Saturday, June 18, 2011

Even in the Safest City in America Guns are Bad News for Women

IRVINE – A man suspected of shooting a woman to death outside an Irvine home was taken into custody Thursday after a more than two-hour manhunt in the village of Turtle Rock, authorities said.

Police say Alejandra Hernandez, an employee at a private daycare center adjacent to Turtle Rock Elementary School, was shot by her estranged husband, John Rand Agosta, in a cul-de-sac across from the campus.

The apparent homicide was Irvine's first since 2009. Irvine has statistically ranked as the safest large city in America for the past seven years, based on FBI crime data covering communities with more than 100,000 residents.
I figure there are two possibilities. Either he was a legitimate gun owner who went bad, something the gun-rights folks keep trying to say is extremely rare, or he was a guy who couldn't own a gun legally but had no trouble getting one anyway. This goes back to the lawful gun owners since they are the source af nearly all guns used in crime.

So, there's no escape. People who want lax gun laws in order to save themselves a bit of inconvenience and expense, must accept responsibility for the results of those lax or non-existent laws.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.


  1. Mike B., you can ban guns totally and a criminal who wants one is going to break the law and get one regardless of the law. All you want to do with your excessive gun regulations is penalize lawful citizens.

    Regulations that require monetary investment for permits and other red taspe will unnecessarily hurt lower income gun owners who might not be able to afford the costs involved.

    Mike G.

  2. That is false Mr.G.

    We have no reason to subsidize gun ownership; there are reasonable costs associated with regulating gun ownership to keep guns only in the hands of legal owners that such fees are appropriate.

    The notion that if you restrict guns it will only affect the lawful is specious. In countries where it is harder to get guns, fewer criminals get guns.

    Lawful owners and non-gunowners alike are safer from bad people with guns when we make it harder for them to get them.

    Your argument is like saying we shouldn't make it more difficult for drunk drivers to drive because some people will drink and drive anyway. Yes, a few will; but there are counties where the culture surrounding drunk driving is more condemnatory of that conduct, and where the penalties for doing so are higher and harsher, and where when one drinks it is harder for them to get access to a car, particularly after the first offense.

  3. To the drunk driving analogy; we don't do a damn thing to try and prevent someone from drinking and driving in the first place short of education. What we do is punish those who do wrong. And I am fine by those methods for gun control; educate, and punish the criminals.

  4. dog gone - we don't ticket everyone as if they were a drunk driver before we let them drive either. Only those guilty of drunk driving are punished for their offense. Additionally, driving is simply a privilege that is legislated by the government. Gun ownership is a right protected by the Constitution. The correct analogy would be to taxing everyone to vote to cover the costs of voting. If you could not afford the tax, you would not be allowed to vote. Do you support that? I doubt it.

  5. Mike G., I don't believe that idea that criminals will always get guns. We should make it as difficult as possible for them to do so, as opposed to what we do now which in many places is to make it as easy as possible.