Skip to comments.What Gun Control Would Have Worked (vanity)
Posted on 05/25/2014 6:16:08 AM PDT by BobL
I've been trying to think of all the post-Sandy Hook gun control legislation that has been proposed (some of it passed), and I can't think of a single piece of legislation that would have stopped him. The only thing that I can come up with is a complete ban on handguns. What would not have helped:
1) Expanded background checks - he legally bought the guns - gun show, private buyer, no difference - they checked on him.
2) Gun Registration - all handguns are registered in California, and I assume his too, as he legally owned them
3) Smaller Magazines - I don't have enough details, but likely not
4) Smart Guns - They were his legal guns and he would have been the authorized mass killer
5) Preventing nuts from owning guns - Nope, he had enough sense not to get mixed up in the "mental health" system.
6) Waiting period - California already has something like 2 weeks before you take ownership of the gun you just bought.
7) Assault Weapons - Sorry, not used
Bottom line, no matter what they say, their end game has to be to take our guns (and we always knew that).
A complete ban on handguns wouldn’t have worked because he would have either bought them illegally or just used different weapons.
With a complete ban on handguns, only bad guys would have them....what does that accomplish.
How ‘bout a law that arms anybody that wants to be armed? An armed society is a polite society.
And he also started out by stabbing three men to death - http://www.keyt.com/news/Rampage-in-college-town-began-with-stabbings/26153616
One armed citizen is your answer.
My point exactly. He would have used a different weapon, such as an axe or a sword.
Good point...the guns are out there, and they are not going away. I guess my point was that he would have then had to break the law...but all this other crap would have permitted him to legally buy the guns and do what he did.
Very true. And it's not like you're just guessing here. The country's experience with Prohibition in the 1920's proves that you are correct.
The obvious solution is to castrate all boys as soon as they hit puberty, right?
Terrorists ignore ALL laws. And...they usually don’t need guns to do their dirty work.
Banning guns will have ZERO effect on violence if someone is hell bent on killing people. ZERO.
The gov’t defines mass murder as any event where 4 or more people besides the perp lose their life. Out of 317 million people, there are but a handful per year that distiguish themselves as mass murderers.
I too, cannot think of a single law or action that could stop these twisted and evil people.
Beyond the mass murderers, there are about 8,500 other murders per year. This number could be cut dramatically, but not thru gun control. The only method of cutting firearms related murders is thru criminal control.
Gun control is kind of like trying to solve drunken driving by making it harder for sober people to own cars.
I think you are posting on the wrong thread...Sandy Hook is 3,000 miles away from SoCal....jus’ sayin’...
He did break the law....he was too young to purchase. IIRC, he took them from his mother, and killed her with them. Please correct me if my recollection is wrong.
He knows that. Re-read please.
Re-read....coming up with the same response...help a brother out.
Gun control can work... in a way, and for a while, but not here. Consider what I call the “Singapore solution,” where gun crime is met by a death sentence, or perhaps caning until near death. Under those conditions—gun crime disappears. However, you also need a very tough judicial system, so that guns aren’t as necessary for personal self defense, and absolute trust in your government, so they aren’t necessary for defense against future government tyranny.
Those conditions aren’t met here. Tons of guns are available; the judicial system is too lax to frighten career criminals; and our government is untrustworthy and on the borderline of becoming downright adversarial. So, most gun control attempts here are misguided. They enhance criminal and government power by selectively affecting the law-abiding. In other words, as a society we are too disunited and corrupt. Most other countries are, as well.
All pistols were sold to him with 10 rd magazines IAW California law. The Sheriff stated this a the news conference on Saturday. Killer had no others.
He sent a manifesto to the news.
There is a ton of evidence on his hard drive and in the cloud via his online presence.
But when the police interviewed him, they thought he was "polite and nice." So they did nothing.
This is not a Second Amendment problem. This is a Fourth Amendment problem.
There is(and Never will be)A”Smart Gun”!A gun is an”Inanimate Object”that The Left upon which The Left has bestowed”Mystical Powers”!!It can commit murder and mayhem at it’s OWN Will;therefor,We Must”BAN THEM”!!!!!!!!!!!!
...”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”
Elliot Rodgers’ Youtube threats [& “manifesto”], which reportedly included threats to murder specific family members as well as others, should have been sufficient to institutionalize or prosecute him.
In most (if not all) jurisdictions, making “terroristic threats” is a crime. Threatening to commit multiple murders, including threats against specific individuals, would certainly qualify as a “terroristic threat”.
I.E. A quick Google turned up felony prosecutions for things such as making death threats via twitter. [E.G. Harrison William Rund of St. Paul, Minnesota.]
If one can be charged with a felony for making a death threats via twitter, one could certainly be prosecuted for making death threats via Youtube.
Authorities had ample warning and opportunity to intervene in this case. Instead, they chose to do nothing.
I don’t want to give crazy people ideas, but there’s absolutely nothing stopping a crazy person from killing people in a variety of ways. This guy first killed three people with a knife. There’s been instances of people murdering large numbers of people with knives in various places around the world. The key is to find crazy people first, and limit their actions.
Anything can be a weapon. Pencils, hammers, brass knuckles, pocket knife, pen, glass. If a nut like this wants to hurt people, he’ll hurt them. The topic now on CNNABCCBSMSNBC is gun control. “This never would have happened if ” “There seems to be a pattern with white males”. “This was a hate crime ”, “I understand he was a right winger”...
But one of the defining hallmarks of liberal is not ever learning from your mistakes. You can't learn if your attitude is "We just didn't go far enough." Rather than admit when they're wrong liberals always double down on stupidity. If they could learn they wouldn't BE liberals.
The OP is about the most recent killing spree in CA at UCSD, I think. Your comment has to do with Sandy Hook, CT. You guys are having an exchange like two ships passing in the night.
This kid, from reading just a few short minutes about him, would have found another way to kill the people he was after — a bomb of some kind, or perhaps a good old fashioned strangling, or maybe just running over multiple people with the BMW.
THIS KID would have found a way.
The liberal agenda has become all the more crystal clear to me now. They just simply REFUSE to allow anyone to bear responsibility for their actions — whether it be if they kill someone, or whether they have a baby out of wedlock, steal, show up late for work, or any irresponsible action.
There is to be NO ACCOUNTING FOR ANY ACTION. There is to be no judgment. Blame will always be placed on some other object, person, system, or institution. Never blame on the actual PERPETRATOR of the action. To do so is to admit that the person is not perfect, has faults, is wrong, or has a misguided value system, or is WEAK.
It’s all about self worship with these people. Just crystal clear now.
Parents, in the home, teaching their children morals and values would help more than anything.
Yeah....I figured it out. Would have been nice if he would have prefaced his post with a mention of UCSB.
The killer was actually already living in a sheltered apartment for the mentally ill - the first three victims (whom he stabbed to death) were his roommates. He was under the supervision of therapists, and in fact the therapists and his parents asked the police to check on him and the police decided he was ok.
First of all, why is that decision up to the police? Don’t the “therapists” do anything to earn their salaries?
Secondly, it says he bought the guns legally. Did he buy them before he was diagnosed with his illness? Or did he buy them while already living in a mental health facility, because mental illness advocates (mostly the same as the “homeless” advocates) have prevented such things from being recorded in any way, and thus the gun dealer wouldn’t have found anything when he checked?
The problem is mental illness and the way we deal with it. The “advocates” haven’t gotten them any better care, they’ve just covered up the problem - in between eruptions. All of the recent mass killers have been mentally ill and even under “treatment” at the time of their rampages.
I read that 3 of the victims were found stabbed to death in his apartment Haven’t heard anything more about that.
Doesn’t fit today’s narrative and incessant anti-gun drumbeat, can’t have people knowing the fact that those with a plan to kill will get it done with whatever implement is at hand.
The Thread on which I posted began with:
I've been trying to think of all the post-Sandy Hook ...
and I believe was describing the Santa Barbara shooter.
Which is irrelevant. Once Rodgers began making multiple death threats, AND posted them to youtube, he committed a crime, and should have been placed in custody, pending further action.
I.E. California Penal Code 422 PC defines the crime of "criminal threats" (formerly known as terrorist threats) as, quote:
A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and
1. that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family,
2. the threat is specific and unequivocal and
3. you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device
Examples include: "Texting your ex that you're going to set fire to her apartment."
If "texting" a threat is a crime, so is posting death threats to Youtube.
First of all, why is that decision up to the police? Dont the therapists do anything to earn their salaries?
Perhaps because police, as part of the criminal justice system, are charged with enforcing the law, while "therapists" aren't.
Secondly, it says he bought the guns legally. Did he buy them before he was diagnosed with his illness? Or did he buy them while already living in a mental health facility, because mental illness advocates (mostly the same as the homeless advocates) have prevented such things from being recorded in any way, and thus the gun dealer wouldnt have found anything when he checked?
The ATF form 4473, which one fills out when purchasing a firearm, asks if one has been "adjudicated" mentally ill. That is an important distinction, as "adjudication" requires due process. Since the criminal justice system turned a blind eye to his repeated threats and other actions, and would neither prosecute him or have him adjudicated mentally ill, it is no wonder that he wasn't in the the NICS system, as a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm. (Again, it's all about due process.)
The answer is easy.
This crime was not caused by guns.
It was caused by parents who failed to recognize that they had a very sick kid, but who now dodge their responsibility by blaming guns.
Whether they failed due to incompetence or due to a lack of will is not known, but they failed.
Posted the above before i read all of the comments, so I retract part of it.
Parents tried, cops blew it.
Old story. Cops are for “post crime action.”
Nothing takes the place of your ability to protect yourself.
I completely agree that he should have been in custody. The death threats should certainly have been enough to do it.
But my point is that the mentally ill have been somehow misguidedly “protected” by the left to such an extent that they are even exempted from normal laws. You may not be old enough to remember this, but in the 1970s, there was a popular leftist theory that mental illness was caused by capitalism, and thus the mentally ill were the only “truly sane.” And this theory persists in dealing with the problem.
There should have been some public record of the fact that this guy was so damaged that he needed to be under supervision (fat lot of good it did, though), because the gun dealer had nothing to go on when he checked the records.
The police are very reluctant to make these decisions, and it really shouldn’t be their decision...although virtually all the people I have known who have been committed to care (I worked in the field, it’s not that my friends happen to have a high propensity for mental illness) have ended up there only through police intervention, usually before they killed somebody else but sometimes not before they themselves had been injured trying to kill somebody else.
And there are many police who have had to go through horrible trials for killing some innocent old granny - who had just tried to kill her grandson with a knife and lunged at the officers who told her to drop it, even though it was about their 20th call to the home to keep granny from killing somebody and the “mental health profession” still thought she was going to be just fine at home.
We had one of these in my town who shot to death her nephew (a very good Christian), the only person in the family who volunteered to care for her after daily threats and even considerable violence on her part over decades. She was in her 90s at that point but had been crazy and showing it since her late 40s. The family was poor and she relied on county mental health services, but even wealthy families can’t handle people like this.
She had been expelled from regular facilities for the elderly because of violence. This still did not qualify her for custody, evidently, and even after she had killed this good man and was in jail, they wanted to refer her to a regular medical residence for the elderly. None of them would accept her, of course, so they finally had to put her in a special ward of prison for the criminal mentally ill.
But why did the situation have to get to this point?
People are rightfully frightened of the idea of a national mental health care system of insane asylums. However, the states are unwilling, and currently, legally unable to have effective mental health care either.
So it seems like the best bet would be for states to form compacts for multi-state mental hospitals, which could help several current problems, with states paying a fixed amount for the number of enrollees from their state.
Such mental hospitals would be subdivided into several sections. The high-security section would be for the criminally insane who represent a threat to others. Part of this would be those who also represent a suicide threat to themselves.
The medium security section would be for those who are currently a threat, but not criminal, who are treatable under supervision. This section also has a biological hazard part for those with dangerous communicable diseases like Tuberculosis, and cannot be trusted to self medicate.
The minimum security section would be for those who are not treatable, but who cannot function on their own or in a non-medical situation, like those with advanced dementia or persistent coma. A part of this are for those who are regarded as trustees, who can help with simple chores and live in “group home” settings to help each other.
There’s nothing much that prevents you from lying when you fill out Form 4473 to purchase a firearm. The threat of spending 5 years in prison is not much of a deterrent if you’re planning to murder a bunch of people.
No, but there’s a database of felons and other people (such as some of the mentally ill) that the gun dealer no doubt checked. This guy wasn’t on it.
The Sandy Hook killer wasn’t on the list because his mother had bought him the guns. She tried to lock them up later, realizing that even she couldn’t deny that he was a homicidal maniac, and he killed her to get them.
If you don’t think it’s going to be a problem that this most recent killer bought his guns legally in his own name from a legitimate dealer who no doubt checked the criminal registries, you’re burying your head in the sand.
It only matters in the liberal mind if he got his guns legally or otherwise. What matters is that he had evil intent and acted on it. No law can prevent it.
Forgot something very important.
He bought and registered the firearm BEFORE the cops showed up to interview because of the already posted videos.
He is saying if the suggested law changes from the Sandy Hook response had all been implemented, this would have still happened in CA.
But the MSM desperately wants it to be... his original target, after his roommates, was UCSB Alpha Phi sorority... coverage of the extremely beautiful girls there would have helped their ratings, plus would have helped the narrative that white people only care when pretty white (and Asian) girls get hurt.
Those are some of the pretty blonde girls that Eliot couldn't get, so he decided to kill dozens of innocents instead, to make his point.
I see now. I was just going by the “new posts to you”. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.