Happy days are here again! At least if you’re in the assault weapons—I mean modern home sporting defense black assault rifle gun weapons business. “As a result of a Post investigation into the effectiveness of the federal assault weapons ban is both encouraging and heartbreaking,” The Washington Post editorial opines. “Encouraging because the ban appears to have worked, at least as far limiting the proliferation of high-capacity magazines; heartbreaking because the use of such magazines in crimes rose dramatically after the ban was irresponsibly allowed to lapse.” That after I emailed them the link to my post debunking that junk. Anyway . . .
Jared Lee Loughner appears to be a deeply disturbed young man who should never have been able to obtain a weapon of any kind, let alone the kind that easily transforms a lone gunman into a mass murderer. The data from Virginia show that the federal ban worked. Lawmakers should not wait for another Tucson-like tragedy to resurrect this common-sense law.
Note to WaPo: I think you’ve answered your own question there. Everyone agrees that Mr. Loughner was not suitable for gun ownership—ipso facto. But here’s the real conundrum: how could anyone have prevented Jared Lee Loughner from obtaining a weapon of any kind? A knife? A baseball bat? A car? Poison?
All of these weapons are easily obtainable. All have been used for mass murder.
Actually, there is a way Mr. Loughner could have been separated from all deadly weapons: someone could have confined him into a rubber room and monitored him constantly. How Mr. Loughner avoided that fate prior to the attack is an interesting question—whose answer may not be the one we’d like.
Meanwhile, it’s worth mentioning that no weapon of any kind “transforms” a lone gunman into a mass murderer. That transformation occurred in the dark recesses of Mr. Loughner’s deeply disturbed mind. And he didn’t need a 31-round magazine for it to happen.
I’ll just post these comments underneath the WaPo edirotial . . . Hang on, what’s this? The comments’ section under the editorial’s closed? First Amendment, Second Amendment. Funny how the Washington Post is willing to subvert the former to undermine the latter. Just sayin’ . . .