Saturday, June 04, 2016

Charles Cook: What Law—Specifically—Would Have Prevented Yesterday’s UCLA Shooting?

 Charles Cooke does a great job with this article.

Yesterday, at UCLA, a Ph.D. student shot his professor dead. Not too long afterwards, he turned the gun on himself.

As soon as the story hit the news, the usual suspects began cranking themselves up. Americans, they said, need to “do something.” It was time, they argued, for “more laws.” And the NRA? It was, of course, to blame.

Forgive me for being a broken record, but I have some questions in response to these reactions: Namely, “what something?”; “which laws?”; and “what, specifically, did the NRA do wrong here?” Rolled into one, these congeal into a single, simple inquiry: “What law — specifically — would have prevented yesterday’s shooting?”

I ask because, absent the total ban on firearms that gun-control advocates insist that they don’t covet, it is not at all obvious which rules would have stopped the perpetrator from carrying out his plan. According to the Los Angeles Police Department, the shooter bought a 9mm handgun legally in Minnesota, passing a background check in the process; then, gun in hand, he killed a woman in that state; and, finally, he drove with his guns to California, where he killed both his professor and himself.

More Here


Anonymous said...

Well I'm sure a proper response would be to charge every seller of gasoline between where ever this guy bought his gun and traveled to California with a criminal involvement in this crime. If he could not buy gasoline he could never have made it to California. But maybe the person that sold him his car should be charged also, wait a minute he could not have made it to California if people had not sold him food during his trip. If he used a motel get those buggers too. well after he got to California maybe we should sue the state for the fact that the state provided the school he was attending. Let us not forget the city for the side walks he may have used to get to the shooting site. How about we go after the company that made the windows in the buildings where the shootings took place. seeing it happen through those windows could have had a very serious impact on the feelings of someone that accidentally saw the shooting happen. Or maybe we should just knock the shit out of the ignorant gun grabbers and call it good.

Anonymous said...

False premise -
Laws do not stop anyone from doing anything, they simply illustrate punishments for committing certain acts. On that true and correct premise, there is NO law that can or will, could or would stop anyone from doing anything.

As for what the NRA has specifically done wrong, well, that is simple. All the "compromises" and "deals" it has made with gun grabbers over the decades have produced the foolish disarmament we witness today that does indeed directly embolden thugs, punks, gangbangers and yes, the even the mentally unstable fools among us in society.

Had the NRA not convinced people to bow to pathetic deals that the grabbers never intended to uphold in the first place, we would have carriage as the norm today rather than the permission slip system that is so onerous on a state to state level that most people just avoid the pitfalls of that entire idiocy.

Even more specifically, the NRA "leadership's" positions, choice to support, straight due process incorporation (in order to string out the permission slip processes at each state level) is a huge mistake. Along those same lines, the NRA's wicked support for state preemption is another specific error that amounts to an affront to our Constitution and our rights. The tenth Amendment is clear on this point - the right to arms is NOT left to the states. It is indeed, within the Second itself, left to the people themselves as specifically as it can possibly be written down.

It is mindless idiocy to blame the NRA over firearm availability. Indeed, the grabbers would be honest if they stopped saying "NRA" and replace it with "Constitution". At least they would be accurate.

But see, the grabbers know that they have succeeded in passing A LOT of gun control over the years by making deals with the NRA. They love to act like the NRA is their whipping boy but that is all for show. That action is meant to drum up support for the NRA. A weak NRA means less ability to con gun rights advocates into accepting nonsense based concessions that they call "deals". See, the Second IS the "deal" already made. Maybe the NRA ought to try standing and fighting and convincing THAT deal instead of playing the fundraising game it currently plays.

While the NRA cannot be blamed for any shooting or shooter itself or themselves, it does bear responsibility for others being left to try to defend themselves the "law abiding" way....which is endless and nonsense rules and regulations that amount to tying our hands behind our backs. I know NRA folks do not like hearing these things, but it is time to address the responsibility that is owned - by all :parties: who earned it. We just have to do so honestly.

Anonymous said...

The media has made every attempt to make this out to be a mentally ill white guy. They are at least finally showing photos of they guy, but then I came across this. Why am I not surprised.

Anonymous said...

I went to the Yuma Arizona gun show today. ATF was there with a table handing out ATF information and more or less supervising all gun sales. I picked up the newest ATF regulation manual. It is still at least an inch thick. The constitution clearly states all laws must originate in congress. Congress has no authority to create agencies that make their own laws/rules. Shall not be infringed still means the same thing when the ink was drying on the bill of rights. If congress shall not infringe neither can the individual states. The ink on the tenth amendment was drying at the same time as the ink on the second amendment.

I met Dr. Kelly Ward at the gun show. She is Arizona's best hope to replace scumbag McCain. Her business card says let's retire McCain. I suggested changing that to let's hang McCain.

The NRA was also represented at the gun show. I gave them a piece of my mind. They did not seem to appreciate my view points. But they had no defense. I only spent about 500 dollars at the show and made some good contacts. I took 2,000 with me. The ammo was way out of sight on prices. Wal Mart has much better prices but a very limited supply. I spent less than 100 there. A neighbor just brought me about 40 pounds of empty brass. I guess my reloading bench is going to get a work out as soon as the new bullet molds get here. Not much left to buy. Now I'm working on getting completely energy independent. I still need a .45 cal. bullet mold. I picked up a new shot gun barrel and saved 75 dollars.