So, national review has an article about how the 3 major types of currently recommended “gun control” legislation would not have prevented or stopped the Alexandria shooting. Now, if you believe the NR article, then, you might believe that there exists no reasonable gun control legislation which would have had an effect on the Alexandria shooting done by Hodgkinson.
Forgive my being the devil’s advocate, but, OK, here are the problems with the analysis offered by NR.
1) Those who have been convicted of drunk driving and who then buy guns legally have a tremendously high rate of subsequent gun violence and other crimes of violence, at least as measured by arrest rates. Sure, it is not currently a leading gun control proposal, but it is a matter of fact proven by several studies that those convicted of drunk driving, as Hodgkinson was at the time of much of his gun ownership, have what are considered unreasonably high rates of gun and assault crimes.
2) the gun control advocates desire universal background checks and this would not have stopped the purchases done by Hodgkinson . . . sure, but it would have stopped the shootings at Columbine by the 2 kids, or at least, made those shootings much less likely–as we know from the testimony of the woman who bought the guns, without a background check requirement, for the 2 Columbine shooters. By the way, being a gun owner and believing that universal background checks are a good thing is not inconsistent. Polls show that about 90% of gun owners believe in and support universal background checks.
3) According to police reports, Hodgkinson committed several misdemeanor crimes of violence, for which he was charged but the charges were dismissed. Pointing a loaded gun at someone is a crime under many circumstances; shooting a gun in someone’s direction as a means of intimidation is a crime in many circumstances.
Hodgkinson did these things–or so it is alleged–and was charged and the charges were dismissed. The question is why. Well, either the prosecutors believed that they lacked sufficient evidence for a conviction, OR, the prosecutor let Hodgkinson go into some anger management class diversion thing or something similar. We don’t know, but that kind of diversion is one reason that Washington state has its emergency risk protection orders–so that the standard for yanking someone’s guns away is less burdensome than proof in criminal court beyond a reasonable doubt.
OJ walked and there are others whose jury is confused and others where the case never gets to the jury. In Australia they did a study of conviction rates of various crimes for those who did not plead guilty and for burglary and some other similar crimes, the conviction rate is about 50% and for rape, it is less than 50% . . .
Lots of people just get a plea deal taking their charge from a felony to a misdemeanor or they plead to “attempted whatever” which is, nearly always, a misdemeanor rather than a felony. Now, why someone who has pled to attempted burglary or to possession of the tools of burglary should be considered a good candidate for gun ownership I would not know.
To give you one example, persons who are convicted of drunk driving and whose license is suspended, drive with a suspended license, it is estimated, at a rate of greater higher than 50%. If you wish, let there be a restoration process, but still, I think any reasonable person is going to doubt that those who have committed attempted burglary or possession of the tools of burglary are not a good choice for gun ownership, at least in the last 2 or 5 or 10 years.