms to commit murder in any way remarkable is laughable — if anti-gun agitprop wasn’t so effective amongst prog press purveyors.
Which begs the question: what’s the alternative to this delusional belief? How DO you stop criminals from getting guns? Is that even possible?