They don’t seem to work in California:
So we are again left with the question: how did the killer get this gun? It would seem as though he broke a stack of laws, without much of a struggle. It almost makes you wonder if California is barking up the wrong tree. They pass all these laws, starting with attempts to deal with a mass murder involving a mentally ill person in 1989, and they do not work. Short of house-to-house searches for guns, how are they going to be successful at enforcing these laws? Perhaps most importantly, if someone is mentally ill and intends to murder people (a capital crime), what sort of penalty is going to actually deter such a person from breaking gun-control laws?
Gun-control advocates, at least the more rational ones, will usually admit that these laws only work at the margins, by making guns harder for criminals and the mentally ill to get. I can buy that argument; all laws work only at the margins, and that is all that they have to do to justify their existence. I can also agree that when there is a large stockpile of illegal goods in circulation, it can take a while before laws aimed at those goods will remove them from the illegal marketplace. Still, when I see that laws that are decades old failed to disarm a 24 year old who could not possibly have legally acquired this weapon, I find myself wondering in what century California’s gun-control laws are going to be effective.
Because, you know, criminals don’t obey the law. By definition. And as he says, it’s not really a gun problem.
What ‘futility’? the California gun laws worked exactly as they were intended to: they insured that the victims and bystanders were completely unarmed and thus completely defenseless against a maniac; the resulting sense of fear and helplessness can thus be leveraged by any handy demagogue to increase the power of the state over the citizens. The corpses are a feature, not a bug.
Note that there apparently weren’t even any guns in people’s glove compartments. I imagine that attacking Texas traffic would go quite differently.
Silly rabbit. You use your “car gun” to defend yourself, not other people.
The problem with this argument is that you can make it of any law. For example: Murder has been against the law for thousands of years, yet people are still murdered. Obviously the law is ineffective and should be immediately repealed.
The proper way to evaluate a law is to ask two questions: one, is the law a good idea and two, how to enforce it, or if enforcement failed, how to make enforcement better.
So, do you really want crazy people having access to guns? Even if you are in favor of concealed carry, surely reducing the number of people who might be shooting at you is a good idea. In this case, two of the fatalities were shot in their car, and would have had no way to use a gun to defend themselves. If a crazy person did get access to a gun, how could it have been prevented and are there lessons to be learned?
No one wants the mentally insane to get access to firearms. The problem is how to keep that from happening. There are competing factors which make this very difficult. For example, the HIPPA medical privacy laws restrict what information can be made available about patients. Can HIPPA be modified to require health care professionals to report patients they believe are too unstable to be around guns? Sure, but that’ll only stop those insane people from legally buying guns. There are many ways to obtain firearms illegally.
Another factor that makes many people hesitate is that too many in the mental health profession have politicized their work, effectively calling political conservatives insane. They would’ve fit right in in the old Soviet Union where dissidents were institutionalized in mental hospitals (or worse). Mental illness is very serious and those so-called professionals are making a mockery of their profession.
So, do you really want crazy people having access to the vote? Even if you are in favor of secret ballot, surely reducing the number of stupid people who might be tempted to cast a vote is a good idea. In the current case, the president and many other candidates were elected on the basis of image alone, by people who have no more business participating in the political process than a hamster has participating in a symphony orchestra. Since ill-informed, irrational and crazy people do have access to the ballot, how can we prevent them from electing more ideologues, incompentents, and idiots to public office — and are there lessons to be learned?
“So, do you really want crazy people having access to guns? ”
Yes, CG; yes, we do. (Hey, it makes about as much sense as anything Admiral Gerrib ever posted here.)
@ Chris Gerrib The laws against murder were designed as a substitute for revenge attacks. As for gun bans, they have been rendered obsolete by a combination of the Internet, the 3d printer, and the CNC machine.
Exactly! Laws against murder are to protect the accused, not society. Society used to deal with ‘outlaws’ all the time.
Does anybody here actually understand the totality of what to be branded an ‘outlaw’ used to connote? It meant you had no rights as a human being and your life and death were at the total whim, will and pleasure of those around you.
Chris Gerrib said:
“In this case, two of the fatalities were shot in their car, and would have had no way to use a gun to defend themselves.”
You do know what a holster is do you? I could easily draw out my pistol in my car by using this amazing invention! But alas, in Kommiefornia, only the rich and the outlaw uses it. I’m glad I don’t live there.
R7 Rocket: Okay, Mister Fastest Gun On The Internet, you might be able to identify an unexpected shooter, pull your gun and engage him through your windshield while maintaining control of your vehicle. Most people can’t.
Chris,
You do not understand why murder is illegal. Murder is not illegal to prevent murders. It is illegal so that when an individual commits murder there is a process the state can use to remove this hazardous person from the common population.
Gun laws in California were enacted so that they can somehow create an environment without gun violence. It has been proven time and again, that this does not work. An intelligent person would recognize that the reasoning behind the passing of these laws is flawed. Therefore, one would think, we should stop passing them.
Gun laws are also intended to remove dangerous people from society. In this case, the dangerous people are those who would sell guns to crazy people.
OK, Chris, if that were the case, there would be hundreds of arrests and convictions of the criminals walking around many neighborhoods in down-town LA. Problem solved and crime reduced, right?????
Your first sentence is very telling because gun control advocats view anyone with a gun as dangerous. It isn’t about “common sense” “gun safety” laws, it is about getting rid of guns altogether and demonizing and persecution of gun owners along the way.
Tom W. – you’re discussing an enforcement problem, not a bad law problem.
Wodun – Well, I own guns and don’t consider myself dangerous. I do think people who sell guns illegally are every bit as detrimental to society as people who fence stolen goods. In both cases, they enable criminal activity.
Welcome to our side! We’ve always said that lack of enforcement is the problem not new laws.
On the other hand gun laws that are not enforced are clearly not there to ensure anything but the arbitrary whims of prosecutors.
For example, there is a law in DC limiting the maximum magazine capacity. This law isn’t enforced if you are making a point congruent with the opinions of gun control advocates. Don’t you think that’s a problem? Why would I take people who make such laws seriously? Since this law and many others are not/arbitrarily enforced there is no ethical or moral reason to add laws to the books.
Why give tools to dishonest people to selectively enforce laws only for political opponents? You do understand you are on the utterly dishonest side of an argument?
As for your claim that the new gun laws are meant to separate dangerous people from society, empirical evidence suggests not. New guns laws seem to be an imbecile’s way of encoding left wing morality into the legal code. Just find someone angrily whining about semi-automatic weapons and ask them to define “semi-automatic weapon.” I have never come across someone who advocates a ban and can produce a definition.
Gun control people should feel free to demonstrate they’re not hypocrites by recommending enforcement even in circumstances when it wouldn’t be comfortable for them. They can demonstrate they’re not morons by advocating laws they understand.
You see Chris, cars come equipped with devices called “brakes” and “brake lights”. They are also equipped with things called “steering wheels”.
Arresting people who sell guns to crazies? You should try convincing the Feds to do that… After they’re done selling guns to gangs and ignoring *stupid* criminals who try to buy guns through legal channels (that subsequently fail background checks), thus negating the usefulness of background checks.
And what about 3d printers and CNC machines? And their continued advancement? For someone who calls himself a sci fi writer, you lack the imagination to understand the implications of a Star Trek replicator. You should spend more time on Atomic Rockets website instead of sucking the Cathedral’s dick.
CNC printers have a long way to go before they’re a Star Trek replicator.
What the hell is a “CNC printer”? You should know what you’re talking about before you post any of your outdated nonsense Chris. Speaking of such ignorance… You talk about owning some guns but you clearly never conceal carried. I do and it is easy to draw out my pistol from my holster in my car. Even easier if it’s my bike.
CNC machines *and* 3d printers (they are two different machines Chris) are good enough today to make most gun parts, and you don’t even need them for AK’s and Sten guns.
Maybe you should embrace the 21st century and stop living in the past.
@Wodun The real purpose of gun control is to disarm the taxpayer while the gangbanger runs free. A classic tool of anarcho-tyranny. Notice how instances where criminals who are stupid enough to try to buy guns through legal channels are rarely investigated when they fail a background check. So the only real utility of background checks is actually thwarted by a government more interested in turning taxpayers into serfs than investigating thugs. After all, investigating thugs might be considered raaaaaaacist!
Here’s an example.
Bobby Rush (Black Panther) sure loves that sweet anarcho-tyranny.
Meanwhile, more insanity.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/10/calif-elementary-school-offers-toy-gun-buyback/
Calif. elementary school offers toy gun buyback
Yep, gotta get those dangerous water guns off the street 🙂
The gun laws are just as ineffective as all laws, where crazy people or a criminal are concerned. The crazy people have ceased listening to their inner buffers. And criminals are not necessarily crazy by definition. But they ignore societies rules and create their own societies, which generally have MUCH harsher punishments than normal society uses.
I don’t think you can stop gun crimes, nor can you eliminate guns in the hands of crazy or illegal hands. But IMHO, we can give pause to criminals by imposing the harshest punishments for buying, selling or using illegal guns. A first offense is a 10 yr sentence, no early release.
For a second offense we cut their GD heads off!
Yes, I’m a firm believer in maximum punishments for such crimes! For ‘crazy people’ we have to evaluate them on a one at a time basis.
We should ban these assault gun bullet clip thingies!
As for those replicator whatchamacallits, the All Seeing NSA will use a sooper sekrit code to stop that assault stuff being made ’cause there’s no way that hackers can make a fool of the USG. It’s just unthinkable ’cause govt employees are the most competent IT professionals evar!