search
top

Crap From the Hometown Paper

It’s good to see things haven’t changed much in Delaware County since I left. The Delco Times is still a rag, and spewing nonsense:

Cho was once pronounced an imminent danger to himself at a psychiatric hospital. Virginia Tech professors pleaded with him to get counseling, especially after he was evicted from one English class for the violent nature of his writing.

Seegrist had been hospitalized 12 times for schizophrenia in the 10 years before she committed the mall murders and was known to local law enforcement authorities for her violent behavior.

And yet, both shooters were easily able to purchase assault weapons, in part, because there was no waiting period for background checks and because the federal assault weapons ban was no longer in effect.

I haven’t heard the name Sylvia Seegrist for a while, but she was prohibited by federal law from purchasing a firearm. Cho waited to get two handguns because of Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law, and neither of his firearms were assault weapons. Sylvia Seegrist’s firearm?

The ban had not yet been enacted when, for $104 at Best Products in Marple, Seegrist purchased the Ruger .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle she used to mow down her victims at Springfield Mall. If the 1994 federal assault weapons ban had not been allowed by Congress to expire in 2004, the Virginia Tech tragedy, the largest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history, may have been averted.

A 10/22 is now an assault rifle? At least they are being clear: any gun they don’t like is one in their view.  Neither of Cho’s gun were covered by the ban, and to say that he would have not carried out his little rampage if he couldn’t get a hold of fifteen round magazines is laughable.

Read the whole sad thing. More ignorance from journalists who can’t be bothered to do research.

5 Responses to “Crap From the Hometown Paper”

  1. Wai says:

    Ironic that my non-resident CCW permit for Pa. is issued by Delaware County, which is up for renewal in a few months. At least the Sheriff’s office there has good sense.

  2. The part that annoys me is the fact that there is no mechanism to refute the claims the author makes short of writing the editor. No comments allowed.

    It’s a shame that the author, or the paper, is unwilling to allow the debate to happen on their doorstep when they so happily put their hat in the ring.

    BTW, Sebastian, thank you for always providing links/citations to your sources of data, both on your blog and in the comments you leave elsewhere.

  3. Alcibiades McZombie says:

    Seegrist’s Wikipedia page says she purchased a Mini-14. The price of $104 seems kind of low for a Mini-14, though.

    But Crime library shows what appears to be a 10/22. (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/sylvia_seegrist/4.html) It’s probably worth reading that account, as it seems a little different than Wikipedia’s…

    Still, that rifle was specifically exempted, so it really wouldn’t change anything.

  4. straightarrow says:

    Read the whole sad thing. More ignorance from journalists who can’t be bothered to do research.:-Sebastian.

    It’s not ignorance, Sebastian. They know the truth. They don’t care. It’s disingenuousness.

  5. Sebastian says:

    It was 1985, so the price may be right. I don’t honestly remember what she had, but I don’t recall anyone debating guns at the time, only how to better deal with mental cases.

    Either way, the Mini-14 wasn’t banned, ever. They are legal in CA too.

top