Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Inconvenient Truths for Gun-Grabbers
Making all the usual stipulations about early information — and for the regrettable necessity of making policy arguments while bodies are still warm (thanks, Obama) — consider that all four of the firearms used in yesterday’s massacre were purchased legally, at least two of them by murderer Syed Farook. As a California resident of some years, that means any weapons owned by him would have been subject to some of the most restrictive and cumbersome regulations in the country. Fat lot of good they did, too.
It’s hardly surprising that background checks and better weapons’ records to do little to stop spree killers: such people are generally not habitual lawbreakers and any system with a reasonable chance of identifying the mentally unbalanced is guaranteed to be both intrusive and deny many harmless people the exercise of their rights. (That these laws may play a more constructive role in stopping and investigating homicides between criminals strikes me as far more likely, but those generally aren’t the cases we’re talking about when we’re having a “national debate on gun violence.”)
Short of repealing the Second Amendment and confiscating hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands — a policy that, besides abridging the rights of Americans, would guarantee an increase in violence — there is very little we can do to stop spree-killings from happening. And among the things that might help around he margins, refusing to publish killers’ manifestos, highlighting heroism when it occurs, reforming our mental health systems, and expanding the places where law-abiding citizens can legally carry are far more likely to make a difference than new restrictions on purchasing and carrying firearms.
As it is, the two worst massacres in recent years (this and Sandy Hook) both featured weapons purchased legally in heavily regulated states, and took place in government buildings that typically forbid citizens’ right to carry. Next time your Leftist friends suggest more gun regulations, ask them to think on that.
Update: After publishing, I spent an untoward amount of time trying determine definitively whether the Inland Regional Center was, indeed, a gun-free zone. While the Internet was able to confirm that firearms are prohibited in all public buildings in California, I could not find whether the IRC counted as such, as it is run as a (state-funded) private corporation. After being put in touch with him via email, California Department of General Services Deputy Direct Brian Ferguson confirmed to me today that “yes, [the IRC] would be covered under the law since state employees (social workers, public health officials, administrative laws judges, etc) conduct business there” and thus be a gun-free zone.
Published in Guns
The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The M16 is an assault rifle. The constant handwaving and obfuscation in the media when they cover guns is ignorant, frustrating, and harmful, because the layman ends up thinking the AR-15 is a machine gun.
This post is making the rounds on my FB page:
I have quality friends, even on FB :-D.
Yesterday’s little left-wing temper tantrum chastising Christians for praying would be called flat-out bigotry if the targets were Muslim. But blatant “Christianophobia” is eagerly spread by Democrats and the media.
Well, there was the guy who shot up a Marine recruiting office in Chatanooga last summer. Though that was, ironically, a gun-free zone (though a sailor at the facility actually did have a weapon on him at the time, in violation of the rules, but was not charged for it).
An excellent video demonstrating the unfortunate reality of human nature. On a related note a November 24 story about crime in the UK…
Hospitals should record EVERY stabbing to help crackdown on knife crime, says Labour’s mayoral candidate
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3332087/Hospitals-record-stabbing-help-crackdown-knife-crime-says-Labour-s-mayoral-candidate.html#ixzz3tIJCeSY8
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I suspect I know the answer, but I’ll pose the question anyway.
Has any Republican presidential candidate come out with a full-throated endorsement of gun ownership as best way to stop mass killings? Including an end to the regulations in many states that prevent people from using guns in self defense? And forcing establishments that want to ban guns on their premises to bear the full cost when a massacre takes place, including paying for insurance to guard against this possibility?
I haven’t checked, so I hope I’m wrong in this instance. But it always seems to me that whenever the gun control issue comes up the GOP simply cowers under a desk, and never attempts to make any political counter-argument the gun-banners. At best, the party curls up in the aisles on Congress, merely blocking the never-ending leftist schemes to disarm the public.
Not good enough. It should be obvious by now that the left is not acting in good faith, assuming the goal is an end to mass killings. Their attempts to disarm the public are just that, and any subsequent consequences don’t concern them any more than the myriad dead in gun-controlled Chicago concerns them.
That the left is allowed to get away with the pretense that gun control makes sense, or any of the endless other lies they tell about gun ownership, is a failure of the Republican party to make a political case.
Stop cowering, GOP.
Rand Paul.
I would assume so. They have been trying for years to make gun manufacturers legally liable for any illicit activity carried out with the guns they manufacturer.
Chuck Schemer (note – change in spelling performed by auto-correct :-)) seems to be pretty smart at the inside Senate politicking, but on every other subject he is constantly displaying his ignorance.
I have on occasion had fun with gun control advocates by asking them exactly how their particular preferred gun control would be implemented with respect to the guns already out among the public. Usually they start to realize the impossibility of their desire. Unfortunately, a disturbing number of them think it perfectly reasonable to consider storm troopers searching every drawer and closet in everyone’s home, and don’t see any problem with such searches.
What some fail to realize is that they are calling for the violence of war against the common gun owner. Because they forget that they are promoting the tactics of war, they forget that with war comes wartime tactics that a reasonable otherwise peaceable person would not consider reasonable during peacetime. However, otherwise reasonable and peaceable people who recognize that their neighbors are waging true war on them and their families will act out against that enemy, including their neighbors. Just as there were minor skirmishes, essentially amongst what we might call neighborhoods in the U.S. Civil War that many ignore, the same should be expected again should those calling for war against gun owners start their bloody battle. While some in the U.S. Civil War did not spend great amounts of time on a formal battlefield, many formed their own militias at home to deal with their own neighbors, family, and former friends who brought the war to their doorstep.
People will only tolerate so much before they act directly and independently to silence the voices and settle the hand that acts against them. The pretense that the “anti-gun” crowd is calling for less violence must have a bright light of exposure shown upon it so all can see that it is a call for more blood and violence than many imagined they’d ever see.
I have been trying to get more explicit information on whether or not the Inland Regional Center is, in fact, a gun free zone. My original source was here, but — as it didn’t have any corroboration — I asked the author and he pointed out that all public buildings in CA are gun free, per the statutes cited here.
Public buildings are defined here.
While Inland Regional Center is a private corporation, it’s state funding and nature would suggest that it likely counts.
I have left a message with the state asking for clarification, but if anyone else here can shed light on the matter, that would be very helpful.
Here’s a link to a 2013 California Attorney General summary of California firearm laws. There are various laws that were violated yesterday outside of any specific prohibition on the carrying of firearms in California government facilities or even murder. By the “anti-gunner’s” own line, the rules should have prevented this.
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/pdf/cfl2013.pdf?
The really tricky question is: how are you going to do this without disproportionately targeting African Americans. In New York city, almost 70% of shootings are committed by black citizens, and a mere 3% by whites, the difference being largely made up by Hispanics. “Stop and Frisk” was, in large part, an attempt to take illegal guns away; if you discredit such measures as racist, what are the alternatives?
I’d be willing to bet that a very high percentage of active and ex-military in addition to active and ex-law enforcement are also gun enthusiasts. Just who exactly do the gun grabbers think are going to go and grab them?
I’d have to imagine that a gun-grab would have to be a prohibition on new gun purchases combined with some sort of voluntary exchange program. I just can’t fathom any sort of confiscation; if I’m honest and police came to my house to take my guns, I’d likely hand them over but I think sufficient folks wouldn’t to make it a non-starter for reasons already stated.
That or they’ll just outlaw the manufacture and sale of ammunition for private individuals.
Interesting. Perhaps if I’d heard about it I’d be taking Rand Paul’s presidential bid a little more seriously.
Shrug. Too late now.
Not to mention that such a program isn’t even possible. See also: War on Drugs.
That’s what infuriates me the most about the anti-gun crowd. Every time there’s a high-profile shooting, they start crying out that something must be done. But not one of them can propose a “something” that is both a) possible and b) likely to be effective.
But then, the liberal agenda has always been about intentions rather than reality. I shouldn’t be surprised.
Background checks would be a good idea for all states to adopt but we need to close our borders and begin strengthening our visa policies. People living in the west, especially those living on farms and ranches can’t depend on a timely response when they dial 9-1-1. I live in the Los Angeles area — canyons and traffic make it difficult for police to respond. We need to protect ourselves, family and property. Thanks to Lt Madden the massacre was contained. As for gun-free zones — it’s like painting a target on these neighborhoods. Criminals and terrorists don’t obey laws. Close the borders, stop demonizing police and congress needs to create a sound immigration policy as soon as possible. The president needs to stop pre-judging these terrible events and putting labels on them. The San Bernardino horror will cause more law-abiding citizens to buy guns for self-protection. Including me.
An Update: After publishing, I spent an untoward amount of time trying determine definitively whether the Inland Regional Center was, indeed, a gun-free zone. While the Internet was able to confirm that firearms are prohibited in all public buildings in California, I could not find whether the IRC counted as such, as it is run as a (state-funded) private corporation. After being put in touch with him via email, California Department of General Services Deputy Direct Brian Ferguson confirmed to me today that “yes, [the IRC] would be covered under the law since state employees (social workers, public health officials, administrative laws judges, etc) conduct business there” and thus be a gun-free zone.
Tom,
Israel has much stricter gun laws and is considering letting more people carry. Breitbart now has an office in Jerusalem. This article is showing up there.
Hey Obama, Guns Deter Terrorists Here in Israel
Regards,
Jim