Enforcement of existing law would have stopped the Texas shooter from getting his guns, and if semi-automatic rifles were banned, the man who shot the Texas shooter wouldn’t have had the gun he used to shoot him. From Duane Norman at fmshooter.com:
The massacre at Sutherland Springs, Texas occurred around 11:20AM CST, and before the day was out (and the facts surrounding the incident were in), liberals had once again renewed their calls for gun control. Leading the charge was former President Obama, who waited less than eight hours before restarting the failed gun control push which earned him the title “Gun Salesman of the Year“:
He was hardly alone; joining in his chorus were New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, NBA basketball coach Steve Kerr, and a slew of Congressional Democrats, none of whom bothered to wait until more facts on the incident were available.
As it turns out, there is one thing that could have prevented this incident, and it’s something the NRA (in particular, CEO Wayne LaPierre) has been repeating for years:
They should enforce existing gun laws against the people who commit crimes, and they don’t do it.”
Even after news leaked that the shooter had received a dishonorable and/or bad conduct discharge from the US Air Force (which would function the same as a felony conviction and preclude him from owning a gun)…
…liberals still tried to claim the shooter could legally own a firearm…
…and the next day, the Air Force silenced everyone – the shooter committed a domestic assault against his wife and infant stepson (cracking his stepson’s skull), which precluded him from legally owning a gun. So if he wasn’t able to pass a background check, how did he get the weapon he used in the attack?
You guessed it – the government didn’t properly enforce the existing laws, just as LaPierre has stated time and again.
To continue reading: The Texas Shooting Confirms Exactly What The NRA Has Been Advocating All Along
In his inimitable style Karl Denninger lays into the gun controllers. From Denninger at theburningplatform.com:
I’m going to make this quite-clear — just in case you haven’t figured it out yet.The US Military failed to adhere to the law and did not report a disqualifying conviction to the FBI, which would have prevented the Texas Church Shooter from buying firearms through legal channels. That man cracked open the skull of his infant child and beat his wife severely enough that he was tried by court martial, sentenced to military prison and then expelled from the service with a Bad Conduct discharge.
Under the UCMJ the failure to report this to the FBI as required by military regulations and thus cause it to be entered into the NICS databases so civilian agencies have proper notice of a disqualifying criminal conviction is a clear breach of a duty, and that is an offense.
Every single person involved in that failure must stand for Courts Martial or equivalent military tribunal for said dereliction of duty and effectively be made to answer as accessories before the fact to the murders that man committed, and be punished as provided under the UCMJ, including imprisonment for same.
That’s justice folks, and it had ******n better re-appear and be applied not only here but to myriad other scams and abuses including Comey and what we now know he drafted as his “findings” regarding Clinton, which used language that compelled him to issue a criminal referral for her violations of the law relating to classified information.
Now let me point out something else, since those on the left are again screaming about “gun control” and “gun safety.”
A civilian, not a police officer, stopped this attack. He did so by grabbing his rifle, an “evil” AR-15 the left wishes to ban, engaging the shooter. He hit him twice and forced him to flee. He then chased the shooter down at nearly 100mph in a car driven by a second civilian until the shooter crashed at which point the shooter committed suicide (to prevent apprehension, obviously.)
To continue reading: Time To Cut the Crap On Guns
The gun control laws we have didn’t prevent the Texas church shooter from illegally acquiring firearms and shooting up a church congregation, and the gun control laws the gun controllers want would have prevented the man who shot the shooter from owning the rifle (a semi-automatic AR-15) he used. From Daisy Luther at theorganicprepper.com:
By now, everyone has heard about the horrific shooting yesterday in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in which a man dressed in tactical gear entered the First Baptist Church and opened fire. 26 people were killed and 20 others were injured.
Of course, the tears were still wet on people’s cheeks when the anti-gun folks began screaming for gun control. Chelsea Handler, struggling to be relevant, made this ignorant Tweet:
If the pro-gun control people want to blame someone besides the man in there pulling the trigger, the man who illegally got a weapon, maybe they should look in the mirror. Maybe they should consider their own complicity in making guns more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry. Maybe they should look at their part in this war on guns and gun owners. Perhaps their derision played a part in seeing to it that no one in that church had the means to stop that killer.
If these folks had their way, none of us would be allowed to be armed…except, of course, the criminals who wouldn’t follow the laws anyway. The New York Times published an op-ed solemnly titled, “It’s Not Too Soon to Debate Gun Control” immediately on the heels of the shooting. Okay. If that’s what you want, then here’s my side of the debate. And it’s based on facts, not on emotional rhetoric.
Let’s be honest. The person to blame for this tragedy was the shooter.
To continue reading: Here’s the Story about the Texas Church Shooting Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want You to Hear
The conclusion is indisputable: no, the government cannot keep us safe. In fact, governments pose the largest threat to our lifes, liberty and property on the planet. From Andrew J. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:
Here we go again. The United States has been rattled to the core by an unspeakable act of evil perpetrated by a hater of humanity. A quiet, wealthy loner rented a hotel suite in Las Vegas, armed it with shooting platforms and automatic weapons, knocked out two of the windows, and shot at innocents 32 floors below. Fifty-nine people were murdered, and 527 were injured.
The killer used rifles that he purchased legally and altered illegally. He effectively transformed several rifles that emit one round per trigger pull and present the next round in the barrel for immediate use (semiautomatics) into rifles that emit rounds continuously when the trigger is pulled — hundreds of rounds per minute (automatics). Though some automatic rifles that were manufactured before 1986 can lawfully be purchased today with an onerous federal permit, automatic weapons generally have been unlawful in the United States since 1934. Even the police and the military are not permitted to use them here.
I present this brief summary of the recent tragedy and the implicated gun laws to address the issue of whether the government can keep us safe.
Those who fought the Revolution and wrote the Constitution knew that the government cannot keep us safe. Because they used violence against the king and his soldiers to secede from Great Britain, they recognized that all people have a natural right to use a weapon of contemporary technological capabilities to protect themselves and their liberty and property. They sought to assure the exercise of this right by enacting the now well-known Second Amendment, which prohibits the government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.
To continue reading: Can the Government Keep Us Safe?
Gun control has never been the answer, either in terms of reducing violent crime or in comporting with the Second Amendment. From Leah Libresco at washingtonpost.com (suprising that the Washington Post would publish this):
Leah Libresco is a statistician and former newswriter at FiveThirtyEight, a data journalism site. She is the author of “Arriving at Amen.”
Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.
Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.
I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn’t prove much about what America’s policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.
When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an “assault weapon.” It’s an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.
To continue reading: I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
The major city with the strictest gun control also has the highest murder rate, and the response by the mayor to a recent spate of gun violence is more gun control. From Breitbart via theburningplatform.com:
Kind of ironic, don’t ya think?
If only Chicago had tough gun laws, this would never happen. Oh yeah, they have the toughest gun laws in the country.
Maybe they should ban shooting memorials.
Will Black Lives Matter be protesting this mass shooting? How about Jesse or Sharpton?
Maybe Obama can take time out from his $400k per speech tour to do some community organizing on the Southside and convince these rambunctious teens to stop shooting each other.
Ten people were shot–two fatally–on Sunday during a memorial for a Chicago man who had been shot and killed earlier in the day.
The shooting at the memorial occurred in Brighton Park around 5:20 pm.
The Chicago Tribune reports that the memorial was being held for Daniel Cordova, who was killed when “two people fired rifles from an alleyway” earlier on Sunday.
After shots rang out at the memorial, a 25-year-old male was dead and a 29-year-old female lay fatally wounded; she died at Stroger Hospital. Eight others were wounded by gunfire. All eight were between the ages of 19 and 26 and all were listed in “good condition.”
Breitbart News reported that Chicago had nearly 4,400 shooting victims in 2016 and the city witnessed nearly 800 homicides. The Tribune reported that Chicago passed 1,000 shooting victims for 2017 during the time period of January 1 to April 25.
The violence in gun-controlled Chicago has resulted in multiple dead and wounded over the course of a short period of time again and again already this year.
To continue reading: Gun-Controlled Chicago: Ten Shot at Memorial for Shooting Victim