Control your guns or lose them

Guest Post by Morbo

This week, an emotionally disturbed young man named Michael Kennedy put on a camouflage outfit and, armed with seven guns, among them an assault rifle, drove to a police station in Fairfax County, Va., where he opened fire in the parking lot.

Before he was killed by return gunfire, Kennedy critically wounded one officer and killed another. The dead officer is Detective Vicky O. Armel. The 40-year-old mother of two was described as a devoted parent, dedicated cop and devout member of her church. In short, she was a community asset.

Kennedy, by contrast, had some obvious problems. Days before the shootings, he visited friends and gave rambling talks about “good aliens” and “bad aliens.” While Kennedy never made violent comments, it was pretty clear his emotional state was fragile. Kennedy seemed to realize he had a problem. He checked himself in to a mental-health facility but then jumped the fence just an hour later.

Where did Kennedy get the assault rifle and other guns? Police are not sure, but one good possibility is where he lived — his parents’ house. As The Washington Post points out, the place was practically a gun emporium. Police later removed nine guns from the house. Noted the paper:

In all, police found nine guns strewed about the empty Centreville home, unlocked, along with boxes and satchels of ammunition, six pellet guns, several hunting knives and a bayonet on a bedroom nightstand, according to a search warrant unsealed yesterday.

One gun was stashed under a mattress. A local paper called the household “an arsenal.” All of these weapons were within easy reach of the family’s other child, a 9-year-old girl.

I am weary of reading stories like this. I am tired of hearing about little 8-year-old Jason showing up on the playground with a Glock .357. I am fed up with headlines like, “Fired Worker Shoots Four.”

The gun nuts and the National Rifle Association say we don’t need more gun laws. Gun owners, they insist, are responsible. Someone here sure wasn’t. A young man was walking around babbling about alien invasions, and it apparently never occurred to anyone to lock up the guns where he lived.

I would ask why the assault weapon Kennedy used to hunt and kill humans is legal in the first place. But since the U.S. Congress, a wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA, insists people should have the right to own these things, maybe it’s time to explore another direction: Right-wingers have steadily eroded abortion right by nibbling at the edges. Perhaps it’s time to do the same with gun rights.

Here’s a good place to start: If it turns out that Kennedy got his guns at home, if his parents were so lax in storing weapons that a deranged person got access to an assault rifle and used it to kill others, every gun they own should be taken away, never to be seen again. And they should be barred from buying replacements. For life.

My guess is the American people would back a law like that. Let the NRA stand against it.

Morbo, I have a better solution. Have the family of Detective Vicky O. Armel sue the parents of Michael Kennedy for wrongful death. Make the parents of Michael Kennedy liable to their last dollar for Armel’s death.

  • I don’t see why the parents can’t be charged as accessories before the fact. They knowingly aided and abetted this obvious nutcase in his rampage … they ought to pay in jail time as well as financially (wrongful death).

  • Sadly, Ed, that approach has not been terribly successful. In once case I am very familiar with, Dad had an unregistered and unsecured gun in the home. Teenage Son gets dumped by his high school girlfriend. His entire personality changes, according to those at school – he is morose, inconsolable. Apparently, no one at home thinks enough of it to wonder if perhaps the gun shouldn’t be made a bit more secure. Son takes gun to school, and when ex-girlfriend is in the hall taking a make-up test, he shoots her, a witness, and himself. Criminal chrages are brought against the Dad, and the court dismisses. I cant remember if the victim’s family brought a civil suit or not.

  • Ahh, but the only way you can keep track of who shouldn’t have a gun anymore is the dreaded “registration” (followed by the cold dead fingers), and you know how hard the gun fans will fight that.

    I think guns should be treated like cars: You have a right to have them, but you have to be licensed, tested, registered, insured and retested and are accountable for their whereabouts at all times. Technically, most of that is in place, it is the lack of serious, co-ordinated enforcement that is the biggest problem.

  • Here’s a scheme that I’m sure is not original with me, but I’ve been hyping it–tie gun ownership to military service. We make much of the fact tht the Swiss have a lot of guns and a lot of gun safety–explanation being that the weapons are tightly integrated into the model of an armed republic.

    We could do the same: limit gun ownership to those who have had the training that comes from, say, two years on active duty in a line unit. It ought to cut down on the dabblers, and might do a bit for military recruitment.

  • Via Digby, there is this,

    The FBI will not be permitted to compare the names of suspected terrorists against federal gun purchase records, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft told the Senate on December 6, offering no encouragement to senators willing to guarantee the FBI the authority to do so

    Phone records, no problem. We all know how dangerous talking to people is. Guns? Why do think guns would be a problem?

  • This could be played by the same rules that the administration uses to justify their illegal wiretapping debacle and other such nonsensities. Consider the Second Amendment thus:

    “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Now, play this thing on a discrete extract from the Amendment, being:

    “…the security of a free state…shall not be infringed.”

    People who directly misuse firearms, or indirectly commit act(s) of misuse by not exercise proper control over their firearms, are “infringing upon the security of a free state”…are they not?

    If the freakazoid Republikanners can play this game…then so can the rest of society….

  • Slip Kid got it right with the first post. Sue the frakkin’ morons for every penny they have stashed in their double-wide. It maynot be much, but it’s hard to buy more guns without money.

    And I’d love to see the parents arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In fact, here in California, they would be arrested for allowing the guns to be available like that.

  • Post #5 above is an excellent idea!

    I think it was General Clark who said: “If you love playing with guns, we have a place where you can do so proudly and with honor– in the United States Army!”

    That’s the best positioning I’ve heard yet on this whole gun debate: re-frame gun nuts as unpatriotic.

    Think about it: they are! It’s perfect. The gun nuts’ whole defense of free access to guns is *explicitly* for the purpose of committing treason and overthrowing the United States Government. They will readily admit this– and I am deeply in love with the idea of forcing them to do so, publicly, “during a time of war”.

    Somebody please explain to me how fighting for the right to prosecute armed insurrection is any more patriotic than, say, investigating NSA wiretapping or insulting the president at an awards dinner.

    Really, I’m waiting. I want to hear this.

  • Goatchowder,

    I agree, It’s called the Bill of Rights, Amendment IV, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    I’m not sure where it was interpreted to have the exception at a time of war, the President can ignore this basic right?

  • Sure glam up the story with fancy words. Isn’t reporting a tragic story enough????????????????????

    “Seven guns” wasnt enough to make the story dramatic, so out comes the words…”among them an assault rifle.” If I’m not mistaken, isn’t any rifle used in an assault…an assault rifle. GET A CLUE!

  • Jee… how many innocent people are killed (murdered) by drunk drivers each year. Yet the government still allows anyone of age to purchase alcohol for consumption and has no enforcement to prevent said people from getting behind the wheel of a car and driving drunk. Sure we have laws that say you can’t do that… and sure we spend tons of money on checkpoints and DUI arrests but that’s after the fact, nothing to prevent it from happening to begin with. Driving an automobile is NOT a guaranteed RIGHT in the Constitution of the United States, it’s a PRIVILAGE. Owning and Bearing Firearms is a Guaranteed RIGHT that was put in place by the founding fathers to insure that a Tyranical Government such as the one we fight to get out from under (hey anyone remember their history and the war with Great Britan???) could be removed by THE PEOPLE who were meant to be in control and NOT the Federal Government.

    Jeez sometimes you left winged NUT JOBS just really make me laugh!

  • What an idiot, Didn’t Michael Kennedy realize he could have gone to a school or a mall and got a higher body count. He had to pick the one place where they would shoot back. The darn cops only let him kill one and injure another. Guess he didn’t know that “gun free” zones are the safest place to go on a shooting spree.

    Sarcasm aside I think his parents should be held partially responsible. As far as the ownership of guns tied to military service that would do the opposite of what the second ammmendment is there to protect. If the government/military have the only guns It would be very easy for the govt leaders to overtake the common people to force their views on them.

  • Comments are closed.