This is an interesting image being tossed around by the anti-freedom lobby:
I did a little bit of research and honestly I can’t find much more than is on the card. This woman allegedly had an abusive ex-husband. According to court records he threatened her with a gun, and allegedly discharged it in the house. He was not prosecuted with this crime.
The Ex gets issued a restraining order which means he has to stay away from Zina, her place of work, and cannot own firearms.
He arranges a private sale online, and buys a gun. I wish I had a bit more information than that, but as far as I can tell nothing more is there. More on this later.
He takes this gun to the spa where she works and shoots seven people, killing three, one of whom is Zina. When the police arrive he barricades himself within the spa and kills himself.
Now what can we tell from this story. First up MANY laws were broken, even in Wisconsin where the laws are fairly liberal.
#1. He bought a gun despite an order of protection.
#2. Since we don’t hear about prosecution of the seller, this implies that likely the seller DID ask if this sale would be legal, and he lied about his prohibited status.
#3. He violated his order of protection by both going to his ex-wife’s place of employment, and by going when she was on site at the time.
#4. (maybe this counts as multiples) he Murders 3 People, and attempts to murder at least 4 more people.
Lastly he takes his own life, this doesn’t get a number, because I don’t care.
Now what the anti-rights people think will change this all is if #2 violation would be written as “He illegally buys the gun from a private seller”.
Now I’m not going to be arrogant and say that wouldn’t have worked in this case, it might have. We all know that illegal drug use is a serious problem in this country (legally, ethically is a discussion for another day) and for that to happen large numbers of people are able to acquire drugs through illegal methods. Still on an individual basis they might not know where to start in the black market. I don’t associate with criminals, so honestly if I wanted to get an ounce of coke, or a hot Glock I wouldn’t know where to start. I will say the gun is easier, because I have lots of friends who HAVE guns. I can’t say any of them would sell me one if I was the subject to an order of protection and they knew it, but I’m sure with a little effort I could get one. Same goes for cocaine. It would take some effort, but its not impossible.
So while a ban on private sales MIGHT have stopped this crime, it is equally as foolish to claim it DEFINITELY would have stopped this crime.
Now the antis are so quick to say “Well if your argument is criminals don’t obey the laws, why have laws at all? People run Stop Signs, so why not ban Stop signs?”
Straw man! The traffic law the antis are saying is not running stop signs or signals, but people speeding. Let’s say a town has an issue with people speeding through the main drag. To throw some numbers on it, the people are going 60mph through a posted 30 MPH zone. That’s dangerous, and that’s bad news! The anti-rights people claim that if we lower the SPEED LIMIT to 15mph the problem is solved.
Of course we know that speeding in places IS a problem, but we also see the solution. If people are known to drive through an area at dangerous speeds, you put up traffic patrols and arrest the criminals. And for 60 in a 30, that’s not speeding ticket territory, that’s handcuffs in the cruiser territory. Further authorities might increase penalties. Such as the practice of doubling fines in a posted construction zone.
These practices are in no way perfect, and people break them every day, but it helps a lot.
You see the above violent act was NOT a crime because he bought a gun, it was a crime because he bought a gun and then broke multiple laws MORE SEVERE than illegally buying a gun. Further the sale of the gun already WAS a crime!
The old circular logic of “If guns were as illegal as murder, nobody would be murdered with guns!”
Now another big problem is people trusting the law. This man SHOULD have been in jail at the time of the shooting, at least if Zina’s claims were correct, and given that he discharged a gun in the home, this charge could have been easily verified if police took this case seriously. Further Zina trusted the restraining order to protect her form a man she knew was dangerous.
Does this case sound that simple to you?
