Rules didn’t prevent tragedy in Marysville high school


by Lars Larson

I’ve marked my ballot in Washington State and it’s a “no” vote on Initiative 594, an anti-gun bill by any standard.

When a teenager went crazy and shot his friends at Pilchuck High School in Marysville, Washington, a number of you wrote to me and said it would fuel the support for 594. In fact, the opposite is true.

Jaylen Fryberg shot five of his classmates before shooting and killing himself. Police say Fryberg used a .40 caliber handgun belonging to his father. Initiative 594 would not have prevented Jaylen Fryberg from getting a hold of that gun.

Three months ago his parents gave him a hunting rifle for his birthday. Initiative 594 would not have prevented that because gifts among family members are exempt under 594.

These so called “expanded background checks” are a favorite political hobby horse of folks who think rules will stop crimes. Fryberg broke one rule by bringing a pistol to school, broke another by shooting it, broke more by murdering classmates, and even broke a law by killing himself.

Rules didn’t stop him – and passing one more won’t make any difference at all. A teacher stopped the shooting – but might have stopped it sooner if armed with a gun.

For more Lars Larson, visit Lars’ web site

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in 2nd Amendment, Gun Control | 5 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Eric Blair

    This is really poorly thought out. As usual. Using his logic… why have laws? Obviously there are people who are not stopped by them.

    Oh, and in the HS — murder isn’t just against the rules, it’s also against the law.

    • BDRogers22

      No one is saying we shouldn’t have laws. But we should have smart laws that actually target criminals, instead of passing laws that sound good, but do little to nothing to stop criminals and actually end up putting new burdens on the law-abiding.

  • Jack Lord God

    The argument that another law would have prevented this or that crime is totally specious. We could immediately cut violent crime down to virtually nothing by passing a law incarcerating all males under 30. We don’t do that not because such a law would be ineffective, but because there is a balancing act between infringing on peoples rights and preventing crime.

    This is especially true when it comes to laws that are of dubious origin (gun control being racist in origin) and of pernicious enforcement (gun control laws almost almost always used to harass and prosecute the law abiding rather than criminals).

    Since dopey gun laws really have never hadmuch of an effect on crime, and arguably exacerbate it most gun laws belong on the ash heap of history. The country has turned its back on them. Good riddance as far as I am concerned. I’m tired of these people who can’t just shut their pie hole and stop trying to infringe on everyone’s rights so they can feel good.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)