Wow…the story on the nutcase professor who dusted her colleagues in a faculty meeting is just getting stranger by the day.
- Blows her brother away with a shotgun, and tries to carjack someone at gunpoint right after, but is never prosecuted. Incidentally, her Mom’s on the personnel board of the local PD, and the Chief calls the jail to get her released on the day of the incident. DA never files charges.
- Her supervising professor at Hahvahd gets a pipe bomb in the mail, coincidentally a few days after an argument with the little bowl of Froot Loops in question. Incidentally, she was worried he’d give her a bad review.
- Gets into an altercation with a woman at an IHOP in Massachusetts over a high chair, slugs the woman in front of her kids. Charges brought, unsupervised probation and anger management classes ordered.
- Finally, pulls out a heater at the aforementioned faculty meeting, kills three and wounds three more.
Can you say missed warning signals? I knew you could.
Now, I know it’s a natural reaction for friends and family of a mass murderer to believe in their Loved One’s innocence, and say stuff like, “We had no idea how this could have happened”…but be honest with yourselves here. If you knew your spouse had shot her brother when she was a kid, and then she goes off on someone over a stupid high chair in a restaurant and slugs the other person in the face, it’s pretty clear that the family member in question has a few critical inhibitors missing in her brain.
Here’s where the Great Divide in the gun control debate happens between liberal and conservative/libertarian types. One group claims that this proves the need for gun restrictions, so fruitbats like Dr. Bishop can’t get their hands on guns when they flip out. The other group says that these cases prove gun control doesn’t work. (Dr. Bishop shouldn’t have been able to acquire a firearm legally, not with her prior record…and she chose to ignore the law regarding homicide and A&B as well, so what’s another felony on top of that?)
Me, I’m tired of the debate. The lines are pretty much drawn, and conversion of someone from one side to the other in the gun control debate is a rare event indeed. I do know, however, that this is precisely why I carry a gun—because I don’t want to end up taking a bullet in front of my kids because some basket case decides to get pissed off at me for taking the last booster seat at the IHOP. Of course, those who support disarming everyone claim that my gun makes me more likely to be that person going ballistic at the IHOP. (They inevitably call me paranoid for being mindful of the fact that I may be in the wrong place at the wrong time.) In the end, everyone’s got to make their own call on that issue, but I always wonder who’s more paranoid—the person who wants to be able to protect themselves against the (thankfully rare) homicidal loons out there…or the person who wants to disarm everyone instead?
Here’s why I favor the “carry a gun” approach. If you use the “Ban All Guns” method, you treat all your fellow citizens as potential killers, and impose preemptive restrictions on them as if they are. You use prior restraint, and reduce everyone’s rights to those of the least responsible members of society. If you use the “Carry A Gun” approach, it may be true that you treat all your fellow citizens as potential killers, too….but you don’t infringe on the rights of those who have no desire or ability to do you harm (which in both cases is the vast majority of the population.) Which approach is the more ethical and moral one?