Gun control advocates insist that domestic abusers and suspected domestic abusers should be disarmed. That’s just common sense! Exploiting voter empathy for abused women, the antis have been successful in this particular effort to equate disarmament with public safety. In fact, one does not lead to the other. To wit this story from sfgate.com:
According to a police report, officers responded to the 15th Street home and discovered the weapons on June 5, after receiving a call from the mother of [Thomas] Ragsdale’s son. The officers reported finding three rifles — including an AK-47 — as well as a shotgun, five handguns, 46 ammunition magazines and nearly 28,000 rounds of ammunition.
The woman who contacted police said she had grown concerned about statements Ragsdale was making about people plotting to kill him and his son. When officers questioned Ragsdale about the threats, records show, he said he heard voices through his bedroom wall, and believed they belonged to his neighbor’s “gang member friends.”
Ragsdale’s son’s mother, meanwhile, said Ragsdale’s family had a history of mental illness, and that she was worried he was suffering from paranoid delusions. Ragsdale’s son and Alfaro had echoed the concerns, saying they believed he was hearing voices in his head, police said.
The officers placed Ragsdale on an involuntary psychiatric hold, judging that he was a danger to himself or others, and seized his weapons as prescribed by state law.
The sfgate.com story details some back-and-forth between Mr. Ragsdale and the police regarding his “high capacity” magazines and whether or not his AK was “grandfathered-in” before California’s “assault weapons” ban.
More importantly, we also learn that police were “unable to locate six other firearms registered to Ragsdale.” And then there’s this:
The cache seized in June was still in police custody when authorities said Ragsdale shot [and killed] Mrs. Alfaro. He allegedly barricaded himself inside the home at 15th and Beaver streets before shooting himself in the chest and then stumbling into police custody.
So gun confiscation didn’t stop Mr. Ragsdale from murdering his mother with a firearm. Why would it? How could it? After you’ve pondered that, consider this: “Police did not provide details about the alleged murder weapon.”
Did Mr. Ragsdale use a gun the po-po failed to confiscate? Did he use a gun they returned to him? As two-time failed presidential candidate once remarked, at this point, what difference does it make? Gun confiscation doesn’t prevent crime. Period.