The first time David Hoole placed a loaded gun against the head of one of his wives 10 years ago, he threatened to kill her before firing several rounds off inside their Westmoreland home, according to court records.
But authorities said when David Hoole pointed a gun at his most recent wife earlier this week, she wasn’t able to escape.
Hoole, 41, pulled the trigger over and over again as he shot his wife, Lisa Guzzardo, 45, in the head before turning the gun on himself, Oneida County sheriff’s investigators said. Guzzardo was shot four times, and Hoole killed himself with a single shot to the head.
He'd picked up a felony conviction from the first incident and had had numerous scrapes with the law since. Yet the article provided this odd observation.
Officials said they still are investigating whether the handgun used this week was registered to Hoole, and whether he was legally allowed to own such a weapon after being previously convicted of a felony.
Is there any way this guy could have owned a handgun legally? Please tell us if there is. But, even if for some strange reason he was not a disqualified person, can we all agree he should not have owned a gun? Isn't Mr. Poole a good example of the kind who shouldn't?
Are there gun rights people who find restrictions, any restrictions so abhorrent, that they would dispute this? I think I know the answer to that, and I say to you, you are part of the problem.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.