Illinois Capitol Shooting

Yesterday a gunman shot a guard at the Illinois Capitol Building, killing him and spawning a massive manhunt. The shooter is now in custody, so let the paranoid reactions begin. It's obvious that two things will happen:

1. An unnecessary increase in security at the Capitol Building at taxpayer expense both in dollars spent to install security devices, and in time and access to their legislators. One random shooting of a security guard does not justify turning the Capitol into an impenetrable fortress. Up until yesterday, the guards at the building had no guns and there were no metal detectors. The number of deaths at the Capitol prior to yesterday? Zero. Now they will install metal detectors and issue weapons to security because of one shooting incident in the building's entire history. Welcome to Fortress America.

2. A shrill and likely irrational debate between uncompromising pro- and anti-gun advocates. The suspect allegedly had walked into a gun shop earlier in the day with a shotgun and demanded that the owner give him an assault rifle. This is where the story gets scary. You have to wonder whether this man intended to walk into the Capitol with the assualt weapon and really cause some damage. Luckily, the gun shop owner was not intimidated:

Police said the shooting appeared to be linked to an attempted robbery earlier in the day. Someone matching the description of the Capitol shooter and carrying a 12-gauge shotgun went into a nearby military surplus store, Birds N Brooks, at about 12:25 p.m. and demanded a high-powered rifle.The would-be robber fled, police said, and the shop owner locked himself in his office and began shooting through the door, injuring his son in the arm.

So gun control activists will point to this incident and say, "Aha! This is why they should not have let the assault weapons ban expire!" First, the gun owner did not sell the gun to the suspect, nor was he frightened into giving one to the shotgun toting felon. Instead, he politely asked the man to leave his store in a hail of searing lead. So the pro-gun lobby will point to this and say, "Aha! This is why people should be allowed to carry weapons, with a permit."

The solution to the gun problem is likely somewhere in between. Here, our suspect appears to have desired to spray the Capitol with bullets from an assault rifle, but was instead limited to firing a handgun. He had one victim rather than several. You can't keep evil people from committing evil deeds. They will find a way. But this incident is a good example of a situation where the assault weapons ban may have had a positive impact. It would have limited the tragedy. Luckily, even with the assault weapons ban lifted, the shooter was not able to procure one. Kudos, perhaps, to the gun purchase safeguards in place.

There are many isolated weapons incidents of this sort, emphasis on isolated. But a major tragedy may have been averted yesterday by a law-abiding gun owner, while at the same time a lesson may have been learned about the desirability of allowing assault weapons on the streets.

Update: I originally missed this quote in the attached article:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich was not in Springfield at the time but returned later to talk about the shooting, expressing sympathy to the victim's family and calling for tighter security.``We will not allow cold-blooded killers to keep our people away from their government,'' the governor said.

If you've read #1 above, it will be obvious to you that, yes, the cold-blooded killer will keep people away from their government as it becomes ever more annoying to get into any public installation as a result of paranoid security measures.