Governor Doyle is correct. Tougher and more meaningful gun laws are needed in Wisconsin.
The sad story this week from Marinette gained national attention. If is easy to see why. A school shooting, students being held hostage, and all the drama that plays out in such a situation is perfect for television news.
But there are shootings and slayings that occur far too often in our largest city in the state. The lives in Milwaukee are just as precious. The loss just as real. Yet the headlines blur from one shooting to the next. One death to the next. We become jaded by the constant stories of crime and pain that is played out by someone with a hand gun.
I know that any plea for more strict gun laws is like spitting into a stiff north wind. And yet as he is about to leave office Governor Doyle made news after the death of Samuel Hengel. In some small way he gave voice to what many feel.
Governor Jim Doyle says the Marinette High School hostage incident shows why tougher gun control laws are needed.
Doyle said in Milwaukee Tuesday that he felt sorrow for those affected by the incident – in which student Samuel Hengel held almost 2 dozen students and a teacher hostage for 5 hours before he shot and killed himself.
All those who spout the Second Amendment, or smirk at the words of the Governor have no reason to fear the loss of any rights. There is no more a chance that tougher gun laws are coming to this state than I will be playing for the Packers in a Super Bowl.
I know that.
But I also know that unless we keep speaking about gun control, and keep trying to make a difference there will be nothing but more endless headlines about promising young people who died far too ealry.
I think we should look into the eyes of Samuel Hengel and ask if just perhaps we failed him by allowing the gun culture to always win the political battles. I think Governor Doyle is correct in that we need to address more forthrightly the gun laws of this state.
Image from AP/CBS News
CAFFEINATED POLITICS 
And what would tougher laws accomplish. The guns were more than likely legally owned what kind of law would you create to punish those who obey the law that would have stopped this tragedy.
I would tend to agree – I would guess he probably got the guns from his parents or some other adult’s house or something similar. I highly doubt he bought them somewhere. So, given that, how exactly do tougher gun laws stop this exact thing from happening?
I challenge you to tell me how tougher gun laws would stop a kid from taking a gun from his parents’ closet, and I fully expect silence in response, because they can’t and won’t.
No silence here.
You wrongly start from the end of the process with your question.
You do not start with how to “stop a kid from taking a gun from his parents’ closet”
First we stop the manufacturing and sale of a whole series of guns.
We limit sales.
We tighten who can have guns.
We register all guns.
We make it harder for kids to get guns as they simply will not be around.
We do not start with how to ” stop a kid from taking a gun from his parents’ closet”……we stop the gun from getting into the closet in the first place.
This is not the old-west. The weapons this kid had should never have been in anyone’s home to start with.
That’s where I thought this was going – stopping or restricting responsible adults from purchasing legal firearms.
The kid had a .22 and a 9mm. Not anything armor-piercing, high tech, or special. Common, regular peashooters like my grandpa had. So, regarding restricting sales and manufacturing, are you saying we should ban all handguns?
Registering guns? Wouldn’t have stopped this.
I have no problem with common sense restrictions involving criminal background checks on potential firearms purchasers, but from what I’ve read, I don’t think that would have stopped this kid’s parents from purchasing a gun. So…. wouldn’t have stopped this.
Huh. Doesn’t seem like any of these would have stopped this from happening, does it?
First the teenager killed himself with the “pea shooter” after holding a class hostage with the two weapons that were a .22 caliber semiautomatic weapon and 9mm semiautomatic’.
Second “responsible adults ” were missing from this story as no “responsible adults ” would ever allow guns of this type to be unlocked around one who has no appreciation for the harm that can occur, or unable to make responsible decisions.
We can go round and round, but the NRA line never makes sense to me. The NRA mindset is simple-minded and leading to only one place.
The funeral for a gun victim.
That you are fine with that is your issue. I just can not agree.
Ok, one question then – what criteria would you use to screen who is and is not responsible and OK to buy a gun – criminal history wouldn’t have stopped this kid’s parents, so what criteria to prescreen buyers would stop this type of thing from happening?
We can see from the above comments that this tragic incident has nothinhg wqhatsoever to do with gun laws. One commenter challeges us to posit a gun law which might have helped in this case of suicide , and the response is an unserious call for prohibition and confiscation.
That debate is over. The Constitutional right to keep and bear arms has been confirmed, and laws empowering that right, such as expanded right-to-carry and clarification of the right of self-defense, have swept the nation. Moreover, guns and ammunition are being produced and sold at unprecedented rates, so the people are voting for keeping our guns not just at the ballot box, but with our wallets, as well.
“Moreover, guns and ammunition are being produced and sold at unprecedented rates”
Lou hits the mark as to what the NRA has acheived. Line the pockets of the gun manufactures, and dealers. Let kids die from guns. Pay for funerals.
Hell of a way to keep the economy running.
Dag,
Fair question.
I truly think that your question comes at the end of a much longer and needed process to make gun violence a reduced problem in this country.
I think first we need to start at looking as a nation at what type of guns should be allowed to be manufactured and sold. I think we make too many, and sell too many.
You migth recall the Saturday night specials. That is one example of cheap guns made for one purpose. Quick money, and the buyers used them often for crimes. Should the manufacturer have had the right to make them? The public to buy them?
Do we need automatic weapons of the type that anyone can buy today? Is that what one uses for target pratice with tin cans?
I would perfer that gun owners have a place where they could target shoot if they desire, but be required to keep the weapons on site. Locked and safe.
You assume that people need to have a gun, or a right to buy one. I, to be honest, do not feel that is a sane policy.
Let us assume that you are right, and that people should own guns. How many guns does one person have the right to own? What type of guns? Are those that police departments wish were not on the streets that can use bullets that shred officers truly worthy of being owned? Where does the security of law enforcement fit into the ‘right’ of the average Joe to have a weapon?
Laws that are harsh on those who allow guns not to be under lock would send another message that we serious in this nation.
There are many ways to come at this problem. That this country fails to try at all is the alarming fact that leaves us with the deaths of too many folks in this country.