Sorry, Super Bowl party homicide is a gun issue
Barb ShellyPlatte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd felt compelled to inform the public that the most recent homicide to occur in his jurisdiction is not a Second Amendment issue.
The 34-year-old man charged with shooting a friend in the head while drunk at a Super Bowl party in Riverside is a felon and therefore could not legally possess a firearm, Zahnd noted in a news release.
“There has been a lot of politically charged discussion recently regarding gun rights. This case has nothing to do with that debate,” he said. “Personally, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. But virtually everyone agrees that only law-abiding citizens should safely and responsibly possess firearms.”
Well yes, we can certainly agree on that. But since Zahnd brought up the subject, I’ll note that the suspect being a felon gives the pro-gun side an easy out. He wasn’t supposed to have a gun, ergo this is not a gun issue.
By that logic, most of the homicides that take place every year in Kansas City should be excluded from the gun debate also, because the person charged with the crime typically has a felony record.
Of course, it’s not that simple. The ease with which guns can be bought and sold means we will never be able to ensure that only law-abiding, responsible citizens are able to purchase firearms.
I have no idea how the suspect here obtained his gun, but this senseless homicide in Riverside makes a strong case for universal background checks, including for weapons purchased at gun shows and private sales, with stringent penalties for sellers who skirt the requirement.
Phil Cardarella
3 months, 2 weeks agoBravo! Exactly what I thought when I saw Zahnd’s quote.
Now, I am not sure that I agree that ALL felons should be banned from having hunting guns for life. But I think that those who are so afright of the NRA that they try to use this shooting as an anti-control example are simply being disingenuous.
Guns are dangerous weapons. If you want to keep them away from those you believe most likely to abuse them, you cannot leave the door 40% open (the number of guns sold at shows without background checks) and complain that it is not keeping out the draft.
Frankly, it may well be that the young man who was killed would be alive if the felon had been allowed to buy the gun legally — but only after learning how it worked! You know, the gun safety stuff the NRA supposedly supports — so long as it does not slow down sales.)
Sadly enough, charging this guy with an additional crime for possessing the gun illegally does nothing to bring back the kid he killed by accident.
Reginald Thornton
3 months, 2 weeks agoA gun issue, yes. A gun issue that is already addressed. It was already illegal for this felon to possess a firearm. Praytell, what is the magical new law you would impose on the vast majority of us law abiding citizens to somehow prevent this criminal action?
P.s. Phil- The NRA was founded as a gun safety organization, and continues to this day to the premier source. That you would suggest otherwise reveals only you ignorance of the industry, and your lack of qualification to comment.
Cy Kosis
3 months, 2 weeks agoSorry Barb, everything involving a gun is NOT a gun issue, contrary to what ever brain washing the liberal agenda has done to you.
The issue here is a felon, ALREADY prohibited by law from owning a firearm, and his blatant disregard for authority.
Do tell dear Barb, who is to blame for this incredibly unfortunate death-the gun or the bozo that got drunk and fired it?
Careful not to contradict yourself there….
Robert G. Berry Jr.
3 months, 2 weeks agoThe perp is a convicgted felon who is not supposed to have a firearm. Now what does this tell us about background checks? They don’t submit to them and still get the guns. So who is the target of background checks(read ownership registration for confiscation and arrest)? We the people. And now that the adminstration is telling us they can kill us without due process, do we need anymore reasons why we need the second amendment and to be armed the same as any American solider?
Phil Cardarella
3 months, 2 weeks agoOK, try to follow this simple argument:
It does little good to have a background check that does not cover 40+% of gun sales. While it might be illegal for this fool to have a gun, it was quite easy for him to get one. All he had to do was go to a gun show and hand over the money.
Actually, the NRA was a PROPONENT of universal background checks — LaPierre spoke quite movingly in support of it a few years back. Then his corporate gun-selling masters yanked his chain.
The NRA was actually founded because the Civil War generals noticed that the Union soldiers were for the most part inept with weapons. And gun training and safety was its cause. In keeping with that mission, the NRA SUPPORTED all major gun control measures untin recently — when it was taken over by the gun manufacturers lobby.
Please listen: NO ONE is going to confiscate your guns — although it might be a very good idea to ban some types of weapons, as was done by the CONSERVATIVE government in Australia in 1996 — resulting in a drop of mass murders there to ZERO.
But, if you seriously beieve that it is appropriate for you to be armed with military hardware to resist the agents of your elected government in enforcing the laws passed by that government, you SHOULD NOT BE SO ARMED. You should stop watching FOX News immediately and seek professional counseling.