"I Don't Want Your Sympathy!"

[Sandy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

We'll continue having mass shootings as long as there's no accountability or responsibility involved in gun ownership. It's not only a tragedy that we are getting too used to living with, it is an offense and an affront to any gun owner who is responsible and accountable.

At least this parent is pushing forward. But there are only a couple of things now that will stop this stuff from happening.

1. Campaign finance reform. When Congress can't be bought, laws regarding guns will change because they will not have a financial constituency to which to be indebted and to which they owe favors.
2. A mass shooting at a school or other venue in the middle of an extremist Congressman's district, resulting in his loss of enough votes to be replaced. By a Democrat.
3. A mass shooting at a school where a high profile contributor or official of the NRA or one of its supporting corporations has children enrolled, or where family members were present.

[Tim Bonney]

I pretty much agree with you Sandy. Sadly it takes extreme events to get anyone to do the right thing.

[William Thornton]

Any father who has had a child murdered has sadly earned the right to express himself.

That said:

1. The murderer passed two background checks on his gun purchases.
2. He had two simple pistols, not "assault" weapons.
3. Half of his victims were killed with a knife.
4. The real issue here is mental illness, not gun control.
5. CA already has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation.

I am moderate on gun control laws but I don't know what new laws would have prevented these murders. Perhaps you can suggest some. When Sandy says new laws will "stop this stuff from happening" presumably as Democrats are elected, then he should explain how.

[Sandy]

If the comprehensive background check bill that got the approval of 54 senators last year had passed, this guy could not have purchased the pistols.

[William Thornton]

[Sandy]

He was reported on a registry that would have showed the report his parents made to the Santa Barbara police regarding his mental condition and their concern about his instability. That would have flagged on the background check, and delayed the sale of the pistols.

54 senators voted in favor of that bill, but under unconstitutional rules, a majority is not enough. So America will continue to allow its children and young people to be subject to mass murder. There were armed security guards and police within yards of where this guy went crazy, and no one could stop it. Likewise, the most recent Fort Hood shooting took place in an area where people were loaded with weapons, couldn't stop it. No law or rule will be perfect, but apparently most other progressive Democracies in the world have succeeded in preventing mass shootings, where the US has failed miserably. Maybe it would be a good idea to look into what Switzerland, with the world's highest gun ownership, does to prevent mass shootings. It's called "responsible gun ownership."

[ET]

I would like hear our friends' advice on how we may put a stop to "knife violence". Would this even be a post if the guy had only killed three people with a knife? Or if he had killed all 6 people with a knife? Maybe....but you wouldn't have politicians lining up to ban knives or talk about "ending knife violence".

California has about every so-called "common-sense" regulation that some wish to impose on a national scale. Reduced magazine capacity. Waiting periods. Ban on so-called "assault" weapons. Even has an "approved handgun list" whereby manufacturers must get their handgun approved for sale in the state.

The guy had forty-one 10-round magazines from one bit I read. Magazine capacity didn't come into play from anything I read, but if it had, would it have really mattered if he had 400+ rounds in 10-round magazines instead of in twenty-five or so 15-round magazines? No, but like many leftists arguments, silly screaming about "high capacity magazines" sounds reasonable, and since people want someone to "do something", such idiocy gets put into law even if it is completely detached from reality and utterly useless.

There are no solutions, only trade-offs. For every person you "save" by banning handguns (and please don't try to tell me that isn't the ultimate goal), you kill another because a man or woman didn't have a gun, or subject a host of others to assault or theft because they didn't have a means to neutralize what is often a larger, more physically intimidating threat.

One could also say gun control is an example of visible vs invisible costs, a concept usually applied to economics. The visible costs are stories such as this wacko who killed 6 people and garnered national news and message board discussions and commentaries probably even in other countries. The invisible costs are the linked stories above that go largely unnoticed where a much larger number of folks are not subjected to violence - whether by gun or any other instrument - each day because they did remove the threat with a gun either by its appearance or putting it to use. But rarely does NOT being the victim of a crime get anything more than local news attention and maybe a story on a web site here and there.

[ET]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

I would be open to additional gun control measures involving mental health patients and issues but I'm not sure what is workable and what would be helpful as opposed to what would make the gun control lobby feel good. California had laws but if what I read was right, there was no check on gun purchase unless an individual had been admitted as a MH patient.

[ET]

No, it really doesn't. Being trained by a gun club or the military or having a registered weapon doesn't do squat to prevent a wacko from being set off and going on a shooting rampage. The guy in California used registered guns. He possessed magazines that were regulated to only have 10 rounds as specified by California law. This guy waited out the waiting-period in CA, so he would have been patient enough to go through a training course. California has some of the toughest gun control laws in this country, yet this incident happened. Taking away his gun wasn't going to do anything. Somebody like that would have just found an alternative avenue to carry out his evil deeds.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

Not all mass shootings are preventable in a culture where everyone can own a gun. But most other developed countries have a much better success rate with this than the US does. I think the Swiss are probably on to something with their training course requirement. That shouldn't upset the NRA, since I think they advocate for that sort of thing among their membership. It shouldn't bother the manufacturers, or sellers either because it would be another money making angle for them. It might be difficult for someone who is suffering from mental problems to sustain the patience and discipline necessary to complete a rigorous gun ownership class.