This is a slightly interesting troll, not from Wrag but from the author of the editorial.
The fact that it is an editorial and not even an attempt at a true investigatory story throws a spin on it. Frankly there is too little information in the "article" to really get a true idea of the circumstances of the "abduction" and court ordered visitation restrictions.
Domestic situations are always such a quagmire once the accusations start flying. It's so emotionally charged that it's almost impossible to sort out.
If there were more info you could possibly draw some kind of conclusion about the circumstances of the original incident. The only real point made is the author wants to insure the female side of a divorce has access to a weapon to defend themselves. On the face of it that's kind of silly as they already have that option in the US UNLESS they also are under a DV charge as domestic violence precludes firearms ownership. I also don't see given the extremely sketchy info in the articla that the possession of a firearm would have stopped the murders. Obviously the mother wasn't present at the time of the killings.
Depending on Police to stop a crime is a matter of fickle circumstances at best as the Officer has to be there to see the situation happening in order to do anything about it other than to investigate it after the fact. Anyone who believes a phone and dialing 911 will protect them is silly at best and a victim at worst. You can't call out "kings x" and have the assailant stop the assault while you both wait for the 911 call and Police to arrive before continuing the crime.
In almost all situations Law Enforcement is a reactive operation and not proactive particularly given the constitutional guarantees. There has to be a crime FIRST before the Police can take action.
