They always grab upon any incident even if it has no bearing whatsoever on the proposed legislation. Last year I went to hearing at the VT Statehouse on anti-gun legislation being advocated for by Bloomberg’s group. The gun rights side was saying there isn’t a problem here that needs solving. The anti-gun side was using examples that happened as far away as in Alaska and as far back as in the 1960’s for why we needed more gun laws in VT. They talked about gun violence (actual or threatened) against women by husbands and boyfriends and when challenged couldn’t come up without a single example of a guy that bought a gun legally that wouldn’t have been able to do so if their proposed legislation was in place. In the end most of what they wanted didn’t get passed. The parts that did pass was prohibiting people with felony convictions for certain violent and drug offenses from having guns and for people judged in court to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others from having guns. Amongst the things not passed was requiring background checks for private sales and not allowing the liberal heart of VT (Burlington) to have its own gun regulations. What Burlington wanted was to prohibit guns from any place that served alcohol, to require certain “safe” gun storage, and to allow police to confiscate guns in domestic dispute incidents. We’ll see what they come back with this year.