Indy Star reports on the latest "guns are bad news for women" story. "Arrested" not convicted, which means of course he probably still owned his guns legally and had a concealed carry permit in his wallet. It's true there's nothing about that in the story, but it's also true that just about any idiot can get one of those in Indiana. And once you get one, it's nearly impossible to lose the thing.The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department is investigating a Westside shooting where they believe a man shot a woman before killing himself.Police received a call about the incident around 12:20 a.m. They found Jonathan Ogden, 43, and Veronica Bailey, 40, both of Indianapolis, in the front yard with gunshot wounds.The two, who were not married but had been living together for more than 20 years, died at the home.Police believe that Ogden shot Bailey and then himself after the two had a fight.Ogden was arrested before — on May 25 — on suspicion of domestic battery.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
And any idiot can make claims without evidence. Do you have any support for the idea that this man had a carry license?
ReplyDeleteHow about we speculate that he was employed by the Democratic Party in Indiana? With a nose like his, I imagine that he's taken a few beatings.
MikeB: “’Arrested’ not convicted, which means of course he probably still owned his guns…”
ReplyDeleteAnd that she didn’t file a restraining order.
When a person is ready to dump amendments from the Constitution, as gun control advocates are, stopping with just the Second isn't enough. Suspicion is as good as conviction.
DeleteWhy do you guys support the rights of wife-beaters and obviously unfit people to own guns? Isn't that going a bit too far?
DeleteHow do you figure that? There are laws in place, but action needs to happen to invoke them.
DeleteMikeb, just stop. Where did I support this man? I refuse to jump to unwarranted conclusions, and I refuse to take away rights from someone who has not be convicted or otherwise sent through due process, but neither of those is support for a wife beater. Too many things are obvious to you, in the same way that too many things were obvious to the priests of the Inquisition. When rights can be taken away because someone in power is suspicious, that's a tyranny. Why can't you see that?
DeleteStory is way too thin for me to start forming an opinion. Should be way too thin for you to start doing that too, Mikeb.
ReplyDeleteIt's convenient for you guys to defend each other when there's plenty of indication that the system failed to identify this guy sufficiently to disarm him. He was/is one of you.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, you claim that you're not trying to take away our gun rights. You can't tell the difference between us and this man. You would have taken away his gun rights, if you'd had the opportunity. Why do you say that you're not looking to take ours away? You can't tell the difference. For once, be honest about your intentions.
DeleteGreg, the part about not being able to tell you guys apart is when I go to Starbucks with my kids and one of you swaggering, obvious gun owners comes in. I can't tell by looking if he's one of the responsible ones or if he's just been fired from his job and left by his girlfriend and is about to blow.
DeleteThe ways to disarm the unfit and irresponsible before they do something wrong are, among others, these:
1. MAIG's fix background checks
2. May issue
3. Licensing of gun owners including psychological screening.
1. Mayors Against Guns may bloviate all they wish. Given the number of felons in their ranks, they probably just want to make sure that they can continue their crimes in peace.
Delete2. May issue will never happen in the states that have gone shall issue. More states come our way regularly.
3. You want to sit on Oprah's couch and spill? Be my guest. I, on the other hand, have no desire to do that. Besides, you've yet to explain how 100,000,000 of us will get tested in any practical period of time.