According to Metro Police, the acts committed by Hull, who drove a black Volkswagen Beetle, included attempted kidnapping, attempted robbery and discharging a firearm in public.
What began on Applecrest Street near Jones Boulevard and Rancho Drive — where the man is suspected of groping a woman — ended 17 miles south on Grand Canyon Avenue, where he crashed his car and shot himself as police approached the vehicle.
In between, police say the man tried to kidnap a 3-year-old girl — firing shots at her as she escaped with her mother — and also fired shots at a boy on a bicycle.
According to the police, this unusual crime spree was fuelled by alcohol and pills. I guess the death toll could easily have been much worse.
Metro said Hull was carrying two guns in his vehicle — one handgun and one rifle.
I know I've been presented with many convincing arguments about the benefits of gun ownership. But, what I keep wondering is what is the connection between that attitude and guys like poor Mr. Hull? Is there none? Is he a renegade criminal who wants to own guns and the others are law abiding citizens who want to own guns? Is that it, one has nothing to do with the other?
Why do these news stories, which, by the way, are much more frequent than the ones in which a good guy saves the day by being armed and intervening, why do these stories almost never mention the provenance of the weapons? It would be interesting to know if up until the incident in question, the guns were legally owned. Some of these guys, I suppose, were on the good team and something went wrong. Others, perhaps the majority, were criminals all along and procured the weapons illegally. I'm just guessing and theorizing because I don't think there are facts and statistics about all these questions. What do you think? What's your opinion?
I leave you with Nicholas. Do you think he's a great actor, by the way? Or is he just being himself?