Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This morning there was yet another mass shooting in California. One little fact I pulled out of the news coverage for this was that the gun involved was legally purchased in California. This brings up an inconvenient fact for gun control proponents.
California has some of the strictest gun control in the country. It's gun control laws are a model of what the left wing gun control advocates want to foist on the country as a while. But now we've had the third (at least) mass shooting where the gun(s) used were legally purchased in CA, under it's gun control laws. The other two are San Bernadino and Isla Vista.
The reason this is a major point of the failure of gun control is that gun grabbers in liberal states complain that other states more reasonable gun laws allow guns to come into the hard core gun control states, and cause the killings. This was plainly not the case in these events. So it goes to show that even if CA's laws were implemented at the federal level, they'd have little or no effect in reducing mass shootings.
The Isla Vista shooting is also instructive in evaluating the effectiveness of another pet policy of gun control advocates. They want to screen people buying or owning guns for mental instability, and try and take away their guns. AFAIK CA allows for this. In Isla Vista, the shooter popped up on the local law enforcement's radar. They interviewed the guy not long before the shooting, and took no action. So this speaks to the effectiveness (or lack thereof.)
This morning there was yet another mass shooting in California. One little fact I pulled out of the news coverage for this was that the gun involved was legally purchased in California. This brings up an inconvenient fact for gun control proponents.
California has some of the strictest gun control in the country. It's gun control laws are a model of what the left wing gun control advocates want to foist on the country as a while. But now we've had the third (at least) mass shooting where the gun(s) used were legally purchased in CA, under it's gun control laws. The other two are San Bernadino and Isla Vista.
The reason this is a major point of the failure of gun control is that gun grabbers in liberal states complain that other states more reasonable gun laws allow guns to come into the hard core gun control states, and cause the killings. This was plainly not the case in these events. So it goes to show that even if CA's laws were implemented at the federal level, they'd have little or no effect in reducing mass shootings.
The Isla Vista shooting is also instructive in evaluating the effectiveness of another pet policy of gun control advocates. They want to screen people buying or owning guns for mental instability, and try and take away their guns. AFAIK CA allows for this. In Isla Vista, the shooter popped up on the local law enforcement's radar. They interviewed the guy not long before the shooting, and took no action. So this speaks to the effectiveness (or lack thereof.)
Perhaps more in-depth screening and longer wait times might help. Maybe there should be a restriction on the size of the magazines. I'm not a gun person so I may be way off base. Just putting together some thoughts from past shooting information I have seen.
Perhaps more in-depth screening and longer wait times might help. Maybe there should be a restriction on the size of the magazines. I'm not a gun person so I may be way off base. Just putting together some thoughts from past shooting information I have seen.
I don't believe the problem is futile. Just leaders who refuse to do what they should for the safety of the public. It's probably a combination of changing gun laws, more mental health and education and other things that might help.
Laws against murder does not stop it from happening does it? Doesn't mean the laws shouldn't exist.
Don't tempt them. In order to make their pretzel logic work, they might agree with that idea. These discussions are ridiculous in the extreme, it's like arguing with a literal Bible believer. Follow something literally and blindly no matter the consequences. Common sense be damned.
This morning there was yet another mass shooting in California. One little fact I pulled out of the news coverage for this was that the gun involved was legally purchased in California. This brings up an inconvenient fact for gun control proponents.
California has some of the strictest gun control in the country. It's gun control laws are a model of what the left wing gun control advocates want to foist on the country as a while. But now we've had the third (at least) mass shooting where the gun(s) used were legally purchased in CA, under it's gun control laws. The other two are San Bernadino and Isla Vista.
The reason this is a major point of the failure of gun control is that gun grabbers in liberal states complain that other states more reasonable gun laws allow guns to come into the hard core gun control states, and cause the killings. This was plainly not the case in these events. So it goes to show that even if CA's laws were implemented at the federal level, they'd have little or no effect in reducing mass shootings.
The Isla Vista shooting is also instructive in evaluating the effectiveness of another pet policy of gun control advocates. They want to screen people buying or owning guns for mental instability, and try and take away their guns. AFAIK CA allows for this. In Isla Vista, the shooter popped up on the local law enforcement's radar. They interviewed the guy not long before the shooting, and took no action. So this speaks to the effectiveness (or lack thereof.)
Get one thing straight:
California wants STRICTER gun control laws. The current laws are completely INADEQUATE.
But CA's hands are tied because... Republican guns nuts.
These shootings absolutely vindicate CA's stance that the current laws are not good enough and we need much stricter laws!!
California wants STRICTER gun control laws. The current laws are completely INADEQUATE.
But CA's hands are tied because... Republican guns nuts.
These shootings absolutely vindicate CA's stance that the current laws are not good enough and we need much stricter laws!!
.
And stricter laws would just stop people from defending themselves. After all, these shooters had one thing in common, they all broke existing laws and would just break any new laws too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
