Self-Defense? Not Likely
Wouldn't you know it? Walter Bishop, the shooter in the story I linked to yesterday was, by all accounts, a licensed gun owner. I'm pulling some information together on this story, but regardless of the outcome, look for this jackass to become the newest poster-moron for the anti-gun crusaders. Thanks, asshole.
A couple items of note:
1. If you come across a guy with whom you had an earlier altercation and ram his car with your vehicle, then shoot him repeatedly at close range times as he's lifting his infant daughter out of her car seat, that's called "murder". It is not "self-defense" as this guy's lawyer claims.
2. Some news accounts have stated that Bishop was taking "a number of medications" to treat depression. I'm thinking that if this true at the time of his most recent LTC renewal, then it's quite possible that he may have been ineligible from possessing a handgun in Massachusetts.
There are too many facts missing and questions unanswered for any definite conclusions to be made at this time, but all signs point to a legitimate charge of murder against Mr. Bishop here. Naturally, we can expect his lawyers to assign blame to the victim or to the fact that their client was "depressed" and that the drugs "made him snap". At the same time, we can expect the gun control goon squad to blame the gun for transforming a peaceable man into a maniacal killer.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: I'm not sure now whether Walter Bishop's depression would automatically disallow him from being licensed to own a handgun. What I've found so far indicates that a license can be denied if the applicant had been confined to a hospital or institution for mental illness, or had a record of past or current treatment for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness.
Of course, this being Massachsuetts, I'd think that having a record of medical treatment for depression would certainly disqualify someone from being licensed. Compared to all the bullshit reasons a lot of local police chiefs have pulled out of their asses in the past to deny a gun license to otherwise law-abiding folks, this one would seem to be legit.
A couple items of note:
1. If you come across a guy with whom you had an earlier altercation and ram his car with your vehicle, then shoot him repeatedly at close range times as he's lifting his infant daughter out of her car seat, that's called "murder". It is not "self-defense" as this guy's lawyer claims.
2. Some news accounts have stated that Bishop was taking "a number of medications" to treat depression. I'm thinking that if this true at the time of his most recent LTC renewal, then it's quite possible that he may have been ineligible from possessing a handgun in Massachusetts.
There are too many facts missing and questions unanswered for any definite conclusions to be made at this time, but all signs point to a legitimate charge of murder against Mr. Bishop here. Naturally, we can expect his lawyers to assign blame to the victim or to the fact that their client was "depressed" and that the drugs "made him snap". At the same time, we can expect the gun control goon squad to blame the gun for transforming a peaceable man into a maniacal killer.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: I'm not sure now whether Walter Bishop's depression would automatically disallow him from being licensed to own a handgun. What I've found so far indicates that a license can be denied if the applicant had been confined to a hospital or institution for mental illness, or had a record of past or current treatment for drug addiction or habitual drunkenness.
Of course, this being Massachsuetts, I'd think that having a record of medical treatment for depression would certainly disqualify someone from being licensed. Compared to all the bullshit reasons a lot of local police chiefs have pulled out of their asses in the past to deny a gun license to otherwise law-abiding folks, this one would seem to be legit.
