again bought his gun legally:www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_20317844Why can't gun loons be honest that they want to see these people well armed?
Mayvbe it's because they are still in denial that the amount of firearms in the hands of people like this are the cause of the high gun violence rate.
And, no, I don't think most of you should be able to own firearms or could pass a background check.
Otherwise, why are you so scared about all this?
So he bought the gun legally from a dealer in California. I thought all of the crime guns were imported from other states in California because CA has a AAA rating from the Brady Bunch. That means they have all of the laws that would prevent such a person from legally obtaining a gun from a licensed dealer in the state correct? I assume this person did in fact pass a background check in order to legally purchase his weapon - surely CA requires this right?
ReplyDeleteWhat this shows is that many gun control laws don't work. Laci does admit the truth of his side--gun control advocates want to ban private ownership. I don't want wackos to be armed. What I can't see is how we can disarm them without disarming everyone.
ReplyDeleteAnd Laci, I've passed multiple background checks. In the past, I've taught in high schools and worked in a residential treatment facility for troubled youths. I got a carry license in Tennessee and transfered it to Arkansas, and I recently got a non-resident license from Florida. What are you talking about?
What this proves is another thing Laci has said before, we don't have gun control in the States.
DeleteAre you saying that I'm not worthy of a carry license, Mikeb? Laci believes that, I'm sure, but I thought that you were more rational. Or do you think that high schools and treatment facilities don't care about background checks?
DeleteGreg, I think you're one of the responsible and safe guys. That's just my impression. I wonder if you really need the gun, but that's your business. What I object to is your propagandizing the ideas that concealed carry is necessary and that it does more good than harm. I don't believe it does, and I don't believe your listeners are all as responsible as you.
DeleteThe man who shot up the school wasn't carrying legally. Even if he had a license, such a license doesn't allow carrying to commit a crime. I keep telling you, based on good evidence that we've discussed, that carry license holders have a much better record than the average population. I carry to improve my odds, if something bad happens. That's why others who carry and talk about it on blogs or in carry classes do what they do.
DeleteIn the Brady gun law paradise of California. More gun control FAIL.
ReplyDeleteAnother piece of FAIL: the anti's favorite myth that says Tiahrt stops law enforcement from tracing crime guns.
"...And, no, I don't think most of you should be able to own firearms or could pass a background check."
ReplyDeleteI've passed numerous background checks for military service, civilian jobs, and firearms..What are you basing this broad assumption on?
I passed a background check for most of my firearm purchases, the rest were private sales.
ReplyDeleteLet the strawman die already.
What strawman? Private sales without background check is one of the major sources of guns used in crime. The others being, theft and straw purchasing.
DeleteAll of these could be dealt with by the implementation of proper gun control laws.
So why is closing private sales so important when you freely admit we have "no gun control in this country"? You guys are basically saying california's background check was useless because this guy passed, so therefore we need MORE uselessness
Delete"I don't want wackos to be armed. What I can't see is how we can disarm them without disarming everyone."
ReplyDeleteTHAT would be because you don't want to see how it can be done. You have stated, unequivocally--numerous times, on this blog--that you will NEVER be interested in ANY restrictions on your fetishistic hobby. So, drop the pretense, it makes you look like more of an idiot than the run-of-the-mill Pro-killing adherent of the NRA that you are.
I said that I'll agree to no deals until I see evidence that your side is willing to give up as much as it gets. That's different from what you said.
DeleteThe shooter had still broken the law even before drawing his weapon. California along with 47 other states have laws ensuring victims of school shootings will be unarmed.
ReplyDeleteBecause it is called a “background check”, not a “foreground check”.
ReplyDeleteDealer: “Ok sir, let me just run a quick foreground check, and you’ll be on your way. Just one sec… Oh my God! This says you are going to murder seven people with this gun! I can’t sell it to you.”
This is proof once again that gun free zones guarantee UNARMED victims and a high body count. I notice that you wasted no time starting the blood dance Mikeb. How many bodies will it take before you realize that criminals don't follow laws hence the reason we call them criminals.
ReplyDeleteBut, Scott, how much death and destruction do the gun free zones prevent? The statistically rare incidents that make the headlines are nothing compared to the daily gun incidents we'd have in those zones if they weren't gun free zones.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say, but close to zero is my guess. Such zones may prevent accidental shootings, but they have no effect on criminal activity.
DeleteI agree with Greg and say they prevent none. Criminals don't follow laws. Do you honestly think for even a second that someone who isn't supposed to have a gun in the first place actually stops when they see a sign prohibiting guns? Really? The gang member carrying drugs and a gun actually stops at the mall entrance and says "dang it foiled again by one of those no guns allowed signs". Really?
DeleteGun laws are followed only by law abiding citizens. Criminals by nature don't follow laws. And making more laws for them to ignore isn't going to fix the problem. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is insanity. So how long is society going to tolerate the insanity before they try something different? Israel arms it's teachers and they don't have school shootings.
You're both wrong because not only criminals commit crimes. Often lawful gun owners do criminal or negligent things with their guns for the first time. All this is avoided by the gun free zones. And, although you cannot prove a negative, it's my belief that all the prevented incidents far outweigh the occasional headline story.
DeleteSo, thanks to gun free zones, we're still way ahead of the game.
To translate what you said, there's no evidence, so we'll call that proof of the chosen narrative.
DeleteYou didn't answer my question Mike. So do you honestly believe criminals don't carry guns into those gun free zones? Do you really believe those places are "gun free"?
DeleteScott, I have answered that question many times. Criminals don't obey the rules. We all agree on that. You guys just keep bringing it up to make my side look stupid. We're not.
DeleteGun free zone laws and most others are aimed at the law-abiding. Accept it or not, many crimes are committed by formerly law-abiding folks. Up until the moment they act, they are law-abiding and for the most part obey the laws. Some are hidden criminals who've never been caught. They're less likely to obey, but in some cases do because they want to continue blending in with the truly law-abiding.
The overall result is a winner. You cannot say how many crimes and acts of negligence those gun-free zones have prevented, but I believe they far outweigh the relatively few headline-grabbing events.
"I said that I'll agree to no deals until I see evidence that your side is willing to give up as much as it gets. That's different from what you said."
ReplyDeleteGreggie:
When you tell lies (and the above is one of them) then you have people call you a liar. It's just a natural consequence.
mikeb302000:
I posted the numbers the other day on another thread where FatWhiteMan (IIRC) was using the "school zone = shooting gallery 'cuz people there don't haz teh gunz" argument.
One of the pet peeves of teh gunzloonz is that they aren't allowed to carry teh gunz everywhere they want to go. I can see where they might have a point.
Imagine this scenario. You've been arrested for some crime, armed robbery, murder, forcible rape, whatevah. You're arrested and arraigned, but--because you have a really good lawyer--you're out on bail. You go to court, have your trial, get convicted and the bailiff is about to lead you off to the lockup limo.
So, you yank out your Springfield XD and shoot him, the judge, the prosecutor and the jury--you will have to reload, 'cuz even with "13+1" onboard AND a 100% on target rate, 15 double taps uses a lotta ammo--plus any of the leftwingmedia people in the room.
But, wadeaminnit, that couldn't never happen, 'cuz gunzloonz don't want CRIMNULZ to haz teh gunz! Oh, but wait again, that COULD happen if we carry the "logic" of Unlimited constitutional Type 2A RIGHTZ to their logical conclusion. The defendant in the trial, you see, was NOT a felon, until AFTER he was convicted, so by RIGHTZ he getz to haz teh gunz until he does get convicted.
See how that works? Some would say that the gunzloonz formula for an "armed and polite" society is elegant in its simplicity; I would say that it's elementally simplistic.
Democommie, it's so cute when you talk like a baby. Until you have a tantrum, that is. Once again, you accuse me of lying with no evidence. But when you care nothing about logic, why bother with facts?
DeleteBy the way, fifteen double taps would be thirty rounds, but the last time I checked, 13 + 1 = 14.