The man used to be a reporter here in Tallahassee, where he was fired. He seems to have been quite a loose cannon.
And yet he was still able to get a gun.
Do you think a stricter gun law would have stopped this? Sorry, but I think that's completely emotion-based and naive.
Of course there are types of stricter gun laws that would have stopped this.
Of course none of them are remotely constitutional and would have only prevented this from being a "shooting" and instead made it a stabbing. This was targeted at two people, it wasn't a mass shooting. He used a handgun (something he, as a non-felon and person who was not adjudicated mentally ill, had a constitutional right to) against unarmed people with no one else around to stop him. No one that worked with him thought he was violently mentally ill, if those coworkers being interviewed are to be believed; they just thought he was overly litigious and had a temper.
If there was a case that cried out for some kind of further gun regulation, this ain't it. It isn't Sandy Hook. The media outlets using this tragedy to push for more gun control just reveal themselves to be what they are: people who get excited when these things happen because they can use it to score points for their side.
I mean, if you want to be technical, no specific type of gun is protected.
Both this and the Charlston shooting were the acts of lone mentally deranged individuals, they were both near unanimously condemned by society and therefore in no way representative of society, except maybe in regard to its handling of mental illness and gun control.
This is such a useless post.
